The Official Canadian Electoral Reform Thread

[gerryh]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Well then, if it is, it's a sure sign we have a corrupt Gov't, just as sure as if Michel Therrien changed the rules of N.H.L. hockey!

The Liberals ran with this on their platform. They were elected with this being part of their platform. They have the legal right to do this. They have said they will consult.

You might be able to use "corruption" if they had run promising NOT to make any electoral changes and then making them without any consultation, but that is not what is happening.

 

[JLM]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

The Liberals ran with this on their platform. They were elected with this being part of their platform. They have the legal right to do this. They have said they will consult.

You might be able to use "corruption" if they had run promising NOT to make any electoral changes and then making them without any consultation, but that is not what is happening.

How is that any different than promising things they don't have the power to fulfill?

The Liberals ran with this on their platform. They were elected with this being part of their platform. They have the legal right to do this. They have said they will consult.

You might be able to use "corruption" if they had run promising NOT to make any electoral changes and then making them without any consultation, but that is not what is happening.

Perhaps you missed the following statement by Rex Murphy.............."So the idea of unilaterally making a decision to change our voting system without a full debate and a referendum is just simply wrong. It is not a government’s choice to make. It is the people’s choice."

 

[gerryh]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

How is that any different than promising things they don't have the power to fulfill?

They have a majority in the House. They could change the electoral process WITHOUT consultation if they so wished. They have the legal right, and they have the ability.

 

[damngrumpy]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

I want not referendum and no change to the first past the post system
things are fine the way they are.

 

[JLM]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

They have a majority in the House. They could change the electoral process WITHOUT consultation if they so wished. They have the legal right, and they have the ability.

Not according to Rex. He generally knows what of he speaks!

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

How is that any different than promising things they don't have the power to fulfill?

...because, again, they do have the power to do it.

As long as the electoral system has the support of the Senate and the House of Commons, and it receives royal assent, then the Parliament of Canada can amend the electoral system on its own under s. 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. They absolutely do have the power to fulfill this promise, in exactly the manner and procedure that they proposed during the election campaign. This really is a non-issue.

The Liberals promised us a thing, we voted for the thing, and now they should do the thing.

 

[CDNBear]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Well, actually, the Conservatives did in fact change the system to be more favourable to them. They passed the Fair Elections Act, which sought to make voting less accessible and more difficult for traditionally disadvantaged demographics. They made those changes despite substantial and vocal opposition by voters throughout the country.

Your dishonesty is typically liberal, and very saddening to see.

...because, again, they do have the power to do it.

Having the power to do it, is not the same as having the moral or ethical authority to do it.

And in this case, the sitting govt certainly does not have the support of the majority of Canadians.

If Quebec needed 50% +1, why should changing something equally as important be given any less consideration?

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Your dishonesty is typically liberal, and very saddening to see.

There's no dishonesty there.

The Conservatives forced through changes to the Canada Elections Act, despite the objections of every opposition party, that eliminated electoral vouching and the use of voter identification cards to vote. They made changes to forbid Elections Canada from running voter participation programs, which had tended to be geared toward youth voter participation. The Conservatives changed the rules so that the Commissioner of Canada Elections now reports to the Director of Public Prosecutions, instead of to the Chief Electoral Officer, meaning that electoral investigations are now under the Attorney General, instead of Elections Canada.

Even the Conservatives' own senators adopted a report asking for changes to the Fair Elections Act. They were concerned about the Tories' efforts to exempt fundraising costs from electoral expenses; they also requested that the bill protect the authority of Elections Canada to run student and youth voter turnout and voter education programs. They also asked that the Conservatives abandon a new government veto over Elections Canada's hiring of specialists.

Unfortunately, only some of the senators' recommendations were accepted, and the Fair Elections Act, as it was adopted, is a deeply flawed and problematic piece of legislation. Fortunately, the Liberals have promised to repeal the Act, so hopefully these problems are going to be fairly short-lived.

Having the power to do it, is not the same as having the moral or ethical authority to do it.

And in this case, the sitting govt certainly does not have the support of the majority of Canadians.

A vast majority of electors voted for candidates from political parties who support an end to the first-past-the-post electoral system, there is an overwhelming mandate to start that conversation. The Liberals also promised to consult with Canadians to ensure that the system proposed takes into consideration the views of the population, so that a legislative proposal can be crafted. This is the most productive, and most effective, path forward.

If Quebec needed 50% +1, why should changing something equally as important be given any less consideration?

This is a point on which we are going to need to disagree; a secession question is much more important, in my opinion, than a question of electoral reform. Whereas the Parliament of Canada alone can make changes to the electoral system, I would argue that the removal of a province from Confederation needs a much more robust system. Whatever the electoral model selected, the fundamental characteristics of the House of Commons are going to stay the same; a question of secession, however, is a question of an individual's rights, freedoms, and status of citizenship.

 

[CDNBear]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

There's no dishonesty there.

The youth vote puts lie to your claims. Your comparison is dishonest on its face.

A vast majority of electors voted for candidates from political parties who support an end to the first-past-the-post electoral system, there is an overwhelming mandate to start that conversation.

"overwhelming mandate", more dishonesty.

This is a point on which we are going to need to disagree; a secession question is much more important, in my opinion, than a question of electoral reform. Whereas the Parliament of Canada alone can make changes to the electoral system, I would argue that the removal of a province from Confederation needs a much more robust system. Whatever the electoral model selected, the fundamental characteristics of the House of Commons are going to stay the same; a question of secession, however, is a question of an individual's rights, freedoms, and status of citizenship.

They are both a form of self determination, a fundamental human right.

Both, morally and ethically, require a referendum, full stop.

Moved here from another thread, on the same topic...

Funny, I don't remember the Conservatives demanding "by referendum only" when they had a majority in both houses, and pushed through their amendments to the Canada Elections Act, when they made it tougher to vote, disenfranchising voters by allowing the transmission of results before the polls have closed, and forbidding Elections Canada from promoting voting.

Your moral relativism and dishonesty is saddening to see.

You used to dismiss moral relativism when thrust at your arguments, as you attacked Harpers policies.

Now you employ it?

You should be ashamed.

Comparing the fair election act to changing the entirety of how our officials are elected, is both dishonest and stupid. If it were anyone else but you who said it, I would have not been surprised, shocked, dismayed even. But here we are, you wallowing in the shallow end with the likes of Flossy and the Usual Suspects.

And to address your absurd comparison...

I need to fully identify myself to buy smokes. I need to fully identify myself and have other licenses to buy weapons and ammunition. I need to fully identify myself to buy beer and spirits. I need to fully identify myself and have a license to drive a car... get medical coverage... etc.

And in my opinion, all of those pale in comparison to the importance of a secure electoral system.

Nothing, and I repeat that, NOTHING in the Fair Elections Act even remotely compares to the drastic change to our electoral system, that is the replacement of FPTP.

The Trudeau govt does not have the will and support of the majority of Canadians, nor does it have the moral or ethical grounds to do so, without giving the people of Canada the opportunity to vote directly yay or nay.

If you believe that the populous supports the notion, than you should have no issues with democratically putting it to the people to decide.

Thankfully, yes. But it's going to take some time, and a lot of legislation, to clean up the mess they left behind.

Like Bill C 51.

Oh wait...

 

[tay]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Your dishonesty is typically liberal, and very saddening to see.

Having the power to do it, is not the same as having the moral or ethical authority to do it.

And in this case, the sitting govt certainly does not have the support of the majority of Canadians.

Did the Harper CONS have the moral or ethical authority.........?



The primary objective of Stephen Harper’s absurdly-named Fair Elections Act is to prevent hundreds-of-thousands of Canadians from voting for the NDP, Liberals, Greens, etc.

The Conservatives are, in effect, “cheating” the electoral process again, just as blatantly as in the past. They know that a large number of people – students, marginalized people and First Nations – will have a hard time voting because of the changes. And they know those people would not likely vote Conservative.


The Council of Canadians contends that some 770,000 people may have a difficult time voting because of the changes to the Act. Included are 400,000 people who used the voter ID card in 2011 and believe that’s all they need this time; 250,000 people who will move during the election period; and 120,000 who used vouching in 2011.


A second factor could prevent many people from voting. Voting was less complicated when Elections Canada enumerators went door-to-door registering voters and explaining where to vote. Now voter information is compiled from tax records, which are less reliable.

“ It's all part of voter suppression, making it as complicated as possible so people will just throw up their hands and stay home,” says Stephanie Sydiaha, a Saskatoon activist working on registering voters.

Public interest organizations are responding to the challenge, hoping to play a leading role in defeating the Conservatives.

Just a day after the 242-page (un)Fair Elections Act was tabled House Leader Peter Van Loan gave notice that the government will vote to send the bill to committee the following day, a move that seemed to signal the government plans to push the bill through the legislative process without changes.

What follows is just a very small selection of the opposition expressed about this bill.In an interview on CBC Radio

Canada's Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand said "my reading of the act is that I can no longer speak about democracy in this country." it "limits the chief electoral officer's power to provide information to the public."Under the proposed bill, the only role of the chief electoral officer would be to inform the public of when, where, and how to vote.Elections Canada would be forbidden from launching ad campaigns encouraging Canadians to vote. Surveys and research would be forbidden under the new bill, Mayrand said.


In other words, voter identification cards had been successful in enfranchising these groups. Conservative MP Brad Butt, a member of the committee dealing with this measure, has been compelled to retract a completely fabricated story he had told in the House about this so-called fraud. Despite his apparent breach of parliamentary privilege, the Conservatives rejected an opposition bid to have a House committee look into Butt’s false claims that he saw voter identification cards stolen from recycling boxes to commit fraud.

Fair Elections Act attacks participation and debate: Broadbent | Toronto Star

 

[CDNBear]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Did the Harper CONS have the moral or ethical authority.........?

Irrelevant and childish.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

The youth vote puts lie to your claims. Your comparison is dishonest on its face.

The youth vote surged as a result of spectacular dissatisfaction with the Conservatives, not because the Conservatives had done anything whatsoever to make access to voting more accessible. To the contrary, the Conservatives championed student disenfranchisement, which is demonstrated, clearly, by the legislative changes that they made to Elections Canada. There was no good reason for those changes other than for political advantage.

To imply that a failed attempt to suppress voting is any less dishonourable, only because it failed, is sad.

"overwhelming mandate", more dishonesty.

Over 64% of Canadians voted for candidates from political parties whose platforms call for an end to first-past-the-post as an electoral system. The Conservatives are in a clear minority on this question, and the only reason that they are asking for a referendum is so that they can do an end-run around Parliament.

They are both a form of self determination, a fundamental human right.

Both, morally and ethically, require a referendum, full stop.

That's a stretch, and there's no "full-stop" here.

The Constitution Act, 1982 gives Parliament the authority to change the electoral system.

The Canada Elections Act has been amended dozens of times by Parliament alone. Over Canadian history, we have even gone from public votes, to secret ballot votes; we have gone from some electoral districts being multi-member; we have played around with the representation formulas time and time again; none of these amendments to the system required a referendum, and neither does abolishing first-past-the-post (constitutionally, morally, or ethically).

Moved here from another thread, on the same topic...

Your moral relativism and dishonesty is saddening to see.

You used to dismiss moral relativism when thrust at your arguments, as you attacked Harpers policies.

Now you employ it?

You should be ashamed.

There was also a time when you made arguments, instead of just calling people liars and attacking characters.

Comparing the fair election act to changing the entirety of how our officials are elected, is both dishonest and stupid. If it were anyone else but you who said it, I would have not been surprised, shocked, dismayed even. But here we are, you wallowing in the shallow end with the likes of Flossy and the Usual Suspects.

It is an apt comparison. Both are simply changes to the Canada Elections Act. Nothing fundamental about the character of the House of Commons would be altered; there is no huge constitutional debate needed here. We have changed how members are elected before, and this package, if we go the easy and constitution-free route, is just going to be another one of those amendments.

I need to fully identify myself to buy smokes. I need to fully identify myself and have other licenses to buy weapons and ammunition. I need to fully identify myself to buy beer and spirits. I need to fully identify myself and have a license to drive a car... get medical coverage... etc.

And in my opinion, all of those pale in comparison to the importance of a secure electoral system.

There were no problems that needed to be fixed with the electoral system when it comes to vouching or voter identification; there are no recorded cases of any unauthorized elector using the vouching or voter identification systems to cast an unauthorized ballot. It is reasonable for someone to think otherwise, though, given that a Conservative was caught actually lying to Parliament about stories of rampant voter identification fraud (that he literally just made-up for political points, and this he admitted).

If you believe that the populous supports the notion, than you should have no issues with democratically putting it to the people to decide.

I don't oppose a referendum at all, I just disagree that it is an essential step in approving an electoral reform package. If the committee hears from Canadians during its travels that a referendum needs to be central in this process, then maybe the package is going to include that when it gets tabled in Parliament. Who knows? There is no constitutional requirement, however, for one to be held.

And to pretend, continuously, that the Liberals do not have a mandate to propose an electoral system, in consultation with the electorate, after promising to do exactly that, and after being elected on that mandate, is just absurd. They promised to do the thing, they got elected to do the thing, now let's let them do the thing.

 

[B00Mer]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Justin Trudeau lays out platform that would revamp electoral system | Toronto Star

Considering a mandatory voting system.

Voting online... time to hack the vote.. :lol:

 

[CDNBear]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

The youth vote surged as a result of spectacular dissatisfaction with the Conservatives, not because the Conservatives had done anything whatsoever to make access to voting more accessible. To the contrary, the Conservatives championed student disenfranchisement, which is demonstrated, clearly, by the legislative changes that they made to Elections Canada. There was no good reason for those changes other than for political advantage.

Your opinion is proven wrong by how well it didn't work.

Over 64% of Canadians voted for candidates from political parties whose platforms call for an end to first-past-the-post as an electoral system. The Conservatives are in a clear minority on this question, and the only reason that they are asking for a referendum is so that they can do an end-run around Parliament.

That's your opinion, and I don't care what the Conservatives want. Nor do many pundits from a fairly broad spectrum. The only right thing to do is hold a referendum.

That's a stretch, and there's no "full-stop" here.

Oxford public international law and the UN disagree.

The Constitution Act, 1982 gives Parliament the authority to change the electoral system.

But you cry about Harpers changes, while fully endorse JT's.

Do I really have to point out your flaws?

The Canada Elections Act has been amended dozens of times by Parliament alone. Over Canadian history, we have even gone from public votes, to secret ballot votes; we have gone from some electoral districts being multi-member; we have played around with the representation formulas time and time again; none of these amendments to the system required a referendum, and neither does abolishing first-past-the-post (constitutionally, morally, or ethically).

There's your dishonesty again. Nothing of this measure has been done in a 150.

There was also a time when you made arguments, instead of just calling people liars and attacking characters.

Some people aren't worth the former.

It is an apt comparison.

BS, this change is greater than those you try to hide behind.

There were no problems that needed to be fixed with the electoral system when it comes to vouching or voter identification; there are no recorded cases of any unauthorized elector using the vouching or voter identification systems to cast an unauthorized ballot. It is reasonable for someone to think otherwise, though, given that a Conservative was caught actually lying to Parliament about stories of rampant voter identification fraud (that he literally just made-up for political points, and this he admitted).

Made up like comparing a drastic change to our electoral system that may actually leave a centrist govt in control perpetually, to the minor changes you forward?

You mean that kind of make believe?

I don't oppose a referendum at all, I just disagree that it is an essential step in approving an electoral reform package. If the committee hears from Canadians during its travels that a referendum needs to be central in this process, then maybe the package is going to include that when it gets tabled in Parliament. Who knows? There is no constitutional requirement, however, for one to be held.

I don't trust the Liberals to do what the electorate want.

And to pretend, continuously, that the Liberals do not have a mandate to propose an electoral system, in consultation with the electorate, after promising to do exactly that, and after being elected on that mandate, is just absurd. They promised to do the thing, they got elected to do the thing, now let's let them do the thing.

To pretend that the Liberals were elected to change the electoral system, is naive at best, stupid or dishonest at worst.

 

[Locutus]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

The youth vote surged as a result

of the majority of 'youth' being as dumb as a of bag of hair...gagging to belong, easily manipulated via social media while supported by media outlets.

that was akin to the barry obama tactic borrowed by prime minister gerry butts.

it's very obvious.

 

[pgs]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

The Liberals ran with this on their platform. They were elected with this being part of their platform. They have the legal right to do this. They have said they will consult.

You might be able to use "corruption" if they had run promising NOT to make any electoral changes and then making them without any consultation, but that is not what is happening.

Are Liberal MP's allowed to be pro life ?

They have a majority in the House. They could change the electoral process WITHOUT consultation if they so wished. They have the legal right, and they have the ability.

They also have the ability to keep their religious members from being pro choice >

...because, again, they do have the power to do it.

As long as the electoral system has the support of the Senate and the House of Commons, and it receives royal assent, then the Parliament of Canada can amend the electoral system on its own under s. 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. They absolutely do have the power to fulfill this promise, in exactly the manner and procedure that they proposed during the election campaign. This really is a non-issue.

The Liberals promised us a thing, we voted for the thing, and now they should do the thing.

Yup just like Cretien eh > remember him campaigning on abolishing the gst ?

 

[DaSleeper]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

At 39.47% of the popular vote, they just might be shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[tay]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

Irrelevant and childish.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

How come when you replied to 5 paradox ; "Having the power to do it, is not the same as having the moral or ethical authority to do it." wasn't considered irrelevant and childish or would you like to review your original response?

No new electoral system would help the Cons, so whatever they may pretend they are only interested in the status quo.

And should be reminded what Stephen Harper and his Tom Flanagan once had to say about that.

Canada's system of one-party-plus rule has stunted democracy. Two prominent conservatives present the case for more representative government by Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan

more

Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan: Our Benign Dictatorship, Next City, Winter 1996/97

 

[captain morgan]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

How come when you replied to 5 paradox ; "Having the power to do it, is not the same as having the moral or ethical authority to do it." wasn't considered irrelevant and childish or would you like to review your original response?

No new electoral system would help the Cons, so whatever they may pretend they are only interested in the status quo.

And should be reminded what Stephen Harper and his Tom Flanagan once had to say about that.

Canada's system of one-party-plus rule has stunted democracy. Two prominent conservatives present the case for more representative government by Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan

more

Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan: Our Benign Dictatorship, Next City, Winter 1996/97

An article from 96/97.... How compelling.

All the same, Harper is no longer in power and this issue is entirely about Trudeau and the Libs.

That said, perpetual deflection of the issue to the past still does not deal with the present

 

[tay]

Re: Rex Murphy: The Liberal government does not have the right to unilaterally change

An article from 96/97.... How compelling.

All the same, Harper is no longer in power and this issue is entirely about Trudeau and the Libs.

That said, perpetual deflection of the issue to the past still does not deal with the present

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Harper and others in the Conservative Party deliberated from 96/97 to changing the Election Process but they must have been too busy concentrating on Justin's hair to allow it to happen.

Many of Canada's problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country. The political system still reverberates from shock waves from Pierre Trudeau's imposition of the National Energy Program upon the West and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms upon Quebec. Modernizing Canadian politics would not only be good for conservatism, it might be the key to Canada's survival as a nation.

The issue is whether the Majority Govt has the right to 'act' according to Parliamentary Process

And yes, the issue is also of the Harper CONS since they are saying "Do as we say, not as we did" or in other words being hypocritical.

That, in a nutshell, is Conservative MP Scott Reid’s message to the Liberal government over its plans to change how federal elections are won and lost. Reid said that Liberal misbehaviour cannot be condoned just because “the Conservatives behaved badly when they were in government.”

The Cons didn't offer up a referendum when they eliminated subsidies to political parties to favour themselves.
Or offer one up when Pierre Polievre rammed through changes to the Election Act to try to suppress the progressive vote..

And at the end of the day, this sort of re-jigging the Election Process did backfire in BC.

So if the Cons keep beating their drums for a referendum.

They need to be reminded of a few hard facts:

(1) There is no legal requirement for a referendum to be held to change the electoral system. Even if one was held it would not be binding, or constitutional.

A government cannot give away its powers and duties to “the people” through a binding referendum. A government may choose to have a referendum (which isn’t really part of our parliamentary system or culture), but it cannot make the results binding on itself or future governments. For that to happen, it would have to be part of our Constitution, which it is not and never has been.

Stephen Lautens' Parking Space: Skippy's Phoney Will of the People Referendum








.