Submission JAARSMA-1032 (Online)
|
Submission By | Jim Jaarsma |
Address | Victoria, BC, Canada |
Organization | |
Date | 20040810 |
Category | Democratic elections, Electoral system no change |
Abstract
|
While our system has some major flaws, 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. [2 pages]
|
Submission Content
|
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.
|