Woops

My seat projection formulae are far from perfect but I thought the Quebec numbers looked off. On closer inspection, they were off. Basically, I had short-changed the Bloc. Call it the statistical equivalent of a Freudian slip. The result is that the balance of power shifts from the Liberals to the Tories. As five formerly projected Grit seats become Bloc seats while only Beauport -- Limoilou separates from the Tory fold. Also, André Arthur is now projected to go down to defeat, although that is difficult to discern from polls that don't ask about independents. New national numbers are at right and below:

CPC 116
LPC 115
BQ 46
NDP 29

The Quebec numbers are now as follows:

BQ 48
LPC 21
CPC 6

This will all be moot within the next couple of weeks when I revise my projections to include new polling data. I'd like at least one more poll before I revise.

Bueller? Bueller?

Once is kind of funny. But twice? Can we fire somebody on the Prime Minister's travel team? Namely the guy that keeps him out of the washroom when he's supposed to be taking pictures with world leaders. You know these other world leaders are going to start to think Harper doesn't like them.

Harper Hands Out Stimulus... For Italy

Five million for earthquake reconstruction in Aquilla. I suppose there's nothing wrong with helping out a community down on its luck. I do find it a little interesting that this is the first time Harper decided to announce the moneys. Apparently, it took a few months and a photo-op for the money to be worth spending. I wonder if the Prime Minister will get his name on a plaque.

Projection Explanation

I just wanted to add a brief explanation to my seat projection below. The way I'm doing this involves looking at the 2004, 2006 and 2008 results at the riding level and comparing those results to the national and provincial results on a party by party basis. This allows me, given access to some decent polling, to produce an estimate of what would happen if those numbers prove accurate on a riding by riding basis. As I said, I have compiled the data for all 308 ridings. However, I just want to show what the data produces for a couple of ridings to give you an idea of what I'm looking at when I make my predictions.

First a riding where there is little debate over what is going to happen: the Liberal stronghold of St. Paul's in downtown Toronto. Given the National and Provincial data available at threehundredeight (and thanks to the folks behind it for saving me the work), my spreadsheet tells me that the expected result in St. Paul's if the election were to happen with those national/provincial results is:

Liberals (presumably the good doctor): 54.03%
Tories: 21.16%
NDP: 11.06%
Greens: 10.27%

I am well aware this does not add up to 100% but neither do most polls including the aggregates from which I'm working. This result, I think, would be in keeping with any objective assessment of the situation on the ground in St. Paul's. Second, let's look at one of the ridings that raised an eyebrow in the comments: Churchill. Once again based on the national and provincial available (I have a formula to determine what a regional "Prairie" number means in Manitoba for each party), the results are predicted to be as follows:

Liberals: 34.95%
Tories: 29.96%
NDP: 22.79%
Greens: 5.04%

Now, I don't necessarily believe the Liberals will win by 5 percentage points in Churchill. However, if they Liberals really are at 23% in the Prairies (up 4 points from 2008) as the polls suggest, the votes are much more likely to turn up in Churchill than they are Battlefords-Lloydminister where I predict just 12.48% for the unlucky Liberal candidate. That's what my spreadsheet is telling me. So, I'm not saying that you can bank on four Liberal seats in Manitoba, I'm saying that it is a distinct possibility if the polls remain the same. Quick side note, two of the other Liberal seats projected in Manitoba have a slimmer margin than Churchill so it could easily just be Anita Neville coming back for the Grits. Finally let's look at a riding that I think is actually poorly served by my models. In 2008, the results in Edmonton-Strathcona were as follows:

NDP 42.6%
Tories: 41.6%
Liberals: 9.1%
Greens: 6.4%

That result represented a 10 point jump in NDP popularity in the riding since 2006 and an amazing 33 point jump since 2004. With the NDP down marginally in popularity both provincially and nationally, my model anticipates the following for a future election:

Tories: 38.51%
NDP: 33.18%
Liberals: 16.59%
Greens: 8.04%

The problem is that the 2004 result for the NDP (around 9% of the vote) ways down their chances of holding on to the riding in my formula. My model places the majority of the weight on the 2008 election, but 2004 does figure into the calculation because it provides more data points which hopefully makes the predictions more accurate. In this case, because of the massive shift in support, it may be undervaluing the popularity of Linda Duncan in Edmonton-Strathcona. For most ridings, the voter intentions are relatively stable and these kinds of problems don't occur. I stand by my numbers but I understand that they aren't and frankly cannot be perfect. Only time will tell how well this model holds up when faced with reality. I think it is probably a more detailed model at the local level than is generally used to do seat projections and that's why I've decided to share it. Much like DemocraticSpace's riding projections, these should be taken with a grain of salt.

Seat Projection

I'm going to start doing a somewhat regular seat projection. I'll use aggregate poll data from here (I don't feel compelled to duplicate good work) but my own methods for predicting results. Briefly, my methodology results in a riding-by-riding projection based on current polling and historical data but I will save a riding-by-riding prediction (it makes for a long and boring post otherwise) for an actual election period. My first projection is at right above the archive. Here's the national and provincial (yes, provincial not regional) breakdown:

National: CPC 118 LPC 121 NDP 29 BQ 39 IND 1

BC: CPC 18 LPC 8 NDP 10
AB: CPC 28
SK: CPC 13 LPC 1
MB: CPC 7 LPC 4 NDP 3
Territories: CPC 1 LPC 1 NDP 1
ON: CPC 37 LPC 58 NDP 11
PQ: CPC 8 LPC 27 BQ 39 IND 1
NB: CPC 3 LPC 6 NDP 1
NS: CPC 3 LPC 6 NDP 2
PE: LPC 4
NL: LPC 6 NDP 1

My finger was only on the scale twice in these projections, both times in favour of the Conservatives. First to hand the seat vacated by Bill Casey to the Tories which I think only makes sense. The second time was to give the Tories Nunavut. It's very hard to do accurate readings on the North for a bunch of reasons and I think that Leona Aglukkaq is stronger than my number's tell me. The Quebec numbers I don't entirely trust (may have to work with my formulae). If I was just taking educated guesses I'd say Mulcair holds on to Outremont and the Tories don't save themselves in 8 seats but the data says otherwise. I was close to giving Mulcair his seat in spite of my data and I may in a future projection.

Long story short is we are in a dead heat at the moment. We shall see what the summer brings.

He's Good Enough, He's Smart Enough and Doggone it, People Like Hi

After eight short months, Minnesota finally will have a new Senator. Yes, Sen. Al Franken. That's 60 Democrats folks.

What A Difference A Year Makes

There's a debate in the blogosphere about Elizabeth May's electoral prospects in the riding of Guelph, ON. A year ago, I would have advised May to run in Guelph. Today, I'd advise against it. Let me explain. Last year, Guelph was entering a by-election. The Liberal incumbent was retiring and the seat was up for grabs. The race attracted a lot of attention from all four parties for different reasons. For the Tories and the NDP, there was a chance to put another nail in Stephane Dion's coffin. If the former Liberal leader couldn't hold Guelph in a by-election with a good candidate like Frank Valeriote, he was doomed. The Tories threw a lot at Valeriote as a result and the NDP perhaps put in a stronger effort than they normally would for a marginally competitive riding like Guelph. The Greens had an opportunity to build on the momentum of a good by-election result for May in London North-Centre. While Guelph is not London, another riding in Southwestern Ontario would have made a lot of sense, particularly if she could have made it into a four way race where 25-30% of the vote would have been enough to win election. Guelph has a well-earned reputation as an environmentally conscious place and there is a base of green support. In short, a pretty target.

Today, the only thing left for Elizabeth May is that latent base of green support. The numbers from last time are a little inflated by the length of the campaign providing better name recognition to Green candidate Mike Nagy. Put simply, its easier for a small campaign to get their message out if they have more time; there should be a levelling effect in terms of campaign strength. Still, I have no doubt that May could get 20-25% in Guelph. I don't think that's enough to win. The Tories in a general election are not going to make Guelph the priority they did in the by-election. Even if they feel, that they are in a position to attack Liberal incumbents, there are ridings in the 905 (Brampton-Springdale, Brampton-West) that are better targets for them. Frankly, I think they're going to be playing defense in Ontario and their attentions in that part of the province should be in holding their two very close pick-ups in Kitchener-Waterloo and Kitchener-Centre. That puts Guelph as a less likely target for Conservative cabinet ministers and even the Prime Minister. Frank Valeriote will get a boost from the incumbency as most politicians do. May wouldn't have a significant name recognition advantage over a sitting MP. Valeriote should also benefit from a leader like Michael Ignatieff pulling back some of the centre and centre-right Liberal vote that Stephane Dion lost last time around. The NDP, particularly if Elizabeth May jumps in, have no incentive to target Guelph. The last thing the NDP wants is the Green Party leader in the house and splitting votes from the Liberals there would not be in their interests. Like the Tories, they have other fish to fry in Ontario and the NDP is known for directing their resources to a small number of ridings which I can't believe will include Guelph. In other words, anyone looking to knock off Valeriote is going to need closer to 40% of the vote than 30% of the vote. I think that's a bridge too far for Elizabeth May.

Dan's got a pretty good list in terms of other potential targets. I might add Dufferin-Caledon to that list. Even though the Tories won easily there in 2008(David Tilson got a majority of the vote), I think the best chance for May is to get herself in a two way race with a Tory incumbent where she becomes the anti-government vote. Central Nova was a bad choice to try do that in, but without the benefit of a non-compete agreement with the Grits, she needs to find a riding where the Liberals are weak and the NDP weaker. Dufferin-Caledon fits that bill. It's also in that swath of Central and Western Ontario that seems to like the Green Party for whatever reason.

Issue Search 2009: The Economy (Domestic)

If you missed my introduction to this series of posts, scroll down or click here. The first two issues on my list are vaguely put, the future of the Canadian economy. With a couple of possible exceptions, I'm trying to look at issues that will be with us not only today but for the medium to long term as well. Today, I am going to go through some of the issues confronting the Canadian economy at home. I put domestic in parenthesis in the title because I want to differentiate this post from a discussion of trade which will follow at some point in the future. I'm going to try to set up a basic form for these posts here. I'll try to follow it as much as possible. The plan is to delineate the challenges first, the potential solutions second and then if there's a need the political implications or limitations. Without further ado...

The Challenge: The challenge to the Canadian economy put simply is that we are heavily dependent on a series of industries with poor medium to long term prospects. The current decline in demand for Canadian exports simply exxagerrates this problem. Whether that's forestry in British Columbia, the automotive sector in Ontario and, yes, the commercial fishery out east. The underlying issues here diverge although cheaper foreign competition is a theme. The fishery is being hurt by declines in fish stocks. The forestry industry is being hurt by decline in global demand and foreign competition. Finally, the automotive industry which for so long served as major parts of the Ontarian heart of the Canadian economy is suffering from low global demand for cars and an historical relationship with the struggling big three auto makers. The challenge in all cases is to find new industries to replace the old.

A secondary challenge is the so-called productivity gap which Jeffery Simpson harps about endlessly. I'll discuss that briefly. Basically, the amount of money generated in relationship number of hours Canadians put in is shrinking. Put simply, Canadians are generating less GDP per hour. Economists this is a bad thing.

The Solution: There is a fair amount of debate as to whether or not government can really lead the way on the economic transformation that may be necessary in certain areas. There are two overlapping directions which are generally considered as "the way forward": go green or go tech. Tech has the stronger roots in this country. The failure of Nortel's management should not disguise its success for many years as a world leader. Research In Motion is the new big kid on the block and regardless of whether co-founder Jim Balsillie ever gets himself a hockey team, Balsillie and his partner Mike Laziridis have led a tech boom in Southwestern Ontario. They're beating Bay St. and Wall St. estimates even in the teeth of this recession. What makes RIM such a positive story is the amount that they've given back to the community of Kitchener-Waterloo in funding for the University of Waterloo and other major projects. Tech makes some sense as a way forward in Ontario. Ontario has a network of high quality, tech savvy universities and colleges within close proximity. In other words, there is the intellectual density to make this work. Governments can really only help push the train forward. The traditional government remedy is research grants which have shown some results in producing good research. Exactly what is needed to turn research into entrepreneurship in the tech sector is less clear but programs to support entrepreneurs and small business generally, certainly can't hurt.

The green solution is less evident in the current landscape. My problem with "green jobs" is they seem self-limiting. I'll explain. Most businesses which sell a product rely on that product either breaking down or becoming obsolete in some fashion be it technologically or just style. If you're selling windmills and solar panels, where do you go after everyone has a solar panel on their roof. While I generally agree that there is a large boom in the offing, I wonder how quickly that would be followed by a large bust. Solar panels are sold as long term investments that will pay off over time. Even if there's an advance I don't see people taking an old functioning solar panel down to replace it with the latest model. I'm not sure you can sustain an industry on something someone buys maybe once every twenty years if not less. Solar panels are probably the most sustainable of the green energy technologies. Things like wind mills are really only built once and require too few people to maintain them to be considered a significant industry. If we're talking about an industry that will keep Canadians working fifty from years from now, I'm not sure green is the answer.

The other solutions are less dramatic and perhaps less effective. The growing percentage of Ontario auto jobs that rely on non-big three auto companies is a positive sign. Magna's purchase of Opel may provide some jobs down the road. I'm not sure you can get the auto industry back to where it was on the strength of Magna, Toyota and Honda but it may be a way to keep something alive. There are a whole host of new uses such as wood based ethanol and it is possible that some of the failing pulp and paper mills in the country could retrofitted to new purposes.

It isn't entirely clear that the Canadian government can play a major role in shaping the ecnomic future of this country. This means to me, that there won't be a lot of contentious domestic economic plans as such in the next election. Tax cuts versus spending on research and development may be the extent of the debate. Productivity is not really the problem people think it is. Canadians aren't lazier than they were or even less efficient. More of them are working in less value-added industries. In other words, you're going to have higher productivity in manufacturing than you do in primary industries like energy extraction or in the majority of the service sector. As the Canadian economy has shed manufacturing jobs and added primary industry jobs, productivity has declined. I'd say its symptom and not a disease.

Political Implications: As I noted above, this isn't really an issue that political strategists are going to excited about. There just aren't enough wedges to drive here. It's a major almost existential question but it makes poor politics. Don't expect these kinds of questions to consume question period any time soon. Thus, the market will proabably decide the fate of the Canadian economy whether we want it to or not.

Issue Search 2009: Because We're All Policy Wonks At Heart

With this being Canada Day Weekend 1 (of 2) this year, I'd say we are well into summer. With the news cycle likely to be lighter (Honduran coups notwithstanding), I figure I'd delve into summer series of posts. I've been noticing over the last few months of breathless election speculation that there are no big issues on the Canadian political landscape, at least nothing tangible. I mean the economy is a mess and Canadians would like to see it improve but the stimulus package is generally popular and there's not enough day light between two major parties on the economy to kill a vampire. So, what I want to explore over the next few posts (with the news of the day in between when appropriate), is what are the major issues facing Canada today and tomorrow? What are the problems? What are the possible solutions? If we are going to drag Canadians to the polls in the next year we should probably figure out some reasons for doing so. Hopefully, I can offer some possibilities. So, for a start here are some of the issues I'm going to discuss in no particular order:

1. The Death of Canadian Manufacturing and the Future of the Canadian Economy
   
2. The What and Where of Canadian Trade
3. The Role of the Federal Government and Canada as a United Country
4. The Looming Demographic Health Care Crisis
5. The Climate Crisis and Canada's Role in its Resolution
6. The Role of the Canadian Military After Afghanistan/2011
7. Childcare
8. East-West Infrastructure
9. The Role of Cities in Contemporary Canada
10. Civic Engagement in the 21st Century
    

Topic suggestions are more than welcome.

Quick Hits Before the Weekend

Some quick thoughts before the weekend:

• The suspense is killing me. Okay, not killing me but I am mildly interested to know who the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is going to be. Too bad we have to wait until Saturday.
• I love that "hiking the Appalachian Trail" is now a sexual euphemism. Seriously, cross Gov. Sanford off the 2012 list. Was I the only one both awed and confused by his explanation of what sin is and how the bible helps us to not sin. I didn't realize selfishness was the deadliest sin of all.
• We should take a minute to remember the service that Romeo LeBlanc gave to this country. Canada lost a giant this week.
• The Liberal poll numbers are down again. Um... yeah, this is why you don't jump to the polls every time your numbers go up a point. Seriously, I need help finding us enough seats to form government right about now. We need a seismic shift in Ontario and I don't see it before the next election.
• NDP Mayor of Toronto + Conservative Federal Government = One botched streetcar project. Somebody needs to tell David Miller the one about putting all his eggs in one basket. Somebody needs to tell John Baird to watch his tongue.
• Speaking of Miller, I just love that our Mayor has decided to play politics with the garbage strike. Miller needs to prove himself a centrist by standing up to the big bad garbagemen, so the city gets to stink for a few weeks. I guess the Mayor's political prospects are more important than making the city look decent for Toronto's summer festivals which begin in earnest this weekend with the Pride parade. Hey your worship, I've got yet another ad campaign for you: "Come to Toronto: The Stinkiest Place on Earth." We need a mayor that puts the city and its industries ahead of political gamesmanship.
• The greatest hypocrisy in the whole thing is one of the main reasons the garbage collectors are so reviled in Toronto is because of the big shift in garbage collection that Toronto just endured. That shift of course was initiated by Miller in his continuing futile attempt to avoid incineration. So people are angry about garbage because of Miller's garbage plan so he tries to channel that anger by pitting himself in a war against the garbage collectors. This is just too rich.
  

Smells Like A New Mayor

Toronto's garbage workers are on strike. There are some, namely Marcus Gee, think this is an opportunity for Mayor Miller to guarantee his re-election next year. I beg to differ. The problem for the Mayor and Marcus Gee's theory is that he can't win this strike. There are really only two potential outcomes here. The first is that the Mayor caves to the union's demands which would be politically disastrous. The second is that after the residents of Toronto begin investing in nose plugs, Dalton McGuinty takes the same step Ernie Eves made in 2002 and orders the garbage workers back to work and both sides to binding arbitration. I can't believe there's a length of time that would see the union's strike fund depleted enough to force the union's hand but would not require the premier to act to forestall a public health crisis. Public sentiment may not be with the union, but Miller is not going to be able to walk away from a negotiating table in victory. At best, he'll get a somewhat favourable ruling from an arbitrator but even that may be unlikely. As Kinsella and The Toronto Star note, the Mayor's bargaining position is undermined by Toronto city council's recent pay hike in this same wintry economic climate. At any rate, when's the last time there was significant media coverage of an arbitrator's decision weeks after a strike ended?

The Agony of Distance

The images from the streets of Tehran are increasingly heart-wrenching. We are witnessing a desperate government exercise its monopoly of force upon its own citizens. I don't think there are many people in the West who are not cringing at the seemingly hopeless struggle of the brave protesters on Tehran's increasingly bloody streets. We continue to watch and pray because we can do little else. For all the miracles of communication that have allowed images, video and tweets to escape the iron grasp of the Iranian police, we can give nothing but moral support. There are those in this world on both the left and the right who would like to see the world get more involved in the domestic affairs of other countries. However, no foreign soldiers whether fighting under the flag of the United Nations nor the flag of the United States could resolve this conflict in the manner that so many want it to. No amount of aggresive diplomacy is likely to influence events in Iran either.

The United Nations is, as it is all too often, useless to help. While the West watches the bloodshed with horror, I doubt that horror is felt the same way in the halls of power in Beijing. People power is not popular in the People's Republic. There is little hope of China turning down oil shipments from Iran in order to punish the Iranian government for putting down an increasingly powerful protest. Without China, no sanctions or other action of meaning will get through the United Nations. So New York watches with interest but not with an interest to act.

In Washington, Barack Obama sits helplessly. Even if his army were not hamstrung by wars on Iran's eastern and northwestern borders, he knows that the only thing that could immediately reconcile the protesters in the streets to their government is American intervention. It is true that Iranians have a generally favourable view of the United States. They also have a very strong sense of national pride which, much as it does in Canada, tends to have an adverse reaction to foreign governments trying to dictate their domestic affairs. Obama's trepidation to speak more forcefully may befuddle his critics on the American right and the Iranian left, but he carries the baggage of previous sins of commission in Iranian politics made by previous American Presidents. So he, like so many others, watches and hopes and speaks softly when at all.

At Issue Issues

As is done elsewhere this time of year, I will provide my answers to the questions posed to the at issue panel last night.

Most Underrated Politician: Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath

Okay, loyal readers know my distaste of the NDP knows few bounds, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Horwath may never be Premier of Ontario but she is clearly more of a politician than people give her credit for. First, she won a leadership that was supposed to be Peter Tabuns' to lose. Since then she's been a competent leader in the house. It may not be high standards, but the bar is so low for Horwath after Hampton and Rae that she's leapt over it.

Most Overrated Politician: Elizabeth May

Who? You remember the lady nobody talked to in the debates? Yes, the Green leader has fallen off the face of the earth. So much for the breath of fresh air everyone was raving about a few months back.

Honourable Mention: I know the rules say one, but what the heck happened to the once bright electoral prospects of BC NDP leader in Carole James?

Most Underreported News Story: Free Trade With The EU

This has the potential to signal a shift Canadian trade policy and were entrusting it to be managed by Stockwell Day with no discussion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free trade with Europe, but can we talk about it? Anyone?

Political Play of the Year: Iggy Takes Charge

I agree with Rex on this one. Taking over the Liberal Party of Canada without a fight may be the political play of the century.

Political Misplay of the Year: The YLC Amendment to OMOV

This may seem harsh but I'll explain. A lot of the other nominees (Harper in Quebec; Iggy's quasi-ultimatum) in this category rely on future events punishing their stupidity which is impossible to predict. This one is in the books. The YLC made itself less relevant while failing to stop OMOV from passing as is. It is yet another reminder of how pointless it can be for an organization to act when its membership isn't fully behind it.
Honourable Mention: Fair Vote Canada and the Vote STV folks for turning almost sixty percent to almost thirty percent in only four years.

Most Shamelessly Exploited News Story: Barack Obama's Visit

Both Harper and Ignatieff are guilty. Although bonus marks to Iggy for the advertising in Times Square.

Next Election: Fall 2009, E-Day November 16

Hey, pointless prognostication is useless unless it's impossibly specific. Seriously, I don't buy that either the NDP or the Bloc see their political fortunes in serious jeopardy. The Bloc should be able to hold on to most of its seats as should the Dippers save maybe one or two. I also don't see Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe saving the government just to save Canadians the indignity of yet another election.

Fascist? Maybe not. Racist and Nationalist? Definitely

Paul Wells and Mark Steyn have warring columns over at Macleans. Steyn is a tad worried about the success of far-right racist parties in the recent European elections. Wells sees it as a meaningless blip. I think the two are both right and both wrong. Mr. Steyn is right to be concerned about the rise of the these parties. Wells is right that the problem is not exactly unmanageably large as yet. A couple of small points of disagreement with Wells. If he's going to accuse Steyn of stretching the numbers, he shouldn't do it himself. Wells argues that "fascist" parties won only 26 or 3.5% of the 736 seats available. While technically true, it is a distorted picture. One must remember that the largest electoral prize in Europe, Germany, is off-limits to such parties for obvious historical reasons. If you count how these parties did in the rest of Europe, the number rises to 4%. Of course, I'm not sure why either writer limits themselves to just non-aligned parties. This limited view of things ignores parties that are technically more "mainstream" but often equally as xenophobic parties such as Italy's Northern League and Denmark's Danish People's party (11 seats between the two). Those two parties alone raise the total of radical right wing MEP's to 5% of the total and 5.8% outside of Germany. Of course, this does not represent the toal vote for these parties as many, such as Sweden's Swedish Democrats, fell short of winning seats. In otherwords, while we are probably not witnessing the rise of the next Franco or Mussolini, one shouldn't understate the rise of the far-right in European politics.

The World Watches Iran

A friend of mine once commented that it seems ingrained in the French psyche that every thirty years or so they have to go out and build barricades in the streets of Paris. It's just part of the political culture. Well, apparently the Iranians have taken a page from the French playbook. In all seriousness, thirty years after the Shah was expelled, Iranians are back in the streets. Will it be a full scale revolution? Probably not, for the reason that all potential revolutions are unlikely: the power lies with the people, well, in power. You can look at anything from the Rebellions of 1837 in Canada to the riots in the streets of Paris a few years back that had people pondering the birth of a new French Republic for historical comparisons. Here's what's clear. The election was highly irregular. Check out Nate Silver's analysis if you have any doubts. There is significant popular anger over these irregularities. It is also evident that Pres. Ahmadinejad has a base of support. Mousavi's supporters were always thinking that there was enough support for Ahmadinejad to make for a close election. There also appears to be broad support for Ayatollah Khamanei. What does this add up to? I don't know. The Iranian people will come to some sort of resolution.

Side Note: We aren't going to the polls this summer? You mean bringing down a government less than nine months after it was elected in the middle of a major recession didn't make sense?

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

I watched the country's most watched conservative political panel a.k.a. The At Issue Panel along with Rex Murphy last night. It is remarkable to see the reaction when a politician acts like a somewhat rational human being. I'm not saying Michael Ignatieff's four non-ultimatum non-conditions/questions that require answers/government action/plans for government action is going to win any awards for cunning political strategy. I will say that for all those people who seem to like the idea of minority governments (I'm looking at you PR advocate Andrew Coyne), you have to like the almost conciliatory that is being struck by both our Prime Minister and the the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Question Period yesterday is a prime example of government actually, you know, working. Michael Ignatieff asked a couple of questions (mostly actual questions as opposed to "will the minister resign?" political barbs) about the isotope supply and lo and behold (after a little theatre from our Prime Minister) the Minister of Health rises in the house to announce some good news on that front. Actual news too. That's a functioning minority government. We Liberals may not like what's going on all the time, but parliament appears to be working. Opposition raises issue that needs solving. Government tries to solve it. Partisan brinksmanship aside, that's how this whole thing is supposed to work. However, according to the talking heads this was variously a terrible day for Michael Ignatieff or proof positive that he takes after a certain Danish prince made famous by William Shakespeare.

It is disheartening to see how poorly any attempts at adult behaviour go over with the chattering classes. Actually reading a government report before passing judgment? Indecision! A serious-minded list of questions? Incomprehensible! Meet with your opponents and work out the differences? Cowardice! Apparently good government is bad for the media business.

Oh. If we end up in a summer election, all four parliamentary whips should lose their jobs.

The Problem With City Councillors Running For Mayor

Anyone know who these fine people are?








If you said Karen Stintz and Denzil Minnan-Wong you would be right. Now if we could only get 2.5 million more people to know that. I know that city councilors have gotten the top job (see Miller, David) but the name recognition issue against an incumbent mayor is a huge hill in an election where name recognition is everything.

Expected Yet Unexpected

That's the only way I can think of to describe the election results from last night. Yes, everyone thought that the NDP was going to win in Nova Scotia and Creigh Deeds was going to be nominated in Virginia when they woke up yesterday morning. However, a few months ago such a possibility would have been viewed as remote. The NDP knocking off the Tories isn't particularly shocking because the Tories lost, only that the NDP has found itself in government in the Maritimes. It marks just the second NDP government east of Lake of the Woods. We'll see if they can do better than the first.

The more interesting election last night may have been the Democratic gubernatorial primary in Virginia. Former DNC Chairman and Clinton loyalist, Terry McCauliffe had been the front runner until about a month ago when his poll numbers plummeted. Frankly, I can't say I'm unhappy to see Terry McCauliffe get his butt kicked. The man was a disaster as DNC Chairman.

The Strange and the Scary

Well, most of the European Parliamentary Election results are in. Outside of some outstanding votes in the UK (specifically Scotland and Northern Ireland), we know who's going to Strasbourg/Brussels. What emerges is a whole host of new MEP's who are far less mainstream than their predecessors. In the Netherlands, a party whose leader whose views are seen as so incediary as to have been banned from visiting the UK has won four seats in Parliament. In Sweden, as I discussed earlier, there will be an MEP from the Pirate Party (which opposes intellectual property and copyright rules). In Hungary, a party which maintains a paramilitary wing has elected three MEP's. In the United Kingdom, people have been shocked by the election of two members of the British Nationalist Party. The BNP has a rule which bans people of African descent from joining their party or even attending their meetings. Racist is an understatement. There are those who often look to Europe as a place of progress that we in Canada need to emulate, it is important to look at the whole picture.

Swedes Elect Pirate to European Parliament

Yes. A pirate. Here's the pirate party's website. This is internet piracy not the Somali speed boat kind but still. 7% of the vote and a seat in the European Parliament. Wow. More on the hilarity across the pond otherwise known as the European Parliamentary Election as it develops.

Strange Bedfellows

It has been remarkable to watch this week as the Government of Ontario and Government of Canada embarked on a risky foray into the auto industry to almost no debate or criticism. Remarkable, but not surprising. After all, the Conservative Prime Minister had little choice but to bail out the stumbling auto giant lest he be accused of pushing precious manufacturing jobs south of the border. The same can be said of the Liberal Premier of Ontario. The two men, Prime Minister Harper and Premier McGuinty, have much much in common. They both took over their parties after disastrous election campaigns (McLeod 1995 and Day 2000). They both faced the obstacle of overcoming the "natural governing parties" that held power. They both lost their first election. They both defeated the short term replacement of a long serving first minister. They both are proof that in the words of another Premier of Ontario, "bland works." However, the one thing they have rarely had in common is policy.

By agreeing on this issue, if at the end of the barrel of a gun, they have in effect inoculated each other from criticism. Mr. Harper is not likely to see David McGuinty or any of his colleagues rising from their chair in the House of Commons to criticize a plan that is as much a Liberal plan as it is a Conservative one. Likewise, it is unlikely that either Mr. Hudak or Ms. Elliot will come out against the plans dreamt up by former Harris cabinet members, Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Clement. The NDP was never going to be against a plan to save union jobs. Thus, Ontario's three major parties, provincially and federally, have a sort of agreement on what otherwise would be a massive issue.

It is always kind of eerie when there is political consensus. It generally means one of two things: either it's so smack-you-in-the-head-obviously right that no one can disagree, or everyone's drinking the same bad kool-aid and it's a terrible idea. Time will tell which is the case here.

Happy European Parliamentary Election Day!

Yes, today is the start of voting in the world's second largest democracy (almost 500,000,000 people in the EU these days). Expect turnout to be terrible in this election. It seems not even proportional representation can compel people to vote in an election they don't care about. The United Kingdom is up first today. Apparently, the thought is that people will vote against the party supported by the increasingly unpopular Gordon Brown in a possible preview of the looming parliamentary election in the UK. It may be deeply unpopular and mostly pointless but it is still fascinating to watch an exercise in democracy on this grand a scale. It isn't quite India but it is still an overwhelming concept to think about.

Here's A Thought...

Don't bring the secret documents to the media outlet. I wonder how this kind of thing plays in Halton.

50 Billion Dollars Isn't Spent In A Day

Andrew Coyne is railing against the evils of government spending again. Mr. Coyne blames the eye-popping deficit on spending and spending alone. That is of course not true in the least. The reason this deficit is so troubling is not the stimulus and EI bills that have made it balloon but the irresponsible raiding of the federal coffers by this Conservative government. Let's go back to the first Harper deficit, the relatively modest 1.1 billion dollar deficit posted for the fiscal year 2008-2009. To be clear most of the money for this budget came in before the economic crisis exploded last fall, so this isn't really about a bad economy. When governments put out their annual budget they do forecasts for budgets going forward. Of course, these are reallly rough estimates but they do provide an interesting contrast. The last Martin budget, the spending laden, so-called NDP budget in 2005, had projections for the fiscal year 2008-2009. Here's what Ralph Goodale saw happening with a Liberal government at the helm:

Budgetary Revenues: $228.4 Billion
Program Expenses: $185.8 Billion
Debt Servicing: $36.1 Billion

Net Result: $6.5 Billion Surplus

Here's what actually happened after Tory irresponsibility:

Budgetary Revenues: $236.4 Billion
Program Expenses: $206.8 Billion
Debt Servicing: $30.7 Billion

Net Result: $1.1. Billion Deficit

Yes, spending is up to the tune of about $20 Billion, but that would have been affordable before the Tory tax cuts. But government revenues went up you say? Sure in terms of dollars but it shrank considerably when you look at it as a percentage of GDP. Here are government revenues as a percentage of GDP projected in 2005 for 2008-2009:

Personal Income Tax: 7.3%
Corporate Income Tax: 1.8%
GST: 2.4%
Other Taxes: 1.1%

Total: 12.5% (obviously some rounding here)

Here's what the Tories produced:

Personal Income Tax: 7.3%
Corporate Income Tax: 2.0%
GST: 1.6%
Other Taxes: 1.3%

Total: 12.2%

That 0.8% of GDP lost to the economically dubious GST cuts translates to a $10.5 billion loss in revenue. In other words, without the GST cuts, the government would have been in surplus even with the increased largesse in 2008-2009. The structural deficit, the one that is going to require either higher taxes or lower spending to get out of, is a direct result of irresponsible Conservative tax cuts. Short term investments in infrastructure do not create structural deficits, especially when you have ridiculously low interest rates to pay for them. A lack of sufficient government revenue does.

Side Note: I usually like Paul Wells, but the "they'll replace him with someone equally bad or worse" argument doesn't hold water. The idea of ministerial responsibility is that when you screw up, you resign or get fired. It doesn't matter who they get to replace you. Flaherty screwed up, he should resign or if he refuses, Harper should fire him. It's simple.

How Was I Supposed to Know There Would Be A Train on the Train Tracks?

Apparently, having a Masters in economics didn't allow our Prime Minister to foresee that employment insurance claims would go up in a recession. Yes, Stephen Harper is clearly the only one with the requisite knowledge to guide us through this crisis.

Bryant Gets Out

Michael Bryant has had enough of being a second tier minister in Dalton McGuinty's cabinet. While Bryant has had important portfolios in Aboriginal Affairs and Economic development, they never seemed big enough for Michael Bryant's britches. I expect with it all the more obvious that McGuinty intends to seek a third term in 2011, Bryant was looking for an exit strategy. The move to Invest Toronto provides a decent lateral exit strategy. The move into an organization run by Mayor Miller is an interesting move in terms of municipal politics. Miller needs to keep the Liberal voters who put him in office in 2003 if he gets a serious challenger in 2010. Appointing Bryant to an economic portfolio may be a way for Miller to keep the increasingly disenchanted right wing of his coalition happy. For Bryant it gives him distance from any of McGuinty's mistakes, if and when McGuinty retires and Bryant seeks the Liberal leadership.

However, the long term future political implications may not be as interesting as the short-term: namely, the by-election in St. Paul's. Why is a by-election in a safe Liberal seat interesting? Well, first the Liberal nomination fight. I expect there would be more than one person interested in the Liberal nomination for such a safe riding. The provincial party doesn't have the deep divisions that have plagued its federal counterparts and Bryant seemed to be one of the few people working behind the scenes for the race to replace McGuinty. This hopefully will mean a nomination fight based on the merits of the various candidates and not based on which future or past leadership hopeful they support. In other words, a wide open free-for-all. However, the race might not be as easy as the Liberal aspirants may think. The Tories (both provincially and federally) have always thought they should do better in St. Paul's. It contains some of the richer neighbourhoods in the city and seems to be prototypical of the old Toronto small-c conservative attitude. A by-election, with its low turnout and general wackiness, should be an ideal circumstance to try to steal the seat. The circumstances get better when you consider that the Tories should be riding relatively high after picking a new leader (even if Dalton waits until the fall to call the by-election). After the Tories lost a safe seat in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, I am loathe to rule anything out. I expect the Liberals to hold it, but I can't guarantee it, especially if the Tories find a strong candidate.

There's A Reason We Have A Representative Democracy

A great piece in The Economist about the fiscal disaster in California. I have always had a fundamental objection to direct democracy and any time I need to find courage in my convictions, I look at California. The state is a mess because special interests have exploited direct democracy to make it impossible for legislators to unseat them. The budget arrives in the legislature pre-cut up. This has been a problem for years but now facing declining revenues, the crisis has reached a new peak. We pay our politicians and bureaucrats good money to run our government. We do so not because politicians tricked us but because running a government is hard work and is actually a full time job. Direct democracy is a way for politicians to avoid making tough decisions.

Obama Sends Potential Rival to China

In a move that can be seen as both bipartisan and highly political, President Obama has named Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (R) as the United States' new ambassador to China. Gov. Huntsman is seen as one of the most capable Republican governors in the country. He would have been a formidable dark horse candidate in a Republican Presidential primary come 2012. Now, he'll be working for Obama thousands of miles away from the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire. The governor has experience in the foreign service and is fluent in Mandarin.

Attack Ads

While the media probably doth protest too much about the new Tory attack ads, I'm much more interested in the message the Tories are trying to send. In English, the message is fairly simple and simplistic: Michael Ignatieff is a jet setting academic with no attachment to Canada. While Tony Clement and others may have to answer to the what's wrong with Algonquin Park question, there isn't much substance in the English ads. They really seem to be straight out of the John McCain playbook; they characterize the opponent as a foreign celebrity. While the polling seems to indicate that the tactic worked for McCain, I wonder if it will work for the Conservatives. Canadians lack of fervent nationalism (outside the hockey rink) generally means that they take a fairly positive view of other countries, particularly the UK. While that might not extend to the US, there are many Canadians who have worked in the states for part of their career. Moreover, many Canadian voters spent a large portion of their life abroad. The largest group is obviously new Canadians. I don't know how the "foreigner" attack plays on someone who personally comes from elsewhere, but I can't believe it's a winner. With ridings like Brampton-Springdale, Richmond and Mississauga-Erindale as possible battlegrounds next election, I can't say I understand the tactic. I wonder how much say Jason Kenney had in the ad choice.

In French, the ads are much more substantive and frankly better. The tag line "Qui Suis-Je?" is much more ominous than the lighthearted "Just Visiting." The French ads also attack Ignatieff on policy: everything from his early support for a carbon tax to his "French North Americans" comment. The bad news for the Tories is that even if these ads work, they may only give votes to the Bloc as the Tory ship appears to be sunk in Quebec.

Post-Referendum Analysis

The slightly longer version this time. I still posit that the principle difference between 2005 and 2009 in terms of the referendum results is the distance from the strange 1996 and 2001 elections. If we call that reason 1, some other reasons out there for the shift against STV.

The Question: When CalgaryGrit isn't sure why the question matters, I am loathe to hazard a guess. I will say that I thought in 2007 that a FPTP v. Reform question would favour reform more than a simple yes/no. Back then, I thought that the a FPTP v. Reform referendum would allow the reform side to frame it as a referendum on FPTP, thus hiding their own warts. However, my thinking has evolved after watching the last two referenda. Here's a thought experiment. Say somebody asks you a yes/no question that you don't know and you have to give them an answer. Are you more likely to say yes? There's got to be a psych study on this somewhere. I have to believe the answer is yes. Particularly when your being asked whether or not you agree with something called "the Citizens' Assembly." On the other hand when given two equally strange sounding acronyms (FPTP v. STV) there is no natural tendancy to choose one over the other. It's not that I think the people of British Columbia or Ontario did not have the opportunity to become informed (the internet is a wonderful resource), I just don't think most people don't particularly rank electoral reform as a must know issue. So, long story short, the question might have helped.

STV Has A Bad Aftertaste: There are some arguing that the more you know about STV, the less likely you are to like it. I tend to agree in principle. The warts of any system (our own included) are more visible the more you know about it. There's no such thing as a perfect electoral system. That's one of the reasons that Western democracies can't agree on one.

Can't See The Trees For the Election: I've never bought the "we shouldn't hold this concurrent to a provincial election" argument. Presumably you would like people to vote in a referendum if it is going to be legally binding. Canadians don't particularly like to vote. I can't imagine you'd get much turnout in a separate referendum on electoral reform. Separation it ain't. Then again, this might be the only way electoral reform would pass. As the blogosphere demonstrates there are a lot more passionate supporters of electoral reform then there are detractors. Oh yeah, what's the cost estimate?

Don't Ask the Same Question Twice: The idea is that Canadians aren't going to vote for something that's already been rejected. I don't know how you explain the 1995 Referendum results when compared to 1980 in that context.

Misinformation: I really can't believe the majority of voters knew enough about the question to be so misinformed as to reject it against there own philosophical tendancies.

The Silent Majority: Ah yes, non-voters are so overwhelmingly in favour of electoral reform, they stayed home and didn't vote for it. I get it now!

Also of interest are the arguments not being used this time around. They include such gems as:

• Canadians are racists.
• The threshold is an affront to democracy!
• It did as well as the winning party, shouldn't that be good enough?
• Just wait until next time!
  

Thank You British Columbia

For sparing us any electoral reform conversations for a bit. The margin that STV was defeated was sizable but frankly, predictable. It is increasingly clear that the 2005 referendum was the anomaly. With the freak elections of 1996 and 2001 further in the rear view mirror, the margin last night was comparable to the results seen in Ontario and PEI. STV is dead, and it deserves its fate. Strange that the histrionics that we saw after the MMP debate didn't re-emerge today. I guess there's some resignation from the Fair Vote crew today.

Please BC, Say No to STV

Election day is fast approaching in British Columbia. The advocates for STV are making their final pushes. Here's Andrew Coyne's epic. The question for British Columbians is simple, what is more important: accountability or proportionality. The system that was proposed by the Citizens' Assembly is designed to try to appease the ivory tower concern of proportionality. Proportionality is something that is only useful to political parties, not voters. You are asked on election day, under both First-Past-The-Post and STV, to choose representative(s) for your part of the province to represent you in Victoria. You are not asked which political party most closely resembles your political phillosophy. You are asked to elect someone from your community (hopefully) to be your voice in government. One of the measures that you may choose to use in making your decision is partisan affiliation. Certainly the performance of a given candidate's party in the legislature is important. However, there are other variables in your decisions. Do you think the candidate is qualified to do the job? Do you think the candidate has your best interests at heart? These variables among thousands of others, may distort the statistical calculations of academics, they may confound the pundits paid to predict and pontificate. This doesn't make these considerations less valid. British Columbians vote on more than partisan identification. They should have an electoral system that seeks to do more than provide "justice" to political parties.

Representative democracy can only function if the representatives are held accountable by their members. British Columbians know that a "safe seat" is never safe in BC. The history of BC politics is littered with politicians who thought they could coast to re-election. Social Credit rose and fell in British Columbia. A government was reduced to almost nothing in British Columbia. A Prime Minister lost her seat in British Columbia. British Columbians hold their elected officials to account. It is a proud tradition that speaks to the basic ideals of representative democracy. STV promises that everyone will win. It lives up to that promise. It would only take 12.5% of the population of Victoria to keep an MLA in the legislature. How easy will it be for an established politician to find 12.5% on name recognition alone? Only a single member plurality system like the current First Past the Post system can provide true accountability. Only under FPTP can the people of BC truly strike the necessary fear into the hearts of their politicians. Only under FPTP will politicians pause before acting against the interests of their constituents.

Do not be distracted by the utopians promises of STV proponents. Politics aren't perfect anywhere. It cannot be as it is fundamentally a construct of imperfect people. No electoral system will make our politics more civilized. No electoral system will make politicians keep campaign promises. Utopia comes from the Greek for "No Place". Don't vote for an electoral system as a road to something that doesn't exist. On election day, vote for the electoral system that will allow you to keep politicians accountable when they screw up instead of voting for a system in the hopes that politicians will never screw up again.

British Columbians Becoming Increasingly Forgetful

That's the only conclusion for the Fair Vote crowd to draw if this polling proves accurate. There was a myth during the MMP referendum in Ontario that lack of information was the reason MMP failed. Fair Vote folks often say that if people had the facts they'd win in a landslide. I debunked the MMP myth here if you are interested. This time around, with now two efforts to educate the good people of British Columbia (this one extraordinarily well-financed), the evidence seems to be that the more people know about STV the less they like it. Lots of reasons for this. (It's just not that likeable in my humble opinion.) I'll save any analysis of this for after the ballots are in and we shall see if the pollsters are even in the ballpark (no guarantee, especially in BC). One question. If this fails miserably, do we get to put the electoral reform issue to bed for awhile? I know if it passes the cries from Fair Vote Canada will become insufferable.

Political Deaths

Jack Kemp is dead. The former Buffalo Bills quarterback and Republican Vice-Presidential nominee (Dole-Kemp '96), HUD Secretary and Congressman died Saturday. I think his death may have a little more metaphorical meaning this week in the wake of the defection by Sen. Specter. Kemp is the last Republican nominee for either top job from east of the Mississippi and perhaps more importantly he was the last in a long line of northeastern Republicans to get a nomination. The Republican fortunes in the Northeast are getting bleaker by the day. They now hold 3 senate seats from Pennsylvania to Maine. With former Obama Commerce Secretary designate Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) retiring, there is a strong chance that number will dwindle to just the two senators from Maine after 2010. There are no Republicans in the house from New England. There was a time that the Republican party was synonymous with small-c conservatives in the Northeast. No more.

A Bad Session For the YLC

With elections for incoming positions just finished, the Young Liberals of Canada has to be licking its wounds tonight. The constitutional plenary went from bad to worse this afternoon. With the magic of CPAC, I was able to watch a lot of the plenary (while flipping between that and Crosby-Ovechkin) from here in Toronto. The first defeat for the YLC was, in my mind at least, expected. The YLC amendment to the Weighted One Member One Vote amendment failed and failed miserably. It may have been insult to injury to have Justin Trudeau be one of the speakers against on the convention floor. Perhaps, the real damage though, was done after the hall had half emptied. After Don Boudria et al. killed amendment 10 which would have limited the number of ex-officio delegates by removing ex-officio status from non-privy council former MP's, the convention moved on to amendment 11.

The debate on Amendment 11 was perhaps the most interesting of the afternoon. It shouldn't have been, but it was. In spite of the efforts of the current and former Policy Directors of the OYL, the hall seemed confused by the wording of the amendment. This led to an extraordinary few minutes where the constitutional experts provided the most unclarifying clarification in history. They lambasted the amendment as poorly worded at best and self-contradictory at worst. In both official languages they concluded by saying they didn't know what the Amendment meant and that it wasn't "ready for prime time". Former blogger Jason Cherniak quite correctly criticized the constitutional experts for seeming to do the opposite of their job by failing to provide an interpretation and thus advocating for the defeat of the amendment. The amendment failed miserably and the YLC was left being called "not ready for prime time" from the convention stage.

To finish off a terrible session, the YLC saw their amendment for a National Outreach Secretary (that's Amendment 12 in your programs) fail as well. I honestly can't remember what happened to the first YLC amendment (9) but three defeats plus the failed sub-amendment makes for one bad day. The last thing the YLC wants is to be seen as "not ready for prime time". I don't think I was the only young liberal cringing watching that today. The job for the incoming YLC executive got a little harder today.

The Kitchen Sink Strategy Pays Off

Yes, just twelve short months ago then Sen. Obama and then Sen. Clinton were engaged in an epic primary fight in Pennsylvania. Remember Rev. Wright? Remember Obama's bowling? Remember the stories of Clinton learning how to shoot a gun? Yes, that was the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. It was primary writ large. Two seasoned campaigns going toe to bloodied toe. The end result was a Clinton win on primary night and 200,000 Republicans registering as Democrats to vote in the contest. Clinton's strategy of hoping to discredit Obama enough in Pennsylvania to somehow overcome his massive delegate advantage and take the Democratic nomination failed. However, the so-called "kitchen sink" strategy may have finally paid off in a tangible way.

Yes, Sen. Arlen Specter read the tea leaves today and decided that he couldn't win a Republican nomination rematch against conservative Republican Pat Toomey and therefore he's crossing the aisle. By tea leaves, I of course mean polls showing the incumbent more than 20 points down among Republicans in PA. So, the leopard is changing his spots in order to save his skin. Toomey's sizable lead at this point is largely attributable to the changing nature of Republican politics in Pennsylvania. Those 200,000 Republicans who became Democrats in 2008 were not going to go back to the Republican fold to save Arlen Specter. Without them, the 1 million Republicans who narrowly voted in 2004 for Specter become 800,000 Republicans who don't want Specter. In other words 20% of the vote has disappeared and it seems to have all gone from Arlen Specter. Democrats owe a debt of gratitude to the impossibly stubborn Hillary Clinton campaign today.

Convention Names

Calgary Grit is not happy with the "Seinfeld Convention" label for the upcoming snoozefest in Vancouver. I tend to agree with him that if the convention was going to be as interesting as an episode of Seinfeld, nobody would be complaining. So, without further ado suggestions for alternate names for the leadership convention:

• The United Nations Convention: The resolutions don't mean anything and the leadership race was determined in the backroom.
• The Godfather II Convention: I don't mean to imply that the convention will be anything like this classic film in terms of being compelling to watch. However, it is a similar cast of characters to the last one. This one promises more family history (have you bought your copy of Iggy's new book yet?).
• The Wizard of Oz Convention: Pay no attention to the excessive drinking and internal squabbling behind the curtain.
  
• The Welcome Back Kotter Convention: Yes, the teacher's back to try to help the people back home. Hilarity will undoubtedly ensue.
  
• The Revenge of the Nerds Convention: Res ipsa loquitur.
• Lament For A Political Theatre: By George Grant's nephew no less.
• The Potemkin Convention: It looks so real!
• The Empire Strikes Back Convention: Apparently Darth Vader plays bass in a punk band in this one.
  

Any other thoughts?

Lastman's Last Laugh

Torontonians will not soon forget former Mayor Mel Lastman's appearance on CNN at the height of the SARS crisis. For many, it was an example of Lastman at his worst: ignorant and blustering. A dark hour for a city, reeling from SARS. However, he may have won the war against the organization he claimed he had never heard of. Apparently, the World Health Organization now believes that it would be irresponsible to issue a travel advisory against areas affected by swine flu. They think it might hurt the local economy. I wonder how many Toronto business people wish they had figured that out six years ago before they effectively destroyed Toronto's tourism business. I almost feel like the city should sue the WHO for damages.

Side Note: I think Torontonians of all walks of life are remembering the late Dr. Sheela Basrur and her remarkable work during the SARS crisis. In her role as the Toronto Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Basrur provided a calming voice to a panicking city. Today's leaders can only hope to show her kind of leadership in crisis. She continues to be missed.

The Popular Vote and The Role of Political Parties

So the STV folks are rehashing their traditional criticisms against our current system. Almost all of the criticisms against FPTP come down to some reference to the so-called "popular vote." I've made this argument before, but it bears repeating, so here we go. The popular vote is an irrelevant and inaccurate statistic. Why? Well, a closer examination of the current system is necessary. In the current system each voter votes for one candidate in his or her riding. Some of these candidates are affiliated with a political party some are not. People vote for a given candidate for a whole host of reasons, political party being a major one but certainly not the only one (just ask John Tory). This is why a popular vote total is irrelevant and inaccurate in our current system. The overall popular vote is never used to determine who gets a seat in the legislature. It's about as relevant as voter turnout: useful for pollsters and strategists but fairly useless otherwise. The reason the system doesn't reward political parties is because, quite frankly, the system wasn't designed with political parties in mind. Political parties are a function of the legislature and modern politics, they are not really a consideration in how our electoral system works. I would argue that this is perfectly appropriate as I don't want to give political parties (even my own) any more power than they already have. That's why I don't see the popular vote as being a holy statistic that must be worshiped.

Canadian political parties have piteous low membership rates (even when compared to other FPTP countries, Fair Vote folks). They are private clubs which, while subject to some external regulation, are fundamentally free to pursue their own interests, as they should. I believe an electoral system should entrench as little power as possible in political parties, for the sake of democracy. FPTP by ignoring them gives them no explicit power. The clear lines of local accountability make it difficult for political parties to hide unpopular candidates or play to small constituencies within a riding. STV, to its credit, also ignores parties in its fundamentals. However, the complexity of the system is a playground for political strategists. Decisions as to how many candidates to run in a given riding or how to promote different candidates in a given part of a riding, allow political operatives to massage results as they see fit. The latter issue is one of STV's most glaring flaws as its low quotas for election allow political parties to pursue a Rovian strategy of wedge issue politics with extraordinary success. To me it is more important to have an electoral system that encourages broadbased appeals to voters over a system that mirrors more closely the popular vote and encourages the division of the electorate into small constituencies.

Globe Maintains Opposition to STV

The editorial is here. I've been saying for a while that even if you want electoral reform you should not necessarily support BC-STV just because it is on offer. I disagree with the Globe on their preferred version MMP but I give them credit for being consistent in their views on electoral reform. It is refreshing to see consistency from an advocate of electoral reform.

A More Comprehensive Argument Against BC-STV

My last post on BC-STV was criticized as being a minor issue not worthy of consideration. I realized that while I have commented extensively on the topic, I haven't really put my thoughts together clearly. So here's an attempt. As I argued in this post the problem identified by Gordon Campbell, first as leader of the opposition and then as Premier, is not solved by this electoral system. That's important. It's important not because I think British Columbians should only act within the framework of Mr. Campbell's thinking, but because in order to change something as fundamental to democracy as the method of election, you should have a reason. The burden of proof is always going to be, no matter what the issue, on those advocating change. The first question you have to ask of anyone promoting a new electoral system is what do you seek to accomplish with this change? What's wrong with the current system? How does your proposed system fix those problems? Let's go to the source here for the problems and solutions. First the problems as identified by the pro-STV folks. I'll abbreviate the arguments because this post is going to be ridiculously long as is, the link is above if you want to hold me to account.

1. Governments can receive fewer votes than the opposition
2. Lack of regional representation in Cabinet
3. Majority governments are tyrannical
4. Safe seats are an offense to democracy
5. The ills of modern democracy

Here's what they say BC-STV does for the province:

1. It's new and tailor made
2. Quasi-PR makes government work for the people
3. No More Safe Seats!
4. More diversity in the legislature
5. Irish people prefer it to FPTP

Okay, that's the argument being presented to British Columbians. Does it hold water? Almost without exception, no. Let's do this one by one.

• Under BC-STV can a party win fewer votes than the opposition and still win government? Yes. Is it slightly less likely, maybe, but there's no particular reason for that to be true. First, you have to figure out which ballot you count to determine whether or not this happens under STV. Past that, the right number of second place ballots fall the right way in the right ridings, it can happen. It's well within what even proponents concede is the deviance from true proportionality.
  
• Will BC-STV guarantee balanced cabinets? No. The Premier remains the sole decision maker when it comes to cabinet. Just because he or she has an MLA from a given region does not guarantee their inclusion in Cabinet. Also, there is a strong tradition in Canadian democracy of appointing cabinet ministers from outside the legislature if there is a need for diversity.
  
• Are majority governments tyrannical? Maybe. That's a subject for debate. But the only part of the argument that has to do with the electoral system is 40% of the votes=60% of the seats. You could get 51% under a strict PR system and 100% power in Canada. Tis the nature of our parliamentary system, not our electoral system. The proponents claim no decrease in the stability of governments (ie no increase in short-lived minority governments). Therefore, you can expect just as many tyrannical majorities.
• Safe seats are a problem in any electoral system. Canada actually has a pretty good record of throwing out the bums. Witness the elimination of almost the entire NDP caucus in BC in 2001. No safe seats there. Where are all those So-Cred safe seats these days anyway? BC-STV will create safe seats just as easily, particularly in northern ridings with only two MLAs.
• This electoral system as panacea argument is laughable. I suppose the argument here was formulated by looking at Ireland's two ideologically indistinguishable major parties whose differences, as I understand it, date back to their original positions on independence and the relationship with the UK. The BC Liberals and BC NDP aren't going to magically agree on everything. They will still try to find wedge issues to get votes. No electoral system changes that. Politics is a reflection of a lot of things, least among them is the electoral system.
  
• Oooh a shiny, new, made-in-BC electoral system... give me a break.
  
• Government will work for you! More snake oil. Governments elected in all different electoral systems break promises and do things that are unpopular. If you don't like your government, vote it out. That's what representative democracy is all about!
  
• Safe seats I've covered.
• The increased diversity argument is familiarly erroneous. As was pointed out by a commenter criticizing my expensive electoral system here, you actually have fewer candidates under STV. I'm not entirely sure why the same parties, nominating fewer candidates, who will have to spend more to campaign in bigger ridings will all of a sudden be forced to represent the diversity of British Columbia. As I've argued before, we need to make it easier to run for office if we want to see more diversity. An electoral system without prescribed quotas will not change the make up of the legislature. Oh, yes, you might get a couple of Greens who will either have no power or have all the power if they end up as king makers. Enjoy!
  
• Canadians have rejected MMP twice and BC-STV once, albeit narrowly. Maybe Canadians prefer FPTP? Seriously, what works in Dublin doesn't necessarily work in Vancouver. BC isn't Ireland.
  

There's no convincing argument here. Presumably, if there was a stronger argument out there, the official proponents of this thing would get it on their website. I'm not in love with FPTP. I see its faults. I'm less in love with the other choices available. BC-STV is a particularly poor option.

Slow Road To Expensive Elections

The BC-STV folks are celebrating because one poll shows a large enough majority in support of STV. I'd like to point out that these were the same people who dismissed almost every single poll in the run up to the vote on MMP in Ontario. Amazing what a result you like does for the credibility of referendum polling. However, I still find it hard to believe that British Columbians would want to condemn themselves to this system.

Just a couple of quick arguments against it today. One of the problems with having an electoral system where a person's ballot is counted differently depending on how his or her peers vote, is tht every single ballot has to be counted before STV can start the bulk of the counting process. This is a much longer process than Canadians are used to. I concede that most British Columbians wouldn't mind waiting a little longer for election results. How long is the question. One of the challenges to running an election in a province like British Columbia is providing local polling places for remote communities be it a small island in the south or a tiny hamlet in the northern wilderness. This is a minor problem when it comes to counting ballots under FPTP. First, because the results can be counted on site and then communicated to the elections office and the media. Second, even if there is a challenge in getting results out of a small community the odds of those few ballots tilting the result of an election is slim because of the large number of total ballots. Under STV, however, you can do little in the way of declaring winners and losers until every single ballot is available for counting and recounting and recounting and recounting and recounting. Inclement weather could delay the results of the provincial election for days under STV.

The other challenge here is having a tamper-proof system that is easily and quickly countable. This is going to be more of a challenge in BC than it is in Ireland, for instance. Ireland has roughly double the number of electoral districts than are proposed in British Columbia for roughly the same number of people. In other words, each electoral district is going to have to count twice as many ballots. Past the first count, it is extremely unadvisable to count the system without the aid of a computer or at least a few calculators. Transfer values require a greater degree of accuracy than most people are willing to calculate without help. Given the challenges stated above, it would make a lot of sense for British Columbians ot move to an electronic voting machine like we see in the United States. Of course, these machines have a long list of detracting features. I just don't see how you count 350,000 votes six times without a machine.

Whether BC opts to buy new voting equipment or simply pay their electoral workers to work longer. An election under STV will cost more than an election under FPTP. British Columbians will spend more to get their results later.

Could This Convention Actually Get Interesting?

The Coronation in Vancouver is starting to get the first sparks of conflict. No, there are no delays in the inevitable coronation of Czar Michael the Grit. However, the fight between the YLC and, frankly, everybody else may get downright ugly. The party has done everything it can to make this thing as bland as possible in the hopes that the media will cover Ignatieff's acceptance speech and go home with only spin for their stories. The watered-down policy process has been thrown into the Pacific to remove any trace of importance. Even Weighted-One-Member-One-Vote (WOMOV), a narrow loser in 2006, seems to be on track with few public detractors. So, what's the problem? Well apparently the rules of the game for the convention in particular rule 6.10 regarding amendments to proposed constitutional amendments.

Now I am not one of these people that sleeps with a copy of Robert's Rules of Order at my bedside, so I can't say that the rule strikes me as particularly aggregious. It is clearly constructed to remove the YLC amendment as an impediment to the passage of WOMOV. We shouldn't really be shocked that the dice would be a little loaded at this convention. However, this rule could be a significant stumbling block. The problem with this is it gives the YLC the impetus it needs to rally its membership to whatever cause it needs. The YLC is a decent voting block to begin with, and now there's a reason for unity. The YLC is left with few recourses and even fewer of them make for good optics for the party as a whole. The options for the YLC as I see it:

1. Amend the rules. This requires a 90% vote but given the fact that nobody really would read the rules except for people likely to be offended by this you might get some mob mentality behind this. If you pass out a bunch of "Scrap 6.10" buttons and avoid telling anyone the details, you might be surprised at the result. If the convention were to overturn a part of the rules set down from on high, it would be egg on the party's face but not egg that's explainable in a soundbite.
   
2. Make a deal. Lots of people with lots of agendas at this convention. Policy and constitutional amendments are the biggest things on the table. The obvious choice would be to threaten to have the YLC vote against WOMOV unless you get a promise of support on your amendment. However, the possibility of being backstabbed by just enough people to ensure the failure of the YLC amendment is downright likely. A policy group is less likely to have the numbers the YLC needs. However, if they can string together the right list of policies together who knows.
   
3. Vote against WOMOV. There is a good likelihood that if the YLC were to mobilize its 25-30% of delegates against WOMOV there would be enough convention loving Liberals out there to kill WOMOV. This would look terrible for both the YLC and the party.
4. Protest, but let WOMOV Pass. This is the least confrontational. The challenge here is finding a way to get the fact that the YLC is upset across without alienating everyone. Did you know that 25 delegates can request a recount on any vote or force any vote into debate? We may need a full debate on Constitutional Amendment 33 which changes the legalese at the beginning of the constitution. Who says the fillibuster is dead?
   

Procedural Questions

Because I don't really want a readership, another post on one-member-one-vote before I rejoin the BC-STV fray. I've never attended a Liberal convention (timing and money issues) so I have some questions regarding the procedural processes surrounding OMOV and the YLC amendment. The OMOV amendment is listed in the constitutional amendments as 1.1 the YLC amendment is listed as 1.1 a. First question, what's the sequence here? Is the debate for OMOV started and then the YLC amendment is brought forward as an amendment to the motion on the floor or is OMOV voted on and then if it succeeds the YLC amendment gets considered as an amendment to the constitution. I don't know whether or not an amendment can be amended on the floor under Liberal Party rules. If you can amend an amendment before it is passed do you require a two-thirds majority or merely simple majority? Depending on the answers to the questions the YLC amendment could be either much more problematic than earlier anticipated or much less. The OMOV people undoubtedly would want the YLC amendment considered after their proposal has been voted up or down. The YLC has a more complex question before them. If there is a difference in terms of votes required to amend a motion or amend the constitution, do you try to pass the amendment when you need less votes (within the original amendment) or separately where you may have a better shot of having the votes on the floor (the senior OMOV people having possibly left for a celebratory drink)? If you always require a two-thirds majority it is likely that the YLC would want the latter to attempt to flood the room as is their wont. If anyone can answer my questions it would be much appreciated.

A Mess of His Own Making

As much as I'd love Mulroney-Schreiber to be a relevant political scandal, it isn't. It really has nothing to do with Stephen Harper or his government. However, our Prime Minister has allowed his need for complete control to lead him right into the middle of the scandal. The Tories crazy Mulroney isn't really a Tory even though he was when he was Prime Minister thing makes it look like there's a reason for Stephen Harper to try distance himself from the former PM. Mulroney is a Tory today just as he was twenty years ago. The same cannot be said of our current Reform turned Canadian Alliance turned Conservative Prime Minister. Mulroney-Schreiber has as much to do with Stephen Harper as the sponsorship scandal has to do with Michael Ignatieff. However, Harper's attempts to delay and obfuscate the prosecution of Mulroney-Schreiber is Mr. Harper's scandal. Why on earth he felt compeled to do or say anything in respect to the case is beyond me. Harper's need for total control may have got him into office, but if he keeps handling problems like this one with an iron grip he will never get the majority he seeks.

Do I Smell Hypocrisy?

I apologize for yet another post on Weighted One Member One Vote and the proposed Young Liberals of Canada amendment. I just wanted to put something out into the ether. Before I start, let me say once again that I don't know how I would vote on either Weighted OMOV or the YLC amendment. I see the virtue and vice of both proposals. However, I have to be a little bit surprised at the outrage at the YLC's amendment. I suspect much of the uproar may be because supporters of WOMOV fear that the YLC's amendment would poison their attempts at reform. I am surprised though, because the system already massively favours some Liberals over others. Dan's right to say that the difference between 1.3 votes and 1.5 votes shouldn't affect youth engagement, but why are we so quick to accept the weighted nature OMOV in the first place? The answer is that we need to make sure that Liberals from across the country have a say in the process and that the leader is not just chosen in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. This is a holdover from the current system. For the OMOV purists, weighting the system to make all ridings equal should be viewed as a major concession. It is slightly absurd to call a system one member one vote when one member's vote could be worth 2 and another's 0.02 depending on the number of Liberals in their riding. The can of worms is open. We shouldn't be surprised that the YLC is looking for another concession. What's the difference philosophically between weighting for regional balance and weighting for age balance?

One Member One Vote Gets Sidetracked

The unstoppable train that was One-Member-One-Vote has apparently stalled. Yes, the only thing of any great import to be decided at the Liberal Convention in Vancouver is apparently running into roadblocks. Jeff's got a good summary of the facts. I've always been of two minds about changing the way we elect a leader (or used to before Czar Michael the Grit... I'm not at all bitter). I like the idea of increasing the democracy involved and removing the financial requirements to voting. However, nothing compares to the theatre of a delegated convention and politics is, if nothing else, theatre. I think there is a value of having a show to introduce your new leader. It doesn't always work in terms of future electoral success (see M. Dion), but it does make things more interesting for Canadians. Thus, as I say I'm of two minds.

It is amusing to see the one-member-one-voter system falling victim to the reality of Liberal Party politics. The Young Liberals of Canada voting to propose an amendment to the constitutional amendment (does anyone else's head hurt) to maintain the electoral power of the Youth Wing is the first glancing blow. Jeff is right to say that this is opening up a can of worms. However, why wouldn't the YLC want to maintain their influence? OMOV already deprives youth of the ability to vote twice by restricting voting to riding associations and cutting university clubs from the process. The youth wing who is arguably most disadvantaged by OMOV was unlikely to let this go without a fight. There have to be questions as to how persuasive the YLC can be in getting their membership to support their own amendment to the amendment, but the youth's ability to vote at a convention should not be underestimated. I wonder how many other amendments will be attached to this thing by the time it gets to the floor. It is always easier to criticize an existing framework than it is to create a new one. The internal interest groups within the Liberal Party will want to make sure that they can benefit from the new system or at least not lose any influence. We will see if OMOV can get through before it becomes a distorted monster of a voting system. I have to believe a gender equity amendment will come along sooner or later. Let the games begin!

Why? Why? 116 Times, Why?

Can someone please explain to me what thousands of brave Canadian men and women are doing in Afghanistan?

G20: Summit of Doomed Leaders?

As we await the G20 summit in London and its potential impact on the global financial system, one of the most interesting subplots may be the fact that many of the leaders at this meeting are in serious political peril back home. Makes you wonder just how much credence to lend to any treaty or agreement emerging from London. A quick trip around the world is in order. Let's start with the host.

Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK: The opposition Tories have their knives out for Brown, they just need an election to finish the job. In the fall, Brown looked like he was on top of the economic crisis. Now the crisis is definitely on top of him. If Brown were to survive the upcoming British election, it would be nothing short of miraculous.

Taro Aso, Prime Minister of Japan: The Japanese political system is almost as messy as their economy these days. Mr. Aso is the third Prime Minister to have the job since the resignation of Junichiro Koizumi in the fall of 2006. The Japanese people will soon have a choice between an incompetent and disorganized government and a scandal plagued opposition. Makes Harper and Ignatieff look like great statesmen.

Mirek Topolanek, President EU, Prime Minister Czech Republic: A rotating presidency is always going to make things interesting. However, having the Czech government fall while they're supposed to be the head of the EU, really throws a wrench into the EU works. The only non-country at the G20 will also be represented by EU Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso, but it is a little awkward to have the bureaucracy representing one of the world's largest markets. Think of Canada being represented by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Kgalema Motlanthe, President Republic of South Africa: Okay, so it is still unlikely that the ANC will lose this month's elections in South Africa. It doesn't change the fact that South African politics are a lot less certain now then at any time since the end of apartheid. Even the possibility of defeat for the ANC means political uncertainty in South Africa.

Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India: Much like the ANC, the Congress Party is still the favourite heading into this year's elections in India. However, who the Prime Minister will be is another question altogether. With yet another Gandhi (this one constitutionally eligible to be Prime Minister) making waves in India, the odds that Singh (a surprise PM last time around) will survive as PM seem longer by the day.

Angela Merkel, Chancelor of Germany: Merkel may be in slightly better political shape than her British counterpart because her principal opposition is part of her coalition government. Hard to criticize a government you're a part of, don't you know. However, Europe's economic engine isn't running like it used to and the chancelor may take the fall come September.

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada: Harper has the benefit of not necessarily facing the voters this year. However, any leader trailing the opposition in the polls while trying to lead a minority government in a recession is decidedly on the hot seat.

Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico: Yes, I know, the Mexican presidency is term limited to one term so barring impeachment no president of Mexico has political problems. However, with Mexico trying to fight a raging drug war and stop the economic bleeding caused by the American recession, it isn't exactly fun for President Calderon these days.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President of Argentina: Things are bad enough for Mme. Fernandez de Kirchner that she has subverted her husband's election law to try to hold on to legislative power in Buenos Aires. Presidential elections are still a few years away, but times are tough for the Argentinian President.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil: Not in a whole lot of danger. He's term limited so even if he isn't as popular as he once was, he doesn't have to face the voters again.

Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy: An Italian Prime Minister is never entirely safe. However, Berlusconi still owns much of the Italian media, so he's probably safer than he otherwise would be.

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France: Sarko is demanding major changes in London. Like so many others, he's trying to blame the rest of the world for his country's problems. French Presidents get nice long terms and Sarkozy was just elected, so he's not in any immediate danger. However, how well Sarkozy can manage this strange dance of distancing himself from his Western allies in London and then bringing France back more firmly under the NATO umbrella in London a few day later may determine his chances next time he faces the French voters.

Barack Obama, President of the United States: Okay, so the ink is barely dry on the results of his electoral landslide, but Obama can't help but look ahead. Obama is being ambitious out of the gate. He's going to have a long record, the only question is whether or not it is a good one.

Dmitry Medvedev, President of Russia: Yes, he is technically in charge not PM Putin. The economic crisis has rocked Russia and there is serious discontent for the first time in almost a decade. Whether or not that loosens the grip that Medvedev and Putin have on power, is up for debate.

Lee Myung-Bak, President of South Korea: Also recently elected by a wide margin, Lee is safe for now. However, I admit I know little about South Korean poltics.

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Indonesia: I know less about Indonesian politics, so I'll skip Indonesia altogether. If you can enlighten me, be my guest.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey: As long as the AKP remains a legal political party, Erdogan shouldn't have much to worry about politically. Like Sarkozy, Obama and Berlusconi, Erdogan has a relatively weak and disorganized opposition.

Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia: Recently elected, Rudd should be relatively safe. The upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen may be Rudd's coming out party on the international scene.

Wen Jiabao, Premier of the People's Republic of China: Not having to face the voters at all, makes Wen Jiabao fairly immune to political storms. However, the politburo cannot be thrilled about millions of disgruntlled migrant workers going back home far away from the watchful eye of Beijing.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: It is good to be King. Particularly when the country is named for your family and the family runs the government.