From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:49:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.150037.15701@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>The purpose of a bicameral legislature is to provide every person with
>>a "meaningful" vote...one chamber has representation by population,
>>and the other has whatever compromise is necessary to effect
>>"meaningfulness" for every person, even from a sparsely populated
>>regions.  There are two fundamental democratic principles...the right
>>to a vote and the right to self-government...the second chamber gives
>>effect to a sufficient measure of self-government for sparsely populated
>>regions.
>
>This is confused.  In a democracy, citizens elect their government,
>and each citizen should have a vote equal to every other.


>
>"Meaningfulness" is a problem in the first-past-the-post system of election
>(minority parties are shut out) but this has nothing to do with population
>density.  In rep-by-pop, people get the representation their numbers
>warrant, no more no less.  Living where there's a lot of land should not
>have any relevance.
>
>Your "right to self-government" is a red herring.  Individuals share
>interests in domains ranging from their own homes, to the world (e.g.
>on environmental issues).  This range of domains is supposed to
>be reflected in our federal system.  The citizens of each province
>have the right to govern themselves within that province in areas
>of provincial jurisdiction.  The citizens of Canada govern themselves
>within Canada in areas of federal jurisdiction.  There is no reason
>why voters living in sparsely-populated regions should have more
>influence than voters living in densely-populated regions over federal
>policies.


Nonsense! The point about provinces' rights seems to be taking a LONG time
to sink in in central  Canada. Let's see if yet another explanation will
help:

You say there is no reason why voters in small provinces should have more say
in federal matters than large provinces. Of course they do, if federal 
policies try to force the will of Ontarion on BC, or PEI for that matter.

Your point about equal votes is meaningful at a provincial/municipal level.

At the Federal level,
Canada is a nation of seperate provinces who were lured/bribed together
by various reasons. BC did not enter Canada just so it could say "central
Canada, rape and pillage our forests and mines, please, we're just a small
province, and we think that large Ontario knows what's best for us"
Did Quebec enter Canada to say "We're only 20-25% of Canada, so we're
happy for the rest of English Canada to tell us how to run our lives"

It is obvious that an Equal Senate (with a veto over Provincial interests)
is not only neccessary, but just plain fair. An equal Senate in effect says:
we come together as Provinces to form a union called Canada, however,
we are not giving up our right to govern ourselves over to the other
provinces, or the federal government.

You are saying that because of democracy, one part of Canada has the right
to tell another what to do, because of population. This might make  some
sense if Canada were a homogeneous region. Provinces may not be the ideal
way to organize regions/people but it's the best we have for now
(further subdividing can wait).

By clinging to democracy the way you do, you are telling British Columbians
to ignore their own provincial interests and future. BC does not tell
Ontario what to do, so Ontario shouldn't tell BC what to do. Population
has nothing to do with it (just as the USA doesn't tell Canada what to
do, simply because it is 10x bigger. By your reasoning, the USA should
be dictating Canada's policies). Granted we as provinces are not sovereign
nations, but the example is close, and fair. If push comes to shove, 
provinces are going to say to hell with Canada, the sacrifices outstrip
the rewards.

Anyway, you seem happy to say that "democracy" is a good enough reason
to justify 51% of one population (nation wide, provincial, municipal)
forcing the remainder to do what it doesn't want to. I see democracy
differently: for example, shareholders at a big corporation can vote
democratically (by shares). If they don't like the result, they can
put up with it, or dump their shares, and say "I've had it".

If you limit people to controlling one share, you get a better idea
of how I see democracy functioning: we can vote, if we're not to upset
about losing, we can abide by the will of the people, but in no
circumstances do I give up my own rights, and let other people
infringe on "personal sovereignty".

>
>Saying they should have more influence is to say that certain citizens
>are better qualified to vote than others, because of how they live.
>This begs an infinite number of questions about who is qualified to
>vote on what.

Yes. I as a British Columbian am by definition, better qualified to
vote on matters affecting BC than you are in Quebtario. I am also
better qualified to say whether I like chocolate or vanilla, no matter
how many people you line up against me! What's your point then?

It doesn't beg an infiinte number of questions. The last word is
always the individual, when individuals are concerned. That's
where the questions end.

IF you translate all this constitutional stuff into familiar circumstances,
it becomes easier to see who is right. Suppose Canada is a group of
students in a University dorm: a bunch of people belong to a big
frat (Ontario), a few are loners, and there's a big group of
exchange students (Quebec). There's some communications problems naturally.
The frat guys get out of hand a bit, and sometimes the rest follow
along just to quiet things. The exchange students feel outnumbered
sometimes, and act oddly at times in repsonse. CRISIS!!! 

The exchange students want
filet mignon for dinner, and the frat guys want kraft dinner. The
rest of the dorm just wants to eat! They don't want scraps, leftovers,
just a decent meal so they don't go hungry.

Does it turn into a food fight? Do the exchange students pack up and
tell the world what a crummy university this is? Hardly: they all
cook their meals seperately, and go to their own rooms to eat. The next
day, everyone is feeling beter over breakfast...
>
>If people living in the regions think they cannot be fairly governed
>by the federal government, then they should fight for decentralization:
>the transfer of power to their own province.  They should not try to give
>themselves unequal votes.

Quebec's tried that and what did it get? Platitudes. If Quebec didn't get the
decentralizing it wanted, then why should smaller provinces 
expect better treatment? And anyway, how will each province represent
itself equally, except through the Senate? Unequal votes means
they would be trying to exert power outside their jurisdiction. This
is not the case.
>
>
>Agreed.  The Senate should have been abolished, the House of
>Commons restored to representation-by-population, and natural
>resources made an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

I don't know the most palatable way to implement all of this.
For starters, devolving the majority of powers to the provinces.
The Senate should not be abolished, but instead represent provincial
interests. The closest model would be the Swiss cantons or the European
community, with each province similar to EC member states.
With all these powers devolved, the Parliament would largely be
redundant.

Natural resources are not enough for exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
For example, Quebec wants more economic and cultural powers.
>
>The dual-chamber system you describe is not a compromise because it
>has been entirely defined by you.  Now, Quebec nationalists demand
>extra representation for Quebecers on the grounds that they live in a
>distinct society.  Feminists demand a quota for females in the Senate
>on the grounds that they are systematically oppressed.  Aboriginals
>demand representation for their distinct races on historical and
>pragmatic grounds.  By demanding inequality for voters outside central
>Canada, EEE promoters have opened a Pandora's box of collective rights.

Not collective rights. Individual rights. If natives want to for
their own society (they never gave them up voluntarily), fine.
So long as one group never seeks to impose its will on another,
I'll be a happy camper.
>
>--
>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
>Montreal


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________