50 Billion Dollars Isn't Spent In A Day

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

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

Net Result: $6.5 Billion Surplus

Here's what actually happened after Tory irresponsibility:

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

Net Result: $1.1. Billion Deficit

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

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

Total: 12.5% (obviously some rounding here)

Here's what the Tories produced:

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

Total: 12.2%

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

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

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

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

Bryant Gets Out

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

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

There's A Reason We Have A Representative Democracy

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

Obama Sends Potential Rival to China

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

Attack Ads

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

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

Post-Referendum Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You British Columbia

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

Please BC, Say No to STV

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

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

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

British Columbians Becoming Increasingly Forgetful

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

Political Deaths

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

A Bad Session For the YLC

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

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

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

The Kitchen Sink Strategy Pays Off

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

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

Convention Names

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

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

Any other thoughts?

Lastman's Last Laugh

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

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

The Popular Vote and The Role of Political Parties

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

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

Globe Maintains Opposition to STV

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

A More Comprehensive Argument Against BC-STV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slow Road To Expensive Elections

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

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

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

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

Could This Convention Actually Get Interesting?

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

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

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