The Ultimate Solution to Electoral Reform in Canada

Yes indeed, I do have the ultimate solutions to all of our electoral system problems and I will share them with all of you. Now some of you might think this is too comprehensive and complicated to propose all at once, but for voters it will be just a simple two step process and will eliminate the most difficult part of the voting process.

We need to do this fully and comprehensively because people have a reluctance towards change when it comes to our electoral system. They are not going to want to make multiple incremental changes. We have to do it once and we have to do it right.

The Problem

My proposals are aimed at solving the most important flaws in the process, those that make it undemocratic:

• - the pressure for people to vote strategically, rather than for their actual preference, to try to avoid the next two factors
• - the possibility, and likelihood in many cases, for the last choice of most voters to get elected because of "vote splitting" among like-minded voters
• - a House of Commons whose party seat distribution does not reflect the popular vote
• - an unelected, unaccountable and unnecessary Senate

The Solution

My proposals are based on these principles:

• - maintaining the constituency representative system as the main basis of House of Commons membership
• - eliminating the need and pressure for strategic voting
• - a House of Commons whose membership, by party representation, reflects the total popular vote
• -solving the Senate problem

A Constituency Representative Based System

The vast majority of Members of the House of Commons would be elected, as they are now, as constituency representatives. But, to avoid the necessity for strategic voting and the possibility of the least popular rather than most popular candidate being elected, a transferable vote system will be used where voters rate the candidates in preferential order, rating as many or few candidates as they wish.

A House of Commons Reflecting The Popular Vote

In order to ensure the party representation in the House of Commons reflects the popular votes a number of seats will be added to the House of Commons, and the members selected from party lists in a manner that brings the overall party representation equal to the popular vote.

This will be done by having voters select a party preference separate from a candidate preference.

The Numbers and Solving The Senate Problem

Looking at the last federal election we see that with 308 constituency representatives we have to add 107 Members of Parliament from party lists to get a fully representative House of Commons. However we can actually do this without adding any additional federal representatives by eliminating the Senate and the 100 Senators and limiting the number of constituency representatives to 300 and the number of list representatives to 100. This might not always enable adjustments to get the party representation fully equivalent but certainly enough to prevent any one party from forming a majority government without a majority of the popular vote. Note that current plans call for increasing the size of the House of Commons to 338 while retaining the Senate.

And yes eliminating the Senate may seem like an impossible task but all that it really requires is political will and is making our government truly democratic not worth finding that political will.

The End of Strategic Voting

The two new parts of the system - transferable votes and separate votes for party representation remove the most difficult part of the voting process - the antagonizing decision by voters on whether to vote strategically, an act that is itself undemocratic. Voters should be able to vote for the candidate and party of their choice and not feel that they have to vote against someone or some party to avoid the worst of all possible outcomes.

The transferable vote allows voters to rank their preferences so that in the end everyone gets to choose between the two candidates left on the ballot and no one loses their vote.

The separate vote for party representation means that no matter how votes divide up by constituency the parties representation in the House of Commons reflects their support nationwide.

These provisions also allow voters to choose independent candidates as their constituency representative without losing their ability to affect the party representation in the House of Commons.

Municipal and Provincial Elections

The transferable vote provisions are ones that should also be adopted in municipal elections. Since most municipal elections do not involve political parties the likelihood of many candidates with similar views running is even greater than in federal and provincial elections and the pressure to vote against the least desirable (rather than for the most desirable) candidate is even greater. A transferable vote prevents the last choice of most voters from being elected due to vote splitting because in the end everyone gets to choose between the two candidates left on the ballot and no one loses their vote.

The full proposal (except for elimination of the Senate) could also be adopted and adapted for provincial elections.

Representation by Population and Community Representation

One of the effects of our attempt to maintain representation by population (rep by pop) as much as possible without even further enlarging the geographic size of rural and remote constituencies has been the continual increase in the number of Members of Parliament. Current plans call for the House of Commons to increase from 308 to 338 with no end in sight.

One of the things that the separate ballot for party representation will ensure is that the House of Commons party representation reflects the popular vote of voters. This makes pure representation by population, which we have never had, somewhat less important and enables us to put more focus on making constituency representatives community representatives.

To achieve this we should put a limit on the number of Members of Parliament at 300 constituency MPs and 100 list MPs. We should also redraw constituencies, taking rep by pop into account as much as possible, making constituency boundaries more consistent with actual community boundaries as well as keeping geographic size manageable for an MP to represent. We should retain these configurations for much longer periods so these new community reflecting constituencies do not change with every election.

We should also retain PEI at 4 constituency MPs and Quebec at 75 constituency MPs for historical reasons.

We have to recognize, of course, that the list MPs will come from across Canada and are not necessarily going to accurately reflect rep by pop, though I suspect they may be more urban than rural somewhat correcting the effect of limiting rural and remote constituency geographic sizes.

There is going to be, as there always has been, a trade-off between rep by pop and ensuring effective representation for less densely populated parts of the country. However with the separate vote for party preference based on popular vote that becomes less of a problem.

The Benefits of List Representatives

There has always been criticism of the concept of having Members of Parliament selected from party lists but there are also significant benefits of it beyond ensuring that the House of Commons party representation reflects the popular vote.

We have to remember, that just as voters take into account candidates party affiliation when choosing a constituency MP, voters will also take into account who the parties have placed on their lists when choosing a party preference. Thus the parties will need to be mindful of this when drawing up their lists.

One aspect that might be criticized is parties placing people who could not get elected as individual MPs on the list. I think that is a good thing. There are undoubtedly many competent qualified people capable of doing an excellent job as an MP who would be a complete failure as a political candidate. It would not hurt to have some MPs who are lousy as "political operatives" in the House of Commons.

It might also not hurt to have MPs who are less partisan in the House of Commons and I would encourage political parties to place capable candidates that might not be card carrying members but share the parties philosophies on their lists.

There is a question as to whether parties should be allowed to place individuals who are seeking election as constituency representatives on the list. While I understand that parties might want to "protect" key candidates it is somewhat offensive that candidates rejected by their constituency voters could end up in the House of Commons (somewhat like appointing failed candidates to the Senate).

Towards a New Co-operative and Democratic House of Commons

Most individual voters would probably say that they want a majority government led by (and composed only of) the party they support. But what do the voters collectively want. It is rare that a majority of voters votes for one political party and when they do the seat representation is far from proportional to the popular vote.

The last time Canadian voters gave one party over 50% of popular votes was in 1958 when Diefenbaker's Tories received 53.7 % of the votes and 78.5 % of the seats, although Mulroney's Tories received 50% of the votes and 74.8% of the seats in 1984. (Source: Canadian Election Results: 1867-2006)

We usually get majority governments, not because we vote for them but, because of how our political system is structured.

This proposed new electoral system will ensure that voters get the representation they want and will almost always reflect the fact that their is a wide variety of political preferences in our country.

We might all be very surprised by how much better a governing process and government we get if our elected representatives are forced by the voters to actually compromise and work together without one party, or even one man, controlling the agenda.

Although we have become used to it, an "elected dictatorship" is not necessarily the best way to run a country.

We Must Stop Stephen Harper and the 20% from Destroying Canada

There has been lots of discussion about how Stephen Harper's majority only represents 40% of voters because of the way our electoral system works. But, in reality, his agenda has much fewer supporters.

We must remember that the Conservative Party is a coalition. It is not a coalition in the sense that the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition (with an accord with the BQ) was. That proposed coalition was the product of compromise and an agreed to written common program.

This Conservative coalition is a coalition of perceived necessity where the old Progressive Conservative Party supporters have been convinced that the only way to keep the Liberals out of power is to support a Reform Party Canadian Alliance dominated Conservative Party. It is clear that Stephen Harper's agenda does not represent the values of the former Progressive Conservative Party, but it did get elected with the votes of it's supporters.

So now we have a ReformaTory government dominated by the 20% of Canadians who support the extreme right wing American-centric Reform Party Canadian Alliance ideology of Stephen Harper.

And they want to turn Canada into a mirror of our American neighbour, clearly a failed state if there ever was one. Have no doubt about it. Stephen Harper was not lying when he said we would not recognize our Canada when he was finished with it.

Stephen Harper's values are not Canadians values.

Canadians chose Tommy Douglas as the Greatest Canadian because he gave us Medicare, our public health care system, and we have consistently stated (as documented by public opinion polls) that public health care is the most important Canadian value and the most important thing that defines us as Canadians.

Stephen Harper wants to destroy our national health care system. He is on record as wanting to eliminate the Canada Health Act provisions that require provinces to meet national standards to receive federal funding. The next step will be to eliminate all federal funding, likely under the guise of trading tax points for direct federal funding. He has stated, using constitutional provisions as a justification, that the federal government should turn health care completely over to the provinces. We all know he wants to do that to promote more privatization and weakening of the public system and it's deterioration into a two-tier system, or worse.

Stephen Harper and the 20% do not represent Canadian values and what the vast majority of Canadians want when it comes to our cherished public health care system.

Stephen Harper believes that there are Canadians whose lives are less worthy of protection than other Canadians. He believes this because he believes in dividing Canadians into good people and bad people and those that are addicted to drugs are bad people that should be punished rather than provided with the treatment they need.

He opposes harm reduction measures (more properly called lifesaving measures) for addicts such as safe injection sites and needle exchange programs, even though they have been proven to save lives and even help rehabilitate addicts, because these programs may inconvenience or offend "good Canadians". He knows the "bad Canadians" these programs serve do not vote Conservative, because they do not vote.

But this is all part of the ReformaTory Conservatives war on drugs and tough on crime agenda that has been proven to be such a failure in the United States that even right wing governments and politicians in states like Texas are abandoning it. But Stephen Harper likes it because it fits in with his anti-science anti-fact ideology-based strategy that preys on peoples fears.

And even though crime is declining in Canada, the reporting of crime in the media is increasing, as is it's depiction on American television shows, and some Canadians do fear our country, and especially our cities, becoming the crime-ridden places they see portrayed in the media.

Of course logic would say that if you were really concerned about crime your policies would emulate those countries where crime is lowest, not the country where crime is highest. But facts and logic are not part of Stephen Harper's ideology. Fear and the desire for revenge are better vote-getters, so Stephen Harper thinks.

Stephen Harper and his 20% of supporters are clearly out of touch with Canadian values. What we have seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If he is elected to another majority, no matter how phony a majority it is, he will see it as a mandate to finish the job of destroying the Canada that we all know and love.

Stephen Harper and his 20% must be stopped. We must put our political differences aside to save our country.

We need a one time electoral coalition agreement for the next election that provides that Liberals and New Democrats do not run against each other in any constituencies that the Conservatives have any chance of winning.

This coalition agreement should be short term only to allow for the election of a government pledged to undo the worst of the Harper ReformaTory measures and bring in democratic and electoral reforms that will see the next election run under a form of proportional representation.

Because it will be short term, with an agreed to program, and will be followed by an election under proportional representation, neither the NDP nor Liberals need worry if the candidate selection process is not perfect. There is no need to let partisan protectionism come before the necessity of saving our Canada from Stephen Harper's desire to destroy it. That is what it is about and we must put all partisan differences aside to save our country.

The next election will then be run under proportional representation and will be the first to elect a truly representative House of Commons. I have my own ideas on how such a proportional representation system should be structured which I will write about in a future post.

This election will, in all likelihood, not produce a majority government because all Canadians do not think the same way, but most do share similar values and the elected representatives will reflect this.

This new way of electing governments will require parties and Members of Parliament to work together. It will eliminate one party, and more importantly one despotic leader, from having complete authoritarian control of the government. Indeed it will, no doubt, reduce the powers of all party leaders and increase the powers of individual Members of Parliament.

We have, not only a chance to not only save our country from Stephen Harper, but a chance to reform our electoral system so that 20% of the people that want to destroy our country will never be able to seize power again.

We must seize that opportunity or our children and grandchildren will never forgive us.

Sometimes I Really Wonder

I think we all have friends, relatives or acquaintances that are caught up in Islamophobia and regularly send out e-mails warning that the Muslims are immigrating and breeding and going to take over the country.

Their usual solution to the "problem" is to force the minorities to abandon their "evil ways" and adapt to the majority culture, essentially for them to assimilate.

It seems to me that, from their point of view, their solution is misguided.

Should they not be welcoming newcomers, respecting their beliefs and accommodating the cultures of the minorities as much as possible while helping them integrate into our multicultural society.

At least that would be the precedent I would want to set if I saw myself as part of a majority that was soon to be displaced and become the minority.

New Years Resolution

Well, if it isn't obvious what it should be, my resolution is to actually write and post all those blog post ideas that come to me almost daily and get thought about but never written and posted.

White Christmas in the South March Highlands

At Least a White Pre-Christmas

Video by Ray Vermette (Ottawa Mountain Bike Association)
Source: OMBA - White Mountain Bike Christmas

A Christmas Message From Your Conservative MP

Cyclist Fatality Waiting/Designed to Happen

If you wanted to design a storm sewer grate to catch a bicycle wheel and throw the rider into fast heavy traffic you could not do better than this.

These are located along Eagleson Road between the Queensway and Hazeldean Road. They seem designed to capture bicycle wheels and kill cyclists.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to use something like that rather than the design below, used along Eagleson Road south of Hazeldean Road, that has the openings perpendicular to the wheels so you ride across them rather than along and into them.

Still shaking my head and making sure I stay well away from the curb along that section of Eagleson Road.

The Stages of Human Communication Technology

Language (pre-history)

Written Language (circa 3200 BC)

The Printing Press (circa 1440 ) (Johannes Gutenberg)

Telephone (1861/1875)

Radio Broadcasting (circa 1910)

Television Broadcasting (1928/1936)

The Internet (1969) (ARPANET)

Smart Phones (1992) (RIM BlackBerry 1999)

Saving the South March Highlands: Looking to the Future

The first thing I want to say is that any discussion of saving the South March Highlands has to start by acknowledging that, indeed, some of it has been saved and placed in public ownership and that we might not even be discussing saving the rest of it if that was not so.

On November 10, 2000 the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton announced the purchase of 556 acres of the South March Highlands for $1.6 million at the urging of Kanata Regional Councillor Alex Munter who has stated “his biggest achievement would be putting South March Highland into public ownership to keep it protected.“ The source for these statements was Kanata History Net, which is no longer online, however the text of the November 10, 2000 announcement can be found at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=46087029890&topic=16257.

So the signs recognizing the South March Highlands Conservation Forest are no joke

Indeed a lot of people have put thousands of hours of volunteer work into building a sustainable trail system in the South March Highlands Conservation Forest and getting it recognized, which is what these signs represent. And more is to come in the spring with a comprehensive new map and signage system on the trails. For more background see
OMBA Forums - South March Highlands: Past, Present, and Future.

(click/double click on image to enlarge)
So how does the protected South March Highlands Conservation Forest relate to the South March Highlands as a whole. Simply put, it is part of one ecosystem. While the Conservation Forest may be able to "survive" on it's own retaining the trails and a forest of sorts, it's biological diversity is dependent on being part of a larger ecosystem. If we destroy the surrounding ecosystem it's diversity will undoubtedly be affected, the endangered and at risk species in the forest being most affected.

The question becomes where do we focus our resources in fighting to protect the broader ecosystem.

The focus so far has been on the KNL/Urbandale lands that are threatened with imminent development, which of course is a "nice" way of saying destruction. These lands were originally classified as Environmentally Protected and their development has been fought by the community and environmentalists every step of the way. But it is very difficult to fight an industry that is dealing with a city whose staff may have worked for this industry in the past or expect to work for it in the future, an industry with political connections that donates large sums of money to the politicians who decide on their proposals and an industry with it's own Kangaroo Court, the Ontario Municipal Board. Unfortunately much of this history is not known to the broader general public who have been told by the developer's well funded public relations campaign that they have done everything by the book and that their proposal has all the proper approvals.

Of course this is their version of history. The fact is that the approval process has been replete with all sorts of improprieties and misuse of power and outright ignoring and violation of laws and regulations. Even with all that, the approvals were conditional on the developer meeting multiple conditions that have not been met, and that the developer and the City seem to be prepared, indeed anxious, to simply ignore.

There have been some positive developments within the last few months including the designation of the Kizell Pond as a provincially significant wetland and the revelation that the developer's stormwater management plans are grossly inadequate for the development proposed. These are vital issues that need to remain in the forefront of the public and nothing in this post is meant to suggest otherwise.

This all being said, fighting a development that has been approved, even if it never should have been, is a huge undertaking requiring extensive resources that will never be able to match the resources available to the developer.

None of this is to say that this battle should not be fought but to call attention to other lands in the South March Highlands that also need to be saved but for which the battle may not be as difficult and for which victory might indeed be probable if the fight is taken up early enough.

We are talking about the lands north of the South March Highlands Conservation Forest, a large portion of which are owned by Metcalfe Realty. Unlike the KNL/Urbandale lands, these lands are not approved for development and are still zoned Environmental Protection. And, unlike the KNL/Urbandale lands, the owner is willing to sell and the City is interested in purchasing. This was confirmed by a city staffer as recently as last month, but has been fairly common knowledge for quite some time. Indeed the City has been quietly adding to the Conservation Forest by buying up land in what was known as the "dark side" when it became available at a reasonable price.

The biggest problem in getting political will for the City to buy the KNL/Urbandale lands has been the price for land approved for development, even if it was for sale. On the other hand as fiscal a conservative and non-environmentalist as one could find on the previous City Council, Gord Hunter, has publicly proposed the City purchase the lands north of the Conservation Forest. That being noted, it should much less difficult to convince the City to purchase these lands than it would be to convince them to purchase the KNL/Urbandale lands.

What is needed is a real campaign focused on these lands. And I understand resources are scarce and the natural inclination is to fight for the lands under imminent threat first. But every minute these lands are ignored is an opportunity for the landowner to start quietly working to get their status changed so that they too are under imminent threat, and much more costly to acquire.

At the moment the City is just quietly waiting for the landowner to offer the land to them at fair value for land zoned Environmental Protection while the landowner is offering the land for sale at the price of land approved for development.

There is a way to break through this but it requires political will and political will requires public pressure. The City must move now to start the process to negotiate a fair price for the land based on it's current zoning and status and inform the landowner if that is not successful the City will begin the process to expropriate the land at fair market value for it's existing status and zoning.

Other than some additional administrative costs this will not cost the City more than it is willing to pay for the land. That is a big factor in gaining Council support in these "fiscally conservative" times.

This will require public pressure. It will require an organized effort. But the automatic rejection arguments that the land is too costly and that it is not for sale and that there is an approved development proposal do not exist. Expropriation can be promoted simply as a mechanism to determine a fair price for the land.

This is a winnable battle if undertaken seriously. And right now we need some winnable battles. It may even change the mindset of City Council, making saving most of the South March Highlands a possibility for all to work towards.

Economics 101: The Reality of Canadian Capitalism

In More Academic Terms