Do Elections Guarantee Mandates?

Many politicians have claimed to have a mandate to execute various policies.  What does a "mandate" mean?  My opinion is that a true mandate means they have been enabled by the will of the people to execute particular acts. 

Elections do determine the candidate winners who get to take decisions on your behalf.  If you actually voted for the winner you can be happy your vote helped.  If you didn't you could have stayed home.  At least that is what our current First Past The Post system offers.

In practice many politicians are claiming mandates with less than 50% of actual voters (and even lower among all eligible voters).  In practice many do not vote, not only because of apathy, but with the feeling that their vote would not make a difference.  It would not give anyone power or would not be needed.

 It is true that one powerful person can get more done than any collective, but question whether it is in the best interest of everyone.  No one person really understands the concerns of everyone and many of them seem and are very unreasonable.

Strategic voting in effect means not voting for a candidate or policies, but against.  In effect the voter chooses their second or third preference.  In a small way that is also a distortion of the will of the people. 

Candidates usually lay out their priorities during the election campaign.  If nobody gets a mandate, what next?  Compromise and persuasion.  The will of the people:   One could also say that non voters have failed to give their blessing or not?    In reality there are more than one option for most issues, but if one possibility cannot gain a plurality it is easily ignored by those set on a different path.

Voters seem to accept a candidate with less than 50% making laws that are not desired by over 50% of the voters and nobody is sure about the non voters.  At some point this could cause a rebellion.

The idea behind Proportional Representation is that every vote counts for something.  If no candidate reaches 50% of the vote there is apt to be an overlap of interests and a willingness to make compromises.  In these negotiations the elected official demonstrate their respect for the voters.

There are many variations of proportional representation, but the basic idea is that every vote counts towards a a set of party policies.  The voter chooses the candidate or party that best reflects what they believe is in their best interests (including beyond their local concerns).  No need for strategic voting.

Why isn't Canada  trying to implement a proportional representation system?  One big reason is that politicians with power are satisfied with the current system that gave them their power.  Many of them did not require a majority, only a plurality.  They could concentrate their efforts with specific voters who form enough support to win a plurality.  On a national scale large segments can be ignored or at least receive less attention.  With a proportional system a candidate can build many groups and avoid neglecting many who might be persuaded.  When the election is decided in order to get anything done it is necessary to negotiate with others and usually considering many different viewpoints.  The necessity to negotiate encourages civilized discourse.

I would be the first to agree that the majority is not always right.  The goal of anyone who wants to advocate an unpopular idea is to build up support.  Examples include seat belts, smoking, climate change, anti racial and homosexual restrictions, etc..  In some cases we have reached majority support amongst voters, but the First Past the Post system still slows down the will of the people.

The American Primary Debates

Unlike in Canada the Americans really stretch out an election campaign, specifically the Presidential election.  As soon as one election is resolved organization begins for the next election four years later.  The situation intensifies two years in, especially after the midterms.  Although my bias is for the Democrats I feel there are concerns that bode ill for any political aspirant and for the voters.

By itself this is an expensive proposition which automatically eliminates many prospects.  It also encourages a lot of investigative efforts to uncover any flaws in a particular candidate including their families also discouraging for some worthy prospects  It is good business for media and marketing people.  A number of candidates are able to neglect their jobs in the pursuit of a higher office.  It rewards those who are best able to leap through all the hoops, but not necessarily the best candidates.

My great fear is that the Democrats are conceding too great a broadcast platform to the Repubicans.  A lot of speculation that as part of a pro Hilary Clinton campaign they are limiting the number of debates and making them at unpopular awkward times.  Hilary has hard to beat name recognition value.  The only other two left are Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, both capable men who would benefit from greater exposure.  A celebrity once said you can say anything you want about me, but spell my name right.

The last time around the Republicans did hurt themselves with a long drawn out campaign that seemed to force candidates to out yell and out threaten each other.  They have cut down the number of debates, but started with a longer list of candidates and were forced to do outrageous things to get attention.  In reality they have to appeal to a difficult to please base before they argue their merits in front of all the voters.

Getting our attention is the goal of every aspiring politician.  The debates are only one forum for this, but potentially a very good opportunity for the voter to understand their choices better.  But it is not quite as clear cut as it seems.  Squeezing in time for a large number of egoists is difficult for a media who sees this as an opportunity to boost their advertising revenue.

When I list the issues, it is perilous to ignore any of them and they are all inter-related.

I agree inequality is fundamental.  The Republicans keep proving their loyalty is to their donor base Those at the top get to decide for the rest of us.  They seem focused on allowing freedom to exploit those not fortunate enough to have more power.  Opportunities are restricted from birth and there is no painless way to alleviate that.  The government has power to facilitate the optimal mix, but they are too often beholden to special interests before even tackling the difficult choices.

Climate change, an issue critical for our future in some ways illustrates the inequality.  Those who  are entrenched with fossil fuel resources feel threatened.  I am sure some are learning to hedge their bets, but know clearly that when the consumption and price of oil goes down so does their fortune and their power.  It seems amazing that many voters prefer the opinions of those with vested interests over relatively neutral and earnest scientists, but that is still reality.

International instability is a very complex issue.  First one has to accept that no one nation, not even an exceptional one like America, really controls the rest of the world.  The international players are  threatened by inequality, climate change and ignorance of each other.  The Republicans scoff at the idea that climate change has anything to do with national security.  Many of them are intelligent enough, but more concerned about maintaining their own  power.

Campaign finance affects everything else.  Getting your voice heard costs money and with a long campaign, money becomes an even bigger issue.  A major concern of every elected politician is to get re-elected.  Raising the necessary money now takes up more of their time and ties their options.  They used to spend time sorting out the factors of decisions they were elected to make and to discuss with other perspectives.  Billions are being spent to sway your vote, not necessarily for your best interests.

Human rights are too often a wedge issue.  If the majority is prejudiced against a group they feel it is their right to discriminate and ignore the merits.  In some ways this is an inequality issue, but goes beyond income.  Politicians have learned by using code words and sometimes blunt language they can get votes at the expense of minorities or of some people violating other people's religious beliefs

The voters get most of their information through the media.  Although many have pre-set notions others are open to facts and intelligent opinions, but bear in mind that the media has its own agenda.  Basically they are in business to make money and sometimes that means sensationalizing the format and/or the content.  They tend to minimize the issues to cover the horse race aspects.  The more powerful media outlets may have their own preferences and can advantage one side or the other.

Everything is stacked against the middle class, but most of us are unaware of how we are being manipulated or are made to feel helpless.  As a counter balance there is the inter net and word of mouth.  Most voters have access to alternative opinions and facts.  Bernie Sanders, my favourite has been able to draw large crowds, mostly I suspect sympathizers, but is not able to get nearly the time on major media outlets as someone like Donald Trump.  He has the disadvantage of not being favoured by the establishment.  Part of his appeal comes from avoiding special interest donations that go against his platform.  Others are willing to compromise their agendas to get the necessary money.

It is easy to be self-rightious, but nothing can be done unless a politician is able to get elected.  Really what we have is a representative democracy, meaning we trust others to make the decisions that we do not have the time to understand.  In many ways we do not have the time or even motivation to understand who can be trusted to represent our best interests.

The American primary procedure illustrates the problems.  Hopefully as more people become aware of the distortions something can be done.  This blog is really only indicating some problems, but is not in a position to implement any helpful suggestions.

The photo is from a trip taken to Las Vegas a few years ago.

THE POLAR VORTEX SIDE SHOW

Information is endless and often deliberately confusing.  All of us are basically ignorant about most of the universe and rely on supposed experts to help us make important decisions which often translates to letting things ride.

I wish I could pretend to be an expert on climate change, but while my own personal experience (65 years worth mostly around a small part of Ontario) creates a bias I do rely on others to form an opinion.  Most opinions come with their own biases.  Some people have a vested financial interest in prolonging a dependence on fossil fuels (to some degree I am one of them).  Others feel that packaged troop alliances (politics or religion) dictate their loyalties.  Most of us are basically lazy and don't want to rock the boat.  Some just don't like to admit there are reasons to change their mind.

Scientists are accused of having a political agenda as well as individual personal ambitions.  That surely is true as everybody else does.  Why we trust politicians who want our vote or businesses who want our money more than scientists is a big problem.  Information can be twisted to prove almost anything and credibility can be very difficult to determine.

My personal experience tells me there have been significant changes in weather over the past few decades.  One difference seems to be more ice where there used to be snow.  I have noticed slightly warmer weather in both the summer and winter.  The past few years at the end of Lake Ontario I have felt very fortunate to escape weather extremes suffered in other parts of Ontario and more so with other parts of the world.

Part of my feelings can be dismissed  as limited.  On my own experience I would not have raised my consciousness to a global issue demanding international government intervention, but it ties into what I read and watch on a bigger scale.  You cannot avoid climate skepticism, but if you research into the matter with some critical judgment it is impossible to escape an awareness of a problem.

Insurance companies have a vested interest in understanding climate change and many of them are adjusting rates.  Some in the  American military have decided that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism.  A nephew, in the auto body business likes icy, snowy road conditions.

The big battle seems to be in the United States, although the rest of the world is not 100% settled on the issue either.  The recent extremely cold weather has prompted some to ridicule those advocating climate change as something demanding more attention.  It hit me too this past week as one of the coldest days I can recall in decades, but already I notice the trend to ice where there used to be snow is just as real.  I notice that Australia is having a heat wave and that Sochi where we expect to see the top skiers of the world in a few weeks has no snow.  We are told to expect a "January thaw" within days.

China illustrates a dilemma.  They are now recognized as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. On one hand they maintain their right to industrialize as first world countries already have and on the other they recognize a pollution and global warming problem and are now the world's largest wind power nation and likely will lead to significant clean energy improvements.

The popular cry of "Global Warming" has been replaced with "Climate Change" and it does seem more realistic.  Temperature is only one factor involved and although it affects everything else, we have to be concerned about winds and precipitation (or lack of).  It seems there are more floods, more droughts and more big storms than ever before and more messiness with snow and ice.

It is not all bad news.  For Canada it means that both the Northwest Passage and petroleum resources in the Far North are much more accessible.  Our growing season is slightly longer and some outdoor activities have a longer season (though not skiing without artificial help).  We have a huge resource of (dirty) fossil fuel and can benefit as the price rises.  So all Canadians have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo, although we also could be big losers.

We all need to take a long term view and at the same time remind ourselves of similar historical questions.  When I was much younger there was a battle over the harm caused by tobacco.  As a non smoker at one time I felt less sophisticated and even less masculine, but saw a glimmer of justification when more voices were raised about tobacco causing cancer.  Strong economic and political forces came to bear and it was a long time before the logic was accepted and action was taken to deal with the problem, and tobacco still has a strong presence.  Scientists were belittled while people died.   You can read about "Merchants of Doubt" at http://www.johnfdavidson.com/2012/07/merchants-of-doubt.html

Who really has more credibility--scientists or politicians (with their big money supporters)?  The evidence is pretty convincing on the one side, but the platform does not have a very loud voice.