The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
With only about 59 per cent of Canadian voters bothering to cast ballots in the 2008 federal election, we can expect a lot of speculation as to why this happened, how to fix it, and even whether the electoral system should be changed. Some say that Canadian voters were simply tired of elections, with the third one in four years just being too much. A polling researcher did a poll and concluded that negative attack ads played a part in keeping people away from the polls. He claims that the Tory ads knocking Stphane Dion and his proposed carbon tax worked in convincing possible Liberal supporters to stay home, and that even though attack ads work, people do not like them and would not come out to support the party sponsoring the ads. This is an interesting concept; however, two million more voters chose the Conservatives over the Liberals, and attack ads and negative politics work if those being attacked can't defend themselves. Others blamed the low turnout, particularly in remote areas, on a new law that made voters prove who they are and where they live. It is designed to prevent voter fraud, and certainly works in this regard. Perhaps it played a part in discouraging voters, but it really was easy to cast your ballot if you wanted to. What about compulsory voting like they have in Australia? In the Land Down Under, people are fined if they don't vote (unless they have a legitimate reason), and turnout percentages are in the 90s. But some claim that not voting should also be a choice. Besides, a person forced to vote could simply spoil their ballot, as many surprisingly do anyhow. Since our election, Ed Broadbent (yes, he's still around) and others, including some in the media, have complained that our "first past the post" system, copied from Great Britain, does not give the results that the voters want and should be scrapped in favour of a proportional representation system like in other countries. Seats What they are suggesting is that parties receive seats according to their vote percentage. That would mean the Greenies would get some seats instead of being shut out and the NDP would get more (about 56 instead of 37), so minor parties would yield more clout in the House of Commons. But what about the Communist Party, the Rhinos, the Christian Heritage Party, the new PCs, and others? I suppose you could set a minimum vote percentage that a party would have to achieve in order to get a member elected, but this scenario would lead to continuous minority governments with real control by the Liberals, NDP and Greens. As respected Tory historian Jae told The Corner, these parties, under a PR system, could have formed a coalition with 158 seats and ruled as a majority. Promoters of PR claim that minorities are okay and would force different parties to get along and compromise on all issues. Would this work to the benefit of Canadians? Not likely, as chaos would reign supreme and little would get done. Jae points out that countries with PR, such as Italy and Israel, never have stable and long lasting governments. Italy has had more than 60 governments since they got rid of Mussolini, and even today Israel can't agree on a coalition. Our Canadian system, although it prefers a majority government, is tried and true and gives the left, right and centre parties an equal chance to form government. One problem that this writer sees is the old Jean Chrtien law that gives parties tax money according to the number of votes they get. This gives parties with no seats in Parliament funds to promote themselves and campaign, even though they have no responsibilities. Parties should have to raise and account for their own money. The October 14 election resulted in the third consecutive minority Parliament, with four parties representing the public. This is different but has happened before, as elections in 1962, '63 and '65 resulted in minorities with four parties. The first one was PC and the next two were Liberal under Lester Pearson, a Liberal leader who never had a majority, followed by a Liberal majority under Pierre Trudeau. Undoubtedly we will return to majority governments in the future, but until then, parties will have to work together and certainly not precipitate another election anytime soon. Roger's Right Corner runs Wednesdays.
