Voters’ Choice

Posted June 14, 2013

Recent headlines have provided plenty of reinforcement for those who hold an ill opinion of the political class.

In Quebec, a parade of witnesses has exposed systematic corruption in the construction industry. Mayors and officials are resigning en masse.

It seems that the Mayor of Toronto may have a substance abuse problem. Ontario political appointees are suspected of destroying emails that would reflect badly on the Liberal Government’s handling of gas plant cancellations.

In Ottawa, we have the embarrassment of Mike Duffy and others for their expense claims. The affair calls into question the judgement of Prime Minister Harper, and his predecessors, in making Senate appointments.

Nova Scotia has had its own all-party expense scandals, eerily similar to experiences in Newfoundland in 2010 and Saskatchewan 20 years earlier.

Canadians might be slightly consoled that it can be far worse. The Economist reports that between 1976 and 2010, no fewer than 2,522 elected New York state officials were convicted of corruption.

American politicians are not easily embarrassed. Republicans Sarah Palin (“But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies” ) and Michele Bachmann (“Scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer’s were it not for overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators”)  are constantly spewing nonsense but apparently are untroubled by it.

Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner’s name will be forever remembered after he sent inappropriate pictures to a woman other than his wife.  After providing several improbable explanations he resigned from Congress. But he has briskly recovered his self-confidence and declared his candidacy for mayor of New York.

With stories like these featuring prominently in both broadcast and print media it would be easy for voters to become cynical. It would also be wrong.

Voters frequently forget that the people running the government are the ones that they chose. The choosing does not begin at the ballot box, it ends there.

Members of a lively and effective democracy are highly engaged. Here are some things that we can do:

  1. Be part of an advocacy group such as the Ecology Action Center or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This includes student groups seeking lower tuitions or farmers wanting more agricultural support, but it is especially valuable when it goes beyond issues of personal benefit.
  2. Participate in local organizations for political parties. Unfortunately, many of these have withered over the years, but it is there that potential candidates for elections are identified and chosen. If some or all of the candidates in an electoral district are unimpressive, it is because not enough good people are engaged in the selection process.
  3. Take a candidate around the neighbourhood to meet people. Even better, host an event for candidates which allows people to develop a more informed impression than a two minute chat at the front door. Put a sign on your lawn.
  4. Understand that candidates do demanding, unpaid, and sometimes discouraging work. When a candidate does knock at the door, show respect while sharing perceptions and asking relevant questions.

The quality of democracy in the United States has deteriorated. A rigid two party system restrains the introduction of new ideas and nominates candidates from the extreme right and left. Electoral districts are twisted into absurd shapes to favour incumbents. Unrestrained spending makes political contests a function of volume rather than content. Media outlets are increasingly aligned with one party or the other, rather than acting as unbiased arbiters.

We have no reason to be smug. Voter turnout in Nova Scotia dropped from 75% in 1993 to 58% in 2009. Criminal prosecutions arising from the expense scandal are continuing. A former Minister is charged with assault.

It is certain that there will be an election in Nova Scotia during the next twelve months. Of the respondents to the most recent CRA poll, 55% were unwilling to express a preference. Are they undecided or just disengaged?

We face enormous challenges. Our per capita debt, taxes, and power rates are all among the highest in Canada. Our population is aging and beginning to decline. The number of people employed has been dropping.

Who we elect matters.

Take the time to scrutinize the candidates you will be choosing from. Look on the internet or ask them about their party’s policies on health, education, taxes, power rates, and provincial debt. Listen for whether there is substance or just platitudes.

Make the ballot box your last step, not your first.

Share

Related Articles

Who Represents You + Show all articles

Reference Material

Post a Comment

Most Recent Comments

  • This post certainly articulates the issues but I don’t see how the proposed solutions address the underlying problem. The suggestions in the blog post are excellent but really only apply to citizens that are already engaged politically to some degree. The underlying problem is two-fold; (1) a dysfunctional and stagnant democratic system (2) a disengaged electorate. The two are of course intertwined.

    Citizens are partially disengaged because of an unresponsive and non-transparent system that incentivizes politicians to make decisions based on short-term election-cycles rather than the long-term. Often decisions are not made in the interest of, or even contrary to, the public good (why else would legislation and policy ensure that foods are not labeled as GMO or a Toyota Camry costs thousands more in Canada than in the United States?). Endless corruption scandals, patronage, unethical behavior, and endless spin make the average voter give up on the process leaving even more electoral influence in hands of the intensely partisan and/or single-issue voters and, ultimately, the wealthiest and most powerful in our society (the often called 1%).

    To get more engagement from the majority of people who do not participate in the political process, even minimally by voting in federal, provincial, or municipal elections, a long term strategy is required. Such a strategy would include (1) rigorous and ongoing political system reform (2) citizenship education as part of the public education curriculum.

    The current political system needs disruption to make it more transparent, accountable, responsive, and democratic. This disruption needs to be ongoing; that is, the system must always be open to evolving and this openness must be “baked in”.

    Young people need to be educated about their role and responsibilities as a citizen. The need to learn how government works, how it could work better, and most importantly, how they could make it work better. This education would emphasize how to think critically about the system and instill a confidence that young citizens could effect change. However, a regenerated political system must be in-place and waiting to accept these young citizens. The end result would be a young person who understands their role as a citizen AND truly believes that their participation in the political system could have an impact.

    In short we need a better political system and an educated citizenry that has a deep confidence that they have a meaningful role to play in that political system.

    That said, the current level of apathy has been cultivated. An unengaged citizenry allows the most powerful to go about their business with less resistance. The current state of affairs suits these people just fine (corporations, political elites, and the so-called 1% of course) and any move for change of this kind would be resisted subtly but vigorously. Despite this tension, a more politically engaged citizenry would be better for 100% of our society.

    Rob tyrrell | June 19, 2013

  • I believe that one way to make politicians more effective and accountable is to implement term levels.
    Various formula may be implemented–staggered 4 year terms for continuity,maximum of 2 terms or maximum of number of years etc.Thatis not the important point.
    The benefit of term limits is that the politician does not become beholden to the job, to supporters or the party.
    He can do what is deemed correct,not politically expedient.
    Too many politicians become slaves to the position because of their personal financial need–both salary and pension.The drive to self aggrandizement exceeds the consideration of society.
    The very fact that positions will be available in a “term certain” may inspire others to aspire.

    Bill | June 16, 2013

  • I’m trying again to leave a comment. This is an excellent column. My only criticism is that is that the last point needs a bit of expansion. We need to understand that substance does not always mean specifics. One of big causes of people’s very negative feelings about politicians is the making of specific promises, mostly in good faith, that their makers find, once elected, that they cannot or should not keep. There need’s to be more emphasis on direction to be followed, of genuine vision (though that’s a greatly overused word.), thinks that they’d look at, review, test and seek the people’s involvement in the decision making. There also has to be dramatic cutback in “gotcha” politics.

    Rob Smith | June 14, 2013

View all comments