Electoral Reform
September 16
Recent postings in The Camrose Booster have given the Longest Ballot Committee (LBC) a bad (and undeserved) rap. Had former PM Trudeau followed through with his promise of electoral reform and if Mr. Poilievre’s Bill C-23 The Fair Elections Act had lived up to its name, the Longest Ballot Committee (LBC) would have been a nonstarter.
The LBC was not a Liberal “electoral tricks” fiasco recently stated by former MP Damien Kurek in a letter to The Camrose Booster. The LBC was an apolitical campaign to draw attention to the need for electoral reform. The LBC targeted TWO Conservative ridings, FIVE Liberal ridings and ONE NDP riding. The only “fiasco” was that taxpayers were on the hook for $1.6 million for the unnecessary by-election.
Mr. Arnold Malone’s statement “The Longest Ballot Committee favoured a system like proportional representation but ended up providing the perfect reason why we should never choose that option” is way off base. Sadly, he confuses a legitimate protest advocating for electoral reform and erroneously lumps it in with a legitimate promise for a better system, namely proportional representation.
Sad, because he fails to acknowledge that proportional representation was the MAJOR reason that ended 80 years of unspeakable sectarian violence in Northern Ireland as bitter political rivals; Ulstermen, Orangemen and Catholics came together to hammer out a peace accord.
Canadian politics has never been so polarized; who speaks for the disenfranchised hunkered down in the centre of the political spectrum and who are unwilling to join the misguided DEI proponents on the left or the evangelically driven dogmatists on the right?
Sadly, former PM Trudeau failed to examine systems currently in place in other countries. The Mixed Member Proportional (MPP) system in New Zealand is but one example of a better system.
The key features are: (i) Indigenous people get a dedicated number of seats in parliament, (ii) everyone gets two votes; one to elect a person to represent their constituency and this person typically is not affiliated with a political party, but is well educated and held a responsible position in business, industry or professional service. The second vote goes to a political party of one’s choice and its inherent ideology.
This system produces better legislation by providing competent people to represent the “centre of the political spectrum” folk and, simultaneously, ensure dialogue with the ideologically driven party representatives who frequently are career politicians lacking significant education and employment experience.
Lynn Clark,
Camrose
Recent postings in The Camrose Booster have given the Longest Ballot Committee (LBC) a bad (and undeserved) rap. Had former PM Trudeau followed through with his promise of electoral reform and if Mr. Poilievre’s Bill C-23 The Fair Elections Act had lived up to its name, the Longest Ballot Committee (LBC) would have been a nonstarter.
The LBC was not a Liberal “electoral tricks” fiasco recently stated by former MP Damien Kurek in a letter to The Camrose Booster. The LBC was an apolitical campaign to draw attention to the need for electoral reform. The LBC targeted TWO Conservative ridings, FIVE Liberal ridings and ONE NDP riding. The only “fiasco” was that taxpayers were on the hook for $1.6 million for the unnecessary by-election.
Mr. Arnold Malone’s statement “The Longest Ballot Committee favoured a system like proportional representation but ended up providing the perfect reason why we should never choose that option” is way off base. Sadly, he confuses a legitimate protest advocating for electoral reform and erroneously lumps it in with a legitimate promise for a better system, namely proportional representation.
Sad, because he fails to acknowledge that proportional representation was the MAJOR reason that ended 80 years of unspeakable sectarian violence in Northern Ireland as bitter political rivals; Ulstermen, Orangemen and Catholics came together to hammer out a peace accord.
Canadian politics has never been so polarized; who speaks for the disenfranchised hunkered down in the centre of the political spectrum and who are unwilling to join the misguided DEI proponents on the left or the evangelically driven dogmatists on the right?
Sadly, former PM Trudeau failed to examine systems currently in place in other countries. The Mixed Member Proportional (MPP) system in New Zealand is but one example of a better system.
The key features are: (i) Indigenous people get a dedicated number of seats in parliament, (ii) everyone gets two votes; one to elect a person to represent their constituency and this person typically is not affiliated with a political party, but is well educated and held a responsible position in business, industry or professional service. The second vote goes to a political party of one’s choice and its inherent ideology.
This system produces better legislation by providing competent people to represent the “centre of the political spectrum” folk and, simultaneously, ensure dialogue with the ideologically driven party representatives who frequently are career politicians lacking significant education and employment experience.
Lynn Clark,
Camrose