theseer:

Under [Minister of Democratic Reform, Tim] Uppal’s tenure, the Harper government has been successful in abolishing the unjust practice of publicly financing political parties trough the $1.25 per vote subsidy introduced and supported by previous liberal administrations.

Uppal’s Ministry was also successful in addressing the issue of under representation in the House of Commons (HOC) by passing Bill C-20, which effectively increases the number of HOC seats in Ontario, BC, and Alberta, by a ratio that is proportionate to each provinces population size.

1. Taking away public funding for parties means that the heavily privately-funded Conservative Party will always have enough money, and the Green Party will continue to flounder without subsidies.

2. Adding representation in Alberta, BC and Ontario (the 3 most Conservative provinces) means that the Conservative Party will have more potential for a majority in the next election.

A disclaimer and two notes.

Disclaimer: this ‘article’ should have appeared in the Opinion section, and if you’re mad that it didn’t, I don’t blame you. We should have done better.

Note 1: If something is heavily privately-funded, that generally means that actual people are actually willing to put their money where their mouth is. Eliminating government funding is not actually a bad thing - it forces people to commit to more than lip service interactions with their political system. If the Green Party receives a lot of support from the public in terms of votes, it should not have trouble receiving monetary support for that same public.

(And the concern that businesses will abuse the system is unfounded because, quite simply, corporations are no longer allowed to do contribute to election campaigns (due to a bill passed by the Conservative government in 2006.)

Note 2: If the seats in Alberta were not added, Albertans’ votes would continue to have been worth much less than Quebecors’ or Ontarians’. Currently, the average riding in Alberta has 30,000 more voters than that of Ontario or Quebec - which means that Alberta’s population growth is not fairly reflected in the way that our country is governed. Yes, the Conservatives may have a better shot at a majority - but that is only because a vote in Alberta will now be equal to a vote in Ontario or Quebec. That is a more fair democracy.

Endpoint: You’re welcome to disagree with me, but I would suggest that your disagreement may reflect a serious prejudice in favour of Ontario-centric or Quebec-centric policies. I would also suggest that you re-think said prejudice.