deja vu all over again
Dear Mr. Harper,
So you picked up a few seats. You're still rather short of the magic number. Which means you're pretty much right back where you were before the election. My question is this: in this time of relative economic crisis, just how much money did this election cost? And were the extra handful of seats really worth it?
Not so much love,
Me
(Part of the reason that I particularly roll my eyes on the cost front is that I, as a Canadian taxpayer, help to pay for the nearly $300 million--2006's election was $270 million--needed to run the thing, yet as a non-Canadian, I can't vote. Now I really don't mind paying taxes to whichever country if I feel they're worthwhile. I like big government when the money is well-spent, and much of the money I pay to Canada I feel is relatively well-spent, at least opposed to the money I've paid to fund the American military, for instance. But paying for a useless election just so Harper could break his word and lose a gamble? Not so much my idea of money well-spent.)
***
Here's something I'm curious about, particularly from flisters from/who know about democracies other than the US and Canada. The US electoral college system, as most everyone knows after 2000, is not terribly representative in many ways. My own vote, for instance, rarely counts for much because I'm not registered to vote in a swing state.
Meanwhile, Canada's parliamentary system is also not terribly representative of the proportional popular vote. A quick tutorial for those unfamiliar with the process: Canada is divided into ridings, based on population, each of which elects an MP (Member of Parliament). The party with the most MPs is asked to form the government, and that party's leader becomes the Prime Minister. (If the party in power has only a plurality of seats and not a majority, it's called a minority government, and that's what Canada has had for the past few years, and the point of this election was Harper's gamble for a majority, which he did not get.)
The trick, though, is that MPs are elected by a "first past the post" system: that is, whoever gets the most votes wins the seat, and it doesn't matter how many votes the opponents got. Seems fair enough, until one takes into account the fact that certain parties have their power concentrated in certain areas of the country and as a result have parliamentary representation far disproportionate to their percentage of the popular vote. So the Green Party, which is gaining popularity throughout the country but does not have that power concentrated anywhere, got 6.8% of the popular vote and won 0 seats. The Bloc Quebecois (forgive the lack of accents; I still don't know how to do those in html), which is the Quebec sovereignty party and only has power in Quebec, won 10% of the popular vote and 50 seats (all in Quebec).
So if you're an American living in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Florida, your vote is worth more than that of someone living in New York or California or Kentucky. If you're a Canadian living in Quebec, your vote is worth more than the vote of someone living in British Columbia.
My question, then, after all this preamble, is where are the better systems? Are there countries that have adequately proportional representation? How does that work, and how did it come about? I feel like I should know this, but never having been much of a student of comparative politics, I've mostly picked things up by experience, and my experience is obviously rather limited.
So you picked up a few seats. You're still rather short of the magic number. Which means you're pretty much right back where you were before the election. My question is this: in this time of relative economic crisis, just how much money did this election cost? And were the extra handful of seats really worth it?
Not so much love,
Me
(Part of the reason that I particularly roll my eyes on the cost front is that I, as a Canadian taxpayer, help to pay for the nearly $300 million--2006's election was $270 million--needed to run the thing, yet as a non-Canadian, I can't vote. Now I really don't mind paying taxes to whichever country if I feel they're worthwhile. I like big government when the money is well-spent, and much of the money I pay to Canada I feel is relatively well-spent, at least opposed to the money I've paid to fund the American military, for instance. But paying for a useless election just so Harper could break his word and lose a gamble? Not so much my idea of money well-spent.)
***
Here's something I'm curious about, particularly from flisters from/who know about democracies other than the US and Canada. The US electoral college system, as most everyone knows after 2000, is not terribly representative in many ways. My own vote, for instance, rarely counts for much because I'm not registered to vote in a swing state.
Meanwhile, Canada's parliamentary system is also not terribly representative of the proportional popular vote. A quick tutorial for those unfamiliar with the process: Canada is divided into ridings, based on population, each of which elects an MP (Member of Parliament). The party with the most MPs is asked to form the government, and that party's leader becomes the Prime Minister. (If the party in power has only a plurality of seats and not a majority, it's called a minority government, and that's what Canada has had for the past few years, and the point of this election was Harper's gamble for a majority, which he did not get.)
The trick, though, is that MPs are elected by a "first past the post" system: that is, whoever gets the most votes wins the seat, and it doesn't matter how many votes the opponents got. Seems fair enough, until one takes into account the fact that certain parties have their power concentrated in certain areas of the country and as a result have parliamentary representation far disproportionate to their percentage of the popular vote. So the Green Party, which is gaining popularity throughout the country but does not have that power concentrated anywhere, got 6.8% of the popular vote and won 0 seats. The Bloc Quebecois (forgive the lack of accents; I still don't know how to do those in html), which is the Quebec sovereignty party and only has power in Quebec, won 10% of the popular vote and 50 seats (all in Quebec).
So if you're an American living in Pennsylvania or Ohio or Florida, your vote is worth more than that of someone living in New York or California or Kentucky. If you're a Canadian living in Quebec, your vote is worth more than the vote of someone living in British Columbia.
My question, then, after all this preamble, is where are the better systems? Are there countries that have adequately proportional representation? How does that work, and how did it come about? I feel like I should know this, but never having been much of a student of comparative politics, I've mostly picked things up by experience, and my experience is obviously rather limited.