Our vote should get us a representative we want
Editor: The ancient Greeks had a word for a clever and plausible but fallacious argument or form of reasoning. They called it sophistry. Today we call it politics.
It seems some things never change. The politically motivated now say if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain. How specious. Having the right to vote must mean more than simply putting a ballot in a ballot box.
Our first-past-the-post electoral system, modelled on the British system, represents many, many years of struggle for ordinary folk to obtain the right to vote. But it still doesn’t provide a fair outcome for a majority of voters.
A major difficulty was in the oligarchical approach to government of the British. Males of the landed gentry had a vote in every constituency in which they owned property. It took many years for this to change. Plural voting was not outlawed until 1948.
When the fight for a woman’s right to vote succeeded in Canada in 1918, it was at best a Pyrrhic victory for representative democracy. Success was short lived. Women were still considered property in the courts and the focus of women’s rights protest shifted to the feminist movement. The male-dominated federal government breathed a sigh of relief and had since consistently feigned further efforts for electoral reform.
Many of today’s Canadians are definitely not happy with the present guise of “representative” democracy. What good is having the right to vote if you can’t elect a likeminded representative? Any claim that members of various groups in a riding are fairly represented in caucus or in parliament is tantamount to sophistry. It just isn’t so. Still, many Canadians see representation as a pipe dream. Why?
Take the definition of a political representative. Unsuccessful candidates and supporters, plus unaffiliated voters, feel isolated and flummoxed in their efforts to elect likeminded representatives to parliament.
It’s all very well to say a politician is somebody chosen to speak or act on behalf of a number of people living in the same area. It’s quite another story to say that diverse groups of people living in the same area are one and the same.
Rising frustration has steadily eroded the public’s sense of civic-mindedness toward the entire political system.
Various groups and committees have recommended replacements of our electoral system. Each has weaknesses and limitations.
The one currently favoured by our federal government is alternative voting, also known as preferential voting.
Each voter rank-orders his/her choices of candidates. Candidate vote totals are then orchestrated to eliminate the ones with the least number of votes and re-allocate their votes to the remaining candidates until the winning candidates are determined.
Do votes “counted” on subsequent rounds really mean these voters are thereby satisfied that they have elected their choice of representative? No. Does this ultimately help the unrepresented voter? No.
Protest may seem the only course of action for those with enough resolve to continue to push for change. But what can they protest? And to what purpose? If the intent of voter is to help elect a like-minded candidate and/or party, why shouldn’t this also be the intent and outcome of our elections?
With a few changes in the application of our current voting procedures, it is possible to provide a parity electoral system that will ensure like-minded representatives in parliament.
How many non-voters would show up at polling stations if they knew they could help elect a like-minded regional candidate? Who knows for certain, but if disillusioned nonvoters are to be re-activated or involved for a first time, they must first be assured that their votes will have real value.
The popular vote and voter parity must become the means used to determine who will become our members of parliament. No more, “I’m alright Jack.” It’s time to act.
Albert Madsen, Kelowna