Canadian Politics
Ed Broadbent on electoral reform
I’ve always admired Ed Broadbent. He seems like a man of principle. He obviously believes in the need for electoral reform in Canada. You can hear the frustration in this Globe and Mail Article.
Why do we persist with a 19th-century electoral system designed for two parties long since rejected by more than 40 multiparty democracies throughout the world? When a party with just over a third of the vote gets to govern, and one party, the Greens, doesn’t get a single MP although nearly a million people voted for it, is it any wonder that only 59 per cent of Canadians bothered to vote on Tuesday, the lowest turnout in our history?
His article is non-partisan, he points out that the Conservatives aren’t represented in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver.
The thing I found disturbing – as always – was the comments. Partisan, rude, with name-calling and mudslinging. The Globe’s comments are semi-moderated which I take to mean that they have a program that screens for obscenity. Reading them offers a glimpse into the not very nice minds of some Canadians.
People seem to have lost sight of the fact that government is for all the people and that it isn’t a team sport. The ‘win at any cost’ attitude is old thinking. So is ‘Canada is a two party country’ and ‘coalition governments can’t work’.
Political leaders want to win. It’s part of their personalities. It not, they wouldn’t be politicians. Given a choice between remaining Prime Minister or implementing electoral reform I’m sure Stephen Harper would choose to be Prime Minister.
The push for electoral reform is not going to come from politicians. It’s going to come from Canadians.
Tags: Electoral Reform Discussion
One comment for “Ed Broadbent on electoral reform”
Post a comment
I like Broadbent too.
But then I also liked Mike Pearson, Pierre Trudeau to a lesser extent, John Diefenbaker for his humour…and in certain more limited ways…Brian Mulroney.
I also like “proportional representation”.The problem with achieving that desirable goal is that the Bloc Quebecois will never push it.
P.R. would mean a loss of at least 30 seats for the Bloc.
Also…the Conservatives would lose some seats as would the Liberals. The only parties to benefit big time from P.R. would be the New Democrats and the Greens.
The other obstacle is public opinion. People find it difficult to understand what is meant by proportional representation and
how it would work in practical terms. We saw that in the last
Ontario election.So the public needs to be educated about it.
British Columbia will be offering its people another chance to vote on the issue at the next provincial election and it will be
interesting to see how that turns out. Last time around British
Columbians came close to approving it.
One of the problems is that the threshold for approval is high
at 60%.
Another problem is that in many rural ridings such as mine…Huron Bruce, there are a lot of people who always vote the same way regardless of the candidate. However P.R. would be a good thing for these so-called “battle-ground” ridings, because some percentage of voters always cast ballots for Green NDP or Christian Heritage. Proportional Represntation would mean that those votes would be added to a national total and would actually COUNT toward electing a member.