Amalgamating municipalities federal ridings?
Opposed to Bill C-56, a bill that would alter the system of apportioning seats among the provinces in the House of Commons, National Post columnist and electoral reform advocate Andrew Coyne suggest a much simpler approach:
The formula is so mindnumbingly complex -- the legislation goes on for several paragraphs -- that few outside government can be expected to be aware of the skullduggery concealed therein. But how much simpler, and fairer, it would be if it just said this: There shall be one seat for every 100,000 population, rounded up to the nearest whole number.Is he really suggesting what I think he's suggesting? Reducing representation in demographically declining provinces or regions? Maybe. But as outlandish as it may seem, I'm not completely opposed to Coyne's proposal even if it were to reduce the number of federal seats in New Brunswick from 10 to 7. Why do I say that? Because it would force our province to be more united across divisive lines which have hurt us, as a province, for decades. Those lines being, linguistic, demographic, monetary and cultural. Lines which tend to fixate the provincial debate towards a narrow focus. Furthermore, the way the ridings have been gerrymandered in the past, it has left many ridings with unique "pockets" of rural poverty and linguistic "enclaves" shut off from advanced modern society. So a little reform couldn't hurt, could it?
That guarantees every province or territory at least one seat. More important, it would get us closer to that bedrock democratic principle I mentioned off the top: that every vote is of equal weight, that every citizen should have equal voice in deciding who governs us.
But if this were to ever become a reality, there would have to be two major conditions met first. Firstly, our provincial legislature would have to have already been reformed wherein we adopted a mixed member proportional system with a significant increase of provincial seats (reduced districts and additional "list" seats). And secondly, the senate would have to be more democratic, in that, we would elect its members and they would be responsible for certain regional districts in our province.
Sound easy? I think not, especially considering the outrage demonstrated towards senate reform for decades and the recent show of negativity and uneasiness towards PR and MMP. Let's hope people can be more receptive to change as it is obvious the current system is broken. (Hat tip AC)
7 Comments:
Mixed proportional system in both the provincial and federal level. Both keep their nose in their respective sphere of power. Hell will freeze over before it happen but unless this happen the extreme east and west will always thinks we are shafted by the Federal gov.
Abolish the senate.
Problem solved.
Tell me the function of the senate. Will they make a difference if they are elected or nominated?
For a guy who talk about Nanny state you sure like to have many elected officials over your head. You want a elected senate, more seats in New-Brunswick but less seats in Ottawa.
I say no Senate and less politician in all governement level. NB need to reduce the number of mayor and councellor also.
How many mayor and councellor are there between Bathurst and Petit-Rocher. It's ridiculous.
We need less baby-sitter.
Tell me the function of the senate. Will they make a difference if they are elected or nominated?
Great questions, paulin. (and I'm right there with you on PR)
Back to your question. First of all, it will definitely make a difference if it is "elected". As you know, the senate has been used as a rewarding tool for political partisans, flacks and hacks for decades (the majority coming from Ontario and Quebec). In my opinion, the abuse of the appoinment system by previous Prime Minister's has damaged the credbility and effectiveness of the senate. Despite the undeniable qualities of some senators, the senate is nothing more than an afront to federalism and democracy. Even a sprinkling of senators have decried the appointed nature of their own institution, notwithstanding the members and the provincial premier (hint, hint) who have made a living off of delaying reform legislation to "term" limits. So there is no question, the current system must be addressed.
If we alter the system where senators are elected (coupled with PR in the House and provincial legislatures), it would encourage national parties in the HoC and allow the senate to become the institution for more regional expression. [i.e. declining populations in the maritimes, linguistic issues, poverty, SSM, health reform, etc.} Issues that, at the moment, get discussed after a Supreme Court decision are put forward.
For a guy who talk about Nanny state you sure like to have many elected officials over your head. You want a elected senate, more seats in New-Brunswick but less seats in Ottawa.
I am definitely a libertarian, but not a fanatical one. I do believe there is a role for governments to play, as well, it is essential that democracy works in order for any modern society to flourish. I think the latter is something you, Mikel, me and many others could agree on.
Great post btw. You should start your own blog.
How about reforming the entire parliamentary system right down to the way we appointment committees chairs?
Nice to talk about but yes, hell will freeze over first - despite global warming :-) - before this happens.
You see there was a deal made at confederation, which everyone remembers. This is not a unitary state. We have provinces who expect influence no matter how badly they run things, or how hollow they become population wise. It's sort of like the off shore accord ...
One person one vote is the ideal, but the Constitution guarantees the number of Senators and NO province can (by law) have fewer MP's than senators. Therefore NB will never have fewer than 10 MP's, same for NS and PEI gets 4!!!.
So perhaps the solution is not fewer larger constituencies but more smaller, less powerful constituencies.
When your typical MP from Toronto or Montreal can see his entire riding out of the window of his Constituency office then his individual power is reduced requiring more co-operation and coalition building.
I agree 100% that PR should have a place in our system but personally I prefer STV over MMP.
You miss two possibilities that are already out there. For the senate, I don't think it can be proven that 'electing' them will do much. Are you satisfied with your elected officials?
One of the odd constructions of the canadian system is this idea that different governments stay out of each others hair. But this leads to passing the buck and downloading. Essentially to do that you need to deconstruct the entire tax system.
However, there is another alternative out there in the swiss system. What they do is use the SAME politicians in the different levels of government. So somebody may be a local councillor, and also serve at the canton level, as well as at the federal level.
What that does is mean the levels of government work together. That seems to be a far more ideal way than the endless wrangling about jurisdiction. Thats because a huge number of issues have at least some bearing on more than one level of government.
However, as pointed out, the conversation is moot because its been over a hundred years that people have been lobbying for even just an elected senate.
The other alternative is very much in people's power, and I would suggest it is one that addresses the real root of the problem. It is difficult, primarily because the media system is so centralized and canadians have been brainwashed against it for ages.
In a nutshell it is direct democracy. The central problem is that political representatives don't represent their constituents. They don't listen to their concerns, or if they listen they don't do anything about them, and even if they TRY to do anything about them the system of representation and the power structures are all stacked against them.
There's a reason why New Brunswickers know absolutely nothing about Maine, their system of citizens initiatives would be easily done in New Brunswick, where there are even fewer people.
Of course those whose issues get addressed by government don't like it, it means OTHER people may actually get some issues addressed.
But referenda are well established in Canada, even though many are biased against them, mostly because of Quebec. However, once again, if you want to see the 'wall' between government and the people (which comes mostly, but not just from media), then it is readily apparent here.
Graham cancelled the referenda on proportional representation, the Irvings simply like the political system the way it is, as do the other main party funders, and of course the parties, who are guaranteed to lead if they just sit back and wait a few years.
However, in case you missed it, and most have, there is a byelection coming up which is offering a plebiscite on whether several small towns should amalgamate.
This is interesting because at several well known blogs the topic was being discussed, in fact I was saying that it would be easy for government to simply ask the voters in the respected areas. Now, if you have been to Spinks website in the past you'll notice that several MLA's have actually posted there, and I think one has a blog. So how hard would it be for somebody, even anonymously, to post to a blog and say "hey genius', that's what they're doing in a plebiscite in a couple of weeks".
That nobody would post that, and that no media ever talks about it, shows a fanatical amount of ideological control at the legislature. So fanatical that its downright scary.
Direct Democracy puts power where it belongs, in the voters hands. All of sudden you no longer have to worry about setting up voting systems and systems of representation that 'may' more accurately represent the public. But canadians are brought up to distrust canadians, that's part of the reason why politics has becomes so 'either or', they want canadians in a 'camp' so that they look at other canadians as 'enemies' (at least ideologically).
However, there are several problems there, mostly personal ones. Namely, it changes political dialogue. Once YOU admit that there is actually something you can DO, politics because much more scary. It's pretty easy to gripe and write, because people think there is nothing else they can do. If it involves getting more political, then it becomes a much different story.
Thanks for your insightful comments Paulin, anonymous, ww Mikel and zip. We may not all agree on everything, but it's the debate that counts. And it didn't cost taxpayers a cent to set up!! lol
Let's hope that others will take your lead and bring the subject up at the summer picnic or barbecue. Because if they chose to settle for topics like Lindsey Lohan's drinking or Dancing with the Stars, the status quo will win.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home