Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 05:40 PM - Electoral Reform
STRATEGIC VOTING,
DEMOCRACY'S TACTICAL DEFEAT
by Randy Hillier
Thousands of years ago the ancient Greeks developed a simple and practical form of self-government and created democracy. However unlike today, the ancient Greeks did not have to contend with partisan political parties, backroom boys and media spin-doctors, strategic voting, and televised debates. Canadian elections are as far removed from this simple and practical democratic process, as we are from the ancient Greeks.
The objective of elections are to debate opinions, policies, and discuss principles; and to elect representatives that have principles and policies which best represent the majority's views. The recent Ontario election is evidence people no longer fully comprehend the objectives of democratic elections. The objective has become corrupt and no longer achieves the ends it was created to meet. People now believe winning an election is the prime objective; good governance and representative candidates are merely secondary thoughts or the means to win.
The objective of voting is to choose the person to best represent your principles and ethics, within parliament. The choice is to evaluate and determine which candidate has the best leadership skills, and who will listen to your concerns and vigorously defend them, and which policy platform coincides with your priorities. Canadians have one vote and it is reserved for the candidate who best represents their views. There should be nothing strategic, complicated, or confusing in this election process.
However, many Canadians believe there is more to this simple task, that we must forget who is best and strategically vote against who we don't want elected. That we should cast our ballot for whichever party we expect to win – not who's best.
Lost votes
Fringe parties illustrate this strategic and modern, but faulty thinking. Many Canadians believe voting for a fringe party is a "lost vote," because fringe parties will not win. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact votes are lost when they're cast for people other than your first choice. It is evident that strategic votes don't represent the electors' views. A spoiled ballot is more valuable than a strategic vote, because it's truthful and states: no candidate represents my views. Strategic votes cast for second choice candidates are lost, as they reward candidates you do not value. There is another consequence of strategic voting; electing second-rate candidates from "mainstream" parties lowers democracy's overall standard and the quality of elected politicians.
There are further consequences hidden from our view as strategic voting and winning replaces the objective of representation. When people deny their first choice of a fringe party (like the Green, Freedom or Family Coalition parties here in Ontario) and choose an alternate, the perception arises that there are few people who share the principles and values of the fringe. In reality, there are far greater numbers of people who share these values and policy platforms, but strategically choose someone else – who will win. This corruption of choice insures fringe parties never become mainstream and democratic choice is limited to two or three "main parties." It further provides mainstream parties with a false sense that their policies' are acceptable to the majority.
In Canada approximately forty percent of voters choose not to vote. Many people cannot find a party that represents their principles, but also have a chance of winning. These disenfranchised stay at home on election day and are never represented; they in affect create their own destiny of unrepresentative governments.
Democracy is not a horse race or a game of roulette where placing a bet on a winner is the payoff. Democracy's payoff is found with quality representation, and with governments that represent people's principles, values and ideals. Democracy's wheel spins easily on an axle of freedom, which must be oiled with the individuals best "choice." Strategic voting creates a playing field where parties with money, candidates with name recognition, and those who are perceived to win, will always win; and it assures quality is subtracted from the odds of winning.
In our efforts to pick a winner, we defeat the very purpose and objective we expect of democratic governments, and we deprive ourselves of the tactical advantage of a quality democracy.
The old adage "We get the government we deserve," is tried and true in Canada. We have strategically downgraded our democracy, and the results are obvious: strategic voting insures Canadians are always "led by lesser men."
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/031108-3.htm
| permalink
Saturday, November 24, 2007, 02:33 AM - Electoral Reform
If the Human Rights Tribunals are able to silence Political Parties then democracy has taken a fatal blow...
If we are to be charged for anything we've ever said, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, then who is safe?
If we cannot quote information from reliable, or even non-reliable, sources, then who is safe?
This is an important case for every Canadian!
__________________________________________
Christian Heritage Party investigated for writings about homosexuality
Canada's Christian Heritage Party and its leader, Ron Gray, are being taken to the Canadian Human Rights Commission over commentary and opinion related to how the government and society should treat homosexuality. And Gray says he's been told directly by an employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human Rights Act is "about censorship".
Complaint centres in part on re-posting of 5-year old WorldNetDaily.com news article
An Edmonton man, Rob Wells, has filed three complaints against Gray and his party. Two of them relate to the reposting of an item first published on WorldNetDaily.com back in April of 2002; an article written by Jon Dougherty entitled "Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays' - Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture". The third complaint is against Ron Gray personally for several commentaries he wrote and distributed to party members. One of those commentaries, entitled "Sitcom prophet", likened the current climate of debate about homosexuality in Canada to the "Cone of Silence" in the 1960's-era television situation comedy "Get Smart", where the two leading characters would isolate themselves in a room where no-one could hear them, but they couldn't hear one another either. Gray wrote in the commentary that: "The problem with Canada's 'Cone of Silence' over the issue of homosexuality is that, like the security device in 'Get Smart', the inevitable result is that no one can communicate anything - and even the truth gets silenced."
In an exclusive interview with noapologies.ca, Ron Gray says the complaints filed against him and his party allege they are "motivated by hate, and defaming homosexual persons."
Ron Gray: "Commission employee told me: 'Canadian Human Rights Act is about censorship.'"
And, he says, when he had a conversation with a Commission employee, mediator Bob Fagan, about the specifics of the allegation, he was astonished at what he heard.
"I told him that it seemed to be an abuse of the Human Rights Act for someone to try and use it as an instrument of censorship. And when I said that, on the phone, there was a pause and then he said, in a somewhat astonished tone: 'But the Human Rights Act is about censorship'. Then it was my turn to be silent on my end, because I found that breath-taking. For the Human Rights Commission's own mediator to acknowledge that censorship was the purpose of their Act."
Gray: "Charge me under the Criminal Code; I'm perfectly willing to risk going to jail."
And Gray says as fas as the "hate motivation" is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. "I would contend", he says, "that Christians are the best friends homosexuals have because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives."
Gray also says he'd be much happier fighting this battle in a regular court rather than before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where the usual rules of evidence don't apply. "If (Mr. Wells) truly believes I am motivated by hate, his complaint should not be before the Human Rights Commission. He should charge me under Section 319 of the Criminal Code (of Canada). That carries with is the possiblity of two years in jail, but in defence of the (free speech) rights of Canadians I am perfectly willing to risk going to jail."
We'll have the full interview with Ron Gray on our "week in review" program this weekend.
Tristan Emmanuel: Case shows the need for Canadians to speak up.
Reaction to the case has been swift. The president of the ECP Centre, Tristan Emmanuel, says the charges against the CHP are more evidence of how far militant homosexuals will go to shut down any form of dissent in Canada. "The only reason these people are getting away with it", Emmanuel says, "is because there's not enough of an outcry from the common folk in Canada saying: 'Enough! You're not going to short-change our Charter rights simply because you figure everyone either has to agree with what you're doing or shut up.'" Emmanuel says there's a real need to wake Canadians up to the "sorry state of Free Speech" in their country.
No Apologies
| permalink
Monday, October 22, 2007, 11:37 AM - Electoral Reform
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 20, 2007
The second-largest of 12 federal political parties that have yet to
elect an MP has accused the four parties already in Parliament of
manipulating the Elections Act rules to keep newcomers out.
Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party, told Broadcast
Arbitrator Peter S. Grant that allocating broadcast time according to
past election results violates principles in a Supreme Court decision.
That decision, in a successful suit by the Communist Party of Canada
against the 50-candidate rule in the Elections Act four years ago,
rested on an interpretation of Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which protects political rights of citizens.
Two statements in the ruling, written by Chief Justice Beverly
McLachlin, emphasize voters' rights to be reasonably informed, and
candidates' rights to a reasonable opportunity to present their
platforms.
"It has become apparent," Gray said, "that the parties now in
Parliament intend to continue to abuse the law-making authority given
to them by the people of Canada, in order to retain power and
privilege for
themselves."
The CHP and five other smaller parties noted that changes to election
financing rules have made it much more difficult for parties outside
Parliament to raise funds—and at the same time give the four parties
now
in Parliament $30 million a year of taxpayers' money to fund their
re-election campaigns.
Recently an Ontario court rejected the 2% and 5% threshold rules for
access to public funding injected into the Elections Act by the former
Liberal government's Bill C-24; but the Conservative government has
appealed that decision. Gray said that appeal reveals "a continuation
of the 'fortress mentality' of the four parties already in the House."
The CHP has, for a decade, proposed an alternative mode of public
funding that would place the disposition of public funds in the hands
of the electorate. This plan was presented to Parliament by the former
Chief Elections Officer, but was rejected by the Standing Committee on
Elections and Procedures.
"Similar distortions of fairness have also plagued access to broadcast
advertising," said Gray. "However, the Elections Act gives a degree of
flexibility to the Broadcast Arbitrator, and that flexibility has, in
the recent past, been exercised with a view to leveling, to the
limited extent the Act allows, the playing field.
"But much more is required."
The CHP, supported by all but one of the other extra-parliamentary
parties at the meeting, asked the Broadcast Arbitrator "to appeal past
partisan interests to the better natures of Canada's MPs, asking them
to
place the public good above partisan advantage."
The broadcast provisions of the Elections Act and its election
financing provisions must be amended, they said, giving priority to
the voters' right to information priority, rather than advantage for
the parties in
the House.
"The primary objective of all the regulations that bear upon financing
and media access must be this," Gray said:"Voters have an absolute
right to have full access to adequate information about all the
electoral options available to them."
=================================================
The Christian Heritage Party is Canada's only pro-life, pro-family
federal political party, and the only federal party that unashamedly
endorses the 'supremacy of God' clause in the Canadian Constitution.
To learn more, call toll-free 1-888-VOTE CHP (1-888-868-3247) or visit
our web site at www.chp.ca
| permalink
Thursday, October 4, 2007, 02:17 AM - Electoral Reform
I was going to avoid posting until after the referendum in order to keep all the articles from the newsletter on the same page but.... I just had to responds so.... make sure you get all the articles if you're reading about MMP
This article by Sheila Copps, I had to respond to
My first comment is this article is big on emotional manipulation and short on facts. If you separate the colourful adjectives from the facts we see...
Sheila has introduced the label of anyone with religious views as zealots. If you vote for MMP you are opening the door for Muslim terrorists, evangelical Christians (the heritage of Canada since 1867) and ultra-orthodox Jews. The stage is set for the horror that would result should 'those' people have a voice in this country. She tones it down in the next paragraph to cover her butt but she has already got us focussed on the idea that 'those' people should not have a voice.
Sheila does not mention that in a democratic country all people get a voice in the government not just those who represent her viewpoint. Democracy is about ensuring that eligible voters all have a voice... and the majority of people have the loudest voice, thus we vote.
The separation of church and state as she uses it is an emotional issue based in .... nothing Canadian. The church is in charge of the spiritual condition of a person, the state is in charge of governance of a country. Thomas Jefferson brought up this issue in a letter to assure Christians that in the US, after the acceptance of their Constitution, the state would not interfere in church matters. The pilgrims had fled to the US to escape government control of the church. They did not wish it to happen ever again. Thomas Jefferson assured them it would not. It has been used so often as if it were in our, or the US, Constitution but it appears in neither Constitution. Sheila is using what has become a very emotional phrase to manipulate our thoughts.
She mentions the fear of the fanatic few out to proselytize the world. The Citizens Assembly made 3% the threshold to ensure there was legitimate support for the political viewpoint. Thus, it may be a minority view but are they not still entitled to have their opinions represented in Parliament?
Sheila does not tell us where a vocal organised minority dictates for the majority. She just leaves it hanging over us as if it was an established fact. Without support it is just a way to stir us up. If we look to democratic countries, such as Canada, we vote to ensure the majority does have the power. A minority can only take over in a dictatorship not a democracy.
She is correct, more or less in saying the referendum asks whether we would like to throw out our current voting system FPTP in favour of MMP. She doesn't say, at this point in her comments, that 90 MPs are still elected by the FPTP system. (29 MPs would be List Candidates)
Now for her comments on the new system...
She has said that 1/3 of the MPPs would be chosen from Party Lists. However, what she fails to say is that they are elected by the electorate. The 4 main parties have already said the list would be voted democratically by their Party members. The electorate then decides by voting for the Party list. ie. If the Liberal list started with: Sir. John A MacDonald, Alexander MacKenzie, Sir Wilfred Laurier, etc., and the voters in Ontario didn't like that list then they would withhold their vote and vote for, perhaps, the Conservative list which contained: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, George Bush, etc. Thus the voters vote in both the regional MPs and the list MPs.
Sheila then speaks of them 'nixing' the direct vote. Sounds terrible! However, a direct vote is for each voter in Ontario to cast their vote on each matter which comes before the Legislature, an unwieldy process! This is not what we're talking about.
She speaks of the Citizen's Assembly experiencing the "polarising effect of proportional voting in other jurisdictions". She brings up the Israeli Knesset, is this to support her polarising comment? The system used in Israel is not the one recommended by the Citizens Assembly, so... why bring it up? It's scare mongering.
Sheila then goes back to dexcribing Proportional (which is not what we're talking about, the CA recommended Mixed Member Proportional) "extreme religious-based parties holding the balance of power." and "institutionalizes extremist influence". Scary Stuff! Parties "with 3% of the vote is in control" O_O "That's exactly what's is being proposed". O_O (It's not! The CA recommended the same model used in Britain, Scotland, New Zealand, not the model used is Israel)
However, the only way the 3% hold the balance of power is if they are able to enter into a coalition to prop up another party. Let's say, the Liberals want to pass Legislation outlawing the public practice of religion. The Conservative Party said "no", the NDP said "yes". The Green Party said "no". The Legislature is setup in such a way that we're now sitting with a tie vote. But... the Communist Party holds 3 seats and they support the motion. They have the balance of power. However, they did not control the vote, they only had 3 votes, the piece of Legislation required Liberal and NDP support to pass. The Communist Party could not do it without the major Parties supporting the Bill. I hope that helps you see the balance of power.
We then go into counterbalancing the shortage of women in office which she says is brought about by the 'nomination process controlled by political parties'. If the process were not controlled by the Political Party then those who wish would go out to all Party's meeting, vote the party lists and ensure they were all the same thus ensuring we have a one party system.... a dictatorship. The same can be said about her "independent thinkers need not apply". However, she is trying to remove any representation for independent thinkers by intimating that they are religious zealots etc. If they don't think like Sheila, if they espouse different values than her Liberal ones, they "need not apply".
"Robbing citizens" O_O Emotional but no facts to support it.
Again she says that the selection of Party Lists is not given, however, the major Parties have already weighed in on the fact that they will do it democratically. She says that "the party controls the lists". Again, if they didn't, their political ideology could be lost. If all those 'religious zealots' went out en masse, to each Party then we would end up with Party Lists made up of religious zealots rather than Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green.
Sheila uses the French model. However, that gives us the same lack of representation for diverse viewpoints which is lacking now. If the Liberals and NDP ended up in the final vote... a week later. She says that has majority support because it's a majority government. Some people would be unable to vote for either left wing Party because they couldn't support the positions of either. This would further decrease voter participation. It's not majority support, it's just representation for only the one position and the minority report is silenced.
Sheila then goes back to emotional rhetoric. "empowers extremism and curries party favours". She still hasn't supported that!
I've tried to work through the whole article so it won't look like I'm dodging the question but the bottom line is... Sheila has not offered facts to support her position. She has used emotional words to manipulate us. Offered as facts, a system which is not the one recommended by the Citizen's Assembly then shot it down. It may look like she shot MMP down but.... she was shooting for pigeon and shot an eagle. Thus it wasn't a successful hunting trip.
| permalink
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 05:40 PM - Electoral Reform
...the Fall Newsletter, the articles are posted below as a series.
I hope this helps to clarify the Question on Electoral Reform which will be included on the ballot on October 10th.
Vicki
| permalink
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 05:38 PM - Electoral Reform
The media has remained relatively quiet about this process and the recommendation of the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. We are devoting this newsletter to helping us all to better understand why the CHP supports the recommendation of the Citizens Assembly in Ontario.
In Canada, including each of the provinces, we use the electoral system called 'First Past the Post” (FPTP). The CHP, and in Ontario, the Family Coalition Party, support the need to change to an electoral system which better represents the diversity of our Citizens.
FPTP worked well in a two Party system however it provides ineffective representation in our multi-Party country where many viewpoints should be represented. There have been many calls for electoral reform.
The Provincial government assigned a 'Citizens Assembly' to explore our FPTP system along with other electoral systems used around the world. The Citizens Assembly began examining the various electoral options in 2006 and has made their recommendation to the Provincial Government. It’s Your Decision!
You can find more information on this process at: http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca
| permalink
Next
