UPDATED: Star Readers And Mandatory Voting

In response to a recent column by Susan Delacourt discussing mandatory voting, Star readers weigh in with their usual perspicacious observations, the majority in favour of a less radical solution to the problem of low voter turnout. Here is a small sampling of the responses:

Re: It's time for mandatory voting laws, Insight Aug. 30

Mandatory voting attempts to address only one symptom of Canada’s corrupt 12th century first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system under which most voters do not cast a ballot for a winning candidate. Mandatory voting will not correct this, but merely result in more votes which do not count to elect anyone. We will still have false majority governments that hold 100 per cent control over the House of Commons with much less than 50 per cent of the popular vote.

To fix our broken democratic system, we must go back to basics and change how we elect our MPs. We must modernize our electoral system to ensure representation that is in close proportion to the actual votes cast. Proportional representation (PR) shifts the balance of power back toward the people and away from political parties. It’s like flipping a switch that shines the light on us.

Fraudulent robocalls to deter voting would have no impact under a proportional electoral system because votes cast matter more than the arbitrary boundaries of ridings. Each enlarged riding would have multiple MPs.

When voters believe that their votes really matter, they will naturally vote in larger numbers, without being coerced into doing so. This is evident in the 80 plus countries that have successfully implemented an electoral system which achieves some level of proportionality.

At least ten authoritative public studies have been undertaken in Canada on electoral reform, including the comprehensive 2004 Law Commission of Canada Report on Electoral Reform, commissioned by the Liberal Party of Canada. Each study recommended that Canada’s FPTP electoral system be replaced by one providing equal effective votes for citizens and proportional representation in the House of Commons.

The neoliberal fiefdoms of the U.K., U.S. and Canada still use FPTP because they can manipulate it to retain control over governance. Mandatory voting will divert our attention away from implementing an effective solution to Canada’s democratic deficit. Canadians must not let themselves be led astray.

P. E. McGrail, Brampton

Why does Susan Delacourt resort to mandatory voting to increase voters’ participation when a perfectly democratic and rational approach would provide a valid reason for people to vote?

Proportional representation would make every vote count, decrease the polarization of Parliament, reduce the frequency (and costs) of elections and the need for by-elections. Canada would then join the majority of democracies in the world.

In a multiparty, pluralistic society, FPTP is a bankrupt system that most often silences the voice of the majority of the electorate. Vested interest are the reasons for Canada sticking with it.

It is time for the media to support rational and well informed demands to change the present system at all levels of our government.

Bruna Nota, Toronto

If it’s true that “four of every ten Canadians” chose not to vote in the last federal election then it would be a great mistake to compel such uninterested people to cast a ballot. Do we really want to count the votes of those who are forced (by law) to vote and probably represent the lazy, uneducated and could-care-less class of citizens?

The results of such mandatory legislation would certainly have serious, unintended consequences.

George Dunbar, Toronto

UPDATE: Lori Turnbull, an Associate Professor at the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University, offers her views on mandatory voting here.

On The Training of Marine Mammals (a.k.a. MPs)

As I mentioned in a blog post the other day, I am currently reading Tragedy in the Commons, a book that examines the gross deficits to be found in Canadian parliamentary democracy. One of the recurring complaints of the former MPs interviewed for the book is the lack of independence afforded them, ethereby rendering them unable to effectively represent the interests of their constituents, interests that are routinely superseded by the chief priority of the party, which is to gain and maintain power.

Former Conservative Member of Parliament Brent Rathgeber, now sitting as an independent, is intimately acquainted with such impotence, and has written a book, set to be released this month, detailing his experiences under iron grip of the Harper cabal.

Entitled Irresponsible Government: The Decline of Parliamentary Democracy in Canada, the book

outlines how MPs have seen their powers fade away, reduced to “cheer-leading and barking on command” while the PMO has grown stronger over decades, under Mr. Harper and his predecessors, with little oversight.

While perhaps hardly new or shocking to those who have followed the machinations of the regime over the years, an insider's view does reaffirm the commonly-held perceptions of Mr. Harper's leadership:

The book offers a glimpse into the tightly controlled Conservative caucus, where backbenchers are given little say and punished – a relocated office, a less desirable committee, the cancelling of travel junkets – for stepping out of line.

Indeed, there aren't even any votes in the Tory caucus:

Under Mr. Harper, the Conservative caucus is more of a pep rally, says Rathgeber. Most play along in the hopes of rising to Cabinet, and so willingly submit to uttering prewritten talking points they are given, lobbing softball questions at ministers, and a myriad of other indignities that rob them of both their independence and any spine they might have.

Rathgeber questions the decline of ministerial responsibility, at one point saying cabinet ministers Peter MacKay and Tony Clement should have resigned over their handling of the F-35 and G-8/G-20 summits, respectively. He touches, too, on the responsibility of Mr. Harper for his own staff, pointing to the agreement between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy, of which Mr. Harper has disavowed knowledge. “Leaders lead, they do not perpetually search for scapegoats”.

Lest those whose whose allegiances are with one of the other two major parties feel smug, the independent MP offers this:

Opposition MPs may like it, he said. “But if and when they become the government they will summarily dismiss all ... the suggestions designed to stir discussion about how to renew democracy contained in his book.

In that, I fear he is all too correct.

In Pursuit Of Andrea

My post yesterday on Andrea Horwath's leadership shortcomings provoked a series of thoughtful responses that I am reproducing below, on the assumption that the majority of blog readers don't necessarily return to a post to see the ensuing commentary. I hope you enjoy reading the reactions as much as I did:


Kirby Evans September 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM

She will hold on for two reasons - 1. corruption of the process, and 2. because seldom does any party have the courage to stand up for principle and dump their leader. Look how long Hudak held on for and I bet he could have survived another leadership review. One of the many drawbacks of the Party system is that it systematically undermines political courage with a garrison mentality.

Lorne September 7, 2014 at 12:11 PM

You may be right, Kirby, but in the process she might have to resurrect her capacity for 'fancy footwork' to convince the rank and file that she is worthy of any further trust.

The Mound of Sound September 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM

I expect Kirby is right. If it was my call, I'd cast her into the burning bowels of hell!


Anonymous September 7, 2014 at 2:47 PM

The false narrative that the Ontario NDP went right-wing (by being honest and pragmatic on fiscal matters) and that the economically right-of-centre Ontario Liberals became the true "progressive" voice (and somehow transformed into a totally different party by changing their leader) was a magnificent achievement by the Liberal Party and their enablers. Even a lot of traditional NDP supporters fell for this deceptive trick. It should be held up as a model in marketing and public relations classes.

Lorne September 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Unfortunately, Anon, it seems to me and many others that Horwath's refusal to support, for example, the Liberal proposal for a made-in-Ontario pension plan, something that she originally promoted, was but one example of her strange drift away from the kind of principled vision the NDP is traditionally associated with.


Anonymous September 7, 2014 at 3:23 PM

In due time, we will see how un-progressive the Ontario Liberals' "most-progressive-in-decades" budget actually is, and that their pension scheme is like most of their policies and programs: sounds good in theory, but in practice would be done half-assed, would cost way too much (with money being shovelled out the door to arms-length board members and outside consultants), and would mostly benefit the wealthy elites instead of society as a whole. Their scandelous record is full of examples.

Lorne September 7, 2014 at 3:51 PM

Time will tell if your prediction is correct, Anon. Of course, one could argue that had Horwath not forced the election, the NDP would still be in a position (i.e., holding the balance of power) to ensure that the kinds of excesses you forecast could not take place.


Anonymous September 8, 2014 at 12:42 AM

That the ONDP held the balance of power was an illusion. The Liberals kept making promises to the NDP in order to get their support on bills, then kept breaking all (or almost all) of those promises. If the NDP kept falling for these lies, they would have rightly been considered chumps.


Kirby Evans September 7, 2014 at 5:30 PM

I am amazed that some people still stand up for Horwath. Though I was never under any illusions about the Liberal Party being particularly "progressive," I know empirically that the NDP moved to the right. My local NDP candidate, a person I have met and who works with a number of my friends, appeared in public more than once speaking about the need to cut public jobs and control their supposedly rich pensions. He simply assured voters that the NDP would make the cuts more humanely and practically than Hudak.

Here is all we need to know - when the Liberals talked about increasing the minimum wage, Horwath disappeared from view for several days saying the she had to consult small business about the issue. When the Liberals introduced an Ontario pension (unarguably a once in a lifetime chance to build an important part of our social system) just as Jack Layton had once done with respect to the national child-care, Horwath decided to bring the government down. HOrwath not only moved the party to the right but she decided to play political games in a typical party attempt to gain seats instead of standing up for policies that will make significant long term improvements to people's lives. And, of course, her gambit failed miserably.

Don't make the bet Ms. Horwath, if you can't pay the bookie. Time to hang your head in shame and quit.


Scotian September 7, 2014 at 10:51 PM

And yet again you demonstrate why I find you always worth the time to read Kirby Evans. I was astounded that she did not offer her resignation after Wynne got that majority, because she threw away the balance of power for zero more seats and barely 1 percent increase in the polls, this despite having one of the best pre-election environments for a possible NDP government in Ontario since Rae's in 1990. I watched with increased amazement and disgust as she tried to replicate the Layton gambit in her Province with far less skill and trust from within her party, and clearly the Ontario Dipper leadership after watching what it got Layton and Canada with Harper wanted no repeat with Hudak in Ontario. This was not some massive marketing scheme cooked up by those somehow both near omnipotent and yet incompetent Liberals, this was a disaster made almost totally by Horwath herself, and an entirely foreseeable one at that.

The NDP in both Ontario and federally needs to either rediscover their roots or stop any pretense of being a party of the people, by the people, and for the people. You cannot claim to be both a party of strong left/progressive ideological convictions and a pragmatic centrist. It is time for the NDP to stop trying to eat their cake and have it. In doing so they are the reality of the image of the Liberals they love to portray their electoral rivals as, a party that stands for nothing but its own powerlust while pretending to have progressive principles.

It will be very interesting to see what happens with Horwath, for it will tell a lot about where the ONDP is headed. Will they show good judgment or will they allow someone who is clearly far more motivated by powerlust (one can have such while wanting to use it for principled means btw, but it still doesn't make it a good thing especially in a leader, Layton being an excellent example of this IMHO) than by good political judgment and leadership. We shall see. It is telling though that Hudak showed better accountability and personal responsibility for his failure than Horwath has, given just how disconnected in many respect Hudak was from reality. The ONDP is not in a good place at the moment, and I also wonder how much from that may spill over onto their federal cousins by the time of the next election, which given how powerful Ontario looms in the seat count of the HoC is not a small consideration, especially for the NDP and their traditional seats in that Province.

The Mound of Sound September 7, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Amen to that, Kirby.

Anonymous September 8, 2014 at 12:47 AM

The Wynne Liberals are going to cut frontline public jobs, cut public services and sell off public assets. Meanwhile, they will keep rewarding the public sector exectutives, high-level bureaucrats and outside consultants, They will also keep the no-strings-attached corporate tax cuts that have been provent to not stimulate the economy or create local jobs.

Is Andrea's Day Of Reckoning Drawing Nigh?

Andrea Horwath, the current leader of the Ontario NDP, about whom I have written the odd past post, may indeed soon be facing the consequences of her recent decision to force an Ontario election that ran the risk, happily averted, of the election of a right-wing Progressive Conservative Party under former leader Tim Hudak. While Hudak was speedily dispatched for his loss, Andrea has thus far been dancing around the choices she made that so inflamed so many party members and supporters.

Today, Martin Regg Cohn's column suggests that the tune to which Horwath has been gamboling may change abruptly starting next weekend:

Ahead of a formal leadership review scheduled for November, Horwath will face the NDP’s provincial council this coming Saturday and Sunday to explain her controversial tactics — before, during and after the election.

“Andrea is fighting for her life,” says one long-time party worker who has sat in on the party’s internal machinations in recent months.

“Among a very large section of the activist base there is little more than contempt for her,” said the NDP loyalist, who requested confidentiality to speak candidly about the manoeuvres.

As many are aware, the more tantalizing the prospect of power became, the more willing Horwath was to recast her party as a centrist-right entity, thereby destroying, of course, any prospect the former 'party of principle' had of being perceived as anything more than a group of populists who wanted to form the government for the sake of being the government. Her gleeful abandonment of the balance of power her party held in the last legislature to pursue the heady power that only the office of the premier can offer has led many to perceive her as a traitor to the party:

It’s no secret that the top leadership of the Canadian Labour Congress has undisguised contempt for Horwath after she refused to support a public pension plan for Ontario (along the lines of an enhanced CPP) which the labour movement holds dear. The CLC’s new leader, Hassan Yussuff, viewed Horwath’s actions as a personal betrayal and is known to have described her as “a coward” who should be dumped.

Most of the Ontario Federation Labour’s member unions are also deeply unhappy with Horwath’s moves, not least her refusal to meet them as a group.

“If the vote were held next week, she wouldn’t hold on,” predicts one party veteran.

And there are also other reasons for party members' disaffection:

In anticipation of a leadership review, Horwath’s team rammed through changes at a pre-election council meeting allowing her inner circle to reclaim — and reallocate — any unused delegate slots 45 days before the November convention. The move was widely seen as a naked power grab orchestrated by the leader’s office, contravening party rules that constitutional changes can only be agreed at full conventions.

By flouting the rules, Horwath has riled grassroots members who were already apoplectic about an opportunistic campaign platform that lacked the party’s imprimatur and descended into pandering.

While Ontario provincial politics may seem of little relevance to those living in other parts of country, the fact is that the lessons of arrogance are universally applicable. Perhaps Andrea's fate, whatever it turns out to be, will be instructive to others.

Tragedy In The Commons

I know that I am hardly alone in sometimes thinking that the insights and observations of progressives have a Cassandra-like quality to them; we think we can see patterns auguring ill for our country and our democracy, but warnings are largely ignored by a quiescent or alienated proportion of the population, the latter so turned off by the cupidity and corruption that seems to abound in the political world that they have just disengaged and decided to pursue other aspects of life that seem more worthwhile.

One can argue that it has always been thus; others can, quite cogently, argue that the process of alienation has vastly accelerated under the Harper regime, the result of a cabal that has made an art out of vilification, dirty tricks and divisiveness as it relentlessly pursues its raison d'être, the retention of power for its own sake.

I have just started reading Tragedy in the Commons, written by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan, who founded Samara, a non-profit devoted to strengthening democracy in Canada by improving political participation.

Here is a brief excerpt from it about the role of the MP as offered by a former Liberal:

The truth is: you're there to develop policy that is self-serving and beneficial to your party in order to keep you in power and get you re-elected...

That bald statement epitomizes the monumental task before those who seek a renewed democracy, one that offers both hope and the opportunity to feel a part of something larger than themselves, something truly worthwhile.

While I was intending this post as a lead-in to more commentary on how the Conservatives have so abjectly failed in the above regard, other duties summon me, so for now I will leave you with this brief video:

That Crazy Old Evangelical Strikes Again

You're never too old, counsels Pastor Pat:

A Voice From The Past

The always mellifluous Brian Mulroney offers some less than sweet-sounding words for the Harper government. As reported in The Globe and Mail, in an interview with Don Martin on CTV's Power Play, the former prime minister is quite critical of aspects of of the current, and warns that the electoral appetite for change is real and needs to be respected.

About Harper's very public and disgraceful dispute with Canada's Chief Justice, he says:

“You don’t get into a slagging contest with the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, even if you thought that he or she was wrong ... You don’t do that.”

On Canada's current relationship with the United Natons:

“When Canada, for the first time in our history, loses a vote at the United Nations to become a member of the Security Council . . . to Portugal, which was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time, you should look in the mirror and say: ‘Houston, I think we have a problem.’”

Without explicitly criticizing the Harper record on the environment, Mulroney says that

a “pristine environment” is important to Canada’s middle class.

“There are very few things that the middle class value more than the environment . . . and that’s one thing we can deliver on,” he said.

“The prime minister alone has to make it a very strong priority of the government, has to make sure it has the funds and the clout.”

About Justin Trudeau:

“His program is that he’s not Stephen Harper ... When I ran in ‘84... I won because I wasn’t Pierre Trudeau and then Jean Chrétien 10 years later won because he wasn’t Brian Mulroney. So it’s part of a desire for change, which is normal, and so I think it’s going to make for a great election [in 2015].”

Like a priest inspecting the entrails of a sacrificed animal, Mulroney's words suggest impending darkness for the Harper crew. And like many imperial presences of the past, Emperor Harper is likely to ignore these auguries at his peril and our gain.