Direct Democracy

[scott malcolm]

You have argued against the party system consistently, Scott.

I have argued against "most" PR systems which are solely party based. You continue with that straw man fallacy rather than simply quoting where I state we do away with the rights of parties to participate in the election process. I don't believe you can. We can limit their dominance of the political process though. See the PR system being proposed in BC. An STV hybrid. I lean towards this PR system over the party dominated PR systems or plurality. It weakens the parties rather than makes it a requirement for participation.

You have said that PR damages your ability to run as an independent.

Believing that independents bring a necessary element to the elections process does not mean you advocate against the right of parties to participate in the elections process or deny they bring a necessary element to the elections and governance process. Most PR systems block independents from participating and that is one of many reasons I am against those PR variants. Though I have just recently spent some time reviewing the BC-STV PR system this weekend and am finding few complaints with it. I think the only obvious shortcoming is the lack of an executive branch. Though the Citizens' Assembly was not mandated to make that recommendation and it is interesting how they got around it. I can see the BC-STV addressing the lack of an executive branch and creating a stable government within the legislature by the fact that the source of power for the elected representatives would be constituent based rather than party dominated. So it just might work well without an elected executive branch. At least they were aware of this shortcoming of installing such a system in Canada given the constitutional monarchy. All in all it appears to place power to the people to address the executive problems. Very interesting.

If we can get PR instituted, and now is the time because there's a minority government,

Well I have to say that I am not dead set against the BC-STV PR and have found myself arguing on its behalf. But I doubt that it would be something the government or any current party would bring to the table for all of Canada.

I can't see the Liberals or Conservatives selling future plurality control of the governemnt for a single legislative gain and the LIberals and NDP are not a coalition.

P.S. I have stated that the DD is a slow moving beast but also state that the Swiss was an exclusive beginning rather than an inclusive. In the case of being inclusive the DD would then make it difficult to alienate people from their rights.

Pssst..... Are we the only ones left in the room?

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

Hi! Scott Malcolm

I constantly stay well versed with this thread and commentary.

So, "No" .... you are not the only one left in the room.

But, you guys know the arguments moreso than I, so I just read and learn.

Don't quit goin' on about it.

Calm

 

[Reverend Blair]

Pssst..... Are we the only ones left in the room?

It could just be the three of us. I know a lot of people find this whole subject duller than dishwater. Actually, so do I...I just think it's important enough to wade through anyway.

I have argued against "most" PR systems which are solely party based.

Yes you have.

I lean towards this PR system over the party dominated PR systems or plurality. It weakens the parties rather than makes it a requirement for participation.

Yet you recognise that it's exceedingly unlikely for that type of system to find any backing from political parties. Without that backing it isn't going to happen.

Believing that independents bring a necessary element to the elections process does not mean you advocate against the right of parties to participate in the elections process or deny they bring a necessary element to the elections and governance process.

So form an independent party that does not have a platform beyond getting party status for independents. It'd be worth it just for the increased funding, so I'm not sure why you independents haven't done it anyway.

Though I have just recently spent some time reviewing the BC-STV PR system this weekend and am finding few complaints with it. I think the only obvious shortcoming is the lack of an executive branch.

See, I'm nervous about the existence of an executive branch at all. I like the GG because she can go to funerals and ribbon cuttings and act as a travelling PR department. I think officially limiting her powers to exactly that is about all the executive branch we need if we change the Senate.

My feeling for the Senate (see...ya shoulda asked ;-))is that each province and territory should put up 3 or so candidates for each position in their area, then have the H of C vote for who gets the final position. Each province and territory would get the same number of Senators and they would be elected in rotation to ensure continuity in the sober second thought category.

Increase their powers so they can rewrite bills before sending them back to the H of C and can introduce bills to the H of C, have at least one Senator on every committee, but do not allow them to kill bills.

Short of that we should divide it up in areas of expertise and let people apply. No relation to the provinces, no elections...just like applying for a job. Have some artists and some scientists and some social workers and some economists and some guys who wander off to the peeler bar at noon every day and never come back or whatever...a slice of the Canadian citizenry.

I'd give them the same kind of powers as suggested above.

I can't see the Liberals or Conservatives selling future plurality control of the governemnt for a single legislative gain and the LIberals and NDP are not a coalition.

Neither can I, but a Conservative aquaintance of mine says we should reserve judgement until after the Conservative policy convention. He's a strong believer in PR and DD (as well as EEE Senate and a lot of other things) and feels there is a movement within the party to push for these things.

The Liberals and the NDP are not a coalition but the Liberals, if they don't have the support of the Conservatives, are dependent on the NDP and the BQ. Conversely the Conservatives could get together with the NDP and the BQ and push for change pretty convincingly.

 

[scott malcolm]

Yet you recognize that it's exceedingly unlikely for that type of system to find any backing from political parties. Without that backing it isn't going to happen.

The difference in the BC scenario is that the political backing came before the determination of the proceedings was presented and all parties agreed to be bound by the outcome of the referendum. The proposition is already on the ballot on the provincial level and stands a good chance of winning given the last election which saw a party with less than half the popular vote get all but two seats in the legislature.

So form an independent party that does not have a platform beyond getting party status for independents. It'd be worth it just for the increased funding, so I'm not sure why you independents haven't done it anyway.

Its interesting you mention this as this is something that I have been in contact with a variety of people about. Even without PR the independents are marginalized. Funding goes to the dominant parties which assures their dominance which is something to address if PR is initiated. But I don't like the idea of publicly funded campaigns at all. Though the playing field must be leveled and the parties are not going to give up the taxpayers dollars to line our streets with their signs. Ticks me off that I have to pay for those signs. Any party guy that says he is responsibly looking after your tax dollars is a liar if he is the one who has the most signs. He is spending them for self promotion.

See, I'm nervous about the existence of an executive branch at all.

I certainly don't want a Bush or Chirac in Canada.

An empowered Senate addresses that problem.

a Conservative acquaintance of mine says we should reserve judgement until after the Conservative policy convention.

It would be nice if the opposition had some values established in a policy convention. It was quite disconcerting to have them suggest that they would get elected and tell us what they were about once they got in.

Paranoid Dot Calm

Good to see you hav stuck it out. I think at the bottom of the argument you would find that the Reverend and I both want to see more representation of the people rather than one or two dominant parties and are arguing not about the end result but the process of getting there.

Or so I believe.

 

[passpatoo]

I'm here too, (trying) to follow along.

 

[Reverend Blair]

You believe correctly, Scott...at least from my perspective.

 

[scott malcolm]

Well I just came from a meeting with several political interests in our community.

Afterwards I passed around a package on the BC-STV system and asked what they think.

It was confusing to them.

Hmmmmm! I wonder how many people will vote for a system they do not understand. The referendum ballot only asks if the province should adopt the system but does not explain it.

So as a "hybrid citizen initiative" I think this initiative will be dependent on what spin the media does put on it unless responsible citizens take the initiative to educate the populace on this initiative.

Direct Democracy does require access to unbiased information.

If anyone is reading this and lives in B.C. I suggest that you contact the citizen's assembly alumni at speakers@caalumni.ca and request they come to your community and explain the details of the initiative to any groups who are willing to meet with them.

A general meeting for the community at large should also be coordinated if possible.

It takes some money to promote and facilitate but you may find some sponsors in your community.

If you hold any meetings you should suggest that everyone who has an opinion share it with the local papers to get the discussion on the pros and cons going.

Then we can help the people make informed choices. The question to be on the ballot reads as follows:

Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform? Yes/No

The final report is here in doc form:
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/FinalRep_word.doc

The Citizens Assembly website is here:
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

 

[Reverend Blair]

I would expect the press to get behind rather fully...political writers like anything that will generate stories, right? This will generate stories.

I don't know if the coverage will be unbiased, but I think it will well-covered.

 

[scott malcolm]

I really don't think you can rely on political writers to express the opinions of the whole spectrum of people or rely on the newspapers to move on an issue without a generated interest.

I count on the people.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think you can either, but I haven't had a lot of luck convincing people to watch comittee meetings on CPAC either.

The press may not do a perfect job, especially since ownership concentration is so prevalent, but they are the only game in town.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think you can either, but I haven't had a lot of luck convincing people to watch comittee meetings on CPAC either.

The press may not do a perfect job, especially since ownership concentration is so prevalent, but they are the only game in town.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think you can either, but I haven't had a lot of luck convincing people to watch comittee meetings on CPAC either.

The press may not do a perfect job, especially since ownership concentration is so prevalent, but they are the only game in town.

 

[scott malcolm]

but they are the only game in town.

Or so they would like to think.

Newsflash: Person to person is the most effective form of advertising. The trick is to get the right 1% of the population to show up to the meeting to hear the information so they make up their own mind and engage other people because they are interested.

I admit that is tricky but engaging people is far more effective than anything the media can do.

 

[scott malcolm]

but they are the only game in town.

Or so they would like to think.

Newsflash: Person to person is the most effective form of advertising. The trick is to get the right 1% of the population to show up to the meeting to hear the information so they make up their own mind and engage other people because they are interested.

I admit that is tricky but engaging people is far more effective than anything the media can do.

 

[scott malcolm]

but they are the only game in town.

Or so they would like to think.

Newsflash: Person to person is the most effective form of advertising. The trick is to get the right 1% of the population to show up to the meeting to hear the information so they make up their own mind and engage other people because they are interested.

I admit that is tricky but engaging people is far more effective than anything the media can do.

 

[Huron]

Haven't had much time at the PC lately.

I know a lot of people find this whole subject duller than dishwater.

This is an interesting statement.

As the majority of the world's inhabitants can attest, the form of government utilized by a nation can have a profound impact on the life (and death) of the citizen.

I can well understand how most people can find 'political' discussions a bit 'dry', to say the least. However, it's unfortunate that more don't differentiate between 'politics' and 'government'.

Perhaps it's just because most Canadians take their nation and government for granted. If so, bad mistake.

In terms of political parties, these could continue to exist however, would be more or less irrelevant in a DD environment where citizens directly express their view on specific issues.

To clarify everyone's understanding of PR, does the PR being discussed here include a recall component? If so, it could offer an improvement over the current system. If not, I honestly don't see where PR presents any benefit over the current system for the average citizen, In terms of PR, I'll include a couple of comments made elsewhere.

Had PR been applicable in the last election, yes the NDP and Greens would be more greatly represented (or for the Greens, represented) in Parliament. However, together they would still lack the power to push anything to the top of the Liberal priorities that the Conservatives did not oppose. Given different circumstances, PR could have an impact however, only if those different circumstances, e.g., significantly greater NDP/Green/CAP support in the nation than currently exists, were present.

Regardless, it will remain true that political parties, rather than citizens will decide what is and is not a priority and what should, or should not be discussed, subject to referendum, etc.

And we're still stuck with the fact that neither of Canada's mainstream parties are likely to support PR because neither really has much to gain from supporting the concept.

And more generally in terms of the current system:

My view is that discussion of what seem to others legitimate concerns about DD is a valid activity, and one that can serve only to better the final product.

However, in doing so, we shouldn't ignore the system we have today. So, let's take a brief look at federal system of today.

Our nation is for all intents and purposes run by the PM and PM selected cabinet, and whatever interests they choose to serve.

The citizen's so called democratic right in our nation is limited to selecting between several candidates representing platforms and views that may not fully accord with most citizen's views.

For example, as citizen 'Joe', I may have candidates from party A, B, C and D competing for my vote. My overall agreement with the platforms offered may be 60%, 40%, 25% and 15%. Now to make things easy, we'll say all candidates and their party leaders are relatively equal in my eyes.

So, I vote for party A because it seems the part that accords most to my views and interests however, I'm still not agreeable to forty percent of their platform. As it happens, few others in my riding support that 40% of the platform, or in many cases any of party A's platform.

Anyway, my party A candidate wins with 30% of the votes cast by the 60% of eligible voters who chose to participate, parties B, C and D garnering 25%, 25% and 20% of the remaining votes.

We now have a situation were the views of 70% of those who voted may not be considered during my candidates term of office.

Once the election is over, no one from party A seeks to elicit my views on any issue. Party A will decide it's own priorities. As it turns out, party A's priorities include the 40% of their platform with which I didn't agree and 10% of the 60% with which I did agree.

I and at least 70% of my riding's constituents aren't happy about this however, there's nothing we can do to change anything before the next election.

Come the next election, the process starts again.

In a PR environment, maybe we'd have a few more party B representatives present than in the current system however, this still offers no guarantee of citizen priorities being addressed to any greater extent than they are today, as the party A and B reps may spend their time making deals to forward one anothers particular priorities, which again may not correspond to citizen priorities.

That's the system you have today. A Canadian citizen can spend their entire life supporting their nation without ever having any input into the actual decisions that affect that either. Sure, you get to choose who makes the decisions and sets the priorities however, you'll never be doing this yourself.

Don't get me wrong. If we can achieve a PR system that offers any substantial benefit to Canadians, I'm all for it. My only concern is that PR might serve only to further an illusion of democracy, while still leaving power in the hands of the few.

You and Huron have both admitted that DD moves incredibly slowly.

I don't recall stating this exactly as above. This is a common concern about DD. In response, I have pointed out that the current system is generally not exactly expeditious in forwarding legislation, and in fact risks losing beneficial legislation when a party forwarding the same loses power. The speed, or lack thereof, at which bills move through parliament can be easily verified.

But to get down to brass tacks, I'd be willing to be marijauna would be out of the criminal code a lot more quickly going the citizen initiative route than is likely to be the case for the current system.

I still lean towards PR though, partly because there are many working models we can learn from and partly because it has a much better shot of being instituted some time before I take a dirt nap.

Re: the dirt nap, not necessarily. We have numerous historic examples of situations considered immutable by most changing very quickly. Given some of the BC numbers mentioned by Scott, Canadians may be more ready for DD than some might think.

but we have even less of an idea of what form it would eventually take than we do with PR.

And, isn't that one of the reasons we're having this discussion?

 

[Huron]

Haven't had much time at the PC lately.

I know a lot of people find this whole subject duller than dishwater.

This is an interesting statement.

As the majority of the world's inhabitants can attest, the form of government utilized by a nation can have a profound impact on the life (and death) of the citizen.

I can well understand how most people can find 'political' discussions a bit 'dry', to say the least. However, it's unfortunate that more don't differentiate between 'politics' and 'government'.

Perhaps it's just because most Canadians take their nation and government for granted. If so, bad mistake.

In terms of political parties, these could continue to exist however, would be more or less irrelevant in a DD environment where citizens directly express their view on specific issues.

To clarify everyone's understanding of PR, does the PR being discussed here include a recall component? If so, it could offer an improvement over the current system. If not, I honestly don't see where PR presents any benefit over the current system for the average citizen, In terms of PR, I'll include a couple of comments made elsewhere.

Had PR been applicable in the last election, yes the NDP and Greens would be more greatly represented (or for the Greens, represented) in Parliament. However, together they would still lack the power to push anything to the top of the Liberal priorities that the Conservatives did not oppose. Given different circumstances, PR could have an impact however, only if those different circumstances, e.g., significantly greater NDP/Green/CAP support in the nation than currently exists, were present.

Regardless, it will remain true that political parties, rather than citizens will decide what is and is not a priority and what should, or should not be discussed, subject to referendum, etc.

And we're still stuck with the fact that neither of Canada's mainstream parties are likely to support PR because neither really has much to gain from supporting the concept.

And more generally in terms of the current system:

My view is that discussion of what seem to others legitimate concerns about DD is a valid activity, and one that can serve only to better the final product.

However, in doing so, we shouldn't ignore the system we have today. So, let's take a brief look at federal system of today.

Our nation is for all intents and purposes run by the PM and PM selected cabinet, and whatever interests they choose to serve.

The citizen's so called democratic right in our nation is limited to selecting between several candidates representing platforms and views that may not fully accord with most citizen's views.

For example, as citizen 'Joe', I may have candidates from party A, B, C and D competing for my vote. My overall agreement with the platforms offered may be 60%, 40%, 25% and 15%. Now to make things easy, we'll say all candidates and their party leaders are relatively equal in my eyes.

So, I vote for party A because it seems the part that accords most to my views and interests however, I'm still not agreeable to forty percent of their platform. As it happens, few others in my riding support that 40% of the platform, or in many cases any of party A's platform.

Anyway, my party A candidate wins with 30% of the votes cast by the 60% of eligible voters who chose to participate, parties B, C and D garnering 25%, 25% and 20% of the remaining votes.

We now have a situation were the views of 70% of those who voted may not be considered during my candidates term of office.

Once the election is over, no one from party A seeks to elicit my views on any issue. Party A will decide it's own priorities. As it turns out, party A's priorities include the 40% of their platform with which I didn't agree and 10% of the 60% with which I did agree.

I and at least 70% of my riding's constituents aren't happy about this however, there's nothing we can do to change anything before the next election.

Come the next election, the process starts again.

In a PR environment, maybe we'd have a few more party B representatives present than in the current system however, this still offers no guarantee of citizen priorities being addressed to any greater extent than they are today, as the party A and B reps may spend their time making deals to forward one anothers particular priorities, which again may not correspond to citizen priorities.

That's the system you have today. A Canadian citizen can spend their entire life supporting their nation without ever having any input into the actual decisions that affect that either. Sure, you get to choose who makes the decisions and sets the priorities however, you'll never be doing this yourself.

Don't get me wrong. If we can achieve a PR system that offers any substantial benefit to Canadians, I'm all for it. My only concern is that PR might serve only to further an illusion of democracy, while still leaving power in the hands of the few.

You and Huron have both admitted that DD moves incredibly slowly.

I don't recall stating this exactly as above. This is a common concern about DD. In response, I have pointed out that the current system is generally not exactly expeditious in forwarding legislation, and in fact risks losing beneficial legislation when a party forwarding the same loses power. The speed, or lack thereof, at which bills move through parliament can be easily verified.

But to get down to brass tacks, I'd be willing to be marijauna would be out of the criminal code a lot more quickly going the citizen initiative route than is likely to be the case for the current system.

I still lean towards PR though, partly because there are many working models we can learn from and partly because it has a much better shot of being instituted some time before I take a dirt nap.

Re: the dirt nap, not necessarily. We have numerous historic examples of situations considered immutable by most changing very quickly. Given some of the BC numbers mentioned by Scott, Canadians may be more ready for DD than some might think.

but we have even less of an idea of what form it would eventually take than we do with PR.

And, isn't that one of the reasons we're having this discussion?

 

[Huron]

Haven't had much time at the PC lately.

I know a lot of people find this whole subject duller than dishwater.

This is an interesting statement.

As the majority of the world's inhabitants can attest, the form of government utilized by a nation can have a profound impact on the life (and death) of the citizen.

I can well understand how most people can find 'political' discussions a bit 'dry', to say the least. However, it's unfortunate that more don't differentiate between 'politics' and 'government'.

Perhaps it's just because most Canadians take their nation and government for granted. If so, bad mistake.

In terms of political parties, these could continue to exist however, would be more or less irrelevant in a DD environment where citizens directly express their view on specific issues.

To clarify everyone's understanding of PR, does the PR being discussed here include a recall component? If so, it could offer an improvement over the current system. If not, I honestly don't see where PR presents any benefit over the current system for the average citizen, In terms of PR, I'll include a couple of comments made elsewhere.

Had PR been applicable in the last election, yes the NDP and Greens would be more greatly represented (or for the Greens, represented) in Parliament. However, together they would still lack the power to push anything to the top of the Liberal priorities that the Conservatives did not oppose. Given different circumstances, PR could have an impact however, only if those different circumstances, e.g., significantly greater NDP/Green/CAP support in the nation than currently exists, were present.

Regardless, it will remain true that political parties, rather than citizens will decide what is and is not a priority and what should, or should not be discussed, subject to referendum, etc.

And we're still stuck with the fact that neither of Canada's mainstream parties are likely to support PR because neither really has much to gain from supporting the concept.

And more generally in terms of the current system:

My view is that discussion of what seem to others legitimate concerns about DD is a valid activity, and one that can serve only to better the final product.

However, in doing so, we shouldn't ignore the system we have today. So, let's take a brief look at federal system of today.

Our nation is for all intents and purposes run by the PM and PM selected cabinet, and whatever interests they choose to serve.

The citizen's so called democratic right in our nation is limited to selecting between several candidates representing platforms and views that may not fully accord with most citizen's views.

For example, as citizen 'Joe', I may have candidates from party A, B, C and D competing for my vote. My overall agreement with the platforms offered may be 60%, 40%, 25% and 15%. Now to make things easy, we'll say all candidates and their party leaders are relatively equal in my eyes.

So, I vote for party A because it seems the part that accords most to my views and interests however, I'm still not agreeable to forty percent of their platform. As it happens, few others in my riding support that 40% of the platform, or in many cases any of party A's platform.

Anyway, my party A candidate wins with 30% of the votes cast by the 60% of eligible voters who chose to participate, parties B, C and D garnering 25%, 25% and 20% of the remaining votes.

We now have a situation were the views of 70% of those who voted may not be considered during my candidates term of office.

Once the election is over, no one from party A seeks to elicit my views on any issue. Party A will decide it's own priorities. As it turns out, party A's priorities include the 40% of their platform with which I didn't agree and 10% of the 60% with which I did agree.

I and at least 70% of my riding's constituents aren't happy about this however, there's nothing we can do to change anything before the next election.

Come the next election, the process starts again.

In a PR environment, maybe we'd have a few more party B representatives present than in the current system however, this still offers no guarantee of citizen priorities being addressed to any greater extent than they are today, as the party A and B reps may spend their time making deals to forward one anothers particular priorities, which again may not correspond to citizen priorities.

That's the system you have today. A Canadian citizen can spend their entire life supporting their nation without ever having any input into the actual decisions that affect that either. Sure, you get to choose who makes the decisions and sets the priorities however, you'll never be doing this yourself.

Don't get me wrong. If we can achieve a PR system that offers any substantial benefit to Canadians, I'm all for it. My only concern is that PR might serve only to further an illusion of democracy, while still leaving power in the hands of the few.

You and Huron have both admitted that DD moves incredibly slowly.

I don't recall stating this exactly as above. This is a common concern about DD. In response, I have pointed out that the current system is generally not exactly expeditious in forwarding legislation, and in fact risks losing beneficial legislation when a party forwarding the same loses power. The speed, or lack thereof, at which bills move through parliament can be easily verified.

But to get down to brass tacks, I'd be willing to be marijauna would be out of the criminal code a lot more quickly going the citizen initiative route than is likely to be the case for the current system.

I still lean towards PR though, partly because there are many working models we can learn from and partly because it has a much better shot of being instituted some time before I take a dirt nap.

Re: the dirt nap, not necessarily. We have numerous historic examples of situations considered immutable by most changing very quickly. Given some of the BC numbers mentioned by Scott, Canadians may be more ready for DD than some might think.

but we have even less of an idea of what form it would eventually take than we do with PR.

And, isn't that one of the reasons we're having this discussion?

 

[marcarc]

One of the main 'arguments' I've heard concerning Switzerland is that 'it took a long time for women to get the right to vote' in 1971. Meaning, how are rights to be respected. Not surprising this comment is fairly biased in several respects.
First, every legislative endevour is about rights, not just the 'hot button' issues. If I can't drive without a seat belt, my rights are impigned upon. The notions of minority rights in Canada are misleadingly characterized as a few select issues.
Second, to compare, we should look at why Canada gave voting rights to women so early (even before the UK). During the first world war the government faced an electorate very divided on the war effort, to ensure it's victory the government gave voting rights to women-but only women who had sons and/or husbands in the war movement. Also, during this time any people who opposed the war had their voting rights taken away. When the war ended it was impossible to defend the notion that women can't be trusted with the vote. Note that this has nothing to do with women's rights, which were around long before and found strongest expression in the temperance movement of the 1800's.
Also, we should recognize that natives who lived on reservations were not given the right to vote until the sixties, not much before the swiss example.
Finally, we should recognize that this has nothing to do with a legislature moving slow, or people being conservative. Take a look at the list of referendums. Lately one such was whether to ban all transgenetic organisms and research. It failed, yet forced the government to make serious concessions to the wishes of the electorate. In Canada, we can't even get our government to consider labels on genetically modified ingredients in food.
Finally, finally, we must also remember that granting voting rights is a lousy way of advancing minority rights. Particularly if it is within a system such as canada's. Natives have the right to vote, it certainly has done nothing to protect their rights. In switzerland, at the very least we should recall that when you live in a country where individuals and collectives have so much power, there are many issues to consider before granting that serious right. In Canada, we could extent the voting right to 15 year olds easily, because in the end it really makes no difference.

 

[marcarc]

One of the main 'arguments' I've heard concerning Switzerland is that 'it took a long time for women to get the right to vote' in 1971. Meaning, how are rights to be respected. Not surprising this comment is fairly biased in several respects.
First, every legislative endevour is about rights, not just the 'hot button' issues. If I can't drive without a seat belt, my rights are impigned upon. The notions of minority rights in Canada are misleadingly characterized as a few select issues.
Second, to compare, we should look at why Canada gave voting rights to women so early (even before the UK). During the first world war the government faced an electorate very divided on the war effort, to ensure it's victory the government gave voting rights to women-but only women who had sons and/or husbands in the war movement. Also, during this time any people who opposed the war had their voting rights taken away. When the war ended it was impossible to defend the notion that women can't be trusted with the vote. Note that this has nothing to do with women's rights, which were around long before and found strongest expression in the temperance movement of the 1800's.
Also, we should recognize that natives who lived on reservations were not given the right to vote until the sixties, not much before the swiss example.
Finally, we should recognize that this has nothing to do with a legislature moving slow, or people being conservative. Take a look at the list of referendums. Lately one such was whether to ban all transgenetic organisms and research. It failed, yet forced the government to make serious concessions to the wishes of the electorate. In Canada, we can't even get our government to consider labels on genetically modified ingredients in food.
Finally, finally, we must also remember that granting voting rights is a lousy way of advancing minority rights. Particularly if it is within a system such as canada's. Natives have the right to vote, it certainly has done nothing to protect their rights. In switzerland, at the very least we should recall that when you live in a country where individuals and collectives have so much power, there are many issues to consider before granting that serious right. In Canada, we could extent the voting right to 15 year olds easily, because in the end it really makes no difference.