Monday, April 9, 2012

Compulsory Voting

Urk. Another brilliant suggestion by an old NDP hack. Not.

What was really going on with the robocall scandal is that people were being actively discouraged to vote. This is in the interests of the current government, because the fewer people vote (most of whom oppose the current government, after all), the more weight the Conservative party base have and the easier it is to hang on to power.

So yeah, maybe forcing people to vote would eliminate this problem. Maybe. I rather suspect, though, that we'd just get more spoilt ballots and not better, more representative, government. The real reason people don't vote is because their votes don't count for s**t.

The majority of voters are disenfranchised in this country - meaning that they do not have representation. If you don't have an MP or MLA from a party you voted for, you don't have a legitimate representative. If you are a left-wing-hippie-pinko out there in BC's hinterland, or a fiscally-prudent-socially-conservative-business-type living in an urban area, you know of what I speak.

How does this come about? Because the winner-takes-all system that is "first-past-the-post" means that anyone who doesn't vote for the "winner" is automatically a "loser". This is an antiquated and stupid system that practically nobody else uses anymore, but somehow we can't get past it.

There are many alternatives to our current electoral system, none of which would require any changes at all to the way our government works. They would just change the way the voting works. All are in widespread use and have been "tested" for years. But thanks to vested interests (ie. politicians) we can't get any change. So we persist in ripping voters off and continue to put the interests of politicians over those of the voters.

I note that Mr. Tielemann campaigned against electoral reform. He's not really interested in getting better government. He just wants his time at the trough.

1 comment:

  1. At least in M.Vancouver we have the at large system, guaranteeing that no independent will be able to win a seat ever again (Just look at Hillsdon) - not saying that the other system works better.

    As we saw in Equamilt, a compact, densified try in one riding would at least put a candidate in the house.

    I wonder how many years it will take for humanity to adjust to a system of voting for ideas, rather than a person. Maybe something like a yearly compulsory survey on every thing out there in the world.

    Compulsory voting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW5mm33EaRo First we must make the sheets bilingual with 20% of the Canadian pop born over seas, it's just like how the census is multilingual.

    For the record, I don't see much difference between voting and completing the census. The main difference is the census wants to know who, what, where we are, and the election wants to know our opinions and what we think.

    One problem that will not be solved by compulsory voting is the issue of what if we like some ideas of 2 different parties. ex- we don't want the F-38s but we want the pension limit raised. compromise? or would you just want to stay away from the mess. That's why we should be voting for ideas.

    Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete