8 posts tagged “politics”

Observations made during this latest election season.

(Please note that all statements are meant to be general to my population and not specific.)

1. It seems that we do not seem to hold the principles of democracy in high esteem

Democracy means giving voice to the people, even if you don't like what people are saying.  From one conversation, said in a disapproving tone: "Well, STV means someone from the Marijuana Party could get in." * Now, that person is entirely correct - a representative from this party could get in, if s/he had enough votes.  So what?  If enough people vote for it, it can happen. That is how our representative democracy works.  On my part, I certainly don't agree with my fellow voters at every turn, but I must be willing to accept their choices and the outcome. (Until the next election, that is. ;) 

1. We seem to be expecting less and less of our representatives in government.

Let me back me back up a bit:

Under STV and the way we've historically voted, there is a likelihood of returning a minority government to the legislature.  Some see minority governments as ineffectual and that majorities are necessary for "anything to get done.  After all, [the politicians] can't get things done very well as it is."  (Quote from another recent conversation.)  With this (not unwarranted) criticism, I see a lowering of the bar when it comes to the job performance of our representatives - we assume that since they don't get on well right now, having more opinions in the mix (even if they are desired, ie:voted in, by the population) to be a negative thing.  I feel that we have a right to demand our representatives get along and compromise and “get things done” because they are the ones we've asked to it and by taking office, they've agreed. It shouldn't matter if we are asking them to work with a minority or a majority.   Finger pointing isn't the point, getting on with task of governing our province regardless of who you have to work with, is. By saying no to STV simply because we don't have faith in our politicians to get along seems to be flipping our priorities – it's the politicians who need to shape up. 

I first began to really notice the ramifications of this with the confidence crisis last winter. Just like with the outcry with the possibility of a coalition forming (specifially against the idea that such a move would be illegal and/or undemocratic), it would seem that people do not understand how our current electoral system works. If one does not understand how our current first-past-the-post system works, they aren't as likely to understand why it's ineffective. As a result, convincing people why or how change is important meets with resistance. Lack of education seems to leave people open to responding to, what essentially amounts to as fear-mongering. Even I've been struck with doubt after reading a particularly persuasive piece before I head back to the basics of the systems and examine the arguments. The point is, I understand a lot about this and even I fall prey to it; how much easier it would be if I wasn't adequately informed. Just this weekend I read an op-ed piece our local paper that used the Stanley Cup finals as an analogy to STV. Sadly, the analogy is, at best, misleading, and at worst, false. (For those who have seen it, because it's been circulating other places – you can't get SEATS without the VOTES. Votes can't trump seats, no matter what system you're in. Oh, and we're in a multi-party system where there are many winners (of seats), so that muddies the waters, too.)

The current major parties have been pretty quiet about STV overall and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that has spread some mistrust of STV as well. (Without them taking the time to rectify anything.) STV turns out a legislature far more reflective of the majority vote that our current system. Far, far better, in fact. Currently, a government can (and has) gained all of the power with only 30 – 40% of the votes. Therefore it is not in the best interest of the current major parties to change the electoral system. However, it is certainly in the best interest of the electorate, us.

I understand that there are plenty of people out there who heartily disagree with the positions I take. I'm quite alright with that. I don't want to sound as arrogant as some politicians I hear who make out anyone who disagrees with them to be a simpleton, or moronic. However, it is important that the conclusions drawn come from the facts and information even if our interpretations are different.

So get education and get out the vote!

*My apologies to those supporters of this party.  I use it as an example because, you must admit, we're not likely to elect a party whose primary platform has to do with legalizing a drug.  Just saying. 

In about five days, the province I live in is holding an election to fill up our legislature again.  I think I've decided for whom I'll vote, but I feel like it's a lesser of evils; I just can't find the right combo of party policy, leadership qualities and representative acumen.  I'm starting to get rather depressed about it.

However, for me, this election cycle has a lot less to do with who we send back to represent us and more to do with deciding how we do that in the future.  Along with casting ballots, we're also being asked to decide whether or not we want to change our electoral system from the current first-past-the-post system.  It's called the Single Transferable Vote (STV) and is a form of proportional representation (used in many, many European counties) with our form being almost identical to that of Ireland. 

I've done a lot of reading on the subject from both sides of the argument.  I recognize fully that there will be some not-so-great possibilities, but no worse that what we currently face and have decided that, in the balance, I think this electoral process is a good one and should be used here.  I feel like it would result in a legislature far more representative (truly) than our current system.  And I feel very strongly about this.

The 'yes' side to this debate has a lot of work to do.  It has to work against inertia.  STV isn't as obvious to people and it requires people take time to be educated.  It's far harder to effect change; people choose the path of least resistance and, given the time I've spent talking to different people and reading the letters to the editor and the sound bites on TV, I'm don't think that education is really happening.  No, I'm not saying that just because someone disagrees with me that they aren't educated on the subject.  What I am hearing, however, are a lot of statements made against the system, but when questioned further, they don't actually know how or even why those statements are or aren't true.  (There's a lot of misinformation out there, too.) 

Essentially, I'll be surprised if the referendum passes because I believe that people will take the path of least resistance and embrace the devil the know (so to speak.)

And this really, really, bums me out.  I get depressed and frusterated.  Chris gets angry. 

Last week while talking about democracy and politics, we realized that we're getting pretty riled about it.  We had to take a moment to realize that, though not insignificant, we can't let politics dictate our own attitudes and focus and response to life.  God is still God regardless of who governs, regardless of our electoral system.  Life marches on.
That thought calms me, encourages me.

And then the things of life happen around me: Joyful things.  Painful things.  People get sick and injured.  People make poor choices.  People make good ones.  Lives change unimaginably in a moment.  Suddenly I'm praying like I've been given new wind.  Life is marching on.  My mind swirls.  People become more important again.  Politics fade a bit.

I'll still vote next week.  I'll continue to ask that others do, too.  It is still significant, after all.  And though I may be disappointed (intertia, remember?) I can be assured that God hasn't changed, that people are imprortant and that joy can be found in a lot of places.

I wonder...

... why Peaches had such a long nap this morning (2 1/2 hours!).

... what was said at Rideau Hall this morning.

... why the Bloc is being demonized.

... if I can keep a food journal.

... how many fruit stickers end up in composts.

... if fruit stickers are even biodegradable.

... why Gus suddenly wants to nap with his shirt off.

... if the forecasted snow will stay.

... what's on the table on January 27th.

... what I'm getting for Christmas.

... if I'm going to even enjoy the next book club selection.

... if I can produce a half decent running stitch.

... if I'm shallow.

... about the grace given me in Christ Jesus - it seems beyond my grasp.

and

... if that's ok.

nb: This is for interested Canucks - and since y'all (of voting age) should be getting out to vote, that means ALL of you - and any other interested parties in other countries.

Anyone else hear of this site?

VOTE FOR ENVIRONMENT . CA

The impetus for this site came about for those who care about climate change issues and are concerned that the Harper government is the worst things to address it.  Given this, they've set up a page that suggests how one should strategically vote in their respective riding in order to avoid placing a Conservative candidate in power.  In essence, it helps avoid vote splitting.

I just heard an interview with the founder of the site, and while it sounds a bit like Danny William's ABC campaign, the founder claims it has very little to do with a specific political party, per se, and more to do with establishing a government they believe will address environmental issues more effectively.

Right now, the riding I live in is listed as a "Red Hot Riding" on their homepage.

I popped in my postal code and learned what I already figured: that the NDP candidate has a good shot in this riding.  We've gone Conservative for the past couple of years but the incumbent isn't up for re-election and the newbie is an unknown.  The NDP candidate had a decent showing in the last election coming in second so one may figure he's got a shot. 

The NDP federal party leader, Jack Layton has even shown up in our (relatively) small city for a day where he took questions from the crowd and later attended a hocky game.  Guess he and the campaign organizers figure Crawford has a good shot, too, if he's willing to spend some time here. 

Now all of this is really interesting, but if you want to take it seriously, you have to be willing to vote strategically.  (Some like to consider only their local representative when they vote, or the party leader, or the party itself, or the platform/ideology, etc.)  I'd say the past indicates that that is something Canadians are willing to do.  Time will tell... actually, 8 days time, to be precise!

So what do you think?

What did you think about the Vice Presidential debate?

There was a debate?

Ah - just kidding.  I knew that, though I didn't realize it was the two Vices going at it. 

Instead, I watched our own federal leaders debate instead.  (We head to the polls on Oct. 14th.) 

I missed parts of it which isn't surprising because the debate ran between 6 and 8pm, smack in the middle of Peaches fussy time and Gus's 30 min bedtime preamble.  However, I was very glad to have taken the time where I could. 

I thought the opposition leaders did a pretty good job of calling Harper (and each other at times) to account.  I was especially pleased that they continued to harp on (on pun intended) the Conservatives lack of a platform.  I was more impressed with Dion than I have ever been: he really seemed to step up and lay things out.  So far he's always seemed so weak to me and if I've supported him from time to time, it's been out of pity.  I suppose that's why Harper is campaigning on 'leadership.'  Layton always looks and sounds confident but something about him just rubbed me the wrong way, and I usually get a kick out of they guy, whether or not I agree with his particular stances.  I was impressed by May - she seemed to know her stuff - though I really wish she wouldn't talk through everyone else.  I know she wasn't the only one, but it grated on me.  Oh, but I did think it was fantastic that she brought up Proportional Representation.  Good one, May.

Oh, and if you get the chance, read some liveblogging that happened during the debate.  (This is also how I got some feedback on the French language debate 2 days ago.)  Check out Macleans.ca/blog for their input.  I got more than a few chuckles out of it. 

Advance polls have already begun.

Time's ticking.

I don't care how you vote - just that you get yourself educated and get out there and DO IT.

Cheers.

The other day I posted about how I was ticked off that the Green Party leader wasn't being allowed to participate in the federal leaders debate.  First, I was ticked off that the broadcasters consortium 'asked' the other leaders in the first place, and second, did the consortium really think that the federal party leaders wouldn't show up to the debate?  (Imagine this: a debate in which just the Green Party leader showed up - yeah, that would go over really well with the public!)

And then the leaders were pretty moronic in their responses as well.
Anyway.
It's official: Elizabeth May will be present at the federal leaders debates. 

The thing I really love about all of this is that things changed because of a groundswell of public and media pressure.  The CBC.ca's initial on-line article had over 1800 comments on the story, the majority in favour of allowing Elizabeth May to participate.  Between protesters and media questions, Jack Layton was getting downright annoyed and finally caved.  And so it went.

When it's easy to be cynical about voting, it's nice to see things moving in the direction that the public wishes.  Makes one feel almost democratic*.  ;)

*To my American friends - this is not to be confused with the Democratic Party.  :)

Dis-Liking:

• That Harper can't deal with a minority government and tosses his own fixed-date election law before we even get to that first date.  [See Steve, the thing is, the way things went down in the last election should indicate to you that the people don't fully trust a majority conservative gov't.  We want you guys to all, oh, what's the term?... GET ALONG.]
• Not allowing Elizabeth May to speak at the federal leader's debate.  [So the Green MP is a turncoat. Remember Emerson, Steve-o?] 
• When my keyboard randomly won't allow me to use certain keys, like brackets, the number eight, and the exclamation mark.

Liking:

• That Gus asks for hugs. Exclamation mark.  Yay. Exclamation mark.  He's always been so 'whatever' about them before.
• Grapes.  Especially when they are on sale.
• Peaches - the fruit.  Ditto.
• Peaches - the daughter - is getting chubby.  According to the doc, she's in the 50th percentile for her height and weight.  Good to know all that eating is doing what it's supposed to!  (ah!  the exclamation mark magically returns.)  Ah - same with brackets!!!!! yay!!!  Told you it was random.)))
• Gus going to daycare one day a week.  We both like Tuesdays.
• Voting.  Yeah, even though I'm kind of ticked off that an election was called, I do love going to the polls.  And the next several months will see me getting to vote for all three levels: municipal, provincial and federal. 
  

I was just listening to Freestyle on CBC and they were talking about the ongoing Federal Liberal Leadership Convention in Montreal - specifically, the home page wars.  Have you ever heard of this before?  Apparently a supporter of one candidate will go to the computers available at the convention and change the web browser homepage to their chosen candidate.  One time it'll be Rae, another time, Dion and so on.  Don't these delegates have anything better to do? 

Maybe not! :)

At least it's funny.