Some philosophical thoughts on Canada’s recent election.

Blair Fix

Yesterday, Canada had an election that was notable for its
pointlessness. The Liberal party went into the election with a minority
government. And it came out with the same thing.

The election was, however, an interesting testament to the pragmatism of
the powerful. Like Barack Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
is gifted at lofty rhetoric. But he's ultimately a pragmatist, dedicated
to holding on to power.

Trudeau called the election because polls suggested that he could win a
majority. Interestingly, when Trudeau looked at the polls, it seems he
didn't factor in the backlash that would result from calling an election
during COVID, especially since the last Canadian election was just 2
years ago. And so Canadians woke up this morning to find the government
largely unchanged.

On that note, the election results remind me of another aspect of power
over principles. Back in 2015, Trudeau ran on a bold platform of
electoral reform, promising to get rid of Canada's archaic
first-past-the-post system.

For a while, it looked like the Trudeau government might make good on
its promise. In 2016, it commissioned a Special Committee on Electoral
Reform that recommended, among other things, that Canada have a
referendum on implementing proportional representation. But the Trudeau
government quietly shelved the report and
[abandoned](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-abandons-electoral-reform/article33855925/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} its commitment to electoral reform.

It's easy to understand this reversal. During the Harper years, the
Liberals suffered a series of humiliating electoral defeats, despite the
fact that their popular support remained largely unchanged. Today, the
tables have turned. The Liberals are now benefiting from the
first-past-the-post system. And so unsurprisingly, they want to keep it.

The numbers speak for themselves. If we take the portion of
parliamentary seats won by each party and divide it them by the portion
of the popular vote, we find that Liberals are hugely over-represented.
Conservatives (who won the popular vote) are more-or-less at parity. And
the NDP and Greens are vastly under-represented.

[]{#fig-elec}

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/elec_plot.png?w=723&amp;ssl=1"
decoding="async" data-recalc-dims="1" />
<figcaption><strong>Figure 1: Preliminary results for Canada’s 2021
election.</strong> Data is from the <a
href="https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2021/results/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">CBC</a>.</figcaption>
</figure>

During the recent election, Trudeau
[claimed](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/trudeau-says-he-remains-open-to-electoral-reform-if-liberals-re-elected-1.5590835){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} to remain 'open' to electoral reform. But given the
numbers above, I suspect this is empty rhetoric. The Liberal's grasp on
power depends on over-representation, which electoral reform would take
away.

In a sense, this dilemma cuts to the core of democracy. We expect the
powerful to do what's in their own best interest. The purpose of
democracy is, in large part, to get the powerful to do things that are
in the *public* interest. Every now and then, representative democracy
succeeds in achieving this inversion. But most of the time it fails.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Support this blog

Economics from the Top Down is where I share my ideas for how to create
a better economics. If you liked this post, consider becoming a patron.
You'll help me continue my research, and continue to share it with
readers like you.

[![patron_button](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?w=220&ssl=1){.aligncenter
decoding="async"
recalc-dims="1"}](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/membership/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Stay updated

Sign up to get email updates from this blog.

:::: {.jetpack_subscription_widget}
##  {#section .widgettitle}

::: {.wp-block-jetpack-subscriptions__container}
Email Address

Keep me up to date
:::
::::

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[![](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/by.png?w=150&ssl=1){.aligncenter
decoding="async"
recalc-dims="1"}](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"}  
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"}.
You can use/share it anyway you want, provided you attribute it to me
(Blair Fix) and link to [Economics from the Top
Down](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/).

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yesterday, Canada had an election that was notable for its pointlessness. The Liberal party went into the election with a minority government. And it came out with the same thing. The election was, however, an interesting testament to the pragmatism of the powerful. Like Barack Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is gifted at lofty rhetoric. But he’s ultimately a pragmatist, dedicated to holding on to power.

Power Over Principles

The US election got me thinking about the power of ideology.

I rarely write about partisan politics on this blog. Today, though, I'll
make an exception. As the spectre of a second Trump term remains
possible, here are some thoughts on the US election.

### Avoiding democracy

A second Trump term is possible largely because the US electoral system
is designed to avoid democracy. To be fair to the US, though, many of
the world's democracies have similar features.

In many democracies, government power is decided not in terms of the
popular vote, but in terms of subregion plurality. Whoever wins a
plurality of votes in a given district gets all the government
representation (in the district). The result, often, is that government
power has little to do with popular sentiment and more to do with the
quirks of regional differences.

The US [electoral
college](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} is just one example of this backwards system, though one
that is admittedly bizarre. The electoral college creates a two-step
process for electing presidents. Voters in each state technically vote
for 'electors', and these 'electors' then vote for the president. The
catch is that electors in each state are allotted by plurality. Whoever
gets the most votes gets all the state's electors. As Trump's 2016 win
(and Bush's 2000 win before him) shows, this means that a candidate can
win the election with a minority of votes.

The electoral college is uniquely bizarre only because state 'electors'
are purely symbolic. They have no role after the election. But in all
other ways, the electoral college is similar to the
[first-past-the-post](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} system found in many democracies. This system often
leads to minority rule.

In Canada, for instance, we suffered through a decade of rule by
[Stephen
Harper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. Throughout his time in power, Harper was disapproved of
by the majority of Canadians. Yet he won three elections. How? Two
reasons. First, Harper's *disapproval* was spread out across the whole
country. His *approval*, in contrast, was concentrated in the West.
Second, the progressive vote (against Harper) was split between 4
parties, while the conservative vote (for Harper) was consolidated in a
single party.

Interestingly, Stephan Harper eventually lost power to a party that
promised to implement [proportional
representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. But once in power, it decide not to. It was a clever
bait-and-switch that many keen observers saw coming.

Back to the US. With its state-biased senate and electoral college
system, the US merely takes the problems of non-proportional
representation farther than other democracies.

### The ideological landscape

Much has already been said about the anti-democratic nature of the US
electoral college. What gets less attention, though, is that a huge
chunk of the US population *still voted for Trump*. To observers outside
the country, this fact is inexplicable. How can Trump --- with his
incessant lying and near-criminal ineptness --- possibly get so many
votes?

This points to the importance of *ideology*. In ideological terms, the
US is an outlier. Its devotion to free-market fundamentalism is extreme.
If you live outside the US, you already know this. But what's
interesting is that many Americans have no idea that their country is
such an outlier. They have ideological tunnel vision.

Many working class Americans simply can't imagine having paid sick days,
paid maternity leave, or paid vacation. And yet outside of the US, this
is the *norm*. And then there's healthcare. In no other industrialized
country is [healthcare so expensive and the outcomes so
poor](https://ourworldindata.org/us-life-expectancy-low){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. And yet many Americans simply can't imagine having free
healthcare for all.

What's at play here is the power of ideology. You can only see this
power when you're *outside* of it. The absurdity of feudal caste
systems, for instance, is obvious to all modern observers. But given the
ubiquity of such systems in the past, this absurdity is evidently *not*
obvious to those inside the system.

The same is true for any ideology. When you're surrounded by it, you
can't see it. I speak from experience. I lived in Texas for 4 years.
When I first arrived (from Canada), what struck me was the oppressive
media landscape. In the corporate media, the range of expressible
opinion was tiny. I only noticed this because the US ['Overton
window'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} was much smaller than in Canada. But over time, I
forgot. The US media landscape became the new norm. I only (re)realized
how oppressive it was when I started reading [Noam
Chomsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}.

### Free market ideology

The US is a good example of what happens when free-market ideology runs
rampant. Talk about power is [framed in terms of
'freedom'](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/04/29/the-free-market-as-a-double-lie/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. And corporate power is framed as 'efficient' and even
'democratic' (you vote with your money). Government power, in contrast,
is framed as wasteful and corrupt (counting votes even gets called
['stealing the
election'](https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-adviser-jason-miller-equates-counting-ballots-with-stealing-the-election){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}).

To the outsider, this ideological landscape is bizarre --- it's right up
there with the [divine right of
kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. And yet many Americans have evidently been hoodwinked.

If Trump does win a second term, there will be much soul searching on
the left. Many people will blame the electoral system. Fewer will blame
free-market ideology. But the fact is that both are to blame. And both
are frustratingly hard to change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Support this blog

Economics from the Top Down is where I share my ideas for how to create
a better economics. If you liked this post, consider becoming a patron.
You'll help me continue my research, and continue to share it with
readers like you.

[![patron_button](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/supporter_button-1.png?w=220&ssl=1){.size-thumbnail
.wp-image-1180 .aligncenter decoding="async" attachment-id="1180"
permalink="https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/patron_button/"
orig-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=434%2C102&ssl=1"
orig-size="434,102" comments-opened="1"
image-meta="{\"aperture\":\"0\",\"credit\":\"\",\"camera\":\"\",\"caption\":\"\",\"created_timestamp\":\"0\",\"copyright\":\"\",\"focal_length\":\"0\",\"iso\":\"0\",\"shutter_speed\":\"0\",\"title\":\"\",\"orientation\":\"0\"}"
image-title="patron_button" image-description="" image-caption=""
medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=300%2C71&ssl=1"
large-file="https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/patron_button.png?fit=434%2C102&ssl=1"
recalc-dims="1"}](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/membership/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}

------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Stay updated

Sign up to get email updates from this blog.

:::: {.jetpack_subscription_widget}
##  {#section .widgettitle}

::: {.wp-block-jetpack-subscriptions__container}
Email Address

Keep me up to date
:::
::::

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[![](https://i0.wp.com/economicsfromthetopdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/by.png?w=150&ssl=1){.aligncenter
decoding="async"
recalc-dims="1"}](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"}  
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/){rel="license"}.
You can use/share it anyway you want, provided you attribute it to me
(Blair Fix) and link to [Economics from the Top
Down](https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\[Cover image: [Naveen
Annam](https://www.pexels.com/@naveen-annam-734127){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}\]


I rarely write about partisan politics on this blog. Today, though, I’ll make an exception. As the spectre of a second Trump term remains possible, here are some thoughts on the US election. Avoiding democracy   A second Trump term is possible largely because the US electoral system is designed to avoid democracy. To be fair to the US, though, many of the world’s democracies have similar features.

Ideological Tunnel Vision

Björn Brembs

There have been many discussions about the march for science, pro and
con. Some of them have made me doubt the utility of the march, some have
made me fear unintended consequences, again others seemed tangential and
petty. In these past months, I have struggled to articulate my own
reasons why I feel the urge to march for science. Today, I start to see
two main reasons to march for science. I am still unsure if these are
the right reasons and if they justify my presence or if they can be used
against me. Be that as it may, they are what motivates me the most to
take a stand this coming Saturday.

As a student, I studied a winter-term abroad, in northern Sweden. I
spent my postdoctoral fellowship, almost four years, in Houston, Texas.
I am now a professor of neurogenetics in Germany. Over the years, I have
worked with colleagues from more countries than I can count. One thing
that has become clear to me in this time is that difficult problems need
to be tackled from all angles, if they are to be solved. To tackle
problems from all angles requires a diversity of thought and creativity.
Diversity of thought can only be maximized by a diversity of
backgrounds. I therefore strive to make my lab as diverse as I possibly
can. Science is both the child and the mother of diversity. Science is
successful because of diversity. Any political confinement is hence
necessarily detrimental to science.

Enthusiastic, creative individuals from all walks of life, countries,
ethnicities, orientations and abilities are the most powerful resource
science can tap into for progress. Conversely, all of humankind stands
to benefit from science, which is why I have been active in the Open
Science movement for over a decade now.

One reason I march for science in Munich on April 22, 2017 is because I
firmly believe in open science serving an open society.

There is a second reason why I march for science. Not unlike other times
in history, fringe movements have recently emerged which excel at using
new media to manipulate a society not yet accustomed to these media.
Then as now, one tool wielded by these movements is to spread
uncertainty and doubt, lest their incompetence go unnoticed for as long
as possible. Then as now, one target is the common reality derived by
evidence and reason. Science is a formalized method of combining
evidence and reason. Both in itself and through the scientific thinking
which it emanates, science has now become a cornerpiece of a modern,
pluralistic democracy. Any attack on evidence and reason can only be
seen as an attack on science and the democratic society it serves. With
recent direct verbal attacks on science and scientists, I believe it is
time to stand up in defense of science. Science is worth defending not
only for its own sake, but because I believe a society which does not
support science and scientific thinking can never be a functioning
democracy.

I hence march for science in Munich on April 22, 2017, because I see
science as a diverse, global endeavor benefiting all humankind, but also
because I fear scientific knowledge and scientific thinking as
fundamentals of a modern democracy, may be in jeopardy.


There have been many discussions about the march for science, pro and con. Some of them have made me doubt the utility of the march, some have made me fear unintended consequences, again others seemed tangential and petty. In these past months, I have struggled to articulate my own reasons why I feel the urge to march for science. Today, I start to see two main reasons to march for science.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Power Over Principles

Ideological Tunnel Vision

Why I march