Direct Democracy

[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.

 

[Reverend Blair]

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'.

I actually see that the other way, Huron. Most people will partake in political discussion (my guy's better than your guy, neener, neener, neener) to at least a point, but nuts and bolts matters of government (we have this many people who we put there this way and their job is) aren't so interesting to most. Consider how many more people tune into Question Period, the political version of WWF wrestling, than sit and watch committees on CPAC.

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.

I would like to see a recall component, but it would have be very stringent to avoid incidents like the one that brought AHHHnold to power in California. Recall leaves the system open to being co-opted by those with the most money and access to media, so we'd have to figure out a set of checks and balances against that. Short of that, there is a chance for recall roughly every four years (that brings up the issue of set election dates, but that's a whole other discussion).

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.

That's your only concern? It's one of my biggest, but far from the only one. I have similar concerns with DD too...that non-participation once it is in place could lead us into the same kind of problems that we have now except on major issues. Those major issues could well be decided on emotional grounds rather than facts.

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 understand that the current system is also slow. I think we want something better though.

While saner marijuana laws may have made it through a DD system more quickly, what happens with other issues? Less publicised or more regional issues may see their legislation languish for long periods due to a lack of interest by both politicans and the general public. When they are voted on there is a chance that a portion of those voting will be almost completely uninformed. Is there a proposed mechanism for dealing with that?

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.

I think a lot of Canadians will take just about anything they perceive as change right now. There is a danger in that. We have to be careful not to just grab the first thing that comes along. There seems to be little or no political will for change right now though. The Reform/Alliance used to push for change but express express little interest now. Jack Layton seems reluctant to push too hard, as does Gilles Duceppe, though they both still pay lip-service to change.

There is almost no discussion about either direct democracy or proportional representation in the media. Senate reform gets a little bit of play, but the only option being mentioned is really just an Americanized version of our present system. Since their system doesn't work either that would be kind of a stupid thing to do.

My feeling is that Canadians want change but if those presently in the role of representing us and bringing the issue into the greater public domain like things more or less the way they are.

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.

It is biased, but it points to the slowness of the DD system in Swtizerland, as well as the problem of the tyranny of the majority. It isn't that our present system doesn't have similar problems, but if we are going to adopt a new system that system should address and at least attempt to change those problems.

Individuals should have greater powers (and I'm for dropping the voting age to sixteen), but without ensuring that minority rights can be preserved politically and and legally the power of those individuals can be a very hurtful, even destructive, thing. I'm thinking specifically about the many calls we've heard for the suppression of treaty rights that we've heard over the years.

 

[Reverend Blair]

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'.

I actually see that the other way, Huron. Most people will partake in political discussion (my guy's better than your guy, neener, neener, neener) to at least a point, but nuts and bolts matters of government (we have this many people who we put there this way and their job is) aren't so interesting to most. Consider how many more people tune into Question Period, the political version of WWF wrestling, than sit and watch committees on CPAC.

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.

I would like to see a recall component, but it would have be very stringent to avoid incidents like the one that brought AHHHnold to power in California. Recall leaves the system open to being co-opted by those with the most money and access to media, so we'd have to figure out a set of checks and balances against that. Short of that, there is a chance for recall roughly every four years (that brings up the issue of set election dates, but that's a whole other discussion).

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.

That's your only concern? It's one of my biggest, but far from the only one. I have similar concerns with DD too...that non-participation once it is in place could lead us into the same kind of problems that we have now except on major issues. Those major issues could well be decided on emotional grounds rather than facts.

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 understand that the current system is also slow. I think we want something better though.

While saner marijuana laws may have made it through a DD system more quickly, what happens with other issues? Less publicised or more regional issues may see their legislation languish for long periods due to a lack of interest by both politicans and the general public. When they are voted on there is a chance that a portion of those voting will be almost completely uninformed. Is there a proposed mechanism for dealing with that?

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.

I think a lot of Canadians will take just about anything they perceive as change right now. There is a danger in that. We have to be careful not to just grab the first thing that comes along. There seems to be little or no political will for change right now though. The Reform/Alliance used to push for change but express express little interest now. Jack Layton seems reluctant to push too hard, as does Gilles Duceppe, though they both still pay lip-service to change.

There is almost no discussion about either direct democracy or proportional representation in the media. Senate reform gets a little bit of play, but the only option being mentioned is really just an Americanized version of our present system. Since their system doesn't work either that would be kind of a stupid thing to do.

My feeling is that Canadians want change but if those presently in the role of representing us and bringing the issue into the greater public domain like things more or less the way they are.

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.

It is biased, but it points to the slowness of the DD system in Swtizerland, as well as the problem of the tyranny of the majority. It isn't that our present system doesn't have similar problems, but if we are going to adopt a new system that system should address and at least attempt to change those problems.

Individuals should have greater powers (and I'm for dropping the voting age to sixteen), but without ensuring that minority rights can be preserved politically and and legally the power of those individuals can be a very hurtful, even destructive, thing. I'm thinking specifically about the many calls we've heard for the suppression of treaty rights that we've heard over the years.

 

[Reverend Blair]

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'.

I actually see that the other way, Huron. Most people will partake in political discussion (my guy's better than your guy, neener, neener, neener) to at least a point, but nuts and bolts matters of government (we have this many people who we put there this way and their job is) aren't so interesting to most. Consider how many more people tune into Question Period, the political version of WWF wrestling, than sit and watch committees on CPAC.

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.

I would like to see a recall component, but it would have be very stringent to avoid incidents like the one that brought AHHHnold to power in California. Recall leaves the system open to being co-opted by those with the most money and access to media, so we'd have to figure out a set of checks and balances against that. Short of that, there is a chance for recall roughly every four years (that brings up the issue of set election dates, but that's a whole other discussion).

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.

That's your only concern? It's one of my biggest, but far from the only one. I have similar concerns with DD too...that non-participation once it is in place could lead us into the same kind of problems that we have now except on major issues. Those major issues could well be decided on emotional grounds rather than facts.

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 understand that the current system is also slow. I think we want something better though.

While saner marijuana laws may have made it through a DD system more quickly, what happens with other issues? Less publicised or more regional issues may see their legislation languish for long periods due to a lack of interest by both politicans and the general public. When they are voted on there is a chance that a portion of those voting will be almost completely uninformed. Is there a proposed mechanism for dealing with that?

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.

I think a lot of Canadians will take just about anything they perceive as change right now. There is a danger in that. We have to be careful not to just grab the first thing that comes along. There seems to be little or no political will for change right now though. The Reform/Alliance used to push for change but express express little interest now. Jack Layton seems reluctant to push too hard, as does Gilles Duceppe, though they both still pay lip-service to change.

There is almost no discussion about either direct democracy or proportional representation in the media. Senate reform gets a little bit of play, but the only option being mentioned is really just an Americanized version of our present system. Since their system doesn't work either that would be kind of a stupid thing to do.

My feeling is that Canadians want change but if those presently in the role of representing us and bringing the issue into the greater public domain like things more or less the way they are.

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.

It is biased, but it points to the slowness of the DD system in Swtizerland, as well as the problem of the tyranny of the majority. It isn't that our present system doesn't have similar problems, but if we are going to adopt a new system that system should address and at least attempt to change those problems.

Individuals should have greater powers (and I'm for dropping the voting age to sixteen), but without ensuring that minority rights can be preserved politically and and legally the power of those individuals can be a very hurtful, even destructive, thing. I'm thinking specifically about the many calls we've heard for the suppression of treaty rights that we've heard over the years.

 

[marcarc]

Actually, if you really look, you'll see the incredible speed of the Swiss system. Citizen's initiatives are often initiated in a matter of weeks and months, and the referendums must be held within a year and the government MUST implement them within a year. This is incredible speed compared to our system, whose speed is only displayed when they pass laws to further attack what few rights we have.

Your mention of treaty rights is apt and is the perfect reason to really get involved in DD. You see, organizations are already lobbying the government (which doesn't really care if a handful of people argue about it on the web). You have already seen really lousy uses of DD in New Brunswick and British Columbia, the latter used a referendum to begin a process to complicate a process that has taken natives generations to progress in. The population is easily motivated to the government's aims, two world wars showed that. So now you see 'the people' as the mechanism by which governments will thwart native claims. By claiming to be democratically inclined, there are myriad ways government can obtain the results it wants in a referendum. If people don't take control of these initiatives, you will seen direct democracy used to restrict rights, even take away rights, or at least slow the progress of obtaining rights.

 

[marcarc]

Actually, if you really look, you'll see the incredible speed of the Swiss system. Citizen's initiatives are often initiated in a matter of weeks and months, and the referendums must be held within a year and the government MUST implement them within a year. This is incredible speed compared to our system, whose speed is only displayed when they pass laws to further attack what few rights we have.

Your mention of treaty rights is apt and is the perfect reason to really get involved in DD. You see, organizations are already lobbying the government (which doesn't really care if a handful of people argue about it on the web). You have already seen really lousy uses of DD in New Brunswick and British Columbia, the latter used a referendum to begin a process to complicate a process that has taken natives generations to progress in. The population is easily motivated to the government's aims, two world wars showed that. So now you see 'the people' as the mechanism by which governments will thwart native claims. By claiming to be democratically inclined, there are myriad ways government can obtain the results it wants in a referendum. If people don't take control of these initiatives, you will seen direct democracy used to restrict rights, even take away rights, or at least slow the progress of obtaining rights.

 

[marcarc]

Actually, if you really look, you'll see the incredible speed of the Swiss system. Citizen's initiatives are often initiated in a matter of weeks and months, and the referendums must be held within a year and the government MUST implement them within a year. This is incredible speed compared to our system, whose speed is only displayed when they pass laws to further attack what few rights we have.

Your mention of treaty rights is apt and is the perfect reason to really get involved in DD. You see, organizations are already lobbying the government (which doesn't really care if a handful of people argue about it on the web). You have already seen really lousy uses of DD in New Brunswick and British Columbia, the latter used a referendum to begin a process to complicate a process that has taken natives generations to progress in. The population is easily motivated to the government's aims, two world wars showed that. So now you see 'the people' as the mechanism by which governments will thwart native claims. By claiming to be democratically inclined, there are myriad ways government can obtain the results it wants in a referendum. If people don't take control of these initiatives, you will seen direct democracy used to restrict rights, even take away rights, or at least slow the progress of obtaining rights.

 

[scott malcolm]

Huron

The following is dependent on the Swiss model of DD. Brake and Citizen Initiated Referendums.

The PR system being introduced for referendum in BC is an interesting way to undermine the political interests of the parties and return some control to the constituents.

It actually has same party members competing for same seats. In that scenario it is the population who decides who is best for the job on how they perform for the populace rather than the party.

Though Direct Democracy does not circumvent the need for good electoral systems in place to get the best representation of the population.

My tendency is like yours and to question most PR systems out their as the failings are self evident to me at least.

Though with the BC-STV I have found they really do have the best interests of the population at heart and have put a system forward that will reflect the constituents sentiment.

Does it have recall?

Well no. That is not an electoral system process.

duller than dishwater.

We know the importance. Though many are lost in the confusion.

Canadians take their nation and government for granted

They'll just vote the next guy in and check back in 4 to 5 years later without even reviewing his policies just to show distaste for the incumbent.

In terms of political parties, these could continue to exist however

It is impossible to stop people from congregating with like ideas. Though you can lessen the impact by creating competition in the ranks for outside general population validation.

a PR system that offers any substantial benefit to Canadians

You should visit the link above I posted on the citizen's assembly. Which of course was itself formed by a random selection of citizens determining good electoral practices for the betterment of the people and not any party or ideology besides remaining consistent with the Westminster Parliamentary System.

This is a common concern about DD.(moving slowly)

I'm not concerned as we have the right Charter in place that is inclusive rather than exclusive. Which also undermines the analogy of the Swiss and women's rights.

Sorry I don't have time to spell or grammar check. And he's off again.

 

[scott malcolm]

Huron

The following is dependent on the Swiss model of DD. Brake and Citizen Initiated Referendums.

The PR system being introduced for referendum in BC is an interesting way to undermine the political interests of the parties and return some control to the constituents.

It actually has same party members competing for same seats. In that scenario it is the population who decides who is best for the job on how they perform for the populace rather than the party.

Though Direct Democracy does not circumvent the need for good electoral systems in place to get the best representation of the population.

My tendency is like yours and to question most PR systems out their as the failings are self evident to me at least.

Though with the BC-STV I have found they really do have the best interests of the population at heart and have put a system forward that will reflect the constituents sentiment.

Does it have recall?

Well no. That is not an electoral system process.

duller than dishwater.

We know the importance. Though many are lost in the confusion.

Canadians take their nation and government for granted

They'll just vote the next guy in and check back in 4 to 5 years later without even reviewing his policies just to show distaste for the incumbent.

In terms of political parties, these could continue to exist however

It is impossible to stop people from congregating with like ideas. Though you can lessen the impact by creating competition in the ranks for outside general population validation.

a PR system that offers any substantial benefit to Canadians

You should visit the link above I posted on the citizen's assembly. Which of course was itself formed by a random selection of citizens determining good electoral practices for the betterment of the people and not any party or ideology besides remaining consistent with the Westminster Parliamentary System.

This is a common concern about DD.(moving slowly)

I'm not concerned as we have the right Charter in place that is inclusive rather than exclusive. Which also undermines the analogy of the Swiss and women's rights.

Sorry I don't have time to spell or grammar check. And he's off again.

 

[scott malcolm]

Huron

The following is dependent on the Swiss model of DD. Brake and Citizen Initiated Referendums.

The PR system being introduced for referendum in BC is an interesting way to undermine the political interests of the parties and return some control to the constituents.

It actually has same party members competing for same seats. In that scenario it is the population who decides who is best for the job on how they perform for the populace rather than the party.

Though Direct Democracy does not circumvent the need for good electoral systems in place to get the best representation of the population.

My tendency is like yours and to question most PR systems out their as the failings are self evident to me at least.

Though with the BC-STV I have found they really do have the best interests of the population at heart and have put a system forward that will reflect the constituents sentiment.

Does it have recall?

Well no. That is not an electoral system process.

duller than dishwater.

We know the importance. Though many are lost in the confusion.

Canadians take their nation and government for granted

They'll just vote the next guy in and check back in 4 to 5 years later without even reviewing his policies just to show distaste for the incumbent.

In terms of political parties, these could continue to exist however

It is impossible to stop people from congregating with like ideas. Though you can lessen the impact by creating competition in the ranks for outside general population validation.

a PR system that offers any substantial benefit to Canadians

You should visit the link above I posted on the citizen's assembly. Which of course was itself formed by a random selection of citizens determining good electoral practices for the betterment of the people and not any party or ideology besides remaining consistent with the Westminster Parliamentary System.

This is a common concern about DD.(moving slowly)

I'm not concerned as we have the right Charter in place that is inclusive rather than exclusive. Which also undermines the analogy of the Swiss and women's rights.

Sorry I don't have time to spell or grammar check. And he's off again.

 

[Gundamtidus]

I'm pushing for the voting age to be lowered to sixteen so I'm not to enthralled at adopting a system that took until 1981 to allow women vote.

Not quite in Some Cantons (there version of Provinces) women cannot vote in Canton Elections. 8O

And Yes imagine How many stupid Referendums we would get, as I recall in two days Rick Mercer had enough votes to hold a referendum on changing Stock well Days Name to Doris Day :lol: .

 

[Gundamtidus]

I'm pushing for the voting age to be lowered to sixteen so I'm not to enthralled at adopting a system that took until 1981 to allow women vote.

Not quite in Some Cantons (there version of Provinces) women cannot vote in Canton Elections. 8O

And Yes imagine How many stupid Referendums we would get, as I recall in two days Rick Mercer had enough votes to hold a referendum on changing Stock well Days Name to Doris Day :lol: .

 

[Gundamtidus]

I'm pushing for the voting age to be lowered to sixteen so I'm not to enthralled at adopting a system that took until 1981 to allow women vote.

Not quite in Some Cantons (there version of Provinces) women cannot vote in Canton Elections. 8O

And Yes imagine How many stupid Referendums we would get, as I recall in two days Rick Mercer had enough votes to hold a referendum on changing Stock well Days Name to Doris Day :lol: .

 

[Reverend Blair]

Actually if you talk to Scott and Huron enough, they have a pretty good case. They aren't afraid to think about and address concerns about direct democracy.

Judging by the way the monkeys in Ottawa are about toss us into another election for no good reason, ya gotta admit that we need to rework the system one way or the other.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Actually if you talk to Scott and Huron enough, they have a pretty good case. They aren't afraid to think about and address concerns about direct democracy.

Judging by the way the monkeys in Ottawa are about toss us into another election for no good reason, ya gotta admit that we need to rework the system one way or the other.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Actually if you talk to Scott and Huron enough, they have a pretty good case. They aren't afraid to think about and address concerns about direct democracy.

Judging by the way the monkeys in Ottawa are about toss us into another election for no good reason, ya gotta admit that we need to rework the system one way or the other.

 

[rfugger]

Good to see you guys are discussing BC-STV and DD... I attended most of the Citizens' Assembly meetings last year and thought it was a great process. Electoral reform is a classic case of one of those issues where 99% of people just don't care enough to properly educate themselves and vote responsibly in a referendum. They'll have to go with their gut feeling -- and opponents of direct democracy love to point out how easy it is for a group with a few million dollars and some marketing savvy to manipulate people's subconscious responses.

I think having a citizens' assembly to propose the electoral reform initiative makes a great complement to the referendum process, since it is difficult to either hijack during the process or attack after the fact. The main difficulty in this case is getting people to understand what STV is and how it really works, something which took the Assembly members the better part of a year. So, as usual, 99% of people will vote with their gut feeling, but for those with a Yes feeling, it should be bolstered by the fact that 160 randomly-selected ordinary people who studied this thing to death agree with them.

And if it passes, STV would give BC voters the tool they need to elect a few independents and independent-minded partisans who could hold government's feet to the fire on continuing democratic reform and citizen involvement.

 

[rfugger]

Good to see you guys are discussing BC-STV and DD... I attended most of the Citizens' Assembly meetings last year and thought it was a great process. Electoral reform is a classic case of one of those issues where 99% of people just don't care enough to properly educate themselves and vote responsibly in a referendum. They'll have to go with their gut feeling -- and opponents of direct democracy love to point out how easy it is for a group with a few million dollars and some marketing savvy to manipulate people's subconscious responses.

I think having a citizens' assembly to propose the electoral reform initiative makes a great complement to the referendum process, since it is difficult to either hijack during the process or attack after the fact. The main difficulty in this case is getting people to understand what STV is and how it really works, something which took the Assembly members the better part of a year. So, as usual, 99% of people will vote with their gut feeling, but for those with a Yes feeling, it should be bolstered by the fact that 160 randomly-selected ordinary people who studied this thing to death agree with them.

And if it passes, STV would give BC voters the tool they need to elect a few independents and independent-minded partisans who could hold government's feet to the fire on continuing democratic reform and citizen involvement.

 

[rfugger]

Good to see you guys are discussing BC-STV and DD... I attended most of the Citizens' Assembly meetings last year and thought it was a great process. Electoral reform is a classic case of one of those issues where 99% of people just don't care enough to properly educate themselves and vote responsibly in a referendum. They'll have to go with their gut feeling -- and opponents of direct democracy love to point out how easy it is for a group with a few million dollars and some marketing savvy to manipulate people's subconscious responses.

I think having a citizens' assembly to propose the electoral reform initiative makes a great complement to the referendum process, since it is difficult to either hijack during the process or attack after the fact. The main difficulty in this case is getting people to understand what STV is and how it really works, something which took the Assembly members the better part of a year. So, as usual, 99% of people will vote with their gut feeling, but for those with a Yes feeling, it should be bolstered by the fact that 160 randomly-selected ordinary people who studied this thing to death agree with them.

And if it passes, STV would give BC voters the tool they need to elect a few independents and independent-minded partisans who could hold government's feet to the fire on continuing democratic reform and citizen involvement.

 

[scott malcolm]

I think having a citizens' assembly to propose the electoral reform initiative makes a great complement to the referendum process, since it is difficult to either hijack during the process or attack after the fact.

I have to agree. It is quite simply a great non-partisan way to bring ideas to the forefront of consideration without political baggage.

Beyond the Citizen's Assembly process in itself I find BC-STV to be well thought out.

Though we may find it does not provide enough incentive to the poitical machines to bring it to fruitation. Which means people have to make an informed decision and they have to choose to do so for this to be successful.

Can the people of BC accept the responsibility for their own political destiny?

That is the question in my mind.

People love to complain about how they get screwed by the politicians but this is the opportunity to take control of the situation to ensure that we are not as likely to get screwed in the future.

Will BC accept responsibility?