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:
 
Party
Votes
%
Conservative
19,856
44.6%
Liberal
12,356
27.8%
New Democratic Party
9,387
21.1%
Green Party
1,777
4.0%
People's Party
510
1.1%
Christian Heritage Party
304
0.7%
Independent
108
0.2%
Rejected ballots:
222
0.5%
Total number of votes:
44,520
100.0%

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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stamer: Hope for Forestry Completely Shattered After Another Provincial Review Driven by DRIPA

IMAGE CREDIT:  Provincial Forestry Advisory Council Conservative Critic for Forests Ward Stamer says the final report from the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council confirms the worst fears of forestry workers and communities; instead of addressing the real issues driving mill closures and job losses, the NDP has produced a report that ignores industry realities and doubles down on governance restructuring. Despite years of warnings from forestry workers, contractors, and industry organizations about permitting delays, regulatory costs, fibre access, and the failure of BC Timber Sales, the PFAC report offers no urgency, no timelines, and no concrete action to stop the ongoing decline of the sector. “ This report completely shatters any remaining hope that the government is serious about saving forestry ,” said Stamer.  “ We didn’t need another study to tell us what industry has been saying for years. While mills close and workers lose their livelihoods, the NDP is focused on re...
Post a Comment
Read more

FORSETH – My question is, ‘How do we decide who is blue enough to be called a Conservative?’

How do we decide who’s blue enough to be a Conservative? AS OF TODAY (Friday January 30 th ), there are now eight individuals who have put their names forward to lead the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Having been involved with BC’s Conservatives since 2010, and having seen MANY ups and downs, having 8 people say “I want to lead the party” is to me, an incredible turn-around from the past. Sadly, however, it seems that our party cannot seem to shake what I, and others, call a purity test of ‘what is a Conservative’. And that seems to have already come to the forefront of the campaign by a couple of candidates. Let me just say as a Conservative Party of BC member, and as someone active in the party, that frustrates me to no end. Conservatives, more than any other political philosophy or belief, at least to me, seems to have the widest and broadest spectrum of ideals.   For the most part, they are anchored by these central thoughts --- smaller and less intru...
1 comment
Read more

Labels

Show more