“Imagine that you have 100 people in a room, and you want to figure out what to order them for lunch. You don’t have a clue what to order, but you know that you don’t have the luxury of asking them each individually what they would like to eat. And, most importantly, you want to make as many people happy as possible. So you decide to ask a few people in the room to give you input.

“You ask everybody to stand up and count off by ones to 10, until each person has a number. Then you write out 10 cards, numbered one to 10, and put them in a hat. You have someone pull a card out of the hat and read you the number. It’s three. You then ask all of the 10 people who said ‘three’ what they would like to eat for lunch. You find out that four people want Chinese food and six want Italian.

“So you order 40 Chinese lunches and 60 Italian lunches. To everyone’s amazement, the vast majority of the people in the room are thrilled with what you ordered…

“Now, what about that ‘plus or minus 10%, 19 times out of 20′ stuff? What does that mean? Let’s go back to the lunchroom. It we succeeded in selecting a fair sample by picking all of the number threes, and didn’t actually select all the vegetarians or low-carb dieters, the rules say we should still expect to be off by a little bit. Not everybody will be satisfied with the lunch order. That’s the margin of error. It might turn out that 10 people in the room were stuck with good they didn’t really want, which would mean our margin of error was 10%. If we picked another random sample, we shouldn’t be surprised if this time five people wanted Chinese food and five wanted Italian. Maybe we should have ordered 50 Chinese lunches and 50 Italian lunches. Great, but even if we had, we shouldn’t have expected fewer people to be upset in the end, based on asking a sample of just 10 people and making a prediction about the rest.

“The really sad news is that even if we followed all of the rules perfectly and did our lunch poll 20 times, one time we would be wrong by even more than 10%. Maybe that was the unlucky time we happened to ask the ten people who were allergic to pasta. We get used to a margin of error in even the best-performing polls, and over time, we learn to predict what that margin probably is.”

The first section of the book – entitled “Where Do You Belong?” – deals with the sensibilities of Canadians by region. As I read my way through it, I might even post an overview of each chapter in this space between now and the election. Torontonians in particular, especially during an election, have a way of thinking of the country as “us versus everyone else” – and if it’s only because we assume that’s the way they think about us, then so be it. Nonetheless, it might be nice to get a better sense of where our fellow Canadians are coming from.

“The kind of people who have already accumulated a high level of economic and social power are usually over-represented in the political class,” he says. “Lawyers and those from the corporate boardroom tend to predominate. Other professionals are not far behind.”

And who’s largely getting left out? “Groups that are on the ‘outs’ – blacks in the US, Dalits (untouchables) in India, many types of immigrants, tribal peoples everywhere – tend to be greatly under-represented. Women have traditionally been excluded and although there is some change here… they are also grossly under-represented.”

These demographics alone, when counted together, represent a majority of the public being routinely excluded from the political class. Indeed, Swift argues that our political system “forms a more or less permanent – if sometimes rotating – government elite. The same faces pop up over and over again. The frequency with which we hear about the phenomenon of the ‘political comeback’ is a good indicator of how difficult it is to get rid of them…

“Perhaps in no other human endeavour,” he adds, “is the octogenarian male so prominent. Men in their late 70s and early 80s play a disproportionate role in the governing of many nations.” At the time of the book’s writing, as Swift noted, the late US senator Strom Thurmond was over a hundred years old, and still in office.

“Politicians from the governing culture tend to form a seamless web with those who hold power in the economy and society more generally,” he adds. “They are on the same boards, live in the same toney neighbourhoods, are members of the same clubs, have their kids in the same private schools…

“There is a shared ethos of doing things ‘properly’ – which usually means doing things in ways that do not threaten and if possible enhance the interests of that world.”

Nor does the relationship end when one leaves office. “A kind of ‘revolving door’ often operates between the political and economic élites,” Swift notes, “rewarding the former for their services once they leave office.”

“But democracy’s malaise,” Swift says, “goes deeper than the decline in voting and the manipulation of electoral arrangements by a self-serving elite. It stems from the very depths of what we imagine democracy to be.”

Here, Smith refers to the gap between direct and representative democracies; between our system of “highly centralized governments in which we are ‘represented’ by a class of professional politics, in other words, and the democratic notion of self-rule.

“If this is the central criterion of a democracy,” he argues, “we are a long way from it now. This sense of a failed promise to actually achieve a democratic life is perhaps the underlying reason for the groundswell of discontent.”

Why? Because democracy is all about “rule by the people,” but the practical structure of our democracies has a way of separating our representatives from the rest of the population they serve.

“The system of centralized state power seems increasingly remote from most people’s lives,” Swift explains, “and it becomes difficult to believe that politicians (no matter what their views) concerned with the macro-management of society and economy have any real interest in what is important to us. This view is reinforced every time a politicians tells voters one thing to get elected… and when they are in power does the exact opposite.

“While this is often put down to the typical hypocrisy of politicians, it is more than that. It is a go-with-the-flow, do-what-powerful-business-interests-want and don’t-rock-the-boat kind of ethos that glues political life together.”

Not only does this contribute to “an extraordinary popular hostility to not only the political class but government per se,” but it also contributes to a cycle in which cynical governments exploit and increase that hostility.

Swift argues that “Conservative politicians have proved the most adept at harnessing this hostility” and “using anti-government rhetoric to achieve, paradoxically, the very positions of power they are attacking. They are even prone to attack ‘big government’ at the same time they are cynically using the powers of the state to reward their friends and vanquish their enemies.” You may remember the same argument being made in a more current article or two that I quoted in another recent post.

This centralization of political power can be found at nearly all levels of government. “The big political parties are increasingly remote from the voters… The rank-and-file backbench representative who sits in a parliament or national assembly has little control over the cabinet, or if in opposition the shadow cabinet. The cabinet has less control over the increasingly large office of the chief executive, be they Prime Minister, President or Premier. ‘Don’t tie our hands’ is the cry used all down the line to drown out the sound of breaking promises and abandoned commitments.

“We are left,” Swift concludes, “with a series of puzzling questions as to why government isn’t better at representing the public interest and who is really setting the agenda.”

For today’s democracy post, since we’ve spent a week looking at a local issue and what we can do about it, I’d like to share some links that might give us all a little motivation.

The first is a recent piece in the Globe and Mail by Brian Topp, who says the recent Don Cherry debacle shouldn’t be underestimated, much less written off. Topp walks the reader through the “Orwellian double-talk” of kleptocracy, in which conservatives frame themselves as friends of the little guy in order to serve elite interests more effectively. It’s an approach that Topp says has become “the common currency of conservatives at all levels of government throughout the English-speaking world,” including our mayor.

“The conservative agenda,” he says, “seeks to impoverish all of Tim Hortons’ clients and to transfer their savings and income to people who view Starbucks as pedestrian. The conservative agenda is about the most massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the elite since the 1920s. The conservative agenda leads to more crime. The conservative agenda is about subordinating our sovereignty to global corporate interests – including the sale of our key assets to foreigners – and to the foreign policy agenda of another country.”

Ford’s agenda, of course, is just a local-level example of this ideology. But his successful campaign, and his continued support, prove that this approach works.

But it doesn’t have to. As Topp says, if progressives are willing to “stop building up our opponents by mocking or demonizing them,” and if we can shed our own lame liberal language and “find some clear words to point out the fundamental contradiction in the conservative message,” we can “beat the Conservatives in the race for our own base.”

The second link I’d like to share is to a recent piece in the National Post by Dan Gardner, an Ottawa Citizen columnist that I’ve quoted before. Entitled “Why the left hasn’t seized the day,” Gardner’s article argues that here at home, and all over the world, the left just isn’t putting up much of a fight.

He raises similar concerns about our ineffective academic language, citing a conversation with Jack Layton as an example. He argues that the left, or at least its rhetoric, is largely out of touch with the needs and concerns of today. He doesn’t offer as much in the way of alternatives as Topp, but he reinforces many of the same points.

Now, both of these guys are talking about something much broader than local politics, and certainly much bigger than Transit City. But they both point to a political approach that’s more effective – and more exciting, I think – than the approach progressives are currently taking.

We can be the cool kids in the corner, making fun of Ford and his supporters with smug superiority, but that doesn’t work. It sure didn’t work during the election, and in fact it probably played right into the hands of a campaign bent on demonizing downtown elites who supposedly look down on ordinary Torontonians. Isn’t it time we got over ourselves and tried something more effective?

This is the point at which you start to build your own network of contacts. You’re connecting with people who are active on your issue, and you’re keeping an eye out for additional new contacts and connections.

“A good place to start,” Sussman says, “is with one or two of the major advocacy organizations you identified.” In the case of Transit City, for example, the people behind the Save Transit City site would be a great option if it wasn’t apparently down for good. In their absence, Spacing could be a great organization to contact, and TTC Riders could as well. Oh, and check out Steve Munro.

Another option is to request an “informational meeting” with a city councillor who supports the plan. Ideally, they can give you a better sense of who’s doing what, and how you can help. Note that if you’re only gathering information, you may not have to meet directly with the councillor; a meeting with a member of his or her staff may do the job nicely. In either case, come prepared with a list of questions, and be specific about what you want from the meeting, so you can evaluate its success after the fact.

There’s another simple but effective option that Sussman doesn’t mention. As we’ve noted, social networks like Twitter are home to a great deal of discussion on Transit City and other issues, and they’re a great way to connect with people who share your point of view. A simple Twitter search for “Transit City,” for example, will show you who’s currently talking about the issue. You can follow and/or message those people, and hopefully they’ll respond in kind. Before long, you’ll be part of an informal but active network, sharing information and talking strategy.

“Once connected,” Sussman says, “you can focus on finding the right role for you – whether it is raising public awareness, participating in further research, organizing educational activities, or working on policy advocacy through direct contact with the government.”

Start with the problem, and be specific in identifying it. In this case, we have a public transit plan vocally opposed by a new mayor, and compromised by a transit commission that seems ready to abandon the plan in favour of his ideas.

Then, identify the current situation. Public transit has become a high profile issue among Ford supporters and detractors alike. Councillors are torn about the issue, and it’s easy to contact them with your concerns. The original plan may not come into being, but with the right opposition to Ford’s proposed alternatives, a viable compromise could be achieved.

Next, identify possible solutions. A grassroots advocacy campaign? A proposal before city council? Regardless of the approach, pay attention to whether your ideas are similar to steps already being taken, and if so, note the organizations who are taking them.

Now, identify potential support. With an idea in mind, think about the people who might be willing to back it. City councillors who are sympathetic to your point of view? Vocal friends and advocates on Twitter? Spacing and similarly minded local publications? Feel free to get broad.

Finally, consider the implications. “What would it take to make some of those solutions reality?” Think about the funding, the contracts, and the key decision makers. Think about what it would take to bring those people – and in the case of councillors, their constituents – around to your point of view.

“At this stage,” Sussman says, “you won’t have detailed answers but starting to think through the implications will help give you a sense of where to go next.”

Indeed, in a city where we can talk with straight faces about the “war on the car,” there may be no easy way to engage with Transit City’s more rigid opponents. But its supporters can’t achieve a real victory without a shift in public opinion.

Now it’s time to do some preliminary research and get a sense of the history of the issue. “Internet searches in newspaper archives by topic,” Sussman says, “will usually give you an overview of how the issue is perceived in the public’s eye and what the main areas of controversy are.”

Be sure to get your news from a wide range of sources. Different papers obviously cater to different readerships, and you’re not going to get a fair and accurate sense of a typical Ford voter’s objections to the Transit City plan if you’re reading nothing but NOW, for example. Remember that your goal is to get a handle on what the public thinks about the issue, not just the portion of the public that agrees with you.

Hell, if you’re a glutton for punishment, you can even read the comments after the articles and see what the loudest, dumbest segment of the population thinks and/or yells about the issue. I wouldn’t recommend it, but the option’s on the table.

“Next,” Sussman says, “find out whether any current government programs address your issue.” This is a “gimme” for us, because in the case of the Transit City plan, the government is a major part of the issue. Either way, it’s crucial to know where people in government stand on the issue, “because you want to make sure that what you’re proposing will not duplicate existing efforts or recommend actions that have been tried and discounted before.”

I should break from the Transit City case for a moment to note that if you’re working on a federal issue, you can start by visiting the Government of Canada website to find a list of federal government departments. Provincial government websites offer similar directories, for those of you whose issue of choice is best engaged at that level.

“At this stage,” Sussman adds, “it is important to play close attention to the publicly stated rationale for the government’s current program.” This is especially true when a new government is trying to reject an existing program and replace it with a highly questionable alternative. “Government press releases are usually the best source of this information,” Sussman says, but a boorish talk radio interview will probably do in a pinch.

“If you familiarize yourself with the language used to describe your issue,” Sussman says – and we’re talking about more than “pinko leftist kooks,” here – “it will help you to develop and frame your own arguments later on.”

Say what you will about Ford, but he and his people know how to frame an issue. After all, the man’s in office because his campaign grabbed “respect for taxpayers” by the throat and didn’t let go. Understanding the ways in which the Ford camp frames an issue like public transit – and the ways in which his supporters understand it – can help you critique the supposed pros of his position, instead of just preaching to the choir about the cons. Remember how much fun we had doing the latter in the days leading up to Ford’s amazing landslide victory?

One simple course of action that Sussman doesn’t mention, and which is especially useful when it comes to an issue that’s unfolding as we speak, is to set up a Google Alert in honour of the topic. It’s often the first thing I do when I want to follow an emerging issue; I’m still getting daily updates on the gun registry, for example.

In fact, you know what? I’ve just set one up for “Transit City,” and I’ll be glad to post the result here as I get them.

As I noted in yesterday’s post, when it comes to an issue like Transit City, the web is a great place to find like-minded people. Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook are an especially great source of news and updates, and of course you can follow people who are sharing ideas or information that you find useful.

But beyond just knowing who’s posting informative links or angry rants on the web, you’ll want to know which people and organizations are involved in the issue on a more vital level. You’ll want to know who’s for and against the results you want. By looking at even one well-known organization, Sussman says, “you can familiarize yourself with who the main actors are and what they are working on.”

In this case, we can start with two links I’ve already shared. Above, you’ll find a link to the official Transit City page on the TTC website. They’re one of the major players, of course, and their site offers a clear and simple summary of what they’re working on at the moment:

“Mayor Ford has requested that the TTC develop a new transit plan consistent with his platform. Work on a new plan is underway. For more info on the current plan see the Metrolinx website.”

From that short blurb alone, you get another one of the key players, a sense of their relationship, a look at where the issue stands, and a link to more information.

And if the mayor’s involved, so is city council. And if you take another look at the post on blogTO that I shared yesterday, you’ll see a list of the councillors who are for and against the plan, courtesy of the Globe and Mail.

In just a few minutes, we’ve learned a lot about some of the key players on this issue, where they stand, and even how to contact them. Not bad, right? And now we’re in a good position to learn a lot more about the issue, which takes us to the next step.

“How much time and energy am I willing to give?” Sussman suggests you ask yourself. “What specific skills do I have to offer?” With the second question in particular, it’s important to be thorough, and to avoid selling yourself short.

“Although you may want to spend your time offering your existing skills to a good cause,” she adds, “your priority may be to learn new ones. Becoming active on a social or political issue is a great way to develop new strengths you never imagined you had.”

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that you’re not looking for a career change, but you do have some volunteer time you’d like to put to good use. Sticking with Transit City as our example issue, it’s tough to think of a relevant new line of work that you’d want, much less need, to adopt in order to make a difference. But there are plenty of ways to achieve real results in your spare time.

That said, it’s important to be honest about your commitment level. “We all find that when we care about an issue, we can get drawn into devoting many more hours than we originally intended. This can be hard to justify when you have bills to pay and other responsibilities.” Speaking for myself, I routinely bite off more than I can chew, and I can totally recommend a little restraint in this regard.

For these reasons and more, it’s important not to accept just any volunteer position; you don’t want to let a few weeks go by and discover that you’re committed to work you’re no longer willing and able to do.

Volunteering responsibly with focus on an issue or an organization you care about, on the other hand, can have all kinds of personal and professional benefits. “When I began volunteering,” Sussman says, “I had no idea where it would lead, but by strategically choosing an area of focus, my efforts opened up tremendous possibilities I had never thought of.”

Let’s take that line of thinking back to Transit City. Since you’re reading this blog, it’s safe to say that you’re probably on Facebook and/or Twitter. If you don’t live in the Greater Toronto Area, then it’s a safe bet that you know and/or follow a number of people that do.

And because, let’s be honest, a woefully small number of people are willing to expose themselves to opinions that go against their own views, you’re probably “one of us” – the people who have some reservations about our new mayor and his plans for public transit.

If all or even most of the above describes you, then you’re in luck: the networks you’re already on are full of useful information about public transit in Toronto, shared by people who are surprisingly passionate about what a lot of folks would call a dull, non-sexy issue. In fact, you probably don’t even need me to tell you that.

The Save Transit City site may be down for days at the time of this writing, but on Twitter alone, you can find plenty of information on small but effective ways you can make a difference. The list of city councillors on either side of the plan that blogTO recently posted on their Twitter account is one example, and from an advocacy point of view, the buttons that Spacing is now selling counts as another.

But beyond that, there’s a lot to be said for taking the opportunity to tap into a network of people who care about the same issues you do. Nobody likes a “social media personality,” but if you’re willing to make the issues your focus and listen as much as you talk, you’ll learn an awful lot about the matter at hand – and if you gain a bunch of followers, friends and feed subscribers along the way, what’s the problem?

From there, who knows? Twitter in particular is a great place for Toronto activists to get to know each other, and to do more together than they ever could alone. It’s a first step at best, but it’s a good one.

“If you are looking to add a more social, community-oriented dimension to your life,” Sussman says, “the best way to start is just by exposing yourself to new people, doing new things, and seeing what options become apparent to you.” Why not take a small first step today by jumping into the Transit City discussion on your blog, through social media sites, or in the comments below? There’s no telling where it might take you.

“If you are looking for a worthwhile way to spend your time,” Sussman says, “but don’t know what that means for you, start by examining your personal interests and values. While the topic you choose will likely have broader community and social implications, it is important that you choose something that has meaning in your life… Examining your interests will help make sure you choose a topic that will sustain your attention.”

A lot of us, for example, have our eyes on the future of Transit City at the moment. Public transit may not be the sexiest of issues, but it’s an issue that affects a lot of people – and battle lines, however superficial, are certainly being drawn along it.

But to really make a difference on an issue takes sustained dedication. if you’re working toward a change you really believe in, then the amount of time and energy you’ve got to devote to it probably won’t seem like a chore. These are the types of issues that you’ll want to choose.

“Choosing a topic that resonates with you personally will help make your efforts less of a burden and more of a release. Spending your time addressing the problems that bother you deeply rather than lamenting about them can give you a real sense of personal satisfaction, regardless of the outcome.”

Choosing a specific issue like Transit City, as opposed to a broader issue like “public transit,” also enables you to focus your time and energy on a concrete set of tasks. Working with a small coalition of people on an issue that involves even one level of government can be a great introduction to activism and engagement in a much broader sense.