Electoral reform
Dear Republic:
In his Civic Election post-mortem last week, Kevin Potvin suggests that giving each voter a single vote for council (rather than the 10 we have under the current system) will lead to greater support for independent candidates.
It seems clear to me that such a reform would have the opposite effect. When I have 10 votes to spread around, I can afford the luxury of spending votes on a couple independent candidates, while still supporting my chosen party. With only one vote, I would be reluctant indeed to support an independent who has relatively little chance of victory.
I might also add that 10 votes allows me to express my democratic choice with a great deal more refinement than a single vote. It’s rare that I feel 100% approval for a single party or candidate, which is all that a single vote permits me to express. Though a COPE supporter, I wouldn’t care to see an all-COPE council with no opposition. Why, with 10 votes to throw around, I might even contemplate voting for an NPA candidate, if convinced of their personal integrity despite their party affiliation. Having multiple votes makes it easier to diverge from strict party-line voting.
If Potvin is concerned about lackluster candidates slipping into office by virtue of slate voting, then a better solution might be to prohibit the listing of party affiliations on the ballot. In the voting booth at least, all candidates would be equal. Of course, core supporters for any party would bring lists of their candidates to the polls, and check them off against the names on the ballots. However, elections aren’t typically decided by the hard core, but by swing voters. With such a reform, candidates would actually have to accomplish something that would impress their names on the memories of voters who don’t pay much attention to party politics. And that’s not such a bad prerequisite for people seeking public office.
- Michael Brockington, Vancouver
Vancouver the Great
Dear Republic:
I heard the Grey Cup finally pushed Vancouve r over the edge and we became a fun city for a few hours. Whoopee. But to make Vancouver really relevant, we need to think big, politically.
It’s time to follow up on independent journalist Kevin Potvin’s brilliant plan to find the UN a new home at the entrance to Stanley Park.
City Council should declare Vancouver an international human rights sanctuary and welcome victims of war and deserters. Vancouver International Airport should be declared a no fly zone for the CIA until the practice of extraordinary rendition ceases.
After a dusting off, the multimillion dollar high security Air India courtroom will be the ideal venue for the Bush torture trials.
After that, Vancouver will be on the map. All that will remain to do (apart from outsourcing the premier’s office) is to build bomb shelters for 2 million people and we can have a blast!
- Roger Barany, Vancouver
The energy question
Dear Republic:
Kevin Potvin's idea of "m anufacturing dissent" is a good one, though it totally hinges on getting mass media onside the message.
In the case of the MLA's pay raise backlash this was not difficult, as the economic implications are not significant, as Potvin points out. His other example however, countering a lifting of the offshore oil moratorium, would not be such a slam-dunk. Remember that mass media represent the corporate agenda, so are basically in bed with "big oil". As usual with environmental controversies, dissenters are portrayed as "special interests" (as if big-oil isn't . . . ) and would argue that the benefits outweigh the ecological impacts.
This overt bias of right-wing mass media has no better example than around the recent sale of Terasen gas to US conglomerate Kinder-Morgan. This issue which got much more vociferous opposition from many segments of society, from citizens to medium and small businesses, was totally downplayed by the media. We were told basically that it was a corporate deal within the private sector, so the public, which also comprised hundreds of dissenting Terasen shareholders, had no part in it. The fact that millions of BC natural gas consumers would be impacted also apparently was of no concern. But when prices sky rocket to reflect the supply and demand market of North America, the media will be out of the loop, as will our own BC Utilities Corporation.
All I can say is if I was going to buy a house today—which of course I can't thanks to a real estate boom-touting media—I would install hydro-powered electric heating. And that's really the only true dissenting tool citizens have left: consumer choice.
- Charles Leduc, Vancouver
****
|
