Posts
The reply I gave to the man on the street was, “democracy costs money.” And that is about as truthful of an explanation as I can think of. Was this election purely about one man trying to get more power? Maybe, but that’s the reality of politics. Politic under any political system is about the collection and the loss of power and politicians will always play that game. From the earliest tribal cultures to the most sophisticated democracies, it is simply human nature.
Consider how lucky we are to have the system that we have. This season of political warfare was battled without a single person being killed. There was no gunfire or explosions. No death and very little misery. Everything that was done was done to seek the grant of power from the electorate. We enjoy a political system that allows the competition of political elites to be fought in an essentially harmless way.
Also my colleague William Joseph argued that the extra cost of having an early election is not actually $300 million:
The election would have happened next year if it didn't happen last week, so it would have just delayed the spending of $300M. There won't be an election in October 2009, so that takes away a $300M expense there, but it does mean that the next scheduled election is in 20012 instead of 2013. The actual increase in moving an election up one year is $75M. ($300M/4 years = $75M/year for elections under a normal cycle. However, when you make it $300M/3 years you get $100M/year. So the increase is 3 years*($100M - $75M) = $75M nominal cost. I'm not counting present value obviously, but I am lazy and want to do the math in my head, plus I don't want to think of a discount rate.)
Both of these arguments can easily be applied to those who complain that a 2011 election would be an unnecessary cost.
Upon reflection I realized that the whole cost argument is mostly an excuse. Anyone who makes that argument simply does not want an election for a reason other than the $300 million. It may be that they don’t want to be bothered by an election or maybe they don’t think it is in their personal interest. Either way, someone who opposes an election should come up with a better argument than cost.
9 comments:
There is room for improvement. Elections cost too much. Is that better? We could certainly drop the $1.95 vote subsidy to start.
How many elections have we had befoe the full term was served in order for the political party to capitalize on the timing?
$ 75 million x 4 = 300 million?
How many bills are being killed and re-introduced per this wash and repeat cycle in Ottawa?
60% of people being polled want a full term served. The parties in Ottawa are not listening to not being bothered before the fourth year.
Have an early election triggered for opportunism does not improve democracy as a rule of thumb.
I am hopeful and confidenth the CPC will secure a majority but would have been happy with 2012.
During the election the government goes into caretaker mode leaving big decisions on hold?
Is this necessary to go in May 2011because the alleged adults can't get along in Ottawa?
Alex,
Don't get me wrong. I am totally open to a debate about how Elections Canada could cut their budget. For one thing I firmly believe that all that money spent to encourage people to vote is a waste.
Sorry, I must disagree with your reasoning. We need to spend $300M on an election at some point. Let's say this happens either now or a year from now.
If we spend it a year from now, that $300M can sit in gov't bonds and accrue interest at the going gov't bong rate (~1.6%). In a year's time, we will have made about $5M in interest and then have to spend the $300M on the election. We have saved $5M NOT $75M.
-JAM
It's really not that expensive. When you do the math, it works out to $10 per person. How much more tax do you pay in a given year?
Actually if the Liberanos gave back the 60 million from AdScam the election would only cost 240 million
Fully agreed - anyone who complains about the costs of democracy should consider the alternatives.
Anon, the interest the money could make (or in our case, lack of interest payments if we have less debt) is the present value of stuff I said I was too lazy to calculate in 2008. Still too lazy to calculate it.
Basically we will have elections every 4 years at a minimum. Accepting the $300/election, then we basically pay $75M per year for elections. The latest an election could have been was 2012, so we just got the election 1 year earlier (pretending partial years don't exist).
Though another way to think about it is the Conservatives would have found a way to waste the $300 million, given they just spent up to their past budget projections even though revenues were higher than anticipated.
Forget all the talk about dollars and cents. We are fortunate to live in a country where we can record our opinion more often than we want to.
Post a Comment