This op-ed about electoral corruption in Alberta, by Rachel Notley, former NDP premier of Alberta, is worth reading (gift link) and very discouraging too.
...the UCP proposed a plan for Trump-style gerrymandering. They rejected the independent boundaries commission report, silencing the voices of the thousands of Albertans who participated in a fair, transparent and democratic process. Instead, an advisory panel will propose a new electoral map for Alberta, overseen by a committee of politicians dominated by UCP members. They will not be required to consult with the public. It seems likely that the final say on the map will rest with the politicians.
Blatant corruption of the electoral process is troubling enough. What's worse is the sense that this kind of majoritarian autocracy is gaining ground across Canada.
Today political parties are almost entirely run by professional managers and strategists instead of elected caucuses and volunteer members. The faith that there are conventions of appropriate behaviour in politics is becoming harder and harder to maintain. Governance really is all about winning and getting one's way, and not only in Alberta. (Compare: Quebec, and examples don't lack in Ontario, either.) Political processes where customary behaviour is expected but not protected are widely endangered.
It has long been shocking how deeply electoral gerrymandering has been routine and normal for both parties in American politics. Though the Democratic Party has long been prepared to ban the practice, the Republican Party defends it to the last ditch. So it becomes more extreme and more accepted --even necessary -- with each electoral cycle.
(Add to that the constitutional gerrymanders of American Senate representation, the Electoral College, etc. US electoral problems do not start or end with the Trump regime.)
In Canada, the profoundly corrupt wartime election of 1917 persuaded even the winner of that election to support the Dominion Elections Act, which led to the establishment of the independent Chief Electoral Officer for Canada. Partisan influences in election processes, and eventually in constituency boundary-setting, were gradually replaced.
Details of how electoral processes were gradually corruption-proofed -- and then corrupted again -- in the provinces are less well documented. But some provinces are demonstrating how easily independent commissions are easily bypassed by majoritarian interference of the kind Rachel Notley exposes in the article cited above.
Unlike the United States, we do have courts in Canada that will consider ruling against electoral corruption. A 1991 Supreme Court of Canada decision sets out "effective representation" rights that courts can enforce. Quebec has already run up against these, and Alberta now seems likely to. In both those provinces, setbacks in the courts tend to lead to "notwithstanding" legislation and/or separatist agitation.
Judicial review is something. But look how easy it is to corrupt the process for appointing judges!
