Have an idea for a story?
M opinions@theotherpress.ca

(¥ For everyone's sake, name your kid something normal
(¥Y Why it's ok to not be the best feminist ever
(¥ It's not your manhood at stake, it’s your personhood

And more!

 

Why many votes
don't really count

> Challenges in our democracy

Cazzy Lewchuk
Opinions Editor

 

W: are fortunate to live
in a democracy with
the right to vote in fair, free
elections for a candidate of
our choice. Each vote has
equal value, is anonymous,
and you can even choose to
spoil your ballot or simply not
vote. Ideally, every vote has an
equal amount of power. One
person, one vote, one equal
share of the results, right?
Sadly, it’s not that simple.
Under a first-past-the-post
system, as is used in the US
and Canada, some votes have
a lot more meaning than
others. By far, the biggest
indication and circumstance
is the area you live in. In
some cities, or even entire
provinces, a certain political
party will get in, no matter
what. There is and may
always be a status quo of
beliefs held by people in the
area that are continuously
reflected in political results.
My federal election
riding is in Vancouver East,
an area well-known for its
liberal values and election
results. Occasionally, Liberal
MPs have been elected, but
the NDP has considered
the area one of its “safest”
in Canada for years. The
last seven MP elections all
went to the NDP candidate,
by a wide majority. While
a conservative or outsider
candidate has a theoretical
chance of getting in, it’s very
unlikely the status quo will
be disrupted based on the
beliefs of the community. The
same situation exists in many
areas, all around the world.
You have the right to vote
for whoever you want, or to
spoil your ballot, or to not vote
at all. But not all democracy is
direct. In Canada, we vote for
members of parliament, and
the leader of whichever party
has the most MPs elected
becomes prime minister. I
supported Justin Trudeau
as prime minister, but I did
not vote for his party, simply
because I thought the local

NDP candidate would do a
better job in my specific area.
L also knew that it was very,
very likely an NDP candidate
would get in, and it didn’t
really matter who I voted for.
I could’ve voted for the Pirate
Party (which received 188
votes in my riding in 2015) and
the NDP still would’ve won in
a landslide in East Vancouver.
In the US, despite
the ballots directly listing
presidential candidate’s
names, people actually vote
for members of the “electoral
college,” who are supposed to
vote for the candidate on the
voter’s behalf (and usually do,
although not always). It would
seem so much easier if the
candidate who gets the most
votes wins, but the system is
much more complicated than
that. Almost every state has
a winner-takes-all format,
meaning a candidate who
receives the majority vote
wins the state. Donald Trump
could win 51 per cent of the
vote in Florida, but would
then receive 100 per cent of
the electoral votes by this
system. This system led to
George W. Bush winning the
election over Al Gore in 2000,
despite losing the popular
vote by 500,000 people, due
to a recount that led to him
winning the state of Florida.
The US and Canada have
different political systems, but
both have major flaws that
lead to some areas having a lot
more traction than others. BC
has “swing ridings” that can
make significant differences in
who wins provincial elections.
Ontario and Quebec can make
all the difference in unseating
a prime minister because of
their heavily centralized and
populated areas. No matter
where presidential candidates
in the US campaign for
18 months, people in
Ohio and Florida end up
picking the next POTUS.
Until we significantly
change how our votes are
counted, some votes seem
almost meaningless. It’s no
wonder a lot of people abstain
from voting, or feel frustrated
with the whole system.

 

.

  
  

~

Is 1t okay to desecrate the
Catholic Communion host?

> Literally spitting on sacred beliefs

Cazzy Lewchuk
Opinions Editor

 

M any Christian churches have

some form of communion,

during which attendees taste a
representation of the body and
blood of Christ. Although the
ceremony and ingredients vary
by denomination, it’s generally
represented by crackers/bread
and wine or grape juice.

In the Catholic Church—by
far the world’s largest church
and Christian denomination—
communion (known as the
Eucharist) is very serious
business. While many churches
offer open communion and
see it as purely symbolic,
Catholics believe their ceremony
to be strictly for members,
and a holy affair. Through a
mysterious process known as

“transubstantiation,” it is believed

that the substance or essence of
the offerings actually become
the body and blood of Christ.
Catholics in good standing
receive the Eucharist, literally
ingesting the eternal love of
Christ, who is also God. The
ceremony is conducted under
specific circumstances: Only
Catholic priests are allowed to
bless the crackers and wine of
communion. Until the ceremony
begins, it’s just a cracker,
but after consecration, it has
become infused with a literal

reality of God’s presence.

To a non-Catholic it may
all sound silly. Those who don’t
believe won't understand the
process, and may go so far as
to “desecrate” the host to mock
the religion. This is treated as a
mortal sin, on par with murder
or other serious offences, and is
punishable by excommunication
(formal exclusion) from the
Church. It may seem silly, but
the host is a representative of
God/Jesus, who is obviously the
most holy and important part
of Catholicism. By violating
the host, you are, in effect,
spitting in the face of God. It’s
not just disrespectful to their
religion, it’s downright hurtful.
Host desecration remains a
problem wrestled with by the
Church continuously: from
disillusioned Catholic school
kids, to a professor in Florida in
2008 who encouraged people
to send him desecrated hosts
and posted photos online.

I’m not Catholic. I’m not
even religious, and I don’t
believe that a cracker is actually
infused with the essence of God
because of a priest’s actions.
There are a lot of things I don’t
agree with in Catholic doctrine,
and spitting ona cracker (as
opposed to eating it and turning
it into feces) is only one of the
many things I don't believe will
harm your eternal soul. But I
do recognize the incredible

rudeness of mocking someone’s
deeply held personal beliefs.
When you go out of your
way to mock someone’s religion
by violating their sacred beliefs,
you're really hitting below the
belt. You're certainly free to make
that point and believe whatever
you want about it, but you're
deliberately upsetting hundreds
of millions of people so that you
can make a smug point about
how you don’t agree with them.
Indeed, I believe non-
religious people seem to
have a double standard for
Western religions that are
more commonly known and
practiced. It may be because
their prevalence in our culture
makes them more acceptable
targets to mock. Someone
who’s quite happy to spit on
a sacred communion cracker
might not be as comfortable
disrupting a traditional Native
spiritual ceremony. Both cases
are infringing on people’s
sacred spiritual beliefs that
are incredibly important to
them—even if they aren’t to
you. If you’re comfortable
upsetting that many people for
your own self satisfaction, and
if you're confident God won't be
upset, it’s your freedom to do
what you want. But you should
always consider what your
actions say about you, and how
they are perceived to others.

Image via Thinkstock