A referendum on any proposed change to how we elect our government is a must. Not only because such a change requires the consent of the governed, but doing so would require the Liberals to actually define what the change is going to be.
Liberal opposition to a plebiscite more likely stems from the fear it would go decidedly against them, and ruin their chance to gerrymander the electoral system to favour the election of future Liberal governments.
So we’ve got to pass it to find out what’s in it.
Yeah. That’ll work …
Rex Murphy’s recent commentary on referendums nails it perfectly.
https://youtu.be/in0KFyZ3NBY
The Liberals want to take election of MPs out of the hands of the voters and put it in the hands of political parties. With the present system the Liberal bales of hay don’t get elected. With a proportional system they would. MPs are strictly limited by province and a proportional system that has Albertans help choose Quebec MPs would be unconstitutional although the Supreme Court would likely think the reverse was reasonable. I don’t think it’s possible to achieve was Turdeau wants to achieve without a Constitutional amendment. The same number of voters that get the Greens one seat can get the Bloc Quebecois 50 seats. Perhaps Trudeau could explain to Quebecers why the PQ should lose most of their seats to MPs elected by no-one but appointed by Elizabeth May.
The very fact that Monsef refuses to upgrade the outdated referendum bill in case the committee or consultations show that Canadians prefer one, demonstrates that Liberals have no intention of allowing concerned citizens a voice in the matter.
Monsef and Liberals can prattle endlessly about the “marginalized” people unlikely to vote in a referendum, but cannot explain why they would rush to vote in some half-baked proportional ballot. It is breathtakingly condescending to suggest that the groups listed are as clueless as Monsef makes them out to be. And if they are, should they really be enticed to the ballot box anyway? Presumably Liberals court them because such LIVs are easy to influence to vote the correct way.
As I posted yesterday Canadians should not count on the SC or the Senate to overturn any voting bill passed by Parliament. The SC wrote in rules to Senate terms and appointments that make it impossible to ever reform or end that institution without a constitutional amendment.
But the democratic voting rules for Parliament are not covered by the Constitution and may be changed by the whim of a majority government. My fear is that McLachlin and her buddies would simply uphold any scheme passed by this government.
I believe that’s the door to Sharia Law and the Libranos will do anything to open that door, just not a referendum, that could go wrong for them.
How elections are run is usually a detail found in Constitutions. I assume from this that might not be the case. Although it is possible that they are just too stupid to have checked.
Perhaps Trudeau could explain to Quebecers why the PQ should lose most of their seats to MPs elected by no-one but appointed by Elizabeth May.
Nice thought,but the Quebecers ELECTED the PQ and Lizzy May and Turdeau. You get what you vote for.
The Liberals aren’t going to use a referendum to determine what the majority of Canadians want; instead they’ll be using “an open and robust consultation process”.
Reminds me of metrication in the 1970s when the government rammed the metric system down our throats after a consultation process that revealed much public opposition. Guess who the PM of the day was.
“Referenda do not easily lend themselves to effectively deciding complex issues”
Neither do elections according to Kim Campbell. How did that work out for her?
“Nice thought,but the Quebecers ELECTED the PQ and Lizzy May and Turdeau. You get what you vote for.”
The point I was making is that under the proportional representation systems in effect in many countries you do not get what you voted for.
Oh they have checked all right and determined a bill run through their majority Parliament will suffice. Note the apparatchiks from Election Canada in the background stating we must have a decision by this fall to prepare new ballots and procedures. There is no haste whatever, except that Jr. blurted out an ill informed campaign promise. Something as serious as this obviously should be voted on in an election if a referendum is not doable. A bill like this with Government controlling the rules can be rushed through very quickly, just witness the speed with which Dominion day ended and the anthem was amended.
If the autocratic government won’t have referendums on electoral reform, premiers and mayors should.
Why wait for Ottawa?
Well at least that laughing imbecile Monsef is having a good time pretending to “consult Canadians”… Maybe the stupid runs so deep in Monsef that she really believes this fake consultation process is actually fooling people into believing they’re being consulted… like the fix isn’t already in… or perhaps shes just laughing it up because she can’t believe that someone as dumb and as unqualified as her has been handed the power to game the electoral system in favor of the corrupt Liberal party. Maybe the “Liberals” just needed someone dumber than the actor portraying the PM in a failed effort to make the actor look less of an imbecile than he actually is… Either way, the joke is on Canadians and the Libranos will end up doing whatever the hell they please, just like they always do. Hey, if I was a brain damaged tyrannical prog like Monsef and Trudozo the Clown I’d probably be laughing it up too.
Every political party uses what method to select a leader by vote?
Preferential balloting giving the electors 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd etc. It tends to elect middle of the road candidates, but is not available to the voters. Why not?
The first change is no representation without taxation. No job, NO VOTE.
The preferential ballot in Alberta gave us stellar premiers in ‘Special Ed’ Stelmach who started our downward spiral, then when he had finished, we got ‘Princess Allison’ Redford who continued the raping and pillaging. All this, followed by a brief interlude of the fatuous Jim Prentice, leading to to the disaster known as Rachel Motley.
Can’t argue with your assessment of the last 4 Premiers, however don’t hold the method at fault for the low quality of the candidates. It could be argued that ‘Red Ed’ did accurately reflect the PROGRESSIVE Conservative party members, not much in conservative ideology left there by his time.
I think Alberta would have been better off if Stelmach had been replaced by a 2 x 4. That piece of wood probably would have accomplished more for the province than he did.
“…under the proportional representation systems in effect in many countries you do not get what you voted for.”
The point of proportional representation isn’t to give us what we vote for, it’s to give politicians what they want (jobs for life.)
Related:
I’ve been visiting Waterton Lakes National Park (Alberta) along with Glacier National Park (Montana) since 1972. Both parks cater to people who appreciate the natural beauty of the mountains without the need for extensive commercial development. Yet both places do provide ample camp grounds, hotels, restaurants etc. I’ve met folks from all over the world, some who were on their 10th-15th visit. (In 1932 Waterton Lakes National Park was combined with the Glacier National Park to form the world’s first International Peace Park.)
Now let’s speed up the clock and the Liberal promise of ”openness” and ”discussion’ with the new Trudeau government. Parks Canada recently announced the construction of a new visitor centre in Waterton. Yet when local residents and park regulars protested the location of the centre, they were told that it was ”too late,” that the decision had already been made. The article doesn’t mention that some were so angry, they walked away from the first meeting. Please note that Waterton has a long and rich history of local ranchers and residents being involved and cooperating with the operation of the park.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/05/16/plans-for-new-visitor-centre-in-waterton-lakes-national-park-sparks-furor
When and where will we see the vacuous Monsef telling us what her government plans to do, she’s out to tell us their plan, we have no say. It’s like a dictatorship, we will have no choice in something that weakens our democracy. Where are our opposition parties out in protest of this? They should be on her ass everywhere she goes, they need to explain what the Liberal cabal are up and why. It’s all about them.
It is a truism that if you argue for change, the burden is on you to convince others why such a change is necessary, not on them to convince you why it isn’t.
Referendums are straight up democracy. Democracy is good, if people understand the issues. Democracy is also why Libertarians will never get elected, because the masses don’t understand the issues and every fool’s vote is equal to every wise man’s vote and their are 100 fools for every 1 wise man.
Cue conservatism. Conservatism deals with issues based on what are traditionally perceived as best for society,(and by traditional society I mean a known healthy record for raising productive children who contribute to the nation and a productive sustainable future)
Libertarianism would only work under a dictatorship to compensate for LIVs who are easily sold on TV commercials touting NEW and IMPROVED.(when if fact the OLD worked just fine, or alternatively the older product was crap and thus how can you trust their promise of the NEW product)
In the case of dictatorship to protect the LIVs from voting for slavery, it wouldn’t be Libertarianism at all.
You can give people freedom, but you can’t make them understand responsibility for their choices.
Only people who understand that they must be responsible for their freedom, with no government backstop, can be real Libertarians.
In reality, responsible people are a very small minority. Thus Libertarians can only promise to allow LiberTINES the freedom to indulge in excess in order to get votes, if Libertarians promised individual accountability to people accustomed to the welfare state, they would never get any votes from people who a irresponsible, which considering the levels of household debt, is, in this era, most people.
In any club where I am given the instructions to choose a first, second, and third choice, I only ever vote for one person. My third choice could be kicked into the position if I listed them.
– post Brexit, which establishment weenie wants a referendum on anything?
– let’s take cabin boy’s word for it, 74% of seats with 39% of the pop vote is “more democratic” than 54% of the seats.
– oh and it will cost $300million, so can’t go ahead, that money is earmarked for Antarctican poor affected by climate change, though not ours.
– when he rams it through, assuming the many legal challenges can’t stop the system Liberals, I mean Canadians want, from taking effect, a libertarian party (aka real liberal principles not the Grit garbage from progressivia we see today) will come up the middle in the “preferential ballot.”
– let’s see, grassroots, anti-elitist, limited, aka good government, actual liberal values. Imagine using Grit icons from their distant past showing statist stray.
– their fusion with conservatives continues after the election, a willing coalitionist for limited government, actual “liberal values.”
– not interested in running against Tories, tactically set up, let the elite wax hypocritically, with the primary intent of stopping a leftist weighted ballot.
– stopping the Grits is job one, not splitting the vote in close ridings, but going after the runoff vote, in effect cutting off the statist bleed to their benefit, while destroying local representation for elite benefit. That’s what the New Canada party wishes to counter.
– pure VAT, no income tax, no bailouts period, more not less direct democracy, most of all no elites deciding for us what we want and “need.”
– the end of wants becoming needs, becoming rights, becoming claims against the taxpayer. Does anyone believe the “good government” guaranteed to everyone is the same as big government? I’ve yet to get a yes to that question.
-in effect – liberty: government of the people, by the people, for the people. Though from Lincoln this not an “American concept” having deep roots in Europe and pre-PET Canada, articulated in our rights and aspirations: peace, order and good government. When is big government good government?
– People are fed up; cabin boy got in under the wire with the mediocracy raising the tape for him by perpetuating the big Grit lie of the middle class crisis.
– they hope the poor will buy into the lie they can make their life better, when reality is they do more damage to their cause than anyone.
– the bourgeoisie are completing the circle folks, prepare for the serfdom of the proletariat, as elites control the media, the executive, education, entertainment, the courts and unfortunately in America, the police. Justice will then be “relative” depending on political standing.
– unless you are OK with two sets of laws, that two people can be dragged out of their RV van in front of their home for “illegal camping,” courtesy of some whiny millennial moron bylaw Nazi, while the person running for president of the US is legally precluded from viewing classified material, who has been caught in more lies than a mafia don, who will decide the final domino of freedom yet to fall, your Supreme Court, who will hold the ultimate trigger.
Will that pendulum continue to swing left, where skeptics are branded as loonies while extreme positions like the imposition of bourgeois civic (non-spontaneous) order are “normal.” If complete socialism is bad, how is it that ever creeping statism can ever be a political good?
Where is that dividing line? That’s what the study of ideology is supposed to answer. It’s time for that debate, which the elite left will never have because they already know the public’s answer to the question of if big government is the same as good government. Instead they’ll dance on the head of the pin between negligence and gross negligence. Evidence, please.
What difference does it make anyway? Hillary, Barack & Justin are sure bad government is all you’re entitled to, given your prejudices and ignorance; in fact because of that you must be given the opposite of what you want, and have taken from you the opposite of what you wish.
Without the guardians we could only promote our liberty & prosperity. The unwashed must think of others’ greater interest, their betters insist.