Proportional Representation

 

I notice it has been a month since my last blog, but it’s summer, time to take it easy. But I do have something to say, so here goes.

Many writers decrie the current voting system in Canada.  They are upset that too many politicians get elected with less than a majority. They demand proportional representation (PR), perhaps influenced by the many columns on the subject by Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne. But do they have any idea how it would work in Canada?

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes

There are several forms of proportional representation throughout the world of democracies.  Which would we choose? Many counties use a party list system where the voter only votes for a party, not individuals. Parties may show a list of candidates, but that is not necessarily final. This is done as a whole country election, as is done in the Netherlands. Would Canada adopt this model or some other variant using a province-by-province method? To copy the Netherlands, you must recognize that it is a rather small country with a relatively homogenous population. In this system there is no guarantee that you will know who, if anyone, represents your area or riding. It also causes a proliferation of political parties, each vying for a piece of the action. This can cause instability since in many cases national or provincial governments are formed by coalitions which can be fragile. I give you, for example, Italy which seems to require new elections every year or so.

Another system is what is called mixed member proportional (MMP). This system was proposed some years ago by an Ontario government.  It went nowhere.  Yes, you get to vote for a local candidate, but based on that vote, additional seats, about a quarter of the total, would be awarded proportionally. As I wrote in a letter at the time, this would mean that you would never get to vote directly for party leaders and their chosen few.

As you can see, there are many choices and questions that have to be addressed.

Are there other choices? One alternative, which would be a variant of our current system, would have run-off elections whenever candidates do not get a majority in the first ballot. This is also done in some countries even where proportional representation is used in the first ballot. This would mean that those elected to office would have a first or second ballot majority of voters in their riding.

If we want to improve the voting system in Canada, we, the voters, must understand how any new system would work. Someone must enunciate a system that can then be discussed logically and knowledgeably.

Will election reform happen in Canada? Probably not.  Entrenched parties that crave majorities would not be inclined to support a system that could lead to coalition governments. Only a very strong movement by electors could move this forward.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
  - Michael Crichton

 

Proportional Representation

 

I notice it has been a month since my last blog, but it’s summer, time to take it easy. But I do have something to say, so here goes.

Many writers decrie the current voting system in Canada.  They are upset that too many politicians get elected with less than a majority. They demand proportional representation (PR), perhaps influenced by the many columns on the subject by Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne. But do they have any idea how it would work in Canada?

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes

There are several forms of proportional representation throughout the world of democracies.  Which would we choose? Many counties use a party list system where the voter only votes for a party, not individuals. Parties may show a list of candidates, but that is not necessarily final. This is done as a whole country election, as is done in the Netherlands. Would Canada adopt this model or some other variant using a province-by-province method? To copy the Netherlands, you must recognize that it is a rather small country with a relatively homogenous population. In this system there is no guarantee that you will know who, if anyone, represents your area or riding. It also causes a proliferation of political parties, each vying for a piece of the action. This can cause instability since in many cases national or provincial governments are formed by coalitions which can be fragile. I give you, for example, Italy which seems to require new elections every year or so.

Another system is what is called mixed member proportional (MMP). This system was proposed some years ago by an Ontario government.  It went nowhere.  Yes, you get to vote for a local candidate, but based on that vote, additional seats, about a quarter of the total, would be awarded proportionally. As I wrote in a letter at the time, this would mean that you would never get to vote directly for party leaders and their chosen few.

As you can see, there are many choices and questions that have to be addressed.

Are there other choices? One alternative, which would be a variant of our current system, would have run-off elections whenever candidates do not get a majority in the first ballot. This is also done in some countries even where proportional representation is used in the first ballot. This would mean that those elected to office would have a first or second ballot majority of voters in their riding.

If we want to improve the voting system in Canada, we, the voters, must understand how any new system would work. Someone must enunciate a system that can then be discussed logically and knowledgeably.

Will election reform happen in Canada? Probably not.  Entrenched parties that crave majorities would not be inclined to support a system that could lead to coalition governments. Only a very strong movement by electors could move this forward.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
  - Michael Crichton

 

Travels

 

Travel can be a wonderful and surprising event. Even places that you used to know from years past can become different.  My friend, Lorraine, and I recently returned from a road trip to Nova Scotia. It turned out to be a great trip with several highlights. The highlights included places, events and people.

You know you are in Nova Scotia when you see and hear this.

The Piper at the Nova Scotia Welcome Centre

Places

Have you ever eaten breakfast on Wedgewood china? That was the case in Pictou, Nova Scotia at the Scotsman Inn, a bread and breakfast accommodation. The place was run by, you guessed it, a Scotsman and his wife. In some ways, it was almost like a museum with some of its exhibits and wall hangings. An excellent and healthy breakfast was served each morning on the Wedgwood and other fine china.

The Scotsman Inn Dining Room set for breakfast

One of the wonderful things about this and some other places was the existence of a veranda where people could and did get together in evenings and talk. You get to meet your fellow guests and find out about them.

The second B&B we stayed in was in Lunenburg, a most interesting town. Lunenburg is a World Heritage Site and is very picturesque. The B&B was called the Rose and Thistle.  The owner, appropriately, was Rose and her husband George (‘Thistle?’). This was an old house that had three suites and, of course, a big veranda.  The veranda wrapped around two sides of the house and was another place for guests to meet and talk. The dining room was a bit more modest than the Scotsman, but we still ate on china.

The other places we stayed at, the Courtyard Marriott in Halifax and the Old Orchard Inn in Wolfville were just big hotels, comfortable and full of amenities, but not much character.  The exception was the Algonquin Hotel and Resort in St. Andrews, New Brunswick. This has always been a favourite of mine.  An old railway resort hotel, it has kept up the luxury of those types of hotels in Canada. It is now under the management of a major chain who have done a great job of refurbishing the hotel without compromising its character. The hotel also has a large veranda where people sit out and meet each other.

Veranda at the Algonquin Hotel

Events

The Nova Scotia Tattoo is still as great as it was when it started in 1967 as a centennial celebration. Lots of great bands, both brass and bagpipes and drums.  The bands came from all over Canada and from Europe and were universally good. There were also gymnastic displays and the Navy Gun Run. This latter event has been going on for many years. We were sitting in the front row so got the full effect of the bangs when the guns were fired (with blanks of course).

We also attended the Pictou Lobster Carnival, an annual event that celebrates the end of the local lobster fishing season. We ate lots of lobster that weekend.

People

The really wonderful part of this trip was meeting other people, almost always on the verandas I’ve mentioned earlier. We met people from many places. Many of them were from Canada, different provinces including Quebec and B.C. But we also met people from different countries including the US, England and even Argentina. Everyone was very friendly and willing to talk about themselves and exchange experiences. A gentleman from England kept me late one evening questioning me about Canada and particularly the US.  He could not understand why the US, the richest country in the world, did not have universal health care. I had to explain about the power of rich lobby groups that had such influence in government policy. Other discussions were equally inciteful on different topics. We were never lonely on a veranda.

Irritants

Of course, not everything was perfect.

There were some spots on major highways that were so rough that I sometimes had concerns about my car’s suspension.  Quebec, are you listening?

Some drivers can be very annoying.  I have problems with drivers that slow down at curves in the road or when they pull out to pass other vehicles such as transport trucks. I am convinced that speed doesn’t kill, speed differential does. I thought of that when a car passed my doing about 150 to 160 km/hour. The rest of the traffic was doing 115 – 120. I also have a problem with drivers that tailgate in hopes, no doubt, that you will speed up to their speed. I would like to make a bumper sticker that says, “It’s not my job to stay ahead of you, it’s your job to stay behind me.”

Slow service by wait staff can be tedious, particularly at upscale places.

Toilet paper that is so thin you can read through it now seems so popular, too popular.

Plaudits

In Nova Scotia we took a number of secondary highways. In almost all cases these roads were very well kept and smooth. It made travelling on them a real pleasure.

There are many interesting places in Canada for travel and vacations. Congratulations to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for hosting us for a great vacation.

I apologize to my friends in Nova Scotia for not contacting or visiting them. We were on a fairly tight schedule.

The Sufferers

 

I was born in England during the Second World War.  My Scottish parents were working in a factory making wings for Spitfires.  When that work ended at the end of the war, we moved to a village east of London called Chadwell Heath where my father had found work. There we had an apartment over a butcher shop.  Across the street from our apartment there was a large hole where a building had stood. It had been a doctor’s home and clinic. Chadwell Heath had been under the flight path of the V1 flying bombs on their way to London. Their range was determined by an estimate of the amount of fuel they were filled with. When that ran dry, the rockets fell to earth and exploded. That meant that some went long and some fell short, and that was what had happened to the doctor’s house.

In Chadwell Heath, I played with two other boys about my age. Between the three of us, we had three good eyes, and I had two of them. Two young boys blinded, possibly for life, one with one eye, one with none. They had been blinded by flying glass from the explosion at the doctor’s house.

The reason for this story is to emphasize the toll that is taken by civilians in wars. We see it today in missile and drone attacks in Ukraine and bombing attacks in Iran.  It has been a tragedy in ever war ever recorded. Area bombing in World War two, havoc in the Korean and Viet Nam wars, Afghanistan, anti-colonial wars in Africa. All had their civilian sufferers. And that’s only in the twentieth century, a so-called modern civilized era.  In ancient wars between city states for example, the entire population of the losing side was exterminated or enslaved. There were attempts to limit the civilian suffering in many eras, but none have ever been truly successful.

War is particularly tragic on children. In many cases, their injuries will last a lifetime which will usually severely limit their ability to become productive. Their psychological damage, which can be very severe, will also last a lifetime. It will either make them scared of every little bang, or they will grow up seeking revenge from the enemy that caused their misery. The cycle will go on.

Military personnel get to know what to expect and are able to defend themselves. Injury and death are part of their profession. But not so for civilians. I don’t expect future wars to be any different unless we fight wars with one single military person against another with the winner determining the outcome. But that will not happen. Breaking the spirit of a country’s civilian population is too embedded in the military strategy.

Canada has been lucky; it has never experienced a war on our territory. It does not have a national memory of such damage. Any such memory comes from immigrants and refugees who have experienced it in their old country.

Each year we have a Remembrance Day to honour fallen military people.  Each town has a cenotaph to remember their dead.  Why don’t we have a day of remembrance for civilians who have suffered in war?

Parochialism

 

I wrote the following letter to the Globe and Mail. As you may expect, the newspaper chose not to print it. The original letter writer who I was responding to, as you can see, was not happy with the choice of the new Governor-General.

“The letter writer bemoans the fact that the new Governor-General is from Quebec and asks whether there were no candidates from the western provinces. Let me first point out that since 1950 there have been no Governors-General from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. Vincent Massey, in the 1950s, was the first Canadian who became Governor-General.

But can’t we get over the parochialism of labeling everything by province and realize that we are Canadians. The Governor-General represents Canada, not any one province.  Provinces have Lieutenants-Governor for that. Louise Arbour is the best candidate for Canada that I can think of at this time.  Her outstanding service in the Supreme Court of Canada plus her service in the International Court of Justice speaks to her competence and respect for the law. In both situations she represented Canada.

As an immigrant at age five, I was brought up in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen and served in the Royal Canadian Navy. I have lived in three provinces but always considered myself Canadian.  Why can’t others?”

Too many people today seem more interested in their province than their country. This parochialism has alienated provinces from each other and with the country.  How else do you explain so much talk of separation?

The US has this fixation with the state. Ask an American where he is from and he/she will invariably say what state.  In the UK, they will tell they are English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, although you had probably already figured this out from their accent. In Europe, South American, Australia and New Zealand, people tell you what country they’re from.

Those in Canada who demand a Governor-General from a region (the West, the Maritimes) have not suggested an outstanding person from their region as a good candidate for the job.  Can you?

Government Housing

 Military people might call these married quarters or PMQs. But government owned housing comes in many ways, and for different reasons. The Governor-General and the Prime Minister live in government housing.  Military people live in them. There is government housing on almost all military bases. It is common in almost every military in the world. In some countries, government houses come in the form of palaces or castles. But it is all government housing.

If you were assigned to one of these places, like married quarters (it is unlikely that any of my readers would live in palaces or castles), you would not think of making unilateral changes to the structure by yourself. You wouldn’t think of tearing down a wall or wing of the house or doing any significant modification without some type of official authorization.

The US White House is government housing.  It is meant to house the President of the United States and provide a workspace for his/her immediate staff. So, what gives the current president the idea that he can tear down an entire wing at the east end of the building?  Why does he think he has the right to build a garish “ballroom” on this site? Such permission is supposed to be approved by congress with the recommendation of a heritage counsel. Although the heritage body has condemned the plan (it was never asked about tearing down the old structure), the congress has never been asked to vote on it.  And what started off as vanity project to be paid for by donors has now to be funded by taxpayers’ money to the tune of one billion dollars.

Can you imagine getting away with that in married quarters? But Donald Trump does not believe in rules and laws. If that applied to us, wouldn’t be wonderful/horrible world!

“When a man is wrapped up in himself, he makes a pretty small package.”

  - John Ruskin

“No man is exempt from saying silly things; the mischief is to say them deliberately.”

  - Michel de Montaigne

There are no problems . . .

 

Do you think you have problems? We all do, I’m sure. There are financial problems, family problems, problems at work, problems with neighbours, health problems, problems with governments.  There are so many kinds of problems. But the word ‘problem’ has such a negative connotation.  It feels static.  It sticks in your brain.  It is kind of like the lump in your stomach when you’ve eaten too much. It just sits there.

“It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.”

  - Malcolm Forbes

What if I told you that you could eliminate problems? Oh no, is this one of those feel-good theories that we hear about!?  Well, no.

. . . there are only challenges

What if we treated each problem as something else?  What if we treat each one as a challenge? Challenge is an action word.  Challenge is something you work at. Challenge is something you take action on.

Financial issues – do some budget analysis.  See where you can reduce costs, or increase income. If necessary, see a financial counselor.

Family issues – communicate with each other.  Actually, talk and listen.  Don’t let it fester.

Work issues – talk to your boss. Oh, is your boss the problem?  Then talk to HR, other managers. If it’s absolutely necessary, look for an opportunity in another part of the company or look for another job.

You get the idea.  Devise a plan and carry it out.  Can’t come up with a plan?  Then get help to develop one.

The important thing is to do something. Don’t succumb to a problem and let it fester.  Challenge is something we can all deal with.  Give yourself a chance.

“In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.”

  - Robert Frost

There are no problems, only challenges.