The Wrong Kind of "PR" - Part 1

In an interesting and much unnoticed move, during the Leaders debate, NDP Leader Jack Layton took a moment to speak on behalf of "all Canadians" and declared that we all wanted a new electoral system of Proportional Representation (PR) , and the reason we all wanted a new electoral system is that voter turnout is so low in Canada. Despite the fact that he clearly DOES NOT speak on behalf of all Canadians, Mr. Layton's comments have been a week-long cause of pondering on my behalf. After all, whats wrong with a PR electoral system? (lots actually, but thats another column, which will be Part 2), Would PR answer the glaring issue of voter turnout in elections?

My answer is yes, however Mr. Layton got the wrong PR acronym. Proportional Representation does not necessarily lead to a higher voter turnout, in fact, it might lead to an even lower voter turnout (again, more on this to come)

Reading a column on voting among youths turned out the premise that because many students are busy with school and work, and because they have very little extra money for things like newspapers and television, they won't vote because they are not properly informed enough to make a decision. I laughed at this article when I read it because of how this columnist actually believed this farce that he was told, and whats more, he printed it for all to see. The truth is that he was duped by a clever student who did not want to appear in a negative light to someone who would put her comments in a newspaper. How can I be so sure of this conclusion? Because I myself once heard the exact same answer from a friend, a friend I considered both "politically-enlightened" and "politically-intuned." And, just like how I laughed at that silly column, I laughed even harder when the same answer was given to me in person by that friend.

After wiping the tears from eyes, and after shrugging off the weak attempt to back up the answer, I asker again what the real reason was, with a promise that I wouldn't laugh as long as they were honest with me. In response to this, I received the other common false explanation of "all the parties lie, so you can't believe whatthey say." Again, this was a standard response that led to my laughter, and I could tell that my friend quickly realized that repeating something that they read in the paper is not a good enough explanation. So I asked for more information on exactly what the parties have lied about? To this question my friend could not come up with a concrete answer. Many examples were given, but none of them were actual examples of the party lieing. Instead, what I heard was examples of what certain parties were saying about other parties. Upon further questioning, it seemed quite obvious to me, that the problem isn't that people don't believe what they hear, the actual problem is that many people believe EVERYTHING they hear. They take it all in.

Now, imagine hearing 3 sides to an issue (a,b,c), and all 3 sides tell you in such a convincing way that they are right and that the other is wrong, and so, instead of believing one side over the other, you assume that maybe all of them are partly correct, or upon further thought, they can't all be right and so perhaps they all must be wrong. And if someone were to ask you to make a choice between (a), (b), (c), or (d) none of the above, which one would you choose?

My money is on the fact that you all chose (d). And that premise is the real reason why voter turnout is so low.

Coming up in Part 2....why Proportional Representation isn't the answer people think it is......and finally in Part 3.......what is the solution? If there is one at all......