In Alberta, there is a Manichean struggle between two parties promising massive increases in the extraction of bitumen from the Alberta tar sands, using the power of the state to force new pipelines to carry this increased quantity of planet-killing petroleum through the unceded lands of indigenous people against their will and promising to sue any government that attempts to stop the pipelines, increase safety standards for the pipelines or sue oil companies for any damage they cause.
Both parties promise to maintain the lowest taxes on millionaires and billionaires of any Canadian jurisdiction and condemn former Tory premier Ed Stelmach’s review of oil industry royalties as a rigged stitch-up to mess with petroleum producers. They both favour maintaining the royalty regime of Ralph Klein for oil extraction and brag that they favour lower taxes on the rich than Klein ever supported.
But the two parties do differ on a few important points: an $11 minimum wage versus a $15 minimum wage, the rights of gay and transgender Albertans, whether to also use the power of the state to subsidize coal as well as oil and whether to play footsie with crackpots and racists.
For some people, these differences are enough to keep them trapped in the progressive politics trap of voting for the lesser evil. But, for many of us, the idea of abetting the intentional increase in carbon emissions has become a bridge too far. Yet there is no electable alternative for Albertans who hold this view.
So what is to be done?
In the past, I have written at some length on this blog in opposition to people opposing strategic voting and have encouraged people to vote for candidates from lesser evil parties in elections. I stand behind the reasoning for this.
The belief that individual votes “send a message” is fundamentally incorrect on two bases. First off, a voter’s idea of what their vote means is likely different from how the person or organization they want it to mean something to will interpret it. For instance, many people who vote Green think it will cause Liberals or New Democrats to think “my look at all that environmental concern; what must we do to win these people back?” More, often, however, the interpretation is “look at those jerks voting against us after all we’ve done for them. Let’s make sure to make bigger clearcuts in caribou habitat to show them.”
The exegesis of minority party votes is not something individual voters can control. The meaning made of their votes is out of their control, except in the private meaning-making session they engage in while marking their “X.”
generic levitra canada Exercise Exercise helps men to be more active physically and this can help a lot in erectile dysfunction in many ways. buy line viagra Click Here In fact, herbs for erectile dysfunction work only when there is sexual stimulation to the body. Hence, it leaves dissatisfaction to men and women both.However, the problem has become very common these days, yet men take it as serious concern and always look for the opportunity to increase their sexual desire. tadalafil online cheap PE is an under-reported difficulty, which explains that many levitra buy online men are still suffering in silence. Similarly, people sometimes have the idea that their votes “send a message” to their adversaries, that Jason Kenney and Doug Ford will get scared of all those Green votes piling up and moderate their policies. But, again, this is unlikely to be the meaning people will take. More likely the message they receive is “those stupid libtards don’t how how to concentrate their votes. We can campaign even further right and govern more cruelly than we thought we could.”
An “X” next to the name of a stranger associated with a flaky political doomsday cult has no clear or specific meaning that can act on anyone.
Does this mean that I advocate voting for a lesser evil party or giving up on the idea of voting at all? Perhaps. But I have not reached that point yet. Instead, I think we have to develop new voting strategies based on the truth that meaning-making in a social enterprise. That just as with everything else, we have been conned by the neoliberal order into thinking that collective actions are no different than a collection of individual actions.
If we want to take control of making votes that fail to elect people mean something, the way we must do that is intervene collectively, not just at the level of voting but at the level of political interpretation and meaning-making. And we need to engage in meaning-making acts not primarily for the purpose of communicating with people who are not us and not like us but for the purpose of building community, solidarity and connection among those who find the current pragmatic choices of accelerating the extinction event but with slightly different minimum wage legislation untenable.
If we are to move away from casting votes that produce tangible differences in who is elected, we need to move towards casting votes that produce some other kind of tangible difference, in public discourse, in movement-building or in building an electable alternative.
For this reason, I urge people to publicize their vote in an act that also publicizes how they want it interpreted. Maybe this involves entering the ballot booth and igniting the ballot with a cigarette lighter, so as to protest climate change by spending a night in jail. If one cannot afford to be arrested, consider posting a photo of one’s ballot receipt along with a clear and shared explanation of its meaning, be it a spoiled ballot or a Green one. Or if one wants to spend a few extra nights in jail, consider bringing a small scourge with you voting and turning over tables like Jesus in the Temple.
But the only way these things can become effective strategies is if they are a strategy a group takes on, be it an ad hoc affinity group of friends or a formal group that meets regularly with membership fees and a governance structure. More important than the act of voting is the act of contacting friends, comrades and allies and agreeing on a shared strategy to help shape the interpretation of a collective act, figuring out who is fetching bail and lawyers and who is going to jail, figuring out what Twitter hashtag to use for images of spoiled ballots or burning “I voted” ballot receipts.
All voting is hard and dodgy. There is no way of voting or vote one can cast that should feel good or be easy. If it is time, as it clearly is in Alberta, to cast symbolic votes, one must take responsibility for the whole meaning-making act if one is forced to vote symbolically.
