Democratic Reform in Canada

The new Government of Canada has launched a democratic reform initiative as promised as part of its electoral mandate.  What follows are some possible reforms that may be worth considering, and why they may be worthwhile.

1. Term Limits: No one should be able to sit as a Member of Parliament for longer than the life of three consecutive Parliaments, or a maximum of 12 years.

- Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so a bit of power will corrupt a bit.  Not all politicians are corrupt, in fact most are not.  Nonetheless, a few bad apples is a few too many.  The longer they stay, the greater the chances that they will abuse their position.  Let politicians take a break after 12 years and get a small pension.  Let them run again after they take one mandate off.  If they choose to just retire, there are plenty of other qualified people who can replace them.  Of course, because the Prime Minister is a Member of Parliament, this means that no PM can serve longer than 12 consecutive years.

2. Recall: Constituents should be able to recall their Member of Parliament and force a by-election, subject to strict criteria, such as 60% of electors in a riding signing a petition demanding a recall by-election within a 90 period.

- It is ridiculous that MPs cannot be fired by the people they represent between elections. A recall by-election should be difficult to launch, but if an MP's behaviour warrants his or her firing, this option should be available to constituents.

3. Mandatory Voting: Every citizen should be required to vote in a federal election, with a small fine being levied against those who do not do so.

- It works in Australia!  Taking 30 minutes every four years to show up to vote is not too much to ask in a democracy. If voters do not like the candidates, they are free to spoil their ballots, but it is important that everyone be included in an election to add to the integrity of every Parliament’s mandate.

4. Ranked Voting/Preferential Ballot:  Voters should be able to rank their preferences on a ballot, by indicating their first, second and third choices for their Member of Parliament.  Rounds of votes should be counted until someone receives more than 50% of the votes.  The candidate who receives the greatest amount of support over 50% will win the seat.

- The supports of proportional representation argue that with the first-past-the-post system, the winner of a riding is usually elected by only a plurality - that “their vote did not count”.  Actually, all votes are counted, and these people are really complaining that the person they preferred as their representative didn’t win with a level of support that is enough to leave no question in anyone’s mind as to their mandate to represent.  

To get around this, ask that voters rank their top three preferences, and count rounds of votes until the winner shows the greatest level of support over 50%.  This will allow the winner to be able to show that they did, in fact, get the over 50% of the vote.  It also opens a world of possibility to parties that usually get a significant percentage of the vote, but which cannot convince more than a handful of constituents in a given riding to support their candidate.  If they work to become everyone’s second choice, they could actually govern one day.

5. No More than 75,000 Constituents per Riding: Make sure that Members of Parliament represent no more than 75,000 people, which would increase the size of the present House of Commons to about 470 members.

- This will dramatically increase the size of the House of Commons, but in so doing, it will also dilute the control that political parties have over their members, freeing them up to more often vote their conscience as informed by the will of their constituents.  It does this by making it more remote that a given MP will ever become a minister of the Crown; the desire for which is the primary reason that MPs are loyal to their parties.

6. National Referenda: Citizens should be able to trigger a referendum on any issue, subject to strict criteria, such as 50% of national electors signing a petition within a 90 day period demanding the same.

- Citizens should be able to launch national referenda on issues of the day.  It should be hard to do this, limiting the number of referenda that may go ahead, but the option should be available so that whether or not referenda are launched is not entirely subject to the interests of political parties that control this country.

7. Senate Reform: The Senate should be elected, with elections being organized by whatever method suits the provinces and territories that they represent, but an elected Senate should continue with its traditional "sober second thought" role so as to not become a legislative competitor to the House of Commons.

- It is time for an elected Senate in Canada.  Our constitutional framework requires that the Senate only perform a “sober second thought” role, and that the lead legislature still be the House of Commons.  Nonetheless, as long as this basic role does not change, there is no reason why the Senate cannot be elected - there are two elected Senators right now.

8. Campaign Financing: Political parties and candidates may not receive funds from any source without the source being specifically and publicly attributed, and no person may give more than $1,000 a year to any party of candidate.  Corporations and Unions may not donate to political parties or candidates, either directly or indirectly.

- Political parties in Canada pull in millions of dollars from such things as $500 a plate dinners where no tax receipts are requested or given. This makes a mockery of campaign finance reform. All loopholes in campaign financing must be closed so that no person may give more than $1000 a year to any one politician or party.

9. Advertising Between Election:  Spending on political advertising between elections must be registered with Elections Canada, and all such spending must be publicly reported.

- The Conservatives started campaigning between elections.  There are no rules governing this now. If rules during formal campaigns are necessary, so are rules between those campaigns.

10.  Restore Public Financing of Political Parties:  The yearly stipend that political parties used to receive should be restored, but with the caveat that citizens should be able to direct their stipend to whatever political party they prefer, perhaps through the use of a box on their yearly income tax form.

- If campaign financing is going to be tightened further (see above) it makes sense to restore the yearly stipend to political parties, perhaps at a rate of $2.00 per voter.  It its previous incarnation, the yearly stipend was awarded based on the results of the previous election, so that parties like the Greens would get, say 4% of all available funds because the got 4% of the popular vote in the previous election.  This could not be changed between elections no matter what the political party in question did.  If voters could direct these funds between elections, they would have an ability to reward those parties that performed well, and punish those that didn’t by directing their stipend to whatever party suited their fancy, and withholding it from others.      

These potential changes should be put to the population in a national referendum on democratic reform.  Whatever they say "yes" to should be implemented as soon as possible.  A national referenda is required so that reform of our democracy is not subject to the interests of political parties which work within the system, but should never be rulers of that same system; their conflict of interest is crystal clear.

The Referendum Questions follow.

1. Should Members of Parliament be limited to serving or no more than 12 consecutive years?
2. Should constituents be able to recall their Members of Parliament?
3. Should voting be mandatory?
4. Should citizens elect their representatives through the use of a preferential or ranked ballot?
5. Should Members of Parliament represent no more than an average of 75,000 constituents?
6. Should citizens have the ability to trigger national referenda?
7. Should Senators be elected?
8. Should corporations and unions be barred from making political contributions, either directly or indirectly?
9. Should spending on political advertising between elections be regulated?
10. Should the yearly stipend to political parties be restored with the caveat that citizens should be able to direct the payments between elections?

Tragedy, Farce, and Brexit

Boris Johnson is not running for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

Nigel Farage has resigned the leadership of the UK Independence Party.

The guiding lights of the "Leave" camp have therefore jumped ship before the Brexit even starts.

There will be another referendum...see previous post.

"They first came to us as a tragedy; when we next see them, it will be as a farce."

Marx would have been more popular in the West if not for that "Manifesto" thing.

Britain's Humiliating Future Post Brexit

There will be another referendum. Britain will remain in Europe, but only after accepting humiliating terms that cut directly into British "exceptionalism", which Europe has been striving to accommodate for 43 years.

The impetus for this will be the looming dismemberment of the UK. The Scots did not vote in 2014 to remain in the UK in order to leave Europe. Northern Ireland may consider some type of union with Ireland in order to stay in the EU - by far the most shocking possible outcome from this sad charade. The people who rejected Europe did not intend to dismantle the UK. As the twin threats of Scottish and Northern Irish separation loom large, their opinions will begrudgingly change.

The next British election will be the key. Pro-Europe will stand against Anti-Europe with the sole issue being a call for another referendum, and this time the Pro-Europe voters, buttressed by new "protect the UK at all costs" voters, will actually show up. The result will be a landslide Pro-Europe majority, followed by a referendum with a similar landslide in favour of staying.

This will halt on-going negotiations between the UK and Europe, which will soon be triggered by the invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty by Britain. After this is triggered, the Brits can only stay if every country in the European Union agrees. The price for staying will be very high - any British exceptionalism will be swept away.  The result of trying to go it alone will be even closer ties.

The last time Britain did something this stupid was the Suez Crisis, when the gunboats sailed, and the Empire strode forth to stop the nasty Egyptians from nationalizing the canal. The result was a humiliating political defeat when Britain's overlord and protector - the USA - refused to support the operation. Britain's empire essentially evaporated after that.

And the other story...

The nastier side of this sad episode is that European politicians will "get it". The lesson they will learn from Brexit is that the perception of too much immigration into Europe is threatening the political fabric of the continent. They will quietly work to restrict immigration into the Union in coming months, either by disallowing entry entirely, or by becoming very pro-Assad (and pro-Putin), essentially handing Syria back to a butcher in return for something like peace that will stem the flow of refugees from that part of the world.
 

Brexit?

The Brits have voted to go it alone! The margin was slight - 51.9% of voters chose to "leave", representing a total vote of some 17.4 million people.  The turnout was only 71.8%, prompting immediate calls for another referendum based on the allegation that a turn-out this low cannot possibly decide something as monumental as the separation of Britain from the EU. These calls will become increasingly shrill as the weeks and months pass, as the true implications of leaving the EU become clearer.

There are two groups to watch now.

The first is the Scots. They just recently voted to stay in the UK, but they clearly supported remaining in the EU. Expect calls for another Scottish referendum to start anew, based on the sensible argument that in voting to stay in the UK, the Scots also voted to stay in the EU, and if the UK will now leave the EU, it should not necessarily take the Scots with it. A Scottish vote to leave the UK to remain in the EU would probably succeed.

The second group of note is the Germans. They are right now deciding among two diametrically opposed options, each with massive implications for the future of the EU.

Option 1 - Do they gracefully accept that the Brits have voted to leave, while extending every olive branch to try to get them the change their minds in a separate, future referendum, including extending the negotiations around separation as long as possible in the hopes of eventually getting a different result?

Option 2 - Do they see a risk to the future of Europe in the British example, and do they decide to make an example of the Brits, forcing a quick and nasty separation, including:

• demanding that European banks engage in high finance only in Europe, thereby partially wrecking the City of London as a centre of work finance; 
• suggesting that British subjects may need visas in the future to travel to and work in Europe; 
• suggesting that British nationals in Europe could be subjected to extra taxation as they would now be foreigners; 
• requiring that the British representatives recuse themselves from all EU business except that related to British separation, as these people would now be in a potentially massive conflict of interest given that they will soon be foreigners (this is actually required by Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, 2009 in respect of the European Council...see below); and, 
• signalling that once the Brits have gone, they will never be allowed back in with the special status that they now enjoy? 

The point would be to show to the Finns and Dutch, and any member of the EU what may lay in store for them should they seek to follow the British lead.

The key is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, which, once invoked, triggers a two-year separation negotiation, wherein no country can get back into Europe without the unanimous consent of other members.

Will Germany signal that it wants Britain to invoke this Article quickly? The British leadership has already indicated that it wants to go slowly - the obvious reason for this being to see if minds can be changed in a second referendum that will reverse this decision. If the Germans signal that they want to go fast, we will know that they want to move Option 2 - to make an example of the British as a warning to every other country in Europe.

"There is a remedy which ... would in a few years make all Europe ... free and ... happy. It is to re-create the European family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe.” W.S. Churchill, 1946

Orlando Gun Show

In light of the tragic massacre in Orlando this past weekend, think about this...

www.floridagunshows.com/

"...you will enjoy all of this with the benefit of discount prices too!!!!!"

See you all in Orlando on July 2 - 3, 2016!!!

Random Thoughts

The Markets and a Bad Economy: The stock markets are moving sharply higher on a very negative employment report in the USA as there is an expectation that this will cause the US Fed to hold off raising interest rates this month.  So a bad economy is good for the stock market because it means the free money will keep flowing.

Clinton and Super Delegates: Clinton now has the support of 2,383 delegates, and is being proclaimed the Democratic presidential nominee, as this matches the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.  But 571 of those delegates are "super delegates" who have not been elected by anyone.  If she wins at the convention, it will be a 100% insider victory.  Sanders is right to point our that no one knows how these people will actually vote yet.  If they change their minds, Sanders is the nominee...over to you, FBI.

Trump and Contempt of Court: Trump has asserted that Judge Curiel, who is overseeing a case against his now defunct university, is biased against him because he is "Mexican", even though he was born in Indiana. This would be contempt of court just about anywhere else in the world, but in California, to be contempt of court, these outrageous comments would have to actually be made in court, during an actual court proceeding. Trump must know this...it is open season on the judge who, as a judicial official, cannot respond to this disgusting slander. What would he say about Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor if she dared to side with other justices against a Trumpian executive action should he ever become president?  

Steady as she Grows??

How is the US economy doing??? Last Friday, we got a glut of new information.

Factory Orders and Shipments - this has been negative for 18 months.

Here is the non-manufacturing index - still positive but a definite downward trend for the last year.

Employment - the USA only created 38,000 jobs last month.  There is also an obvious downward trend here.

BUT!!!  The Officials Unemployment Rate is at a fabulous 4.7%!

So as employment growth trails off, the unemployment rate is dropping! This is only possible because the Labour Force Participation Rate has started to drop again, from 62.8% to 62.6% last month. The US Government does not count people who give up looks for work in the official unemployment rate. From an employment perspective, they simply don't exist.

Or do they???

The number of people on food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) in the USA has dropped from about 47 million in 2002, to about 44 million today.  All things being equal, it should drop below 39 million in 2020. This suggest that people are going back to work...all is well.

However, an expansion of the program in 2009 in response to the Great Recession expired in 2013. This expiration is slowly working its way across the country, on a state by state basis, cutting people off the program for administrative reasons. 

In 2016, for example, 500,000 to a million of these people will simply be cut off the program as time limits for able-bodied persons who have no children go back into effect. As noted, this roll-back has been slowly implemented across the country, and the restoration of these limits are big reasons for the reductions in the last two years. Of the about 3 million people no longer living on food stamps, it is possible that up to half of them did not get work - they were just cut off the program. 

So if people are not in the workforce, and they are not living on food stamps, where are they???  Nowhere good.

GDP Now, which very accurately estimates US GDP on an on-going basis, has GDP growth in the third quarter at 2.5%, which would be very good.  The next major revision is on June 9th...we shall see.