Author: Laurel L. Russwurm

is a self publishing novelist and photographer.

Flashback: 1923 Proportional Representation Debate

Despite the fact most Canadians only started hearing about Electoral Reform in the lead up to the 2015 federal election,  it is not by any means a new thing. Canadian Electoral Reformers have been calling for a better way to vote here since before thw country called Canada even existed.

This is my first #FlashbackFriday post, where I’ll share some words of wisdom I’ve found in one piece of the Parliament of Canada’s 1923 debate on Proportional Representation.

The whole debate is available on Lipad at
https://www.lipad.ca/full/1923/02/19/8/#643351

William Irvine
Labour (Calgary)

Perhaps one reason why the Tory House of Lords found it necessary to vote for proportional representation was that they were beginning to see that very soon, if they did not get their proportion, they would not have any representation at all, and I have no doubt the time will come when the Conservatives of this House will take the same attitude.

Proportional representation is becoming popular in the public mind as a corrective to the present system of voting. I shall mention very briefly two points where the present method of voting is very unfair and undemocratic.

In the first place, a minority candidate in any constituency may be elected. Let us take an example. Suppose we have a constituency with a hundred votes. Suppose there is a Liberal, a Conservative and a Labour candidate in the field. We will give the Liberal 30 votes, the Conservative 30 votes and the Labour candidate 40 votes. The Labour candidate will be elected with 40 votes. There will be 60 votes against him, therefore the majority of the votes of that constituency have no representation at all, whereas the minority have the representation. That is one fault of the present system of voting. -Extend that over the whole country and you frequently have a party in power which has not the support of the majority of the voters.

The next point is that a very large minority may have no representation at all. That has just been very ably pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Take the illustration again of a constituency with a hundred votes with two candidates running, one Tory and one Grit. We give the Grit 51 votes and the Tory gets 49, very nearly half. The Tory has no representation; the Liberal has it all. Spread that over all the nation, and you may possibly have almost one-half of the voting population of Canada without any representation whatever. That is possible under the present system, and I believe the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), cited a number of instances in Canadian politics where a similar situation to what I have described arose..

This resolution, as again was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, does not mean to isolate the practice to one or two constituencies as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), who built up a very elaborate argument on that assumption, seemed to conclude. This resolution asks simply that proportional representation be experimented with in one or more multi-member constituencies created for the purpose at the present redistribution. Therefore, the whole argument of the leader of the Opposition falls to the ground, as it presupposes a condition that is foreign to the intention of the resolution.

“Proportional representation will ensure that a minority will never rule. It also will ensure that no considerable minority will ever be excluded from having a voice. Is that not democracy? What have the self-appointed protagonists of democracy and majority rule in this House to say about that? Are they opposed to a minority having a voice? Are they opposed to majority rule?”

If so, they may vote against proportional representation; otherwise, they are voting against the very things which they pretend to be willing to see established.

Some of them have advanced the argument that this will encourage groups. The leader of the Opposition very properly admits that this will not and cannot create groups. The best that it could possibly do would be to give the groups already in existence an opportunity of expressing themselves. Is that not British?

Personally, I have opposed the idea of direct action. Direct action has been advocated in certain sections of Canada and also in Great Britain. There is no better incentive that I know of to direct action on the part of a section of the people than an electoral system which prevents them from giving expression to their opinions. That is the system which we have in vogue at the present time, and I believe that if the various groups now existing had an opportunity of expressing their opinions and desires, there would be no danger of the development of an unconstitutional method of taking action.

I want briefly to follow two or three of the hon. members who have attempted to criticize this resolution. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) seems to get a little mixed between the federal government and the British system. He distinguishes between the British system as applied in municipal government and the British system as applied in the federal government. I do not know why he makes that distinction; but may I ask-since when has a mere method of marking a ballot determined the system of government in any country? Will the mere system of marking a ballot alter the form of government in this or in any other country? That is a question which I would leave to the hon. member for Vancouver South.

His next point was that this would dissipate cabinet unity. He says that the keystone of the present system of government is the Cabinet. We say that the keystone of the present system of government is democracy, the people, and so, if that is true, then I fail to understand his claim that he stands for democracy.

Another hon. member advanced the argument that proportional representation would prohibit canvassing; that it would be almost impossible for him, indeed, it would take him years to canvass his constituency, providing it is a group constituency as is called for by proportional representation. It might be a very excellent thing if members were prohibited from canvassing, if this method of voting were adopted. If it threw upon the people themselves the responsibility for political organization, if it gave to them instead’ of to politicians, the responsibility of running elections, that would be a very decided advance. In view of this, I do not consider the canvassing objection as constituting an argument against proportional representation. The hon. gentleman’s second point was that this might interfere with members of parliament carrying on their correspondence during the year. That again, I submit, is rather a lame argument to advance against a principle so needed to correct the weaknesses of the present system of voting.

Another hon. gentleman opposed proportional representation because it was not pro-, portional. If that is really his argument, I wish, as a student of proportional representation, to assure him that we will make it proportional. He need not fear for that at all. Indeed, when we are dealing with proportional representation, we are dealing with mathematics, and there is no doubt about getting the proportion. I am of the opinion the hon. gentleman must have made some grave mistake in his figures to arrive at such a conclusion.

A number of hon. members opposing this have said, calmly and seemingly in their right minds, that we have group government in Ontario, and that the adoption of proportional representation would give us group government in Canada. Let me point out to those hon. gentlemen that we have not group government in Ontario. There is not group government in any province in the Dominion of Canada; there is not group government here; there is not group government anywhere that I know of in the English speaking world, There is, in Ontario not group government, but a coalition system of government, which might indeed be said to be the most pernicious form of the present party system of government which we have. I do not say that the Ontario government is a pernicious government, by any means; I hasten to say, on the contrary, that it has been a very excellent government. But the coalition makeshift of government has grown out of the British .system under certain conditions, and we had it in full force in the government which preceded the present government. If that is group government, then the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) introduced it into this House. That is not group government as I understand it; that is coalition government.

Another hon. gentleman seemed to think that proportional representation had something to do with horse-racing, and that if he had a lame horse in a race, by proportional representation he might get it in first. That is how I understood his argument. But he seems to me to want to deny the right of considerable numbers of people in a constituency to run after a fad if they want to. He prefers that they should run after his fad; that he should be allowed to state to the electorate what the real issue is, and when he has done that, to get them all to follow him. That is perfectly democratic; that is perfectly in line, as he sees it, with the British system of constitutional government! But to allow Dick, Tom and Harry to say what they think the issue is, that would never do at all, because if you did that, you might not elect the Tories! That is very clear reasoning, and I am in sympathy .with the hon. gentleman’s position, but not with his point of view.

That is a summing up of the opposition to this motion. I conclude by reiterating that this is merely a change in the form of marking a ballot and a corresponding rearranging of constituencies to make that possible. Its aim is to give expression to every considerable group in a nation and it prevents minorities from having power as they sometimes have to-day. It would ensure the continuance of majority rule, and, therefore, those who claim to be such ardent supporters of democracy and majority rule should find themselves bound to vote in favour of this resolution.

February 19th, 1923 — House of Commons, Parliament of Canada

laura's mathom house 2022-08-04 17:59:04

rubiscothegeek:

Imagine what it will be like being the last man standing on The Demeter.

You’ve searched the ship; you don’t have a stowaway. Therefore the only rational explanation, awful as it is, is that one of your fellow crewmates is responsible.

But what happens when there’s only two of you left, and you know you’re not the murderer, so it must be the other person, and you’re waiting to see if they’ll make a move on you too

and then they disappear.

And then you’re alone.

Except. Maybe you’re not.

visual laurel 2022-08-02 02:45:57

makaeru:

Hey, friendly PSA from an Australian: please for the love of fuck do not buy UGG™ boots.

Ugg boots (generic term, not trademarked) are a traditional sheepskin slipper and are usually made by small family owned businesses using local artisans and Australian sheepskin. They are not a fashion item. They are the warmest and comfiest slippers you’ll own, and the sort of thing so daggy I’d get embarrassed if my parents wore them out further than the driveway.

Then Deckers, an American footwear brand, decided to step in and trademark the term ugg. There was a protracted legal battle, and they lost the trademark in Australia but kept it everywhere else in the world. This means that Australian bootmakers can only use the word “ugg” in Australian markets. You’d better believe Deckers are suing any small business that dares try to sell ugg boots outside Australia, for copyright infringement and some bullshit about “damaging their brand”.

On top of which, instead of high quality locally made boots where workers are getting paid fairly, they’ve outsourced production to China.

So fuck UGG™, fuck Deckers, and please support small businesses (if you can do so without getting them sued).

Among the stars…

I was so sorry to hear about the passing of Nichelle Nichols. She was definitely the coolest woman on #StarTrek (back in the days before you had to add TOS). She was someone you wanted to grow up to be.

Lt. Uhura was a strong role model, far more so than most of the other women portrayed on The Original Series.

Mr Roddenberry had tried to create a strong woman First Officer in his original concept, but that idea was too progressive even for the 1960s, so it was killed by the NBC brass.

I think Uhura was allowed to get away with being a strong woman precisely because she wasn’t one of the series’ three primary characters. She didn’t have to be a potential love interest for the Captain, (like Yeoman Rand) or the First Officer (like Nurse Chapel).

Instead, she was clearly her own woman, professional and competent. Being drop dead gorgeous, Lt. Uhura could even carry off that ridiculously sexist Star Trek uniform. But you didn’t have to see Mirror, Mirror to know nobody would dare put the moves on her without her permission.

Yet there was no doubt Lt. Uhura had a softer side when she cooed over a Tribble, or sang a song to cheer up Lt. Riley. And although she undoubtedly had a romantic life, it was nobody’s business but her own.

Much is made about “the first interracial kiss” in American prime time. Yet something I’ve never heard or read anyone talk about was the fact it was not a romantic kiss, or even voluntary.

Yet it wasn’t an ordinary case of a sexual harassment. Lt Uhura and Captain Kirk were forced to kiss by the kinetic power of a malevolent alien, and both actors played it that way. No doubt it was handled this way to get it past the network censors.

But for an older me, when I watched this episode again in reruns, what got my attention was the demonstration that sexual assault was more about power than sex.

When Nichelle Nichols came into the role of Lt Uhura, you’d never know she was a singer, not an actor. Her acting was flawless.

In the whole series, the only thing that came out of her mouth that didn’t ring true was the line from The City On The Edge of Forever, “Captain, I’m frightened.”

Not because Uhura wouldn’t have been afraid at a time anyone would have been, but because saying it aloud was totally out of character for the always professional Star Fleet officer. But even as a kid I recognized it as classic stereotyping and didn’t blame her for it.

Later as a young adult, working with my friend running the Canadian Trekkies Association and publishing two issues of our Canektion fanzine, I learned Nichelle Nichols didn’t just inspire women through her acting, in her later work she actively helped NASA recruit POC and women.

Nichelle Nichols was a real inspiration, even for little white girls like me growing up in the 1960s. She showed us women’s work could be whatever we wanted it to be.

She will be missed.

visual laurel 2022-08-01 12:14:54

Rest among the stars…

So sorry to hear about the passing of Nichelle Nichols, definitely the coolest woman on #StarTrek (back before you had to add TOS).

Lt. Uhura was an inspiration to little white girls like me growing up in the 1960s. She was a strong role model, far more so than most of the other women portrayed on The Original Series.

Mr Roddenberry had tried to create a strong woman First Officer in his original concept, but that idea was too progressive even for the 1960s, so it was killed by the NBC brass.

I kind of think Uhura was allowed to get away with being a strong woman because she wasn’t one of the primary characters. She didn’t have to be a potential love interest like Yeoman Rand or Nurse Chapel. She was clearly her own woman, professional and competent. She was drop dead gorgeous and could carry off that ridiculously sexist uniform but you just knew nobody would dare put the moves on her without her permission. Yet there was no doubt she had her softer side as she cooed over a Tribble. And undoubtedly a romantic life that was nobody’s business but her own.

Much is made about the first interracial kiss in American prime time, which clearly was a biggie to get past the network censors. (It actually wasn’t the 1st, but pop culture.) Yet something I’ve never heard or read anyone talk about was that it was not a voluntary kiss, it was coerced. But it wasn’t an ordinary case of a ranking white male officer sexually assaulting another POC officer. Both Lt Uhura and Captain Kirk were forced by the kinetic power of a malevolent alien. Both were forced, and both actors played it that way. For an older me, seeing this again in reruns, it was more an eye opener about sexual assault being more about power than sex.

In the whole series, the only words that came out of her mouth that didn’t ring true was the line, “Captain, I’m frightened.” Not because she wouldn’t have been afraid at a time anyone would have been, but because it was totally out of character for this always professional Star Fleet officer. But even as a kid I didn’t blame her for it. She played it well, but I recognized it for what it was— a sop to the man.

Later as an older teen running the Canadian Trekkies Association and publishing two issues of our Canektion fanzine, I learned about Nichelle Nichols working more actively to not just inspire women through her acting, but actively helping NASA recruit POC and women.

Her family’s message on her website says:

“Her light, however, like the ancient galaxies now being seen for the first time, will remain for us and future generations to enjoy, learn from, and draw inspiration.

“Hers was a life well lived and as such a model for us all.”

https://uhura.com

visual laurel 2022-08-01 10:41:48

iguessyouregonnamissthepantyraid:

hey so we americans live in a gerrymandered hellscape but i literally cannot emphasize enough how important it’s going to be to vote anyway during these upcoming 2022 elections, and that goes quadruple if you live in pennsylvania

VOTE!

No matter how bad the voting system, the only way to get what you want is to vote for the candidate who will best represent you. Anyone who tells you your only choice is to vote strategically or tactically for a candidate who won’t is trying to get you to vote for what they want!

Don’t do it!

The best fix is voting system reform to some form of #ProportionalRepresentation, but that will never happen until people stop voting for the same old two party duopoly that benefits from the status quo.

These days they use opinion polls as propaganda— to convince voters their team will win no matter how you vote. The thing we should have learned from the Cambridge Analytica scandal is that anyone with enough money can have a pretty good idea of how many people will vote, making it easy to know who to ask to get the answers they need to convince you not to vote or to vote the way they want.

Voter suppression techniques help drive low voter turnout. The duopoly would rather you gave up in despair and didn’t vote at all if you aren’t going to vote for them.

Do it!

When more voters don’t vote than elect the government, the duopoly wins and citizens lose. There are people trying to make real change, all you have to do is figure out which of them will make the changes you want.

Then vote for what *you* want. If you can, volunteer for or donate to the candidate who will best represent you. And encourage your family and friends to vote for what they want— especially those you know don’t vote. But it is super important not to tell them how to vote, because that’s one of the main reasons people don’t vote.

Why waste your time voting if you can’t vote for what you want?

But being open about how we will vote won’t work for everyone, because Defenders of the Status Quo harass anyone who won’t keep their team in power. If that would be a problem for you, there is a democratic safeguard in place to protect your right to vote for what you want.

The secret ballot means they will never know how you voted, and you don’t have to tell them!

If all the people who get pressured into voting for what they don’t want, or who have given up on our broken democracy and so have stopped voting, if all the citizens eligible to vote now voted, and voted for what they really wanted, we would have very different election results. The clock is ticking.

So vote for what *you* want.

“It’s dusk, dearest. (In passing, isn’t ‘dusk’ a lovely word? I like it better than twilight. It…”

“It’s dusk, dearest. (In passing, isn’t ‘dusk’ a lovely word? I like it better than twilight. It sounds so velvety and shadowy and – and – dusky.) In daylight I belong to the world; in the night to sleep and eternity. But in the dusk I’m free from both and belong only to myself – and you.”

- L.M. Montgomery, Anne of Windy Poplars.

Canadian Politics


Over the past several years I’ve been more involved in Canadian politics because we are facing challenges we can no longer afford to ignore— from the existential threat of climate change to Canada’s human rights violations at home and abroad, festering social justice issues of colonization, systemic racism and the need to defund the police, our entrenched inequities, Victorian attitudes toward…

View On WordPress