Roundup: Values versus mechanics

Posted on by

I am just about at my limit for hot takes on both Brexit and electoral reform here in Canada, and lo, the Citizen has an op-ed out that combines the two of them. How scintillating! Except not. After dire warnings about what Brexit did for referendums, we get an appeal for a discussion on “values” rather than mechanics when it comes to discussing electoral reform.

Nope. Nooooope.

When I’ve finished banging my head against my desk for the sheer ridiculousness of the piece, I’ve got a couple of bones to pick with it.

The mechanics of any electoral system are important to understand what it produces in terms of government, kinds of parties and representatives. The guide also discusses design variations, which could be good if citizens were being asked to design a system. But citizens are not being asked to do that when they hold these informal meetings. And an obsession about design mechanics only perpetuates the wrong-headed nature of the conversation. It’s like arguing over the options on a car before you’ve chosen the model.

The problem is that nobody is actually talking about the mechanics. Sure, you have a couple of people griping over MMP versus ranked ballot, but nobody is talking about the bigger picture. There is no obsession about design mechanics – it’s all been about feelings and “fairness,” and this fantasyland notion that somehow parties will be forced to be more cooperative under whichever system is eventually chosen (which is utter tripe) or that voters will somehow turnout more (also tripe), and nobody talks about what it means that you are no longer voting for an MP in a direct and meaningful way that gives them direct agency. Mechanics matter, and nobody is discussing it, so I don’t know where this prof is getting the idea that there’s an obsession with it.

The focus of these town halls should be on what values matter most to Canadians in an electoral system. I think citizens care less about the allocation of seats than they do about how each system embodies principles such as accountability, fairness, simplicity and inclusiveness.

Wait – how much ink has been spilled to date over the allocation of seats? It’s the very first thing that the sore loser brigade starts whinging about. So yes, apparently Canadians do care about it insofar as they misunderstand how the current system works and are being told that it’s unfair based on the fantasy number of the popular vote (which we’ve already established is not a real number). Also, nobody is talking about what actual accountability means (like being able to turf a government) rather than the fuzziest of notions about your MP responding to you as a voter. And there’s that “fairness” word again, which is that emotive word that people whinge about without understanding how the system works – just that the party they support didn’t get as many seats as they feel they deserved, based on numbers that don’t exist in reality.

Should an electoral system offer greater voter choice, create effective parties, be simple and practical or offer fairness of representation? These are ideals that both reformers and non-reformers can rationally discuss without getting lost in the weeds of how votes are transferred under single transferable vote.

And here we get to the part where we apparently want a discussion about unicorns, because that’s all these ideals are. Everyone wants a magical electoral outcome, but they don’t actually understand how the system works now, so this is all about wish fulfilment and fantasy projection. This is why a discussion about mechanics matters. We can talk values until doomsday, and it will be worthless because unless you have a solid conception about what your vote actually means from a mechanical perspective, then it might as well be pixie dust.

Good reads:

  • Because it wouldn’t be a Conservative leadership contest without Tony Clement in the mix, he is now officially in the race.
  • At the AFN General Assembly, an MOU was signed with the RCMP about addressing racism and discrimination within the Force.
  • The Justice Minister said that the complexities of Canadian law make it impossible to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples wholesale.
  • Carolyn Bennett has been smoothing over terms of reference with the provinces on the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women.
  • Métis groups are fighting to determine who can legitimately represent them post Supreme Court decision.
  • A Department of Finance memo says that because of low oil prices, new pipelines won’t be needed until 2025 – which may be when assessments might be done by.
  • This poll showing Canadians being opposed to arms sales didn’t ask if they were okay with economically devastating the region of the country producing them.
  • Meanwhile, the Canadian military is providing bases and resources to test those LAVs going to Saudi Arabia, making it look less like a private contract.
  • Kady O’Malley looks at what the rules are for Jason Kenney regarding is decision to stay on as an MP until October 1st while he seeks the PC leadership in Alberta.
  • In a deliciously scathing piece, Jen Gerson finds that Kenney has pretty much united the right in Alberta – against him, in spite of Harper’s endorsement.
  • Mike Moffatt warns that cutting off trade won’t solve the income distribution problems that people blame on globalization.
  • Susan Delacourt writes about Conservatives, both federally and in some provinces, borrowing from the Trudeau Liberals’ tactics.

Odds and ends:

It looks like the Crown will be abandoning the fraud and breach of trust charges against Senator Brazeau. (He still has all kinds of other charges, mind you).

Jane Philpott is off to attend the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: Values versus mechanics”

  1. We will have a referendum in PEI on 4 different systems of voting in October. What I have noticed so far is general apathy, no one appears remotely interested in changing the system or doing any reading on what the 4 proposed systems mean. Maybe this is why at the Federal level it is the same, MPs and experts all talking amongst themselves with various scenarios but little understanding of what it all means. I do not have much faith in the public learning or understanding any new system including the current one. Too many misconceptions out there, including my favourite, ”I did not know my vote counted”.

Comments are closed.