Seeing the poll graph that flashes past the screen each night on CBC, I see that the Conservative line is dipping, and the NDP & Liberal ones are cranking up. The Greens gained a bit, but there's a sharp snap back on them too. Since nothing specific has happened, I'd expect that's a statistical error - something within their margin of uncertainty. Those graphs should really be drawn with error bars to give us an idea of their uncertainty. Since the Conservative number is 32% and the liberals 25%, if the margin of error is 3 or 4 points, it could be that the conservatives are at 29 and the liberals at 28. I'm sure that is not the case, but we can't really tell what is within the realm of possibility.
So two comments to make that really outline what I'm feeling most strongly about during this campaign. First, how everyone in the country should vote - Yes, I'm talkiing to you, and second my read on how ideology driven people think.
HOW TO VOTE TO SAVE YOUR COUNTRY
First you need to find a source of polling data for your riding. Now remember, these things are never bang on - but that's okay you just need a rough idea. Since I assume everyone else in your riding is reading this as well, all will be fine.
If you can't find one check here. It's not very scientific but it might fit the bill. The discussions in each riding often include some recent numbers that someone mentions. Otherwise, just google "riding polls" and click the "pages from Canada" search button.
How every you do it, just look at your riding's numbers. This part is the easy step:
simply vote for the leading non-conservative party. That's it. Done.
So, if the conservatives are ahead (my condolences) but look at the next number down, and cast your vote for that party, regarless of which way you are otherwise leaning.
If the conservatives are not leading, simply vote for the leading party in the polls. This avoids the vote splitting. Plus it's pretty democratic really. Since we don't have a proper "first choice, second choice" instant run-off voting system like we SHOULD have if we were in the 21st century, this deals with the challenge of 'anyone but the conservatives' without splitting the vote and letting them come up the middle.
Problem solved.
THE IDEOLOGS PHILOSOPHY
My fundamental fear of a conservative majority is their ideology driven agenda. It's been very carefully hidden for a few years now. They've effectively cut the media off from being able to participate in the democracy. There are no more scrums in the house. The local MP's in the their ridings don't talk to any media. Thus no media will hear when one of their many loose cannons spews vitriol at minorities, aboriginals, gay/lesbian communities, or immigrants, or when they spout some crazy right wing conspiracy theory about the jews, or advocate adopting the US currency (wouldn't that be great right now as their banking system falls apart.)
What motivates the leaders of this party? I beleive it is an ideology that they have a world view, heavily influenced by religion and class structure, and they are driven to re-mould the country in that image. I fear that their perception is this. "If we can just get that majority, we can fix everything. If we can get around these pesky citizens, who don't know what's good for them, we'll make everything right. Then, we can 'eliminate' the naysayers because they will be overwhelmingly quieted by the vast majority of people who will be won over by our amazing approach to reforming the country."
The problem with that - besides the inherent assumption that they know better than the people - is that the mould they would advocate would involve creating a state infused with christianity-based philosophy, where the border between the US and Canada is largely erased, and Alberta becomes some oil-rich oligarchy within a weak, probably militaristic, Canada.
Vote on Election Day
So we all need to find a means to ensure that the majority (ie at least 65% of the population by recent polls) is not led by this party. Assuming some of the 35% support does not fully grasp the ideology of the conservatives, we are looking at some crazy situation where we can all be led by a minority with a vastly different view of the country.
Then after election day we need to get the voting system changed. Not to some crazy MMP thing like Ontario explored briefly, but changed instead to an 'instant run-off' approach that recognizes that people often have an 'anyone but that guy' perspective. Our current system allows the 'anyone but him' situation to disasterously end up electing exactly that person due to spreading of the majority vote among a diffuse base of alternatives.
Whew. There - I've outlined the solution to all the woes of our country in one brief blog post, and it's not even lunch time yet.
6 comments:
MMP is not "some crazy thing" invented last week. The voting system designed with great care and after extensive study by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform is modelled on systems used very successfully in Germany for the past 60 years, and in New Zealand for the last decade. It is also used with success in regional Parliaments in Scotland and Wales.
IRV is the right system to elect a unitary office like President or Governor, but not to elect a representative assembly. IRV reduces all options to one. In electing a Parliament, the object is for all voices to be heard and represented, and for that you need proportional representation.
Having lived under MMP since 1996 in New Zealand, I have to say it is definitely NOT "crazy".
The FPP system London-Fanshowe to the "winner" last October with only 13,000 votes while 23,000 people voted for other people. Now that IS crazy.
In 2006, London-Fanshawe saw 65.5% of all votes cast electing no one at all. A clear 'super-majority' did not want the person who won. Now that IS crazy.
Under MMP, if you get 20% of the vote, you get 20% of the seats....and every vote cast for a party that makes the threshold counts toward representation.
That is how over 80% of democracies on Earth conduct their elections.
Crazy NOT to.
First of all, I invite you to read my three comments already published on www.OrphanVoters.ca. They all deal with Harper and what he represents. Canada has never had a Prime Minister espousing such an extreme--on might say, unCanadian-- form of conservatism. I think Canadians would be utterly naive to assume that just because we survived, and even prospered, under Conservative rule in the past, we would be OK under Harper. In the past, our Tory Prime Ministers were less likely to uncritically follow the United States and had no ties to big business the way Harper does. I am strongly in favour of the MMP variant of proportional represenation and worked in Ontario's provincial MMP campaign in the fall of 2007.
I am aware of the nuances of the MMP project in Ontario - I followed it very closely. The Ontario Citizen's Assembly is exactly the wrong way to design a new electoral system. Rounding up random folk at Canadian Tire and getting them to propose a new electoral system does not an informed choice make.
I have a list of about 10 concrete objections I have to MMP but the fundamental issue I have with it is that it puts politicians into positions of power who do not directly answer to a voter.
The scenario is possible that one of the extra guys could be a real asshole and do all sorts of bad stuff, and that party keep him as a list member and put him back in the next time.
I beleive that democracy needs to have everyone directly answering to the voters.
I'd much prefer IRV for MP's and MPP's to preserve accountability AND avoid the failed anyone-but-that-guy syndrome.
-OttCritic
First of all, I invite you to read my three comments already published on www.OrphanVoters.ca. They deal mostly with Harper and what he represents. Canada has never had a Prime Minister espousing such an extreme--one might say unCanadian--form of conservatism. I think Canadians would be utterly naive to assume that just because we survived, and even prospered, under Conservative Prime Ministers in the past, we would be OK under Harper. In the past, our Tory Prime Ministers were less likely to uncritically follow the United States and had no ties to big business the way Harper does. I am strongly in favour of the MMP variant of proportional representation and worked in the Ontario provincial MMP campaign in the fall of 2007.
I am responding to the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) criticism by Anonymous. To describe the forming of the Citizens Assembly in Ontario in the fall of 2007 as "rounding up random folk at Canadian Tire" is utterly ridiculous. The members of the Citizens Assembly were carefully selected with a view to making the Assembly representative of Canadian citizens at large. The second objection of Anonymous pertained to the Party Lists. Again, these people were carefully selected and their credentials were revealed to the voter. May I remind him (I presume it is a "he") that the people we vote for have been already nominated, i.e. appointed, before we vote for them? It is unrealistic to suggest that in a democracy everyone can and must be elected and made directly answerable to the voter. What about our senior public servants and other appointments to responsible senior government/public positions? What about our appointed, unelected judges, whose performance and integrity is superior to the elected judges in the United States, who can be bought precisely because they are elected! There is more to democracy than simply elections! It is impractical and impossible to elect everyone performing a public service. Other criteria can and should also be used. Elections assume that everyone is equally equipped to make the right selection, whereas in fact the electorate is largely unequipped to make at least some of the selections. Therefore, in a democracy voting has to be combined with intelligent selections and appointments of qualified personnel by trustworthy and qualified officials.
Post a Comment