There are clear advantages to a proportional system. I think the one proposed by the Ontario citizens group that we here in Ontario are voting on, in a few weeks is one I think it better than the current system. They are proposing Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation.
It stops the practice of strategic voting and stops the wasted votes. It is it truly democratic to have someone who received 35% of the vote receiving 100% of the representation? If you have a 4 way race it may even be less than that.
Now I don't think anyone would suggest removing the directly elected MPs and system that are the hallmark of the First past the post system(FPTP). The MMP system merely tops this number up with MPs who come off party lists, in order to make the end result more equal to how voters actually voted.
Now you can vote for your local MP and vote his party, or even vote for the green party and have that vote count and matter.
Now you don't have to worry that voting for the NDP will lead to a conservative government. The system is designed to fix some elements of the FPTP that lead to small changes in voting leading to huge impacts on the results.
In the current system a small change of say 5% in the vote can lead to ridiculous swings in results.
Under MMP you also would be able to have representation from MPs you might not get under the current system. For example even though the Liberals have a stronghold in Toronto, under MMP you might be able to elect a conservative from TO. Or if taken federally, an NDP MP from Alberta (ok maybe it's a long shot).
Anyways I think putting together a new system is worth it. The entrance of new parties would have a refreshing impact on the political system, and hopefully on voter turnout.
Oh and that canard about having more MPs is wasteful, we're talking about making important decisions that affect all of us here, we shouldn't base our decision on how many MPs there are, but on which produces the best decisions.
September 29, 2007
September 09, 2007
More Naomi Klein
What an interesting book, it makes the explicit link between economic violence and actual violence, mostly at least to start in Latin America. It's well researched and I think shows that she has matured as a writer and as a critic of corporate power and modern capitalism (or as she and others have pointed out it's closer to corporatism.
Anyways it was with an eye to the her explosion of the idea that there is a direct and simple link between economic freedom and democracy, or the free market and democracy.
There are many many people who have taken issue with this tautology. It's funny how deep it seems to run in American discourse over the last 25 years. Anyways I saw another blatant example taken from Thomas Friedman's column today in the NYtimes.
"One way a country develops the software of liberty, Mr. Mandelbaum says, is by nurturing a free market. Kurdistan has one. The economy in the rest of Iraq remains a mess. “A market economy,” he argues, “gives people a stake in peace, as well as a constructive way of dealing with people who are strangers. Free markets teach the basic democratic practices of compromise and trust.”
What a bunch of crap. I can't believe anyone would actually believe this. The big elephant in the room of course is the example of China. Political repression exists and continues to exist, while the economic free market has taken hold since it's opening up in the 1970s.
I am shocked that anyone would continue to assert those kind of things in the face of such obvious evidence. There seem to be people who often complain about human rights in China and also speak about the economic miracle and the threat of Chinese growth, who cannot recognize the incompatibility of saying these things while mouthing the platitude "Free markets teach the basic democratic principles of compromise and trust".
This is what Naomi Klein explicitly links her in new book The Shock Doctrine. The anti-democratic nature (despite the rhetoric) of many of the interventions supported and promoted by the proponents of Friedmanism and Reganomics. I really do believe that this is the best contribution her thoroughly researched book provides.
Now I haven't finished the book but I am impressed, it's a pretty gruesome and disturbing portrait she paints. I am also curious to see what the reaction will be by her opponents. If it's anything like what i heard on the radio earlier this week, she has nothing to worry about.
Anyways it was with an eye to the her explosion of the idea that there is a direct and simple link between economic freedom and democracy, or the free market and democracy.
There are many many people who have taken issue with this tautology. It's funny how deep it seems to run in American discourse over the last 25 years. Anyways I saw another blatant example taken from Thomas Friedman's column today in the NYtimes.
"One way a country develops the software of liberty, Mr. Mandelbaum says, is by nurturing a free market. Kurdistan has one. The economy in the rest of Iraq remains a mess. “A market economy,” he argues, “gives people a stake in peace, as well as a constructive way of dealing with people who are strangers. Free markets teach the basic democratic practices of compromise and trust.”
What a bunch of crap. I can't believe anyone would actually believe this. The big elephant in the room of course is the example of China. Political repression exists and continues to exist, while the economic free market has taken hold since it's opening up in the 1970s.
I am shocked that anyone would continue to assert those kind of things in the face of such obvious evidence. There seem to be people who often complain about human rights in China and also speak about the economic miracle and the threat of Chinese growth, who cannot recognize the incompatibility of saying these things while mouthing the platitude "Free markets teach the basic democratic principles of compromise and trust".
This is what Naomi Klein explicitly links her in new book The Shock Doctrine. The anti-democratic nature (despite the rhetoric) of many of the interventions supported and promoted by the proponents of Friedmanism and Reganomics. I really do believe that this is the best contribution her thoroughly researched book provides.
Now I haven't finished the book but I am impressed, it's a pretty gruesome and disturbing portrait she paints. I am also curious to see what the reaction will be by her opponents. If it's anything like what i heard on the radio earlier this week, she has nothing to worry about.
September 07, 2007
Shock Doctrine
I can't wait to get into more of The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
I've listened to her interview on the CBC by the radio program the current (which can be found in two parts here.) She is quite articulate and I think a lot of her arguments have merit. She also recognizes the limits of some parts of her argument. When asked directly whether for example torture is required to implement the economic program her response was not directly. She did note however that in many of these countries violence was used to suppress dissent of the policies and that in many of the examples torture did occur. I think that gives credence and marks her out and somehow who has actually taken the time to really think through these issues. Now I may not end up agreeing with her, but it was in marked contrast to the tone of her critic (who was on the show. I'm sure there are more intelligent critiques of her book that will surface, I will also grant that she was given more time and that the expert brought in to criticize actually didn't have the same amount of time)
It was interesting also to note the criticisms of her critic on the show. He merely said she was a "conspiracy theorist " that her analysis lacked depth and that she conflated different arguments. He never really attacked the substance of her argument. He also jumped into random tangents and sidestepped the issues often. He ended up talking about random things about Iraq which didn't address really the question or Naomi Klein's argument.I thought that was the most fascinating part of the response part of the segment.
I have a feeling she will be attacked and dismissed, I just truly hope that people will actually take the time to read it rather than dismissing it out of hand. The connections she brings out are not necessarily new, but do provide a new platform and highlight the connections that remain between the economic fundamentalists of today and their predecessors and the impact they have had.
I've listened to her interview on the CBC by the radio program the current (which can be found in two parts here.) She is quite articulate and I think a lot of her arguments have merit. She also recognizes the limits of some parts of her argument. When asked directly whether for example torture is required to implement the economic program her response was not directly. She did note however that in many of these countries violence was used to suppress dissent of the policies and that in many of the examples torture did occur. I think that gives credence and marks her out and somehow who has actually taken the time to really think through these issues. Now I may not end up agreeing with her, but it was in marked contrast to the tone of her critic (who was on the show. I'm sure there are more intelligent critiques of her book that will surface, I will also grant that she was given more time and that the expert brought in to criticize actually didn't have the same amount of time)
It was interesting also to note the criticisms of her critic on the show. He merely said she was a "conspiracy theorist " that her analysis lacked depth and that she conflated different arguments. He never really attacked the substance of her argument. He also jumped into random tangents and sidestepped the issues often. He ended up talking about random things about Iraq which didn't address really the question or Naomi Klein's argument.I thought that was the most fascinating part of the response part of the segment.
I have a feeling she will be attacked and dismissed, I just truly hope that people will actually take the time to read it rather than dismissing it out of hand. The connections she brings out are not necessarily new, but do provide a new platform and highlight the connections that remain between the economic fundamentalists of today and their predecessors and the impact they have had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)