That was an interesting election night. I can't say I'm happy with the results, but certainly intrigued. We have a majority Conservative government, which I'm not happy about, but I accept the result. That's how the system works.
I'm glad to see Elizabeth May got elected. I'm glad to see we now have a nationalist party representing Quebec, that they voted for working withing the system (for now). I'm happy to see the NDP as the official Opposition. I hope they are effective. I thought Harper gave a nice speech.
But we can only guess at the message sent by those who didn't vote. My first impulse on watching the returns was to think, oh, no, the centre/left vote is being split by the anti-conservatives!
The country went Conservative, and the vote split suggests most Canadians will be a bit disgruntled this morning, as many more of them voted against the Conservatives than for.
Across the country, just under 40% of the population didn't vote, which might mean that whatever happens is just fine with them. That puts the popular (?) vote for the blue party a lot higher, if indifference can be said to be a vote. (The Elections Canada site has the turnout at 61.4%, the last time I checked, but not all the numbers are up.)
We know the Conservative party doesn't like census data that gives accurate results, so this amorphous reasoning may be as good as any for them.
Now you might say that people didn't vote because our system allows people with a minority of the popular vote to win a majority. The deck is stacked, you can't win. Which is how it feels when there is a three-way split, and the two losers have policies that are pretty darn close, but neither wins.
But when you don't vote, it's only guesswork what your reasons were. If the non-voters actually have a preference, it's as clear as smoke. Which means the new government can assume everything is fine with those non-voters, and so their majority has added meaning.
If everyone voted (what a fantasy, eh?) then the Conservatives, even with a win based on all the vote-splitting, would at least know there was a large base of people out there unhappy with them. Or they'd have a clear majority, which would it easier for me, for one, to accept our fate. As it stands, they can take whatever meaning they like from the poll of non-voters.
My point is, apathy hands over power. Whether it's the actual choice of the non-voting public, is anyone's guess.
Whatever.
What a week, eh? Wedding of the Century, Obama takes out Osama, Harpo gets his majority, and now, we can get back to what Vancouver really cares about. The Canucks. Third game of the series, in Nashville tonight, and how that ends is very important. Anyway, at least with a two party event like this, there'll be no confusion about how the goals are ranked.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
4 comments:
Well. I just gave myself a little tour through your election procedures and results and it sounds amazingly like what goes on down here. Plenty of apathy and non-participation, vote-splitting, and so on.
I did bump up against the controversy over the Twitter & other social media sorts publicly taunting Elections Canada with their early reporting of results.
Interesting.
I was surprised the Board has no power to enforce the law unless someone lodges a complaint. I wonder if the complaint could be tweeted? ;-)
Here's the article I found in The Star.
Maybe I'm missing something (which is quite possible) but if results weren't reported anywhere until the polls close on the west coast, then there'd be nothing for Elections Canada to fret about.
Ah -- I wish I'd written this post, and your last one. You've got the facts, the analysis, and the opinion -- all in great language.
And as for why people don't vote, I keep thinking it isn't because they don't care but because they can't see that voting will make any difference. I'm one of those that sees the ones that don't vote as being against whoever is in power.
I guess that's the point, that mind reading is not a very good way to find out what people think. Not voting can be taken to mean a myriad of things. If the new majority takes it as an endorsement, it gives them quite a mandate. And who can say that they would be wrong.
Post a Comment