Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I was just over to POGGE's fine boog an' left me a bigass comment on the troublems with our dumbass electoral system. One o' the commenters by the name o' Greg said he figgered he only had 3 parties to choose from an' that got my Green Party hackles raised up so I lit in with a ramblin' diatribe. Here it is:
Greg said: Finally, I could withhold my vote...
There is another party that runs in all ridings and has remained steadfastly in favour of PR. While the Greens have not elected anyone, GPC support has been steadily growing and the unfairness of FPTP is driven home to more and more voters after each election.
NDP and GPC voters tend to have a better grasp on the problems with the current system simply because we are the ones most victimized by it. The two leading parties are the main beneficiaries of the unfair FPTP system and find it very easy -- and self-serving -- to deny that any problem exists.
I worked alongside my GPC candidate in the 2008 election. She was a big Fair Vote Canada campaigner and worked tirelessly in the Ontario referendum. Whenever she would bring up electoral reform, it would end up working against her. After a few such debacles, it was decided to keep the issue low key. It just didn't resonate or else it was deemed too complicated -- or a dead duck done deal due to the resounding defeat in the referendum.
Attempting to get votes, knowing full well that your party doesn't stand a chance in FPTP, can be frustrating. People will ask, "Why bother?" One of the best reasons has to be the mere fact that once a person sees his or her vote declared essentially meaningless due to FPTP, they will be more receptive and more vocal about the inherent unfairness of the current system.
When enough people start asking why a party that gets 8% or 9% of the popular votes gets 0% representation, we might stand a chance of changing the system. And, it's not just the disenfranchised GPC and NDP voters who can see the discrepancy.
Obviously, the main beneficiaries will be loathe to change a system in which they are the main beneficiaries. I'm not sure we can change that. A Liberal or Con MP who votes for a system that will deprive his party of seats will quickly be dropped from the party.
In the meantime, all we can do is vote our conscience and do our best to inform the public that we have a patently unfair system. I'm 60 YO and have lost all hope that the system will change within my lifetime. That won't stop me from pushing for change. Hey... I'm still pushing for world peace, too.
JimBobby
Showing posts with label Proportional Representation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proportional Representation. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Friday, September 26, 2008
I Refuse to Vote Strategically
Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I left a bigass comment over at Excited Delirium and I'm recycling most of it here. I've been seeing a lot of interest in strategic voting. All sorts of schemes and ideas are popping up that are aimed at preventing Harper from attaining a majority. I won't be supporting any of those schemes. Here's why.
While I want to stop Harper as much as the next progressive, I think there are a couple problems with these types of tactics. The Greens and Libs are doing something like this with the so-called Red-Green deal in 2 ridings. The Liberals in May's Central Nova Riding are not moving en masse to the Greens, though. The numbers would work if every bit of the support for the parties that bowed out went to the agglomerated vote. It won't. Denied their party of choice, some voters will simply stay home. Polls include fence-sitters. Some of the weak support may go to the Cons.
With the way the NDP has been campaigning so vigorously against the Liberals, how many NDP supporters would vote Lib should their party decide to withdraw its candidate?
As a Green Party supporter and worker, I would have a hard time strategically voting Liberal. The Liberals haven't earned my vote. They've been particularly ineffective in opposition and allowed themselves to be bullied into acquiescing to every threat made by Harper. As a result, they staved off an election for a few months but managed to enter it looking like the hand-sitters and abstainers they became.
If we wanted a two-party system, we'd have one. Canadians want a choice. NDP supporters want to vote for the party that best represents their views. Ditto for the other parties' supporters. Democracy isn't about narrowing down our choices to allow us to vote for the lesser of two evils. We want to vote FOR something. These sorts of schemes require us to vote AGAINST something. I don't have any hard evidence handy, but I suspect voters are more motivated to actually get out and vote when they are doing something positive as opposed to something negative.
The system is broken. Unfortunately, of the 60% of Canadians who actually vote in federal elections, few realize how broken it is. I've been thumping the PR bible for years. I've watched as eyes glaze over when I start to explain how the FPTP system is undemocratic. People think, "one man, one vote" equals democracy. Period.
The large parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They are not only the chief recipients of disproportional representation, they are also they very ones who have the legislative clout to change it. Why would they? There's no groundswell of public support for change.
There's the old saying that in a democracy, you get the government you deserve. Here in Canada in 2006, 64% voted against the Cons. Since then, the Cons have ruled us as though they had 100% support. We did not get the government we voted for. We do not deserve to be lorded over by a party with only 36% popular support. Ergo, we do not live in a democracy.
665,000 Canadians voted for the Green Party in 2006 and elected zero MPs. Those 665,000 have a better understanding of the patent unfairness of the system than the voters who elected MPs with 36% popular vote. This time, it is entirely possible that well over one million will vote Green and still not elect an MP.
Sadly, it may take a strong dose of un-democracy to convince enough Canadians that we have a broken system in need of reform. So be it. When we engage in schemes and vote trading and candidate trading and all sorts of strategies to play the game by the unfair rules, we only perpetuate acceptance.
I voted strategically once when I thought I could help stop an undesirable candidate from being elected. I felt slightly nauseous afterward and the experience still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. I refuse to vote against the least desirable. I will continue to vote positively. I will vote for the party and candidates that best reflect my values, whether or not they stand a snowball's chance in hell in our unfair, archaic first past the post system.
JimBobby
While I want to stop Harper as much as the next progressive, I think there are a couple problems with these types of tactics. The Greens and Libs are doing something like this with the so-called Red-Green deal in 2 ridings. The Liberals in May's Central Nova Riding are not moving en masse to the Greens, though. The numbers would work if every bit of the support for the parties that bowed out went to the agglomerated vote. It won't. Denied their party of choice, some voters will simply stay home. Polls include fence-sitters. Some of the weak support may go to the Cons.
With the way the NDP has been campaigning so vigorously against the Liberals, how many NDP supporters would vote Lib should their party decide to withdraw its candidate?
As a Green Party supporter and worker, I would have a hard time strategically voting Liberal. The Liberals haven't earned my vote. They've been particularly ineffective in opposition and allowed themselves to be bullied into acquiescing to every threat made by Harper. As a result, they staved off an election for a few months but managed to enter it looking like the hand-sitters and abstainers they became.
If we wanted a two-party system, we'd have one. Canadians want a choice. NDP supporters want to vote for the party that best represents their views. Ditto for the other parties' supporters. Democracy isn't about narrowing down our choices to allow us to vote for the lesser of two evils. We want to vote FOR something. These sorts of schemes require us to vote AGAINST something. I don't have any hard evidence handy, but I suspect voters are more motivated to actually get out and vote when they are doing something positive as opposed to something negative.
The system is broken. Unfortunately, of the 60% of Canadians who actually vote in federal elections, few realize how broken it is. I've been thumping the PR bible for years. I've watched as eyes glaze over when I start to explain how the FPTP system is undemocratic. People think, "one man, one vote" equals democracy. Period.
The large parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They are not only the chief recipients of disproportional representation, they are also they very ones who have the legislative clout to change it. Why would they? There's no groundswell of public support for change.
There's the old saying that in a democracy, you get the government you deserve. Here in Canada in 2006, 64% voted against the Cons. Since then, the Cons have ruled us as though they had 100% support. We did not get the government we voted for. We do not deserve to be lorded over by a party with only 36% popular support. Ergo, we do not live in a democracy.
665,000 Canadians voted for the Green Party in 2006 and elected zero MPs. Those 665,000 have a better understanding of the patent unfairness of the system than the voters who elected MPs with 36% popular vote. This time, it is entirely possible that well over one million will vote Green and still not elect an MP.
Sadly, it may take a strong dose of un-democracy to convince enough Canadians that we have a broken system in need of reform. So be it. When we engage in schemes and vote trading and candidate trading and all sorts of strategies to play the game by the unfair rules, we only perpetuate acceptance.
I voted strategically once when I thought I could help stop an undesirable candidate from being elected. I felt slightly nauseous afterward and the experience still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. I refuse to vote against the least desirable. I will continue to vote positively. I will vote for the party and candidates that best reflect my values, whether or not they stand a snowball's chance in hell in our unfair, archaic first past the post system.
JimBobby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
