From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:00:37 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

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.

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.

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.

People who favour giving more power to the regions should therefore give
up their bias towards centralized government in those domains.  The
combination of the two amounts to discrimination in favour of individuals
outside central Canada.

>The current proposal is all muddled-head in terms of fundamental
>principles, screwing up both chambers.

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.

>But to argue that the second chamber should not have rep by pop is
>not hypocrisy, it is just the compromise necessary between the
>fundamental rights of a person to a vote, and a region to
>self-government.

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.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics