Category Archives: Provincial

Consider, Provincial

Election Reform

Leave a comment

While I agree with the essence of Mr. Bucholtz’s assertion that election reform is needed; I must dispute his premise that Single Transferable Vote is the reform the electorate should be demanding in making their votes count.

Mr. Bucholtz’s statement: “I am a strong believer in improving democracy, as opposed to just taking an apathetic approach to it” includes two problematic assumptions.

That STV is an improvement to democracy is debatable since STV and alternative reform proposals add complexity to elections. I am also uncomfortable with the assumption that nonparticipation and nonvoting are the result of apathy. It may well be that people currently feel no cadidate represents their views and positions.

I heard and hear far to may people who are not voting for policies but are holding their noses voting for “the least objectionable” outcome.

We should be pursuing a course of electoral reform to put the power back into the hands of the people, keeping reform simple. Thus I advocate adding one simple choice to every ballot cast at every level of governance in Canada – NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Democracy is defined as: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Power is only vested in the people in an electoral system that offers them a choice to exercise their vote for agents of their choosing. One could well argue that currently we are not a democracy since we are offered a limited number of bad choices made by others from which to choose our agents.

With one simple bold reform we can return the power back to the people, reclaiming it from politicians, political parties and the “powers that be”. In any electoral area where “none of the above” receives the most votes none of the candidates or parties are permitted to run in the next round of election.

The election process is repeated until such time as a candidate is judged and found to be worthy of exercising the voters will and power.

I will not claim this will be a neat process. In fact I truly hope that the votes held under this reform are incredibly messy and require several rounds of voting.

Fundamentally voters will be able to insist on being offered good candidates. The second (and any other needed) round should, with the elimination of party politics and politicians, be extremely lively offering opportunities and choices for a most eclectic offering of candidates.

We should also get the re-introduction of debate on issues, problem solving, policies, leadership and other positive outcomes. The new system should ensure the opportunity for many, if not a majority, of independents, new faces, new ideas, the evolution of new alliances and parties.

Yes it will be a little chaotic at first but as the author Alan Dean Foster wrote: “Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting.”

BE BOLD, embrace change, Carpe Diem.

Federal, Homeless, Municipal, Provincial

A letter to the residents of the Clearbrook neighbourhood of Abbotsford BC:

Leave a comment

While I cannot say I share exactly your frustration over recovery houses, homelessness and crime problems, I can say I too am intensely frustrated over recovery houses, homelessness and the crime fallout from the way people and politicians continue to fail to exercise basic common sense in responding to the situation.

I concur that we need a recovery house policy, not to appease citizens but to protect the addict(s) in recovery who are seeking safe and supportive housing to continue their journey of recovery. Having witnessed the damage and pain that results for those who have the misfortune to end up in one of the houses that has nothing to do with recovery, I whole heartedly agree that we as a community owe it to those seeking recovery to ensure that is what they will find at a recovery house in our City.

What I find so frustrating is the continued failure of people and politicians to exercise common sense by asking some basic and obvious questions, then proceeding to address the issues raised by these questions. So here are some questions for the residents of Clearbrook to think about – and to demand the City answer.

Where are the displaced residents from houses that close going to go? Why would those who find themselves “released to homelessness” do anything other than join the ranks of the homeless who currently call the Clearbrook area home? There are no services, resources or housing to draw them away from the Clearbrook area, an area they are familiar with.

Have you considered the effect that dumping between 100 and 200 newly made homeless onto the streets of Clearbrook will have on the area? If you think you have problems with crime, homeless and addicts in the area now, what do you think is going to be the result of tossing large numbers of additional people onto the streets?

Are you prepared for the newly made homeless to take up residence in sheds, yards, parks, doorways, under trees and bushes, on the sidewalks etc? These people are homeless why would you expect them to just disappear? Where else do the homeless have to go?

Why is it that when these points were raised with the City over a year ago, when they first began to work on recovery house regulations, they have failed to address the most basic and pressing question of what/where are you going to do with those released to homelessness?

What kind of neighbour, what kind of citizen are you? Are you about solving these problems or are you about chasing them to some other part of the City, into someone else’s backyard as the homeless were harassed out of the downtown and into Clearbrook?

What is the point of the City chasing the homeless, the poor from residential neighbourhood to residential neighbourhood when they have no other place to go but around in circles, from spot to spot within the City? Would it not be common sense to provide leadership, support and political will to provide viable alternatives for housing, support and recovery?

Do you want to continue to act thoughtlessly or to act with purpose in pursuing long term, solution focused policies? Do you want these problems and issues to continue endlessly into the future, worsening year by year, or do you want to achieve the goal of the issues and ending these problems?

Think about it, then demands the city, provincial and federal governments begin to act with thoughtful common sense…

Federal, Homeless, Municipal, Provincial

The Wisdom of Yoda.

Leave a comment

Do or do not. There is no try.

What does it say about us as a society that a science fiction fictional character reflects more common sense on the question of ending homelessness than our so-called leaders. We must make a choice about homelessness – either we end it or we don’t.

As Mr. Philip Mangano’s visit to Abbotsford makes clear, as evidenced by the experience of U.S. cities including some of similar size to Abbotsford, ending homelessness is a matter of our choice.

If we choose to end homelessness then the symptoms that come with homelessness will end and we will have nothing to bitch about; if we choose to not end homelessness then stop bitching about the symptoms – you chose to live with them.

In either case stop bitching. All our “trying” has accomplishing is nothing – except to waste the resources we could bring to bear on ending homelessness.

Do or do not. Choose.