Roundup: MyDemocracy survey says…

Posted on by

The results of the MyDemocracy.ca survey got published yesterday, and it’s full of some fairly contradictory results about people generally being reasonably satisfied with our system (or at least not wildly dissatisfied), preferring constituency connections and accountability (but also co-operation, which makes accountability difficult), while also wanting more diversity of views (unless it lets in radicals and extremists). Also, no mandatory voting, online voting, or lowering the voting age. (Full report here). So yeah. And already you’ve got Nathan Cullen sore that it doesn’t say “Canadians want PR” because that’s not what it was asking. Anyway, Philippe Lagassé is best positioned to weigh in on it, so here we go:

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824086123882446848

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824086588879728640

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824086772934119425

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824087957657292801

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824089769835720704

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824090165786316803

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824091337930711041

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824092165701857281

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824096930552745984

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/824097049226387456

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/824043118475546626

Reading through the methodology and the reasoning behind the questions was fairly illuminating and something the detractors of the survey should probably want to actually do before they scroll ahead to where they go “Why doesn’t it say that Canadians really want proportional representation? Stupid biased survey” because we know that’s what they want to hear.

Of course, if you ask me, this should provide enough justification for them to smother this whole thing in the cradle and wash their hands of it, saying it turns out that Canadians aren’t too concerned with reform and hey, it turns out it’s way more complex than we thought so yeah, bad promise, we’ll do better next time, and then move onto some actual topics of importance than just trying to appease a few sore losers.

Good reads:

  • Donald Trump expedited approvals for the Keystone XL pipeline without giving any hint to Canada. Here’s a look at how it plays out on both sides of the border.
  • Thomas Mulcair thinks that Trudeau should reject the pipeline and “stand up” to Trump. Because reasons.
  • Harjit Sajjan insists the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff was not relieved for security reasons.
  • The Federal Court denied leave for judicial review of the export permits for those LAVs to Saudi Arabia (which is not a surprise).
  • Women’s groups are disappointed at the lack of progress by the government in tackling domestic and sexual violence.
  • New Status of Women minister Maryam Monsef didn’t attend any of the Womens’ marches last weekend. She also wasn’t invited, which was by design.
  • John McCallum talks about the Chinese president’s speech at Davos and positioning for trade with China with TPP now gone.
  • Pablo Rodriguez says he’ll have a “collaborative” style as whip. Doesn’t every whip say this?
  • Trudeau laid out more evidence of a long-standing friendship with the Aga Khan, which will likely help alleviate any ethics concerns about his vacation.
  • Guy Caron may also be contemplating a run for the NDP leadership, as apparently is former union leader Sid Ryan.
  • Polling data shows that Kevin O’Leary’s plan to target younger voters means that he’s in for an uphill battle.
  • Chris Selley looks at the challenges of legalizing marijuana considering the problems still being had with tobacco.
  • Paul Wells writes about the Keystone XL approval and the political dance between our cabinet and Trump’s.
  • Howard Anglin writes a lengthy piece about immigration policy, what he sees the government as doing wrong, and where Kellie Leitch is right and wrong.
  • My Loonie Politics column this week looks at why unveiling policy planks in leadership campaigns is actually a problem within our system of democracy.

Odds and ends:

Google and Facebook are bringing their fake news detection tools to Canada, and the minister of heritage is applauding the move.

Reminder:

My Loonie Politics columns go behind a paywall February 1st. A yearly subscription is normally $50, but use promo code Smith and it’s $40. Remember paywalls like these help working journalists like me get paid.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/823977002512154624

2 thoughts on “Roundup: MyDemocracy survey says…”

  1. The whole thing is such a charade, why bother with any of it, simply to point and say well this is what people want. Only a handful participated out of 36 million, well that is how you get DJTrump. I know, from reading you, that you are against change but given the complacency of the public at large maybe we should follow the discourse in The Republic by Plato. Most politicians don’t listen anyways, look at the performance of PMJT across Canada. He is just trying to see which answer gives him a good feeling about the crowd, assessing popularity so he may manipulate the system to stay in power. A little sad.

  2. Dale,

    You are right in noting in your Loonie Politics article that the new Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) constitution and by-laws serve to tighten control of the Leader on the policy process as well as its other activities. The National Policy Committee is not even guaranteed a seat on the National Platform Committee, which is a creature of the Leader.

    Perhaps the greatest illustration of centralized control has been the elimination of membership. As you know, the LPC now has no members. Instead, it has “Registered Liberals (RLs).” It’s often said that in any healthy volunteer organization the leadership exists to serve its membership. Arguably, the LPC has turned that principle on its head; RLs exist to serve the Leader.

    If not dead, the concept of big-tent parties is on life-support in Canada. Party leaders (not the members of electoral district associations) get to determine who may run for a seat in the House. The leaders’ application (sometimes retroactively) of a variety of idiosyncratic litmus tests to determine which prospective candidates are acceptable to them may have virtues, but ensuring diverse views are brought into a big tent is not amongst them.

Comments are closed.