Thursday, March 28, 2019

If Liberals Really Want to Stop Andrew Scheer

Maybe Justin Trudeau can pull a "Harper" and wait for the SNC-L scandal to die a natural death over the summer holiday. Maybe not.

Here's a surefire way to stop a Scheer Tory government in its tracks - electoral reform. 

If Scheer was to have his way with Canada he would need a "false majority" of the same sort that brought Harper and Justin Trudeau to majority power. What if Scheer did manage to get 40 per cent of the vote but that only translated into 40 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons? Minority Tory government - worst case scenario. Or it could lead to some sort of coalition government of Liberals, New Dems and Greens. Sure Justin might have to mend his neoliberal ways but we would probably be better off for it.

Maybe the Greens, in exchange for their support, could steer the coalition's environmental policy. Why not? Justin can't get off the fence - carbon taxes, pipelines, carbon taxes, pipelines. His head is spinning so fast it's no wonder he always seems dizzy. He isn't even on track to meet Harper's miserly emissions targets. Maybe Mr. Trudeau isn't the right guy on climate change. Perhaps he should stick with sincere apologies and selfies.

Wouldn't that be something if every vote really counted and every Canadian's voice was heard? A type of informed consent of the people to be governed instead of ruled as we are under this current FPTP regime.

Just an idea.


John B. said...

The one thing that I remember from the national Confederation of Regions Party is its characterization of the application of FPTP in Canada as a “constitutional dictatorship”.

I recall campaign buttons distributed by the Pearson Liberals that said, “I’m for a Liberal Majority”. The dovetailing message in their campaign rhetoric was that minority governments are ineffective and that their party was the only one at that time with a chance of achieving a majority. I thought that rationale was dumb when I was fifteen; I thought it was dumb when Catherine McKenna used it to upset Paul Dewar in 2015; and I think that, chief among her colleagues, she’s gone on to prove that it’s even dumber than I thought it to be.

Yet the electorate remains susceptible to appeals from the major parties during election campaigns stressing that they must have a majority in order to govern effectively. Think Harper. He admitted that he was useless as PM without one, some came running and eventually he got his majority. Then he went on to demonstrate that a useless man with power is still a useless man, but once unimpeded his uselessness can have its full effect. And we still haven’t clued in.

Rural said...

Many of us would like to see a more equatable voting system Mound, but getting there is not so easy, several different systems have (and are) been proposed provincially and all have failed to gain approval. Its a case of be careful what we wish for, if the unintended consequences of a new system are worse that the current mess (is that possible?) then we could be in MUCH worse shape. For the record I am in favor of electoral reform but have yet to see an acceptable system presented to the Canadian public!

Because Pictures! said...

Electoral reform in Scotland saved the Conservative Party from extinction. In a FOTP system they would have disappeared. PR tends to favour the fringe parties which at present is the Greens, but could also include the various “alt right” groups or even the Natural Law Party of Canada (remember them?). Whatever voting system we choose, political parties will game it. The drive toward PR is a distraction from the urgent need to create a green and more equitable society. A more pleasing arrangement of deck chairs won’t save us.

Ben Burd said...

The main problem is that governments have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the plebiscite and then they intentionally fuck it up because they do not believe in it.

Ontario and BC prime examples. How about the question - "Do you want to change the system to PR?"

Simple question simple answer no cluttering of choices - yes or no

But don't hold your breath!

The Mound of Sound said...

What is democracy but governance with the informed consent of the electorate?

How can any government claim to have a mandate based on a majority that was not supported by three out of five voters?

Anonymous said...

I'm still laughing. " electoral reform." What a brilliant idea! But not the kind that allows the candidates to decide out of second voters who receives the most votes. There isn't anything democratic about that scenario.

Anonymous said...

The Liberals had many opportunities to run the country properly, as promised.
Electoral reform would have been one option.
Another would have been making even a very basic attempt to balance the books.
But they didn't.
And now Judas has handed the keys to Canada to Scheer.
Thanks a lot.

The Mound of Sound said...

Judas? I don't know, Anon. Jody simply exposed apparent wrongdoing by the PM and his aides. Judas, if I'm thinking of the right guy, betrayed this other fella, Jesus. I don't think there was any Jesus in the immediate plot line. Plus Judas got 30 pieces of silver, wasn't it? Did somebody buy Jody? And then Judas used that money, bought himself a length of rope and popped it round his neck. Do you foresee Jody going that route?

Justin isn't like Jesus and he's even less like Pierre. He's a guy who is not to be taken at his word. Iggy put an end to my 40 years as a Liberal. Justin makes me pleased to be a Green.

Jody didn't hand the keys to Scheer. Justin did that by himself with a litany of broken promises and a trail of lies from the tar pits of Athabasca to the tanker dock in Burnaby.

I sincerely hope that, despite the Dauphin's antics, Scheer loses in October. I do so hope.