header image
The world according to David Graham


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...

2017-02-09 15:41 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Electoral reform, Opposition motions, Referenda

Référendums, Réforme électorale,

Madam Speaker, in 2007, I was very involved in the referendum in Ontario. I have seen the electoral reform debate up close and personal. Referendums do serve a purpose. I do not object to them philosophically. They have a role, but here is the thing.

On an electoral reform referendum, if 55% of the population votes for a change and 45% does not, on the basis that 45% of the people's votes did not count, what have we really accomplished? Are we not being extraordinarily ironic in saying a little over half the country agrees with this change, therefore the ones who do not agree, whom we are trying to protect in the first place, do not matter yet again? It seems a great contradiction to me.

Madame la Présidente, en 2007, j'ai participé très activement au référendum en Ontario. J'ai vu le débat sur la réforme électorale de près. Les référendums ont un but. Je n’y vois pas d’objection de principe. Ils ont un rôle à jouer, mais le problème est le suivant.

Si, lors d’un référendum sur la réforme électorale, 55 % de la population vote pour un changement et que 45 % ne le fait pas, compte tenu du fait que 45 % des votes du peuple n’ont pas compté, qu'avons-nous réellement accompli? N’y a-t-il pas un paradoxe extraordinaire à dire qu'un peu plus de la moitié du pays est d'accord avec ce changement, et que ceux qui ne sont pas d'accord, c’est-à-dire justement ceux que nous essayons de protéger, n'ont donc encore une fois pas d'importance? Cela me paraît être une sérieuse contradiction.

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 13:26 on February 09, 2017

This entry has been archived.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

2017-02-09 15:38 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2017-02-10 13:28 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.