There are few things as noble as the ideals of democracy. There are few things more depressing than its practice. I agree with Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable...except for every other form.
Tomorrow's election takes place with less fanfare than any election I can remember. I have seen fewer ads, fewer signs, fewer politicians than ever before. My city- home to half the population of the province but with only one fourth of the seats in the provincial parliament- has been almost completely ignored by all the parties.
There is a second vote occurring tomorrow which has been almost more hidden than the election itself, but with possibly more far-reaching effects. It is a referendum about the very way we vote.
In the current system, frequently called first past the pole, the province is divided into regions, each region votes for one representative, and the representative with the most votes wins the region. With more than two parties the winner often has less than half the vote.
The proposed system would mix this with "proportional democracy". We would vote twice under that system. Once for the person, and once for the party. Seats would also be awarded according to the proportion of the vote a party received. The extra representatives would be pulled from lists put forward by the parties.
In principle, I am for proportional democracy. I live in a riding where party X, let's say, regularly wins by 10,000 votes. If I vote for them, they've won by 10,001 votes. If I vote for party Y instead, they win by 9,999 votes. In short, my vote makes no difference. Furthermore, the city in which I live has a long history of being ignored or dumped on by the ruling parties, simply because the parties can afford to ignore us. We carry a fraction of the voting power we should. Proportional democracy could redress the imbalance.
In addition, in the current system, the candidates are all but invisible. The only faces we see, the names we hear, are the party leaders. We may as well just vote for the parties and be done with it.
However, I will vote against the proposal. I do not like this 'list' idea. I have grave concerns over such lists, and how names will get on it. I imagine a long line of fawning bootlickers, party people with no loyalty to any area, to any riding, to any group of people and answerable to none. They may be as corrupt as they please and no one can vote them out of office, because they are not attached to any place that votes. They are high on a list, nothing more. The old system, which, granted, hardly ever produced any 'stars' occasionally has produced a few good hardworking people; people who worked their way up through the riding and got the nomination through their own determination and hard work. We have even seen such people at times go against the will of the party on principle. Such people will not be high on any list.
Furthermore, as much as the governmental disdain towards my home rankles, there was a reason for it. The framers of our government did not want the urban areas to dominate the rural ones. Having rural area dominate the city doesn't seem like an ideal solution, but having the city dominate them would be no better, and possibly worse.
Lastly, the newspapers, notably the Star, are for it. If I ever needed a reason to be against an idea, their support would be it.
Years ago, Edmund Burke wrote in his Reflections on the Revolution in France that replacing a practical government with a theoretical one was a disaster in the making. He went on to warn his French readers that just as true as their government was in theory, that is just how false it would be in practice. Proportional democracy strikes me as a very true theory.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query proportional. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query proportional. Sort by date Show all posts
9 October 2007
3 May 2014
Two elections coming up. Yippee.
With the defeat of the Liberal budget, Ontario will have a provincial election in June. Meanwhile, mayoral Candidates are gearing up for the municipal elections in the Fall.I hate elections. We are being asked, in essence, to pick the shiniest turd out of the bunch.
The big story so far is Rob Ford heading into rehab. Rob Ford has provided ample fodder for late night talk show with his antics, and has also become the one mayor that every other incompetent mayor in the world can point to and say "See? At least I'm not that bad!"
The peculiar thing about Ford is that many of the other top candidates are actually borrowing from his platform. They have realised that Ford's talk of fiscal responsibility, ending the gravy train, etc etc has resonated with the voters. To put that another way, all the front running candidates are taking their cues from a crack head.
The other candidates are adopting his programs of subways and whatnot, though they are all very quiet on how they intend to pay for it. The big laugh out loud moment so far was Olivia Chow solemnly proclaiming that we cannot buy things for which we cannot pay. This from a tax, borrow and spend left winger. Were she Pinocchio, her nose would be longer than the CN Tower is high.
But pointing out politicians as liars is a waste of time. We should rather try and point out an honest politician. That would be a rare bird, in the sense that the passenger pigeon is a rare bird.
Even better, the municipal election will have a new voting system. We won't vote for one candidate, but three, in a ranked way. Because that isn't confusing at all, and because... actually, I have no idea why.
The proposed reforms I have seen in recent years seem to me to all begin from the wrong assumptions. Take, for instance, proportional democracy. The idea is that if a party gets 31% of the overall vote, they should get 31% of the seats in government. I agree that it sounds like a great idea, and therefore I am against it. I am not against it despite the fact that it sounds like a great idea, I am against it because it sounds like a great idea. Communism sounded like a great idea, very great that is, until someone actually tried it. I think we need to get away from great ideas. As I said, proportional democracy sounds reasonable, but its basic assumption- that we are voting for a party- goes against the basic assumptions of our system to begin with. We are not supposed to be voting for a party, but for our representatives. In short, we are supposed to vote for a person. Voting for a party reverses that assumption: rather than voting for someone to represent us, the parties, as embodied by their leaders, are asking us to vote for their representatives. Obviously the proportional democracy principle in no way addresses this problem. Indeed, it takes what is as yet a rather informal arrangement and carves it in stone, and by doing so makes it much, much worse.
In the case of the municipal elections, we will be asked to vote for three people in a ranked way. The difficulty is that I cannot even think of one candidate for whom I wish to vote, and indeed, I wish there were a way for them all to lose. Perhaps that would be a good reform. As I think about it, I like the idea even more. We could go back to the very roots of democracy and borrow something from the Athenian constitution: Ostracism.
This is what I would like to see: Rather than ranking the candidates on the ballot, I would like to see one last slot placed at the bottom of the slate, and in that slot would be written the words "None of the Above". If None of the Above were to win the election, that would mean that everyone else on the list would be banned from politics for the next ten years. It would be our way of saying 'We want none of you. We've had enough of your incompetence, your lies, your greed and your gross stupidity. Begone, and we will start over." I like that idea very much. It has but one drawback: It sounds like a great idea.
The big story so far is Rob Ford heading into rehab. Rob Ford has provided ample fodder for late night talk show with his antics, and has also become the one mayor that every other incompetent mayor in the world can point to and say "See? At least I'm not that bad!"
The peculiar thing about Ford is that many of the other top candidates are actually borrowing from his platform. They have realised that Ford's talk of fiscal responsibility, ending the gravy train, etc etc has resonated with the voters. To put that another way, all the front running candidates are taking their cues from a crack head.
The other candidates are adopting his programs of subways and whatnot, though they are all very quiet on how they intend to pay for it. The big laugh out loud moment so far was Olivia Chow solemnly proclaiming that we cannot buy things for which we cannot pay. This from a tax, borrow and spend left winger. Were she Pinocchio, her nose would be longer than the CN Tower is high.
But pointing out politicians as liars is a waste of time. We should rather try and point out an honest politician. That would be a rare bird, in the sense that the passenger pigeon is a rare bird.
Even better, the municipal election will have a new voting system. We won't vote for one candidate, but three, in a ranked way. Because that isn't confusing at all, and because... actually, I have no idea why.
The proposed reforms I have seen in recent years seem to me to all begin from the wrong assumptions. Take, for instance, proportional democracy. The idea is that if a party gets 31% of the overall vote, they should get 31% of the seats in government. I agree that it sounds like a great idea, and therefore I am against it. I am not against it despite the fact that it sounds like a great idea, I am against it because it sounds like a great idea. Communism sounded like a great idea, very great that is, until someone actually tried it. I think we need to get away from great ideas. As I said, proportional democracy sounds reasonable, but its basic assumption- that we are voting for a party- goes against the basic assumptions of our system to begin with. We are not supposed to be voting for a party, but for our representatives. In short, we are supposed to vote for a person. Voting for a party reverses that assumption: rather than voting for someone to represent us, the parties, as embodied by their leaders, are asking us to vote for their representatives. Obviously the proportional democracy principle in no way addresses this problem. Indeed, it takes what is as yet a rather informal arrangement and carves it in stone, and by doing so makes it much, much worse.
In the case of the municipal elections, we will be asked to vote for three people in a ranked way. The difficulty is that I cannot even think of one candidate for whom I wish to vote, and indeed, I wish there were a way for them all to lose. Perhaps that would be a good reform. As I think about it, I like the idea even more. We could go back to the very roots of democracy and borrow something from the Athenian constitution: Ostracism.
This is what I would like to see: Rather than ranking the candidates on the ballot, I would like to see one last slot placed at the bottom of the slate, and in that slot would be written the words "None of the Above". If None of the Above were to win the election, that would mean that everyone else on the list would be banned from politics for the next ten years. It would be our way of saying 'We want none of you. We've had enough of your incompetence, your lies, your greed and your gross stupidity. Begone, and we will start over." I like that idea very much. It has but one drawback: It sounds like a great idea.
30 December 2008
A moment to reflect upon politics.
I've had more than a few conversations about the current political situation in Canada. I am not as distressed about the situation as I am by the fact that so many people are distressed about the situation. I often forget just how deep my cynicism runs.
The current situation, as it stands, is a little like this: We have recently had a federal election. The party with the largest number of seats in the house of commons was the Conservative party, however the Conservatives did not hold a majority of the seats. Shortly after the election, the Liberal party formed a coalition with the NDP party with some support from the Bloc Quebecois party. Together the coalition had more seats than the Conservative Party, and the new coalition threatened to pass a vote of non confidence upon Harper if Harper did not turn power over to the coalition. Harper, in an effort to avoid the non confidence vote, prorogued parliament until the new year. It all sounds dicey, but it is legal.
As is often the case with me, I look to the past and see what lessons history can hold. Unfortunately, history holds no direct analog to this. The closest we have is the King Byng Wing Ding of 1925-1926.
That went down a little like this:
The 1925 General election was one of the first in Canadian history for which Canadians could vote for three parties, in this case, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Progressive party. The Conservatives took 115 seats to King (the standing Prime Minister) won 99, with the Progressives taking 24. Instead of resigning and handing over power, King instead requested of the governor general, Lord Byng Of Vimy, (that Vimy. He was the commander of the Canadian forces when they stormed the ridge. Oh, and you hockey fans, the Lady Byng Trophy was donated by his wife) to be allowed to continue to form the government with the support of the Progressives.
Over the course of the next few months King lost several seats through questions of order and, ultimately, when one of his members was found to have taken bribes. King was in danger of losing the confidence of the government and facing charges of scandal. King went to Lord Byng and requested to be allowed to dissolve parliament for the second time in one year to hold another federal election. Byng used his reserve power and told King to allow the Conservatives, as the holders of the largest number of seats in the house, to form the government before calling another election. King stepped aside and allowed Arthur Meighan to become Prime Minister. Sort of.
At that time, if a member of parliament changed his status, that is, if he went from a normal member- a 'backbencher'- to a more prominent position, usually a position in cabinet, they had to resign their seat and seek re-election in a by-election, to allow their constituents to decide if they wanted a representative who would, in effect, no longer represent them, but would now be focused on national issues.
Arthur Meighan's Conservatives would have needed to have far too many resignations for the party to remain viable in parliament. Meighen himself had briefly been Prime Minister in 1920-1921, and was a capable man with only one problem: he doesn't seem to have been able to do math. Meighan himself resigned, and he appointed a shadow cabinet. The Liberals and Progressives pounced, and passed a non confidence vote almost immediately. It passed by only one vote.
The election was run in a predictable way. The Conservatives claimed corruption on the part of the Liberals, and the Liberals claimed a constitutional crisis caused by Byng's disregard for parliament. The Liberals were returned with a majority, Byng was recalled as Governor General, and laws were changed to make the Governor General an almost completely ceremonial post.
After all this, it is hard to see how this situation will play out in the new year. All I see here is evidence that this power play could blow up in both their faces. I should stress here again: What both sides have done thus far is all legal.
There are few things I keep hearing over and over again. I'll address a few here.
1. The Liberals are wimps/wussies/corrupt and trying to get power over the clear winners of the last election.
I'll grant the wimps wussies corrupt thing. It is my opinion of politicians in general, regardless of party. But, as I said, this is legal. There was no clear winner in this last election. The conservatives had the most votes, it is true, but together the Liberals and the NDP had more votes than the Conservatives. If you wish to argue against this, the best argument I can think of would run like this: while it is true the NDP and Liberals do have more votes when added together, during the last election not a single vote was cast for a coalition of the two parties. No one mentioned a coalition during this campaign.
2. The Liberals are counting on the support of the Bloc, who want to break up Canada.
True. And Stephen Harper also formed a loose coalition with the Bloc when he formed his first minority government a few years back. Everyone has dirty hands on this one, and you can't claim that the Liberals should be disqualified from ruling on this point unless you concede the Conservatives are likewise.
3. We should do away with this problem altogether and replace the governor General with and elected one and introduce proportional democracy.
The G.G. is just a figurehead with no real power, so I don't really care one way or the other about that. I don't particularly want a 'president' either, which is what most of those suggesting this idea call the replacement.
As for proportional democracy, I find the idea fascinating, and therefore I am against it. I have seen far too many interesting ideas turn into disasters. Proportional democracy, for those who don't know, is the idea that seats will be allotted in the House of Commons according to the proportion of votes each party gets. I see several problems with this: 1. We are now voting for no one in particular, we have representatives who really don't represent anyone or anything concrete, and can't get voted out, as long as they are on their party's list. 2. The idea of a list isn't another one of my favourites either. I think the only people who will be put on such lists will most likely be the party's fawning bootlickers. Mavericks and free thinkers need not apply. This system will most likely perpetual minority governments such as this one, making the possibility of coalitions and other issues like this more likely, rather than curing these situations.
In conclusion, this is the kind of problem that is going to happen from time to time. These people are politicians, and they're acting like politicians. My respect for them is so low this little 'crisis', if you can call it that, really has no effect on my opinion of them. Everyone is dirty in this game and there are no angels up on Parliament Hill. Only Angles and Advantages. Right now, all the parties are playing for their angles. In the end, it will blow up in all their faces, save one. Which one, I can't say. The new year will tell.
The current situation, as it stands, is a little like this: We have recently had a federal election. The party with the largest number of seats in the house of commons was the Conservative party, however the Conservatives did not hold a majority of the seats. Shortly after the election, the Liberal party formed a coalition with the NDP party with some support from the Bloc Quebecois party. Together the coalition had more seats than the Conservative Party, and the new coalition threatened to pass a vote of non confidence upon Harper if Harper did not turn power over to the coalition. Harper, in an effort to avoid the non confidence vote, prorogued parliament until the new year. It all sounds dicey, but it is legal.
As is often the case with me, I look to the past and see what lessons history can hold. Unfortunately, history holds no direct analog to this. The closest we have is the King Byng Wing Ding of 1925-1926.
That went down a little like this:
The 1925 General election was one of the first in Canadian history for which Canadians could vote for three parties, in this case, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Progressive party. The Conservatives took 115 seats to King (the standing Prime Minister) won 99, with the Progressives taking 24. Instead of resigning and handing over power, King instead requested of the governor general, Lord Byng Of Vimy, (that Vimy. He was the commander of the Canadian forces when they stormed the ridge. Oh, and you hockey fans, the Lady Byng Trophy was donated by his wife) to be allowed to continue to form the government with the support of the Progressives.
Over the course of the next few months King lost several seats through questions of order and, ultimately, when one of his members was found to have taken bribes. King was in danger of losing the confidence of the government and facing charges of scandal. King went to Lord Byng and requested to be allowed to dissolve parliament for the second time in one year to hold another federal election. Byng used his reserve power and told King to allow the Conservatives, as the holders of the largest number of seats in the house, to form the government before calling another election. King stepped aside and allowed Arthur Meighan to become Prime Minister. Sort of.
At that time, if a member of parliament changed his status, that is, if he went from a normal member- a 'backbencher'- to a more prominent position, usually a position in cabinet, they had to resign their seat and seek re-election in a by-election, to allow their constituents to decide if they wanted a representative who would, in effect, no longer represent them, but would now be focused on national issues.
Arthur Meighan's Conservatives would have needed to have far too many resignations for the party to remain viable in parliament. Meighen himself had briefly been Prime Minister in 1920-1921, and was a capable man with only one problem: he doesn't seem to have been able to do math. Meighan himself resigned, and he appointed a shadow cabinet. The Liberals and Progressives pounced, and passed a non confidence vote almost immediately. It passed by only one vote.
The election was run in a predictable way. The Conservatives claimed corruption on the part of the Liberals, and the Liberals claimed a constitutional crisis caused by Byng's disregard for parliament. The Liberals were returned with a majority, Byng was recalled as Governor General, and laws were changed to make the Governor General an almost completely ceremonial post.
After all this, it is hard to see how this situation will play out in the new year. All I see here is evidence that this power play could blow up in both their faces. I should stress here again: What both sides have done thus far is all legal.
There are few things I keep hearing over and over again. I'll address a few here.
1. The Liberals are wimps/wussies/corrupt and trying to get power over the clear winners of the last election.
I'll grant the wimps wussies corrupt thing. It is my opinion of politicians in general, regardless of party. But, as I said, this is legal. There was no clear winner in this last election. The conservatives had the most votes, it is true, but together the Liberals and the NDP had more votes than the Conservatives. If you wish to argue against this, the best argument I can think of would run like this: while it is true the NDP and Liberals do have more votes when added together, during the last election not a single vote was cast for a coalition of the two parties. No one mentioned a coalition during this campaign.
2. The Liberals are counting on the support of the Bloc, who want to break up Canada.
True. And Stephen Harper also formed a loose coalition with the Bloc when he formed his first minority government a few years back. Everyone has dirty hands on this one, and you can't claim that the Liberals should be disqualified from ruling on this point unless you concede the Conservatives are likewise.
3. We should do away with this problem altogether and replace the governor General with and elected one and introduce proportional democracy.
The G.G. is just a figurehead with no real power, so I don't really care one way or the other about that. I don't particularly want a 'president' either, which is what most of those suggesting this idea call the replacement.
As for proportional democracy, I find the idea fascinating, and therefore I am against it. I have seen far too many interesting ideas turn into disasters. Proportional democracy, for those who don't know, is the idea that seats will be allotted in the House of Commons according to the proportion of votes each party gets. I see several problems with this: 1. We are now voting for no one in particular, we have representatives who really don't represent anyone or anything concrete, and can't get voted out, as long as they are on their party's list. 2. The idea of a list isn't another one of my favourites either. I think the only people who will be put on such lists will most likely be the party's fawning bootlickers. Mavericks and free thinkers need not apply. This system will most likely perpetual minority governments such as this one, making the possibility of coalitions and other issues like this more likely, rather than curing these situations.
In conclusion, this is the kind of problem that is going to happen from time to time. These people are politicians, and they're acting like politicians. My respect for them is so low this little 'crisis', if you can call it that, really has no effect on my opinion of them. Everyone is dirty in this game and there are no angels up on Parliament Hill. Only Angles and Advantages. Right now, all the parties are playing for their angles. In the end, it will blow up in all their faces, save one. Which one, I can't say. The new year will tell.
4 October 2013
My alma mater scares me
My old university is having an advertising campaign. Basically, students predict a rosy future for themselves where they find cures for cancer, launch Mars missions, do good deeds, that sort of thing. Oddly enough, no one is predicting that five years after graduation they will be begging Mickie D's to let them flip hamburgers again, even if only so they can eat the customers' leftovers, thus proving that the students are still out of touch with reality.
But there have been two, one last year and one this year, which the university has been touting both in print and on their website as really exemplary visions, that rally scare me. Last year's, and unfortunately I no longer have the exact wording, was a young woman predicting that in the not so distant future, she, as a lawyer or legislator, would write legislation ensuring women equal representation in parliament. This year's is similar. A young woman of colour has written: "2026: As a lawyer, I help write legislation that ensures our judiciary reflects Canada's diversity."
What is so terrifying to me about these positions, you may well ask? I answer this: each statement consists of two parts. Let me tell you which part I do not find scary: The part about women having equal representation, and the part about our judiciary reflecting Canada's diversity. Quite frankly, I have only one vote for one representative, and that is the only representative I have any say over. If the rest of the country votes for a legislature that turns out to be ten percent, or twenty, or fifty, or ninety, or even one hundred per cent female, so be it. I had my say, the rest of the country had theirs. I may not agree with their decisions but it was their choice to make, not mine. I abide by their decisions as i trust they abide by mine, and hope the government doesn't do too much damage between now and the next time we get to vote. With the judiciary, again, I don't care. A qualified judge is a qualified judge, whatever their skin colour or plumbing or preference. If it turns out that the only qualified judges are black, or Hispanic, or Asian, or aboriginal, so be it. So that is not the part that frightens me.
No, the part that scares me is the part where these two women wish to enact legislation. That frightens me. How, exactly, does the first woman propose to legislate equal representation in parliament? The only way that I can see (and I admit that perhaps she may see another) is proportional democracy. As I said before, proportional democracy sounds like a great theory, but I suspect it would be terrible in practice. Either we end up voting for no one in particular and the parties will provide us with acceptable (read: fawning party bootlicker) reps of acceptable and proportionate gender, or the legislation will dictate some other way for whom we may vote. The woman who desires this equal representation is someone who, not content with having one vote for herself, wishes to control the votes of others as well. All in the name of greater democracy, of course.
Similarly with the one who wishes Canada's judiciary to reflect our diversity. On the one hand, our judiciary has sidestepped so far from their job, so that we have many judges who, rather than interpret and enforce the law, are inventing the law, that I think this could hardly make it worse. But it's possible. We would be picking judges to fill quotas, which is what would happen under this legislation. Can you see this happening?:
One: How about Wilson for this opening? She's excellent, has twenty years experience, never had a decision overturned, has a reputation for toughness tempered with compassion, but has always worked within the framework of the law.
Two: Yeah, but unfortunately, she's black, and our diversity numbers already reflect the number of black women.
One: She's also a lesbian.
Two: We're topped up in that field, too.
One: Oh. (pause) So, what are we looking for this time, then?
Two: Well let's see....hmph. Oddly enough, we need a white man. What about Harris?
One: Harris? He's a moron. Worst possible candidate. Graduated last in his class, and in six years on the bench has had two thirds of his judgements overturned on appeal and the other third are making their way through the appeals system as we speak.
Two: But he's white, right?
One: erm, yes.
Two: Good. Done, then.
So, yes, these starry eyed kids with their bright vision of the future do cause me concern, because, effectively, not content with letting me make my own choices, they want to enact legislation that ensures the choices I make are theirs, and meet with their approval. As I said, all in the name of greater democracy.
But there have been two, one last year and one this year, which the university has been touting both in print and on their website as really exemplary visions, that rally scare me. Last year's, and unfortunately I no longer have the exact wording, was a young woman predicting that in the not so distant future, she, as a lawyer or legislator, would write legislation ensuring women equal representation in parliament. This year's is similar. A young woman of colour has written: "2026: As a lawyer, I help write legislation that ensures our judiciary reflects Canada's diversity."
What is so terrifying to me about these positions, you may well ask? I answer this: each statement consists of two parts. Let me tell you which part I do not find scary: The part about women having equal representation, and the part about our judiciary reflecting Canada's diversity. Quite frankly, I have only one vote for one representative, and that is the only representative I have any say over. If the rest of the country votes for a legislature that turns out to be ten percent, or twenty, or fifty, or ninety, or even one hundred per cent female, so be it. I had my say, the rest of the country had theirs. I may not agree with their decisions but it was their choice to make, not mine. I abide by their decisions as i trust they abide by mine, and hope the government doesn't do too much damage between now and the next time we get to vote. With the judiciary, again, I don't care. A qualified judge is a qualified judge, whatever their skin colour or plumbing or preference. If it turns out that the only qualified judges are black, or Hispanic, or Asian, or aboriginal, so be it. So that is not the part that frightens me.
No, the part that scares me is the part where these two women wish to enact legislation. That frightens me. How, exactly, does the first woman propose to legislate equal representation in parliament? The only way that I can see (and I admit that perhaps she may see another) is proportional democracy. As I said before, proportional democracy sounds like a great theory, but I suspect it would be terrible in practice. Either we end up voting for no one in particular and the parties will provide us with acceptable (read: fawning party bootlicker) reps of acceptable and proportionate gender, or the legislation will dictate some other way for whom we may vote. The woman who desires this equal representation is someone who, not content with having one vote for herself, wishes to control the votes of others as well. All in the name of greater democracy, of course.
Similarly with the one who wishes Canada's judiciary to reflect our diversity. On the one hand, our judiciary has sidestepped so far from their job, so that we have many judges who, rather than interpret and enforce the law, are inventing the law, that I think this could hardly make it worse. But it's possible. We would be picking judges to fill quotas, which is what would happen under this legislation. Can you see this happening?:
One: How about Wilson for this opening? She's excellent, has twenty years experience, never had a decision overturned, has a reputation for toughness tempered with compassion, but has always worked within the framework of the law.
Two: Yeah, but unfortunately, she's black, and our diversity numbers already reflect the number of black women.
One: She's also a lesbian.
Two: We're topped up in that field, too.
One: Oh. (pause) So, what are we looking for this time, then?
Two: Well let's see....hmph. Oddly enough, we need a white man. What about Harris?
One: Harris? He's a moron. Worst possible candidate. Graduated last in his class, and in six years on the bench has had two thirds of his judgements overturned on appeal and the other third are making their way through the appeals system as we speak.
Two: But he's white, right?
One: erm, yes.
Two: Good. Done, then.
So, yes, these starry eyed kids with their bright vision of the future do cause me concern, because, effectively, not content with letting me make my own choices, they want to enact legislation that ensures the choices I make are theirs, and meet with their approval. As I said, all in the name of greater democracy.
16 June 2015
Why do I feel a gut wrenching terror every time I hear some politician wants to 'restore democracy'?
Justin Trudeau plans to restore democracy should he win the next election. My first question: Does that mean we are not a democracy now? Don't answer. My second question is this: If the usual meaning of 'restore' is 'to put something back to the way it was', then how does changing everything amount to a restoration?
Among his proposals:
-setting one day's question period aside solely for the purpose of grilling the Prime Minister. (I have nothing to say about that, other than that I like mine medium rare.)
-More free votes. (This from the man who will not allow members of his party to dissent from party policy.)
-— Appoint an equal number of men and women to cabinet and adopt a government-wide appointment policy to ensure gender parity and greater representation of aboriginal people and other minorities. (I'll address this one along with the next point)
-Get rid of first past the post elections. This is the one I want to discuss, along with the above. To be blunt It is a cure worse than any disease.
The article reporting it slants itself heavily in favour of the change. Here is the passage where it discussing the potential for reform: "The current system badly distorts voters' choices, allowing a party to win the majority of seats in the House of Commons with less than 40 per cent of the vote, and delivering wildly different seat counts to parties that win similar shares."
What the article says is true, that is indeed what the system does, but it is only true from the perspective that people are voting for parties in the first place. Let me repeat that: it assumes that we are voting for parties, and not individual members of parliament who represent us. This view is a distortion of the system to begin with.
Our system, in theory, is simple: Each region elects a member to represent them for the purpose of advising the crown on the best way to run the country. Each electoral area is to elect the best advisor they can find: a person, preferably local, and not a hypothetical party embodied by a distant leader. To say that the system distorts the results is to say that the voters were not voting for people in the first place, but parties. Party becomes more important than person and representation: in such a system, the members of parliament do not represent us, but rather represent their leader to us. As I heave said before, this is part of a continuing trend in Canadian politics to concentrate power upon the party leader, giving them a power never intended for the office.
There is also the small but not minor issue of what is to be done with independent candidates. Every election, independents get a small but not unsubstantial percentage of the vote- let's say between one and two percent. By the rules of proportional democracy, they should get one or two percent of the seats- but which independent candidates would that be? They are not a party, they cannot produce a list. Who shall stand for the independents? Under a new system, it may be that we may be shackled to vote solely for the parties, and what began as a distortion of the system , rather than being cured, will be far, far worse.
Here's then even worse part: every proposal I have ever heard to achieve proportional democracy involves voting strictly for parties, and then the party allots the seats they have won to names on a list. Parliament will be filled with people no one specifically voted in, and, therefore, as long as their names remain on the list, no one can specifically vote them out. We'll be stuck with party people, or, to use the correct term, fawning bootlickers. Canada is not well served by yes men, though that is exactly the kind of party member Trudeau seems to desire.
Similarly mandating that cabinet ministers should be of so many men and women, and of this ethnic/racial/gender group. It makes the group more important than the person. A horrible person who checks the right boxes will be preferred over someone who does not. It makes form more important than content. Optics more important than substance.
Together, and with his other changes, these are big changes. This is not a restoration in any way but a destruction of the current system and replacing it with a theory: in short, a revolution. He is talking of replacing a system that by and large works with a theoretical system. Replacing practical systems and replacing them with theories has been tried before, usually to the regret of the people. As Edmund Burke noted in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, as true as an idea may be in theory, that is how false it will prove in practice.
And that, I suppose, is the answer to my question in the title. Change everything? No thanks. Things are bad enough. No need to try and make everything worse. This is not a reform. It is taking what began as a perversion of the system, and carving it in stone.
Among his proposals:
-setting one day's question period aside solely for the purpose of grilling the Prime Minister. (I have nothing to say about that, other than that I like mine medium rare.)
-More free votes. (This from the man who will not allow members of his party to dissent from party policy.)
-— Appoint an equal number of men and women to cabinet and adopt a government-wide appointment policy to ensure gender parity and greater representation of aboriginal people and other minorities. (I'll address this one along with the next point)
-Get rid of first past the post elections. This is the one I want to discuss, along with the above. To be blunt It is a cure worse than any disease.
The article reporting it slants itself heavily in favour of the change. Here is the passage where it discussing the potential for reform: "The current system badly distorts voters' choices, allowing a party to win the majority of seats in the House of Commons with less than 40 per cent of the vote, and delivering wildly different seat counts to parties that win similar shares."
What the article says is true, that is indeed what the system does, but it is only true from the perspective that people are voting for parties in the first place. Let me repeat that: it assumes that we are voting for parties, and not individual members of parliament who represent us. This view is a distortion of the system to begin with.
Our system, in theory, is simple: Each region elects a member to represent them for the purpose of advising the crown on the best way to run the country. Each electoral area is to elect the best advisor they can find: a person, preferably local, and not a hypothetical party embodied by a distant leader. To say that the system distorts the results is to say that the voters were not voting for people in the first place, but parties. Party becomes more important than person and representation: in such a system, the members of parliament do not represent us, but rather represent their leader to us. As I heave said before, this is part of a continuing trend in Canadian politics to concentrate power upon the party leader, giving them a power never intended for the office.
There is also the small but not minor issue of what is to be done with independent candidates. Every election, independents get a small but not unsubstantial percentage of the vote- let's say between one and two percent. By the rules of proportional democracy, they should get one or two percent of the seats- but which independent candidates would that be? They are not a party, they cannot produce a list. Who shall stand for the independents? Under a new system, it may be that we may be shackled to vote solely for the parties, and what began as a distortion of the system , rather than being cured, will be far, far worse.
Here's then even worse part: every proposal I have ever heard to achieve proportional democracy involves voting strictly for parties, and then the party allots the seats they have won to names on a list. Parliament will be filled with people no one specifically voted in, and, therefore, as long as their names remain on the list, no one can specifically vote them out. We'll be stuck with party people, or, to use the correct term, fawning bootlickers. Canada is not well served by yes men, though that is exactly the kind of party member Trudeau seems to desire.
Similarly mandating that cabinet ministers should be of so many men and women, and of this ethnic/racial/gender group. It makes the group more important than the person. A horrible person who checks the right boxes will be preferred over someone who does not. It makes form more important than content. Optics more important than substance.
Together, and with his other changes, these are big changes. This is not a restoration in any way but a destruction of the current system and replacing it with a theory: in short, a revolution. He is talking of replacing a system that by and large works with a theoretical system. Replacing practical systems and replacing them with theories has been tried before, usually to the regret of the people. As Edmund Burke noted in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, as true as an idea may be in theory, that is how false it will prove in practice.
And that, I suppose, is the answer to my question in the title. Change everything? No thanks. Things are bad enough. No need to try and make everything worse. This is not a reform. It is taking what began as a perversion of the system, and carving it in stone.
13 April 2011
Last night's debate, and another reason why I don't vote NDP
It's hard to tell who objectively won last night's debate between the four federal party leaders. Harper was calm and level, cold, perhaps. He was the only leader who addressed the camera directly. He avoided speaking to the other leaders, and directed his comments at the Canadian people. Ignatieff's emotions were in play, and he sometimes stumbled over his words as he spoke in a passion. Layton was the only one who tried to occasionally put humour into his comments. He was almost funny on occasion, but never quite. Duceppe was Duceppe.
For sheer, stunning hypocrisy, the clear winner, though by a hair, was Harper, who, after single handedly lowering the level of political debate in this country; who has run attack ad campaigns and ad hominem attacks on his opponents for the last five years, whether there was an election going on or not; who has been found by the speaker of the House to be in contempt of parliament; and more, claimed that Canadians are tired of the mudslinging and personal attacks in parliament, and presented himself as the man to do it.
The debate was a wandering affair. The leaders began to address specific questions, then slowly swerved away into what soon became standardised attacks on each other, along with repetitions of the party platforms. There were no moments of stirring oratory, or anything particularly inspiring.
Layton in particular seemed fond of running off on tangents. At one point he raised the spectre of proportional democracy, which, like most of the NDP ideas is a bad idea masquerading as a good one. As I wrote in the past, proportional democracy sounds like a wonderful idea, and therefore I am against it. The NDP in particular are full of interesting ideas that sound really good in theory, but I have seen in the past that theoretically true ideas are very, very often practically false. I prefer a more pragmatic approach.
I haven't seen the newspapers this morning, but I imagine the papers will proclaim their preferred candidates the clear winner of the debate. Most viewers of the debate will probably go that way. People, I find, tend to watch these things to confirm the opinion they already hold, rather than to help themselves form a new one. Those who favour Harper will conclude that Harper kicked the others to the curb last night. Those who favour Ignatieff will see him as the clear winner, and so on. For myself, I see the leaders as a bunch of losers to begin with, and that's what I saw last night.
For sheer, stunning hypocrisy, the clear winner, though by a hair, was Harper, who, after single handedly lowering the level of political debate in this country; who has run attack ad campaigns and ad hominem attacks on his opponents for the last five years, whether there was an election going on or not; who has been found by the speaker of the House to be in contempt of parliament; and more, claimed that Canadians are tired of the mudslinging and personal attacks in parliament, and presented himself as the man to do it.
The debate was a wandering affair. The leaders began to address specific questions, then slowly swerved away into what soon became standardised attacks on each other, along with repetitions of the party platforms. There were no moments of stirring oratory, or anything particularly inspiring.
Layton in particular seemed fond of running off on tangents. At one point he raised the spectre of proportional democracy, which, like most of the NDP ideas is a bad idea masquerading as a good one. As I wrote in the past, proportional democracy sounds like a wonderful idea, and therefore I am against it. The NDP in particular are full of interesting ideas that sound really good in theory, but I have seen in the past that theoretically true ideas are very, very often practically false. I prefer a more pragmatic approach.
I haven't seen the newspapers this morning, but I imagine the papers will proclaim their preferred candidates the clear winner of the debate. Most viewers of the debate will probably go that way. People, I find, tend to watch these things to confirm the opinion they already hold, rather than to help themselves form a new one. Those who favour Harper will conclude that Harper kicked the others to the curb last night. Those who favour Ignatieff will see him as the clear winner, and so on. For myself, I see the leaders as a bunch of losers to begin with, and that's what I saw last night.
19 October 2015
Election day. Whooppee.
I've gone and done it: I went and cast my vote for what I deemed to be the shiniest turd in the pile. Not that it matters. My riding is liberal to the core and has been for decades. The Liberals could run a pig in a three piece suit here - and I am not entirely certain they haven't- and still win. I could vote Liberal, and they would win by a lot plus 1, or I could vote for another, and the Liberals would win by a lot minus 1.
And don't come in and tell me proportional democracy would fix that: you'd be completely misunderstanding what I regard as the problem, and then make it infinitely worse in trying to fix it. In short, you would be declaring yourself fit for a career in politics as yet another turd on the pile.
And don't come in and tell me proportional democracy would fix that: you'd be completely misunderstanding what I regard as the problem, and then make it infinitely worse in trying to fix it. In short, you would be declaring yourself fit for a career in politics as yet another turd on the pile.
However, on the plus side, I am blessed to live in a country where voting is an option. That is not something to be underestimated or dismissed lightly. But, back to the minus side, I would have liked to once, just once, have been able to vote for someone, rather than vote against someone who is even worse. Just once.
I will now go and do my best to ignore both politics and sports for the rest of the day.
I will now go and do my best to ignore both politics and sports for the rest of the day.
22 December 2007
I've been blessed
by Michael over at "Archangel's Pulpit" "and 'as with any blessing its effectiveness is directly proportional to how well it is passed on.'
It's simple in format: the recipient simply copies and pastes the following indented section when they become the recipient of a bloggin blessing themselves, as follows…
Now the rules: You can just cut and paste these too:
It's simple in format: the recipient simply copies and pastes the following indented section when they become the recipient of a bloggin blessing themselves, as follows…
The idea… it’s a game of tag with a difference, rather than looking inwardly, we look outside ourselves and bless, praise and pray for one blog friend. By participating in this endeavour we not only make the recipient of the blessing feel valued and appreciated, but we are having some fun too. We’re going to see how far the bloggin’ blessings can travel around the world and how many people can be blessed! Recipients of a bloggin’ blessing may upload the above image to their sidebar if they choose to. If you recieve a bloggin’ blessin’ please leave a comment on this thread here so that we can rejoice in just how many blessings have been sent around the world!
I bless.... Dim Bulb because of his tireless work he does on his 'blog wherein he brings to all readers, most especially dull swords like me, deeper understanding of the texts on which he exigises, so that with the word of God explained, His will may be clearer. But because DimBulb does NOT "do Memes" I will bless another as well.
I bless .... Rae at Quo Vadis because I understand what it's like to be an academic and a Catholic. It is difficult to be true to God and the Church, when around you are alot of "smart" people " [Who] can't understand how a bright intelligent, university educated woman, like yourself, could possibly believe that crap."
I bless.... Sheepcat because he is trying to live according to God's will for him, as we all should.
I bless.... BroAJK because he is a religious who fulfulls God's will by teaching our young.
A Prayer for DimBulb, Rae, Sheepcat and BroAJK…may the blessing of Almighty God, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, come down upon you and remain with you forever. Amen.
+++
Now the rules: You can just cut and paste these too:
So, all Rae, Sheepcat, and Broajk now have to do is to;
a) bless 3 blog buddies each.
b) Include the ‘God Bless you’ image in their post.
c) Explain briefly why they are blessing the people they are blessing.
d) pray/include in the post the prayer for the recipients of the blessing.
e)The recipient/sender of a blessing should type in the com box of Deb's original post that a blessing has been sent to them so we can keep track of how many blessings are being given. For easy reference a link to her post will make it into Deb's sidebar. Sounds a bit confusing, I know. But it could be fun, we’ll soon see!
Thanks for playing along!
[As Michael points out. The carmelite way of thanking someone is "God reward you, as only He can" and so the above note of gratitude I would change to:
God reward you, as only He can, for playing and praying along.
God Bless you!
A larger ‘God Bless you’ image can also be sent as an E-Card from Credo Christian E-Cards website.
27 April 2011
A word of praise for Jack Layton, followed by a reiteration of why I don't vote NDP
As I've said before, I respect the way Layton has run his campaign. He has confined any attacks to the behaviour of the other leaders and their policies, with none of the personal attacks of the Conservatives and Liberals. As a result of his campaign, his party has surged ahead of the Liberals in the polls, and Layton is now poised to be the Leader of the Opposition. He is close enough that, should he have another surge, he could take the election.
On the one hand, I hope the other parties are paying attention to this, and will perhaps abandon their negative attacks which have so debased the level of political discourse in Canada. Perhaps they should take this as a sign that Canadians are weary of the endless mudslinging and fear mongering of their elected representatives, and try and lift political discourse out of the mud into which they have trampled it.
On the other hand, this scares the bejeebies out of me. As I have pointed out, the party has a lot of bad ideas masquerading as good ideas. They want to tax the rich, the big corporations and increase spending elsewhere. And when the rich and the fat corporation then leave for other, less taxed pastures, then what? He wishes to introduce proportional democracy, which is a good theoretical idea, but bad in practice. We will no longer vote for our own, personal representatives, but for parties, who will then select our government members from a list we had no part in making. His plan for reducing personal debt by forcing credit card companies to lower their rates will only serve to increase it.
More than this, Layton himself is at least as autocratic as the other leaders. Several times when there has been a free vote in parliament during his tenure as the leader of the New Democratic Party (that's a vote wherein the members of parliament are free to vote as they choose, according to their conscience or the will of their electorate) he has ordered his party to vote as a bloc. His 'new' democracy is no democracy at all.
I would that every vote in parliament were a free vote, and that Canadians would get back to voting for the people who actually represent them, not the leaders of the party. I want to vote for my representative, not a list, not a party. If I were to vote for the NDP, I would not have a representative, I would have Jack. The same is true to a lesser degree for the other leaders as well, but they are at least willing to allow the occasional free vote.
Although he is the only leader for whom I have any respect in this campaign, I cannot endorse his party, his platform, or his representative. Were I to meet him, I would shake his hand and say thanks to him for refusing to degrade political discourse in his campaign. As for his policies and his party, for that I would withdraw my hand, say "no thanks", and walk away.
On the one hand, I hope the other parties are paying attention to this, and will perhaps abandon their negative attacks which have so debased the level of political discourse in Canada. Perhaps they should take this as a sign that Canadians are weary of the endless mudslinging and fear mongering of their elected representatives, and try and lift political discourse out of the mud into which they have trampled it.
On the other hand, this scares the bejeebies out of me. As I have pointed out, the party has a lot of bad ideas masquerading as good ideas. They want to tax the rich, the big corporations and increase spending elsewhere. And when the rich and the fat corporation then leave for other, less taxed pastures, then what? He wishes to introduce proportional democracy, which is a good theoretical idea, but bad in practice. We will no longer vote for our own, personal representatives, but for parties, who will then select our government members from a list we had no part in making. His plan for reducing personal debt by forcing credit card companies to lower their rates will only serve to increase it.
More than this, Layton himself is at least as autocratic as the other leaders. Several times when there has been a free vote in parliament during his tenure as the leader of the New Democratic Party (that's a vote wherein the members of parliament are free to vote as they choose, according to their conscience or the will of their electorate) he has ordered his party to vote as a bloc. His 'new' democracy is no democracy at all.
I would that every vote in parliament were a free vote, and that Canadians would get back to voting for the people who actually represent them, not the leaders of the party. I want to vote for my representative, not a list, not a party. If I were to vote for the NDP, I would not have a representative, I would have Jack. The same is true to a lesser degree for the other leaders as well, but they are at least willing to allow the occasional free vote.
Although he is the only leader for whom I have any respect in this campaign, I cannot endorse his party, his platform, or his representative. Were I to meet him, I would shake his hand and say thanks to him for refusing to degrade political discourse in his campaign. As for his policies and his party, for that I would withdraw my hand, say "no thanks", and walk away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)