Electoral Reform's Third Alternative

At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political ideas. 

Aldous Huxley

In democracy it's your vote that counts; in feudalism it's your Count that votes.
    Mogens Jallberg

There’s a lot of talk these days about electoral reform in Canada.  All kinds of reasons are given for the apparent malaise in voter involvement and turn-out in elections.  The most oft cited statistic to support this is that the current and many earlier majority governments were elected with significantly less than 50% of the popular vote.  Some have even taken this one step farther and said that, because of voter turn-out of only about 60%, the government was elected with less than 25% of voters’ approval.  This, of course, is a ridiculous conclusion since it assumes that all of those that did not vote would have voted for opposition parties. 

We are certainly not the first or only country to have problems, imagined or otherwise, with our electoral system.  The USA has had questions in recent presidential elections about the Electoral College system and whether it is really necessary in the present age.  If the president had been elected by popular support in 2000, we would have had President Al Gore instead of President George W. Bush.  It is fair to say that most democratic countries have had some sort of crisis that forced it to look at its electoral system.

The talk in Canada today seems to give us only two choices: the status quo, or proportional representation.  Of course, there was Ontario’s ill-fated attempt during a recent election to impose a proportional plus appointment system that proposed that a significant number of seats in the legislature would be appointed by each party based on their popular vote.  This would have ensured that you would never get to vote for any of the party leaders or proposed cabinet members.  They would all have been on the appointed list.

So if we want to change things, our leaders and pundits tell us it has to proportional representation.  So let’s look at how this would look.  It would pretty well guarantee that we would have nothing but coalition governments.  As more parties entered federal politics, which they would, the complexity of coalitions would only increase.  How many cabinet posts would the Natural Law or Rhinoceros Party want to help stabilize a government?  Remember, the government consist of the Prime Minister and his cabinet members.  The rest are only there to support or oppose that government.

To see how such a system would succeed, one only has to look at some of the countries that have used this system.  Perhaps the best, or worst, example is France during the Third Republic.  That is the government system that France endured from 1875 to 1940 until France collapsed under the pressure of the invasion by Nazi Germany (France is now in what is called the Fifth Republic).  In its 65 year history, the Third Republic had well over 100 governments – over 100.  And more than half of them happened during the 22 years from 1918 until 1940.  The longest to survive lasted three years.  One government lasted two days.  This is despite the fact that the people only got to vote every four years.  Governments would be formed and be dissolved within months and then another round of coalition building would begin.  It was often the same men in each government with only the Premier or a few cabinet ministers changing position.  Men would be brought into the government to face a short term crisis and then be discarded when the next crisis arose.  Of course there was no long term view by any of these governments.  It was crisis management from one election to the next.  And of course it was only men – women were not given the vote in France until 1946, largely because there was not time or inclination to take such action when there were other crises to face.

But of course, Canadians would never condone such chaos and fragmentation, would we?  Or would we have a choice?  I don’t have such confidence.  Look at the power of fringe parties in Israel today, many of the religious parties.  From the five recognized parties In Canada today (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green and Bloc Quebecoise), I can foresee at least eight parties emerging: centre and right leaning Conservatives; left and right leaning Liberals; centre and socialist leaning NDP; and the existing Bloc and Green).  But I can also see the emergence of a Christian party, and maybe even a Muslim party, as well as parties representing different regions.  Everyone will want their point of view represented.  So let’s imagine a Canadian election where the centre leaning Conservatives win the largest number of seats at 20%.    Where do they go for the remaining 30% of support they will need to have majority control in the House?  They will need the support of more than one other party, and probably more than three. And if one of their coalition partners doesn’t support them on a key vote, we go through the struggle to put together another coalition, or call a vote.  It doesn’t seem very appetizing, does it? With the current system of trying to limit federal voting to every four years, the prospect of emulating the Third Republic becomes all too real.

So what other alternatives are available?  Well, one alternative which could promise a better representation of the people’s will, but not be fraught with the challenges of proportional representation, would be to institute a requirement for run-off elections in ridings where one candidate does not get fifty percent of the vote.  This would limit the damage of vote splitting between two parties of the same inclination without having to go through the negotiations needed to decide on a compromise candidate in each riding.  If for example, the Conservative candidate got about 40% and the Liberal about 30%, they would run off to see who could capture enough voters from the other parties.  The party that won the majority of seats in the House under this system could feel more confident that they had at least the tacit support of the majority of the people, or at least a larger number of voters than the 35% now common.  It may also have the advantage of toning down the attacks between parties during elections because you never know when you might want the support of the voters of that candidate that you are now denigrating. 

At this time when election reform is on many people’s lips, it is best not to limit our choices to only two alternatives, both of which are prone to problems.  So let’s at least consider a third option of run-off elections.

A Conflict of Interest

The most brazen way to try and have it both ways is to be in a conflict of interest situation.  This is usually frowned upon.  However, often the most blatant forms of conflict of interest are carried out by different levels of government. 

One of the prime examples of this is the case of city governments that own public transportation systems.  Because these systems are often money losers, the city must cover the large losses.  They must also build and maintain the infrastructure for the transportation system, including buses-only expressways, light rail systems, stations and bus shelters.  It is therefore in the best interests of the cities to “push” public transit as the way to travel.  Cities spend large sums of money advertising the advantages of this mode of travel.  And they seem to do everything in their power to discourage any other mode of travel.

On the other hand, there are many reasons why people do and have to use alternate modes, especially cars.  Paratranspo services are rigidly scheduled and leave almost no room for impulsive trips.  And of course, paratranspo is only available to those who are disabled.  Taxis are expensive and are used mostly by workers and travellers to get around town (usually at company expense).  And of course, taxis are automobiles.  That leaves the most popular and widely used alternate mode of transportation, the car.

There are many reasons why cars are still used so extensively.  Convenience, the lack of realistic alternatives, the need to convey more than can be carried by hand, and comfort are the most common reasons.  Even for working people, their jobs may require them to have a car available for work use.  Can you imagine a real estate agent asking prospective home buyers to take the bus from house to house?  It may work in the inner city, but is unlikely to be popular in other venues. 

So given the current state of public transportation and of other alternatives, the automobile is still seen as a necessity for most people.  This is why the auto industry is such a key part of the economy. 

So where is the conflict of interest I was talking about?  It arises because the cities are owners of the public transportation systems as well as being responsible for the building and upkeep of roads.  When it comes to spending public money, they have to choose whether to favour one versus the other.  And in their quest to lose less money for public transportation and denigrate other modes, one of their tools is to make automobile travel as unpalatable as possible.  This effort can include such tactics as lack of maintenance of roads that are not used by buses, not building or expanding roads that would help to alleviate traffic congestion, or imposing excessively slow speed limits and other obstacles in the name of traffic “calming” on major arteries.  I’m sure that all of you city dwellers have seen these things in your city. 

So get used to cities trying to have it both ways – control of roads and ownership of public transportation.  As people complain more and more about taxes, the situation is only going to get worse.  If you need a car, or are a car lover, the road is going to get bumpier.

“You can’t walk backward into the future.”

Don't find fault, find a remedy.  Henry Ford

It is much easier to be critical than correct. Benjamin Disraeli

Have you ever noticed that there are two types of people in the world?  There are those who will tell you all the reasons why something cannot work, and there are those that will get on with it and try to make it work.  That is what the two quotes above are telling us.  When everyone thought that the automobile was only for the rich, Henry Ford went ahead and developed and built a “people’s” car that was affordable for the many.  He also saw the advantages of paying his workers’ wages that were adequate enough to be able to buy his cars, an idea that seems to be lost on present day industrialists.

But I find the “it cannot be done” syndrome to be around us at every turn.  I notice it particularly by government bureaucrats whose risk aversion is endemic.  It is probably why so many promising ideas never see the light of day.  Because belonging to the “let’s get on with it” group involves risks.  There is the risk that the idea does not work, or does not work the way it was promised.  Not meeting what were probably very optimistic results is seen as the ultimate failure by many, not as a partial victory as it often is.  There is also the risk that striving for a result may in fact lead to a different result.  It turns out that many medical breakthroughs were made through just such a fortuitous accident, penicillin being one.  Then there is the risk that pursuing an idea may take more effort or money than planned.  This is seen as the worst possible outcome for government programs.  However, if this risk had not been overcome, Canada would probably not have built a cross-Canada railway system. 

The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps.
  - Benjamin Disraeli

This quote gets us into another aspect of timidity, the “let’s just go part way down this road” solution.  You know, the ones where we set up a milestone approach and if a milestone is reached without the desired results, the idea is declared a failure without any chance for the solution to be proven or to rectify itself. Most such attempts are designed to fail because the naysayers get a second kick at the cat to tell what is wrong with the idea and why it is not working, at least to their satisfaction.

If I had not been ready to take a risk and try for a better idea, I would not have tried (and succeeded) in going to military college, would not have persevered to get an engineering degree, would not have transferred from the operational to the engineering branch of the Navy mid-career, would not have risked making a go of civilian life, would not have opened my own consulting company, and would not have undertaken to write a book (or even this blog).  None of this may be earth shattering for anyone else, but each one certainly made a difference in mine.  At every step of the way, there were those who had reasons why I could not do what I set out to do. 

Why are so many determined that something cannot be done.  Risk aversion is one of the reasons, particularly for those who might have to take responsibility or take part in the effort. But another reason seems to be fear that the status quo will be upset.  People like the status quo.  It is comfortable for most, but not if you are suffering in the present situation.  Most poor people would like to see the status quo upset so they can better themselves.  The Occupy movement was an attempt to upset a status quo that the Occupiers saw as inequitable and ruinous to their futures.  As one commentator was quoted as saying:

A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.
            - Alfred E. Wiggam

Worse than those who crave the status quo are those who want a return to the status quo ante of forty, fifty or more years ago, the so called “good old days.”  Does anyone really remember the truth about the “good old days”?  The days before civil rights.  The days before modern medical cures.  The days when mental health problems were stigmatized.  The days when medical costs could ruin you.  The days of forced retirement at age 65.  The days when we saw the threat of communism around every corner and feared a nuclear war any second. Or the days of smog spewing, gas guzzling cars.  I’m old enough to remember those “good old days” and I would much rather live in the present and then in the future.  To quote a friend of mine, “You can’t walk backward into the future.”

This brings me back to the original theme of this post, namely the need to overcome the naysayers and pursue new ideas. If our forefathers had not risked the experiment of democracy, we would still be living under an absolute monarchy.  If our forefathers had not undertaken the task of public education, most of us would be illiterate and unable to improve our lot.  If our forefathers in the Canadian colonies had not risked the uncertainty of union, we would still be a colony of Great Britain, as would most of the other countries in the Commonwealth. 

Now, however, our governments think it is too difficult or unsettling to tackle global warming, or to solve fiscal inequities, or to look for long term solutions to a myriad of problems.  It is just too risky.  It might upset the status quo.

The Cult of Celebrity

We are currently undergoing another spasm of celebrity wrongdoing.  A South African athlete has been charged with murdering his equally celebrated girl friend.  And every day since the murder took place, there has been story after story about the event all over the media around the world, or at least all over North America.  People can't seem to get enough of it.

Why do we make such a fuss over celebrities, be they entertainers, athletes or even some politicians.  We put them on a pedestal and extol their virtues.  We ooh and awe over every little bit of information that comes forward from their publicity department.  We endow them with superhuman capacity, thinking that everything that they say and do must be profound.  And when they do something wrong, we either defend them against all evidence or tell everyone that we know they were bad all along.   And when they die, we hold them up for sainthood.  We'll go to see a washed actor who was a star thirty years ago because he/she was a celebrity.  We copy their looks and habits. 

It used to be that celebrities had to do something to earn celebrity hood. They had to be a gifted actor or an outstanding athlete.  Nowadays, they don't even  have to do anything.  They just have to be.  How else do you explain Paris Hilton or the Kardashians.  In other words, when it comes to celebrities, we obsess.

Why???

Is it because we are unhappy with our own lives and accomplishments?  Is it because we are seeking role models?  Is it because everyone else is doing it, and we want to be part of the crowd?  It certainly seems those reasons are relevant to a lot of celebrity watchers.  A lot of people would rather envy someone else rather than make their own lives more accomplished.  If you hold someone on a pedestal, it is much easier to make excuses for your own life.  "He/she had all the advantages."   "He/she was born gifted."  "I never got a break."

I never could get too hung up on celebrity watching.  I was too busy trying to overcome my own shortcomings.  I surprised myself because I found I could succeed well beyond what I thought I could.  That's not to say I don't admire a good athletic performance or a great acting job. I do.  I know that those cases, they are doing things that I cannot.  I just cannot bring myself to get obsessed with their personal life or follow their every every utterance.  They're human, people!  A great slugger in baseball does not suddenly become a great philosopher.  An actor who wins an Academy Award does not automatically have all the answers to life or know the best tooth paste.

So recognize these people for who they are and what they have accomplished through a combination of talent and training.  But recognize that they are human with all the foibles that that entails.

In Defence of China

China seems to be the current bogeyman in the world, at least in the minds of America and other western nations.  Great condemnation is expressed about its human rights record; about its seeming reach for hegemony in the Far East; about its monetary policies; about its growing industrial muscle; and about its Communist government.  American military planners are no doubt even now formulating strategies and deployments to counter the Chinese military "threat".

But is China really that bad?  To answer that question we need to look at China's past, particularly its history in the 20th century.  For most of its history, China as we know it was virtually ungovernable by one central government.  The advent of western powers who came to exploit the Chinese made this even more difficult.  With their extraterritorial concessions and their control of much of China's foreign trade, countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and, yes, even the United States, pretty well controlled Chinese foreign policy and domestic financial affairs right up until 1949.  Any time the Chinese tried to combat this exploitation (think the Boxers of the early 1900s), they were brutally put down by the armed forces of these western countries.

Internally, because of the size and population of the country,China was ruled by one ruler after another based upon their ability to gain the support from various war lords who had the real power in the rural areas which accounted for most of the Chinese population.  Over 90 per cent of the Chinese population were peasants who owed allegiance to various levels of overlords.  They were expected to pay taxes to the village leader, the reagional taxman, the local war lord and the central government.  The peasants were poor, uneducated (in the 1930s, the literacy rate was less that 10 per cent), and poorly served by their governments. 

My father lived and worked in the International Settlement in Shanghai from 1935 until early 1941 (talk about just in time escape).  He was not one of the powerful bankers or industrialists who enjoyed such opulent life styles (watch the beginning of the movie "Empire of the Sun" which shows a good representation of this life).  He came to China to work as an instructor and supervisor for the Shanghai Electric Street Railway company which provided all of the transit services within the city.  A such, he worked closely with the Chinese drivers and conductors.  He came to have a lot of respect for the Chinese workers and, despite the threat from the Japanese, he enjoyed his time there.  But he told me stories about the exploitation that went on.  About religious orders who lived in luxury while supposedly working for the good of the average Chinaman.  About individuals who made themselves rich by availing themselves of precious object virtually stolen from the Chinese.  About the western controlled monopolies in manufacturing, banking and trade. And about the simple desires of the average Chinaman.  He would tell me that all these people wanted was their one mo of land (about one quarter of an acre) to farm to feed his family without Chinese overlords and tax collectors taking 80 per cent of his crops.  Much of the sad existence of the Chinese peasants was confirmed to me in the book "Thunder out of China" by Theodore White and Ann Jacoby.  When the Chinese Communists won the civil war and became the government, my father said that it was probably the best thing that could have happened to the Chinese population.  But Dad was not a Communist sympathiser.

What the Communist government did was allow the average Chinese peasant to feed himself and his family three meals a day, have a place to live and get an education.  All things that we take for granted, but which was something new and extraordinary to these people. 

Do I think that China under the Communists is perfect?  Of course not.  But I do know that, given the conditions that existed before, they have come and continue come a long way.  It cannot be easy to rule a country of 1.3 billion people.  But the Chinese government is doing a pretty good job of it.  There have been tragic events on their path to improvement such the Cultural Revolution and Tienanmen Square.  But in the last 30 plus years, unlike Russian Communists who became prisoners of their own dogma, the Chinese leadership has been adaptable and pragmatic.  They know that they cannot be too quick with change in order to avoid instability.  They have to adapt in such as way that they retain the confidence of the many, not the few who want wholesale change now.  Surely western nations must understand this since they themselves try to move slowly on change.  This is evident in how little different political parties in each country differ so little on fundamentals.

Do I think that China is a military threat?  Not aggressive war, because it could lead to instability which the country cannot afford.  But they will fight if they are directly threatened because they know in that case that they would have the vast majority of the country behind them. 

If we do not alienate China, that country could be a great asset to western nations, including the United States, capable of maintaining stability in Asia.  So look past the bogeyman image and look closely at what China has accomplished and what it can contribute.

Why "You Can't Have it Both Ways"

When everyone is against you, it means that you are absolutely wrong-- or absolutely right.  - Albert Guinon

The theme of this blog is to emphasize how too many people think they can have their cake and eat it too, as the old saying goes.  You see this phenomenon so many times, you tend to overlook it.  The many people who want the government to do everything on a balanced budget, but want lower taxes.  The people who want safety, but want unfettered access to firearms.  The people who want to exploit natural resources as quickly as possible without environmental restraint, but want to leave a legacy for their children.  You probably recognize some of these and many more such examples of this habit.  The problem stems for the inability of many people to project ahead to see the consequences of their policies, opinions and prejudices.  They want their cake and eat it too.

Where do I come from on this theme.  I come from a lifetime habit of reading, mostly history.  I come from a lifetime of working for military, government and private industry.  I come from a lifetime habit of finding the absurdity, and often the humour, of events and pronouncements.  I come from a lifetime of dealing with people at all levels of life.  I come from the point of view of an immigrant.  I come from a life of travel.  All have shown me the habit of "having your cake and eating it too" and the truth that you can't have it both ways.  That lifetime now stretches to almost 70 years.

I'll be following this theme in many of the posts that I will be publishing in the future.  But I will be presenting other ideas that many may find controversial or disagreeable.  I do not apologize for anything I have written or will write in the future. 

So I hope you will log in to this site once and a while and read something brilliant/stupid/illogical/undoable/agreeable.  Your choice of adjective.

Senator Reform

Today there seems to be overwhelming support for either abolishing or reforming the Senate of Canada.  Recent events surrounding this body have suddenly made it a target for all sorts of action.

I do not believe that abolishing the Senate is the answer.  It would leave the Prime Minister-ruled House with unfettered power, with no higher body able to provide oversight to this power.  In republican governments there is a President or Chancellor who has the ability to veto legislation, but no authority has such power in Canada.

That leaves Senate reform.  Many have argued that the only option is an elected Senate.  But as Senator James Cowan points out, that has its own pitfalls.  My proposal would be to return the Senate to what it was intended to be, namely a body to reflect regional interests.  But instead of having the Senators appointed by the Prime Minister, I would have them selected by the provinces to represent their interests.  How each province selects their Senators would be up to them, whether by appointment or election.  Term limits would be in order, but one suggestion would be to have the Senators resign when a provincial government changes.  I would argue for the same number of Senators from each province and territory, perhaps 5 from each, 65 in total.

Such a reform of the Senate would once again ensure that regional interest for all parts of Canada would be fairly represented rather than having large provinces like Ontario and Quebec with an overwhelming majority as in the House of Commons.

Worth considering, don’t you think?