Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Joyce Murray's electoral reform proposals are the most democratic of all leadership hopefuls

Joyce Murray - She walks the talk
Joyce Murray's electoral reform proposals are the most democratic of all candidates for leadership.

Unlike the others who are simply practising old-style top-down command politics, Joyce is actually walking the talk of participatoty democracy in the party.

Her pre-election cooperation idea leaves the decision up to the ridings involved; ALL the other candidates are denying the ridings a say in this decision. How does that square with regenerating the party, engaging Canadians?



Her idea for a Royal Commission after the election to review electoral changes, is more democratic than Trudeau's decision to insist on the preferential vote option. Why not invite all Canadians to have a say in choosing a more democratic way to elect their MPs?

Murry seems to practise what she preaches. A nice touch in a politician.

25 comments:

  1. Taking away people's choice is very democratic!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jordan, you MUST be referring to Harper's reason why he is Prime Minister: the First Past The Post system of electing our MPs, which for the past 3 or so elections has taken away the votes of millions of Canadians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I'm referring to Murray who wants to limit people's choices in an election with the hope they'll not vote Conservative.

      Delete
  3. Different people have different views, but I like to vote for something, not against something. Just grouping anything but Harper together is voting against something.

    I also like to have a local representative and so don't like PR. I like the idea of a ranked ballot though, because that preserves local representation and provides more input from voters.

    The idea of PR giving "no wasted votes" doesn't resonate with me. You can end up with 8 parties in Parliament all divided up according to number of total votes and have NO ONE be happy with the government they got. At least with the parliamentary system, and ranked ballots, you can end up with local representation that is the most desirable (out of the available choices) to the most voters.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon, you miss the point that a modified proportional representation system preserves a link between MPs and a geographic unit (a riding), AND has another group of MPs at large. It also makes every vote count, so that your Parliament actually has people there representing the major segments of the citizenry.

    As for the presence of too many parties, two things: you can limit representation to those parties that win a certain minimum vote, and any disfunction is largely the cause of the major parties, which cannot reach across and persuade others to join them.

    There are many MPR systems in Europe, and they mostly seem to function very well. The old days of frozen parliaments (ala Italy etc before WW2) are long past.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do know how modified PR works, but having 4 people serve a geographical area is not the same as having one local rep for a community 1/4 the size. It does not have any one person fully accountable to their constituents.

    Although I don't know all about modified PR. How would they deal with independents, people who just want to represent their own local riding without affiliation to any party? Would each person have to become a party unto themselves? If so, seems like they could never get elected since they have people from 4 (or so) different original ridings voting, not just their real local constituents.

    As I said "no wasted votes" or "every vote counts" does not cut it for me. In talking to my European friends, they are sometimes happy and sometimes unhappy with how their system works. They can feel like their vote was wasted because the party they support did not make it into the governing coaliton and doesn't have much say in how things go, while parties with even less votes managed to strike a deal after the election and get into the governing coalition. So they feel much like Canadians. Except they do not feel like they have local representation the way we do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon, you are correct that the size of the riding being represented is usually larger in a MPR system than in our archaic FPTP system. However, this is a function of the number of MPs - elect more and they will represent smaller areas, if this is a primary democratic concern of yours.

    The costs of our MPs compared to the priceless value of our Westminister style of democracy is of no consquence. Harper's Tories blow more money on gazebos and other trinkets than our MPs cost for years and years.

    And of course some smaller parties will not make it into government. But at least they have MPs to talk about their policies and plans and problems. Think of the incredible impact the Greens have had in many European parliaments, as leaders in the anti-pollution area.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon, your comment about liking to vote for something, rather than just grouping anti-Harper forces, does not do Murray's proposal justice.

    She is NOT advocating a permanent cooperation with the NDP or the Greens. She recommends pre-election ceasefire to ensure Harper is removed, so that we may in the next Parliament move on to remedying our democratic deficts by appointing the Royal Commission to recommend a revised electoral system, and implement that. Apart from that post-election electoral reform cooperation, Murray is very clear that all the parties in the next Parliament retain their own existence and pursue their own policies.

    Her proposal is very thoughtful, very practical, very doable, and would greatly benefit Canada.

    That's why I believe many LPC members and supporters will vote for her because they are voting to change the system to a much, much better one, and in a highly democratic way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes she's, hands down, the most democratic and the only one in the field who can legitimately claim to be progressive. It's disappointing how those qualities have been discounted in today's Liberal Party.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If the cooperation is not permanent, it is redundant. Preferential ballot with a law requiring everyone to vote is my choice.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In my opinion, if anyone cares about democracy in Canada, he/she should admit that Harper is the #1 enemy of democracy. Just look up all the shits he has done. To un-shit those, we need to unseat him first. With FPTP system and blind followers of Harpo (we know they won't change their support for their beloved kind come hell or high water), it is almost impossible to do unless there is a cooperation between NDP, LPC and GPC. Just like I supported Nathan Cullen's proposal, I am all for Joyce Murray's proposal. One time cooperation to fix the electoral system is a must.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon, talk to all your friends, get them to sign up as supporters and get their friends and family to do the same; comment on all the blogs you can find; spread the word - if we want serious electoral reform, vote in the Liberal leadership race.

    Let's take our country back from the Harperites!

    ReplyDelete
  12. How long will it take after Murray loses to join the NDP I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  13. If the NDP is the only party offering meaningful electoral reform (MPR, for example), then perhaps we should all join them and make it happen, eh? Ready, Jordan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not a socialist, if you are go right ahead and join the party. Murray is obviously quite left-wing now and her views seem to be a lot more inline with the NDP. She's opposed to pipelines, foreign investment, and probably hates free trade.

      Delete
  14. Jordan, my priority in politics is to fix the biggest broken thing around, which is our massive democratic deficit (starting with the biggie of an archaic FPTP system of electing our MPs, and moving on to the necessary changes to give power to the MPs so that they can do a proper job of representing their constituents).

    So I am very pleased that Mulcair's NDP is firmly for electoral reform (MPR).

    As for Murray, "probably" does not work: check out her policy releases.

    And as for the LPC needing to move left, right on!

    ReplyDelete
  15. The LPC already moved to the left and Canadian rejected them for it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Voters rejected the LPC because (1) of the scandal, (2) a poor bumbling leader followed by an out-of-touch academic followed by (3) another academic who would have made a fine Prime Minister, and (4) skilful politicking by Harper, plus (5) some incredible naviety on the part of Jack Layton who tried to sup with the Conservative devil but forgot to bring a long spoon, and ended up with no bargain, no proportional representation, and a Tory regime in power for some 7 sad years and counting.

    Jordan, some 60% of voters are to the left of the new Conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And 70% are to the right of the NDP so why should the Liberals imitate them anymore then the Conservatives?

      Delete
  17. I would prefer a centrist party rather than in either side of the spectrum. A centrist party which is socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  18. What happened to the comments? Disappeared when I installed Disqus commenting app.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fair point, being "for".
    There are times however when "against" is the only choice left - dire circumstances, such as the destruction Harper has wrought. He truly has left us choice-less: him, or anything else. No contest.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What Liberals need to accept is that J. Trudeau is about the immediate future of the Liberal Party whereas Joyce Murray is about the future of Canada and our people. I thinik if PET had to choose it wouldn't be JT.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, that sounds about right for low-information voters.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting; come again! Let us reason together ...