Elections do mean(usually)that one party received more votes than other parties. Can we assume this always reflects "what the people wanted"?

This isn't tied to any particular "democratic" country, nor is it meant as an attack on democracy(I support full democracy, meaning democratic decision-making on economic matters, the issue that is of the most real importance in people's lives, as well as elections to decide which faction temporarily holds control of the middle-class debating chamber known as parliament.)

It is intended to look at what really influences election results, factors both internal and external, the role of money, the role of external force and coercion, and any other factors that come into play.

I'm raising issue with the idea that, if things went badly in a particular country under an elected government, the people themselves are at fault because that government was "what they voted for" and therefore could be assumed to be "what they wanted".

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And, again, I'm not AGAINST the concept of "democracy". I'm raising issue with the idea that, if things went badly in a particular country under an elected government, the people themselves are at fault because that government was "what they voted for" and therefore could be assumed to be "what they wanted". There are many factors that influence how any particular group winds up in power. The intent of this thread is to look at all of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nanuq:
Everyone seems to have their reason not to bother voting but if a government that isn't to your liking gets elected, are the ones who didn't vote entitled to complain?

---

That's a good question. I think the answer is obviously that many non-Voting Canadians are jaded with our electoral system for the same general reason you mention and a few more.

quote:

---

And, again, I'm not AGAINST the concept of "democracy".

---

1) open debate covered by media in a responsible way- this means that a responsible and independent media is essential to proper democracy- not the present package of business interests we have now. Historically, media was big busienss but it used to be only media busienss removed from other sectors. However in recent years not only have we seen massive concentrations, we have also seen businesses who have other interests own media outlets and this creats obvious conflics with fair news reporting.
2) clear access to all the positions of all the parties along with their actual records in practice- the sound bite, propaganda laden reports don't cut it.
3) a method of counting the votes that respects all votes -- proportional representation
4) a political system that is accountible to the jurisdiction that is paying when money is spent- much of the present transfers cloud accountibility. I would favour a cleaner system where provinces collect the money for the programs they deliver and are topped up with equalization rather than the present murky system of transfers so nobody knows what spending they are voting for when they are going to the polls or which programs are affected by which jurisdiction. Unfortunately the big problem with this accountibility is that the spending power is supposed to be used to enforce national standards (althoguh we are often seeing that this is not happening). In order for full acountibility to exist there would have to be a better way for the federal governemnt to enforce national standards and a clear idea of what jurisdictions the spending is in.
5) proper audits of the behaviour of elected officials. I do want them to be able to think for themselves includign change positions when the facts or circumstacnes change but I think that voters should get a report detailing all the commitments audited to indicate the differences between what they said they would do and what they did along with an explanation so that judgement can be passed on that.
6) I have long believed that the auditor's office should produce a 10-20 page or so annual report on what the government has done including: the purpose of each initiative, the measurement by which we would recognize success (which should be disclosed prior to the money being spent), the actual results as well as a brief report on the status of each department. It should include a list of all the government's promises and a status report on each. You should get a copy before you vote and when you go to file your taxes. The current auditor's report is not designed or synthesized for the public and recieves little distribution as well as lacks the accountibility for initiatives prefering instead to look at departmental program spending. Most Canadaisn only understand these reports as interpreted by the media. These are valulable but do not replace the kind of reporting I have in mind. I do believe each opposition party should also have a page to highlight a summary of their own responses and commitments.

quote:

---

They are not referring to spoiled ballots but to votes that don't elect anyone. These are wasted in the sense that if they were not cast there would be no effect on the election, or less apocalyptacly, voters who cast them do not get the representation they want.

---

First-Past-The-Post is a very poor system for filling a large legislative body, because it makes the mistake of turning every individual seat into a winner-takes-all race, with no real representation for those who don't support the winner.

In a multi-party election for a large number of seats there is absolutely no need for this, since there are several reasonable systems that allow for fairer overall resuts and representation for the views of those who didn't vote for a local winner.

The single transferrable vote may also have been an option.

The challenge for political parties (or for anyone running for public office) is that "the people" have divergent views on pretty much every issue, including which issues are more or less important.

quote:

---

8) a requirement that politicians keep their promises or get thrown out of office

---

Mike Harris did that. Are you saying he should still be in power? Or Harper?

And he also did a whole bunch of nasty stuff that they DIDN'T campaign on, pushing through unbelievably hard-hearted policies through.

quote:

---

There's a reason successful political parties invest time and resources into public opinion research and message testing. They do this to find out "what the people want" and then how to couch "what the people want" in language that is likely to motivate "the people" to vote for them and not the other guy.

---

Here is how it works: Governments consult at length with "partners", read corporations and investors, to hammer out legislation.

They then meet with "stakeholders", read unions and vested non-investor interests, to consult in order to iron over the worst of the wrinkles.

"Partners" meet with ministers and senior political mandarins. "Stakeholders" meet with senior bureaucrats and management types.

Finally, there is a public consultation. The consultation is to be held over a number of cities, or in just one city like Toronto, with little time for input or thoughtful reflection. The consultations are conducted by communication consultants rather than decision makers or parties that can make recommendations. The consultations are attended by a smattering of the public and mostly by professional lobbyists for "partners" or "stakeholder" representatives.

The excercise is to collect objections and support. To synthisize and then develop a communications strategy that will play up the supporting opinions and ideas while minimizing the objections. In short, by the time public consultations are held, the decisions have been made and public consultations are merely an exercise in spin control and PR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:

Mike Harris did that. Are you saying he should still be in power?

---

No, but the people of Ontario did in 1999 and the perception of his having kept promises was a big reason why that happened. I think most people do realize that there are circumstances in which a promise can't be lived up to, but believe (rightly, I think) that this is much rarer than most politicians would have you believe.

[ 15 August 2007: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
He promised to slash spending, but then when they left office, it was discovered that they were hiding a huge deficit.

---

quote:

---

Frustrated Mess, I was talking about political parties doing public opinion research, not governments conducting public consultation exercises. Those are quite different things.

---

Attend an NDP Convention sometime if you want to see how our party makes policy. Corporations have zero influence over NDP policy-making.

As far as public opinion research goes, pollsters get paid to give the political parties the straight goods about where the public is at on various issues, and not to sugar coat anything.

And what's wrong with crafting your message in a way that most appeals to the public? Right wing parties have been doing it for years, and it's about time the political left caught up.

quote:

---

That is parties form policies, usually in consultation with corprorate lobbies, and then package and sell those policies to the public no different than one would market soap. Polling and focus groups are held to fix the message rather than to adapt to public will.

---

JohnK:

quote:

---

FM, your carcicature of political party policy-making, public opinion research, and message testing is just plain false.

---

quote:

---

Attend an NDP Convention sometime if you want to see how our party makes policy. Corporations have zero influence over NDP policy-making.

---

I vote NDP (I keep hoping the Green Party will eventually recognize one can't have both a consumer culture and sustainability but so far no luck) and I recognize the NDP is a brokerage party and it is a capitalist party.

quote:

---

And what's wrong with crafting your message in a way that most appeals to the public? Right wing parties have been doing it for years, and it's about time the political left caught up.

---

quote:

---

Because it is a perpetration of a system where spin and PR are more important than fact and truth and where getting elected is more important than values and principles.

---

Getting elected and getting into government is what political parties do. The day the NDP said getting elected wasn't important - and that it just wanted to participate in the electoral process to promote its values and principles - is the day I would look for a new political home. Electoral politics is not the only way to bring about progressive change, but it is an important way.

quote:

---

Getting elected and getting into government is what political parties do. The day the NDP said getting elected wasn't important - and that it just wanted to participate in the electoral process to promote its values and principles - is the day I would look for a new political home.

---

quote:

---

Electoral politics is not the only way to bring about progressive change, but it is an important way.

---

quote:

---

And political parties are hardly unique in crafting their messages to persuade an audience. This happens on Babble everyday. Babblers try to use words and phrases to persuade other babblers of their point of view. This isn't all PR and spin. Some of it is just being an effective communicator.

---

quote:

---

but to assume we Never can is dangerous and self defeating at best

---

The central problem for North American democracy is all the major means of communication have been completely coopted by the moguls running them, so even more reformist parties are limited in what they can even debate, let alone propose or enact. That too wasn't quite so bad at onetime; rightwing governments winning most elections leading up to the Blacks and Aspers didn't help.

[ 18 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

The central problem for North American democracy is the main means of communication have been completely coopted by the moguls running them, so even more reformist parties are limited in what they can even propose, let alone enact

---