A couple weeks ago Thomas Mulcair, leader of the New Democrats in Canada had been voted out by his party. The NDP had never booted out a leader before. Mulcair had the honour of being the first.
I feel like he was short changed by strategic voting. People didn’t want to take a chance that their ideological vote would yield their district to a conservative candidate. This hurts the green party as well, as it always has, but you don’t see Elizabeth May tossed out on her ear.
I know Mulcair made mistakes on the campaign trail. He got embroiled in the niqab debate. His promise to abolish the senate was realistically unattainable. He wanted to increase manufacturing and increase corporate tax… Wait. What?
I want our government to be more representative of the popular vote without compromising its functioning structure.
It bugs me, like so many things do, that an MP can be elected to the house of commons with around 35% of the votes in their district. What about the other 65%? It makes no sense that the majority of people can just be muted for four years.
My solution: I want to triple the number of potential MPs in the House of Commons while keeping the number of seats (divided by district population) exactly as they are right now.
Example time! In 2011, for Kingston and the Islands, Ted Hsu received 39% of the vote. He won. Yay! Off he goes to the House of Commons to govern. What about the 35% that voted for Alicia Gordon, the conservative candidate? What about the 22% that voted for Daniel Beals, the NDP candidate? In the current system they lost. They go home and two thirds of our district’s voices go unheard in Ottawa.
I propose that they not be done and those voices not go unheard. I propose they become MPs as well. Three MPs holding control over the one Kingston and the Islands vote in the House of Commons. It would be a beautiful thing. In every situation nearly the entire population’s representative would have a say. We would have to define anything under 10% as a ‘clear minority’ or something to that effect.
Would it be pointless to split a seat where the winner won by 50+%? Maybe. Maybe not. Who says 50% is the magic number. Why not 60%? We could define it as a ‘clear majority’ or something to that effect. Without the ‘clear majority’ it can be decided that two votes of three are required.
To those who would find this unfair for the 50-60% majority I say welcome to Canada. (The land of equal opportunity unless you’re white, speak french, have a penis, or rock a disability.)