734 words on Canadian Elections

I decided to comment on what good o' Prime Minster Stephen Harper is up too. Don’t tune out yet! I have resisted the urge to comment about the tiff he is currently in the mist of with the media. Tragically, it’s like watching lovers that need each other quarrel. I don’t care though; I already deal with immature children everyday. (Zing!) I have actually come to agree with him on something. (Shock!) His desire to expand democracy in Canada is laudable for I too wish to see Canada an example of modern democracy in the World. I differ in my approach slightly and the differences are enlightening. I agree with him, but wish to see him take the policy just a tad further. Nothing radical, nothing Earth shattering; just a tiny step further and I will be content.

First, some framework: Prime Minster Stephen Harper is proposing to fix elections on certain dates. I know all the arguments for this position and they are not without merit. Indeed, many provinces in Canada are moving toward this type of system. The basic impetus is to remove the possibility of manipulation by the governing party. I can not identify an instance in recent history where I felt disenfranchised because of such manipulation. However, if the public supports this position I will happily hold my piece. To summarize my position on this proposal: There is often a misconception that a citizen’s duty in a democracy extents only to showing up every four years and pulling the leaver. I believe many others in my community also share this opinion and thus don’t feel like I am going out on a limb by saying so. I take a much more involved approach to democracy. I personally don’t mind having to show up often and vote. I want to participate frequently and meaningfully.

What I do feel disenfranchised about is the so-called "democratic deficit." This is one of the things I feel most ashamed about in Alberta and it seems any talk of reforming Democracy in Canada should also address the need, in a modern democracy, for proportional representation. For example: in the 2006 federal election in Alberta the Conservatives took 28 out of a possible 28 seats. Does that mean that 100% of Albertans support a Conservative mandate? (Maybe in Ralph Klein’s dreams.) In fact, only 64% of the population voted Conservative. 36% of the population did not endorses the Conservative mandate but are left with absolutely no representation. The majority must be respected, but that should never entail disenfranchising voters. A properly formed system would acknowledge the outcome by granting the minority a fair level of representation. Obviously, with what I have outlined above, there is room for improvement.

The system we have now is "representation by population": roughly meaning more people=more seats. However, some elements of the system, especially in modern use, are antiquated and tend to skew the will of the voters in various ways (none of it on purpose). To look back, historically, the trek to Ottawa was long and arduous, the local M.P. far removed, and communication sketchy. Gathering an accurate picture of the riding’s opinion was difficult. Voters were sending someone to represent them personally. Of course those conditions no longer even remotely exist today; that is why I talk of modern democracy. Most today look far more closely at the party platform than the candidate. In my view, proportional representation acknowledges the shift and corrects it. There are many variants of proportional representation and from that detailed and vibrant debate is required to find the best and fairest system for Canada. I should acknowledge that I have left other factors - tangential to the discussion - un-touched. Proportional representation offers the clearest way to understand the issue and is the most obvious step toward reforming democracy in Canada. It has grown to be an important issue to me (though relatively ignored by the major parties).

If I have left the reader wondering if this is purely a play for seats you are dead wrong! In fact, if proportional representation had been enacted in the previous election the Conservatives would have actually gained seats in B.C. This is not an issue of black versus white or right versus left - garbage terms anyway in my opinion - the winner under a system of proportional representation is Democracy. Something to think about when Stephen Harper talks about reform.