Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I think the challenge of reducing the number of ridings would mean some rural ridings would be double the size, and they already say how challenging it is to represent and get to all those communities. And given the size, they may have vastly different priorities. That's where my double value urban ridings make more sense.
|
I think that problem of how challenging it is to represent a rural riding is overrated and hyped up to try to overshadow the fact that in the current system most rural ridings have smaller populations and thus a disproportionately higher value to their vote. Ensuring all votes have equal value should take priority over MLA driving time. Remember, these MLAs work for us and they are doing a job that pays really well.
The alternative is a pure proportional representation system where there are no ridings and the seats are 100% allocated by popular vote.
I think MMPR is more desirable, even if it means that rural Alberta is carved into 10 massive ridings. Having those ridings does drive some accountability where there is a named person who is responsible for your region.
Technology could solve a lot of the problems that they are trying to solve by making rural ridings smaller.
1) Improve video conferencing options for rural MLA engagement
2) Build a regional priorities dashboard on the Alberta website so we can list and see a record of the priorities of each region and let citizens submit things to add to the priority list of their riding. (Spoiler: I doubt the priorities are that different from one part of the province to another - health care, education, infrastructure, taxes)
3) Better transparency into what government is doing. This could be on the Alberta website with trackers and connected stories that broadcast all of the work and policies that the government is working on
4) Move MLAs out of "emails" and into a more advanced system, like a ticketing system where communications are retained as permanent records and converted into workflows.
etc.