Fair Vote Canada
.
Is Fair Vote Fair
I came upon this website: Fair Vote Canada and knew I had to reply.
I agree with what you are envisioning to achieve.
I do fail to see exactly what you mean when Fair Vote says, “ –all voters are equal, and that every vote must count.”. Do not all persons have equally one vote and do they not count all votes cast?
Fair Vote says:
“Wasted votes are defined by political scientists as votes cast that do not produce representation for voters. So anybody who cast a vote in our current system for a losing candidate has cast a wasted vote. They might as well have stayed home or destroyed their ballot.”
Are you saying that the elected representative will only represent constituents who voted for him? If that is the case than that representative does not know what he or she has been elected to do, to be the ‘liaison’ between all of the constituents and the government. If that is because he or she has to toe the party line, then it is not the election method but the party system that needs reform.
Fair Vote says:
“Proportional representation: The supporters of all political parties should be fairly represented in proportion to the votes they cast. Parties should have no more and no fewer seats than their popular support warrants. There should be no phony majority governments.”
When you talk of all parties fairly represented in proportion; in which riding? Are you saying that only those who vote for candidates from a political party have a right to have their voice heard in Parliament? What about those citizens who vote for independent candidates? Do they not deserve representation? Then there is the debate about where you draw the line for representation. Will the 30 or more fringe parties who receive less then 1% of the vote each receive a representative. If not, then Fair Vote is not really fair if the outcome has exclusions.
It is not the voting system that needs reform it is the rules of government pertaining to the voting system.
Fair Vote says:
“The current system may be simple, but it’s simply wrong if you want good democracy.”
Define good democracy? I believe it was Winston Churchill who said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”
He was right, the main problem with democracy being that laws are always reduced to their lowest common denominator. Not necessarily what is best for the country but, what is able to be passed into law.
“What is Good Democracy?” Is it electing a representative who will vote according to the popular will of his constituents or the representative who will vote according to what is best for his constituency?
The question is then; “Do people always know and desire what is best for their constituency? – best for Canada?”
If We Had Fair Vote Representation
Hopefully would never happen but, for arguments sake, I put forward a hypothetical case.
According to many a survey, about 20% of Canadians are in favor of making pornography legal.
Let's say 1% of the citizenry formed a right to child pornography coalition and put forward a slate of candidates for election. If they all voted, they would form 2+% of the popular vote which would entitle them to 6 seats in the 305 seat parliament. They could possibly garner up to 10% of the vote if they ran their campaign appealing to those who favor pornography in general then, the Legalize Pornography Party would garner 30 seats.
Once in Parliament they could put forward a private members bill which would make child pornography legal. The bill would initially fail. The party would then take the bill before the Supreme court arguing that since the homosexual community have full rights, so should pedophiles, being that there is no biological difference to being gay as to being a pedophiliac. If argued effectively, they may win their case and the Supreme Court would deem their petition as constitutional.
The bill would then have to be supported by the 5–6 gay MPs who don't want to see their own rights diminished and the 70 or so NDP members, who have fought for gay rights all along. All too quietly, the bill is motioned forward on a slow day in parliament and, before a full parliament can be assembled, the bill is passed. The Senate can't reject it because the main body of the bill has been ruled constitutional by the court. Hence; Pedophilia becomes ligitimate in Canada.
I only bring this hypothetical case to your attention to show how a Fair Vote system could be manipulated to favor unpopular and even immoral concepts.
The whole concept of democracy is representation of the people to govern by the will of the people, for the welfare of the people, collectively. What we have permitted to occur is political partisan interests to dominate the process. It is the party system politics that has polluted true democracy. Regardless of what type of electoral system is in place, as long as political parties dominate the ballot, individual voices cannot and will not be heard.
As long as political parties control our government, the status quo will remain and favor will be granted to the highest bidder.
Two things need to be done.
- Make commercial lobbying illegal.
- Remove the ballot power of political parties.
See: Improving Canada's Political System
.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
Reply From Fair Vote Canada
(Submitted February 21, 2008 18:15:03 by Fair Vote Canada)
What FVC is advocating is a voting system that gives all voters the ability to elect their representatives. That's what representative democracy is all about. We elect and send our representatives to parliament. Once there, whatever group of MPs represents the majority of voters then forms government and makes decisions.
The current system doesn't do that, which is why most major democracies don't use it. Most voters cast votes that elect no one. To answer your question, no, an MP does not provide political representation for all voters in the riding.
Chances are, most didn't even vote for that MP. In any case, the MP has only one vote in Parliament and can take only one position on an issue. The MP cannot vote both Yes and No on legislation in order to represent all voters in the riding. The basic structure of our voting system – electing only one MP in one riding – denies political representation to a huge portion of voters. And again, few countries do it that way because it so obviously hinders representative democracy.
Yes, a fair voting system, because all votes really count, would allow voters to support new and/or smaller parties and send their MPs to Parliament. However, the great majority of voters it would help are the supporters of the big parties who happen to live in the wrong region under the current system. Today, the great majority of Liberal voters in the West cannot elect anyone to represent them in Paliament. The same holds for nearly a half million Conservative voters in major urban centres. An unfair voting system is unfair to people with all points of view and is unfair to supporters of all parties.
The scenario of extremist legislation being passed because some small party with extremist views has a few MPs – well, the extensive history of countries using these systems demonstrates it almost never happens. Why? Because any mainstream parties that ever allowed such legislation to pass would be decimated at the polls the next time. The electorate would be outraged and the offending politicians would pay the price. Real democracy protects society from extremist politics.
In summary, what we are promoting is the belief that every voter – regardless of political views, or place of residence or any other characteristic – should have an equal vote.
When they do, election results are fair and political power is distributed and used democratically. The current system disenfranchises the majority of voters, distorts results, almost always gives majority power to a party without majority support, and concentrates power in the hands of a few. We can do better.