Don't Be A Loser
Rest easy, faithful readers. Your humble scribe has heard your pleas. "It's election time," you say. "We need guidance," you say. "What would the Nine Inch Column do?" you ask. (Merchandising note: RFPs have gone out for WWNICD bracelets)
Well, those of my readers in Mississauga might have seen my guest column in today's Mississauga News offering thoughts on the referendum on proposed electoral reform. For those who didn't see it, here it is (although the editor changed my title from the much more fitting and provocative Proportional representation is for losers):
Election reform is not needed
by Benjamin Thornton
September 25, 2007 - The provincial election ballot offers us a little extra this time around — a referendum on electoral reform. To be precise, it offers a choice between the existing "first-past-the-post" system, and a proposed mixed-member proportional (MMP) system, which calls for some MPPs to be elected from a smaller number of geographically defined ridings, and others to be appointed from pre-determined lists according to the province-wide breakdown of the popular vote among political parties.
On the con side of the MMP debate, the arguments are essentially as follows: the new system would turn its back on centuries of parliamentary tradition by no longer tying all elected members to a clearly (and non-politically affiliated) identifiable group of people. It might create two different classes of elected representatives — those elected at the riding level and those elected from the party lists. It might serve to solidify the primacy of the party system and limit the success of individuals or movements outside it. And it might undermine the productivity of the legislature (such as it is) by setting us up for perennially deadlocked minority and coalition governments, such as we see in some multi-partied European governments.
And on the other side of the ledger, the main argument in favour of MMP is that the will of the electorate will be more accurately reflected; in particular, that the minorities who vote for parties such as the Green Party or the NDP are denied fair representation in government because their candidates don't win.
Frankly, that's loser talk. It's sour grapes. But worse than that, it's misdirection that fails to recognize the nature of Canadian democracy. Elections are to democracy as weddings are to marriages: good beginnings, but not the ultimate measure of the relationship.
If the goal of a party is not merely to elect as many members as possible, but to affect public policy, surely it is understood that change is possible from without? Those who are elected are forced (by conscience or practicality) to take opposition views (or public opinion polls) into account, or risk not being re-elected. Representative democracy, even in our current system, is self-correcting. The number of seats a smaller party holds is a red herring: if it truly has the support or reflects the concerns of significant numbers of voters, it will eventually reach critical mass and get elected, or the other parties will adapt and poach its policies.
Either way, the voters ultimately win, and democracy is served.Idealistic? Perhaps. Naive? Perhaps. But perhaps it's the difference between a long- and short-term view. And perhaps if Canada didn't have a long tradition of new parties, breakaway parties, and successfully persuasive opposition parties, it might be necessary to re-examine political accessibility.
But if this is about the Greens, perhaps their time simply has not yet come. And if it's about the NDPs, perhaps their time has come and gone.
Democracy is about process, not results. So, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or, if it ain't broke, don't break it.
Their footer identified me as president of the Mississauga Arts Council, which I had asked them not to do, only because that position has no bearing on my political views. C'est la vie. I only hope it doesn't muddy the debate.
Stay tuned for more unsolicited Nine Inch opinions.
Well, those of my readers in Mississauga might have seen my guest column in today's Mississauga News offering thoughts on the referendum on proposed electoral reform. For those who didn't see it, here it is (although the editor changed my title from the much more fitting and provocative Proportional representation is for losers):
Election reform is not needed
by Benjamin Thornton
September 25, 2007 - The provincial election ballot offers us a little extra this time around — a referendum on electoral reform. To be precise, it offers a choice between the existing "first-past-the-post" system, and a proposed mixed-member proportional (MMP) system, which calls for some MPPs to be elected from a smaller number of geographically defined ridings, and others to be appointed from pre-determined lists according to the province-wide breakdown of the popular vote among political parties.
On the con side of the MMP debate, the arguments are essentially as follows: the new system would turn its back on centuries of parliamentary tradition by no longer tying all elected members to a clearly (and non-politically affiliated) identifiable group of people. It might create two different classes of elected representatives — those elected at the riding level and those elected from the party lists. It might serve to solidify the primacy of the party system and limit the success of individuals or movements outside it. And it might undermine the productivity of the legislature (such as it is) by setting us up for perennially deadlocked minority and coalition governments, such as we see in some multi-partied European governments.
And on the other side of the ledger, the main argument in favour of MMP is that the will of the electorate will be more accurately reflected; in particular, that the minorities who vote for parties such as the Green Party or the NDP are denied fair representation in government because their candidates don't win.
Frankly, that's loser talk. It's sour grapes. But worse than that, it's misdirection that fails to recognize the nature of Canadian democracy. Elections are to democracy as weddings are to marriages: good beginnings, but not the ultimate measure of the relationship.
If the goal of a party is not merely to elect as many members as possible, but to affect public policy, surely it is understood that change is possible from without? Those who are elected are forced (by conscience or practicality) to take opposition views (or public opinion polls) into account, or risk not being re-elected. Representative democracy, even in our current system, is self-correcting. The number of seats a smaller party holds is a red herring: if it truly has the support or reflects the concerns of significant numbers of voters, it will eventually reach critical mass and get elected, or the other parties will adapt and poach its policies.
Either way, the voters ultimately win, and democracy is served.Idealistic? Perhaps. Naive? Perhaps. But perhaps it's the difference between a long- and short-term view. And perhaps if Canada didn't have a long tradition of new parties, breakaway parties, and successfully persuasive opposition parties, it might be necessary to re-examine political accessibility.
But if this is about the Greens, perhaps their time simply has not yet come. And if it's about the NDPs, perhaps their time has come and gone.
Democracy is about process, not results. So, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or, if it ain't broke, don't break it.
Their footer identified me as president of the Mississauga Arts Council, which I had asked them not to do, only because that position has no bearing on my political views. C'est la vie. I only hope it doesn't muddy the debate.
Stay tuned for more unsolicited Nine Inch opinions.
posted by Benjamin Thornton at 9:11 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home