Rule of the people

We’ve got a quirky political system. Coupled with national media attempting to distill information from sea to sea to sea in one of the largest and most diverse countries in the world, it can easily confuse the issue of who or what Canadians are choosing when they head to the polls.

When we cast our ballots, they are counted as a vote for a local or regional representative, or a member of parliament (MP). In the new Bay of Quinte riding, we have five candidates running to represent this region: Jodie Jenkins, Terry Cassidy, Neil Ellis, Rachel Nelems and Trueman Tuck.

Unless a candidate is running as an independent, like Tuck, each potential representative aligns themselves with a party, which develops a set of ideas, goals and principles for governance. Should that party gain a majority, that platform is intended to form the basis of governance.

Although MPs from other parties could still affect change, the party of majority has the best chance of winning votes in parliament, unless they have less than half the seats—in which case two or more parties may form an alliance to overturn partisan political moves.

Each party selects a leader. This leader can be from anywhere in the country, running to represent a specific region, but will also become Prime Minister if that party wins the most seats.

As the system works, a Canadian can cast a vote for neither a party nor a leader. Only for a local candidate to represent their area in the federal parliament. Or at least, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

Of course, things get in the way. This election period, there has been a great deal of talk about strategic voting. The idea is that if enough people vote for a certain representative, whether they agree with having that person represent them or not, it will have the ripple effect of ousting the current government.

Whether a strategic vote is an effective vote against the current leader of a party or not, it does have some uncomfortable consequences. Strategic voters forfeit their voice in the political system. They choose candidates they don’t necessarily agree with or are even familiar with in order to choose the lesser of two evils.

But there is a greater evil in this. When everyone moves with the populist flow, important ideas and the very basis of democracy—the rule of the people— get lost in what looks more like mob rule.

And yet, in a first-past-the-post system, those are voters who are often frustrated to see their voices meaning even less in the overall vote tally. It makes for a strong case in favour of strategic voting. When a quarter of the votes may go to candidates without a hope of winning, it seems logical that those votes be put to better use.

And so, readers, the question is, what is the right thing to do? By the time the next edition of this paper comes out, we will know whether a massive push to vote strategically across the country was successful or not. Was it worth the effort? Or is it a vote against the basic principles of democracy?

mihal@mihalzada.com