The problem with modern democracies.
I keep reading on Twitter things like "such and such a seat is up for re-election soon, vote for this Democrat instead". And my first thought is... that is exactly the nature of the problem in the first place.
Don't get me wrong. I understand how and why it feels like a necessity. But here is the problem... you're not supposed to be voting for a party. You're supposed to be voting for a representative. In other words, the person who will best represent their constituents.
I know this sounds totally crazy. Because parties exercise too much control over their members. The end result is that the individual representatives... aren't really acting like individuals. They act as representatives for the party they serve and not the people who elect them. It is easy to see why things devolve to this. It is MUCH easier for the people. And it plays into our desire to choose sides.
But, here is the thing. If we assume that every candidate reflects the ideas of the average voter for their party in their state; then a Republican from say... South Carolina, would probably see the views of a Republican from Michigan as being much more left-leaning than their own views. They would still, likely view them as more right-leaning than a Democratic candidate from that same state. But, they might even more left-leaning than a Democrat from South Carolina.
The simple reason is, deep southern states like South Carolina have (traditionally, and/or perhaps just stereotypically, but I'm borrowing the stereotype for the sake of argument) a population which is much more aligned with the right.
Why does all of this matter? Well, if the elected officials actually represented their constituents, then even a government that was 100% populated by members of a single party should find topics upon which they are split. But, what we end up seeing is a much more "us vs. them" mentality with a staggering majority of elected officials simply voting with the party.
I'm using the US as an example. But it isn't any different here in Canada. The needs, expectations and views of say a Liberal in Atlantic Canada are totally different from a Liberal supporter in the Maritimes and those are all different from a Liberal in say Ontario or Quebec. In fact, it is probably more pronounced in Canada than in the US. In the US, you could probably segment the country off into different groups. Canadian provinces are so freaking huge and spread out, every single one is both a political and social ecosystem all it's own.
In fact, it is a little worse in Canada because we don't vote for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is simply the leader of the party with the most elected members in the house of commons. This gives a person who is technically not directly elected to the post additional authority based solely on party success. So, Canadians are already incentivized to vote based on party rather than representation. I say this simply; this is not what was intended. If it were, we wouldn't see candidate names on ballots, we would simply see the name of the party, or it's leader. We were meant to vote for an individual.
I'm OK with parties stating some core objectives which they require their members to be on board with. As long as this is clearly communicated (and as long as the budget isn't one of them). But, outside of votes on these issues, these members should be expected to vote with their constituents expectations if they are clearly communicated, or with their own judgement otherwise as they were the person the people in their riding elected to make those decisions.
But of course, if you talk about any modern democracy, the only people you hear about are party leaders and beyond that, the party itself. And that just feeds into it. It would be nice to see a return to actual representation of the people at a level more granular than that of the political party.
Don't get me wrong. I understand how and why it feels like a necessity. But here is the problem... you're not supposed to be voting for a party. You're supposed to be voting for a representative. In other words, the person who will best represent their constituents.
I know this sounds totally crazy. Because parties exercise too much control over their members. The end result is that the individual representatives... aren't really acting like individuals. They act as representatives for the party they serve and not the people who elect them. It is easy to see why things devolve to this. It is MUCH easier for the people. And it plays into our desire to choose sides.
But, here is the thing. If we assume that every candidate reflects the ideas of the average voter for their party in their state; then a Republican from say... South Carolina, would probably see the views of a Republican from Michigan as being much more left-leaning than their own views. They would still, likely view them as more right-leaning than a Democratic candidate from that same state. But, they might even more left-leaning than a Democrat from South Carolina.
The simple reason is, deep southern states like South Carolina have (traditionally, and/or perhaps just stereotypically, but I'm borrowing the stereotype for the sake of argument) a population which is much more aligned with the right.
Why does all of this matter? Well, if the elected officials actually represented their constituents, then even a government that was 100% populated by members of a single party should find topics upon which they are split. But, what we end up seeing is a much more "us vs. them" mentality with a staggering majority of elected officials simply voting with the party.
I'm using the US as an example. But it isn't any different here in Canada. The needs, expectations and views of say a Liberal in Atlantic Canada are totally different from a Liberal supporter in the Maritimes and those are all different from a Liberal in say Ontario or Quebec. In fact, it is probably more pronounced in Canada than in the US. In the US, you could probably segment the country off into different groups. Canadian provinces are so freaking huge and spread out, every single one is both a political and social ecosystem all it's own.
In fact, it is a little worse in Canada because we don't vote for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is simply the leader of the party with the most elected members in the house of commons. This gives a person who is technically not directly elected to the post additional authority based solely on party success. So, Canadians are already incentivized to vote based on party rather than representation. I say this simply; this is not what was intended. If it were, we wouldn't see candidate names on ballots, we would simply see the name of the party, or it's leader. We were meant to vote for an individual.
I'm OK with parties stating some core objectives which they require their members to be on board with. As long as this is clearly communicated (and as long as the budget isn't one of them). But, outside of votes on these issues, these members should be expected to vote with their constituents expectations if they are clearly communicated, or with their own judgement otherwise as they were the person the people in their riding elected to make those decisions.
But of course, if you talk about any modern democracy, the only people you hear about are party leaders and beyond that, the party itself. And that just feeds into it. It would be nice to see a return to actual representation of the people at a level more granular than that of the political party.
Comments
Post a Comment