Friday, October 20, 2006
Observation on the Citizens' Assembly meeting on October 14th
In considering choices being made by a body of people, it goes without saying that the manner and extent to which they are informed is an extremely important factor to keep in mind. If we feel as if the body has been misinformed then we may very likely find the decision to which they came illegitimate or insufficient. It is with this in mind that I would like to comment on the Citizens’ Assembly (CA) meeting that I attended on Saturday, October 14th, specifically the session entitled “Electoral Systems: What are they?” which was conducted by Dr. Rose. Electoral systems being the very thing which the CA was created to evaluate, assessing the manner in which the systems are being taught is necessary in evaluating the CA’s ability to make a recommendation regarding electoral reform. After observing this session, and some of the small-group discussions which followed, I believe that the manner in which these sessions are being conducted will enable the CA to make not only a well-informed decision, but a decision which has been well-reasoned and critically reflected upon.
I will start by giving a basic description of what I observed at the CA meeting. Following this, I consider some of the issues surrounding the educational phase of the CA in general, specifically the issue of bias. I conclude by analyzing what I observed with the issues that I have raised, highlighting specific theoretic considerations.
The meeting was called to order by the chairman who announced a CA member’s birthday and then introduced Dr. Rose. Dr. Rose made a joke about how hard it is to follow a birthday announcement with discussion of something as dry as electoral systems to which everybody laughed. The instructors and the members of the CA seemed fairly comfortable in the situation, seeming to show that, while taking this quite seriously, they were not nervous or stuffy because of the cameras or the setting.
The object of this session was to explain what an electoral system is, to explain some of the basic vocabulary used in describing electoral systems, and to provide a basic overview of the main electoral systems. Dr. Rose was careful with his definition of electoral systems (“The way in which votes are translated into seats”) to not include any normative qualifiers that might bias the CA against any of the given systems. He then introduced the basic components of an electoral system: ballot structure, district magnitude, and electoral formula. Once these concepts were well established, he briefly discussed the ways in which they interact to form different systems. What was impressive was that by the time he got to each individual system he did not need to spend more than a couple minutes on each, only needing to make reference to the aforementioned concepts. For example, in describing systems of plurality he said “these systems have categorical ballot structures, district magnitudes of one representative (generally), and an electoral formula in which the most votes win.” While he illustrated these systems a bit more than I have recounted, he made it clear that he was giving a simple overview (not a full description) of each of these systems and that the main goal was to really familiarize the CA with the relevant vocabulary.
Overall, Dr. Rose’s lecture was easy to follow, to the point, and unbiased. He did not give any more explanation to one system than another, and importantly, explained all of them in reference to the same three components which he defined at the outset. This was refreshing to see since the question of bias has been raised in a few different forums in reference to the CA.
And perhaps this question should be on the tip of most of our tongues; it would seem that the CA members, most of whom are presumably not formally educated in political science, would be extremely vulnerable to the bias of the educators. Ian Urquhart, a writer for the Toronto Star, wrote a very critical piece on the CA last month in reference to this very issue. He argued that the panel of experts chosen to advise the CA “reads like a who's who of advocates of proportional representation” which stacks the deck against maintaining the current First Past the Post system.[i] This is a reasonable concern which I would assume the CA is aware of. However, underlying this skepticism is a fairly paternalistic assumption that the members of the CA, far removed from the safety and familiarity of their “humdrum lives”[ii], are not capable of interrogating that which they are being taught. While bias is an important concern, can we also consider that the CA might be fully aware that bias will exist, and that they will be able to sniff it out and challenge it? Perhaps it might be as naïve to assume that this criticality is prevalent within the CA as it is smug to assume that isn’t, but since this whole exercise rests on certain assumptions of competency on the part of the CA members, I think it is fair to assume a certain potential for critical reflection. In this light then, it would seem that whether or not the CA is carried out in such a way to facilitate this type of critical reflection among the members is as crucial of a consideration as the question of bias in the content.
In this way we can identify two general criterions useful to assess the quality of this education phase of the CA. The first would be that it is absent of any glaring bias which could be systemic of a lesson plan (i.e. misinformation, vast discrepancy in the amount of time and energy spent between two differing views, vast discrepancy in manner of explanation from subject to subject etc.). The second criterion would be that the CA members are being taught in such a way which recognizes the limitations of the instructor(s) and in turn enables and empowers the CA plenary to be critical and interrogate what they are being taught.
Based on my own observation I did not find any glaring bias in Dr. Rose’s lecture. While I grant that this was an introductory session and one would need to attend the more specific lectures to better know the existence of any bias, I think that this session sets up a fairly objective framework and approach on the part of the whole CA panel. As I said before, the definitions and concepts were established in such a way that would not preclude the dismissal or acceptance of any system discussed.
I found the lecture to be quite encouraging based on the second criterion that I pointed to before. As I have been describing, Dr. Rose began the discussion of electoral systems first by introducing basic definitions and vocabulary. What this does is put the CA members in a position where they are not merely learning what people have told them about specific electoral systems, although they will do that, but they are learning what these different systems are made of and different ways of evaluating and assessing these systems. In essence, the CA is being taught how to learn about these systems before being taught the specifics, which places them in a position where they can assess what they are learning and make judgments on their own.
In 1970, the Brazilian scholar Paulo Freire wrote the seminal book Pedagogy of the Oppressed in which he outlined the ways in which the educational system is used to maintain power structures. He suggested that traditional education uses a “banking concept” in which the teacher deposits lifeless information into the students and then withdraws it from them later.[iii] Freire makes this point to show the manner in which power structures are reinforced within systems of education, with the one knowledgeable teacher who bestows gifts of information upon the students who “accept their ignorance as justifying the teacher’s existence” and in turn presume themselves inferior to the teacher. [iv] I bring this up not to draw a parallel between the current Ontario government and that of Brazil in the 1960’s, but rather to point out that the basic manner in which an educational project is approached has a drastic effect on those who are being taught and the way they interpret that which is being taught to them.
This is especially important to consider in the case of the CA. If sessions are conducted strictly in such a way that information appears solely owned by the instructor, then capacity for inquiry and interrogation is in many ways foreclosed, rendering the information being taught as immutable. If this type of educational model is not used however, the CA members can understand themselves as equal parts of the educational process and understand that it is their job as students to analyze, interpret, and interrogate what they are being taught and who is teaching them. Thus, the potential for critical reflection which I mentioned earlier can be honed by creating an environment in which the CA members (a) are being taught in ways which make the information meaningful and dynamic as opposed to lifeless and dryly academic, and (b) understand that they can learn as much from other “students” through discussion and questions as through the formal information sessions.
To this end, the basic structural aspects of the CA such as questioning periods, the small-group discussion periods which follow plenary sessions are very important in enabling the CA members to properly understand the different electoral systems and to combat whatever bias might exist on the instruction end. Furthermore, things like the announcement of birthdays and small jokes which the chair makes, or the metaphors Dr. Rose uses,[v] go a long way in dismantling the “power” such a situation bestows on an instructor without robbing them of their ability competently educate CA members on the intricacies of electoral systems and electoral reform.
Overall, I think the educational phase will be very effective in enabling CA members to properly make a well-informed decision.
References
[i] Urquhart, Ian. “Beware citizens' assemblies on electoral reform” Toronto Star Sep. 9, 2006.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Freire, Paulo. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York (Continuum Publishing, 1988), 57-58.
[iv] Ibid. 59.
[v] In describing Ontario’s current system Dr. Rose referred to the Olympics in which one country might win an individual event, but you also might refer to one country winning the entire Olympics by winning the most individual events. At another point used a metaphor of choosing a dessert from a list to describe different electoral systems.
I will start by giving a basic description of what I observed at the CA meeting. Following this, I consider some of the issues surrounding the educational phase of the CA in general, specifically the issue of bias. I conclude by analyzing what I observed with the issues that I have raised, highlighting specific theoretic considerations.
The meeting was called to order by the chairman who announced a CA member’s birthday and then introduced Dr. Rose. Dr. Rose made a joke about how hard it is to follow a birthday announcement with discussion of something as dry as electoral systems to which everybody laughed. The instructors and the members of the CA seemed fairly comfortable in the situation, seeming to show that, while taking this quite seriously, they were not nervous or stuffy because of the cameras or the setting.
The object of this session was to explain what an electoral system is, to explain some of the basic vocabulary used in describing electoral systems, and to provide a basic overview of the main electoral systems. Dr. Rose was careful with his definition of electoral systems (“The way in which votes are translated into seats”) to not include any normative qualifiers that might bias the CA against any of the given systems. He then introduced the basic components of an electoral system: ballot structure, district magnitude, and electoral formula. Once these concepts were well established, he briefly discussed the ways in which they interact to form different systems. What was impressive was that by the time he got to each individual system he did not need to spend more than a couple minutes on each, only needing to make reference to the aforementioned concepts. For example, in describing systems of plurality he said “these systems have categorical ballot structures, district magnitudes of one representative (generally), and an electoral formula in which the most votes win.” While he illustrated these systems a bit more than I have recounted, he made it clear that he was giving a simple overview (not a full description) of each of these systems and that the main goal was to really familiarize the CA with the relevant vocabulary.
Overall, Dr. Rose’s lecture was easy to follow, to the point, and unbiased. He did not give any more explanation to one system than another, and importantly, explained all of them in reference to the same three components which he defined at the outset. This was refreshing to see since the question of bias has been raised in a few different forums in reference to the CA.
And perhaps this question should be on the tip of most of our tongues; it would seem that the CA members, most of whom are presumably not formally educated in political science, would be extremely vulnerable to the bias of the educators. Ian Urquhart, a writer for the Toronto Star, wrote a very critical piece on the CA last month in reference to this very issue. He argued that the panel of experts chosen to advise the CA “reads like a who's who of advocates of proportional representation” which stacks the deck against maintaining the current First Past the Post system.[i] This is a reasonable concern which I would assume the CA is aware of. However, underlying this skepticism is a fairly paternalistic assumption that the members of the CA, far removed from the safety and familiarity of their “humdrum lives”[ii], are not capable of interrogating that which they are being taught. While bias is an important concern, can we also consider that the CA might be fully aware that bias will exist, and that they will be able to sniff it out and challenge it? Perhaps it might be as naïve to assume that this criticality is prevalent within the CA as it is smug to assume that isn’t, but since this whole exercise rests on certain assumptions of competency on the part of the CA members, I think it is fair to assume a certain potential for critical reflection. In this light then, it would seem that whether or not the CA is carried out in such a way to facilitate this type of critical reflection among the members is as crucial of a consideration as the question of bias in the content.
In this way we can identify two general criterions useful to assess the quality of this education phase of the CA. The first would be that it is absent of any glaring bias which could be systemic of a lesson plan (i.e. misinformation, vast discrepancy in the amount of time and energy spent between two differing views, vast discrepancy in manner of explanation from subject to subject etc.). The second criterion would be that the CA members are being taught in such a way which recognizes the limitations of the instructor(s) and in turn enables and empowers the CA plenary to be critical and interrogate what they are being taught.
Based on my own observation I did not find any glaring bias in Dr. Rose’s lecture. While I grant that this was an introductory session and one would need to attend the more specific lectures to better know the existence of any bias, I think that this session sets up a fairly objective framework and approach on the part of the whole CA panel. As I said before, the definitions and concepts were established in such a way that would not preclude the dismissal or acceptance of any system discussed.
I found the lecture to be quite encouraging based on the second criterion that I pointed to before. As I have been describing, Dr. Rose began the discussion of electoral systems first by introducing basic definitions and vocabulary. What this does is put the CA members in a position where they are not merely learning what people have told them about specific electoral systems, although they will do that, but they are learning what these different systems are made of and different ways of evaluating and assessing these systems. In essence, the CA is being taught how to learn about these systems before being taught the specifics, which places them in a position where they can assess what they are learning and make judgments on their own.
In 1970, the Brazilian scholar Paulo Freire wrote the seminal book Pedagogy of the Oppressed in which he outlined the ways in which the educational system is used to maintain power structures. He suggested that traditional education uses a “banking concept” in which the teacher deposits lifeless information into the students and then withdraws it from them later.[iii] Freire makes this point to show the manner in which power structures are reinforced within systems of education, with the one knowledgeable teacher who bestows gifts of information upon the students who “accept their ignorance as justifying the teacher’s existence” and in turn presume themselves inferior to the teacher. [iv] I bring this up not to draw a parallel between the current Ontario government and that of Brazil in the 1960’s, but rather to point out that the basic manner in which an educational project is approached has a drastic effect on those who are being taught and the way they interpret that which is being taught to them.
This is especially important to consider in the case of the CA. If sessions are conducted strictly in such a way that information appears solely owned by the instructor, then capacity for inquiry and interrogation is in many ways foreclosed, rendering the information being taught as immutable. If this type of educational model is not used however, the CA members can understand themselves as equal parts of the educational process and understand that it is their job as students to analyze, interpret, and interrogate what they are being taught and who is teaching them. Thus, the potential for critical reflection which I mentioned earlier can be honed by creating an environment in which the CA members (a) are being taught in ways which make the information meaningful and dynamic as opposed to lifeless and dryly academic, and (b) understand that they can learn as much from other “students” through discussion and questions as through the formal information sessions.
To this end, the basic structural aspects of the CA such as questioning periods, the small-group discussion periods which follow plenary sessions are very important in enabling the CA members to properly understand the different electoral systems and to combat whatever bias might exist on the instruction end. Furthermore, things like the announcement of birthdays and small jokes which the chair makes, or the metaphors Dr. Rose uses,[v] go a long way in dismantling the “power” such a situation bestows on an instructor without robbing them of their ability competently educate CA members on the intricacies of electoral systems and electoral reform.
Overall, I think the educational phase will be very effective in enabling CA members to properly make a well-informed decision.
References
[i] Urquhart, Ian. “Beware citizens' assemblies on electoral reform” Toronto Star Sep. 9, 2006.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Freire, Paulo. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York (Continuum Publishing, 1988), 57-58.
[iv] Ibid. 59.
[v] In describing Ontario’s current system Dr. Rose referred to the Olympics in which one country might win an individual event, but you also might refer to one country winning the entire Olympics by winning the most individual events. At another point used a metaphor of choosing a dessert from a list to describe different electoral systems.
