Video from Acadia’s vote mob. They were at the forum the other night but most of them left before the end. They probably had to go study.
The mantra-mouthing mob has provided us with some entertaining and animated fun. It’s all very arousing. Reminds me of Mr Ignatieff and his “Rise Up” Viagra commercial. (I was going to be subtle, but that would not be in keeping with the tone that has already been set.)
On a more serious note: I know Acadia has an EXCELLENT Music Department. (Yes I shout.) It’s a damn pity that our Political Lords and Masters called elections at a time when students are flat to the floor boards with their studies. Otherwise, I’m sure we would have had an original composition for the video sound-track.
Students must realize that if they have (previously) been apathetic then that is something that they have chosen for themselves. It is not something that has been forced upon them by others. Thus, the theme that they are “not going to take it any more” is a non sequitur.
Perhaps my colour vision is failing in old age, but I detect a distinctly green and orange hue in the video message. Perhaps the theme can be understood in the context of a the Green Party messaging which often blames voter apathy upon our electoral system. To remedy matters the Green Party has proposed that it should have representation in parliament in proportion to the percentage of votes that it receives. This does have a simple logic to it, and such a system is in place in New Zealand. Beware, however, that proportional representation involves an undemocratic step because candidates are put in place by the party without being explicitly voted in by the electorate. This is a flat contradiction to electing members to a “house of representatives”. Many New Zealand voters hate this just as much as many Canadian voters hate the way that Senators are selected. (OK, I take that back, Canadians are too pure to hate, but they would if they could.)
There is another way. It’s commonly called a Preferential or Rank-Choice Ballot. The basic idea is that the voter gets to rank candidates according to his/her preference. I think there are many good things to be said for the Preferential/Rank-Choice Ballot but I will restrict myself to just talking about one of them…
One good thing about the preferential system is that it ameliorates a polarizing tendency… that leads extremism. Often a thinking person will not see any party or candidate as completely representing her/his personal viewpoint — and may see at least something of value within every candidates policies/record. The preferential system provides a way to most closely match personal views with the policies of candidates/parties.
This becomes very important after an election. In the tick-one-box system, that we presently have, it is common for the majority of voters to be represented by a person that they actually rejected. It’s not healthy because from the another vantage their vote has been effectively rejected. In the preferential system the voter might not get his/her first choice but may still be represented by a second or third choice that they have thought about enough to have connected with to some extent.
Australia uses a version of the preferential voting. I don’t advocate slavishly following the example set by other nations, however. They all have laws that are created by their own very imperfect politicians… and even a good idea can be poorly implemented.
So, don’t just rave, take care… and remember, there is no such thing as a perfect system unless you draw a very small box and discount all the inconvenient things that you have excluded. (Hmm, like a health care system?)
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 368 other followers