How To Rig A Majority Government
..."Genuine self-government involves people who will be servants to the citizenry's needs and not masters over them. This also means the citizens must refuse to allow elections to be done to them but that elections must essentially be done by the citizens."...
Here is a very important and timely post form Eduard Hiebert, that needs to be digested and acted upon prior to the upcoming election - which intends to remove what ever little democracy that is left.
Suspect the recent C51 & C52 debacle has put Harper and his ilk in a difficult position - as I am sure his handlers are none too happy and will surely give him a failing grade - hence this face saving and possibly a remedial election! Not to mention the subconscious message by announcing the election on Sunday - could it be just a little jab against the law of god to boot? Clearly he means business this time as he needs to extend his near dictatorial control to a complete dictatorship!
Chris Gupta
--------------------------
"Vote-splits in any constituency are the basic building blocks by which a party, with only paltry minority popular support can achieve the majority of seats in government, hence a phony majority."
Vote splits work to the advantage of Harper and Dion's puppeteer's and hurt all of us re C51, the CWB (Canadian Wheat Board), health care, education..... All of the Liberals, NDP, Green, all other candidates all help to split the vote and increase chance for Harper to get a phony majority and then do real damage. This risk is very big!!!!!!!!
The risk/reward ratio of actually getting something done through current efforts of lobbying government is very poor and over the years getting poorer. There are already all kinds of matters where over 80% of the population does not want something done and yet the governments ignore the populations.
The following is not part of any political party partisan body of activity and I ask you to give it some serious consideration as a means whereby the citizens, collaboratively with their neighbours can actually affect and advance "self-government" in the interests of the common good instead of being governed by...
As a positive and productive supplement to the status quo of current elections, the following outlines a method by which the significant gap between what the citizens want and our "elected" can be reduced simultaneously by actually focusing on and first reducing, then with greater community collaboration, eliminating electoral vote-splits. Vote-splits in any constituency are the basic building blocks by which a party, with only paltry minority popular support can achieve the majority of seats in government, hence a phony majority. (Example: Mulroney with only 40% popular support for free trade, gained a "majority" government with well over half the seats in government. Every "majority" government elected since then has also in reality had a minority of popular support, but our "first-passed-the-post" electoral system awarded this minority with a majority of the seats in government.)
For an outline of how few citizens within one electoral district, without electoral reform, can now already achieve more accountable democratic government, one district at a time, where the majority and not the minority have control of government, please see Electoral ReformFurther to this outline, the following provides further supporting background information as a basic introduction to some key understandings assumed within this outline.
Our current single-mark ballot system, to the advantage of the status quo power imbalance, often misnamed erroneously as the "first-passed-the-post" system, is extremely vulnerable to vote-splitting. Vote-splitting divides the voice of a majority. Consider the majority of say 5 out of 9 citizens, who divide their vote between two similar candidates with A receiving 2 votes and B, 3; while C, not approved of by the majority, receives 4 votes AND is elected!
Should the citizens conduct a pre-election poll using a preferential ballot (vote 1,2,3...; often called the Instant Run-off Vote), the people, with democratic certainty, can know who the two most popular candidates are. In this case, likely B & C; and with this information in hand prior to the election, on voting day vote more effectively with the limited power of the single-mark ballot and thereby refuse to allow a non popular candidate, the opportunity of slipping up the middle.
In further recognition of our current electoral system being woefully inadequate -- where a minority of popular support ever more routinely produces a phony majority government -- Canadians in Ontario, PEI and BC have demanded electoral reform.
If we called these recent attempts, where those in government steered the reform process, Plan A; then the following outlines not only why a Plan B is made necessary but how, with democratic certainty, citizens can now already, even without electoral reform, collaborate during the very next election, reassert their sovereignty and eat of the fruit of self-government!
First, 'self-government', as a yard-stick in contrast to 'governed by', is a key defining characteristic by which any democracy may be contrasted and tested, not only in comparison with earlier non-democratic forms of governance but may also be applied to those governments which are ruled by impostor or feign-hearted democratic counterfeit leaderships. Nor need we go to extremes like the recent Kenya, Pakistan or Zimbabwe elections, in order to see first-hand how perceptively useful the measure 'self-government' is in teasing out the difference between lip service and real democracy!
Considering further, the aforementioned provincial electoral reform attempts; reform efforts flowing from genuine self-government is like good rules of the road, which enables, empowers and pre-disposes the citizenry to easily step forward incrementally towards higher, more pleasing and egalitarian forms of self-government than the prevailing status quo.
And what of these provinces actual experience? At the point of start-up to the reform process, few, if any politicians would deny that shameful levels of anti-democratic governance experience abounded, though more often than not, they would be quick to acknowledge that a 'democratic deficit' exists, without ever defining its cause nor drawing attention to who actually benefits from the problem. And when the multi-million dollar cost of the process to the public purse was over? Not one province produced one measurable democratic step forward! When we now apply 'self-government' as a citizen focused measure, this lack of progress in plain sight of a huge problem, ought at the very least give pause for thought as to whether a red cautionary flag ought to be raised?
With Plan A having failed the citizens and each day of delay adding wanton costs to the public purse and the environment, might now be a good time to see if there is a Plan B by which the citizens, without having to rely on others, can get the job done? After all, does self-government not imply that it is the citizens and not others who will not only benefit, but in the end must see to it that the job actually gets done?
To zero in on the most practical point to affect change, Canadian democracy is built on a series of checks and balances which have been likened to the stability of a three legged stool, made up of the citizenry, parliament and the judicial system. Every parliament has a maximum term of office and contains an election period, and a period between elections.
During elections, candidates may 'kick up' and promise the moon, but once elected, particularly when acting as a pact, have been known to 'kick down' and refuse with impunity to give an account by stating, if you don't like our government, elect a different one the next time!
In short, elections are the easiest point where one change the horses and direction of government. That's also why, all kinds of vested interests pour great gobs of money into elections, trying to influence who gets elected. However, the most vulnerable spot in all of this is our single-mark ballot system, routinely shined up as a "first past the post" system, as a means to divert attention from the fact that the system is extremely vulnerable to vote-splitting. Vote-splitting divides the voice of a majority, say of 5, who divide their vote between two similar candidates A and B with 2 and 3 votes respectively; while C, not approved of by the majority, receives 4 votes and is elected!
By substituting the weasel words "more than any other" for the democratically sound minimum gold-standard of "majority rule", opens the door that a candidate, basis a phony majority as just presented, will be declared elected. And quite simply put, a minority of popular support accumulated over several local phony majority elected candidates, may, and very often does, add up to a phony majority government!
Both 'governments' and 'governments in waiting' derive considerable benefit from the vulnerabilities of the single-mark ballot and as referenced earlier, have little incentive to want to affect genuine electoral change that would stop this buffoonery on a dime! If citizens were able to vote preferentially 1, 2, 3, (Canadian Wheat Board elections and Australian Senate are conducted this way) instead of being restricted to a single 'x', along with a proper majority count, eliminates the possibility of a phony majority at both the local and government level!
So why did not one of the provincial multi-million dollar province wide processes 'see' this solution? Another valuable test to differentiate between those who make promises too good to be true and those who are real, is to get a feel whether they are party to a political group intent on doing something 'to' you, instead of 'with' you. Genuine self-government involves people who will be servants to the citizenry's needs and not masters over them. This also means the citizens must refuse to allow elections to be done to them but that elections must essentially be done by the citizens.
In a single-mark ballot environment, citizens, with democratic certainty, can refuse to have the will of the majority divided, as illustrated above. With further parties having now entered the fray, where not one of the old nor the new is prepared to draw attention to the vulnerabilities of the single-mark system, due to more candidates running, the risks of a vote-split have increased since the time of the free trade debate, when then already 60% of Canadians did not want free trade, but split their vote between two similar candidates and the free trade candidate with but 40% support was elected. Now with more candidates, Harper can have even less than 40% and we run the very serious risk of him forming a phony majority government.
In any electoral district, with a bit of work, citizens can collaborate with their neighbour and thereby one citizen at a time, reduce the possibility of vote-splits by conducting a pre-election secret ballot preferential ballot poll (vote 1, 2, 3...) in order to determine just prior to voting day, which two candidates, based on true popular support, would be the last two candidates still standing and recognised by the majority as the two most popular candidates.
In the above example, that would likely be B and C. (Actual count methods are referenced in the link below.) Then use this information and the harm reduction strategy of voting for the lessor of these two evils. However, once the citizenry grasps the full power of the vote123 pre-election poll, not only will election turnout improve, the citizens as a group will be more able to encourage one of their own to run for office and have the best person elected, instead of currently, the lessor of several evils.
For an outline of how a few citizens within an electoral district can begin to organise the entire local district and thereby one citizen at a time, gain democratic control over who is elected, please see the article "Taking Back Our Democracy".
In the advancement of real democracy,
Democratically yours,
Eduard
PS I look forward to your considerations hereof and how best to advance increasing our chances to enhance our democracy within Canada while we are still able and with people elected through this process, even if elected before hand, through this method the elected will be more accountable to the citizens that elected them.
posted by Chris Gupta on Monday September 8 2008
URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/09/08/how_to_rig_a_majority_government.htm
Related ArticlesArtificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn
Please watch this short 5 minute video: Little Things Matter: The Impact of Toxins on the Developing Brain Toxins such as Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Aluminum and other known and unknown chemicals, that are often above the legal limits, are deliberately added to our water to manage the disposal of toxic industrial waste chemicals under the pretense of "safe and effective" for water fluoridation mantra.Knowing and acting on the above should... [read more]
December 30, 2014 - Chris Gupta"Evidence Be Damned...Patient Outcome Is Irrelevant" - From Helke
Further to The Future of Complementary/Integrative Medicine & Patient Choice, here is an important must read and act note from Helke Ferrie, a superb Medical Science Writer and Publisher. Now that the true colours of the well known shortcomings of allopathic medicine are being discovered en mass, the screws are being tightened by the pharmaceutical masters on their medical puppets. It seems that they are prepared to stop at nothing.... [read more]
September 16, 2011 - Chris GuptaMisconduct Of Health Canada Bureaucrats
Help us force the Leadership of all four establishment parties to deal with your top ten needs in this 2011 Canadian Federal Election a message from Trueman Tuck April 18, 2011I have been a leading Peoples' Champion against Canadian Federal bureaucratic tyranny for over three decades and can prove to anyone interested in listening, that our Canadian Federal bureaucracy is out of control. If you need help go to... [read more]
April 18, 2011 - Chris Gupta
