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. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. January 17th, 2020
  3. January 16th, 2020
  4. January 15th, 2020
  5. January 14th, 2020
  6. January 13th, 2020
  7. January 12th, 2020
  8. January 11th, 2020
  9. January 10th, 2020
  10. January 9th, 2020
  11. January 8th, 2020
  12. January 7th, 2020
  13. January 6th, 2020
  14. January 5th, 2020
  15. January 4th, 2020
  16. January 3rd, 2020
  17. January 2nd, 2020
  18. January 1st, 2020
  19. December 31st, 2019
  20. December 30th, 2019
  21. December 29th, 2019
  22. December 28th, 2019
  23. December 27th, 2019
  24. December 26th, 2019
  25. December 24th, 2019
  26. December 6th, 2019
  27. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  28. Next steps
  29. On what electoral reform reforms
  30. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  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 15:26 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.