Is It Time to Change the Way We Vote?

Is It Time to Change the Way We Vote?

By: Ryan Young

I had the pleasure of speaking at a public forum on electoral reform last week that was hosted by Democracy Alert, a local group committed to restoring participatory democracy through education, engagement, & electoral reform. I had been meeting with this small dedicated group of individuals for the past year, anxiously awaiting the federal plan, and thinking about how to bring reform to Newfoundland & Labrador. Last weeks’ forum was the first of many events that Democracy Alert is planning to engage people and educate them on the value of changing our electoral system.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau broke his promise on electoral reform in February, it was a blow to the many people across the country who had dedicated their time and effort into reforming our electoral system. Trudeau had campaigned heavily on making 2015 the last election that would be held under the current first past the post system. In fact, Trudeau was so committed to electoral reform that he repeated his promise to deliver it more than 1800 times. Unfortunately, when the Prime Minister realized that his party was the beneficiary of a false majority that gave them 100% of power in parliament with just 39.5% of the vote, he decided to change his mind. When you consider that Trudeau’s reasoning for changing first past the post in the first place was because Stephen Harper‘s majority with 39.6% of the vote was unfair to Canadians, it makes the Prime Minister’s inaction on reform an even harder pill to swallow.

Many provinces were waiting to see what Ottawa would do on electoral reform before committing to any changes to their own systems. In the absence of any leadership from the feds, much of that discussion has stalled. NL, however, is a different story. We have a government and a premier with very low approval ratings and people are ready for a real change. In lieu of any actual productive debate in our House of Assembly, the two major parties have decided to play a 4-year long game of pass the buck. The blame game has gone on so long that it has become rather absurd, and many people have been wondering aloud if the problem is not actually the current crop of politicians, but rather the system that allows for such behaviour to become the norm.

This has encouraged the beginning of a conversation about changing the way we vote in this province, but there are still many questions to be answered and many challenges to overcome. The most important thing is making sure that the discussion is on the table and that people have an opportunity to express their views. There are many options on the table, but Newfoundland and Labrador is a unique place and will likely require a unique solution.

What System Do We Change to?

There are many reasons to change from first past the post, but the hardest part of enabling that change has always been deciding which type of system to change to. There are many different systems out there and many of them may seem complex to someone looking at them for the first time. Currently, over 85% of OCED nations use some form of proportional representation to elect their governments. Under a proportional system, seats in the legislature are awarded based on the number of votes that a party gets. In this way, every vote counts and our elected bodies are more representative of the wishes of the electorate.

Countries that use proportional representation often have coalition governments that force political parties to work together in the best interests of the people they represent. This is most evident when you look at the social and environmental legislation in PR countries. Things like pharma care, child care and well maintained transportation networks are commonplace under PR systems. Governments also tend to be more stable and voter turnouts are generally much higher.

There are many types of PR systems. Mixed-Member, Single Transferable Vote, Dual Member, and Proportional FPTP (a made in NL system) are all systems that work on the principle of proportionality. Unfortunately, it is the discussion of which mechanics to use that often derails the real merits of switching to PR. That is why Democracy Alert has proposed a bold new solution to this problem. They want to hold a referendum with a simple question attached to the next general election ballot. Keep first past the post or switch to proportional representation? The rationale is that by keeping the question simple and to the point, we can accurately find out if the majority of the people really do want to change from the current FPTP system. If FTPT wins, we keep the status quo, and if PR wins then we give that mandate to the new governing party to come up with the system that best meets our province. The best way to decide would be to hold a citizen’s assembly to determine which system to use moving forward.

Do We Have Other Options?

Many people have been talking about the idea of running all independent candidates in the next election. This idea is borne from the idea that our party system is broken and that our 2 parties are just a revolving door of the same types of people serving the same interests. While electing a majority of independents would certainly throw a wrench into any governing party trying to pass legislation, they would not actually be able to form a government under the laws of our current system.

Another possible option that is gaining popularity in some circles is a consensus style government such as those used in the northern territories. Under a consensus system, there are no parties. All candidates run as independents and the elected members vote to choose their premier and their cabinet. The remaining members serve as the opposition. There are many merits to this type of a system but some are skeptical that the people would be willing to make such a dramatic change away from the party system.

Starting the Conversation

I firmly believe that the only reason we don’t have more of a movement for electoral reform in this province is a lack of education. For one, most people don’t watch what goes on in the House of Assembly aka “The Sandbox,” and they don’t realize how ineffective our democratic institutions have become. Secondly, most people don’t realize the benefits of moving towards a different system. With the current political climate in this province, electoral reform is not getting enough attention as a solution to many of our problems with how our legislative branch currently functions. And lastly, kids don’t learn nearly enough about politics or democracy in our education system. Many young people are disengaged from politics and they don’t understand how their lack of involvement allows the current system to grossly under represent their needs.

In order to move the conversation about electoral reform forward we need to make a big push towards making the benefits known and engaging people to be active participants in their own destiny. The public is slowly waking up to the fact that standing on the sidelines is no longer a viable option and that they will need to be the change that they want to see if they ever want to see a real difference in the way things are done.

Electoral reform is more than just an idea, it is an opportunity to fundamentally change the way we “do” democracy in this province. It’s up to the people to decide if they want to continue under a system that allows things to operate as they are currently going or if they are willing to put their voice forward for a new way working together for a real “stronger tomorrow.”  So, let’s start the conversation around the kitchen table and on the wharf. Start it at your church or youth group or during a board meeting. Talk to a friend and ask them what they think or bring it up during your lunch break at work. The most important thing is that we start the conversation so that more people can get interested enough to find out for themselves if there is a real value in changing the way we vote. Our very future might depend on it.

If you are interested in finding out more about electoral reform and what you can do to get involved visit www.democracyalert.ca or find them on Facebook or Twitter.

Willful Blindness

Willful Blindness

By: Ryan Young

I generally make it a point to stick to local politics and not delve into the worlds of national and international politics, but with so few people seeming to notice or care that our Prime Minister just broke a federal law, I felt that I had to chime in on the matter.

The issue in question is Justin Trudeau’s family vacation to a private island owned by the Aga Khan. The Aga Khan is the spiritual leader to more than 15 million Ismaili Muslim. The fourth of the line Aga Khan, Prince Shah Karim Al Hussaini, is a noted billionaire philanthropist in addition to his role as a respected spiritual leader. He was granted honorary Canadian citizenship by Stephen Harper in 2009. While not a registered lobbyist himself, his foundation is responsible for lobbying millions from the federal government for international development. He is also a long-time family friend of the Trudeau’s and was even a pall bearer at Pierre Elliott’s funeral.

The Aga Khan owns a private island in the Bahamas and that was the site of a new year’s celebration that was attended by Trudeau and his family, as well as Newfoundland MP Seamus O’Regan and the President of the Liberal Party of Canada. Canada has very strict laws regarding the interaction of public officials with known lobbyists, and the trip has raised several red flags with opposition MP’s and ethics watchdogs. Given that the families are close, a holiday get together is not such a strange or bad thing, but the Liberal guests traveled to the island via Khan’s private helicopter, which changes the whole issue from a bad judgement call to a violation of the Conflict of Interest Act. Section 12 of the act clearly states:

“No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary, no member of his or her family and no ministerial adviser or ministerial staff shall accept travel on non-commercial chartered or private aircraft for any purpose unless required in his or her capacity as a public office holder or in exceptional circumstances or with the prior approval of the Commissioner.”

That means that the Prime Minister was strictly forbidden from accepting the ride on the private helicopter, even if it was a family friend, and even if there was no other way to reach the island, as has been alleged. He had the option of clearing the trip beforehand with the ethics commissioner, but chose not to do so. Some have suggested that this was a poor lapse in judgement by Trudeau, but given the Liberal track record with ethics in the recent past, I think that is giving the Prime Minister a free pass. It is a clear violation of the act and the Prime Minister must be held accountable for his actions.

You can read the conflict of interest laws here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-36.65/FullText.html

Let me be very clear here. The fact that Trudeau and his family and friends spent some time vacationing with a family friend on a private tropical island is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. With all the problems in our country right now, where the PM took his holiday vacation is small potatoes. But we can’t ignore the fact that the leader of our country willfully broke the law, when he had every opportunity to go through the proper channels to make it right. A simple call from the PMO to the ethics commissioner explaining the situation likely would have led to the request being granted. Unfortunately, through either incompetence or pure arrogance, the PM decided to act first and ask for forgiveness later and failed to inform the commissioner until days after the trip, when it had already been reported in the media. Asking for forgiveness later is not always a bad strategy for life, but it is behaviour unbecoming a Prime Minister, and Trudeau’s pure disregard for the ethics that come with his title should not be easily dismissed.

What bothers me the most is the willful blindness from people on these issues that should really matter, but apparently don’t. I mean our Prime Minister breaking the law should be a big deal, but instead of outrage on twitter, all you see is golden shower jokes and Trump Bashing. I am no more of a Trump fan than I am a Harper fan, but neither one of them has publicly admitted to breaking the law, yet we are willing to ignore Trudeau’s actions and brush a blatant breach of trust by a so-called progressive world leader under the rug while we watch the squirrel down south and assure ourselves that at least we have better than Harper now. Do we really?

The position of Prime Minister should not be a popularity contest. We need our leaders to be role models. Selfies are fine, and I have no issues with having a young Prime Minister with good hair, as long as he is willing to be the leader that he sold the country on.  So far, despite the sunny media coverage, that has not been the case. It is just business as usual in Ottawa. Trudeau continues to sell himself as a progressive, and it is an easy story to buy when you see him marching in the pride parade or talking tough about climate change. But when you look at the policies he has implemented, and the ones that he is dragging his feet on, he begins to look less like a saviour and more and more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In Trudeau’s own words on the use of Khan’s private aircraft, "It's something that certainly we look forward to discussing with the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, but we don't see an issue on that." That statement alone should be enough to raise red flags about the Prime Ministers understanding and respect for our federal conflict of interest laws, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation in the country. Laws that safeguard against our politicians being “bought.” That the Prime Minister doesn’t see an issue with the situation only creates more questions about his ability to lead the country and his commitment to making Canada a better place than it was under Harper.

The private aircraft clause might even be a silly law in the big picture, especially when you consider the circumstances of the logistics involved in getting to Khan’s island. But being a silly law does not make the Prime Minister above it. Our current marijuana laws are considered by many to be silly as well, but try lighting up a spliff next to a police officer and see what happens to you. No matter what we think of it, the law is the law, and when we allow our elected officials to be above the law, we set a very dangerous precedent for ourselves and for our future. Elected officials need to be held to a higher standard, and we need to stop giving them a free pass through our own political apathy.

It will be very interesting to see how much life this story takes on. Will Trudeau face consequences for his blatant disregard for the law or will the media let him off the hook and let the story fade into the night? It usually drives me crazy that most people are more concerned about Trump or Trudeau than our own shit-show of a political scene here at home, but this is one instance where I would like to see people take a real interest and demand that the Prime Minister is made to answer for failing to respect the laws of the land.

A resignation seems a little extreme for this situation, but after days of refusing to provide details, and then acknowledging that he knowingly broke the law, I can’t really think of another course of action that would be suitable. The Prime Minister had plenty of time to get the trip approved, despite being fully aware of the illegality of his actions, and we cannot condone such actions from our elected leaders. While it is doubtful that a resignation will happen, and far more likely that the story will be swept under the rug, I hope that my readers will remember stories like this that continue to prove that there is no difference in party politics. Laws are for the plebes and government is no place for the concerns of the common man. As long as we continue to be willfully blind to the failings of our leaders, this will never change. Whether people believe it or not, the power really is in our hands. It’s time for us to stand up and use it. If we make enough noise, together, we can make sure that politicians are taken to task and held accountable when they fail us. Power to the people.