I can't speak for Aaron, who has written a lot on electoral reform, but I think one factor in the cynicism around it is that it is a debate that repeatedly springs up but eventually goes nowhere — referendums fail (even if the thresholds have been unfair), parties renege on their promises (which isn't right) or decision-makers (and Canadians) can't agree on an alternative system.
I understand why proponents of electoral reform are passionate about it. But you say this:
"Whereas all our electoral system leads to is ever-declining turnout, ever-declining regard for politicians and governments, ever-increasing polarization, and a general decline in democracy. No big deal, right?"
That is a big deal. But I'm not sure it is a given that our system is what is leading to these things. You could find signs of each of these problems in countries with other electoral systems. I don't think it is an 'elite' vs. the 'ordinary citizen', but rather differing opinions on what is causing those problems.
Could a different electoral system help our politics? Very possibly! I'm open to that idea.
Could a system that produces better leader selections help? I think it could — and all it would take is for a few parties to change their internal processes. On the face of it, it is a change we could actually see happen in the short term.
I also think that recent events have made the leadership question something timely and a little new, which is why I wanted to discuss it on the podcast.
And, as to my professed agnosticism, it isn't a ploy to appear impartial. I'm genuinely not sure what the answer is when it comes to electoral reform. Every electoral system has trade-offs and there are elements of our system that I think are good, and elements that I think are bad. I think probably some form of MMP is the best compromise and if it came to a referendum, I'd probably end up voting for it, in part because I'm not afraid of change like that and I like to tinker with things to see what happens.
I'm just not convinced that, after implementing such a change, our politics would be all that better a decade later. Which, as I said in my B-W piece, shouldn't be our goal — I think our electoral system should be principle-driven, not outcome-driven.
And I certainly don't think people should 'suck it up'. They should keep fighting for what they believe in until they convince enough people to make change happen.
I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy this discussion, but I think you'll find fewer people in this space who are more willing to engage with the topic of electoral reform than myself.
I feel greater certainty about that, I think the OMOV model in leadership races does not align with how our parties or parliamentary systems work. That mismatch produces bad outcomes. If a leader is going to lead a parliamentary caucus, then the caucus probably needs a pretty big say. If the leader is primarily a spokesperson for the grassroots, then that grassroots membership needs to mean more.
By that I mean adding value to long-time membership and involvement with a party. It doesn't seem right to me that a person who has been a member of a party for years, donates regularly, attends nomination meetings and volunteers to knock on doors, can have their votes swamped by fly-by-night or single-issue members who only buy a membership card to vote in a leadership race and are then never heard from again.
I know this is a podcast about where politics is at, but I'm flabbergasted that the conversation did not think the Commission is a big deal. Yes, it's hard for Canadians to understand the theory of what happened vs the events. But as knowledgeable politicos, it should not be lost on you that our rights were completely suspended even though the government impacted a very few with such suspension (though the freezing of accounts for political purposes still needs to be reckoned with). There's no doubt government overstepped the purpose of the Act. But rather than have an uproar among the opinion makers of this country, too many obfuscate and claim it isn't a big deal for voters. For shame! I told me student this and I'll write it here: if you do not stand up for your rights, someone, somewhere will take them away. They were taken away by the Liberals and the Commission must speak to the future and make clear that political uses and unnecessary uses of the Emergencies Act will never be tolerated.
I tend agree with Silvius the Mad's comment on the You Tube channel: There is no role for government on how political parties choose their leaders.
If we do let government in, we will wind up going the other way: American-style primaries. Not because it fits in parliamentary democracy but because we like borrowing American political ideas (four-year fixed terms, attack ads, etc.).
Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting (and I don't think Aaron was, either) that the government should step in when it comes to leadership races. Instead, that parties might have to re-think their leadership selection process, ESPECIALLY when they are in power.
A few things.
I can't speak for Aaron, who has written a lot on electoral reform, but I think one factor in the cynicism around it is that it is a debate that repeatedly springs up but eventually goes nowhere — referendums fail (even if the thresholds have been unfair), parties renege on their promises (which isn't right) or decision-makers (and Canadians) can't agree on an alternative system.
I understand why proponents of electoral reform are passionate about it. But you say this:
"Whereas all our electoral system leads to is ever-declining turnout, ever-declining regard for politicians and governments, ever-increasing polarization, and a general decline in democracy. No big deal, right?"
That is a big deal. But I'm not sure it is a given that our system is what is leading to these things. You could find signs of each of these problems in countries with other electoral systems. I don't think it is an 'elite' vs. the 'ordinary citizen', but rather differing opinions on what is causing those problems.
Could a different electoral system help our politics? Very possibly! I'm open to that idea.
Could a system that produces better leader selections help? I think it could — and all it would take is for a few parties to change their internal processes. On the face of it, it is a change we could actually see happen in the short term.
I also think that recent events have made the leadership question something timely and a little new, which is why I wanted to discuss it on the podcast.
And, as to my professed agnosticism, it isn't a ploy to appear impartial. I'm genuinely not sure what the answer is when it comes to electoral reform. Every electoral system has trade-offs and there are elements of our system that I think are good, and elements that I think are bad. I think probably some form of MMP is the best compromise and if it came to a referendum, I'd probably end up voting for it, in part because I'm not afraid of change like that and I like to tinker with things to see what happens.
I'm just not convinced that, after implementing such a change, our politics would be all that better a decade later. Which, as I said in my B-W piece, shouldn't be our goal — I think our electoral system should be principle-driven, not outcome-driven.
And I certainly don't think people should 'suck it up'. They should keep fighting for what they believe in until they convince enough people to make change happen.
I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy this discussion, but I think you'll find fewer people in this space who are more willing to engage with the topic of electoral reform than myself.
I feel greater certainty about that, I think the OMOV model in leadership races does not align with how our parties or parliamentary systems work. That mismatch produces bad outcomes. If a leader is going to lead a parliamentary caucus, then the caucus probably needs a pretty big say. If the leader is primarily a spokesperson for the grassroots, then that grassroots membership needs to mean more.
By that I mean adding value to long-time membership and involvement with a party. It doesn't seem right to me that a person who has been a member of a party for years, donates regularly, attends nomination meetings and volunteers to knock on doors, can have their votes swamped by fly-by-night or single-issue members who only buy a membership card to vote in a leadership race and are then never heard from again.
I know this is a podcast about where politics is at, but I'm flabbergasted that the conversation did not think the Commission is a big deal. Yes, it's hard for Canadians to understand the theory of what happened vs the events. But as knowledgeable politicos, it should not be lost on you that our rights were completely suspended even though the government impacted a very few with such suspension (though the freezing of accounts for political purposes still needs to be reckoned with). There's no doubt government overstepped the purpose of the Act. But rather than have an uproar among the opinion makers of this country, too many obfuscate and claim it isn't a big deal for voters. For shame! I told me student this and I'll write it here: if you do not stand up for your rights, someone, somewhere will take them away. They were taken away by the Liberals and the Commission must speak to the future and make clear that political uses and unnecessary uses of the Emergencies Act will never be tolerated.
Thanks. Maybe I was too punchy but I can't understand the standoffishness Canadians seem to have with the Emerg Act and its consequences.
It comes down to a determination of whether it was justified or not, and reasonable people can disagree.
Yes, I guess we'll see what the Commission thinks.
I tend agree with Silvius the Mad's comment on the You Tube channel: There is no role for government on how political parties choose their leaders.
If we do let government in, we will wind up going the other way: American-style primaries. Not because it fits in parliamentary democracy but because we like borrowing American political ideas (four-year fixed terms, attack ads, etc.).
Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting (and I don't think Aaron was, either) that the government should step in when it comes to leadership races. Instead, that parties might have to re-think their leadership selection process, ESPECIALLY when they are in power.