Ontario Election Preview: Toronto-Danforth and Don Valley West

Okay, this will be a long running series. I am going to try to get through all 107 ridings. I will also try to do so only after I know something about the race. So, to start off with, my home riding of...

Toronto Danforth: This is perhaps the safest NDP seat in the province. They have held it for as long as they have been a registered party. Incumbent Peter Tabuns won election in a by-election in 2006 after former NDP MPP Marilyn Churley decided to try to run federally. Tabuns won relatively easily over what was considered a tough opponent in former local news anchor Ben Chin. When McGuinty asked Chin to be in his war room, the local Grits were left searching. They've found Joyce Rowlands, a former nurse and daughter of former Toronto Mayor June Rowlands. The former mayor may have had a shot against the ex-city councillor Tabuns but her daughter is a political neophyte being served up for the slaughter. The issue here will be the environment, as all parties wil need to show how green they really are if they are to succeed.

The Conservatives have not yet bothered to nominate a candidate which in this case shows how slim their chances are on the Danforth. Georgina Blanas was their candidate in the 2006 by-election. Whoever they nominate will compete with Green Party nominee Patrick Kraemer, who lost horribly to NDPer Paula Fletcher in the last municipal election, for third in this riding. Either would be lucky to get 10%.

The riding may be demographically trending away from the NDP (it's getting richer), but Tabuns probably won't notice.

Prediction: Safe NDP

Don Valley West: Moving on to perhaps the most interesting race in the province. This race has two huge names going head to head. The incumbent is the Liberal Minister of Education, Kathleen Wynne. The challenger is leader of the official opposition and the PC's, John Tory. Tory made a bold move in choosing to run at home in Don Valley West. The former Mayoral candidate and Rogers exec. has decided to make this his Waterloo. If the PC's are to win the election they need to win at least a couple of seats in Toronto and Tory has taken it on himself to win one of them. McGuinty responded by promoting the rookie Wynne to one of the top jobs in the province. However, Wynne is far from unqualified having served two terms on the Toronto District School Board. School wards in Toronto mimic the provincial and federal riding boundaries so the people of Don Valley West know Wynne well. Wynne defeated Conservative incumbent David Turnbull in 2003 and the riding is well described as a bellweather riding. Turnbull won the riding in 1999 with a majority and Wynne defeated Turnbull in 2003 with a majority.

This is going to be an all-out ground war as both parties are desperate to see their candidate elected. Tory will have to find a fine balance between campaigning provincially and trying to get himself back into the legislature. If Tory is defeated here or wins here and loses the election, there will be a lot of Tories grumbling about his decision to run in Don Valley West.

The NDP has not yet found a candidate to sacrifice here. The Greens are putting up Adrian Walker.

Prediction: Toss-up between the Grits and Tories

Monday Musings

Thoughts on the weekend's events:

• The announcement by Frank de Jong that he wants a referendum on the Catholic School question is interesting. I agree with de Jong that we should scrap the board, I disagree about having a referendum. We elect MPP's to make the tough decisions we don't have time or want to make. Referenda are little but false populism. I'm not even going to get into how ugly that campaign would be.
• By the way, I was looking at the constitutional issues surrounding the school board, and its really not a hurdle. Constitutional matters which impact on only one province can be ammended by a simple majority of that province's legislature. Quebec has already passed an ammendment exempting them from the relevant section (93). Ontario could do the exact same thing.
• Good announcement from McGuinty on uploading social service costs from the cities. This is the kind of help he should and can give to get Toronto out of its budget crunch.
• The polls out this morning on the Ontario election border on relevant as we are less than a month away from the writ. The polls out of Northern Ontario are the most frightening in my mind. We're behind the Conservatives? Please tell me they did most of their polling in North Bay.
• I join with all Canadians in mourning the loss of yet another soldier in Afghanistan. Pte. Simon Longtin died tragically yesterday in Kandahar. My thoughts and prayers go out to his friends and family.
• It will be interesting to see how Quebeckers react to draped coffins coming back from Afghanistan.
• I know what's going to top Colbert's threatdown... My guess: he immediately regretted that decision. Seriously, this is a tragedy not a laughing matter.
• Much like Free Trade, a closer security partnership with the US is not going to be the end of the world. In fact, if it's good for business, it strengthens Canada.
• The Utah mine story has gone from tragic to Brechtian.
• Am I the only one who gets a little sick every time CNN announces the "good news" that hurricanes are "just" going to hit Mexico? Apparently, only Americans get hurt and killed by hurricanes. Ugly Americanism at its worst.
• Minnesota can't get a break these days. First a bridge collapses in the Twin Cities and now the remnants of Tropical Storm Erin wreaks havoc. The Land of a Thousand Lakes is not so peaceful.

Friday Musings

Okay, it's friday and I'm lazy here's a bunch of quick thoughts:

• To those who want my proposal for our electoral system, it's on the citizen's assembly website here.
• Did anyone else catch Gov. Mike Huckabee comparing gun owners to monkeys on the Colbert Report last night? That tape is not going to play well at a NRA convention. I don't care if he is one of the most pro-gun candidates out there.
• I have changed my opinion on Bill Richardson after his moronic comments about homosexuality being a choice. Jet lag? Give me a break. I officially like none of the Democratic contenders.
• Sticking with presidential polititcs, the Iowa Straw Poll has got to be one of the stupidest things in existence. Ron Paul got like 9% of the vote? What the?!?!?!?!?!
• Okay, I don't need a Nobel Prize in economics to know that giving millions of dollars to people who shouldn't qualify for a mortgage is stupid. Why didn't the markets figure this out BEFORE everyone defaulted?
• However, as silly as the reason for the crisis is, the crisis itself is still pretty scary. When central banks are taking steps to prevent a bank run, there's a bit of a problem.
• Cabinet shuffles are a waste of time. Although, it was nice to see Diane Ablonczy finally get her chance.
• I understand why the Grits keep comparing Harper to Bush. I just wish we'd spend more time attacking the Tories on substance.
• I'm not sure I agree with Jean Charest about the whole Charlebois thing. After all, if Marois can't win a seat the PQ won a few months ago under Boisclair, how much legitimacy does she really have? It may be tradition, but it seems to me like a pretty foolish one that stems from the days when leaders ran in ridings that they were going to get super-majorities in anyway. If the ADQ actually feels they can win the election, especially with how close the National Assembly is, why shouldn't they be allowed to try?
• I said the political class supports this not that they chose it. I know what the Citizens' Assembly is. I also know why it came to be: pressure from well-connected (and well- funded) interest groups like Fair Vote Canada. The political class is larger than the membership of the PC's and Liberals. The other two parties are almost wholly in favour of MMP along with a slew of academics and bloggers. There were big names against Charlottetown too. You ever heard of a guy named Pierre Trudeau? I think the poll which was conducted over at Progressive Bloggers shows a good indication of where the chattering classes are on this. I don't think that most Ontarians will agree.
• Oh yeah, as long as Scott's mentioning it, the Young Liberals did overwhelmingly vote down MMP in a straw poll in North Bay last week. Unlike the straw poll in Ames, we didn't even bus anyone in!
• The 60/60 requirement for passing MMP may seem extreme but it is in keeping with Canadian tradition. It mirrors the requirements for passing a major constitutional ammendment. Electoral change is too important to be decided by a simple majority.

A good idea is a good idea

As a student who just completed an exchange in Europe, all I can say is this is a great idea. My university talks about engaging the world and creating global leaders. Unfortunately, it does little more than talk. However, getting Ontario into Erasmus would be a great way of ensuring that Ontario is successful in the new global economy. Get this on the agenda!

MMP and Charlottetown

I am increasingly seeing similarities between MMP and the failed Charlottetown accord. In both cases, honest people set out to solve a problem facing them. In both cases, they arrived at a solution that much of the political class appproved of. However, much like Charlottetown, MMP should be defeated. It is not the idea of electoral reform that I find repulsive just as it was not the idea of ammending the constitution to bring Quebec on board. In both cases, it is not the intention but the execution which make them fail. Small clauses are important. It is not good enough to say, as some in the yes camp do, that our current system is broken and therefore we need change. We must realize fully the consequences of that change both positive and negative. Until we find a solution which does not create more problems than it solves, MMP must go the way of Charlottetown and be voted down.

K-Hitch Gets One Right

I don't usually agree with the head of my esteemed university. However, Karen Hitchcock the President of Queen's University finally got one right in denouncing the proposed boycott of Israeli academics by British universities. Opposition to her decision comes from Prof. Pappano. I can't say I am surprised. I had Prof. Pappano for 1st year lit. She tried to bring a feminist perspective to The Iliad among other strange decisions. Basically, all she seemed to understand well was medieval feminist literature. She should stick to that.

Israeli academics should not pay the price for their country's sins. The idea that somehow an academic boycott would rattle the Israeli government in any way shape or form is ludicrous. If we are going to start boycotting countries why don't the academics start with China for their human rights abuses? However, academics are best served when there is the widest possible range of ideas. Unless you can prove that a professor or university is teaching hatred, there is no reason to boycott. Disagreeing with the country's politics is certainly not grounds for a boycott.

10 MP's We Should Target in the Next Election

It's summer. Harper's changing his cabinet. I couldn't care less about the Tory deck chairs. I care a lot more about getting less chairs on the Tory deck. Therefore, for your silly season consideration, here are the All Politics is Local ten MP's that deserve the boot in the next election:

10. Nina Grewal: Why should you defeat Nina Grewal? Well, if anyone can give me a reason to keep Nina Grewal (and I don't want to hear that she's a female minority) I might reconsider. Grewal has been a very expensive seat warmer since her entry into the house in 2004. A couple of law and order bills aside, Grewal has been an invisible visible minority in the Conservative caucus. Come on Fleetwood-Port Kells, you can do better.

9. Pierre Poilievre: Ah, the Anglo that pretends he's a Francophone. The young member from Nepean-Carelton has had lots of fun playing MP (Look for the Mercer Report thing on him) and slandering the Liberal party. However, I think its time for this reportedly hardworking MP to work elsewhere. I usually like good constituent guys, but not this one. From flipping people off in the house to claiming the Liberals support Hezbollah, Poilievre has been a standout for his immaturity. That's not an easy task in parliament! For making Peter Milliken even more of a kindergarten teacher, M. Poilivre has got to go.

8. Wajid Khan: I respect a politician's right to cross the floor. However, Khan's reasons seem to boil down to an all-expenses paid luxury trip to the Middle East. I will say this for the former (and hopefully future) used car salsesman: that's a heck of a deal. Now, if only the people could hear is no doubt insightful thoughts on Middle Eastern politics. Damn, I can't hear anything over the crickets.

7. Rob Anders: The man who once called Nelson Mandela a "communist" and a "terrorist" is probably safe. However, that doesn't mean we can't at least try to pry him out of the house. The MP for Calgary West is just an embarassment. He voted with the Bloc on a bill that would have allowed the Quebecois nation the right to withdraw from any federal inititiative. Yikes!

6. Joe Volpe: What you thought I wouldn't put a Grit on the list? I'm a partisan but I wouldn't shed a lot of tears if Volpe got the heave-ho. For raising the dead and making them vote Liberal, Volpe deserves the Lieberman treatment. On rare occasions, fratricide is justified. The MP for Eglinton-Lawrence represents all that is wrong with the Liberal Party. Don't call it a coup, call it a purge.

5. Olivia Chow: Chow is drawn to cameras like a moth to a flame. If there is a cause celebre for the MP from Trinity-Spadina to attatch her name to, she'll do it. I really don't have the words to describe my aversion to Ms. Chow.

4. Peter McKay: McKay has had a remarkable political career. He is the last leader of the party of John A. Macdonald. He agreed to merge his party with the Canadian Alliance after promising David Orchard the opposite in order to win his nomination. He has since been a fairly invisible (outside of his reported affair with Condi) Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Liberals are letting Green leader Elizabeth May have a run at him in the next election. I don't understand why we don't try to take him down ourselves.

3. Jim Flaherty: The man who wanted to lock up the homeless in Ontario is now widely considered one of Harper's best cabinet ministers. This doesn't change Flaherty's extreme right wing politics and insufferable arrogance. Jim gets the boot.

2. Jack Layton: Jack likes to make deals. He's willing to work with anyone: Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, the Taliban. It doesn't really matter to Jack. All that matters to my MP from Toronto-Danforth is that he can look like he's doing something. My distaste for Layton however stems from the fact that he plays up his local roots while not living in the riding. The day Jack Layton votes for Jack Layton, I'll reconsider my position on him.

1. David Emerson: Who else? Okay, as I said earlier I don't actually object to floor crossing if it's principled. However, Emerson's morning after bed switch was a little much. Any thought that Emerson just wanted to keep fighting for Canada were dispelled when he accepted a softwood deal that failed to get Canadian businesses their money back. No one expects Emerson to get re-elected in Vancouver and let us all hope they are right.

A Little Strange

So I'm compiling a list of nominated candidates and I'm looking through the NDP website. I get to Kenora-Rainy River and lo and behold there is no nominated candidate. I don't know if Mr. Hampton is just saving his nomination meeting to get him some press or what but it is a little strange for a leader to not have secured his party's nomination two months before a pre-set eleciton. After all, it is not like the rest of the caucus hasn't been nominated.

McGuinty's Ready for Battle

Well, I have finally recovered my voice from this weekend's Summer Fling up in North Bay. Hurray for not sounding like I'm 13! For the most part, what happens in North Bay, stays in North Bay but I do want to comment on the appearance by Dalton McGuinty. I first saw McGuinty speak in person at a barbecue in St. James' Town about six years ago. Back then, I walked away from his speech unimpressed. He was a strange mix of robotic and awkward. Well, that was then, and this is now. The Premier looked and sounded relaxed and engaging. He was at times funny at times, moving. He looked like a man ready to win a second term. He's proud of his record and proud of the province. He wants to move forward and he has a plan to do it. In other words, I walked away a lot more confident in our chances in the fall than I had been going in.

If you scan through the back pages of this blog, you'll know that I very rarely give myself over to partisan cheerleading (I find criticism a lot more fun). However, McGuinty doesn't look like the man who many people wrote off after the 1999 election disaster. He looks like a man who deserves four more years.

Obama's Gaffe and Free Trade

So Barack Obama called Prime Minister Harper the "President of Canada" in a recent debate. The interesting thing to me is not Obama's ignorance of our parliamentary system but what he was saying when he made the gaffe. He was talking about renegotiating NAFTA to provide more protections for American workers. The Dems apparently can't get away from their isolationist trade policies (same goes for the NDP here). NAFTA, contrary to popular belief, has had very little impact on Canada. The pre-existing FTA has had a dramatic impact and I would argue it has been for the better. While the Canadian economy hit the skids with the rest of the world in the early 1990's, Canada has had unrivaled prosperity since the mid-1990's. The FTA has allowed Albertans to sell their oil and Ontarians to build cars and parts (yes, the cars were part of the auto pact a couple years earlier, but you get the point) to a larger degree than existed in a tariff bound system. Free trade is not the enemy of the poor. Free trade is merely a means of levelling the global playing field. Some, like Mr. Obama may argue for so-called "fair" trade but to me that is an attempt by the global north to have it both ways. The economies of the Western world are reliant on cheap manufactured goods. The resulting manufacturing boom has created jobs for millions of people in the global south.

The world will never achieve any sort of competitive balance if we jam it with tariff walls. A good example of this is Africa. Opponents of free trade often cite poverty-stricken sub-Saharan Africa as a region which has had no benefit from free trade. This is not an accurate statement. The economies of sub-Saharan Africa are largely dependent on agriculture something that is not freely traded. African products do not have a chance when forced to compete internationally and domestically with heavily subsidized Western products. The answer to alleviating global poverty is not to put up more tariff walls like the ones that hold Africa back but to tear down the remaining obstructions. Western governments are reluctant to give up any domestic industry, and when domestic industries are uncompetitive the kind of knee-jerk reaction like Barack Obama displayed during the debate are common. Governments should spend less time trying to stop the inevitable (you can't produce competitively priced clothing in the Carolinas) and more time on retraining the workforce and creating the conditions for a competitive economy: a minimum of taxes with a maximum of social services. Globalization is here to stay. We would be wise to try to exploit it not get in its way.

On Barry Bonds

So, it finally happened. Barry Bonds is the new all-time home runs leader. It is a sad day for baseball and all of professional sport. Baseball was my first love in the sports world (like most good Canadians, hockey is my preferred game these days). I grew up watching the great Toronto Blue Jays teams of the early 1990's. I remember a lanky slugger who played for the Pirates named Barry Bonds but it is hard to believe that the man who broke the record last night is even related to that amazing athlete. Bonds would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. His achievements prior to the 1998 season when the infamous book Game of Shadows says he started taking steroids spoke for themselves. He hit fifty home runs and stole fifty bases in a single season. He was poised to be one of the best of all time. Now he is little more than an embarassment. Bonds has come to symbolize an era of unfettered corruption in baseball and in sports in general. He, along with many others, have brought great achievement into question. Even athletes who are known to be clean come under the microscope because the rest of the sporting world is so corrupted.

Bonds may not deserve to be the brunt of the blame. There are plenty of others. He is the focus for a few reasons. One, he now holds two of baseball's most prized records (not really relevant, but if Bonds fails to get into the Hall, the all-time hits and home run leaders will both be out of the hall). Two, his alleged steroid use is obvious. There is no amount of training that can make your head grow entire helmet sizes in your mid to late 30's. Three, he is a bit of a sour pickle, making it easy for the media and the public to demonize him. Finally, unlike other notorious users like Mark McGwire, Bonds is still in the spotlight. So, the sports world watches uncomfortably as a man everyone thinks is dirty gets the hero's treatment. This on the heels of a disastrous Tour de France that had French papers writing obituaries for the storied race. Sports are supposd to provide inspiration and modelling for all of us particularly children. How do you explain to your kids that hard work is nice, but steroids give you records? A dark day indeed.

Side note: There's a nice article in today's Toronto Star about our No MMP group. We are a quickly growing group. Dozens of people have sent e-mails from all over the province expressing there support and their willingness to help save Ontario's democracy. We are not, as has been reported elsewhere, a small group of malcontents but rather a growing grassroots movement who see MMP as a problem not a solution and want to fight against it.

Coalitions, eh?

I keep forgetting to post this. This is straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. From http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/ comes this gem:

"The political party with the largest number of seats in the legislature, including ‘Local Members’ and ‘List Members’, is asked to form a government."

Oh dear. The problem is that coalition governments are often led (as is the case in Sweden today) by parties who did not receive the most votes. The assumption is that people voted for the coalition and not the parties. However, with this kind of language in the official explanation a King-Byng style showdown may be inevitable. If this statement is executed to the letter, you can throw the idea of stable coalitions out the window. This education campaign is getting off to a great start, don't you think?

Cherniak has our official press release on his site and our website is now up and running. Oh, and by the way, our communications director is in Toronto, not London, England as has been erroneously reported elsewhere.

Long Weekend Wrap-Up

Quick thoughts after the long weekend:

• I think Lawrence Martin's article in yesterday's globe was great. Canada has four major economic advantages going forward. Oil, cold weather to make global warming bearable, water and a young population that is willing and able to engage the world. Martin calls the younger generation Phoenecian. I'd call them the new internationalists. At any rate, the world is Canada's for the taking.
• I think Bush's alternative climate change meetings are a distraction. The U.S. needs to be brought into the post-Kyoto negotiations already in progress. Countries should not be excluded just because they didn't like Kyoto.
• I think power outages are annoying. Apparently there is something wrong with the transformer or something in my area. The power was off most of yesterday afternoon and went out again some time over night and is still out as of this writing.
• I think the UK has horrible luck with cattle. Another outbreak of foot and mouth? Yikes!
• I think the fact that David Beckham sat on the bench to a sellout crowd in Toronto is not much of an issue. Toronto FC is selling out most of their games. Becks or no Becks. This team will be a fan hit for at least a couple of years. I want to see what happens in year four.
• I think I'm looking forward to Summer Fling this weekend.

Random Thoughts on a Friday Before the Long Weekend

It's Friday and I don't have any coherent post ideas so here goes everything:

• Peter McKay is right that you don't claim land by putting your flag there. However, it seems to me that Harper's whole "Arctic Sovereignty" thing is about going around on ships carrying the Canadian flag. Also, isn't that exactly what we and the Danes keep doing on Hans Island? The Russian kettle might be black, but I don't like hearing it from the pot.
• On a related note, can someone please explain to me why we waste resources on fighting over Hans Island? It's a rock. It's not a big rock either. Also, if it isn't Danish why is it named after some guy named Hans?
• The L.A. Galaxy are in town to face Toronto F.C. I'm more concerned about the injury-riddled home side then whether or not Becks will play. Without Marvell Wynne, Jeff Cunningham and Danny Dichio, we're toast against anyone.
• Continuing with TFC, for all you European football fans, keep an eye out for Marvell Wynne when he comes back from this little hamstring injury. If TFC doesn't pay him a ton of money he could defend in Europe. I don't think, like Mr. Lalas, that this is true for most MLS guys but Wynne is just plain good.
• Can someone please get Iggy and Rae to kiss and make up?
• Harper's feud with the media is more funny than scary at this point.
• Why don't we do civic-minded things on the civic hoilday? You'd think there would be some charitable organization that could use the day to organize massive clean-ups or something.
• Another round of congratulations go out to George Smitherman and his husband to be. The pair will get married this weekend.
• What happened in Minneapolis is a tragedy. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones. That said, it was a fluke. Bridges are not about to start collapsing everyday. And CNN, quick question: how many Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since you started your 24 hour bridge coverage? I think five but I wouldn't have heard it from you.
• Stephen Colbert missed a chance to expose intelligent design hack Michael Behe last night. Irreducible complexity was Tolstoy's favoured proof of God. It's not science.
• By the way, The Daily Show piece (I think it was Aasif Mandvi) on Live Earth on Wednesday(?) was brilliant. If anyone thinks Stewart and co. only go after the right, watch that piece.
• Caribana is this weekend. Apparently, it is actually supposed to make money this year. If you want to see the entirety of the Toronto Police walk through downtown the next couple of nights. I really do like Caribana but all the idiots who think it is a good time to settle old gang scores make me nervous. I know that the morons are a small fraction of the community but, unfortunately, Caribana is the only one of Toronto's summer parties that makes me hold my breath. Also, it is remarkable how the weather is always Caribbean hot for this thing.

I Called It!

This just in from Elections Ontario:

"If Mixed Member Proportional is accepted during the Ontario referendum in October, there is a possibility that there will be two ballots in future elections. Legislation would have to be passed to make the new electoral system the law. Then the Chief Electoral Officer would design the form of the new ballot(s) to be used. "

Here's my comment on the subject a few weeks ago:

"This leads me to believe that Elections Ontario may prefer to have two ballots instead of the one proposed by the Assembly. I am not sure what implications that has but surely they proposed one ballot for a reason."

Just to point out how important the one ballot idea is to the Citizens' Assembly: they've called their handout "One ballot, Two votes."

Once again, it is absurd to have voters vote when their is no proposed legislation or implementation plan.

Side note: Please notice that the explanation of MMP is three times as long as the explanation of FPTP. This is not because people are familiar with FPTP. MMP is just three times as complicated.

Edit: Great catch by Andy over at I, Ectomorph. Apparently, not even Elections Ontario knows how the system works!

Ontario Election Preview Part 2: The Leaders

Continuing with my preview of the upcoming provincial election, today I focus on the leaders. The election features three leaders with experience in running provincial campaigns and one new comer. How will each leader campaign?

Dalton McGuinty: Like a fine wine, McGuinty gets better with age. Liberals are hoping he gets more votes with age too. If you had told people after Dalton's disastrous 1999 campaign that the party would be centring its campaign around Dalton McGuinty's personality, they would have laughed in your face. However, that's exactly what the Ontario Liberal Party is doing. They've launched dalton.ca, a straight shooting informal website that they hope will sell McGuinty as an average guy who has big ideas for this province. They hope Dalton's mea culpae on some of his previous campaign promises will help to dull the Tory and NDP attack. McGuinty is not the shrinking violet he was in 1999 and expect him to fight a good campaign.


McGuinty's political career may very well rest on this campaign. A loss and he would almost surely have to resign his leadership. Unless he decides to join his brother David in Ottawa, Dalton's career would be done. Even if he wins a minority the knives might come out for the affable leader. He's been in charge for over ten years and it may just be time for a change. I like McGuinty. I like him more every day.

John Tory: John Tory is a bit of a political anachronism. A little back to the future. The new leader of the Progressive Conservatives is much to the left of his two immediate predecessors. Tory's politics are more Bill Davis than Mike Harris. He's going to try to sell that as well. In an era when the Conservative movement in the country has lurched right, Tory is trying to win from the centre-right. This may cause the PC's problems as Tory tries to juggle the necessity of playing to his rural right wing base and trying to win election in a centrist Toronto riding. Tory cannot take Don Valley West for granted as the incumbent, minister of education Kathleen Wynne, is not going to go down without a fight. If Tory lurches to far to the right, expect Wynne to make his life miserable. On the other hand, if Tory plays too much to the centre he could alienate his base and lose the election.


Tory has a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde thing going in his career. He has a briliant record as a manager in the private sector and inspires admiration to an almost fanatical degree in his co-workers and employees. Almost everyone who's worked with him thinks he'd make a great premier. On the Hyde side, Tory has had just an awful time of it in politics. He was at the helm of the Kim Campbell campaign and did or should have been the one to approve the infamous Chretien attack ads. He also ran for the Mayor's chair in Toronto in 2003. Tory had all the money in the world behind him and lost to a single issue with less name recognition. It wasn't even that close. The Tories are praying that the third election is the charm for their leader, otherwise the knives could be out pretty quickly.


Howard Hampton: Howard Hampton is finally getting the hang of this leader of the NDP thing. That, or people have finally forgotten about the Rae administration. Either way the Ontario NDP is in better shape than its been in since that weird night in 1990. Hampton's attacks on McGuinty's salary hikes and energy record won him a pair of by-elections. He hopes to build on that in the election.


However, Hampton is old news, and not particularly interesting news at that. Nobody really dislikes Hampton, they just don't want him to be Premier. This is his last election as leader barring a 1990 sized miracle. If you want proof, his wife's retirement from the legislature should be a fairly strong clue. Shelley Martel is not going back to Northern Ontario by herself or at least not for long.


Frank de Jong: The leader of the Green Party of Ontario has the most experience of any of the leaders. He has been Green leader since 1993 which may be an indication of how coveted this job is more than anything else. Mr. de Jong has run for office a lot. He's run for Queen's Park seven times, Parliament Hill four times and just for good measure he has run for city council in Ottawa. The closest he's come to victory was his distant third finish in the 2003 provincial election. If this section is biography heavy, it is because Mr. de Jong faces a serious anonymity problem in spite of his long tenure. Unlike their federal counterparts, the provincial Greens have not been showing signs of becoming a major player in Ontario politics. If anyone else wants this job this should be Mr. de Jong's last kick at the can. Eight strikes should be enough, no?

One More Thing...

I will return to my preview in my next post (probably), but I just thought of another problem with MMP. You'd think I'd run out of problems by now? Okay, so this might not happen in every election but bear with me. The proposal allows for "dual candidacy" meaning that candidates can run both locally and on the list. If the candidate wins locally, "[t]he candidate’s name is crossed off the list, and that position is taken by the next candidate on the list who has not won in a local district" (Citizens' Assembly Report). This seems logical but leaves the system open to a fairly major problem: what happens when the list runs out? This is not as unlikely as it seems. Assuming parties follow modern trends and use a fully democratic (ie one member, one vote) means of nominating list candidates, who will be better positioned to get on the list than candidates who already have enough support to win local nominations? Therefore, it is entirely likely that party lists will be dominated by candidates who have strong support from a large riding association and are therefore more likely to win election. If you are wondering why someone with a strong riding association would want to be on the party list, just ask yourself, when is the last time a politician didn't take every possible measure to try to get re-elected? This makes it entirely possible that large parts of the party list will be crossed off. This means there is a distinct possibility that either during the election or in susbsequent by-elections there will be no one left on the party list.

Here's a simple scenario where this would happen. Party A wins 30 local seats but earns 45 seats meaning they must receive 15 list seats. However, 25 of Party A's list members have been crossed off after winning locally. That leaves only 14 people left on Party A's list to fill 15 seats.

The means of solving this problem are simple, but decrease accountability substantially. Parties in all likelihood will have more than 39 people competing for the list seats. Therefore, it would be relatively simple to simply take the person who finished 40th and put them in. However, that person would never have been presented to the people in any way shape or form. They would be literally appointed by the party. Of course, that method only works if the process is democratic. If parties appoint parts of their list for the sake of diversity, we could have a party leader/president just choose a person on little more than a whim.

The point of drawing out this nightmarish and very possible scenario is to demonstrate how incomplete the proposal from the Citizens' Assembly is. We know exactly how First Past the Post works. We know every possible contingency. We don't know how MMP works and no education campaign is going to teach us about contingencies they haven't thought about yet.

Ontario Election Preview Part 1: The Parties

What's that you ask? Isn't it ludicrously early to be putting out an election preview? Not at all! Okay, there's no news in the summer and I am low on ideas. So with the election about 10 political lifetimes away, here is the start of my election preview. The first thing to figure out is how the parties are going to attack this election. What issues will they emphasize/play down? Here's a quick run through of the three and a half major parties.



Liberals: The governing Liberals are looking to hold on to as many of the seats they won last time around. Having already lost a few in by-elections to the NDP in Toronto, the Liberals may be tempted to run to the left. However, the presence of centre-right John Tory's PC's makes any dramatic shift right dangerous as Tory is ready to take the centre. The message from McGuinty and co. will probably be "Let us finish what we've started". The Grits started out behind the eight ball financially and that led to delays in some of their campaign promises particularly around health care. The energy promise (eliminating all coal-fired plants) was simply overly-ambitious but there has been progress. The jewel in the McGuinty's crown is education and expect the Premier to play to it. Class sizes are down (not all the way, but down) and there has been labour peace. These might not seem like major accomplishments but it is night and day for Ontario's schools. The Grit's strength on education will play nicely for them with Tory's religious schools blunder. The Grits are going to try to avoid being tagged as being chronic promise-breakers, but it may prove challenging. How important their ability to keep their word is to the people of Ontario remains to be seen. Ontarians reelected Chretien in 1997 after he broke many of his campaign promise and re-elected Harris in 1999 in large measure because he kept his. The Grits are praying that their get the bad news out of the way early strategy has worked and that the now balanced budget will make people forget the health tax. The recent immigration scandal will be troublesome but no one knows exactly how troublesome. Also a nuisance will be the budget headaches of the city of Toronto and the apocalyptic warnings of its mayor. McGuinty's refusal to help may bolster NDP fortunes in the city. The Liberals will focus their strategy on holding their seats in the GTA. To this end, the Grits should play up their ambitious transit plans. The Grits will also be reminding people of the last time the PC's were in power. However, this attack has limited salience against John Tory.

Progressive Conservatives: The Tories are trying to make people forget that they've governed the province in the last twenty years. Otherwise, their attacks on McGuinty's budget headaches and taxes may backfire. The released parts of the PC platform look like a slightly more libertarian version of what one would expect from the Grits. With the exception of religious schools, Tory may have trouble differentiating himself. This is a problem in a province which is usually reluctant to change its government at any level. The PC's need to demonstrate that McGuinty's government is a failure and that a change is necessary. The cult of personality thing that John Tory has going could help or harm the Tories depending on how its played (more on leadership in my next preview post). One may expect the sagging manufacturing sector to be a point of PC attack but the economy may not be the most resonant issue. This is true for a couple of reasons. Firstly, McGuinty has had limited success (Toyota) in bringing manufacturing jobs into the province. Secondly, the national headlines talk about how the economy is booming and the Bank of Canada is worried about inflation. Ontarians rarely separate their province from their country and the regional discrepancy may be a bit nuanced for a sound bite. The Tories will play to McGuinty's failure to execute his promises and try to pick up seats in the 905 and the north of Toronto.

NDP: The NDP's campaign will be all about the green. Province wide, Hampton will be talking about poverty (green is the colour of money) and the environment. In the North, Hampton will hammer the Grits on the collapsing forestry industry. The anti-poverty message was effective in picking up two Toronto by-elections from the Liberals. However, with the parliamentary wage hike a distant memory and the incremental minimum wage increases getting closer and closer to the $10 dollar mark Hampton has advocated, the message may not work as well as it did in the spring of 2006. Hampton will harp about the dangers of nuclear energy and the necessity of even more renewables to try to ensure that he doesn't bleed support to the Greens. Expect the NDP to focus on their cores of support in downtown Toronto, major manufacturing towns and the North. While they should do better than they did in 2003, it would take a miracle for the NDP to form a government.

Greens: Frank de Jong and the Ontario Green Party are in a great position to emerge as a force on the Ontario political scene. The environment is the hot-button issue. Whether or not the Greens can put out a coherent message and win votes in what is expected to be a tight election is another question. The other major question mark for the Greens is how many of their activists spend their time on the referendum instead of the party. While other parties may lose volunteers to the referendum, the Greens have fewer to spare and their committment to electoral reform is second only to the environment in their party's core principles. Green success will be measured in popular vote, not seats.

Next time I'll run down the challenges and strategies for the specific party leaders.

This is Not Promising

So the video put out by Elections Ontario/ Citizens' Assembly on how the new electoral system works misrepresents the referendum question. Now, it is possible that the video was produced before the ballot question was put out but I still think it is a poor indication of how this education campaign is going to be run. I wish it was a yes/no question, but it's not.

Religious Education in Ontario

Okay, I've held off on this post for long enough. This seems to be the issue de jour in Ontario politics so I guess I should make my opinions known. John Tory has decided that if he becomes premier he will subsidize all religious schools in the interest of equity (to compensate for the fully funded Catholic School Board). Margaret Wente has an article in the opinion pages of today's Globe and Mail extolling the virtues of religious education. I couldn't disagree more. If we must provide equality to all relgions in education (and it isn't a bad idea) the easiest and most cost-effective way to do it is to get rid of the Catholic School Board. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of politicians in this province who are willing to put up with the electoral and constitutional headaches such a move would provoke. However, it is in my opinion the only rational choice. Before going any further, I would like to state that my religious views in no way affect my views on this subject. Here is why funding religious schools makes no sense.



1. Money

The Ontario government is cash-strapped (look at the mess with the city of Toronto) and yet it spends millions of dollars every year funding two sets of school boards to do the same thing. This includes two sets of trustees, administrators and, most laughably, competing ad campaigns to attract new students. I am all for competition and the free market but no company or government should be responsible for funding competing marketing schemes. If this was done in the private sector the shareholders would revolt. If Tory's plans are realized we would increase this funding to include all other religious denominations. They would also have to create an oversight administration to ensure that schools followed the guidelines for receivning funding. I thought conservatives liked smaller governments.



2. Conflict of Interest

Okay, I don't know if this fits the legal definition (in fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't) but bear with me. Religious schools (including the Catholic school board) teach in their religion classes that certain laws on the books in this province and this country are immoral (i.e. abortion, gay rights). While I am all for freedom of speech, why should the government give money for people to hate them? Funding art projects that crticize the government is one thing but giving money for teachers to indoctrinate children, is another.



3. Inferior Education

In spite of Ms. Wente's arguments to the contrary, religious schools provide a more limited education in both curricular and non-curricular ways. In terms of curriculum, the inclusion of prayer and religious studies into the daily schedule reduces the amount of time students can devote to other things. In high school, this means students do not have the opportunity to take many electives. The lack of electives is already a problem for science-minded students who are encouraged to take 5 or 6 maths and sciences to "keep their options open" when it comes to university applications. The inclusion of a mandatory religion classes means they have almost no options whatsoever. If students don't take as diverse a range of courses they have a more limited knowledge-base and skill set. Furthermore, dogmatic, biased religious education runs contrary to best academic practices. It is not productive for university-bound students to be taught to only see one side of the debate and not ask questions. There are also specific curricular issues like whether or not to teach evolution or how much parts of history are emphasized (e.g. Catholics and the Inquisition).



In terms of non-curricular issues, it is a well established fact that schools are the best way to introduce kids to other cultures. The logic is that kids do not have racist conceptions when they enter school and if they spend their lives around people of different ethnicities and religions they are unlikely to become prejudiced against them. It also allows them to learn more about the world around them. Generations of Canadian immigrants have become integrated into society through this process. The easiest way to remove all concerns about new immigrants (particularly the Islamophobic concerns about Muslim immigration) is to bring those kids into the public system.



Having said all this, I have no objection to religious minded people paying for a religious education. I just don't see why everyone else should pay for it.

No campaign is up and running

The campaign to stop MMP is up and running. Our website will be up shortly. A link should appear in the sidebar of this blog.

To the Tennis Courts!

David Miller has refused to hold a meeting to discuss Toronto's financial crisis. I say councilors who want to discuss Toronto's problems should have a meeting with or without the mayor. Have a discussion with the people. Find innovative non-TTC cutting ways to solve the financial crisis. If Miller wants to prolong this crisis so that it would be front and centre during the impending provincial election, he is playing chicken with the city of Toronto. Toronto needs to solve this crisis by itself in a way that does not cripple the city like the methods proposed by the mayor. An open meeting with the public is just the ticket to find new solutions to the problem. Yes, eventually Toronto needs more funding or less responsibilities but we need to confront the problems of today with the tools available today.

Blockbusters I Actually Want To See

I am rarely excited by modern cinema. I am even more rarely enthused about large productions. However, when one of my favourite TV shows and one of my favourite books are coming out in movie form, I get a little psyched.

First up, the big one coming out this Friday, The Simpsons Movie. Now, most of the time TV shows which become movies are a poor bet at best. However, I trust Matt Groening and Co. after all these years, and the previews look hillarious. Have you seen the Spider-Pig? I will actually pay to see this one.

Another movie I will spend money on is The Golden Compass. For those unfamiliar with Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy, will get familiar. Pullman's trilogy has been overshadowed by the wizard from Hogwarts, but it is a great work of fantasy. The trilogy, which was composed as an atheist alternative to Narnia, is much more than that. The story is both simple enough for a child and yet works on a lot of levels making it compelling for any reader. I am impressed by how similar the preview looks in comparison to the books. As long as the movies are faithful, they will be a lot of fun. There is some concern about how the anti-church message will play in the Bible belt but I don't expect too many protests until the release of the third part of the trilogy, The Amber Spyglass. Spoiler Alert: The depiction of the death of God may be a challenge to film and may ruffle some feather. I hope they don't decide against filming the scene, it would be a shame. I may not fully agree with Pullman's radical atheism, but as art it is brilliant.

Back to politics when there is actually something to blog about.

Miller Takes Notes from Bush

David Miller, the NDP mayor of Toronto, has decided to take a page out of George W. Bush's playbook. Vote with me or the city will collapse! Instead of making sensible cuts like getting rid of the 9% pay hike the councillors gave themselves (there was plenty of cash for that). Miller has decided to go after the one thing Torontonians hold sacred (aside from the Leafs): the TTC. Now, I don't expect Miller to follow through on his promise, but this kind of scare tactic is the worst kind of political theatre. Might it loosen purse strings at Queen's Park? Maybe. However, you shouldn't have to give the city a heart attack to pass a budget.

Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 10

This is really an update on a couple of reasons I've already discussed. The first is the end of majority governments. I decided to look through election results looking for governments which satisfied the criteria for a majority under MMP. The criteria to review are either:

1. 50% of the popular vote

and/or

2. 72.2% (65/90) of riding seats

Since the formation of the NDP in 1963 exactly one election produced the requisite conditions for a majority. Any guesses? If you said David Peterson's win in 1987 you would have been right. Peterson got won in over 72.2% of the then 130 ridings. It is good to note here that NO government since the emergence of the NDP has got over 50% of the popular vote (some parts of the Tory dynasty got close, but no cigar). Thus, only one majority would have been elected in Ontario in the last 45 years. Of course, the second criteria is really an aberration as MMP is designed to ensure that parties receive seats according to their popular vote. In this case, the compensatory list seats would have been insufficient to deny Peterson a majority. The intention of the system is to prevent majorities. If we want the system, we should want it fully functional and that means majority preventing.

There are those that argue that coalition governments will prevent constant elections. I have already noted the short tenure of the last coalition government. I want to add that while MMP receives the incentives that a governing party may have to call an election i.e. a majority, it does not prevent the opposition from wanting an election to form a government or just increase their standing as the case may be. The 2006 federal election was not called because Martin wanted a majority.

Also, I noted earlier about the complicated nature of the new system. I do not think it is that complicated, however, I know that voters do not necessarily have a strong grasp on the electoral system. Having scrutineered in a couple of elections in the past, I know how often people are confused by the current system. It is also not enough merely to know how to vote, people should understand EXACTLY how those votes translate into seats. In my view, a referendum only works as a means of determining policy if the electorate is fully informed. Otherwise, referenda can lead to poor decisions like those that have handcuffed the California legislature.

Oh, and I don't know whether I should applaud or laugh at the fact that my anti-MMP posts are showing up on the vote for MMP website. I really doubt they are doing it intentionally to encourage debate and, therefore, I'm going to laugh.

Disorganized Thoughts

I don't really have one idea for a post today so here's a bunch of political thoughts on my mind.

• I'm happy to see the Toronto city council showing some backbone. I didn't think they'd have the guts to stare down the Mayor. Okay, they only delayed the vote and it still could pass in October, but clearly, this is not the result Miller was looking for.
• Let me join the chorus, John McCain's campaign is dead. The horribly contorted straight-talker will have to content himself with the Senate.
• In a related story, I have no clue who is going to be President. At this point I feel like I'm taking a multiple choice test and the answer is none of the above.
  
• Why is Harper signing trade deals with the government of Colombia? I don't know who's right in the three-way Colombian civil war but I can't believe funding one of the sides with Canadian investment is going to make it go away. Also, how safe is the Colombian market for Canadian investors? Wasn't a Canadian just kidnapped there? Who's next on Harper's list, Iraq? How about Somalia?
  
• Conrad Black is guilty. No surprise really, that video is pretty convincing. Let the arrogant S.O.B. rot. All rise for the Lord of Levenworth!
• A few months ago I said Alberta and Quebec were ready for seismic political shifts. I like my predictions.
• Elections Ontario is in the hiring process for someone to run their education campaign for the referendum. This better be one hell of a blitz because this MMP thing is not all that simple.
• I want to break party allegiance and put my weight behind Bill Davis for greatest Premier in Calgary Grit's contest. The man governed Ontario with a steady hand. He played a large part in getting the Constitution repatriated. He went toe to toe with the Catholic Church on Catholic schools. He may be a Tory, but he was a great premier.

Let's See if Council Can Get One Right

A vote is upcoming on David Miller's new tax grab. The proposal which would double taxes attatched to home purchases in the city is apparently going to be a close vote. Many councillors are undoubtedly feeling the heat from their constituents. The massive tax increase will undoubtedly push home buyers and businesses into the suburbs where they can purchase for half the cost. Once again, the NDP led council is pushing something which would contribute to urban sprawl and therefore global warming. Let's see if enough of the council comes to their senses and defeats this measure. There are other ways to raise funds and there could surely be a little belt tightening down at city hall.

Why MMP is Wrong For Ontario pt. 9

There is an old expression that "the devil is in the details." In the case of MMP this is particularly disturbing because of the number of details that remain unknown. There are two categories of unknown details: those left unspecified by the Citizens' Assembly and those that may be changed when the proposal is changed into legalese and then implemented (as has already happened with the referendum question). In both cases devils may abound. So what don't we know?

• We don't have a clear picture on how MPP's from the list would be replaced. The report dictates that the next name on the list should be taken. Could parties alter the list set on election day, if three years later? This would be an excellent way to get a new leader (e.g. John Tory) into the legislature.
• How does this system deal with changing demographics? Is the number of seats set or will it grow with the population? If it does grow, would it be necessary to maintain the proportion between list and riding seats?
• What is the protocol for recounts of list votes?
• In a related topic, how are counted ballots filed? Okay, this is technical but bear with me. Currently, counted ballots are placed in envelopes corresponding to the candidate with spoiled and rejected ballots kept separately. Under MMP two different votes would be counted from one ballot making storage and recount difficult.
• This leads me to believe that Elections Ontario may prefer to have two ballots instead of the one proposed by the Assembly. I am not sure what implications that has but surely they proposed one ballot for a reason.
• Are party lists available for reference at the voting booth?
• How will parties select their list candidates? Will they emphasize diversity or democracy? I recognize that these possibilities are not incompatible. However, if democracy is emphasized (i.e. parties use a one member one vote system for all spots) how do you guarantee the increased diversity MMP advocates are boasting about? Conversely, if you emphasize diversity and appoint a set number of women and minorities or set aside spots that only women or minorities (I'd love to see the definition of minorities on this one - do religious and sexual minorities count or just visible?) could win, how is that democratic?
• How will list MPP's get paid? Surely they don't get an allowance for a constituency office but how else does their pay/staff differ?
• On a related note, how do list candidate funding rules differ if at all? What are their campaign restrictions? Can all list candidates campaign everywhere? Put up lawn signs in all ridings?
• Minor point but how are list candidates adressed in the legislature? Most members are adressed by their riding name. Are we getting rid of the convention against names in the legislature?

There are more, I am sure. Especially, when you consider that the changes that are possible in drafting and implementation are almost infinite. Yes, I would expect the spirit of the recommendation to be followed through but almost everything else is up for grabs. The point of all this is that we have not done our due dilligence. I do not believe it is appropriate to vote on something that is not established. This is a flaw in the citizens' assembly process really. They are not lawyers trained in drafting legislation. They are not administrators with experience in running elections and therefore their proposal is not final. Even if you don't like First Past the Post, you at least know what you're getting.

A Dark Day for Toronto

"Honest Ed" is dead. He will be truly missed. He built not only a Toronto landmark but was the force behind much of Toronto's theatre industry. A philanthropist, Mirvish donated turkeys to the poor and invited the entire city to his birthday party. The neighbourhood around his store even bears his name: "Mirvish Village." His son may carry on his father's traditions but there will never be another Honest Ed. My deepest condolences to the Mirvish family.

Random Sports Thoughts

I don't usually blog about sports. This doesn't mean I don't care. I am a big sports fan. So to beat the summer news famine. Here are some quick sports notes:

• Canada's Under 20 soccer team should be embarassed. There is no other way to describe it. Blame should be assigned everywhere. That was pathetic.
• I am sick and tired of the Jays underachieving. Injuries seem to plague this team. It's starting to be a little spooky. Last year Rios, goes down with a staph infection. This year the Doc gets appendicitis. Still, they should be over .500. They're not.
• Speaking of Rios, great show he put on during the home run derby. Okay, he got cold in the final, but twelve in the second round? This guy's a star. Why on earth did Leyland wait until the bottom of the ninth to put him in?
• Keeping with the all-star game. Was it just me or did Chris Isaak screw up the American anthem? I can't find video to confirm but I swear he mixed up "night" and "fight". I believe he said "perilous night" and "through the fight" instead of vice versa. If I find video and confirm I'll edit with link.
• I am sorry that I am too young to have seen Willie Mays play.
• I am not too young to have seen Sidney Crosby (can I push the Wizard of Croz nickname over Sid the Kid? I mean come on, what happens when he's forty?). Good on him for taking less than the maximum giving the Pens the resources and cap space to keep a team around him. He would have definitely gotten (and deservedly so) the maximum from someone had he waited.
• I am completely into Toronto FC. I've been to a couple of games. Anyone who says Toronto sports fans are boring and quiet needs to go and see how wrong they are. That is, if they can get a ticket. These games are awesome. Its amazing what happens when you don't have the suits with their in-seat sushi. Also, the stadium is great. It's small enough to be intimate but big enough for that place to rock. TOR-ONT-O O O O O O TFC!!!
• Word on the street (and by street, I mean friendly Kingston cabbie) is that Queen's University will cut down to 14 competitive sports teams. I can't blame them. Will somebody make sure the CIS has a pulse? University sports in this country have become a bad joke. It's sad. It is really sad when you realize how hard these athletes work to be ignored by the country.
  
• The Leafs still don't understand that defense wins championships. When will that organization go out and get blueliners who can play defense? We currently have exactly one. Kaberle is good but he can't play both points for sixty minutes. The Ducks just won the Stanley Cup because they had two of the best in the game on their back end. Also, Ottawa's collapse can be largely attributed to the pathetic play (although apparently injury-related) of Wade Redden.
• Speaking of the Leafs. If you don't like John Ferguson Jr., and really why would you, then fire his ass! Don't bring in a "consultant". Make him assistant GM until he figures out the job, but bring in somebody competent.
  

Back to politics next time. I am intending to index my anti-MMP posts. Just figuring out where and how to place them. My tech skills are limited and my sidebar's already a mess.

Why Traditions Matter or Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 8

Okay, this is not the strongest part of the argument against MMP. However, this is part 8 so forgive me. I do NOT believe we should keep on doing what we've always done just because. Once again, I sent a submission to the citizens' assembly advocating change. However, any change must be in keeping with the things that are important to Ontarian and Canadian democracy. So, it is therefore time for a brief history lesson.

The roots of Ontario democracy begin in earnest in the 1820's and 1830's by the Reform Party of William Lyon Mackenzie. Mackenzie sought power for the legislative assembly (elected) and power removed from the legislative and executive councils (appointed). Mackenzie et al. were frustrated by such things as the lack of public education for the poor and the horrible condition of Ontario roads. Mackenzie was constantly being kicked out of the legislative assembly for challenging the established Family Compact and was also constantly being sent back by the citizens of York. His popularity led him to become the mayor of the newly named city of Toronto. The Family Compact became so frightened of Mackenzie that they sent goons to throw the printing press of his popular newspaper in the lake. These tensions eventually led to the comically pathetic rebellion of 1837 (in Lower Canada the rebellion had some muster, in Toronto it was a joke). However, the rebellions so shocked the British (they apparently ruined Christmas 1837 for Queen Victoria) that they decided to give Ontario responsible government. In the new united governments of the 1840's and 1850's the system which would become the one used today took shape. Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine in a dramatic show of unity ran in each other's ridings and won (remember the Heritage moment?). This partnership cemented Canadian democracy and was continued by the Conservative coalition of Macdonald and Cartier and the more uneasy partnership of George Brown and A.A. Dorion.

The point of this? Ontario's democratic urge came from a popular demand for accountability in their government. They insisted that the people (not the rich or the party bosses) determine who was in their legislature when they repeatedly re-elected Mackenzie. They showed the strength of Canadian unity by electing Lafontaine in Ontario. MMP is not in keeping with this tradition. MMP does not provide the level of accountability that Mackenzie demanded 170 years ago. Canadians may not like their history but we should not forget it. Ontario's democracy is the way it is because of our history. It is NOT a British imposition. It is an organic representation of what Ontarians wanted in their government. I don't care about the parliamentary mace. I wouldn't lift a finger to destroy or save the monarchy. However, we did not get our electoral system randomly. We fought for it both literally and figuratively. History shapes the kind of electoral systems which exist in almost every jurisdiction (my last post on electoral reform contains some examples).


Quick Debunk: There is an argument that PR systems produce higher voter turnout than first past the post. Please note that New Zealand has seen almost NO difference in voter turnout with some MMP elections producing higher and some lower turnout than those recorded before the reform. New Zealand is the only apt example for this in my opinion because they actually changed their electoral system. There are a lot of reasons that Germans vote more than Americans, the electoral system is low on the list. You could as easily argue that German speakers are more likely to vote or that voter turnout increases with Beck's beer sales. Once again two kind of lies: damned lies and statistics.

Race for the Exits 2008: The Republicans (revisited)

On we move to the Grand Old Party.

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy has quickly become the front runner for the Republicans. National name recognition and his tough on terror stance have made him an early favourite. However, it seems to me only a matter of time before the Christian right realizes that he is about as close to their values as Hillary Clinton. The twice-divorced socially liberal Giuliani is either going to get run out of the primary by the religious right or ignored by them come November. The Republicans are praying for another terror election and if that is THE issue than Giuliani is a good choice, otherwise it's time to look elsewhere.

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney hopes they look to Boston and find the former Governor of Massachusetts. Another social liberal (or at least he used to be) Romney has the additional problem of being a Mormon which weirds out a lot of people. That may not be PC but it is reality. Governors have a great track record but Romney may be a little much for the base to handle.

John McCain: The Straight-Talk Express is losing fuel and fast. The senator from Arizona who attempted to derail Bush's walk to the White House in 2000 is finding little traction in 2008. His staunch support for the President's Iraq policy is not paying the dividends he expected. Apparently, even conservatives are fed up with Iraq. Either that or they're still angry about McCain's maverick persona in a party that is all about unity and toeing the line. He's also very much yesterday's news and when you're over seventy that is a tough label to shake.

Sam Brownback: Sam Brownback speaks to the Base because he's part of it. A staunch social conservative, he will lead the moral charge to the White House. However, the senator from Kansas is not exactly a dream candidate in a general election. He lacks Bush's folksy charm and gubernatorial track record. He may be a good place to park votes but I would be surprised to see him nominated.

Tommy Thompson: The former governor of Wisconsin and member of the Bush cabinet is very much the Republican answer to Bill Richardson. Like Richardson though, Thompson has been completely unable to break out of the massive pack and with the pool getting bigger and bigger every week, Thompson looks about ready to drown. With namesake Fred entering the race next week Tommy looks to be in big trouble.

Mike Huckabee: Whoever becomes President should give Mike Huckabee the job of getting America thin. This guy is about half of his former self. However, the former governor of Arkansas (he's from Hope like another former governor), is not exactly wowing people at this stage. It's early and governors usually do well but so far not so good.

Tom Tancredo: "Damn Immigrants" should probably be Tancredo's campaign slogan. This guy is a favourite of Lou Dobbs and other illegal immigration zealots. Tancredo has no chance of winning the nomination but his presence in the debates may force the candidates to talk about illegal immigration something most of them would like to avoid with Republicans firmly divided on the issue.

Duncan Hunter: Oh shit! That profanity in my description of Tom Tancredo (and the one in this sentence) probably offend Duncan Hunter. Another republican waxing poetic about the good old days and traditional values. He has no chance.

Ron Paul: Paul is nothing if not fun. His appearances with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert showed that. However, this libertarian looks out of place in the morality and terror obsessed GOP. A relic from a bygone era, Paul wants to get rid of most of the American government. Another person to spice up the debate tedium.

Fred Thompson: Fred has not officially announced yet but Republicans are having fits and comparing him to Reagan. The senator from Tennessee turned actor is a conservative who can speak to the base. What else Mr. Thompson is remains to be seen. He is supposed to announce any day now. Next week perhaps? He could win this nomination but we won't know until he starts campaigning.

Race for the Exits 2008: The Democrats (revisited)

A few months back I took a look at the field (and boy is it wide) of the people who want to be President in 2008. Here is an update.

Hillary Clinton: Can anything stop the junior senator from New York? Obama may be fundraising but Clinton is kicking butt in the polls. It's a long time between now and January and even longer till November 2008 but Clinton has to be happy with where she is right now. To me, her campaign stinks of insincerity. Everything seems concocted and forced. Bill has the common touch, Hillary not so much. She should stop trying it, she comes off as condescending. There are still major electability questions. This applies not only to the presidency but her impact on down ballot races in the south and west where the Democrats are looking to win house and senate seats. She has tons of money, tons of institutional support and tons of name recognition. She could and probably should (given her current position) win, I just have this feeling that she won't. No logic behind it.

Barack Obama: The money reports coming out today are good news for a campaign that seems to be stuck in neutral. The biggest problem for Obama seems to be that he lacks any concrete ideas. Nobody's really sure what he stands for and this plays into his lack of experience. There's no voting record to show where he stands on the issues so critics and supporters are left waiting for ideas from the Obama campaign. He will be one of many Dems looking to be the centre of an anti-Hillary movement. The junior senator from Illinois certainly has the charisma and charm to win the nomination if not the presidency. Now it's time for Obama to demonstrate that he is more than one great speech and a pretty face.

John Edwards: The former senator from North Carolina is the other main contender in the anyone but Hillary camp. Edwards' run in 2004 has provided him with a great ground game in early primary states, particularly in Iowa. Edwards is looking to win the caucuses and work from there. I question how much Edwards' two Americas speech will resonate outside of the Democratic base. People want to believe that they are middle class and have the chance to get rich. They don't want to be told that the system is working against them. Concerns about his wife's health may distract Edwards in the short term.

Bill Richardson: My choice for the nomination is stuck in park. He is by far the most qualified candidate having served as 1. Secretary of Energy 2. Ambassador to the United Nations and currently 3. Governor of New Mexico. A governor with international experience? I don't know how the Dems are not drooling over this guy. His Hispanics roots give the Democrats a major head start at tapping into the Latino community. He needs money, a charisma injection, institutional support and an issue to separate himself from the pack. However if the Dems end up looking for a safe pick, this might be it.

Chris Dodd: Chris Dodd is a very competent senator from Connecticut. This does not mean he should be President. There isn't much chance of it either. Dodd is white bread with the crust cut off boring. No one really knows why he is running. Who wants to place bets on a drop out date?

Joe Biden: Twenty years ago a plagiarism scandal forced Joe Biden out of the race for the Democratic nomination. In retrospect he probably wouldn't have done worse than Michael Dukakis. However, that is not an endorsement. The senator from Delaware is, like Dodd, a good senator but once again this does not mean he should be President. He should get quite a bit of that famous Joementum that worked so well for Lieberman in 2004.

Dennis Kucinich: The NDP would love Kucinich. However, that means he's about as electable as a Lesbian, pot-smoking, Muslim in the United States. Kucinich is nothing if not entertaining so I really don't mind him making the debates a little more interesting. If the congressman doesn't care about his snowball in hell chances nor do I.

Mike Gravel: If you are not from the state of Alaska and you know who Mike Gravel is you are in the minority. How this leftie ever got elected to the Senate from conservative Alaska I do not know. However, now after years out of the senate, he's decided to run for President with no money, no name recognition and no hope. I hope he has fun. Jon Stewart did a great piece on one of his campaign ads. Here's the ad. Like Gravel it's not exactly mainstream.

Non-candidates:

Al Gore: If he wants the nomination he can probably have it. He could probably even win the election (again) but there is no indication that Gore wants the job. He seems content to work against climate change from outside. How much of that is the desire not to campaign against the Clinton's only Gore knows.

Wesley Clark: Clark has the military credentials some Dems crave during war-time. However, the retired supreme NATO commander proved an ineffective campaigner in 2004 after getting into the race late. I would have thought that if Clark still wanted the job he would have not made the mistake he made in 2004 and get in early. Apparently not. There is no indication he is running and I really don't see that changing.

New Zealand, Germany and Scotland or Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 7

Proponents of MMP often point to its "success" in other countries as a reason to support the new system. Let's review our potential electoral siblings and see exactly how similar we are:

New Zealand: Often touted as a good example, our Commonwealth allies are not as similar as we may think. One of the biggest problems I see with MMP is that it puts us in a situation of perpetual elections. New Zealand did not have this problem. New Zealand has had elections every three years for the last 93 years (with two wartime exceptions). No-confidence motions do not trigger elections. While MMP has led to more coalition building, there is no threat of constant elections. Furthermore, New Zealand faced a different crisis in 1996 than Ontario does today. New Zealand had become a two party system where new parties could not be created. Ontario does not have that problem. We have a three party system with room for more. The failure of the Greens to win election does not represent a failure of our electoral system, it represents a failure of the Green Party. Twenty years ago you may have been able to argue that our system had stagnated after forty years of Tory rule. However, all three parties have governed since then and new parties have always been able to emerge in Canada's electoral system. Both federally and provincially.

Germany: So if you were setting up a democracy after 13 years of totalitarian rule, how would you do it? Well, you'd start by designing a system where one party can never control the entire government and ensure minorities have a say in the government. MMP's inability to produce stable majorities is exactly what Germany needed. Ontario is not recovering from Nazism. We don't need perpetual minorities. Unfortunately, coalition building can leave citizens in the dark. As it did in 2005, where it took weeks after the votes were counted to be sure that Angela Merkel would actually be Chancellor. Merkel had to cap in hand (or at least carrot and stick in hand) to smaller parties in order to secure her election victory. All those in favour of backroom politics?

Side note: Germany counts list votes differently than we will. Similar system, yes, same no.

Scotland: So you're the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. You have this crazy desire to keep that Kingdom, well, United. On the other hand, the Scots and Welsh want more power. So you decide to create national governments. But wait! The Scottish Nationalists have been winning seats in the House of Commons for years. It didn't matter once the rest of the country was factored in but if you isolate Scotland... So, what to do? Create a system whereby they can never get a majority and therefore never call a referendum and never separate. Phew! Problem solved. Mantario aside, does Ontario have a separatist movement? No? So why do we need a system designed to thwart it? Oh and by the way, the Scottish system isn't the same. Instead of a nation wide list they employ a much more sensible regional list system. They don't quite trust parties to provide regional balance.

Fun Electoral Reform Fact: The Citizens' Assembly recommended a yes/no question on MMP. Elections Ontario has chosen instead to have an either/or referendum between MMP and FPTP. What else will change when the Citizens' Assembly report turns into law? Maybe nothing but it's not a promising start.

Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 6

This part of the argument revolves around the idea of two classes of MPP. The basic question is: are list candidates and local candidates interchangeable? If the answer is no, we have a problem. I believe the answer to be no.

Do they have the same responsibilities? No. Nobody disputes that local MPP's have the added responsibility of dealing with constituent complaints and problems. With this in mind should we really pay the same to each when they don't do the same work? More importantly, do they deserve the same say in our government.

Do they have the same rights? This is an interesting question and because the recommendation of the citizens' assembly has not been put into bill-form yet we have no idea what the answer would be. Federally, we just saw Joe Comuzzi cross the floor; would list MPP's have the same right? I can't imagine that they would.

Neither the same rights nor the same responsibilities means no to me. This creates a problem do we trust a list MPP with a cabinet portfolio? With the Premier's office? If these new list MPP's will be second-class why do they have equal power?

Slightly off topic point: It has been raised elsewhere that the list MPP's will provide diversity to the legislature. I do admit that this is a possibility. The problem is even if they look different they will not be able to act differently. I can't imagine a list MPP going against the wishes of the party that elected him or her. Diversity is only valuable if it brings a diversity of opinion. Otherwise it's little more than pandering and vote-grabbing.

No Flip-Flops on the BBQ circuit M. Dion!

Stephane Dion is suddenly wondering what exactly constitutes that nation he voted for last winter. M. Dion twisted himself into a pretzel to vote for the Quebec nation resolution in the run up to the convention and now apparently has buyer's remorse. I am not too much of a partisan to admit when my leader makes a gaffe and this is a big one. Dion's a former sociology professor who's spent his life dealing with Quebec nationalism. How on earth did he not get this right the first time?!?! Yes, M. Dion the resolution is flawed. So why in God's name did you and so many other Liberals vote for it? The old axiom "better late than never" does not apply here. M. Dion screwed up and now he looks like he's trying to have it both ways. Heaven help us in Quebec in the next election.

Toronto's Garbage Plan: Tax the Poor

The city of Toronto has announced a new levy on garbage. The New Democrat controlled council is trying to make the city more green. The new plan is a disaster. The plan works as follows. Every household will buy a trash bin. The smallest size (about one bag of garbage every two weeks) is free after rebate and then the bins get more and more expensive up to $150 a year. In addition any garbage that can't be fit into the containers will cost residents somewhere between $2.50 and $3 (notwithstanding four 'free' bags a year). So why is this such a bad idea? Well, apparently the NDP have forgotten their progressive roots because this is probably the most regressive tax a government has imposed in a long time. There is no accommodation made for large households. In other words, a single stock broker pays nothing while the immigrant family with 5 kids and the grandparents living at home pays through the nose. The tragedy is that Toronto is already one of the most garbage-conscious places on earth. There are few if any jurisdictions that do as much waste diversion as Toronto. However, residents can do little about excessive, non-recyclable packaging which fills our garbage bags. This kind of well-intentioned idiocy is par for the course with David Miller, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 5

There is a claim by fair vote that all voters are equal under the new system. This is blatantly false to anyone who believes in the idea of 'wasted votes'. Under the new system everyone votes twice: once for the party and once for the local candidate. The vote for the candidate may or may not be a wasted vote. This depends on the definition of a wasted vote. Under fair vote's definition the same percentage of local votes will be wasted under the old system as under the new system. The party votes are more complicated. As I said earlier the parties are rewarded with list seats only after their local seats have been taken out. This means that parties that do well in local races will get few if no seats. Let's take the following scenario:

Party A: 40% province wide; 65 local seats
Party B: 30% Province wide; 15 local seats
Party C: 20% Province wide; 10 local seats
Party D: 10% province wide; 0 local seats

The list distribution would breakdown as follows:

Party A 0 seats
Party B ca 19 seats
Party C ca 9 seats
Party D ca 11 seats

With the overhang I'm not exactly sure how the allocation for the three losing parties would go but the estimate is close. Party A would certainly receive no seats. 40% of the list votes would be wasted. So dramatically wasted that while 60% of the people got to vote twice; 40% voted only once. In other words every vote is not equal. Now, people have said that if you voted for party A on the list you should be happy because your party won. I would be just as happy if the election were done by lottery and my party won. It would have about as much to do with my vote. I don't necessarily buy into the wasted vote argument. I understand the idea of every vote for a losing candidate making it necessary for the winner to have more votes. I understand the idea of the list percentage determining the number of seats a party is 'supposed' to win. However, the argument for change revolves around the idea of wasted votes. If that is your reason for voting for MMP, you should be worried about the problems noted above.

Why MMP is Wrong For Ontario pt. 4

Well, back to it boys and girls. Today we discuss who is advantaged and disadvantaged by MMP. The answer may surprise you. Let's start with the obvious. The most popular party that has traditionally benefited from FPTP will be disadvantaged. You can debate the merits and demerits of that all you like. The second and third place parties will be advantaged. Practically, this means that the Liberals and PC's win if they lose and the NDP, barring a Hampton government, always wins. Who else loses? Well, everyone else in politics. Okay, so maybe the Greens get one or two seats from the lists but what is the Greens' goal at the end of the day? To become an official party (where the real money is) and eventually someday form a government. This is unlikely under MMP and here is why: the ridings are bigger. If the referendum passes, Ontario will get the largest ridings in Canada by population. Larger than the federal ridings. How much more difficult will it be for a fourth candidate to win in a riding of over 120,000 people? The Greens may be ecstatic at the prospect at getting into the legislatures but they might find that their fortunes stall there. Maybe getting into the legislature and subsequently into the debate will make the Greens a force to be reckoned with. I can't say. I can say that big parties with lots of money and lots of volunteers are going to best suited to run in these super-ridings. The problems in Southern Ontario relate to population, in Northern Ontario, geography is the problem. The largest ridings south of 60 will get a little bigger as they shrink from 11 to 9. That means more money needed by local candidates to go out to canvass their constituents.

The people most disadvantaged by the system are independents. Now, you can make an argument that independent MPP's are rare and ineffective. I don't dispute that. I support a party. However, it is an essential characteristic of our democracy that ANYONE can become a member of provincial parliament. Not only are independents shut out completely of 39 of the 129 ridings, their chances of winning in the other 90 just went down significantly. It is important to note that only about 3% of Onatrians carry party memberships. That means that 39 seats can only be filled by 3% of the population. This might happen anyway in the current system but the point is that now 97% of Ontarians cannot win those seats. It would become harder and more expensive for an average person to get elected. I don't see that as an improvement to our democracy.

A quick response to Clear Grit's reply to my first three posts:

• First of all, the argument that the system should be changed to coincide with what people believe the system to be is absurd. The fact that people believe that seats are allocated based on party popularity is a failure of our democracy not a cry for reform. If people are confused by our current electoral system, God help them with MMP.
• Safe seats change as yesterday's by-election in Calgary-Elbow demonstrates.
• The level of accountability that a list candidate will be subject to compared to our current candidates is laughable. Yes, the nomination process is the same, but there are no voters to tell a party to go to the devil when they choose a poor candidate. Instead, we rely on voters who only kind of understand our current electoral system to pay attention to the nomination process of each party and analyze all 39 candidates on all four major party lists to detect poor candidates. I doubt politics-junkies like me will have time to look at all the candidates let alone the average voter.
• The current system is not on the ballot. I do not support the current system. I wrote a submission to the assembly advocating change. My choice, majoritarian run-off, is about as popular as the plague but it doesn't matter. The question before us is whether or not we want the system proposed by the citizens assembly. If it is not right for Ontario, we should not simply make a leap of faith to get away from the devil we know. The grass is not always greener on the other side.
• It is folly to expect our political culture to change overnight because our electoral system has. The last coalition government (note: coalition NOT minority) in Ontario lasted about two years. The lure of a majority government has not led the Italians to the polls on an almost yearly basis for the past fifty years. Sweden has avoided going to the polls every year by turning their 7 parties into two coalitions which can form majorities. Swedish politicos are panicking at the prospect of the rise of a non-coalition party which may cause the Riksdag to become unstable.
  

Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 3

The next problem with the system is slightly technical but it is important so please bear with the explanation. The problem relates to how the seats are allocated. A party receives seats based not purely on the percentage of the vote it receives but instead based on its popularity in general minus its popularity locally. A party's allocation is determined by figuring out how many seats out of 129 it 'should' get and subtracting the number of seats won locally. A party that does well locally could get ZERO seats from the lists. This scenario is described by the assembly itself. Why is this a problem? Shall I list the ways?

1. It favours parties who do poorly at the local level and disadvantages parties with strong local organization. Parties with good candidates that voters actually vote for get nothing, parties that have poor candidates that could never win locally get seats.
2. Wasted votes. Fair vote and their ilk are always complaining about wasted votes. Under this system my vote would, in all likelihood, be wasted. As a Liberal in an NDP riding, I still have no say. I will admit this is not a big problem for me personally, but it is one of the reasons we are having this referendum. If the proposed system doesn't fix the problem, what's the point of tearing up our democratic traditions.
3. It discourages list candidates from trying to run (or at least very hard) locally. It is far easier for people like, oh I don't know, the leader of the Green Party, to get 3% of the popular vote than go door to door and try to win a riding.
   
4. It assures perpetual minority governments. In order to win a majority government a party would have to a) garner over 50% of the popular vote or b) win 65 out of 90 or 72% of first past the post seats. The Liberal landslide in 2003 won about 68% of the local seats and nowhere near 50% of the popular vote. I don't mind the odd minority government but having an election every 18 months for the rest of my life is not an appealing prospect.
5. It seems to place a higher respect for the list vote than the local vote.
   

Why MMP Is Wrong for Ontario pt. 2

So you think the old system is like a broken clock: right about twice a day? MMP is still wrong for Ontario. MMP entrenches power in the hands of Ontario's political elite and takes it away from the average citizen. How? Well, simple it adds 39 seats awarded to political parties who decide who will go into the legislature. Nearly a third of the Ontario legislature will be parachuted in by partisans. Now in theory this could be a democratic process but with the ridiculously low membership numbers that provincial parties boast, this becomes a decision of the few. A closed list is less complicated but it is also less democratic. By asking political parties to put forward their lists before the election you deprive them of the most democratic way of making their lists i.e. using the election results and putting in the candidates who lost close races. Even assuming that parties use the most democratic means at their disposal, a one member one vote of their party membership, how many people are choosing are MPP's? How many members does the Green Party of Ontario actually have? I sincerely doubt it's anywhere close to the 100,000 people that choose each and every MPP in the legislature today. Of course, this assumes the best from our party leadership. If a leader or party president (time to figure out who those people are because they are about to become very powerful) chooses, they could make someone an MPP without any public consultation whatsoever. While the process must be transparent, there is no requirement for it to be democratic. I don't see a party being punished to severely for having a less than fully democratic nomination process. Outside of the chattering classes no one will care or even notice.

Why MMP is wrong for Ontario pt. 1

This is going to be multi-parted as I've said. I don't know how many parts yet but here's a start. Let's start with principles. What is our democracy about? What is the goal of our legislature? There are two basic positions you can take on this: it is about electing the best representatives who will represent the views of the people or it is a means of reflecting the momentary popularity of various parties at a certain time. If you take the former view, as I do, it is difficult to argue for a system which awards seats based on party popularity. However, even if you take the latter view it is necessary to debunk a popular myth before continuing. It is generally assumed that the aggregate of the votes of one party's candidates is equal to its popularity. This is a poor assumption. Let's take a couple of recent election results to show why:

Please remember that 2003 saw a Liberal landslide province wide and subsequent by-elections have seen the Grits lose seats and popularity.

Here are the 2003 results for Toronto-Danforth:

Marylin Churley (NDP) 47.14%
Jim Davidson (L) 31.63%
George Sardelis (PC) 16.95%
Michael Pilling (G) 3.53%

Here are the 2006 by-election results for Toronto-Danforth

Peter Tabuns (NDP) 47.8%
Ben Chin (L) 38.9
Georgina Blanas (PC) 10.0%
Paul Charbonneau (G) 2.1%

The seven percentage point jump in Liberal support can only be explained by the candidacy of Ben Chin. It is not reflective of party popularity at that moment. The party was getting into a lot of trouble over the placement of the new natural gas plant so close to this environmentally conscious riding but Chin was able to get voters out to support him. In short, local candidates matter. They shape voting behaviour. An even more demonstrative example is the recent elections in Parkdale-High Park. Here is 2003 and here is 2006. The popularity of Gerard Kennedy and Cheri Di Novo is clear. People like Fair Vote who take aggregate vote totals and call it the percentage of seats a party 'deserves' are ignoring the local factor. Thus, we should reconsider exactly how 'broken' our system is. In later parts I will try to show why even if you think the current system is a disaster you should vote down the proposed change.

I'm Back!!!

Computer failure, travel and work led to a two month hiatus. Now that I am back on the right side of the ocean with a functional computer, I can resume blogging activities. Of course that would involve having things to blog about. I will soon be posting my criticism of the Citizens' Assembly proposal that will be on the ballot in October. This may be multi-parted. Real blog soon.