Does our vote really count

In a recent statement, John Pierre Kingsley, Canada’s chief electoral officer, lamented the 60.5% participation rate in Election 2000 as being the lowest in Canadian history, and suggested that a law may be needed to force Canadian voters to the polls.

As a follow-up to his statement, Mr. Kingsley has done a most Canadian-thing by commissioning a $298,000 post-election analysis to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the voters’ list and other systems.

Another view of the situation was made by Canadian Alliance member, Ted White, who is quoted as saying, “…turnout likely dropped from 67 per cent in 1997 because a majority of the population is satisfied with the way the Liberal government has handled affairs”. (Edmonton Journal, December 19, 2000)

Statements out of touch

In my considered opinion, both of these statements demonstrate how out of touch some ‘government’ officials[1] and politicians are with what is happening at the grass roots level. The fact is, that many electors may not be able to put their finger on it, but they have a real sixth-sense that something is amiss. Furthermore, the central problem has existed since Confederation, and it has very little to do with the voter's list, or satisfaction with the current government.

There have only been a handful of governments elected since 1867, which have governed with a mandate of more than 50%. Furthermore, the current electoral system has consistently favoured certain parties over others, i.e., traditional parties such as the Liberals and Conservatives, and narrowly-based regional parties like the Bloc Quebecois. It gives these two groups a disproportionate number of seats (compared to votes received) in the House of Commons.

To say, therefore, that the electoral system results in an accurate reflection of how the people voted is a sham and a pretense, and they are growing weary of participating in la game.

Most MPs don’t have an affective voice

Furthermore, once elected to the government side of the House, members are co-opted into the party-line system of voting, and become nothing more than voting machine in support of Government policy. So, on top of the very good chance an individual member was elected with less than majority of the constituents, he/she is now becomes a pawn within the system.

In support of this statement, I offer the example of former MP, John Nunziata, whose failure to go along with government policy[2] resulted in his expulsion from the Liberal caucus. Thereafter, he sat as an independent (…a member without a party affiliation) and, without the support of the party, he lost the past election to the official Liberal candidate, with 41% to Alan Tonk’s 43% of the popular vote.

The result of all of this is that the policies which find their way into law, are those developed by the prime minister and his cabinet in the back rooms of parliament. They do not arise spontaneously from the grass roots, nor are they the brain wave of the 301 members of parliament who are elected voice of the prople..

It begs the question, therefore, why should the people be enthused by a system that is so obviously dysfunctional? The legitimate effort of many electors has been frustrated by the way elections are consistently skewed,[3] and their representatives have been reduced to mere functionaries within parliament, itself. So, is it any mystery why many of them are refusing to go along with a sham?

Given all of this, the passing of another senseless law is not going to rectify an electoral system that is so fundamentally flawed, nor a so-called 'representative' system that isn’t representative. The solution lies in bringing about a system of voting that truly reflects the will of the people, and the empowerment of the ordinary back bencher to his/her intended role.

[1] The chief electoral officer is appointed by an act of parliament, and is independent from the government of the day. However, his/her recommendations to parliament must be supported by the government in order to become law.

[2] The issue was Jean Chretien’s failure to honour his election promise to rescind the GST.

[3] The current government, for example, was elected with a mere 40.8% of the popular vote. Therefore, a full 59.2% voted otherwise.