On Boxing Day I pulled into a coffee shop off Highway 7, near Peterborough, at 6: 45 a.m. I needed to caffeinate and to ruminate for a moment on why I had agreed to accompany my 15-year-old sister to the mall that day.
Three men were seated in a corner booth, wearing neon vests and staring outside towards their trucks. They were huddled over doubledoubles and crumpled copies of the day’s newspaper, talking politics.
“I’ll tell you what’s wrong with politics. It’s that Bob Rae,” said one man.
“Yeah, and the rest of them!” replied another. “Yeah, them too,” finished the first, before punctuating his point with a staccato statement as confident as it was simple: “We. Have. Bad. Leaders.”
[More]
David is exactly right. Political influence is available to any citizen who cares enough to join a riding association, examine the candidates, support the candidate of your choice, and vote in your riding association. If you can’t support any of them, convince someone you can support, to run. Failing that, run yourself. If you don’t, those who do, will determine the political environment in which you live.
You get the leaders you deserve.
This sentiment saying applies more to voters who do any of the following:
1) Vote for party X to keep out party Y
2) Vote just for the sake of voting
In either case you’re not really voting for anything. Many of us are simply not impressed by any of the choices before us. Should we pretend to be in order to avoid being labeled deserving of punishment?
I can’t recall having seen such incohearent nonsense from you Cy. Have you been celebrating? Of course I voted for something. Not only voted but worked and contributed for the repeal of the government (both Liberal and P.C.) attacks on legitimate Canadian gun owners.
Happy New Year.
Not you personally. JNW is full of CPC fanboys so of course you voted for something. Most people don’t feel that strongly though.
Happy New Year to all!
You calling me a ‘boy’, Cy? LOL Happy New Year to you.
Another “blame the citizens” BS article with the same theme – join a flawed process, support what you believe to be flawed….. war is peace, yada, yada, yada.
Fortunately citizens are taking action, and refusing to participate. Non-voting Canadians are now comprise almost 40% of the population. It’s a growing segment of Canadians that the political parties and their orthodox partisan followers like to deride, insult, and ignore.
Fortunately for us they do so at their peril.
I chair a committee for my town that deals in “social issues” and the people, the voters, don’t really care unless they have an issue. In the last civic election there was a voter participation of about 35%, those that did vote elected a good town council with good dedicated individuals.
Where were the other 65%? We had policy differences amoungst the candidates, there were good choices to be made. Those who did not vote were just not engaged in the process – so be it! People are interested in a variety of subjects of which “politics” is but one. We do have very close to 100% particpation in the payment of property taxes tho and that may be the bottom line. We do get the politicians we vote for – the opportunity is always there to participate and vote and that is real democracy.
It’s all good. The world is run by those who show up. Those who care. If those who didn’t care showed up we would have longer meetings.
Read below – insulting and deriding us is not the best way to win us over to your cause DLM.
Nothing is perfect SL. Refusing to participate will not make it better. How does nonparticipation become an action, and how exactly are we imperiled by it?
And becoming part of the problem is a solution DLM? Significant (or even any) change from the inside? It doesn’t work, never has.
Non-participation will eventually force change as the system is ultimately forced to acknowledge that it is failing the people it purports to represent. With luck, it will bring the system as we know it down completely. How long before 25% of the popular vote is being called “strong mandate” by whatever party is in power – and people laugh louder than they do now?.
You are imperiled because you refuse to acknowledge your growing irrelevancy with the general Canadian public. After a few more election cycles, when more than 50% of the population is refusing to participate, the political parties and their partisan adherents and disciples may start to get the idea that deriding and insulting us might not be the best way to win us over to their various causes.
My questions were asked in all seriousness no insult intended.
I appreciate you taking the time to try to explain nonparticipation=action, I think I get your drift but I think it unlikely. (When has government ever cared that it fails to represent its constituants?) Can you site any examples of the kind of change you envision?
You say political participation never works. Let me give you an example of how it has worked for me. Since 1978 I have opposed C-68 and its following expansions. In the late 80′s my rural area got gerymandered into WestVan. I disapproved of the candidate so I joined the riding association and stated my objections: he had no position on C-68 and was full of sh*t on the economy. He won. But I didn’t stop I talked to every one who would listen. Next election we got John Ryennols perhaps the most professional politician in Canadian history. He was good for our riding and good for me. You may say peanuts, but I say, if every one put their time and money where their mouth is, as I have done, our government would much more responsive to the people.
Where would our democracy be if no one showed up to vote? It is our duty to vote. And, for those who don’t, should have no say in what happens, no matter how many well argued excuses. People put their lives on the line in other countries to vote. Yet, the complaining by those Canadians who don’t participate goes on. There is definitely a disconnect.
Our constitutional democracy is far from perfect but as Churchill once said, it is the best of what is out there. Human nature being what it is, some will never participate because politicians are fallible beings.
Stage — I have no idea why you keep beating this drum. Why on earth would you ever want to bring the system completely down? I mean, it already happened in my mother’s and my lifetime. Did it do any good? Were there any positive outcomes? From what my mother told me, the Great Depression was hell in Ontario and all of Canada. People starving. No such thing as welfare. Just soup lines. Few apparently voted during that time.
Then, that was followed by a nasty world war where Canadian families lost hundreds of thousands of loved ones. I don’t know the voting patterns at that time but since 50% of the population was in Europe fighting, I would imagine the numbers were way down.
Yet, you want that to happen again because politicians are not responding? Not responding to what? Thousands of Western farmers have begged for the elimination of the CWB single desk for years. Their voices have finally been heard. Millions of legal gun owners have been complaining about the gun registry. So, it is soon to be abolished. First Nations asked for an apology for the residential school problem and two years ago, they got it.
Do you want me to go on? What exactly is it you want that the McGuinty and Harper governments are not doing? Are the things you want what they campaigned on? If not, you should have been helping the party that most closely represents your views.
There are 70 Harper government accomplishments on this list. http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2011/03/28/the-accomplishments/
In reality, the items were just a drop in the bucket because I couldn’t keep track of everything. And, keep in mind, the Conservatives achieved them in a minority situation.
To me, that list is good news. It is not partisan. It is reality. It was possible because people voted for the CPC candidate in their riding. For that I am grateful because I look forward to growth and prosperity.
Happy new year everyone!
Just to add to your argument Sandy, those who don’t show up shouldn’t be surprised if their views are ignored by those who do show up !
Oh, and a Happy New Year to everyone.
Sorry Sandy, quite frankly (and to be quite blunt) there is only one paragraph in that comment worth addressing… .
It would be required to change to a system that Canadians were willing to support and participate within – I don’t see that as a bad thing at all.
No, it is not. It is our right to participate in the electoral process if we choose to do so.
That’s not very democratic of you Sandy. Is that how you propose to bolster system participation – muzzle those who make the decision not to participate?
You like the system. You support the system. That is your right.
I dislike the system. I believe it is fundamentally flawed. I do not support the system. That is my right.
Your would either:
(1) take away my rights, or
(2) force me to engage in an activity I would not otherwise voluntarily engage in
Which of us leaning towards authoritarianism and which of us is not?
Ah yes, the old “people a willing die in other countries for the right to vote” line. Yes, they are. And I applaud them. Does that mean that because we have something better than they have in those countries that we should simply sit on our collective arses and be satisfied with that?
And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it, however I think it very unlikely that any sort of significant democratic change can come from the inside.
And we agree that government really cares not about representing the people…. well, except during an election cycle when the average citizen becomes, for a short while anyway, an important and valuable asset to the party
At this point in our political development how likely is it, for example, that change from the inside the party resulting in every vote being a free vote? Or that the party leaders power to toss an MP/MPP/MLA from caucus for not doing as s/he is told is revoked?
Personally I think it very unlikely.
These changes would result in significant democratic change, decisions of the House would no longer be decided by the three party leaders enforcing their will through the party whip and the threat of banishment to the back benches if the MP/MPP is lucky, and from caucus if they are not.
How likely is it that at this point in time we are likely to see any changes from inside to how we do our electoral math? 38% is not a “strong mandate”, 38 does not equal 54, and the last Prime Minister that could claim any sort of real mandate was Brian Mulroney.
That sort of change is, at this time I believe, highly unlikely.
How likely is it at this point in time that we would see change from inside towards any sort of direct democracy? If the recent wheat board decision is any indicator (and I am talking about the process and not the decision) that sort of change is unlikely. All of the parties want a strong central government – that they control.
Will non-participation work? I really don’t know. We have, that I am aware of, no term of reference to look back on and make any predictions – one can hope (and we do) that eventually, as participation rates continue to drop, the government is forced to ask why that is… in a manner more concrete than simply paying the issue lip service now and again.
After the November 27, 2000 general election the Chief Electoral Officer’s report included the following
Since that recommendation was made 2 Liberal Governments and 3 Conservative governments have ignored it – I would work, and vote, for the party that promised, if elected, to make that recommendation law.
But at this point the parties, and the rank and file party membership, would rather not know that people are dissatisfied with the process because that lack of knowledge allows them to put their on spin on why voter turnout is declining.
“I would work, and vote, for the party that promised, if elected, to make that recommendation law.” So would I if all of that party’s other planks were as reasonable. I agree that the party system is anti democratic but I can’t figure out how to win an election without one. Can you?
I have to go to work now, will probably be gone for days unfortunately.
The party system is not anti-democratic, the way it has been allowed to develop is – no party leader should have the power to control the vote of individual MPs. It is illegal to try and force someone to vote a certain way outside the House, why is it an accepted, regular, and supported practice within it?
America uses a party system – the party leader cannot boot a representative from caucus for not toeing the party line. They have to work at selling their programs and policies instead of simply issuing party orders and having all the good little representatives shout yes sir!! and vote as they are told — if in fact they are allowed to vote at all.
If none of the above was an option on the ballot that meant that if ” None of The Above ” won the seat or position would remain vacant until the next election: Not sure how practical this would be, or if would trigger some unintended consequences, but it would certainly empower those unsatisfied with the all candidates.
But this wouldn’t be the same as ” pouting ” and not voting.
Ignoring the wishes of the people who refuse to vote is not ” muzzling ” their rights, they are doing it to themselves !
Now if all choices are unpalatable, and people actively oppose the ” System ” in some organized. legal and logical way that actually means creating a new Party or new choice that one could vote for.
That a large number of people snub voting is certainly a problem, and bad for democracy, but it’s not directly the fault of those who do currently participate in political Parties that they believe in: Not the fault of these, but certainly a failure of current Parties to convince many that they each have good ideas and be worth supporting.
Jean, if “none of the above” gathered more votes than any other candidate the seat would not remain vacant, the party with the greatest minority of votes would sit in it exactly as happens now. What would happen is that the parties in that riding would know that their constituents are dissatisfied – currently they can pretend not to know this now, and they can (and do) put various pieces of party spin on why voter turnout is dropping.
Indeed, given that no political party (Liberal or Conservative) in power has accepted the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation to allow people to decline the ballot and have that decision counted, we can easily assume that they do not want to know how many people are dissatisfied with the system the parties have built.
What other reason could there be for refusing to implement that simple recommendation?
What unintended consequences do you envision if the parties were confronted with the knowledge that people were ready and willing to vote but that they were offered nothing palatable to vote for?
Let me quote Sandy herself
And finally
What Sandy doesn’t get either is that it’s not about “ideas” – it’s about the way the parties operate and how they have, with the support of their followers, hi-jacked Canadian democracy.
Re: “What Sandy doesn’t get either is that it’s not about “ideas” – it’s about the way the parties operate and how they have, with the support of their followers, hi-jacked Canadian democracy.”
I’ve stayed out of this discussion so far and “stage” is having fun as he exercises his mind from his point of view. He does good work.
My question for him (and Coyne) is IF the Canadian political situation is so bad exactly what would you replace it with?
I’m certain my readers are all ears as we wait in breathless anticipation. The reply is certain to be a real “humdinger”.
Too easy Jack
Those are simple democratic reforms that can be enacted without constitutional reform, as soon as they are accomplished:
Note to Jack & Cy… the OL /OL tag doesn’t seem to work in comments – no biggie
That’s not replacing — it’s tinkering with the status quo and doesn’t answer my question.
Is there a better political model Canada can adopt than the one we have now?
I don’t know but I doubt it.
stage … does the “government” fall on every lost vote? or only on fiscally designated votes? or at all (ie: 4 year terms)?
your system sounds like a republic which might be fine if only 2 parties existed – aka USA
from a voter stand point, I would propose a constitutional conference to “correct” the way we vote, institute a Canadian version of BC-STV (it has some faults!) and see if more people/voters become engaged in Canadian Democracy.
” Jean, if “none of the above” gathered more votes than any other candidate the seat would not remain vacant. ”
Yes I agree that currently the seat would not remain vacant: I was just speculating if the rules where changed so that ” None of The Above “, if that option won, no one would be able to take the seat. I don’t seriously think that a law like this is likely to be passed and might even need major changes to the Constitution and all the difficulties that would imply ! I also don’t see any Party eager to have such a rule change.
Anyway, just in case it wasn’t clear that I was just proposing a very theoretical idea just for the sake of discussion.
” What unintended consequences do you envision if the parties were confronted with the knowledge that people were ready and willing to vote but that they were offered nothing palatable to vote for?”
Well, if a large number of seats remained vacant ( In my theoretical model ) I have no idea how the lack of local representation would affect all the things that an M.P. is supposed to be doing for his/her constituents.
And, the remaining ” occupied ” seats might mean a Majority Government might be possible with less than half of the total number of seats ! Anyway, it would change the chess game of Parliament in weird and not necessarily positive ways.
But I think I get your point that Politicians don’t want rejected ballots to be ” obvious ” even if would only have some ” moral value ” in showing peoples’ dissatisfaction with all the Parties.
Jack, those reforms are not simple tinkering with the status quo – they are significant reforms which would fundamentally change the way this country is governed.
Think on it for a few minutes
– and need I really go into the benefits of local/regional/provincial control over local/regional/provincial issues with Conservatives?
No Jack, these changes are fundamental changes, and we would be better governed because of them.
If the government designates a vote (any vote) a confidence matter and loses then the government falls – it could certainly become a tool at the disposal of the party in power to, especially in the first year or so of a mandate, move their agenda forward. Remember that Opposition MP’s are free to vote for the bill at hand if they believe it is worthwhile without fear of retribution from their party leader and party so governments falling may not be all that common.
It means that the party leadership putting forward a specific piece of legislation, as well as the party leaders of the parties opposite, have to actually sell their MP’s on a specific course of action as they no longer have the power to simply compel them to vote with the way they are told.
If the party in power puts forward a budget, does not designate it a confidence matter, and passage fails they go back to work on it, and put forward a budget the House can agree on. As I said in my reply to Jack, no more of the party in power ramming legislation through the House by invoking closure or limiting debate by ordering MP’s to vote one way or another simply because that is the most expedient way of guaranteeing passage of their bill.
I have to admit that I am a fan of the republican model – America has managed to screw it up completely though and we should learn from their mistakes.
Interestingly enough, the original republics developed before the party system and I see no reason why they could not function with none, or multiple, parties – in fact it is a system that just may encourage more independents to run, and indeed succeed, as MP’s.
I am curious, from a Conservative standpoint, who would your second choice be?
Generally, on the matter of proportional representation systems I am not a fan and STV strives to achieve that. That said, if the party whip, in a position other than to try and rally the troops does not exist, and if the party leader cannot dismiss MP’s for not toeing the party line, it may be workable; although in the system I have suggested an MP elected in a FPTP election has a better chance of actually representing the majority of voters within her/his riding than they currently enjoy.
Good discussion points – thanks WCT