A Clear Look at Cloudy Topics

Belinda Stronach; from Blue to Red

2005-05-19T22:06:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, Tory MP Belinda Stronach crossed the floor of the House of Commons, to become a Liberal MP.

Question: Regardless of one's motivations, should crossing the floor, between elections, be an allowable option for Canadian Members of Parliament?

Answer: Yes, but only under certain circumstances.

THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND WHY IT IS A CONCERN:

Currently an MP can cross the floor, at whim, and join a new political party. This current situation is a major cause for concern, and should not be allowed.

When a political candidate is voted in as an MP, voters elect that individual for at least one of two reasons.

1. They vote for the candidate personally.

2. They vote for the political party the candidate belongs to.

An MP who changes political parties without consulting constituents, betrays all who voted for the MP because of party membership. This betrayal translates into the loss of support needed for a candidate to be an MP.

Simply put, some voters elect a candidate to represent them as an MP in a certain political party. An MP who does not belong to the same political party, as when elected, is not those voters' representative, and therefore has lost democratic backing to be in the House of Commons.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SHOULD BE NEEDED FOR AN MP TO CHANGE POLITICAL PARTIES:

One way an MP can change party membership, between elections, is to win a by-election, as the candidate for the party they wish to switch to. The system has to give voters a chance to reaffirm support for the current MP, or to choose a new MP. If the current MP wins, it shows that a move to a different political party is supported, and thus re-elects them the voters' representative in Ottawa.

A second way an MP can change party membership, between elections, is to hold a referendum within their riding. If the voters are in favor of the switch, the MP can change parties. If voters are not in favor of the switch, the MP can not.

Belinda Stronach did neither of these things, and should therefore not be allowed to sit as an MP.

Dividing up Votes; a Fourth Way

2005-04-18T19:30:00.000-07:00

In my last article, A True Democracy, I looked at three conceivable ways to divide up first, second, and third choice votes under the BC-STV. I neglected to mention a fourth way.

THE FOURTH WAY

The fourth way to divide up the first, second, and third choice votes is to:

1. Break up the votes into halves, quarters and other fractions.

2. Deal out the fraction votes among the candidates.

3. Add up the fraction votes, and announce winners.

For example:

- There are a total of 4000 first choice votes for a candidate, where the candidate needs only 3000 votes to get in. (There are 1000 surplus votes)

- The fraction vote is determined by dividing the first choice surplus votes, by the winning candidate's total votes.

- 1000 votes are divided by 4000 votes. The fraction vote is a 'quarter' vote.

- All the second choice votes are allotted to the appropriate candidates, at a 'quarter' value.

- Everyone gets the same 'value' of votes: three quarters of a vote for the first choice candidate, and one quarter of a vote for the second choice candidate.

Conclusion: This 'fourth way' of dividing up the votes, at first, seems to work. However, there are some real problems with this way of doing things, which deny the 'fourth way' inclusion in a true democracy.

1. Beyond the vague understanding that a formula was used to divide one's vote up into fractions, the common voter will not really know where the vote went. This is a problem. In a true democracy, even an uneducated person should be able to understand the concepts of voting.

2. If the common voter does not understand where one's vote went, and wants to know, the voter has to ask those in charge. This is a serious problem. There is no true democracy where the common voter has to ask, the bureaucracy, who it was one voted for.

CONCLUSION

The 'fraction' fourth way of dividing up votes works logistically. However, it does not qualify as a viable way to do things in a true democracy; the voter can very easily be kept in the dark about where one's vote went. Further, by having few people understand the system, one possibly opens the door to a crooked outcome.

A True Democracy

2005-04-06T18:33:00.000-07:00

In my last article, Voting System Referendum in British Columbia, I said that the proposed new voting system had no place in a 'true democracy'. In this article, I will briefly touch on what I think a true democracy is.

A true democracy has, at least, five qualities. I call these qualities the foundation and cornerstones of a true democracy.

THE FOUNDATION

1. The Foundation: The peoples' votes actually go to the one candidate for which they were intended; the candidate with the most votes wins. No exceptions.

In Voting System Referendum in British Columbia, I focused on some of the aspects of the BC Single Transferable Vote (BC STV). I stated that one of the problems with this system was that someone other than the voter decides where a vote goes. To expand on this, I will look at one of the ways the votes are divided up among candidates under the BC-STV. One of the ways votes are divided up is when one candidate has enough votes to get a seat, the candidate's extra votes are taken, and the second choice candidate of each is counted. For example, a candidate needs 2501 votes out of a possible 10,000 votes, to get a seat, and the candidate gets 3000 votes. Out of the candidate's total 3000 votes, 2501 first choice votes are counted (those needed to get the seat), and the remaining 499 votes become second choice votes that go to other candidates. The question now is asked, how does one go about doing this? I see three conceivable ways.

A. First Come First Served: When a candidate has enough votes to win a seat, the rest of the votes are then counted using the second choice of each. The problem with this is that the votes are not counted until after all the votes are cast, and the polls close.

Conclusion: First Come First Served is impossible.

B. Have People Choose: Using any number of methods, people could choose which votes are counted as first choice, and which are counted as second or third choice.

Conclusion: This is not possible either. Not everyone will have identical second choices, and with people choosing which second choice votes are counted, one opens the door to having a corrupt vote count.

C. Randomly Chosen: The second choice votes could be randomly chosen.

Conclusion: This method is a nonstarter. To randomly choose defeats the whole purpose of voting in the first place. Why not, from the beginning, just put the candidates names in a hat, and draw them out; with the winners being those drawn. This method is impossible in a true democracy.

THE CORNERSTONES

2. First Cornerstone: Every competent citizen gets an opportunity to vote. No exceptions.

In a true democracy, one's obligation to follow the laws of the state are grounded in one's right to vote. When one votes in a true democracy, one is responsible for supporting the system that puts the lawmakers in power, and thus indirectly chooses which laws are put into place. When one helps choose the laws that are in place, one has an obligation to follow those laws, and has the right to be protected by those laws (Principle of Autonomy and Respect for Persons). If the right to vote is taken from a citizen, then the citizen's obligation to follow the laws of the state, evaporates.

3. Second Cornerstone: No one is above the law. Those in power are subject to the same laws as everyone else. No exceptions.

This is fundamental. Those voted into power are part of the system, and are the voters' representatives, not the voters' rulers. Thus, those in power are not above the voters, and are subject to the law, just as everyone else.

4. Third Cornerstone: There is a free press. The press can never be restricted from reporting the truth. No exceptions.

Voters have a right to know what their representatives are up to; after all, those in power work for the voter. The press is, often, the voters' only means of finding out what those in power are doing, and, as such, is essential in having voters make informed choices when voting.

5. Fourth Cornerstone: There is a jury system; with a jury, of voters, that can overrule the judge, and ignore the law. No exceptions.

Simply put, a jury is the voters' protection against malicious prosecution by the state. Also, a jury is a safeguard against laws being put into place, between voting years, that are not supported by the voters.

It should be understood that these five qualities do not, on their own, make a system a true democracy. It is that all true democracies will have these five, and any system that does not, is not a true democracy.

A true democracy also, at the least, needs:

1. The right to own property.
2. The right to a fair trial.
3. The right to leave the country, with your assets.
4. The right to move around within the country.
5. Freedom of religion.
6. Free speech.
7. The right to bear arms.
8. Equality before the law.

Voting System Referendum in British Columbia

2005-04-03T20:37:00.000-07:00

On May 17, 2005, voters in British Columbia will decide whether to change the way they vote.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, the Provincial Government of British Columbia created an independent Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The mandate of this assembly was to assess models of electing Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), and to recommend whether the current model should be changed.

The recommendation: Change the current system

CURRENT SYSTEM

The current system, in British Columbia, is called First Past the Post (FPTP). Under this system, the province is divided up into electoral regions called ridings. Each riding is represented by one MLA, chosen by voters voting at several different polling stations. All the votes in a riding are added up, from all the polling stations, and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, and becomes the MLA. The party, in the Province, with the most seats (usually a majority) forms a government.

SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM

1. Candidates can be voted in with less than a majority of votes.

2. A party can have a larger percentage of seats (MLAs) than votes received Province-wide.

3. MLAs can not always do what their constituents want; they have to 'tow the party line'.

THE NEW SYSTEM

The new system, proposed by the assembly, is called BC-Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV). Under this system, voters would vote for more than one candidate, in a single riding. The ridings would be larger than under the current system, but would still have the same amount of voters per MLA. Voters would vote for a first, second and third choice candidate. The steps for such a vote are as follows:

1. Voters vote for their first, second, and third choice candidates.

2. Polls close.

3. Quotas, needed to win a seat, are determined using a formula called the Droop Quota. The Droop Quota system states that a candidate, in a riding with three MLAs, must win more than 25% of the votes to get a seat. So, if there are 10,000 votes in a riding with three MLAs, each winner must get at least 2501 votes.

4. First choice candidate votes are counted.

5. If there are three candidates, in a riding with three seats, with more than 25% of the vote each, they win the seats, and everything is finished.

6. If there are any seats still open, all votes, not included in the 25%+1 needed to win the other seats, are transferred to the voters' second choice, at half value. This is done because the percentage needed, to fill the remaining seat(s), is of a total amount smaller than the first total. (Remember, the votes needed to elect the other seats are not counted now.)

7. The second choice votes are counted at half value (Not really half, but a full point for twice the number than there are votes. A sort of pretend amount needed). If all the seats are filled, then everything is finished.

8. If there is still a seat left unfilled, the above process is followed, but using voters' third choices.

9. Statistically, no fourth choice is needed, and all the seats should now be filled.

DOES THE NEW SYSTEM FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM?

The point of the new system is to fix some of the problems of the old system. So the question can now be asked; does the new system solve the old systems problems?

1. Under the new system, can a candidate win a seat with less than a majority of votes? The answer is no, they can not. This old system problem is solved. Remember, there are still the same amount of voters per MLA in the new ridings as in the old. (The ridings have three times the people, and three MLAs). In the new system, each MLA must win 25%+1 of the votes in a riding three times as big. If there are 10,000 votes in a riding, each MLA must win 2501 votes to get a seat. If there are three seats to be won, that means there are 3333 possible votes per seat. So, a candidate must have at least 2501 out of 3333 possible votes; which is a majority of votes per seat.

2. Under the new system, can a party hold a higher percentage of seats (MLAs) than percentage of votes, Province-wide. The answer is no, they can not. This old system problem is solved. Remember, all the votes are used in the new system. There are no wasted votes, and no vote splitting.

3. Under the new system, do MLAs have to 'tow the party line'. The answer is yes, they still do have to 'tow the party line'. It is the voting system that is new, not the nature of the Legislature. I find it strange that the British Columbia Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform would claim that a new system of voting would effect the inner workings of the government. Once the election is over, nothing else would be new; aside from the political landscape within the House. In fact, the need for MLAs to 'tow the party line' would be greater, because the chances of having a minority government would increase under the new system.

DO I RECOMMEND THE NEW SYSTEM?

The answer is NO. I do not think the new system recommended by the British Columbia Citizen's Assembly for Electoral Reform is an effective replacement for the current system.

Reasons:

1. The new system is complicated to understand. I spent three hours researching the proposed new system, and still have a few unanswered questions. Further, I have a Bachelors Degree in Humanities, with a major in Political Science and Political Philosophy. If I have a somewhat difficult time understanding the new system, the layperson does not stand a chance. This is a serious concern. One of the benefits of the current system is that people can understand what is happening, on election day. This leads to trust in the system, and faith in the results. One can follow the votes being counted, and see the winner clearly when the count is over; there is little left to be a mystery. If people do not understand what is going on during the election, participation will drop, and frustration will grow.

2. For those voting, the new system can be daunting. In the current system, you vote, once, for the candidate or party that you want. Under the new system one votes three times, for candidates who may or may not get your vote. This is confusing at best; voters will distrust the system, and the number of people voting will drop.

3. People other than the voter will decide where a vote goes. This is a fundamental mistake. No one other than the voter should decide where a vote goes. There is no method, in a true democracy, for a vote to be changed after a voter has successfully cast that vote. No number of alternate selections, Droop Quotas, or half votes can change this.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, I am not going to vote for the new system, and I would encourage those who read this, to do the same.

For further information on the Electoral Reform Referendum, go to www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info

Native Fury Over Autopsy

2005-03-28T22:29:00.000-08:00

Note: I realize that this is not a very 'current event'. However, I feel that this incident is worth looking at.

BACKGROUND

In February of 2003, a young native mother was arrested, by RCMP, after her seven week old infant died in Bella Coola Hospital. She was charged with Obstruction of Justice, after removing the infant's body from the hospital in order to prevent an autopsy from being done. The young mother's actions were supported by Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who stated that he could not allow native spiritual beliefs, that oppose autopsy, to be violated. Stewart Phillip also stated that RCMP were persecuting the young mother, and her family, instead of respecting their religious beliefs. Plus, the native mother's family claim that the death of the infant was due to negligence on the part of hospital medical staff.

COMMENT

The central question here is :

Should the First Nations' religious belief against autopsy take priority over the RCMP and coroner's investigation of a death?

The answer is: No

The reason:

There are two problems with the First Nations' position.

First, the First Nations' position contradicts itself. If the First Nations wish to make an accusation of 'negligence causing death' against the hospital, an autopsy is a necessity in determining if hospital staff did anything wrong. It is wrong for First Nations to demand charges be laid against medical staff, concerning the infant's death, and then deny the hospital the means to defend itself.

Second, ethically, the state owes the dead infant a 'duty of care' in determining if the infant was murdered, or died of natural causes.

A. The state must act as an 'objective reasonable person' would in such a case and, as proxy, take the rights of the infant into consideration in determining if said rights were violated in the matter of the infant's death. Simply put, the state has an obligation to determine if the infant was murdered.

B. An objection to an autopsy based on the religious beliefs of the infant is absurd. The religious beliefs of the parents are not the beliefs of an infant, even if they may become so in the future. Simply put, the infant had no religious objections to the autopsy.

CONCLUSION

The autopsy was performed, and the young mother was charged with Murder.