Those Who Govern Us Must Remain Accountable To Us

Those Who Govern Us
Must Remain Accountable To Us

Edmonton - December 3, 2002 - by: Ron Thornton

parties not people
We no longer have humans representing us, we have political parties. This is unfortunate, as only humans can think, can act, can be held accountable or responsible for their actions in government. A political party is nothing more than a concept, a screen to hide behind, a nothing. Then again, maybe this goes a long way in explaining why so many of us feel short changed by those, or the it, that governs us.

proportional representation
The Centre for Research and Information on Canada figures we might be best served by embracing a system of proportional representation, where we only vote for the party instead of the person. In this fashion, a party that wins 20% of the vote wins 20% of the seats. The trouble is, none of the new parliamentarians are of your choosing, but entirely the prerogative of the party leadership. The leader usually tops the preference list they put forward, with his cronies next in line. The last guy on the list doesn't have a hope at being "elected" unless the party sweeps 100% of the vote.

trained seals
Our present system came about before political parties hijacked the process, where people actually elected the best person to represent them. If they failed you, you turfed them. It was that simple. Over the years, the system evolved, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. Most adults now have the option of voting and the Prime Minister is the choice of a majority of his peers and not the favorite of the monarch, for example. Trouble is, those who are supposed to represent us now act like trained seals for their political master. Imagine what it would be like when their fate is entirely tied to their party's fortunes and their relationship with the party leadership. Your opinions would matter even less.

need for alternative
While it is repugnant to think of a vote for the person one truly believes in is ever "wasted", there seems little tangible reward for supporting those with no hope of victory. However, there must be alternative solutions than merely turning to a volatile, weak, unstable form of government that is totally controlled by party leaders with no accountability to the general public. In fact, many believe we are already dangerously close to making that the reality. If we wish to give more meaning to every vote, one solution could be to recognize electoral support financially, based on the outcome in each constituency. We already refund a portion of campaign expenses now, so why not base such refunds on actual performance? For example, if a candidate wins 20% of the vote then their organization should receive 20% of all monies refundable in that constituency. If those who spend big fail to win big, they also end up subsidizing those who showed more results for the money spent. While there can be only one representative elected, thus only one winner, such a proposal would add more importance and meaning to the electoral support of each candidate.

accountability
Our system of government leaves much to be desired and is ripe for reform. However, in considering the solutions we must ensure that each individual who governs us remains accountable and responsible to us. In other words, while we can encourage them to run we should never allow them to hide.

Ron Thornton

References:

A response to a National Post by Joan Bryden, posted January 2, 2002, National Post.


Those Who Govern Us Must Remain Accountable To Us
Edmonton - December 3, 2002 - by: Ron Thornton

`parties not people`	We no longer have humans representing us, we have political parties. This is unfortunate, as only humans can think, can act, can be held accountable or responsible for their actions in government. A political party is nothing more than a concept, a screen to hide behind, a nothing. Then again, maybe this goes a long way in explaining why so many of us feel short changed by those, or the it, that governs us.

`proportional representation`	The Centre for Research and Information on Canada figures we might be best served by embracing a system of proportional representation, where we only vote for the party instead of the person. In this fashion, a party that wins 20% of the vote wins 20% of the seats. The trouble is, none of the new parliamentarians are of your choosing, but entirely the prerogative of the party leadership. The leader usually tops the preference list they put forward, with his cronies next in line. The last guy on the list doesn't have a hope at being "elected" unless the party sweeps 100% of the vote.

`trained seals`	Our present system came about before political parties hijacked the process, where people actually elected the best person to represent them. If they failed you, you turfed them. It was that simple. Over the years, the system evolved, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. Most adults now have the option of voting and the Prime Minister is the choice of a majority of his peers and not the favorite of the monarch, for example. Trouble is, those who are supposed to represent us now act like trained seals for their political master. Imagine what it would be like when their fate is entirely tied to their party's fortunes and their relationship with the party leadership. Your opinions would matter even less.

`need for alternative`	While it is repugnant to think of a vote for the person one truly believes in is ever "wasted", there seems little tangible reward for supporting those with no hope of victory. However, there must be alternative solutions than merely turning to a volatile, weak, unstable form of government that is totally controlled by party leaders with no accountability to the general public. In fact, many believe we are already dangerously close to making that the reality. If we wish to give more meaning to every vote, one solution could be to recognize electoral support financially, based on the outcome in each constituency. We already refund a portion of campaign expenses now, so why not base such refunds on actual performance? For example, if a candidate wins 20% of the vote then their organization should receive 20% of all monies refundable in that constituency. If those who spend big fail to win big, they also end up subsidizing those who showed more results for the money spent. While there can be only one representative elected, thus only one winner, such a proposal would add more importance and meaning to the electoral support of each candidate.

`accountability`	Our system of government leaves much to be desired and is ripe for reform. However, in considering the solutions we must ensure that each individual who governs us remains accountable and responsible to us. In other words, while we can encourage them to run we should never allow them to hide.

	Ron Thornton

*References:*
	A response to a National Post by Joan Bryden, posted January 2, 2002, National Post.