Citizen-Led Federal Electoral Reform

Anderson advances many good reasons for Dion to embrace federal electoral reform and, indeed, he has already made overtures in that direction as part of his agreement with May. The biggest obstacle at the moment is that it is in the partisan interests of both the Tories and the BQ to maintain the status quo (somehow reform always seems more attractive in opposition than in power - can't think why).

I am aware of a number of people who are interested in working on ways to encourage the breaking of this logjam - if you're interested in helping in this process, please drop me a note at info(@)demochoice.ca.

More Mp's for population

Let's start by reforming the one person one vote myth we have in Canada.
The CPC is currently exploring the idea that BC, Alta and Ont. should have more MP's, based on the population growth in those regions.
Of course they have to tippy toe around the Maritimes and Quebec, who are over represented, by not changing the fact that PIE has three MP"s based on a population that is less that Sannich and the Gulf Islands, who only have one MP.
This Lib's bribed these citizens of PIE with the Confederation Bridge to thier tiny Province.
Do we have a bridge to Vancouver Island? NO.
There is a long way to go yet, before we enable a vote splitting system that will for forever plunge us into a permanent minority govt. and results in total gridlock when trying to get anything done.
Nice try, but it isn't going to fly.
How are we ever going to get rid of the CBC, CRTC, Egg Marketing Board, Dairy Council, Wheat Board, Universal Medicare, Cheese Board, CUPE, and all the other socialist anchors, that continue to drag down the prosperity of Canadians?

'dion could make huge play'.

'dion could make huge play'. don't bet on it, he's a useless fart. the andrew petter of the east.

STV or citizens assembly

Prop representation wouldn't be much better than we have now with party hacks choosing our representatives.

STV is a much better alternative.

By far the best is replace parliament with a permanent citizens assembly with lots of citizens selected at random from each riding. The selected would be required to serve a three year term - one year in training two years legislating - as a condition of citizenship.

They would be paid a MP's salary and benefits as a minimum and would be guaranteed a job when their term is up.

Much cheaper than the current system and a group of citizens who would be motivated to do the best for the county not whatever special interest group the current MP represents.

Stefan Dion dream on.

Quote:However, a governing

And exactly what policies pray tell would these three parties agree on? Is there even one policy they would all support? Or do we now declare anyone to the left of Stephen Harper to be a lefty?

As for the federal Liberals ever bringing in electoral reform, that's about as likely as Gordon Campbell running an open government, of buying anything built in BC, or as likely as any of RAV, Sea to Sky, the convention centre or the Olympics coming in under budget.

How about France, Italy or Israel?

Wow, imagine what proportional representation would do for us! It would make us so much more democratic, just like egalitarian, enlightened Israel.

Or maybe we should have run-off elections instead, like progressive, peaceful, tranquil France.

Or a mixed system, like that stellar economy -- Italy.

Face it -- "electoral reform" is mainly for mad scientists and those with nothing better to do.

nothing wrong with 65%

what's wrong with a voter participation rate of 65%?

if harper has 35% support it proves that 35% of the voters are morons.

anyone who names their dog kyoto has my vote!

How about the Netherlands, Australia or Germany?

Electoral reform would bring Canada into the 21st century along with almost every other industrialized democracy. The current system is antiquated and undemocratic. Just look at what Anderson said about the Bloc Quebecois. And the Canadian minority government puts the cabinet entirely into the hands of one party that doesn't represent the will of the majority.

In a truly pluralistic system, so what if one party doesn't win a majority? The parties have to work together instead of merely trying to discredit each other to score political points. The "grand coalition" in Germany is a current example. Israel is hardly a fair example--Canada is not in the midst of violent sectarian strife.

let's get it on

I'll buy electoral reform and certainly if dion supported PR, he would get elected majority leader at least this time.

Electoral reform....bring it on!

We have a choice, electoral reform or the splitting of the country. Is Dion man enough for the challenge!

I'm tired of this Tory/Republican government, Harper, Layton, et al!

Got that right, Grumpy

These Republican gun toting, war mongering, privatizing for directorships, deregulating for their corporate sponsor, racist bigot, religious nutter hypocrite oil burners gotta go!

And hows this for dullard...

"How are we ever going to get rid of the CBC, CRTC, Egg Marketing Board, Dairy Council, Wheat Board, Universal Medicare, Cheese Board, CUPE, and all the other socialist anchors, that continue to drag down the prosperity of Canadians? - IMAC"

So thats the reason why the U.S. has tried everything they can to get rid of the wheatboard, the CBC, CRTC, Universal Healthcare and anything else that prevents them from owning Canada's economic sectors... Geez, I guess our biggest economic competitor wants to get rid of Canadian ownership of its own economic sectors simply because our wonderful nation to the south just wants to, you know, help...

When I read comments like IMAC's, I just can't help but ask myself how he can spell as good as he does.

And as far as Dion goes... whether or not we like him or hate him, the Libs have been flirting with 40% support in Ontario and are likely to outpace the Cons for seats up for grabs from dwindling Bloc support. Harper isn't a lock for PM in the next election. I doubt that electoral reform will hit the radar any time soon.

Where are the Libs going with their strategy lately? Where they should go. U.S. M & A's of Canadian corps. And try the rumor that Harper was financed by the National Citizens Coalition for the leadership bid of the Alliance party. And if any readers out there don't yet know who or what this group represents, try U.S. born multinational lobbiest's, one and the same as what the Republican party is now today.

Here come the jackboots...

IAMC wrote:

"How are we ever going to get rid of the CBC, CRTC, Egg Marketing Board, Dairy Council, Wheat Board, Universal Medicare, Cheese Board, CUPE, and all the other socialist anchors, that continue to drag down the prosperity of Canadians?"

I dunno, do what fascists always do?

Getting rid of government agencies is one thing, but when you're talking about wiping out independent labour unions, you're talking about fascism. If you consider government agencies as "pillars of socialism", CUPE doesn't count because we're not a government agency.

Also, I'm a Canadian citizen, and as a CUPE member, I earn more for my work than someone who's not a union member. How does CUPE drag down the prosperity of Canadians?

Of course by "Canadians", you might mean multinational corporations in Canada. They're not really Canadians, and if you're advocating wiping out independent trade unions, neither are you.

Conservatives already leading reform

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7be405fb-5428-4138-bc61-02d99e501689&k=0

There are two aspects to necessary electoral reform:
1. Reforming the first past the post system.
2. Allocating seats to provinces on the basis of population.

According to reports in the Post, the Conservatives are already moving ahead on the second issue, and will table legislation to add 22 seats to B.C., Alberta, and Ontario. Given that the provinces hugely overrepresented in the Commons return most Liberals, and the provinces underrepresented do not, it is hard to see the Liberals championing such reform.

More likely, we will see Mr. Dion opposing reform and backing the undemocratic status quo.

Seth writes: Quote:...

Seth writes:

They would be paid a MP's salary and benefits as a minimum and would be guaranteed a job when their term is up.

That's fascinating! I don't wan to be a nay-sayer, but there are some obvious problems that would have to be worked out.

For one, it has the same nasty bug that term limits has in the US: there are no term limits on lobbyists. The poor citizen-legislator arrives still wet behind the ears, dog-paddling like mad to keep above water, and the seasoned lobbyist saunters up and says, "Don't worry, kid. I'll help you through this."

For another, it has the same problems that jury duty does. People with businesses can't just up and leave for three years. A lawyer friend once said, "If you've got the facts on your side, never go with a jury trial. You don't want people who are too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty deciding the facts. Juries are for when you don't have any chance with the facts, but can make an emotional appeal." We don't want to be governed by those too stupid to get out of it!

democrazy

Comment to the article:

We cannot take the electoral results indicative of what 'canadians' think. It is pretty likely that each single canadian thinks the party he votes for should win a majority, it's just that the opinions on which party that should be are divided so nobody wins that majority...

About lobbyists: There you have the ultimate remnant from autocratic/colonial times, which we ought to get rid of sooner rather than later. If it makes a difference to 'lobby' rather than just elect representatives and then go back to doing your own job, we do not have a democracy, but a system of ruling warlords, like Afghanistan, where getting there firstest with the mostest overrides any notions of equality of all Canadians.

More PR crap!`

As has already been noted, PR with the party hacks deciding who gets in is moronic at best.

PR does not mean democracy. Why can you PR nuts not understand that unless you control the politicians directly, AND have direct recourse to retract or amend ANY legislation the MP's pass, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE DEMOCRACY!!!!

SOMEONE OF YOU PR FREAKS PLEASE TRY TO TELL ME JUST HOW ELECTING A PARTY IS BETTER THAN ELECTING A PERSON???

Please explain how there would suddenly be democracy by putting some fringe party representatives into the house of commons or legislature? How would that help you?

It won't. At best, it may totally paralyze the house with vote dealing and back room deals to water down and promote bribery among those that are power brokers.

Which at the end of the day means nothing unless there is a perpetual minority government situation.

And that kind of instability is bad for BC/Canada any way you slice it.

We the voters must seize power away from the politicians, allowing them to deal with the day to day affairs of the province or the nation as the administrators that they are supposed to be.

But final say on any issue must rest with the voters as a whole because there isn't a politician anywhere that can be trusted to do the right thing.

The collective voice of the voters must be heard. And let the politicians argue their points before the public that decides the fate of their little pet projects.

If they can sell it, the voters collectively will affirm it. If the people don't see the thing as trustworthy and useful, it will fail. And the voters will finally control the politicians.

Wouldn't that be a nice change of pace?

Mike Summers
Vanderhoof BC

Go another round?

Having just watched France's recent presidential election, I wonder if there would be a taste for run-off elections in Canada. Keep the existing constituencies, everybody votes their preference in the first round, and the top two finishers go on to the second round. The two rules I would throw in would be:

1. No endorsement of other parties or candidates until after the first round.

2. No opinion polls to gauge voter preferences before the first round.

The one advantage I can think of is that the parties and their candidates would have bargain with the voters as much as they do with each other, if not more. Another advantage could be that to gain a majority, the party platform would have to be much more reflective of the national consensus.

Yah, Right!

"Changing the electoral system would also be relatively simple."

You really think so? Really!? Did you see what happened in BC? The Citizens Assembly completely misrepresents their proposed electoral system and supposed proponents can't explain how it worked. If Dion does go down this road, I hope there is a long education campaign before any decisions are made. Some sort of proportional representation would be a good thing, but the last thing we need is a small group of randomly selected people following the lead of cronies from The Fraser Institute.

Run-off elections

In the US, run-offs are common in 3-way races, especially in party primaries. The problem with them is low turn-out in the second rounds. People lose interest and don't show up to vote, so a small group can wield excessive power in a crucial election. It's ultimately not very democratic, and it's expensive to hold 2 votes.

The way to make the second round work, however, is an "instant run-off." In this system, voters choose their second and even third choices on one ballot. If no one wins the first count, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and another count is done.

The crucial thing is to make representation proportional. Giving an extra 7% share of power to Quebec separatists is wrong, and the 90% of Canadians who oppose their agenda and their manipulative antics shouldn't tolerate a system that permits this.

citizen assembly

Bytesmiths writes:

"For one, it has the same nasty bug that term limits has in the US: there are no term limits on lobbyists. "

In the citizens assembly system we would have plenty of room in jail for lobbyists and legislators bought by them.

"The poor citizen-legislator arrives still wet behind the ears, dog-paddling like mad to keep above water...,"

The assembly man's first year would be spent in mentoring/training not legislating;

"For another, it has the same problems that jury duty does. People with businesses can't just up and leave for three years...."

Juries are paid next to nothing and are a medium to large inconvenience. Our assembly men will be paid very well indeed with lots of benefits. Rare indeed would be the individual who didn't be happy to serve.

bc citizens assembly

Chris H writes:

"The Citizens Assembly completely misrepresents their proposed electoral system and supposed proponents can't explain how it worked....."

I thought it was very well explained.

While there were a few complicated areas, our current system and proportional representation have many complications as well.

The established politicos and media types with their immense financial stake in the current system and their enormous power in their wholely owned media spent enormous resources dwelling on the 1% of cases when complications would occur.

Unfortunately they were able to fool the great unwashed.

BUT HOW DOES THIS INCREASE

BUT HOW DOES THIS INCREASE DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS FOR THE PEOPLE?

Your C/A idea doesn't explain how in a society comprising so 33 million people would be choosing how the 'legislators' would be chosen.

What about excused absenses?

Not everyone can and will go. And even if you knock down that list, who stays? What if they simply don't want to be there after a bit. Especially if you must sort of apprentice without a vote for a year?

Sorry. Too many holes for someone like me.

Yep that's what happened

Assures seth

You wouldn’t want him thinking for himself, would you?

And that's why the only option in 2005 was STV.

Just a small special interest group one of whom was/is a fellow of the Fraser Institute who then appointed his own protégé.

Which led to the creation of a permanent ginger group, all of whom still seem to be fully in business as members of, what do they call it?

Fair Vote BC isn't it?

QED

I see the Ontario process has selected MMP as their only option.

Proportional Rep

Ireland has had this system for years and it seems to work for them. But if it's too complex the people won't go for it as evidenced in BC's recent referendum on the matter. FYI, proportional representation would have given the Christian Heritage Party one seat in the last election.

Nothing wrong with that

Get 'em into the house where everyone can see how crazy they are.

There's a big difference between MMP and STV though and that's the rub, in my view.

Obstacles

I agree with the author:

"In fact, the main obstacle of electoral reform lies not with the voters, but with vested interests in major parties. Like compulsive gamblers, backroom powerbrokers in both Liberal and Tory camps yearn for the political jackpot of majority rule."

I would also suggest that the lobbyists and coporate interests also prefer first past the post and government majorities too!

And then blame the voters who want to choose the winning team, rather than voting for the best candidate!

Strategic voting would be history!

And then we would be rid of the democratically insulting 'strategic voting' and backroom agreements (May & Dion)!

The following would be more stratgeic in my opinion:

"However, a governing coalition of Liberals, NDP and Greens under a proportional voting system would hold a clear majority voting block and ensure the Liberals had a place in government for the foreseeable future. They just wouldn't enjoy absolute power -- thank God."

Or the Creator, or Mother Earth, or whatever your 'bent' is!

Dog

Billy Pilgrim, the original Kyoto was and still is a dog. It would never work.

The only thing that may work to save planet Earth is a very strict world wide population control. NOne of our gutless politicaisn will ever tackle that particular issue though. Much easier to name a mutt Kyoto than actually do something.

China did it!

Yep, China did it, and it is better for doing it!

Talk about wasting rescources,why should any one couple be allowed to multiply uncontrolled?

If one or two kids cannot carry your heritage onward, well, too bad!

Dream on

This won't happen in our lifetime. Dion would be the last to embrace such a foolish scheme, from the point of view for the Liberals.

ca what holes

from freebc

"BUT HOW DOES THIS INCREASE DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS FOR THE PEOPLE?"Your C/A idea doesn't explain how in a society comprising so 33 million people would be choosing how the 'legislators' would be chosen."

The representatives are chosen at random from the voters list in each riding and there would be enough to statistically represent the peoples opinions carefully considered.

"What about excused absenses? Not everyone can and will go. And even if you knock down that list, who stays? What if they simply don't want to be there after a bit. Especially if you must sort of apprentice without a vote for a year?"

What percentage - 1/10 of 1% maybe - would refuse a job paying twice their current salary and benefits with a job guarantee at the end of service.

"Sorry. Too many holes for someone like me."

And there you have it no holes at all

CA, STV and the Fraser Institute

G West says

"You wouldn’t want him thinking for himself, would you? And that's why the only option in 2005 was STV. Just a small special interest group one of whom was/is a fellow of the Fraser Institute who then appointed his own protégé. Which led to the creation of a permanent ginger group, all of whom still seem to be fully in business as members of, what do they call it?Fair Vote BC isn't it?"

There was over 160 members. You think the one made all that much difference.

Most people commenting here went to school I assume. Obviously all that propaganda y'all you got there didn't sink in too well.

I would assume that the mentoring/training period would involve input from groups all over the political spectrum

What percentage indeed...

Seth sez...
"What percentage - 1/10 of 1% maybe - would refuse a job paying twice their current salary and benefits with a job guarantee at the end of service."

Pardon me for my obvious doubts?
1. What kind of quality will you get if the folks there are only marking time for the money?

2. What if someone doesn't want to marooned in morontario or queerbec? You know... some redneck westerner like myself?

3. Describe just how there is recourse for the citizen of the outlands who did not even get to vote which dictator was placed there?

4. Where does the public (no longer voters in your scenario) get recourse on decisions made and how is this enhancing democracy?

And Dolphin said...

"Ireland has had this system for years and it seems to work for them. But if it's too complex the people won't go for it as evidenced in BC's recent referendum on the matter. FYI, proportional representation would have given the Christian Heritage Party one seat in the last election."

So????? Prorep would have elected a couple greens too wouldn't it? How the hell does that make things more democratic?

Who appoints the CHP member? Not the voters.

Where are the controls on MLA's, MP's or any other politician? THERE AREN'T ANY!!!

Think about what you are asking the people to accept. Blank cheque politics. You think we have it bad now? My god. You haven't seen anything.

I don't trust any of them!

In looking at some of the comments above, it should be quite apparent that politicians are untrustworthy all the way around.

Unable to keep from bribes and the lust for power and a superior standing in society, they are untrustable.

Does it not stand to reason then that unless the citizens, collectively need a vehicle by which a politicians powers might be tempered somewhat so that the obvious abuses we see daily cannot remain where the citizens can collectively force it to stop?

It is again quite apparent that we do not have democracy here. Our governance is not people powered or controlled.

If there is no willingness to bind the politicians to our collective wishes and demands, why then does everyone bitch about government.

The analogy of the bull fighter still applies in this country.

The bull fighter is the center of attention. He has his cape and the bull is the great terrible beast.

If the bull fighter has learned well, he knows the way to manipulate the cape so that the bull always chases the cape and never the bull fighter himself.

In the end, the experianced bull fighter kills El Toro. El Toro never knew who his problem really was. He chased the cape.

How does this scene apply you say?

The Matador, the bull fighter, is the politician.

El Toro is you the voter.

And the cape, is issues. The experianced politician knows how to manipulate you the voter into chasing the issues instead of the root of the problem which is the politician himself/herself.

And the sword that kills El Toro? That would be legislation that isn't ever in your interest or control.

If you aren't seeing the politician as your enemy, you are as smart as that bull and you will die the same way. By the Matador's sword.

Mike Summers
Vanderhoof BC

Yep, seth I do!

I think it made all kinds of difference and the fact you true believers are still out there and popping up in forums like these more than 2 years after the fact claiming that STV is the Holy Grail proves it conclusively.

I don't think the vast majority of educated British Columbians are at all comfortable with the Electoral Reform process and the way it was conducted. I know I certainly am not.

Choice means, to me, a selection process that involves more than a single option.

My problems with STV are well known to anyone who reads me here. However, I'd make it clear that - despite my strong and, in my view well-founded problems with it - I voted YES in the referendum. Knowing as I did so that STV is peculiarly UNSUITED to the kind of demographics and rural/urban split that we have in British Columbia. Especially in British Columbia.

That being said, I don't wish to get into a long debate on the subject. I still think the process was compromised by Gordon Gibson and his friends and interfered with by the government in ways even you must be aware of.

I think STV-acolytes should stand down or begin to work for a much more comprehensive method of reform instead of beating what's become a dead horse. Every time the subject comes up, you, or one of your associates pops up to spin the same old tired propaganda line all over again.

Enough already.

I don't know if Dion has the jam to really begin a push for fundamental change in the way we choose our representatives.

If he has, it can't be a bad thing.

Dion

Dion has no jam to push for any positive change period.

He's even upset the Conservatives might close corporate tax loopholes that the Liberals introduced 35 years ago. Just as the Libs opposed the taxing of income trusts.

No one should ever look to the Liberals when it comes to positive change. From 1993 on they've been worse than the Cons.

Worse than the Cons

Just as bad, maybe. Worse?

I'm not sure.

Cast your mind back to the Mulroney years Frank.

Just listening to some of the stuff coming out of the Major Air India inquiry sent me back to the G&M archives from those years...It isn't pretty.

Mulroney

Mulroney was no peach, that's why I drew the line at 1993. Turner was at least against free trade, although being a Liberal I can't say he wouldn't have reversed himself if he'd won the election a la Chretien.

I'm not asking anyone to look to Flaherty as a saviour but just to try to look at the whole picture. The extreme right-wingers are going to try to regurgitate the Reform Party because the Cons aren't right-wing enough. Dion attacks the Cons because economically they aren't right-wing enough. Dion looks to Bay Street for his marching orders apparently.

So don't look to the Liberals for positive change, it won't happen, you'll just get 13 years of utter disappointment and your only solace will be to believe the Libs when they tell you the Cons would be far worse. Well, the proof is in the pudding, they aren't.

Wellllllll and thinking of John Lennon

What I actually said was this:

In fact, I agree with you. I don't think he has...but, the kind of fundamental change Stevie boy has in mind (and I think he's still that Reform/Alliance/Preston Manning/ Calgary school guy he always was under the Rick Mercer nice-guy ill-fitting suit) may well be a lot worse for the country and its future than anything a real intellectual like Dion could dream up.

Dion, at least from my point of view, his 'some' promise - that's about all.

I think Harper only harbours bad dreams – you can’t judge a book by its cover Frank and that’s all we’ve seen so far. To quote an old friend of ours who’s no longer writing here, ‘things are likely to get a lot worse before they get better.’

On the other hand, the Liberals have always had more of a sense of where the heart of the country actually lies (that's why they stole so many socialist ideas from the CCF/NDP and why they've been in power about 75% of the time. Harper comes from an attitude of mind that believes socialists do the devil’s work Frank – it’s a different mind-set altogether.

Given those facts, there is a slim chance that - if the NDP and the Greens goaded him enough, the time for real electoral reform might actually have come.

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us,
And the world will be as one.

Dion and the Libs

I think Harper only harbours bad dreams – you can’t judge a book by its cover Frank and that’s all we’ve seen so far

Harper may have in mind worse things for the country than Dion has. I don't know. The Brain has in the past listed Harper's many statements while he was with the NCC. But what I'm saying is, that so far, he's actually been easier to deal with in a minority government situation than the Liberals were. And we all know how the Libs kept saying that if the NDP didn't support them they'd reap the whirlwind and all that. Well, here it is and not only is not the whirlwind the Liberals claimed it would be we're actually getting some better policies than the Liberals gave us since 1993.

He might, but let's see him prove it. The Liberals are always being given a free pass, everyone else has to prove themselves, the Libs get to be the default by doing nothing more than smiling.

Long ago in the past G. Since 1993 their policies were coming from Preston Manning while telling us the Conservatives were really scary.

Actually I think the Liberals are just as dismissive of the Left as the Cons are. But the Cons are honest about it. I'm sure when a Lib and a Con sit at a kitchen table they both agree the NDP is what is really scary.

Dion will smile and say the NDP simply don't understand economics or the world, and that's a statement he makes with every camera in Canada pointed at him, I can imagine what he thinks of us behind closed doors.

Its my opinion that the NDP should go after the "greater-NDP" vote. There's no growth for the NDP among Con voters, but there is among left-wing Liberals. As long as the NDP treats Liberals like the "soft" Left we will continue to bleed votes to the Libs and we will achieve the same electoral success as we've had since WW2.

If we want our policies adopted by the government of the day it can only come from fear. If the Libs are afraid of bleeding votes to us then that will shape their policies in our favour. NDP type voters who support the Libs are in fact doing the Left more harm than good. Not only will the NDP be weaker but the Liberals will be more inclined to look to the Right for their policy ideas.

The Liberals are simply not our allies and NDPers should not ever feel compelled to vote Liberal to stop a Conservative.

Downfall: the last days of Martin

Just to add, the final months of the Liberals showed what fear can do. They were worried about their Left flank and so finally some Lefty policies started to appear. They waited 13 years to finally start bringing in childcare and signing the Kelowna Accord because they were worried going into an election and knew if they bled votes to the NDP they were lost.

And they wouldn't have done it if they were at 45% in the polls and the NDP was at 10%.

The Liberals will give us the same right-wing governments the Conservatives give us unless the NDP is strong. The ONLY difference between the two parties as far as actual governance goes is the Cons don't worry about bleeding votes to the NDP.

So NDPers who switch their votes to the Libs in order to stop the Cons might as well vote Conservative. The final result will be the same.

Small quibbles - and a big one.

Pretty much what I said.

I think that's undoubtedly true in the back room; I don't think it is among the voters.

I think people who vote Liberal see themselves very differently than most Conservative or Right wing voters do. I think that's why the few liberals who post here, guys like Hannibal and the brain, get so upset with NDPers. They don't accept the proposition that the only party with members who actually 'care' is the NDP.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the Liberal pathology - it's one of the reasons why Campbell can get into bed after so little foreplay with either Harper or Dion and why the provincial and federal Liberals share the same support networks - last illustrated precisely at the convention that gave Dion the leadership.

All that being said, the premise of this article is that Dion might be amenable to real change in the electoral process. I think it's a long shot but I think Quebec Liberals (the French Canadian variety) are a very different ball of wax than the usual federal Liberal and, as I said at the start, let's wait and see.

Keeping in mind that I'd be willing to support a formal coalition with the Liberals and the Greens (according to very strict and predefined rules and undertakings) to chase the real conmen out of the Liberal party and thereby destroy it. Winning, in the end, both electoral reform and power for progressive politics that actually represents the kind of thing I think the majority of the citizens actually want.

Hence the John Lennon - I know I'm an idealist.

The Senators looked awfully good last night, btw.

Liberals

WorkingMan is a Liberal both federally and provincially. I'm sure lots of people here are Liberals. But they either get seen as Lefties or Righties.

Working man and Company

Yep he should be a conservative. I certainly agree with that Frank.

My point still stands, an awful lot of the small-l Liberal vote - a great many of them women in my experience - see themselves as 'progressive'.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the business-connected Liberals, guys like David Emerson and working man, who clearly wouldn't vote Liberal if Dion actually turned into a progressive. I'm just saying that Dion, given his background and his approach, is not a traditional 'business' Liberal in any sense of the word.

I don't really expect him to turn into one - not least because of the stranglehold that the Ontario establishment still holds over the party. But, it is an interesting prospect that - given their desire to return to power (and I certainly wouldn't disagree with that) that this is a unique period in Canada's history.

I think the US economy is close to slipping off the rails (did you see the latest deficit figures?) and Harper seems to have blown the lead he had with his incompetence in respect of Afghanistan.

May seems to have blown it too - the Greens are so incompetent they can't even respond to a simple request for information.

For once, as Yeats would put it:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;

We live in interesting times.

misnomer

'I'm sure lots of people here are Liberals. But they either get seen as Lefties or Righties.'

That's because most of them are lefties or righties, but don't like to see themselves that way, so they fall into the political black hole of liberal - 'made in Canada'. Some say it is British transplanted. Don't know that. But I do know that those of continental European extraction, who were taught to treasure Liberté, egalité, fraternité, these people are politically homeless here; there is potential there, for those who would address it.

Fool's Game

Ship of Fools, running on fossil fuels and steered by profitteers!

Gotterdamerung them all!

I was told we ply the seven seas for gold

Fire no guns and shed no tears!

We are a broken planet on a Halifax pier!

The last planet we got!

Bloc makes things difficult

Th existence of the Bloc muddles the whole Federal scene. We can thank Brian Mulroney, my least favourite Canadian' for its creation. He brought Lucien Bouchard into cabinet, then when the promised constitutional amendments failed, Bouchard bailed and formed the Bloc in response to this 'rejection'.

Interesting swing in public opinion

From an Ipsos-Reid survey taken May 8 to May 10

The Bloc Quebecois is still leading in Quebec with 32 per cent support, followed by the Conservatives and Liberals who are at 24 and 21 per cent respectively. But the big changes appear to be in the western provinces, where the Conservatives have seen their support drop by 13 percentage points in Alberta and 19 percentage points in British Columbia.

In Alberta, the Tories were standing at 53 per cent support, followed by the Liberals at 25 per cent, the Greens at 11 per cent and the NDP at 9 per cent. In B.C., the NDP surged 15 percentage points ahead into the lead with 30 per cent support, followed by the Liberals at 29 per cent, the Tories at 24 per cent, and the Greens at 16 per cent.

More answer citizens assembly

freebc says

"1. What kind of quality will you get if the folks there are only marking time for the money?"

Where did the "only" come from? Would you be "only" doing it for money. Do soldiers serve "only" for money in times of crisis. Do "jurors" Have some faith in your fellow citizen.

"2. What if someone doesn't want to marooned in morontario or queerbec? You know... some redneck westerner like myself?"

Surely you've heard of the "internet", video conferencing, regional groupings. These work quite well in the corporate sector - unfortunately parliament is 500 years behind.

"3. Describe just how there is recourse for the citizen of the outlands who did not even get to vote which dictator was placed there?"

And what difference does his vote make today. None under MMP or first past the post system and very little under STV. At least here he would know that the average citizen - his peers - after much training, discussion and evaluation of alternatives is making a decision without in the mass being influenced by churches, party insiders, lobbyists, campaign donations, and leadership blackmail.

"4. Where does the public (no longer voters in your scenario) get recourse on decisions made and how is this enhancing democracy?"

Same answer as 3)- they don't need recourse and this is the original greek democracy only modernized.

STV holy grail not

"I think it made all kinds of difference and the fact you true believers are still out there and popping up in forums like these more than 2 years after the fact claiming that STV is the Holy Grail proves it conclusively."

The candidates were not selected as a proper citizen assembly should be - a jury system with a decent renumeration without the option of opting out except for a very good reason.

The CA group was restricted to only a narrow range of options basically choosing STV over "first past the post" and proportion rep variations. I certainly much prefer the citizens assembly model of government and you no doubt some other but mine at least wasn't an option.

I'm sure almost all of the STV members would easily take you behind the woodshed with your accusations of their stupidity.
If 160 or so people with the time they put in can be so easily influenced by a special interest group, as are the general electorate by the corrupt press, there is no hope for democracy. Lets go back to an absolute monarchy like George Bush has "humorously" suggested for himself.

seth

And where, precisely, did I say STV acolytes were stupid?

I'll accept your apology for that any time.