Electoral Reform Poll

Odd how Harper suddenly gets a case of "electoral reform" after getting 2 MP's for free during the course of his minority fascist regime.

If he's so damn concerned about democracy why didn't he call by-elections?

Oh yeah, that's right. I remember now.

The Cons would have gotten their asses kicked.

This has jacksh*t to do with any recognizable form of "democracy" and everything to do with pre-election preparedness.

Look for their shills and media mouthpieces trumpeting this latest announcement as the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel in the weeks (and months?) ahead.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

My reaction when I saw this and posted it was firstly that this is this probably just more smoke an mirrors. Then I saw that this is all suppost to take place, public consultations and all, by May and by "consultants" not citizans. We can pretty well tell in advance that the outcome is already decided! Makes the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform look pretty good!

---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

My reaction when I saw this and posted it was firstly that this is this probably just more smoke an mirrors<<

I haven't changed my mind about that either. Harper glorifies what isn't real but represents it as such. By mere mention of a topic, he feels he met his political obligation and fullfilled a promise. Such an example would be the reintroduction of same-sex-marrage. Soon he'll mention global warming and fullfill his obligation on that subject.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/12/accountability-delayed.html">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/12/accountability-delayed.html</a><br />
<br />
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says a new era of clean government has been established since the Federal Accountability Act was passed.<p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

From the CBC report:

"But the prime minister continues to emphasize the importance of the act.

"Canada now has a cleaner, more accountable government, thanks to the passage of the toughest anticorruption measures in Canadian history, the Federal Accountabilty Act," he said at an event on Thursday in Mississauga, Ont."


Uh huh...yeah...right..whatever you say Mr Clean. Now get a haircut and put your earing back on.

Harper's emphasis on "cleanliness" now covers a broad spectrum ranging from the environment "the Clean Air Act" all the way to "clean government" with the passage of this act.


Maybe it should be called "The Smoke And Mirrors Act"; Same old Harper,same old BS.

The again, you could probably call every Act passed by this and a few administrations previous to this "The Smoke and Mirrors Act" and be just as correct.

What would this one be in that sequence? Probably "The Smoke and Mirrors Act, Number 6512" or higher.

Any guesses?

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

<a href="http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public">http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public</a><br />
<br />
anybody hip this this go nowhere endevor?<br />
<p>---<br> [juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]<br />
<br />
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights" <br />
<br />
lex ferenda

Please see below the text of my letter to Peter Van Loan Feb 7th 2007 regarding Federal Democratic Reform. Needless to say it is of such great importance to them that I have not received even an acknowledgement of receipt let alone a response. I am surprised that even those to whom the letter was copied have not seen fit to respond either, too touchy a subject maybe? I will post any responses received if and when they arrive.

Peter Van Loan MP
House leader and minister responsible for democratic reform.
E-Mail: VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca

Dear Sir

According to a Canadian Press report the Conservative government has tendered a contract to begin public consultations by March 9 on "the challenges facing Canada's electoral system and democratic institutions'' and have a draft report completed before the end of May.

The tender calls for the contract to canvass a cross-section of Canadians on five specific topics:

• "political parties (e.g., their role in policy development);''

• "the electoral system (e.g., particular characteristics that are important for citizens, such as the link between elected representatives and a particular geographical area);''

• "the House of Commons (e.g., decorum);''

• "the Senate (e.g., the role it should play and the powers it should possess); and''

• "the role of the citizen (e.g., civic engagement)''

Peter Van Loan said “that day-long citizens' forums will be held in each province and territory, plus an additional forum for youth” -- making 12 in all.

…………………………………………………….

Whilst I think that this is long overdue and therefore think that it is a step in the right direction I am somewhat puzzled by both the number of “consultations” and the remarkably short timeline for such an important “consultation”. I wonder how, in a Country the size and diversity of ours it is possible to get a true idea of how our citizens feel on this issue in just 12 one day forums across the country.
I note that Ontario has been holding forums across the province and has a CITIZENS committee talking to, and gathering citizens responses via the internet and mail for some time now. The process is very open, (although perhaps not well known) the comments are available for public viewing and anyone can submit their comments. I am sure that your “contractors” could gain great insight into at least the issue of electoral reform by reading these comments which are just as valid for federal electoral practices as they are for provincial ones.

As I do not expect to be given an opportunity to have ANY input to this rather hurried “consultation”, I am writing you now to express my views on these 5 key issues.

1) political parties (e.g., their role in policy development);

I’m not quite sure what is being asked here, obviously in order to develop a direction for the country we must have general policies laid out and currently the group of citizens who think alike on policies in general are called “political parties”. They must develop and present to the public, policies for consideration. HOWEVER both the development and presentation of such policies is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a small number of “back room boys” who it would appear can be easily influenced by certain “lobby” groups who seem to have a disproportionate influence upon both policy and political process.

2) "the electoral system

Whilst fundamentally a democratic system that has “worked” for some hundreds of years both here and elseware it is now showing some flaws that need to be addressed. In my view it is the ever increasing power that is invested in the PMO and Party that is contributing to the call for reform. The inability to separate the best local candidate from the best party to rule is becoming a real dilemma for citizens when they cast their vote. Even when the two coincide the local representative is more often than not, pressured to vote “with the party” and NOT necessarily as his or her constituents would wish. This has GOT TO STOP. The only way to put more independence into MPs hands is to use a dual Proportional system similar to that recently adopted by New Zealand. I strongly suggest you read the commentary from the Ontario Citizens Assembly on Electoral reform to learn the various views on this, almost ALL of the submissions refer to some form of PR.

3) the House of Commons (e.g., decorum);''

Its pretty obvious that (at least during question period) MPs behavior is total out of control and also totally inappropriate. If an MP cannot sit and listen to an opposing or alternate point of view without heckling or otherwise disrupting the house he or she should not be there. It is long time due for MPs to realize that they are responsible directly or indirectly for deciding upon the current and future direction of or country and started acting like it, not a bunch of kindergarden kids. All votes in the House should be “free” votes. There should be no such thing as a “whipped” vote, up to and INCLUDING a vote of non confidence. If a parties own members cannot in good conscience vote for a bill put forward by their own party then it SHOULD fail if not supported by a majority of MPS, and surely our MPs are informed enough to make their own decision on a vote of confidence.


4) the Senate (e.g., the role it should play and the powers it should possess);

If the House of Commons were an open forum where issues were discussed and voted upon in a free and non poloticialized manner then perhaps the Senate could be phased out. HOWEVER that is not the case, as it stands now a Party can “force” their members to pass a bill which may or may not be a good piece of legislation but more an effort at one-upmanship over a dissenting point of view from another political party, or worse just a ploy to “get votes”.
Given the above we simply cannot afford to do away with the Senate as a place of “sober second thought”, but should indeed change the way Senators are appointed by taking the power to appoint away from the ruling party exclusively.

5) "the role of the citizen (e.g., civic engagement)

This very much comes back to #2, many of us feel simply powerless to have any influence upon the direction our politicians are taking us. Even if we have an MP who is open, available, listens to our views (a somewhat rare animal) and even agrees with us, his power to affect change (unless he happens to be in cabinet) is minimal. As said before he or she is often pressured to vote “with the party” which totally negates the wishes of his constituents. All too many MPs, when speaking to voters, whether regarding a particular issue or at election time, simply spout the party line knowing that for most folk it is the party they will vote for not the man. Only by making the individual MP more accountable and more able to FREELY express his view of his constituents wishes, will citizens be able to feel that they have real “civic engagement”


You will see a recurring theme throughout these comments, being that of a reduced amount of power for the Party and PMO and an increased amount of power for the individual MP. It is they that represent us, and it is they that must be able to express the need and desires of their constituents without fear of censure. Given that such would take the power away from non elected party hacks and reduce the ability of the PMO to dictate policy it is most unlikely that ANY of this change will take place, but at least I tried.

Regards, (Rural)


C.C.

HARPER, Stephen Joseph PM
E-Mail: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

MILLER, Larry MP
E-Mail: manager@larrymiller.ca

DION, Stéphane MP
E-Mail: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca

LAYTON, Jack MP
E-Mail: Layton.J@parl.gc.ca

Elizabeth May:
E-Mail: leader@greenparty.ca

Murdoch, Bill MPP
E-mail: bill_murdochco@ontla.ola.org



---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

Good points Rural and I would suggest that you cc all major media whenever you write to your MPs or the government just so that they know what we are commenting on and what is concerning us and will take up our concerns publicly.

Harper's comments on electoral reform were like a flash in the pan when I stop to think about it. He hasn't mentioned it again.

You have inspired me to write on this subject as well and I will add the media to my cc list.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

<blockquote>"Then I saw that this is all suppost to take place, public consultations and all, by May and by "consultants" not citizans."</blockquote> <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-21/bo-ga:s_35//en#anchorbo-ga:s_35">"person" or any word or expression, descriptive of a person includes a corporation</a> <br><br> Did'nt you know? Citizens are people, and people are corporations, therefore incorporated consultants are members of the public, which means citizens ARE being consulted. <br><br> The spin doctors who hide behind corporations are running the show, so it is they who will decide what reforms will take place, and whatever they come up with sure as hell won't be for the benefit of us regular Canadian's. <br><br> What they really mean by "electoral reform" is that the current fake democracy isn't fooling enough flesh and blood people anymore, so they have to come up with new ways of suckering the masses into thinking we have a real democracy. <br><br>

First and only reply thus far.........<br />
<br />
Dear (Rural),<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you for including me in your email and for your concerns around the democratic process in Canada.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I and the rest of the NDP very much share these concerns with you. You may already be aware that former New Democrat member Ed Broadbent raised many of these in our Seven-Point Plan to clean up federal politics in Canada in 2005. You can read the full plan here: <a href="http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/7PointPlan-EN-Web.pdf">http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/7PointPlan-EN-Web.pdf</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In our Seven-Point Plan, we called for:<br />
<br />
Democratic Accountability for MP’s <br />
Fixed Election Dates <br />
Transparent leadership Contests <br />
Electoral Reform <br />
Ending Unregulated Lobbying <br />
Ethical Appointments <br />
Access to Information<br />
Regarding electoral reform, it is my sincere hope that very soon ordinary Canadians like you will be able to put forth their ideas on this crucial issue in public consultations and forums. We in the NDP have been consistently working to make that happen. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
On February 19th, Catherine Bell (NDP member, Vancouver Island North) presented a motion in Parliament, M-262, which picks up exactly where the previous attempt to reform Canada’s electoral system left off. In 2005, an all-party committee, led by New Democrat Ed Broadbent, unanimously recommended a path toward electoral reform. The government of the day dithered and failed to move forward on the recommendations which would have allowed ordinary Canadians to modernize our electoral system. As Catherine points out "Everyone matters, so every vote should count. Ordinary Canadians want electoral fairness and the NDP has a plan for electoral reform.” Other New Democrats working full-time on this file are Paul Dewar and NDP Democratic Reform Critic Joe Comartin. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Conservative government was explicit in its speech from the throne that "this government will seek to involve parliamentarians and citizens in examining the challenges facing Canada's electoral system and democratic institutions." After a year in office, they have no plan for a true citizen’s engagement process on electoral reform. Catherine's motion makes this a priority.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Many other countries as well as Canada's three largest provinces have embarked on a similar process to change their electoral system and make it fair. I think Canada should too. I and the NDP continue to hold electoral reform as one of our greatest priorities and to hold Conservatives to their promise to involve parliamentarians and citizens in looking at how make a better system.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
New Democrats maintain that the existing undemocratic Senate is unacceptable and must be abolished. Rather, we believe that the government should replace the existing number of senators with proportionally elected Members of Parliament in the House of Commons thereby giving everyday Canadians regional proportional representation. This will result in every vote being reflected in the House of Commons. In fact, we tabled a motion that will be debated in the coming weeks that will offer public input to bring about serious electoral reform on how MPs are chosen. The NDP believes that the pseudo-elections suggested by the Prime Minister will only make the Senate confusing and dysfunctional - not more accountable - and we support a more comprehensive plan proposed by Ed Broadbent. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Once again, I thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Your thoughts count with me and I hope one day soon that every Canadian's vote counts as well.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)<br />
Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp

I finally received word back from the “Minister for Democratic Reform” as shown below. Not that it says much! No word from the Libs or the Greens though.

Dear (Rural)
Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate your interest in the Government's public consultations on Canada's democratic institutions and practices and I welcome your views.
As you are aware, the Government intends to fulfill its commitment to involve citizens in "examining the challenges facing Canada's electoral system and democratic institutions".
I thank you very much for providing your thoughts on the five subject areas that are being examined in the consultation process. The Government continues to welcome the views of all citizens, such as the thoughtful input you have provided on our democratic institutions and practices, which is of great interest to me.
Thank you for your correspondence on these important matters.
Yours sincerely,


Peter Van Loan



---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp