Understanding the “Long Tail” of Politics
I’ve just finished reading "The Long Tail" by Chris Anderson of Wired Magazine. If you’ve got the time, I strongly recommend it.
If you’re not familiar with it, the snapshot argument is that we no longer live in a world of top ten or best hits. As a population with a wide variety of interests, the people of the world are moving away from mass and more towards niche and unique.
Anderson applies the Long Tail argument to pretty much everything, including politics. In the context of the Canadian election, it means that a number of fallacies need to be addressed in order to fully satisfy Canadians’ desire to select the right voters:
- Debates: having a single debate with the leaders is nothing short of an insult. Where is the feedback from the public? How do people submit questions and make instant requests of their ‘leaders’?
- ‘Leadership’: since when should a single voice represent the collective opinions of thousands or millions of people? ‘Leadership’ is about letting go and let educated and informed people acting without influence from others.
- Voting: why should I have to make just one vote when I vote? Why can’t I choose my first three options to ensure that the Conservatives don’t win. My heart might be with the NDP, which I should be able to choose, but maybe I should have the Greens and Liberals as my second and third choices.
- ‘First past the post’: Obviously a complete failure in the context of ‘choice’ and ‘The Long Tail’.
I’m sure there are lots of other examples. Feel free to post your own suggestions.
What it all comes down to is a solid reinforcement of why our ‘democracy’ is a disaster. It fails Canadians in its (in)ability to represent a broad base of opinions and beliefs.