The Shotgun Blog
« Opposition wants to reduce the deficit by increasing spending | Main | Going Negative »
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
BC election results prove that every vote counts
At a time of steadily declining voter participation where now even the most innocuous comments by politicians and their staff gets vilified by reporters, (public eye online) is it any wonder that the majority of British Columbians are now completely disengaged from the political process?
But as fewer and fewer people vote , those that do are finding their vote counts more than ever. Just take the recent election here in British Columbia. Not one but two results have been overturned by careful recounts by Elections BC. And it is even more significant that the margins of victory were very, very small indeed.
The most high profile result is that Independent Vicki Huntington has defeated Liberal and BC’s current Attorney General by 32 votes. On election night he was leading by only three votes. The matter could very well go to a judicial recount but it looks like for now that Vicki Huntington is the first Independent to be elected an MLA here in BC since the 1940s.
As I referenced in my previous column, (Check here) Huntington’s election is a clear demonstration that voters want MLAs who are able to represent the concerns of their constituents rather than just that of the Premier’s Office. Most interesting of all, for me at least, is the fact that both the Green and even most of the NDP vote collapsed in Delta South and went over to Huntington. This shows me that many Green and NDP voters are not actually that enamoured with either party but are looking for something that allows them to voice their concerns to Victoria.
In the recounts there was also a bit of good news for Premier Gordon Campbell. In its official recount Elections BC stated that BC Liberal Donna Barnett had defeated incumbent BC NDP MLA Charlie Wyse in Cariboo-Chilcotin by 88 votes. Wyse had just squeeked in the previous election and had led on election night. He has now graciously conceded defeat to Barnett who will now be joining her Liberal colleagues for a swearing in ceremony on June 8th.
Even in cases where elections weren’t overturned there were many ridings where candidates won or lost by only about 500 votes. Here in Victoria, where I live, Liberal cabinet ministers Murray Coell (Saanich North) and Ida Chong (Oak Bay Gordon Head) hung with only about 500 votes. I had met with Ida Chong during the election campaign and she was extremely worried that supporters in her constituency were taking her re-election for granted. It turns out she was right.
I think the close results were both a bit of a shock and a wakeup call to Murray Coell. He is no longer the MLA of a safe riding but a swing riding and thus will have to put considerably more efforts into securing the support of his constituents if he wants to be re-elected in 2013.
On the other hand was the result in Saanich South where former television and radio personality Robin Adair came within 500 votes of taking Saanich South for the Liberals. It was a tough loss for Mr. Adair but he did reduce the NDP’s margin of victory in half from the previous provincial election.
Both on a provincial basis and on a constituency basis the challenge is clear to somehow reengage the voters. To do that MLAs have to be allowed to do their jobs. For that to be accomplished the Premier’s Office is going to have to relinquish some power and control. The media is also going to have to stop reporting on minutiae and politicians themselves and are going to have to learn to say enough is enough when it comes to the petty condemnation that comes with every minor indiscretion and miscue.
Mike Geoghegan is a government relations consultant who can be reached via his website at www.bclobbyist.com or on twitter at bclobbyist
Posted by Mike Geoghegan on May 27, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
A couple of close votes doesn't change what has been demonstrated mathematically: the probability that your vote will decide the outcome of an election -- i.e. "make a difference" -- is so infinitesimally small so as not to justify the cost of voting or even the consideration of doing so. If the probably was higher, say only 10 people could vote, then it would probably be worth it.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-27 3:25:20 AM
If that's what you want to tell yourself, Robert. By the way, what IS the cost of voting? When I voted it was free.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 6:26:36 AM
Cost means opportunity cost, not necessarily price. It's your next best alternative: watching TV, working, spending time with your wife, etc. In this sense, _everything_ has a cost.
The only reason people vote is moral. They think there's an obligation to participate in the democratic arena (in spite of the fact their vote counts for squat). There is no prudentially rational justification for doing so.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-27 7:26:07 AM
Well, Robert, how about this? If you don't vote, you have no right to complain that the government doesn't represent you, because you had an opportunity to participate and declined. Essentially your argument is that of a lazy man.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 7:39:56 AM
Technically, every vote counts only when the margin is one, not when the margin is very small. In the United States the chance of your vote counting in a presidential election is smaller than your chance of winning the lottery 1000 times in a row.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-05-27 7:42:10 AM
Shane -
If I vote, I have to pick between the bundles of policies offered by each politician/party. Let's say that I figure the least bad bundle is being offered by the Conservatives and I vote for them.
Following this hypothetical election, the good policies in their bundle are never acted on but the parts I disagreed with are put into effect, either because of compromises to survive in a minority government situation or because they never intended to or believed they could follow through on them.
In this case if you voted you can't complain. Your ballot expressed support for the policies you disagreed with as much as the policies you support and there is no way to differentiate.
If we voted for each individual issue I could see some merit to the "if you don't vote then you have no right to complain" argument, but with the way politics actually works in Canada I just don't think it holds water.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-05-27 7:51:37 AM
Your vote helps determine the outcome, Janet, and for that reason if for no other, it holds water. To argue that no one should vote because no one voter can determine the outcome is like saying that an entire army should desert the front in wartime on the grounds that no single soldier will much affect the outcome. It's an empty rationalization to excuse an attitude that boils down to laziness.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 8:12:06 AM
An interesting discussion. Perhaps voting is also declining because of growing narcissism and egocentricity in our society? That is not something I had ever previously considered.
One person suggested to me that unless his vote was one of ten people to decide the outcome of something then he would not even bother to vote!
Under such criteria even being elected a municipal councilor would be for this individual too collective a democratic concept as municipal councils are often made up of more than ten people.
So too would referenda as again it would be the electorate collectively deciding by a majority vote what initiative they wanted to support or reject.
If there are people who are not voting because they personally are not deciding the outcome of election results then perhaps the rest of us are lucky they don't vote as it would seem to suggest that they do not hold any value in representative democracy and are of a more authoritarian bent.
In any event the fewer the people who vote the more weight my individual vote carries and the more elections where we will see a handful of votes determining which candidates are elected.
Posted by: Mike Geoghegan | 2009-05-27 11:03:35 AM
"In any event the fewer the people who vote the more weight my individual vote carries and the more elections where we will see a handful of votes determining which candidates are elected."
What he said.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 11:29:46 AM
Mike,
Democratic skepticism is not authoritarian if the decision only applies to one's self. The growing apathy isn't about telling others what to do, it's about having them pass laws that force you to do what you don't want to.
Tyranny of the majority can be just as harmful to liberty as the tyranny of one.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-27 12:32:04 PM
My vote determines squat. I agree with Robert on this one. The idea that I have no right to complain if I don't vote is absurd. NOT voting is just the way in which a assert the first of a long list of complaints. The system is corrupt and by participating I am an accomplice to avarice and greed. Having a conscience I won't do that, I won't participate. You see I've completely lost the brain washed idea that Parliamentary Democracy represents any kind of freedom. It does not. Therefore I reserve the right to complain all I want to... as part of an ongoing effort to change the system from the false hope / rape that it is into a system of individual liberty and personal responsibility.
In Liberty, JC
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-27 12:54:27 PM
I see no need in everyone voting! I just want as many of the people who agree with me to vote as possible! As for JC and Robert, thank you! I disagree with alot of what you say. Your nonparticipation makes it easier for my views to spread. Hitler would have loved you guys! He could carry out his policies while you two sat in your basements complaining(and taking no action to stop him).
Posted by: Pat | 2009-05-27 2:55:08 PM
Pat thanks for your opinion. I happen to believe that it is the people who participate that keep this sham going. Hitler and Stalin would have loved you compliant ones. As for sitting in my basement doing nothing...far from it my friend.
I am active every day helping people to understand this disgraceful con game, and you should be too.
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-27 3:57:28 PM
"Democratic skepticism is not authoritarian if the decision only applies to one's self. The growing apathy isn't about telling others what to do, it's about having them pass laws that force you to do what you don't want to."
In your case, it's more about them passing laws that force you to stop doing something you do want to.
"Tyranny of the majority can be just as harmful to liberty as the tyranny of one."
Only if the majority are masochists. As a practical matter, history gives the lie to this assertion. Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos don't happen under tyrannies of the majority, because most voters won't consent to having themselves bumped off in their tens of millions.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 5:13:13 PM
"My vote determines squat. I agree with Robert on this one. The idea that I have no right to complain if I don't vote is absurd."
Why?
"NOT voting is just the way in which a assert the first of a long list of complaints."
Actually, it's the first step towards silencing yourself completely. Or at least ensuring that no one listens.
"The system is corrupt and by participating I am an accomplice to avarice and greed."
And you're going to change that by doing...nothing?
"Having a conscience I won't do that, I won't participate."
Which means they won't listen to you when it's time.
"You see I've completely lost the brain washed idea that Parliamentary Democracy represents any kind of freedom. It does not."
Freedom as you define the term does not exist, cannot exist, has never existed.
"Therefore I reserve the right to complain all I want to... as part of an ongoing effort to change the system from the false hope / rape that it is into a system of individual liberty and personal responsibility."
Reserve all the rights you like. If you choose not to exercise what power you do have over the establishment, what then will compel them to listen to you?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 5:17:31 PM
I'm with JC and Robert, individual liberty and personal responsibility is the way things should be, in a true democracy. But we don't live in a system like that, so I'm gonna vote anyway. I'm gonna look at the best bundle for me and vote for it. If the concept of individual liberty and personal responsibility becomes a motivating force in this country, I would hope people who support this would run for office. We have the technology to make it a your vote counts system, by actually having votes on the individual issues, and debating them. The only way to change the system peacefully is from within. I am pretty radical in my thinking compared to Shane, and he's probably going to have a good laugh, but I think we should have government by Lottery. But I'm still going to vote, hope the party I pick wins, and maybe some of the issues that matter to me might actually change. That's the hand we are dealt, might as well try and play it.
Posted by: Vote Anyway | 2009-05-27 5:59:57 PM
Reserve all the rights you like. If you choose not to exercise what power you do have over the establishment, what then will compel them to listen to you?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 5:17:31 PM
Those are reasonable thoughts Shane. At this point in my life though I'm so thoroughly disgusted with the history of lies and deceit and the underlying Big Lie behind it all that I really just don't see further participation as a reasonable choice.
We give them our endorsement then they lie to us and ignore us, while at the same time robbing us on behalf of the international banking community.
Then they have the gall to tell us how "lucky" we are.
I'll continue with my political activism and education on a daily basis as opposed to voting once every so often thinking that it will make a difference. I know I've cnverted 40 or 50 to Libertarianism and I have hundreds now asking themselves questions about the legitimacy of their beliefs. I do this every day.
Hell, who knows, maybe its all a joke on me anyway. But I feel I have to keep trying.
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-27 6:33:13 PM
"I know I've cnverted 40 or 50 to Libertarianism and I have hundreds now asking themselves questions about the legitimacy of their beliefs."
All of which doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the policies you would prefer to see are no closer to being enacted. You're just spreading your discontent. It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 6:54:49 PM
It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 6:54:49 PM
I don't see voting as lighting a candle, if that's the comparison. But I do see a light come on when people finally get what I'm saying...and then start asking questions.
Its a beautiful thing and hopefully they too will help spread the discontent until it becomes a force to be reckoned with.
I mean seriously, this has to change, we're headed for slavery.
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-27 8:03:49 PM
I hope this outcome encourages more people to do the responsible thing and vote.
Posted by: Anthony | 2009-05-27 8:25:52 PM
"Its a beautiful thing and hopefully they too will help spread the discontent until it becomes a force to be reckoned with."
Dude, this isn't 1968. What do you have in mind? Sit-ins? Blocking traffic? All very well to want change, but what is your mechanism for effecting it? Discontent plus an empty sack is worth the sack.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-27 9:15:26 PM
I honestly am surprised by the comments here. To all of those who whine that their votes don't count in the system we currently have... did you participate in the forums just over four years ago when alternatives were being considered? Did you bother to consider whether STV would have been better than what we currently have? We had a *chance* to change the system and try something new that had the potential to address at least some of the problems with the current system.
For those who say that voting for a given representative of a party means that you support all of their platform... bull. You have the right to make your opinions know to your MLA. You can agitate for change. But something tells me far too many of you just prefer to lament the inequity in the system while vegetating in front of the latest reality television show.
Posted by: John | 2009-05-28 6:06:23 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.