Since we’re in the middle of an election, it wouldn’t hurt to step back and take a look at the bigger picture, to see where the short-term promises of the competing parties are leading us. Besides around in the usual circles, that is.
What is “Better Democracy?”
Good government is supposed to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but that begs the question of who gets to decide what “good” is. In a democratic society, the people get to decide. Supposedly. Logic suggests that the best democratic system is one that listens to the largest number of people. After that, “you get the government you deserve” takes over.
And does our system listen to the people?
Not a Chance
Our First Past the Post system is designed to allow government by the smallest number of people they can get away with and still pretend it’s democracy. On average, just under 40% of the voters. And when we see from recent events how easy it is to fool a depressingly large percentage of the population — 50% of us are of lower-than-average intelligence, after all — that means we are actually being governed by a very small group of people.
Fix the Election Process
As I discussed in my “Stop Whining” post a couple of weeks ago, the feudal heritage of First Past the Post favours rampant competitive types. The main objective is to “win” a majority of seats so you can “rule” for four years.
And when we think about it, we come to the depressing conclusion that we haven’t really progressed much since the bad old days. We are still being governed by a group of people who are highly competitive, who consider that the only ones who deserve to rule are those with the drive to take control. A thousand years ago they made the choice by jousting; now we choose our leaders by a public relations competition, and may the richest man win (gender specific on purpose).
If we’re serious about strengthening our government against the assaults of multinational corporations and climate change, we have to find a system that does two things. First, it should make more votes count in the election, and second, it should encourage the politicians to listen to the voters more while they are in office. Which, now that I’ve said it, sounds like pretty much the same thing. Most democracies in the world have decided that Proportional Representation will achieve both of these goals.
The Solution is Democratic
Think before you vote. Ask the candidates about Proportional Representation when they come to your door. Tell them you want your vote to count. Ask about the National Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. If they don’t know about it, they should.
There doesn’t seem to be too much difference between the party platforms in this election. We only trusted Trudeau with a minority government last time. I don’t see any reason to give him any more this time. O’Toole is snitching planks from everybody else’s platforms and promising every voting bloc what they want to hear. The chances aren’t good that he would follow through on most of them. Use Pro-Rep as a factor in your choice.
Of course, under Pro-Rep you wouldn’t have to do all this strategic voting. Depending on the system, you vote for the person and party you want, and from 50% to 90% of votes cast end up electing someone.
The Bottom Line
We’re presently being governed by the competitive. We can reduce the influence of the competition junkies by a very small adjustment to our election system, using one of the many Pro-Rep systems in operation by the vast majority of developed countries. And a lot of less developed countries as well, come to think of it. Let’s bring Canada into the 21st Century.
Next Week: The Second Step. Government and Business