They call it “the Red Chamber” but it sure seems like Canadians have been singing the Senate Blues for most of my life.
In the dying days of the Harper Government, the misadventures of Senator Mike Duffy proved to be a major embarrassment for the Canadian Government. By the time the dust settled, Duffy had resigned from the Conservative Caucus, the criminal charges against him were dropped, and Duffy, now an un-aligned independent, resumed his seat as Senator for PEI (even though he still doesn’t actually seem to live there). Then Prime Minister Stephen Harper was certainly mixed up in Mr. Duffy’s case, but was never properly investigated or held to account.
But Duffy’s case was just the tip of the iceberg. The Auditor General report identified thirty (THIRTY!) past and present Canadian senators or former senators as having “made inappropriate or ineligible expense claims.” In addition to being implicated in the expense scandal, 39 year old Senator Patrick Brazeau had a host of still unresolved other problems. About a year ago Press Progress shared an Angus Reid Opinion Poll that suggested only 6% of Canadians were happy with the Senate as is.
Real or Imagined?
Canada’s new Trudeau Government had ostentatiously promised, ahem, real change.
And yet, once again, there are Senators making news in ways that reflect very poorly on Canada’s Upper House.
It has become increasingly clear that a code of conduct that hopes miscreants will quietly resign in the face of exposure is simply not sufficient. Real change requires a framework that allows for summary suspensions of Senators (and MPs) accused of impropriety and/or lawbreaking, removing them from office if such charges proven. Our Westminster System of government was designed for a feudal society that allowed the nobility to get away with a great deal. But in a society that aspires to citizen equality there is no place for such abuses of power.
I speak partly for the record, but mostly in memory of the kindly and well-intentioned men and women and their descendants — perhaps some of us here in this chamber — whose remarkable works, good deeds and historical tales in the residential schools go unacknowledged for the most part and are overshadowed by negative reports. Obviously, the negative issues must be addressed, but it is unfortunate that they are sometimes magnified and considered more newsworthy than the abundance of good.
Even the United Church had some strong words for the Hon. Ms. Beyak:
“Indigenous peoples and organizations have responded to Senator Beyak’s comments. As one of the parties responsible for the operation of residential schools, The United Church of Canada also feels a responsibility to respond.
“Senator Beyak spoke of the “good intentions” behind the residential schools system. Thirty years ago, The United Church of Canada apologized to First Nations Peoples for our role in colonization and the destruction of their cultures and spiritualties. In the process of preparing, delivering, and attempting to live out that Apology, we have learned that “good intentions” are never enough, and that to offer such words in explanation is damaging and hurtful.
“The United Church of Canada participated in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission not just as part of a legal agreement but also as part of a moral and ethical commitment to understand the impact of our role in the residential schools system, to atone for it, and to participate in healing and building of a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.”
Not everyone is right for every job, and it’s pretty clear to everyone but Senator Beyak that she is not a good fit for the Senate of Canada. Again, there doesn’t seem to be any provision to remove her in spite of the growing outcry. The longer this goes on, the worse the Senate, and, indeed the Government of Canada looks.
Canadians need a government capable of governing itself with decorum and accountability.
As often happens in Canada’s unrepresentative democracy, there is a Petition:
Makaristos have been dedicated to the public domain. Click the images to find the originals on Wikimedia Commons.
But we need to remember the reason Prime Minister Trudeau’s gender balanced cabinet was newsworthy — it did not happen naturally. Although Canadian women make up about half the population, electing 25% women to the House of Commons was a record when Mr. Harper’s government managed it, just as electing 26% was a record for Mr. Trudeau’s government.
Whoop de doo.
That’s not exactly fair representation, but that is what you get with a First Past The Post electoral system.
While Mr. Trudeau is to be commended for attempting to redress that wrong, implementing a gender quota is an artificial fix. One side effect is that such a policy severely limits the pool of cabinet choices when half the cabinet must be chosen from a quarter of the MPs. Whether true or not, whenever a quota system is used, there are always mutterings asking if those who are chosen may not in fact be qualified for the job.
Cabinet Ministers are chosen entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Any MP can be quickly scooped up for a Cabinet position, and just as easily turfed out again, all at the discretion of one man: the Prime Minister.
In Mr. Trudeau’s Cabinet, however, the male members are being chosen from three quarters of the MPs, so there will be no doubt they are worthy of the power and authority they’ve been given. But female members are being chosen from a mere quarter of the MPs. This certainly can be easily used to undermine the public perception of the value of female Cabinet Ministers. The optics of this combined with a quota certainly undermines the idea that Ministers are chosen purely on merit.
The very existence of this quota is entirely at the Prime Minister’s discretion. Which means it us not a permanent fix: it can be discarded at any time. This Prime Minister could easily change his mind about gender parity (just as he did with his Electoral Reform promise). Or the next Prime Minister may as easily choose to exclude female MPs from his Cabinet altogether. Like any policy developed under First Past The Post, this could become a pendulum issue swinging back and forth between Liberals and Conservatives.
Women chosen to serve as Ministers are well aware they owe the PM a debt of gratitude for bestowing this honour on them. When the man with the power tells the Minister of Democratic Institutions that Proportional Representation is not an option, what can she do but go along. Because female Cabinet Ministers surely know the prize can be peremptorily withdrawn at his discretion for any reason. Or none. Such context will most certainly guarantee that some (if not all) women Ministers will be very careful to do as they are told. Will they fight for what they know is right or will they toe the party line to protect their status and position?
On the other hand, if Canada elected women in more proportional numbers in a more natural way, such a quota would hardly be necessary. There would be a reasonably large pool of women MPs from which Ministers can be chosen on merit. If they share a level playing field, women and men could assert themselves with confidence (and hopefully do what’s right). Wouldn’t that be something!
Diversity
It also seems the claims that Prime Minister Trudeau’s Cabinet is “the country’s most diverse” need also be taken with a grain of salt.
AS Rachel Décoste points out, “The previous Harper cabinet included women, Aboriginals, South Asians, East Asians, Quebecers and a person with a disability. If that’s not diversity, I don’t know what is.” Ms. Décoste goes on to explain:
“For visible minorities, PM Trudeau’s inaugural cabinet is decidedly less diverse than PM Harper’s. The absence of East Asians (Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, etc.) is jarring.
“The presence of black Canadians, the third largest racial demographic, is also deficient. Despite a record four Afro-Canadian MPs elected from a voter base blindly loyal to the Liberals, PM Trudeau shut them out of cabinet.
“Harper did not name any African-Canadians to cabinet. He had no black MPs to choose from. Despite a record four Afro-Canadian MPs elected, Trudeau shut them out of cabinet.”
Canadian Politicians: Kathleen Wynn, Elizabeth May, Andrea Horwath, Catherine Fife, Bardish Chagger, Lorraine Rekmans
Electoral Reform
Instead of relying on the temporary fix of patchwork quotas, the Canadian Government’s continuing failure to reflect the diversity of Canadians in the House of Commons could be addressed in a more stable and balanced manner through adoption of some form of Proportional Representation. As demonstrated in my graph, as a rule it is the countries using Proportional Representation that outperform Canada in both gender parity and overall citizen representation.
Equal Voice thinks it could take the Canadian Government 90 years to achieve gender parity naturally if we continue on as we are. Frankly, if we keep First Past The Post I think that’s wildly optimistic. Any way you slice it, this is simply unacceptable in a representative democracy.
It’s great that the suffragettes fought for our right to vote; but it’s too bad they didn’t win effective votes for Canadian women. On this International Women’s Day, it is important for all Canadian women to understand: if the Canadian Government is serious about gender parity it must begin with Proportional Representation.
This is the thirty-first article in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series
Shortly after the ERRE Committee submitted its report, the Honourable Maryam Monsef was relieved of her position as Minister of Democratic Institutions in a cabinet shuffle. An even younger rookie MP was elevated to the Minister of Democratic Institutions position. Ms. Gould made the following statement… the words in green are my response.
Our electoral system is foundational to our democracy. At its core, is the question of how we, as Canadians, govern ourselves.
Our government believes that time was needed to consult Canadians about this complex issue. [Why, then, with such a clear timeline (18 months) established in Mr. Trudeau’s election promise, was so much time squandered before setting up the ERRE Committee?]
Our view has always been clear. Major reforms to the electoral system, changes of this magnitude, should not be made if they lack the broad support of Canadians. [No such caveat was mentioned at all during the election campaign; in fact Mr. Trudeau clearly promised that if elected, 2015 would be the last First Past the Post election.]
Public consultations came in many forms. Members of Parliament were encouraged to hold Town Halls, to hear the views of their constituents.
[Many Canadians had no access to any such consultation. Locally the last remaining Conservative MP declined to host a live consultation, instead limitinh his efforts to a mail out householder questionaire. There were regional events put on by the Greens and NDP, whose constituents currently have no representation in Parliament. Additionally Fair Vote Waterloo put on a number of events, and partnered with the Waterloo Region Library and Kitchener Library systems to host information events.]
My predecessor travelled throughout the country visiting every province and territory, to host similar Town Halls on behalf of the government.
[In Waterloo Region, where 4 of 5 Conservative MPs had been replaced by 4 Liberal MPs in the 2015 election, not one of the newly minted LPC MPs conducted their own Town Hall consultation. Instead, all four piggybacked with Ms. Monsef’s visit for a single rushed event. Had each MP held their own Town Hall prior to (or even after) Ms. Monsef’s Tour stop, a much better quality of consultation would have been possible.]
An All Party Special Committee of the House of Commons worked long hours and in December produced a thorough report that documents the many complexities of electoral reform.
[The All Party Committee achieved a consensus report recommending some form of Proportional Representation within specific parameters and a referendum.]
In recent weeks, more than 360,000 Canadians participated in mydemocracy.ca to provide their insight into our democratic values.
[It seemed to me the ERRE consultation was grossly underfunded. Not only were the itineraries of the cross Canada consultations undertaken by Minister Monsef and the ERRE Committee very last minute with very little lead time, and certainly no advertising to allow better attendance by citizens, apparently the budget didn’t allow very many consultation stops at all. Ontario, the most populous province in Canada got only a single ERRE Committee stop, and that in Toronto. Minister Monsef’s travels took up some of the slack, but large swathes of Canadians (notably those under-represented in sparsely populated areas like northern Ontario) were never consulted. Apparently the budget for the entire process, from weeks of expert testimony and cross country tours, was less than what was spent on the dubious MyDemocracy survey. Had postcards informing Canadians of the ERRE Consultation Tours been sent our, the real ERRE consultation would have benefited enormously.]
Now, following all of these consultations, it has become clear that Canadians have a range of views about whether to continue using the current First Past The Post system to elect MPs to the House of Commons.
[Anyone who participated in any of the public consultations will understand that an important component of each was the education piece. Many of those Canadians in attendance required a civics refresher to help understand the First Past The Post system we use now, as well as an introduction to other potential electoral systems of which most of us have no experience at all.]
We respect and thank all those who have come forward to participate in these discussions. It has informed our decision.
[The Liberal Party didn’t say anything about making a decision, you promised Canadians an electoral reform process. There is no need of any decision at this point in the electoral reform process Prime Minister Trudeau promised in the election. As yet there has been no electoral reform legislation drafted; neither MPs or Senators have had an opportunity to debate it. ]
And it has become evident the broad support needed among Canadians for a change of this magnitude does not exist. [In spite of the near invisibility of the un advertised underfunded cross country ERRE Consultation, Canadians came out, and more than 80% of the Canadians at Consultations expressed support for some form of Proportional Representation electoral reform — is a clear demonstration of broad support. Certainly more than the 39% of the votes that elevated the Liberal Party to majority government status.]
[en francais]
The Honourable Karina Gould buries Proportional Representation
Therefore, my mandate letter states a clear preference for a new electoral system, let alone a consensus, has not emerged.
[Your mandate letter could state the Earth is flat, but that wouldn’t be right, either. Canadians — more than the 39% who voted Liberal — Canadians voting NDP, Bloc and Green — voted for a party supporting electoral reform. This has not changed.]
Furthermore, without a clear preference or clear question a referendum would not be in Canada’s Interest.
[A clear majority — 88% of expert witnesses at the ERRE committee hearings in Ottawa advocated for some form of Proportional Representation.]
Changing the electoral system is not in my mandate.
[So? The Liberals were elected on this promise. The promised electoral reform process was begun. We expect it to continue. This is a democracy, right?]
We have listened to all Canadians in this debate.
[And yet you have not heard the clear message we have sent. An overwhelming majority of expert witnesses and citizens who engaged in the process want some form of Proportional Representation.]
To Canadians who cherish their democracy and who value the direct connection they have with their Member of Parliament.
[You say that as though you believe Proportional Representration precludes a direct connection with our MP. This is not true, which suggests you need to do your homework. Maybe even read the ERRE report. Because the Canadians who cherish their democracy and who value the direct connection they have with their Member of Parliament are the ones who are telling you we want Proportional Representation.]
Canadians want their Parliamentarians to work with each other and to cooperate on policy.
[Absolutely. That is precisely why we want Proportional Representation. Such cooperation is, at best, a rarity with winner take all politics. You’ve watched Question Period, right? Oddly enough, now that your government holds a phony majority QP is as much a joke as it was under the previous administration.]
They want their government to be accountable.
[Absolutely. That is precisely why we want Proportional Representation. Accountable means you take responsibility for your words. That when you promise 2015 would be the last FPTP election that you actually go through with it. But you know what they say about absolute power. Canadians are tired of phony majority governments that flip us the bird.]
They want their MPs to act in the interest of their constituents.
[We want you to listen to us. We want you to represent us. Which means following through on your promises.]
We agree.
[Then act like it.]
My job is to strengthen and protect our democratic institutions and ensure they represent the values of Canadians. We are moving to accomplish that mandate.
[No, you are not. The only way to strengthen and protect our democratic institutions is to implement Proportional Representation so our Parliament will actually represent as many of its constituents as possible. This isn’t that.]
— CPAC: Karina Gould, the new Minister of Democratic Institutions, announcing government decision to break its campaign pledge to change Canada’s voting system.
This is unacceptable.
Electoral reform it isn’t just going to go away. Too many ordinary Canadians just know too much about it. I think we’re at the tipping point.
This is the thirtieth article in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series
For those who don’t know, at the end of Second World War the victorious Allies governments imposed Mixed Member Proportional Representation on West Germany.
They did this specifically to prevent the rise of another Hitler. Although these powerful government leaders clearly understood this, they chose not to follow the same path for their own nations. Presumably they believed such limitation on their own power wasn’t necessary. Just as Canada’s current Prime Minister doesn’t feel his power needs limitation.
Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter if there is a good Prime Minister or a bad one. It doesn’t matter if there’s a bad government in place or not.
What matters in a representative democracy is that voters secure representation in Parliament. All Canadians need representation, period. Just as Canadians need the Charter, in times of good or bad. Like the Charter, representation provides citizens with security.
Had Harry Truman implemented such a change on the USA, the likelihood of a Trump presidency would be nil.
Had Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King implemented some form of Proportional Representation in Canada, Canadians would not see be seeing a rise in dog whistle politics. My brother wrote about this phenomenon before either of us knew the term.
Winston Churchill knew Proportional Representation was a defence against fascism.
Here’s the thing: fear and dog whistle politics are a powerful tools used over and over again in winner-take-all systems because they work. One of the things so dreadfully wrong with winner-take-all politics is that the governments we elect are so unaccountable to voters, it isn’t a question of whether they will keep all their promises, it is a question of which promises they will keep. And, incredibly, we accept that. We have been conditioned to understand they won’t. No doubt this is a major reason the young and the idealistic don’t engage in politics: they see it for a sham, and choose to invest their energies elasewhere.
The Canadian MSM is now reminding us that all the MPs in Parliament — including those Conservative Leadership Candidates seeking to ride a wave of prejudice to 100% power in Parliament — voted in support of Mr. Mulcair’s October Petition. This was long before 6 Quebec Muslims were murdered at prayer.
Mr. Speaker, following discussions with all parties in the House, I hope you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That the House join the 69,742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons e-petition (e-411) in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s Islamaphobia motion received unanimous assent in the House of Commons on Oct. 26, 2016
So what has happened? Do these Conservative Leadership Candidates feel a majority of their constituents approve of gunning down Muslims at prayer?
I don’t believe that for a minute. But our winner-take-all political system allows for the distribution of a disproportional amount of power. Ms. Leitch doesn’t need a majority of Conservative Party Members to support Islamaphobia in order to win her party’s leadership crown, or even a majority of voters to become the Prime Minister of Canada. So long as we continue to use this First Past the Post Electoral System, the right dog whistle can win a 39% (or less) majority.
It doesn’t matter if we have a few women or minority MPs in the House of Commons. We are staring in the face of the polarization inherent in FPTP. The example before starkly contrasts what happens when a powerful old white male MP puts forward a Motion condemning Islamaphobia with what happens when a young ethnic woman MP does. And it is a not pretty picture. But it happens. And it will keep on happening so long as we retain an electoral system that rewards dog whistle politicians with more than their fair share of power.
Canada needs real Real Change.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. In spite of his totally specious arguments to the contrary, Prime Minister Trudeau’s disavowal of his electoral reform promise not only paves the way for institutional racism, it fuels Islamaphobia. If Ms. Khalid (and other Liberal MPs) want to change this dreadful FPTP side effect, it is time they told their leader he must restore the Electoral Reform process and get the legislation through Parliament by October. Because if Canada wants to be a healthy multicultural democracy, we must have Proportional Representation.
At this time of writing, Petition e-616 is up to 120,651 signatures. If everyone who has already signed it can convince 2 Canadians to sign it our chance of having Proportional Representation implemented by 2019 will be greatly improved.
Last year the Canadian Government passes a motion that condemned the BDS movement. This motion didn’t make it illegal for the United Church of Canada, Quakers, organizations, university students and human rights activists and ordinary people like your Aunt Mabel who boycott and other Israeli companies like SodaStream operating in illegal settlements on what is supposed to be Palestinian land. It wasn’t a law, just a motion that said the Government disagrees.
Liberal back bencher Iqra Khalid’s Motion 103 has raised a ruckus.
Once again it becomes clear Canadians need to improve our civic literacy. Our politicians have entirely too easy a time manipulating us.
A motion is not a law. A government motion that condemns X simply says the government thinks X is bad. It is not a law, but an attempt to lead by example.
As a writer, I am a firm believer in free speech. If you are concerned about Canadian law interfering with our free speech, there is plenty to talk about with our hate speech laws and the law Canadians know as C-51. But this motion does not do anything to inhibit free speech. Even if it wanted to it couldn’t. A motion is not a law.
Motion 103 just says the Government of Canada doesn’t approve of Islamophobia, systemic racism and religious discrimination, and tasks the government with studying it in hopes of finding a soluition. But you don’t have to take my word for it. If you’re still worried, you can read it (like every motion or legislation considered by the Canadian Government) online. But to make it even easier, I’ve reproduced it for you here:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;
(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and
(c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could
(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,
(ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This motion does not single out Islam for special consideration, it “condemns Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
All citizens are supposed to be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, in a democracy that relies on an electoral system that fails to represent its citizens proportionally, citizens can only hope we will get governments that will uphold our Charter protections.
Cross Cultures commemoration of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Kitchener City Hall, 2016)
This is the twenty-eighth article in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series
During the 2015 election, Mr. Trudeau unequivocally promised to make 2015 the last First Past The Post election. If elected,
“We will make every vote count.”
It’s no secret Fair Vote Canada has been using the catchphrase “make every vote count” to describe Proportional Representation for years. In fact, they launched their “Make Every Vote Count Campaign” in 2013. If you follow the link you’ll see the Hon. Stéphane Dion on the podium for the announcement. Another LPC cabinet minister, the Hon. Carolyn Bennett is on the Fair Vote Canada Board. Certainly my Liberals For Fair Voting friends were aware of this when I helped them make a little video we called “The Foundation” to help them sell Resolution 31 at their 2014 Policy Convention. Resolution 31 was duly adopted by the Liberal Party and in fact formed the basis of Mr. Trudeau’s electoral reform campaign promise.
Mr. Trudeau confirmed his electoral reform promise in the Throne Speech, and (although it took a little nudging) an all party Electoral Reform Parliamentary Committee was formed. Because of the tight time frame, the committee worked through the summer, taking evidence from experts in Canada and around the world. And the Committee, like Minister Monsef, travelled across Canada in a whirlwind tour.
No doubt because the ERRE Consultation was woefully underfunded, the Committee only managed a single stop in Ontario. No money was spent on advertising, and there was little advance notice, but in spite of the main stream media’s absolute failure to cover it, all the Electoral Reform events were full of citizens. A preponderance of citizens and experts supported some form of Proportional Representation. Then the ERRE Committee submitted a consensus report calling for some form of Proportional Representation and a Referendum. But the government was not wildly happy to see such an impossible outcome. And so mydemocracy.ca was born. Do you know, the government spent more money sending postcards telling people to participate in a seriously problematic survey that inspired more parody than response. While the Honourable Ms. Gould’s talking points are intended to make us believe the postcard survey was a bug duccess, the reality is 360,000 Canadians is a ridiculously low response rate for a country with upward of 15 million voters.
But the Liberal Party holds a majority in Parliament, and we all know a majority government can pass (or kill) any law it wants. No consensus is required, even when the “majority” is based on the votes of only 39%. That is, after all, how the system we currently use works. (Part of why it so badly needs modernization.)
The Liberal Party hasn’t managed to articulate a single good reason for a Prime Minister elected on promises of transparency and more democratic governance to squash the promised democratic process this way. Even if Prime Minister Trudeau decided he doesn’t want electoral reform, he could still have allowed the process to run its democratic course to the finish. The same power that allows the plug to be pulled prematurely now could have been used to whip the vote at the eleventh hour.
The only reason for breaking this promise in such an odious way that I can imagine isthe Prime Minister and the Liberal powers that be have noticed the growing interest, support and commitment Canadians are developing in electoral reform, in spite of everything.
I understand the PM was grilled about electoral reform at every single stop on his recent cross country tour. Were those in the Liberal power structure getting nervous that enough public backing might just get Proportional Representation legislation through Parliament and into Law?
For those Canadians who value fairness and democracy, now is not the time to give up on Electoral Reform.
With all the Liberal talk of values and electoral reform, the one word that never seemed to come up was fairness. No system that assigns 100% of the power to a party winning 39% (or less) votes can be considered fair. And in my experience, Canadians value fairness. My Liberals for Fair Voting friends know know very well they benefit from the proportionality inherent in our existing winner-take-all system. Yet they don’t think it’s fair that so many other Canadians get little or no democratic representation.
There is still time to draft electoral reform legislation (the ERRE Committee could surely manage it) and get it through with enough time for Elections Canada to implement a new system in 2019. Canadians don’t need to understand the electoral math to know our First Past The Post system is not working for a majority of Canadians. How can a nation that prides itself on fairness continue to cling to a winner-take-all system that’s inherently unfair?
What We Can Do?
EVENTS
Sunday February 5th, 2017
GUELPH City Hall 1PM
Rally organised by Fair Vote Guelph
MP Longfield acknowledges that recent poll results in Guelph in support of
Proportional Representation are valid.
We need visible support at the rally to show our government that we want PR.
Please come to the Rally for PR on Sunday at Guelph City Hall at to support a fair open and transparent Democratic process .
Sunday February 5th, 2017 Parliament Hill Protest and Photo-Stunt
12:00 – 1:00pm
Ottawa residents to gather on Parliament Hill for Rally
Canvassing Materials distributed, Photo-stunt for social media presence
Wednesday February 8th, 2017 Call-Blitz and Tweet-Storm
* All Day *
Contact:
your local MP,
the Prime Minister’s Office and
Karina Gould
Respectfully express your opinion, tell them we’ll #seeyousaturday
Saturday February 11, 2017 NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION
Canada Wide Protest
Be LOUD ~ Be HEARD.
Cross Canada Protest Times
Atlantic 15:00 Eastern 14:00 Central 13:00 Mountain/SK 12:00 Pacific 11:00 @JustinTrudeau and the #LPC promised that 2015 would be our last #FPTP election. #PerformOnReform https://www.facebook.com/events/885031191552272/
e-600 (Electoral system)
Lower the voting age to 16 The Petition is open for signature untilFebruary 8, 2017, at 12:34 p.m. (EDT)
e-613 (Electoral system) Achieving gender balance in Parliament The Petition is open for signature untilFebruary 16, 2017, at 11:34 a.m. (EDT)
e-616 (Electoral system)
Encouraging the Liberal Government to get ERRE back on track (Nathan Cullen) The Petition is open for signature untilMarch 2, 2017, at 11:20 a.m. (EDT)
e-678 (Electoral system) Implement Mixed Member Proportional Representation (Kennedy Stewart) The Petition is open for signature until March 24, 2017, at 9:26 a.m. (EDT)
STRENGTHENING DEMOCRACY IN CANADA: PRINCIPLES, PROCESS AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FOR ELECTORAL REFORM: Report of the Standing Committee on Electoral Reform Read the ERRE Report online here, or download the PDF
your Member of Parliament Mailing letters via postal mail to our MPs is free, and these days they are getting used to receiving email from us as well. You can find your representative:
On November 8th, 2016, Canada’s new Trudeau Government was one of just 6 countries to vote against the 1949 Geneva Conventions applying to Occupied Palestine UNWAtch: Today: UN condemned Israel 10 times
Canada recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination and supports the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, as part of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement.
Canada recognizes the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the governmental entity in the West Bank and Gaza. Canada also recognizes the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the principal representative of the Palestinian people Canada continues to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and is working with the government led by Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah in terms of much needed reform.
Working with its partners and through the United Nations, its agencies and other organizations, Canada continues to support and respond to the humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinian people. At the Paris Donors Conference in December 2007, Canada announced a commitment of $300 million over 5 years towards improving Palestinian security, governance and prosperity.
At the UnitedNations on Monday, Canada voted against "The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" In Favour: 170 Against: 7 pic.twitter.com/1Ub1opMTHb
On Nov. 8 @ the @UN, Canada was one of 8 countries to abstain from voting in favour of "Assistance to Palestine ref… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…— Alison Creekside (@CreeksideAlison) November 25, 2016
Canada was one of only 6 countries to vote against support for the "Operations of @UNRWA for Palestinian Refugees" at the @UN on Nov 8 2016 pic.twitter.com/f8sVGQXzXe
Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel’s obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.
Canada believes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must fully respect international human rights and humanitarian law which is key to ensuring the protection of civilians, and can contribute to the creation of a climate conducive to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement.
On Nov. 8 at the @UN, Canada was one of just 6 countries to vote against "Cessation of Israeli Settlements on Palestinian Territory". pic.twitter.com/qX0Gk6PWIV
On Nov. 8 @ the @UN, Canada was one of just 6 countries to vote against the 1949 Geneva Conventions applying to Occupied Palestine #cdnpolipic.twitter.com/C20Nz8kPYI
The Canadian Government speaks for Canada. As a part of the International Community, a member of the UN, as a high contracting signatory of the Geneva Conventions, Canada has the duty to stay within International Law, but to hold other nations to account when they fail to do so.
When Canada fails to live up to its obligations, it falls to Canada’s opposition parties to hold the government of the day to account. And yet, in spite of Canada’s published policy on Isreal and Palestine, we have Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal government policy to be indistinguishable from Mr. Harper’s Conservative Government. Compounding matters, the NDP under Tom Mulcair seems to have the very same policy objectives.
Unlike these three parties, the Green Party of Canada has taken a different view. A view in tune with Canada’s published policy and with International Law.
The Green Party of Canada adopted the Palestinian Self-Determination and the Movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions resolution at its August 2016 Policy Convention. In December a more comprehensive consensus resolution was put forward by the GPC Shadow Cabinet and adopted by a strong majority (85%) at a Special General meeting in Calgary. Assuming this resolution is ratified, it will replace the August resolution; if not, the original will stand as GPC policy.
President elect Donald Trump was less than pleased; perhaps he expects to be able to overturn the resolution after his inauguration. (It doesn’t work that way.) And it seems former Prime Minister Stephen Harper continues to oppose the established Canadian policy of conforming to International Law, and actually tweeted in support of the American President Elect.
My hope for the new year is a proper peace between Israel and Palestine.
The resolution adopted this afternoon is pro-Israel in the deepest sense of the term, supporting Israel’s existence and security, and standing against those who would sacrifice both at the altar of settlements, for an ideological, expansionist agenda.
This resolution reiterates international consensus, grounded in previous Security Council resolutions and international law, dating back nearly five decades, regarding the illegitimacy of settlements and rejecting settlement-related policies of successive Israeli governments.
APN commends the Obama Administration’s decision to stand with all past U.S. president since 1967 in maintaining U.S. opposition to settlements, and to reaffirm longstanding U.S. positioning and language in the Security Council on this issue.
“November 16 is a significant date for Métis people and all people in Ontario. On this date in 1885, Métis leader Louis Riel was executed for leading the Northwest Resistance in defence of Métis rights.
Today, Louis Riel is recognized as a statesman, having played a pivotal role in the history of Métis people, as well as the formation of Canada. We commemorate Louis Riel Day annually to honour and celebrate Riel’s contributions, as well as the wide-ranging contributions the Métis people continue to make in Ontario.
Acknowledging Louis Riel’s contributions helps recognize and build respect for the history, culture and identity of Métis people. We will continue working with Métis partners to uphold Riel’s legacy and create new opportunities for Métis people as we continue on the journey of reconciliation together.”
Louis Riel’s life was rather more interesting than that of the average Canadian statesmen. Today is the anniversary of his execution on 16 November, 1885.
Riel’s historical reputation has long been polarized between portrayals as a dangerous half-insane religious fanatic and rebel against the Canadian nation, or by contrast a heroic rebel who fought to protect his Francophone people from the unfair encroachments of an Anglophone national government. He is increasingly celebrated as a proponent of multiculturalism, although that downplays his primary commitment to Métis nationalism and political independence
— Louis Riel, Wikipedia
Our American friends have an unashamedly two party system. In spite of the fact third parties keep popping up. The two parties relentlessly insist such parties have no chance of winning, a mantra that is repeated over and over in the media. The main stream media helps make this a reality by excluding small parties and their presidential candidates from televised debates and news coverage, except in attack journalism.
So is it any wonder that almost half the eligible voters did not vote in the American election?
When the two parties put forth the two most reviled candidates in history, I imagine many voters had no motivation to vote for either of them. No one has the right to order other people how to vote, and then blame them if they don’t vote as they’ve been told. Not in democracy. And yet I saw that happen over and over on social media. Is Trump as bad as they say? We don’t *know* yet. I can’t imagine anyone whose own water was being destroyed by fracking would vote Clinton. I can’t imagine people whose local economy skipped down to Mexico thanks to Free Trade voting for Mrs. Clinton either. Poor white voters (racist or not) are not the only people who voted for Mr. Trump. The status quo has not been working for much of the 99%, and I think it may be worse there than here.
Why would you vote if you are convinced you can’t vote for who you want?
If the only candidates you are allowed to vote for don’t represent you, why vote? Especially if it meant standing in line for hours surrounded by belligerent voters. (You know the ones I mean, the ones in either party who might end up in the streets afterwards burning the American Flag and chanting #notmypresident.)
Before the election, Democratic supporters were angry and offended by suggestions that Trump supporters wouldn’t accept the result if they lost. But as it happened, their candidate was the one who lost, so now they are in the streets burning effigies of the President elect.
With near half the electorate abstaining, the reality is approximately 25% of voters voted for Mrs. Clinton— who lost— and approximately 25% of voters voted for Mr. Trump— who won. In what appears to be the final tally, Mrs. Clinton — appears to have won 668,483 more votes than President-elect Trump. When you have a winner take all system, the losers are never happy with the result. Particularly when only a few thousand votes separated the two. Especially if the loser failed to win the popular vote.
I think there are plenty of things wrong with the American system, just as I think there are plenty of things wrong with ours here in Canada. No electoral system is perfect, but one of the worst things about winner take all politics is the polarization that is bound to occur when you divide citizens into winners and losers.
Haves and have nots.
Us and them.
Although it is hard on the candidates and parties that lose, the real tragedy of First Past The Post is that too many citizens end up without representation in government. Without representation in government, there is no one to speak for the issues that matter to you. I find it hard to believe in any democracy that results in so many second class citizens. Although there is no perfect system, more representative systems are better than winner-take-all systems because they provide representation to more of the population.
And the fact is, far too many voters are disfranchised as a matter of course. Those who’ve been on the outside looking in are now on the inside looking out.
But no matter how undemocratic the system is, no matter how unfair the election result, democracy derives its authority from its citizens. Citizens must accept the election result, even if it doesn’t go your way. You don’t get to call “do-over” when you don’t get the result you want.
If you don’t accept the result when the other guy wins, how can you expect the other guy to respect the result when yours does?
Polarization drives people apart
Ad Hominem is the name of the logical fallacy in debate; it describes an attack on a person instead of making a valid argument. [Almost always because there isn’t one.] Throughout the election, Ad Hominem attacks weren’t limited to candidates, supporters levelled such attacks at each other throughout the campaign. People were (and still are) being characterized as racist for supporting Mr. Trump; people were (and still are) characterized as corporate pawns or “cry babies” for supporting Mrs. Clinton. But when an election is less about issues and more about personality and character, what else can you expect.
It seems the idea that citizens have the power to have a say in their government — the idea that each citizen has the inviolable right to choose for themselves how they will cast their vote — has been swallowed up in the polarizing hysteria. When the political platforms of big tent parties cover the whole gamut of public policy, there are many reasons people vote for someone they might not like.
I read somewhere that exit polls showed a majority of voters had not actually cast a vote for someone they wanted to elect.
So is it any wonder that almost half the eligible voters did not vote in the American election?
When the two parties put forth the two most reviled candidates in history, I imagine many voters had no motivation to vote for either of them.
No one has the right to order other people how to vote, and then blame them if they don’t vote as they’ve been told. Not in democracy. And yet I saw that happen over and over on social media. Is Trump as bad as they say? We don’t *know* yet. I can’t imagine anyone whose own water was being destroyed by fracking would vote Clinton. I can’t imagine people whose local economy skipped down to Mexico thanks to Free Trade voting for Mrs. Clinton either. Poor white voters (racist or not) are not the only people who voted for Mr. Trump. The status quo has not been working for much of the 99%, and I think it may be worse there than here.
What Canadians call “strategic voting” and Americans call “lesser evilism” is what happens when most people feel they can’t vote for what they actually want. If you are voting against instead of for something, how can they possibly achieve democratic representation?
Dissent
The freedom to dissent is an important element of any healthy democracy.
Many of us think of the constitutionally protected right to dissent as the right to speak our minds and write and publish what we think. But free speech is only one of three related rights protected by the First Amendment. Not only is Congress prohibited from passing a law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” the amendment also protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” and their right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Taken together, the right to free speech, the right of assembly, and the explicit right to express grievances to the government add up to an expansive right to “dissent” enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Beyond written or spoken words, the right to dissent is the right of citizens to organize themselves, to associate, to make themselves heard in order to achieve political and social change and oppose government policies without fear of impediment or reprisal.
But what is happening in the United States is less dissent than the rejection of an unpopular election result. As odious as many people may think Mr. Trump has shown himself to be, at this time he is still only the President-Elect. He has not actually done anything yet. Mr. Trump has made no policy, so this doesn’t constitute opposing government policies. So far his only presidential crime has been winning a contentious and polarizing election.
History has shown over and over that when government is overthrown by force the result is rarely (never?) effective democracy. Even in the best of democracies, the duly constituted authorities are not going to look kindly on mobs of citizens rioting in the streets against the Government.
Even if what is happening now is just masses of citizens letting off steam after two years of never ending messaging as potent as any war time propaganda, it would behoove them to be careful in a world without privacy. Security cameras record much that happens on the streets, and Americans would do to remember they (like we) are living in a surveillance state where eveything done online is monitored and recorded. Facial recognition and lip reading software is not only out there, it is being used.
Privacy and Personal Security
All the folks who didn’t mind such erosions of privacy and civil rights on Mr. Obama’s watch might want to reconsider their complacency. In the weeks leading up to the election, the NODAPL water protestors went largely ignored by the mainstream media. Even when journalists and documentarians started getting arrested for the crime of committing journalism there was barely a whimper. If Mr. Trump proves to the the autocrat many of his opponents predict, it should be recalled that previous administrations have amply provisioned the American government with the tools to suppress dissent. I can’t speak to the quality of the commercial services recommended in The Intercept’s handy guide to SURVEILLANCE SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. What I can recommend is sticking with Free Software wherever possible. Distributed networks aren’t owned (and controlled by 3rd parties, Free Software has open source code which makes it harder to hide malware, and if you can manage to self host, no one has the keys to your data
The most complex surveillance net in history, and its most expensive military, are only two of the tools that will soon be in the hands of Donald Trump, but perhaps the most troubling is the way that America’s last two presidents have persistently stripped away the rights of citizens to the extent that the U.S. claims the power to disappear people without charge or trial. Dissidents, here it comes.
Under the National Defence Authorization Act of 2012, the U.S. government claimed the power to snatch you off the street, hurl you into a military prison, and throw away the key. In 2014 the supreme court refused to hear a lawsuit brought by citizens including Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges that tried to challenge the idea that a government can simply decide that it’s perfectly okay to disappear their own citizens illegally without habeas corpus rights or due process of law merely by claiming you’ll be safer if they do it without any oversight.
This was, of course, only a part of the complete dismantling of protections and rights for US citizens which began under George W Bush after 9/11, although this particular indignity was heaped on by Barack Obama, who also pursued whistleblowers far more aggressively than any president before him while continuing down the same path.
American citizens are already the most monitored, photographed, and eavesdropped on population in all of human history. The fact that the U.S. government has provided itself with all of the personal data, militarized police, and illegal powers necessary to create the largest most domineering police state in human history on a whole new level seems likely to make the next few years particularly challenging.
Let’s remember as well that it has become normal for America to hurl death from above fairly indiscriminately using drone bombings under Obama as well. In targeting 41 different individuals, drones killed 1,147 people.
Right now, it may be that the problem the United States of America faces has less to do with government and more to do with a polarized population unable to look past the rhetoric and set aside the hatred. Glenn Beck wrote: Don’t Move to Canada. Talk to the Other Side. but neither side seems to be listening. There is no quick fix, but reforming the political system to one less divisive, something more democratic and accountable for all Americans all the time would certainly be a big help.
I very much hope our American friends can put aside their team allegiances and decide to work together for the good of all the people.
The all-party committee on electoral reform (ERRÉ) has just finished four months of expert and public consultations. They will make their recommendation to Government by December 1st.
Of the ERRÉ witnesses with a position on voting systems, 88% recommended Proportional Representation. This reinforces the findings from decades of research from around the world and of 13 previous electoral reform processes in Canada, including two thorough and impartial citizens assemblies.
When the Government launched the process without a mechanism for collecting empirical data, Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan advocacy group, started tracking the process very closely. We are releasing the results of our work to the media because we believe the process needs to be transparent and accountable.
(You can find key a list of results below with links our spreadsheets.)
Despite a strong call for proportional representation across all of the consultative platforms, we believe reforming the electoral system could be in serious trouble based on recent comments from Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Monsef.
President Réal Lavergne expressed Fair Vote Canada’s concerns “We are worried that the Minister and the Prime Minister are saying that we cannot count on the government keeping its promise to make every vote count. Yet experts and Canadians have clearly expressed themselves in favour of proportional representation, which is what it really means to “make every vote count.”.
David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada and former LPC candidate (2015)
David Merner, Vice-President of Fair Vote Canada and a Liberal candidate in last year’s federal election adds “This is not the time for back-tracking. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Democratic Institutions have personally created a sense of hope in Canadians, building on the 2015 Liberal campaign promise of Real Change. Millions of voters believed that the government intended to keep its promises. We believed the political cynicism of the Harper years was behind us, and thousands of us participated in the government’s consultations in good faith.”
Merner says “Now is the time for the government to deliver on its promises.”
Highly regarded Conservative strategist and spokesperson for the Every Voter Counts Alliance, Guy Giorno, adds that “committee members must endorse what’s right for Canadians, not what benefits any particular party. Given the weight of the evidence before the committee, the only legitimate option is a recommendation for proportional representation. Let’s also remember that electoral reform was a major issue at the last election, and voters overwhelmingly supported parties promising change.”
The weight of expert testimony in favour of PR was echoed across the country in hundreds of town halls and public dialogues.
Over the next few days the ERRÉ will negotiate a recommendation for a new electoral system for Canada. The final report is due on December 1.
Fair Vote Canada’s President Réal Lavergne explains that “Once that recommendation has been made, it will be incumbent on the minister to carry it forward and for the government to act on it. Leadership will be required to educate both the public and parliamentarians, and to champion the proposed reform.”
“Based on all the results of the expert and citizen consultations, the committee’s only legitimate option is to recommend in favour of proportional representation.”
Key indicators from ERRÉ hearings
Canadian Electoral System expert Dennis Pilon testified before the ERRE Committee.
88% of expert witnesses who expressed a preference called for proportional representation
4% supported the Alternative Vote
(majoritarian ranked ballot systems tend to evolve towards a two-party system, often favour centrist parties and could further entrench the distortions brought about by our existing majoritarian system. )
67% thought a referendum was undesirable or unnecessary.
Here are basic indicators from the 27 dialogues or town halls hosted by citizens and community groups posted on the ERRÉ site or for which we have directly obtained the information so far:
Total number of participants: 1,058
88% (22 events) – A majority of speakers calling for proportional representation
8% (2 events ) – A majority for change but no majority for any one option
12% (3 events) – Report does not allow any majority view to be identified.
We are aware of at least 15-20 other community dialogues that are not yet posted on the ERRÉ site.
Minister Monsef organized two types of town hall consultations: ones in her own riding, and others as part of a cross-country tour. Here is an extract from the report submitted to the ERRÉ on town halls held by Minister Monsef in her Riding of Peterborough:
“It is clear that there is an appetite for thoughtful change to the electoral system. While opinions on the various electoral systems did vary, most participants indicated their support for a more proportional electoral process that still respected the need for local representation and simplicity of the ballot.”
Although Minister Monsef routinely conducted straw polls on issues such as mandatory voting and online voting in town halls on the road, she did not do the same regarding support for proportional representation. FVC volunteers attended these events across the country and shared their opinions. Here are a few quotes from participants:
Toronto: “PR was clearly the main issue for most. With respect to PR, many attendees spoke passionately and eloquently in favour, and if anyone present opposed it, he or she was not bold enough to express that view.”
Vancouver: “It seemed that 90% of the audience… did want some form of PR.”
Edmonton: “ It seemed most people were in support of some sort of proportional representation.”
Yellowknife: “She asked whether the participants liked FPTP to remain, or Ranked system or STV or MMP or Proportional Representation implemented. One voted for FPTP. Many voted for MMP and a few voted for PR.”
Yukon: “Some Yukoners came in support of our current electoral system (First Past the Post); more were on the side of moving towards proportional representation.”
Halifax: “The feedback from the groups certainly favoured PR.”
Montreal: “There was an overwhelming support for PR in the room.”
Thunder Bay: “Of the dozens who rose to spoke, everyone spoke in favour of PR.”
Gatineau: “ Participants spoke to PR at every opportunity they had… However, the format made this difficult… Taking into consideration those interventions that spoke to the issue of PR vs FPTP or AV, the overwhelming majority of interventions – in the order of 70% or more – were in favour of PR.”
Waterloo: From the report of 4 MPs: “Every group discussed the need for our new electoral system to feature some degree of proportionality.”
Charlottetown: “ About 90% of the people there were pro-PR.”
Winnipeg: After noting that three people were for FPTP because they feared losing local representation. The rest of the comments I heard were mostly just preferences for the different PR systems.”
Happy Valley-Goose Bay: “What we said was that we wanted PR BUT, it had to be a hybrid type that considered the lack of population and massive land mass of not only Labrador but 60 % of Canada, i.e. the North.”
Calgary: “There was overwhelming support for getting rid of the current system, with different groups mentioning STV or MMP as their top choice.”
A concluding note
And, to conclude, this eloquent quote from a Fair Vote Canada volunteer at the Victoria town hall where the Minister said she “can’t promise you that I’ll be advocating for PR because I haven’t heard that from an overwhelming majority across the country.“
Victoria:
“The wheels were skidding out of control as we tried to combat the spin we received at last night’s town hall on Electoral Reform. Maryam Monsef, the Minister of Democratic Institutions hosted the gathering in Victoria billed as “the last chance” to give your input. But the tone of the meeting was quite acrimonious. They were clearly managing the message while backpedaling from an election commitment about changing the electoral system. Not only did she defend Trudeau’s recent comments about no longer needing this reform because we voted for HIM.”
“After months of hearing expert witness by the proportionally cross-partisan panel, and while MPs held public consultations with thousands of Canadians across the country, are we now to believe there is no appetite for Proportional Representation? Monsef said that she has not yet made up her mind but the implication of her words was troubling. Will the government diminish the committee’s well-researched, democratic report in December by championing their predetermined preference? For many of us who attended last night the so-called consultation felt like a sham.”
PS from Laurel:
I’ve chosen to used my own photographs, here, not only because they are free culture photos (licensed to share under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License) but because the number of electoral reform events in and around Waterloo Region has been staggering, and I wanted to share some of them with you, but there were so many local ERRÉ events that I attended (and I didn’t attend them all) that there isn’t enough room here to use photos from them all!
There was a time not long ago when I knew nothing about electoral reform. It was only when I was asked to take photos at local Fair Vote Waterloo events that I found myself listening to what the Fair Vote folks had to say, and after a while I even started understanding it. This was not an easy process, nor was it fast. It can take a while to really gain an understanding of something completely different from what we’re used to.
That’s why every electoral reform event must incorporate an education piece. The thing that I have seen over and over again is that even though Canadians may not know the words for it, or how to fix it, we know something is wrong with our voting system that needs to be fixed.
That is why Mr. Trudeau’s “We will make every vote count” resonated with so many people.
And what I have learned from every discussion and every ERRÉ event I’ve attended is that when Canadians have a chance to understand the difference between winner-take-all and Proportional Representation, we almost always want some form of PR. I think that’s because most Canadians value fairness, and the only way to get to a point where the votes of most Canadians actually count will require some form of Proportional Representation.
Fair Vote Canada suggests Canadians who want to see the implementation of some form of Proportional Representation would do well to let the ERRÉ Committee know about it, and to make it easier for us, they have an automated tool to help us send a letter urging the committee to recommend PR here:
They call it “the Red Chamber” but it sure seems like Canadians have been singing the Senate Blues for most of my life.
This is the thirty-first article in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series
• 
Our American friends have an unashamedly two party system. In spite of the fact third parties keep popping up. The two parties relentlessly insist such parties have no chance of winning, a mantra that is repeated over and over in the media. The main stream media helps make this a reality by excluding small parties and their presidential candidates from televised debates and news coverage, except in attack journalism.
A concluding note
