Strategic Voting...Again?

I was shocked to see our good friends from Avaaz.org supporting a scheme involving strategic voting. I’m usually on side with their views on various subject matters but this time I think they are getting sucked into playing a game that does our country no good. Over 8 million people around the world, (including many Canadian followers) received an email by Avaaz that suggests Canadians should vote strategically in close ridings in an effort keep Harper’s Conservatives out of office. As tempting as this sounds, strategic voting is nothing more than a bandaid on a cut that needs stitches. Our democracy is that cut and it’s bleeding profusely and will continue to bleed until properly taken care of. What we need is electoral reform and Avaaz and any other proponents of strategic voting should be spending their time educating Canadians on the democratic reforms badly needed to better our democracy. Election after election Canadians compromise their values and vote strategically *funding parties that don’t match their principles in fear of one party over another getting a majority. Have you voted strategically in the past? Chances are you have, and to what avail? I would love to see the Conservatives win a majority with 30% of the popular vote, finally exposing how incredibly undemocratic a system we actually have. I’m afraid this is what it will take for Canadians to finally see that we need to reform our democracy to be more representative of ALL Canadians. The Liberals and Conservatives would like nothing more but to see Canadians get caught up in strategic voting. They usually benefit the most by increased funding to their party while diverting attention away from the root problem we face as a nation. Please remember this plea when the next election comes around and you are once again frightened into voting strategically. Unless we fix the problem properly, I’m afraid history will continue to repeat itself over and over again.

*YOUR VOTE IS WORTH $2 A YEAR TO WHOM EVER YOU SUPPORT. THIS IS HOW FEDERAL PARTIES ARE FUNDED. STRATEGIC VOTING NOT ONLY GIVES FUNDING TO A PARTY YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN, BUT IT DENIES FUNDING TO THE PARTY YOU DO. READ “CANADIAN DEMOCRACY 101” FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON OUR SYSTEM OF DEMOCRACY AND WHY IT NEEDS REFORM.

Check out this absolutly brilliant short video produced by the Young Greens...

The Canadian Mental Health Strategy – Jails

If Prime Minister Harper gets his way and wins a majority in this year’s federal election, he promises to move forward on his “tough on crime” assault on mental health. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was quoted as saying up to 80% of Canadian inmates suffer from some form of mental illness. The answer according to the Conservatives is to build more jails. The reaction met by the Canadian Psychiatric Association was an open letter to the editor published January 26, 2011 in the Globe and Mail.  “The Canadian Psychiatric Association (To Heal and Protect – Jan. 22) agrees with the warnings of Canada’s Correctional Investigator that the scarcity of treatment for mentally ill inmates is a growing crisis and that getting tough on crime by locking up more Canadians as proposed by the federal government will aggravate the problem.”

Health Canada claims 20% of Canadians will experience some form of mental health illness in their lifetime.  Canada currently has no national strategy on Mental Health but has in 2007 under Harper given funding towards a new Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC). The commission is an at arms length body of professionals and associations given the task of developing a national strategy

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/178/10/1320?eaf

Every other G8 partner has addressed mental health nationally in some form. 

According to the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), health care costs and costs associated with uninsured services and time off work adds up to $14.2 Billion annually. These costs say nothing about the enormous expenses within our judicial system. From enforcement, lawyers, judges, courts, prisons and treatments, the costs can easily be in the tens of billions. These costs are sure to escalate without any preventative or early detection strategy in place.

With Harper’s plan we should expect more prisons, more costs within our judicial system, continued health care cost escalation, and most tragically more VICTIMS! When a crime is committed by an individual (whether they have a mental health illness or not) there are always victims. PM Harper’s plan actually counts on having more victims. Shouldn’t our Prime Minister be trying to prevent crime and reduce the amount of victims?

I don’t claim to have an answer on how to detect mental illness before a crime committed and victim created, but all kinds of mental health organizations do, including the newly formed Mental Health Commission of Canada. Experts within the mental health field can develop a strategy to reduce victims, to reduce crime, and to compassionately treat individuals with mental health illnesses through a new national strategy. This plan can ultimately save tax dollars too. This really is an issue of appropriating funds towards positive outcomes. I can not speak on behave of the CMHC, but I could guess that the billions the Conservatives say they will spend on jails is not one of them. I have emailed the MHCC for their views on what more jails would mean to Canadians suffering from mental illness. I will post their reply as soon as I hear back. 

When I first wrote this post I had mentioned that we do not have a commission on mental health. That was an error and I apologize for that. My good friend "L", who I consider an expert in the field, pointed this error out and also shared some great information about Canada's judicial system in relations to mental health.  

here is some great input from "L". This is exactly the conversation we need to having and thank "L" for this wisdom...

""I believe CPA and other organizations would suggest that the answer to overcrowding is not more jails (as proposed by Harper) – but to get those who don’t need to be in jail (mentally ill offenders) out and living in the community under supervision with significant resources provided: housing, psychiatric & Psychological resources (meds and therapy), etc."

"In jail (federal, rarely provincial), treatment is made available – but is ultimately optional. On parole and living in the community, treatment (therapy) can be a condition of parole (e.g., you go back to jail if you don’t attend therapy). Getting people out of jails helps the overcrowding issue – and it is cheaper to have them supervised and on parole in the community than in jail – but supervision is weak. Parole officers have too many individuals on their case loads and SO many parolees violate conditions of their parole and end up back in jail on new charges after having committed additional offenses while being “supervised” in the community." 

Here is a great piece also forwarded...

Prisons Instead of Mental Health Facilities

The number of federal inmates identified as mentally ill has climbed significantly in the past decade. This increase coincides directly with the closing of mental health institutions to save money and the lack of effective replacement programs. The closing of mental health institutions was partly in response to criticisms that the mentally ill were stuck in asylums with little likelihood of improvement. Michael Kirby, a retired senator and head of the Canadian Mental Health Commission, believes that as a result of the closures, the streets and prisons have become the asylums of the 21st century. John Bradford, a forensic psychiatrist who teaches at the University of Ottawa, agrees. He believes that a lack of acute-care services means the mentally ill and unstable are increasingly placed in jails alongside hardened criminals. Unfortunately, the stress of prison often brings on a psychotic episode, and the mentally ill inmate ends up being placed in a segregation cell. The senior manager of mental health for the prison service, Jane Laishes, admits that it is possible for a mentally ill inmate to serve an entire sentence without being thoroughly diagnosed or treated.

Source: Information on the prison system and the mentally ill taken from the article “Mentally Ill Stuck on a Street-to-Jail Shuttle,” by Sue Bailey and Jim Bronskill, The Globe and Mail, November 17, 2006

http://www.canadaandtheworld.com/conservativeprisonbuilding.html

 

http://www.jetvision.tv/video.aspx?videoID=835&playerID=14

References

http://www.schizophrenia.ca/AdvocacyPapers.htm

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/miic-mmac/pdf/men_ill_e.pdf

http://www.cpa-apc.org/index.php

http://www.mentalhealthcanada.com/main.asp?lang=e

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/english/pages/default.aspx

http://www.cmha.ca/bins/content_page.asp?cid=6-20-23

Canada - The Land of the Apathetic

"At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy."

read the full article published in The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canada-watches-its-democracy-erode/story-e6frg6ux-1226030310248

Canadian Democracy 101

Mr. Harper believes in deliberately delivering inaccurate information to Canadians to suit his own personal and party agenda – win at any cost, including lying to Canadians. He has formed coalitions in the past (you can’t pass a budget in a minority government without teaming up with another party) and like any proponent of democracy should always consider ALL Canadians. This is called co-operation. It used to be what Canada was known around the world for. Now Harper wants to silence  any Canadian who does not share his ideology. I wrote this post to give Canadians an alternative view on our "democracy".

The decision to not include Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada into the nationally televised debates should be of concern to all Canadians...who believe in democracy that is. Democracy has been sold to us as the system that includes every voice, where everyone can participate in shaping our future; where everyone gets an equal opportunity to vote, to be heard, to be considered. These very principles that make democracy our first choice in governance are being eroded to resemble more of a dictatorship. Simply dismissing 1 million Canadian voters is fundamentally undemocratic. In this post I will attempt to give you the knowledge you need to make your own decision.

Democracy Defined – referenced from the Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary
De-moc-ra-cy 1. A form of government in which political powers resides in all the people and is exercised by them directly or is given to elected representatives.  2. A state so governed.  3. The spirit or practice of political, legal, or social equality.

Canada’s System of Democracy
One can argue that Canada is more a Constitutional Monarchy than a democracy, but we will put that aside for now and look into how we vote and the results of our system. First, here are a few quick facts.

Who’s in charge?

Monarch - The Monarchy is hereditary.

Governor General - Appointed by the Prime Minister (acting in the name of the Monarch and not elected).

Prime Minister - Regionally elected leader of the ruling party in the House of Commons.

Cabinet - Appointed by the Prime Minister.

Members of Parliament (MP) – Regionally elected individuals usually affiliated with a party.

Senator – Appointed by the Prime Minister (with the approval of the Governor General)

Supreme Court - 9 justices appointed by the Prime Minister.

Where are all the decisions made?

House of Commons - 308 elected MPs (Members of Parliament are unequally distributed among the provinces and territories).

Senate - 105 Senators (unequally distributed among Provinces and Territories) appointed by the Prime Minister

Canada’s First Past the Post Voting System

Our system of voting is what makes us question Canada as a “democracy”. The first past the post system (who ever gets the most votes wins), completely disregards any of the votes garnered by opposing parties or individuals. What’s wrong with that?  The person with the most votes should win, right? Well it’s not all that cut and dry – unless of course you are intent on living in a system closer to a dictatorship. Here are a few examples to make things clearer.

The 1997 Federal Election Results  
                                                                 Popular Vote                            Seats
Progressive Conservative……………35.9% …4,128,500 ………….136 …48.23%
Liberal…………………………….…….40.1% …4,611,500 ………….114 …40.43%
NDP……………………………….……17.9% …2,058,500…………….26 …9.21%
Social Credit…………………….……… 4.6% …529,000……………..…6 …2.13%

 

The numbers tell the story here. The PCs occupy over 48% of the seats by only winning 36% of the popular vote while the opposition only received 40% of the seats with the highest number of popular votes. Other victims here are the voters of the NDP who garnered 18% of the vote (1/2 of what the PCs received). If the NDP received a proportional amount of seats as the PCs, they would have had 68 seats, but because of our system’s flaws the NDP only ended up with 26 seats.

In the example below, again the ruling C’s receive a whopping 46% of the seats with only 37% of the popular vote. The Bloc win 49 seats with almost ½ the amount of popular vote of the NDP who are robbed with only 37 seats. The Green Party, despite running in virtually all ridings and only 3% less votes than the Bloc receive 0 seats. That’s 1 million voters who will not have their voice represented (remember what the definition of democracy stated – “all the people”, “equality”).

The 2008 Federal Election Results

                                              Popular Vote                                                      Seats
Conservative……………..37.6% … 5,208,796…………………………143 ...46.4%
Liberal……………..………26.2% … 3,663,185…………………………..77 ...25%
NDP………………………18.2% … 2,515,561…………..………………..37 ...12%
Bloc Quebecois……………10% … 1,379,991…………..…………………49…15.9%
Green………………………6.8% … 937,613………………………………0 ...0%

   


What other democracies look like

Canada is one of the youngest democracies but uses the oldest system of voting. Our system as expressed in the above examples is not as fair nor representative as it could be. IF we believe in the fundamental principles of democracy, we should not be frightened of becoming more democratic and change our system as virtually every other modern democracy around the world has. I’m sure at one time or another you heard the expression “Proportional Representation” (PR). This refers to the systems created to make democracies in other countries more representative of ALL the citizens’ values within their country. Although there are many forms of Proportional Representation, I will use our current system of first past the post with an added element of Proportional Representation to make my point.

A more representative Canadian government would look something like this…
(Based on the actual results of the last 2008 election)

                                              Popular Vote         Riding Seats     PR Seats   Total Seats
Conservative……………..37.6%, 5,208,796………71 .................58……….129, 41.9%
Liberal………..……………26.2%, 3,663,185……  .39 ……………40…………79, 23.3%
NDP……………….………18.2%,  2,515,561……..19 ……………28 ……..…47, 15.2%
Bloc Quebecois……………10%, 1,379,991……,,…25………..….15 ……..…40, 12.9%
Green………………………6.8% … 937,613…………0 ……...…..11 …...……11, 3.5%

                                                          

This how I came up with these Proportional Representation outcomes. We would cut the number of ridings in Canada in half to 154 an add 154 PR seats to total the same 308 seats we currently have. The riding seats would be filled by individuals who win the riding using the first past the post system. The remaining 154 seats would be divided up according to popular vote. Although this system is not perfectly representative of the popular vote, it is much more inclusive and representative than the system we use today.

And that’s it! We could go much deeper then we have in this blog post, but I think you get the point. This is not rocket science, as you can see. So the next time you get the opportunity to speak, write or email a candidate or MP, ask them why we are not improving our democracy with Proportional Representation. The typical answer from the Conservatives and Liberals (who benefit most by keeping the old system) is our system works fine the way it is.

I know this may be a bit confusing, so please ask questions and let’s get the discussion going.

Here is a link to the authorities on voting reform in Canada. Please join, fund, or volunteer if you can.   http://www.fairvote.ca/

Glossary
Popular vote – The total number of votes cast in the entire country.
Ridings – The geographical boundary where single seats are determined (we currently have 308 ridings)
Seats – The position held within Parliament by an individual MP.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything found on these reference web sites, but they did have accurate numbers and definitions that I borrowed.

Political Database of the Americas (1999) Canada: 1979 Parliamentary Election Results. [Internet]. Georgetown University and the Organization of American States. In: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Elecdata/Canada/parl79.html. 2 April 2000.

http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/democracy.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/realitycheck/2011/04/video-the-per-vote-party-subsidy-and-elections.html

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/sites/lop/aboutparliament/guidehousecommons/can_parl-e.asp