You're viewing a single thread.
-
Pretty sure the entire election reform issue is a bit more then Trudeau having a simple majority. That is like amending or Charter of Rights
-
That is like amending or Charter of Rights
That’s not accurate at all, you only need a simple majority in parliament to pass either mixed-member proportional or the single transferable vote electoral systems.
It’s only with the party lists that transcend provincial boundaries that require a constitutional amendment. Though no one is pushing for that system as we want to keep our local representation.
-
MMP is my dream system. I like the idea of retaining local reps even if we have less of them.
From what I understand though, FairVote is pro PR and I don't know of any other sizable electoral reform organizations.
-
It needs to pass 3 readings in the house, 3 readings in the Senate, and likely has to face the 7:50 rule (7 provinces representing 50% of the population).
In his first term, he had the house and not the Senate. In his second and third, he didn't even have the house (and the Senate situation would be nebulous now as well). And they'd have always struggled on 7:50.
His real regret is not putting it forward and letting his opponents vote against it.
All that said, even an incremental improvement, like decoupling the leadership vote from the MPs/MLAs would have helped a lot with getting rid of a lot of our worst MPs/MLAs; not all of them, but baby steps to making all the parties healthier (including our the ones most beholden to their crazy factions).
-
likely has to face the 7:50 rule (7 provinces representing 50% of the population).
That is false as the provinces are not needed to enact electoral reform. We do not need to amend the constitution, as Canada did not inherit the UK rules on this.
-
It depends; if by "electoral reform" you strictly mean switching to PR/RB without addressing provincial seat allocations (which assume FPTP), 7:50 likely isn't required, per the 2014/2016 rulings and recommendations (although they certainly would have faced challenges).
However, PR, and especially MMP, would naturally create an imbalance, necessitating either seat adjustments or additions (which increases costs), which could likely trigger 7:50. Any meaningful Senate or Governor General reforms would definitely require it.
That said, this was likely a moot point. ERRE recommended PR, but the Liberals preferred RB, ostensibly because it was easier to implement (and, not coincidentally, would have favored them long-term). The Conservative Senate caucus opposed any reform, while the ISG in 2018/19 - which Trudeau had aggressively pushed to be less partisan - was dubious at best just as the Liberals were losing ground before the election. Public sentiment was another obstacle; two years later, people occupied Ottawa for months over American border policy and Timbits, and largely coordinated disinformation campaigns. Pushing electoral reform then could have been a death knell for the Liberals.
It was an incredibly messy, uncertain process, costly both politically and legislatively, and still subject to Senate roadblocks and revisions had it passed. There was no simple path, even just for the ballot format portion of that reform.
-
-
-
-