Another Vote in BC

British Columbia is having another vote - this time on whether or not to keep the present system of electing members of the provincial legislature or to switch to a newer, some say improved system. The present system, commonly called "first pass the post" means that the individual with the most votes wins the riding and the party with the most wins - (usually) forms the government. The downside to this system is that smaller parties- some might say those on the fringes - might get a significant number of votes across the province but that because those votes are spread out, these parties win few if any seats. An example would be the Green Party who in 2017 earned 16.8% of the total number of votes but only won three seats. The NDP garnered 40.2 % of the voted but won 41 seats. Another way to look at it - the NDP needed approximately 19,392 votes to win a seat whereas the Green party needed over 110,000 votes to earn a seat. On the numbers alone - clearly the present system does not reflect the wishes of the voting public.

The alternatives that are being suggested are generally referred to "proportional representation". The new system, variations of which are used in a number of countries, not only counts the number of votes in each riding to determine who is going to represent that area, but also allocates seats based on the total percentage of votes earned by each party. In a revised legislature, using 2017 voting percentages - the Green Party would have 14 seats in the legislature and the NDP would have 35. Using those numbers to generate a new legislature using some form of proportional representation we would have exactly what we have now - a minority government (run by a party that did not win either the largest percentage of votes or number of seats) -the NDP, propped up by a party - the Green party - that won the fewest number of seats and geographically represents a very small part of the province.

Those who are arguing for change suggest that not only does the present system not accurately reflect the wishes of the public, but that it discourages people from voting because they may feel as of their vote is not worth anything. While I would agree that our present system is perhaps poorly designed for a parliamentary system that has more than two main parties, it feels as if some of the justifications used are at best, weak. I worry that we are fixing a problem that is not clearly understood.

It has been argued that fewer people vote because they feel as if their votes are not really counted - that the person/party they vote for never has access to power. I am not sure when we collectively decided that we all should win or get who we voted for. We can make voting easier such as doing it online so no one needs to expend any energy to vote, we can make people feel that they are more influential and we can pander to everyone's complaint that someone is being unfair to them. But people should vote because it is their civic duty to do so, not because they will always win what they want, not because it makes them feel special or needed or valued.

I suspect that the drive to reform the voting process is driven by those who situate themselves on the centre left or left side of the political spectrum. I would guess that they feel that proportional representation will ensure that their environmental and social justice issues will be placed closed to the top of the government's agenda, because that newly formed government will need the support of the parties on the fringes. I personally worry what happens if the party on the fringe is far right of centre and they drag the government in that directing.

I also worry that while coalition governments can be effective, they require non-partisan, non-confrontational politics. As sad as it is, I wonder if that time has passed us by. I see little or no sign that any of the political parties have the capacity to work together. If a minority government is working adequately well now in BC, it is only because the politicians know the public is not in the mood for another provincial election. It should be noted that while I think that it is working adequately well - I meant that it is doing okay for folks living in the southern tip of Vancouver Island - where the Green Party's three seats are. I am not so sure if all British Columbians are equally as satisfied.

If we can agree there are problems that need to be addressed - should we not look at other options other than the party system? The consensus model used by the North-West territories strikes me as an interesting and viable model - there must be others.

And we are doing a mail-in vote - I assume because some bright minds thought that more people would vote that way - we will see. As usually - those who really care will vote and those who do not or find the whole thing too damn confusing will not.

Good-bye Greyhound

The last trans- Canada bus has made its final stop, discharged its last passenger - those buses will never again to be seen on those lonely stretches of highway across western Canada. All of the people who travelled by bus between small, sometimes remote communities or those who moved across the country to visit family or to look for a new life; all of the young people going somewhere to plant trees or moms with their young children going home have made their last journey by bus. They say that small companies are picking up the slack, that 85% of Greyhounds routes have some sort of coverage - but it will never be the same.

Whether you ever took a Greyhound bus or not, we should all take a moment today to say goodbye to a way of life, a way that allowed people to stay in touch with each other, a way that enabled people to make medical appointments, a way that allowed at least some Canadians - specifically those who did not have a lot of money or who lived in remote areas to see the country and to meet other Canadians. For so many of us it was simply a way to get home. With two or three exceptions, the bus ride was never fun, the seating was almost as cramped as the economy seating on Air Canada, sometimes it was noisy and the stops every few hours seemed to always be at strange little places that did not have the capacity to deal with 40 or more passengers all wanting to use the washroom and to get another coffee for the road. For those who made the three and a half day trip from Toronto to Vancouver, it was torture. At every stop they would stumbled off of the bus - stiff and cramped - jonesing for another hit of nicotine -to buy one more too-sweet donut - anything to mask the discomfort of those seats. But I did meet some interesting people on those trips. I had some great conversations and saw things that if I had been travelling any other way I would have missed. At least twice, when I was wet and cold, the bus picked me up in the middle of the night in what felt like the middle of nowhere and got me to a city where I could get dry, warm and ready to travel again.

Perhaps almost importantly of all - unlike VIA Rail and even Air Canada - the buses were almost on time.

To all of those bus drivers, most of whom were courteous, helpful and sometimes even fun - thank you for making what could have been a horrible time almost enjoyable, no matter how messy I looked, you treated me with respect ; to the ticket agents, the bus station cleaning staff and all of the folks who worked behind the lunch counters or cash registers - thank you for your grace under pressure and our demands for attention when I am sure you were as tired as we were. For my fellow passengers - I hope you will always get to where you need to be.

If I am lucky, I will never need to take an intercity bus again. The sad fact is that I may never be able to even if I need to. And that is a shame.

Strange Times

A few weeks ago I read a novel by D.W. Buffa called Necessity. It is billed as a thriller - it is not or at least I was never that excited by the plot nor did I really care about any of the book's characters. But the proposition that the story rested on was interesting. Without wanting to give away too much of the plot or the ending - a US Democratic senator who could be a contender for the presidency is alleged to have assassinated the president. The rational on the part of the alleged murderer for doing so was that it was necessary for the good of the country and therefore legal. I have no way (or quite frankly any interest) in trying to find out if the points of law were correct or just fabricated in the author's mind).But what was interesting and somewhat alarming is that the murdered president was portrayed as obnoxious, rude, not very bright, bombastic and someone who communicates through social media. In other words - he was virtually identical to Trump or at least our impression of him.

It seemed strange and slightly uncomfortable to me that a novel would not only lampoon a sitting president but also suggest that killing him might be legally defensible. I do not think that those south of the border need any more rationalizations for the violence that exist there.

At the end of last week, I was watching a series called Rake - a Australian television program in its fifth season. It is a comedy, a bit silly and normally not worthy of comment. The second episode of the season revolved around the US Secretary of Defence coming to Australia to negotiate some sort of peace treaty with China and other countries in the region. The Secretary (who later is revealed to be gay) occasionally reads out messages from the president. Again the president appears to be obnoxious, rude, not very bright, bombastic, someone who communicates through social media and a bully.

These two quite different types of entertainment (books and television are almost seen as being mutually exclusive), that were generated literally half a world away from each other - portrayed the sitting president as a buffoon, as someone that either one needs to be afraid of, or else as one who should be mocked. Neither the novel or the television episode referred to Trump by name nor did they feel the need to apologize or explain. It is obvious that that his "presidential style" is now part of the international cultural repertoire. Which is more than a bit bizarre and rather alarming. If I were a citizen of the US, I would be embarrassed, angry or both.

Perhaps other presidents were equally as mocked, certainly many of them have been lampooned in editorial cartoons, and made fun of on late night talk shows. But to the best of my knowledge, Trump is the first president whose total attitude and responses to the world around him have been incorporated into the mass media as a fact without critique.

It is almost as if people have accepted his existence on the political stage as part of the "new normal". How frightening!