Skip to main content

Andrew Coyne gets Religion

Political Zealotry No sooner do I post about British Columbia's Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform than Andrew Coyne from the National Post runs a long column on the topic. Unlike me, he rasphodizes about it (no surprise). The process is, he says:
One of those rare, inspiring moments when democracy bursts out of the pens the political class have built around it [and] the people's voice is actually heard.
I don't mind Coyne -often he's interesting and thoughtful - but there are times when his pointy head screams for some rounding. This is such an occasion. The Warmup Let's start by exploding the concept of 'the people.' It does not exist. It is a fiction, created by the political class, i.e. by people like Coyne himself. It gives them something easy to write about. Arguing that countries with Proportional Representation have a better political track record than those using Westminster style government is hard. And that is why no one does it. It's much easier to get all gassy about 'the people,' which can be defined as anything, allowing you to say anything about it. The people won't be giving exclusive interviews the next morning, saying their words were taken out of context. There's a reason, you know, why pollsters don't print results saying that the people think X for a reason. It's because there are always people who don't think X, and they are people too. This is merely the warmup, however. Coyne could say any darn thing about 'the people' any darn time, so why is he so happy now? The Pitch This is what has Coyne and so many others very excited:
The result... would be a legislature in which the parties were represented more nearly in line with their support in the electorate at large. If a party has 40% of the vote, it should have something close to 40% of the seats, rather than the two thirds or more typical of the present system.
Ok, so at first glance this does not seem unreasonable, except that simply we have to ask, why this idea should be so important: 40% of the vote equals approx. 40% of the seats. What is so magical about that? Why does it appear to Coyne and others as some kind of holy grail, the attractiveness of which is so obvious that it does not even need to be explained? Why does an idea taken on nothing but faith have such appeal for an atheist like Coyne? I'll tell you what I think. Pointy heads like it. It has a kind of pointy headed symmetry. They think it means more "voices" will be "heard," that it will "listen" to the downtrodden, and that it might even make the lion lay down with the lamb. From where I stand, what people in weak social positions need is good stable government and as much opportunity and encouragement as possible. Coalitions are inherently unstable and they allow the smaller party more power than voters gave them, because the small party holds the make or break position. A frequent rotation of coalition governments would create legal and economic chaos, as laws are created and modified and broken willy nilly by different groups attempting to stay on top of the dogpile. So much for helping the downtrodden. I fail to see how encouraging minority governments and collations among political zealots will do anything at all for them. A Home Run The real reason the political class likes Proportional Representation is that it means they don't have to get their hands dirty through the process of compromise that takes place within a larger party, which then has to take responsibility for a compromised course. The political class can then cling to ideological purity and when something blows up, blame it on compromises that were made to keep the coalition alive. This mix of power and irresponsibility will only further ramp up their desire to be ideologically insular and withdrawn. Consider that if the United States did not have an Electoral College, we would witnessing Al Gore's response to 9/11. The college acts to mitigate against the fact that large numbers of voters live in urban areas and it would be unfair to allow them to control what happens in rural areas simply because there are more of them. Locality counts, as proximity to an issue makes you a better steward of it. Locality also means community and cohesion. PR would allow extreme views, views that no community accepts, to band together irrespective of location. It reminds me of how kiddie porn flows through the internet, come to think of it. If it is peace, order and good government you seek, the current 'first past the post' system has a very good track record delivering stable majorities and there is no reason to meddle with it. If, however, your political leaning is also you church, well, then anything at all that will keep you from mixing with the heathens will be sought out with great determination.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi