David Suzuki endorses Joyce Murray

The electoral cooperation candidate gets a boost

by Aaron Wherry

Yesterday, Judy Sgro became the 19th Liberal MP to endorse Justin Trudeau. This afternoon, Joyce Murray has announced the endorsement of David Suzuki.

Mr. Suzuki’s endorsement seems mostly to do with Ms. Murray’s positions on sustainability and the environment, but he also mentions her plan for electoral co-operation.

It’s possibly important to note that Ms. Murray’s plan for electoral cooperation and democratic reform is a bit different than Elizabeth May’s plan for electoral cooperation and democratic reform. Ms. Murray would have the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens cooperate to defeat the Conservatives and, as Liberal leader, she would explore changes to our current electoral system. Ms. May would have the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens cooperate for the expressed purpose of changing the electoral system: a Liberal-NDP-Green government would exist specifically and only to change the system and then, once that was accomplished, a new election would be called.

I find Ms. Murray’s plan problematic, but at least it’s less problematic than Ms. May’s plan (otherwise known as the Coyne plan), as I explained at some length last month.




Browse

David Suzuki endorses Joyce Murray

  1. The Liberals don’t need electoral cooperation to win. If they appeal to moderate conservatives they will split the conservative vote and keep Harper away from majority territory.

    Proportional Representation is a dead issue. It has lost 4 provincial referendums and the media hates it (including the Toronto Star.) It doesn’t have enough support.

    Justin’s electoral reform idea is much stronger: Preferential Voting. It stops vote splitting and prevents extremists from getting majority power on 39% of the vote. It makes our existing system democratic, so it’s much easier to legislate.

    First PV then work on a PR/PV referendum.

  2. Would be interesting to know how many greenies are going to run out and signup as LPC “Supporters” now, just to muddle the leadership race up.

  3. Suzuki kiss of death

  4. That’s right. Deny the voter a democratic choice so you can pass laws to deny them a democratic choice. Proportional Representation has been a disaster in Europe. Nothing gets done because there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

    • “Deny the voter a democratic choice so you can pass laws to deny them a democratic choice.”

      That makes absolutely no sense. Canada and the UK are the only two countries that dole out absolute power to minority parties. The rest ensure a majority of voters are represented by government, which is the literal definition of democracy.

      There’s no reason why voters should get saddled with politicians and governments they don’t want and didn’t vote for. When the will of the super-majority is crushed under the tyranny of a minority, that is the opposite of democracy. (What Harper called a “benign dictatorship” while in opposition.)

      • The benign dictatorship never seemed to bother anyone as long as the Liberals were in power. You do get to vote again in four years. Restricting the vote to get a “progressive” coalition into Parliament is wrong on so many levels.

        • “The benign dictatorship never seemed to bother anyone as long as the Liberals were in power.”

          That has to be the most boneheaded statement I’ve read in a while. Obviously if Reformers like Harper were calling First-Past-the-Post a “benign dictatorship” when the Liberals were in power it was bothering them.

          It was also bothering many people across the political spectrum who want Canada to join the rest of the developed world in adopting a democratic voting system.

          Who said anything about restricting the vote? I am talking about voting reform not electoral cooperation. FPTP is wrong on so many levels, which is why almost all developed countries abandoned it decades ago.

    • “Proportional Representation has been a disaster in Europe. Nothing gets done because there are too many cooks in the kitchen.”

      Says someone who knows absolutely nothing about Europe.

      The developed countries with the strongest economic recoveries coming out of the 2009 recession all use Proportional Representation: 1) South Korea; 2) Sweden; 3) Slovakia; 4) Poland; 5) Finland; 6) Germany. Most of them are in Europe. They also have lower government debt than both Canada and the UK (the only two First-Past-the-Post multiparty countries.)

      Clearly Canada enjoys no advantage having all the power in the hands of one person who treats his MPs, senators and ministers like puppets, pawns and crash test dummies. Does this corrupt government justify FPTP? The opposite is true.

      • Oh, wow, Ron you know absolutely nothing about me and talk about cherry picking the facts. Those countries you have exalted have another commonality – they are all in the north. The EU took a year to put a lid on their debt problem. Greece had to have its PM replaced and go through two elections to find a stable government and even then, it was fingernail time to see if two parties could form a coalition. Belgium didn’t have a government for a year. The UK has tried a coalition for the last couple of years and it has been a disaster. Policies announced then scrapped, decisions made and then unmade. Clegg having hissy fits when Cameron does something without telling him. Alternative voting has been rejected by four provinces in Canada and the UK as a whole when the people were given a referendum on it. Face it, most people like their parliamentary system. If anyone is to blame for the concentration of power in the PM’s office, it is the Liberals and now they want to change the game because they are losing.

        • Look up cherry picker in the dictionary, there ought to be a picture of Ron.

          • Said a quintessential conservative zealot…

        • Clearly you have no idea what cherry picking means. The rest of your argument is ridiculous. Cameron has been able to bring in steep (economy-killing) austerity measures despite having to work in a coalition with a left-wing party. The provinces rejected PR, not the Alternative Vote. AV keeps the Parliamentary system intact; it simply requires that MPs earn their seats with a majority of the local vote. Trying to blame the Liberals for Harper is so absurd words cannot begin to describe…

    • Who’s denying them a democratic choice? There’s no requirement for there to even be an NDP or a Liberal party. Certainly no requirement for any individual person to run for office.

      Political parties are private organizations. They can choose who they want to run in a region or not. Or are you going to say we need to force enough parties to run to keep the left split?

      If any individual candidate of either party really doesn’t agree with their party not running a candidate in that region, that candidate is perfectly free to run on their own. There is no denial of democracy and anybody who says there is either doesn’t understand how our system works, or simply has ulterior motives in keeping the NDP/Liberal vote splitting alive.

  5. Something to do during the 17-year lull in the global warming thermocalypse.

    Meanwhile:

    Save the polar bears.
    Save the icebergs.
    Save coupons.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *