Chronic Loser Elizabeth May Should Take Her "Diversity" Act To the Middle East

Fri, 2008-10-17 03:38 by tim

After her second failed attempt to enter the “Common House”, Green Party leader Elizabeth May might consider selling her wares in another market. And I know just the challenge for her. The United Arab Emirates. The UAE is Ms. May’s kind of country. It has one of the highest population growth rates in the world at 5.6% and it will likely stay up there with 45% of its population under 15 at the beginning of the millennium. This population growth fuelled an astonishing 10% GDP growth rate in the same period and generated “wealth’ which made its religious values and small town traditions quite expendable to the government. Suddenly the needs and desires of western ex-pats and tourists and Asian migrant workers who served economic growth took precedence over the sensibilities of those who always lived there. Dubai became an oasis of liberal entertainment amid the conservative Middle East. Nevertheless the Islamic legal culture is still intact and public displays of sexual affection are illegal. They remain on the books for the very good reason that they sill represent the popular will of native residents. This became evident last July (08) when a British tourist couple was arrested for having sexual intercourse on a public beach. Emiratis complained that such was the number and rapidity of the foreign influx that blatant disregard for local customs and laws was so manifest that “they (Emiritis) no longer felt at home in their own country.”(know the feeling!) What feeds their desperation is the demographic trend. Since Dubai is determined to push for even more economic growth, the projected rise in the expatriate ratio of the projection is expected to be 81.7% in 2009. It is tough for 18.3% of the population to defend, never mind “shape”, its culture within that kind of isolation. So here is where our Elizabeth May should take her road show. Let her go to Dubai and tell Emeritis to lie down and roll over and surrender their traditions to those of outsiders in the interests of the corporate agenda. Only, just don’t tell them about whose interests it is in, just as she doesn’t in Canada. Tell them growth is good. It is not whether you grow, but how you grow that is important. It is not how many people there are but where they live, and it is not even where they live but how they live. If they choose to live like Ghandi, then the UAE can invite the whole world over for tea, but if they chose to live like Bill Gates, then even Bill Gates would be one too many. But know in your heart that your preaching will never get people to reduce their consumption. May would make these proud Arabs understand that it is important that our Holy Text decrees that all cultures are created equal, and are therefore equally deserving of respect, and that one set of moral values, or lack of values, is as good as any other.. So it is therefore important that touring British couples be made to feel comfortable in practicing their customs of copulating on public beaches in Dubai. Emiritis need to follow her Canadian prescription, that is, be sent to Diversity Awareness Training workshops to learn to become sensitive to the customs of foreigners so that they may pander to their needs, because the God we are now serving is Economic Growth. And to serve Economic Growth, we need more and more foreigners, foreigners who feel comfortable being here. That is what Multiculturalism is all about. It is not about “cultural” enrichment, about savouring “the rich texture of varied cuisines and music”, it is about corporate enrichment, the enrichment of the those who don’t give a damn if they turn a quiet traditional country into a middle eastern Las Vegas whose streets are lined with hookers. And time passes, foreigners are winning the demographic horse race. In 2009 the expatriate population is projected to grow at more than double the rate (6.9%) of the native population (3.4%) , gaining an even tighter grip on the land. If Elizabeth May was to parachute into such an environment, she just might find fertile ground to plant her Green Party message of unlimited population growth. The ideology of “Secular Multicultural Growthism”. A new kind of theocracy that allows no challenge or criticism. And to think that is an ideology incubated and tested right here in Canada.

Comments

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2008-10-19 13:15

Permalink

Canada's anachronistic and stupid first-past-the-post system

I think Tim's article glosses over some very serious problems with the Canadian electoral system.

However correct he is about the Canadian Green Party's cowardice on the population and immigration question, I think it needs to be acknowledged that Elizabeth May's result in her own riding of Central Nova was impressive. She achieved a vote of 12,620 or 32.24% of the vote compared to the 18,239 votes or 46.60% of the victorious Conservative Party candidate.

Across Canada, the Greens achieved a total vote of 6.80% -- a not altogether insignificant result -- yet achieved zero representation in Parliamament. Had Canadians not been saddled with the appallingly undemocratic first-past-the-post voting system, it is likely that the Greens' votes would have been considerably higher. As it was many Canadian Green supporters would have felt obligated to cast their vote for other less preferable candidates in order to prevent even worse candidates from winning. Indeed Elizabeth May herself made this reasonable suggestion to many of her supporters and was savagely attacked for having done so.

Very frequently, where first-past-the-post electoral systems are employed, electorates (or what are referred to as 'ridings' in Canada) are saddled with representatives who are strongly opposed by the majority of electors. On quite a few occasions whole countries in which the first-past-the-post system is used, governments, which have been strongly opposed by the majority of electors, have been able to win office. This has happened on a number of occasions in the UK, Canada and the US.

A very simple remedy to this is the preferential voting system practiced in Australia. (In the US, where it has not yet been adopted, it is referred to by its proponents as "instant run-off".) The electors simply place numbers starting from 1 in the boxes for each of the listed candidates in the order of their preference. If their most preferred candidate does not achieve a majority and receives the least number of votes, then that vote is added to the tally of the candidate which has that voter's second preference. This process continues until one candidate achieves an outright majority.

It only requires a small amount of additional work to count preferential votes.

Preferential voting is not necessarily the same as proportional representation in which a number of candidates can be elected to each constituency, thereby allowing parties with smaller support to win representation. In countries like Canada proportional representation would almost certainly allow minor parties such as the Greens to achieve some representation as they do in various local, state and national parliaments in Australia.

Whether the preferential voting system is adopted in its single- or multiple-member-constituency forms, there is absolutely no justification for Canada or any country to persist with the first-past-the-post system. It is a stupid anachronism that should long ago have been consigned to the garbage bin. That it has not been made a greater issue in countries like Canada, the UK and the US is astonishing.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2008-10-20 17:11

Permalink

Preferential voting

OK. Let's say I am voting Green (or for any other party). Any party I vote for has 15 policies. I might, just might, agree with ten of them. Of the 15, only 7 or 8 might come up for debate and a vote in parliament. The Green candidate, for whom I voted, now my MP, you can bet your life will vote AGAINST my preference on 3 or 4 of those bills in the House even though I voted for her on my PREFERENTIAL ballot on election day. I may have agreed with her on the war on Iraq, on health care, on education, on gay rights, but damn it, NOT on refugee policy, and on that crucial bill, which the government just presented, she is leading charge. "My" representative, elected fairly. When you vote for a political party, you vote for a package deal. That is "representative" democracy. I am not really interested in the justice or the injustice of Elizabeth May or her party getting 6% of the vote and 0% of the seats. I am more interested in Tim Murray have one vote on election day and ZERO votes every other day until the next election four years hence. I am interested in DIRECT democracy, in a system of referenda, a system of citizen initiatives where people like myself could, if I could gather enough signatures, FORCE a vote on a question of MY wording on a ballot and IMPOSE the result on a representative body whose powers would be considerably trimmed back by populism. Elitists, usually from the left, would dare in the age of the internet to claim that the people are not competent to rule or make judgments for themselves. I say that if indeed the people are ignorant, then they have a RIGHT to learn from their own mistakes. But in the meantime, I prefer the mistakes of the incompetent many to the mistakes of the corrupt few. Direct democracy is democracy buffet style. Preferential voting or proportional representation is just a superior modification of an oligarchic arrangement. I shed no tears for May, Layton or any of the losers. I weep only for myself and others like me, who are denied the opportunity to cherry-pick those policies I support and vote down the ones I reject. I reject parties. I reject organizations. I don't follow people. They are only vehicles that get me places. Once there, I discard them. They have used me and betrayed me for decades. I support issues and ideas and form provisional coalitions. As a stop gap reform, I would favour one change, however. I would like to see one name appear at the bottom of every ballot: "None of the Above". That would give Canadians like me who do not want to incur the stigma of being apathetic for not voting, the option of going into the voting booth and voting for a name they have confidence in. Tim

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2008-10-23 14:34

Permalink

No case to put up with first-past-the-post has been made

Of course Tim's comments about the limitations of representative democracy are correct and he is right to point out that representative democracy is unlikely ever to work anywhere nearly as well as direct democracy. Nevertheless, I believe I have demonstrated representative democracy has often been made completely undemocratic in countries such as Canada, the US and the UK, as a result of the totally stupid first-past-the post system. As just one of many examples, this made possible the election of the worst and most disastrous Presidencies in US history, because the US electors who voted for the unsuccessful candidate Ralph Nader in 2000 were not allowed to direct their preferences to Al Gore. Furthermore, the way the proportionally representative New South Wales upper house recently debated and rejected the legislation to privatise NSW's electricty assets is yet one of a large number of examples I could give which illustrate how Parliaments elected with proportional (and preferential) voting systems server the public far better than Parliaments which are elected on the basis of single member constituencies, particularly those which don't even have preferential voting. Tim has not addressed any of my arguments and has provided no reason why democratic grass roots activists should not loudly demand that this stupid first-past-the-post voting system be scrapped forthwith. Whilst superficially plausible arguments against direct democracy can be advance, this is not the case for preferntial voting. In any case, a political campaign agains first-past-the-post would be a good occasion to raise the issue of direct democracy.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2008-10-23 18:07

Permalink

No fan of proportional representation

I wrote I believe it was, a 25 page report to the parliamentary federal caucus of the New Democratic Party in the early 1980s about Proportional Representation. It was written long before the days of personal computers. I am not prepared to sit down and re-type it and re-read it and review it. I am no longer interested in the pros and cons of electoral systems. But I made a thorough study of electoral systems in Europe and Canada and concluded that first past the post (FPP) yielded by far the best results for left of centre parties. I believe the title of the paper was "PR -Will we be caught in our trap?" When I presented my position to the provincial committee studying the issue, the committee sided with my position. Every positive piece of labor and environmental legislation in Western Canada from 1944 to 1980 was passed by Leftist governments who won less than 44% of the popular vote. Socialized medicine would never have been established at all in Canada if proportional representation had been in place in 1960. It was rammed through against fanatical opposition by a socialist government which held a majority of seats elected by a minority of voters. And two generations of Canadians would say Thank God for FPP if they reflected on that. I remember at one committee meeting saying to the group something I could never say publicly. I said the difference between those in the party who support proportional representation and those who, like me, supported first past the post, was that the former were fixated on a democratic process, whereas the latter was interested in a democratic result. A democratic result would be a more egalitarian society. The society was already stratified and in the control of the ruling corporate class. To oppose that class with a weak coalition government---always the result of proportional representation---would guarantee the perpetuation of capitalism. What was needed was a form of dictatorship, a modified dictatorship or rather a modified democracy. First past the post distorts the results to push the leading party over the top. The Italians at one time were going to do just that. Give bonus seats to the leading party to give it control because they were tired of weak rudderless coalitions. I think the biggest fan of proportional representation was Adolf Hitler. Without it, he never would have become Chancellor. It took a decade of useless feeble indecisive governments to set him up. It seems that our prescriptions for democratic models are based the bad case histories of our time. The Founding Fathers, like you James, seemed determined to design a system that would limit or checkmate the power of an elected office holder, given their unhappy experience with British. You enumerate the problems in NSW, and with the Nader/Gore debacle. But I, on the other hand, am conditioned by my life experience and that of my family in Western Canada since the war, when my parents said the socialists were cheated out of victory by a just introduced preferential ballot scam in 1952 that confused the electorate. Once in office, the right then abolished it. As I said, FPP served us well for 40 years. As it did the British between 1945-51. The NHS, the Town Planning Act (Green Belts) on and on. A minority coalition government with the Liberals holding the balance of power would never have allowed Atlee and Nye Bevan to do any of those things. You can't treat a complex subject like this with justice in a short comment. Today I don't advocate dictatorship, 1st past the post or PR. To re-iterate, I support direct democracy. But obviously, it must be supplemented by an elected assembly of some kind that implements its decisions or makes decisions that the people do not choose to put to direct vote. How then, would that assembly be elected? I have preferred the French run-off system. Is that very far the preferential system? But having said that, this is the 21st century and Edmund Burke has been dead for a very long time. Isn't time we learned to rely on ourselves? Do we still have to depend on political parties as the clearing house of ideas and the axis of power?

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2008-10-27 12:18

Permalink

First-past-the-post a double edged sword

Tim, Firstly, you are conflating the discussion about multiple-member-constituency proportional representation versus single-member-constituency representation with a discussion about first-past-the-post versus preferential voting. Can't you see at least one self-contradiction in what you have written? You effectively say that representative democracy is not good enough, then give an example of what has been achieved by representative democracy, albeit under the first-past-the-post electoral system, namely welfare state reforms in Britain and Canada. At least this proves that a lot that is worthwhile can be achieved by representative democracy, even when direct democracy, which we both agree is necessary to truly empower the people, is lacking. It's clear that first-past-the-post is a double-edged sword, and, moreover given that, in recent years it has allowed governments with programs of both dismantling the welfare state and increasing immigration in the UK and Canada to be elected against what was likely to have been the will of the majority, not to mention the election of the catastrophic Presidency of George W Bush, then it seems that the 'wrong' edge of that sword has been more prevalent overall. If I had lived in Canada in those years when, on the face of it, first-past-the-post had allowed the election of Governments which implemented those welfare state reforms, I would have still, nevertheless argued for preferential voting. If the short term price to have been paid had been that it would not have been possible for a Social Democratic government to gain the outright control necessary to pass welfare state legislation, then that would still have been a price worth paying in my view. Surely, one way or the other it should have been possible to convince the majority of Canadians that the welfare state legislation was in their best interests. Sooner or later, one way or another, that should have translated into parliamentary majority that would have legislated for the welfare state, and once that had occurred those gains would have been that much more secure as it would have been a lot harder for a Government wishing to dismantle the welfare state to subsequently gain an outright majority. If we allow ourselves to be lured into supporting such an obviously undemocratic voting system as first-past-the-post for short term expediency, then it makes it harder to object when that undemocratic system is turned around in order to allow those gains to be removed. It also will undermine our credibility where we object to other erosions of our democratic systems.

Chronic Loser Elizabeth May Should Take Her "Diversity" Act To the Middle East

Comments

Canada's anachronistic and stupid first-past-the-post system

Preferential voting

No case to put up with first-past-the-post has been made

No fan of proportional representation

First-past-the-post a double edged sword

Add comment

Filtered HTML

Tags in Topic

Help save injured wildlife

Recent comments