Avoiding Hubristic and Nonsensical Demands

If there is a truism about those of us who care about politics, it is probably that we all think the media is in opposition to the leaders, parties, or issues we support. The particular thing or person being supported is irrelevant: Conservatives find the media too left-leaning and Liberal-friendly; Liberals find the media in the hip pocket of the Conservatives bent over to the right; NDPers find the deck stacked against them regardless, as do the Greens — perhaps only the Bloc can find a moment or two of satisfaction, but I suspect even for them the media is “constantly in opposition”.

What got me thinking about this was the blog postings of Jason Cherniak over the past two days, where he felt hard done by with coverage of his party, took issue with a paper and story line basically favourable to his party, and then concluded this morning with praise for a television reporter he was pleased with. Jason is, of course, a resounding partisan for the Liberals, but much of his concern seemed overwrought.

How one sees the story depends in large measure on which leading paragraphs and headlines received a response prior to it. The Green Shift, for instance, was promoted by the Liberals as an environmental measure (as its name would indicate) first and foremost, with a heavy dose of tax adjustment and social spending trailing along in its wake. To complain, as Jason does, that the media is not referring to it as “Stéphane Dion’s Tax Reform Package”, is to be disingenuous. From its announcement, the story was set by the Liberal Party. Even a regularly-friendly outlet like The Toronto Star is running with the Liberals’ own definition of the story, one day building on another.

Yes, we’d all, I suspect, like the world much better if it were reported to us “just the way we’d like it”. That’s not the real world, though.

My reaction to Jason’s posts was twofold. At first I was emotionally upset to the point of outrage (which surprised me, since I know how partisan Jason is in his writing). It seemed Jason had crossed a line, one where he felt able to command the media to make it “just the way he wanted it”. From my viewpoint on issues, parties and leaders, I seldom find comfort in the media, particularly in The Globe and Mail, my daily read, and I long ago abandoned CTV and The Toronto Star as being in the pockets of his favourite party. This led me to my second reaction: puzzlement. Why was I reacting so strongly to Jason’s posts? Calming down, I took time to think.

Although I am a Tory and have often written favourably from a Conservative point of view, I have never joined a blogroll on either the “left” or the “right”. The reason I had not had become clear to me with Jason’s posts: I’d rather be myself than part of a group. I expect the media to use headlines, lead paragraphs, and “biased” reporters freely to maximize their advertising revenues, by attracting viewers/listeners/readers for the space they sell. This means I may well not find “news” in an objective form: much analysis may be intermixed, whole story lines can be slanted, emotional indices can be used to trigger reactions. Why I would want to be identified with others — even though I may read them regularly and in many cases with appreciation — is beyond me; it would be like working for a media outlet. (In almost all cases, I suspect there is no need to say “this is our line”: what gets good page positions or solid airtime makes the basic underlying line clear to all.)

I’d always gotten equally upset with the Conservative bloggers’ claims that the media were against them. (In many cases I share NDP and Green concerns that not enough coverage comes their way: for the media, this country often has just a two horse race in progress at any point in time, witness their uncritical reprinting and promotion of Dion’s empty assertions that he would decide when we voted [he would need both the Bloc and NDP in his corner to have made a non-confidence motion stick, but the media essentially dignified his hubris by ignoring the other parties].) Why were Jason’s claims bothering me so much?

I’ve drawn the conclusion that it is because, no matter how partisan, most people hold back from giving explicit orders to the media. Jason didn’t. In other words, hubris had grabbed him, too. It was the hubris that was stirring me, not the claim.

Freedom of the press, as I understand it, means that if you can afford a press you can print freely (subject to constraints such as the libel laws). The great virtue of the blog is that an affordable press is within reach of almost everyone who wants one. We need not, in other words, “demand” anything of the media. If they fail to attract us, their much more expensive presses and signals go dark for lack of revenue.

Demanding, in other words, is not worthy of us — and that is my answer to Jason Cherniak and others, of whatever stripe, who insist the media is “against them”.

The Virtue of “Voting For”

Yesterday Raphael Alexander, in a comment on this blog, raised an interesting point. Is the Harper Government worthy of re-election for their accomplishments?

I am a strong proponent of “voting for” rather than “voting against”. Obviously, wanting to see a government dismissed to the opposition benches counts as “voting against”; so, too, does wanting to see your own MP retired (regardless of their career plans). Less obvious, perhaps, is the type of “voting against” that comes up when you say “well, I need to vote for X because no one else should be given power”. This is not an endorsement of X, but a rejection of the other choices: it is a hidden form of “voting against”.

So — whether or not one should “reward” a government for their accomplishments (this is a question for later) — does the Harper Government have accomplishments worthy of recognition (as I reported yesterday my son believes they do)?

Sandy, of Crux-of-the-Matter, believes there is a solid record of accomplishment to point to. Certainly, from my own point of view, some of the items on this list are not “accomplishments” but negatives, signs of “Liberal light” thinking rather than fiscal conservatism — but there is no question but that the past two and a half years of government have seen a number of actions taken, including most of the policy commitments from the 2006 election. A politician who actually turns election promises into legislation given royal assent is a rare breed!

Those of us who hoped for a fiscally conservative government, of course, are disappointed in elements of this track record (just as those of us who hoped for a socially libertarian framework of law have disappointments — but not as many as the social conservatives, I daresay! — as well). No government is perfect. (To hold up perfection as a standard is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land.) On the whole, it is a record I can take satisfaction in, even though I remain critical of many actions of this Government: it is a strong reason to side with the Government party candidate the next time around.

(I am, of course, on the record already as saying that there are real elements in Stephen Harper’s personal style which I do not like, and that I would not be dissatisfied with a strong NDP showing — even to the point of Jack Layton becoming Prime Minister. Comparing Harper and Dion, I would “vote against” Dion in a heartbeat. Comparing Harper and Layton, I would “vote for” Layton. But the record of the Government is not such that I would “vote against” them for it.)

Much of the rest of the question of my vote will turn on two other factors: who runs in my riding of Vancouver-Quadra, and what is in the policy platforms of the parties. You can be sure — again, I am already on record over this — that our sitting MP, Joyce Murray (Lib.) — will not receive my vote. I did not want her representing us at the by-election and her subsequent behaviour in Ottawa is not worthy of her return. Who will receive my vote, however, must be a matter of positive attraction, not a tactical vote to bounce Ms. Murray out. The policy platforms, of course, are yet to be put in front of the Canadian people.

So you may mark me as “undecided” until voting day, although it seems clear to me that my vote is likely to be either Conservative or NDP this time around — with the possibility that I would again support Dan Grice should he run again, not because he’s Green, but because he’s an excellent potential MP for this riding.

All of this posting today is designed to show, however clumsily, just how complicated the simple act of marking a ballot in a Canadian election can be, if you think about what you’re voting for. We get one mark, for one candidate in our own riding, to be our MP. We can use that to support a party leader, a party platform, or a candidate regardless of their affiliations. So much — by pollsters and the media — gets “read into” the voting intentions of Canadians. But voting, for us, is a complicated affair: you only get to vote for a leader (so to speak) if you live in their riding, and nowhere do we get to explicitly vote for a party. We only vote for local candidates.

Reflexively voting against — as so many do — really doesn’t serve your own interests. Far better to take the time to work out what you can and will vote for — and place your mark there. Even if your candidate/party/leader loses the election, you’ll feel much better for it — and have made the difference voting actually makes.

STV on Offer Again in BC

It’s not news, of course, that the electors of BC will be offered the chance to vote again on changing the method of voting in the province from first-past-the-post to the single transferrable vote (STV) at the next election in May, 2009. What is news is that we’re starting to hear about it early enough, this time, to make a difference — well, that and the $1,000,000 fund the Province is providing to be shared out amongst both groups pro- and a’gin- the change. The rules are pretty much the same: the referendum vote must get at least 60% positive response across the province as a whole (last time was 57%) and a majority of ridings must vote in favour (last time, all but a handful did so). Good conditions, I think, and, what’s more important, a change on offer to vote for.

There’ll be a lot said about STV and proportional representation in general over the year ahead. First of all, if you’re not familiar with STV itself, Wikipedia does its usual good job of laying out the facts, both as to how it works and where it’s in use (a growing and surprising list); the group-built encyclopaedia also comes through with an article about the specific form of STV proposed for BC by the Citizens’ Assembly for the 2005 Referendum.

Why the Single Transferrable Vote?

In a word, to decrease the power of political parties. This won’t happen overnight, of course: many of us are deeply conditioned, at the moment, to “vote the party” rather than give the candidate on offer much scrutiny. STV attacks the centrality of parties in two ways. First, because each riding becomes a multi-member constituency (the number of members varying by the geographic size of the riding and the population that encompasses), some ridings could have as many as seven members: however, even in the northern ridings, which are geographically large and thus (by population) have only two members on offer, the voter can now throw one vote toward his or her party of preference and still have one (or more) to consider. Although parties can, under STV’s rules, offer enough candidates to “take all the slots” in the riding, this — as with wardless municipal systems (such as Vancouver has) — is more likely to see some selection of “opposition members” of quality, and perhaps even an Independent member or two. When parties must offer candidates of quality, these candidates, in turn, have support beyond the caucus, and thus can become a little less dependent and slavish. The second reason this weakens parties is that gaining a party nomination becomes less “fraught” with meeting the terms of the process. It’s harder, for instance, to pack the nominating meeting for five candidates. Party leaders who override the riding association to parachute in a candidate now are more likely to see that candidate “flame out” if they’re not wanted locally, as the choice is not reduced (as it is today) to “vote for the party and suck up the candidate, or deny the candidate and fail to support the party”. Both of these mean that, over time, more diversity of positions amongst candidates should emerge: candidate platforms, as opposed to party platforms, take on some meaning.

What’s Wrong with Other Types of PR System?

Ontario, last fall, turned down a common form of proportional representation called Mixed Member Proportional Representation. Unlike STV in BC — which missed only on the popular vote criterion (and that by 3%) and was widely supported in all regions of the province, the electors of Ontario heavily defeated the move to MMPR. In this system, the traditional “one member elected per riding” is supplemented by members drawn from lists created by political parties in proportion to the parties’ popular votes. This, unlike STV, strengthens the hand of party administration and discipline: a high position on the party list can seat a member, so slavishly following the party’s line is amply rewarded. (Riding-based members, of course, would face the same conditions as today.) What is worse is that should the electors of a riding association vote down an incumbent, or should the voters on election day in that riding defeat an incumbent, placing them high on the party list simply overrides the popular result and returns them to the House. There are already far too many institutional supports to incumbency, from fund-raising, to name recognition, to rules about not having to face challengers: we do not need to add to these by ensuring that electeds have a job for life.

The other failing of MMPR, in my view, is that it perpetuates the simplistic view of political support we already “enjoy” with first-past-the-post. Voting for a candidate in a riding still looks like needing to vote for a party. There is no more scope for Independents to succeed than exists today. (STV breaks this connection by requiring that multiple candidates become elected, thus signalling that there are choices to make beyond a “my party” or “not that party” binary.) MPR systems can, of course, ask for two votes — one for a local candidate, and one for a party of government (which becomes the source of “list” member selection) — but party affiliations for riding candidates keep that part of the system unchanged from what we currently have.

Is There a Reason to Keep First-Past-the-Post?

I’m not a huge believer in the notion that the failing of FPTP is in the divergence of results between the popular vote and the ridings won. What FPTP does do, however, is over-reward parties that can concentrate their vote, plus one party of pan-region (province or national) scope. It is a system that serves best with a minimal number of parties. When parties with roughly-equal prospects across all ridings compete against parties that can concentrate their vote into just a few ridings, the resulting House is often highly divided — and with a high concentration of members who have slim-to-no chance of reaching government, and therefore need feel no responsibility for the traditions of governance nor the health of political institutions. (One need only think of the destruction of the Mulroney-era Progressive Conservative coalition at the hands of Preston Manning and Lucien Bouchard to see the results of that type of outcome.)

Coalitions and Minorities

The fundamental difference between parties in coalition and a minority government is in how Cabinet roles are handled: Coalition partners generally get one or more Ministries (and nominate the minister); in minority government, legislation must be crafted that can avoid a loss of confidence. On the whole our Parliamentary system would work best when some form of functioning minority government was created. This can be done by setting rules for “party recognition”, seating members elected on a party label that fails to meet the “cut” as Independents (in effect). As coalition experience shows, the same coalitions can stay in power for decades without real change, although there is a steady froth of governmental collapses and re-formings that occur. Ideally, the new House could meet immediately after an election, not months later while the partners bicker over the spoils. The point here is that moving to a PR system need not lead to “European style government” (which isn’t Queen-in-Parliament in any case).

Where I Stand

I’ve previously shared my disdain for the system as it currently exists. Yet, true Tory that I am, I do not promote change for its own sake. I would vote down MMPR in a heartbeat: FPTP is not that broken! — and I do not want to see us change our basic tradition of responsible government (Ministers responsible to the House, in other words). STV, on the other hand, strengthens that tradition (in my view), without requiring legislation to do the impossible, i.e. ban factions banding together (i.e. parties). I support, therefore, the Campbell Government’s putting STV back in front of BC voters in 2009 — and this time, may it pass.