Rep by Pop, Rep by Prop

By one principle, apportioning provincial distribution of Commons seats more closely to census results, proposed Conservative legislation as mentioned here makes for more apparent fairness. But by another principle, of course, providing for more careful parliamentary reflexion of people's electoral desires, the proposed increase in seats for Alta., B.C. & Ontario will serve to further unfairly distort, at least in the short term as Greens slowly grow. While I think the logically most preferable route to fairer representation is via the Senate, and Conservatives have tried something along these lines last couple of times out, there are still many ways to act more inclusively of electoral desires, all it takes is a bit of creativity applied in a supposedly supremely free Commons atmosphere. (Some exciting things might have ensued from the Dion-Layton coalition, which too many Greens uncomprehendingly seemed to be against.) Parties can acquire standing and achieve fuller public purpose in various ways short of proportional representation by seats. From this post here,

"these & other "events [...] should be a wake-up call to those who want to preserve a Westminster-style parliamentary system." Facing perpetual minorities, "it is incumbent on our leaders to find ways of dealing with implications arising from the parliamentary combinations the people elect." [which should be amended to "combinations reflecting what people actually vote for"] This is part of the general electoral reform theme GPC should (& should have) placed in the forefront of a campaign. (See my many comments about the failed coalition, other cross-party co-operation, &c on this blogsite.) GPC should announce, even as part of a campaign, that "it is time to embrace Professor David Smith's recommendation for the creation of an independent body or royal commission 'to study the law, conventions, usages, and customary understandings that guide parliamentary government in Canada.'" Levy would have such a commission consider "repeal or change [of] the fixed election law [which] has done no good and much harm." He also encourages that our "Speakership (the four officers who preside) [...] a vastly underutilized cog in our parliamentary system [be engaged for] procedural reform [, the] Speakers are the only ones whose job encourages them to think seriously about how to improve the House of Commons for the long-term good of the institution and the country and not merely for short-term political advantage". Why not incorporate, in the absence of some form of PR for seats in either the Senate or Commons, some official roles for excluded parties, which already receive public funding, where the value of such funding could be enhanced far beyond where so much of those funds are merely thrown to the winds in the campaign advertising world? [although Cons. more likely would lead the repeated charge to repeal the current funding means] Official if non-voting places for intervention in committees maybe? A designated poser of questions directly in Question Period from non-seated parties? All kinds of things come to mind. GPC should use its office of political creativity to air all kinds of possibilities in a campaign. It would serve the public interest in increasing thought about our institutions, keep the electoral reform agenda openly alive, display fluency with those institutions in raising the bar of public discussion, in contributing to more widely being taken seriously "that the legitimacy of our institution is based ultimately on the informed consent of the governed. We all have a long way to go if we are to have both a political class and a population capable of sustaining responsible government for another 160 years.""

When Gunter proclaims, "too bad", at any expected perceived insult to Quebec privilege in parliamentary allotment, and by failing to argue for representation in some form for a fuller breadth of political expression -- of course to include Greens but not only them -- he typically for those of his political ilk fails to grasp that "proportionality" can work in terms other than just by census numbers. History counts, too. Other counts count, too. "Everybody counts". Proposed slogan by me (see here). "You can't count on a government that can't count." A cute Ignatieff quote.

Our rambling peaceable jumble of a country affords us the royal opportunity for political creativity, to more closely aim for what's fundamentally fair. Everyone paying attention must by now realize that we head into times of major transition, where responsiveness to positive creativity should become the order of the day, at which a Parliament unbound from pettier allegiances should serve in its office for true leadership.

(Sorry, I let myself wax away from my pessimism for a moment.)