Something Rotten

The time is out of joint.

Or at least, you’d be forgiven for thinking so if you read my Facebook feed last Tuesday morning. My friends (and I, I should make clear) are mostly left-leaning. Many of us were pleased to see Jack Layton’s NDP form a historic majority of the opposition, and delighted that Elizabeth May finally has an equally historic seat in the government for her Greens. A Conservative majority for Harper? … Not so enjoyable.

I’m not even going to try to claim I know much about politics. I can tell you more about how Canadian politicians of my childhood and adolescence were portrayed on Royal Canadian Air Farce than about what they did in the news. I know which party I want in power and which I do not. I also know that my reasons for both are mostly second-hand and have far more to do with the arguments and points shuttled about my peer group than any profound analysis of my own. I also know that this is my fault; I explain it not to try to excuse it, but to give a caveat to this entire blog entry — WARNING: WRITER IS IGNORANT. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Whenever elections roll around, I always think back to an article on different voting systems published by Discover magazine when I was in high school. It was a mathematical analysis of different types of voting (e.g. approval voting, preferential voting, one-person-one-vote, etc.*) and the strengths and weaknesses of each. The bottom line seemed to be that although different voting methods give different results, and the choice of which method to use is ultimately based on philosophical considerations of what exactly votes should be measuring and how one should measure it, any voting system is vulnerable to those who know its rules and therefore can choose to exploit it for the benefit of their candidate.

For example, the current Canadian system allows (encourages, even) strategic voting — that is, voting not for the candidate whom one most wishes to win but voting for the candidate who has the best chance of defeating the candidate whom one most wishes to lose. (I’m not looking to get into a debate over the morality of strategic voting; personally, I think it’s not only understandable but the most reasonable option — a mark on the design of our system, not on the people who use it. The point here is that it contradicts the stated goal of the system, viz. to measure the “true” preferences of Canadian voters, not that strategic voting is wrong in and of itself.)

Along the same lines, a ranking system is vulnerable to those who rank the chief rival for their first choice last on the list, even though they “truly” prefer her to, say, less well known candidates. (The Discover article pointed out that, in anything resembling a two-party system, this can lead to the election of a candidate whom none of the voters would choose in a one-person-one-vote system. I suppose whether you classify this as a weakness depends on whether you think preference is best characterized as things we actively want or things we don’t not want.) Approval voting has a  similar problem, in that voters in two-party-esque systems might wind up electing someone whom nobody prefers, simply because all of one party’s supporters might tick off everyone but the other party’s candidate and vice versa, which means that a third party could get more votes than either of the two frontrunners.

Oops, got distracted by the math. Back on track, Sarah.

What I ultimately take away from this stuff — other than fun math times — is the idea that the same voting data can always be presented in ways that make the system look fair and in ways that make it look unfair. “More Canadians wanted the Conservatives in power than wanted any other particular party in power” is true; “more Canadians didn’t want the Conservatives in power than did” is also true.

So while I think we’re long overdue for electoral reform, I get uneasy thinking of it as the quick-fix solution to my (projected? It’s only been a week and a half) unhappiness with the current government. No, I’m not happy with first-past-the-post, and although I’d have to consider it further before making a real decision, I’m favourably predisposed toward a system reform that would more strongly encourage people to vote (the most popular example being that of Australia). But I don’t think either of these things is a recipe for political utopia in and of themselves.

Firstly, well, we were asked whether we wanted to get rid of first-past-the-post a few years ago, and that attempt failed.

But secondly and more importantly, to focus entirely on the political structure suggests that the percentage of Conservative voters out there is an inalterable fact of nature — that our political leanings are practically hard-wired into us. I don’t deny that it’s unrealistic to expect to be able to change the opinions of the entirety of a powerful group**, or that there are some individuals (on every side) who cannot be swayed by anything short of mind control.  But I do believe that social change is possible, and to suggest that the only possible solution is to change the way the system apportions power while ignoring incorporating activism on an individual level seems to me to dig deeper the perceived chasm between the political left and right that politicians on both sides can spin to gain votes.

I wrote above that most of my Facebook friends lean Liberal, NDP, or Green. That’s true. But that doesn’t make the minority who voted for or who support the Conservatives any less my friends. And even though I obviously disagree with them on some political issues, frankly, I’m pretty sure each of them has based their position on more evidence than I’ve lazily based mine, whether or not I agree with their interpretations of it. Furthermore, I know that many of them share at least some of the opinions that led me not to vote for Harper this election day. It’s just that our priorities are different.

And I think the very worst thing I can do, both as a person and as someone with my political views, is to scrupulously avoid discussing politics with my friends just because we differ. I don’t mean that I intend to “convert” them to my perspective — that’s as inappropriate as the guy at my corner handing out pamphlets about his religion to every passerby.

But I guess I believe in my heart of hearts that dialogue — real, listening-to-each-other-as-well-as-talking dialogue — is a useful and productive thing. Because I bet there are plenty of people who consider themselves loyal to the Conservative party (or to the Liberals or NDP or Greens, for that matter) who disagree with each other more than they disagree with individuals who support other parties. And that just because we have a Conservative government in power doesn’t mean those of us who disagree have no hope of making our voices heard until the next election rolls around.

I can see why “let’s all talk and listen!” seems more like nursery school than politics: heck, it’s not the way I’d want to spend my Saturday afternoon. I’d much rather hide within the security blanket of people whom I know agree with me and my views than have to justify my beliefs to others. And creating a real dialogue is difficult. If it weren’t, “let’s all talk things over” wouldn’t sound like such a joke solution to heavy problems. It’s tough to open a dialogue to resolve even the most minor of day-to-day issues (whose turn it is to take out the trash; who always replaces the toilet-paper roll) — the kind of dialogue that might be able to resolve big, nation-sized problems seems impractical, if not outright impossible.

But I can’t justify abandoning the idea just because it’s tough or unachievable. After all, if I’m going to start drawing on Shakespeare to talk politics, I’d better use the whole quotation: the time is out of joint: O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.

* Further clarification of examples:
One-person-one-vote is like our (Canada’s) current system in which every voter votes for the candidate whom he would most like to see in power. The candidate with the most votes wins.
Approval voting is a system in which every voter has multiple votes, and she votes for the candidates whom she wouldn’t mind seeing in power. The candidate with the most approval votes wins.
Preferential voting is a system in which voters rank candidates from “most desired to see in power” to “least desired to see in power”. Rankings are translated into “points” for the candidate (i.e. if someone has ranked you first, you get a high number of points added to your total; if someone has ranked you last, you get a low number of points added to your total), and the candidate with the most points wins.

** Although, hey, why not? See: Quebec this election.