What would happen if they called an election and no one showed up? In considering this question I was led to ask: why do we have elections anyway? The Athenian Greeks, famous for their democracy — didn’t start out with elections. Many years ago, William F. Buckley Jr. famously opined that, “… I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”Considering recent events at Harvard University, his statement takes on poignant urgency. Does anyone think Canada is best served by the partisan teams in the House of Commons that are selected in any given election? Partisan teams who have been described to me, by one of the team members, as “clapping seals?” Might we not be luckier at a lottery than in an election?To pursue Mr. Buckley’s thinking a little bit, what would happen if each constituency candidate was selected by lot and not by election for only one five-year term in Parliament under the following potential terms:The adult residents of every Canadian constituency are enumerated and identified by sex, by land owning status and by general occupation (business owner — white collar — blue collar — homemaker — retired — student)The mix of people to sit in the House of Commons is pre-determined by the approximate representation of these groups in the larger Canadian population. For example, if blue collar, female landowners constitute 15% of the population, then 15% of the seats would be allocated to that slice of the population.The selected candidates are paid a salary equal to the maximum of their income in the year before their selection or a legislated minimum salary.The new parliament selects a prime minister and cabinet from the 338 selected members based on a review of curriculum vitae and willingness to serve.What might be the benefits of such a radical departure from our conception of democracy?First, those who make the laws will have to live more directly with the impacts of those laws and will think carefully before doing stupid things. By design, significant economic minority groups in Canada will be given a voice in proportion to their representation in Canadian society. The libertarian dream of less government will be designed into the system by a natural unwillingness to be 'a clapping seal.' No longer will the House be dominated by lawyers who might see complex legislation as a business development strategy. We would no longer be held to ransom by a small group of young gate-keepers in a bloated Prime Minister’s Office. Members of Parliament would be beholden to constituents and with no re-election pressure, would be free to negotiate with other members for legislation which benefits their constituents rather than being required to vote according to a party leader's five year plan.The civil service would need to be newly professionalized, but this is a good thing. Perhaps a law could be passed which establishes the size of the civil service such that at the end of each five-year term, the civil service would be mandatorily reduced to its statutory size. Similarly, MPs would be given one year of severance instead of a pension which keeps on giving. It would be like a taxpayer’s Year of Jubilee. Lobbyists would have no leverage over members who do not stand for re-election. The lobbyists could address their views, objections and suggestions to the entire House and not to individual MPs. Any individual member caught entertaining or being entertained by lobbyists in ex parte meetings would then be appropriately sanctioned by the House.It will never happen of course, but ask yourself; would such a system be more or less likely to deliver governments that routinely trample the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Freedoms? Murray Lytle P. Eng, is a former commissioner of the National Energy Board
What would happen if they called an election and no one showed up? In considering this question I was led to ask: why do we have elections anyway? The Athenian Greeks, famous for their democracy — didn’t start out with elections. Many years ago, William F. Buckley Jr. famously opined that, “… I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”Considering recent events at Harvard University, his statement takes on poignant urgency. Does anyone think Canada is best served by the partisan teams in the House of Commons that are selected in any given election? Partisan teams who have been described to me, by one of the team members, as “clapping seals?” Might we not be luckier at a lottery than in an election?To pursue Mr. Buckley’s thinking a little bit, what would happen if each constituency candidate was selected by lot and not by election for only one five-year term in Parliament under the following potential terms:The adult residents of every Canadian constituency are enumerated and identified by sex, by land owning status and by general occupation (business owner — white collar — blue collar — homemaker — retired — student)The mix of people to sit in the House of Commons is pre-determined by the approximate representation of these groups in the larger Canadian population. For example, if blue collar, female landowners constitute 15% of the population, then 15% of the seats would be allocated to that slice of the population.The selected candidates are paid a salary equal to the maximum of their income in the year before their selection or a legislated minimum salary.The new parliament selects a prime minister and cabinet from the 338 selected members based on a review of curriculum vitae and willingness to serve.What might be the benefits of such a radical departure from our conception of democracy?First, those who make the laws will have to live more directly with the impacts of those laws and will think carefully before doing stupid things. By design, significant economic minority groups in Canada will be given a voice in proportion to their representation in Canadian society. The libertarian dream of less government will be designed into the system by a natural unwillingness to be 'a clapping seal.' No longer will the House be dominated by lawyers who might see complex legislation as a business development strategy. We would no longer be held to ransom by a small group of young gate-keepers in a bloated Prime Minister’s Office. Members of Parliament would be beholden to constituents and with no re-election pressure, would be free to negotiate with other members for legislation which benefits their constituents rather than being required to vote according to a party leader's five year plan.The civil service would need to be newly professionalized, but this is a good thing. Perhaps a law could be passed which establishes the size of the civil service such that at the end of each five-year term, the civil service would be mandatorily reduced to its statutory size. Similarly, MPs would be given one year of severance instead of a pension which keeps on giving. It would be like a taxpayer’s Year of Jubilee. Lobbyists would have no leverage over members who do not stand for re-election. The lobbyists could address their views, objections and suggestions to the entire House and not to individual MPs. Any individual member caught entertaining or being entertained by lobbyists in ex parte meetings would then be appropriately sanctioned by the House.It will never happen of course, but ask yourself; would such a system be more or less likely to deliver governments that routinely trample the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Freedoms? Murray Lytle P. Eng, is a former commissioner of the National Energy Board
