Canada’s Richest Family Likes Our Current Voting System … Because It Works For Them.

Their Newspaper, The Globe and Mail, likes it too.

(Jan 9, 2016):  The Globe and Mail is owned by  Canada’s richest family, the Thomsons. The Globe began its Jan. 6 editorial with what I’d call a lie … “Over the past decade, 3 Canadian provinces – BC, PEI, and Ontario – have held four referendums on scrapping First Past The Post. Each of these propositions went down to defeat.”

Now, that statement is ‘true’, but it’s not ‘really true’. The truth is that in B.C. in 2005, 57% voted to CHANGE to a Proportional Voting system … 57% voted for PR, BUT OUR RULERS WOULDN’T ALLOW IT.

Why not?  The corporations hate PR because Proportional voting systems are more difficult for them to control.  PR systems give people the governments they voted for. That’s why the Thomson’s don’t want PR.  With our First Past the Post system, the corporations and their media can usually get the governments THEY want.

In B.C., why did 57% lose to 43%?  Because the people who run this country don’t want Proportional Voting.  So 57% lost … and the 1% of the 1% won. Around the world, 50% plus 1 wins Referendums. Scotland would have separated from Britain by that vote. The same with Quebec – and with hundreds of referendums around the world.  But in B.C., on PR, 57% did not win.  THAT’S THE SAD STATE OF MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY IN CANADA TODAY.  WE SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED.

The real story is that the citizens of British Columbia voted for PR, and we still lost.  (And now the Globe and Mail tells us it never happened.)

Proportional Representation is important. It’s more democratic than the First Past the Post system we use now.  A PR system can help give us more democratic governments.  And more democratic governments will give us a more democratic country.  But the corporations will never allow democracy if they can stop it. The Corporations and their media are the enemies of democracy in Canada.

BUT we have a chance now to do something great because the Liberals have promised a new voting system.  So it’s up to us.  We have to beat the corporations and get the voting system that works best for us.  I don’t care what s system we choose, as long as we have a fair and democratic process. But it’s difficult to do this when almost every TV station, Radio station and Newspaper is corporate owned.

Jack Etkin:
The Bridge News Service

And check our Facebook Page and our Links’ page for a list of interesting websites…

3 thoughts on “Canada’s Richest Family Likes Our Current Voting System … Because It Works For Them.

  1. The BC Citizens Assembly report for STV should have been implemented, after winning a majority in the first referendum. The only “defeat” was for democracy, and truthful reporting.
    The BC CA took a years course on election method to arrive at an informed and disinterested decision. Most forms of so-called proportional representation are really only corporate votes for a “party.” The parties pick the individual representatives by order on their party lists. The voters merely decide what shares of the seats, that the parties get between them. This only gives proportional partisanship.

    So-called open lists with a vote for an individual party candidate are just first past the post on a party list, subject to the same split and wasted voting, between the list candidates, that the simple plurality system causes in single-member constituencies.
    All party list systems, open or closed, only proportionally share out the vote between parties.
    To remedy proportional partisanship, so that it is genuine proportional representation, requires the proportional count of a preference vote, to give PR within parties, as well as between parties.

    Indeed, transferable voting may transcend parties altogether, so that Canadians can vote as Canadians, democratically establishing prefered majority coalitions. That is why BC CA chose STV. Their report is Canadas best hope for genuinely democratic elections.
    I followed and submitted to both the BC and Ontario CAs, as recorded in my first free e-book:
    Peace-making Power-sharing:
    A second free e-book has more about electoral reform and research:
    Scientific Method of Elections:

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Mmm. I’d point out that BC did vote for FPTP in 2009, by quite a substantial margin. That doesn’t mean the 2005 referendum was democratic, but it does mean that support for STV in BC was probably quite shallow.

    “But the corporations will never allow democracy if they can stop it. The Corporations and their media are the enemies of democracy in Canada.”

    I won’t assume anything here, but I’d point out that a country using FPTP is still a democracy.


    • FPTP is not so much a democracy as a first approximation to democracy. The point of STV is to complete the job. An X-vote can only instruct a one-stage count. The preference vote allows the voters to instruct who will be elected in successive stages to an equitable count.
      Of course, public knowledge of STV is “shallow.” That was the point of the BC CA, to give a sample of disinterested ordinary people the chance to educate themselves and pass on a report, that Canadians would be well advised to read and educate themselves in, if they want to contribute anything meaningful to the current debate.
      Or who knows, even read this once dedicated ignoramus, who later repented to the extent of publishing two books on the subject.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s