Democracy
There has been a whole bunch of talk about democracy lately. Now, I can get on board with discussions about what kind of system would work well for Canadians and other jurisdictions. Talk about the political theory behind democracy is always a good time and I can get behind that too. What I can't abide is government making wholesale changes without consultation and serious consideration, especially since some forms of democratic reform have been rejected in some provinces.
But this entry isn't about politics, it's about democracy and what reforms we can make in this country to make it work better.
I wish everyone knew what being a true democracy meant. Not just a representative democracy, but actual democracy. It means rule by the people. That means that there is an inherent responsibility on behalf of the people of a democratic jurisdiction to participate in their system of government. Translated into Canadianese, that means voting. I don't think it's too much to ask of a populace that prides itself on being democratic and being free and being part of the enlightened world that is responsible and grown-up. If all that is true, then why don't people vote? Come to think of it, I don't care why people don't vote, I just care that there isn't 100% turnout, because until there's 100% turnout, I don't think we can call ourselves responsible or grown-up, nor can we being to have the discussions that we need to have about democratic reform. Until we are actually a democracy, we can't talk about what sort of democracy we want to be. Thus, my first democratic reform would be mandatory voting.
Making things mandatory is what you do when the system doesn't work and you need to institute some form of requirement for people to give a shit. Take driving, for example. It is mandatory that, in order to drive, you must have a license. That's to make sure that every goober who has working feet doesn't get behind the wheel and kill people. My grandparents' generation were required to give a shit about driving, not taking it for granted, because cars can kill. And they did, and now virtually 100% of people on the road have a license to be there. See? It works! Yay!
Making voting mandatory isn't unheard of. They do it in Australia and they do it in Belgium. For a while they did it in Austria, too. People would complain for exactly one election cycle about having to drag their asses 50 feet to their polling station. Why? Because the benefits of mandatory voting (you can spoil your ballot if you want to) will be seen immediately:
1. Politics will be geared toward *ack! shocker!* PEOPLE! When 100% of the population has to vote, the people who want to get into office will have to ask you for your vote without the filter of special interests. When 100% of students vote, issues facing kids in post-secondary education will be taken seriously. When 100% of disabled people vote, disability issues will be addressed. In order for someone to be voted into office, they will have no choice but to address the issues of their voters, which, in the case of a general election, would be EVERYONE! Imagine a democracy where everyone gets something out of it!
2. When people see that their issues are being taken seriously, they will be happy to vote. Even if the guy you vote for doesn't win, the person who does win will still have to address your issues because in the next election, he's going to have many, many more people to be responsible to.
3. Mandatory voting will result in more coalition governments, which are arguably more democratic. There can't be one party that will be able to capture a plurality of votes in each constituency if a plurality is well over 50,000 votes. Thus, we'll have more coalitions which is good for democracy. Majorities are more efficient, and efficiency is a nice thing to have in government, but if we're talking about actually being a democracy, then coalitions where there is multi-party support for a measure or there isn't going to be that measure is where it's at.
Will you permit me to argue against the recent Conservative attempts at "reform" for a moment?
Fixed Election Dates: Here's what fixed dates do: They create longer and more expensive election campaigns that do not speak to voters, rather speak to special interests. Look at the American Presidential campaign - everyone knows when it's going to happen, so the President gets maybe 18 months to govern before he's faced with either a mid-term or a full on Presidential campaign again. In Ontario, the campaigns have pretty much begun. When we know what the date is going to be, we want to get our campaign offices, signage, etc done before the other guy. And it's way more expensive to run a campaign office for a longer period of time and thus the candidate needs to spend more time fundraising which taken him away from his job which is governing the province. And what happens in rural communities that just don't have the money to run a campaign for that long? They get left in the dust and thus the big party machinery starts to concentrate it's resources on places that can keep it going for a longer time, thus leaving the issues of those in smaller communities with no light on them. What's the answer? Mandatory voting! Look at the US Example - the Democratic grassroots are pushing for a 50-state solution to the problem of getting back into power in either the house or Senate. Um, what? You mean you didn't have a 50-state solution the whole time? Apparently not - so places like Alabama and Montana were ignored by the Democrats, thus enusring that if they got into power, Alabama and Montana would be voiceless. Democratic? No. Fixed dates? Bad idea. Oh, and fixed election dates in a first-past-the-post system where minority governments aren't just possible, but happening more and more? Even worse.
Term Limits. Here's what term limits do: they make the country ungovernable for the last term before the term limit expires and basically exposes the country/jurisdiction to a really really long campaign. Let's say the Prime Minister is allowed to govern for three terms of 4 years each. First 8 years? Everything's fine. Last 4 years? The Prime Minister won't want to be doing anything that will ruin his party's chances of re-election with a new leader (and the new leader will have to be chosen, so there'll be a distracting leadership battle as well as political posturing among the potential candidates for eons before the leader is finally chosen) and he'll be concentrating on legacy projects, etc. And since we know when he'll retire, all of that gets WAY worse. Such a bad idea. And undemocratic - let people decide when to kick the bastards out, not some consitutional change. We've never elected a fascist dictator here who will grab power for life, and I don't think we ever will. Especially with...what? Mandatory voting!
I do agree that we should have an elected Senate, but Harper's tinkering with that is pure politics and trying to get rid of the threat of Liberal senators who might want to override his legislation or something. And making sure that he gets the chance to appoint lots of Conservative senators.
In other news...
I have none. I'm boring.
That's it.
But this entry isn't about politics, it's about democracy and what reforms we can make in this country to make it work better.
I wish everyone knew what being a true democracy meant. Not just a representative democracy, but actual democracy. It means rule by the people. That means that there is an inherent responsibility on behalf of the people of a democratic jurisdiction to participate in their system of government. Translated into Canadianese, that means voting. I don't think it's too much to ask of a populace that prides itself on being democratic and being free and being part of the enlightened world that is responsible and grown-up. If all that is true, then why don't people vote? Come to think of it, I don't care why people don't vote, I just care that there isn't 100% turnout, because until there's 100% turnout, I don't think we can call ourselves responsible or grown-up, nor can we being to have the discussions that we need to have about democratic reform. Until we are actually a democracy, we can't talk about what sort of democracy we want to be. Thus, my first democratic reform would be mandatory voting.
Making things mandatory is what you do when the system doesn't work and you need to institute some form of requirement for people to give a shit. Take driving, for example. It is mandatory that, in order to drive, you must have a license. That's to make sure that every goober who has working feet doesn't get behind the wheel and kill people. My grandparents' generation were required to give a shit about driving, not taking it for granted, because cars can kill. And they did, and now virtually 100% of people on the road have a license to be there. See? It works! Yay!
Making voting mandatory isn't unheard of. They do it in Australia and they do it in Belgium. For a while they did it in Austria, too. People would complain for exactly one election cycle about having to drag their asses 50 feet to their polling station. Why? Because the benefits of mandatory voting (you can spoil your ballot if you want to) will be seen immediately:
1. Politics will be geared toward *ack! shocker!* PEOPLE! When 100% of the population has to vote, the people who want to get into office will have to ask you for your vote without the filter of special interests. When 100% of students vote, issues facing kids in post-secondary education will be taken seriously. When 100% of disabled people vote, disability issues will be addressed. In order for someone to be voted into office, they will have no choice but to address the issues of their voters, which, in the case of a general election, would be EVERYONE! Imagine a democracy where everyone gets something out of it!
2. When people see that their issues are being taken seriously, they will be happy to vote. Even if the guy you vote for doesn't win, the person who does win will still have to address your issues because in the next election, he's going to have many, many more people to be responsible to.
3. Mandatory voting will result in more coalition governments, which are arguably more democratic. There can't be one party that will be able to capture a plurality of votes in each constituency if a plurality is well over 50,000 votes. Thus, we'll have more coalitions which is good for democracy. Majorities are more efficient, and efficiency is a nice thing to have in government, but if we're talking about actually being a democracy, then coalitions where there is multi-party support for a measure or there isn't going to be that measure is where it's at.
Will you permit me to argue against the recent Conservative attempts at "reform" for a moment?
Fixed Election Dates: Here's what fixed dates do: They create longer and more expensive election campaigns that do not speak to voters, rather speak to special interests. Look at the American Presidential campaign - everyone knows when it's going to happen, so the President gets maybe 18 months to govern before he's faced with either a mid-term or a full on Presidential campaign again. In Ontario, the campaigns have pretty much begun. When we know what the date is going to be, we want to get our campaign offices, signage, etc done before the other guy. And it's way more expensive to run a campaign office for a longer period of time and thus the candidate needs to spend more time fundraising which taken him away from his job which is governing the province. And what happens in rural communities that just don't have the money to run a campaign for that long? They get left in the dust and thus the big party machinery starts to concentrate it's resources on places that can keep it going for a longer time, thus leaving the issues of those in smaller communities with no light on them. What's the answer? Mandatory voting! Look at the US Example - the Democratic grassroots are pushing for a 50-state solution to the problem of getting back into power in either the house or Senate. Um, what? You mean you didn't have a 50-state solution the whole time? Apparently not - so places like Alabama and Montana were ignored by the Democrats, thus enusring that if they got into power, Alabama and Montana would be voiceless. Democratic? No. Fixed dates? Bad idea. Oh, and fixed election dates in a first-past-the-post system where minority governments aren't just possible, but happening more and more? Even worse.
Term Limits. Here's what term limits do: they make the country ungovernable for the last term before the term limit expires and basically exposes the country/jurisdiction to a really really long campaign. Let's say the Prime Minister is allowed to govern for three terms of 4 years each. First 8 years? Everything's fine. Last 4 years? The Prime Minister won't want to be doing anything that will ruin his party's chances of re-election with a new leader (and the new leader will have to be chosen, so there'll be a distracting leadership battle as well as political posturing among the potential candidates for eons before the leader is finally chosen) and he'll be concentrating on legacy projects, etc. And since we know when he'll retire, all of that gets WAY worse. Such a bad idea. And undemocratic - let people decide when to kick the bastards out, not some consitutional change. We've never elected a fascist dictator here who will grab power for life, and I don't think we ever will. Especially with...what? Mandatory voting!
I do agree that we should have an elected Senate, but Harper's tinkering with that is pure politics and trying to get rid of the threat of Liberal senators who might want to override his legislation or something. And making sure that he gets the chance to appoint lots of Conservative senators.
In other news...
I have none. I'm boring.
That's it.
posted by WitMistress at 3:43 PM
0 comments
