Live blogging the Quebec election:

If you didn't know yet, I love elections. Find them fascinating. Want to spend my life studying them and working on them and this Quebec 2007 provincial election had been fascinating.

The rise of l'Action dmocratique du Quebec (l'equipe Mario Dumont) has blown apart the Quebec party system. Should be a great night.

9:00 p.m.

Dumont and the ADQ lead in seats. OK, no one saw this coming.

ADQ 45 (30% of the vote), Liberals 44 (33% of the vote) and PQ 35 (30% of the vote), wtf!

ADQ in third, but leading in seats!

I called it on Democratic Space in a comment page the other day, but predict Charest really wishes he had pushed electoral reform through tonight!

9:10 p.m.

CBC calls a minority government. Duh!

9:15 p.m.

CBC just did live look-ins to the ADQ and Liberal HQs in Sherbrooke and Riviere-du-Loup. Totally different scenes, dead in the Eastern Townships, euphoria in Eastern Quebec.

Now the ADQ are ahead in both seats and votes. Boisclair has mortally wounded the separatist movement if these numbers hold. Surely, there are still lots of close races and this can go anyways still. Only 18% of the polls so far, so no need to call it yet.

ADQ 48 (32% of the vote), Liberals 41 (31% of the vote) and PQ 36 (29% of the vote).

9:20 p.m.

Cut to PQ HQ. Doesn't seem too lively there. CBC reports Boisclair is in trouble unless his numbers improve. Duh!

The CBC panel of average voters as flummoxed, as am I. Should be a long night.

9:25 p.m.

CBC finally cuts to the race I'm most interested in, Mercier.

Turp (PQ) 1706, Khadir (Quebec Solidaire) 1576.

Soyons lucides Mercier, votons Solidaires!

9:30 p.m.

Apparently people at Charest's party in Sherbrooke are talking about what these results mean for Ottawa. The CBC reporter notes it's assumed there that Harper is very happy with the results.

9:45 p.m.

Apparently, PQ "senior strategists" are seen crying openly.

Charest still losing to the PQ in Sherbrooke. QS still behind in Mercier, but only by 100 votes, still possible to dream. Couillard the last Liberal standing in la capitale nationale.

Discussion of Dumont's team. CBC English TV is not as confident in their abilities as les Quebecois are. Libs are up 47-43-35. ADQ supporters still partying like rockstars!

10:00 p.m.

ADQ elected in Saint-Jean, the bellwhether riding that has elected a government member every election since 1942. PQ lead in Sherbrooke expanding.

Liberals still leading in popular vote. Liberal pointy head in Sherbrooke makes clear that Jean Charest will will be leading the Liberal government. Seems a little wishful at this point ...

CBC panel notes that this will likely be an "unstable minority". Note to self: have to do an entire blog entry on how PR would ensure stability. Turp's lead in Mercier is now 600, with about 60% of the polls in :(

Liberals still in seat lead. Turnover in l'assemblee nationale will be crazy this time, maybe even 50%. Apparently, its average age will decline as lots of ADQ candidates are younger. Oh, and also the number of women will decline apparently. We'll have to get back to that point ...

10:15 p.m.

Guy in CBC voters' panel makes great point, Charest lost the middle class.

At Liberal HQ, they won't even talk about working with the ADQ. Deck chairs are arranged.

CBC projects Liberal minority government. Charest won't let them see him watch the results, probably because he's still losing his riding. They say the ADQ is now second, the PQ can't catch them.

10:30 p.m.

CBC calls Mercier. PQ hold. Looks like the progressive, environmentalist, feminist left, which garnered about 3-4% of the vote, will be shut out of the legislature.

CBC calls Sherbrooke - Charest goes down! As the CBC panel notes, Charest is likely still premier, but can he stay on? I bet that he resigns and opens a Liberal leadership race.

I'm taking a break for this live blog but will be back in a bit when things look more solid.

11:25 p.m.

Apparently, Charest's back in the lead. News from Sherbrooke is that dastardly separatists were holding back the advance polls.

Dumont makes his appearance in Riv-du-Loup. Figured he'd wait longer. ADQ supporters go apeshit!

12:30 p.m.

Looks like the pudgy little f**ker pulled it out. He won his seat and held on to power, just barely.

LIB			47	32.95%
ADQ			42	30.87%
PQ			36	28.37%

Will be lots of interesting stuff to discuss tomorrow. Who are those ADQ candidates? Apparently, a 23-year old student won.

Some brief thoughts on the budget ...

- Looks like Boisclair saved us all from a Spring election. This must be the first time a provincial (separatist, no less) opposition leader determined FEDERAL election timing.

- But with no federal election in the offing, it looks like there will be a election in Prince Edward Island in the coming weeks. While Flaherty didn't deliver a 10-province standard with full inclusion of natural resources, he has undoubtedly delivered more for PEI on this file than 4 government MPs ever did (as PEI had all Liberal MPs throughout the Liberal government years). Binns will be rightly able to claim that his relationship with Harper delivered more money for PEI and I'm sure he thinks that can help ensure he becomes PEIs longest serving premier (well, he'd have to stay on until 2009 to do that, which is an open question).

- Is it just me or is Harper doing a good job of being moderate? I mean when the harshest criticism for you budget are coming the business lobby ad the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we're talking about a Liberal budget. Of course, the Liberals and the NDP will oppose it for fear they are slapped by the other as "propping up Harper", but this will certainly make it harder to paint Harper as a scary boogeyman who will make us all Americans.

- Finally, flowing from that last point, clearly Harper would love to go to the polls on this budget. Will he find an issue to bring down parliament on this session? I tend to think not, because to do so he might have to make something really right-wing a confidence matter, which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of all this moderation.

Should we working for democracy this morning, but saw something in my morning perusal of Macleans online (which is really great, btw), I saw this story about the NDPs budget demands and my blood started to boil a little bit.

Good to see Jack getting out and setting parameters for NDP support for the budget. And I guess it's smart politics to make a solid pitch to win Saskatchewan seats, after all they are eminently winnable. But calling for the exclusion of resource revenues from the equalization is bad policy and not in line with NDP values.

Why? Because this would royally screw my beloved home province and is not in the spirit of the constitution.

Subsection 36 (2) of the Constitution states that "Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making Equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation."

I fail to see how excluding oil and gas revenues, which as Canada inevitably becomes an energy superpower will definitely become and bigger component of provincial budgets, from the equalization formula helps equalize provincial services.

In the interests of fairness, the NDP should be calling for nothing less than a 10-province standard that includes all provincial revenues. Anything else, in an era of rising energy prices, is unfair. If the goal of equalization is to allow provinces to provide equal services at comparable taxation levels, then you can't exclude the huge pile of petro-dollars in their coffers from the calculation. To do so will prevent provinces with no oil or gas, like poor little PEI, from having the same fiscal capacity as other provinces.

The biggest irony is that PEI might have the most forward looking energy and environmental policies of any provincial government. Despite an ongoing fiscal crunch, PEI has made investment in wind power a priority and are set to be leaders in this industry, that I thought Jack Layton supported.

The NDP is no more likely to win seats in PEI than they are in the Saguenay or Missisauga or Calgary, but that doesn't mean they should not get behind a fair equalization system that works for all Canadians.

Five ways you can help Ontario’s democratic revolution!

ontario@fairvote.ca

An Open Letter Ontario students and youth:

First, I want you to circle October 10, 2007, on your calendar, because that’s the day we change Ontario politics forever.

But we need you – and thousands of other students and youth – to step up and help make it happen. This is your personal invitation to make political history. On October 10, we’ll have the opportunity to cast out our antiquated electoral system and replace it with a new democratic voting system that is more responsive to young voters and everyone else.

As you may aware (or not, the mainstream media is doing a great job ignoring them!), the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly, composed of randomly selected voters, is studying the question of voting system reform for Ontario. Next month, they are very likely to recommend that Ontario adopt a new voting system, probably based on proportional representation. If the Assembly recommends a new system, that recommendation will be put to voters in a referendum to be held in conjunction with the October 10 provincial election.

What’s At Stake?

Political power. The future direction of our province. Legislation on issues like health care, education, the environment.

The voting system matters. It matters a lot, because the voting system allocates political power, creates parliaments and determines who forms governments. That in turn determines who calls the shots on issues that affect our communities, our society and the environment.

The stakes are incredibly high. If we change the voting system, giving every Ontarian an equal and effective vote, we change the entire political arena. If we change the voting system in Canada’s largest province, the political effect will be felt right across the country. Politics as usual will be over!

How Bad is the Current System?

It’s intolerable. Ontarians (and all Canadians) suffer the effects of the world’s worst electoral system – first-past-the post.

Typically, a party gets about 40 percent of the votes, wins 60 percent or more of the seats and then wields 100 percent of the power, as though it had a majority mandate. Meanwhile opposition voices are diminished and other minority voices are completely shut out of the political process.

Are There Better Ways to Vote?

Yes. Almost all the Western democracies scrapped first-past-the-post voting last century, and adopted voting systems designed to treat all voters equally and give fair and proportional election results. More than 80 democracies, including almost all of Western Europe use various forms of these fair and proportional voting systems. Each has developed a version to fit their distinctive political cultures and geography – Ontario can do likewise.

Fair voting systems provide better results for citizens. They elect more women and visible minorities and have higher voter turnouts. Voters feel better represented and are happier with government policies. Finally, fair voting systems have been shown to have better environmental policies, higher energy efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

What Can You Do To Make It Happen?

Fair Vote Canada, through our Fair Vote Ontario campaign, is preparing to win the fight for a fair and democratic voting system in October. To ensure that young voters know the importance of a fair voting system, Fair Vote is organizing a student and youth campaign to be active on campuses this Fall.

Here is how you can help:

1) Visit the Fair Vote Canada www.fairvote.ca and Fair Vote Ontario www.fairvote.ca/ontario website. Learn more about the issues and our campaign.

2) Volunteer to help the Fair Vote Ontario student and youth campaign to win the October 4 referendum. To keep informed email me at mark.greenan@fairvote.ca.

3) Bring the issue of voting reform to organizations you are involved with. Encourage them to endorse our campaign and support a renewed democracy.

4) Get together with your friends and organize a Fair Vote chapter on your campus. We are looking for coordinating teams on every Ontario campus. If this interests you, please contact us.

5) Most importantly: forward this email to friends and other email lists!

Democratic reform is a do-it-yourself project for citizens. We cannot depend on the media or those in positions of power to lead the democracy revolution. It’s up to us! Let’s do it!

Yours for a strong democracy,
Mark Greenan
Interim Chair
Student and Youth Campaign
Fair Vote Ontario
mark.greenan@fairvote.ca

Catherine Bell, the NDP MP spearheading the Party's latest motion, got up in Question Period yesterday and asked the government about their polling exercise on electoral reform, explained in more detail in this article.

Turns out that the almost $1 million contract to conduct polling and focus groups on democratic reform (a much broader topic than voting reform, which may mean that the electoral system is not sufficiently addressed) will be going to the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Apparently, they're "independent" but also think that the "old, low-performance policy paradigm and a tax regime that renders [the Prairies] less competitive". That doesn't sound centrist or independent to me. SourceWatch paints them as a Fraser Institute clone.

Bell and the NDP seem to think that this means they can't do a good job on the aforementioned contract. To me, this doesn't necessarily follow. There are lots of small-C conservatives that support voting reform, from Walter Robinson and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to Conservatives like Hugh Segal. And believe it or not, Prime Minister Stephen Harper even once wrote an article supporting a PR system for elections to the House of Commons.

Although if the Frontier Centre doesn't get in touch with everyone's favorite multi-partisan campaign for electoral reform before they design the consultation process, then it's fair to conclude that this democratic reform study will be questionable.

I've been thinking about dipping my toes back into the blogging waters for a while now. I've been putting it off for school and work with this fine organization but with this week being a big one for electoral reform news, I feel the need to add my thoughts to the discussion.

The past few days have been exciting ones for electoral reformers in Canada. First, this past weekend was the first weekend of the deliberation phase of the historic Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. I'm hoping to get the chance to put on my academic hat sometime over the next few days and listen to most of the video of their discussions, which are available online at TVO's great site on the OCA.

The big news out of the weekend is that on Sunday Assembly members took a straw poll on their favoured voting system - and over 80% of them chose a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system! Democratic Space has the lowdown here and as always the incomparable Idealistic Pragmatist is all over the story as well.

This is positive news and reflects the fact a significant majority of presenters to the OCA proposed some form of MMP.

It will be interesting to see the rest of the OCA deliberations and how things may change. A paper (PDF) by noted Canadian electoral experts Blais, (the BC CA research director) and Fournier concluded that the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly became more sympathetic to the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system (which was their ultimate choice) as their deliberations progessed.

Will the same dynamics come to play in Ontario?

Also, on Monday in the House, NDP MP Catherine Bell introduced a motion related to electoral reform (see her site here). I see some problems with the motion (which I'll save for another post), but it's nice to see this crucial issue come before the federal parliament.

Haven't got the chance to read it yet, but for the keeners out there (the first day of debate is here).

Here's a guest opinion that recently ran on the editorial pages of a newspaper I once delivered, Charlotteotown, PEI's, The Guardian - which covers my native province like the dew every morning. I thought it need some good coverage on the violations of Charter democratic rights that are taken for granted by many political elites.

Looking past the politics of electoral boundaries

By Mark Greenan
Guest Opinion

The top story in The Guardian May 5 informs Islanders that “P.E.I. politicians threw out a political map … painstakingly put together by an independent commission” and will ask Elections P.E.I. to draft new boundaries.
The decision by a legislative committee composed solely of PC MLAs (the Liberals wisely boycotted the unnecessary committee) and chaired by Agriculture Minister Jim Bagnall will likely mean that P.E.I.’s electoral map will be again going before the courts to see if it is permissible under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My opinion, based upon Canadian election law, is that any new map will quite likely be thrown out by the courts — all at taxpayer expense of course.
The Guardian story informs us that Bagnall trusts Elections P.E.I. to ensure that any boundaries “keep communities of interest together.”
I must admit I’m puzzled by his comments. The superb 2004 report prepared by the Commission on Electoral Boundaries, chaired by Justice John A. McQuaid of the P.E.I. Supreme Court, looked at Canadian election law and drew its map based upon 14 principles and facts of which one was ‘community of interest’. The commissioners identify three distinct communities of interest — urban Islanders, rural Islanders and the Acadian community of ‘la Région Evangeline’. The map they propose represents all three of those groups fairly, for the 56 per cent of Islanders living in rural areas are a significant majority in an identical proportion of seats — 15 of the 27 districts in the new map. Inversely, the communities of Cornwall, Stratford, Summerside and Charlottetown are the majority in 12 districts. Also, there is a district in West Prince, the smallest in the proposed map, where francophone voters are in the majority.
Does Bagnall mean that the boundaries don’t keep specific communities of interest together? Surely, he is aware that all districts in the new map are centred on a “family of schools” and that the McQuaid commission already made seven specific boundary changes in response to public input — over 100 oral or written submissions — on a draft electoral map made public in the summer of 2004. If there are only a few small changes that particular communities are demanding, let the government explain what they are publicly and make the changes quickly.
But as readers of the McQuaid report should know, electoral boundaries cannot be drawn to favour rural voters. In the Island case — the continued over-representation of voters west of Summerside and in eastern P.E.I. — cannot continue. To say otherwise is to grossly misinterpret previous court cases on voting rights and electoral boundaries from both Island and Canadian courts.
As the McQuaid report clearly explains “the courts have (never) accepted that the purpose of the variance of plus or minus 25 per cent is to allow for the over-representation of citizens who live outside the four large municipalities. In our respectful opinion if this was the intent of the legislature, if this is the purpose of the variance and if this is the plain meaning of the section, it is unconstitutional.”
It should also be noted that since such a court case would deal with the democratic rights under section 3 of the charter they cannot be overridden by the ‘notwithstanding clause’.
To put it another way, any map that does not have seven seats for Charlottetown, three seats for Summerside, one each for Cornwall and Stratford will be thrown out by the courts.
Of course, this also means that western and eastern P.E.I. must each lose a seat due to their population decline over the past decade (and only fair, considering ridings in those areas were among the least populated when the current map was drafted 12 years ago).
Perhaps the fact that this means a government MLA in West Prince and Kings County will each see their seat migrate to suburban areas that have been more fertile territory for the Liberals in recent elections is really the interest at stake in this issue.
As Canadian political scientist and expert on electoral boundary law John Courtenay has written, “sometimes what is claimed as a community of interest is, in fact, nothing more than barely disguised political self-interest on the part of a politician or a highly parochial understanding of the concept on the part of interested members of the public.”
I would recommend to Elections P.E.I. that it respectfully decline to amend the boundaries proposed in the McQuaid report. To do otherwise would seriously compromise its perceived neutrality, particularly considering the Official Opposition’s clearly expressed objections to revising the independent commission’s report. There is no other province in Canada where the boundaries are not de facto set by a publicly accessible commission independent of government — all Island voters deserve no less.

Mark Greenan, a native of Summerside , is a master of arts candidate in political science at the University of Ottawa

Well, I didn't get the position on the executive of FVC I had hoped for but I did enjoy an excellent weekend at their annual general meeting the weekend of April 22nd.

Also, the next weekend I had the pleasure of speaking at a unique meeting back in my home province of PEI. It was organized by some good friends from the Yes on MMP Coalition, the unique organization I head the great pleasure of coordinating this past Fall and some other Islanders who had worked on the No campaign.

I thought my readers and the blogosphere might be interested in what I said. I've been accused of "preening my feathers" but I proudly stand by what I wrote - so I'll share it with the world.

As I’m sure I’ve told many of you in private, working with the Yes Coalition was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life so far and I’d like to take this chance to thank you all publicly for your time, energy and hard work. As I said on November 28, I hope that one day we can bring your talents across the way, inside Province House – Island life will be much richer for it.

Before I start, I’d like to thank all those who’ve worked to make this event possible. Especially those who I did not work with this Fall – I particularly hope we can work together on improving Island democracy – a truly non-partisan issue - in the future.

Politics is personal­ – I learned that this Fall! But standing here before a room of political Islanders, I guess you all know that already. So I’m sure you’ll understand if I speak a little personally tonight about what brought me here before you today

I hope if I give some of frank opinions, some of you won’t take them personally. I respect the contributions you have all made to Island public life – when I said that during the campaign I meant it – and I hope that when I’m as experienced as others will say the same about me.

As I was asked many times during the campaign, I’m Gerard and Elizabeth Greenan’s son. You know, the teachers from Summerside. Yeah, my Dad’s a Liberal.

So I guess taking a semester off my M.A. thesis to teach Islanders about electoral reform was natural to me. But as I’ve said before, my experiences observing hours of legislative debate from the position of eager young page boy (as our Ottawa bosses told us – “just being part of the furniture”) have shown me that our current electoral system is a pre-democratic abomination that should have been cast away centuries ago like so many other institutions - slavery, patriarchy and political patronage – wait that one’s alive and well, and I quote the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court here, “a systemic problem the existence of which is so notorious and longstanding it requires no formal proof”.

Five months later, I’m still disappointed that I obviously didn’t educate enough Islanders. I think we can all agree most voters felt did not feel sufficiently informed on the issue, many clearly didn’t feel it was worth their time – or would make much difference to them.

But I’ve asked here to speak about lessons learned from the Nov. 28 plebiscite. Forgive me if I tell a personal story.

For me, one night I had in mid-November just about summed up so much of the experience for me. I had spent the night in a small kitchen party with some good friends from high school and – as was the case in a great deal of the personal conversations I was having this Fall – the topic shifted to electoral reform. And I was once again asked to explain the mechanics of the system to people whose political sophistication, and in this case admittedly, was below average. After a few minutes I think they started to get it we starting asking ourselves, as a group, to find how I could use more descriptive metaphors to show how the system works. And in a serendipitous moment, one of my best friends so eloquently described it – “so the two ballots, it’s like you CAN VOTE for two different teams”.

And in that instant, my friend not only provided a pretty good way to sum up the issue I was trying to explain to Islanders but he also captured that mindset, regrettably, of so many Islanders and far too many of our political leaders. And as I heard historian Desmond Morton say the weekend before the plebiscite, in the context of the sponsorship scandal mind you, “that those who would use sporting or was metaphors in politics are the LAST people that should be in government”.

In another way, my friend also summed up the main distinction between MMP, and indeed all proportional voting systems, and FPTP. In a landmark study of 36 Western democracies, called Patterns of Democracy distinguished political scientist Arend Lijphart compared the performance of the wide variety of electoral systems used in those countries. Proportional systems, or as he calls them consensus democracies, tend to promote a political culture that is inclusive, collaborative and open to compromise. Majoritarian systems, such as the current winner-take-all system, tend to promote an exclusive, confrontational and adversarial politics, as two dominant parties vie for majority control of the legislature.

It’s obvious which describes Island politics better. The sporting metaphor describes how Island political life unfolds and how so many people see politics here.

“It’s our team versus theirs.”

“Oh this system’s is going to let losers in”

And that reality slobbered in my face hours later as we headed to a local pub and a fellow young Islander recognized me. “Hey you’re that Yes guy.”

Personally, I can be a little retiring around strangers so I said nothing.

“Why do you want that stupid system, I’m voting No.” he shouted.

I uttered something about fairness, choice and strong oppositions and went to move on.

He pressed on – “Why are you doing this?”

“Well I think it’s important for PEI and Canada we change the way we vote”

“What are you?” he asked, frustrated.

I looked at him quizzically.

“What are you? An NDP? Or are you a Green?”

“Frankly, I don’t think that’s any of your business,” I retorted, a little annoyed. I had been raised – perhaps aberrantly on PEI – not to ask about people’s voting intentions.

“I can’t believe you want that MMP thing to win. It’s just gonna mean that people like Leo Broderick (prominent PEI social acitivist) and Sharon Labchuk (environmental activist and PEI Green Party Leader) are gonna get in there and we’re gonna have to listen to them beak off all the time,” he shouted pointing to Province House.

I was speechless. Not only was he insulting two people who I admire personally, enjoyed working with, and I would hope we all could agree have contributed a lot to this province even if we don’t agree with everything they say, but at that moment he came to personify that problematic approach to democratic politics that – and I pains me to say this – seems to characterize my home province.

If you must know, the only political party I’ve been a member of is the Ontario NDP. Federally, I’ve voted Liberal and NDP. Only voted in one provincial election and that was Liberal and a family thing. If I’m living on PEI for the next election I’m undecided.

But my strongest political affiliation is non-partisan – or more accurately, because it’s something that all those who want more accountable, responsive government multi-partisan - I’m a fair voter. By that, I mean that I could never be a member of a political party that did not endorse the principle upon which MMP and all PR systems are based – that all voters are equal and, as much as is reasonable every vote should be reflected in the composition of the legislature. As my friend Larry Gordon, the executive director of Fair Vote Canada terms it – fair voting.

If you run a strong campaign, get about 40 per cent of the vote, like Ms. Mella did thirteen years ago, you get about 40 percent of the seats. Garner the support of 5 per cent of your fellow citizens, like Larry Duchesne did for the NDP that year, you might get a seat in the legislature. Simple – fair voting!

I wish Islanders could be asked that question – do you want a fair voting system – one where the numbers of seats a party gets reflects the number of votes it gets. Ever the optimist, I can help but think they’d vote Yes to that.

But now to be frank, I believe if we are to move forward productively on the issue of electoral reform, we must take a critical look at the Fall’s events.

Because as much as I wish I could say otherwise, November 28^th was NOT a bright day for Island democracy. I believe the plebiscite results reflect:

- lack of knowledge about MMP among many voters

- increased cynicism among voters

- deepening cleavages between urban and rural Islanders, ones stoked by the failures of successive generations of MLAs to take leadership on modernizing our voting system

- low turnout

o partially likely due to lack of polls/voter info cards/lineups? The turnout was much lower than indicated in a survey done by the Electoral Future Commission

- finally, it is difficult to even gauge support for changing our voting system among Islanders, as it seems every second thing the No side was “we support electoral reform, just not this model”

o Impossible to know what proportion of No voters would like to see changes to how we vote

I guess the primary lesson I learned from this Fall was that it’s easier to tear something down than to build something up

It is easier for opponents of fair voting systems to misinform the public than it is for proponents to educate them on the functioning of alternative electoral systems.

We have learned that the executive and legislative branches of government cannot be trusted to play a leadership role in promoting electoral change – or even to ensure a productive, educational discussion on the issue.

Again as I’ve said to members of the group in private discussion, the No side’s work during the Fall can be fairly described as misleading, incorrect, and designed to play upon Islanders’ misconceptions rather than their hopes for a more democratic future.

You were successful in your goal of defeating the MMP proposal. But thanks to your work, Islanders have not learned as much about their electoral options as they might have – and I fear have been unfairly misinformed about MMP, the fair voting system I believe is best suited for our political culture.

If Islanders are ever to have a fair voting system, and I believe the future prosperity of PEI is dependent on this, then the leadership of the PEI Liberal and PC parties must move beyond what I best for their organizations and openly consider alternative voting systems.

Because as I know for a fact, and I’m sure many others here do, that there were high level discussions between those two parties on how to defeat the MMP proposal before Island voters this Fall.

Thankfully, the logic of the first-past-the-post system prevents BOTH of those parties from winning the majority governments they both appear convinced that they will win in the next provincial election.

So I hope that after the election they’ll be able to see beyond their short-term interests and consider how a fair voting system could revitalize Island political life.

If we are to change PEI’s electoral system, I have come to believe it can only occur through an open transparent process that encourages citizen involvement and education.

Therefore, I propose that this group endorse the formation of a Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform, based upon the processes used in British Columbia and Ontario. I believe that together, we can ensure that regardless of the results of the next election, that the PEI government will commit to strike such a citizen’s group.

After all, you showed your political muscle on November 28 – imagine if we all worked together

Without the legitimacy of such a process, based upon the experiences of the Fall, then I fear that any group opposed to any electoral reform proposal will be able to succeed in defeating it, particularly if the undemocratic super-majority threshold used in November’s plebiscite becomes a precedent for future votes.

Finally, I hope that is another issue we could come to a consensus on today that any further public votes on a change of election system for PEI should be won by a simple majority of votes cast. Islanders never voted to have our current system and, despite what was intimated during the campaign, will always be able to be amended by a simple majority vote of the legislature. To place artificial super-majority thresholds on these types of referenda are offensive – could we imagine having votes on minority rights? Women’s rights? Aboriginal rights? How is the right to be represented in parliament by the party of your choice any different?

Thanks for your time and I hope that we can move beyond any disagreement we had this Fall to have a productive day today.

I’ve been a bad blogger (as usual) but now that I’ve put a big pile of student papers away, I can put down some of my thoughts on the issue of electoral reform.

First, let me explain how I became interested in the issue of electoral reform. I grew up in a political home, the kind of place where issues of the day were (and still are whenever I’m back) invariably discussed at the kitchen table. This led to a life-long interest in political affairs, particularly elections.

My interest in legislatures was further developed when I had the opportunity to work as a legislative page – you know those cute teenagers in the black suits bearing water – both in historic Province House in my native Prince Edward Island and the House of Commons. By then end of my year in Ottawa, after having observed hundreds of hours of legislative debate, I had the unmistakable sense that as citizens, we need and can ask for more from our democratic institutions.

I observed grown men and women two or three times my age behave like children. Sadly, in a 21^st Century Canadian legislature, “debate” appears to be far too often characterized by misleading, personal and unwarranted attacks on political opponents rather than a respectful discussion of policy alternatives. At its root, this must be a reflection of the inescapable fact that, due to our outdated first-past-the-post electoral systems, our legislatures reflect neither how we vote nor our diversity. Thanks to our pre-democratic voting system, we are facing the challenges of a new millennium with political institutions that under-represent minority viewpoints, inflame regional tensions and prevent new ideas and perspectives from entering the legislature.

The next year, as a part of co-operative work placement, I worked as a research assistant at the Public Policy Forum, an Ottawa-based think tank. The main project I worked on and certainly the one I enjoyed most was on youth voter turnout – which as I’m sure you are aware is steadily in decline. I studied a good portion of the academic literature on this subject and had come to the inescapable conclusion that talking about increasing voter participation without fixing our broken electoral system is ignoring the reason behind the problem. And when you think about it, does it not make sense that young Canadians of my generation, who are accustomed to unbelievable choice in most areas of their lives – from beauty products to colas to television channels – are being turned off by a political system that reduces the effective choices they can make.

As I continued my university studies, I took every opportunity possible to do more research on proportional electoral systems. In particular, I took an interest in New Zealand electoral politics, as their recent move from a FPTP to a mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system, makes for fascinating study.

Finally, my work on electoral reform was continued this Fall when I had the pleasure of organizing the Yes campaign in the November 2005 plebiscite on an MMP system for my home province of PEI. While the results were not what I had hoped for, the experience was probably the most valuable of my life so far. I got to work with a great and diverse group of Islanders and gained some valuable experience in how to sell electoral reform to my fellow citizens. It is this expertise that I hope bring to the Fair Vote Canada national council.

I’ll have another post soon on some of my ideas for the FVC council and some projects I’d commit to undertaking if elected.

FYI, I'll post my candidate statement for the FVC executive election.

Mark Greenan is a 25-year old M.A. student in political science at the University of Ottawa. He has been a member of Fair Vote Canada since 2002 and has been on the executive of the National Capital Region chapter since 2004.

A lifelong political junkie, his interest in electoral reform was sparked by time spent as a legislative page in the PEI Legislative Assembly and in the House of Commons. From his first-hand observations and academic studies, he passionately believes that all Canadians deserve a fair electoral system that treats every voter equally.

In the fall of 2005, he took leave from his studies to return home to PEI to act as the coordinator for the Yes on MMP Coalition in the November plebiscite. While the result was a personal disappointment, he believes his experience in running a pro-PR campaign would make him an asset for the FVC National Executive. In the coming years, he plans to further his education at a Canadian university with a research focus on electoral reform processes in Canada.

There are two projects he would like to spearhead as an FVC executive member. First, FVC could start to track all current MPs’ positions on electoral reform. Such a database would include public statements, letters to constituents and other information and could be posted online for the public to view and contribute to. Further, it could be expanded to include all candidates in the next federal election. Second, recognizing that my work in PEI meant I did not get to organize much on the U of O campus for our local chapter, I would like to work with other FVC members to develop an “activist kit” for student groups that support fair voting. For more info, visit his blog at http://markgreenan.blogspot.com or email him at markgreenan@gmail.com.

Mark Greenan est 25 ans et étudiant à la maîtrise à l’Université d’Ottawa. Il est membre du Movement pour la representation equitable au Canada depuis 2002 et membre de l’exécutive du chapitre de l’Outaouis depuis 2004.

Durant l’automne 2005, il est devenu doordinator du campaign du Oui dans le plebiscite sur la réforme electoral a l’Ile du Prince Edouard.

Malgré le fait qu’il n’a pas pu traduire toute cette plateforme, il est parfaitement bilingue et il aimerait répondre vos questions en français par courriel à markgreenan@gmail.com.

I've started this personal blog with two things in mind. First, to provide an outlet for some of my musings on politics and democracy and secondly, as a way to communicate some of my ideas with fellow members of Fair Vote Canada - a multi-partisan group calling for electoral reform - a group which I am currently a candidate for their executive board.

Over the next few weeks, look to this space for my thoughts on democratic reform in Canada, some information about how I became interested in this issue and some of my ideas for moving electoral reform forward in the coming years.

Cheers,
Mark Greenan