Have your say

Return of sanity

Re: Canada's two greatest missed opportunities (Oct. 22). Everything looks better through the nostalgic glow of rose-coloured glasses, in this case two seminal historical events seen one generation removed. Among others who claim that the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were national failures, political analyst Nelson Peters views the sequential defeats of Canada's last two constitutional-amendment exercises as "Canada's two greatest missed opportunities." Many would take exception with that categorization, calling their rejections the return of democratic sanity to a country smitten with the lure of identity politics.

Twenty years after Charlottetown, it's important to remember that the majority of Canadians judged both Meech and Charlottetown as the imposition of an "asymmetrical federalism" that would have bestowed unspecified but irrefutable constitutional powers on specific groups based solely on their self-declared identities. Simply by having what Harvard scholar and former Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff termed the sufficient qualities of "blood and belonging," unequal authority and influence would have been granted as incontestable constitutional rights.

Rather than mourning the defeat of Charlottetown on Oct. 26, the national referendum's 20th anniversary, we ought to celebrate the occasion by affirming what Canadians still hold firmly to be true: that we are loath to attribute special status to those who attempt to privilege themselves beyond the limits of universal equality and recognized treaty rights.

MARK S. RASH

Winnipeg

Acting for change

Re: Everybody agrees Indian Act must go (Oct. 22). Earlier this summer, I marched through Winnipeg as part of the march for justice movement, which advocates the abolition of the Indian Act. Mia Rabson's article fails to mention anything about this, despite the level of attention we created to make this issue more pertinent.

Of course, it is important to have a meaningful level of consultation with indigenous leaders when changes to a piece of legislation that deeply affects them are being considered. But what's more important to this issue is that when these changes are put forward, they are from the hearts and minds of the indigenous people who seek them and not from any elected government official.

Furthermore, the "red tape around economic development" is an issue that pales in comparison to one of national identity and citizenship. The indigenous peoples of Canada have the right to assert their own national identity and citizenship, and this should be reflected in legislation that is created by them and for them.

LEO BASKATAWANG

Winnipeg

Three cheers for Liberal Leader Bob Rae's plan with regard to the Indian Act, which was enacted way back in 1876.

Hopefully, abolition of the Indian Act will move swiftly, thus, finally, giving First Nations a breath of freedom.

DIANE R. UNGER

Dugald

Cautiously democratic

As an American citizen residing in Canada, every four years I have explained the Electoral College system to my friends and family, when asked. Allan Levine's Oct. 20 article, Why swing states matter in U.S. elections, will help.

I have two quibbles with his analysis. First, the Founding Fathers (referring to them even more deferentially than as "framers") were not "frightened by the idea common people might decide who runs the country." They deliberately crafted a system by which citizens made political decisions about leaders, representatives and government policy.

They were also, presciently, concerned about the kind of volatility direct democracy could foster, and the ways that demagoguery and factionalism could influence public opinion. So the Electoral College system is not "anti-democratic," but cautiously democratic.

Which leads to my second quibble: The number of electors from each state is not "determined by population," at least not exclusively. Each state is represented in Congress by representatives, numbered according to a state's population, and two senators, regardless of the size or population of the state.

The number of electors is the combined totals of Congressional seats. So California, with 55 electors, has 53 by population, plus two. The seven least-populous states, and the District of Columbia, all have three electors, one by population, plus two.

The Electoral College mitigates some of the unequal representation in the national government chosen exclusively by population that we experience in Canada; Ontario and Quebec hold almost half of the seats in the House of Commons.

If the U.S. president were chosen merely by population, politicians could focus their campaigns exclusively on urban areas, where advertising is somewhat easier to concentrate and ignore rural and other regional issues. The Electoral College system is not perfect, but it is not anti-democratic, either.

BILL RAMBO

Landmark

Allan Levine claims that New Hampshire holds three votes in the U.S. Electoral College when in fact it has four. Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming -- all of which have smaller populations than New Hampshire -- are the seven states that claim only three such votes apiece.

And U.S. President Barack Obama's 2008 victory was not by a 373-to-173 margin, but 365 to 173. This is a mathematical mistake that directly runs counter to Levine's earlier, accurate, observation that the 50 states and District of Columbia have 538 votes between them.

MICHAEL BAGAMERY

Winnipeg

Classic non sequitur

I'd like to thank Gary Hook for completely missing the point and providing a perfect example of the non-sequitur argument in his Oct. 20 letter, Province is accountable. His beef about wait times is about wait times and has nothing to do with a physician's abuse of power directed toward the most vulnerable and marginalized members of society.

ALLEN FEHR

Winnipeg

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 24, 2012 A8