Protecting Canadian democracy is precisely what the legislation is for and one of its great features is that it forbids undue influence from foreigners
Security clearance is required. We can still allow politicians to put their names on the ballot even if they fail security clearance, but they need to go through it because I, as a voter, want to know who has the “kompromat” for any particular politicians, whose pockets are the politicians are holing up in.
I’ve changed my position, in response to thinking about this topic more.
I agree that security clearances can play an important role in our electoral system, but must be carefully designed. If we’re going to implement a system where failing a clearance disqualifies candidates, then several critical safeguards must be in place.
The clearance process must be:
Administered by a truly independent, non-partisan body with clear oversight
Completely transparent in its methodology and criteria
Applied equally to all candidates regardless of party affiliation
Subject to meaningful appeal mechanisms through our courts
Protected against partisan manipulation
Focused only on legitimate security concerns (foreign influence, corruption)
Democracy requires that citizens have meaningful choices, but also that our electoral system is protected from malign interference. Just as we have residency requirements and other basic qualifications for office, security clearances could be viewed as another reasonable qualification in our modern context where foreign interference is a real threat.
The key distinction is between arbitrary disqualification (which undermines democracy) and reasonable, transparent standards that protect democratic integrity. If security clearances meet these strict criteria, they could legitimately serve as a qualification for office.
This position doesn’t contradict support for proportional representation - in fact, they’re complementary. PR ensures citizens’ votes translate fairly into representation, while security clearances help ensure those representatives aren’t compromised by foreign interests.
I think this is well thought and I agree with “This position doesn’t contradict support for proportional representation - in fact, they’re complementary. PR ensures citizens’ votes translate fairly into representation, while security clearances help ensure those representatives aren’t compromised by foreign interests.”
I agree that security clearances and proportional representation address different but complementary aspects of democratic integrity.
What makes these complementary is that both strengthen democratic legitimacy in different ways: PR ensures fair translation of votes to seats, while security clearances maintain the integrity of those representatives once elected.
In today’s complex geopolitical environment, we need both representative fairness and institutional safeguards to create a resilient democracy that truly represents citizens while remaining protected from external manipulation.
Security clearance is required. We can still allow politicians to put their names on the ballot even if they fail security clearance, but they need to go through it because I, as a voter, want to know who has the “kompromat” for any particular politicians, whose pockets are the politicians are holing up in.
I’ve changed my position, in response to thinking about this topic more.
I agree that security clearances can play an important role in our electoral system, but must be carefully designed. If we’re going to implement a system where failing a clearance disqualifies candidates, then several critical safeguards must be in place.
The clearance process must be:
Democracy requires that citizens have meaningful choices, but also that our electoral system is protected from malign interference. Just as we have residency requirements and other basic qualifications for office, security clearances could be viewed as another reasonable qualification in our modern context where foreign interference is a real threat.
The key distinction is between arbitrary disqualification (which undermines democracy) and reasonable, transparent standards that protect democratic integrity. If security clearances meet these strict criteria, they could legitimately serve as a qualification for office.
This position doesn’t contradict support for proportional representation - in fact, they’re complementary. PR ensures citizens’ votes translate fairly into representation, while security clearances help ensure those representatives aren’t compromised by foreign interests.
I think this is well thought and I agree with “This position doesn’t contradict support for proportional representation - in fact, they’re complementary. PR ensures citizens’ votes translate fairly into representation, while security clearances help ensure those representatives aren’t compromised by foreign interests.”
I agree that security clearances and proportional representation address different but complementary aspects of democratic integrity.
What makes these complementary is that both strengthen democratic legitimacy in different ways: PR ensures fair translation of votes to seats, while security clearances maintain the integrity of those representatives once elected.
In today’s complex geopolitical environment, we need both representative fairness and institutional safeguards to create a resilient democracy that truly represents citizens while remaining protected from external manipulation.