NL-Outsidethebox [confederation]

Rona Ambrose - I think she was voted the "Hottest Female MP" this year.

The NDP will never deal with the democratic deficit, as it would require devolving powers back to the provinces. Jack hates the idea of reducing the size & power of the federal gov't, he would increase it IMHO.
 

Are you saying that the ONLY reason there is a democratic deficit is because Canada is centralized (aka controlled by Ontario and Quebec)?

I agree that the country is basically run by Central Canada... who doesn't?

But there is FAR more to the democratic deficit than the federal arrangments of the country. 40% of people don't vote - most of those youth. Do you think the youth don't vote because of federalism? How about the neoliberal/free trade revolution since the 1980s? I personally blame the lack of control that government has over corporations for the democratic deficit.

How about corruption and ethics? Do you think corruption and political dishonesty only happens in Ontario and Quebec? Less people vote, less people join parties, and less people are talking about or paying attention to politics than ever before - could it be that corruption exists in EVERY last node of this land, and that voters and non-voters alike see all politicians as being dishonest?

What of the fact that under the current system, your vote is only seen as useful if you've elected the winning candidate? If you vote for a losing candidate/party you've wasted your time. Under pro-rep, every vote contributes. Kudos to the NDP and the Greens for supporting this electoral system, and being innovative overall with regards to the democratic deficit.
 

Liam Your muddling the waters by throwing too much into the mix. While you make good points about corruption and voter apathy Harper has addressed the corruption to a point by promising that the first thing he will do is bring about sweeping changes with reference to whistle blower legislation etc.

But In my mind the main underlying reason for the Democratic deficit in Canada as a WHOLE at least on the Federal stage is the lack of representation by and for the fringes of the country thus we have a system that is tearing the country apart.We have the Bloc and the West s feeling of alienation and the Easts feeling of being undervalued while Ontario is content with the status Quo. I wonder why!

Where would Ontario be if it weren't for NL's Hydro from the Upper churchil or the Iron ore from Lab City?
We are all in this together at least for now and unless something is done shes a goner IMHO.

The only thing that I have seen proposed that even comes close to addressing this is a triple E senate. Without a triple E senate to address the concerns of the colonies ther will continue to be an ever growing sentiment to separate from Canada and go it alone because as it stands the only provinces gaining from this Confederation are Ontario and Quebec to the detriment of the rest of Canada.

The NDP I believe has it as aprt of their platform to abolish the senate all together IMHO that would be better than just appointing elected senators which isn't any different than what we have now in reference to equality of representation in Canada.

I believe if you go back through your own blog site you will find that you have advocated this ery policy of abolishing the senate unless real reform for the good of the country is introduced.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050912.wcomment0912/BNStory/National/
http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/apr98/senate/triple.htm
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/parliament/senate-reform/
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp316-e.htm
http://www.uni.ca/pr_index.html
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/Proposals/tfa.html
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/S05.CFM
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/Proposals/CharlottetownLegalDraft.html
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm?Page=476
http://www.sen.parl.gc.ca/pcarney/english/Archives/Senate%20Reform/press_relase_senate_reform.htm
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/eclips/0309/030911/030911fb.htm
 

Under pro-rep, every vote contributes.

Which would mean NL, and in fact every province and territory except ON, AB, and BC, would lose voice at the national level.

The current electoral system amplifies the electoral weight of the territories and seven other provinces. PR would take that advantage away.
 

Why doesn't he take the advice of Preston Manning and implement a Triple E senate?

Because "he" can't do it. At least not alone.

A triple-E senate would have to be approved through a constitutional amendment passed by the federal parliament and all ten provinces.
 

exactly, wjm, and there is no way Quebec would agree to being "equal" to all other provinces and territories; nor would Ontario want to give up their lion's share of seats in the Senate (as it is in the House).

I just saw an article about Harper's announcement in BC about reviewing seat distribution, that I've seen zero coverage on. I'll try & find a link.
 

"Which would mean NL, and in fact every province and territory except ON, AB, and BC, would lose voice at the national level.

The current electoral system amplifies the electoral weight of the territories and seven other provinces. PR would take that advantage away."

Wow. That's a big assumption. State your source. There are so many varieties of electoral systems that exceed in quality compared to the existing one, and so many ways of using pro-rep that to just assume that this would be the case is a blatant lie and you know it.

There is no reason that pro-rep would eliminate or fundamentally change the number of seats allocated to each province in the current House of Commons. Why would you assume otherwise?
 

Wow. That's a big assumption. State your source.

Basic math. You can do it, too.

Take the current composition of the House of Commons. For each province and territory, divide the number of seats it has by the total seats, in this case, 308.

Then, take the current population of each province and territory. Divide it by the national population.

If the former figure is larger than the latter, then the province/territory benefits by the current formula, in that it has a larger share of the House of Commons, than it does of the national population.

If you do that -- have you done it yet? -- you will find that every province and territory, but for BC, AB, and ON, is "over-represented". It has a larger voice in the national parliament than strict rep-by-pop (such as Canada used to have, and such as Australia and the U.S. still have) would result in.

Under the Conservative/Harper proposal to give additional seats to BC (4), AB (2) and Ontario (10, although if BC gets 4 new ones, Ontario should get 12 more MPs on the same per-capita basis), the House of Commons would suddenly go to 324 MPs. (Harper has said no province will lose MPs, which is actually the status quo.)

Now, the territories and seven "over-represented" provinces (Atlantic, Quebec, Prairies-except-AB) have 37.9% of the national population. At the moment, they have 44.8% of the seats in the House. At the next reapportionment execise, I would estimate that would shift down slightly to 44% or so.

Under the Harper plan, those seven provinces and three territories will immediately fall to 42.6% of the House of Commons. Those provinces will lose 2.2% of the overal seats, while Ontario will gain 1.4% and the Rocky Mountain provinces will gain 0.8%.

In NL's case, with 1.6% of the national population, we have 2.3% of the seats. That will go down to 2.2%.

Seven provinces and three territories will "lose voice", at least at a faster rate than under the existing apportionment legislation would cause. (AB, BC, and ON will gain seats, anyway, under the status quo.)

There are so many varieties of electoral systems that exceed in quality compared to the existing one,

Sure, but the Harper one is under discussion here.

and so many ways of using pro-rep

Don't confuse pro-rep and rep-by-pop.

As for proportional representation proprement dit... yes, it will cause the smaller provinces to lose voice, unless the new electoral system is, in fact, NOT proportional rep.

Under pure proportional rep, say the Israeli system, yes, provinces like NL would definitely lose voice. Not only do we have a smaller share of the population than of the current House, we also have a smaller share of the VOTING population. NL, with 1.6% of the national population, cast 1.5% of the national ballots in 2004.

that to just assume that this would be the case is a blatant lie and you know it.

Do the math.

There is no reason that pro-rep would eliminate or fundamentally change the number of seats allocated to each province in the current House of Commons.

Then that isn't proportional representation. It's some kind of hybrid, but PR, she ain't.