I am remounting this essay although it may have been placed in this blog already. Its like the parole board. One must present the evidence once a year to keep the monster behind the bars. Its insurance.
The irony is that those who want this form of parliament sort of forget. There was a fully "democratic" referendum held during the Ontario provincial election. The option was resoundly defeated.
Like the perpetually stupid separatists located in an unnamed adjacent province, they have a mental problem of comprehending the word "no".
***
The other side of the debateHave you ever wondered why the Ontario Political Parties are almost
universally in support of the proportional representation idea? It is
not to represent Joe Citizen. It is to garner more power for the
individual party leaders.
Representation ComparisonTo compare the United States of America (USA) constitutionally began
as a people's republic. One person, one vote. The representatives
swear to uphold the people's Constitution. On their ballots, the
political party comes first.
In the case of Canada the constitutional formation evolved from the
British experience in quite a different manner. Canada was and still
is a constitutional monarchy. And Canadians forget this at political
peril. In Canada, the Member of Parliament (MP; MPP; MLA) swears
political fealty to the Crown and represents a district called a Riding.
Why use the word political peril? A peril exists because the entire
Canadian political structure evolved in an environment so different
than the USA. Canadian colonial precursors fought wars to keep that
political affiliation intact. In the USA the Congress represents the
people of the Nation. In Canada the people are represented through the
Crown.
The USA presently evolved as a rather homogenous mono-culture even
politically. The USA possesses ten times the population compared with
the Canadian population statistics. Geographically the USA is smaller.
Proportional representation presents a far major shift to divisive
party politics. Each party nominates a candidate to run in each
election presently. In Canada, on the ballot it is the person who
represents a riding not the political party. In proportional
representation a list of Candidates is presented to some sort of
cesspool of politicians and those party favorites, these party
specials represent
Political InstabilityA peril because one of the most important features of the Canadian
experience has engendered long periods of what is called majority
government and short periods of minority government. While
uncomfortable for those in opposition, the so called first past the
post system has brought governmental stability. Unlike the USA the
Canadian government depends on the voting support of most of the
members of Parliament.
Some people advocate a more USA like political system and in a
Parliamentary structure that brings disaster because the
responsibilities are different. It means potentially political chaos
and even a more intransigent political structure benefiting only
political parties.
In most systems where Proportional Representation exists there
maintains long periods of minority coalition governments. In Canada,
in Ontario the Riding and its constituents are placed ahead of the
political party. With the advent of the Proportional Representation
the advantage, the control of government shifts away from the Crown,
the people to the hands of the mandarins of political parties. These
people only care about themselves and care little for Joe Citizen. The
power shift from away the people, and to the political party is the
prime reason why all the Ontario political parties are for this
resolution. It kills the Parliamentary system slowly in a
strangulation of party politics in an environment of coalition
politicians which they control.
Advocates claim otherwise citing specific examples like Sweden. Sweden
is a very small country physically. Sweden is a mono-culture. Sweden's
political systems work far different than the British evolved Canadian
system. In most cases, Proportional Representation, stifles government.
Riding vs. ConstituencyI am repeating this argument from the Northern Ontario political
crisis. But the argument also applies in much of Southern Ontario.
Recall that earlier the emphasis on the idea of Crown representing
Canadian Joe Citizen. Each MPP represents an area.
One of the largest myths is the absurd idea that in Canada there is a
one person one, vote idea. So in almost every set of Riding
redistribution hearings since then, there has been an idea about all
ridings being approximately equal in population. It is the over riding
goal albeit a twisted one.
This is always worth repeating. While an ideal, this equal population
only works if the foundation of the state is a popular republic.
Unlike the USA Congressman the MPP just doesn't represent the people
in Parliament. The MPP also represents the Crown to her/his Riding.
Canada is a representative monarchy. The MPP swears to the Crown as
the representative of the people. The MPP is not the people's
representative. Rather they are the responsible elected agent of the
Crown to the people.
Again in all this, presently political parties are entirely secondary
to Canadian government. Ontario political parties only wish to deprive
Joe Citizen of even that political right. Political parties wish to
control the Ontario parliament, the people, the Crown be damned.
Lets define what a Riding began as. In times of yore it was decided by
the Crown that population was the secondary consideration to political
access to that MPP. A "Riding" was a distance that a single rider or
riding MPP could cover in the space of one day. From the idea it
wasn't just the idea of one person one vote but also it was firstly
the idea of one person equal access to government.
As it evolved into the 19th century, the idea of political access
predominated. In a city with dense populations the access could be
divided into access by statistics. But in the rural districts it was
political access that had to be considered first. Every citizen not
only has an equal vote but every citizen must have an equal access to
government.
In the federal government redistribution circa 1974, there was a
significant shift from the idea. An MP from Northern Ontario named
Keith Penner fought hard against this change since it began the
decline of political access to government by citizens. His arguments
ring to this day. Basically it was an injustice to such a large
important territory so critical to Canada lose political power simply
because of a lower population compared with a dense urban area like
Toronto.
When Parliaments evolved the idea of political access dominated versus
a population factor for represenetation. How does this work?
Presently I live in Toronto not by choice. The riding in which I live
probably has about 120,000 or so. To access my MPP I simply have to
walk up to College Street and walk into his office. Also there is the
option of simply going to a ceremony or community social function or
funeral. The MPP should likely be there.
In Northern Ontario, today that same political access to Crown
representation is not there. The MPP is an able hard working person
but cannot give the same quality of representation. The size of his
"Riding" is too large. The office is in Thunder Bay. Despite his best
efforts the MPP cannot go to the social functions or funerals that
urban MPPs can. Simply stating. A Northern Ontario Joe Citizen has far
poorer access to representation than a Toronto Joe Citizen.
Even though there maybe only 80,000 people in the riding and in theory
the MPP represents far fewer people the quality of representation
remains mitigated by geography, distance and adverse climates. Since
1974 that quality of representation has reduced significantly and
Northern Ontario residents are only second class citizens due to an
inane drive to determine Ridings based on population alone.
This inequality resides in rural southern Ontario as well although not
to the significant degree. An MPP in that Riding can drive to any
social function within several hours travel and be back in the
legislature the very next day, but the rural citizen doesn't have the
same easy access to political representation Toronto residents do.
Now with the advent of Proportional Representation this access will
be even further diminished. A city like Toronto or London has more
members. They will chose those members by outright vote to be the ones
nominated to that class of MPP. In Northern Ontario the only
representatives that will represent them will be only those members
that southern Ontario party members chose.
The only difference between Northern Ontario Joe Citizen's access to
political influence and the rural person in southern Ontario is only
in the degree. Proportional Representation, if adopted is simply a
naked power grab by urban centric political parties.
Political responsibilityAnd who gains access to these proportional MPs? In a
Riding/Constituency system the MPP remains uncomfortably responsible
for that Riding. A proportional MPP doesn't answer to anyone save the
political party they belong to. They will not have the same right to
cross the floor in a dispute with their political party mandarins.
Political freedoms so long protected by historical evolution are now
gone if Proportional Representation is adopted.
Again, who does the Premier or Cabinet member be responsible to if
she/he is a Proportional Member? People do not have the right to
complain to this person. The idea violates the very heart of
Parliamentary democracy because Proportional MPPs are responsible only
to the parties political, not the people, not the crown, only to a
vested interest.
And this is why few Political Parties stand up to oppose this faulty
idea. Proportional Representation skews and begins the wrecking of the
Canadian, of the Ontario political system. And the personal rights to
equal political access for all is further diminished.
Gord CampbellToronto
