Last Friday I was caught in a speed trap on Main Street in Ottawa. Unfortunately, I was going 58 in a 50 zone. I was also taking up the full lane so that I could not be passed. That's right, I was pulled over while cycling. Although I've been pulled over before, it's always been in a car. So this was really something new - and a real lesson in how law enforcement view cyclists.
When I came to the speed trap, I was ordered to the side of the road by the officer. He asked me why I was taking up the whole lane. I told him that one of the safest practices on a road for a cyclist is to take as much room as you need so that if you get into a tricky situation, you have somewhere to go other than an endo. He didn't really appreciate my response and said that motorist find it annoying when they can't pass a slow cyclist. My response was that I was speeding, so I should hope that nobody aimed to be passing me. Moreover, the road has two lanes in either direction, giving virtually any vehicle plenty of room to pass.
What I found most unfortunate about this encounter was the attitude which the officer took. He felt as though he should be lecturing me as a cyclist, and he framed everything from the point of safety. As much as I can appreciate that concern, there is nobody on the road more aware of my safety than I am.
He also didn't seem to mind applying some misguided stereotypes. He asked me if I was a "professional", to which I replied that I compete. Then he told me that we think we "rule the road" and that we are a "nuisance". While I will agree that many professionals are not good ambassadors for cyclists, there is no group that is any better or worse than others. I have seen cyclists from many groups - couriers, professionals, commuters, recreationers - who respect the rules of the road and share the space allotted to them. Naturally, I have seen people from all of these groups act in ways that are dangerous and disrespectful.
He told me that he was not going to fine me, but he did tell me that the Ottawa Police Service does routinely hand out infractions. We had a positive discussion at that point agreeing that cyclists should be given tickets for disobeying the rules of the road. Common infractions include biking on the sidewalk, failing to stop for a traffic light or stop sign, and cutting other vehicles off. We both agreed at that point that I may have been speeding, but not enough to warrant a ticket. And since I certainly wasn't blocking traffic, there was no need for me to be penalised.
I think that one of the major points on which the officer and I agreed was that we both felt that many cyclists take both their safety and their place on the road for granted. As a cyclist, you may feel that you are in the right sometimes, but remember that in a collision, your chances of survival are significantly lesser than someone in a vehicle. With respect to our place on the road, I'm of the opinion that we must earn it, just like someone driving a car. Licences and registrations for cyclists should be introduced, with the money that is collected going toward maintaining and expanding infrastructure. Remember, cyclists only fund the roads they ride if they have a car.
When all was said and done, I think I may have changed his perspective slightly. And that is all due to the fact that I showed the officer respect so that he may also respect me. I hope that everyone out there - pedestrian, motorist, or cyclist - knows that the road must be shared. Let's work together to keep them safe through respect and awareness.
Is This Progress? This Is Progress.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Power Politics
In 2005 the Government of Ontario's Energy Ministry decided to open a new gas-fired power plant. After surveying potential sites, sections of land along the shore in Mississauga and Oakville were selected. Following five years of organised resistance, these two communities were able to change the government's mind. As a result, other communities that had been shortlisted were now reselected. Currently, there is discussion around finding a suitable location in the Greater Toronto Area.
I was listening to CBC's "Ontario Today" and I was dismayed at the discussion generated around this issue. The question seemed to be around where it could be moved and how it could be stopped. Essentially, ignoring the greater question of the our needs, both perceived and real, for electricity and what needs to be done to satisfy them.
The most significant problem with the discourse is around location. The community solidarity is impressive, but the way it is framed is interesting - it wasn't about saying no to building more plants, it was saying no to building a plant in a specific community. This notion of "not in my backyard" is problematic, as it means that some people deserve to live near a hazard while others, presumably those with less money, have to. This is obviously unacceptable, but it is a reality. Communities with lower incomes (often with less access to resources, less free time, less sympathy from the press, less skilled leaders etc) generally have much less ability to mobilise and keep hazards out.
So that leads to the next logical question: If we can't find a reasonable place for a plant, then how do we move forward? It makes sense that if nobody wants to take on the hazard, then the conversation should centre on conservation. As it stands, coal and gas plants (such as the proposed one in the GTA) are only designed to provide relief in the summer. The current logic behind the Ministry of the Environment's push for gas-fired plants is based on idea that in the summer demand for power peaks, so gas-fired plants are supposed to provide this extra seasonal supply. Ontario Power Generation, which supplies the province with electricity, relies on nuclear power for about 41 per cent of its energy, hydroelectric damns for about 23 per cent, and coal and gas for just less than 20 per cent. While the nuclear and hydroelectric plants run at roughly the same level continuously, coal and gas fired plants are designed to meet demand.
With this in mind, why don't we focus the question on the supply and demand of electricity? While there is much controversy around methods of generation such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric, there are virtually no real advocates of coal and gas fired plants. If this is the case, then perhaps the province's plan should rely on using wind and solar energy during peak demand in the summer. Both have shown significant growth in reliability and quality in the past decades, and both are affordable and ecological. Perhaps the best part of the pairing of wind and solar is that there generally at least one is always going to be harnessable.
Moreover, in the coming months residents of the GTA will hopefully come to realise that the power they use comes from somewhere, but only if they take the initiative to go online to their local supplier or to an excellent site called the International Energy Agency. While this may certainly spur movements to tell the government to find another place to get power, I would be far more pleased to see a growth in conversation about finding ways to be more responsible with our energy usage.
We all have a part to play in being smart about our energy consumption. There are plenty of great resources out there to help you find better ways to consume power. Conservation really isn't difficult either, as you will find if you check out this great link.
I was listening to CBC's "Ontario Today" and I was dismayed at the discussion generated around this issue. The question seemed to be around where it could be moved and how it could be stopped. Essentially, ignoring the greater question of the our needs, both perceived and real, for electricity and what needs to be done to satisfy them.
The most significant problem with the discourse is around location. The community solidarity is impressive, but the way it is framed is interesting - it wasn't about saying no to building more plants, it was saying no to building a plant in a specific community. This notion of "not in my backyard" is problematic, as it means that some people deserve to live near a hazard while others, presumably those with less money, have to. This is obviously unacceptable, but it is a reality. Communities with lower incomes (often with less access to resources, less free time, less sympathy from the press, less skilled leaders etc) generally have much less ability to mobilise and keep hazards out.
So that leads to the next logical question: If we can't find a reasonable place for a plant, then how do we move forward? It makes sense that if nobody wants to take on the hazard, then the conversation should centre on conservation. As it stands, coal and gas plants (such as the proposed one in the GTA) are only designed to provide relief in the summer. The current logic behind the Ministry of the Environment's push for gas-fired plants is based on idea that in the summer demand for power peaks, so gas-fired plants are supposed to provide this extra seasonal supply. Ontario Power Generation, which supplies the province with electricity, relies on nuclear power for about 41 per cent of its energy, hydroelectric damns for about 23 per cent, and coal and gas for just less than 20 per cent. While the nuclear and hydroelectric plants run at roughly the same level continuously, coal and gas fired plants are designed to meet demand.
With this in mind, why don't we focus the question on the supply and demand of electricity? While there is much controversy around methods of generation such as nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric, there are virtually no real advocates of coal and gas fired plants. If this is the case, then perhaps the province's plan should rely on using wind and solar energy during peak demand in the summer. Both have shown significant growth in reliability and quality in the past decades, and both are affordable and ecological. Perhaps the best part of the pairing of wind and solar is that there generally at least one is always going to be harnessable.
Moreover, in the coming months residents of the GTA will hopefully come to realise that the power they use comes from somewhere, but only if they take the initiative to go online to their local supplier or to an excellent site called the International Energy Agency. While this may certainly spur movements to tell the government to find another place to get power, I would be far more pleased to see a growth in conversation about finding ways to be more responsible with our energy usage.
We all have a part to play in being smart about our energy consumption. There are plenty of great resources out there to help you find better ways to consume power. Conservation really isn't difficult either, as you will find if you check out this great link.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Awesome?
I just recently read a book that many of you have heard of. It's called The Book of Awesome, based off the 1000 Awesome Things site. This book has been championed by many as an excellent self-help resource. Moreover, it's connected with Maxwell House for its Brew Some Good campaign. Essentially, this two-pronged attack is supposed to help make us realise that there is so much out there to make us happy.
Just what is it out there that we are so worried about? According to the introductory paragraph of 1000 Awesome Things:
"Polar ice caps are melting, hurricanes swirl in the seas, wars are heating up around the world, and the job market is in a deep freeze. That's why one chilly spring night I started a tiny website called 1000 awesome things."
Interesting. So this project, which is framed as an "escape", is essentially designed to help us find distractions in a world where we need to stop ignoring the awful. Not surprisingly, many of the 1000 awesome things that he refers to relate in some way or another to consumption. Some leading examples include: "When the vending machine gives you two things instead of one", "Getting gas just before the price goes up", "Having a whole row to yourself on a flight", or "Eating a free sample of something you have no intention of buying".
Not only are all of these things related to consumption, they are also very Anglocentric. The way that this book is written, many of these short summaries of awesome things sound incredibly attractive, even when I'm trying to read them critically. As someone who has grown up in North America, all of these examples appeal to my upbringing - such as living in a house, not an apartment; or driving a car, not taking public transit. Interestingly enough, he combines these two quite nicely in "Driving through your old neighbourhood and stopping to see the house you grew up in".
To get to my point, though. While I certainly don't want people to overlook the small things that make us happy, I question the message that this book sends about happiness in our lives. Rather than being happy about resolving conflicts, fighting inequality, or working towards making our lives more sustainable, this book teaches us that what matters is the little things like finding money in your coat pocket or eating fries. Also, it seems that happiness is something that happens to us as individuals, not something shared with others. This compartmentalisation is very harmful because it disconnects us from others, preventing people from working together.
While there are certainly good examples from the book that emphasise relationships with others or getting in touch with the environment, these make up such a small component of the project. And what's more, this book is a best seller, it's tied into a marketing campaign for coffee, and is even being used in schools!! I know that the author isn't consciously writing to pacify us - in fact, I would suggest that this is just a byproduct of our society constantly drilling this into us. Just thing - would it not be an amazing idea of someone were to come up with a site that was devoted to the awesome things that we could achieve collectively to make our world a truly better place? Let's get started!
Just what is it out there that we are so worried about? According to the introductory paragraph of 1000 Awesome Things:
"Polar ice caps are melting, hurricanes swirl in the seas, wars are heating up around the world, and the job market is in a deep freeze. That's why one chilly spring night I started a tiny website called 1000 awesome things."
Interesting. So this project, which is framed as an "escape", is essentially designed to help us find distractions in a world where we need to stop ignoring the awful. Not surprisingly, many of the 1000 awesome things that he refers to relate in some way or another to consumption. Some leading examples include: "When the vending machine gives you two things instead of one", "Getting gas just before the price goes up", "Having a whole row to yourself on a flight", or "Eating a free sample of something you have no intention of buying".
Not only are all of these things related to consumption, they are also very Anglocentric. The way that this book is written, many of these short summaries of awesome things sound incredibly attractive, even when I'm trying to read them critically. As someone who has grown up in North America, all of these examples appeal to my upbringing - such as living in a house, not an apartment; or driving a car, not taking public transit. Interestingly enough, he combines these two quite nicely in "Driving through your old neighbourhood and stopping to see the house you grew up in".
To get to my point, though. While I certainly don't want people to overlook the small things that make us happy, I question the message that this book sends about happiness in our lives. Rather than being happy about resolving conflicts, fighting inequality, or working towards making our lives more sustainable, this book teaches us that what matters is the little things like finding money in your coat pocket or eating fries. Also, it seems that happiness is something that happens to us as individuals, not something shared with others. This compartmentalisation is very harmful because it disconnects us from others, preventing people from working together.
While there are certainly good examples from the book that emphasise relationships with others or getting in touch with the environment, these make up such a small component of the project. And what's more, this book is a best seller, it's tied into a marketing campaign for coffee, and is even being used in schools!! I know that the author isn't consciously writing to pacify us - in fact, I would suggest that this is just a byproduct of our society constantly drilling this into us. Just thing - would it not be an amazing idea of someone were to come up with a site that was devoted to the awesome things that we could achieve collectively to make our world a truly better place? Let's get started!
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Draw Muhammed Day
20 May was the second annual "International Draw Muhammed Day". On this day people across the world hide behind the cloak of free speech to attack Islam. I have included the link here, but I would caution against following this unless you are certain not to be offended by images of Muhammed.
Just to set the scene, I think a lot of people misunderstand what exactly the rub is for Muslims about drawing Muhammed. It's not so much about respecting the guy in some odd way as it is potentially undermining a central tenet, or mystery if you will, of their religion. As much as Christians might say "Jesus lives in all of us", the point of the faceless Muhammed is to lead Muslims to the understanding that all of us are Muhammed. You don't draw Muhammed because Muhammed is everyone - his identity as a historical figure transformed into a spiritual concept, in a similar fashion as Jesus (though with obviously different methodology and dogma). So while they may certainly be irked that people are disrespecting their beliefs and tradition, the main issue for them is the concern for their religion itself being undermined should the practice become widespread. At the same time coming out and saying that would be undermining one of the mysteries of their faith, so they're rather stuck seeming even more irrational than usual about the matter. You can find out more about Islam at the following link - just keep an open mind: http://learnaboutislam.org/
Broadly, the images attack a variety of conservative and radical elements of Islam, notably the oppression of women and the rise of fundamentalist terrorism. While it would be legitimate to point out the existence of these phenomena, to paint all of Islam in a negative light is really unfair and unjust. To take the two aforementioned examples (sexism and fundamentalism), it is clear that the Muslim world isn't the only place where these are happening. However, our Western ethnocentrism makes it incredibly easy to "other" Muslims as attribute these terrible things as part of Islam.
What needs to stop, in my opinion, is the polarisation between the West as tolerant and rational and the Islamic world as suspect, backward, and prone to fundamentalism. I think it is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to rebuke their own religion, but for non-Muslims to do it is another story - it is judgmental and dismissive. In the event that a non-Muslim is going to make critical commentary on the religion, I would expect it to be respectful and productive, not inciting hatred and provoking a violent or aggravated response.
Just to set the scene, I think a lot of people misunderstand what exactly the rub is for Muslims about drawing Muhammed. It's not so much about respecting the guy in some odd way as it is potentially undermining a central tenet, or mystery if you will, of their religion. As much as Christians might say "Jesus lives in all of us", the point of the faceless Muhammed is to lead Muslims to the understanding that all of us are Muhammed. You don't draw Muhammed because Muhammed is everyone - his identity as a historical figure transformed into a spiritual concept, in a similar fashion as Jesus (though with obviously different methodology and dogma). So while they may certainly be irked that people are disrespecting their beliefs and tradition, the main issue for them is the concern for their religion itself being undermined should the practice become widespread. At the same time coming out and saying that would be undermining one of the mysteries of their faith, so they're rather stuck seeming even more irrational than usual about the matter. You can find out more about Islam at the following link - just keep an open mind: http://learnaboutislam.org/
Broadly, the images attack a variety of conservative and radical elements of Islam, notably the oppression of women and the rise of fundamentalist terrorism. While it would be legitimate to point out the existence of these phenomena, to paint all of Islam in a negative light is really unfair and unjust. To take the two aforementioned examples (sexism and fundamentalism), it is clear that the Muslim world isn't the only place where these are happening. However, our Western ethnocentrism makes it incredibly easy to "other" Muslims as attribute these terrible things as part of Islam.
What needs to stop, in my opinion, is the polarisation between the West as tolerant and rational and the Islamic world as suspect, backward, and prone to fundamentalism. I think it is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to rebuke their own religion, but for non-Muslims to do it is another story - it is judgmental and dismissive. In the event that a non-Muslim is going to make critical commentary on the religion, I would expect it to be respectful and productive, not inciting hatred and provoking a violent or aggravated response.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
My Explore
In 2008 I participated in a nationwide exchange called My Explore. For six weeks I lived in Saguenay, Québec with a host family attending an immersion programme at the local university. Looking back on this adventure, I've always characterised it as out of the ordinary. However, lately I've come to rethink my ideas of exploration and adventure because its literally right in front of us on a daily basis.
Since relocating last summer, I've been incredibly lucky to call a city like Ottawa home - with hundreds of kilometres of dedicated bike paths, a phenomenal system of public transportation, and a plethora of waterways, forests, and parks. In the nine months I've lived here, I feel like I have a solid understanding of my surroundings, but I haven't stopped learning and exploring - nor will I because there is so much to see and experience.
It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that there is such alienation in our society. Notions of community have been on decline for the past century in North America, eroding our vital social networks. Although we, as a society, have been forced into these conditions, it is important to fight back where we can. Get to know where you live and the people that share your environment. You will be surprised at how little you probably know about the world around you. There is a spinoff benefit to this - strong connections to community make you happier and healthier and also give you a support network so that you can make where you live a better place.
And that brings me to a point I've been pondering the past few days. I know that many people my age feel compelled to go abroad in order to find themselves or in order to gain a wealth of new experience. I am sceptical. Never in history has so much technology allowed us such limitless opportunity to understand our world. Simultaneously, however, we have never been so disconnected physically from our natural and social surroundings. Although I totally approve of going abroad for the right reasons - to volunteer or to have a truly culturally unique experience, I have to say that there are many needy causes here and all the "new" that you want to see is around us. We have such rich diversity - whether of culture or religion, or of experience or perception. It's a real shame that we throw up walls instead of forming meaningful relationships with others.
In getting back to the point, I would like to issue a small challenge to those of you who may stumble across this. Take an adventure this week - alone and without a book or an iPod.
Step one: Use a bike or public transit (which are both less expensive and more fun as getting there is an activity in itself) and go somewhere nearby - it could be a place you know well or someplace undiscovered.
Step two: Try to engage someone in a conversation - perhaps someone you wouldn't ordinarily talk to, but only if you feel comfortable (safety is key).
If you find this rewarding and enriching, just keep doing it again and with your friends. There really are exciting, affordable, and sustainable means for leisure out there. You just have to try. Hope you enjoy Your Explore. For more information, check out Jane’s Walk - for walkable neighbourhoods, urban literacy, cities planned for and by people.
Since relocating last summer, I've been incredibly lucky to call a city like Ottawa home - with hundreds of kilometres of dedicated bike paths, a phenomenal system of public transportation, and a plethora of waterways, forests, and parks. In the nine months I've lived here, I feel like I have a solid understanding of my surroundings, but I haven't stopped learning and exploring - nor will I because there is so much to see and experience.
It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that there is such alienation in our society. Notions of community have been on decline for the past century in North America, eroding our vital social networks. Although we, as a society, have been forced into these conditions, it is important to fight back where we can. Get to know where you live and the people that share your environment. You will be surprised at how little you probably know about the world around you. There is a spinoff benefit to this - strong connections to community make you happier and healthier and also give you a support network so that you can make where you live a better place.
And that brings me to a point I've been pondering the past few days. I know that many people my age feel compelled to go abroad in order to find themselves or in order to gain a wealth of new experience. I am sceptical. Never in history has so much technology allowed us such limitless opportunity to understand our world. Simultaneously, however, we have never been so disconnected physically from our natural and social surroundings. Although I totally approve of going abroad for the right reasons - to volunteer or to have a truly culturally unique experience, I have to say that there are many needy causes here and all the "new" that you want to see is around us. We have such rich diversity - whether of culture or religion, or of experience or perception. It's a real shame that we throw up walls instead of forming meaningful relationships with others.
In getting back to the point, I would like to issue a small challenge to those of you who may stumble across this. Take an adventure this week - alone and without a book or an iPod.
Step one: Use a bike or public transit (which are both less expensive and more fun as getting there is an activity in itself) and go somewhere nearby - it could be a place you know well or someplace undiscovered.
Step two: Try to engage someone in a conversation - perhaps someone you wouldn't ordinarily talk to, but only if you feel comfortable (safety is key).
If you find this rewarding and enriching, just keep doing it again and with your friends. There really are exciting, affordable, and sustainable means for leisure out there. You just have to try. Hope you enjoy Your Explore. For more information, check out Jane’s Walk - for walkable neighbourhoods, urban literacy, cities planned for and by people.
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Young Capitalists
I remember that when I was young it was always a special day when I got to stay home from school. Whatever the reason, one thing was always for certain. I would get to watch the Price is Right.
Recently, I began to watch this show again. My interest in it now is quite different. Where I used to marvel at the prizes, now I am enthralled by the very idea of this game. The issue that I take with the Price is Right is that it builds young capitalists - and in a unique way that is not really matched elsewhere.
So let's start off with the basics. The Price is Right is about winning prizes. Right? Well, although that is true, it is centred (as the title suggests) on knowing the price for a wide variety of goods and services. Accordingly, this show helps to shape, even from a young age, notions of value. Rather than teaching people that value is a social construct, the Price is Right reinforces the "absolute" nature of value. This differentiation is quite important - it promotes the supremacy of the capitalist system by affixing concrete monetary value to all things.
Obviously, the Price is Right isn't the only place that reinforces notions of value, status symbols, or a wide array of other facets of our advanced individualist and capitalist system. Young people are indoctrinated into our system with allowances from parents, with various programmes in school, with television advertisements, and through conversations with peers. However, none of these other media have the same impact as the Price is Right. Although contestants and the audience are always trying to estimate the price (which is the goal is every single challenge), there are millions of people who are playing alone at home, yelling at their televisions. And again, youth make up a good component of this group.
The most unfortunate part of this socialisation is that it is so subtle. Since the Price is Right is a game show, the focus is on "entertainment", and serious questions surrounding indoctrination of young people will be invariably met with dismissal. The show and the network have been making a mint on the idea for decades, and the companies who showcase their products have a vested interest in disguising their marketing as "entertainment".
With all of this said, I still find the show interesting. And often I find myself enraptured by the game - all the while forgetting that I am being told how to fit into our economic system. And that is how powerful the Price is Right is when it comes to socialising us about value and the American dream.
Recently, I began to watch this show again. My interest in it now is quite different. Where I used to marvel at the prizes, now I am enthralled by the very idea of this game. The issue that I take with the Price is Right is that it builds young capitalists - and in a unique way that is not really matched elsewhere.
So let's start off with the basics. The Price is Right is about winning prizes. Right? Well, although that is true, it is centred (as the title suggests) on knowing the price for a wide variety of goods and services. Accordingly, this show helps to shape, even from a young age, notions of value. Rather than teaching people that value is a social construct, the Price is Right reinforces the "absolute" nature of value. This differentiation is quite important - it promotes the supremacy of the capitalist system by affixing concrete monetary value to all things.
Obviously, the Price is Right isn't the only place that reinforces notions of value, status symbols, or a wide array of other facets of our advanced individualist and capitalist system. Young people are indoctrinated into our system with allowances from parents, with various programmes in school, with television advertisements, and through conversations with peers. However, none of these other media have the same impact as the Price is Right. Although contestants and the audience are always trying to estimate the price (which is the goal is every single challenge), there are millions of people who are playing alone at home, yelling at their televisions. And again, youth make up a good component of this group.
The most unfortunate part of this socialisation is that it is so subtle. Since the Price is Right is a game show, the focus is on "entertainment", and serious questions surrounding indoctrination of young people will be invariably met with dismissal. The show and the network have been making a mint on the idea for decades, and the companies who showcase their products have a vested interest in disguising their marketing as "entertainment".
With all of this said, I still find the show interesting. And often I find myself enraptured by the game - all the while forgetting that I am being told how to fit into our economic system. And that is how powerful the Price is Right is when it comes to socialising us about value and the American dream.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Debriefing the Election
I've been struggling the past few days with the results of the election. I felt overwhelmed on election night, but this feeling has subsided to a certain degree.
In talking to friends, I've discovered that everyone seems to be dissatisfied with the result. But this is most likely because people in my demographic - young Canadians - denounce the Conservatives. Unfortunately, many youth are apathetic or mislead into thinking that their voices aren't important. Even though all of my friends voted (in two ridings that were extremely close last year), we failed to achieve positive change. After an involved discussion last night over beer, it became obvious why this is occurring. Although none of my friends in Kitchener-Waterloo voted Conservative, our votes were split quite evenly amongst the Liberals, the NDP, and the Green Party, and this is roughly what happened in the ridings of Kitchener Centre and Kitchener Waterloo.
Not surprisingly, with less than 40 per cent of the popular vote, Harper managed to gain his coveted majority, winning almost 60 per cent of the seats in Parliament. In my opinion, this isn't democracy. This is a system that distorts the will of the electorate in order to produce a "stable" majority.
Perhaps this is a good place to start if we want to talk about electoral reform. The whole notion of stability in our government is predicated on the "reality" of minority governments as volatile. Canadians have been socialised to believe that minority governments interfere with the nation's ability to grow and move forward. This is simply untrue - minority governments are the best environments for cooperation. While it is certainly true that our system is adversarial and partisan, consecutive minority governments could go a long way to showing the merits of cooperation in Ottawa.
And, as a matter of fact, this has happened elsewhere. Countries such as India, Peru, Sweden, Russia, and Germany have proportional representation. In systems such as these, parties that win 10 per cent of the vote are given 10 per cent of seats. If this system were adopted in Canada, the Green Party would have won not one, but twelve seats. Beyond being more fair, a system such as this would also encourage higher participation, which means more democracy. But perhaps the greatest benefit would be the acknowledgment that majority governments are a thing of the past - and that cooperation amongst parties in the legislature is the only way to make change happen.
Although proportional representation is a great idea, it's important to consider that they are many other great ideas. Tomorrow, 5 May, the United Kingdom is going to hold a referendum on their electoral system, hopefully transitioning from first-past-the-post to something called alternative voting. In this system, you will rank your choices, so that voting strategically and voting for who you want can still happen. For more information, click here.
Thankfully, there are many Canadian organisations that are working hard toward making these changes a reality. A great example is Fair Vote Canada, whom I'd recommend you check out. Ultimately, we need more people to be engaged if we want a great political system and a great country. So spread the word! Don't let the Conservatives tell you that you don't have alternatives, whether in terms of parties or in terms of systems. Let's get out there and make ourselves heard. Even though another federal election is four years away, there are still plenty of ways to get involved.
In talking to friends, I've discovered that everyone seems to be dissatisfied with the result. But this is most likely because people in my demographic - young Canadians - denounce the Conservatives. Unfortunately, many youth are apathetic or mislead into thinking that their voices aren't important. Even though all of my friends voted (in two ridings that were extremely close last year), we failed to achieve positive change. After an involved discussion last night over beer, it became obvious why this is occurring. Although none of my friends in Kitchener-Waterloo voted Conservative, our votes were split quite evenly amongst the Liberals, the NDP, and the Green Party, and this is roughly what happened in the ridings of Kitchener Centre and Kitchener Waterloo.
Not surprisingly, with less than 40 per cent of the popular vote, Harper managed to gain his coveted majority, winning almost 60 per cent of the seats in Parliament. In my opinion, this isn't democracy. This is a system that distorts the will of the electorate in order to produce a "stable" majority.
Perhaps this is a good place to start if we want to talk about electoral reform. The whole notion of stability in our government is predicated on the "reality" of minority governments as volatile. Canadians have been socialised to believe that minority governments interfere with the nation's ability to grow and move forward. This is simply untrue - minority governments are the best environments for cooperation. While it is certainly true that our system is adversarial and partisan, consecutive minority governments could go a long way to showing the merits of cooperation in Ottawa.
And, as a matter of fact, this has happened elsewhere. Countries such as India, Peru, Sweden, Russia, and Germany have proportional representation. In systems such as these, parties that win 10 per cent of the vote are given 10 per cent of seats. If this system were adopted in Canada, the Green Party would have won not one, but twelve seats. Beyond being more fair, a system such as this would also encourage higher participation, which means more democracy. But perhaps the greatest benefit would be the acknowledgment that majority governments are a thing of the past - and that cooperation amongst parties in the legislature is the only way to make change happen.
Although proportional representation is a great idea, it's important to consider that they are many other great ideas. Tomorrow, 5 May, the United Kingdom is going to hold a referendum on their electoral system, hopefully transitioning from first-past-the-post to something called alternative voting. In this system, you will rank your choices, so that voting strategically and voting for who you want can still happen. For more information, click here.
Thankfully, there are many Canadian organisations that are working hard toward making these changes a reality. A great example is Fair Vote Canada, whom I'd recommend you check out. Ultimately, we need more people to be engaged if we want a great political system and a great country. So spread the word! Don't let the Conservatives tell you that you don't have alternatives, whether in terms of parties or in terms of systems. Let's get out there and make ourselves heard. Even though another federal election is four years away, there are still plenty of ways to get involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)