Lest we forget….

Nothing changes until we change our electoral system.

Amid all the noise of the phony niqab war, the slicing and dicing of the federal electorate, and the multitudinous outrages the Harper administration has visited on Canada and the Canadian government, we're in danger of forgetting that while this election is critically important, really, we should be thinking about the next one.
Because if we don't want to continue down the path the Harperites have led us, we're going to have to make it impossible for 38% of the electorate to effectively impose one-party rule.
We're going to have to change the way we elect governments.

For the first time ever, I think, the four major parties all have clear proposals on the table:
1.  The Conservatives offer the status quo, and why not? It has served them extremely well recently, and conforms admirably to their vision of a segmented, special-interest, hot-button electorate.
We've now had occasion to try it, and that should be enough incentive to look at the alternatives on offer.
2.  The NDP and Greens are offering Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMPR). Other (admittedly much smaller, like Germany and New Zealand) countries have made that work effectively. There are a number of variants, but essentially the elector votes in a constituency for a member, and then, in consideration of the national popular vote, parties get to appoint members as well. This would serve the Greens (who elect one, but poll north of 5%) well, and would encourage any number of small parties. It would undoubtedly represent the electorate better than any other system.  In Germany the system has a threshold for representation, which largely solves the Israeli problem of very small parties distorting the will of the majority in exchange for becoming part of a majority coalition.
The Greens have no chance to be either government or influential this election, so if you want the Greens to increase their numbers and their influence in the future, paradoxically this time you will have to vote NDP. (!)
3.  The Liberals are offering a system they call Alternative Vote (AV). It's the system most political parties now use to choose their leader: the elector votes for his/her favourite, then provides a second choice, and even a third. The count starts with all the votes; if no one gets 50%, the bottom person drops off and his/her second choices are counted, etc., until one candidate has at least 50%.
That's the system that gave the Liberals Stephane Dion, almost no one's first choice, on the 4th ballot.
The only time it was used in Canadian elections, as far as I am aware, was in 1952, when it led to the first (minority) Social Credit government in BC. The next election, fought in 1953 under the same system, returned a majority Socred government...
...which then promptly changed the electoral system back to the traditional “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system and ruled until defeated by Dave Barrett's NDP in 1972.
A much more complex variant, actually a combination of AV and MMPR,  nearly became BC's electoral system in 2005, but got only 57.7% in the referendum vote, and required 60%.
AV is a lousy system if you're a fan of any small party, in that it is unlikely to elect candidates of such parties, but at least, unlike FPTP,  it permits the majority to form government. It also has the benefit of legitimizing individual MPs, in that all of them know they represent at least 50% of their electorate. It's even possible this would embolden some of them to think for themselves, or at least represent their constituents.
And it's easy to explain and easy to implement, so it would be an easier sell to the general electorate than MMPR.

Either the NDP/Green alternative or the Liberal one would be a vast improvement over what we have.
So this time, let's make electoral reform job #1, and let's get it done even if we have to vote for a party we might not otherwise support.
Remember ABC: Anyone But Conservative!