upcoming elections

Reverand Blair, Democracy is not about leaders. Democracy is about the people leading. Certainly we need representatives that will be channels for our message in the places we want our message and our policies shared. The people that represent us are public "servants". I think this is where things have gotten out of shape. Our representatives believe we are the servants. For me proportional representation is a step forward yet I still don't believe it covers all the bases for a more inclusive democracy. It still suggests people will vote and be done with "their" civil service. Democracy in Canada is a joke and Paul Martin is the punchline.

Well surely we can figure out a way to nullify biased referendums and polls, maybe we could have a " none of the above" box required on all these events. I've written 30 some letters to the Prime Minister in the last 2 months and all I get back is " Thank you very much for taking the time to....the Prime Minister is always interested to hear your views ....". What is the point of continuing on with a system that is so overwhelmed or indifferent that it can't even give a relevant response.
We could have mandatory crap detector duty for poll and referendum questions construction. Every 3 months another 50 citizens would have to serve as crap detectors. There are many ingenious people out there and once they realize that they will be listened to and that their participation will make a difference we should have a surplus of good ideas. Anybody can have a good idea.

It seems like these options are being argued in extremes, though. I mean, it's not necessarily a choice between proportional representation and referendums if a new system is to be implemented. For example, maybe we should be electing ministers directly instead of this strange 4-year dictatorship we have in place. Maybe we need proportional representation for some classification of issues and referendums for others. Personally I'd like all trade agreements or major military actions to be referendum based. Any privatisation should be referendum-based. Suppose we elect the prime minister and ministers directly in a popular nation-wide vote and they have to run everything by regional representation. Laws affecting a certain region would have to be approved by that region's representative. There would be no parties that could undermine democracy *cough* liberals *cough*. That's just an idea of mine. I'm not too sure if it could work.

Hi! This is the first time I have ever used a message board so if there is some etiquette I am not following, please tell me! Your discussion has been fascinating; the debate over wether or not to change the way we vote is of enormous national importance. I would suggest however, that most of our problems are (or were, thanks to C-24) at the party level, not the way we choose MPs. In fact, I believe that changing our voting system without first cleaning up the parties would severly aggravate the problem. I find it curious that so many Canadians have forgotten that 2 years ago, the biggest complaint about our elections wasn't First Past the Post, it was the amount of corporate cash flowing into party trust funds. Most of the loop-holes have been closed off by C-24, so maybe we should wait a couple of elections to see how our FPTP system works when the dirty money is removed. On the subject of referendums, for certain issues of national importance (ie changing the way we choose MPs), they are a good idea. But I do not want to vote every 3 months for things like, for example, the gun registry, taxation, and national defence issues; we send people to the House of Commons to make those decisions for us. Besides, some of us work in excess of forty hours a week and simply don't have the time to get enough info to make a good decision. Already, we hear complaints to the effect that people don't make informed choices when voting for MPs; I think that is the best proof that frequent referendums are in fact a threat to democracy. Our Constitution is founded in the value of protecting minority opinions, something referendums DO NOT asccomplish.

Hi Ed! Don't worry, our only etiquette is not to post racist/discriminatory etc stuff and to argue fairly and calmly. I agree with you on the referendums. That was one of the Alliance's big positions and it was lampooned perfectly by Rick Mercer with his "Doris Day" web petition. I also wanted to let people know that if you want to ask all federal candidates questions and get written answers, organizations are allowed to submit questionnaires on their issues to all candidates and then publish the results. As an NDP candidate I've already answered a questionnaire like this on gay marriage and there are several more circulating. All candidates are expected to answer them and if they don't answer that's noted by the organizations as a negative answer. I don't know what the protocols are for being allowed to send the questionnaires, but if we wanted to send out questionnaires asking a few questions on sovereignty it's a good possibility we could do so. Unless you need to be officially incorporated and registered with the government, which we're not--yet. I've already suggested sending questionnaires on sovereignty to the Council of Canadians.

I don't think C-24 went far enough, Ed. I'd give each voter a maximum of $1000. No more, and if you aren't eligible to vote you can't give. I'd also severely limit spending and provide government funding to level the playing field for candidates who don't happen to be rich. I think that some form of proportional representation (not referendums though) is the only way we can solve this constant regional squabbling. It would also give smaller parties a voice and a chance to grow. Something I definitely don't want to see is a EEE senate. I've seen how the US system works and it doesn't work well at all most of the time. Something I would like to see is candidates put forth by the provincial governments then voted for in an open (possibly even secret) vote in the House of Commons. If that was done on a rotating basis so we had no big secondary federal election and the Senate was given the opportunity to rewrite bills and send them back to the House of Commons for more debate and another vote (which do they like better), I think it go a long way to solving some of the problems we see today with unpopular bills being passed with little or no real opposition. I like the idea of being able to send questionnaires, Susan. I have some questions that the party leaders seem unable to answer. Maybe they don't check their mail, or maybe they're too busy, or maybe they're afraid.

I agree that we don't need an elected Senate but perhaps an equal(as in same number of senators for each province) Senate would go a long way towards easing regional tensions; in other words Alberta would have as many seats as Ontario. As for the effective part, I don't see how the Senate is currently ineffective. I believe the majority of Senators are very professional and serve their country well. As far as PR is concerned, I am not convinced it is necessary in order to encourage smaller parties. I believe that the Greens will do very well in the next election(especially in B.C. and Quebec) and, according to the formula under C-24, they will finally have the funding needed to compete with the other major parties. The only thing that will be stopping them from actually winning seats at that point will be the mistaken impression some people have that a Green vote is a wasted vote.