Such an important topic and glad you wrote about it. One of the things I am sick of hearly relentlessly from political pundits on their panel shows is the general public just doesn't care about these big issues...that they really only care about pocket book issues, or are too busy with their regular lives. I dont buy it and its not what I hear around me.
There’s a reason why capitalism wears us down - when we are struggling to pay rent and pay for groceries, we are too busy and too exhausted to organize and fight.
I’m not saying that deters people but often times people are spent and exhausted.
If I were to say people are apathetic - it depends on what they’re apathetic about.
Is it something that directly affects them? Is it something they care about? I think that helps determine whether people are politically engaged and in tune with participation.
A friend framed the agenda this way, too often when someone says they want to get involved we jump to " sign up weekly or would you like to be on the board? " the goal should be to get people on that first rung of the ladder of engagement. In my experience that takes a personal invitation " please join me" ...., certainly not an impersonal email.
I'm not sure that this alienation doesn't start (and perhaps end) with institutional barriers.
Voting is a remarkably unproductive activity. Fewer than half of voters get a rep of their choosing... aka someone who will speak and vote in the rooms where it matters in accordance with their representations to us and, therefore, our aspirations. Marking a ballot can feel like spinning the steering wheel on one of those kiddie rides at the Ex. Or yanking the lever of a slot machine. One can be excused for coming to the conclusion that voting is a problematic activity... if not a pointless one.
So even for those that vote, more often than not you have a rep to whom it is pointless to take your issues... they must be perceived to have unsympathetic -- if not cloth -- ears.
The disconnect between political life and lived reality is significant.
I can enjoy the social aspects of sitting in the corner booth at my local discussing (or arguing) over a pint or two of oatmeal stout. Or attending a rally and marching in the street shouting with the group, "This is what democracy looks like!!!".
But what matters is connecting to the levers of legislative power to get things done.
What matters is not facilitating discussions but binding efforts like citizens assemblies to productive action... especially after the experiences of referenda designed to fail us in electoral reform.
I'm still flummoxed by the citizen's assembly on electoral reform that didn't include for consideration the method used to convene the assembly itself: SORTITION!!
The BC assembly on electoral reform in 2004 and that's exactly my point. It didn't come up, it wasn't on the agenda!
But randomly choosing people was exactly the method used to create the assembly to debate a political issue - and isn't debating a political issue the job of politicians? If a randomly selected group can deliberate this issue, why not any other political issue? So why not select politicians randomly INSTEAD of by election, regardless of whether it's FPTP, ranked, proportional etc. etc.. All those electoral counting methods become moot, and you have a statistically valid representation of the populace, and isn't that the whole point of elections anyway?
He didn't say it wasn't on the agenda... he said he didn't remember any discussion.
I understand what you're saying but I disagree that the advantages translate. A jury or citizens panel is convened to investigate and arbitrate a "fresh" matter not in the current mix: is the accused guilty or innocent of murder; is there better way to constitute legislative bodies, etc. There is a lot of education necessary for people who must be, for want of a better word, agnostic. The BC-CA spent a good deal of time getting acquainted with the problem and facts of the matter and the larger public's view of the issues and then considering options and coming to a conclusion.
The work of our parliaments is ongoing. We're inserting fresh voices into a fast-moving stream. It makes little sense -- generally -- to abandon most everything that's been done, start from beginning with a clean slate and no acquired information each election cycle.
On the other hand I agree that populating our parliaments mus be much more inclusive of citizen opinion. That's why I advocate for STV to the exclusion of other methods... as did the BC-CA.
I do like Vaughan Lyon's proposal for constituency parliaments which more closely resemble your notion. Take a look at his book, Power Shift: from party elites to informed citizens.
The distinction between apathy and alienation is exactly right, and the exercise of asking someone whether they care about gas prices, healthcare wait times, or their pension is worth the price of admission alone. People aren’t empty. They’re disconnected.
Where I’d add a layer: the disconnection isn’t only structural in the ways you describe, socialization, resources, elite gatekeeping, but also actively maintained. Low-engagement voters aren’t just a problem to be solved; they’re a resource being harvested. Entire professional ecosystems have been built around the premise that most people won’t engage deeply, and that this is more useful than changing it. Repeated slogans shape how people see the issues without them realizing it. Negative framing activates self-defence instincts. Strong positions get generated without any real understanding of the issues. Whole careers depend on all this remaining true.
So apathy has been monetized and institutionalized. Increasing civic capacity runs directly against the economic interests of those who profit from its absence. Worth naming that explicitly, because it tells us something important about where the resistance to change will come from. And hopefully lead us to the right question: where in this system can we intervene first, and how?
I firmly believe that sortition is the answer to the problems of electoral politics.
I've been "intervening in the system" by advocating it to friends/family/online for the past 18 years, and suggesting others do the same. Well, not so much friends/family anymore - they're tired of hearing about it ...
Still, it's not going to get better until a significant portion of the populace is introduced to the idea and becomes convinced that it is a workable solution.
There seems to be more people writing/talking about it in the last couple of years, but the media/politicians/talking heads seem to be either unaware or actively avoiding the conversation (for self interested reasons, I would guess).
Absolutely. I think most people are not apathetic, but they do feel dis-empowered and unheard, which leads to a disinclination to get involved. They also don't recognize the successes that can happen ie slowing down the rate of Ontario Premier Ford's privatization of health care, because it is hard to see what isn't happening.
Pundits and politicians claiming that people don't care are serving their own interests in silencing the public and encouraging the politics of inevitability.
One way to counter this, in my experience, is to write letters/emails, make phone calls, sign petitions as small ways to exercise my civic engagement skills. Even though I'm quite sure no politician pays any attention, I do it anyway. Because if we do nothing, then we don't leave any room for possibility or hope. I refuse to live without hope. Therefore, I must exercise my agency (and encourage those around me to do the same).
I have argued vainly that voting should be mandatory.
Every citizen who votes in federal, provincial/First Nation, or municipal elections will be eligible for a $1000 tax credit, not deduction, that they may take as cash, or donate to a political party of their choice at 2 for 1 in a dollar for dollar top up from the federal government. Those who don't vote are ineligible for this credit which is then donated to official parliamentary parties based on seat counts. This assures every working citizen participates in our participatory democracy, one way or the other.
Love the post. You are on your way to transcending the 'left/right' thing and becoming truly profound. You are an intellectual who writes and talks warmly and lucidly, and is involved in practical politics, but unions--especially public sector ones--tend to limit their scope to the material interests of their members. Marxism doesn't address the problem since the state was supposed to 'whither away'. Boy did he get that wrong! Democracy, if we're not too dumb for it, has to be rebuilt from the ground up. There is probably an axiom there that a good academic could put their name on, which is that--in the long run*--democracy will never be better than what exists at the level of government closest to the citizen. (*Saying 'in the long run' is how academics, especially economists, make their axioms bulletproof...but of course, you know how Keynes dealt with that!)
I think also a reason why people might come across as apathetic is because frankly there is a limit to how empathetic one can be, especially in this current political climate. And actually what they are is exhausted. I wrote about this actually just yesterday and posted it , let me know if it resonates at all! https://substack.com/@laurensaysn/note/p-191741564?r=3omlvr&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Such an important topic and glad you wrote about it. One of the things I am sick of hearly relentlessly from political pundits on their panel shows is the general public just doesn't care about these big issues...that they really only care about pocket book issues, or are too busy with their regular lives. I dont buy it and its not what I hear around me.
There’s a reason why capitalism wears us down - when we are struggling to pay rent and pay for groceries, we are too busy and too exhausted to organize and fight.
I’m not saying that deters people but often times people are spent and exhausted.
If I were to say people are apathetic - it depends on what they’re apathetic about.
Is it something that directly affects them? Is it something they care about? I think that helps determine whether people are politically engaged and in tune with participation.
A friend framed the agenda this way, too often when someone says they want to get involved we jump to " sign up weekly or would you like to be on the board? " the goal should be to get people on that first rung of the ladder of engagement. In my experience that takes a personal invitation " please join me" ...., certainly not an impersonal email.
I'm not sure that this alienation doesn't start (and perhaps end) with institutional barriers.
Voting is a remarkably unproductive activity. Fewer than half of voters get a rep of their choosing... aka someone who will speak and vote in the rooms where it matters in accordance with their representations to us and, therefore, our aspirations. Marking a ballot can feel like spinning the steering wheel on one of those kiddie rides at the Ex. Or yanking the lever of a slot machine. One can be excused for coming to the conclusion that voting is a problematic activity... if not a pointless one.
So even for those that vote, more often than not you have a rep to whom it is pointless to take your issues... they must be perceived to have unsympathetic -- if not cloth -- ears.
The disconnect between political life and lived reality is significant.
I can enjoy the social aspects of sitting in the corner booth at my local discussing (or arguing) over a pint or two of oatmeal stout. Or attending a rally and marching in the street shouting with the group, "This is what democracy looks like!!!".
But what matters is connecting to the levers of legislative power to get things done.
What matters is not facilitating discussions but binding efforts like citizens assemblies to productive action... especially after the experiences of referenda designed to fail us in electoral reform.
Anyone care for another round?
I'm still flummoxed by the citizen's assembly on electoral reform that didn't include for consideration the method used to convene the assembly itself: SORTITION!!
Which Assembly?
My BC-CA contact says he doesn't remember it coming up.
But why would/ should it?
The BC assembly on electoral reform in 2004 and that's exactly my point. It didn't come up, it wasn't on the agenda!
But randomly choosing people was exactly the method used to create the assembly to debate a political issue - and isn't debating a political issue the job of politicians? If a randomly selected group can deliberate this issue, why not any other political issue? So why not select politicians randomly INSTEAD of by election, regardless of whether it's FPTP, ranked, proportional etc. etc.. All those electoral counting methods become moot, and you have a statistically valid representation of the populace, and isn't that the whole point of elections anyway?
He didn't say it wasn't on the agenda... he said he didn't remember any discussion.
I understand what you're saying but I disagree that the advantages translate. A jury or citizens panel is convened to investigate and arbitrate a "fresh" matter not in the current mix: is the accused guilty or innocent of murder; is there better way to constitute legislative bodies, etc. There is a lot of education necessary for people who must be, for want of a better word, agnostic. The BC-CA spent a good deal of time getting acquainted with the problem and facts of the matter and the larger public's view of the issues and then considering options and coming to a conclusion.
The work of our parliaments is ongoing. We're inserting fresh voices into a fast-moving stream. It makes little sense -- generally -- to abandon most everything that's been done, start from beginning with a clean slate and no acquired information each election cycle.
On the other hand I agree that populating our parliaments mus be much more inclusive of citizen opinion. That's why I advocate for STV to the exclusion of other methods... as did the BC-CA.
I do like Vaughan Lyon's proposal for constituency parliaments which more closely resemble your notion. Take a look at his book, Power Shift: from party elites to informed citizens.
Hope this helps.
Engaging topic.
The distinction between apathy and alienation is exactly right, and the exercise of asking someone whether they care about gas prices, healthcare wait times, or their pension is worth the price of admission alone. People aren’t empty. They’re disconnected.
Where I’d add a layer: the disconnection isn’t only structural in the ways you describe, socialization, resources, elite gatekeeping, but also actively maintained. Low-engagement voters aren’t just a problem to be solved; they’re a resource being harvested. Entire professional ecosystems have been built around the premise that most people won’t engage deeply, and that this is more useful than changing it. Repeated slogans shape how people see the issues without them realizing it. Negative framing activates self-defence instincts. Strong positions get generated without any real understanding of the issues. Whole careers depend on all this remaining true.
So apathy has been monetized and institutionalized. Increasing civic capacity runs directly against the economic interests of those who profit from its absence. Worth naming that explicitly, because it tells us something important about where the resistance to change will come from. And hopefully lead us to the right question: where in this system can we intervene first, and how?
I firmly believe that sortition is the answer to the problems of electoral politics.
I've been "intervening in the system" by advocating it to friends/family/online for the past 18 years, and suggesting others do the same. Well, not so much friends/family anymore - they're tired of hearing about it ...
Still, it's not going to get better until a significant portion of the populace is introduced to the idea and becomes convinced that it is a workable solution.
There seems to be more people writing/talking about it in the last couple of years, but the media/politicians/talking heads seem to be either unaware or actively avoiding the conversation (for self interested reasons, I would guess).
Absolutely. I think most people are not apathetic, but they do feel dis-empowered and unheard, which leads to a disinclination to get involved. They also don't recognize the successes that can happen ie slowing down the rate of Ontario Premier Ford's privatization of health care, because it is hard to see what isn't happening.
Pundits and politicians claiming that people don't care are serving their own interests in silencing the public and encouraging the politics of inevitability.
One way to counter this, in my experience, is to write letters/emails, make phone calls, sign petitions as small ways to exercise my civic engagement skills. Even though I'm quite sure no politician pays any attention, I do it anyway. Because if we do nothing, then we don't leave any room for possibility or hope. I refuse to live without hope. Therefore, I must exercise my agency (and encourage those around me to do the same).
I have argued vainly that voting should be mandatory.
Every citizen who votes in federal, provincial/First Nation, or municipal elections will be eligible for a $1000 tax credit, not deduction, that they may take as cash, or donate to a political party of their choice at 2 for 1 in a dollar for dollar top up from the federal government. Those who don't vote are ineligible for this credit which is then donated to official parliamentary parties based on seat counts. This assures every working citizen participates in our participatory democracy, one way or the other.
An absolutely outstanding article David!
Love the post. You are on your way to transcending the 'left/right' thing and becoming truly profound. You are an intellectual who writes and talks warmly and lucidly, and is involved in practical politics, but unions--especially public sector ones--tend to limit their scope to the material interests of their members. Marxism doesn't address the problem since the state was supposed to 'whither away'. Boy did he get that wrong! Democracy, if we're not too dumb for it, has to be rebuilt from the ground up. There is probably an axiom there that a good academic could put their name on, which is that--in the long run*--democracy will never be better than what exists at the level of government closest to the citizen. (*Saying 'in the long run' is how academics, especially economists, make their axioms bulletproof...but of course, you know how Keynes dealt with that!)
I think also a reason why people might come across as apathetic is because frankly there is a limit to how empathetic one can be, especially in this current political climate. And actually what they are is exhausted. I wrote about this actually just yesterday and posted it , let me know if it resonates at all! https://substack.com/@laurensaysn/note/p-191741564?r=3omlvr&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action