Last Saturday, Tracy Summerville's column was about synchronicity - about the six degrees of separation or integration which seem to happen in our lives.
Neil Godbout's editorial was about "proportional representation" or P.R. but he also meant it in terms of "public relations." The BC Liberals have much to do to refurbish their brand and maybe move a little more towards centre.
Last week, there was a letter to the editor discussing proportional representation and how it is unrealistic for a party to govern if it did not receive a majority of the votes.
And on top of all this, Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver has threatened to bring down the government if they engage in discussions around LNG or even mention it in the Throne Speech.
All of this brings me to the synchronicity of these discussions. I have been trying to understand the basic drive behind those favouring some form of proportional representation for a while now. There are the typical platitudes - "everyone's vote will count", "parties will need to compromise", "it is fairer", etcetera.
But I have yet to see evidence these are true. Indeed, there is much about government's operating under a proportional representation system which people regret. For example, according to the ACE website, Ireland is one of only two countries employing a "single transferable vote" but there is much legislation which they cannot get tabled or passed because of the fractured structure of the resulting government.
Small, one-issue parties can block any movement on major issues. Sometimes as little as five per cent of the population can hold the other 95% in check. How is this "everyone's vote counting"? Rather, it is giving rise to the tyranny of the minority.
Indeed, in every country with proportional representation I checked - and I did not check them all - there is a plethora of small parties in the government. The governing party is invariably in a minority and supported by various small special interest groups. How is this better?
Mr. Weaver threatening to pull support for the government is exactly this sort of scenario. He has a very particular view of LNG and he will bring down the government in order to make his point.
In his editorial on Saturday, Neil Godbout brought up the government in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. No political parties. All candidates run as independents. At the first meeting of the Assembly, the representatives choose a speaker, the premier, and the cabinet and then everyone else makes up the opposition.
This is very similar to the form of proportional representation used in Norway except there political parties are allowed. Further, each of the 19 ridings has one seat held back and after the election, these 19 seats are used to balance the Storting to more closely represent the proportional vote.
Sounds good but then the question in both cases becomes - who is deciding on who should be Premier? Which party should be in power? And who is best at managing the country, territory, or province?
Realistically, party politics still occurs in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories but it goes by other names. Any time you get a large gathering of people together and ask them to make a decision, there will be party politics. People of like-minded views will cluster in support of one candidate or another.
That said, I am not sure that "everyone's vote will count" if it is the politicians deciding who is Premier. Indeed, the compromise candidate might be from a very small party as neither of the major parties want to yield to the other.
One of the democracies operating under proportional representation I was reading about even had trouble getting rid of the party in power. In this case, it was clear the majority of the population wanted them to go - they came in second in the popular vote. But they were able to hang on to power by assembling a coalition of the willing.
But none of this addresses the fundamental issue.
It isn't how we vote which is upsetting people. It is the perception that politicians do not listen and are not responsive to our needs. And this, for the most part, is driven by the structure of our economy which has seen ordinary working class citizens losing ground for the past 30 years.
As Summerville's column pointed out, sometimes the stars align and whole bunch of threads come together. I think I am beginning to understand the driving motivations behind the movement in favour of proportional representation. It really isn't about the structure of the legislature but about the ability of ordinary people to affect political change.
It will be interesting to see if the need for fundamental change can be teased apart from the superficial change which will be brought about if the proportional referendum passes.
