centre of the universe - the dreaming: Today is Tuesday

10/21/2008: "Today is Tuesday" Well, there seems to be a lot of folks saying that if you don't vote, you should relinquish other privileges we have as Canadian citizens. F'rinstance, if you don't vote, you shouldn't be eligible for subsidised health care or income tax returns - one friend suggested with-holding income tax returns and confiscating health cards for folks who don't vote. One friend suggested relinquishing state-sponsored education for children whose parents don't vote in provincial elections. Another said it should be mandatory to turn in your driver's license if you don't vote provincially. And if you don't vote in municipal elections? You'll be taking your own trash to the dump, bucko. Other people say the government should levy fines against you if you don't vote. I've heard a few people say now that we ought to have mandatory voting in Canada, like they do in Australia.

I'm not sure I like that idea, to be honest. I have Misgivings. Sure, chalk it up to the idea that cenobyte fears change (cenobyte doesn't fear change; cenobyte fears clowns) if you'd like. You'd be wrong, but go ahead.

Here are my misgivings: Voting is a right and it's a privilege in Canada. It's a little like free speech or freedom of expression. You have the right to vote, and you have the right *not to* vote. Because you have personal freedom in this country. While yes, it is vitally important that you have a part in determining the leadership of this country, and yes, you owe a debt of gratitude for every single Canadian who died fighting for the rights of Canadians ever, and yes, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. But still, when I look at the other rights we have in Canada, very, very few of them are actually *enforcable*.

You have the right to vote, and to hold public office. You have the right to enter and leave Canada at will. And you have the right to move around within Canada as much as you'd like. You have the right to life, liberty, and security; you have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. You have the right not to be arbitrarily detained...actually, you have a veritable *crapload* of legal rights, and you should learn and know them all. You have the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability (so I guess technically you're hooped if you're being discriminated against based on sexual preference. But that's a different post). If you don't know your rights, you should go here and hone up on them.

So let's just think for a moment about some of these other rights and how it would be if the government made them mandatory actions. What if it was required, as a Citizen of Canada, for you to leave the country, at your own expense, at least once a year? Does that make sense? Or how about if, every time you get a new job, it's required for you to do so in another province? Actually, both of those sound kind of fun, but damnit, they're not supposed to! The whole point here is that *rights* should not be forced upon you. When you are arrested, you have the right to legal counsel. That doesn't mean you have to accept it. It's idiotic not to (and I'm not saying I agree with folks who choose not to vote, either; I think it's idiotic not to), but if you really really don't want a bona fide law school graduate defending your good name, then by all means, defend yourself.

You can't *force* rights on someone. Rights are permissions. They are entitlements. But just because I give my kids *permission* to ride their bikes, that doesn't mean I'm going to force them to do so.

Look, I don't like it that 40+% of Canadians didn't vote. I think that, whatever their reasons, they are part of the problem. But I also don't support the idea of mandatory voting. I have some other concerns as well (does the guy whose name is highest on the ballot in jurisdictions with mandatory voting get elected more? How many of the people who live in jurisdictions with mandatory voting actually cast *informed* ballots?), but the big one is that one of the freedoms I respect most highly in this country is the freedom of expression/freedom of speech. And, as I've said before when I've quoted Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".

I disapprove of and don't agree with your decision not to vote, but that is your right as a Canadian citizen, and if that's the way you choose to express yourself on voting day, that's your right. Of course, for all the people who just couldn't be bothered to go vote, I have no respect.

"" "US Political campaign as a D&D campaign"

23 Comments

BPM IV , on Tuesday, 21st October:

So, instead of punishing people for voting (the whip), why not offer an incentive (a carrot). Just off the top of my head, let's start by offering the favorite of incentives - tax breaks. Vote federally - !5 reduction for you. Vote provincially, that's another 1%. Finally, for the municipal elections (where turnout is almost always staggeringly low) - another 1% of your property tax bill. Or a tax credit if you don't own property.

I think you'd see voting shoot way up as people look to cut their tax bill.

The Ms. S , on Tuesday, 21st October:

Well put.

Not voting is a terrible waste. I might want to kick someone's can because they don't but that's not how it works. We can discuss all we want about what we need to do to engage the electorate, but force is not one of the options in our democracy.

This raises a related issue I've been thinking about. It's when I hear people who DO vote lament about

The Ms. S , on Tuesday, 21st October:

Try again here to get all the text in...

Well put.

Not voting is a terrible waste. I might want to kick someone's can because they don't but that's not how it works. We can discuss all we want about what we need to do to engage the electorate, but force is not one of the options in our democracy.

This raises a related issue I've been thinking about. It's when I hear people who DO vote lament about "what is it they should be doing to get others out to vote."
Is it really anyone else's responsibility to get people out voting? I know it's hard to leave people alone and let them do what they want even when we believe it to be wrong. We want to act in their best interests. We want to show them the error of their ways. It's in our nature. It's hard to step back. But, maybe, just giving them the best available information is all we should be doing.

I know this idea goes against the fundamental core of all activism in that it says we should let people be to make up their own minds with the best information available. But I'm not sure where the line in the sand is between telling people what they should and shouldn't be doing or thinking.

I think at some point, autonomy and self-determination should be the deciding factors - in our society, at least.

Coyote , on Tuesday, 21st October:

I'm a broken record, I know. But, because so many people say 'No that can't be right' and it is I'm going to keep repeating it. Me, my daughters, and every other Status Indian out there do not enjoy the totality of those rights that everyone else enjoys. You're right, if someone fires me from a job for being a First Nations person I am protected, but if INAC makes a rule stating that I cannot work in ... say the legal sector, or as an educator, then that is acceptible.

I'd also like to point out that these decrees of INAC are not laws, cannot be challenged in a legal manner, and are not subject to MP review. They can just do it cuz they wanna.

There is a lot of information about the renegotiation of Treaties and that it's the First Nations people who keep trying to stop the abolishment of them, and that is true, but there is also a large group of people within government that don't want to see the Treaties abolished because of this exact reason. Would you want to give up totalitarian power over an entire race of people? Thought not.

To get back to the main thrust of this post, one of the reasons I take my right ot vote so seriously is for the exact reason I've stated above. It can be taken away from me at any moment. Not only that but I've many Great Uncles who served in WWII with the promise of land, those promises broken and they didn't even get to vote until 1962.

I like the Australian system. Because on top of voting being a right and a priviliage it is also a DUTY. Every single person out there is responsible for the past, present, and future of this country and to whip out a quote from a class "For evil to triumph it only takes good men to do nothing." The more I see the way Harper acts, the more I have to say he's evil. He uses fear (ooooh young kids get off easy, if we don't start punishing them like adults they'll all come kill you! Oooooh the economy could crash at any time! Hey folks, take a gander back the past 100 years, we hit a depression and guess who was in power before it happened? The Conservatives) and deception to enforce his party's will upon an electorate that didn't want him to have all the power. Hell we gave him the key to start the car, but we certainly didn't give him the one to unlock the doors! Course someone out there left the window open so he could crawl in. His party has shown a gross lack of concern for our citizens in both domestic (Listeria anyone?) and foreign affairs (C'mon dude, the kid is fifteen and getting torture in Guantanamo Bay, get off your ass and get him home, and put him in a LEGAL trial, or hand him over to the international courts, but don't let him stay there!) He has PROMISED to break the laws and constitution of our country in regards to the abolishment of the Wheat Board. And let's not forget his election law that he broke. For twelve bucks I should've at least got a burger and fries or something at the voting booth.

If Canada were to be invaded by an outside nation, we would start conscription, and this would be your duty as a Canadian to go kill the invaders, and I would consider it the duty of those citizens not in the military to resist the invaders at every step, I to expect all citizens to vote, as it is their DUTY to help shape this country.

But that's my own wacky mind.

Coyote , on Tuesday, 21st October:

I also can't type for crap today. That's what I get for not sleeping or eating well and stressing too much lately. Forgive typos. Ooooh almost made another one. :)

Parmeisan , on Tuesday, 21st October:

Of the people that I know who didn't vote, 4/5 of them gave the reason that there wasn't anybody to vote *for*. The other one just moved and I guess he wasn't sure which riding he was in, or didn't want to bother getting changed to the right one. Now maybe some of those 4 people were really just lazy and didn't want to admit it (and when I talked to them I tried to explain how a vote for the underdog - in most cases here in Regina, the Green party - would be a vote against the status quo, and they should at least do that) but they all said they just felt completely disenchanted with the system and that anybody that got elected would be equally bad (I also tried to convince them that Harper was worse than the others) and break all their election promises and so they couldn't bring themselves to care. They didn't want to be a party to electing "the lesser of X evils".

Now what this says to me is that instead of trying to convince people they should vote by forcing them, or talking to them, or what-have-you, what needs to happen is for the parties to take notice and clean up their acts. Stop breaking all their promises - or rather, stop making promises that they have no intention of keeping. Do positive things for Canada. *Engage* the people.

On an entirely different note, Paul and I have discussed it, and if we ever found a country, we will set up a randomly-ordered, computer-graded set of 10 questions attached to every ballot. They will range from simple to in-depth, cover every running party, and be drawn from a set of information about the parties, their current platforms, and 10-year history that has been collected and is available at an official website, in free pamphlets, and at several free seminars across the country pre-election. Each vote will then be weighted by the number of questions that are correct - yes, all the way from 0 to 10.

I think that people, and yes, even politicians, are getting tired of the fact that honest politicians never do well. You pretty much *have* to lie in order to get voted in with the current system, because so few of those who vote are really informed, or care to be informed, about the parties or their platforms. They want to hear about tax breaks and they certainly *don't* want to hear about unfortunate but sometimes necessary things like *raising* taxes in order to put money into helping the environment, or closing hospitals because there's no money to run them, and doctors in remote areas can't help with as many problems anyway, especially if they don't have the right equipment, and giving them the right equipment is awfully expensive. I'm getting a little off the point here, but there's balance in everything and the politicians are afraid of the truth, because the truth gets the other parties elected, and so sometimes things just don't get done until it's too late.

*sigh*

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled Cenobyte...

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 21st October:

BPM-IV, I completely agree. You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar and all that. Uh. Not that Canadian people are flies...but...well, okay, you know what I mean.

Parmeisan, the difficulty I see with your idea is that handing out pamphlets and/or having a series of 10 questions on the ballot is extremely dangerous. Sure, when you set it up, you might mandate that this sort of program must be used in a non-partisan way simply to inform voters. But there's really no way to ensure that this wouldn't become last-minute campaigning or, in the worst case scenario, racketeering. Plus, once you start doing vote-weighting, you're getting into some pretty deep and scary territory. Why should my vote count more because I'm an informed voter versus the woman who lives next door who's voting along party lines?

Coyote: I'm not convinced Harper broke any election laws. The amendments to the Elections Act lay out when general elections *must* be called, but they don't specifically dictate when they *can not* be called.

melistress , on Tuesday, 21st October:

But you see, it is precisely because Canadians enjoy certain rights and freedoms that the vote should be enforced. How else can we be expected to maintain those rights? For example, gay people were given the right to marry in our country, yet the current party in minority power gave a token attempt to take those rights away. I think that mandatory voting - 10 minutes in a polling station every four years when the election laws aren't broken, is a rather small price to pay for the other enormous freedoms we do enjoy. Right now, there is no guarantee that the people who do vote are informed. My own prejudices have me feeling obviously not.

I would like to see the fines. I would also like to see evidence of how the compulsory system in Australia has hurt the Australian election system. They are a country not entirely dissimilar to ours and they are a democracy. Who are we to say that they are less democratic than we are because they have to pay a small price in the form of duty for that democracy?

And, yes, Coyote is right, those rights and freedoms in our country still don't apply universally.

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 21st October:

Uh. Just for the record, I didn't say or even hint that I thought Australia's electoral system has hurt their country or their parliamentary system. A democratic parliamentary system is different from other systems of democracy, such as a senatorial system. I don't know why I mention that except that it just leapt into my head.

My point is that I think it's wrong to fine people for not exercising their privilege or their right. I don't want to be fined if I choose to allow the police to do a search and seizure of my property (in other words, if I give up my right not to have a search and seizure performed). I don't want to be fined if I'm teaching in Japan and not about to drive four hours to the polling station to fill out a ballot for the Canadian election thousands of kilometres away. Fines are not the answer...besides, chances are good you'll just be fining already poverty-stricken people who can't afford groceries, much less a fine for not voting. Offer incentives, and enervate the campaign and electoral process and you'll see an increase in voter participation. Most of the people who choose to vote, I'll wager a bet, are the people for whom the outcome of the election is directly tied to the size of their tax bill - those who pay more taxes probably have more interest in the outcome of the election. I don't know that for sure, but I'm guessing.

Besides, how do you know that any of the people who didn't vote actually *care* about the rights of Canadians other than themselves. If I don't care enough about who runs my country to actually go vote, then why the hell should I care if gay people are allowed to marry one another? Or whether Canada does a coitus interuuptus with Afghanistan? Or anything else? But if I'm offered a couple of hundred dollars to go vote, or a 5% break on my income tax (whichever is greater), I might just go do that, provided the incentive covers my bus fare/taxi fee/gas cost to get to the polling station.

I only mention informed votes because I'm wondering if and how mandatory voting skews the actual elections - do more people edumacate themselves on the candidates and their parties (with 108 candidates in a riding, that would be difficult...an anecdote I got from a friend of mine that one of the Aussie polls had 108 candidates on it) in Australia than in Canada? Does it make a difference? I don't know.

My whole point is that Canada does *not* have mandatory voting, and I think that's a good thing. Voting is a right...a permission...and nobody should *force* you to exercise your rights. F'rinstance, I have the right to free speech, and I can call anybody I want a scummy douchebag. You also have the right to choose not to listen to my specious arguments. But what if listening to my specious arguments was mandatory? That would make life unbearable for some.

Deon , on Tuesday, 21st October:

If you give them information and choice, they will come...

At least that's what I'm hoping.

turk182 , on Tuesday, 21st October:

Less talk more action.

Coyote , on Tuesday, 21st October:

Here's a wacky point I read a while back and I can't remember where so I can't give credit where credit is due, so just for reference this is NOT my idea. I did no research on it, but the report I watched (I wanna think it was on Newsworld) was quite complete.

Low voter turnout benefits the party in power. It is in the best interest of incumbent governments to screw the taxpayer and not to honour their promises because it ensures that they will retain their power. It is also in their best interest to not campaign on any issue in this case, but instead to knock their opponents abilities and make all the choices look equally bad.

Reduced voter turnout also means less funding to the parties not in power, which again benefits the party in power. By disillusioning the electorate the incumbent is in a better position to retain their seat, and thus political power. This is a fine line that can be crossed. They even used a local politician a while back who crossed too many lines, that being Larry Schnieder (our former mayor of the city that rhymes with fun) who got voted out after a series of votes (including the GST one) that went contrary to what his electorate vocally objected to.

So we're unfortunately in a really tough bind. If it's not worth it to the incumbents to do what we want them to, it's not worth it to try to change the system (according to most that don't vote) so what do we do?

I've said it before, so I'll say it again. FUCKING BOMBS PEOPLE! WHO'S WITH ME?! Let's blow up some stuff, that'll make some changes! :)

Coyote , on Tuesday, 21st October:

WOW! That's it, I'm not typing no more, I need to go to sleep. Correct the spelling for me woulja Ceno? :)

melistress , on Wednesday, 22nd October:

I knew that my comment about the Australians was going to come off that way...but I had already pushed the post button. I wasn't accusing you of that, I am just concerned that we are saying that fines for voting is undemocratic when a democratic country is using the system as successfully as it can be used, considering the apathetic vote is likely and "If all else fails, pick 'c'" sort of situation.

As far as rewards for voting, what would concern me there, especially with tying it to your tax return, is that our country has a partisan system. There are no independants with candidates for Prime Minister. Should a party in power bring in rewards for voting, you can bet that for the rest of time they will hold that over voters heads and it would be a lot like vote buying. "We rewarded you for voting so you had better vote for us." That is more likely to skew the results than uninformed voters just marking ANYTHING on their ballots.

For me, the bottom line is that we have the rights we do because we have the right to vote. I don't think it should be a right in a democratic system but a duty in order to maintain that democratic system. I don't care how someone votes, so long as they vote based on their own values for our country. That we care about others in our country is what makes this country great.

The Ms. S , on Wednesday, 22nd October:

Melistress, you bring up an interesting point in defining the difference between "right" and "duty". As long as it is a "right" then we all need to back off and let the apathetic wallow in thier own whiny world view of being the victim of a system that doesn't allow their vote to matter. If we made it a "duty" - and the difference between those two words is profound - then there would be options, similiar to "conscription" to the army in your duty to protect your country. But do we want to go there? I'm not sure I want my country to go down that path. I guess I will just put up with the whiners.

melistress , on Wednesday, 22nd October:

The Ms. S

Although conscription is an interesting comparison in that, in our country we also have the right to life, but at any point the government may be able to require that we risk it for our country. However, I also think that the comparison is terrible in that being required to risk our lives is a much heftier price to pay for our democracy than a minimal fine for not voting.

Interestingly enough, our country doesn't currently practice conscription, but our votes are what keeps it that way. Maybe the non-voters should be the first ones to face conscription should it ever happen, since they don't really care? ;-)

Coyote , on Wednesday, 22nd October:

I would equate the importance of my vote to that of giving my life for my country.

We voted in a PC government that pulled testing at a meat plant that just a few months later produced an outbreak of listeria that killed people.

All to save a few tax dollars.

We have a government that won't protect it's citizens when they are illegally being tortured.

Because George would be pissed if we did. (I use George to represent the US government in total, not just the one idiot)

We want to punish our children like adults, because they commit crimes. A child committing a crime is most likely suffering from a lot of other issues besides that crime.

Because we're scared.

We have a government that is breaking their own laws and constitution to force their policy on an electorate that didn't give them the authority to even make a law without general consensus from other parties. It might be the Wheat Board today, but what other group of people or individual will suffer for their arrogance.

And we let it happen because it's not us.

Both side of my family have given their lives and well being to fight for the rights I enjoy, and while we may all want to argue the various points between if these things should be defined as right or duty, I'm going to treat it like a duty. It is my duty to vote. It is my duty to fight for all the people of this place, Regina to Saskatchewan to Canada, that I call home, and it is also my right to look at every lazy ass shithead who doesn't vote and say 'You waste of space, get up and do it!' But that is me. ;)

I have an inbetween solution. I don't like the idea of tax breaks, or fines. Either make me a little leary to be quite honest. (Notice, my view vs. what I expect others to do, wouldn't complain if we were all forced to vote, but I'm not entirely sold on it, like it but don't love it, y'know?) Right now all those wonderful tax benefits we get like GST credit, Child Tax benefit, so on, are tied to our income tax. And our government registers us to vote off of these things. Here's my change.

You register. You register to vote every year, and you vote in all elections. You don't vote, those things are cut off. You don't register you don't even get put in for those things. The instant you vote, boom, back come the cheques, including the ones you missed while you weren't registered. No one is losing anything, but you don't get to benefit from it until you participate in the process.

It's a carrot, with a stick. That can probably also whip..... ooh multifunctional!

Dayum.... I think I had a profound thought there.

platypusnboots@gmail.com , on Wednesday, 22nd October:

Mandatory voting. I like it. Make a holiday of it. Vote Day. Everyone lines up, you vote and then you get pancakes with maple syrup and then there is fireworks in the evening once the votes are counted.
Yeah!

My dirty admission - I didn't vote. I just moved twice within six months, I worked that day and I had no idea where it is I should be going to vote and there was a good % chance I'd get lost trying to find it. Also, not registered. See moved 2x in six months.
If I had made some effort, yes I could have voted. This is the first election I haven't voted in. I do plan on voting in the next one.

If it had been Vote Day? No question I would have been in line at the poles and salivating for my pancakes.
mmmm pancakes - far more of an incentive than either tax credits, fines or benefits.

Parmeisan , on Wednesday, 22nd October:

Hm, I guess even if we created a group of people whose job it was to make things even and fair, things might end up being swayed one way or the other. I'll see if Paul has an idea about that.

Re: Vote weighting. I take your point... but I'm not so sure why my vote should necessarily be *equal* to the woman next door voting along party lines, either. I'm not saying that you and she aren't equal as human beings, but rather that *as long as she doesn't take the time to be aware of her choices before voting along party lines* her vote should be less. By all means she should feel free to vote for her party - but if she educates herself first, that vote would count for more. I don't see why not. If educating herself changes her opinion, fine; if it doesn't, fine. And if either you or she wants to go to the polls one year without taking the time to learn, then fine - odds are your vote would still be 3 or 4 or even more if you're paying any attention at all to the election, or have paid attention in the past.

Re: duty to vote, I don't think it should be. I, too, reserve my right to rag on the people who don't do it, but I don't think it should be required. Especially if each vote for a party means money in their pocket. A person should (IMO) have a right to say, "Thanks, but no thanks, I don't like any of you."

Der Kaptin , on Wednesday, 22nd October:

I've often thought that there should be a spot on the ballot where people could indicate that they DID come out to vote, but didn't want to vote for anyone who was on the ballot. If this is a democracy, and nearly half the people aren't voting, what does that tell you? That the democratic system we are currently employing isn't working. The party that came up with a platform for which all those non-voters would vote, would have the majority. There has to be electoral reform, and there has to be political party reform, so people feel like getting involved would make a difference.

As it is, the non-Conpoops are ticked off at those who didn't vote, because they think that if those wankers had voted, the Cons would be where they belong, which is back under their rock. And the Cons are ticked off at those who didn't vote, because they contribute to the current situation, which is that ONLY 22% OF CANADIANS THINK THE CONS SHOULD BE GOVERNING. Face it, it's a stupid situation.

But force people to vote? Penalize them for not voting? That's goofy. Think of something else.

Paul , on Wednesday, 22nd October:

The thing is people vote for whoever's got the slickest line. The lady I'm renting from in Saskatoon has a radio on in her kitchen at all times, and so during breakfast I hear people call in to discuss politics, local issues, etc, and the ignorance of some people is disturbing. They seem to honestly believe that the simplest answers and the prettiest lies are the way forward. Recession? I'm not some rich jackass playing the stock market, it can't hurt me. Serves those rich jackasses right. Energy crisis? Gas wouldn't cost so much if we could just get rid of wimpy hippies like Dion. Red light cameras? A horrible transgression against my rights! Cyclist killed by reckless driving? Somebody should exert some goddamned control over the traffic in this city! How come no one's doing anything!?

Whatever the problem is, it's the fault of the easiest target, and anyone who wants to stay their hand and examine the problem before committing to a course of action is some wimpy hippie that doesn't have the fortitude to deal with it.

That's why our politicians lie to us. Because people have got no interest in the truth. As far as the average person in Saskatchewan vocal enough to call in to a radio show is concerned objective reality can go fuck itself. The people who have the intelligence and motivation to try and seize political office usually pitch to that because they know they'll fail miserably if they don't.

If the weight of your vote were directly proportional to how much you actually know what was going on all that would either stop happening or stop mattering. Perhaps my moral system is a little off-center from everyone else's but if you're willing to vote for the slickest line it doesn't matter if your vote stops counting. I don't care if people who've decided not to have a voice don't get heard. If people have a problem with a less weighty vote they could change that any time they like.

Unfortunately the whole process would pretty much have to be administered and enforced by a vigilant and uncorruptable robot.

the_iron_troll , on Friday, 24th October:

I completely and totally agree with Parmesian and Paul. We've had some good discussions about other ways to make this work - like having a good mark in a Critical Thinking class necessary to vote (with classes offered yearly for those long past school) - and the simplicity of a test with your ballot appeals to me.

the_iron_troll , on Friday, 24th October:

I strongly believe in what Psychology has taught me about situations like this: positive reinforcement is more powerful than negative reinforcement. In layman's terms, a carrot is more powerful than a whip.

What we really need a system that people feel they can actually affect. Most of the people who actually went out and voted feel they threw their vote away. There was a carrot for me in voting, but that's because I actually had someone worth voting for. How many Canadians can say that?

I wonder if a complete restructuring of our voting system would help. It would be nice to have some kind of proportional representation - with the exception of the United States and the United Kingdom, everyone else has moved past representational government. Maybe we can learn from their progression. It seems somewhat self-righteous of ourselves to assume that we're doing it right when the rest of the world and OUR OWN CITIZENS seem to disagree.

Of course, the stipulation on this is that such a system actually work. I don't mind if it can't do that much, because I personally like the idea of smaller government. But I don't think we want 100 different parties all with MPs and competing agendas. That seems like a recipe for wasted time to me. Maybe have some seats proportional and some representational? And decide which ridings are representational by lottery?

I don't know what should be done. But I'm not happy with the way it is now.

distractions