Email to Prime Minister Trudeau on electoral reform

[With copies to Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould and MP for Vancouver East Jenny Kwan]

Prime Minister Trudeau,

It’s unusual that I would have reason to contact you more than once in a month, yet here I find myself once again disappointed by your inaction on a fundamental element of your platform.

I’m especially upset by your latest comments in defense of your opposition to electoral reform, as quoted in this CBC article: 

I want to say unequivocally that while I absolutely do not support Kellie Leitch, or fringe parties generally, I still believe that fringe parties should be able to have seats in the house if they represent a significant enough portion of Canadians. When your argument against electoral reform is “I don’t want THOSE people in the house,” you’re fundamentally misunderstanding the very nature of democracy. You are also forgetting that our existing system led to Kellie Leitch being in parliament, so the status quo hardly seems to be solving this problem you’ve imagined. Government represents the people – all the people – government should not be formally established only to be comprised of people you like.  I’m upset that you would abuse the power you were given (by, I might remind you, a minority of Canadians) to further entrench our unfair electoral system.

I also want to dispel the myth that fringe parties will get to hold the balance of power (and, by implication, get to dictate government business).  You know who else holds the balance of power in a minority government with a fringe party with a few seats? Literally every other party in the house. That’s how our parliamentary system works. If the governing party is willing to form a coalition with a fringe party rather than co-operate with the opposition, that reflects on the government, not on the electoral system. You yourself talked about the need for ‘big’ parties and for the need for parties to co-operate with one another – it’s disappointing that you expect Canadians to believe you when you say directly contradictory things in the same sentence.

Finally, you stated “the fact that the NDP was absolutely locked into proportional representation, no matter what, at any cost, meant there was no give and take possible on that,” – this could easily be restated as “the fact that the prime minister was absolutely locked into instant-runoff, no matter what, at any cost, meant there was no give and take possible on that.”

I want to make it clear that I support an Australian-style instant-runoff system, just like you do. Of course, I would like this to come along with an elected Senate like Australia has, but acknowledge that has less popular support. Regardless, I would rather accept MMP or another form of proportional representation than continue under the antiquated, unfair, and barely representative form of democracy we currently employ.  I’m disappointed that you would allow your desire to hold on to power to prevent these very necessary improvements to our democracy.


Neal Jennings


One response to this post.

  1. Posted by Creditor on 2018/05/03 at 12:21 pm

    Hello neal, does anyone reply?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s