Our electoral system sucks. Use it anyway.
As you might know, each election day I walk the streets of London with a sign that says "VOTE". You might not know I’m also a far-Left anarchist with deep criticisms of our current democracy - and thus have no viable candidate that represents my views - but still I vote, and so should you.
Structurally, the Canadian government best represents the will of the elites. As a representative democracy, the will of the people is actioned through the members of parliament. And to be elected to parliament, one must have significant financial resources, charisma, and (usually) a network of support through a political party - by definition elite. The first-past-the-post system of elections - in which whomever has the most votes wins, even if they hold a minority of popular support - amplifies this problem, making the only viable candidates well-funded appointees of major "big-tent" parties.
Although nominally accountable to their constituents, parliamentarians are not bound to any agenda save their own - or that of their party. And since electoral success so heavily depends on funding and party support, one's chances of re-election depends on pleasing those with the deepest pockets. This alone biases the actions of government toward service of the wealthy, but there is another antidemocratic consequence of representative democracy: personality politics.
Political communication in the late modern age is overwhelmingly about which candidate is most appealing - rather than the political positions they represent. The reason for this lies in the human predilection for aesthetic judgments of people - so much so that a nice smile and a confident character can override other forms of reasoning. When one sees the people one identifies with *also* supporting such a figure, no amount of contrary evidence can shake one's preference. This is seen most clearly in the cult-like Trump phenomenon, but the strong feelings about Trudeau are another example.
Many Canadians have strong feelings about our current prime minister - some loving, some hating - but I've rarely received a coherent answer when I ask the most vocal of these for a reason why. The same is essentially true of all the major party leaders, often blotting out the positions they hold. I may be biased viewing this from the Left but the effect seems particularly strong among Right-leaning people, in many cases preferring a leader explicitly against their own best interests. The format of the debates in recent years has only amplified this effect, privileging quick wit and catchy zingers over a sober and thoughtful discussion of policy.
In total, this creates a political environment without substance - disenfranchising the public through ignorance and creating an effective oligarchy. Certainly we're better off in Canada than the United States, but we have a similar trajectory and without substantive change we're doomed to be ruled by cynical fools. And yes, there are some genuinely altruistic candidates who truly represent their constituents' needs, but their will is done in spite of the system rather than because of it.
This piece is a work of pure critique, so I won't get into my proposed solutions - though ranked ballots and proportional representation would be a step in the right direction. As it stands, the *only* legally-binding action the average citizen has is to vote in the system as it is.
You, like me, might not have an option that is ideal or even palatable, since every party is effectively some flavour of neoliberal capitalism. But there *are* substantive differences - ones which will make an egalitarian, truly democratic system easier or harder to achieve. I urge you to consider these options, and choose what is right for your community and your country.
Go vote.
