If the news story for the media outlet after each referendum has been so far that MMP or STV has failed to be adopted, the story for us is “Voters decide to keep undemocratic electoral system”.
Yet in Ontario there has been no majority government with a majority of the votes since 1937. The weird results of the 1996 and 2001 election in British-Columbia precipitated the 2005 referendum. But this travesty, still called democracy, goes underreported in our media. The Winnipeg Free Press even reported us as a “fringe movement”; a movement that has managed to put 4 referendums in the last 4 years: one in Ontario, one in PEI, two in BC.
When it comes to politics the colours of the rainbow are with us in this movement. Non-voters, fringe party, NDP, even liberal and conservatives. I am a green. I’d like to share you a story of the 2008 federal election, an election where more than half the votes in the entire country, regardless of location or allegiance, were wasted. I was working at the central headquarters of the Green Party of Canada. That first and second week, when Elizabeth May had been refused to the televised debate was probably the best weeks in the campaign. The phone was ringing off the hook, we couldn’t keep up with the e-mail, people were calling into talk shows. What provoked the furry **and the action** was two things I think: one was the feeling of injustice; and two was that the public knew what they wanted, they could visualize the desired outcome: to have Elizabeth May on television debating with the other leaders.
The electoral desperately feels that there is something wrong with our sate of politics. But has it yet to make the accusation with us, it has yet to even think of the current electoral system, and those who support it, as the perpetrator of the crime before their eyes.
Frustration and anger without a solution in mind, I would say, leads to a cynical public. Yet I think at each referendum, we’ve still manage to corner ourselves - less so at the last campaign, but we still did - reacting and explaining our system rather putting First Past the Post on trial. Those are some questions that I hope to see discussed today: should we attack more first past the post and its defenders, should we talk more about the citizen assemblies and the power that we have to reshape these institutions?
Here is another question: are we listening to the public needs when we talk about fairness? Many who have voted for the status quo have done so out of fear of instability. But it is our current electoral system that is the source of instability. All of us here are somewhat political geeks. The general public is not. Are we missing an opportunity by talking about fairness rather than instability?
The results of the BC referendum is certainly a step back. But make no mistake. It is only a matter of time before electoral reform is adopted: the younger generations, in a clear majority, support fair voting. The road to victory is still ours. And when it comes to restoring democracy there is only one direction to go: forward
The young do understand very clearly why electoral reform must occur. What amazes me is the almost obtuse attitude of the not-so-young. Why do so many know so little about the way their own country and its institutions work? They leave the field wide open for cynical abuse by the very people they claim to distrust - politicians - yet they see no need for themselves to pay any attention or even to try to understand it.
Dereliction of duty by so many citizens is a big danger to democracy for us all.
Comment by Steve Withers — 8 June 2009 @ 12:15 am
I agree that we need a constant attack on first past the post, the instability and shennanigans it generates, and its root flaw — the inevitable denial of equal representation to each citizen caused by single-member electoral districts.
As for the restoration of democracy — you can’t restore what you never had.
By my definition of representative democracy — equal representation in the legislature for each citizen — any country without PR is not yet a democracy.
That helps to eliminate considerable confusion about what actually goes on in three societies of particular interest to us — Canada, the US and the UK.
They are relatively free societies which have representative government, but have not yet achieved representative democracy.
John Deverell
Comment by John Deverell — 8 June 2009 @ 10:11 am
Are we missing an opportunity by talking about fairness rather than instability?
Not exactly. I think the missed opportunity happens when fairness is presented as a philosophical abstraction rather than something that touches people’s lives in tangible and specific ways. For example, ads for the recent Yes on BC-STV campaign recited past election results and asked (rhetorically), “Is that fair?” Viewers could watch those ads and nod in agreement, yet be totally unmoved. What does the unfairness have to do with their families, jobs, neighborhoods, and futures?
One answer is that the unfairness is a major source of the disconnect they (we) all feel between ourselves and the governments that our supposed to represent us. Many, many people are conscious of that disconnect. Link the unresponsiveness of government to people’s real issues, and link the unrepresentativeness of government to its unresponsiveness. Do this by example, not by general principles. Then people will vote for electoral reform.
Comment by Bob Richard — 8 June 2009 @ 7:56 pm
“It is only a matter of time before electoral reform is adopted”
Agreed. There’s a general trend towards this type of thing that gives me the warm and fuzzies ( http://www.cognitivesandbox.com/posts/trends-in-fairness-and-complexity/ ).
Comment by Brad Beattie — 12 August 2009 @ 9:16 pm
[...] When it comes to restoring democracy there is only one direction to go: forward [...]
Pingback by Cognitive Sandbox » The continuing discussion of electoral reform in Canada — 13 August 2009 @ 4:15 pm