Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[dimsum]

My only conflict with mandatory voting is that we are a democratic society (albeit, only slightly due to the whole Constitutional Monarchy thing we got going on), forcing people to vote is creating a society of "ballots under duress".

"Vote, or you will be punished!"

The fundamental item of democratic society is that citizens have a choice. If that choice is not to cast a ballot, fine, they have that freedom. However, I am on the fence as I would like to see mandatory voting and those that would normally not cast a ballot due to complacency to involve themselves in politics (or the uninformed) can simply spoil their ballot. The vote isn't counted except to voter turn out. I feel that making voting mandatory would cause one of two things to occur:

1) More citizens will become politically involved to the benefit of the collective society. Less voting for "lesser of 3 evils", more chances for smaller parties and independents to win seats

2) Widespread fear. The less politically involved citizens will end up casting ballots influenced by poor information given by their peers, media. Thus creating a system of "impulse voting."

This is how Australia does it, and both situations have occurred in the 2013 election (which I obviously was not a part of, but since everyone has to vote, EVERYONE talks about it).  I'm not sure what the rules are in Australia for organizing political parties, but one of the MPs elected was from the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party - I'm sure he was a "donkey vote" (vote out of duress/hatred/whatever) that managed to sneak in.

The other thing about Preferential voting is that it takes a while (weeks, even) to see who actually won.  In the Queensland state election last year, it took almost 2 weeks to figure it out. 

The big point I noticed after the election, and even now, is that despite the 100% voter turnout, people still have a visceral hatred of either the Liberal (read:  Conservative) government currently in power, or the Labour (read:  Liberal left-wing) government that was kicked out of power in 2013.  I don't think it'd solve any long-standing issues if we were to follow the Australian system.

 

[a_majoor]

The Trudeau has come out with his support for preferential voting.  If such a system were a result of the coming tight election, that would be a good thing.  Unfortunately, he waffles by opening the possibility of proportional representation as an alternative to the preferential vote.  This would be a bad thing, giving greater power to the political parties at the expense of the voters themselves.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeau-wants-alternative-to-first-past-the-post-by-next-election/

It was a year ago tomorrow that a Trudeau advisor's support for this idea was first reported:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-adviser-backs-mandatory-voting-preferential-ballots-1.2678610

For many in the political class, this is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Underway]

My only conflict with mandatory voting is that we are a democratic society (albeit, only slightly due to the whole Constitutional Monarchy thing we got going on), forcing people to vote is creating a society of "ballots under duress".

"Vote, or you will be punished!"

The fundamental item of democratic society is that citizens have a choice. If that choice is not to cast a ballot, fine, they have that freedom. However, I am on the fence as I would like to see mandatory voting and those that would normally not cast a ballot due to complacency to involve themselves in politics (or the uninformed) can simply spoil their ballot. The vote isn't counted except to voter turn out. I feel that making voting mandatory would cause one of two things to occur:

1) More citizens will become politically involved to the benefit of the collective society. Less voting for "lesser of 3 evils", more chances for smaller parties and independents to win seats

2) Widespread fear. The less politically involved citizens will end up casting ballots influenced by poor information given by their peers, media. Thus creating a system of "impulse voting."

Rights come with responsibilities.  Sometimes you lose rights if you don't live up to your responsibilities.  Aka prison, tickets, fines. Technically it's not taking away your rights it's just giving you a fine.  If you place a "none of the above" as an option, essentially giving people a formal way to spoil their ballot then it's not that bad.  Mandatory voting is also the liberals way of fighting back against voter suppression one of the conservatives tactics.  I expected that of they try to put in mandatory voting there will be a constitutional challenge.  It's certainly good to have a debate about it.

 

[Remius]

Rights come with responsibilities.  Sometimes you lose rights if you don't live up to your reaponsibilities.  Aka prison, tickets, fines. Technically it's not taking away your rights it's just giving you a fine.  If you place a "none of the above" as an option, essentially giving people a formal way to spoil their ballot then it's not that bad.  Mandatory voting is also the liberals way of fighting back against voter suppression one of the conservatives tactics.  I expected that of they try to put in mandatory voting there will be a constitutional challenge.  It's certainly good to have a debate about it.

I'm a proponent of earning your rights.  Want to vote? Then create a test or make national service something that's required to earn the right to vote.  or whatever.

People will be much more motivated to exercise a right they have earned and have had to work for than something they take for granted or are forced to do.

 

[quadrapiper]

Rights come with responsibilities.  Sometimes you lose rights if you don't live up to your responsibilities.  Aka prison, tickets, fines. Technically it's not taking away your rights it's just giving you a fine.  If you place a "none of the above" as an option, essentially giving people a formal way to spoil their ballot then it's not that bad.  Mandatory voting is also the liberals way of fighting back against voter suppression one of the conservatives tactics.  I expected that of they try to put in mandatory voting there will be a constitutional challenge.  It's certainly good to have a debate about it.

I wonder if a passive scheme, operated through income tax returns, might make sense: non-voter surcharge or something. A few percent extra on your tax bill should you not vote. Revenue-positive, uses an existing system, should more than self fund, and hurts only the shiftless.

Curious what you see as the constitutional issue?

I'm actually rather pleased about Trudeau's approach to the government reform file: a broad-based, "let's look at everything," notion, rather than Mulcair's "scrap the Senate" focus. No doubt the Liberals have a particular reason for wanting a reshuffling, but at least they're, as you say, starting a conversation.

Would actually like to see a less democratically-involved Senate: perhaps arrange things to link Senate membership (or at least eligibility for the next seat) to certain positions, periods of service in elected office, and perhaps awards. Dilute, somewhat, the regional link to seats. Consider a Senate filled with e.g. former federal and provincial ADMs, long service MPs, highest-level Order of Canada recipients, former CDS and RCMP, CCG, etc. commissioners, retired Supreme Court judges, and so on. Might perhaps provide the technical counterbalance to the Commons' much more ephemeral drivers. Still open to gaming, of course, but much less so than the current approach.

 

[Brasidas]

I'm a proponent of earning your rights.  Want to vote? Then create a test or make national service something that's required to earn the right to vote.  or whatever.

People will be much more motivated to exercise a right they have earned and have had to work for than something they take for granted or are forced to do.

I'm a Heinlein fan myself, but I have serious doubts about structuring a military around it being a test of citizenship. Service being two years or the duration of an emergency would default to a huge fraction of the junior leadership playing nursemaid to troops at a battleschool or at holding units, with minimal actual utility taken from them. Stretch it out any longer, and you've either got streaming of troops into a "career" stream and a "short" stream (the Heinlein model) or you've got to get through a full basic engagement before you get treated like an adult.

Its better than conscription (where you get the joy of folks who don't want to be there at all, even as a means to an end), but when the military's purpose gets diluted for non-military ends, it doesn't lead to a more effective military.

What's the test alternative that you reference? A one-time essay on the nature of civic responsibility? A multiple choice test to prove knowledge of current policy issues every ballot? I'm not sure disenfranchising the ignorant is going to be an easy sell.

 

[Remius]

I'm a Heinlein fan myself, but I have serious doubts about structuring a military around it being a test of citizenship. Service being two years or the duration of an emergency would default to a huge fraction of the junior leadership playing nursemaid to troops at a battleschool or at holding units, with minimal actual utility taken from them. Stretch it out any longer, and you've either got streaming of troops into a "career" stream and a "short" stream (the Heinlein model) or you've got to get through a full basic engagement before you get treated like an adult.

Its better than conscription (where you get the joy of folks who don't want to be there at all, even as a means to an end), but when the military's purpose gets diluted for non-military ends, it doesn't lead to a more effective military.

What's the test alternative that you reference? A one-time essay on the nature of civic responsibility? A multiple choice test to prove knowledge of current policy issues every ballot? I'm not sure disenfranchising the ignorant is going to be an easy sell.

National service does not have to be military in nature.

Immigrants that come to Canada have to write an exam.  It isn't perfect but if we hold them to that standard then why not hold everyone to that standard.

 

[George Wallace]

National service does not have to be military in nature.

Exactly.  Germany used to have National Service, and yes the majority landed up in the military, which could accommodate large numbers annually and train them for eighteen month stints.  Joining the Polizei was another option and probably offered a long term career.  For those 'conscientious objectors', there was the option to join the Emergency Services or work in hospitals.  This put the majority of the graduates of 'high school' directly into a structured environment in the workforce.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Would actually like to see a less democratically-involved Senate: perhaps arrange things to link Senate membership (or at least eligibility for the next seat) to certain positions, periods of service in elected office, and perhaps awards. Dilute, somewhat, the regional link to seats. Consider a Senate filled with e.g. former federal and provincial ADMs, long service MPs, highest-level Order of Canada recipients, former CDS and RCMP, CCG, etc. commissioners, retired Supreme Court judges, and so on. Might perhaps provide the technical counterbalance to the Commons' much more ephemeral drivers. Still open to gaming, of course, but much less so than the current approach.

How could gaining membership in the Red Chamber be "less democratically-involved" than the current method of appointing senators (save perhaps for the odd appointee from Alberta)?  While it would be better if "politics"  (and old party hacks) were less involved, realistically that is unlikely to happen.  Though the Senate was not a direct clone of the House of Lords, there was probably some sense, besides "sober second thought", that having a check on the whims of the unwashed population was necessary to avoid upsetting the "establishment" in addition to providing a "regional voice".

Perhaps one way to strengthen the "regional" aspect of senate make-up is to devolve the selection of senators to the provinces.  If they are there to represent their region then that entity should be the one selecting them.

Ideally, senators (as befitting those who provide that deeper thinking and second thought) should come with the experience necessary and dedication required for the task.  Having those who have already been recognized for their contribution to the country is indeed the way to go, but I would suggest that taking a page from the House of Lords in the UK (I know, not the greatest example to follow) may be one way to make it less a sinecure for old party hacks and more a venue for those who have already been successful in a career and wish to continue to contribute to the country.  Peers who sit in the House of Lords do not get paid - for the days that they sit (or otherwise conduct legitimate House business) they are eligible to receive a daily allowance.  It isn't a well paid and pensionable second career.

 

[Ostrozac]

Perhaps one way to strengthen the "regional" aspect of senate make-up is to devolve the selection of senators to the provinces.  If they are there to represent their region then that entity should be the one selecting them.

That is an elegant and effective way of defusing Senate reform for the foreseeable future. Every province would be able to set its own criteria, including elections, or recall votes, or sheer old-school cronyism (cough, PEI, cough, does Mr Duffy actually live there?) and would get Senate reform off the national stage.

A perfect example of assymetrical federalism. I love it.

 

[a_majoor]

Another of Heinlein's suggestions (from Grumblings from the grave) was that each voter should be individually tested prior to voting. His idea was that you entered the voting booth, closed the curtain and then a quadratic equation would flash on the screen for you to solve. If you solved it, the booth would unlock for voting; if you did not, the red light would go on over the booth and you would exit, shamed in front of everyone that you were too stupid or uneducated to vote...

The ancient idea of Timocracy, where property owners were the only ones eligible to serve as Jurors in the ekklēsía, or to vote in early democracies, was indeed based on the idea that property owners were engaged enough to take interest in politics, and to participate, make laws and vote to protect their property. The Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta also had a complicated system of representatives which was based on property and wealth, once again, to ensure that the people involved had a stake in the outcome. Or current system lets apathetic people not participate (much like a volunteer army has no place for conscripts), but the downside is the people who do participate are generally partisans who are in it for their personal gain and power. Their stake in the outcome is far different from that of property owners, artisans and skilled craftsmen.

A senate elected or appointed by the Provinces, interestingly, would be the same system the United States used up until the passage of the 17th amendment. The Senate of the United States was also used as a form of Timocracy; James Madison stating:

In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, the people ought to have permanency and stability.

 

[Privateer]

The ancient idea of Timocracy, where property owners were the only ones eligible to serve as Jurors...

As opposed to the current idea of Timocracy, where political parties vie for the vote of the Tim Hortons crowd.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

As opposed to the current idea of Timocracy, where political parties vie for the vote of the Tim Hortons crowd.

You beat me to it!!

 

[Underway]

If you want to look to science fiction for ideas look no further than the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.  Senators in the Martian senate were selected by random ballot from eligible voters.  This idea has some merit in that it might lead to a senate that had no politicians in it at all, and consisted of people from all walks of life across the country.  I find that idea fascinating.  In a bizzare sort of way it would be a truly representative body of the population, reduce or eliminate "politics" as people would not be re-elected or need to suck up to anyone to be appointed.  It's like a form of jury duty.

With the right amount of senate powers, term limits, a decent paycheque, and perhaps a limited number of parliamentary vetos to keep out the mentally ill, incompetent etc... people you would have your representative senate with a unique form of proportional representation.

 

[George Wallace]

If you want to look to science fiction for ideas look no further than the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.  Senators in the Martian senate were selected by random ballot from eligible voters.  This idea has some merit in that it might lead to a senate that had no politicians in it at all, and consisted of people from all walks of life across the country.  I find that idea fascinating.  In a bizzare sort of way it would be a truly representative body of the population, reduce or eliminate "politics" as people would not be re-elected or need to suck up to anyone to be appointed.  It's like a form of jury duty.

I can not see this working in a population base of not more that a couple thousand.  I don't see Canada's population of near 35 million knowing all the candidates, so that would restrict the candidates being representatives of only a couple of thousand that may be familiar with them enough to have elected them (let's average it at 4K).  This would now leave us with a Senate having somewhere in the number of 8,750 seats (35,000,000 / 4000) if we were to average each electoral district to a population of approx 4K.  We would then have to construct a much larger building to house so many seats. 

Even in current municipal politics, you can't find a candidate that is that well know by the electorate. 

I don't see this being a workable reform.

 

[Brasidas]

If you want to look to science fiction for ideas look no further than the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.  Senators in the Martian senate were selected by random ballot from eligible voters.  This idea has some merit in that it might lead to a senate that had no politicians in it at all, and consisted of people from all walks of life across the country.  I find that idea fascinating.  In a bizzare sort of way it would be a truly representative body of the population, reduce or eliminate "politics" as people would not be re-elected or need to suck up to anyone to be appointed.  It's like a form of jury duty.

With the right amount of senate powers, term limits, a decent paycheque, and perhaps a limited number of parliamentary vetos to keep out the mentally ill, incompetent etc... people you would have your representative senate with a unique form of proportional representation.

Rolling with the science fiction, this is making me think Harrison Bergeron. Everyone "normal". Forget representative politics, just have the average joe make national policy decisions.

Society gets the government we deserve.

EDIT: For clarity, I used sarcasm. I think that if our current system of representatives is less than ideal, it has a lot to do with the people voting on who to represent them, rather than the selection process.

 

[a_majoor]

If the idea is randomizations, then let Senators be chosen by a lottery. Better yet, you buy your "Senate Lottery ticket" and the proceeds go to fund the senate. People with a real wish to join the Red Chamber will buy lots of tickets, paying for an opulent Duffy sized expense account to the winners.

Lottery winners are in the Red Chamber for a 5 year term, and only 1/5 of the seats are up for grabs any year. The odds of winning a senate seat are based on ticket sales, as is the size of the Senate's operating budget (including salaries). To ensure the Physical Red Chamber is not overrun with cockroaches or has the roof cave in, a separate O&M fund will be allocated from tax dollars for upkeep.

 

[George Wallace]

[Tinfoil hat ON]

Well.  With Anonymous hacking Federal Government sites and leaving a message with a slight French accent, but mentioning that "the Magna Carta is now in our country", what is to say that this 'Canadian' would not also hack any of Justin Trudeau's suggested electronic voting in the future?  Also, Justin, what are you going to do if to ensure that everyone votes; fine them?  Electronic votes would in essence do away with the "secret ballot"; that would be emphasized when people who did not vote get fines/notices, as their IP addresses would not have shown any activity in the voting process.  Those who did vote electronically would have their voting habits/choices recorded according to their IP addresses. 

[/Tinfoil hat OFF]

 

[Brad Sallows]

Electronic voting just creates more opportunities for fraud.  At this particular point in time, no-one should be living under the illusion that e-anything is secure.  Stick to traditional paper ballots.

Mandatory voting creates more uninformed and under-informed votes - even with an "out" (spoiled ballot or none-of-above option) a compelled voter might suddenly be tempted to check off some name for no admirable reason.  I would rather people disinclined to vote continue to exercise that freedom instead of polluting the results.

Alternatives to FPTP look attractive to Teams Red and Orange right now because of the disarray on the left/centre-left and relative unity on the right/centre-right.  Abolishing the Senate looks good when you have no likelihood of appointing senators to block the other teams' governments and a very real likelihood of being faced with senatorial pushback on the rare occasion you do form government.  In brief, no high principle needs to be attached to these positions - sheer political opportunism will do, and political opportunism is a poor reason to change.

 

[Underway]

I can not see this working in a population base of not more that a couple thousand.  I don't see Canada's population of near 35 million knowing all the candidates, so that would restrict the candidates being representatives of only a couple of thousand that may be familiar with them enough to have elected them (let's average it at 4K).  This would now leave us with a Senate having somewhere in the number of 8,750 seats (35,000,000 / 4000) if we were to average each electoral district to a population of approx 4K.  We would then have to construct a much larger building to house so many seats. 

Even in current municipal politics, you can't find a candidate that is that well know by the electorate. 

I don't see this being a workable reform.

The senators are chosen like jury duty.  It's essentially a random lottery.  This wouldn't require anyone at all to know your senators or to vote for them.  Leaving regional seat numbers as they are and then have the seats filled by random appointment.