Alberta’s turnout was among the lowest in the country, fourth from the bottom, with the Northwest Territories (48.6%), Nunavut (49.4%) and Newfoundland & Labrador (48.1%) the only provinces or territories lower.

In the case of Alberta … that 94.6% virtual seat sweep was courtesy of 34.2% of the Alberta electorate. The other 65.8% of Alberta voters either stayed home or voted other than Conservative.

Now consider Newfoundland and Labrador…. Reports were common of demoralized Conservatives and the CPoC’s struggles to find people willing to run as candidates against the moneyed avalanche which was the ABC campaign.

Should progressives be pleased with the demoralization of the CPoC’s supporters in the province?

No, not if they hold that democracy should be inclusive of and for everyone, not just those with whose views they can agree.

I feel as bad for the disenfranchised Conservatives in NL as I do for the 65.8% disenfranchised Albertans who either voted differently or didn’t vote at all.

The numbers are telling. No matter which political ideology you hold, surely you can see that forcing a multi-party democracy into a two-party voting system is unfair to the electorate, undemocratic and horribly wrong….

Full article goes on to respond to a Toronto Star item on proportional representation. Predictably, The Star once again employs scare tactics in its endless argument against reforming our electoral system.

Election 08 now goes down in history for being the first federal election campaign to have generated such public disdain that over 40% of the electorate didn’t bother even to cast a vote. Only 59.1 percent of us showed up at the polls.

Did vote swapping or strategic voting work? Not on your life. And the lowest voter turnout ever suggests that it helped achieve the opposite of what their proponents had wanted.

Someone over at another blog made the following comments:

All I am asking is that the rest of us … appreciate how those most informed on this critical issue are so conflicted in our allegiances… Let’s hope that in the next government … we begin the process of moving to a new electoral system where people no longer have to make such undemocratic decisions at the ballot box. [my emphasis]

My response.

A commentary by Elsie Hambrook, Chair of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women, is a must-read.

When Doris Anderson, former and famed editor of Chatelaine and lifelong activist, came to Saint John on a stormy winter night in 2003, drawing hundreds of women to hear her speak on electoral reform, she confided something that, years later, still makes some of us think…

Getting the message out to the public [no matter what it is] is damn hard these days. Not just because the media and corporate and party elites are so strongly against democratic and electoral reform, but because, among other things, locations where people come together are increasingly not available for canvassing or soliciting.

For example, at the All Candidates Meeting in my community, I wanted to distribute Fair Vote Canada flyers on the seats in the theatre. I’d printed off 250 flyers, plus sheets of the FVC petition for candidates and audience members to sign (was hoping to ask a question at the mic on ER/PR).

When I arrived at the ACM venue, I asked permission of the manager to distribute my flyers on the theatre seats.

Denied.

So I asked permission to distribute the flyers outside, at the front of the building.

Denied again.

Even the purportedly public sidewalk fronting the building was off-limits….

Full article

As the Conservative ship is listing badly and taking on water, few will shed a tear other than the tears of frustration we’re now seeing on the anxious faces of the party faithful. Captain Harper, navigating between sea-monsters–on one side, the so-con Scylla, on the other, the latte-sipping, artsy-fartsy, vaguely treasonous Charybdis–has finally fetched up on the shoals of the economy.

His was a missed opportunity of historic proportions. Under our antique and undemocratic electoral system, the Cons only had to corral 40% or so of the votes of those who bothered to turn up at the polls (maybe a quarter of the electorate), to rule unimpeded for four ghastly years. The goal wouldn’t be easy to achieve, but it was hardly out of reach.

“Strong” (read autocratic) leadership, therefore, almost inevitably became a key issue. There are always people who seek the vicarious thrill of sadopolitics–jailing 14-year-olds, sending troops off to fight foreign wars, poking culture in the eye, sticking it to the CBC, dissing the “liberal” media, bullying and firing bureaucrats, and crushing anyone else who gets in the way. For the Conservatives there is no shortage of targets, as we have seen: it’s been high noon for nearly two years.

And then four things happened.

First, the handlers decided to let the Conservative basement kids loose. The results were some serious gaffes that could have derailed the campaign. The machine was soon back on track, and by itself this difficult start could have been overcome, but it left questions in many people’s minds. Nevertheless, the polls, if not the pollsters,* were looking pretty good, especially in swing ridings (now renamed “battleground riding’s” as our psychological deep integration with the US continues).

At the same time, though, the strategists decided to make Harper kindler and gentler, all blue sweater-vest and proud father. This was, as Citizen columnist Randall Denley pointed out at the time, a serious blunder. Nobody was fooled. His core constituency, in fact, didn’t want a kind, sweet man in charge. And his opponents were not taken in by the palpable insincerity of the new election-ad Stephen.

On the hustings, the real Harper has seemed even more tightly controlled than usual, almost paralyzed. His performance in the leaders debates was extraordinarily poor: he sat there, often speaking in an emotionless monotone, while his strategists hoped the other leaders would overplay their hands–which to some extent, of course, they did. But he suffered for it.

Debates don’t usually decide electoral matters, of course. But crises, on the other hand, test political leaders to the core. There is simply nowhere to hide. Faced with a cataclysmic economic meltdown, Canadians wanted clear, decisive answers, and they also needed a sense of connection.

But Harper failed spectacularly to connect with the public, musing aloud instead about buying up stock bargains. Yes, as he said defensively, keeping one’s head in a crisis in important; but at times like this, people want heart as well. He hasn’t done all that well with the head part, as it happens. But it’s the man’s utter lack of empathy, I think, that has sealed his party’s fate.

One can feel the ground shifting. The Globe and Mail, decrying his lack of leadership on the economy last week, today published a cartoon mocking his aloofness. The Ottawa Citizen went further: its cartoon portrays him as a child begging at the door. His supporters are resigned to another minority government at best–don’t be fooled by the brave rhetoric. They’re flailing mightily, but they know the awful truth.

Margaret Wente gave him a tongue-lashing this morning that would have brought a rhino to its knees. There’s an almost incredulous chorus of shock and disapppointment, and much grumbling and second-guessing, as the man behind the curtain is finally revealed. Even the conservative Economist now refers to his poor leadership on the environment and his “inner oilman.”

The polls indicate another minority government–possibly even a Liberal one. Harper has managed an impossible feat–making Stéphane Dion look good in comparison. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory–because another Conservative minority government is as much a defeat for Harper as a Liberal win–he has dashed the hopes of his party and his constituency. How much longer will he lead it?
_______
* Pollster silliness continues unabated. The CBC suggests that his decline in the polls has ceased, because the latest poll indicates a one-percent increase over the last one. The margin of error is 2.7%!

I wrote this back on Sept.15.

“ La Presse (newspaper in Montreal) has questioned if deal between Dion and May not to run opposing candidates in each others’ ridings is only part of deal for strategic voting across the country. ”

 Now May has made it official by calling on Greens to vote Liberal. Regretably, this hurts the Green brand by making it a “wing” of the Liberal party, and therefore irrelevant and illegitimate as an independent party. Good luck getting into the next debate. Will Green voters listen to May and vote tactically this election for her first choice, the Liberals? Or will they vote with conviction for Green, then deal with May after the election?

Tactically, May did much to build the Greens into a legitimate force. Strategically, she has put the first nail into the Green Party’s coffin. This is a bad thing not only for the Green Party but for our democracy.

Reprinted with permission from Fair Vote Canada.

Open letter from Fair Vote Canada to strategic voters and vote-swappers

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.” – Albert Einstein

Another federal election and another disaster for democracy.On October 14, millions of Canadians – possibly eight million – will become orphan voters, casting ballots that send no one to Ottawa. As usual, the election results will be wildly distorted.

Some parties will get a portion of seats far exceeding their portion of the popular vote, while others will get too little or none at all.We may even see a party opposed by six voters in every ten take majority control in the House of Commons.

Why we call this exercise “democracy” is a continuing mystery.

During every election in recent memory the frustration created by an undemocratic electoral system leads some to conclude that voters should try to “game” the system. Instead of marking the ballot for a party you support, they say, be “smart” and vote for a party you do not support in order block another party that you despise.

A recent poll by the Toronto Star indicated that about half of those supporting the Liberals, NDP and Green Party would consider casting a negative or “strategic” vote, abandoning the party they actually prefer, to vote for another party in the hope of stopping a candidate from the front-running Conservatives.

In addition to 40% of the eligible voters who choose not to vote we could now have another large group of people who have given up on sincere voting and genuine democratic representation.

This is no way to nourish pride of citizenship or public respect for the laws that emanate from an unrepresentative Parliament.

Citizens in most major democracies take for granted their right to cast a vote that elects the representation they want. In the upcoming election, the majority of Canadian voters will all but certainly be denied that right.Fair Vote Canada cannot advise voters whether to cast negative votes or to participate in vote-swapping schemes on October 14. It’s rarely a clear or easy choice.

What we can advise is that all Canadians should be coming together to demand reform of our country’s undemocratic election process.

If you have not already done so, join and support Fair Vote Canada. Sign the Fair Vote Canada petition calling for a national referendum on electoral reform. Urge other organizations to make active citizenship, equal votes and proportional representation for all Canadians a part of their basic mission.

Together we can win.

British Columbians showed the way in 2005 when 58% voted by referendum for proportional representation, only to be frustrated – in the short-term – by an undemocratic government-imposed threshold of 60%. On May 12, 2009, British Columbians will vote again in an electoral reform referendum. With our encouragement and help, they can lead Canada on the path of democratic renewal.

The electoral system has orphaned many of us. We must refuse to be silenced. Democracy has been long delayed, but if democrats are steadfast, democracy will not be forever denied.

Fair Vote Canada
Orphan Voters

Please help spread the word about the importance of reforming our electoral system – distribute this letter widely. – Ocean.

Say I support a party and want it to govern. I want it to win seats this election. My vote supports it financially, and money is the lifeblood of politics. Under the political financing law, each vote provides the party $1.75/year. So 1 million votes gives my party $7.5 Million dollars over a four year term. That goes a long way to providing my party the resources to grow support in the near term, and over time, hopefully lead to forming a government.

But what if my party’s candidate has no chance of winning in my riding? Do I vote “strategically” (really tactically) to stop my least favorite outcome? This not only deprives my party of money and gives it to my opponents, but if I make this choice in election after election, likely reinforces the perception in the general electorate that my party is a fringe party, with no chance of winning and not worthy of support. This perception becomes self perpetuating, and my party likely never gets elected. Am I prepared to continue working for and supporting such a party?

 Electoral success is the result of conviction and persistence over a number of years. Strategy by definition means a long term perspective.  There are 35% of Canadians who didn’t vote in the last election. Perhaps as my party grows its support and get its message out, these voters may find my party offers them a real choice they want to support. But they won’t have this choice if my party becomes irrelevant. Voting with conviction for my party is the best strategic vote I can make. If I don’t support my party, how can I expect others to do it.

Governments should be accountable to Canadians all the time, not just during election time. One of the key elements of a functioning democracy between elections is transparency and on-going government accountability to Parliament and to the people of Canada. Two new watchdog positions—a Parliamentary Budget Officer and a Public Appointments Commissioner—were created recently with substantial input from my own MP, Paul Dewar. Their respective mandates would allow them to shine a bright light on government expenditures and appointments.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has seriously undermined both functions before they have even had a chance to be put into operation.

There is at the present time no Public Appointments Commissioner. The office has been deliberately kept vacant. Prime Minister Stephen Harper abruptly made that decision this past May, after a friend of his, Gwyn Morgan, was found to be unsuitable for the position by the House of Commons Government Operations Committee. Mr. Morgan, a Calgary oilman, had made disparaging comments about immigrants, multiculturalism and unions in a speech to the Fraser Institute, a conservative think-tank. In Mr. Harper’s opinion, Morgan’s plainly intolerant views should not have disqualified him from one of the most sensitive positions in Parliament. The Committee, thankfully, disagreed.

But Mr. Harper’s decision means that it’s still business as usual—unvetted patronage appointments with no Parliamentary oversight whatsoever.

The duties of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, technically an officer of the non-partisan Library of Parliament, include carrying out independent analyses of Canada’s economy, finances and planned government expenditures. Another crucial part of the job is to provide an objective analysis of departmental and agency spending estimates, when asked to do so by parliamentary committees reviewing those estimates, such as the Senate National Finance Committee and the House of Commons Finance and Public Accounts Committees.

The first appointee to this post is Kevin Page, who appears to be very well-qualified for the position. But, in keeping with the Conservative government’s smoke-and-mirrors approach, his office has been given a paltry operating budget of $2.5 million, which will simply not permit him and his staff to do the work with any degree of thoroughness. Mr. Page himself has graciously tried to make the best of this tiny allocation, but questions have been raised about how this sum will permit him to serve all 308 MPs, and the various committees that will call on him for assistance.

An expert on the workings of government, Sharon Sutherland, puts it this way:

“If MPs want to have at their service a challenge function to both the Finance Department and to the expenditure budget, and if all the political parties make full use of the function, even assuming the Budget Office uses only available data, it will find itself out of funds pretty quickly. Even to perform an interpretive function, it will need to hire experts, and it will have to work with academic economists who charge huge fees.”

A responsible and responsive government should be accountable in fact, not just in theory. Two steps in the right direction have now been taken, with the establishment of a Public Appointments Commission and a Parliamentary Budget Officer. But these two steps forward have been countered by two steps right back: an unfilled office in one case, and a grossly under-budgeted one in the other. Canadians, pressed by an economic downturn and shrinking public services, have a right to know what our government is doing on a day-to-day basis. They deserve far better than this.

In the United States, and to a lesser degree in Canada, there is a libertarian movement afoot, with some of its proponents tacking hard to extreme positions by calling for the outright abolition of all government. A scenario like that would not see freer people, but total and destructive anarchy.
As is true of all things in life, the truth is found in the middle. Government must be reduced, since it has become too bloated and wasteful in most Western countries, particularly in Canada, but at the same time a healthy balance must be struck between people’s own responsibility for their actions and the areas where government does, and must, have a role to play.

Such a balance, however, will differ from country to country, because such a reform must take into account a country’s history and traditions – after all, where would the average Scandinavian be if his beloved Nanny State were to be taken away from him?
(more…)

Since Harpee has ascended to the leadership of the Tories, one theme that continues to pop up from time to time has been about a (non-Tory) coalition government in Ottawa. While my Oh Gawd Not Him inclination finds any alternative appealing, my democratic integrity sensor says “not on.” Here’s why.

But you didn’t say….

Coalition minority governments are not only common in many parts of the world, they’re the norm. Many of these jurisdictions use some form of proportional representation to elect government members; a few others use our first-past-the-post system.  Countries like Ireland, New Zealand, and Slovenia have had few (any?) majority governments in the last decade: formal coalition governments are the best way to have stable minority governments.

There are  a couple of differences in such places when compared to Canada. First, no one expects to get a majority, so the question of with whom a party will coalesce is always on the table, explictly or tacitly. Second, voters usually have some mechanism to prioritize their support through a ranking system if they so wish. Finally, in a number of such countries, parties campaign as coalition partners from the outset.

Our system  produces majority governments more often than minority ones, which leads the 2 major parties (Grits and Tories) to campaign towards a majority, leaving the idea of coalition off (their) table. As well, many voters in “swing” (i.e. contestable, changeable) ridings vote strategically–usually to keep someone else out: while many assume this only applies across the left/right divide, there are some who vote NDP to keep out Liberals, or Liberal to keep out the NDP–and they would be unhappy to see their democratic intention suddenly trumped by party leadership.

But most importantly, the Greens, Liberals, and NDP (the most plausible possible coalition partners) have not campaigned as a coalition. In fact, with the except of a handful of ridings, they are competing head-to-head-to-head across the country. So each candidate’s votes are counted separatedly anyway: were a consolidated campaign run (one candidate for their coalition per riding), voters would know precisely what they are voting for.

If the Tories were to win the most seats by even 1 seat, they get to form the government. The other parties can bring them down if they don’t like it. Or they can agitate for electoral reform.

A call for STV

Last year Ontario voters rejected a new electoral system called mixed member propotional (MMP). Among the concerns friends of mine in ON had were:

• A number of MLAs who were not required to provide consituent-level services (while most others did)
• If I don’t like the new system, I’m stuck with it (can’t vote how I always did)
• Further entrenchment of party power (only party list candidates could win the additional seats, not independents

Single Transferable Vote (STV) addresses these concerns to my liking–at least as it’s proposed here in BC, where we’ll be voting on it again in the 2009 provincial election. BC STV allows those who:

• Like the current system can vote for their one preferred candidate only
• Want to rank all candidates in their electoral district can do so
• Only want to rank some candidates can do so
• Want to support independents can do so
• Want to vote for a minor party to do so without fear of “wasting” their vote and letting the baddies in instead

It is, in other words, change for those who want–flexible change–and the status quo for those who like things the way they are.

If STV gets through this time in BC I can assure I will support the Greens and independents in the next provincial election in 2013.

Last night I attended an all candidates meeting in White Rock.

Attending:

• David Blair (Green) showed up late and nearly missed the opening remarks.  He was well spoken but seemed out of his depth on many non-local issues.  Blair’s personal platform was being anti-”business as usual”.
• Russ Hiebert (Conservative) came off much like his leaflets: Aren’t Harper and the Conservatives great?  He was an excellent speaker although there was a lot of flipping through the “official party position book” (I was able to predict every answer Harper made in the leaders’ debate tonight).  Only Hiebert was consistently able to answer questions before being cut off by the clock.  The other candidates tended to whisper conspiratorially to one another a lot while he was speaking.
• Brian Marlatt (PC) never once broke from his monotone, borderline unintelligible pontifications, and came across as being heavily medicated.  He had a lot to say about the Conservatives being evil Neocon Bush-puppets.  Unfortunately Marlatt very rarely got to the topic at hand before being cut off by the clock.
• Judy Higginbotham (Liberal) got off to a slow start, and had to pause dramatically in order to allow supporters to identify applause lines.  She mentioned the greats of the Liberal Party – Chretien and Trudeau – quite a bit more than I would consider wise in the West.  Higgenbotham was a good speaker, but had a lot of problems with the clock.  At first she just got distracted and trailed out when time ran out, and later ineffectively fought the buzzer on almost every question.  This resulted in her mic being cut off around 10 times in the evening while she yelled as loud as possible with the crowd yelling back “Time’s up!”.  Rather unbecoming.
• Peter Prontzos (NDP) showed up with his tie-dyed daughters in tow, who proceeded to loudly heckle Hiebert.  He echoed the PC sentiment that Harper is an evil Neocon, but with the caveat that the Liberals are almost as bad.  He called them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum at one point.
  

Health Care
Only Hiebert acknowledged that provinces run health care, and that increased salaries are the only way to get and retain more nurses and doctors.  He also mentioned getting foreign trained doctors re-certified faster.  All the other candidates waxed eloquent about more accessible training for nurses.

Income Trusts
Hiebert took a beating about the change in taxation status, but countered pretty effectively with supportive quotes from Liberals from days gone by.

Safety of the Railway Line Along White Rock’s Shore
Higginbotham: Yes, we are going to move it inland, just as soon as the US agrees to pay for it.
Hiebert: We’ll make it safer as is.
Everyone Else: Of course we’re going to move it!

At this point the moderators actually allowed a question about Clinton’s responsibility for the current US financial crisis.  Marlatt and Prontzos took this as an opportunity to rail on about Neocons and Bush.  If I had realized that the bar for questions was so low I would have submitted some of my own!

Do You Personally Support Same Sex Marriage?
Blair had the most memorable line of the evening here, with “as long as it doesn’t involve me personally”.  Higginbotham’s answer was interesting in that she never directly answered it, instead talking about how not allowing SSM is un-Canadian.

Genetically Modified Organisms
Hiebert was the only candidate against mandatory labeling.

Afghanistan
Prontoz had an eyebrow raising response to this one, advocating that we pull out now, but go back in with the United Nations, and intervene in Darfur as well.

Senate Reform
Much to my surprise, Marlatt actually came out against Senate reform.  Blair really stumbled on this one, falling back on his old standby “more study is needed”.  Higginbotham said something to the effect of “I will be so amazing as your representative that the Senate will be irrelevant”.  I swear to God.

Fixed Election Dates
As the crowd booed Hiebert, a dude with long hair and a crazy beard got up to cheer.  This fellow turned out to be a Whalley street preacher named Brian, who (after the debate) had far more to say about Jesus than I was interested in hearing.  He told me that he was torn between Hiebert (for his leadership qualities) and Blair (for his empathy).

All said and done, Hiebert was the clear winner.  Regardless of whether you liked his policy, he came across as the most calm and informed; even though under constant attack from all the other candidates he remained composed while defusing the most damaging claims.  And his ability to fully communicate his message within the allotted time was very compelling.  Yay for practicing and cheat sheets?

More of Raven’s writings can be found at Fumbled Mumblings.

An explosive account in a major column today reveals that the federal NDP back in Ed Broadbent’s time, rejected the Liberal government’s offer to change our voting system to proportional representation.

Why?

Because “the MPs were afraid of losing their seats.”

The electoral crapshoot would long be a thing of the past had NDP leader Ed Broadbent and his caucus seized a never-before-disclosed offer from prime minister Pierre Trudeau immediately after the 1980 election. The Liberals captured 147 of 282 seats with 44 per cent of the popular vote, but failed to elect a single MP west of Winnipeg despite the support of about 25 per cent of western voters.

A Liberal majority with no western seats ignited western rage. Not only do ongoing unrepresentative and perverse electoral outcomes undermine democratic legitimacy and suppress turnout, they rupture the bonds holding the country together, artificially fomenting regional alienation and fracturing national unity.

Trudeau invited Broadbent to his office for a chat. The NDP had captured 26 of its 32 seats in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. with about one-third of the vote. Trudeau said he would introduce legislation for proportional representation if the NDP would co-sponsor it.

According to well-placed sources, Broadbent said he would take the proposal to his caucus. The answer was no.

Broadbent told the prime minister NDP MPs were afraid of losing their seats. Trudeau declined to forge ahead alone.

This is a lengthy column, with lots of info, and likely to get substantial attention.

Congrats to Layton and Harper for proposing more time to discuss the economy. Let’s build on this idea for future election campaigns: have 4 debates, one a week on a major issue. Fifteen minutes is not enough time to explain a policy on the environment, healthcare, etc. but 2 or 3 hours should be. Hold one debate in each of the different regions of the country with one French language debate in Quebec. Our democracy would be better for it.

One of the big disappointments of the campaign, given all the controversies over the past year, is the lack of discussion by the parties about our democratic freedoms slipping away. I am speaking of course about Canada’s so-called human rights commissions and their attempt to censor ordinary Canadians.

This isn’t just about Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and Maclean’s Magazine. From small pub owners with heart conditions spending tens of thousands of dollars and potentially losing their business for enforcing a ban on marijuana smoking, to Christian pastors being silenced from the pulpit, to doctors being investigated for declining to operate when they lack the medical background to do so safely, Canada’s human rights commissions have created a culture of fear and distrust among ordinary Canadians

Canadians should be concerned with stripping away of our freedoms and civil liberties, which are the foundation of every vibrant democracy. With the federal election underway, I can think of no better time to discuss government censorship and Canada’s human rights commissions. It is time for our politicians to show leadership and insure the rights of every Canadian are respected.

Which is why Kathy Shaidle and I have today released a book on Canada’s human rights commissions, entitled Tyranny of Nice. Mark Steyn has kindly written the introduction. You can find out more about the book by visiting TyrannyOfNice.com.

The polls suggest the current electoral system favors the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc at the expense of the NDP and Greens. Some argue this discourages people from voting, and propose proportional representation (PR) as the solution. Perhaps it is part of a solution. But a real issue which is never discussed is lack of representation by population (Rep by Pop), which causes some votes to be worth more than others.

If anyone should be discouraged it is residents of Ontario, Alberta and BC. These have 1 MP for every 120,000 in population. All the other provinces are over-represented, from the extreme case of PEI which negotiated a great deal at Confederation (4 MPs for a population of 140,000) to Quebec (1 MP per 103,000). So at this election, the 4 Maritime provinces will elect 32 MPs as BC elects 36, even though BC has double the population. This isn’t fair.

 Electoral reform, combining Rep by Pop with some form of PR (say 1 for every 2% of the vote, or 50) will solve part of the voter turnout issue by making sure every vote matters equally. The greater responsibility falls on politicians. Get voters engaged by proposing and debating ideas instead of launching personal/negative attacks or bickering. Voters are disenchanted with politicians. If the politicians change the way they behave, maybe voters will as well.

Bloggers everywhere are writing about strategic voting.

Some argue that progressives should vote strategically. Others argue against, making the compelling case that it is never right to vote for the lesser of evils rather than for a party which best accords with one’s values.

This will be my last post on this topic.

As I responded in a comment on another blog, I think people of good conscience can take different sides on strategic voting and both be right.

I’ve weighed back and forth whether voting strategically is the ethical thing to do – for me – and I don’t pretend to know what’s right for anyone else.

But after thinking hard about it, having for a moment thought that, for the first time in all my voting years, it was right that I vote against one party and not for the party whose values most reflect mine, I just can’t do it.

For me, a vote for a party I don’t support goes against everything I believe in, and the principles and values which have guided me throughout my life. But I do understand someone arguing that to uphold their own values – which could be very similar to mine -, they must do exactly opposite to what I’ve decided.

It may be that the tension between the two positions is really that captured between two levels of thought or discourse, between the philosophically ethical and the specifically moral. Which is why each position can be both right and wrong.

From this point on in this election and for several months beyond to the May 2009 BC election, I’ll be spending my time working toward democratic reform. That must start with a change to our voting system, to proportional representation.

Had PR been in place for this election, no voter would be confronted with the dilemma of choosing to vote other than what’s in their heart.

[Cross-posted at Challenging the Commonplace]

 

Over at JimBobby Sez, the man has given me pause for thought and I’m so glad he did.

Perhaps all of us who have been thinking of voting strategically for the first time should think again and read his passionate reminder: about why we’ve never voted strategically before, about why we didn’t and that those reasons haven’t changed just because we’re facing another Harper government, about the feeling you get when you vote for the lesser of two evils, about ….

Here’s an excerpt from JB’s post.

It may take a strong dose of un-democracy to convince enough Canadians that we have a broken system in need of reform. So be it. When we engage in schemes and vote trading and candidate trading and all sorts of strategies to play the game by the unfair rules, we only perpetuate acceptance.

I voted strategically once… I felt slightly nauseous afterward and the experience still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Hmm. Well you’ve given me something to think about, JB. Because I’ve never done it and have always voted according to the candidate whose party best matched my principles and values. Even thinking of voting strategically makes me feel ill and brings a writhing sense of self-loathing.

Until this election, I never entertained the idea of voting strategically and, as you, thought that only some real tough medicine in the form of an ultra-right Canada led by Harper or the like, would – maybe, just maybe – get Canadians to rethink their voting system.

This election more than most, I’ve been working hard as a volunteer with Fair Vote Canada and had already signed up with the FVC-BC group to support the coming STV referendum in BC.

I continue to believe that democratic and electoral reform are THE issues for all elections now and into the future – until the change to proportional representation gets done. That is, the first legislation passed by any party forming government should be to begin the process of electoral change. And that process must ensure that the people, not the parties, ultimately decide on the basis of a simple majority – no simple majority of MPs imposing a higher threshold -, the system which gets instituted.

Because only then, when we have proportional representation, will the majority of Canadians have a reasonable chance of seeing the major issues which concern them getting addressed.

People should read JB’s entire post. He offers many arguments against strategic voting, including ones which suggest that it will fail anyway. Not enough people will do it – they’ll either vote for their party of choice, destroy or refuse their ballots, or simply stay home.

Anyone getting a little alarmed about Stephen Harper using the RCMP as his Praetorian Guard?

I don’t put the blame totally on Harper or his Liberal predecessor Jean Chrétien either. The RCMP, long a law unto itself, an elite squad of Canadians whose members are permitted to kill with impunity, clearly fancies itself in this role.

What is happening to this country? Why isn’t continued RCMP wrong-doing an election issue?

Cynic here didn’t think it would happen. The letter exceeded the Letter-to-the-Editor word limit. Times three. But my letter to the local paper made it anyway.

Originally titled Competition It Isn’t, here it is under the headline “Electoral systems needs change to promote democracy.”