4379 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Mario Doucet
Was there really ever any
doubt, long on promises short on reliability. Trade mark of this
government, all talk no action, don't be fooled again people.
David Raymond Amos
@Mario Doucet Who said i was fooled?
Wilson Ennis
@Mario Doucet
We have the best country in the world built on First Past The Post.
Our election system is not broken so don't try to fix it so unpopular political parties with leanings to countries that have failed can have political clout to make Canada fail... that is folly big time. Don't give the keys to Canada to people who are blind to systems and governments that were failures.
First Past The Post becomes the ruling government, Second Past The Post becomes the Official Opposition. The total votes for first plus second past the post has always been comprised of a majority of votes.
A change in electoral math is not going to fix any problem.
With some convoluted counting system we will just get a proliferation of political parties based on all sorts of factors that keep people apart rather than united… Without a simple majority that everyone understands we could have a political party for race, gender, religion, country of origin, you name it. Once a proliferation of parties gets imbedded it can't be stopped.
While a majority party is needed to get things done, the party gives to much discretion to the leader to spend money on pet projects (like himself) rather than for the good of the people.
The members of the ruling party need to have and to exercise the power to stop dictator leaders from doing things that are based on their own ego rather than being good for the country. We need balance of power.. not have all the power in the PMO.
We have the best country in the world built on First Past The Post.
Our election system is not broken so don't try to fix it so unpopular political parties with leanings to countries that have failed can have political clout to make Canada fail... that is folly big time. Don't give the keys to Canada to people who are blind to systems and governments that were failures.
First Past The Post becomes the ruling government, Second Past The Post becomes the Official Opposition. The total votes for first plus second past the post has always been comprised of a majority of votes.
A change in electoral math is not going to fix any problem.
With some convoluted counting system we will just get a proliferation of political parties based on all sorts of factors that keep people apart rather than united… Without a simple majority that everyone understands we could have a political party for race, gender, religion, country of origin, you name it. Once a proliferation of parties gets imbedded it can't be stopped.
While a majority party is needed to get things done, the party gives to much discretion to the leader to spend money on pet projects (like himself) rather than for the good of the people.
The members of the ruling party need to have and to exercise the power to stop dictator leaders from doing things that are based on their own ego rather than being good for the country. We need balance of power.. not have all the power in the PMO.
David Raymond Amos
@Wilson Ennis Oh My My So say you so say all Canadians? Well
Nay not I.
In my humble opinion there is no democracy in Canada when their is a majority controlling the House of Commons and the votes are whipped.Everybody just blindly follows their leader no matter what the party they belong to or they are booted out of it. The the Chamber of sober second thought has a big slug of booze and simply follows suit.
It truly amazing how many Canadian cannot tell who their MP is but they all know who their PM is. Whenever party leaders win a majority such as Trudeau"The Younger" and Stevey Boy Harper did at the last two kicks at the can, then they effectively become Kings of Canada and the darling of the CBC propaganda machine for four years or so. The Wannabe Kings know that they can go back on all their promises that caused them to get elected in the first place all day long because apathy rules the day most. Most Canadians expect the politicians to be bigtime liars anyway so why not just vote for the best looking one who tells the biggest whoopers? .
History proves that Trudeau "The Younger" came from far behind to be King byway of making a lot promises and making even more selfies. He continues to produces a lot of narcissistic selfies but his speeches contain a lot of hot air r even worse. More importantly how are his all promises during the last kick at the can working out? Methinks Trudeau "The Younger" holds the position he does byway of running on his Father's coattails and has since proven himself to be just a prettier and very much dumber version of Stevey Boy Harper
It should be a small wonder to my fellow Canadians who truly care about the notion of democracy that our forefathers fought for why I always run against the political parties as an independent
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-mandate-1.3961736
Opposition accuses Trudeau of 'betrayal' as Liberals abandon promise of electoral reform
New mandate for democratic institutions minister does not include reform
By Aaron Wherry, CBC News Posted: Feb 01, 2017 12:55 PM ET
Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould announced
today that she would not be pursuing electoral reform. (Fred
Chartrand/Canadian Press)
A new mandate letter issued to Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould, released publicly on Wednesday, says "changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate."
Opposition MPs blasted the Liberal government's move as a cynical betrayal.
- Maryam Monsef escapes the Liberal adventure in electoral reform
- Liberal survey on voting reform delivers conflicting messages
- How does Justin Trudeau really feel about electoral reform?
"There has been tremendous work by the House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, outreach by Members of Parliament by all parties, and engagement of 360,000 individuals in Canada through mydemocracy.ca," Trudeau writes in his letter to Gould.
"A clear preference for a new electoral system, let alone a consensus, has not emerged. Furthermore, without a clear preference or a clear question, a referendum would not be in Canada's interest. Changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate."
Gould was appointed minister last month, replacing Maryam Monsef.
"Our view has always been clear. Major reforms to the electoral system, changes of this magnitude should not be made if they lack the broad support of Canadians," Gould told reporters at a news conference convened to comment on her new mandate letter.
"It has become evident that the broad support needed among Canadians for a change of this magnitude does not exist."
Government abandons promise to change voting system8:06
Trudeau first committed to replacing the current first-past-the-post electoral system in June 2015, shortly before the federal election campaign. His government's first throne speech promised that the Liberals would "take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system."
A special committee of the House of Commons was struck last June and all MPs were invited to hold town hall meetings on electoral reform. In addition, Monsef conducted her own national tour and launched an online survey about the Canadian political system.
When the committee returned its final report to the House in December, a majority of members recommended calling a referendum on some form of proportional representation.
'[Trudeau] certainly had no problems making the promise, but not the courage to break that promise in front of all of you here today.' - NDP critic Nathan Cullen
"The past year was an incredible important conversation that we had with Canadians," Gould said. "We took the time, we consulted and we listened. And now we're moving forward with a plan that respects all of those contributions. I thank everybody who participated.
"It is a difficult conversation to talk about how we govern ourselves. But we have listened to Canadians and this will not be part of my mandate."
Cullen: 'One of the most cynical displays of self-serving politics'
Speaking to reporters after Gould, NDP democratic reform critic Nathan Cullen took direct aim at the prime minister.
"I was a bit surprised that it wasn't Mr. Trudeau out here, somehow lacking the courage and fortitude to make this announcement himself," Cullen said. "He certainly had no problems making the promise, but not the courage to break that promise in front of all of you here today."
Cullen calls Trudeau a liar for breaking promise2:39
Cullen called it "one of the most cynical displays of self-serving politics this government has yet to engage in."
"What Trudeau proved himself today was to be a liar, was to be of the most cynical variety of politician," the New Democrat said. "Saying whatever it takes to get elected, then once elected seeking any excuse, however weak, however absent, to justify that lie to Canadians."
The NDP MP predicted Trudeau would pay a "political price" for abandoning his promise.
'Betrayal' will strike deeply, says May
Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose told reporters outside the House of Commons that "Canadians should think twice about believing what Justin Trudeau says."
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, a member of the special committee, warned that Trudeau's decision to walk away from his commitment could have significant ramifications.
"I am deeply afraid that this betrayal will strike much more deeply in the hearts of Canadians than Prime Minister Trudeau realizes, particularly among young people," she said before making reference to politicians who have led populist revolts in other countries.
"We are in a time of dangerous politics. You must never do anything as a politician who understands what's at stake that feeds cynicism. Cynicism has enough to feed itself. It is work to feed hope. It is work to feed faith. And when you break faith you will reap what you sow."
Opposition slams government for electoral reform reversal9:05
Trudeau invokes stability, lack of consensus
In question period, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair called Trudeau's actions a "massive political deception."
In response, Trudeau pointed to a difference of opinions among the major political parties.
"As people in this House know, I have long preferred a preferential ballot. The members opposite [in the NDP] wanted proportional representation. The Official Opposition wanted a referendum," he said, gesturing toward the Conservatives.
"There is no consensus. There is no clear path forward. It would be irresponsible to do something that harms Canada's stability."
Later, in response to a question from May, Trudeau expanded on his explanation.
"Anything a prime minister or a government must do must be in the interest of Canada and all Canadians, particularly when it comes to transforming our electoral system. I understand the passion and the intensity with which the member opposite believes in this and many Canadians mirror that passion and that intensity."
"But there is no consensus, there is no sense of how to do this. And, quite frankly, a divisive referendum, an augmentation of extremist voices in this House, is not what is in the best interests of Canada."
While electoral reform was ruled out, Gould's mandate letter includes several objectives, including a review of "risks to Canada's political and electoral activities from hackers," new regulations for political fundraising, the creation of an independent commission for election debates and new measures to limit spending by parties between elections.
Trudeau defends decision to end electoral reform3:39
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
4379 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/goodbye-to-electoral-reform-1.3962324
Say goodbye to electoral reform — a promise that was born sickly: Robyn Urback
Think of this as the peaceful passing of something that was never intended to survive
By Robyn Urback, CBC News Posted: Feb 01, 2017 5:24 PM ET
Did the Liberals care what type of electoral reform they
got? No, they said, just as long as it was healthy. (Adrian
Wyld/Canadian Press)
Today, we say goodbye to one of the Liberals' most important 2015 campaign promises: electoral reform.
Born sickly, the pledge to see to a new voting system in time for the next federal election was nevertheless welcomed by many Canadians who had grown tired of seeing majority governments won with 39 per cent of the vote. The Liberals' announcement that "2015 would be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post system," brought with it hope for a better future and a more representative government for Canadians.
Did the Liberals care what type of electoral reform they got? No, they said, just as long as it was healthy.
Yet it was obvious the Liberals did in fact have a preference: for a ranked balloting system, which would, most likely, be the voting system resulting in more members of their party populating the House of Commons. But they didn't say that out loud, of course. Whatever Canadians wanted would be fine by them.
But there were early signs that the promise was unwell. Under the guardianship of Maryam Monsef — a new minister who, it is clear now, didn't have the experience necessary to manage such a complicated and problematic file — the Liberals hosted a series of town hall meetings to discuss the fate of electoral reform.
But, as it turned out, many Canadians just weren't interested in spending their summer listening to policy wonks drone on about the meaning of "democracy." Best wishes, though.
Electoral reform did take its first tentative steps late last year when a special committee issued its report on the file, which recommended a referendum pitting first-past-the-post against a proportional representation system. That wasn't exactly what the Liberals were hoping for, though, so Monsef — either by her own volition, or on a directive from the Prime Minister's Office — took a swipe at the committee, accusing its members of not following the guidelines she set out for its report (in fact, they followed the guidelines exactly).
It was at that moment it became clear to many that electoral reform wouldn't survive. For others, though, it was obvious from the get-go that the Liberals' campaign promise was never actually supposed to grow up.
The Liberals, after all, had given themselves less than four years to completely upend the way Canadians elect their governments. The promise was too vague at the outset, too. The Liberals said they would replace first-past-the-post with something, but never said what that something would be, or how they would determine what that something should be.
The Liberals also promised to move ahead only when they had achieved "broad consensus" from Canadians, but never defined what would constitute "broad consensus." At the same time, it was clear there would never be unanimity among parties in the House: the Greens and NDP wanted proportional voting, the Liberals wanted ranked ballots and the Tories were happy with the status quo.
Those preferences explain the marked differences in the reactions to electoral reform's death Wednesday afternoon. The Conservatives didn't quite dance on its grave, but there were evidently a few toes wiggling under the benches in the House of Commons. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May was livid — a sentiment shared by members of the NDP — and poor Justin Trudeau, clearly still confused and distraught, blamed electoral reform's death on it "not being good for Canadians," and it being "divisive" and on not wanting an "augmentation of extremist voices in this House."
He'll come around, as we all should. Indeed, we shouldn't think of this as a loss, per se, but rather as the peaceful passing of something that was never intended to survive. May electoral reform live on forever in our memories.
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
1418 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Born sickly, the pledge to see to a new voting system in time for the next federal election was nevertheless welcomed by many Canadians who had grown tired of seeing majority governments won with 39 per cent of the vote. The Liberals' announcement that "2015 would be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post system," brought with it hope for a better future and a more representative government for Canadians.
To many, it seemed obvious the Liberals' promise of electoral reform never had a chance. (The Canadian Press)
Yet it was obvious the Liberals did in fact have a preference: for a ranked balloting system, which would, most likely, be the voting system resulting in more members of their party populating the House of Commons. But they didn't say that out loud, of course. Whatever Canadians wanted would be fine by them.
Signs of trouble
But there were early signs that the promise was unwell. Under the guardianship of Maryam Monsef — a new minister who, it is clear now, didn't have the experience necessary to manage such a complicated and problematic file — the Liberals hosted a series of town hall meetings to discuss the fate of electoral reform.
But, as it turned out, many Canadians just weren't interested in spending their summer listening to policy wonks drone on about the meaning of "democracy." Best wishes, though.
Electoral reform did take its first tentative steps late last year when a special committee issued its report on the file, which recommended a referendum pitting first-past-the-post against a proportional representation system. That wasn't exactly what the Liberals were hoping for, though, so Monsef — either by her own volition, or on a directive from the Prime Minister's Office — took a swipe at the committee, accusing its members of not following the guidelines she set out for its report (in fact, they followed the guidelines exactly).
Gould says electoral reform is no more1:13
It was at that moment it became clear to many that electoral reform wouldn't survive. For others, though, it was obvious from the get-go that the Liberals' campaign promise was never actually supposed to grow up.
The Liberals, after all, had given themselves less than four years to completely upend the way Canadians elect their governments. The promise was too vague at the outset, too. The Liberals said they would replace first-past-the-post with something, but never said what that something would be, or how they would determine what that something should be.
- Trudeau government abandons promise of electoral reform
- Maryam Monsef escapes the Liberal adventure in electoral reform
The Liberals also promised to move ahead only when they had achieved "broad consensus" from Canadians, but never defined what would constitute "broad consensus." At the same time, it was clear there would never be unanimity among parties in the House: the Greens and NDP wanted proportional voting, the Liberals wanted ranked ballots and the Tories were happy with the status quo.
R.I.P.
Those preferences explain the marked differences in the reactions to electoral reform's death Wednesday afternoon. The Conservatives didn't quite dance on its grave, but there were evidently a few toes wiggling under the benches in the House of Commons. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May was livid — a sentiment shared by members of the NDP — and poor Justin Trudeau, clearly still confused and distraught, blamed electoral reform's death on it "not being good for Canadians," and it being "divisive" and on not wanting an "augmentation of extremist voices in this House."
He'll come around, as we all should. Indeed, we shouldn't think of this as a loss, per se, but rather as the peaceful passing of something that was never intended to survive. May electoral reform live on forever in our memories.
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
1418 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
No comments:
Post a Comment