Over the Edge+ January 18, 2006

Opinion

7

Editorial

Reverse-Vote Democracy: The Way of the Future

ANDREW KURJATA

NEWS EDITOR

With yet another election rolling
around, we are once again treated to
activists for democracy attempting to
register more young voters." I dont care
who people vote for,’ goes the standard
line, “I just want people to vote!” Bull.
I find it hard to believe that a Con-
servative sympathizer would be overly
thrilled if their efforts to get young
people to vote resulted in a Marijuana
Party representative being elected in
their riding. Nor do I believe that a
staunch NDP-er wants to see a govern-
ment that supports privatizing health-
care and cutting back on environmental
policy come into power. If anything,

these people should be discouraging

others from voting to reduce the risk
of a bunch of right-wing rednecks/left-
wing commies hijacking the vote away.
If you truly don’t care who gets elected,
then why on earth are you so concerned
that people vote? Clearly it makes no
difference to you if a tree-hugging dope
‘smoker or a gun-toting fascist forms
the government, so why do you care
how many people voted for them?
And yet the efforts continue. So
‘ much so that every once in a while you
hear about some advocate of democ-
‘racy trying to introduce legal measures
to make people vote. This has taken on
both carrot (giving everyone who votes
$20) and stick (fining everyone who
doesn't vote $50) characteristics. This
is, in a word, stupid.

“I am proposing a new

take on democracy,

something so simple et
so revolutionary that
I believe it will, more
than any other demo-
cratic system in history,

_result in an accurate
reflection of voter de-
sires.’

I really doubt that someone who
doesn't take the time to vote without f-
nancial incentive is going to familiarize
him/herself with the issues, or even the
candidates, prior to heading down to
city hall to get their pizza money. Per-
sonally, I don't want anyone who can't
be self-motivated to vote to takepart in

deciding the future of the country.

If you're really serious about getting
more people to vote, I think that the
way to go is to introduce voting re-
forms. While past attempts at reform
have been admirable, they have failed
because they are just too complicated,
People don't want to have to read a
ten-to-twenty page document to grasp
what they're voting for. They want
something fast and simple, something
they can readily understand. Which
is why I am proposing a new take on
democracy, something so simple yet so
revolutionary that I believe it will, more
than any other democratic system in
history, result in an accurate reflection
of voter desires. What I am proposing
is reverse-vote democracy.

Reverse-vote democracy differs from
traditional democracy in that rather
than voting for who you want to run the
country, you vote for who you definitely
don't want to run the country, I came
upon this idea when I realized that this
is the way most people vote anyway.

Ask the average person who they are
voting for and they will say something
like, “I'm not sure, but it definitely won't
be the Liberals,’ or “Anyone except the
Green Party.’ Say, for example, you're
not sure if you want to vote for the
NDP, the Liberals, or maybe even the
Greens. But what you do know is that

you would be devastated if the Conserv-

atives formed the government. So you
start thinking about voting strategically,
electing the Liberals since they have the
best chance of beating the Conserva-
tives, even though you would really like
to vote for the NDP. In reverse-vote
democracy you would no longer have
this problem. In the initial round of
voting, everyone who was alright with
every party except the Conservatives
would vote to have them knocked out
of the running. This would then be
followed by a second round where the
remaining parties squared off with each
other. Fears of splitting the vote would
be alleviated tenfold. Imagine if they
had had reverse-vote democracy in the
United States when George W. Bush
was first elected. Instead of everyone
who was against Bush voting for either
Gore or Nader and allowing Bush to
sneak in, Bush would have been elim-
inated in the first round, allowing for
a run-off between the remaining two
candidates, Survivor-style:

Maybe that's the trick. After all, it

has been observed that more people
voted in the first American Idol than
did in the 2000 presidential election.
Obviously people don't have a problem
with voting, just having to drive to the
nearest elementary school to do so. So

.if we made voting more like TV, people
would get more involved. Maybe we
should just start off with all the candi-
dates in the House of Commons and
then every week text message in who
we think should be eliminated based
on stupid comments made. It would
certainly boost viewership of CPAC--
direct democracy in action.

Id also like to see Amazing Race-
style election campaigns, where candi-
dates compete in a series of challenges
while traveling across the country.

After all, if all we care about is getting
people to participate, who cares how
the issues are dealt with or how people
make up their minds? If we don't care

about which candidate gets in,- why
should we care if people choose them
based on the fact that they did really
well in that tug-of-war challenge? Get
people to vote, that’s what matters, no
matter how ‘uninformed or unmoti-
vated they are otherwise. By the way,
I'm being sarcastic to prove a point.

But reverse-vote democracy, I’m ser-
ious about that. Let's try it out.

“Get people to vote,
that’s what mat-
ters, no matter-how
uninformed or un-

motivated they are
otherwise.” .

BELINDA LI

Candidates in Prince George square off in Prince George with campaign ads

plastered by busy interséctions like 15th and Ospika.

9:30 am, January 24th

FREE coffee, tea, and goodies.

Come and join the library staff in celebrat-

ing the new year, the new semester, and

the comfy new furniture.

Faculty, staff, and students are all welcome.

Research @ your fingertips