Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, is an interview with Peter Russell, author of several books on constitutional/legal and property rights issues and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, that is critical of Prime Minister Harper’s decision to prorogue parliament but also offers some thoughts on the office of the governor general:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Business/cheers+jeer/1165882/story.html

Two cheers and a jeer

Constitutional expert Peter Russell weighs in on the pros of minority government and the cons of parliamentary crisis. 'People might have other adjectives; I'll stick with dishonourable,' he says of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue the House


BY ANDREW POTTER, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

JANUARY 11, 2009



One of Canada's foremost experts on the Constitution, political scientist Peter H. Russell has written a new book that looks at minority rule in Canada and contrasts it with the much different European experience. Two Cheers for Minority Government is a prescient look at the evolution of Canadian democracy and an indispensible guide to the shenanigans that have occupied Parliament during the past five months. Citizen editor Andrew Potter spoke with Prof. Russell to get his take on where things are going.

AP: The core message of your book is that minority government promotes a "parliamentary" form of government, and therefore enables a form of deliberative democracy. What do you mean by parliamentary government and deliberative democracy? What are you comparing or contrasting that with?

PR: I'm contrasting it with "prime ministerial" government. Prime ministerial government is when the major policies -- indeed, almost all policies -- are made and shaped in the Prime Minister's Office by the prime minister and the prime minister's political staff, not by the cabinet.

They're kind of reviewed by cabinet, but at the end of the day, the government decides what the policy is, and announces it.

So Parliament's role is reduced to the classic role of criticism and providing an option for the electorate the next time there's an election. In between elections, the country is governed by a very small number of people, most of whom are unelected. That is the prime minister's staff -- the prime minister is elected.

I don't have a lot of respect for that, for a lot of reasons.

Parliamentary government is when the government has to defend its policies, one by one, every one of them, in Parliament, and it's never a slam dunk. Parliamentary committees have a much more independent function to consider policy and not simply follow the government line. It isn't a bed of roses. I'm not suggesting all MPs hug each other and love each other and partisanship goes down the toilet -- that's ridiculous.

AP: You suggest minority rule is not inherently unstable, that one of the things that makes it unstable in the Canadian situation is the sense by all the parties that it's somehow a deviation from the norm of majority government.

PR: It's a cultural change we need. It's just an ingrained expectation of party members -- they expect their leader to deliver a majority. Even Mr. Harper. He's been pretty successful, but he hasn't brought home the gold medal -- a majority government.

AP: One of the most obvious points about this book is its prescience. It must have felt a bit surreal, watching what was going on this fall.

PR: Yes, quite honestly, because as the book title implies, minority government, while it's worth two cheers, also falls a little short of three cheers, because of the turbulence that comes with it.

AP: You write with some confidence and satisfaction about the arrival of fixed election dates and how that heralds the change in the culture we need, that now there's a commitment to all the parties concerned to letting Parliament run. So do you see the fact that he dropped the writ and was granted an election as a missed opportunity?

PR: Very much so. The opposition didn't make enough of it. I think there should have been a little more attention to what was said about Bill C60 when it was in Parliament, particularly before committee in December 2006 -- it was passed in May 2007 -- but if you look at the debate, the government made very strong commitments, supported by all the parties that Oct. 19, 2009 would be the next election.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was asked, "What if the prime minister asks for a dissolution when his government had not been defeated?" And Mr. Nicholson said, "Well clearly, the Governor General would have to give it very careful consideration."

And she may well have done so. We don't know -- we don't know what they talked about.

AP: Some pundits have argued the Governor General could have refused Mr. Harper the dissolution and she could have refused him the prorogation.

PR: Technically, I think she could have done that, but the political consequences of doing that might have been so severe she'd back away. Now people would say she's a gutless lady. I wouldn't buy into that. This part of our Constitution is governed by political conventions, rather than written-down, legal rules. The Constitution is subject to prudential political thinking -- you've got to think of the consequences of what you're doing when you exercise these conventional powers.

AP: On that note, you punctuate your discussion of the infamous King-Byng affair by saying the chief lesson is that the smooth functioning of parliamentary government requires all the parties involved to behave honourably.

PR: Yes, and I know that's motherhood, but I consider Mr. Harper's request "dishonourable." I made that submission to the Federal Court as part of Democracy Watch's legal action for judicial review. Yes, it was dishonourable, it violated a pretty serious commitment that he -- and not just himself and his government, but all the parties -- entered into. And I consider that dishonourable.

AP: Was Mr. Harper putting the Governor General in an untenable position?

PR: Oh, for sure. I mean, it's always very, very tough when a prime minister does a dishonourable thing. I consider it dishonourable to promise a confidence vote and then, a few days later, make it impossible by asking for a prorogation of Parliament. People might have other adjectives; I'll stick with dishonourable.

In a democratic culture, it's so tough for the Crown to step in and stand up for a democratic principle, particularly when you have a government with huge machinery of propaganda, which it's shown every inclination to use, and would use, both on the office of the governor general and probably on her personally. These people take no prisoners!

AP: The prorogation was clearly designed to avoid the fall of the government and the setting up of the purported coalition.

There was considerable debate afterward about the constitutionality of the coalition, with Harper saying this was an unconstitutional attempt to overturn the results of the election. What's your take on that? Would the coalition have been a legal, constitutional entity had it come to pass?

PR: Oh my goodness, yes. Oh my goodness, yes. On that, there can be no doubt. People may not like coalitions, and they may punish parties that have entered into them, but that's fair enough; that's political judgment voters have every right to make.

But the parties in Parliament have every right to get together in pretty well any way they wish; to coalesce together to accomplish their purposes. There's nothing illegal about coalition; otherwise, about half of the governments in the parliamentary world would be illegal. I mean, the constitutions of parliamentary countries, they don't have clauses about what parties in parliament, how they can work together or not work together; they can work together in a whole myriad of ways.

AP: Do you have any sense of what's going to happen when Parliament resumes?

PR: If I was a betting person, I would bet that the Liberals at least -- I don't know about the NDP and the Bloc -- but at least the Liberals will find the budget sufficiently satisfactory on priming the pump, on stimulating the economy, to vote for it and therefore not force an election and give the new Liberal leader time to build his strength and probably have what they hope is a big, successful political convention and all that.

AP: If we are looking at minorities for the foreseeable future, do you think we should be looking at changing the electoral system, to some form of proportional representation?

PR: There's a more immediate change that, I think, what we've been through in the past few weeks points to even more: We've got to do more to kind of regularize the governor general's office. One suggestion: Her office should have something like the European constitutional monarchies have -- an informateur, an official sort of prober of the parliamentary scene who can interview party leaders and is known to the media, is known to the public as a respected person -- so it's not all whispers and hush hush -- to advise the governor general on the political situation in Parliament, in order to make good decisions.

It's sometimes a former Speaker; in Sweden, it actually is the Speaker, but the Speaker there has a bigger role. All the countries have to make their own design according to their own history and institutions, but we need something like that because the governor general's office is going to be very much a target now of political speculation and pressure. I think it needs to be strengthened to deal with those situations.

AP: If you could wave a magical wand, is there one institutional change you could make to improve our parliamentary system?

PR: I'm a big supporter of electoral reform, but, my God, I'm also a realist, political scientist. If you bet me on any electoral reform, and you want to bet in favour, I'd give you 1,000 to one and I think I'd be safe for the next five to 10 years. So if you're counting on something that ain't going to happen, then you're not being realistic.

Two Cheers For Minority Government: The Evolution of Canadian Parliamentary Democracy is published by Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd., Toronto 2008.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
--------------------


I agree, very broadly but not too deeply, with most of what Prof. Russell says, but: I don’t like the word ”dishonourable” to discuss PM Harper’s actions re: the prorogation . They were perfectly legal and constitutional – he had just won a confidence vote a few days before, when the Throne Speech – his government’s programme, in broad outline – was passed. His actions were devious, perhaps, but not dishonourable. He ‘used’ the Constitution and the Governor General for partisan, political ends – but the Constitution is all about politics and so are the GG’s “reserve powers.”

Prof. Russell’s explanation of constitutional convention and ”prudential political thinking” may help those who still wonder what went on.

I favour some way of ‘formalizing’ the method of appointing the governor general.

As a start, of course, I favour ditching the next ‘foreign’ monarch* and establishing a Canadian ’regency’. Then we need some way to ‘select’ the regent – better, I suggest, than a coffee clache in the PMO. Maybe a (reformed) Senate could be charged to form a ‘nominating committee’ every sever years, or so, to recommend one name (take it or leave it) to the PM.


--------------------
* By, simply, failing to “proclaim” the successor. When, as sadly, she must, our most gracious sovereign lady Elizabeth, the second of that name, dies, some functionary (whoever ‘keeps’ (has custody of) the Great Seal of Canada (the Minister of Industry? His/her deputy? The Registrar General?)) must “proclaim” that fact. In Britain the Earl Marshal (Duke of Norfolk) will say something like, “The Queen is dead! God save the King!” and, presto!, just like that, Britain will have a new king. Our functionary could just say, “The Queen is dead!” and go about his/her business. We would, ipso facto have a ‘vacant’ throne. Nothing else would change; we would still be a constitutional monarchy – we would just not have a current monarch of our own. This situation – not uncommon in British history – is called a regency. Someone, called a Regent, is appointed to act for the missing sovereign – just as the GG does, day-in and day-out, today.

It would be nice, of course, if we didn’t just spring this on Prince Charles. A parliamentary resolution – like the Nickel Resolution of 1919 that Jean Chrétien used to stymie Conrad Black’s attempt to be both a British lord and a Canadian citizen – that says that, for good ‘rights’ reasons (we don’t and shouldn’t like the anti-Catholic bias in the Settlement Act of 1704) we cannot agree the existing terms of succession and will decide our own in our own good time will ‘advise’ Her Majesty and Prince Charles that, on that sad future day, he will not succeed to the (independent) Throne of Canada.

 

[a_majoor]

Israel provides yet another reason to avoid PR in any form:

http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-i-hate-proportional-representation.html

Why I hate proportional representation....

You can see one of the biggest problems of proportional representation in yesterday's Israeli election. Now that the election is OVER, the real horse trading begins, and the public has no input. Somehow, somewhere deals will be made and someone will come to power, and the end result may be far different than what voters may have wanted or intended.

And, the sad part is that the party who does the best trading may well become the winner. So, if Netanyahu 'outbids' Livni, he will become the next PM, and no one will know what he has promised until he comes to power. And vice versa - who knows that Livni is saying to Lieberman, etc.

I'm not a huge fan of first past the post - it has its own problems (The Greens certainly do deserve some representation) - but proportional representation is even worse.

 

[McG]

MP calls Tory plan to cap Senate terms a 'sideshow'
Updated Wed. Feb. 18 2009 3:09 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

NDP Democratic Reform Critic David Christopherson says a Conservative plan to introduce an eight-year cap on Senate terms is a "sideshow" that won't lead to real reform in the upper chamber.

Minister of State for Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher said he intends to propose new legislation that would require senators to leave their posts after a single, eight-year term.

In a telephone interview with CTV.ca, Fletcher said the new rules would only apply to senators appointed after Oct. 2008, which would include the 18 senators appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a controversial move last December.

But Christopherson, MP for Hamilton Centre, who has not yet seen the proposed legislation, said the Conservatives are "missing the opportunity for real action."

"This is nothing but another sideshow, a distraction from the real issue: How do we make the Senate accountable to the people of Canada?" Christopherson said in an email statement sent to CTV.ca.

"Setting term limits for patronage appointments will only let the Conservatives spread out their patronage among even more of their friends - it won't ensure that senators make their decisions based on the will of Canadian electors."

Current rules dictate that senators, who are appointed by the prime minister, can serve until the age of 75.

Senators appointed before last October will still be able to serve until then, Fletcher said.

While getting the budget passed is the government's first priority, Fletcher said, he hopes that it will only be a few months before Senate reform can move to the top of the agenda.

"I hope it will be before summer, but it depends on the co-operation of the other parties in getting the budget moved through Parliament," Fletcher said.

Fletcher said that the government would also consult with Canadians on the prospect of an elected Senate.

The NDP would like to see the Senate abolished entirely, said Christopherson, who allowed that his party would be open to a restructuring to make the upper house "an accountable, elected body."

Harper has long advocated caps on Senate terms, as well as for an elected Senate, whereby the provinces would vote for their own representatives in the upper chamber.

The Conservatives had previously tabled legislation that called for Senate term caps. But that bill did not receive widespread support in either chamber of Parliament and died with last fall's election call.

Harper's rash of new appointments shortly before Christmas drew sharp criticism from the opposition parties.

... [more at link]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090218/senate_caps_090218/20090218?hub=Canada

 

[a_majoor]

A look at the US system (in particular the 17th Amendment, which speaks to how Senators are elected). Notice how clearly the Founding fathers sought to separate and constrain the different branches of government, a lesson we might take to heart:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003034_pf.html

Sen. Feingold's Constitution

By George F. Will
Sunday, February 22, 2009;



A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution.

The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It would be better to repeal it.

The Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun) and thrived. In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful, got the 17th Amendment ratified. It stipulates popular election of senators, under which system Wisconsin has elected, among others, Joe McCarthy, as well as Feingold.

The 17th Amendment says that when Senate vacancies occur, "the executive authority" of the affected state "shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

Feingold's amendment says:

"No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

Feingold says that mandating election of replacement senators is necessary to make the Senate as "responsive to the people as possible." Well. The House, directly elected and with two-year terms, was designed for responsiveness. The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.

Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 -- the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government.

Severing senators from state legislatures, which could monitor and even instruct them, made them more susceptible to influence by nationally organized interest groups based in Washington. Many of those groups, who preferred one-stop shopping in Washington to currying favors in all the state capitals, campaigned for the 17th Amendment. So did urban political machines, which were then organizing an uninformed electorate swollen by immigrants. Alliances between such interests and senators led to a lengthening of the senators' tenures.

The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the electoral college as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.

Although liberals give lip service to "diversity," they often treat federalism as an annoying impediment to their drive for uniformity. Feingold, who is proud that Wisconsin is one of only four states that clearly require special elections of replacement senators in all circumstances, wants to impose Wisconsin's preference on the other 46. Yes, he acknowledges, they could each choose to pass laws like Wisconsin's, but doing this "state by state would be a long and difficult process." Pluralism is so tediously time-consuming.

Irony alert: Feingold's amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies will owe any traction it gains to Senate Democrats' opposition to an election to choose a replacement for Barack Obama. That opposition led to the ongoing Blagojevich-Burris fiasco.

By restricting the financing of political advocacy, the McCain-Feingold speech-rationing law empowers the government to regulate the quantity, timing and content of political speech. Thanks to Feingold, McCain and others, the First Amendment now, in effect, reads: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech unless it really, really wants to in order to guarantee that there will be only as much speech about the government as the government considers appropriate, and at times the government approves."

Now Feingold proposes to traduce federalism and nudge the Senate still further away from the nature and function the Framers favored. He is, as the saying goes, an unapologetic progressive, but one with more and more for which to apologize.

georgewill@washpost.com

 

[a_majoor]

Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) with an evolutionary interpretation of elections and voter behaviour:

Is Democracy Like Sex? 
 
By Glenn Harlan Reynolds : 15 Nov 2006 

So the elections are over, and happily my fears of last week weren't borne out. A cynic may say that it was because the Democrats won, but for whatever reason there weren't major complaints of fraud or miscounting. That said, I hope that these issues will get addressed more thoroughly before 2008.

But enough on that topic, which I've been hammering on for a while. This week I want to explore a feature of electoral turnover that doesn't get enough attention: Its effect as a limit on political parasitism.

We always hope, when an election rolls around, that the better candidates will be elected. It often seems, however, as if it's a choice between dumb and dumber, or crooked and crookeder, or something equally unappetizing. This leads some people to wonder why they bother voting at all. But it just may be that voting and elections have benefits that go beyond just selecting the right candidate.

As I argued in a law review article some years ago (you can read it here), democracy serves some of the same interests that sex does.

Evolutionary biologists, I noted, have only recently begun to appreciate the importance that parasites play in evolution. That makes sense: Predators are visible, and when they kill and eat their prey it's pretty dramatic. But when you look past the surface, it turns out that predators are vastly outnumbered by parasites, and the arms race between parasites, which try to adapt to get around their host's defenses, and their hosts, which try to make life tougher on parasites, turns out to be an important one.

This, it is thought, explains why sex is worth all the trouble and expense. (Explains it at the species level; we all know why it's worth the trouble and expense at the individual level. . . .) Reproducing by fission is easier, cheaper, and conveys virtual immortality -- but a population that reproduces by fission is an army of clones, and a parasite that's well adapted to one population member is well adapted to them all. Sexual reproduction, by jumbling up genes every generation, forces parasites to try to adapt to a moving target, giving the host organisms an advantage that justifies all the metabolic energy they put into this more troublesome form of passing on one's genes.

My thought has been that elections play the same role for the body politic that sex plays for the body physical: Every so often, the voters throw the rascals out, and vote in a new set of rascals, meaning that the special interest groups, lobbying outfits, etc., that parasitize the body politic have to adapt to a shifting target. As scientist Thomas Ray has said, one rule of nature is that every successful system accumulates parasites. The American political system has been successful for a long time.

It's not perfect, of course -- neither is sex, since parasites remain a problem -- but it does mix things up and help prevent special-interest relationships from becoming too fossilized. When the Democrats come in, Republican interest groups lose influence, and vice versa. The question is, does it mix things up enough?

Power tends to corrupt. The new guys always promise reform, but -- as the history of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 suggests -- those promises generally don't get as much attention once the new guys are in power themselves. Mixing things up via elections helps, but -- especially when there are only two parties to choose from -- it may not stir the pot enough over time.

This makes me wonder if we don't need some additional anti-parasitic measures. But what kind of measures?

Two proposals that we often hear are term limits and campaign finance reform. The former may have some merit -- particularly in light of gerrymandered House of Representatives districts that tend to make turnover less likely. The latter, it seems to me, is more likely to foster parasitism than limit it: If you make donating money to politicians complicated and obscure, the process is likely to be mastered by people who have the incentive and ability to deal with complicated and obscure laws.

Transparency would seem like a good idea: Making it easy for people to find out what politicians are doing for whom, and what they're getting in exchange, is likely to have a strong anti-corruption effect, and likely to enhance the turnover created by elections. This suggests that information on who's behind every legislative provision, and who's getting contributions from whom, would be very helpful. So would amending the Freedom of Information Act to ensure that it applies to Congress.

Will we see anything along these lines from the new Congress next year? I hope so, but -- even though Democrats ran against the "culture of corruption" in Washington -- don't hold your breath. Still, politicians respond to pressure. So if there's sufficient attention to the issue, who knows?

If not, I think that we may see a renewal of pressure, a la Ross Perot, for a third party. And it's possible that technology and the Internet will facilitate the growth of third parties in ways that weren't previously possible. Perhaps having a third party in the mix will enable us to mix things up more.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

A look at the US system (in particular the 17th Amendment, which speaks to how Senators are elected). Notice how clearly the Founding fathers sought to separate and constrain the different branches of government, a lesson we might take to heart:

Why would we (Canada) take lessons about the separation of powers to heart? We can certainly look outside for ideas, but I don't look at the framers of the US constition as my "Founding fathers."

 

[a_majoor]

Political power in Canada is extremely centralized, especially in non elected institutions like the PMO and PCO, rather than distributed amongst different organizations as in the American system.

The Founding Fathers were very concerned with the fragility of governments and institutions, and designed a system where ambitious people would not be able to consolodate power but have to compete with each other for fragments of power.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

We have a parliamentary system that evolved in a different fashion from the US system. The big difference being that we have, in effect, a blended legislative and executive branch. It is true (in my view) that the Prime Minister has more 'power' within the Canadian system than the President has in the American one. It should be noted, however, that we have a division of powers/responsibilities between the federal and provincial government that offers a balance. Both levels of government are sovereign. In addition, the process of elections and the parliament itself mean that the Prime Minister is still answerable to the people.

 

[starseed]

Why would we (Canada) take lessons about the separation of powers to heart? We can certainly look outside for ideas, but I don't look at the framers of the US constition as my "Founding fathers."

Especially considering that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the 17th amendment, which was enacted in 1911.

I'm in favour of a constituency based commons, elected senate and leaving the Governor General position as-is. Given that s/he is the monarch's representative in Canada, I don't think it would even be unreasonable for her to actually be selected by the monarch, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:deadhorse:  Caution: flogging of nearly dead horses follows!  :deadhorse:​

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is an editorial (therefore unsigned) about this subject:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/sober-effective-and-democratically-legitimate/article1215814/

Sober, effective and democratically legitimate
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said his government takes Senate reform seriously, and that the Senate must change. Godspeed, Mr. Harper

From Monday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Monday, Jul. 13, 2009

Before Parliament's summer recess, the Conservative government reintroduced legislation that would limit the term of senators to eight years. This, alone, is too modest a reform of the Senate. It is a token gesture that only serves to imply that meaningful reform is out of reach. But that is not the case. Instead of going after term limits, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should fulfill his commitment to create a process to elect senators.

Three years ago, Mr. Harper addressed a Senate committee, saying, “Canada needs an upper house that provides sober – and effective – second thought. Canada needs an upper house that gives voice to our diverse regions. Canada needs an upper house with democratic legitimacy.”

Nothing has changed between then and now. The Senate can provide sober and effective second thought with its existing powers, and it can protect less populous regions – or, as Sir John A. Macdonald put it during the Confederation debates, “protect local interests” – but only if it has democratic legitimacy.

It is a disgrace that regional aspirations are not adequately reflected in the one political institution in Canada designed for that function, when other federal countries like the United States, Australia and Germany have all managed it. (The House of Commons, which aims to provide representation by population, cannot give sufficient voice to all regions.)

Canada's political leadership has, after decades of fits and starts, failed to reform and invigorate the upper house so that it can fulfill the purpose that the Fathers of Confederation conceived for it.

As the report of an Alberta select committee on Senate reform declared, “Many Albertans are impatient for such change believing that Alberta's proper place in Confederation can only be secured with a Senate constituted in a more credible manner.” That was in 1985. It is not only Albertans who are still waiting.

Senate reform should ideally be the product of a constitutional amendment, but there is little stomach for opening up the Constitution, and a minority federal government is poorly positioned to lead such change. But no constitutional amendment is required for the appointment to the Senate of people who have been chosen by voters.

Indeed there is a precedent, as both prime minister Brian Mulroney and Mr. Harper have previously appointed senators selected by Alberta voters. The Prime Minister, then, should proceed with his commitment to bestow greater legitimacy on the Senate by, where possible, filling any vacancies with senators who have been elected, ideally during votes timed with provincial elections.

In cases of provinces such as Ontario, where Premier Dalton McGuinty has refused to contemplate votes to select senators, Mr. Harper should offer the provincial legislature the right to choose the province's nominees. While it might pain him to see more Ontario Liberals filling seats in the Senate, it would underscore the role of the Senate as a place where regional aspirations can be aired. And while he may not wish to give the Senate any legitimacy by allowing the public a say in choosing Ontario's senators, Mr. McGuinty would doubtless be tempted to provide a list of Liberal names.

If premiers fail to do even that much, then the Prime Minister should proceed and appoint senators the old-fashioned way, as Mr. Harper did when he filled 18 Senate vacancies in December – summoning failed Conservative candidates, Conservative fundraisers and organizers, and a few others. With time, the lesson might just sink in.

By proceeding with such legislation when the House resumes sitting, Mr. Harper would not only fulfill a long-standing commitment made to voters, but would also put to the test the sincerity of Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Leader, who is courting support in regions long lost to the Liberals, particularly the Prairie provinces.

Mr. Ignatieff leads a largely central Canadian party that, while pretending to advocate reform, has trenchantly defended the status quo for the Senate. Remember former prime minister Paul Martin's famous 2004 declaration that he didn't want to “deal with Senate reform piecemeal,” which is to say he didn't want to deal with it at all.

Mr. Harper has said his government takes Senate reform seriously, and that the Senate must change. Godspeed, Mr. Harper.

I dare say that neither Prime Minister Harper nor many of his supporters take the Good Grey Globe all that seriously but, in this case, he and they should, at least in part.

As I have said before, I believe it is politically possible, even for a minority government, to force the issue.

The first key is to dictate to provinces: they either find an effective way to elect senators or they lose their voice or, at best, get an endless succession of toothless, second rate political hacks.

The second key is to persuade senators to resign their seats and contest elections. Not all, maybe not even most will do that but some will and that “some" will gain political legitimacy and in politics legitimacy IS a zero sum game: one either has it, through – and only through – being elected, or one does not. As soon as that distinction exists, in sufficient numbers, all those with zero legitimacy will want to join those with full legitimacy.

Three or four provinces hold the key: probably BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, maybe Manitoba and one of the Atlantic provinces will suffice. The three or four of those provinces need to establish acceptable Senate election procedures and some of their senators need to resign, at some appropriate moment, and contest those elections. A dozen elected senators will, fundamentally, change the whole nature of the upper house and the rest of the senators, almost all the rest but there will be a few holdouts, will begin to follow suit. So will the rest of the provinces – but probably without a holdout.

The issue of equality is important and the Globe and Mail has fudged it.

We, in a federal system, need two sorts of equality:

1. Equality amongst the partners in the federation - the provinces – in one chamber of a bicameral legislature; and

2. Equality amongst the citizens, as Canadians, in the other.

Make no mistake, confederation is a partnership and the partners are equal: tiny PEI is equal, in status and constitutional responsibilities and “rights,” to mighty Ontario. But, the original partnership agreement, the BNA Act, foresaw an unbalanced, unequal partnership: Ontario and Québec were the senior partners and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were the junior partners in 1867. PEI, BC, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan and so on all joined on the understanding that they, too, were junior partners. It was to be a confederation of (equal) regions rather than a federation of equal provinces. That ought not to have been the case, but, in fairness, it was the very first draft of a federal constitution for the authors in the British Foreign and Colonial offices. They got better and better as they drafted constitutions for Australia, India and, eventually, Germany.

Sadly, in modern times, we Canadians have failed the democratic tests of equality. We fail to accomplish it in both our legislatures: we have gross inequality of representation in the House of Commons where the vote of a PE Islander is worth nearly four times that of a Calgarian or Torontonian; equally, we fail to achieve even regional equality. Atlantic Canada is not “equal” to Ontario or the West.

The problem of individual inequality can and will be solved, eventually, by an ever growing House of Commons – once it has something approaching 1,000 members it will, de facto, become equal, maybe around the year 2075, when PEI still has four seats but Ontario has 350, Québec 200 and BC 150.

Senate equality requires a Constitutional amendment, sad to say.

But, for the time being, Prime Minister Harper can and should move forward with Senate reform – not timid, half arsed reform but real, 21st century democratic reform.

 

[a_majoor]

While I agree with most of your analysis, the idea of a 1000 man commons really sticks in my craw. Besides the fact that the Commons would be bigger than most Infantry battalions, I can see large bodies like this being rife with cliques and cabals operating out of sight of the constituents, and being even less transparent than what we have today.

Of course if the actual idea is to immobilize the legislative arm, then perhaps this would be a good thing. The other flaw I see is this might actually promote an even more powerful and centralized PMO, since the executive arm would need the ability to get something done. An elected Senate might have to serve as the de facto legislature in this case.

The other overarching problem in Canada is the fact that real power resides with unelected bodies, the Courts and the Bureaucracy. Much of the day to day entanglement that we face as citizens and taxpayers is through the actions of these bodies, not the Legislative arm, and there should be a wholesale pruning done here in order to effect real change.

 

[GAP]

As you all are probably aware, the news casts covered the fact that by 2012 or so, there would be enough vacant senate seats to give the CPC a Senate Majority. Therein lies the change, if Harper can hang on long enough ( one majority government should just about do it).

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is Don Martin’s take on the rumour (thus far) that PM Harper will appoint another batch of hacks, flaks and bagmen to the Parliament of Canada:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/26/don-martin-are-party-loyalists-the-best-harper-can-come-up-with.aspx

Don Martin: Are party loyalists the best Harper can come up with?

August 26, 2009

OTTAWA -- When he anoints his very own Hallelujah Chorus to represent Canadians in the Senate in the coming days, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have delivered his most compelling argument for electing senators.

Sources say up to nine vacant Senate seats will soon be filled, bolstering the Conservative standing to 46 seats in the 105-seat chamber.

Among the rumoured appointees are Conservative party president Don Plett, campaign manager Doug Finley and former staffer Carolyn Stewart-Olsen.

An ideological politician who was disgusted at watching Parliament’s upper house turned into a vote-stacking exercise, where only the faintest of sober second thoughts actually take place, Mr. Harper has turned ruthlessly partisan in making his Senate appointments, elevating party loyalty into a key consideration for the cushiest job on the Hill.

The argument for such behaviour was first advanced after Mr. Harper rushed 18 bums into Senate seats when the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was threatening to take down his government. Better to load up the Red Chamber with loyalists before the Liberals handed out those juicy plums, he argued.

But is it absolutely necessary for Mr. Harper to fill these $132,000-a-year positions, with retirement deferred to age 75, with such fanatical loyalists? There must be blue-chip candidates with conservative credentials in Ontario, Manitoba or Atlantic Canada who could deliver decent representation for voters while siding with government policies.

These insiders may not be known outside the parliamentary precinct, but that only makes their appointments more outrageous.

Their strongest, indeed only, character traits for the job seem to be blinkered vision and blinded loyalty. They will serve as little more than a vote administered by remote control from the Prime Minister’s Office for as long as Mr. Harper owns the job.

There is a certain shenanigan symmetry to this, of course.

The Liberals appointed a former prime minister communications director named Jim Munson to the job. Ms. Stewart-Olsen comes from the communications wing of Mr. Harper’s PMO.

The Liberals put their election wizard, David Smith, into the Senate. Mr. Finley has been the campaign guru for the Conservatives through all Harper-led elections.

But there is something sad about justifying the stacking of the Senate with patronage trough-feeders on the grounds that Conservatives are no worse than the Liberals.

There is also the incongruity of giving faithful Conservatives a job representing provinces which rejected them in the polls. Fabian Manning grabbed a Senate gig representing Newfoundland just two months after he was defeated as an MP there in the last federal election. Rumours have former premier Rodney MacDonald, ousted from power in Nova Scotia only two months ago, landing a Senate seat.

The Senate is becoming the land of the misfit politicians, but at least most of those types have solid people skills.

Not so much for gruff Doug Finley, husband of Human Resources minister Diane Finley, who excels at campaign donor shakedowns and serving as guard dog in deciding who was worthy of receiving Conservative nominations. 

Ditto for Ms. Stewart-Olsen, severed from the PMO a few months ago, whose enforcement of low-level directives and constant singing of Mr. Harper’s praises are somehow seen as ideal senator material. 

Of course, the ultimate objective can only warm the hearts of true blue Conservatives. This batch of appointments edges the Senate closer toward the glorious day when it will fall under Conservative control. 

But he could have and should have done better — even though the inside view is that Mr. Harper did not get enough credit for delivering decent appointments under his watch.

True, the appointment of Bert Brown, who had been elected twice in Alberta elections, was commendable. Former broadcaster Pamela Wallin deserves credit for projecting a dignity of independence as a bonafide celebrity senator, even while standing with the government when the votes are called. And while I’ve been hard on former CTV icon Mike Duffy, at least he bonds with average Canadians even while shamelessly promoting the Conservative agenda.

But the names so far fall short of having any skills to represent their assigned provinces in a more effective Senate. They will only represent Stephen Harper. That’s why we must find a better way of making quality Senate appointments — or elect to abolish it entirely. 

National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com

None of these Tory partisans are, in any way, unqualified for the Senate of Canada. None is any “worse” than many of those appointed by e.g. Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.

But, I maintain that there IS a better way which is, right now, within Mr. Harper’s reach. I explained it before, but: Harper needs to write two letters:

1. One to each provincial premier saying that he intends to reform the Senate by establishing, through convention, some political limits on his power. He will select for the Senate only those who –

a. Meet all the existing, constitutional requirements,

b. Have been elected during a Senate election held in conjunction with a provincial general election through a system that reflects, broadly, the partisan political outcome of that election, and

c. Provide him with a signed letter of resignation from the Senate of Canada that will be effective on the date of the next provincial general election; and

2. One letter to each serving senator inviting them to submit their signed but undated letters of resignation which he will use only when a general election is called in the province that senator represents.

Of course, not all senators will resign. Several, perhaps even many will. After a few senators are elected there will be a “two tier” Senate: legitimate/elected and illegitimate/appointed. This will hasten the resignation/election process. But it may be 20+ years before the last appointed senator who is unwilling to accept the challenge of elections is required to retire. That’s about as long as it took the Americans to transition from an appointed to an elected senate early in the 20th century.

 

[Edward Campbell]

While I agree with most of your analysis, the idea of a 1000 man commons really sticks in my craw. Besides the fact that the Commons would be bigger than most Infantry battalions, I can see large bodies like this being rife with cliques and cabals operating out of sight of the constituents, and being even less transparent than what we have today.

Of course if the actual idea is to immobilize the legislative arm, then perhaps this would be a good thing. The other flaw I see is this might actually promote an even more powerful and centralized PMO, since the executive arm would need the ability to get something done. An elected Senate might have to serve as the de facto legislature in this case.

The other overarching problem in Canada is the fact that real power resides with unelected bodies, the Courts and the Bureaucracy. Much of the day to day entanglement that we face as citizens and taxpayers is through the actions of these bodies, not the Legislative arm, and there should be a wholesale pruning done here in order to effect real change.

No one, and certainly not Canadian voters, likes the idea of a 1,000± seat House of Commons. They better like accept the idea of disproportionate representation.

Let us assume, for a moment, the New Brunswick, with 2.24% of the population and 10 seats in the HoC is appropriately represented.

If we adjust almost all the other provinces and territories – except, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, the North West Territories and the Yukon (4, 1, 1 and 1 seat, respectively) – so that their “variance” from their share of the national population is somewhere between 97.8%(MB) and 102.3% (NS) then we end up with a 451 seat legislature in which ON and QC get 98.8% and 99.1% of their “fair share” of seats.

(Adjusting down to get a “more acceptable” HoC of 351 seats produces results which, I suggest should be unacceptable because the variances (after it is guaranteed that no provinces lose seats – as NF, NS, NB, MB and SK would if the 351 seats were to be distributed “fairly”) run from 95.3% (ON and QC) to 130.9% (NF and SK). I believe the “variance” should be, by law, between 90% and 110% (PEI and the Territories excepted).)

This is a change that parliament, itself, could make. It would not be easy. Canadians are not seized with this issue. They don’t care much for the 308 MPs they elect now; they are not keen on electing another 100+.

(Wikipedia has a quite clear article that explains, in the Members and electoral districts section, the current electoral quotient and why the seat distribution is what it is.)

 

[The Bread Guy]

More grist for the discussion mill....

"PM acts to fill Senate vacancies"

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the appointments of nine distinguished Canadians to serve in Canada’s Senate.

“Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate,” said the Prime Minister.  “If Senate vacancies are to be filled, they should be filled with individuals who support the legislative agenda of our democratically-elected government, including Senate reform and real action against gang- and drug-related crime.”

The new Senators will all support the urgently-needed anti-crime legislation currently being held up in the Senate.  They have all pledged to support the Government in its efforts for Senate reform, including the legislation to limit Senate terms to eight years which was introduced in May 2009.

The new Senators fill three vacancies in Quebec and two vacancies in Ontario.  Single vacancies are being filled in each of Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Nunavut....

Backgrounder: List of new Senators

Claude Carignan (Quebec) was admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1988 and, as a lawyer, he specialized in labour and public law.  He was a law teacher at the Université du Québec à Montréal and at the Université de Montréal.  Mr. Carignan has always been actively involved in his community.  He has been Mayor of Saint-Eustache since November 2000 and held other positions at the regional and national levels.  He is a member of the Board of the Union des municipalités du Québec and has been Vice-President of the Union since May 2008.  During his career at the municipal level, he organized many fundraising campaigns and created the Fondation Élite Saint-Eustache, which helps the young people of the region.  Claude Carignan is married to Brigitte Binette.  They have three children.

Jacques Demers (Quebec) is the former head coach of the Montreal Canadiens, taking the team to a Stanley Cup victory in 1993.  In addition to the Canadiens, Mr. Demers was head coach of numerous other hockey franchises including the former Quebec Nordiques during the 1978-80 hockey seasons.  Mr. Demers is a well respected figure in the hockey world, winning the Jack Adams Award for NHL Coach of the Year in 1987 and 1988, the only person to do so in consecutive years.  In 2007, he was named one of the 100 most influential personalities in hockey by The Hockey News magazine.  Mr. Demers is active in the community, including his strong support for literacy.  In 2006, he served as Honorary President of fundraising campaign of the Fondation de l’alphabétisation, and made numerous presentations on the subject throughout Quebec.  He also supports other causes including la Fondation québécoise pour les enfants malades du cœur.  He is married to Deborah Anderson.  Mr. Demers currently works as a commentator for the sports network RDS.

Doug Finley (Ontario) has had a successful career in various industries including aviation, agriculture and energy.  Mr. Finley began his professional career at Rolls Royce Canada, where he quickly rose through the ranks to become Director of Production, Strategic Planning and New Business Development.  He moved on to serve as President of Standard Aero and Senior Vice President of AvCorp Industries.  Later in his career he worked as General Manager and Chief Operating Officer of Fermlea Flowers in Southwestern Ontario.  Mr. Finley also maintained an active presence in Canadian politics, including his service as Director of Political Operations for the Conservative Party of Canada.  In the 2006 and 2008 general elections Mr. Finley served as National Campaign Director.  Born in the United Kingdom, Mr. Finley and his wife Diane reside in Simcoe, Ontario.

Linda Frum Sokolowski (Ontario) is a Canadian journalist and bestselling author.  From 1998 to 2007 she worked as a feature columnist for the National Post newspaper.  She is also a past contributing editor to Maclean’s Magazine.  Ms. Frum Sokolowski is an active member of the Toronto community.  A current board member of Upper Canada College, the Bishop Strachan School, the Canadian Club and Canada’s Walk of Fame, she is also a past board member of the Ontario Arts Council, Soulpepper Theatre, the Art Gallery of Ontario Foundation and the Canada-Israel Committee.  In 2006 she was chair of the United Jewish Appeal’s annual Women’s Campaign.  Ms. Frum Sokolowski and her husband, Howard Sokolowski, have three children.  Together with her husband she is a past recipient of The Human Relations Award from the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews.

Kelvin K. Ogilvie (Nova Scotia) is past president of Acadia University in Wolfville.  An award-winning international expert in biotechnology, bioorganic chemistry and genetic engineering, Dr. Ogilvie’s scientific accomplishments include the development of the “Gene Machine,” an automated process for the manufacture of DNA, and the invention of the drug Ganciclovir, which is used worldwide to fight infections that occur when one’s immune system is weakened.  During his ten years of service as President and Vice Chancellor at Acadia, Dr. Ogilvie proved to be an equally innovative administrator, introducing the groundbreaking “Acadia Advantage” program that has been internationally recognized.  Dr. Ogilvie has served on numerous national and international organizations including the National Biotechnology Advisory Committee and the National Advisory Board for Science and Technology.  He recently completed a three-year term as chair of the Nova Scotia Premier’s Council for Innovation and currently serves as Senior Fellow for Postsecondary Education at the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.  Dr. Ogilvie is a member of the Board of Genome Canada and chairs both the Advisory Board of National Research Council’s Institute of Marine Bioscience and the Advisory Board of the Atlantic Innovation Fund.  For his numerous contributions to science, technology and higher education in Canada, Dr. Ogilvie was named to the Order of Canada in 1991.  Dr. Ogilvie is married and has two children and three grandchildren.

Dennis Patterson (Nunavut) is a former Premier of the Northwest Territories who has dedicated his career to bettering the lives of people throughout Canada’s North.  In his distinguished 16-year career as a member of the Legislative Assembly in the Northwest Territories Mr. Patterson served in many capacities including Minister of Education, Minister of Health and Social Services and Minister of Justice, culminating in his service as Premier between 1987 and 1991.  During his time in public office Mr. Patterson played a key role in the settlement of the Inuvialuit final agreement and the Nunavut final land claim agreement.  Mr. Patterson also served as the leader of the more than twenty-year campaign which led to the establishment of Nunavut as Canada’s newest territory in 1999.  Prior to entering politics, Mr. Patterson practised law and was appointed founding Executive Director of the Legal Services Centre, Maliiganik Tukisiiniakvik Society, in Iqaluit.  After serving as Premier, Mr. Patterson established a private consulting firm, was admitted to the Law Society of Nunavut in 2001 and since 2003 has been a Trustee and Chair of the Investment Committee of the Northern Property Real Estate Investment Trust.  Mr. Patterson is married and has four children and two grandchildren.

Don Plett (Manitoba) has dedicated much of his life to community service in his home province of Manitoba.  As a Red River College alumnus, Mr. Plett served on the Board of Governors of the College.  An active sports enthusiast, he has coached and played hockey, basketball, and golf and was President of the Landmark Minor Hockey Association.  Mr. Plett also served as President of the Chamber of Commerce, Chair of the Village Council, and Chair of the local Utilities Board.  Throughout the years, he has maintained an active interest in politics, including serving as President of the Conservative Party of Canada.  Mr. Plett and his wife Betty have four sons and six grandchildren.

Judith Seidman (Quebec) is an educator, researcher and advisor to universities, government and not-for-profit agencies in the fields of health and social services.  Trained as an epidemiologist and social worker, Ms. Seidman has been a consultant in Applied Research in the Health Field and was Senior Researcher at the University Institute of Social Gerontology of Quebec.  Ms. Seidman served as project coordinator for the Canadian Study of Health and Aging at the University of Ottawa and was Research Associate/Fellow at the Montreal Neurological Hospital/Institute’s Department of Social Work.  Ms. Seidman has also been active in community service, including as a member of the Board of Directors of the Allan Memorial Institute Advancement Fund, member of the McGill Society of Montreal, Chair of the 75th Anniversary Fundraising Committee for the McGill School of Social Work and co-Chair of the Whiteside Taylor Preschool Co-operative in Baie D’Urfe.  Ms. Seidman is married and has one daughter and one grandchild.

Carolyn Stewart Olsen (New Brunswick) has extensive experience in health care and politics.  A Registered Nurse, Ms. Stewart Olsen spent over a decade as an emergency staff nurse at hospitals throughout New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec.  In 1986, Ms. Stewart Olsen was named Head Nurse for the Ambulatory Care Department at Ottawa’s Grace Hospital and later Nursing Manager for the Emergency, Recovery Room, Ambulatory Care, and CSR departments at Carleton Place Hospital.  After a twenty-year career in nursing, Ms. Stewart Olsen turned her attention to political life where she served as communications assistant and Press Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition.  Most recently, she served as Senior Advisor and Director of Strategic Communication in the Office of the Prime Minister.  Ms. Stewart Olsen is married to Terry Olsen.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There was a public forum the other evening, here in Ottawa, at Saint Paul’s University. I did not attend; I took a look at the sponsor, moderator and participants and decided that Charlotte Grey, alone, could not keep me from rushing the stage and throttling a few of them.

I listened, with a more than just half and ear, this morning and it confirmed, for me, the wisdom of staying home.

At the very end Jane Taber plus a few chimed in and said, “We/they/someone must unite the left, unite the Liberals and NDP to bring balance to Canadian politics.”

I wonder if any of them have even half the brains the gods gave to green peppers.

Uniting the left – uniting the Liberals and NDP – is the fondest hope, the veritable wet dream of all partisan Conservatives. The key to utterly and completely destroying the Liberals is to unite them with the NDP. That’s why the coalition proposed by Jack and Gilles and Celine Stéphane Dion would, actually, have been a great thing for the Conservatives.

The reason is that the Liberals are not a left wing party. They are, in the main, a centrist, even ever so slightly right of centre party. There is a big and very vocal and active left wing but most Liberal voters trust their party to campaign left and govern right. Look at King, St Laurent, Pearson, Turner, Chrétien and Martin. None were on the left and none pandered a whole lot to the hard left. Only Trudeau was, in most respects – except for his personal life, left of centre. If the Liberals were to unite with the NDP then the centre and centre right majority would bolt.

Another big topic, to which the panel returned again and again, was some alternative to “first past the post (FPTP).”

I looked at the data from the last few elections; they are relatively consistent:

• 10% of Canadians – fully 40% of Québecers – vote Bloc

• 35%+ of Canadians vote Conservative;

• 6% of Canadians vote Green;

• 30%± of Canadians (more minus than plus more recently) vote Liberal;

• 15+ of Canadians vote NDP; and

• 1 or 2% of Canadians vote for independents and assorted fruitcakes.

Speaking broadly:

• The Bloc’s vote is stagnant;

• The Conservative vote is rising, a bit, and a bit slowly;

• The Green vote is stagnant;

• The Liberal votes is falling, slowly; and

• The NDP vote rose, more than just a bit, in 2008, but that may be a blip.

Using recent data I concluded that the  First Past the Post system:

• Benefited –

  o   The Bloc in Québec by 19 seats,

  o   The Conservatives in 6 of ten provinces by about 25 seats, and

  o   The Liberals in one province, (Newfoundlandf and Labrador) by two seats; and

• Penalized –

  o   The Conservatives in two provinces, by three seats,

  o   The Greens in two provinces, by two seats,

  o   The Liberals in five provinces, by nine seats,

  o   The NDP in seven provinces by 13 seats.

So, it is true that FPTP tends to help the party that, overall, gets the most votes, and (the Bloc in Québec being excepted) tends to penalize lesser parties. Broadly the fewer votes you get, overall, the “worse” you will do proportionately.

I “constructed” a House of Commons basewd on pretty much absolute proportional representations.

Guess what?

It produces a Conservative minority government with the Liberals in the official Opposition benches, the Dippers as the thirds party, fewer Blocistes and several new Green and Independent members.

The proportional Conservative minority government is smaller (117 instead of 143 seats), the proportional Liberal opposition is bigger (88 instead of 77 seats) and the NDP is much larger (55 rather than 37 seats). A simple Liberal/NDP coalition can defeat the government but either the Bloc or the NDP can combine with the Conservatives to outvote a coalition of the Liberals plus the other of the Bloc or NDP. The Greens (15 seats!) are the spoilers, and they could combine with the Liberals and NDP to form a majority – but one that would destroy the Liberal Party of Canada.



Edit: two typos

 

[Infanteer]

Interesting - so Proportional Representation is really much ado about nothing with the only real effect of further divorcing MPs from any sort of responsibility to their constitutents.

Coyne and Wells had a decent little piece in a recent MacLeans article in which they highlighted many of the criticisms and solutions discussed in this thread.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Interesting - so Proportional Representation is really much ado about nothing with the only real effect of further divorcing MPs from any sort of responsibility to their constitutents.

Coyne and Wells had a decent little piece in a recent MacLeans article in which they highlighted many of the criticisms and solutions discussed in this thread.

I'm not sure.

The analysis I did shows that FPTP does benefit the party that gets the most votes, overall, and does penalize the lesser parties. In other words: doing well is rewarded and (relative) failure is punished. Maybe that's as it should be.

Other data, from, say, the '80s and '90s might would produce different results - as when the Liberals won 100± seats in ON with 40% of the popular vote. Someone lost a lot of representation.

I'm wondering if, for a change, the French are not doing something right by requiring those elected to get 50%+1, even if, as it very often does, that results in two votes, the second a week after the first with the second ballot being between only the 1st and 2nd place finishers in the first ballot. There are problems with the French system: voter turnout is much lower in most second ballots than in the first, people get tired of election; and it tends to discourage minor party candidates - which may not be a really bad thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm wondering if, for a change, the French are not doing something right by requiring those elected to get 50%+1, even if, as it very often does, that results in two votes, the second a week after the first with the second ballot being between only the 1st and 2nd place finishers in the first ballot. There are problems with the French system: voter turnout is much lower in most second ballots than in the first, people get tired of election; and it tends to discourage minor party candidates - which may not be a really bad thing.

Which is where the Irish system has its merits - you rank the candidates in your riding.  High Score (low score?) wins.  Effectively you have the run-off election at the same time as the general.  You still end up with one representative per riding but the representative is either favoured by most or at least found least objectionable.

 

[kratz]

Governor General Michaelle Jean has become embroiled with the Prime Minister again. This time on the appropriate way of publicly describing herself. Is she the Sovereign's Representative, or Canada's Head of State? As the position is an appointment, I agree with the PM and would prefer her a HRH Representativ

Harper reminds GG just who is head of state
By Randy Boswell, Canwest News ServiceOctober 8, 2009 5:50
Ottawa Citizen.com

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada's head of state.

"Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement issued to Canwest News Service on Thursday. "The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada."

The extraordinary reminder from the country's head of government to its top viceregal representative follows an uproar over Jean's use of the phrase "head of state" when referring to herself during a speech in Paris on Monday.

Twice during the Governor General's address at an executive meeting of UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — she called herself Canada's head of state.

more at link