Saturday, December 15, 2012

Diane Francis and Direct Democracy!

Diane Francis is a high profile writer (for the Globe and Mail?). Back in February she wrote a powerful piece about the need for Direct Democracy in Ontario. This was predicated by the Drummond report about Ontario's fiscal mess. He gave 360 steps that the government should take to get things back in shape.
But, she says - will they? The big flaw in our system, she says is - representative democracy. She says that politicians buy our votes by over-spending - especially from pressure by the huge chunk of our voting public which belong to the public sector. This huge unionized group represents our country's single biggest   disadvantage , she says.
Only where voters in their particular jurisdiction can vote, when wanted, upon such questions as - "how much of a budget increase, if any, should the city?province?federal governments be permitted next year?" can discipline be imposed upon our politicians. It would actually make their lives easier, she says.
She refers to a relative, a mayor of a small municipality in the US where they permit direct democracy by his electorate, who was grateful for this sort of involvement by his voters recently.
It is a proven way to overcome profligacy.
We must find a way, here in Ontario, to have this direct involvement by   ultimately accountable citizens to get back control over their government.  Thank you Diane.



Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The Power of the People, Where is it in Canada?

Did you read that article by Bob Hepburn in the Toronto Star of Dec. 5? Democracy just is not working here. He effectively pointed out the relative inadequacy of your elected representative in pursuing your ideas or agenda. It is the party line  to which that  person more often must adhere, and for which he spends most of his time.  Nothing new there. It has been the way it works - since, when - 200 years ago when parties first evolved?
What Hepburn does not well answer, however, is just what , in this modern era, one can do about it.  He does suggest a few ideas - try talking to him or her, more, for example. A recent poll indicated that over 80% of Canadians are not happy with democracy, here. Hepburn noted that.
But he does not get to the real answer - which is to press for the implementation of Direct Democracy. Then, when enough individuals are concerned about an issue (to sign a petition towards answering the issue), referendums can be voted  upon by the people. If passed, such ideas must become law.
That is the way it is done, often, in  about 20 of the United States,   within all three levels of government in Switzerland, etc. But, we must get to the member to have it implemented within party policy first - before it will become law. Why not do that? Tell your member to make that as a part of its party policy - or you won't vote for  him or her at the next election. That would get some proper answers to the problem.  Democracy would actually work, as designed - the power of the people would prevail, not the power of the party.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Michigan votes in favour of a new bridge.

Guess that you noticed that Michigan voters did not, on November 5  support the wishes of the local owners of the Ambassador Bridge to void the construction of a new one funded entirely by Canada.
About 60% of the electors at that presidential election night disagreed with the highly funded effort by the family to ignore the friendly overtures by their Ontario neighbours. It was certainly an interesting exercise, to determine the wishes of Michiganders by a democratic referendum.
Many other interesting questions were answered in similar fashions on that same day by   the twenty or so other states that  allow such demonstrations of democratic feeling. For example, Washington and Colorado (but not Oregon) voters felt it should be legal to smoke small quantities of marijuana. This result was despite the fact that such laws are federal in nature. It will clearly be more difficult to enforce them in those states; and - probably also in the adjacent province of British Columbia.
And three more states voted contrary to the majority of others in the country to permit same-sex marriages. All of this going on next door to  us, while we in Canada ignore the fact that our laws do  not permit such voices of democracy to speak. Will we, in Ontario, Canada, ever reach the 21st Century, where easier means of communication almost  demand better means for the citizens to express their points of view?

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

A new bridge from Windsor to Detroit?

Very interesting referendum taking place in Michigan on Nov. 5. It relates to the proposed, new bridge from Windsor, which Canada is saying it will pay for, completely - including access points from Detroit. The major legislators from rather  deep debt, Michigan are, perhaps naturally, much in favour, with its friendly neighbour . But, the family which   owns the current Ambassador bridge,  and has a virtual monopoly over nearby cross-border traffic is strongly opposed. And, by Michigan law, if they obtain sufficient signatures upon an appropriate petition, they can force a vote by the citizens upon the issue. Furthermore, if they disclose how much money is being spent towards advertising their cause (now up to 31 Million dollars) it can try as hard as they want to persuade their fellow citizens  to vote their way. Ontario has spent a lot of money already preparing for the entranceways, anticipating approvals from Michigan. One might feel that the cause is obvious. No cost to Michigan, a new bridge to help overcome, anticipated  increasing traffic. But there are some reasons, it seems, to oppose it, besides the desire to maintain the current monopoly. An editorial in the National Post on Oct. 31, points out many negative points  that might not have been obvious otherwise. Anyway, we shall see what the democratic voices of Michiganders have to say about the new , proposed international bridge on Tuesday. Would that we in Ontario had opportunities to vote upon some issues happening up here; (such as prerogation of parliament to permit new leaderships?)

Monday, October 15, 2012

Same-sex marriage voting in USA

Four states in the USA are holding referendums in November to legalize same-sex marriage. The Economist magazine in its Sept. 15 issue suggests that they are likely to pass. This despite the fact that at the last referendum on the subject , in California,  and at least ten other states, the public voted against the idea. Campaigners seem to be very active upon both sides in trying to persuade the voters. But according to recent polls more young adults, in particular, are moving behind support of the idea. Personally, this writer is very much opposed to the concept. However, if it is the will of the majority, then in a democratic society (in which many US states clearly reside, where votes of their citizens can determine issues), then one must respect such choices. If only Ontario was truly democratic, it could decide some issues that way also.  This would be rather than simply permitting representatives of parties to decide questionable issues, without in any way consulting their voters, as happened just a couple of years ago, re: same-sex marriage in Canada.  Maybe we citizens might vote the idea down, as in California, and elsewhere.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Casinos not to be decided by the public in Ontario?

Democracy in North Bay - and elsewhere in Ontario is not followed when it comes to allowing gambling casinos. The ten councillors and mayor in North bay pretend to be democratic. They knew that the province might permit a casino to be emplaced there. And so, they, pretending to be very proper and righteous called a public meeting  where the idea would be discussed. The vast majority of people present voiced strong objections. Many including the past mayor and current member of provincial parliament, asked them to hold a referendum upon the idea. But by a ten to one vote in mid September, 2012 the council decided that they would encourage such casino.  No need to ask their constituents. Isn't that shameful? Pretending to  be democratic, but upon a very significant question, about which none had used their opinions at the last election to indicate their position,  they simply ram-roaded home their viewpoint, or own conclusion. When will we, the public, wake up to the need to force our elected reps to heed our views on important issues via properly pursued referendums? Other states and municipalities effectively follow such democratic routes. In this modern age of advanced communication and knowledge we, in Ontario, are still in the middle ages when it comes to the running of our affairs, it seems.

Georgians vote against improving their roads!

The Economist magazine recently has criticized the voters in the state of Georgia who voted heavily against a referendum held there. The question put to the voters in a July statewide primary  was pretty simple; - to impose a temporary 1% sales tax in order to fund some much needed transportation projects. Money raised in the 12 regions of Georgia would be used to improve roads within each area. It would come up for renewal after ten years; if required revenue would be raised before then, the tax would go away. But, in nine of the 12 regions the voters said - no. "Tea-partiers" thought it was too much, and Sierra Club supporters considered it too little. But, what it did was to prove to the authorities that the people had minds of their own. To put a similar vote to the people must wait another 4 years - the approving of a ballot measure, creating a new list and voting again would take that long.  Let us hope that Georgia finds simpler solutions perhaps to their transport requirements.  

Federal spokesmen in USA opposing pot referendums

You have noticed the number of states where referendums are being pursued this November to deciminalize marijuana. Well, according to Reuters, it seems that nine former heads of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration are urging the Attorney General to take a serious stand against the possibility that some of the votes may be positive. "To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives," said the message. It seems that the message is similar to one used in a California initiative in 2010 that ultimately failed, with 53.5% of voters then, rejecting the idea. Public Referendums are powerful voices in a democracy. They must be listened to. They should be used more.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Marijuana laws to change in 8 US states?

Just noticed that there are seven states altogether pursuing  referendums about the legalization of marijuana during the upcoming November election. They are all proposing somewhat different details towards the same, general idea. The other states, besides Colorado, are: - Michigan, Missouri, Montana, California, Nebraska, Oregon and Washington.   Will Direct Democracy create changes in some significant legal areas, or will the people vote it down. Tune in in November!

Pot legalization on a ballot!

Colorado is among the many US states to permit referendums upon issues. This November there will be an opportunity there to vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use. A total of some 90,000 signatures recently obtained upon the initiative was sufficient to place the issue upon the ballot occurring the same time as the   presidential election. No other state has so legalized pot. The measure would not just legalize up to one ounce of marijuana for those over 21. It would also allow the growing at  home for up to six plants. Specially regulated stores could sell it, though communities could option out of such business permission. One cannot yet predict the success of this proposal. But is it not the right way to decide upon a controversial issue - getting the citizens to vote upon it? Direct democracy in action! When will Ontario reach the 21st century, to establish rules to permit referendums here?

Friday, June 22, 2012

Geneva, Switzerland, and troublesome protests

Did you know that in Geneva, Switzerland, a bastion of Direct Democracy, they held in March a   referendum upon a seeming popular subject; - the  disruptions caused by "protest" movements. The people voted by referendum to allow their government to fine organizers who do not obtain   approvals for a demonstration. The amount of the potential fine is Sw.F 100,000. That is not very dissimilar to what Quebec's legislature  ultimately had to do to get some control of the anarchy disturbing that province by masses of students who thought they had some sort of entitlement to cheap education.
Such a much better manner to handle rebellions. Determine what the majority wish by letting them have a referendum on the subject. But, do it before the issue gets out of hand.  Might  Ontario  some day attain such a level of democratic action, before it becomes unduly disrupted?

Wisconsin's newest democratic decision

One can recall the daring efforts of the governor of Wisconsin last year to try to get control of his state's terrible debts, by attempting to curtail certain aspects of the state employee's union's bargaining rights. A traditional bastion of socialism, the unions there had considerable might. The legislature was flooded by opponents; a significant portion of representatives actually left the state for awhile  to reduce the chances of a proper vote from happening. Well, the governor ultimately managed to get his way. But, his opponents were not finished. They decided to utilize a   state law permitting them to try to "recall" their governor. They needed a petition signed by 300,000 citizens. They got 600,000. And the referendum upon that issue was held. But, lo and behold, the majority of the citizens actually agreed to the governor's efforts to obtain control. They opposed the recall effort. What an example of Direct Democracy!  Why are not more such processes used in this modern age? Clearly in Quebec where many students seem to think their opinions are in the majority, such process is not available. Nor is it anywhere else, except in an awkward way in B.C. But, shouldn't it be? Students, -  start thinking out of the box - and towards Direct Democracy and its processes of petitions and referendums. You might actually improve the world, instead of making a nuisance of yourselves.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Electing mayors in Britain?

Did you know that most cities in England do not have elected mayors? The current government there thought that having such might improve local governing. And so, what did they  do?  PM Cameron authorized referendums for ten of the biggest  communities in Britain. And the result? Only one city approved the idea - Bristol. The majority of communities seemed to be wary of allowing a semi-strong local, elected  personage to sort of rule over them. London's experiment where, since the year 2,000, elected mayors tended to accumulate influence, even without formal powers may have swayed them negatively. An interesting difference from the fount of democracy, compared to our own; where we seem to like the idea of having heads of local government elected just about everywhere. But, the most interesting aspect of this process was - establishing referendums where the people's wishes would determine the outcome. Direct democracy was certainly put well into play. Sometimes the results are surprising - but very clearly it was what the  citizens wanted that counted.

Protesting Quebec students improving democracy?

Can one say anything favourable about the demonizing efforts of the young, but oh so wise(?)  protesting students of Quebec? They are trying to force their government to undo a proposal to reduce the debilitating debts of their province, by increasing their too low tuition fees? They have almost brought the operation of the government to a halt. The one semi-good thing about it is their allegation that what they are doing is trying to improve the democracy of their province. Democracy does need to be improved. Our method of representative democracy has hardly altered since its creation 150 years ago. But, why cannot they appreciate that the improvement that is needed is Direct Democracy, not anarchy? Have their poli-sci classes not taught them about it?  If their claim is so sound, it could be properly proven via a petition of sufficient numbers (possibly 5% of the citizenry) followed by a referendum. If properly instituted into the law, the results of that referendum would be binding upon the government. That would be the civilized, modern manner of improving democracy, and society; not wild and damaging protests.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Rights of citizens being trampled upon by judges.

So many recent issues - which could be determined by citizens, through their votes. If only we had the right to do so. Talk about democratic "rights" and the 30th anniversary of the charter of rights. Where within it does it give to the Canadian citizens, if enough are concerned about the issue, to vote democratically to see if their concern is shared by a majority of others? The only groups to which the charter gives power are unelected judges.
And so, how about them just the other day declaring prostitution a right; and also, giving a right to heroin users free access to centres at which to indulge their terrible habit? And of course all women must have a right to abort their expected daughter if they wish (now that they can have a right to know(?), of the expected sex long before the date of birth).
Maybe some or all of those issues are indeed favoured by a majority of Canadians. If so, in a democracy wherein by definition the majority of citizens should be the rulers, those matters could be part of the law. But, not yet in Ontario, or Canada, are we allowed that sort of right to decide. Is this the 21st century , or are we still mired back in 1867 - or even 1982?

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Little Slovenia shows its democratic muscle.

The people of the new, little country of Slovenia, most recently a part of Jugoslavia, have, it seems, a modern form of Direct Democracy to help run it. Recently their parliament passed a law permitting homosexuals to adopt children. But many of the citizens did not want that, and after obtaining enough names on an "initiative", required that the issue be put to a vote. And some 55% of the people voted against the idea. Such law was therefore annulled. According to their rules such question cannot be attempted again for at least a year. .
The North Bay Nugget in its issue of March 26, headlined the story by saying that "Slovenians reject homosexual rights". One may (or may not) disagree with their conclusion, but one cannot deny that a majority of the people do not want such "rights". And that is surely the essence of "democracy". Would that Ontario or Canada had any opportunity whatever of permitting their citizens to bring an issue of which many of its people want a say upon, to vote and be able effectively to show their opinion - as within new Slovenia.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Controlling Education in Quebec

English as a second language in the Province of Quebec. Would you not think that was a good idea - within the public school system? Most citizens there seem to agree, according to polls. But, it is not being implemented well, it seems. The teachers union there is opposed to needed improvements in that area, according to recent news reports from that province.
Well, regardless of different opinions on that subject would not that be a good sort of matter for a referendum? Would not that be the sort of question that citizens of a reputed democracy should be allowed a definitive vote upon?
It clearly would be, if they had Direct Democracy rules in Quebec. Of course, we do not have similar rules permitting citizens to have their say in Ontario, either. If they had do you think it would have been possible to have clamped down upon calamitous government indebtedness before it got out of hand - as now seems here to be the case? An awakened, and potentially accountable populace could do a lot to improve our fracturing system, it seems clear to me, at any rate.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Will Scottish citizens vote soon to secede from the UK?

Will Scotland settle the long-held wish by many of its citizens to become sovereign, free from the neighbour country, England, that essentially militarily conquered it several centuries ago, via a referendum of the people?
There certainly is a looming battle upon that vital question. The current, elected leader of Scotland's recently devolved government, Alex Salmond, hopes to call such in 2014. That will be a year when Scotland will be hosting the Commonwealth Games and marks as well, the 700th anniversary of a great, historic battle, won by the Scots. Its wording would essentially be - whether its citizens wish to quit the United Kingdom. The current leaders of the United Kingdom, including its prime minister, David cameron feel that such questions, if any, should be put now - without the extra enthusiasms likely in 2014. Just what will happen? Time will,of course tell. But if they were to follow the dictates of principled Direct Democracy, such a question should be worded via citizens initiatives, and not by the so-called leaders - and come when the citizens dictate. Regardless, a referendum will likely be presented soon. The people will be the deciders. And that is the way that democracy should work.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Sheila Copps supports more citizen involvement.

The recent meetings of the federal Liberal Party had some interesting aspects. To me it was the cry by presidential-nominee Sheila Copps that their party constitution be amended to establish a manner of reaching out to - she said, "millions" of potential members to establish policy. That was a refreshing alteration to the time-worn method of doing so via the few delegates who attend periodic meetings. Even when passed, the policies can now be readily vetoed by the leader, it seems. But, he or she might be less likely to do so if they were supported by such a large number of citizens. I would prefer, of course that such issues could be voted upon, where controversial, by the citizens, generally - via a referendum. This would occur at the same time as the votes for our members of parliament. That would fulfill modern democracy's needs for wider citizen involvement. And Copp's extension of party interest could help generate such greater participation by the citizens, as a whole, whatever their party affiliation, it seems to me.

Referendums to resolve current protests?

There are so many examples that come up in the news that cry for the use of citizen initiative and referendums. Abortion in Canada, where there are no laws on the books at all, is a good example. Our parliament seems incapable of entering into that area, it seems. Unelected judges and the unvoted- upon charter of rights are the only source of decisions at the moment.
Then there is the Alberta pipeline hold-up. In USA it seems that the president when confronted by some protesters can hold up billions of dollars of investment there; while here, will it be some money-demanding native groups who hold things up further, or some US environmental ones? In either case it could be majority opinions in a proper, democratic from that makes such decisions. Protests generally have much more clout and cause much more inconvenience than it is likely the majority of citizens appreciate. Would it not be better to expect that such groups mount initiatives of sufficient size, requiring a vote that establishes final enactment?
Toronto's awkward budgeting squabbles could be better handled, if necessary, by referendums.
Even, the controversial closing of swimming pools or librarys, likewise.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Georgia, subways and tazes

The state of Georgia has an inadequate public transport system according to some. But, to implement what is allegedly needed will obviously cost a lot of money. And so, the citizens there are being asked by referendum next November whether they would agree to a raise in their taxes for such purpose. Isn't that sort of amazing? - citizens actually having a say in such a major cause via a referendum. And preliminary polling on the issue in this day of the tea-party, no more-tax movement, points out the differences of view - between commuters into Atlanta, for example, and farther removed farmers. But, what a proper manner of handling the issue - a formal, democratic vote! It should determine in a proper, democratic manner just what the majority agree to. Would that more such issues be available to be decided by the citizens who must pay the costs and enjoy the benefits! But Ontario does not even have a procedure by which such a method can be utilized. No wonder so many citizens feel so left out of what is happening to them.

California's newest referendums - for financial sanity

California has been often mentioned as a huge area with a huge economy which has been using initiatives for referendums since the early 1900's. Many have pointed to them as a cause of some recent, economic malfunctions, though it has been a burgeoning, successful, state for decades. But, two measures to come up in November voting may well help to overcome recent issues. One would simplify income taxes, and extend sales taxes to cover services, while providing rebates to the poor. This could raise revenues by about $10 billion a year it is touted.
The other initiative is to "fix initiatives". It would create a council of experts appointed by the governor and political parties, who would screen proposals for "sanity and cost". These ideas are needed to overcome blockages caused mostly by unswerving political parties. California has been suffering from serious cash imbalances recently, created to a great extent by a complicated state legislature. The new referendums have been developed by a "supercommittee", which the Economist magazine said, might actually work. Why the state has not previously had a council of some sort to oversee initiative proposals is unclear.

Recent liquor Referendum in Washington State

Wine and spirits - they have been the cause of many referendums in the States, it seems. And just this past November a successful one in Washington caused that state to become the 31st state to privatize its liquor outlets (some 328 of them), according to the Economist magazine. It was helped by a record amount of a donation - by Costco, the warehouse store chain - of $22.5 million. The amount of money spent by proponents of one side or the other of a cause can create undue favouritism, some would suggest; and maybe the amount to be spent should be legally limited. But, people could say that that just creates an undue limitation upon the right to free speech. At least the monies expended were upon a much wider populace than within the few elected representatives. It must be harder to influence several thousands than for otherwise unknown lobbyists to influence the few who run the legislatures. Democracy is not a simple concept - but it is still the best!