The Hook

Harry Neufeld, Go find yourself a new job.

"Only 48 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in the election, the lowest turnout in decades." Not Decades,,,EVER!

Chief electoral officer Harry Neufeld,find yourself a new job because this one is way over your head. Alarm bells should have gone off a long long time ago.

The "Van Rassel amendment"True Electoral Reform.

Jim Van Rassel, Citizen Advocate is asking Elections BC to “seriously consider his new and original format for electoral change”.

Named the “Van Rassel amendment” to the Elections Act (following Mr. Van Rassel’s obviously successful “Don’t Vote” campaign), the amendment would include a provision whereby:

“Any riding constituency that fails to produce voter turnout equal to 50% plus one (1) percent of all eligible voters, will forfeit their seat in the legislature for the following term in office.”

Under the Van Rassel amendment the riding seat would remain empty in the legislature with the party’s and candidates being punished for not attracting sufficient voters to the polls, and the people who are apparently apathetic in that riding without representation.

A very good idea particularly after Campbell gerrymandered the province to include 6 new ridings, 4 of which he won---unless of course he achieved 50% plus one.

Under the Van Rassel amendment how many seats would be empty in the next legislative sitting, and what would the revised party totals be?

If it turns out to be the NDP--this is who we will refer to as the government in our multi thousand email distribution worldwide.

Funny....No Mention of....

...No mention from Mr. Neufeld of his brother's party's 'Voter Suppression Project'

(aka Bill 42)

.

So our corrupt autuacracy............

.........is alarming bureaucrats, it's about damned time. BC's election was on par with old Soviet style "show-case" elections. The whole damn system is corrupt. Who did the voter have for a choice?

A Liberal appointed candidate, who most likely bought his candidacy.

A NDP candidate who could not be a white middle aged male.

A Green candidate who is with "Lucy in the Sky With diamonds".

My god and there is surprise 52% of the population didn't vote? I'm surprised so many did.

And the elites will make sure it doesn't change.

Illegitimate governments sadly corrupt society, then lay the foundation for revolution.

As they say, May 12 was just another brick in the wall!

Said it before, may as well try again

I've said it before without getting any uptake, so I may as well repeat myself.

A quarter of a million fewer people voted on May 12th in the provincial election that voted in the federal election on October 14th.

The usual BS we get about BC voters being apathetic about federal politics, remote Eastern parties and leaders unable to connect with the West Coast, versus rough and tumble, polarized BC provincial politics that's really exciting and engaging, is in fact the exact opposite of the truth.

Many more Canadians in BC are interested enough to vote federally than provincially. That's the actual situation, the usual caricature be damned.

Uptake?

What uptake are you looking for Rod?

Those are interesting numbers and thereby hangs a tale...

try again and again

I hear you Rod. Congratulations to The Tyee for giving us any chance to comment at all - but yes, sometimes it feels like shouting into the void.

You make an interesting point about the surprising difference in provincial and federal participation. Traditional wisdom be dammed - people feel that federal elections are more "worthwhile", because that is where the most money and power is?

I seems to me that two ways to look at the problem of voter apathy are, first, voters feel that there is nobody/nothing worth voting for, or second, that their vote doesn't matter because who/what they want to vote for has no chance of getting elected.

I see no possible solution to the first problem, so I can only hope the solution to the that is to address the second problem.

The only solutions I can think of are smaller ridings or some form of Parliamentary voting allocations based on percentage of the popular vote. (ie: based on 100 seats, our current BC Parliament would be: 46 Liberals, 42 NDP, 8 Greens, 2 Conservatives)

As for how to accomplish this, if the answer is finding some other system that will make people feel that even their single vote matters, I don't think we can rely on our politicians to do it. They are where they are, because they succeed at a first-past-the-post-system.

Apathy isn't always a bad.thing.

Look at the reduced carbon footprint because all those people didn't go out of their way to vote.

Also, a concious decision to avoid voting can not always be attributed to apathy. I know someone who deliberately didn't vote because it would have been along party lines and although he would not vote for one particular candidate he was not going to vote against that candidate.

Vivian: I hope NDP "strategists" take note

VivianLea
What uptake are you looking for Rod?

Well, mostly I am hoping that people here will make NDP "strategists" take note that their formula just isn't working. It's not just the election loss per se, there's a fundamental lack of involvement, and doing another round of the polarization thing isn't going to help.

They do need to get on top of issues including economic issues, but they also need some kind of positive excitement around personnel. If they figure the present group of MLAs and the Leader lack star power, ala Obama, do something about it, and I don't mean another leadership change. I mean learn how to make the leader and the candidates appealing to people.

NDP strategists, take note

Rod, I will take you back in history to the 'renewal' process the NDP engaged in after the 2001 election...there were a number of 2-3 day conferences held around the province, and I attended one. I can tell you I came away very proud of the people in the party, who clearly, articulately, and with a lot of passion, spoke of what we needed to do in constituencies. Then, a report was published and pretty much everything went on as usual.I think we all can see what went wrong.

The same can be said of other parties, and it is self-evident that no one is capturing the public imagination (possible exception of the breast-grabbing candidate, but he got tossed)but what I mean here is pretty much...no one. Could this have something to do with the fact that political discourse is all centered around gaining power...in order to make all the good things happen, of course.

If we (I mean here the politicos) or them (the politicos on the other side) persist in seeing government as 'power' it is an unwinnable excersize... power can only be conferred, in a democracy, and really does reside with the people. They confer power by voting...ergo...power is not being conferred, in this instance, simply taken. And the likelihood is that it will simply be dumbly endured until some outrageous, horrific act changes things... but these days, DUIs, criminal investigations, and outright fraud don't even arouse enough ire to qualify.

Any reasonably decent marketer can tell you how to make leaders and candidates appeal to the people, although that does take money. In the end, that will get you the same old.

The really hard work of engaging with people, their lives and concerns, their hopes and dreams, their aspirations and loftiest ideals does not reside in the sound bite, the TV commercial, the twitter feed...it goes on, day by day, every day, in every constituency. It does not reside in speech making, or attractive photo opportunities, or press conferences, or clever marketing at all - because those are just more messages added to the pile we all have in our backyards. It resides in the experience that people have with candidates: the genuineness and authenticity of people speaking to people in a way that calls them to the larger purpose (which is not precisely the same for everyone.) It resides in heart to heart and face en face, and me, and you, and meandyou.

It resides in that quaint idea that our politicians represent us, and so they need to spend a lot of time talking to us, not messaging us.It resides in that even quainter idea that government should be at least roughly representative of the citizenry that elect it, in terms of colour, and creed, and gender, and poetic inclination. But especially, it resides in the idea that we each see the world from a very unique perspective, and that we must stop beating others about the head when their perspective is different than our own. How very quaint, yes?

How very quaint, the strategists say.

Voting

is a right that is not to be taken lightly. Unfortunately, a lot of us do just that. The answer is not to make ignoring that right an illegal activity and thus forcing participation, but to engage enough people to think about their choice.

One way to do that is to have run-off elections when any candidates do not achieve at least 50% + 1 majorities in their initial efforts. When there are several candidates running, there are usually minority "winners" who should then compete again, with the candidates who drew less than a prescribed percentage being dropped off the ballots.

Run-offs then allow the voting public to reconsider and re-distribute their votes. Perhaps more than one run-off would be necessary, but that system would generate interest and some possible suspense in the general public because the composition of the government would then be determined by individual voters over a period of time.

Candidates then could not rely upon their affiliations only but would have to persuade the electorate that the riding issues and/or connections really matter.

maybe

"..people feel that federal elections are more "worthwhile", because that is where the most money and power is? "

That would only be meaningful if the power and money would somehow trickle down to those who vote according to how they vote. Not so. I think it's because the federal forum is perceived as where the more heavy-duty stuff happens, over the heads of the local bully boys, the next apellate entity so to speak, where in the end they are more likely to get it right. Compare to the BC Court of Appeal, which holds the Canadian record in decisions overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. People draw a parallel, and it impacts on their degree of interest for elections in these respective jurisdictions.

In the BC Legislature ...

... there should be 42 empty seats - representing the voters who didn't show up, and

... 21 seats for BC Liberals

... 19 seats for BC NDP

... 3 seats for the Greens

But BC voters (this time) did not chose proportional representation.

What a pity.

Excellent observation

OilbertaRedTory.

I liked what you said in that other thread about democratizing...

It is indeeed a pity, but one way or another some kind of proportional representation will happen - more and more minority governments, maybe..

Petro-dictatorships and the Axis of Diesel

Alberta, cursed with oil, is Canada's foremost example of the 'paradox of plenty'
[ http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323394 ]

... and has the electoral dysfunction to prove it:

http://www.elections.ab.ca/Public%20Website/files/Reports/VoterTurnout__2007.pdf

... but BC is close behind.

Democratic Recession ...

... maybe it's just a phase, as Thomas Friedman writes :

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/opinion/07friedman.html

Or a case of affluenza that can be cured with some warm soup - Campbell's anyone ?

Spirit of Democracy

that Friedman mentions is an interesting book, I am just reading it. But check out how Freedom House calculates the 'freedom index'...scary stuff.

Anyway, can I give you a smiley face emoticon because you made me smile?
:)

Isn't it amazing how these smiley face emoticons made you feel good? ;)

I made a comment in one

I made a comment in one other "Hook Headline" on this subject and I still believe that, cuz we had less than 50% turnout, this election should be null and void. Do it again until we get it right. In reality the politians, in particular the ones who won, don't give a tinkers damn about voter turnout, all they care about is that they won. Democracy in Canada is a myth propagated by the media and the politians.

I note from the link

I note from the link provided by the Hook --that 5 Liberals and 4 NDP formed the committee relating to Elections BC Budget. As I read it, the office was $1,000,000 short--NDP committee members voted for the money--Liberals turned it down. This took place last December.

Now, factor in the gag law on advertising--the late date from the courts for a decision--beautiful BC advertising--to the government's benefit---dubious reporting by news agencies with financial pressure--declaration from news agencies--saying they have no dough to properly cover election---suasian that ID requirements would be tougher (eligible as opposed to registered voters), very incredible polling--and timing of release of polls AND

we have enough circumstantial-evidence of a concocted election scam.

Now look at the news--all crime---criminals--in the midst of the low voter turnout rage----a political spectacle right out of Edelman.

Politics in this province is very, very greasy---and unattractive to behold.

Seat totals change under revised ROBBINS/Van Rassel amendment

BC Liberals 31 seats; BC New Democrats 26
{'before application of subsection revision'}

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_593.html

To VivianLea (way upthread)

Your comment titled: "I hope NDP Strategists take note" is one of the best I've ever read and it truly reflects, I think, what a lot of socially responsible and progressive folks who are NOT Dipper party insiders, actually want the NDP to do....

Now.

The problem, as I see it at least (and it would be interesting to discuss this candidly with, say, Bill Tieleman sometime), is that the strategists have the numbers, based on how things work right now, to show that doing what you suggested, instead of what they just did, won't work either.

But.

What if folks, say folks like us, raised additional money and people power and allowed the 'party' to utilize them both under just one tiny condition......

Which is that they undertake both 'strategies' (ie. your made for people 'real' one and their made for media 'fake' one).

And I don't think they have to be done at the same time.

Why?

Because the time to do the real work of democracy is now (ie. in the 1400 or so days before the next writ is dropped) such that when the bullsh*t of the next fake/media campaign begins, that groundswell of folks really doing the right thing is already there (and, dare I say, it even more money and resources are already there too because of it).

Whaddy'a think?

.

way to go, ask me what I think!

Thanks, RossK.

"Way upthread" was written hastily without editing, no particular brilliance there. The time to do the work of democracy is now, and I do believe it does not require money so much as time and effort...which are infinitley more difficult. BTW, I do not not 'hope' or remotely think that NDP strategists will take note; that was written tongue in cheek.

So here's what I think, written as someone who almost has a degree in marketing...

The angst of marketers these days is that no one is listening to them: ever more desparately, they turn to viral marketing and social networking and Web 2.0 and on and on ad infinitum, because their messages are not getting through. The information age has created way too much information, and most of it is suspect...it comes from corporations, and hucksters, and out and out bullshitters, not to mention government that attempts to "brand" themselves. In spite of having an almost degree in marketing, I have little sympathy for this - but at the same time, there are messages that need to be gotten out there and heard. The future of marketing has turned to, to use some buzzwords, experiental marketing, services marketing, authenticity. Now, there is a lot of crap written here, too, but the germ, and maybe the heart of this, is that it is no longer sufficient to say you are a caring corporation, that you must actually BE one. That the notion of "brand" resides in peoples' experiences of products/services: that it is no longer sufficient to talk about your great customer service but to actually PROVIDE it. I think we can easily extrapolate to the messaging of political parties here.

Somewhere around 40 % of the Canadian population has no internet access (old figures), but is even so, tuning out. Clearly, a lot of them are not voting...and we think we're gonna change that by sending more messaging that way? Wouldn't the starting point being talking to them - trying to understand in that visceral, empathic way what really resonates for them? The operative word is talk, NOT MESSAGE. Ebb and flow, give and take, real conversation.

Which can only serve as a reminder to me to quite typing...

BTW, I am not shouting, just resorting to emphasis to display my passion. And now I will resort to a little smiley to show how friendly I really am :)

Engage the negative

Many people do not vote because they have negative feelings towards politics and politicians. It is hard to change such attitudes, but they might be used to increase voter turnout. One could allow people to vote against candidates which they dislike. Only a small change in the present, FPTP system would be required. One would be allowed to vote for or against a candidate (or perhaps two candidates). A vote 'for' would be counted as +1 and a vote 'against' as -1. If the major parties were obnoxious, a minor party or an independent might sometimes win.

VivianLea:

“The angst of marketers these days is that no one is listening to them..”

“Wouldn't the starting point being talking to them - trying to understand in that visceral, empathic way what really resonates for them? The operative word is talk, NOT MESSAGE. Ebb and flow, give and take, real conversation.”

I think you are right. But it is, like, real hard work. Truth is, most people have little time to talk or listen, and you are competing with a lot of other attention-getters.

But, short-term, it may do some good to, as they say, ‘BE the change we want to see happen’.

Long-term, it will only suffice to surround ‘them’ with a set of values in operation, which will make them stand out for who they are. This is the missing part, the background of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Long haul indeed, when we are still working out what should go into our ideal latte..