To me, the whole debate around electoral reform is missing a critical point.
Replacing the current “first past the post” with some sort of preferential ballot may produce a house that is more in keeping with the diverse views of Canadians, but it is not fixing a major flaw with our form of democracy. We would still be choosing which dictator to lead us for the next four years.
From my perspective we are weak in accountability and these changes only scratch at the surface.
A suggestion is that one-quarter of all seats be up for election each year. Over the four year period all seats would face re-election. So once the initial transition period to establish this format has passed, an elected official would still get a four-year term.
But with a quarter of the seats up for grabs each year, the “power” of the governing body would become much more tenuous, thus hopefully discouraging the dictatorial approach to decision-making and encouraging a more equitable and open debate leading to more comprehensively acceptable decisions.
A healthy, thriving democracy should provide for accountability on a regular basis, not just once every four years.
Gary Robinson
Duncan