GPC Re: "Defining The Democracy Deficit"

[Don Chisholm]

The following article as prepared and presented to a group in Oshawa by Ed 
Goertzen.  I thought this was a great article.  It made me recognize many 
of the faults of party and cabinet that I'd never dwelt on.  I just took 
them as normal, whereas, as he points out, they really appear to subvert 
the people's democracy.

I asked Ed if it as OK to post to a list or two.
Don Chisholm

By: Ed Goertzen <egoert at netrover.com>

>The following is an edited copy of a May 25th 2003 public meeting two part 
>presentation on the subjects "Defining the Democracy Deficit" and 
>"Proposing a Solution".
>
>There is an old Arabian parable that goes:
>
>He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him.
>
>He who knows but knows not that he knows, is asleep, wake him.
>
>He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is a student, teach him.
>
>He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a wise man, follow him.
>
>On the subject of "knowing", the human mind will most always believe what 
>is self evident, a product of the senses, in preference to what is known. 
>That may sound like a contradiction, but consider. We sincerely believe 
>that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West in preference to what 
>we know, that the planet turns. The self evident is real, the knowledge is 
>abstract.
>
>There is a quote on the front door of our Parliament buildings in Ottawa.
>
>On it is written, "Where there is no vision... the people perish". There 
>was no room for the second part of the quote, but it was taken from Irving 
>Babitt s (1924) book "Democracy and Leadership", the quote continues "But 
>where there is sham vision, they perish even faster".
>
>For our purposes tonight, I d like to paraphrase that memorable quote 
>thus, "Where there is no democracy, freedom will perish. Where there is 
>sham democracy freedom will perish, even faster".
>
>Two words bear closer examination. "Vision" and "Democracy".
>
>Vision: John Stott asks in his book Decisive Issues facing Christians, "So 
>what is vision? It is the act of seeing, of course, an imaginative 
>perception of things, combining hindsight and insight with foresight. But 
>more particularly, and in the sense in which I am using the word, it is 
>compounded of a deep dissatisfaction with what is, and a clear grasp of 
>what could be. It begins with indignation over the status quo, and it 
>grows into an earnest quest for an alternative".
>
>Daniel Quinn, in the Story of B, says "If the world is saved, it will be 
>saved by people with changed minds, people with a new vision. It will not 
>be saved by people with the old vision, and new programs."
>
>Democracy: The word democracy has a long history, an evolution, and a 
>regression, encompassing many definitions. Many things have been tried, 
>some forgotten, some deliberately squelched.
>
>The original practice of democracy was first explained in Plato s 
>Republic. At that time it meant that all those who were enfranchised would 
>gather together to decide an issue. They would inform each other and make 
>laws with the consent of those gathered. The laws they made governed those 
>present and the costs were borne by those present. That s where the term 
>comes from "with the consent of the governed". That s quite different from 
>majority rule.
>
>Gradually the practice went out of fashion as being too cumbersome. 
>Everyone could no longer gather in one place. I expect the coliseum was 
>not large enough.
>
>I need to remind us briefly on the transition from the Feudal System to 
>Democracy. As you know, brainwashing is the forgetting of what we once 
>knew. Sometimes the forgetting takes generations.
>
>We focus on what is wrong and fail to consider what is missing.
>
>After Elizabeth I and James I, Henry VIII inherited a Feudal System in 
>transition with the Lords and Nobles and Priests rapidly losing currency 
>with the public. The Feudal System was rule by the elite. Their rule was 
>being challenged by the writings of Wyclif, Gaunt and Huss on the one hand 
>and the assertiveness of King Henry VIII on the other.
>
>Since the Nobles were not following Henry s laws, and the country was in 
>turmoil, Henry VIII by-passed the Lords and Nobles and appointed voluntary 
>Justices of the Peace in each community to represent him and carry out his 
>decrees.
>
>[Vol II History of the English Speaking Peoples Pp 42]
>
>"Thus it was that this system of arbitrary government, however despotic in 
>theory, however contrary to the principles believed to lie behind Magna 
>Carta, in fact rested tacitly on the real will of the people. Henry VIII, 
>like his father, found an institution ready to his hand in the unpaid 
>Justice of the Peace, the local squire or landlord, and taught him to 
>govern. Rules and regulations of remarkable complexity were given to the 
>Justice to administer; and later in the century Justices' manuals were 
>produced, which ran through innumerable editions and covered almost every 
>contingency which could arise in country life."
>
>That was a major step in the direction of empowering the people, because 
>while the Justices of the Peace were resolving local issues, they also 
>informed Henry of the people s legislative needs.
>
>This was the precursor to what Sir Winston Churchill said "..in a 
>democracy the law must flow from the people".
>
>Historically moral law preceded written law just as speech preceded 
>writing. Hammurabi s Code is pointed to as one of the first attempts to 
>gather together a written body of laws. It was the conversion of Moral law 
>into Statute law.
>
>The pressure for freedom continued to grow. Freed from the Feudal Lords, 
>they continued to demand more freedom. Eventually the demand for both 
>Spiritual and Temporal freedom brought about the Protestant Reformation. 
>The literal beheading of Charles I, and the symbolic beheading of the 
>Roman Catholic Church
>
>What that means is that instead of the ultimate spiritual and temporal 
>power, The Divine Right, being vested in Pope and King, it was vested in 
>the Demos, the masses. In ancient Greece Democracy was considered "mob rule"
>
>Since everyone obviously couldn t be a ruler, Cromwell used Henry VIII s 
>idea of Justices Of the Peace and brought them into Parliament, but with a 
>difference
>
>After the 10 years civil war, in the absence of a King, the Lord 
>Protector, Cromwell, struggling to create an entirely new system, tried to 
>create a country with no ruler, only people s representatives. A Real 
>Parliament. I say real Parliament because in previous attempts at 
>Parliament the members were merely advisors and petitioners to the rulers 
>who ruled by divine right.
>
>It didn t work. There had to be both an executive power, the ruler, and 
>the people s power, the commons to govern the rulers. So Charles II was 
>brought in with the clear understanding that the people s Commons, the MP 
>s, would be the supreme power.
>
>What Cromwell accomplished was that the ruling, or executive power was 
>vested in the ruler, and the ultimate governing power, was vested in the 
>people. The prime role of the people s representatives was to "Govern" the 
>"Rulers".
>
>The way that would be accomplished was that Laws would be proposed by 
>rulers and the representatives would amend the proposed laws to limit and 
>constrain and also limit the amount of money the Ruler could tax.
>
>So the Rulers were to be governed, not directly by the representatives, 
>but by the laws that were agreed to by the representatives.
>
>The next impact on the evolution of democracy was the formation of 
>political parties. One of the strongest supporters of political parties 
>was the oft quoted Edmund Burke. He said "When bad men combine, the good 
>must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in 
>a contemptible struggle".
>
>At the time he supported the political parties there was not the symbiotic 
>relationship between the political parties and the Cabinet as we have 
>today. The Cabinet was appointed by the ruler and was much more closely 
>aligned and loyal to the monarchy.
>
>By combining the Cabinet with the Political Parties, as we have today, the 
>Cabinet effectively neuters the power of the Commons.
>
>The commons is the people s locus of power. That is the House to which we 
>elect our representatives. That is the only power that we the people have, 
>the election of representatives to the commons. The fiction that we elect 
>political parties to ruling power is propaganda that suits both the 
>political party hierarchy and the media agenda.
>
>Consider this. The Canada Elections Act states that "no MP, representative 
>can be held accountable for any promises made to get elected." Since 
>Cabinet is also drawn from the ranks of MP s there is no accountability. 
>Once a political party controls the majority in the commons, they have a 
>virtual dictatorship.
>
>What the Cabinet, the political party hierarchy has done is subvert 
>majority political party MP s into thinking that they are a part of the 
>Government. They do that by the PMO dispensing "high profile functions" 
>Parliamentary Assistants, extra pay, junkets and so on.
>
>So there is an elemental conflict of purpose between our political parties 
>and our electoral system. In my letter sent and published in the Toronto 
>Star I explained that the purpose of the electoral system is to obtain for 
>the people a person who will exercise the governing power in the commons, 
>governing the Cabinet.
>
>The purpose of a political party is to obtain for the hierarchy of the 
>party the ruling power, to exercise it in the party s interest and the 
>interests of those who supported their election, especially financially. 
>Not only with campaign contributions, but also legislation that favours 
>their friends at the expense of the public purse.
>
>So, how come no one noticed where have we gone wrong? Mainly because the 
>corporate media needs conflict to obtain readers attention and it is 
>easier to elect political parties and have referendums on their platforms 
>or agendas. They rake in millions from advertising as political parties 
>compete in marketing their platforms.
>
>Our electoral system is old, very old, essentially dating to the BNA ACT. 
>Nearly a hundred years ago There was no TV and Radio was in its infancy. 
>Local communication was person to person and the political dialogue 
>between the voters and those elected was facilitated by the local press.
>
>Originally each urban center had one or two media outlets and ridings. The 
>vast majority of ridings, and voters, were rural. Radio, invented in 1920 
>did little to change the dialogue.
>
>The introduction of TV was another matter.
>
>Because it provided images, it captured the image - ination of the people. 
>Because it was - is - expensive, TV had to capture a large audience. A 
>mass audience. Most recently, and with convergence of ownership, a 
>national audience.
>
>What has happened is that the political dialogue, the dialogue that once 
>took place between representative and voters, facilitated by the press, 
>suddenly morphed into a dialogue between the hierarchy of the political 
>parties and the media that completely bypassed the voters.
>
>The changed dialogue and financing of political parties instead of 
>candidates was to concentrate, to transfer, the political power from the 
>people s elected MP s into the hands of the political party hierarchy.
>
>The serious money went to political parties. Contributors and corporations 
>quickly learned where the power lay. So a symbiotic relationship between 
>the media, corporations and the political parties began.
>
>More recently, political party contributors have learned that even the 
>party hierarchy and Cabinet ministers have little power, it being 
>transferred into the PM s hands.
>
>An excellent book on the subject "Governing from The Center" by Donald Savoie.
>
>As with the power relationship, so also with the political dialogue. The 
>dialogue flourished between the political party hierarchy and the media. 
>The voters were effectively cut out of the dialogue around issues in which 
>they had once engaged with local media supplying the background.
>
>Many of you may not be aware that when a party has a majority in the 
>commons and forms the government, the Cabinet - party hierarchy 
>effectively silences the MP s. They do not dare to publicly represent the 
>consensus of opinion in their riding, since it might conflict with the 
>Ruling Cabinet s position. Any dissent is buried in the Party Caucus.
>
>You may also have noticed, as I have, that the media does not challenge 
>the majority party representatives to represent their ridings. By only 
>publicizing the ruling Cabinet s position, they protect the majority party 
>MP s from scrutiny and print only the party press releases.
>
>A major source of frustration and sense of impotency is promoted when the 
>media informs the public of public affairs issues and no provision is made 
>for the people to respond to the issues.
>
>That leaves the voters with (1) The Negative Option
>
>In the absence of any meaningful way to respond, the negative option is 
>expressed in demonstrations and violence, as we have seen in Seattle, 
>Quebec City, Genoa, etc.. To me, that is unacceptable.
>
>(2) Public Opinion Polls are another way to respond. That is public 
>opinion polls. 3000 Canadians are asked a question and the answer is 
>presented as being indicative of the Canadian population within 3%- 4%, - 
>19 times out of 20. That gives the average voter less chance of 
>participation than in winning big in a lottery.
>
>The reason that works is because the converged media is all telling the 
>same story setting issues in competition with each other.
>
>There s a major problem with that. We know that the media, mostly TV, some 
>press, is the main source of information for most Canadians. When there is 
>a public opinion poll, what is measured is only the extent to which media 
>propaganda has penetrated the public mind.
>
>When results are not what is needed by politicians or the media to 
>validate the policies they want to implement, the poll is squelched and 
>the results are used to tailor future propaganda.
>
>So the democracy deficit has many origins, not many of which have to do 
>with conspiracy theories.
>
>To Summarize:
>
>We have forgotten that the people s power is properly expressed through 
>the person they elected as their representatives in the commons, not 
>through the political parties or the Cabinet.
>
>Technological inventions over 100 years have changed the political 
>dialogue and made voters spectators.
>
>Media convergence has diminished information sources and further removed 
>the political dialogue from the voters.
>
>Consequently there has been a breakdown of communication between electors 
>and their elected,
>
>The Cabinet and political party convergence has neutered the voters 
>representatives .
>
>The Political Parties are serving their contributor and member supporters 
>instead of the MP s representing the consensus of opinion and public 
>interest in their ridings.
>
>The absence of any means to obtain the Consensus of the Majority on an 
>issue and have that consensus represented in the commons. By default, the 
>controversial minority position is articulated in the media.
>
>The power shifts just stated also have enormous consequences in the 
>functioning of the commons committees and debates. The attempt by some 
>leadership candidates to reform the MP s committee s would be an exercise 
>in futility since it does nothing to address the other deficits I have 
>outlined.
>
>To this point I hope I have convinced you, not that there is a democracy 
>deficit, that is a given, but that I have correctly defined it.
>
>Before concluding the first part, there are two things that are current 
>that you might want to discuss over coffee.
>
>1/ First is Bill 24:
>
>That is the Bill that will subsidize the current political parties with 
>public funds to the extent that they were voted for in the last election 
>some 4 years previous. Whatever you give money to you empower. I hope I 
>have demonstrated tonight that the political parties, as presently 
>constituted, are a major part of the problem. Public funding should only 
>go to those candidates who are seeking the support of the voters.
>
>2/ The second is "Proportional Representation".
>
>What proportional representation will invite is exactly the opposite to 
>what we need to have a functional democracy.
>
>The media thrives on conflict. It attract readers for the advertisers. To 
>have a conflict, it needs to pit the issues and political parties against 
>each other.
>
>The result of Prop. Rep. as it is known, will result in a proliferation of 
>issue specific political parties, which in turn will result in a 
>fragmented parliament, a House of minorities. We already have the Green 
>Party, the Family Coalition Party, there are 11 altogether.
>
>With Prop Rep we invite a fragmented parliament that can only function as 
>a national brokerage, "I ll vote for your special interest if you ll vote 
>for mine". Whichever idea can attract enough marketing money, and media 
>support, will prevail.
>
>We need to decide if we are going to have individual MP s represent the 
>Consensus of the Majority of their constituency, on particular issues, in 
>the commons, or if we are to be ruled by political parties.
>
>To conclude, there are three major areas of deficit.
>
>(1) Absence of A Community
>(2) Absence of Communication in Community (3) Absence of Representation
>
>
>
>
>
>Part Two - "Proposing a Solution"
>
>Our situation today is comparable to that of the feudal system where the 
>Lords and Nobles, the Elite, are in control, mostly by being the major 
>financial backers of the Media, the Corporations and Rulers.
>
>Due to the pervasive influence of TV, there is no longer a community and 
>therefore no community political dialogue. That dialogue has morphed into 
>a dialogue between the rulers and the media, both of which depend upon 
>corporate funds. .
>
>In fact, as Margaret Thatcher said, there is no longer a society or 
>community, only individuals.
>
>Paraphrasing Catharine Ford of Calgary Herald, "Every [geographic] 
>community must have an institution that stands for trust, and honour, 
>justice, equality, equity, and none partisanship". It needs a human 
>institution that a member of the community can turn to in time of need, 
>especially if it is only the need to meaningfully express an opinion on 
>the public affairs issues of the day".
>
>The absence of local dialogue and has left our elected representatives 
>without a Consensus of Opinion to represent. In the absence of that 
>opinion, they have no choice but to follow the lead of the Media, which, 
>as I have indicated speaks for the political and economic hierarchy.
>
>So we have three major deficits. A deficit of community, A deficit of 
>communication, and deficit of representation.
>
>In the absence of that community consensus I mentioned, the Media, The 
>Political Parties, and the Civil Service have kidnapped our elected 
>representatives. I said captured in the very literal sense of the word.
>
>There is a little known phenomena that explains the kidnapping.
>
>The Stockholm Syndrome
>
>Most of us have heard of the Stockholm Syndrome. Police officers are 
>especially familiar with it. That is, when a person is kidnapped, the 
>victims, because of their dependence upon the captor for their well-being, 
>identify with their captor to the extent of obeying and helping their 
>captor. The captor also needs the victim for his/her purposes.
>
>In extreme cases, in what has become known as the Patty Hearst Syndrome, 
>the victim will even adopt the agenda of the captor to the extent of 
>engaging in criminal activity.
>
>You may ask, what has that got to do with our elected people? More than 
>you think! The operative word describing what makes the victim obey and 
>align with the captor is "dependent".
>
>If we consider that not all captors threaten death, we have to recognise 
>that in most economic, social and spiritual relationships there is a 
>dependency, or interdependency. Additionally, not all dependencies are 
>illegal. For example Child - parent, spousal.
>
>Just as there is a multiplicity of dependencies, there is also a wide 
>variation in the intensity of dependencies. Again, what has that to do 
>with elected persons?.
>
>It is this. When we elect someone, usually that person has little 
>knowledge of the extent of the powers they have and the powers that will 
>be exercised on them.
>
>Recognising that knowledge is power, the Civil Service is a source of a 
>great deal of power. It has been said that they are custodians of the 
>official interpretation of reality.
>
>In fact the disparity between the knowledge of public affairs between the 
>electorate and the Civil Service is immense.
>
>An elected person becomes dependent upon the Civil Service for most of the 
>information from which policy decisions flow. The Cabinet relies 
>predominantly on the Civil Service.
>
>It is not necessary for a captor to physically kidnap a person. It is 
>sufficient to merely capture the person s imagination.
>
>Unless there is powerful countervailing input from the public who elected 
>him/her, the elected person will represent themselves, the Civil Service 
>or the special interest lobbyists.
>
>So, to repeat, to make a Representative Democracy work we need to 
>eliminate the three major deficits.
>
>We need a community that is none partisan, and focused on the public 
>interest and not the special interest of any group or organization. A 
>community that is defined the same way as our electoral system boundaries 
>are defined. Noam Chomsky has said that there is not a single NGO that is 
>organized on the same basis as out electoral system.
>
>We need to bring the community into a none partisan dialogue on the public 
>affairs issues so that we can have and express informed opinions without 
>fear of being vilified. So we can develop a sense of morality. Morality is 
>nothing more or less than agreement on what is right and what is wrong.
>
>We need a representative who will obtain the Consensus of Community 
>opinion on any issue, convey that to our elected representative so that 
>s/he can represent it, and give back to the community the representative s 
>response. A facilitator.
>
>Filling The First Need: "A clearly defined, none - partisan community".
>
>We have one already made. A legal electoral entity that is standing ready 
>for us to use and that is currently unrepresented.
>
>That is the Electoral Sub-Division.
>
>It is comprised, in most cases of about 100 - 150 homes and about 200 -300 
>eligible voters.
>
>The City of Oshawa has about electoral 300 polling subdivisions. The 
>Oshawa Riding has about 200 polling sub-divisions. An Oshawa Ward would 
>have about 20 - 25 polls and a regional ward about twice that 40 - 50.
>
>Filling The Second Need : "A community dialogue on legislation and 
>administration of our public affairs issues".
>
>Since we have all become such devoted couch potatoes, and since there 
>will, especially at first be few who will want to engage in a discussion 
>of public affairs, the ideal medium for such discussion could be that new 
>invention called the Internet, and the old invention called the telephone.
>
>The point is that, since it would be none partisan, the whole range of 
>opinion could be expressed. Because it would be with neighbours, there 
>would not be the animosity that usually attends (townhall) partisan 
>discussions.
>
>We have done ourselves a great disservice by taking the adversarial system 
>used in the courts, and using it in the political arena, where consensus 
>should be the main objective.
>
>Filling The Third Need : "To obtain the consensus of the community on an 
>issue and to facilitate the dialogue, we would need someone to represent 
>the polling subdivision". Someone who will introduce members of the 
>community to each other.
>
>That person could be either appointed or elected, so long as they would 
>recognise that they would be expected to be none partisan. I would expect 
>that such a person would be a respected person in the community.
>
>To make it effective, the poll representatives of those polls which 
>officially elected a member would have one of their number convey the 
>Consensus of the Majority to the elected person and communicate his/her 
>reply. We have seven elected persons. Municipal, Mayor, Regional, School 
>Bd., PUC, Fed & Prov.
>
>I cannot emphasize strongly enough, the whole exercise would be designed 
>to assist the people we elect to represent us. We elected them. We need to 
>support them in their efforts to represent our majority. REPEAT!
>
>Our elected members are the only people who stand between us and either 
>dictatorship or anarchy.
>
>With the Consensus of the Majority supporting them, they would be able to 
>withstand the media, the political party and the lobbying of special 
>interest groups and be unafraid of the rulers threat to dissolve and call 
>an election. Elected members who truly represent their electors are going 
>to be re-elected.
>
>The major benefit would be that, in the face of a consensus of the 
>majority the expression the negative option would have to be proven, and 
>expressed, by the media, the political parties and the special interest 
>groups themselves.
>
>Finally, the law, and it s administration could, and would, flow from the 
>people.
>
>How about the authority to appoint or elect such a representative? We have 
>the democratic right of speech, assembly and association. The legal 
>electoral entity of polling subdivision stands vacant.
>
>There is also the precedent of "Ratepayers Associations", except with the 
>difference that, instead of special interest or issue driven, it would be 
>driven by citizens with a spirit of community interest. It would obtain 
>for us a determination of "what is the best policy that will assure the 
>well-being of all of us".
>
>What about historical precedents? There are all kinds.
>
>"One of the most powerful third-sector forces in Japan is the 
>community-based mutual help organization, which includes more than 90% of 
>all Japanese households. Neighbourhood associations began to proliferate 
>in the 1920 s and 30 s, in large part to address the issues of rapid 
>industrialization and urbanization. From Charles Handy s "Age Of Paradox"
>
>"After WWII, neighbourhood groups resurfaced as self governing 
>associations without legal ties to the government. Known as "jichikai", 
>these organizations now exist in more than 270,000 neighbourhoods. A local 
>jichikai generally constitutes of between 180 and 400 households. Its 
>leaders are elected and usually serve two year terms. Pp 277-8 The End Of 
>Work, by Jeremy Rifkin, (1995)"
>
>"During his first term as governor (1672-82), the Comte de Frontenac 
>attempted to establish a Canadian version of the States General, the 
>ancient consultative body that had once aired public grievances to the 
>Bourbon kings of France.
>
>"As governor (1672-82), Compt de Frontenac added the local judiciary to 
>the traditional three estates ("classes") of noblemen, priests and 
>commoners. It seemed that a democracy was taking shape in the far-flung 
>domain of the Sun King.
>
>"Intendant Colbert was afraid that the idea might grow to threaten the 
>royal authority. Colbert also ordered the governor "quietly to abolish the 
>syndic which presented requests in the name of all the habitants, it being 
>a good thing that each man speaks for himself and that no one speaks for 
>all." In this way, even the token popular representation of 30 years 
>standing was dissolved. Intendant de Meulles wrote at the time that, "It 
>is of very great consequence that the people should not be at liberty to 
>speak their minds." Reader's Digest "You and the Law" (1973) Pp 48. 
>Flirting with Democracy
>
>So to conclude. We have a clearly defined democracy deficit. We have a 
>proposed solution. A model or plan to eliminate it.
>
>A Vision is but one part of what is needed. It also needs Civil Engineers 
>to assemble the pieces within the parameters of the vision.
>
>It also needs implementers to take the blueprint and actually build it.
>
>It is rare indeed, especially in our technology intensive environment, 
>that a person can be all things, visionary, engineer and implimentor.
>
>Anthropologist Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of 
>thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only 
>thing that ever has."
>
>Ontario Hydro was brought into existence by three people. Sir Adam Beck, 
>an engineer and visionary, politician, and a reporter.
>
>Genesis: 18: 20: 32
>
>Jonah 3: 4: 11
>
>There are many good people in Canada. A couple of years ago there was a 
>call by Durham Region for participants for an advisory council on long 
>term waste management. As one of the hundreds of successful applicants, I 
>was most impressed with both the quality and quantity of members.
>
>My studies of human nature in my lifetime have shown me that most of us 
>are Cowardly Lions, Straw Men, and Tin Men. We only need a Wizard!
>
>Will there be opposition? Of course, the idea will thwarted by those who 
>currently wield power. We can expect to be ignored. If that does not work 
>then other methods will be employed. No one has ever given up power 
>without a struggle.
>
>In today s (May 25th, 2003) Toronto Star Shadia Drury, political scientist 
>at Calgary U. and author of "Leo Strauss and the American Right" is quoted 
>as saying "Deception of the citizens by those in power is critical." 
>Strauss is the chief architect of the neo-conservatism in power to day in 
>the US.
>
>Across Canada there is a stirring for electoral reform. In BC a non 
>partisan commission. In Ont. the Fair Vote group advocating Proportional 
>Representation.
>
>I have given birth, you are the midwives. Hillary Clinton said, it takes a 
>community to raise a child. But not to raise the child, only to provide an 
>environment for the parent(s) to raise the child.
>
>It remains only to set out the guideline (mandate) of how to represent a 
>polling subdivision and obtain a spokesperson to present it to the 
>formally elected representative so that the elected member must represent 
>the consensus of the majority in the legislature/commons instead of the 
>political party policy.
>
>Lists of electors by Polling subdivision are available from Elections 
>Canada. All we need to elect a poll representative is a candidate, a 
>neighbourhood place, garage or livingrooms, A clerk with a list of 
>electors, A scruitineer to verify the vote count.
>
>This would give the opposition real power. Much greater than the public 
>opinion polling companies.
>
>To formalize the organization and assure that there is only one polling 
>subdivision representative we would need a central registry for the 80,000 
>polling subdivisions in the 301 federal ridings.
>
>Suggested is an appropriate name, "Internet - One Taxpayer Association" 
>IOTA, meaning the smallest electoral district.
>
>Ed Goertzen
>
>Oshawa
>
>Copyright relinquished with attribution

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       Don Chisholm (44.00N 77.01W)  613 476 1700
    donchism at magma.ca   www.magma.ca/~donchism
                 GPC http://www.gaiapc.ca
                                   <<^^>>
  "The fact that this has not happened before says nothing
about what's needed now for survival."        R. Theobald 99
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/gaiapc/attachments/20030612/9a57eba5/attachment-0001.html