header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. PMO Staff Run Government; Ministers Represent It
  2. On A Mostly Harmless Birthday
  3. The Trouble With Political Communications
  4. Politics: War By Other Means
  5. On the function of Social media
  6. C-18 is an existential threat, not a benefit, to democracy
  7. On Missing A Little More Than A Sub
  8. The Realpolitik Of Open Nomination
  9. What Is An Open Nomination, Really?
  10. Alberta election about identity, not policy
  11. The Trouble With Electoral Reform
  12. Mr. Bains Goes to Rogers
  13. Question Period
  14. Why do lockdowns and pandemic restrictions continue to exist?
  15. Parliamentary privilege: an arcane concept that can prevent coups
  16. It's not over yet
  17. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  18. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  19. Next steps
  20. On what electoral reform reforms
  21. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  22. 2019 Summer newsletter / infolettre été 2019
  23. 2019-07-15 SECU 171
  24. 2019-06-20 RNNR 140
  25. 2019-06-17 14:14 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  26. 2019-06-17 SECU 169
  27. 2019-06-13 PROC 162
  28. 2019-06-10 SECU 167
  29. 2019-06-06 PROC 160
  30. 2019-06-06 INDU 167
  31. older entries...

2016-06-02 17:02 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Electoral reform, Opposition motions,

Réforme électorale

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the comment of the member for Burnaby South that had the NDP won the election with a majority government, it would have brought in proportional representation. History belies this point. New Democrats have been in power in six or seven provinces and have never actually done it, even though they made that promise over and over again. Their federal and provincial parties are the same party, it is in their constitution, so it is a little strange for them to say that.

On another point, we have talked about first past the post and mixed member proportional. First past the post, as a term, was introduced to be diminutive. It was introduced to say it is a horse race, not a real system. I wonder if we could, as a group, agree to call it single member plurality, which is the correct name for it. We should do that or start giving everything nicknames. For example, mixed member proportional could be first past the post with consolation prizes. There are a whole lot of different systems out there and we should be using the technical terms so we do not bias the terminology.

Monsieur le Président, j’aimerais revenir au commentaire du député de Burnaby-Sud, selon qui, si le NPD avait obtenu la majorité aux dernières élections, son parti aurait institué la représentation proportionnelle. L’histoire prouve le contraire. Les néo-démocrates ont dirigé six ou sept provinces sans jamais le faire, même s’ils en avaient fait systématiquement la promesse. Comme le Nouveau Parti démocratique fédéral et les partis néo-démocrates provinciaux ne font qu’un, si l’on se fie à leurs statuts, son affirmation a de quoi surprendre.

Dans un autre ordre d’idées, nous avons parlé de scrutin uninominal à un tour et de scrutin proportionnel mixte. Le terme anglais désignant le scrutin uninominal à un tour, « first past the post », signifie « (victoire au) premier qui franchit le poteau d’arrivée ». C’est un surnom péjoratif. On l’a adopté pour souligner que ce scrutin est une course de chevaux, pas un système valable. Je me demandais si, collectivement, nous ne pourrions pas convenir d’utiliser l’appellation correcte, qui est « scrutin plurinominal majoritaire à un tour ». Si cela ne convient pas, nous pourrions donner des surnoms à tous les modes de scrutin. Par exemple, le scrutin proportionnel mixte pourrait s’appeler « (victoire au) premier qui franchit le poteau d’arrivée, avec prix de consolation ». Il existe toutes sortes de systèmes électoraux, et nous devrions utiliser les termes techniques qui les désignent, pour éviter de perpétuer des préjugés.

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 13:26 on June 02, 2016

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2016-06-02 15:13 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2016-06-03 12:01 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.