Petition For Democratic Reform
Posted on Sunday, March 27 at 18:04 by Tristan
The CNF is now hosting a web petition you can sign. It can be accessed at www.freenation.ca/1action.html
Contributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
comments on proportional representation, we at the CNF would love to hear
them.
---
--Sooner or later you've got to do something--
---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
Kevin
In the states a local unit is known as a "voting district" as opposed to a "riding". Once one is in office and has the authority to propose a vote (not a smart thing, to do unless your own party is holding the majority of the votes on the local council/legislative body) to draw new bounderies for the voting district, it is done. Democrats became famous for assuming that, as an example, they were the favoured party of black voters (and also old southern baptists). So when able to do so, to help with continued reelection in the future, they would contract, or expand the lines, or completely redefine them into a totally different shape so as to include within the district, the group(s) of people that would vote as desired by the politician(s)...in this example redraw the district boundaries to include more black neighbourhoods and less white. This was a racist practice in both directions no matter how it was viewed. No one liked it, except the person(s) holding office that were doing it. People in power trying to remain in power. And if one district's boundaries were altered, it required neighboring districts to also change due to shared boundaries...meaning it really did require everyone's consent in all affected districts. To successfully change boundaries was a huge undertaking, and was a complicated, and lengthy process. It wasn't as some might suggest here in Canada when wanting to "American bash"...some easily accomplished, instantaneous trick of deceit by someone related to George Bush past, present, or future. A snowball stands a better chance of success surviving a hockey game in a frying pan.
One falacy of course was that if you're a democrat out for the black vote, and you succeed in pulling more votes for yourself into your own district, you were in actuality taking them away from your fellow democrat in the neighbouring district. You can see how this could become not only a local power struggle between democrats and republicans, but between democrats in adjacent "ridings"...that is if you are to engage in the racist view that all black people vote democrat (which is the view of democrats, however untrue it might be).
The shape shifting of voting districts as seen from above on a map, as very odd shapes, resembling odd creatures such as a "salamander" for example, and being "gerry-rigged" by politicians, not making much sense geographically got the nickname "gerrymandering" from combining the two terms "gerry" and "salamander".
You know politicians. They'd do most anything to get a vote, or like in this case steal one if they had to, to stay in office. They would try to exclude a group (draw it out of the district map)they felt might vote against them, and "include" (draw in to the district map) those they felt might vote for them. Very survivalist. Can't do it unless you get in office in the first place and can propose it for a vote within the legislative body you sit within. You also would not propose a "redistricting" unless your party held the majority of seats within that legislative body or the resulting "gerrymandered" shape of the new voting district (riding) could work against, instead of for you. It's a very cat and mouse game that the major parties play with each other. It does not alter in any way the "one man, one vote" concept of proportional representation (by numerical value) as everyone's vote is tallied somewhere and goes into the overall mix. It only works on a local level...state, county or city. Most republicans and even a fairly large percentage of democrats have tried for years to put an end to this practice, and are still trying to put an end to it. Hopefully they'll succeed. At least it's now very rare to encounter. Most likely due to the difficulty and complexity involved today with a bigger population, a more mixed population, and more propensity for legal action by political groups than any other reason. It's next to impossible to achieve now.
It doesn't work on a national level as State boundaries are set, and are not possible to change short of an "act of God, or something" and therefore not possible to "gerrymander". Only the total population can change if people move from one state to another which would affect how many seats in the house or in congess that particular state might have. As the population grows in a particular state, the more representatives, and congressmen it has to proportionally represent it. Or less if the population declines. It is as "proportional" as it's possible to get as far as numbers are concerned.
Unfortunately this results in inequities such as found here in Canada, as well as in the United States. Low population, rural areas don't view shear numbers very "proportional" at all. Consider Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver due to having the huge population centers, winding up having more "vote" power than say...the entire province of Alberta. Or Newfoundland & Labrador. And in the States, New York City having more "vote" power than the entire states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming combined.
So when people in big cities who have no clue as to the ins and outs of issues affecting Albertans (just for example), vote as a huge bloc due to the quantity of MP's they have in parliament by virtue of shear numbers, as an overwhelming, overpowering force, based on some sort of imaginative flying saucer hype about fat cat oil barons and mega ranchers fed them by someone such as a Layton, Martin, (name your favorite slick willy politican) for example, the result is that it creates undue hardship upon a man (or woman) trying to keep shoes on their kids feet slaving over a handful of cows and a draught withered crop of wheat...which is the norm out west...very few "barons" out there if you go take a look...well...now you can see why Albertans view "big city" easterners with spite. They get abused by them continually. And they break their backs to feed them in exchange for peanuts, typically. Sad situation considering that the easterners in the big cities don't INTEND for this to occur...at least I hope they don't! By the same token, I'll bet big city people wouldn't want Albertans to have that kind of control over Montreal, or Toronto for example. How well versed is that same farmer trying to keep shoes on his kids feet in Alberta on public transportation issues in downtown Toronto? Bingo. A dilemna for sure.
"Proportional" representation can be viewed two ways...by numbers...or by geography. Alberta would want it by geography (as they don't have the numbers)...Ontario and Quebec would obviously want to keep it by the numbers to maintain their control over the country as a whole. Why do you think federal politicians cater to the huge urban masses and the only thing they view other parts of the country as is a source of natural resources to be plundered for bartering chips with the main voter blocs in the big cities? Bizarro world isn't it.
However, It works the same way in the United states. The cab driver in New York City gets to tell the Nebraska corn farmer what he can do with his corn, or the Idaho potato farmer what he can do with his spuds. Typically what does the cabbie (or computer/cubicle/office hobbit)know about growing corn, or spuds? How much in fact does he typically even care (except when he's hungry)? But he gets more say over how it's done than the people doing it by virtue of being in New York City where the "numbers" are. Fair? Not hardly. Rather discriminatory isn't it. Doesn't ever seem to work the other way around. Why? Numbers. Majority rule. Why do you think most Americans glare at you with daggers in their eyes at the mere mention of New York (we're not even going to mention the bad manners factor of northeasterners in general)? Or Los Angeles? Like Hollyweird knows what's best for Duluth, Iowa. NO? But they have the votes to decide what's going to happen to Duluth, as far as in the national legislative bodies go anyway. So in congress, you typically have New Yorkers, and L.A. types deciding the fate of everyone else...except that when all of the various rural areas join together and form a coalition of sorts, they have a chance...and a fairly even rural/urban split occurs...by miracle more than design.
This is responsible for the current state of affairs in America (much more so than what you will hear from disgruntled democrat/blues who would have you believe it's everything from religion, to Iraq, to Osam Bin Whatshisface, or the fact that corn flakes aren't blue...whatever works) . Urban Democrat, Rural Republican. Look at an American voting map. even in the "red" states, the big cities went "blue". And even in the "blue" states, the rural areas went "red". Fact. Check it out. I believe you can access a map illustrating this phenomenon still on the CNN website, possibly even the CBC website. That's a bigger divide in America than race, party, religion, economic status, or anything else for that matter. Geography. Just like here in Canada. So, "proportional" is relative..and in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
A minimum wage earner in Toronto or New York City ( a have not) is going to view a farmer or rancher in Idaho or Alberta (also typically have nots) with envy and resentment out of frustration with their own situation, and the picture painted of them in their imaginations by local politicans (such as Layton, or Clinton) as fat cat oil barons and owners of ranches that extend further than the eye can see covered in cattle with dollar signs branded on their a**es.
A family in Alberta or Idaho (have nots, irrespective of acreage worked), just managing to keep one step ahead of absolute poverty and bankruptcy, from the youngest to the oldest working dawn to dusk (sometimes longer) with no "days off", no "vacation" days, and no "sick leave", and no guaranteed "minimum wage" are going to view the office worker (once again a have not)in Toronto, or New York City with envy and resentment out of frustration for their own situation, and the mental picture painted of them by local politicians( Klein, Kempthorne) as "corporate elites", or fat cat "executives", living in highrise penthouses and munching on caviar.
One difference (and the biggest) I have observed between the U.S. and Canada however, is that in the states once a group of voters elects a representative to an office, he's THEIR rep (unless it is THEY who impeach him), and answers to THEM. Not a governor, or president...even if they are a member of a political party, they have the freedom to diverge from the party on a vote if that's what the people in their district (riding) expect/want from them. The party and it's leadership may not like it, but they respect it, and they allow it, they can't prevent it, and it's the right of that representative and his constituents to have that voice. THAT is what true representation is all about. The representative (and by association, his constituents) isn't forcibly removed by the President/Prime Minister, or the national leadership of his party if he/she does the job elected to do by his constituents. A representative is more accountable to his constituents than his party. Odd concept, eh? He is not forced to, and cannot be forced by law to vote as "ordered" by a party, governor/premier, or president/prime minister or face expulsion. Expulsion would override the voters who put him there to represent him. This is not allowable, and it's not legal. It is a form of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and a right to equal representation under the law. The right of the individual voter, cannot be denied out of political prejudice by a national party leadership, or a even a natonal leader in this case. We have seen it time and time again here in Canada where if an MP doesn't conform and remain in lockstep with his party leadership or the Prime Minister what happens to him/her? Yes, correct you are....and by association the vote/voice of his constituents goes for naught as well. Who is more right? As far as I'm concerned, as long as EVERYONE has a voice in their future, does it really matter all that much how it is accomplished?
Maybe...a combined formula for "proportional representation" could be attempted which would address both the population number side, as well as the geographic location side of the issue. Maybe we could devise a formula that goes something like...population number of riding + inhabitable (or all) land mass of riding ( in square kilometeres?), divided by 2 = Combined Influence/Power Factor(C.I.F.?)
C.I.F. # dictates quantity of MPs in parliament to establish equitable voting power...i.e., let's say hypothetically that a C.I.F. # of 500 equals 1 MP. C.I.F.# of 1,500 eqals 3 MPs. One MP per 500 C.I.F. units?
Damn...
Having lived in both countries I just felt I'd share some personal observations. Not trying to say who's wrong, or who's right. Neither is perfect. Not by a long shot. Hope it helps foster some understanding. If not, I'm guessing I'll be crucified shortly
The redistricting of ridings is also done here in Canada, in New Brunswick when the liberals won all the seats they virtually changed the political map around, interestingly enough from what I've studied part of it was to benefit the other party because it generally looks bad for a modern democracy to have a party with all seats and just over half the votes. Ironically it put the party more under a microscope for most things they were doing because there was NO opposition.
The 'article' posted by the anon was very interesting, I may even 'cut it' and use it elsewhere, hope the person doesn't mind, but even so, that's the price you pay for gabbing online:) I had been recently biased against Alberta ranchers in general, because in specific it was two ranchers from Alberta who were 'responsible' for the clear cuts on that island in British Columbia, Seasprings, or something-a documentary was made on it, anyway, called "Ah, the money, the money, the money", it was good, check it out of your local library.
Anyway, yet another aggregious comparison can be made which wasn't, and that was that to combat the population inequality mentioned above, every state was given two senators, which are elected. Unfortunately, as the author above shows, when you have a rural/urban split two for the entire state doesn't cut it. However, it is still WAY ahead of Canada which has a 'lifelong' senate hand picked by the Prime Minister. Add up all these factors and as far as democracy goes, Canada doesn't even compare-and that doesn't even get into local ballots, citizens initiatives, and recalls. Perhaps if we HAD those tools, taking over canada wouldn't be such a cakewalk.
As far as the comment about our 'canadian identity', if our canadian identity consists of our past history with the monarchy and history of "responsible government", then the sooner we dump it and 'integrate' that part of our culture with the US the happier I'll be.
Take this line out and I will sign your petition, as this is not proportional representation but racial and ethnic representation and this is not what democracy should be reduced to.
---
--Sooner or later you've got to do something--