A Call for Proportional Representation

In 2004, a half million Canadians voted for the Green Party of Canada, but not one Green MP was elected. In the same election, half a million people in Atlantic Canada voted for the Liberal Party of Canada, and elected 22 Liberal MPs. This is made possible because in Canada we use the “First Past The Post” voting system.

In 1984 the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada got 50% of the votes of Canadians, yet had 75% of the members of Parliament. They got a lot more power than Canadians actually wanted to give them. In 1993 the Liberal Party of Canada got 42% of the vote, yet still formed a majority government, giving them more power than Canadians wanted to give them.

Alberta is well known as a Conservative strong hold. In the 2006 Federal Election 100% of the MPs representing Albertans were Conservatives. But how many Albertans do they really represent? Only 64%. 12% of the people from Alberta voted Liberal, and elected no one. 11% voted for the NDP and 6% for other candidates, and again elected no one. In all, 2 million votes were “wasted”.

Our current system exaggerates political differences in certain areas. It gives too much power to people who shouldn’t have it. In 1993 Jean Chretien got 42% of the vote, but got 60% of the control of Parliament, and 100% of the power. No matter what party, if any, you perfer, they have been under represented in many areas, and in most elections.

Proportional representation means your vote is NEVER wasted, no matter who you vote for, or where you are voting from (some restrictions apply, see inside for details). If you live in Alberta and vote anything but Conservative, your vote is “wasted”. If you live in Toronto, and you vote anything but Liberal or NDP, your vote is “wasted”. You will not elect anyone. If you live in Canada and vote for the Green Party of Canada, your vote is “wasted”. By introducing proportional representation, you can vote for who you want, and actually elect someone. You can have responsive government. You get more choice.

Sources

• 10 Low Points in Canadian Elections
• Canada Votes 2006 Election Results
• Canadian Federal Election, 1993
• Fair Vote Canada – a proportional representation advocacy group

Liberal vs Conservative

A friend asked me if I’m a Liberal or a Conservative. I said, “No.” I don’t toe the line of the Liberal Party of Canada or the Conservative Party of Canada. And I don’t vote for either. There are between 4 and 5 large political parties in Canada: The Liberal, Conservatives, NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Green Party. However, the Bloc is questionable, since it’s not a national party; you can only vote for it in Quebec, the other 4 have people running in every riding across Canada.

What is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives? Not as much as you might think. It’s really a choice between a corrupt political party, and a corrupt political party that denies civil rights to all its citizens. Yes, the Liberal party is corrupt, and it’s likely a good thing that they were removed from power as far as that goes. But the were replaced with another party that’s just as corrupt. We are still picking up the pieces from the scandals the last time they were in power.

However, this beast is entirely different. They actively seek to deny certain segments of our population equal rights. They even campaigned on it. (Even more disgusting: they were elected in spite of, or because of, this.) They want special restrictions on people they personally disagree with. They want to push their personal preferences on everyone else. I find this far worse than anything the Liberals ever did in recent history. And that’s a lot. Luckily, the Conservatives only have a minority government.

International affairs and USAers

I get some very intelligent citizens of the United States of America leave comments on one of my websites. But I get a lot of things like the following:

Shutup about Iraq and OUR policies and international affairs….why can’t you Canadians worry about your own? O, wait…nevermind.

This just shows why I tend to assume that USAers are ignorant. The above quote says that other people should stay out of the internation affairs of the United States of America. This shows a patently absurd concept of internation affairs. By definition, internation involves more than one.

It’s funny the emails I get from USAers. They say that Canada should be thankful (yes–you read that correctly) that the United States “protects” us. From what? Osama bin Laden listed Canada as one of the many targets of “his” organization for being an ally to the United States. In fact, if it weren’t for the USA, Canada may not need any defense what so ever. When was the last time someone tried to invade Canada, or declared war on Canada? Yup, the United States of America.

The USA is trying to make the world a better, safer place. They just can’t figure out which end of a peace sign is up. They are single Handidly destabilizing more of the world then anyone else. Consider Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Two of the worst threats to world security (up there with Pakistan, India, and North Korea) and one of the worst countries in terms of human rights (add to the list China). Two of the worse, bin Laden and Hussein. And guess what? It was the USA foreign policy that made them how they are. It was the USA that gave them money, sold them war machines, and helped them gain prominence.

International policies effect others. And the policies of the USA effects Canada. Canada has a very deep interest in what goes on south of the border. What does Canada do abroad? Manly cleaning up after the USAers. Did you know that Canadian forces are in charge of the mess the USA left in Afghanistan? Did you know we were the first in the former Yugoslavia when main NATO military operations were over? Did you know that Canada invented the UN Peacekeepers?

Boring Statistics on Canada

Topics	Results
World Democracy Audit overall ranking	9 / 150
Political Rights	1 / 7
Civil Liberties	1 / 7
Press Freedom	13 / 100
Corruption	11 / 100

(Source: 2005 World Audit)

Canada didn’t become a safe, free country because people sat around and said “ya know, this is a pretty darn good place to live”. If that was the attitude, we’d live in a country stuck with the elitism and lack of freedom of the 1800s. The attitude of the people who strived for a better Canada was the attitude people should have know: “you know, there some room for improvement here”. See “Press Fredom” and “Corruption” on the above table.

Below are our rankings for the UN Human Development Index:

UN Human Development Index
Year	Ranking	Value
	4
2002	3
2001	3
2000	3	0.940
1999	4
1998	1	0.960
1995	1	0.932
1990	1	0.926
1985	1	0.906
1980	4	0.883
1975	3	0.868

I couldn’t find some of the more recent data, including when Canada fell to, I think, a ranking of #7. Canada is a great country. I want one a little bit better.

On Iraq, 2005

To be honest, the start of the war in Iraq seems like it happened a long, long time ago. Even though the American-led military is continuing to fight the war, the declaration of the end of the war seems like it happened and equally long time ago. (But such are the problems with non-tradition wars. In fact, we are likely to never again see a “tradition” war.)

At the lead up to the war, I wrote an article supporting Canada’s refusal to join the war unless specific criteria was met. I think the that USA went to war for all the wrong reasons, and I will continue to criticize the United States for having done so. After having read an article by an Iraqi, I’ve felt compelled to restate and clarify my position.

I said that I believed that Saddam Hussein should be removed as the leader of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical leader, belligerent to his neighbouring countries and the ‘western world’, and initiated a genocidal program. This is similar to when NATO removed President Slobodan Milosevic, the leader of Yugoslavia, back in the 1990s. (Edit: Apparently this is incorrect, see user comment below.)

But we had specific reasons for going into Yugoslavia. I don’t know if the Clinton Administration of the United States government had an ulterior motive, but I support removing someone from power because they are a terrible, terrible person. Saddam Hussein did much of the same things to his on citizens, and therefore, warranted removal just as much as Mr. Milosevic.

Moreover, I think that the proper time to have removed Saddam Hussein was 10 years previous, during Operation Dessert Storm. No, wait, I take that back. I think that the United States government should not have trained, funded, and helped Saddam Hussein to take power in Iraq in the first place. And I definitely think they should clean up their own mess by removing him. As the article I mentioned above indicates, Hussein was a terrible person, that made life miserable for Iraqis everywhere.

So, why did I object to the war? I think we need rules that dictate weather we go to war or not, otherwise if someone with malicious intent were in power, this person could easily declare war on anyone. If President G. W. Bush appealed to the world community to help the suffering of the Iraqi people, stop the genocide that his own government new was going on, and the build up of Iraq’s military, he may have gotten much support, including mine. Instead, he lied about weapons of mass-destruction, and the connection to Al-Qaeda. They have not found any WMD in Iraq, and several other countries, including Afghanistan, had closer relations with the terrorist organization.

Also, if you are going to take world action, I think you should have more of the world onside. You will never reach a consensus of the billions of people in the world. But the United States admits it had limited support in their coalition of the willing.

I think we went to war for the wrong reasons. The fact that something good may have came out of it is irrelevant. We could have went to the same war, as a world wide initiative. Instead, we were feed lies, and were thrown in to some war under false pretence. (At least, that is what I now believe. It is possible that this WMD thing was an honest mistake. And I will look in to this, and I suggest you do the same.)

I support the reconstruction of Iraq. I think good will come out of this. I think that Iraq maybe made in to a better place. I also think that the US government should have went about things differently. I’m not a liberal “let’s watch the crimes of America”, nor am I flatly on the other side. I simply think this war happened the wrong way.

I also think this war wouldn’t have been needed if the United States didn’t help Saddam Hussein take power in the first place. I prefer the peaceful router, when possible.

Letter to Monarchist.ca: The Democratic Queen

What follows is an email I sent to a member of the Monarchist League of Canada.

As I have been in correspondence with you before, you may recall that we do not see eye-to-eye on the issue of the Canadian Monarchy. I wish to open a small dialogue with you. At first, I wish to discuss a very specific point with you.

On your page entittled “Arguments for the Maple Crown” (Feb 2005), you say:

Monarchy Or Republic
The Queen of Canada is more democratic than a President of Canada ever could be because she represents all Canadians.

I disagree. The Queen of Canada may represent all Canadians equally, but the concept of a monarch (the rule of one) is directly against the concept of a democracy (the rule of many, or of the people). To say that the Queen of Canada is more democratic than anything is dishonest.

You can argue that the current monarch tries to represent all Canadians, and now only wants to help us, but wants us to prosper. You may even claim the Canadian Monarchy for as long as it has existed has always done this. But you cannot in all honesty proclaim that the Canadian Monarchy is inherently good. You can only claim that all specific instances of the Canadian Monarchs have been good.

(Forgive my ignorance, if it shows through in the above paragraph. Either there has only been one Canadian Monarch, the current Queen Elizabeth II, since 1982, or there has been one since the British North America Act, since 1867. I’m not sure which, but I doubt the British Monarchy has had the title of the Canadian Monarchy before the BNA Act.)

You cannot say that all monarchs (of any monarchy) that have ever lived were good and caring, just as you cannot say that all future monarchs will be good and caring. Even if you wish to claim that a specific monarchy has always been good, you cannot logically state that it always well.

You can argue that the Queen does, and has always, represented all Canadians. But you cannot claim that a monarchy is democratic.

It is clear why you think that an elected president cannot represent the people (a la George W. Bush). However, that section claims that the “Queen and her heirs have been trained from birth… of discharging the duties of a sovereign of Canada”, and yet you fail to provide any evidence of how this makes the Queen democratic.