Category Archives: Founder

By-elections

singhThe NDP Leader is running in a by-election in Burnaby south on February 25. There are two issues here, the one of Party Leaders running in by-elections in order to have a seat in the House of Commons, and the second of the calling of by-elections. I’ve suggested solutions to both in previous posts.

For seats in the House have a class of non-voting members of the Commons. Many legislatures have this around the world. Any Leader of a Party that has members in the House would become a non-voting member of the Commons when they become Leader, if not already a member of the House of Commons. Immediate access to the House and no need to ask a Party MP to step aside as so often happens.

The second issue of the timing of by-elections is to take it out of the hands of the political monarch (PM) of the day. Have 4 set by-election dates set 3 months apart. Example being the first Monday of the months of November, February, May, and August. When a seat goes vacant then a by-election to fill the seat is held on the second set date after the seat goes vacant. Example if a seat went vacant now, January 15, then a by-election would be held for the first Monday in May. A by-election is held 3 to 6 months after a seat goes vacant. Simple for the voters, but beyond the comprehension of politicians, and not even thinkable for Party Leaders. Especially for those who think they will be the political monarch after the next election.

Still here and belonging to a Federal political Party where I as a rank & file member directly vote on all resolutions, policies, by-laws, and Party constitution amendments. This done by being a registered member of the National Assembly of the Federalist Party of Canada.

Advertisements

Fragmentation

QCpartiesThe Quebec General Election this last Monday has confirmed a trend of fragmentation in our politics. The winning party (CAQ) only took 37% of the vote and this vote represents only 25% of all Quebecois eligible to vote. The 2 largest parties (CAQ + PLQ) just clear 60% of the vote and together not even half of all voters at only 40% of the electorate. There are 4 parties in the new National Assembly with the two minor parties (PQ / QS) having a respectable number of seats but more importantly each got a significant share of the vote at 17% and 16%. Also, perhaps unnoticed, is the Green party and Conservative party who each broke past the 1% mark.

I strongly recommend to separate the executive vote and legislative vote so our provincial elections would be like the municipal where you vote for the mayor and separately vote for your councillor. In the provincial it would be for a Council of Ministers and your MNA. A maximum of 4 Councils for the executive and a maximum of 6 candidates for the National Assembly. Both elections to be by majority vote achieved by a preference ballot or by a run-off election.

John McCain

mccainAnother old lion of the Senate who’s roar is now silenced. A measure of a true statesman is someone you will listen too respectfully even though you strongly oppose their position on the issue. RIP John McCain 1936 – 2018. Wait and see if it’s Arlington he’s buried in. No, it is to be the US Naval Academy cemetery and he’ll be buried there next to a close friend, the late Admiral Charles (Chuck) Larson.

Another Liberal party

Now the Quebec Liberal party does it. Different motivation but same result a political party’s nomination doesn’t belong to the party’s members.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/mna-francois-ouimet-throws-in-the-towel-says-premier-broke-his-word

As stated in the preceding post the Federalist party has different rules governing its’ nominations for election. Sending letter to Mr. Francois Ouimet.

 

Same old Same old

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/incumbent-liberals-who-meet-new-conditions-wont-have-to-face-nomination-challenge/article37761517/

The same old and same old story repeating again. “Some are better, some are worse, but in the end, they are all the same.” In the Federalist Party it is done differently. All Party members in good standing can run for the nomination if they can be a candidate for the House of Commons. However there is section 4.7 of the constitution that states.

4.7 The Congress in regular session by an absolute three-quarters majority vote can bar a party member from being a candidate for the Federalist nomination for the House of Commons. The Congress by an absolute two-thirds majority vote can rescind the Candidacy of a member after they have won the nomination election. This is to be done within 90 days of the nomination.

There are no protected nominations, they are all open, and you want it, then earn it. There is no secretive committee deciding behind closed doors whether you can run or not.

11.3 The Leader shall sign all nomination and Election Canada papers. Any refusal shall mean the automatic and immediate expulsion from the Party.

Clearly removes the potential for abuse by a Party leader. 

Guilt by Social Media

This is how fast things go now and there is no defence possible for the victim. Our system says innocent until proven guilty but with social media you are charged, tried, and convicted within minutes. Truth is irrelevant, facts are not necessary, and due process is a quaint old fashion idea that just gets in the way.

He should step down to avoid trying to lead a political party in an election and going through an investigation on these charges at the same time. If it wasn’t near an election, step down, have an interim leader, and resume if you are cleared of any wrong doings but time doesn’t allow for this. He should be allowed to run for the Ontario PC Party if the members in that riding want him to be their candidate.

With the Federalist Party the party’s Congress can bar a person from running but not the Party Leader.

 

Government Shutdown

trumpsdWasn’t he suppose to clean this up? A government reform to end this sort of reoccurring nonsense is to have an departmental budgetary allowance for all parts of government. Each department, agency, or part of government has a monthly allowance that increases at the rate of inflation. The department of defence could start with a monthly allowance of $55,000,000,000 that gets raised each quarter to account for the inflation rate. The same would be true for all other departments and agencies like the EPA, NASA, and the like. Government bodies like the House of Representatives, the Senate, Supreme court, and the White House would also have a monthly budget to finance their operations. If a department shows their over budget for 12 consecutive months then that and only that department suffers a shutdown which imposes spending constraints as set forth in law. One of them should be no official gets paid more then the average national income which I believe is around $56,000 for the USA. Any official in the affected department that has a salary of more then $56,000 has that salary brought down to that amount for the duration of the shutdown until the department is no longer over budget.

The departmental budgetary allowance establishes a permanent funding of all government operations. When the House, Senate, and President can finally agree then and only then is the amount of the allowance changed either an increase or decrease in that funding.