A Modest Suggestion

by Bill Tomlinson
April 1999

I see that the Conservative leadership race was decided by a vote of the membership. This means that in order to be able to vote one had to become a member by paying the party ten dollars. This means that a prospective party leader and his supporters had to hustle to sign up as many relatives, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, or even total strangers who are willing to go along with the charade. I say charade because these newly acquired political supporters are not necessarily required to make any financial contribution. The membership fee is paid for them by those members who have a vested interest in seeing that their candidate wins.

In central and eastern Canada bringing in supporters by the busload from retirement homes and suchlike has been a fine old tradition at nominating meetings for many decades, especially where one particular party might, think it has a really sporting chance at winning the seat.

Some libertarians might frown on this practice, although I am not quite sure why. Perhaps they feel there is something underhanded about buying the power that comes along with being a successful candidate. Certainly most libertarians have serious reservations about democracy as a process, but until we can come up with a satisfactory alternative we must work with what we have.

A few years ago at a convention, I brought up the idea that instead of following the lead of the other parties we should accept and embrace the idea that money and power go hand in hand, and instead of buying votes in the way it is done now, we should allocate votes on the basis of one vote for each dollar contributed. If you are shocked and appalled at this idea, let us then discuss this hypothetical situation. I am a party supporter and I have $1,000 which I am willing to contribute in an effort to have my candidate Mr. X elected. We have a nominating meeting and on the day of the meeting I stand outside the hall and buttonhole passers-by. I give each one an envelope containing thirty five dollars on the understanding that each will go in and buy a membership for ten dollars and vote for my candidate. Is this any more ethical than if I took my $1,000 and gave it to the party in exchange for 1,000 votes which I could then use to support my candidate?

I can see you raising your hands in horror as those who attended the convention did when I first proposed this. But, you cry, does this not mean that one prosperous individual could outbid the rest of us poor folk, and I have to agree, yes he could. For instance, in the case of an election for party leader, if someone covets the position sufficiently to want to outbid the rest of us, with the present sad state of party membership it would not be hard to do. I would like to think however, that having make that kind of investment, he or she would realize that it was in his best interest not to antagonize the party as a whole by introducing policies that didn't have support among the members. As the party grows the possibility of one member being able to afford to buy real influence would diminish.

Democracy, and the notion of one person, one vote, is a sufficiently flexible concept to accommodate a variety of forms. At one time the franchise was denied to women and madmen. At another time only property owners were eligible to vote. In today's elections a judge may not vote, although why these recipients of government largesse should be singled out escapes me, while all the rest can contribute as much as they like and vote for the politician of their choice. With the odd exception, citizens may vote in federal, provincial or municipal elections, but in a condominium project residents are not given the same privilege. A unit having six residents is allocated the same number of votes as a single occupant. Tenants are disenfranchised.

Libertarians have a different view of the political process to that of other politicians and we should adapt that process to suit our purpose, rather than try to conform to the current status quo which has not served us well lately. Surely in this time when the emphasis is on the redistribution of wealth and all the attendant problems that come with that philosophy we should at least be prepared to consider the proposition that he who pays the piper should be the one to call the tune. This is clearly the case with other parties and as the libertarian movement, by virtue of its emphasis on individual sovereignty, can expect very little support from big labour or big business, we must rethink our fund-raising strategies. The only real currency a politician deals in is power, even if most would probably be reluctant to admit it, and political power is much more easily obtainable with cash. We have a pretty good idea what our goals are. Perhaps what we need to do is reappraise the means we must use to achieve them.