Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

A Canucks fan's analysis of PR

I have been a Canucks fan for their entire existence. I have rooted for the team when they were playing well and when they sucked. Being a Canuck fan is, well, a combination of pleasure and utter disappointment. After all, they have never won it all.
col-whitcombe.14_8132018.jpg

I have been a Canucks fan for their entire existence. I have rooted for the team when they were playing well and when they sucked. Being a Canuck fan is, well, a combination of pleasure and utter disappointment. After all, they have never won it all.

So I guess my support is wasted. I shouldn't bother. What is the point of rooting for a team which never wins the Stanley Cup? It has been almost 50 years of futility.

Of course, anyone who is a fan knows the answer. We support our team because they are our team. We stand behind our players because they are our players.

But according to the emails I receive every time I write about "proportional representation," there is no point in voting for anyone other than a winning candidate. All of the other votes are "wasted." Indeed, one writer asked why bother voting?

The notion a vote for someone other than the winning candidate is wasted is an example of a "big lie." If you say it often enough, loud enough, people will begin to think it is true. (For other examples, consider pretty much anything the Donald has to say on trade, the economy or international affairs.)

In the case of PR supporters, this is generally the only plank they bring to the argument.

If you are not voting for the winning candidate, you might as well not vote.

So let's take this to its logical absurdity. After all, an absurd argument should be answered with an absurd argument.

If the argument is a vote for someone other than the winner is wasted, then there is no point in anyone voting who is not voting for the winner.

They can all stay at home on election day and the winning candidate will get 100 per cent of the vote.

But if no one is voting for any other candidate, then why bother voting for the winning candidate? Most of the winning candidate's supporters could also stay at home since their candidate is going to win regardless.

Indeed, at its extreme, only one person needs to actually vote since the results are a foregone conclusion.

Wait, you say, if had known only one person was going to vote in favour of the winning candidate, I would have organized a few people and we would have voted for the candidate we wanted. After all, we could defeat one vote.

But then the winning candidate would have organized more than one voter turning out as well. And the next thing you know, you have an election.

A whole bunch of people will vote. Someone will win and the other candidates will lose.

Hold on, you say, the same party always wins so what is the point? Not exactly true. Ridings in B.C. change political stripes all the time. Some are very contested every election. Others take a long time. Consider Prince George which has been represented by Social Credit, NDP and BC Liberal MLAs over the past thirty years. We don't engage in knee jerk responses but our politics have changed.

And in each election, every single vote matters. In some races it comes down to a matter of a few voters one way or another. Witness the most recent provincial election.

As to the argument a single-member plurality (first past the post) doesn't represent the majority, I would point out in the majority of races (50 of 87 seats) the elected MLA did receive more than 50 per cent of the popular vote. They represent a simple majority of eligible voters.

Ah, you say, that is because the supporters of the other candidates didn't bother to vote since they knew the election was a foregone conclusion. What's the point of voting when you know your candidate won't win?

Really?

And yes, I had an email saying exactly that.

Essentially their argument for not voting is it is pointless.

We all "know" the BC Liberals or NDP are going to win so why bother?

I can't tell you how frustrating I find such a statement.

Imagine, to get back to the sports analogy, if the Canucks looked at their schedule and simply said "Well, the Capitals are an awesome team and they won the Cup so let's just forfeit the game. There is no point in playing because they are going to win."

How absurd.

Or if no one ran in the 100 metre dash because Usain Bolt always wins.

Elections do not always turn out the way we want.

But to sit on the sidelines and say "there is no point in voting because my party never wins" is the equivalent to the Canucks giving up before the season starts.

Sometimes trying is what matters.

And who knows? The Canucks might win the Cup this year.