Hooray for Infrastructure!

As promised, a post on infrastructure. There is a lot of talk today about how pointless the federal government is. The argument is that the provinces and municipalities provide most of the essential services and yet the feds collect most of the money. Well, here it is folks, what the feds could do with all that money that is distinctly their responsibility. Infrastructure was what united this country in the first place. The railroad built this country in a whole slew of ways. The railroad is also the future of this country. This country desperately needs cheap, fast train services. In particular, this is necessary in major corridors. Two immediately come to mind. First, the place where a huge number of Canadians live, the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Why is it that the best way to get from Toronto-Ottawa is by car? Planes are expensive and you have to spend hours getting to and going through security at the airport. The current trains are not much faster than a car (particularly if you exceed the speed limit) and are ridiculously overpriced. Imagine if you could make the trip from Toronto-Ottawa in about 2 hours. This is possible. It is done all over Europe. There are high speed trains that go well over 200 km/h. Now, I have heard that the Canadian climate could be a problem. However, I believe that this is an obstacle that can be overcome. The higher speed would also knock down the costs of running the trains (or at very least offset any increase in the cost of operating the faster trains) because you would be paying for fewer hours of labour. Not only do we need fast trains but we need train service in more places. The Calgary-Edmonton-Fort McMurray corridor would be a prime target for trains. Kitchener-Waterloo needs to be train accessible as well. Fast trains would reduce traffic congestion, reduce pollution and increase productivity (less hours spent traveling is a good for business).

The second major infrastructure the feds could make is in our airports. If you want to make sure Canada is open to business in a globalized era, you must reduce the ridiculous landing fees which exist at Canadian airports. By making a larger contribution to the upkeep and expansion of our airports, the federal government would make travel cheaper for Canadians and Canada more competitive.

Is there more? Of course. Our population has outgrown our network of highways. Many of our existing roads and bridges need repair. These are all matters that the federal government can help in. It is time for us to invest in infrastructure.

Stephen Harper is not Always Wrong

I guess this post should be titled why the senate should be abolished. Let's review our options on the Canadian Senate:

The Status Quo:

An unelected senate/ or quasi-elected (Harper's appointment of the senator from Alberta) senate with almost as much power (on paper) as the House of Commons. The provincial distribution of seats is based on population data from when provinces entered confederation and designed to provide a regional balancing act that no longer makes sense. The West should not be equal to the Maritimes. This is not a good thing for the Canadian system to hold on to. The pros of the current senate? Sober second thought? An interesting idea. Most of the real work that the senate does is in fixing legislation to make it legally better. That work could and really should be done in the House. If you want an unelected body to review legislation, we have a federal bureaucracy. Reports on major issues of the day? Well, there are some reports we might pay attention to (reports on health care). However, most are simply ignored. Did you know the Canadian senate recently put out a report on aid policy in sub-Saharan Africa? Is it a good report, I couldn't tell you, I haven't read it. Could we have it done by a committee of the House of Commons or, a Canadian tradition, a Royal Commission? Absolutely.

Reform:

Now, I know there isn't a perfect consensus on Senate reform, so I'll look at the most popular: the triple E senate. I don't mind (in and of itself) the elected part. Elected officials are a good thing. However, the other two parts make me cringe. Equal? Are you joking? The idea is to give every province ten seats. PEI would be equal to Ontario. I have never understood the logic. The only reason seems to be that the Americans do it. That does not make something good or desirable. The third E however is the kicker. An effective senate would lead only to endless legislative gridlock. You would have butchered version of American democracy. We have a House of Commons, we don't need another body like this.

The only reasonable conclusion is to abolish the upper house as was done across the country in province after province. It is a redundant relic of history. I agree with Liberals like Dalton McGuinty that it is time to end this farce.

Sports for a Monday

So, being completely annoyed with federal politics, I think I'll devote a post to something less serious. So, my quick thoughts on the weekend sporting events.

- The Pats are amazing. Brady has a poor game by his standards and they still come from ten points down to beat the far and away second best team in the NFL.

- Will someone please give my now .500 Buffalo Bills some respect? This team is a couple of inches from being 6-2 (last second losses to Dallas and Denver). Sure, the teams they've beaten have combined for eight wins but the teams they've lost to have combined for eight losses.

- How much do the Michigan Wolverines wish they could replay that game against Appalaichan State?

- Nice to see the always consistent Oregon Ducks back on top of the PAC 10.

- Western continues its hot streak through the OUA. I'm pissed off they beat my Golden Gaels. I feel a little better since they beat Ottawa.

- The Raptors are good. Really good. Losing in overtime to one of the best teams in the east when your top two players spend the first half ice cold? That's one impressive off night.

- The Maple Leafs are horrible. JFJ has got to go. MLSE knows how to build a winner (see above). They have more money than God, spend it on a top level GM and the best scouts in the business.

- The Argos are one win away from playing at home in the Grey Cup. The ownership must be thrilled.

- Sports can be disillusioning. Case and point: Martina Hingis was one of the few tennis players I respected.

- Congrats to Calgary's Stephen Ames for his win. Why did the Canadian boys get hot when the season is ending?

- What is going on with the Pens? The team of the future is not looking very good in the present these days.

More politics later on. Probably a post on infrastructure. I'm interested in the dullest things aren't I?

Friday

Some quick thoughts that have crossed my mind:

- The Dems made a mistake in not allowing Stephen Colbert to run in South Carolina. At this point the Democratic nomination is going to be a snooze, a Colbert candidacy would keep people watching.

- The Canadian dollar continues to soar. Prices are starting to come down. Sometimes the free market actually does work, it does require some patience though.

- Stephen Harper's "new" government is apparently "new" for the 1930's. How else to explain the decision to let Canadians be killed in the United States. Our opposition to the death penalty in this country is a moral choice. We should fight for it everywhere in the world. Do we "respect" the laws of all of our friends? Funny, we don't seem to respect Chinese law regarding Tibet...

- So the Tories have taken to ousting candidates. I understand getting rid of candidates you don't like. I particularly understand it when you have another candidate to replace them. However, in an acclaimed nomination race in a riding you can't possibly win...

- In what universe do you think you can get away with stealing a baby in this country? There's morally repulsive and then there's morally repulsive.

- Repeatedly rolling over won't help you stand up M. Dion. What's the new YLC slogan I hate? Challenge everything? Well, you don't have to do that, but for the love of this party, please, challenge something. Oh, and by something, I don't mean the GST cut. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it political suicide to oppose it? Yes. Oh, on a lighter note I do approve of M. Dion's Laurier outfit.

Lower the Voting Age

So, on we go with ideas to improve our dear country. This one is a bit strange and I'm not even sure I agree with it entirely. However, there are really good reasons to lower the voting age to 16. First, why sixteen? Well, at sixteen you are old enough to have sex (even by Tory standards) and drive a car. You are clearly able to make big decisions. However, that's not why I want the voting age to be sixteen. Political scientists make a big deal of the fact that voter turnout among young people has fallen dramatically over the last thirty years. I would argue part of the reason is the changing nature of early adulthood. It used to be that a small minority of the population went to university. Those that did go off to school usually went to the closest school to them. The University of Toronto served Toronto. Now, students spread out across the country and the world. This means they are removed from the place in which they grew up. They are removed from their local community. A community where they may have been involved. I make a habit of trekking back to Toronto to vote in elections. I feel much more a part of my riding in Toronto-Danforth than I do here in Kingston. However, many students won't bother with the trip. Particularly, if the first election they have a chance to vote in happens when they are at school. By lowering the voting age to sixteen we would allow people to register to vote and vote for the first time while in high school. This would allow them to vote in areas they care about, for candidates they might know something about. Would all sixteen year olds necessarily be informed voters? No. But they wouldn't all vote either. However, I firmly believe that by starting the process earlier we would make voting part of their routine. If people can vote for the first time when they still live at home, they will be around their parents who are far likelier to vote than their peers at university. The parents, we hope, will have a positive impact. I think it is worth a shot. I don't think there is high possibility that sixteen and seventeen year olds will be coerced, nor do I think that a bunch of people who wouldn't know Stephen Harper if he took their money and used it for federal election ads are going to start voting en masse. I think there is low risk and high reward on this one. Did I just come out in favour of electoral reform? Why yes, yes I did.

Where's the News?

The Canadian news scene is fairly quiet these days. The Saskatchewan election has one interesting story and it appears to be over. The Conservatives seem safe for the next little bit federally. The Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador elections were confirmations of the status quo. The media continues to write off Stephane Dion. The Democratic primaries seem to be all but over. The Republican primaries are such a mess, a Ron Paul victory wouldn't surprise me at this point (I'm not saying it's going to happen). Albertans are complaining about oil taxes. Okay, the taxer changed but really, "Albertans oppose tax hike" is not exactly a shocking headline. The Star is editorializing about pay-day loans and the rising dollar killing the economy. The Globe thinks everything is rosy. Iraq is Iraq. Afghanistan is Afghanistan. I suppose the whole FEMA "press" conference thing is funny but not surprising considering the Bush administration's track record. California's burning. Okay, it's worse this year. Is it a tragedy? Of course. Was it predictable? Of course. Wake me up when something happens?

Sorbara's Out!

Didn't see this coming. Get out while you're on top, I guess. Strange. Really didn't see this coming.

Skinning Differs From Decapitation

As I've mentioned previously the trend lately among former proponents of MMP is to now come out in favour of STV. I really shouldn't care. However, I find the position completely inconsistent. There are few to any similarities between STV and MMP. Let's do a breakdown of the arguments for and features of each one (I'll leave the counter-arguments out, for the sake of discussion):

MMP: - Provides proportionality while maintaining some level of direct representation.
- Allows voters to distinguish between party and person.
- Fairly consistent with current system.
- Accurately represents small, often single issue, parties
- Encourages coalition building
- Encourages diversity (I didn't say the arguments had to be true)

STV: - Allows voters to indicate preference
- Encourages moderation of views
- Multiple representatives
- All members are equal (formula focuses on each candidate just meeting threshold)
- All members still locally accountable

What is notable in this comparison is these systems do not share very many features. STV is not proportional (the BC Greens objected to this point). MMP creates two types of differently abled politicians. MMP (the Ontario model) maintains the one riding, one member system. STV focuses on multi-member districts. STV has no mechanism that could be used to increase diversity. MMP rewards small, single issue parties. STV rewards large brokerage parties that can appeal to a broad base. The only things these two systems have in common are the features that exist in the current system and the fact that they are decidedly not the current system. If advocacy for reform is blind to their own proposals, we have a problem. If they truly like both of these systems what common feature are they advocating?

When are they going to get to acceptance?

Watching the proponents of MMP fumble around with the referendum results is becoming a joke. There is a strong mixture of anger and denial. The denial came today from some hearty academics. The conclusions from this article is that if people had been told only good things about MMP they would have voted for it. Here we go: I propose a system of government that will have incomparable immediate economic growth, rapid decision making, high levels of security, low levels of crime and strong social cohesion. Do you agree? Well, probably. But you might not if you realized you were voting for fascism. I'm not comparing MMP to fascism. I'm talking about the ridiculous nature of that line of argument. Of course, if you talk about a system only in positives without any substantive detail people are going to agree. In a democracy, however, we have something called debate. This allows people to see the whole picture and make a decision. As I've argued before, the results of the referendum were predictable based on a reasonably well informed population. Knowing the exact make up of the citizen's assembly would not have changed the results.

Build Up, Not Out

Part two of my series of ideas whose times have come. Today we look at what should be on the lips of every environmentalist in North America: Urban Density. If you want to know why pollution rates here are so much higher than in Europe look no further than our sprawling cities. If we are to improve our environmental sustainability, we need to make our cities more dense. Now, when I speak of density I don't mean St. James' Town. I don't want concrete tower after concrete tower that obscures all light. We need to build towers where they are possible. One of the best places to increase density is parking lots. Flat, strip mall style parking lots are a blight. A condominium tower, or a bunch of townhouses would look much better and increase density. You don't need to touch an inch of green space to do it (and nor should you). There is a plan in Toronto to replace the two story facades which dominate major streets in the downtown core with facades of up to six stories. No major difference in look, but way more space to live or work. Density also means improving urban transit systems and avoiding tax policies that encourage sprawl (like the land transfer tax just passed by the city of Toronto). We need to make it easy to live downtown.

Engage the World

As it appears a federal election is not in the immediate future, I have decided to begin a series of posts on how the Liberal Party (or any party really) can move Canada towards a brighter tomorrow. The first relates on Canada in the globalized world.

It saddened me greatly when the last federal debate included no mention of foreign policy. The world matters. How we engage the new world which has been emerging over the last twenty years will shape the Canadian story. We can either seize upon our potential or we can mire ourselves in endless internal squabbles. Engaging the world is the new cause célèbre of my university. Unfortunately, it is little more than a cause. There are no actions to back up those words. We, as a country, require action. Here's a few starters:

Expand Student Exchanges: This is an idea I've mentioned before. I am horribly biased on the subject, having just completed a wonderful exchange in Sweden. However, this is still a good idea. Canada should knock on the door of the ERASMUS program. ERASMUS was conceived as a way of uniting Europe by providing fora for cultural exchanges. Why can't it unite the world? We shouldn't stop with Europe either. Why not be a leader and set up similar systems with our OAS, Commonwealth, Francophonie and APEC allies? Not only does it provide Canadian students a chance to see the world and learn from it, but it will make our universities centres of international learning. If we are to compete in a globalized economy we must have workers who understand the world and a world that thinks about Canada. This can either be an initiative of the federal government or an initiative of the provinces or both.

Fix Immigration and then Expand it: Our immigration system is broken. We go around the world recruiting doctors and engineers and end up with taxi drivers and convenience store operators. We need to ensure that all immigrants have access to the credentials they have already earned. Where there are gaps in knowledge we need to develop programs to fill those gaps, not start from square one. I said during the leadership that immigrant success was one of my major reasons for supporting Gerard Kennedy. I said after the leadership that I hope M. Dion adopts the policy. I am still hopeful. Once we have fixed this problem we need to increase the number of immigrants who are coming to this country. The Western world faces a major demographic crisis with the retirement of the baby boom and immigration is the best way to combat it.

Increase Trade Relations with the Developing World: Canada and Canadian companies should be on the ground in developing countries building capacity and creating sustainable growth. We need to reach out to the developing world as equals and trade with them freely and openly. Which leads to the next point.

Support the G77 in the Doha Round: Canada has a moral imperative to reduce its agricultural subsidies and encourage our allies to do the same. A level playing field in agriculture would be the first step to getting Africa on its feet. Let's stop complaining about how evil the WTO is and start working to make it better.

Reduce Landing Fees at Canadian Airports: If we want tourism we need to make it easier to fly to Canada. We need to eliminate the fees which make it cheaper to fly to Buffalo and rent a car to Toronto then fly to Toronto. We have a huge federal surplus, let's spend it on making Canada's infrastructure open for business.

Eliminate Visa Restrictions on Allied States: The restrictions on travelers from the Baltics in particular is an absurd post-cold war relic. NATO allies should be able to visit for a few days without having to get a visa.

Increase the size of our Foreign Service: Simple. More embassies. More consulates. More people on the ground promoting Canada.

More to come...

Sunday Thoughts

Okay, some thoughts on the world around us:

- Pauline Marois' proposal is racist. It is discriminatory, unconstitutional and bad for Quebec. Welcome to Quebec, where you don't count! I don't understand Quebec nationalism and I never will. Tous les citoyens de notre pays ont les mêmes droits irrespecte de langue. Les anlglophones et allophones a le droit d'être députés dans l'Assemblie Nationale. Si les Québecois et Québecoises ne voudraient pas électer les personnes qui ne parle pas le français, comme Mme. Marois pense, ils peuvent voter seulement pour les francophones (I think I botched horribly the conditional in that last sentence, but you'll get my drift).

- Turkey's war on the PKK is big news. Huge news. As I see it, Turkey would be justified at this moment to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty. People from Iraq launched an attack in Turkey. This is similar in circumstance if not in scale to the attacks of 9/11 which caused the US to invoke Article 5. It is not as impossible as you may think. Yes, there are NATO troops in Iraq but they will tell you that the government of Iraq is sovereign. Therefore, there would be no problem with NATO invading a sovereign Iraq in order to defend Turkey. I don't think they will invoke Article 5, but they could. That is a scary prospect. Even if they don't, Iraq is starting to reach the ultimate nightmare scenario that opponents of this war discussed in 2002.

- Stéphane Dion made a mistake in not bringing down Harper. He looks weak. He is now forced to make more of these decisions on every substantive bill from here on. Every time he decides to support the government he weakens the image of the Liberal Party. He blurs the significant differences between the two parties and strengthens the NDP. It was a mistake. Leaders are allowed to make mistake. If Dion thinks that the upcoming by-elections in English Canada will bolster the party, than perhaps the gambit is worthwhile. I don't think we can spin holding on to seats as a move forward.

- The situation in Pakistan should worry everyone. The strange dance between Musharraf and Bhutto which seems to only be happening to somehow strengthen the current regime may lead to civil strife. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Pakistan has a large extremist population. Let the two never mix.

- The US electoral system is wackier every day. Michigan has been disenfranchised by the Dems. Stephen Colbert is running for the nomination of BOTH parties in South Carolina. The parties need to put all their primaries on one day (or at very least one weekend like the LPC). End the hegemony of New Hampshire and Iowa. However, I guess the fair vote people don't mind, the primaries are PR based. The caucuses are kind of like STV.

- I know nothing about Saskatchewan provincial politics. I do know their is an election on. I also believe Saskatchewan will be one of the major fronts of the next federal election. Stéphane Dion needs to start pounding the Tories on the wheat board.

Let's Go!

Stephane Dion made it very clear the conditions he wanted to support the throne speech. Harper has refused to meet those conditions. Time to bring down this government.

On the Federal Election

I stand by my prediction from January that a federal election will take place in or around American Thanksgiving. That doesn't mean I want an election. I just think it's going to happen. When nominated candidates start saying stuff like this, it usually means there's an election brewing. Also, isn't it a shame that Ms. Coyne has a snowball's chance of getting into the house. I'll vote for her again but I think my neighbours still prefer the Jack-in-the-box. I make no judgment on whether or not we should go to the polls until I've seen the throne speech.

Monday again

Quick thoughts to start the week:

- Queen's homecoming is over and done with. It is being heralded as a success. Even the usually hyper-critical Kingston Whig-Standard seems pleased. I would describe Aberdeen St. as ordered chaos this year. I enjoyed myself. A good last homecoming as a student. If you have no idea what I'm talking about.... well, look it up.

- Chretien doesn't like Paul Martin. WOW! Stop the presses! Or I guess more appropriately start the presses. YAWN! Only Chretien could create a media frenzy while recovering from heart surgery.

- Greenhouse gas emissions stabilized in 2004-5. Hey, it's better than a kick in the teeth.

- Harper wants a new press theatre. Umm... I'm so glad we're spending two million dollars on that instead of keeping the trains running in Toronto. I have no love for Mr. Miller but... one cent, now! And, um, quick question, don't you think the media would have asked how you built the new press theatre considering it's for the press? Harper's getting Cheney-like.

- So Miller's plans to save money are going beautifully. First, he had to backtrack on the closing of community centres. Now, the librarians union has successfully for breach of contract or some such meaning the city is going to have to pay for the librarians without getting anything in return. Shelve the plans to redo city hall? Nah. He'd rather have your local arena sponsored by MasterCard. I actually don't mind the private-public partnership but I can't believe that sits well with Miller's Dipper supporters.

- Harper's still right on the environment. Punishing the developed world transfers the problem. It doesn't fix it. We need Harper's strategy with Dion's timetable and we need it yesterday. If this election is about the environment, don't expect this blogger to lead the Liberal charge. Don't get me wrong, I still intend to vote Grit (climate change is not my top issue) but I can't defend the Liberal environmental policy.

- More on this later, but STV is not a good idea. It's also not PR. If you want PR don't vote for STV. You will be sorely disappointed. Note Ireland's most recent election where the governing party increased its popular vote and lost seats. The principle opposition saw their support go up 5 percentage points and gained 12 percentage points more seats. No, this does not mean I oppose all forms of electoral reform. Once again I support a system of majoritarian run-off as is used in France, Louisiana and Texas. Maintenance of local democracy with increased legitimacy. Not only that but you might get to vote twice! When STV failed I distinctly remember people saying "oh, well they should have proposed MMP." Now that MMP has crashed and burnt...

Andrew Coyne is on a warpath

So, Andrew Coyne is mad as hell. See, he liked MMP. MMP lost. Now, he's trying to figure out a way for him to be right and not be against popular opinion. First, he tried to claim that the people were cowed by Islamophobic propaganda. This is of course absurd. First, there was no mention of a possible Islamic party on behalf of the No MMP campaign and almost none in the media (a brief half-mention in the Globe). Secondly, this makes no sense considering the plethora of Muslim candidates elected in ridings that rejected MMP. Ontarians are not bigots. Finally, I can guarantee that the Canadian Islamic Congress was not motivated by Islamophobia when they rejected MMP.

Now Mr. Coyne has changed tack. He's now decided that in fact MMP won. Well, after all it got almost the same percentage as the premier. Well, if we're going to play games with the numbers, let's play games. Under FPTP the Liberals won a plurality of the votes in a majority of the ridings. How did MMP fare? They won 5 ridings out of 107. Reslicing the pie doesn't change the result. He also levels the ridiculous criticism that the low voter turnout invalidates the result. Every Canadian has a rigt not to vote. If you want to change that, bring in mandatory. I think it may be a debate worth having (I'm actually not sure where I stand on that one). If 48% of Ontarians didn't think it worth their time to vote, all we can interpret is that they didn't think voting was a priority. There are millions of reasons why people don't vote. We can't judge it to be any one of them with any certainty. However, their absence does not invalidate the result. Bad things happen when we allow the absent to delegitimize the actions of the present (see the Weimar republic). No one was disenfranchised.

He's also claiming that people were actively misinformed. I stand by every statement I made regarding MMP. The rise of fringe parties has taken place across Europe. It has been fostered by PR systems. It is not surprising that France and the UK (who use non-PR systems) remain the two major countries without a major Christian Democratic or Green movement. France also has had the most success in rejecting the right-wing nationalist movements that have swept Europe. Marie le Pen has lost the popularity that he once had and has remained out of power. Meanwhile, PR based countries of seen the inclusion of nationalist movements in government from the Netherlands to Denmark. The Belgians are still trying to form a government while a Flemish nationalist party threatens the destruction of Belgium. Not in Germany you say? Well, there are laws against nationalist parties in Germany. Seems that they had a bad experience with nationalism back in the day. MMP wouldn't have stopped the kind of xenophobia that has spread across Europe. The Swedes who use MMP (a slightly different version but built on the same principles) have seen a fringe nationalist party gain prominence all across their regional councils. Analysts predict they will be in the Riksdag after the next election (they were just under the threshold last year). This would throw the normally stable Riksdag into chaos. The carefully built coalitions would have to realign in order to accommodate the new party. In other words, they would get power, king-maker power. These new parties are not popular movements. They represent a tiny portion of the population and receive a disproportionate influence.

The rise of a Maori party in New Zealand is not a good thing as some people claim. The fact that there are Maori voters in New Zealand who feel they can only be represented by fellow Maoris is a failure. Integration is important to the success of any minority group. Note: integration not assimilation. There is a major difference between the maintenance of a distinct culture and the feeling that no one outside your culture can possibly represent you. This is the failure Canada has felt so profoundly in French Canada. The rise of the Maori party should be viewed in the same light as the rise of the PQ and BQ in Canada. A failure of political leadership. The line of argument that sees the rise of an ethnically based party as a success is the same argument that supports the segregation of our schools and the division of our country.

I said what I said during the campaign, not to scare people, but because I believe them and want to share my beliefs with my fellow citizens. Civic duty propelled me. It is insulting in the utmost to insinuate that I was acting out of some sort of malicious intent. I'm a university student. I was not trying to hold on to my own power (as Mr. Ferguson et al. may claim). If you disagree with me, fine. Don't call me a self-interested, bigoted liar.

What We Learned

Okay so here's what we know from Ontario's election:


1. Making bad promises will hurt you a lot more than not keeping good ones.

2. Shane Jolley should be the next leader of the Ontario Greens. The candidate from Owen Sound backed up his nationwide best showing in the federal election with an impressive second place finish in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. He got a higher voting percentage than Elizabeth May in London!

3. Howard Hampton needs to retire. His speech last night was, at best, unscripted at worst, horrible. I'm not talking about whether or not you agree with him on substance. It was a long rambling incoherent speech. At the beginning he sounded like Martin making his exit in 2006 (talking about people who had been there since the beginning etc.) then at the end he says "oh, by the way, I'm staying around." He shouldn't. Ontarians are never going to fall in love with the man from Fort Francis.

4. Drawing on that point, Ontario will not have a leadership race until after the next federal election. This has got to be in the minds of John Tory and Howard Hampton when they didn't resign last night. The last thing they want to do is distract their party faithful during an election campaign.

5. Ontarians don't care about provincial politics. That is the lesson from the low voter turnout last night. It is not because of the electoral system. You can not blame the precipitous decline in voter participation in the last fifty years on something that has been CONSTANT. It defies all logic. Please, electoral reform advocates, do not quote me the one poorly compiled academic paper that says there is a higher participation rate in PR systems. I don't care how Belgians voted in the middle of the 19th century. It tells me nothing about voting patterns today. A whopping 43% of Germans turned out to elect members to the European Parliament using... wait for it... MMP. Electoral systems have NOTHING to do with turnout.

6. We have lost touch with the local electorate. There were two huge upsets that almost happened last night. Namely, Halton and Timmiskiming-Cochrane. Neither the party in trouble nor the party challenging realized these were races. The pundits also completely missed on predictions for close races. London-Fanshawe is a tight three way race? Sid Ryan is going to win Oshawa? Ottawa Centre is close? John Tory has a chance in Don Valley West? Donna Cansfield was in trouble? We need to get reporters on the ground again. The most reliable source for information is the board over at electionprediction.org in spite of the posters' horrible biases.

7. John Tory should never be allowed within twenty feet of a campaign war room.

I think my school paper just broke a story

Or did this morning... I'm a little behind on my posting. Here's the story from the Queen's Journal. Yep. A tory campaign manager literally cursing John Tory.

Why MMP Failed

Now that I have access to Elections Ontario's riding by riding referendum results, it is time for some analysis. We need to start by debunking some myths about why this referendum failed.

Myth #1: McGuinty and the Liberals wanted it to fail.

This is absurd. It is absurd on so many levels. First, why on earth would prominent Liberal cabinet ministers (Smitherman, Bryant, Gerretsen et al.) be working on the pro-MMP side if the Grits were plotting its demise? Second, there is NO proof for this. Zero. Don't talk about the threshold which was copied almost verbatim from BC. It is a) not McGuinty's and b) in keeping with the Constitution and the principles of the Clarity Act. This kind of conspiracy is usually relegated to late night talk shows.

Myth #2: The media ignored the issue.

This is blatantly false. Almost every newspaper and most columnists in the province put out an editorial. Radio talk shows spent hours debating its merits. The blogosphere was saturated. The debate was out there. People just had to listen. A major television debate (outside TVO) was the only thing missing. Given the low ratings of the leaders' debate I wouldn't call this all that important.

Myth #3: The No MMP campaign killed it.

Our Lilliputian efforts (all $12,000 of it) may have helped to shape the debate (I'll come to that later) but we did not cause a landslide. I'd love to say we did, but we didn't.

Myth #4: The information campaign left people uninformed and they voted out of uneasiness.

This on the surface seems like a reasonable hypothesis. The information campaign was pathetic (see my last post). However, it is disproved by the results that we got from across the province. In order for this theory to work, you must assume that information was distributed relatively equally across the province. Everyone received the same useless pamphlet. Almost everyone has access to the internet somewhere so they could view the website. In other words, people should vote the same way across the province. There should be no noticeable difference between ridings. In fact support for MMP ranged from below 30% to 59.2% (Trinity-Spadina). That kind of thirty point spread indicates to me that a large number of people knew exactly what they were voting on or at very least had formed an opinion. Even if you assume that people in the large cities were better informed due to higher media and campaign saturation, you still can't explain why people in wealthy (and therefore more likely educated) urban ridings rejected MMP. It is also worthwhile to note that people voted predictably. Steve Paikin nailed on The Agenda when he surmised that the pro-MMP ridings were in downtown Toronto. How did he know they weren't in Thunder Bay or Ottawa? The answer is the reason MMP failed.

MMP failed because it didn't resonate with what Ontarians value in their politics. In my first post on MMP I discussed the principles behind both systems and how the choice was basically a philosophical one. The results confirm that hypothesis. First, let's look at who voted for MMP. The ridings are: Trinity-Spadina, Toronto-Danforth, Beaches-East York, Davenport and Parkdale-High Park. First off, let's recognize that the four of these ridings are NDP strongholds and the fifth (Davenport) has been on the Dipper wish list for some time now. What do these ridings have in common that makes them vote NDP and for MMP (unlike the Northern NDP ridings which rejected en masse)? First, they believe that political decisions are moral decisions. No, not in the bible belt sense but in the compassion for your fellow human beings sense. People in these ridings believe that everyone should have an equal chance. The argument that FPTP is unfair resonated here. Secondly, they are imbued with pluralist views. What is common about these ridings is their diversity. The whitest is probably Beaches-East York but even then, there is significant diversity. There is along with that diversity a fierce belief in multiculturalism. There is a pluralist belief that society is best when it includes everyone in the discussion. This pushed them in favour of getting small parties more say in the legislature. Now, to a certain extent these views are present everywhere in the province but they are especially present and relevant in voting behaviour in the old city of Toronto. In other words, MMP was in keeping with the values that drive voters in these ridings.

Different motivations governed the rest of the province. A strong attachment to local representatives, I would argue is one of them. It is not unreasonable to assume that the people that voted for Kathleen Wynne in Don Valley West valued local representation more than the performance of various leaders. The easy re-election of Khalil Ramal in London Fanshawe is a better example. The pundits argued that London Fanshawe set up perfectly for the NDP. After all, if you combined the vote totals from the various polls in 2003 that were under the redistributed London-Fanshawe boundaries they would have won. Furthermore, the NDP was much more popular in 2007 than they were in 2003. Ipso facto, well, nothing. The NDP decided to go youth, which while commendable, is not usually the best strategy for getting elected. Voters stuck with the experienced Ramal. Local candidates matter. They matter a lot in certain ridings. Voters who thought this was important didn't like the lists no matter how democratic the advocates of MMP thought they were.

Other areas vote because of regional preferences. This is particularly relevant in Northern Ontario. Why did NDPers in Toronto say yes to MMP but similarly NDP supporting people in the North reject it so fervently? This is because Northerners want to maintain a Northern voice. This is true in other rural parts of the province as well. I think the election of Randy Hillier last night is proof enough of that. No list can replicate the local representation provided by a FPTP based system.

The other reason MMP failed is because the referendum was about MMP. The debate ended up being about the merits of MMP which I think is appropriate. However, when Elections Ontario changed the yes/no question to an either/or question I feared that the debate would focus on FPTP. If the vote for MMP campaign had managed to make the referendum about that, they may have been more successful at overcoming the natural predispositions against this system. John Tory and the vote for MMP campaign have this problem of directionality in common.

Finally, the referendum campaigns did have a minimal impact. You can certainly see the impact of Michael Bryant and Carolyn Bennett's work in getting the usually small c conservative St. Paul's near 50%. Similar things can be said of George Smitherman in Toronto Centre and Hugh Segal and John Gerretsen in Kingston and the Islands. The impact of our No MMP campaign is hard to decipher in the landslide. I'd say we were successful in Nipissing, Ottawa and elsewhere but I don't know that we would have been less successful had we sat on our hands. As I've said, if we made any major contribution to the overall results last night, it was keeping the attention squarely on MMP. Both referendum campaigns and perhaps the referendum in general were impacted by Elections Ontario's decision to treat the referendum campaigners as third party advertisers. The lack of tax receipts robbed both campaigns of the cash necessary for a full out debate. However, I don't think this is a major cause of the defeat.

Early Election Thoughts

So the results are in from Ontario tonight. Good news all around as far as I am concerned. A strong Liberal majority and a fierce rejection of MMP.

- One of the first things Dalton McGuinty needs to do is set up a legislative committee to look at the horrible job that Elections Ontario did during this election. Not only did their referendum information campaign fail to inform, but their website goes down as the results are coming in. Combine that with massive confusion surrounding the procedures for identification and on a personal note the loss of my voting card (I did vote, by the way), and I am unimpressed. They need to clean up their act for next time around.

- MMP's defeat tonight was decisive. Over 63% (at time of positing) of Ontarians said no, we don't want MMP our current system is preferable. I don't think given these results that Ontarians want to do this again with a different system four years from now. We should look at ways to reform our system, like the ones I proposed here, that don't involve the actual marking and counting of ballots. I will post more on this when Elections Ontario's website is up and the counting is done.

- I am thrilled that Kathleen Wynne was re-elected in Don Valley West. First and foremost, she is a great MPP and cabinet minister and it is good to have her back. Secondly, my distaste for John Tory knows no bounds and to see him defeated warms my heart.

- I am disappointed but not surprised that Peter Tabuns trounced Joyce Rowlands in Toronto-Danforth. The NDP hegemony continues.

- There should be two leadership races in the next four years. The PC race looks to be leaving first. I can't imagine anyone in Tory's caucus jumping to resign so he can get into the legislature. Hampton should leave. He has run three mediocre to poor campaigns. Three strikes should be enough. If the NDP wants to be competitive in Ontario, it needs new blood.

- I realize that I have been fairly silent in my support for the Ontario Liberal Party. I decided to dedicate my time this election to stopping MMP. However, I am thrilled that the Liberals have four more years to make Ontario stronger and better. Congratulations to Dalton McGuinty and all of his caucus colleagues.

As I say, much more analysis once Elections Ontario has results available for the public. (I notice the media got their numbers all night without interruption)

An explanation is required

I have been criticized for warning bloggers who are blogging about the referendum during the blackout. Firstly, I did it as a public service, not as an attempt to silence opposition to my particular viewpoint. I did it because of how I read the following parts of the election law:

"Section 1:

“referendum advertising” means advertising in any broadcast, print, electronic or other medium that,

(a) has the purpose of promoting a particular result in the referendum, and

(b) appears during the referendum period,

Section 17:

(2) No person or entity shall arrange for or consent to referendum advertising that appears during the blackout period. O. Reg. 211/07, s. 17 (2).

(3) No broadcaster or publisher shall allow a referendum advertisement to appear during the blackout period. O. Reg. 211/07, s. 17 (3)."

To me, this indicates that any blogger "promoting a particular result in the referendum" would be guilty under this law. Now, Scott Tribe did his due diligence and found out that Elections Ontario only considers something advertising if it has been paid for by an election campaign. I have further concerns for bloggers that are affiliated, as I am, with one of the referendum campaigns. Since there is an implied relationship between a blogger and a blog roll, particularly when they advertise on each other's sites, it was my thought that perhaps this would constitute advertising. This is particularly true with the use of omnibus, referendum only, blogs that both sides used during the campaign. Clearly, both sides were using blogs as a means of disseminating propaganda. In essence, for the exact same reason you would use advertising. This would differentiate them from MSM sources, who while they may demonstrate bias or endorse a particular side, do not advertise for that side right beside the editorial or article.

Also troublesome, and I realize I am putting myself in hot water by publishing, is the issue of the banners on many blogs. The clause "No... publisher shall allow a referendum advertisement to appear during the black out" gave me a lengthy pause as a new post generates its own separate webpage where a separate and new advertisement for the referendum campaign would appear. Now I realize this would force people to stop blogging or take down their banners during the blackout which I believe to be unreasonable (here I mean practically, legally I don't know). The unreasonableness of this is why I have decided, after some deliberation, to put out this post and one more post before the polls close.

What all this demonstrates to me is that we need to figure out exactly how blogs are to be treated in future elections. If my pestering this morning starts a tiny debate in that direction, then it will have been worth my time. Given the information that Scott received I encourage all bloggers to use their personal blogs to debate this issue. However, I will not post on it any further. As a member of the executive of one of the referendum campaigns I do not think I can effectively separate personal from campaign blogging. I hope this helps to clarify my position.

Vote to Keep Our Existing Electoral System

This marks my 29th post on the subject of this referendum. It will also be my last before election day. So, here we go 10 reasons to vote for FPTP and against MMP:

10. Stable, effective government. Governments in ONTARIO which fail to get a majority rarely last longer than a couple of years and have difficulty executing a coherent agenda. Majority government allows for long term strategies instead of short term placating. We need to be able to make tough decisions. We can do that under FPTP, we can't under MMP.

9. Small parties should not control the agenda. I don't want a situation like that which exists under MMP systems where small parties control the agenda in spite of voter preference. I would rather have a parliament where a party that receives 40% of the vote has a majority than have a legislature where a party that receives 3% of the vote has the majority of the power. If you want a point of reference look at the power of New Zealand First in the first MMP coalition government or the influence of the Green party on Germany's insane energy policy.

8. Vote for the system you understand. I don't just mean that if you haven't done your research. I am talking about the large number of things we just don't know about MMP. The exact means of list selection is still among them. Does "democratic" mean Democratic Republic of Congo "democratic"? Sorry, not good enough, not by a long shot. Do you understand the process for a recount under MMP? No? That's because there isn't one. Understand what happens if a list MPP crosses the floor? No? That's because there's no provision for or against it. Ontarians don't understand MMP not only because Elections Ontario has failed them but also because there is a lot nobody understands.

7. Ballots should be easy to vote on and easy to count. Neither applies to MMP.

6. All of Ontario matters. Not just Toronto. I say this sitting in Toronto. A one member one vote system of choosing party lists would guarantee Torontonian dominance in the legislature. Voters will vote for who they want first. They won't be thinking about the look of the overall list. With the concentration of population and party members in the GTA, GTA candidates would have a major advantage under MMP.

5. Don't give more power to political parties. They are too powerful as is. Elections should be decided on election night by the voters of Ontario, not a month later by party elites in a Toronto hotel.

4. We are not threatened by nationalism. The boundaries that face minorities have nothing to do with the electoral system. We don't need MMP. You want First Nations politicians? How about Todd Russell? Tina Keeper? Nancy Karetak-Lindell? All in our Parliament today because of First Past the Post. There are more. There's a riding in the 905 where every single candidate is Muslim. Both the Liberals and the NDP have met their targets for increasing women in the legislature. Expect those targets to go up next time around. Our current ministers of health and education are openly gay. The Premier of Orange Ontario is Catholic. Let's look how far we've come before we look at how far we have to go. We don't need MMP to artificially solve our remaining problems.

3. Our electoral districts are too big, don't make them bigger. This is true not only in Northern Ontario where MMP would make a riding larger than France, but also in the GTA where a burgeoning population makes ridings harder and harder for independents and small parties to cover.

2. Our legislature at its best when it is a representation of Ontarians from across this province. I call this blog All Politics is Local because I believe in the importance of community based politics. Today's media based politics have wounded our local politics, we do not need MMP to finish the job. We should be working to restore our local democracy. This is crucial if we are to increase our voter turnout and diversify our legislature.

1. Related to the point above, list MPP's are accountable to absolutely no one. They are not accountable to the whole province as pro-forces claim. They are also not accountable to the people who voted for that party. This is an absurd argument that assumes that voter preferences on election day stay the same the rest of the term. Accountability is crucial. We need to be able to throw out the bums. It is the foundation of our democracy. We must preserve it. For all of our MPP's. We need to reject MMP and keep FPTP to do this.

Vote for our existing electoral system (First-Past-The-Post)

Kathleen Wynne has lead in Don Valley West!

That is according to Greg over at DemocraticSpace. You know what goes well with a thanksgiving turkey? Cooked Tory!

MMP at PEI levels in latest poll

The most recent poll from SES research on MMP breaks down as follows:

FPTP: 47%
MMP: 26%
Unsure: 21%
Not Voting: 5%

If we only look at decided voters:

FPTP 64.3%
MMP: 35.7%

If these polls are accurate the threshold is going to prove quite irrelevant. A strange note: more than twice as many women identify as being unsure then men. 29% of women v. 13% of men. Does this go back to the whole men being more confident in making decisions with incomplete information thing?

MMP Trashed in MSM

So, the reviews are in and MMP is about as popular as Gigli. First, from the left, came a stinging rebuke from the Toronto Star. Then today from the centre and right the Globe and the Post shoot it down. The pro-MMP folks are undeterred. They've dug up a positive review from the folks at Eye Weekly who have written such mainstream editorials as coming out against male (note: MALE) circumcision. One of their rationale on that one was that foreskin is fun.

On a more depressing note, I went to a MMP debate last night in Kingston. There were about 25 people in the crowd. Sean Conway who was on the panel mentioned afterwards that this was his 5th MMP panel and the 25 people was his biggest crowd. None of the rational arguments for or against will matter if people are uninformed.

Riddle me this?

So, there's a lot of debate as to how the lists will function in MMP. I think the other side of this debate is talking out of both sides of their mouth on a couple of points. I heard Marilyn Churley on TVO make one of the mistakes. And now the Liberals for MMP site is making the other one. Here are the two problems.

1. Are the lists democratic or representative?

They cannot easily be both. If the lists are set in the same way local candidates are nominated now (as the NDP and Tories have suggested), how on earth could we expect more women/minority candidates then get elected today (same system=same results)? In fact, the cost of running a province wide campaign to get on a party list would prevent these historically disadvantaged groups from being nominated. It is far more likely for someone with strong ties within the party to be successful in a one member one vote system. If you do guarantee representativeness how is that democratic? The answer given by proponents is that because the lists are available for public scrutiny, parties will be encouraged to make their slates representative. Aside, from the obvious Rousseau-like general will fantasy this would require in an open democratic nomination process and the fact that people don't seem to care about this point in the current system where the province wide slates are available for public scrutiny, it opens up the second can of worms.

2. What exactly is the second ballot for?

This may seem simple but bare with me. Yes, the second ballot is technically to represent party preference and guarantee proportionality. However, if you buy the argument that the lists will be shaped in whole or in part by public pressure and that only strong candidates will be named to the lists you are essentially arguing for a very different system. If the people on the list matter, if they are not generic partisans then the second ballot is not for the political party at all. It is in fact for the candidates on the party list. This would significantly weaken the claim of party-based proportionality. If people are voting for a party's list in whole or in part because they like or dislike the people or one of the people on the list, it is no longer a party-based vote. For instance, there is little doubt in my mind that if this system existed today, Randy Hillier would be on the PC party list. Now, there are a lot of farmers out there who really like Mr. Hillier. They may be inclined to vote for him and the PC Party instead of voting for one of the more fringe right wing parties. Conversely, there are a lot urban Ontarians that think Randy Hillier is an extremist and would never vote for him. It may prevent them from voting PC because of the knowledge that their vote would get Mr. Hillier elected. Thus, they may vote Liberal or Green to avoid this problem. What happens in this scenario is that people are not just voting for party, but for people which completely destroys any sense of party support.

In other words, you cannot say that on the one hand the lists will be representative and accountable and on the other say that they are democratic and proportional. In my view, they are so little of any of these things that they become worthless.

On Marilyn Churley's Slur

So I'm finally listening to the TVO debate on MMP. Marilyn Churley's slur that our side is somehow threat mongering about extremist Islam is offensive. I think it is particularly offensive given the opposition to MMP from the moderate Islamic community.

Random MMP based thoughts

Woke up this morning to some good news in the form of the Toronto Star rejecting MMP from their editorial page. Now, editorials don't mean as much as people may think but I'd still rather have the Star on side then off side. I just came back from canvassing here in Kingston. People are in general very happy to receive any information regarding the referendum. The failure, thus far, of Elections Ontario's education campaign is downright pathetic. I don't care which side of this referendum you support. However, the pro-MMP side's advantage was on display for me again today. They had apparently canvassed the same area yesterday and I found numerous mailboxes loaded up with both vote for MMP propaganda and the the supposedly neutral Citizens' Assembly flyers. No MMP has cobbled together our pennies and paid for a few radio ads in major centres this week. So keep your ears out. I missed the TVO debate Thursday night but I look forward to watching it when it is released on the Agenda's website.

London North Centre and Windsor Tecumseh

Into the southwest for two more ridings.

London North Centre: The incumbent here is Liberal Deb Matthews. She should have little trouble getting re-elected. She may not be a household name province wide, but Matthews has a strong base of support in London. The riding was held previously by Diane Cunningham but don't expect a Tory revival this time around.

Tory candidate Rob Alder brings a wealth of local experience to the table. He is not a political neophyte but I just don't see him garnering enough support to knock off Matthews. The NDP candidate is the definition of neophyte. They've gone back to their proletariat roots and dug up Steve Holmes who has had such relevant experience as driving a taxi. I believe everyone deserves a chance at elected office. However, there's little in Mr. Holmes' resume that leads me to believe that he can run an effective campaign against a popular incumbent. The lack of a strong NDP candidate hurts Tory chances here. A left wing split would make Alder a more viable candidate. The Green candidate is Brent McKenzie.

Prediction: Probably Liberal

Windsor Tecumseh: There may be some resentment towards the high profile Dwight Duncan's inability to prevent Windsor's slow decline. There could also be a backlash against the man who was responsible for McGuinty's broken coal plant promise as Minister of Energy. That said, this is still Dwight Duncan we're talking about and name recognition alone should guarantee his victory here.

The NDP hold this riding federally, and would be the logical party to challenge Duncan. They've nominated Helmi Charif a local small business owner to challenge Duncan. I assume the plan was to try to tap into the large Muslim community in the riding which would normally go Grit. Like the riding in London above, a bigger name is needed to be taken seriously.

The Tories have nominated a former head of the University of Windsor student government. It is mildly impressive that a Tory became the head of Windsor student government, but that does not mean anything in a provincial election. The Green candidate is Andrew McAvoy.

Prediction: Safe Liberal

Referendum? What Referendum

A good editorial today in the Star complaining about the lack of knowledge regarding the referendum. I particularly like the accompanying cartoon.

By the way, another prominent Liberal blogger has said No to MMP.

Pickering-Scarborough East and Welland

Onward and upward so to speak. Two more ridings as we trudge towards election day in this most listless of campaigns.

Pickering-Scarborough East: This riding holds the unique distinction of containing four area codes within its boundaries (416, 905, 647 and 289). This strange hybrid of the eastern edge of Toronto and the western part of Pickering is yet another product of redistribution. However, redistribution basically only served to merge parts of two Liberal ridings. Wayne Arthurs, the Liberal incumbent here, has the advantage of being the former mayor of Pickering where one would expect the Liberals to be weaker. Add this to the parts of fortress Scarborough now included, the Liberal victory should be fairly easy.

The Tory candidate, Diana Hall, ran unsuccessfully for city council on the Scarborough side last November. She was narrowly defeated by Ron Moeser. She has experience working in city hall in Toronto. While she may have garnered 6000 votes in part of the riding municipally, that is not enough to get elected provincially.

The NDP is hard pressed in much of the 905 and Scarborough so the combination, does not suit them. Thus, they have no problem handing the reins over to youth long shot Andrea Moffat who links her Facebook and MySpace pages on her site. The Green candidate is Anita Lachlan.

Prediction: Probably Liberal

Welland: The citizens of Welland have a love affair with Peter Kormos. There are not a lot of people in the province who share their sentiment but that shouldn't matter. Kormos should have no problem here. He's been the MPP for a dog's age. Nothing in this election to indicate a change. Not with the NDP polling higher province wide than they have in 17 years.

The Liberals have nominated former mayoralty candidate John Mastroianni to bear the torch. He may be able to get a few votes from people tired of supporting Kormos and his antics, but that won't be enough to sway voters.

Complicating matters for the Liberals is the presence of former Port Colborne mayor Ron Bodner running for the Tories. Bodner and Mastroianni will split the centre right so severely as to leave plenty of room for Kormos even if there is some dissatisfaction.

The Greens are running Mark Grenier.

Prediction: Safe NDP

Tory Wants the F&%$ing Natives Out of the Park

In yet another throwback to the Harris era, John Tory has threatened to crack down on illegal land occupations.

Sunday Musings

Here are some quick thoughts after a busy week:

- Dalton did well to survive the leaders' debate. Debates are always tough on the party in power and this was no exception.
- I'm still not sure why the debate was so early. The election is still more than two weeks away.
- After going door to door for No MMP in Kingston a couple of times last week, I am quite pleased with the results. Voters seem desperate for any information about the referendum and many are willing to listen to our side of the argument.
- Why is there no debate about the referendum akin to the leaders' debate?
- John Tory's gone negative? What a shock!
- I know Hampton was sick but I stopped watching the debate because I couldn't listen to his bull any longer.
- The Tories want to run a campaign on nuclear power. I don't necessarily disagreee with the policy, but it is not exactly populist politics. Far better that the energy attack came from the right than from the left for the Liberals.

Whitby-Oshawa and Vaughan

The 905 is growing rapidly and thus underwent significant redistricting since last time around. Here are a couple of ridings where that doesn't matter:

Whitby-Oshawa: Christine Elliot may not have her husband's (federal finance minister Jim Flaherty's) name but she does have all his popularity in this riding. I think of Flaherty and Elliot as the Canadian answer to Dick and Lynne Cheney or the Conservative answer to Jack Layton and Olivia Chow. Like the Cheney's they are both unabashedly right wing. Elliot took over the seat after her husband decided to pursue his federal ambitions. Defeated MP Judi Longfield gave Elliot a minor scare in the 2006 by-election, but is not around to oppose her this time around. Redistribution has given her parts of two other Tory held seats so it should cement her place.

The Liberals have nominated Laura Hammer, a local small business woman. She'll get a bunch of votes primarily because the NDP shouldn't be a factor here and the anyone but Elliot vote will go to her. The NDP candidate is a university professor named Nigel Moses. The Green candidate is Doug Anderson. If you want to read his extensive bio, here's the link.

Prediction: Probably Progressive Conservative

Vaughan: The city above Toronto is home to the man who holds the provincial coffers. Greg Sorbara is McGuinty's right hand man and is the man responsible for the provincial campaign as a whole. The brief absence from the cabinet because of an investigation into his family's business will have no impact here. Not only because Sorbara's name should never have been on the warrant in the first place but also because Sorbara probably could have been re-elected even with being under investigation. Sorbara topped 60% in 2003 and should come close to that this time around.

The PC is Gayani Weerasinghe a health care advocate among other things. The NDPer is Rick Morelli. The Green is Russel Korus. None of those names will mean anything after October 10th.

Prediction: Safe Liberal

York Centre and Windsor West

A couple of Liberal ridings today. I realize I am going to have to pick up the pace by election day. I am still going to try to finish.

York Centre: The ageless Monte Kwinter has represented for a dog's age. There have been a few bumps along the way. A tough campaign in the Tory landslide of 1995 and a nomination battle in 1999 were cause for concern. However, Kwinter was re-elected in 2003 with a majority of the votes. Kwinter was then put into cabinet as Minister of Community and Correctional Services. Although not exactly a high profile post, it does give Kwinter credibility as a person who has access to power. Kwinter's age is starting to become a factor. At 76, he's no spring chicken and unlike the US Senate, the Ontario legislature is not a retirement community.

Kwinter's challenge in this election comes from PC Igor Toutchinski. Toutchinski is getting some attention because of his roots in the riding's large Russian community and his experience in ethnic media. I discount that slightly because of Kwinter's appeal to the riding's large Jewish community including Jewish Russians. Toutchinski ran unsuccessfully for council in this area so at least half of the riding will recognize the name. However, I am unsure that will be enough to overcome Kwinter's incumbency.

The NDP (who got about 10% last time out) are putting up a Peruvian immigrant and union gal named Claudia Rodriguez. The base will be happy with the nomination, they may be less pleased when she loses badly. The Green candidate is Maria Minic.

At the end of the day, Kwinter's experience should be enough.

Prediction: Leans Liberal

Windsor West: Sandra Pupatello has had a bit of a wild ride around the cabinet table holding four different positions in four years. She briefly held the education portfolio but has since moved back into a less visible portfolio (Women's Issues). Pupatello made a name for herself on the opposition benches as a fierce critic. Her time in government has been less inspiring. All of this should mean very little in Windsor West. This is Herb Grey's old seat federally and while the NDP has claimed it federally, the riding still does not seem to turf incumbents too quickly. Pupatello is also personally very popular in the riding.

The NDP would love to win a seat in Windsor. The only problem is the prominent Liberal cabinet ministers holding the seats (Duncan's got the other seat). The NDP have thus decided to move on. If you don't believe me, check out candidate Mariano Klimowicz's website.

The Tories know their chances in Windsor are slim to nil. They've nominated Lisa Lumley who is big on full tunneling (border issue). She will lose but may be able to get some attention from Pupatello for her cause.

Prediction: Safe Liberal

Does the Establishment have Cooties?

So the Vote for MMP folk are putting out the message that the No MMP campaign is a bunch of establishment types. A couple of points:

1. The official No MMP campaign is not exactly being run or backed by a bunch of big names. Unless the establishment is being secretly controlled by a retired engineer, a immigrant university professor, a PhD candidate and other such nefarious types as the No MMP campaign is. The fact that a lot of media types have come out against MMP is a symptom of the problems with MMP not some grand conspiracy. Secondly, this line of argumentation is being put forward by a group backed quite publicly by folks like Hugh Segal and George Smitherman. Who's the establishment here?

2. Second of all, what exactly is the problem with the establishment? I kind of get this line of argument from dippers but when Grits (like Scott Tribe on MMP and the YLC) start spewing this stuff... The establishment believes in such terrible things as public health care and economic prosperity. Wouldn't want to agree with them. Give me a break!

Poster Trouble

A couple of political posters that have caught my eye for mostly the wrong reasons. First up, the new red revolution poster.



Okay, if you haven't heard by now the red revolution is the new YLC campaign to get more youth and have them be more involved etc. First up. Red revolution? Really???? I ain't no dirty communist. Secondly, check out the small print. "Challenge Everything"? Are we kidding? Did we become the NDP? We are a centrist party. We like the status quo, most of the time. We don't like Harper. But everything?

The other poster I can't find an image of. Anyway, it's an Elections Ontario poster. Same theme as those Elections Canada ads where the person is getting their hair cut to someone else's specifications. Except I think Elections Ontario's campaign borders on xenophobia. The recurring message is that other people aren't like you. It has the words "other people" in every line. Something like "Other People don't think like you do, Other People don't share your beliefs." If anyone can find the poster, I'd love not to paraphrase. I just think they've taken it a little too far.

This is Far From Insignificant

Francophones of Ontario have come out against MMP!

Trinity-Spadina and Parkdale-High Park

Two more Dipper held seats for today. We'll call it in honour of the NDP win in Outremont.

Trinity-Spadina: Rosario Marchese can probably hold this seat as long as he wants. Since defeating a Grit incumbent in 1990, Marchese has won easily. The condos that are springing up at the foot of Bathurst don't favour the NDP but their are enough artists down there to make the demographics about as significant as they are in Toronto-Danforth. That is little to no impact. Marchese's solid base in the riding's large Portugese community makes him almost invulnerable.

Unlike other NDP seats the Liberals are still trying in Trin-Spa. They plucked Kate Holloway from the Greens with much fanfare. However, there is little evidence to support the amount of excitement that followed the move. Like Tories in St. Paul's, Trin-Spa Liberals are doomed to perpetual demographic hope.

Speaking of Tories, they don't matter here. Expect their candidate, Tyler Currie, to finish well back.

Prediction: Probably NDP

Parkdale- High Park: The last time Cheri Di Novo and Sylvia Watson met in a campaign there were fireworks. Watson blasted Di Novo over comments on convicts. Di Novo responded by wiping the floor with Watson in the by-election. Yes, this is Gerard Kennedy's old seat and he's probably the only Grit who could take Di Novo.

Di Novo, a former minister (in the religious, not political sense), has high popularity in the riding. This is a riding that has a had a string of very personally popular MPP's. Starting with Bob Rae and continuing with Kennedy and now di Novo. The NDP has solid support here all personalities aside, and that certainly helps.

Sylvia Watson, a former local councilor, turned a lot of voters off by attacking the good minister last time out. I don't know that the damage can be undone and frankly I was a little surprised to see her trotted out again. It's not that Watson couldn't steal this riding, it's just that I would have that Dalton and company would want to get away from what was a disastrous by-election.

Once again the Tories are basically irrelevant. Dave Hutcheon is the placeholder. The Greens are running Bruce Hearns.

Prediction: Leans NDP

Campbell on MMP

Murray Campbell in the Globe on MMP:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070917.wcampbell17/BNStory/ontarioelection2007/home

Let's Not Do Anything Rash...

If the by-election in Outremont doesn't go our way tonight it is not the end of the world. It does not mean that Stephane Dion has failed as a leader, or that the party is necessarily dead in Quebec. There will be those who will argue for an immediate change in direction. I say let's see what we can do in a general election. Until then, let's sit tight.

Can we find Elections Ontario some boxes?

This is ridiculous. Why on earth are we putting the referendum ballots in the same box as the election ballots. Why don't we have two sets of boxes? It would save hours of separating the two ballots at the end. What were they thinking?

Kingston No MMP Campaign

Anyone interested in getting involved in the No MMP campaign in Kingston, please send me an e-mail at contact@nommp.ca. Actually, no matter what part of the province you live in, if you want to get involved e-mail that address.

Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington

I was going to hold off on this riding. Mostly because I don't want Randy Hillier to win. That said, Mr. Hillier looks like a lock so here it goes.

If you want to see a candidate who speaks to the right wing of the Tory base, look no further than Mr. Hillier. Mr. Hillier is the co-founder of the local farmer's association which gained provincial notoriety for massive protests. He's out to show that Ontario is more than Toronto. Apparently, Mike Harris wasn't enough for him. The fact that Dalton is of course from Ottawa eludes him as well. In fact, the only leader from Toronto is Hillier's man, John Tory. Someone should probably tell him. He is very popular among the farmers in this largely rural ridings. If Hillier can even get a sniff in the small towns of this riding like Napanee, he should win easily.

Ian Wilson holds the banner for the Grits after Leona Dombrowsky decided to avoid a head-to-head confrontation with Mr. Hillier. Mr. Wilson has all sorts of experience working in the public interest locally. Against an ordinary Tory candidate I might give the political neophyte a prayer. However, the riding redistribution makes this riding pretty safe to begin with and when you add in the Hillier factor it's game over.

The NDP has no ground game to speak of in rural southern Ontario and LFLA is no exception. Russ Sutherland, who lost in part of the new riding last time out can expect about the same 10% this time around. His background is in health, if you are interested.

Prediction: Safe Progressive Conservative

Beaches-East York

I guess this riding needs to be renamed after the name change for the area. So I will call it The Beach-East York from now on. Seriously though, another NDP stronghold in east Toronto here's the breakdown.

The incumbent is Michael Prue, a former mayor of the old burough of East York. East York is where the NDP is weakest in neighbouring Toronto-Danforth so having Prue on the ballot serves to marginalize a potential NDP weakness. When you add in the traditional strength of the affluent but left leaning residents of the beach, this riding becomes a cakewalk. The main difference between the riding federally and provincially is probably Prue's appeal in East York and the increased viability of the PC's in the riding splitting the right of centre vote. Thus, Minna wins easily and Prue does too. The riding is notoriously environmentalist and the NDP have a strong enough green message to carry the day here.

Tom Teahen will carry the banner for the Liberals. Teahen is a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Labour with a law background. Local guy, which is always nice. If things go well for the Grits he might give Prue a scare but its not likely.

The Greens have nominated Caroline Law. Here's the local PC riding association's website. If you can find a candidate, all the power to you.

Here's the Star's breakdown of the riding.

Prediction: Safe NDP

Sunday, boring Sunday

So, I've got the day before school starts blues. I will get back to my local prognosticating (hopefully tomorrow). Right now, more thoughts...

• This article in the Star is the best representation of the whole referendum thing. I particularly like the stuff about the seven part educational video. I don't like referenda as a means of lawmaking. People just don't care enough. Particularly when the topic is perceived to be as dry as electoral reform.
• The NFL season starts today. My Bills have a brutal first five weeks. I'm praying for one win.
• Anyone notice this is the second week of CIS football? No? Anyone? Queen's beat Western last week which makes me very happy. Didn't hear about it? Really?
• I think the Liberals should just say nothing the entire campaign and watch John Tory shoot himself in the foot. It is so amusing. He's made the election about his foolish education idea. I was worried about defending broken promises.
• This is scary and disgusting.
• This is a tough issue. I see both sides of it. I think we probably need a little curtained off area in the voting where a female DRO could verify identity. Voting should not bring you shame. On the other hand, you should not be able to put on a veil and vote ten times.
• MMP is still bad for Ontario. I know I haven't said that in a while. It is.
• On that note, the reason we want to bring attention to the use of Citizens' Assembly literature by the pro-MMP campaign is because we'd like that kind of government support. We have no problem with information. However, the government said that they weren't going to fund either side. This is funding one side. Also, the CA literature says things like "MMP strengthens representation." That is only information if you are working for the Iraqi Ministry of Information under Saddam Hussein. Otherwise, it's propaganda.
• The election campaign kicks off tomorrow. I will start going through the reasons to vote Liberal soon. Right now I'm just going to say if you like teaching evolution and not creationism, Vote Liberal!

Thoughts...

Things I think on this sunny Kingston afternoon...

• I think if Dalton McGuinty wins a majority, it will be because John Tory is such an abysmal campaigner. Teaching creationism... with my money....
• I think that Elections Ontario needs to fix its funding of the referendum campaign. Citizens' Assembly material is pro-MMP literature. Your tax dollars paid for it. Cherniak has all the info here.
• I think that we are in for one interesting provincial election.
• I think I'm happy to be back at Queen's after about 16 months.

Eglinton-Lawrence and Timiskaming-Cochrane

Two more ridings for your consideration:

Eglinton-Lawrence: Mike Colle does not deserve re-election. I say that as a Liberal. That does not mean Mike Colle won't get re-elected. Colle was the minister responsible for all that questionable spending in the immigration department. However, Colle has been in politics in the area for a very long time, first being elected to York city council in 1982. He knows how to campaign and he knows the territory.

The Tories are putting their hopes in Bernie Tanz. Tanz, a business guy, knows the territory as well as he ran to unseat Joe Volpe in the 2004 federal election. John Tory's religious schools promise will play with some parts of the riding's large Jewish population. However, many of the Jewish people here send their kids to local public schools or non-denominational private schools like UCC and BSS. The reality is that this riding is very Liberal and has taken in parts of equally Liberal St. Paul's in the redistribution.

The NDP will be a non-factor here but for the sake of disclosure their candidate is Karin Wiens.

Eglinton-Lawrence is infamous for representatives that drive the rest us nuts. Joe Volpe represents federally and half of the riding municipally is represented by the disgraced Howard Moscoe. The lone bright light is the well regarded Councillor Karen Stintz. Colle should be able to hold on, not on his own merits but because the riding is Liberal and doesn't seem to mind a little corruption in their politicians.

Prediction: Leans Liberal

Timiskaming-Cochrane: The North will present challenges for McGuinty. The North always presents challenges for the Tories. However, Timiskaming-Cochrane should be an easy Liberal hold. David Ramsay, the minister responsible for the North, was first elected here as an NDPer in 1985. He soon switched parties after he became revolted by NDP support for a strike of a union that included what he deemed to be essential personnel. Ramsay is well liked in the riding. He won last time with nearly three times as many votes as his nearest opponent.

The Tories have gone law and order and named retired police officer Doug Shearer as their candidate. NDP candidate John Vanthof helped kill the Toronto garbage deal in the local Adams mine. He certainly has credibility but I can't believe he has enough to defeat the long term incumbent.

Prediction: Safe Liberal

Reforms that Actually Will Increase Diversity

The pro-MMP side claims that their system will improve the representation in the provincial legislature. As I have already argued, this is only true if parties choose to use undemocratic methods of candidate selection. However, there are things we can do to improve diversity. The biggest challenge facing any candidate seeking election is how do I sustain myself and maybe my family while I run for office? This is particularly true for traditionally disadvantaged groups like single mothers and new immigrants. So here are two reforms that would help alleviate the financial burden of running for office.

1. Provide Job Security: One of the problems people of all walks of life face when seeking elected office is that they will have to either get a significant leave from or give up their present job. This problem affects all candidates not working in politics but is particularly burdensome to those who do not have sufficient savings to simply not work for months during and after an election. How often have you heard losing candidates, when asked about their next step in life, answer, "I have to find a job"? We can solve this problem by forcing private and public employers by law to provide unpaid leave to their employee for the term of the election and guarantee the employee the same position upon the completion of the election if they lose. Now, if there is significant concern about people abusing this policy to get a vacation (the cost of registering as a candidate should deter this), we could say that corporations are liberated from their commitments should the candidate fail to get a certain number of votes.
2. Pay People to Run For Office: Why should people have to spend their life savings to run for office? It would make sense to pay all serious candidates (you could use the threshold for campaign financing) a small amount to cover basic costs of living. Something in the order of $100 per day. Let's say we set the threshold at 5%(lower, I know then the finance threshold of 10%). There are 107 ridings in Ontario. Realistically only around four candidates per riding get above 5%. That would mean 428 candidates would qualify (this is a very high end estimate). In a typical thirty day campaign that would mean a cost to the government of $1,284,000. A drop in the bucket relative to total government expenditures. This is even small compared to the cost of running an election. The benefit would be huge.

These reforms would do a lot more to get the best people in Queen's Park than any electoral system.

Parry-Sound Muskoka and Niagara West-Glanbrook

Lest I be accused of ignoring Conservative strength, here are two PC strongholds:

Parry Sound-Muskoka: The heart of Ontario's cottage country is also one of the hearts of PC support in the province. Don't let Tony Clement's slim margin here federally fool you. Norm Miller (son of former Premier Frank Miller) is far more popular here than the parachuted Mr. Clement. Mr. Miller, who was first elected in a 2001 by-election to replace the retiring (briefly) Ernie Eves shouldn't face too many problems here. John Tory will play well here.

The Liberals have nominated Brenda Rhodes who used to be an assistant to Andy Mitchell federally. The local riding association went through the ringer when the riding lost its Northern Ontario designation which angered a lot of locals. Expect Rhodes to be walking a tight-rope on that issue. The NDP have nominated Sara Hall who used to head up the local riding association. About the only thing I can find on her is that she is a strong proponent of MMP. This is not exactly the NDP heartland. The Greens have nominated a school teacher named Matt Richter. None of them should pose a threat to Miller.

Prediction: Safe Progressive Conservative

Niagara West-Glanbrook: This is one of many ridings that went through the redistricting ringer since the last time around. Tim Hudak is the incumbent for a large part of the new riding and will feel quite comfortable with his new boundaries. Mr. Hudak is from the right wing of the party (he backed Flaherty in the leadership) but it won't hurt him here. Tory and Hudak are getting along fine in spite of their difference of views (Mr. Tory attended Mr. Hudak's nomination meeting) In fact, the contrast between Hudak and Tory will probably only serve to consolidate Hudak's base here.

Mike Lostracco a former principal at a local catholic board in the province will carry the banner for the Liberals. This is simply not a Liberal-friendly riding at the provincial level. The NDP are also going with a principle, Bonnie Bryan. If you type Ms. Bryan's name into google the first hit you get is an obituary of someone of the same name. That pretty much describes Ms. Bryan's chances. I can't find the Green candidate, not that it matters.

Prediction: Safe Progressive Conservative

Kingston and the Islands

So we journey on through our tour of the province into...

Kingston and the Islands: Kingston is a bit of anomaly. Eastern Ontario trends PC in a big way but not Kingston. A large part of this should be attributed to Queen's University and to a lesser extent St. Lawrence College. Kingston has three major industries: the aforementioned schools, the Royal Military College and the seven prisons within its city limits. This strange mish-mash seems to suit Liberals just fine. It helps the party to have strong local MPP's and Jon Gerretsen fits the bill nicely. The minister for municpalities has been serving the riding since 1995 and it would take more than a weak Tory breeze for him to be unseated. I am not saying it is impossible, but it is not likely.

There is a strong presence in the riding for both the NDP and the Tories. The PC's have nominated John Rapin who is the most likely candidate to pull off the upset. Rapin is a MD and a former head of the OMA. Doctors aren't thrilled with having to negotiate with Liberal pit bull George Smitherman and Rapin will no doubt explain exactly why. That said, Tories don't usually win a lot of votes on health care and it probably isn't the Liberals weakest area. The NDP have also managed to find a decent candidate in city councillor Rick Downes. A former military man, Downes has been elected four times in the city and also made a failed run for mayor. The NDP did win this riding under Rae, so it is not beyond the pale to see them make a run for this seat.

This is certainly no walk for the Liberals but I expect Gerretsen to hold on. I might change this prediction as we get closer to the election.

Prediction: Leans Liberal

Seven down, 100 to go!

Monday...

Ah, the last Monday of the summer... Okay, on with some thoughts from the last few days:

• The Globe's editorial this morning is an inconvenient truth. We have to fight climate change. We also have to give up on meeting our Kyoto targets.
• Dion now faces a challenge akin to the one Chretien faced on free trade. Move the party away from an economically disastrous if internally popular position.
• CNN reports that the perjurer in chief is no more. I'm not sure this makes it any easier to get him for all that nonsense surrounding the federal prosecutors but I don't think it makes it harder.
• I like the idea of the Canada-Russia 35th anniversary superseries. However, I got a chance to watch a few minutes before coming in to work this morning and, well, let's just say you can tell it's August. It is hard to get excited for something when the play is so sloppy.
• The population growth in Toronto's suburbs is frightening. There should be one priority above all others for GTA politicians: density.
• For Iraq to succeed it must have complete and unfettered control of who leads its country. For Ms. Clinton to comment on the job performance of the Prime Minister of Iraq is both inappropriate and dangerous. Ms. Clinton may claim to be from about 5 different states but she is not Iraqi. Therefore, who the Iraqis decide to elect is none of her business. I certainly wouldn't want an American leader commenting on elections in this country.
• The Americans have a serious constitutional crisis on their hands. The ability of a modern president to go to war without Congressional approval makes it very difficult for Congress to stop or end a war. This is a check and balance that needs to be reinforced.
• I don't see a major difference between pre-election spending and campaign promises. If a party that is in government hasn't taken any steps to do what they now promise to do if re-elected, we would be highly suspicious. Sorbrara has the money and is going to spend it. If you want to criticize how it's being spent, fine.
• This article on MMP is mostly pointless. There are already prohibitions on parties campaigning for or against MMP. I do agree that the most important thing in this whole process is to have a well-informed public. Referenda with an ignorant populous are rubber stamps in democratic clothing.
• Contrary to what Christiane Amanpour may think, the diaspora support for Israel is much more a case of nationalistic sympathy than religious fervour. It is much more about memories of the Holocaust than memories of Judaea. Furthermore, the majority of Israelis are highly secular. They are certainly not at war with modern secular society. To paint the Arab-Israeli conflict as purely religious is to miss most of the point.

Ms. Wente Has Gone To Pot

There was once a columnist for The Globe and Mail who wrote columns on important issues. She worked to hold governments accountable and point out the flaws of society. Then she started writing articles on marijuana. Now her life seems consumed by pot. Please, someone, help her before it's too late!

In all seriousness, Ms. Wente's new obsession with the dangers of marijuana use is a little absurd. Is weed good for you? Hell no. Is it worse than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco? No. There are plenty of sob strories about people who wasted their life because of alcoholism and died an early death due to tobacco but those drugs remain legal. The possibility for abuse is not justification for banning something. Harder drugs like cocaine and heroine are far more addictive and do far more damage to the human body. Marijuana is not benevolent, it's just not evil enough to ban.

Either This is Very Wrong or Very Stupid

The Tories are being accused of shuffling money between local candidates and the national party in order to avoid breaking campaign spending rules. The Tories of course claim that this is all on the up and up and that in fact the national and regional ads run with the money from local candidates were run for the specific candidates. If so, the Conservatives spent nearly $50,000 to run ads in Trinity-Spadina where they got 5,625 votes. That means they spent nearly $10/vote to finish a distant third in Trin-Spa. As I said, this is either a case of shady accounting or extreme stupidity. A shiny penny if you can find the Conservative ad that mentions or shows Sam Goldstein!

St. Paul's and Toronto Centre

I am going to try to start with ridings that are easy to call and these two foot the bill:

St. Paul's: This is one of those seats that makes people call this city Fortress Toronto. This is dyed in the wool Liberal territory. The seat is of course held by Attorney General Michael Bryant. The Tories are all excited about their candidate here: Lilyann Goldstein. Forgive me for not believing the hype. I remember 18 months ago when the Tories were all excited about a candidate in St. Paul's. That was Peter Kent and he got slaughtered by Carolyn Bennett. Bryant is every bit as popular in the riding as Bennett and I would expect the same results. There might be a lot of lawn signs out for Goldstein and people might start thinking that this will be close. However, when push comes to shove the working class parts of the ridings (all those apartments on Davisville and Baliol, for instance) will give Bryant a landslide win. The NDP has renominated Julien Heller their candidate from 2003 to take it on the chin in this one.

Prediction: Safe Liberal

Toronto Centre: Okay, so all those people who think Rosedale is going to kick George Smitherman out of office have never actually been around Toronto-Centre. The Minister of Health will waltz to victory on the strength of his popularity in high density areas like St. James' Town and Regent Park. I don't even need to mention his natural appeal at Church and Wellesley. Pamela Taylor will attract the Rosedale vote for the Tories. Those mad about the placement of the new power plant in the riding can protest by voting for the NDP's Sandra Gonzales or the Green Party's Mike McLean. I know Smitherman's first victory here was close, but that was a long time ago. The man is now a household name and high profile minister.

Prediction: Safe Liberal

Kenora-Rainy River and Ottawa South

Quick looks at the ridings of Howard Hampton and Dalton McGuinty.

Kenora-Rainy River: Howard Hampton has held the riding for a dog's age. The NDP leader can expect to continue holding this riding for as long as he likes. A good indication of that is the fact that neither the PC's nor the Grits have nominated a candidate to date. The Liberals have been hurt badly in the area by their perceived slow/inaction on the collapsing forestry industry. The Tories are traditionally weak in this part of the province. This is a walkover. The only real question is how long Hampton will stay in this job. His wife, Shelley Martel, has announced her retirement and with most people believing this to be Hampton's last election as leader, one wonders if Hampton might call it quits soon after the election.

Prediction: Safe NDP

Ottawa South: Once upon a time the Tories thought they could unseat Dalton in this riding. However, a lot has changed and the Premier is unlikely to face a major challenge at home. The McGuinty boys are popular here as elder brother David represents the riding federally. There may be a few people who take the Premier to task over his broken promises, but it shouldn't affect the outcome. Much like in Hampton's riding, the opposition is slow to nominate a placeholder. Without a big name to try to take down McGuinty, there's no way he loses. The Liberal ship will not be sunk by Ottawa South.

Predicition: Safe Liberal