I have to agree with Todd Whitcombe - electoral reform is pointless.
I have studied the subject prior to, and following, the B.C. referendum in 2005. I have come to the conclusion the problem is not so much how we elect our representatives, but what they do after elected. Many types of reform shift more power to political parties while giving less to the electorate.
A Member of Parliament's job is to help govern Canada while representing all of their constituents. It is impossible to represent all of the various and conflicting viewpoints held at the same time. Therefore, they are to use their morals and good judgment to make the best decisions that they can.
The problem comes when they are required to follow "the party line." If our representatives are not allowed to use their judgment, we might as well send monkeys to Parliament. We are, in reality, ruled by the party leadership. They know what is best for us, and never act purely in their own self-interest. Right?
I have often used the analogy that if I walked into my MP's office and threw down a wad of cash and said that I wanted them to vote my way on a certain issue, both of us would likely end up in hot water. How then, is it acceptable for a political party to help pay for an MP's election campaign and then tell them how vote on every issue?
Until this changes, it really doesn't matter how we elect representatives.
I believe that Justin Trudeau said that, if elected, he would allow our elected representatives more "free votes" where they were not required to follow the party line. This would be a good start to initiating representative democracy in our country.
I am reminded of an old saying - "the two greatest obstacles to democracy are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich that we may get it."
Ken Fowler, Prince George
