A few days ago I attended, against my better judgment, an electoral reform committee public hearing in downtown Toronto.

Here are some observations, and other reasons to fret for the future of humanity, in no particular order:

A self-described environmentalist from the riding of Toronto-Centre has serious reservations about holding a referendum on reform. She is “fairly political engaged,” she explains.

However, there are others who aren’t as engaged as her and thus may make poor decisions when faced with the referendum question due to their “lack of understanding.”

It’s like a headline from The Onion: “Local genius finds democracy flawed when masses disagree with her.”

At one point a self-identified Green Party member took to the mic to say “my soul is being destroyed by the current system.”

A woman later got up to simply state how lucky we are to live in Canada - true - and then almost broke down in tears.

Another man got up to say that our current electoral system is “despicable.”

Electoral reform advocates have the unique distinction of managing to simultaneously be both drama queens and insufferable bores.

A number of pro-reform speakers argued we need “fairness” in our electoral system and that voting has to be “fair.” I still have no clue what in the hell they were going on about and how exactly the current first-past-the-post system is unfair. Perhaps they mean it’s unfair that the party of their choice has never governed. Or that the party of their choice has not exclusively governed. Sorry folks, but that’s just what you get when living in a diverse society.

Several white people got up to decry without elaboration that the current system discriminates against ethnic minorities.

Meanwhile, several ethnic minorities got up and made detailed and intelligent points while having the good manners to not gratuitously reference anyone’s skin colour, least of all their own.

I’m aware that I’m risking a human rights complaint by writing this, but why are white do-gooders so much more annoying and patronizing than do-gooders of any other background?

A man made an interesting point that if extending the vote to women 100 years ago had been put to a referendum instead of via legislation it would have been rejected. Perhaps. I haven’t seen any data on this. However it has little bearing on current reform. Everyone can vote under the current system.

It remains unclear to me what foul deeds the 12 MPs appointed to the panel committed to warrant such punishment. Perhaps a new political maxim is in order? “Keep your friends close and keep your enemies on public consultation committees.”

I used to be strongly in favour of public consultations. But the more I witness both the “public” part and the “consultation” part in action, I’m decidedly less so.

To conclude: If the government is still dead set on reform then, yes, it should certainly hold a referendum. The few people who spoke in favour of one received little support and were stared down by fellow audience members.

But who should the committee serve? A room that, at least in this case, was populated by self-declared Green Party members, people wearing Leadnow activist T-shirts and other organized special interests?

Opinion polls have consistently shown a majority of Canadians want a referendum.

Either way, to argue for or against a referendum is still putting the cart before the horse. The bigger unaddressed issue is why we’re even debating fixing something that’s yet to be proven broken.

I’d like to see a pollster go back to basics and simply ask Canadians if they give a damn about this conversation in the first place or if they agree that the current system is in fact “despicable.”

Obsessive progressives have actually been kicking about the topic for well over a decade now and despite their best efforts few people care about what they’re saying.

For most well-adjusted people, that would be what we call a hint.

But the gears of perpetual progressives, once set in motion, have no moderating mechanism.

Rather than now trying to foist change upon a country that has no interest in it, they should admit defeat and redirect their efforts to addressing issues that actually matter.

Wishful thinking?