Sunday, September 16, 2007

Sheila Copps isn't naive, so I guess she must be nuts!

Sheila Copps today called anyone who supports the Citizens' Assembly recommendation for change in the October 10th referendum "naive or nuts."

That's right - the 103 randomly selected, ordinary citizens who studied the issue for months and put forth a moderate, reasonable proposal that balances the best of our current system with fairer results are "nuts" and "naive."

Remind me again why this woman was chased out of federal politics?

So I'm happy to be called naive or nuts by Sheila Copps, I guess lol. Granted, I don't buy Copps' analysis at all.

Copps engages in some unoriginal scaremongering in her over-the-top attacks on the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system.

She spends most of her column fretting how so-called extremists could gain control of the Ontario legislature under MMP with only 2% or 3% per cent of the seats. This scenario is highly unlikely as tiny parties (which don't yet even exist) wouldn't hold the balance of power. A party with 43% of the seats will need more than 1% or 2% to get over 50% of the votes after all.

Ontario has no history of extremist movements garnering significant amounts of public support anyway. That won't change just because our voting system changes. The 3% threshold in the MMP proposal is high enough to keep out such extremists, in my opinion.

Why isn't Copps just as frightened by the very real horrors we see under our current voting system?

Under First-Past-The-Post, the separatist PQ won a majority government in Quebec in 1998 with fewer votes than the federalist Liberals!

In recent decades, our current voting system has handed the second-place party a victory in 6 out of 10 provinces, including Ontario in 1985. Now that's scary.

The only way to change our voting system is to take it out of the hands of politicians like Copps and give it to the citizens. The Citizens' Assembly is proposing a fair, modest recommendation that will give us stable, representative government that reflects the will of the people.


Skinny Dipper said...

Who determines if a political party is extreme or moderate? The Family Coalition Party may be considered extreme because they are a bunch of Bible thumpers. Then again, Tommy Douglas brand of socialism under the CCF had a streak of Christian values in his party's policies.

How about the Ontario régime under Progressive Conservative leader, Mike Harris? Even my use of régime implies that I thought Mr. Harris's government was extremist. He governed under the current First-Past-the-Post voting system. "Extremist" governments can operated under the existing voting system. If the Harris government wasn't extreme, then how about Bob Rae's NDP government?

Anonymous said...

So chalk this Liberal on the "no" side.

Add this to her support of the unveiling of the burqa as a requirement to vote in elections.

Ms. Copps has gone from media pundit of the National Post to the Sun Media Group. Is this the most bizarre post-politics career in recent times?

Dan said...

Yes, FPTP and big brokerage parties ensure no whackos like Randy Hillier of the Lanark Landowners Association ever get power. Wait, he's running for the Tories? There goes that argument.

Anonymous said...

Count this as a 'no' vote. It has much to be fixed.... another Liberal, saying try again with something better.

Matt Guerin said...

elspeth, First-Past-The-Post has much to be fixed. Mixed Member Proportional fixes it.