Ontario Election Preview Part 2: The Leaders

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

One More Thing...

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

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

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

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

Ontario Election Preview Part 1: The Parties

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



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

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

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

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

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

This is Not Promising

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

Religious Education in Ontario

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



1. Money

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



2. Conflict of Interest

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



3. Inferior Education

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



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



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

No campaign is up and running

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

To the Tennis Courts!

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

Blockbusters I Actually Want To See

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

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

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

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

Miller Takes Notes from Bush

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

Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 10

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

1. 50% of the popular vote

and/or

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

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

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

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

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

Disorganized Thoughts

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

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

Let's See if Council Can Get One Right

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

Why MMP is Wrong For Ontario pt. 9

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

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

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

A Dark Day for Toronto

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

Random Sports Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Race for the Exits 2008: The Republicans (revisited)

On we move to the Grand Old Party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race for the Exits 2008: The Democrats (revisited)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-candidates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toronto's Garbage Plan: Tax the Poor

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

Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 5

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

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

The list distribution would breakdown as follows:

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

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

Why MMP is Wrong For Ontario pt. 4

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

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

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

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

Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 3

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

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

Why MMP Is Wrong for Ontario pt. 2

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

Why MMP is wrong for Ontario pt. 1

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

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

Here are the 2003 results for Toronto-Danforth:

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

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

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

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

I'm Back!!!

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

McGuinty Shows Courage

Ontario has a garbage problem. Well, Toronto has a garbage problem and when Toronto has a problem, everyone has a problem. Ontario also has an energy problem. Lo and behold, a politician has put two and two together. Incineration is an excellent idea. However, it is not an easy sell. From all indications, if done correctly garbage can be burnt with very little environmental damage. My beloved MPP (I'm sorry, I have a personal issue with Tabuns) who is quoted in the article above may not believe so, but it can. It's funny how little the NDP who claims to be progressive believes in progress. Technologies change and improve. The depressing thing is that my neighbours in Toronto-Danforth will agree with Mr. Tabuns. The NDP has scared them half to death with all the fear-mongering done about the building of the natural gas plant. If they say incineration and there will be old Greek ladies having heart attacks. With the NDP gaining strength in Toronto this was a dangerous position for the premier to take. Also, Toronto does about all the waste diversion you can do. We do a lot more in the Big Smoke than they do here in Sweden, I'll tell you that much. Trucking the garbage to Michigan or half way across the province to ruin the soil in some landfill is not any better for the environment. All those who say that Liberals are only about getting elected should take a good hard look at this one. The Liberal Party, okay, my vision of the Liberal Party is about doing the right thing at the right time. McGuinty has nailed it on the head with this one.


Quick side note: My beef with Tabuns stems from when I met him during the last by-election. I answered the door at my parents house (where I'm registered to vote) and Tabuns immediately asked for my parents. Okay, I was only 19 at the time but he has a voters list with him. There are four voters in the house including two males. Maybe there are university students in the house? The NDP is supposed to be the party of youth. I wouldn't have been offended had he asked if I was old enough to vote. However, I have no respect for someone who doesn't bother to ask for my vote when they're talking to me.

Super Mario!

Je pense que c'est necessaire pour moi de faire ce poste en francais. Je connais que mon francais n'est pas parfait mais je veux essayer de faire. C'est vrai, Jean Charest a gagné une deuxième terme la nuit dernière, mais tu es fou si tu penses que le PLQ a gagné. Le seulement gangnant est L'ADQ. Mario Dumont a annoncé à tout le monde qu'il est arrivé. Il y a une bonne possibilité que L'ADQ peux former le gouvernement après le prochaine élection. L'ADQ a gagné dans 41 circonscriptions. En 2003, ils ont gagné dans 4. Ils ont fini deuxième pas seulement dans le numéro de circonscriptions gagné mais aussi dans le vote populaire. Quand j'ai vu les resultats j'etait stupifié. Cet élection changera le politique Québecois. Il y a maintenant un autre choix pour les citoyens. Le division fédéraliste/séparatiste est fini. Je croix que c'etait logicale après l'élection fédérale où le même chose a passé. Les Conservateurs ont donné les Québecois une troisième choix et les Conservateurs ont gagné dans dix circonscriptions et ont fini deuxième au vote populaire. L'ADQ a donné le même chose et ils ont recu une resultat meilleur. Le succés de l'ADQ dans tous les régions du Québec est mal pour Stéphane Dion et Gilles Duceppe. J'ai dit dans une autre poste que je croix que le succés de l'ADQ est indicative de la succés Conservateur. Ce matin, il y a beaucoup de nouveaux circonscriptions pour Stephen Harper. Mario Dumont peux maintenant chercher meilleur candidats pour le prochaine fois.

Pour André Boisclair cet élection était une belle désastre. Il a tombé plus vite que Perdita Félicien dans joux Olympique. C'est impossible pour lui de continuer comme chef péquiste. Le PQ n'est pas une parti qui va être content avec une fini dans troisième place. Une autre élection de chef donnera un petit peu de temps à Jean Charest. Il est impossible pour le PQ de combatter un autre élection sans chef. Donc, le prochaine élection Québecois ne peux pas passer avant l'élection d'un nouveaux chef péquiste. C'est vraiement étrange qu'un gouvernement Libérale sera functionner à le cause des Péquistes. Il y a les columniste qui pense que cet élection va dire que l'élection fédérale passera ce printemps. Je ne peux pas comprendre ca. Gilles Duceppe n'était pas stupide. Le PQ a leur mauvais resultat dans 35 annés, ce n'est pas un bon temps pour le Bloc. L'élection passera en automne après l'élection Ontarien.

Je m'excuse une autre fois pour mon francais horrible.

I suppose I should make a prediction...

On the eve of the Quebec election, it is customary for bloggers and other pundits to make predictions. Why? Because we can. This race is almost impossible to call. I don't and never have lived in Quebec which makes this even harder. This race has been, in many ways, a race to the bottom. Are Quebecois more angry about Charest's lacklustre record as premier or more dubious about the pathetic Boisclair. In a race where disenfranchisement and malaise is the order of the day, the title of this blog becomes all the more important. Local races will decide this election. Which ever party is successful in getting out the vote on election day will win. This is not a cliche, it's the truth. I honestly don't know who has the advantage in that department. As I say, I'm not a Quebecker. I will close my eyes and throw some darts at a prediction, as I said before, only because I can:

PQ: 50 seats
PLQ: 45 seats
ADQ: 30 seats

Voter turnout low. Fringe parties (Parti Vert, Quebec Solidaire) get over 5% of the vote.

I know this is a high estimate for the ADQ but I think a party which sets itself up as outsiders should do well in this election. I have no idea who governs or how they govern. However, I disagree with Mr. Ibbitson in the Globe. I don't think it would be a good idea for M. Charest to try to govern without a plurality. I think it would be a lightning rod for separatist sympathy and could easily contribute to a PQ majority in a year or two's time when the government inevitably collapsed.

An Honour Well Deserved

My favourite radio personality just one a North American wide award. Bob McCown is the best in the business and I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. Three cheers for the Bobcat!

Duceppe saw his shadow: 6 more months of Conservative Government

Liberals across the country should be thanking Gilles Duceppe. He has allowed the party to escape a spring election which would be horrible for the party. Why so horrible given the last polls? Well, it would be horrible because this is actually a pretty good budget. No, I haven't become a Conservative. I disagree with the budget, but it is a moderate if conservative budget. I would have liked to see at least some of the tax cuts given to social services like child care and the environment, but you can't expect blood from a turnip. This is the kind of budget Stephen Harper told Canadians he would deliver. Duceppe recognizes that this is a good deal for Quebec. By 'fixing' the 'fiscal imbalance,' Harper has given Quebec hundreds of millions this year alone. However, there are some things even a Liberal can be happy about:

• guaranteed funding for the extension of the Spadina subway and other transit improvements in the GTA. The importance of this cannot be overstated.
  
• More money for post-secondary education. No, not enough, but more money is better than less money.
• The federal debt has been lowered. The Tories have not gone into deficit yet. The burden on my generation has been lowered a bit.
• levy/rebate for fuel efficiency. I have to admit this one floored me because its such good policy. Jacking up the price of an SUV and lowering the price of a hybrid is a good way to start the fight against climate change and meet our Kyoto targets. Whether or not the Conservatives did it for that reason or not is another issue.

All in all, this is not a budget where I could honestly say the government had to be defeated to prevent its passage.

And I Thought She Got It

So Elizabeth May has announced that she's running in Central Nova. This is the wrong move on so many levels. Shall we count the ways?

1. She doesn't live in Central Nova. As far as I can tell, she never has. She's from Cape Breton and now lives in Ottawa. Either she should run in Ottawa where she's lived for over 20 years or in Cape Breton-Canso or Sidney-Victoria depending on which part of Cape Breton she's from. I believe people should live where they run. I hate the idea of voting for someone who can't vote for themselves. Cough... Jack Layton... Cough.
   
2. She can't win this race. Peter McKay can probably hold this seat till he dies. No matter how incompetent he has been at foreign affairs, he will still win in Central Nova. The Greens have got to be tearing out their hair. Here they have a charismatic leader and there's no way she gets into the house to do her thing.
3. The Greens have a disheartening tradition of running their leaders against big names (Frank de Jong v. Ernie Eves 2003; Jim Harris v. Jack Layton 2004). Ms. May is continuing in this sorry tradition. It does not give a party credibility when they aren't a little more concerned about winning their leader a seat.
4. This means that the media and the people are even less likely to treat the Greens seriously. Instead of trying to get into parliament and pursue her agenda, May has chosen to create a media circus in Central Nova. This means no place in the debate any time soon(which they don't deserve, but never mind).

When Ms. May finished second in the London-North Centre by-election I thought she had finally dedicated the Greens to getting into the House of Commons. Apparently, I was wrong. This kind of decision dooms the Greens to stay in the political wilderness. Well, as a Liberal this, like when any other party screws up, makes me happy. It just means more political space for the Grits.

Does Racist Cokehead Offend You in Either Language M. Boisclair?

So I said in my last post that Boisclair seemed to have avoided falling on his face in the debate. Well, he has followed up that performance by promptly falling on his face. His comments about Asian-Canadians is offensive and unacceptable. His defense that the comments aren't offensive in French is absurd in it is so pathetic. M. Boisclair should apologize. While I am happy to see the PQ doing so horribly, I cannot feel right about federalism gaining because of racism. M. Boisclair, with all due respect, you are an idiot. In either language.

National Politics

And by national, I mean the only recognized political nation in the country, Quebec. I haven't had a chance to watch the leader's debate from last night. I intend to and will post more substantively on it later. Just a few things from what the reports that I've heard.

• Dumont seems to be garnering most of the press with his claims about the bridge collapse. I can't decide whether or not this story has legs. It seems like the Charest government knew there was a problem but had no proposals from the responsible agencies on how to fix it. The optics may be more damaging then anything else.
• Boisclair didn't fall on his face. This is important. He might get a similar bounce to the one enjoyed by his fellow cocaine user, George W. Bush after his debate with Al Gore. People expected so little after the start of his campaign that a mediocre performance may work wonders for him.
  
• With Charest's performance neither here nor there, I think Boisclair might be the surprise winner when the post-debate polls come out.
  

Everybody in the Pool!

It's March Madness time again. Get out your brackets! WOOT!

Riddle me this...

So the oracle of Halton is declaring that the election will be May 28th. While I agree that Mr. Harper would love to go to the polls at that time, I don't really see how he gets there from here. Mr. Harper doesn't have a majority to work with. Furthermore, he's already said he's going to the polls four years from the previous election unless the opposition forces him to go earlier. So why exactly would all three opposition parties who are down in the polls conspire to bring about their own demise? Don't you think one if not more of the parties will support the Tory budget? First of all, this is going to be prepped as an election budget. Opposing it is going to be difficult. If the Quebec polls hold, this will in all likelihood be the PQ's worst election in thirty years, surely the Bloc is not going to think that is a good time to go to the polls. The Liberals (or at least I) would much rather have Dion go on the barbecue circuit this summer and go to the polls with better numbers in the fall. As for the NDP, did you see the puppets? Elizabeth May has them scared, really scared. They don't want to go any time soon. So how does Harper bring down the government? Does he start the election campaign by breaking yet another promise? To me, the issue he could have gone on is already been voted on. He could have made the anti-terrorism bill a confidence issue and force the opposition's hand that way. I don't see what wedge he's going to find to bring himself down on. I feel like I'm missing something here. Please help me out.

Yuck!

Just finished looking through the anti-semitic crap being spewed over at the head of the blogging dippers blog. Good on the NDP and on Jason Cherniak for fighting against this. Racism is despicable in any form. While anti-semitic comments hit closer to my home, any sort of racism is unacceptable. It is depressing to see this kind of tripe posted by fellow Canadians.

You Say You Want A Revolution?

It has been my long held belief that two of the most important provinces in Canada were long overdue for political revolution. Both provinces have a history of massive political and social change and thus are more susceptible then other provinces. These provinces are Alberta and Quebec. The chances of political change in Alberta are currently poor. However, we may be witnessing the start of a political revolution in la belle provence. Recent polls (these are in an election campaign so they matter) have placed the ADQ within striking distance of the PQ and PLQ. This combined with the election of 10 Conservative MP's in Quebec in the 2006 election shows a definite trend. The trend seems to be a massive swing to a) the right and/or b) soft nationalism within the province. I'd tend to think its the latter. Quebecois are angry with Liberals both provincially and federally. They are growing tired of wasting their votes on the Bloc nationally and are appalled by the leadership of Bernard Landry and now Andre Boisclair, provincially. In other words, the old options have grown stale. The time is ripe for massive political change. Whether or not Mario Dumont's ADQ is the vessel for this revolution is the only real question left. If not, we may have to wait a little while before seeing the full consequences of this sea change.

So You've Decided to go to Kingston...

The OYL AGM is in Kingston this weekend. Since I am still on the wrong side of the pond to welcome you personally, I will leave a few tips on my blog. Here's a few things to remember when visiting the Limestone City:

1. Kingston is the birthplace of Sir John A. Macdonald. This does not mean that you have to go on a three day gin bender. However, if you do, I'm sure old Sir John A. will be proud.
2. Housing standards in the student ghetto are up for interpretation. Stylish wood signs by the door will get you a fine, but giant holes in windows/roof/exterior walls are a-ok by the standards commissioner.
3. The wind in Kingston is a constant. It blows off the lake (well, mostly) and it usually blows hard. Umbrellas are for those who feel like getting wet.
4. Kingston is the home of 7, yes 7 prisons. That doesn't include the two just outside the city limits. One of the most famous current resident of Kingston is Paul Bernardo. Go by the Kingston Pen and say hi!
5. The mayor of Kingston has a cold attitude towards students. I mean this in the "let's have a big outdoor party in November and have the police use water cannons for crowd control" kind of way. Thank God old Harvey was re-elected in November.
6. If you are a woman and you see Dan Ackroyd at a night club, walk away. I'm not saying anything more.
7. Queen's University students are actually nice people. I'm serious. We're not all rich arrogant snobs. The Liberal Association (QULA) will undoubtedly throw a great bash for all the visitors.
8. I don't know for sure if Speaker Milliken is going to be there since this is a provincial bash. If he is there (my guess is he'd show), make sure you get a chance to say hi. A really nice guy. It might be hard to find him though because he is a bit vertically challenged. There's a reason the Speaker's chair goes up and down.

All in all, I wish you all the best in Canada's former capitol.

The Insurgency is in its Last BOOM! Throes

So, Dick Cheney is welcomed to Afghanistan by a car bomb. It used to be that these little visits were well orchestrated photo ops. Now, they seem to be an excuse for the Taliban to kill people. More than five years after the invasion of Afghanistan and things seem to be in worse shape than ever. M. Dion needs to get out there now and take Gerard Kennedy's position on Afghanistan to the people. This is a good idea for a host of reasons:

1. Kennedy was right. We need to either redesign this mission or end it. The mission as currently constructed will fail no matter how bravely and nobly our soldiers fight.
2. Calling for a withdrawal in the face of mounting Canadian casualties is a dangerous game. People can call you a coward or accuse you of using a soldier's death for political gain. However, the Canadian mission has not lost a soldier in weeks. The timing is perfect.
3. Dion has become a one-trick pony and desperately needs another trick. We cannot win the next election on the environment alone. We need to present a more comprehensive vision. Here's a first step.
4. The announced withdrawal of British troops has been viewed by many as intelligent if perhaps not completely honourable. Announcing a Canadian withdrawal at the same time will frame it in the right context.

Now, I know Mr. Ignatieff will hate this position. I don't care. Iggy's (and Harper's) argument that the overwhelming force of the American military will produce peace is demonstrably false. It would be necessary to respect the peacekeeping force in order for his plan to work. You don't try to blow up a diplomatic partner.

Kennedy's Lieutenants

I've returned from a frozen Warsaw to a slushy Lund. Still catching up on the news... I've been noticing that a lot of been centred in one way or another around members of the Gerard Kennedy campaign. From the strength of Mark Holland's work in question period, to Harper's slur of Navdeep Bains to the announcement of Justin Trudeau running in Papineau. What does this mean? Probably nothing. I'm just pointing out the coincidence.

Suzuki on the Environment

Okay, this is slightly out of context but from the Mercer Report:

David Suzuki "The planet?! Hell! what about my nuts?"

Isn't that what Alberta's asking?

I Thought Harper Was Smarter Than This

I just finished watching Harper's moronic attack on the integrity of Navdeep Bains and his family. This is unacceptable. There is no other word for it. Has Mr. Harper no sense of decency? Has he no shame? Has he no respect for the office that he holds? What's next an attack ad featuring Stephane Dion and Osama bin Laden a la Saxby Chambliss' attack on Max Cleland? Harper claims that he was merely pointing out the importance of the bill. Don't piss on my leg, and tell me it's raining. I thought Harper was trying to court minorities in the 905. This is the way to lose the 905 and any vote of a Canadian with a moral conscience. Mr. Harper may have just given the Liberals seats in the next election. It is tragic that it had to come at the expense of the good name of Navdeep Bains and his family. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

I really should just give up this politics thing now...

DemocraticSpace is reporting that the Citizens Assembly has deemed Mixed Member Proportional as the best of the non-first-past-the-past systems. This does not mean that this will be on the ballot only that if anything is on the ballot it will be this. I will reserve judgment and comment until they come out with their proposal in full. There are far too many variables undecided to start critiquing now. I just wanted to note that my preferred system, two-round voting, got exactly 0% of the vote. WOOT! I rock.

Oh... some opinion poll came out. Apparently bad news. Let's see... are we in an election yet? No? Then read my lips: it doesn't mean anything!

Could Someone Please Wake Up Alberta?

So, I just finished watching the new French Conservative attack ads. What strikes me is how far Stephen Harper has fled from his Reform Party roots. Could you imagine Preston Manning releasing an ad saying "Avec les Conservateur, Le Quebec prends des forces" as Harper does in all three of his new ads. Weren't these the guys who split from Mulroney's Tories because he gave too many concessions to Quebec. Harper's new ads talk about the ghosts of the Liberal past. Someone needs to show all those West Wants In people that their boy Harper has been possessed by the still living spirit of Brian Mulroney. The Liberals should just run the end of the Conservative ads with English subtitles in Alberta as an attack ad. Let's review the classic Reform complaints and how Harper has done:

1. Stop cow-towing to Quebec. Let's see... special deals left right and centre. Most prominently the appointment of a Quebec representative to UNESCO
2. No More Appointed Senators: Calling Senator Fortier. Not only appointed to the senate but also to Cabinet
3. Electoral Reform: ..... Was that tumbleweed?
4. More Westerners in Cabinet: Let's see, Here's some key positions in Harper's cabinet: Minister of Finance: Ontario. Minster of Health: Ontario. Minister of Foreign Affairs: Nova Scotia. Minister of Defence: Ontario. Minister of Transport: Quebec.
   

Four strikes and you're.... rewarded with 28 seats in the next election. Mulroney in a cowboy hat is not a Reformer. WAKE UP!!!

It's Quebec Stupid

I openly worried about Stephane Dion's electability in La Belle Provence before he became leader. I am still worried today. Especially, as the next election seems to be destined to be in some way or another focused on Quebec. The first thing that is related to Quebec is the timing. With the Quebec election now basically set for the end of March after the federal budget, the federal election will take place after that, how far depends on who pulls the plug. Here are the scenarios:

1. What the Bloc and the Liberals want: If Charest wins it will in all likelihood be related to his ability to get a deal on the 'fiscal imbalance.' Therefore, the opposition will be reluctant to go right after a budget that is popular in Quebec. If Boisclair wins on the other hand, the Bloc will sense momentum for separatism and the Liberals will be able to portray Mr. Harper as being unable to stop separatism.
2. What the Harper wants: If Charest wins, Harper will undoubtedly view this as a ringing endorsement from Quebecois. He will try to force the opposition to bring him down. On the other hand, if Boisclair wins, Harper will be forced to wait lest he try to run on a budget that was rebuked by Quebeckers.

In any case, Quebec is likely to be the reason Canadians go the polls. M. Dion's credibility in the province is still low. Quebeckers are getting tired of voting for a party that can never hold power and are looking for an alternative. Right now, they don't see one. The Conservatives are so wildly out of step with Quebec on almost every policy area and Stephane Dion, as the Bloc is sure to remind voters, is the author of the Clarity Act. Stephane Dion may prefer to wear a green scarf, but the Clarity Act is still the millstone he wears in his home province. M. Dion may have helped to relieve his ultra-federalist label by voting for nation motion in December but he is still toxic to many Quebeckers. If Liberals are able to win the next election it will be because Dion is able to reinvent himself in Quebec. I hope that he will but as I say I'm worried.

I would be very embarassed if he became Premier of Ontario

So John Tory is putting out some self-serving ads on what a great and compassionate leader he is. The theme of the ads seems to be that all his friends like him so you should too. These ads are beyond boring. He's trying to introduce himself to the people of Ontario. Fine, go ahead. I'm waiting for Tory to go negative like he did in 1993. It makes me sick to my stomach that Tory is trying to portray himself as being above the mudslinging when he approved that ad. I know everyone is allowed to make mistakes, but to me that ad is unforgivable. Don't believe the hype Ontario.

Congratulations

To George Smitherman on being engaged to be married. The deputy premier and minister of health for Ontario is one of my favourite politicians. A community advocate and tough critic during his time in opposition, Smitherman has become one of the stars of the McGuinty government. A tough no- nonsense politician, Smitherman is unafraid to tell it like it is. He has fought hard for the people of Ontario in successive negotiations with hospitals and their staff and has been largely successful. All the best to him and his groom-to-be.

Morning in America Part 2?

Apparently I've caught Obama fever because here's another post on the junior Senator from Illinois. So at left is the official Obama campaign symbol. A rising sun over an American flag. Hmmm... why does this sound familiar? Oh yeah, Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America." That's right. So, Obama announces his candidacy in the hometown of Abraham Lincoln with Ronald Reagan's imagery. Is this a subtle indication that he is moderate enough to get elected? Probably not. Is he going to do his next campaign event on USS Eisenhower with a Teddy Roosevelt monocle? The symbol does fit the Obama campaign idea of a new hope for America and a new politic. However, it is disturbingly Reagan-esque. I guess playing to history isn't a bad idea. I just would have thought he would have gone JFK not Reagan.

Obamania

Barack Obama announces his candidacy for president today. I'm really curious to see if he connects with the average American. Three of the top Democratic contenders are a woman, a black man, and a Hispanic. This should be interesting.

Insert Bad Turner Pun Here

Garth is a Grit. Woop dee doo. I don't oppose floor crossing. I believe MP's are at least in theory a local representative first and a partisan second. The best MP's in the house fit that description. It's one of the reasons I oppose systems of proportional representation based on party success. Therefore, I do not morally oppose Turner's move to the Grit benches. However, I do think we might have lost our chance to win Halton in the next election. Turner runs as an independent or a Green, he splits the Conservative vote and the Liberals win. Now, Conservatives can run a candidate and talk about a betrayal of trust etc. etc. Turner could win the next election but he's no shoe-in. Garth, I believe you know Belinda and Scott? Welcome to the party. The more the merrier.

Side note: Could all the members of the Green party take themselves off Liblogs? I know not everyone on that list is a card carrying member but if you're a member of another party get your own blog roll. At the end of the day, it's not my decision. Cherniak can do what he wants. It just annoys me to see so much rooting for another party by so-called Liberals.

I'm Seeing Red.... or Orange Again

David Miller is at it again. This time he wants to stop development in the Queen West area. Apparently, the construction of low-income condos will threaten the artists of the community. Mr. Miller's argument is that art can only be created in poor housing. Condos are clearly destroyers of all creativity. When you move into a condo, apparently all you see is ones and zeros. Give me a break! When will this Mayor and his allies learn that the best thing this city is to go dense? New York still has its character and its charm. Oh, and just a little bit of creative capital. Miller has done nothing but hold Toronto back and contribute to urban sprawl. Thank God the OMB is slightly smarter than Miller on this one.

A Disheartening Choice

This post is very local. If you don't go to Queen's you really won't care. Queen's University is holding its elections for the executive of its student government, the AMS, tomorrow and Wednesday. My vote is lost as there is no way for students on exchange to vote. However, because I'll read anything that's political, I've been looking at the two teams running this year. I am completely unimpressed. Here's a brief summary of the teams.

CMM: Kingsley Chak et al. provide a laundry list for the voters. The green thing I like but I doubt the AMS' ability to make a difference outside its own offices. They also provide support for things like a video tour of Queen's for incoming students. This is clearly a vote getter for students already at Queen's. Some stuff about making it easier to get involved in the AMS. Unless you work for the AMS, you never think about it.

TPC: Alvin Tedjo et al. are proposing things that they will never be able to do. They propose a revived and expanded flex-card that's just too expensive to get off the ground. Their promise to provide cheap LSAT lessons makes my eyebrows go way up. How exactly do you make it cheaper? How do we pay for it? Any specifics whatsoever? They also want to interfere with the faculty societies which would seem to be overstepping their jurisdiction. Think of Stephen Harper telling Ontario how to run its schools. Like provincial premiers the society presidents will not like the intrusion into their turf.

Common: Mental health is on both platforms. A problem but not something that people are going to go out and vote for. So is the green stuff. The presidential candidates both have losing records. My memory says Chak was acclaimed or beat one horrible candidate for the position he holds on the board of trustees. Tedjo finished last in the ASUS race last year.

In other words, yawn!!! Apparently, the golden cockroach is going to solve the housing issues in the ghetto. Tuition's going up, no discussion. Big report on racism, CMM gives a vague PC paragraph, nothing from TPC. CMM seems to want to be in office to do some housekeeping. TPC has big ideas that won't work. Sigh. There's a campaign out there to spoil ballots. If I could get my hands on mine, I would do it. I don't believe in spoiling ballots normally but this is like choosing between Abercrombie and Fitch. These two teams are so inside the JDUC it's stupid. Voter turn-out will be abysmal. I think there will be a bunch of spoiled ballot for the returning officers to sort through.

The Emperor has No Clothes

No, this post is not about Bush or even Harper. This is about Kyoto. Stephane Dion is barking up the Kyoto tree again. This time a resolution in the house. This might be politically savvy. It is also bad policy. I've written about the flaws of Kyoto before. I will simply say that the Kyoto process is dying. The post-Kyoto negotiations are going nowhere. In order to stop global warming, we must engage the entire world. This cannot be a white people plus Japan thing as it is now. The argument that the first world are the major polluters is only valid until a billion Chinese and a billion Indians are driving cars. Dion has credibility on the world stage on this issue. If the Conservatives want to steal our environment policy, let's steal theirs. A "made in Canada" solution is viable but not just for Canada. Let's find a way to engage the Americans, engage the Indians who are currently outside the Kyoto process. Let's see if there's any legitimacy to that whole "honest broker" and "middle power" thing. We can stop global warming. We can't do it through Kyoto. Let's lead the world and find a real solution. Let's give the emperor some clothes.