So, a bunch of us were moping about in the weeks after the last local elections, where no one voted, again, and nothing changed, again. The people who “won” succeeded on promises that they would not change a thing, because everything’s just great. Again.
What the hell? And more importantly, what to do about all these stupid elections where voters don’t vote? Or worse, they do vote, but everything is stacked against any kind of change?
In a political system as old and complex as ours, fiddle with one thing, and another thing won’t work. It’s a little like that game from the 1970s where you pull out the sticks and hope the marbles don’t fall.
Elected Senate? The same type of people we now elect to the House, only now they want more power and attention? I’m happier to know Pamela Wallin’s got my back, thanks. Abolish the institution of the Governor General? Imagine if Stephen Harper could prorogue parliament all by himself, rather than go crawling to someone else to suspend democracy, even if she is just a figurehead. It’s worth every penny. Fixed election dates? Harper’s recent dalliance with fixed election dates has shown they don’t really work with minority governments.
It’s no surprise the part of our system that bugs me most – the way we elect our representatives – does not bug the average politician. It’s natural for people to be less bothered by the things they control, than by the things that control them – which is why established governing parties are more concerned with our poor dysfunctional Senate and the Governor General than fighting for proportional representation, which would only benefit people who don’t like them anyway.
But how do you change things without making everything else go KerPlunk? How do you get to the basic problem of lack of engagement in elections?
There’s always the Australian model of mandatory voting, which sounds good until you think it through. It is a wee bit heavy-handed and undemocratic, and it keeps the onus on the voter to engage with the political system, rather than the other way around. Plus, our current election model is punishment enough. No one I’ve voted for has won a seat in the last 10 or so years. That’s starting to really hurt.
If we’re going to punish voters for not voting, I say let’s really do it: deny representation to ridings that don’t get a minimum number of people voting.
No votes? No MP. It would mean political parties could no longer rely on apathy, vote splitting and empty promises in exchange for those few votes (and that easy $1.75 in party funding per vote) to get a seat in the house. As it stands, politicians in some ridings know they’ll get a seat no matter how little effort they spend reaching out to voters, or actually governing once the deed is done. In a way, it would show voters that their vote – or lack of it – really does matter.
The silence emanating from those empty seats in ridings where enough voters felt they had nothing to gain by participating in elections would be far louder than today’s backbenchers and opposition members in the House of Commons who have to literally howl and whoop for any attention at all. That can’t be a good use of anyone’s time. (Though, on the other hand, the yelling and catcalling might be more productive than those stupid mail campaigns: I do enjoy Randy Horback’s flyers, especially about all the ways the Conservatives are making Via Rail better for us all. Hey, Randy! Have you visited Regina’s train station lately? Way to represent!)
Another possibility is to run a party to actually represent people who don’t vote, say the Non-Voting Public Party. Guaranteed to get a majority every time, whether people actually vote for it or not. Hire a few unelected spokespeople to speak to the media, and we’ve got a viable opposition party for the rest of us.
Until the non-voting public votes itself out of existence, we have to rely on politicians to keep doing the fiddling, and let the marbles fall where they may.
Sasquatch columnist Carle Steel is a Regina writer and journalist.