The Canadian voting system is called, "First past the Post". It is fair only if there are 2 candidates running
for office. But if there are three candidates the winning candidate only needs 34% of the overall vote to win because the
opposition is split in two. Therefore the 66% of the voters who voted for the opposition lost their votes. Therefore the
majority of the voters were silenced. If there are 5 candidates, the winner only needs 21% to win. Therefore the vast majority
of voters (79%) could loose their votes.
Canadians may not be aware of the details but they know their votes don't
count for a variety of reasons. Canadians in the West know that their votes are almost meaningless in the present electoral
system. Each election, fewer Canadians vote.
In 1988, 75% of Canadians voted. In 1993 69% of Canadians voted.
In 1997 67% of Canadians voted. In 2000 62% of Canadians voted. If this rate of drop continues it will soon
be obvious that less than half of Canadians bothered to vote.
This present undemocratic system of voting allows
a political party with much less than half the votes to win more than half the seats and form the government.
Therefore
the vast majority of Canadians are left without proper representation in halls of power in Ottawa. This system also emphasizes
the regional political divisions in the country where the majority of Canadians in the West -- the Alliance Party --or in
Quebec -- the Block Quebecois -- are shut out of power sharing.
This overwhelming win for the Liberals in the November
2000 election (173 of 301) will of course emphasize their reluctance to change the system. They did it with 40.8% of the 62%
of Canadians who bothered to vote. Are you good at math? Figure out what 40.8% of 62% means. That is the small percentage
of Canadians (never mentioned in the media) who are represented in Ottawa by the Liberals.
This shows how a small
minority of Canadians controls Ottawa through the skewed electoral process in Canada. But Liberals priorities are not to
improve the electoral system but perks, HRDC grants, loans from the Business Development Bank of Canada -- a Crown Corporation
-- international socialist programs, traveling the world and the monopoly of power in Ottawa -- the status quo.
The
present system distorts the wishes of the majority of Canadians. It is an argument that screams for a return to real democracy.
If Canadians believe in democracy, they favor a citizen's right to vote and should also favor an obligation on the part of
the citizen to vote as in Australia. Canadians should have binding referenda and recall of useless politicians. Canadians
need a voting system where those who go to Ottawa represent the majority of Canadians -- not a tiny minority of Canadians.
Chantal Hebert wrote in the Toronto Star June
4th, 2001, that preparations are being made within the Liberal Party to replace the leader Chretien. According to her, the
new contenders for the leadership are chomping at the bit. She mentions Martin, Tobin, Copps, Manley, Rock and Stewart.
Unfortunately
none of these contenders for the prime minister's job have to consult with the Canadian public. They only have to get enough
of their Liberal socialist friends to vote for them at the next Liberal convention. Canadians on the West Coast or the East
Coast or the North Coast, don't count. Individual Canadians don't even get a look in. The next prime minister will be decided
by the tax-and-spend Liberals -- not by all Canadians. Canadians get to exercise so-called democracy one afternoon every five
years. That means they get to vote for a local candidate. Everything else -- prime minister, senators, supreme court is out
of their hands. Canadians are not allowed recall of stupid pay-gouging politicians or referendums on vital Canadian issues.
Canadians are expected to stay quiet and docile and not ask questions.
The real questions, the not politically
correct questions, that should be asked, are not asked by Canadians:
1. Why should we have a bilingual prime minister?
2. Is this a judicial requirement? 3. Are unilingual English-speaking Canadians capable for the job? 4. Why should
the prime minister of Canada have to live in Quebec? 5. Should the prime minister of Canada be elected by all Canadians?
6. Why should this flawed system of choosing a prime minister continue to be used and accepted by Canadians? 7. Is
it possible for a unilingual Canadian from Vancouver Island to be prime minister? 8. And if not, why not? 9. How many
of these flaws are built into the so-called Canadian democracy? 10. When will Canadians get around to doing something
about it?
11. Is it possible for a Canadian female to
be prime minister?
