Roundup: Specious arguments about political bullying

Posted on by

As someone who writes a lot about our democratic system (true fact – I have a book about it coming out in March), I read a lot of really dumb things that people try to assert in order to make a point. The Citizen had an op-ed yesterday that pretty much takes the cake for specious reasoning when it comes to asserting that our electoral system somehow turns everyone into petty bullies. That’s right – it postulates that First-Past-the-Post is responsible for The Elbowing that happened a couple of months ago. No, seriously. It’s such a moronic argument that I. Can’t. Even.

Here’s the thing – trying to blame the electoral system is a losing proposition because trying to prove the counterfactual amounts to pixie dust and unicorns. Electoral politics can get nasty because that’s the nature of competition, and even in systems that are supposedly built upon consensus models (such as the legislatures in the NWT and Nunavut), there is just as much bullying among MLAs that takes place as in the oppositional system we have here. There is all manner of fractious and nasty politics in countries that have proportional or ranked ballot systems because it’s almost like we’re all human beings or something. Add to that, trying to put the blame on the logically fallacious notion about “false majority” governments (which don’t exist because the popular vote is not a real thing – elections are not single events but rather 338 separate and simultaneous events that you can’t simply mash into a single statistic and expect it to be meaningful) doesn’t automatically turn the victors into bullies because it posits that either “true” majorities or minority governments would not be the same. That’s of course false, as large majorities can turn triumphalist and run roughshod over opposition parties just as much, and minority parliaments can be petty and nasty as parties clamp down in order to ensure that the government isn’t toppled, as our own recent memory shows. None of this has anything to do with First-Past-the-Post, and pretending that another system would force parties to work together forgets that it simply means shifting from one model of horse-trading and bargaining to another model, where there tends to be more extreme elements jockeying for power instead. So, to be quite frank, if this is supposed to be “kicking off” a discussion on electoral reform, it might as well be a tale that includes a vampire or two because it’s just as fantastic.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto announced that visa restrictions will be lifted on December 1st, and that Canadian beef will be allowed into Mexico. More on why this felt underwhelming from John Geddes.
  • Also, while Trump blusters about pulling out of NAFTA, Trudeau and Peña Nieto insist that the deal isn’t going anywhere.
  • CSIS and Global Affairs Canada are getting into a spat over information sharing.
  • Mélanie Joly unveiled her Canadian cultural policy advisory council.
  • The PBO warns that provincial debt is becoming unsustainable.
  • Social conservative backbencher Brad Trost is mulling a leadership bid. Of course.
  • Here’s a look at why the Brexit referendum hasn’t emboldened Quebec separatists.
  • Stephen Saideman gives an account of what it was like to participate in a session of the defence review that is ongoing.
  • Susan Delacourt tries to square the Brexit referendum with the Liberals’ aversion to one on the issue of electoral reform.
  • John Pepall expounds on how grassroots selection of party leaders in the UK has exacerbated their current political crisis.

Odds and ends:

Justin Trudeau will appear in a Marvel comic in August. His father had a role in an X-Men comic in 1979.

Here’s a look at the renovations to the Government Conference Centre, which will be the future (temporary) home of the Seante.

Trudeau and Peña Nieto started the day off with a run together, which is something that Harper would never, ever do. Here’s a look at last night’s state dinner.

One thought on “Roundup: Specious arguments about political bullying”

  1. Good post as usual.

    I have 3 comments.

    1. About the Citizen op-ed. I found that I simply couldn’t read such opinionated and biased rhetoric, particularly from one representing himself as a serious academic. In fact, I had a hard time getting past the first sentence, in which the author states that he spends a lot of time “working with ‘recovering’ politicians”. Derogatory and facile imagery, insulting politicans and trivializing addiction (as does “climate deniers” for skeptics and Holocaust victims).

    2. The False Majority concept is wrong, but compelling. I heard a photographer at the Electoral Committee meeting expounding at length and loudly (instead of taking pictures) about the unfairness of a majority government with only a 20% share of the popular vote. I was itching to argue with him but would have benefited from a pithy and believable counter-meme. How about, “So do you think you should should have 20% of the winnings if you came second all night at a poker game?” More and better metaphors welcomed.

    3. I thought that I would be treated to the same kind of polemic from another expert, Pippa Norris. But her interview with Jennifer Ditchburn was even-handed and interesting (http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/06/28/everything-you-need-to-know-about-electoral-reform-a-policy-options-podcast/). It is part of Policy Options’ very varied coverage of Electoral Reform in Canada: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/06/28/everything-you-need-to-know-about-electoral-reform-a-policy-options-podcast/

    Pierre B.

Comments are closed.