"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts."
This is an updated version of a statement made by U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Or, at least, it is attributed to him by Robert Sobel in Past Imperfect: History according to the Movies.
In saying that, I am perhaps summing up the issue of our age. We have so many people saying so many things about so many topics and it is almost impossible to sort out who said what when. Modern social media makes everyone a pundit.
Over the past decade or two, society has shattered into an increasing number of factions with each having its own belief system. This isn't really a new phenomenon as religions, countries, tribes, and groupings of all sorts have always existed and had their own belief systems. Many wars have been fought over the interpretation of a few words in a holy book or a treaty.
However, when information flowed through gatekeepers such as the press, there were constraints on just how far a particular point of view could go. If your only mechanism for influencing people was to stand on a soap box and proclaim loudly, then you were severely limited in the number of people you could reach. An idea had to be pretty good for it to spread.
After all, there would be others standing on their soap boxes and proclaiming their views just as loudly. Getting a following required more than just noise.
But with the rise of the internet and e-mail, the mechanism of information transmission has been radically altered. Almost everyone over the age of 20 can remember receiving an electronic version of a chain letter or some of the better hoaxes passed on by unsuspecting readers.
With social media, the issue has kicked up another notch. With e-mail one would at least have to turn on your computer, login to your e-mail account, and open the message. Now, messages are sent to phones and are ubiquitous. What was once called a "flame war" can happen in an instant. Thousands or millions of people can read a message in a matter of minutes.
And facts are going by the wayside.
Consider The Donald who is perhaps a fitting president for the present times. Or, at least, an example of just what can happen when the constraints are removed. When asked the other day if he would be tweeting about the NATO meeting onboard his plane, he replied he doesn't do that. He leaves it for other people.
The question was asked by a European journalist and is an obvious reference to the string of tweets and nasty commentary The Donald generated after the G7 meeting. The scary prospect, of course, is The Donald was telling the truth and he is not the author of his tweets.
In any case, we have a president whose understanding of the facts is tenuous at best and damaging at worst and is willing to lie. If facts don't matter - if everything anyone says can simply be labeled as fake news - then how are we to work towards a better and more just society? Can you imagine someone declaring the trauma experienced by First Nations students in residential school fake news? Or years of scientific research into both the causes and effects of climate change fake news?
How do we move forward when opinion masquerades as facts and facts are declared fake?
More to the point, how do we have a reasoned public debate when the facts are in question?
This came up the other day when I was having a discussion about proportional representation. The person I was talking with asserted every democracy in the world aside from Canada, the United States, Great Britain and France used some form of proportional representation. This would be a compelling argument if it is true but it is not.
For the record, the ACE Report on Electoral Reform gives the number of countries using plurality or first-past-the-post as 64 out of 171 while the number using proportional representation is 86 out of 171. Yes, more countries use proportional representation but as I have said before, the number includes Russia as a democracy. France, by the way, uses a two-round system which is not actually plurality since it ensures the winner will always receive a majority of the votes.
As to such systems as single transferable vote, which is included in part of the structure proposed in the referendum, only two countries, Ireland and Malta, presently use the system. It is hard to argue in favour of such a system.
I would note Norway actually uses the population of people and the total area of a riding when setting up its quota system. Maybe we should try that.
In any case, good public debate requires facts. And that is my opinion.
