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.).
So here's what I'm noticing. When Eric did a post on electoral reform, he was careful to profess his lack of support for it. I believe he said he was "agnostic" on electoral reform. Philippe Fournier said something similar during a discussion of the grotesquely lopsided Quebec election results.
But when it comes to party leadership, there is no declaration of agnosticism. I'm seeing phrases like, "Is the way we choose our party leaders broken?" This is the kind of language I'd like to hear regarding electoral reform. And I heard more like that on the podcast, in regard to party leadership races.
But when electoral reform was mentioned, during the discussion of Canada's continued ties to another country's monarchy, it was in a very different way. "It's one of those issues, like electoral reform for instance," said Aaron Wherry, "where people, if you ask them, will say an opinion, but... only two percent of the population is going to bed at night worried about it."
Pretty dismissive language. Like it's embarrassing to have a position on electoral reform. It's like farting in public. But it's fine to take a position on party leadership races. They can result in embarrassing kerfuffles that make the news.
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?
What I tend to conclude from these discussions is that our elites are the ones that matter. We need to make things smooth for them. Systems need to function well--for them. But the ordinary citizen is not important. If the government we get doesn't reflect how we voted, if we don't see ourselves represented in Parliament, if most of our votes don't count, election after election, we should suck it up. So our pundits seem to think.
I find that troubling. It's not how I think even our mainstream media should be, and it's certainly not what I'm looking for in independent media.
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.).
So here's what I'm noticing. When Eric did a post on electoral reform, he was careful to profess his lack of support for it. I believe he said he was "agnostic" on electoral reform. Philippe Fournier said something similar during a discussion of the grotesquely lopsided Quebec election results.
But when it comes to party leadership, there is no declaration of agnosticism. I'm seeing phrases like, "Is the way we choose our party leaders broken?" This is the kind of language I'd like to hear regarding electoral reform. And I heard more like that on the podcast, in regard to party leadership races.
But when electoral reform was mentioned, during the discussion of Canada's continued ties to another country's monarchy, it was in a very different way. "It's one of those issues, like electoral reform for instance," said Aaron Wherry, "where people, if you ask them, will say an opinion, but... only two percent of the population is going to bed at night worried about it."
Pretty dismissive language. Like it's embarrassing to have a position on electoral reform. It's like farting in public. But it's fine to take a position on party leadership races. They can result in embarrassing kerfuffles that make the news.
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?
What I tend to conclude from these discussions is that our elites are the ones that matter. We need to make things smooth for them. Systems need to function well--for them. But the ordinary citizen is not important. If the government we get doesn't reflect how we voted, if we don't see ourselves represented in Parliament, if most of our votes don't count, election after election, we should suck it up. So our pundits seem to think.
I find that troubling. It's not how I think even our mainstream media should be, and it's certainly not what I'm looking for in independent media.