Submission JAARSMA-1032 (Online)

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to this process.

First, I want to acknowledge that our system has major flaws and does indeed deserve some major modifications. However, I would argue that despite it's shortcomings, FPTP has created a country and a province that is the envy of many around the world. Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I would suggest that the following revisions be implemented:

1. That the maximum term between elections be three years and that there should be no fixed election date. The main effect of fixed election dates is to lenghten the actual campaign period. We can anticipate these campaigns getting longer and longer and more expensive as time goes on. The main reasons for advocating a three year maximum term is twofold: First, it is during elections that our government faces its most direct accountability. Forcing all parties to stand up and account for their actions on a more regular basis will encourage them to be more willing to engage the citizens in intelligent debate. Longer terms enable unpopular decisions to fade in memory and be lost in the debates that should be taking place. The second reason for the three year term is a bit more subtle but one that could have the more dramatic effect. The current four or five year term causes parties to be overly cautious and political in their actions as the consequences of losing are so dramatic. For example, given that parties tradionally last for at least two terms in office before being seriously challenged, a government losing an election faces the prospect of at least 8-10 years out of power. This reality forces them to consider this aspect with a greater priority than whether or not they are truly acting in the best interests of the citizenry. I believe that the three year term would encourage better decision making and obliquely, encourage longer range planning. The current system encourages short term planning in conjunction with the next election. The shorter term will force governments to think well beyond the next election.

2. I feel that all campaign financing should come from the public purse. Money is corrupting the system and with the current fixed election dates and the resultant longer actual campaign period, political parties can't help but become more and more beholden to their financial supporters.

The public financing could work like this. First, a candidate would have to qualify by collecting a certain number of nominating signatures of registered electors in the constituency in which he or she would want to run. I don't know what the number should be however, it should be high enough so as to ensure that anyone able to collect them would either have to have a significant organization or broad support in the community. Once qualifying, the candidate would then receive the campaign funding. No other money would be permitted to be spent by the candidate. If the qualifying candidate was a member of a political party, the party would then receive a further amount which would be spent on central campaigns. Again, only the money received in this way would be eligible for election spending.

By adopting these two reforms, I believe that we would have effective and responsive government that would give citizens a greater opportunity for ongoing participation.

Thank you for considering my suggestions.