Once again we are caught up in the political farce we call a federal election.
The political opportunists in the opposition parties obviously paid no heed to the ‘man-in-the-street’ interviews conducted by the media prior to the dissolution of Parliament. Overwhelmingly, the sentiment was: “We don’t need no steenkin’ election.”
Predictably, the outcome will little change the power structure in Ottawa, the risk to the opposition being the CPC gaining twelve more seats for a majority.
The backlash at the polls may not be sufficient for a CPC majority, but voter anger might cost the opposition a few seats.
If the opposition backroom boys had any political smarts, they’d be pushing for some form of proportional representation to replace our ‘first-past-the-post’ system. For those unfamiliar with that term, it means that the party that nets 40 per cent of the popular vote gets to form a majority government.
With a low voter turnout, that means a small portion of political activists settle the question. Surprised? We’ve been suffering under this archaic system since 1867; the last so-called democracy to use it.
Coupled with the fact that once Quebec and Ontario vote, it couldn’t matter less how the west votes if a party gets enough seats in Upper and Lower Canada. Sir John A. would be proud of his legacy.
Add to this mix the insanity of sovereigntiste/separatiste Gilles Duceppe running in a federal election. Expliquez, s’il vous plait ….. At least he isn’t leader of her majesty’s loyal opposition as was once Lucien Bouchard.
With proportional representation, the opposition parties would likely gain more seats, negating the need for that frightful “C” word – Coalition, the very mention of which sends Canadian politicians into fits of hysteria.
It is also the only way for Green party leader Elizabeth May to get a seat in the House of Commons.
The incumbent party will not likely support a change to the system as the current one put them in power.
The political will must come from the electorate, but we know that B.C. voters have rejected such a system – twice – citing a lack of information on it’s ramifications despite a very active campaign of awareness.
Adding it to the list during a federal election would cost money, but $100-$200-$300 million, pretty soon you’re talking serious money… so what does some more money down the political drain mean if we go for change?
Truly, people get the army, police and government they deserve and are willing to pay for.
Todd Birch
Quesnel
