Former federal Liberal cabinet minister, Sheila Copps, has an editorial out today advocating for Ontario to remain under the first-past-the-post system. Now, opposition to the referendum is to be expected - and encouraged.
Normally, when opposition to an idea is presented, one likes to debate facts and ideas.
Instead, Sheila begins by presenting an argument against selecting an electoral system that is not even up for selection in the referendum. She describes the Israeli Knesset in the same breath as the recommendation put forward by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly. Israel uses pure proportional representation, not the mixed member proportional proposed.
Imagine you were going to buy a bicycle. You've done your research, and you have read all the reviews and you're convinced you've made the right decision. Now, suppose someone came running up to you, waving their arms in the air telling you you should absolutely not buy a bicycle because car insurance is too expensive.
That's what Ms. Copps is doing.
Secondly, she argues that the political party will ultimately control the candidates who appear on the list. Yet, two paragraphs above, she decries the current system for "the appalling shortage of women in elected office" due to "a nomination process controlled by political parties."
No wonder she believes the falsehood about the unaccountability of list candidates; she has no faith in the current system for which she advocates.
Finally, and likely most appalling, is her linking of an electoral system with "religious extremism" and calling those that support it "naive" or "nuts". She calls the mixed member proportional system a system that is "built on empowering extremes" - yet she does not provide one single example of a country, city, province, or state that uses mixed member proportional run by the naive, the nuts, or the extreme.
It's unfortunate that the advocates for the status quo have to debate an important referendum in such a manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment