From: brewnoserii@gmail.com   
      
   By: Rick Salutin Columnist, Published on Fri Oct 30 2015   
      
      
   Kill first-past-the-post so it never rises again: Salutin   
   Even if it requires an undemocratic process, democratic reform can't come soon   
   enough.   
      
   The democratic abomination that is our first-past-the-post electoral system is   
   an insult to Canadians and a humiliation before the world, writes Rick Salutin.   
      
      
   I'm in favour of a primarily negative approach to electoral reform I think   
   Justin Trudeau hit the right note when he said this election should be the   
   last first-past-the-post election in Canadian history.  Negative isn't always   
   so negative.   
      
   This election was mainly about negating Stephen Harper, and only secondarily,   
   who'd replace him.  The first thing we do: kill first-past-the-post.   
      
   This democratic abomination is an insult to Canadians and a humiliation before   
   the world, most of which doesn't use it.   
      
   It means winner take all, but what does that mean?  You can win big with a   
   tiny number of votes as long as everyone else gets even fewer.  You can win   
   with 10 votes out of 100 cast, if 10 others got nine votes each.  Real   
   50-per-cent majorities don't    
   matter.   
      
   It's staggering that we've put up with it so long -- as if the magic of   
   casting a ballot blinded us to how it gets nullified and devalued at the same   
   moment.   
      
   It's meant that governments, both federal and provincial, could get a majority   
   of seats, allowing them to behave dictatorially and pass any laws they wanted,   
   with a minority of votes.  It happened routinely.   
      
   The last parliamentary majority based on a majority of votes came in 1984.    
   Are Canadians just stupid?  I'd say, not exactly.  They put up with it for   
   practical reasons.   
      
   For most of the 20th century, we had Liberal governments nationally with a   
   minority of votes.   But if you added in NDP (or its predecessor, CCF) votes,   
   they amounted to a majority and the Liberals were sly enough to apply policies   
   -- often stolen from    
   the CCF-NDP, like medicare and pensions -- that seemed to represent this   
   imaginary "majority."   
      
   In Ontario, Conservatives ruled from 1943 to 1985, but they leaned "Red Tory,"   
   to achieve a similar inclusive sense.  Canadians being practical, tolerated   
   these ersatz majorities.  Then it all changed.   
      
   During the Harper years, 60-70 per cent of voters -- Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green   
   -- were broadly united behind a mild centre-leftism and against Harperism.     
   Harper ignored that, especially with his 40-per-cent "majority" after 2011.    
   He governed for his    
   30-40 per cent without even a façade of representing a true majority.   
      
   This exposed the horror of FPTP as never before.  Last week's election might   
   easily have extended it but we lucked out.  That's why electoral reform seems   
   newly urgent.   
      
   Will it happen?   Hard to know.  Wars will be fought over what to replace it   
   with.   
      
   There's a stack of alternatives which all have passionate proponents who've   
   spent decades honing proofs that theirs is the only solution.  It's worse than   
   medieval theology or Marxist schisms.   Most systems are hellish to explain.   
      
   Voting change maven Dave Meslin was on CBC Wednesday with Lego towers (CBC   
   budget cuts, y'know) to illustrate options.  It was largely incomprehensible.    
   Lots of these perfectionists would opt for no change if it's not their change.   
      
   The Liberals, with their own phony 39.6-per-cent majority, could choose one   
   system -- doubtless the one they think they'd do best under -- and ram it   
   through.   But should they?   Many loud voices will demand a referendum   
   because you shouldn't make basic    
   changes in democracy in such an undemocratic way.   
      
   Yet a referendum might well mean nothing changes.   There've been several   
   provincial ones recently and all failed -- because arbitrary levels for   
   approval were set (B.C., where it had to reach 60 per cent) or few resources   
   went into explaining the    
   changes (Ontario.  If there are alternative plans to vote between, forget it.   
      
   Personally, and this is where it gets sticky, I'd favour shoving anything --   
   as long as it throttles FPTP forever -- through.  Once gone it'll never rise   
   again.   
      
   No Canadian ever had a chance to vote on our constitution, either in 1867 or   
   1982.  That's a shame, but why get fastidious at this point?  There was no   
   debate, much less a referendum, on the wretched voting system we got.     
      
   The sole legitimate use I can imagine for using a phony parliamentary   
   majority, would be to kill forever the possibility of having phony   
   majorities.  After that, the process could continue -- why not -- toward a   
   more perfect electoral system.   
      
   If there is a referendum I'll cheerily join the debate and I'll vote.  But I'd   
   happily forego it for the joyous certainty of never seeing FPTP again.     
      
   That feels like a democratic inconsistency on my part and it embarrasses me.    
   But frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)