Prolific history blogger and well-respected historian, Christopher Moore, is not so taken with my ‘rule of three’ idea for deciding some electoral dust-ups.  “I’m a representative-government guy,” Chris writes, “and I take that to mean that the government is chosen by, and always accountable to, a majority of the members of the House of Commons. If that majority comes from three or four or seventeen different parties or factions, makes no difference. Governments should be accountable to the House, not to some calculation of what share of the popular vote some party or other got, or what a particular leader’s situation is.”What Chris writes is, of course, the law of the land – a pure assessment of what life is actually like in a parliamentary system. My post was written from the point of view of the voter and is admittedly more emotional in response. I‘m picturing the morning after an election, after ‘successfully’ choosing to remove a government as demonstrated through the share of popular vote, a literal seat count, and turfing a leader from his own riding, and then watching the same person remain as PM and leading the same party. Still not sure how the will of the people is served under this scenario. |
 |
|||||||
 
CategoriesFirst NationsGovernment Prime Ministers Teaching History The Settlement of the West This and That |
|
 |
|||||
    |
|||||||
