With the election out of the way, now is a good time to contemplate just how narrow and limited our democracy is. Having put your "x" on your ballot, your direct input into how our country is run - and how politicians spend billions of our tax dollars - is now finished. Certainly you can always approach your MP cap-in-hand with phone calls, letters and e-mails. But your opportunity to actually exercise some power and exert some direct control is effectively over, until the next election.

Our Canadian - and Alberta provincial - democracy is limited because the voter is forced to choose one "complete package" consisting of party leader, party policies and local candidate. The "x" on the ballot endorses all three, even if the voter intensely dislikes the local candidate or the party leader or some of the party's policies. Further, the extreme dominance of the Prime Minister's Office in our federal democracy - and the Premier's Office provincially - means that MPs and MLAs have now become "voting machines" who do their leaders' bidding.

Voters do not have a direct say on immigration, the definition of marriage, the criminal justice system, the rights of unborn children, or any other issues which affect their lives. Instead, voters must choose that one "package" of policies they dislike the least. A Conservative victory might be an endorsement of tax cuts or a rejection of gay marriage, but nobody can be certain of this. A Liberal victory doesn't prove that Canadians support gay marriage, or that they are content with current levels of taxation.

No person dares criticize the wisdom of voters during an election, even though the election's outcome says nothing clear or definitive about which policies voters have endorsed, and which policies have been rejected.

If voters are smart enough to vote in elections, why should they not have a direct say in a referendum on a major issue affecting their daily lives Do we really need Paul Martin and Ralph Klein creating rigid "packages" for us, which limit our democratic choice On important issues, why not let these two gentlemen vote in a referendum, just like their fellow citizens

Of course there would be confusion and chaos if every detail of public policy were decided by a multitude of ongoing referendums. But nobody advocates year-round, continuous referendums on every issue. This is merely a straw dummy, set up by elitists who want politicians to retain control over all issues at all times, without a direct say from citizens.

There is no reason why voters' choice cannot - and should not - be expanded by giving them the right to initiate and vote in referendums on issues important to them. Citizens in Switzerland, New Zealand, numerous U.S. states, Italy and British Columbia can engage in democratic debate on issues without having to seek the permission of politicians.

Citizens' initiative legislation will create a healthy separation between issues and personalities. According to a 2001 Environics poll, 79% of Albertans want this legislation. It's time for Premier Klein to take Alberta beyond the narrow confines of our limited, restricted democracy. If Alberta leads by example, we can ask Ottawa to follow.