Sunday April 24, 2005
Idealism means wasting my vote
In the coming B.C. election and referendum, I shall support the proposal for a Single Transferable Vote, or STV.
I have seen a variety of positions in opposition, all based on suppositions. STV, they say, is likely to result in unstable minority governments. The counting process is convoluted. It will take time – we may not know the same day who forms our new government. No one fully understands the formula for electing candidates. Multi-candidate ridings are a step backward. More lunatic fringe candidates will get elected…
And on, and on, and on…
As a society, we are more conservative than we like to admit. We think of ourselves as far ahead of most of the planet in technology, in human rights legislation, in health care, etc.
In fact, hardly anyone welcomes change. Most of us – including me – are dragged kicking and screaming into each variation from what we consider normal. But in fact, we have so many changes surging past us, we can only focus on a few of them. Like same-sex marriage, for example.
The old way of electing representatives is not necessary the best way. But it is familiar. The new ways are unknown. And we fear what we don\’t know.
I do not support STV because it\’s new. I too have concerns about how it will work.
I support it because it will give me back my vote.
You see, in every election since 1958, I have wasted my vote. I have supported a candidate who didn\’t get elected.
Under the “first-past-the-post” electoral system, once one candidate takes the lead, my input becomes waste paper. Just like the federal elections, where B.C. votes are meaningless once Ontario has plumped for its political favourite.
My political prejudices
Just in case there\’s any doubt, I voted Green in the last election.
I voted Green because – well, let me elaborate on my biases about the various parties.
The Conservatives favour the establishment, whatever it is. They don\’t want any upstarts – gays and lesbians today; blacks, slaves, women, or the working class yesterday – rocking their comfortable boats.
In B.C., of course, the Conservatives call themselves Liberals, just to confuse things.
Conservative economic policies – lower taxes and less government – may seem radical by contrast with Liberal or NDP practices. But they invariably protect the privileges of the already privileged. Low income people don\’t pay enough taxes to benefit directly from tax cuts, and they don\’t deal with government enough to want less interference. The wealthy, on the other hand, pay the most taxes. So they benefit most from a cut. They also interact more with government – usually because it restricts their freedom to make more money.
The wealthiest “persons” of all are corporations. They have the most resources; they get the biggest tax breaks.
As futurist Reuben Nelson pointed out, long ago, they\’re also the least socially responsible. Corporations claim to be good citizens if they obey the law. If someone on my street did only what was legally required as a parent or a property owner, and nothing more, I would not consider him an exemplary neighbour. But that\’s the corporate argument.
The Liberals govern for the professional class – doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers… They claim to have a social conscience. In fact they avoid doing anything that might encourage other professionals to quit the country. Look at their candidates – worthy people, but few have ever worked shifts in an auto plant or pulp mill.
Where the Conservatives want to make Canada more like the United States, Liberal rhetoric stresses Canada\’s differences. They\’re sovereigntists – like the Bloc Quebecois, but on a larger scale.
Other alternatives
The NDP are the only party that, while in power, have brought in legislation to improve the lot of ordinary working folks. Typically, they have improved working conditions, expanded benefits, and raised minimum wages.
They do have a conscience, but it\’s pretty much limited to social issues. People\’s jobs take precedence over the environment. I have yet to see an NDP government make a tough decision that throws thousands of supporters out of work.
They also get most of their support from the largest and most militant labour unions. Therefore they inherit a view of management as their natural enemies. But they have never figured out how to govern without managing. And in general, their record shows it.
That distinguishes them from the Communist Party. In Canada, I don\’t see the Communist Party as either a threat or an alternative. But historically, the Communists have become as ruthlessly autocratic as the managers they rebelled against.
The Marijuana Party is a single-issue outfit. If they ever got elected, they wouldn\’t know what to do once they legalized pot. By that time, they probably wouldn\’t care, either. I don\’t smoke pot. The world seems enough like a hallucination without getting stoned.
Second choices matter To receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to [email protected]. E-mail subscribers also get excerpts from correspondence about these columns. Please forward a copy of this column to anyone who might be interested in subscribing.
If you want to order my books, you can call 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-328-0200 in the U.S., or order them on-line at the Wood Lake Books website.
For a lighter look at ethics, faith, and life, I recommend Ralph Milton\’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it at the Wood Lake Books home page in Ralph Milton\’s Site, or by sending a note directly to [email protected].
It\’s also worth pursuing Richard Fairchild\’s United Online site. Another site worth visiting is David Keating\’s \”SeemslikeGod\” page.
Which leaves me with the Greens. They\’re as critical of big corporations as the NDP. They\’re as suspicious of bureaucracies as the Conservatives. They give the impression, sometimes, of leaping onto any environmental bandwagon that happens to be passing by. Still they are, from what I can see, the only party with a long-term vision of any kind for Canada and for the world.
That\’s a welcome contrast to the short-term instant solutions of every other party – as someone commented acidly, “bribing us with our own money.”
However, under the present electoral system, the instant I vote Green, I throw my vote away. In this riding, the Greens have no hope of getting elected.
Under the STV system, though, my vote, my wishes, my idealism, could continue to count. My second choice can still influence the outcome. And my third choice…
I don\’t expect STV to bring in instant paradise. I\’m sure it will have its problems. But it\’s better than being effectively disenfranchised by idealism.
=====================================
Copyright © 2002 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
=====================================
PROMOTION PLUGS