The concerning e-volution of Canadian elections

The concerning e-volution of Canadian elections

Our online activity is accessible, profiled, and used to influence democratic elections. What are we doing about it?

By WAYNE PAJUNEN     Originally published in The Hill Times: Monday, Aug. 21, 2017 12:00 AM

Twenty-first century life has devolved into a predicted dystopia as “the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end,” to quote George Orwell’s 1984.

Online visits to Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and most every other company or service facilitates data collection being used to influence the democratic process.

Using analytic algorithms or “data mining” stored Internet activity, a.k.a. “Big Data,” to interact with us, individually and demographically, is an underhanded practice used to affect democratic elections since at least 2015.

Motherboard magazine said of Big Data: “everything we do, both on and offline, leaves digital traces. Every movement we make when our mobile phone is in our pocket, every ‘like’ is stored. Especially every (Facebook) ‘like.’ ”

The Guardian delved into this recent campaign practice to reveal: “AggregateIQ, an obscure web analytics company based in an office above a shop in Victoria, British Columbia,” as an enabler and “contractor” to Cambridge Analytica.

Trump’s White House chief strategist and former vice-president of Cambridge Analytica, Steve Bannon, “helped to bring about (Brexit) the biggest constitutional change to Britain in a century.”

Furthermore, as relayed by Newsweek: “Cambridge Analytica bragged about the role it played in helping Trump win the election. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, explained to Forbesshortly after the election how data mining and microtargeting won the election for Trump.”

Cybersecurity expert Simon Moores asserted: “Behavioural modelling involving big-data analytics has arguably passed an inflection point. Thanks to the growth of predictive analytics, algorithms, and big data-mining businesses, you can now look forward to a future that’s made up of equal parts Orwell, Kafka, and Huxley.”

As in all past great leaps in technology, regulation lagged as the carnage on railways and roadwaysupon their introduction attested. Once again we find ourselves trailing technological advancement and playing legislative catchup to abate electoral abuse and folly, this time on information’s superhighway.

A data analytics professional consulted for this article depicted: “How much more likely are you to believe targeted, paid-for, ad posts enabled by data analytic companies conforming to your world view and click ‘like,’ or repost and comment, without thinking who actually posted the story? When someone sees the second-generation share, with a comment, then what?”

The then what is fake posts that take on lives of their own when shared with “friend” recommendations, bestowing credibility only to perilously betray trustworthy communication.

When Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould presented the report Cyber Threats to Canada’s Democratic Process, its summary said: “The rapid growth of social media, along with the decline in longstanding authoritative sources of information, makes it easier for adversaries to use cyber capabilities and other methods to inject disinformation and propaganda into the media and influence voters.”

Subsequently CNN reported: “The FBI monitored social media on election day to track a suspected Russian disinformation campaign utilizing ‘fake news.’ Twitter and Facebook were the feeding grounds for viral ‘news’ stories floating conspiracies and hoaxes.”

Accentuating the challenge of Gould’s task is Facebook’s targeted advertising campaign and recent declaration: “Details such as the frequency of ads, how much money was spent on them, where they were seen, what the messages were and how many people were reached would remain confidential under the company’s corporate policy.”

With big money and Big Data, any party from anywhere in the world can influence our thinking and sway our decisions. This trampling on electoral regulations, which Canadians of all political stripes have considerately adopted to facilitate fair and equitable elections, must be thwarted.

An informed electorate is democracy’s foundation, but when our direct line to the fifth estate is usurped and Orwell’s “alternative facts” are perceived as real, the capacity to make informed choices at the ballot box is diminished.

Although Orwell comforted: “It’s the one thing they can’t do. … They can’t make you believe it. They can’t get inside you.” It now appears they can.

We mustn’t wait to be left wondering after the next election what the hell just happened, as they did in the U.K. and U.S.A.

Concerned Canadians, wish Minister Gould Godspeed with e-volutional legislation to remedy electoral devolution.

Wayne Pajunen is a consultant, political and social affairs columnist, and former political aide at Canada’s House of Commons.

The cartoonish Donald J. Trump appears to emulate our old friend Wile E. Coyote... in jest of course...

It's been a trying time. We need a laugh: 8 more...

I hope this brightened your day a little.

Thanks for dropping 'bye'

Regardless of belief DNA can be Gay

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED HERE IN THE TAIPEI TIMES

By Wayne Pajunen                                                                                                           March 27, 2017

Among the latest fronts for progressive justice and human rights around the world is accession to civil rights equality for the LGBTQ community.

Although Canada the US and almost 20 other nations have made this journey Taiwan is at the threshold of leading the way to become the first Asian nation to legally recognise same sex marriage rights. With polls revealing society narrowly divided president Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to broaden consensus with further discussion among conflicting interests.

There are three fronts to this battle. Taiwanese religious groups and social conservatives protest with familiar claims of “harm to family values.” While Tsai’s own ruling party supportive of same sex unions can’t agree on whether to compromise with legislation or amend the civil code ensuring same sex marriage to be on equal footing to traditional marriage in all aspects of the law.

Taiwanese Buddhist, Daoist, Christian and other religious groups are sharing the altar with the anti-gay marriage National Religious Alliance pontificating absurdities such as: “We oppose homosexual marriage being amended into the Civil Code because the family system comprised of marriage between one man and one woman is the foundation of society, and if you damage it, that will lead to marriage, family and the structure of society being completely wiped out.”

Lobbying for ruling Democratic People’s Party unity Tsai Shang-wen, Taiwan LGBTQ Family Rights Advocacy executive director stated: “that amending the Civil Code was the most straightforward method to achieve marriage equality and the group would not accept discriminatory special legislation for same-sex marriage.”

With public opinion stalled on this issue in Taiwan and around the world I hope the following may provide clarity for those with misunderstanding or are undecided perched on society’s inhospitable fence of segregation.  

Whether we are created by a God, as told in Holy books, or a product of evolution and what many call Mother Nature we can unanimously agree that humanity sustains at the will of our, or if you prefer - His given unto us - DNA.

With diversity a key to the sustained development and existence of humankind the DNA building blocks of life guarantees we are each created with variance.

The countless shades of every human physical trait that occurs naturally at DNA’s behest are obvious. From black to white, small to large, “deformity” to perceived perfection and everything in between, it’s undeniable that DNA‘s infinite multiplicity of form ensures all reproductive outcomes are possible.

Hence, appropriately by its nature DNA will not be restricted to producing only heterosexual XX females and XY chromosome males. Every divergence under the rainbow is a valid and justified natural reality.

From the BBC article Male or female? Babies born on the sliding sex scale is Katie who “has androgen insensitivity syndrome, which was only discovered when she had a hernia operation when she was six.”

Katie appears as a female to but instead of having XX chromosomes she has male oriented XY chromosomes.

"The tyranny of being forced to circle M or F (male or female) on every form I fill out, I'd like to see that change, I'd like to have a lot more options.” Katie lamented she usually circles MorF.

The Intersex Society of North America explains: ““Intersex” is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male… a person might be born appearing to be female on the outside, but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside… Or a person may be born with mosaic genetics, so that some of her cells have XX chromosomes and some of them have XY.” DNA is unable to categorize sexuality into two tidy boxes of male and female, rather human sexuality is better equated to the visibly infinite mosaic of humanity and nature itself.

For these people their non-“traditional” sexual orientation created for them by DNA is certainly not a nefarious “choice,” as claimed by some. The only immorality here lies in those judging these people who’s DNA defies simplistic binary gender classification. Whether and whom to marry should be their choice, their civil right.

Taiwan’s questioners of rights and choice on the path to same sex couple recognition range from, farcical with protesters recently “depicting pro-homosexual marriage politicians as scorpions, snakes, tarantulas and toads” (Taipei Times 19/03/2017) on the right, to genuine concerns for how and what to teach young pupils by uninformed teachers on the left. The Taipei School Education Union Teachers of elementary students claimed “Teaching the idea of a ‘gender spectrum’ just serves to confuse elementary students before their natural gender identities solidify.”

Contrarily though this approach only serves to deny children understanding and possibly accepting classmates they witness playing and socializing with the apparent opposite gender. I was aware of these classmates by grade four in my Canadian school just as my son and daughter are currently witnessing “different” children in their Taiwanese elementary school. Ignoring the reality only pacifies the discomfort experienced by unprepared teachers.

Should civil acceptance of LGBTQ unions inspire same sex couples to be more visibly prevalent than they have already become in Taiwan over this millennium children may have more questions during the societal transition. For this period of time, until what is normal is more widely perceived that way, general classroom discussion could be added to elucidate how the many human varieties mimic natures’ diversity. This approach could serve as a starting point for the sexuality issue broadening children’s understanding of the big wide world they strive to comprehend.

Regardless of belief’s it is undeniable that, by virtue of the most divine creation that is DNA, infinite human varieties are generated and to deny this reality is to reject the existence of God and the legitimacy of science.

With DNA as our building blocks creating each and every one of us, our LGBTQ brothers, sisters and intersex undoubtedly qualify as us and are surely deserved of sharing our civil rights.

Even Pope Francis proclaimed: “They must be integrated into society.”

God is DNA, and gay, vive toutes les différences.

Wayne Pajunen

Wayne is a political affairs columnist, consultant and former employee of Canada’s House of Commons and the Liberal Party of Canada. His work also appears in The Hill Times, The News Lens, Taipei Times and AMCHAM Business Topics magazine.

A Ray of Light for Electoral Reform

A new voting construct may be on pause but it’s still very much needed

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED HERE IN THE HILL TIMES

By Wayne Pajunen                                                                                                      March 20^th, 2017

When Prime Minister Trudeau pronounced: “I think we can see that there is a fairly clear desire out there to improve our electoral system” he was right. Although he recently darkened the skies of electoral reform by claiming: "There is no consensus. There is no clear path forward. It would be irresponsible to do something that harms Canada's stability", his original assessment of the desire for betterment was still correct.

To the consternation of many the Prime Minister has wisely drawn the shades on his proposed “Sunny Ways” for electoral reform pledge that considered only radical transformations to Canadian governance.

An Angus Read poll published November 29^th, 2016 concluded significantly that two-thirds (66%) see changing the current system a “low priority” and three-quarters (75%) of us “would like a referendum on any major changes to the electoral system.”

Disunity among average Canadians and those advocating for major transformation does not mean we should abandon the search for a fair solution that shines on a means to elect parliamentary representatives to further the inclusion of our disaffected.

On February 11^th from sea to sea to sea Canadian’s attended rallies demonstrating against the government’s pause reminding us of the need for electoral reconstitution.

With too many feeling that their vote doesn’t count it has become a bane to Canadian democracy fomenting voter apathy and disrespect for the nation at large. Any proposal to get back on course and address this smouldering structural deficit should be considered.

The current three-way impasse has resulted from consideration of two dramatic alterations to our electoral process and a procedural demand. The NDP and Green Party endorse Proportional representation (PR), the PM prefers a Preferential or Ranked Ballot (PR/RB) voting system and the Conservative Party requests a referendum on any change.

What’s wrong with PR and RB voting for Canada?

Vocal advocates of PR trumpet the one citizen one vote panacea, which sounds as fragrant a rose smells but its prickly thorns of divergence make it intractable for a vast and diverse country like ours to embrace.

PR threatens to fracture the nations psyche fostering narrowly focused and even single-issue parties. Hence it is not difficult, especially with our history, to imagine, provinces, territories, cities and even more cultures and regions becoming singularly represented on the national stage advocating self-centered goals at the expense of our broader national common cause.

Canadian parallels with Spain and separatist movements along with the difficulties of even forming a government with PR voting as experienced by Ireland, Belgium and Spain are well articulated in Jonathan Manthorpe’s The Perils of Proportional Representation.

The Prime Minister’s expressed favour for a Preferential Ballot system could leave parties with significant public support under or even unrepresented in Ottawa only to exacerbate the core problem of voter under-representation.

                       

A CBC analysis of an election under RB concluded the Greens could win two seats and the Bloc Québécois reduced to one, and that shortfall would be two reasons enough to discard its consideration.

Electoral reform needs to foster a sense that each vote can count, not necessarily in the literal sense but that each vote has a fair chance to affect representation in the House of Commons.

The desire for a new way is strong and to the nation’s detriment is expressed by apathetic voters conveniently not going to the polls. The Ontario provincial election of 2014 reflected the urgency of the impotency felt with “anti-apathy demonstrations” as a record 31,399 voters actually took the time to go to the polls only to register a protest non-vote!

The government’s recent Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE) released its report on December 1, 2016, “Strengthening Democracy in Canada: Principles, Processes, and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform.”

After extensive nationwide consultation and analysis the Committee concluded with recommendations that included two key points that address election time estrangement among Canadians:

“The Government should, as it develops a new electoral system - minimize the level of distortion between the popular will of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament.”

“That any electoral reform seek to enhance the likelihood of improving voter turnout and to increase the possibilities for historically disenfranchised.”

Canadians have voiced two basic desires on electoral reform.

Firstly, as the PM said, there is no consensus for wholesale change to our tried and true voting ways as polls and past referenda have demonstrated. Second, we want change with a say in it.

Canada works because our cooperative diversity breed’s empathy, and this empowers common ground as witnessed by the Herculean political effort to patriate our Constitution in 1982.

Also, Canadians have voted at every opportunity against radical electoral amendments: P.E.I. 2005, Ontario 2007, and B.C. in 2009.

Witnessing entrenched and discordant opinions on a major overhaul to the way our votes formulate representation in parliament I introduced the Canadian Representative Parliamentary System (CRPS) option, published in The Hill Times early on in the government’s mandate.

The CRPS is drafted to harmoniously augment our current parliamentary model with the belief that Canada is a successful nation, served well by Parliament and therefore wasn’t in need of a disruptive overhaul.

What Canada does need though is a means to address the disparity of representation and its alienation conundrum. A means to provide a voice to political parties with substantial support at the polls only to be under-represented in the House of Commons i.e. make their votes garnered, and their voters, count.

Although as reported “changing the electoral system will not be in the new – Minister of Democratic Institutions’ – mandate,” mandates evolve and are of undetermined duration.

In an attempt to jumpstart the ways and means of addressing electoral reform I will endeavour to expand on the original CRPS concept with the remainder of this article.

The clearest example of disenfranchisement and those asserting “my vote doesn’t count” is exemplified by the Green Party winning only one seat in the last federal election. This injustice focuses when considering the Green’s vote count was over 600,000 and only 1.3% of total votes cast fewer than that of the Bloc Québécois, victors of ten Member’s of Parliament.

To address this injustice CRPS would carve out or add ten seats to the House of Commons facilitating parliamentary inclusion within a quasi proportional representation for parties that suffer under the first past the post (FPTP) procedure.

What is a Canadian Representative Parliamentary System?

The ten new seats would be allotted to parties garnering more than 15,000 votes and fewer than five seats won after the votes are tabulated in conjunction with our current FPTP method.

Party’s accumulating 15,000 votes would qualify for a minimum of one of the ten seats up for allotment. In 2015 three parties garnered at least 15,ooo votes and won less than five seats qualifying them for a proportional share of the ten new CRPS seats.

Actual results after the 2015 election allocated the Green Party only one seat while the Libertarian’s and the Christian Heritage Party were left out in the cold. Whereas under a CRPS construct all three parties would be represented in Ottawa and the Green’s 605,864 votes would earn it eight seats in line with the ten seats the Bloc Québécois won with their 818,652 votes.

The full breakdown would look like this: Green Party received 602,944 votes representing 92% of the three qualifying parties’ votes qualifying for eight CRPS seats. While the Libertarian’s 36,772 votes at 6% and the Christian Heritage Party’s 15,232 votes or 2% would be allocated one seat each in the House of Commons.

Parties w 15,000 + votes in 2015	Party’s Total votes	Percentage (Rounded)	Proportional CRPS seats
Christian Heritage Party	15,232	2%	1
Green Party	602,944	92%	8
Libertarian	36,772	6%	1
TOTALS	654,948	100%	10 CRPS seats

Stats from Elections Canada via Wikipedia: 

The system of governance we’ve had since 1867 has served Canada well by any reasonable assessment, so why make extreme modifications to our electoral process when Canadian’s are neither eager for it nor able to find consensus?

FPTP with a splash of PR as CRPS proposes is just a beginning and will require study, debate and compromise on details such as adding 8 or 10 seats to the Commons and whether a 15,000, 100,000 or other vote minimum should qualify a party for Members in parliament etc.

In the meantime though the minor yet politically engaging modifications that CRPS makes to further representative inclusion may pass a desired referendum and address the alienation challenge, until a likely combination of technology with another option shines a consensus over our horizon.

The Canadian Representative Parliamentary System endeavours to draw upon the spirit of a classic Canadian compromise by promoting our exceptional model of inclusively and harmony.

Extending representation to advance participatory inclusion reflective our ever-expanding diversity CRPS could be the ray of light to the “Sunny Ways” of electoral reform Canadian’s believed to be on the horizon when this discussion began.

Wayne Pajunen

Wayne is a political affairs columnist, consultant and former employee of Canada’s House of Commons and the Liberal Party of Canada. His work also appears in The Hill Times, The News Lens, Taipei Times and AMCHAM Business Topics magazine.

Searching for simple, fair Canadian electoral reform

It’s time for a Canadian representative parliamentary system. Inclusive, fair, and simple enough to satisfy disparate sensibilities and majority rules.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED HERE IN THE HILL TIMES

By Wayne Pajunen                                                                                                              Thursday Nov. 26, 2015

Democratic Canadians are fond of the practice “majority rules”. The simplicity of this aphorism is practiced and quoted from our children’s playgrounds to our corporate boardrooms.

Sir Isaac Newton recognized the value of simplicity: Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
 

Since 1867 majority rule is how we had hoped our electoral system would function. This electoral model has not withstood the modern day test of time though. When electing Members of Parliament (MPs) and three or more parties garner votes cast the gold standard of majority rules is too often undermined. Elected commonly receive as low as 30% support as we’ve settled for first past the post (FPTP) victors, as though our communal destiny should equate to thoroughbreds galloping.

FPTP equating to “minority rules” is not considered fair play by many Canadians and may have run its final race. Justin Trudeau who recently won a majority government with 39.5 percent of the vote has committed to this victory as being the last election to acquiesce to the first past the post model.

Voters are weary of MPs winning seats and majority federal governments with tallies far short of a majority. Many Canadians estranged by FPTP, knowing their candidate has no chance to represent them parliament, conclude; “Why should I even vote?” This common belief is anathema to our democratic values. Reflecting this sense of impotency Elections Ontario reported a record 31,399 voters took the time to go to the polls only to register a protest non-vote!

Contriving a system whereby majority rules among three or more contesting party candidates is a conundrum democracies world over have struggled and experimented with, while devising diverse alternatives to FPTP.

The USA fortuitously, or otherwise, swept aside multiple party logistics by requiring exorbitant sums of money to contest national campaigns. This model effectively sets the stakes at the table too high for parties, other than the established Republicans and Democrats, to fairly compete. This model doesn’t pass muster in Canada where we have agreed to strict spending limits to preserve fiscal electoral fairness among classes and parties, preventing corporations and the wealthy from perceived or real “buying” of elections and candidates.

Many have touted a proportional representation (PR) model whereby a party gains legislative representation equal to the percentage of votes garnered. A party gaining under 40 percent of the vote today and a majority government, as happened in 1993 and 2015, would receive an equal percentage of the seats in a minority parliament.

Two drawbacks to this method are significant. Foremost, voters are prohibited from electing a candidate to directly represent their individual and community interests. Accordingly these MPs have no direct obligation to local constituent concerns.

Secondly PR often leads to political fragmentation whereby there are too many cooks in the kitchen and “functioning” coalitions are propped up by backroom horse-trading and policy compromises. The upside, and at the same time downside, is socially desired parties would attain representation in parliament proportional to their votes while ornery parties, such as a few in Europe, gain a voice on the national stage dragging discourse down to their insensitivity contrary to Canada’s greatest virtue, our sensitivities of inclusiveness.

A third oft mentioned option is mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation which requires voters mark their ballot twice to endorse a preferred local candidate and a political party. Ontario’s referendum found MMP wanting and rejected it in 2007.

Israel’s PR and Germany’s MMP systems have had to be modified, some say gerrymandered, several times since their inception, hardly simple or fair.

British Columbia has seen wide support for electoral reform yet has twice voted down the proposed BC-STV (single transferable vote – STV, a.k.a. instant-runoff voting (IRV)) system. Rumours are Ottawa is considering this model, but as BC demonstrated, adopting the STV model is easier said than done. STV does have its merits. Voters mark their ballots with their first second and third preference. If tabulations produce no candidate garnering more than 50 percent of the vote the second choice is added to the equation and so on until a majority victor emerges. One obvious shortcoming occurs when voters believe the election is close and he/she is motivated to undemocratically mark the “second best candidate” last on the ranked ballot to improve their preferred candidates fortune in a possible run-off.

Reforming the first-past-the-post system is a laudable however daunting undertaking. Not so long ago three provinces moved on replacing the FPTP system and via referendums voters vetoed the proposed alternatives to their familiar voting construct in Prince Edward Island (2005), Ontario (2007) and British Columbia (2009).

In the name of simplicity, fair and direct representation we could consider maintaining our current system with one modification and one addition.

The modification: Once the vote is completed and the leading vote getter fails to receive more than 50% of the vote, the process could be modified to accommodate a run-off vote among the top two vote getters conducted 2 to 7 days after. The run-off vote could be conducted by computer or in person at the same voting station location as they did on Election Day. To facilitate e-voting, voters are given a Second Round Voters ID (SRV-ID) card along with their Election Day ballot. Voters keep the SRV-ID or “run-off voter card ID” should a second round be necessary as a credential to vote in person or with a secure registration number to vote on-line in the second round.

The second round of voting modification would address the desire for majority rule, and provide hassle free participation in the run-offs, enabling voter turnout to stay as close as possible to the Election Day participation rate. If the likes of Pay-pal can provide secure on-line transactions, surely Canada can provide a secure e-voting process.

In fact, it may be that today’s technology could facilitate implementing the balloting process on-line, another consideration.

This modification does not address the needs of the citizens who voted for a party that did not win representation in the House of Commons, as consequence of our current FPTP system or the considered STV method. The disenfranchised would remain so under all options being considered save for the chaotic PR system.

Newly elected Prime Minister Trudeau apparently believes, as did his father, that a benevolent government enshrines legal rights, such as our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to appease and protect the existence and development of the minority, and so should our electoral system.

The addition: The unrepresented disenfranchised minority of Canadian’s deserve voice in parliament. The addition to our electoral system would consist of adding 10 seats to the House of Commons structuring a forum for proportional representation for parties that fail the FPTP test. It might work like this; if the Green Party received 50 percent of the vote among parties bereft of representation they would be allotted 5 of the 10 available seats and so on for the other unrepresented parties. The party members to occupy these seats would derive from a prioritised list of 10 candidates announced before the election so their supporters would know whom they would most likely be voting for should their preferred candidate’s party accumulate sufficient votes to qualify for representation. This formula would provide a deserved voice in Parliament for the significant number of Canadians currently muted by FPTP and would not have undue sway on the majority elected balance of power within a stable government structure.

This formula, which we may label the Canadian Representative Parliamentary System (CRPS), would serve Canadian’s well, as we are now, individually and among our communities yet be more inclusive than our current model.

Although CRPS won’t uphold the democratic ideal of every vote being equal Canadian’s don’t have that now. Electoral districts do not have equal numbers of eligible voters. Some northern ridings elect MP with less than 35,000 constituents, whereas several metropolitan cater to over 120,000 constituents. Canadian’s in northern ridings have 3 to 4 times more proportional representation per vote than many urban constituents.

What CPRS will do is give disenfranchised Canadian voters and their parties an effective voice in the House of Commons.

CRPS provides for familiarity and stable governments able to lead Canada and make difficult the decisions of governing while accommodating Canada’s disenfranchised.

As uncomplicated as CRPS is, it will require thorough study, negotiation and procedural rules from the ballot box to question period in the House of Commons. As a classic Canadian compromise, CRPS’s simplicity and inclusiveness may even pass a surely obligatory referendum where other considered options have recently failed. A referendum on CRPS would demonstrate respect of the populace, continuity of Canadian values and beliefs and welcome a principled inclusion of the disenfranchised.

A Canadian Representative Parliamentary System may be inclusive, fair and simple enough to satisfy disparate sensibilities and majority rules, and it be another step forward along the path of our great country’s evolution.

As another of mankind’s greatest thinkers Leonardo da Vinci advised: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

Wayne Pajunen

Wayne is a political affairs columnist, consultant and former employee of Canada’s House of Commons and the Liberal Party of Canada. His work also appears in The Hill Times, The News Lens, Taipei Times and AMCHAM Business Topics magazine.