Enough With the Vote Splitting!

There were three by-elections in Canada this week. Each riding was held by the party that had the seat prior to the by-elections.  The riding of Durham, Ontario was a majority win so there is no complaint there, but the other two races were very close with the “victors” only taking roughly 1/3^rd of the votes cast.

But the biggie is the near upset in Calgary by the Liberal Candidate Harvey Locke who almost ousted the Harper Party Parachute Club member Joan Crockatt.  Crockatt took 36.9% of the votes cast, Locke took 32.7%

This is where the cries of vote splitting kick in.

There are people ranting and railing about how the Green Party candidate Chris Turner screwed the chances of a “progressive” party winning Calgary Centre by not throwing his support behind the Liberal cause.

My question to them is why should he have?

If Chris Turner believed that the Liberal Party was the best option for the residents of the riding, he should have run for the Liberals.

He didn’t, he opted to run for the Greens because he felt the Green Party was the better choice.  At least I hope that’s why he ran.

The people complaining about the vote split need to listen to the disenfranchised voters from the right side of the spectrum.  These are the former PC supporters who now have no party to represent them.  They have 3 choices (actually four).  Some, a fair number I suppose, vote for the vestiges of their party that rest in the Harper Party.  They aren’t that happy.  Look at Calgary Centre, the Harper Party only managed 37% of the vote in a lead pipe cinch riding.  The former MP for the riding took 55% of the votes in the 2011 election.

Some of them are willing to hold their nose and vote for the Liberal or other parties, the one that shares at least some of their former beliefs.  This would account for the surge in votes for both the Liberals and the Green Party.

And the rest stayed home.  That could in part explain why the turnout in Calgary Centre was so low.

The fourth option would be to vote for the Progressive Canadian Party, which is made up of former Progressive Conservative members and supporters who left their party rather than be part of the Harper Party.

Are you with me so far?  So let’s “Unite the Left”.

Let’s just say that the NDP, Liberal, and Green Parties sat down and decided that each would get a shot at a riding where it looked like they had a chance of winning and the others wouldn’t field a candidate in that riding.  So the NDP gets Victoria, the Liberals get Calgary Centre and the Greens get Durham.

So the results are a solid NDP win in BC, a solid Liberal win in Alberta, and a Green Party loss in Durham where the Harper Party carried just over 50% of the votes, right?

Maybe, maybe not.  This isn’t a case of 1+1+1=3.  If your riding was a targeted riding and your party was not running a candidate so that a progressive would have a better chance… would you vote for that candidate?  Would you vote for another candidate because you refuse to vote for the “chosen party”?  Would you bother to vote at all?

Be honest, if you are a card carrying Liberal or NDP member, would you happily vote for the other party?  Would you just stay home?

Listen, some churches have tried similar things.  Faced with declining numbers churches are combined in the hopes that 1200+1200=2400.  It doesn’t work that way for them.  Some people faced with the closure of their church would rather not go to church at all, or join other churches that are closer than their newly assigned church.

If it doesn’t work all that well for them, why should it work in politics?  I’ve seen people who agree on just about everything ready to come to blows simply because of the colour of their lawn signs in election season.

Political divisions aren’t like the lane divisions on the highway, where the NDP drive in the Left Lane and the Harper Party in the Right one.  It’s more like mixing water colours and where the two close colours blend is where the swing voters live.  The thing is that if you take colour from the one side of your spectrum, say the right side, then you risk alienating your supporters on the opposite side who may move away from your party or just stay home on Election Day.

In the last Federal Election, Ontario Liberals were knocked down badly.  I looked at the numbers comparing the 2011 Election with the previous election.  The increase in Harper Party votes roughly mirrored the increase in the NDP votes.  Apparently some Liberal supporters jumped to the right to prevent the left from sweeping into Ontario.  The other thing I noticed was that the number of votes that moved to the left and right did not match the drop in the Liberal numbers.  Liberal supporters stayed home.

From where I sit, the best thing for Canada right now is for the “progressive” parties to choose whoever they feel is the best leader for their party and to hammer out what they feel are the best policies for their party and for Canada and to sell it (the policies, not the country).

Part of the beauty of Canada is that we are not divided into two parties.  We have choice.

But beyond that, I would love to see the day when our candidates run under a given banner, but have the ability to stand up in caucus and in the House of Commons and say to their party “This law is not a good fit for my constituents.  I choose my constituency over the wishes of the party.” And not be penalized for that.

And banning all attack ads would be nice too.

Cheers, BC.

On Senate Reform or Step Away from the Red Chamber Stephen

As I was browsing through the channels the other day I happened across Jinny Sims speaking in the House of Commons about the “Senate Reform Act”.

Now Jinny Sims (pictured) is a New Democrat and I am not (I am not a card carrying member of any party) and we do not see eye to eye on the Senate. The NDP would like it abolished, I believe the Senate is an important part of our democratic system but that it is open to abuse and the Stephen Harper Party is abusing the Senate power more than any time I can remember.

Many years ago, when the Fathers of Confederation sat down and created Canada, they had a number of Democratic Models to choose from and they chose a Parliamentary System, the Westminster System.

Under this system, we have an elected House of Commons, the Parliament and an appointed Senate, appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

In our Canadian system, Senators are appointed for life or age 75 and must meet certain criteria to be eligible to sit as a Senator. These Senators represent their respective regions of Canada and are charged with evaluating legislation based on whether or not it is good for their region as well as the country as a whole. By appointing these Senators, they are not accountable to anyone but themselves, they cannot be recalled by voters or called to task by sitting Prime Ministers or anyone else. This is supposed to be a strength of the Senate. When the Senate looks at legislation, the members are free to discuss the legislation without fear of reprisal for supporting an unpopular view or voting against party doctrine.

When the Fathers of Confederation considered the Senate, they chose to balance the numbers and the power evenly over the 4 regions of Canada so that no one or two regions could dominate the Senate.

When a Prime Minister recommends someone for the Senate, he or she will often base part (or all) of their recommendation on the politics of the person they are suggesting, but that is where it is supposed to end. Each and every Senator’s responsibility is to the Country and to the people of the region they represent and not blind obeisance to the party that put him there.

At this point I quote Jinny Sims from Hansards:

It is a very telling comment when a senator can write a letter to other senators stating:

Those of us who came to the red chamber were there to get a majority vote for reform. Those in the Senate before [the Prime Minister came to power] need to realize that, had he not made appointments, the Conservatives appointed by Mulroney would now be a very small group struggling to do anything! Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple:--

As a taxpayer this would actually give me sleepless nights. It continues:

--our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

Jinny is quoting Senator Bert Brown. I choose to not in “Honourable” as part of Bert’s title as I feel that any Senator who feels this way does a disservice to every Senator who does try to represent their constituents, their region, their Country.

The Senate is often referred to as a place of “sober second thought” where proposed laws receive their final evaluation before being sent on to the Governor General for Royal Assent or back to the House of Commons with amendments if the law is found wanting. The Senate is also often referred to a “rubber stamp” and it appears that is what Bert wants it to be.

Don Cherry likes to say “Dance with the one that brought you” which is fine for choosing your Goalie, but Stephen Harper doesn’t pay your salary Bert, the people of Canada do. If you want to dance with Stephen Harper, do it at the Senate Christmas Ball, not in the Red Chamber which incidentally is also paid for by the Canadian people.

I don’t care if the members of the Senate are members of political parties, I don’t care if they sit in those parties’ caucuses, I do have issue with Senators blindly following the dictates of Lord Stephen or whoever is the leader of the governing party of the day.

Here I quote Sir Clifford Sifton’s The New Era in Canada: (you'll need to scroll to section 3 for this part)

No nation should be under unchecked, single-chamber government ... It must also be remembered that, under our system, the power of the Cabinet tends to grow at the expense of the House of Commons ... The Senate is not so much a check on the House of Commons as it is upon the Cabinet, and there can be no doubt that its influence in this respect is salutary.

(words in bold my choice)

I would also quote a famous Canadian:

"... in the Upper House, - the controlling and regulating, but not the initiating, branch - ... in the House which has the sober second-thought in legislation, it is provided that each of those great sections shall be represented equally"

- Sir John A. Macdonald

I wouldn’t dream of contradicting Sir John A. but apparently Stephen and Bert have no qualms about it.

Now I hear that the Stephen Harper Party is considering closure for debate in the Senate, much as they have done in the House of Commons. The Senate needs to stand up to the House of Commons and say “No” or risk becoming what they are accused of, a rubber stamp not worth saving, a second act of “Marionette Theatre” with Lord Stephen pulling the strings.

The Stephen Harper Party wants to reform the Senate, they can’t stand the fact that they might be second guessed by “the controlling and regulating…branch” of government’s “sober second thought”. Again I refer to Sir John A. Macdonald.

The Senate has served us for over 140 years, offering amendments to laws that needed them, sitting on “special committees” looking into poverty in Canada, the needs of our youth, the needs of our elderly. They have been able to do this in part because they do not have to worry about rushing to please anyone but only to making sure things are done right. As for the committee work, they have the luxury of time to fully study an issue and fully understand the issue before moving forward on that issue. There is no 4 year window to try and jam things through.

If we need to reform the Senate, we need to take the power of selection of these Senators in waiting from the PMO and take the power over the Senate away from the government.

If Stephen Harper and his marionettes manage to distort the Senate into the image that they feel is the “right” one then I’ll seriously have to reconsider the NDP stance on the Senate.

It will just be a rubber stamp with folks like Bert in it. We might just as well shut the doors and fire the lot of them. No severance pay, no pension, just hit the bricks people, you don’t work here anymore.

Or perhaps the Senators will decide to use their power of sober second thought.