Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED -- Instead of operating democratically, political parties operate autocratically stifling discussion and debate amongst its caucus members

Proportional Representation (PR) is an exercise in mathematics removed from democratic representation; a solution looking vainly for a problem to solve. It does not lead to improved governance, or a stronger connection between Members of Parliament (MPs), and the people they represent.

Democracy is layered, and the foundation is at the 338 electoral districts that make up parliament. We vote for a local representative. The candidate with the highest number of votes wins.

PR proponents claim that this is unfair. Democracy is not fair. The majority rules.  Consider one set of electoral district results:
New Democratic Party
Green Party
People's Party
Christian Heritage Party
Rejected ballots:
Total number of votes:

It is possible to change the system to require that the winner receive at least 50% of ballots cast.  This can be achieved with an expensive run-off campaign, or by use of preferential ballots, where candidates are ranked in a 1,2,3 order. In either case, parties with less than 15% of the total vote are left out.

We must never remove the right of electors to select their representative. It is not relevant how many votes parties accumulated in other electoral districts. We are not voting on which political party will represent us in parliament. We are voting for the candidate, the person who will become the MP representing our electoral district.

Governance in theory

The MPs we elect will join their colleagues in the same party, and form a caucus to work with the party leader. The Party Leader will select a Cabinet, or Shadow Cabinet, to work on specific areas of governance. The Leader will get his or her governance or opposition priorities from the cabinet and caucus.

Ideas and initiatives from the Leader and cabinet are refined and put to the caucus for final approval. Members of the caucus can present ideas to the cabinet for further consideration.

Governance in practice

The MPs we elect join their colleagues from the party in a caucus. The leader selects a Cabinet, or Shadow Cabinet, to run the government or opposition. The leader and party decide on the governance, or opposition policies, or priorities, and may or may not consult the cabinet.

The caucus is largely ignored, and caucus initiatives are not welcome.

Instead of operating democratically, political parties operate autocratically ... stifling discussion and debate amongst its caucus members ... telling them how to vote on various issues ... and ignoring their potential contributions to better governance or opposition.

We do not get democratic, representative governance when most of the MPs we elect are sitting on party back benches gagged from active participation in parliament. Parties fears that some MP, not authorized to speak for the party, might say something embarrassing which result in gag orders. If those MPs did speak up, embarrassing the tall foreheads who we never see but who run the party in the background, we might have a parliament we could be proud of.

Political parties have taken parliament hostage and ignore their responsibility to electors. It is not electors who are pushing for PR; it is party activists and officials seeking to increase their party numbers even if it costs electors a voice in who represents them. That is repulsive.

Proportional Representation will not address deficiencies in our democracy or strengthen elector voices in politics. It is a meaningless distraction aimed at further subverting democracy by strengthening political parties rather than the electors they refuse to serve.

John Feldsted
Political Commentator, Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba


Popular posts from this blog

It seems the call for blood donors is being responded to, however ... “This effort is a marathon, not a sprint” says Canadian Blood Services

A week and a half ago I wrote the commentary ... “ While the national inventory is currently strong, an increase in blood donor cancellations is a warning sign of potential challenges to maintaining a health inventory of blood ” It was written as a result of talk about a potential blood shortage that would occur if people stopped donating due to the COVID-19 virus. It seems the call to Canadians was responded to, however, as I was told this afternoon ... “ T his effort is a marathon, not a sprint ”. As it now stands now, donors are able to attend clinics which are held in Vancouver (2), Victoria, Surrey, and in Kelowna, so I asked if there any plans to re-establish traveling clinics to others communities - for example in Kamloops, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Revelstoke or Cranbrook, and perhaps further north at perhaps Ft. St. John? According to Communications Lead Regional Public Affairs Specialist Marcelo Dominguez, Canadian Blood Services is still on

FEDLSTED -- Rules will have to relax-- the question is how and when

The media has created a fervour over the mathematical models that allegedly help governments predict the future of Coronavirus infections in the general population. Mathematical modelling has limited use and value. We need to understand is that the data available on Coronavirus (COVID-19) infections in Canada is far too small for statistical reliability. The data available for the whole world is useless due to variables in how nations responded to Coronavirus infections. There is no commonality in steps taken to combat virus spread and no similarity in the age demographics of world nations, so the numbers you see on the daily tracking of world infections are not useful in developing a model of infection rates that can be relied on. Mathematical models of the future spread of Coronavirus are better than nothing, but not a whole lot better.  Mathematical models must include assumptions on virus spreads, and various factors involved. As they are used in projections, a small erro

AARON GUNN -- He is, at his core, an ideologue, meaning the facts of any particular issue don’t actually matter

Ben Isitt - City Councillor and Regional Director Victoria City Council and its resident-genius Ben Isitt is back with another dumb idea. Introducing a motion to ban the horse-drawn carriages that have coloured Victoria’s downtown streets for decades, calling them “an outdated mode of transportation”. Are you serious?   No one is actually commuting by horse and carriage. They are here for tourists and residents alike to interact with world-class animals and discover the magic and history of our provincial capital. It’s part of what gives Victoria its charm. And the truth is these horses are treated better than anywhere else in the world. They probably live better lives than many British Columbians.   And talk to anyone who works with these horses and they’ll all tell you the exact same thing: this is what the horses love to do. This is what they were bred for and trained for. This is what gives their lives purpose and meaning. But maybe we shouldn’t be su


Show more