|
No rural conservatism here
Dear Republic:
Kevin Potvin presents an interesting thesis in his article “The right-side lock” [ Issue 106]. The theory presented is that BC-STV will somehow disadvantage the NDP because their support is higher in the urban ridings where STV will use multi-member districts with five to seven MLAs, while the right wing is stronger in the rural ridings where STV will use districts with fewer MLAs. The extension is that in some way this will disadvantage the NDP. Unfortunately this idea is based on some assumptions that do not stand up to closer examination.
Let's take a look at the record of the NDP in the low-population density rural ridings. In the 24 ridings with the lowest population density (this information is readily available from the Elections BC Web Site) the support for the NDP in the last two elections has been 21.9% in 2001, compared to 21.6% provincially, and 39.8% in 1996, compared to 39.5% provincially. The NDP certainly does not seem to be at a disadvantage in these rural areas.
Where are the weak spots for the NDP? They are in the North and West Vancouver, Richmond/Delta, the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan and the Peace River. And of these only the Peace River is a truly rural area.
So what about the idea of an NDP disadvantage in the rural ridings? Like so much of what we found when we were studying electoral reform in the Citizens' Assembly, we have yet another electoral system myth!
And yes, the Citizens' Assembly did research and discuss this issue during our deliberations.
- David Wills, Member, Citizens' Assembly on Electoral reform
STV would split the right
Dear Republic:
I find it too bad that Kevin Potvin would get himself caught up in a myth of BC-STV rather than looking at real voting trends in northern areas. The rural right is looking for the opportunity to split from Campbell's big city Liberals. Under a proportional system, the rural seats would be the ferment of smaller parties, who may be right-leaning, but by no means would be bed-fellows with the developers that now control the right.
If anything, BC-STV would see the right split again. For most of the century, we had four parties in BC, the Liberals, the Social Credit, the Conservatives, and the NDP. Add to that the Greens. These regional parties would re-emerge under BC-STV.
Another thing that Potvin fails to do is open the history books. We have only ever had three NDP left wing governments, and the only reason was when the right split the vote enough. As of today, there are no viable right wing parties, and the Liberals, for all practical purposes, are being granted a hegemony under the current FPTP. Had Gordon Wilson not won the debate in 1991 and blown away the Social Credit, we still would have had Social Credit Governments. Imagine, instead of WAC Bennett, four decades of Gordon Campbell, and you can see why change is needed.
- Daniel Grice, Yes for STV Campaign
No right-wing lock
Dear Republic:
Sure, there are better electoral systems than STV. However, I don't think "first past the post" is one. Therefore, voting “no” in the referendum is backwards. Besides, there are rural ridings such as Nelson-Creston and Powell River-Sunshine Coast where there is no “right-wing lock.” So, please do not advocate to keep the present system.
- Moraia Grau
Slander is slander
Dear Republic:
While your point is valid [Journalists demand apology, Issue 107]—it's true many journalists are sloppy and reckless (and why should they be expected to be treated any better than their prey?) I also think it sidesteps the heart of the issue.
A journalist who has been incorrectly publicly accused, like any other public figure, has the right to be compensated and/or apologized to for damages to their reputation and pocketbook.
Let those who slander pay for their sins, no matter who they are and no matter who their victims are.
- Ingrid Phaneuf
Wolfram old hat
Dear Republic:
Kevin Potvin's recent lead article on Stephen Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" [Issue 107] notes the critical reaction of many to it. The reason that so many fault this book is less its "newness" and more that its ideas are often old hat and that Wolfram has not given credit to others where it is due. To take just one example, discussed at length in Potvin's article, the idea that simple deterministic equations can lead to effectively random behaviour is indeed an important one.
But this idea has been around for over a century, tracing back at least to the work of the French mathematician Henri Poincaré. The more modern version of that work is sometimes known as chaos theory and has been described for the general public, for example, by James Gleick's excellent book, "Chaos."
How to deal with the chaotic randomness that results from complex, interacting systems, is in fact the main project of disciplines such as economics. Far from being a "pollution" of economic systems, the notion of randomness - and how to deal with it - is indeed the main preoccupation of that profession. On another front, the debate as to whether chaos (or for that matter, quantum mechanics, as exemplified by the uncertainty principle) can justify free will is a complex one that has been going on for decades. Daniel Dennett has written some thought-provoking books on this topic.
- John Bechhoefer, Vancouver
Imperial Canada
Dear Republic:
However much I hear certain NDP, Bloc, and Liberal MPs protest the MDS involvement, they miss the real issue, that of becoming part of the American war machine, the imperial industrial military world enterprise, the New American Century.
And become targets for anti-imperial terrorists?
Reality Question:
Does Canada want to be an imperial power making war on less prosperous countries to seize their resources for the benefit of American and Canadian transnational corporations?
To be an imperial power, or not to be, that is the question. That is how this policy choice should be framed.
- Jake Rempel, Vancouver
What liberal bias?
Dear Republic:
This is not about a particular article you wrote, and I do not know how obvious this is to you/your readers, but I feel that the accusation of a “liberal bias” in the media needs to be addressed and I am surprised that no one in the media (to my knowledge) has yet.
The phrase “liberal bias” is extremely misleading. "Bias" can mean that more people agree with liberal ideas than with conservative ideas, so the phrase "liberal bias" goes through one's mind and is considered valid. However conservatives use it to imply that there is something wrong, that there is "bias" in the sense of people having prejudice wrongfully effecting their decision - which is totally false and unfounded.
What has influenced the media's opinion is their knowledge and perspective, not to be confused with prejudice or false assumptions. Nowadays language has become so hybridized and metaphorical that something like this slips by us because it means two things at a time; the correct meaning in it validates it and the incorrect one is used to scorn and attack.
Whoever makes those accusations takes the fact that people actually have a common consensus on something and try to give it the meaning of prejudice. In fact, when we have a majority view on something - a "bias," a desire towards doing certain things a certain way - is when we should most act! We are so used to the metaphorical use of words that we no longer recognize it when it is in fact used for its two meanings - like doublespeak.
- Joy Chien, Vancouver
****
|
