So, this is my long promised analysis of the NDP coming out of the October 14th election. This will probably conclude my series on issues arising from the election. After this, I will probably turn my attention to Liberal leadership politics and the American election.
To begin with, the NDP accomplishments out of this election should be stated. A net gain of seven seats over the standings at dissolution, and a gain of 0.65% of the vote on top of the 2006 election. The gain of seats is nothing to sneeze at, particularly as they largely represent a new power base for the NDP in Northern Ontario, as the NDP won seven of the ten seats that make up the region, failing to gain only Kenora, Nippising-Timiskaming, and Parry Sound-Muskoka. Of those three, Kenora is within reach for the next election. Also important, is that for the first time ever, the NDP won a seat in Quebec in a general election, and for only the second time ever, the NDP took seats in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador. There were also a number of seats where the NDP came very close to making gains: St. John's South - Mt. Pearl, South Shore-St. Margaret's, Gatineau, Oshawa, Beaches-East York, Palliser, Regina-Qu'Appelle and Nunavut. There are also a number seats that the NDP lost control of by a narrow margin that join the forgoing as the low-hanging fruit: Parkdale-High Park (more on this one later), Surrey-North and Vancouver Island North. That makes twelve seats that could reasonably be called low-hanging fruit for the NDP, and if we can take them all and hold what we have in the next election, that would take the NDP to 49 seats, which would be the party's highest ever number of seats.
Another important thing for the NDP is that the party's vote is becoming much more effective. Over the last many elections, the NDP vote has been consistently under-represented in the number of seats won. In the 2004 election, the NDP took 15.68% of the vote, but only got a paltry 6.17% of the seats. It took 111 968 NDP votes to win one seat. In 2006, the NDP took 17.48% of the vote, and garnered 9.41% of the seats. This means 89 296 votes for the NDP to win a single seat. In the 2008 election, the NDP got 18.13% of the vote while taking 12.01% of the seats in the House. This meant it took 67 814 votes for the NDP to win one seat for the party. Between 2004 and 2008, the NDP nearly doubled its vote effectiveness, representing both an increase in the total NDP vote and an increasing concentration of that vote in certain ridings.
This is an important trend for the NDP. In the 2004 election, the winning party took 43.83% of the seats with 36.73% of the vote. It took them 36 579 votes to win one seat. In 2006, the numbers for the winning party were 40.26% of the seats with 36.27% of the vote, and 42 992 votes per seat. In 2008, the numbers were 46.43% of the seats with 37.63% of the vote, and 36 416 votes per seat. The NDP is moving steadily toward a level of vote effectiveness similar to the winning parties in the last three elections. There is an important caveat to this, however. The last three elections have elected minority governments, and minority governments are generally less vote effective than majorities. To take the high water mark of vote effectiveness for a winning party in recent times, in the 1984 election the Progressive Conservatives needed only 29 757 votes to win a seat, and won a massive majority. The low water mark of recent majority governments was the 1997 election, in which it took the Liberals 32 221 votes to win a seat. Clearly, the NDP has a long way to go even to reach that low water mark.
There we have the NDP gains out of the recent election: substantial gains in Northern Ontario; landmark victories in ridings in Quebec, Newfoundland & Labrador and Alberta; substantial low-hanging fruit for the next election; and steadily increasing vote effectiveness. However, there is a reason I have labelled these accomplishments a "Pyrrhic victory". For those unfamiliar with the term, it means a victory that costs is very costly, sometimes to the point of costing you more than you have won. The main reason for my applying this label is that this election seems to have exposed a fairly hard popular vote ceiling for the NDP.
Over the last two elections, the NDP share of the popular vote has grown only marginally, increasing by only 2.45 percentage points over that time. In the election just passed, the NDP share of the popular vote grew by only 0.65 percentage points. A negligible gain. This despite what should have been perfect conditions for the party. A woefully incompetent Liberal leader, at the helm of a disastrously bad campaign. A Conservative Party making gaffe upon gaffe, including Gerry "Death by 1000 Cold Cuts" Ritz, and a strong Anyone But Conservative campaign, led by that masterful politician Danny Williams. The party also spent up to the Elections Canada limit (going deeply into debt to do so), and ran a huge ad campaign in Quebec. I saw more NDP ads on TV than I did Liberals ads. And for all that, the party gained a minuscule percentage of the vote, and due to the low turnout, actually took in a reduced absolute number of votes (as, in fairness, did every one of the parties represented in Parliament - sorry Greenies).
For all of the effort and treasure expended, the NDP gained a net of seven seats, and lost the best rookie MP in Parliament Peggy Nash (defeated by the execrable Gerrard Kennedy), and lost seats that should have been winnable. The high-water mark of votes received in Atlantic Canada (including coming first in the popular vote in Nova Scotia), may not be replicated next election, since the NDP can't expect to see another ABC campaign by Williams, indeed he seems to have given up on that already. Further, the next Liberal leader will not be such a milquetoast as Dion was, and in fact is likely to be either Iggy or Rae, both of whom are political street-fighters.
This was the NDP's golden moment to make the break from fourth-party status. A collection of factors that may never appear together again united to pave the way for the NDP to make a major move, perhaps even to official opposition status, though likely for this to happen the Conservatives would have had to win a majority government and decimate the Liberals completely. That doesn't bear thinking about. None the less, this was the perfect storm for the NDP, and the opportunity was missed, though not for a lack of effort on the part of the party. These results simply suggest that in Canada's four-party reality, the 18-20% range may be a cap on NDP support.
Much of the future prospects for the NDP depend on what happens with the Liberal leadership campaign. If they pick a leader on the right of their party (Iggy, Manley or McKenna), then there may be an opening for the NDP to scoop up left-Liberals, and claim seats in Atlantic Canada, urban Ontario and Vancouver. The NDP could still make a move, and perhaps surpass the BQ, moving into third place. If the Liberals select a leader from the relative-left of their party (Rae, Kennedy), as suggested by Devin Johnston in an excellent discussion of the Liberals after the last election, then the NDP may be in serious trouble. Those leaders would be able to take back recently gained NDP seats in the same areas I've identified above.
Frankly, I have no idea how the NDP should go about breaking this vote ceiling. The NDP has tried just about everything, and nothing has worked. The party polled as high as 22% during the election campaign, but fell back on election night. If I did have the answer to this, I would phone up the NDP and be hired on to win the next election. But such is life. One thing that I can promise you is not the solution is moving the party to the economic right. The party has drifted too much for my socialist comfort as it is, and I don't know how long I could go on supporting an NDP that had become a clone of the Liberals. If the NDP makes itself indistinguishable from the Liberals, leftist New Democrats will leave the party for a new left alternative, and centrist Dippers will return to the Liberals. The party will also shed voters to the Green Party. Only by presenting a distinct policy alternative, and an economic critique, can the NDP hope to succeed, but this is simply a pre-condition of success, not a plan for reaching it.
Whatever happens, the NDP needs to do some soul searching as to while this golden moment yielded minimal gains. And it needs to happen soon.
This wraps up my planned entries on issues I see resulting from the October 14th election. As before, if there is something I haven't addressed that you'd like me too, feel free to leave a comment or e-mail me at ts-blog@live.ca, and I'll look into it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 84
Monday, October 27, 2008
Failed Halifax Politician to Run for Liberal Leadership
From the "Holy crap that's funny" files, a losing candidate for mayor of Halifax, David Boyd, has declared that he is planning to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. This is screamingly funny because Boyd has never in his life won an election, and he has tried at both the municipal and provincial levels. This will be his first stab at federal office. I think it's safe to say that he won't win it. However it is a sign of the sad state of the Liberal Party that this joker is even considering running.
I know I promised an entry on the NDP coming out of the October 14th elections, and it is coming. Soon.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 84
I know I promised an entry on the NDP coming out of the October 14th elections, and it is coming. Soon.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 84
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Decline of the Liberal Party of Canada
This is the fourth post in my continuing series about issues pointed out by the election held on October 14. In this entry, I will deal with the decline of the Liberal Party of Canada, and where it goes from here.
"Whither the Liberals" is a common question these days, being asked by everyone from the columnists of the Globe and Mail, though notably not the Liberal mouthpieces at the Toronto Star, to average Canadian political junkies. And this question is asked with good reason. What was once the Big Red Machine, that won three Consecutive majority governments for Jean Chretien, a feat equalled only by William Lyon Mackenzie King, Sir Wilfred Laurier and Sir John A. Macdonald. From this height of political dominance, the Liberals have fallen to their worst ever percentage of the vote, and their second worst number of seats ever (exceeded only by the meltdown of the Liberal Party under John Turner in 1984).
The Liberals as recently as the 2000 elections ran the table in Ontario, won most of Atlantic Canada, and won sizable percentages of the seats in Quebec and British Columbia. Now, by contrast, the Liberals are reduced to a rump in Western and Northern Canada, having only one seat in Manitoba, one seat in Saskatchewan, the Yukon and five seats in B.C. In central Canada, the Liberals have been reduced to an urban rump, taking only one non-urban seat in Central Canada (Nipising-Timiskaming) and otherwise being confined to Greater Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Kingston, Guelph and London. Only in Atlantic Canada did the Liberals do decently, netting a loss of only two seats.
The question that seems to be all around these days is whether the Liberals can come back from this. There seems to have been a marked shift in Canada. In the Liberals former power-base of Ontario, which is still the source of their single largest chunk of seats, the province is now divided into the three - the north where the NDP is strong, rural and some urban parts of eastern, central and south-western Ontario where the Conservatives are strong, and urban Ontario, where the Liberals have their remaining base, but are also challenged by the NDP. In Quebec, with the exception of Hull-Aylmer, the Liberals are confined to Montreal. In BC, the Liberal vote is concentrated in the west side of Vancouver, winning three seats there and two seats outside of the actual city of Vancouver, while the NDP and Conservatives challenge them within Vancouver, while the NDP and Conservatives take the seats across the lower mainland, and the Conservatives, with two notable exceptions, dominate the north and the interior. The prairies are largely a write off for the Liberals.
It is difficult to see how the Liberals rebound from this defeat and reverse these trends. For the last three elections, Liberal support has been trending down and has become increasingly concentrated into the areas I have catalogued. This pattern was, of course, exacerbated by Adscam, and by Dion's hideously bad leadership. The next leader of the Liberals will have to do something, and something drastic, to turn this around.
The Liberal Party of Canada will have two options. 1) Elect a leader from the left wing of their party and try to go after the NDP's votes. 2) Elect a leader from the right wing of the party and try to go after Conservative votes.
The first option is a route that will likely yield short-term gains, as the Liberals may be able to claim back seats lost to the NDP, such as Welland, Ottawa Centre, Trinity-Spadina, Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, Hamilton-Mountain and the seats in Northern Ontario. However, in the long term this is a losing strategy for the Liberals. There are simply not enough NDP seats they could win and votes to pull to take them back into minority government territory, never mind opposition.
The second option features primarily Ignatieff, Manley or Mackenna. A right-leaning leader would be able to draw back Liberal-Conservative swing voters, and this puts many more seats into play. Probably 30 seats in Ontario would come into play, as would seats in and around Winnipeg, and seats on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. This is the strategy that will possibly yield a renewed and governing Liberal Party. As a corollory to this, the Liberals need to once again focus on winning the votes of immigrant populations. These groups are important in the 905 and in the Lower Mainland. Essentially, what the Liberals need to do is rebuild their centre-centre-right governing coalition, that fell apart over the last eight years.
However, the Liberal Party of Canada has devoted itself almost pathalogically to trying to take down the NDP. The Liberals seem to regard the NDP as being a theif of votes that "rightfully" belong to the Liberals. If this obsession continues to possess the Liberals, they will pick a left-leaning leader and go after the NDP. Given that there are a number of seats where the NDP competes with the Conservatives in the west and wins by relatively narrow margins, an attack on the NDP as the plan for a Liberal recovery would have some major unintended consequences. If the Liberals suck away NDP votes in the west, that will tip seats to the Conservatives, and make it harder for the Liberals to overtake the CPC. Picking a right-leaning leader however, could tip a number of BC races that are between the CPC and NDP to the NDP, and thus reduce the number of seats that the Liberals must gain in order to overtake the Conservatives for government.
The Liberals must pick carefully when they choose a new leader in May. Going for the easy, short-term gains will be attractive, but ultimately counter-productive. The only road back to power for the Liberals runs through the newly gained Conservative seats in Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and New Brunswick. Taking the wrong road could ultimately plough the Liberals into the ground permanently.
I will continue this series by discussing the NDP's outcome from the election in my next entry.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 90
"Whither the Liberals" is a common question these days, being asked by everyone from the columnists of the Globe and Mail, though notably not the Liberal mouthpieces at the Toronto Star, to average Canadian political junkies. And this question is asked with good reason. What was once the Big Red Machine, that won three Consecutive majority governments for Jean Chretien, a feat equalled only by William Lyon Mackenzie King, Sir Wilfred Laurier and Sir John A. Macdonald. From this height of political dominance, the Liberals have fallen to their worst ever percentage of the vote, and their second worst number of seats ever (exceeded only by the meltdown of the Liberal Party under John Turner in 1984).
The Liberals as recently as the 2000 elections ran the table in Ontario, won most of Atlantic Canada, and won sizable percentages of the seats in Quebec and British Columbia. Now, by contrast, the Liberals are reduced to a rump in Western and Northern Canada, having only one seat in Manitoba, one seat in Saskatchewan, the Yukon and five seats in B.C. In central Canada, the Liberals have been reduced to an urban rump, taking only one non-urban seat in Central Canada (Nipising-Timiskaming) and otherwise being confined to Greater Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Kingston, Guelph and London. Only in Atlantic Canada did the Liberals do decently, netting a loss of only two seats.
The question that seems to be all around these days is whether the Liberals can come back from this. There seems to have been a marked shift in Canada. In the Liberals former power-base of Ontario, which is still the source of their single largest chunk of seats, the province is now divided into the three - the north where the NDP is strong, rural and some urban parts of eastern, central and south-western Ontario where the Conservatives are strong, and urban Ontario, where the Liberals have their remaining base, but are also challenged by the NDP. In Quebec, with the exception of Hull-Aylmer, the Liberals are confined to Montreal. In BC, the Liberal vote is concentrated in the west side of Vancouver, winning three seats there and two seats outside of the actual city of Vancouver, while the NDP and Conservatives challenge them within Vancouver, while the NDP and Conservatives take the seats across the lower mainland, and the Conservatives, with two notable exceptions, dominate the north and the interior. The prairies are largely a write off for the Liberals.
It is difficult to see how the Liberals rebound from this defeat and reverse these trends. For the last three elections, Liberal support has been trending down and has become increasingly concentrated into the areas I have catalogued. This pattern was, of course, exacerbated by Adscam, and by Dion's hideously bad leadership. The next leader of the Liberals will have to do something, and something drastic, to turn this around.
The Liberal Party of Canada will have two options. 1) Elect a leader from the left wing of their party and try to go after the NDP's votes. 2) Elect a leader from the right wing of the party and try to go after Conservative votes.
The first option is a route that will likely yield short-term gains, as the Liberals may be able to claim back seats lost to the NDP, such as Welland, Ottawa Centre, Trinity-Spadina, Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, Hamilton-Mountain and the seats in Northern Ontario. However, in the long term this is a losing strategy for the Liberals. There are simply not enough NDP seats they could win and votes to pull to take them back into minority government territory, never mind opposition.
The second option features primarily Ignatieff, Manley or Mackenna. A right-leaning leader would be able to draw back Liberal-Conservative swing voters, and this puts many more seats into play. Probably 30 seats in Ontario would come into play, as would seats in and around Winnipeg, and seats on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. This is the strategy that will possibly yield a renewed and governing Liberal Party. As a corollory to this, the Liberals need to once again focus on winning the votes of immigrant populations. These groups are important in the 905 and in the Lower Mainland. Essentially, what the Liberals need to do is rebuild their centre-centre-right governing coalition, that fell apart over the last eight years.
However, the Liberal Party of Canada has devoted itself almost pathalogically to trying to take down the NDP. The Liberals seem to regard the NDP as being a theif of votes that "rightfully" belong to the Liberals. If this obsession continues to possess the Liberals, they will pick a left-leaning leader and go after the NDP. Given that there are a number of seats where the NDP competes with the Conservatives in the west and wins by relatively narrow margins, an attack on the NDP as the plan for a Liberal recovery would have some major unintended consequences. If the Liberals suck away NDP votes in the west, that will tip seats to the Conservatives, and make it harder for the Liberals to overtake the CPC. Picking a right-leaning leader however, could tip a number of BC races that are between the CPC and NDP to the NDP, and thus reduce the number of seats that the Liberals must gain in order to overtake the Conservatives for government.
The Liberals must pick carefully when they choose a new leader in May. Going for the easy, short-term gains will be attractive, but ultimately counter-productive. The only road back to power for the Liberals runs through the newly gained Conservative seats in Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and New Brunswick. Taking the wrong road could ultimately plough the Liberals into the ground permanently.
I will continue this series by discussing the NDP's outcome from the election in my next entry.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 90
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Women and the New Parliament
This entry is the third in my continuing series on issues that have been pointed out by the most recent elections. This discussion will focus on the pathetic level of representation that Canada has of women in the House of Commons.
In the election of 2006 , of 308 MPs elected, 66 of them were women, or 21%. This put Canada in the lower tier of long-standing democracies for representation of women in the legislative branch of government. In the election just concluded, the number of women elected has increased slightly t0 68, or 22%. Embarrassingly, this is a historic high for Canada in the representation of women. The greatest absolute number of female MPs elected in the Conservatives with twenty-three, but this is simply a function of the fact that they have a caucus twice as large as the Liberals, three times as large as the BQ and three-and-a-half times as large as that of the NDP. The NDP has the greatest percentage of female members in the caucus, at approximately 36% (twelve members out of thirty-seven).
This situation is, frankly, pathetic. Canada is a country that has equality for women enshrined in the Constitution, and yet we can't seem to manage the election of women to the House of Commons in anything like their proportion to the population. Many other countries do much better, and some (like Rwanda) have even managed to achieve greater than 50% representation of women, giving women representation proportional to their share of the population.
Now, I'm not going to suggest that this problem in Canada is due to misogyny, but there are two important factors. The first is latent sexism in our society that fosters impressions of women as less capable or less devoted. I don't think, in most people, that this is a conscious prejudice, but rather an unconscious impression fostered by societal conditioning. The second factor is the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. 'What?' I hear you ask. It works like this: a system of FPTP elections creates a situation in which the candidates nominated in the individual ridings must be those deemed to be most electable. Because of the first factor above, parties tend to believe that women are less electable than men, and in consequence, fewer women are nominated and of necessity fewer women are elected.
This problem is not one that is easily fixable, and both of the solutions require a ton of work, but I think both of them need to be done, and both are doable. First off, we need to work on wiping out the latest sexism in society. This means stamping on sexism wherever it occurs, whether it be in exploitative advertising or the "pink-collar ghetto." When we do this, it will help increase the representation of women within the FPTP system. Secondly, we need to change that FPTP system. In a PR system, the parties could much more easily achieve proportional representation of women through electoral lists. When the two means were combined, it would be a set of potent steps to address the problem of the under-representation of women.
In an ideal world, and I do believe that we should work toward an ideal world even if we don't get there (because you can't get there if you don't try), women would be represented exactly in proportion to their population, and this would be accomplished voluntarily by the political parties, both through their electoral lists and through their nomination processes. However until we get there, we first need to work on squashing sexism, and changing our political system. If we can bring an end to sexism, then any number of things in society will improve, from violence against women to the prosperity of society (since more women with low incomes will earn more money, injecting it back into the economy rather than concentrating it in the hands of old, rich white men who will put it in Swiss accounts and dodge taxes).
We can all do our bit, and hopefully when the next election rolls around, we will see a significant increase in the number of women elected. And hopefully a couple elections from now there will be some real momentum toward electoral reform.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 92
In the election of 2006 , of 308 MPs elected, 66 of them were women, or 21%. This put Canada in the lower tier of long-standing democracies for representation of women in the legislative branch of government. In the election just concluded, the number of women elected has increased slightly t0 68, or 22%. Embarrassingly, this is a historic high for Canada in the representation of women. The greatest absolute number of female MPs elected in the Conservatives with twenty-three, but this is simply a function of the fact that they have a caucus twice as large as the Liberals, three times as large as the BQ and three-and-a-half times as large as that of the NDP. The NDP has the greatest percentage of female members in the caucus, at approximately 36% (twelve members out of thirty-seven).
This situation is, frankly, pathetic. Canada is a country that has equality for women enshrined in the Constitution, and yet we can't seem to manage the election of women to the House of Commons in anything like their proportion to the population. Many other countries do much better, and some (like Rwanda) have even managed to achieve greater than 50% representation of women, giving women representation proportional to their share of the population.
Now, I'm not going to suggest that this problem in Canada is due to misogyny, but there are two important factors. The first is latent sexism in our society that fosters impressions of women as less capable or less devoted. I don't think, in most people, that this is a conscious prejudice, but rather an unconscious impression fostered by societal conditioning. The second factor is the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. 'What?' I hear you ask. It works like this: a system of FPTP elections creates a situation in which the candidates nominated in the individual ridings must be those deemed to be most electable. Because of the first factor above, parties tend to believe that women are less electable than men, and in consequence, fewer women are nominated and of necessity fewer women are elected.
This problem is not one that is easily fixable, and both of the solutions require a ton of work, but I think both of them need to be done, and both are doable. First off, we need to work on wiping out the latest sexism in society. This means stamping on sexism wherever it occurs, whether it be in exploitative advertising or the "pink-collar ghetto." When we do this, it will help increase the representation of women within the FPTP system. Secondly, we need to change that FPTP system. In a PR system, the parties could much more easily achieve proportional representation of women through electoral lists. When the two means were combined, it would be a set of potent steps to address the problem of the under-representation of women.
In an ideal world, and I do believe that we should work toward an ideal world even if we don't get there (because you can't get there if you don't try), women would be represented exactly in proportion to their population, and this would be accomplished voluntarily by the political parties, both through their electoral lists and through their nomination processes. However until we get there, we first need to work on squashing sexism, and changing our political system. If we can bring an end to sexism, then any number of things in society will improve, from violence against women to the prosperity of society (since more women with low incomes will earn more money, injecting it back into the economy rather than concentrating it in the hands of old, rich white men who will put it in Swiss accounts and dodge taxes).
We can all do our bit, and hopefully when the next election rolls around, we will see a significant increase in the number of women elected. And hopefully a couple elections from now there will be some real momentum toward electoral reform.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 92
Friday, October 17, 2008
Disproportion and the Failures of First-Past-the-Post
It seems that Ed Broadbent beat me to the punch on this one with his column in today's Globe and Mail (here). The election held on Tuesday has resulted in a hugely disproportionate result, though in that it isn't all that different from any other election in recent Canadian history.
Tuesday nights results, when you incorporate percentage of the vote and percentage of the seats look like this (vote %/seats/seat %):
CPC - 37.6/143/46.4
LPC - 26.2/76/24.6
NDP - 18.2/37/12.0
BQ - 10.0/50/16.2
GPC - 6.8/0/0.0
As can be seen, only the Liberals share of the seats even remotely reflected their share of the vote. The Conservatives are over-represented by 28 seats (or 19.5% of their seats), the Liberals are under-represented by 4 seats (or 5.2% of their seats) , the NDP is under-represented by 19 seats (51.3% of their seats), the BQ is over-represented by 19 seats (or 38.0% of their seats), and the Green result was distorted most of all, being under-represented by 21 seats when they won none at all.
As Mr. Broadbent points out, and I highly recommend that people read his article, if Canadian's votes had been accurately reflected in the seat distributions in the House of Commons we would be looking at a solid and stable centre-left coalition government between the Liberals, NDP and Green Party, with 157 seats. There would be a strong right-wing opposition from the Conservatives with 115 seats, and a significant presence for a regional party in the Bloc Quebecois with 31 seats. Canadians would get government by a set of parties that, in certain areas, have substantial policy agreement. Canadians would get action on climate change, we would get universal early childhood education, we would get coverage for at least catastrophic drug costs. And we would be spared government by a party that more than 60% of Canadians who voted rejected.
Our system of elections is, frankly, outmoded and archaic. Every modern multiparty democracy (except the United Kingdom) has adopted a system of proportional representation, and with a couple of high profile exceptions that everyone knows about (Italy and Israel), these systems of proportional representation result in stable governing coalitions with elections no more often than in Canada, and substantially higher levels of voter participation at election time. Our electoral system was designed for a time in which there were only two parties attracting any significant number of votes and is inappropriate for a context in which five parties draw more than 5% of the vote. Almost every other system also has a much higher level of representation of women and visible minorities. Many other multiparty democracies have even manged to elect women as head of government (Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Benezir Bhutto, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Corazon Aquino, Eugenia Charles, Indira Gandhi, Zinaida Greceanîi, Sheikh Hassina Wazed, Anneli Tuulikki Jäätteenmäki, Janet Jagan and many others).
Our electoral system also exaggerates the strength of parties that have managed to pull together concentrated bases of support. The BQ got just over half of the votes the NDP did and yet will seat thirteen more members when the new Parliament is convened. Meanwhile the Green Party, with support dispersed across the country, but only about 3 percentage points less than the BQ, will seat no members at all despite receiving the support of close to 1 million Canadians. Just because a party's support is scattered across the country does not mean that those who vote for that party should be functionally disenfranchized.
This election points up the need for us to switch to a system of proportional representation along the lines of Germany or New Zealand. Their systems give the benefits of proportionality while still maintaining local representation. That would be fully in accord with the Canadian tradition. Hell, at this point I would take any system that would give us proportionality. I very much hope that BC voters will approve electoral reform when they get the chance to vote on it in 2009. If they don't a double defeat in BC and a rather resounding defeat in Ontario will likely scotch the idea for a generation.
Canadians need to wake up and realize that there won't be a change unless and until the people force their democratic representatives to do something about it. The Conservatives won't change it, as they currently benefit from it. The Liberals won't change it because generally speaking they benefit from it. The BQ won't change it, because they would fade dramatically in prominence under a proportional system. The NDP doesn't have the strength to force the change, and the Green Party has no votes in the House to contribute to the cause. Not until one of the two biggest parties can be forced into adopting PR as a policy plank can there be a change. To force that change there must be concerted citizen action. I urge everyone who reads this and agrees to get in touch with Fair Vote Canada, and see how you can help in your community. That goes double for anyone who lives in BC. Don't let anyone tell you it can't be done, just get out there an do it.
I'm looking to continue this series on issues highlighted by the recent election, and my next entry will probably be related to this one and focus on the under-representation of women in the new Parliament.
Oh, and just as an aside, this is my 100th entry. Go me.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 94
Tuesday nights results, when you incorporate percentage of the vote and percentage of the seats look like this (vote %/seats/seat %):
CPC - 37.6/143/46.4
LPC - 26.2/76/24.6
NDP - 18.2/37/12.0
BQ - 10.0/50/16.2
GPC - 6.8/0/0.0
As can be seen, only the Liberals share of the seats even remotely reflected their share of the vote. The Conservatives are over-represented by 28 seats (or 19.5% of their seats), the Liberals are under-represented by 4 seats (or 5.2% of their seats) , the NDP is under-represented by 19 seats (51.3% of their seats), the BQ is over-represented by 19 seats (or 38.0% of their seats), and the Green result was distorted most of all, being under-represented by 21 seats when they won none at all.
As Mr. Broadbent points out, and I highly recommend that people read his article, if Canadian's votes had been accurately reflected in the seat distributions in the House of Commons we would be looking at a solid and stable centre-left coalition government between the Liberals, NDP and Green Party, with 157 seats. There would be a strong right-wing opposition from the Conservatives with 115 seats, and a significant presence for a regional party in the Bloc Quebecois with 31 seats. Canadians would get government by a set of parties that, in certain areas, have substantial policy agreement. Canadians would get action on climate change, we would get universal early childhood education, we would get coverage for at least catastrophic drug costs. And we would be spared government by a party that more than 60% of Canadians who voted rejected.
Our system of elections is, frankly, outmoded and archaic. Every modern multiparty democracy (except the United Kingdom) has adopted a system of proportional representation, and with a couple of high profile exceptions that everyone knows about (Italy and Israel), these systems of proportional representation result in stable governing coalitions with elections no more often than in Canada, and substantially higher levels of voter participation at election time. Our electoral system was designed for a time in which there were only two parties attracting any significant number of votes and is inappropriate for a context in which five parties draw more than 5% of the vote. Almost every other system also has a much higher level of representation of women and visible minorities. Many other multiparty democracies have even manged to elect women as head of government (Golda Meir, Angela Merkel, Benezir Bhutto, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Corazon Aquino, Eugenia Charles, Indira Gandhi, Zinaida Greceanîi, Sheikh Hassina Wazed, Anneli Tuulikki Jäätteenmäki, Janet Jagan and many others).
Our electoral system also exaggerates the strength of parties that have managed to pull together concentrated bases of support. The BQ got just over half of the votes the NDP did and yet will seat thirteen more members when the new Parliament is convened. Meanwhile the Green Party, with support dispersed across the country, but only about 3 percentage points less than the BQ, will seat no members at all despite receiving the support of close to 1 million Canadians. Just because a party's support is scattered across the country does not mean that those who vote for that party should be functionally disenfranchized.
This election points up the need for us to switch to a system of proportional representation along the lines of Germany or New Zealand. Their systems give the benefits of proportionality while still maintaining local representation. That would be fully in accord with the Canadian tradition. Hell, at this point I would take any system that would give us proportionality. I very much hope that BC voters will approve electoral reform when they get the chance to vote on it in 2009. If they don't a double defeat in BC and a rather resounding defeat in Ontario will likely scotch the idea for a generation.
Canadians need to wake up and realize that there won't be a change unless and until the people force their democratic representatives to do something about it. The Conservatives won't change it, as they currently benefit from it. The Liberals won't change it because generally speaking they benefit from it. The BQ won't change it, because they would fade dramatically in prominence under a proportional system. The NDP doesn't have the strength to force the change, and the Green Party has no votes in the House to contribute to the cause. Not until one of the two biggest parties can be forced into adopting PR as a policy plank can there be a change. To force that change there must be concerted citizen action. I urge everyone who reads this and agrees to get in touch with Fair Vote Canada, and see how you can help in your community. That goes double for anyone who lives in BC. Don't let anyone tell you it can't be done, just get out there an do it.
I'm looking to continue this series on issues highlighted by the recent election, and my next entry will probably be related to this one and focus on the under-representation of women in the new Parliament.
Oh, and just as an aside, this is my 100th entry. Go me.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 94
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Low Turnout and Systematic Denial of the Right to Vote
I was moved to write this particular piece after reading Devin Johnston's latest blog entry, which you can find here.
Across Canada, there was an unacceptably low turnout yesterday. Only about 59% of Canadians eligible to cast ballots did so. Some of this is directly attributable to the fact that this election seemed to be (and was sold by the media as) a forgone conclusion from the beginning. Some people decided that if the results were going to be about the same as last time (and functionally, they are), then what was the point of taking the time to get informed, and to get to the polling station and vote. There was some of that.
What was the bigger problem is the systematic denial of accurate information, the inconsistent application of new rules on identification and the inherent biases against highly-transient populations, particularly university students and the homeless. The new voting rules required every person to present either a piece of photo ID with name and address in the riding in which you intend to vote, or a piece of government issued ID with a photo, and some other document with your address, for example a piece of official mail. For most people, this is no problem. Most people have lived where they are for a couple years. Not so much for students and the homeless.
The homeless, by definition, lack a fixed address, and their only route to vote was an attestation of residence from an emergency shelter. That works to an extent, but only when the homeless person actually goes to a shelter. There are many that do not, for a variety of reasons. If you don't go to the shelter, you don't get the attestation. If you don't get the attestation, you don't vote. It's not really that hard to grasp.
A similar situation applies to students, especially those in their first year of university (or a professional/post-graduate programme) in a place other than their home towns. Students also have a tendency to change their housing arrangements repeatedly. When I was doing my undergrad degree, I knew a person who moved four times in four years. She remained within the same riding, but would have been in different electoral divisions within that riding for each year. She would have had a very difficult time getting enumerated, on the list, and having sufficient ID to vote. If you don't get on the list, and can't prove your address (some students pay rent under the table, some get their "official" mail sent to their permanent address to be forwarded by family, some have never filed an income tax return.
These problems have been compounded by a severe lack of information. Student unions do what they can to get information out about where to vote, but anyone who has been a student during the information age knows just how deluged with e-mails students get. Most of us just delete whatever we get from our student unions. More importantly, this should not be a student union's job. Elections Canada has done a woeful, pathetic, job of this, and as a result tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of students eligible to vote have, through systematic failings or procedural bars, been denied the ability to exercise their franchise.
Lack of information is complemented by moving goal posts in terms of what is acceptable in order to vote. In some polling stations, deputy returning officers were accepting different things as proof of address, and some were refusing to allow electors to vouch for another, as is clearly permitted by law. Students often have to argue their case to try to present what little proof of address they may have to the DRO.
Taking these two problems together, and adding in the apathy I discussed above, we have the recipe for the historically low turnout. If you put these kinds of hurdles in the way of someone who wants to vote, but doesn't feel really strongly about it, then they will simply forget about it, turn around and go home.
In his blog entry (linked above), Mr. Johnston concludes that these bars and hurdles have not been put in place deliberately. I can't be so charitable. These new rules resulted from a bill pushed through Parliament by the Conservatives and Liberals working together. The Conservatives and Liberals are also the two parties least likely to benefit from student votes. Most students that vote will vote NDP or Green. Many homeless people will vote NDP. Applying the logic of cui bono ("who benefits?") we see some reason to believe that the Liberals and Conservatives colluded to put these traps before the feet of highly transient populations.
Many of these new rules need to be reversed. The ID bar is set absurdly high, and the rules governing it are unnecessarily complex. Where I certainly agree with Mr. Johnston is that the government must invest much more funding in voter education efforts. I got one mailing from Elections Canada about the ID requirements, but nowhere on there was information for a student about what that person needed to do to establish residency and get on the voters' list. The government must also ensure that there is a consistent application of the rules. Unequal rules around voting imperil democracy by seeking to disenfranchize a group. Finally, I also agree with Mr. Johnston when he says that the government ought to focus on policies of inclusiveness, rather than exclusivity. Government is (supposed to be) of the people, by the people for the people. Modern governments seem to be forgetting the "by the people" and (most importantly) "for the people" parts.
This may wind up being part of a series on problems I have seen highlighted by the recent election. The next one will probably be on the disproportionate representation arising from the vote. If there is something you'd like to see covered, leave a comment and I'll look into it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 95
Across Canada, there was an unacceptably low turnout yesterday. Only about 59% of Canadians eligible to cast ballots did so. Some of this is directly attributable to the fact that this election seemed to be (and was sold by the media as) a forgone conclusion from the beginning. Some people decided that if the results were going to be about the same as last time (and functionally, they are), then what was the point of taking the time to get informed, and to get to the polling station and vote. There was some of that.
What was the bigger problem is the systematic denial of accurate information, the inconsistent application of new rules on identification and the inherent biases against highly-transient populations, particularly university students and the homeless. The new voting rules required every person to present either a piece of photo ID with name and address in the riding in which you intend to vote, or a piece of government issued ID with a photo, and some other document with your address, for example a piece of official mail. For most people, this is no problem. Most people have lived where they are for a couple years. Not so much for students and the homeless.
The homeless, by definition, lack a fixed address, and their only route to vote was an attestation of residence from an emergency shelter. That works to an extent, but only when the homeless person actually goes to a shelter. There are many that do not, for a variety of reasons. If you don't go to the shelter, you don't get the attestation. If you don't get the attestation, you don't vote. It's not really that hard to grasp.
A similar situation applies to students, especially those in their first year of university (or a professional/post-graduate programme) in a place other than their home towns. Students also have a tendency to change their housing arrangements repeatedly. When I was doing my undergrad degree, I knew a person who moved four times in four years. She remained within the same riding, but would have been in different electoral divisions within that riding for each year. She would have had a very difficult time getting enumerated, on the list, and having sufficient ID to vote. If you don't get on the list, and can't prove your address (some students pay rent under the table, some get their "official" mail sent to their permanent address to be forwarded by family, some have never filed an income tax return.
These problems have been compounded by a severe lack of information. Student unions do what they can to get information out about where to vote, but anyone who has been a student during the information age knows just how deluged with e-mails students get. Most of us just delete whatever we get from our student unions. More importantly, this should not be a student union's job. Elections Canada has done a woeful, pathetic, job of this, and as a result tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of students eligible to vote have, through systematic failings or procedural bars, been denied the ability to exercise their franchise.
Lack of information is complemented by moving goal posts in terms of what is acceptable in order to vote. In some polling stations, deputy returning officers were accepting different things as proof of address, and some were refusing to allow electors to vouch for another, as is clearly permitted by law. Students often have to argue their case to try to present what little proof of address they may have to the DRO.
Taking these two problems together, and adding in the apathy I discussed above, we have the recipe for the historically low turnout. If you put these kinds of hurdles in the way of someone who wants to vote, but doesn't feel really strongly about it, then they will simply forget about it, turn around and go home.
In his blog entry (linked above), Mr. Johnston concludes that these bars and hurdles have not been put in place deliberately. I can't be so charitable. These new rules resulted from a bill pushed through Parliament by the Conservatives and Liberals working together. The Conservatives and Liberals are also the two parties least likely to benefit from student votes. Most students that vote will vote NDP or Green. Many homeless people will vote NDP. Applying the logic of cui bono ("who benefits?") we see some reason to believe that the Liberals and Conservatives colluded to put these traps before the feet of highly transient populations.
Many of these new rules need to be reversed. The ID bar is set absurdly high, and the rules governing it are unnecessarily complex. Where I certainly agree with Mr. Johnston is that the government must invest much more funding in voter education efforts. I got one mailing from Elections Canada about the ID requirements, but nowhere on there was information for a student about what that person needed to do to establish residency and get on the voters' list. The government must also ensure that there is a consistent application of the rules. Unequal rules around voting imperil democracy by seeking to disenfranchize a group. Finally, I also agree with Mr. Johnston when he says that the government ought to focus on policies of inclusiveness, rather than exclusivity. Government is (supposed to be) of the people, by the people for the people. Modern governments seem to be forgetting the "by the people" and (most importantly) "for the people" parts.
This may wind up being part of a series on problems I have seen highlighted by the recent election. The next one will probably be on the disproportionate representation arising from the vote. If there is something you'd like to see covered, leave a comment and I'll look into it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 95
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Election Results
So, Canada has held it's 40th general election. The results are in, and the Conservatives have won another minority government, going from 124 in 2006 to 143. The NDP was the only other party to gain seats, going from 29 in 2006 to 37. The Liberals shed seats, going from 103 in 2006 to 77 and the BQ lost one seat, going from 51 in 2006 to 50.
This election was a Pyrrhic victory for Harper and his paleo-cons, and frankly it was for the NDP too (though less so). Harper was handed his golden moment to win a majority by the Liberals electing someone as feckless as Stephane Dion as leader, and by Dion's catastrophic campaign. Despite being handed a majority on a silver platter, Harper bungled and was force to accept another, though stronger, minority. Harper doesn't want a minority, even if for a year or so he will be able to govern as if he had a majority, thanks to the fratricidal mania that is already possessing the Liberal Party of Canada. I predict now that Harper will be gone within three years. And then the tables will be turned, with the Conservatives desperate to avoid an election, and the Liberals champing at the bit.
As I said, for the NDP this result is also something of a Pyrrhic victory. The NDP broke the bank, and and went flat out, and only managed to gain 0.8% of the vote and eight seats. There were some important accomplishments, such as for the first time ever winning a seat in Quebec in a general election, and for only the second time ever winning a seat in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Alberta. The NDP lost one particularly strong incumbant last night when Peggy Nash was defeated in Parkdale-High Park by skeezball Gerrard Kennedy. He is, as I have memorably heard it put, a hair cut and an empty suit, and he defeated one of the hardest working and best New Democrat incumbents. Peggy will be missed, and I look forward to the day when Kennedy gets the royal heave from the people of Parkdale-High Park. But the amount of money spent by the NDP put the party into debt, and that is a hole it will take a while to climb out of, especially since in absolute terms the NDP got fewer votes than last time out. That means less money from Elections Canada, and a deeper debt hole. Hopefully the NDP can stay positive and look forward.
Dion, however, is the big loser out of last night. His party had it's worst ever showing in terms of percentage of the popular vote, falling to 26%, 2% below the previous low water mark set by the Turner Liberals in 1984. He lost twenty-six seats in the House, and is finished as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Dion is only the second leader of the Liberals never to sit as Prime Minister (Edward Blake was the leader of the Liberals from 1880-1887). Dion will either resign within weeks, or be forced out in a previously scheduled leadership review in early 2009. If he goes the first way, the Liberal Party can be healed of this trauma, and get on with getting back to power. If Dion goes the second way, it may finish the Liberals for good and all. The Liberals are completely out of money, their donor base is depleted and exhausted, their base is evaporating, and has essentially retreated to western Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Atlantic Canada. The extra expense of a convention simply to get rid of Dion, followed by another convention to elect his successor could break the Liberals.
Oh, and the Greens. Oh the Greens. It warmed my heart to see Elizabeth May (eMay) go down hard. That bloviating hypocritical liar got thumped by Peter Mackay, and watched her one MP (and her party's claim to legitimacy) get flushed down the toilet in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. Hilariously (in a dark way), it seems like eMay's antics were what took down the Liberals. Essentially all of the Greens' gain in the polls from 4.5% to 6.8% came from the Liberal vote. Hopefully we won't need to hear whining about eMay being in the leader's debate next time. They don't any longer meet the bar of one MP (even if obtained by nefarious means) and weren't truely close to winning anywhere. Even in Central Nova eMay fell thousands of votes short. Also hilarious, she has vowed to run in Central Nova again. She won't get another assist from the Liberals like she got this time. The next leader of the LPC won't be so enamoured of her, after her party stripped 2% of the vote off them.
Overall, I'm not happy with the result, but I'm not despondent either. The fact that the NDP came close to running the table in Northern Ontario, falling short in Kenora by about 2000 votes, and being out of contention in Nipising-Timiskaming, is good. The taking of Edmonton-Strathcona is fantastic, and watching Jack Harris absolutely crush his opponents in St. John's East was gratifying. But we have another Conservative government. We are going to likely be treated to more of the bully-boy tactics that characterized the last Parliament. We are going to have to take a couple more years of nasty, mean-spirited and ideological cuts. We'll probably have to organize to defeat another attempt to introduce draconian copyright legislation, attempts to eliminate a woman's right to choose, another attempt to roll back same-sex marriage and goodness knows what else. We will probably also see pandering to Quebec, such as Stephen Harper ending the federal spending power in Quebec. Once again, we will have to count on the unappointed, elitist, Senate to put the kibosh on the excesses of the government (that one really irks me).
Much remains to be seen. I hope that Harper summons Parliament as soon as possible, but somehow I don't see it happening. Harper doesn't want to face criticism, and the question period is just to hard for his government. They still don't understand how to behave like a government, rather than a group of hooligans who managed to take over the premises.
It's going to be an interesting couple of years.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 96
This election was a Pyrrhic victory for Harper and his paleo-cons, and frankly it was for the NDP too (though less so). Harper was handed his golden moment to win a majority by the Liberals electing someone as feckless as Stephane Dion as leader, and by Dion's catastrophic campaign. Despite being handed a majority on a silver platter, Harper bungled and was force to accept another, though stronger, minority. Harper doesn't want a minority, even if for a year or so he will be able to govern as if he had a majority, thanks to the fratricidal mania that is already possessing the Liberal Party of Canada. I predict now that Harper will be gone within three years. And then the tables will be turned, with the Conservatives desperate to avoid an election, and the Liberals champing at the bit.
As I said, for the NDP this result is also something of a Pyrrhic victory. The NDP broke the bank, and and went flat out, and only managed to gain 0.8% of the vote and eight seats. There were some important accomplishments, such as for the first time ever winning a seat in Quebec in a general election, and for only the second time ever winning a seat in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Alberta. The NDP lost one particularly strong incumbant last night when Peggy Nash was defeated in Parkdale-High Park by skeezball Gerrard Kennedy. He is, as I have memorably heard it put, a hair cut and an empty suit, and he defeated one of the hardest working and best New Democrat incumbents. Peggy will be missed, and I look forward to the day when Kennedy gets the royal heave from the people of Parkdale-High Park. But the amount of money spent by the NDP put the party into debt, and that is a hole it will take a while to climb out of, especially since in absolute terms the NDP got fewer votes than last time out. That means less money from Elections Canada, and a deeper debt hole. Hopefully the NDP can stay positive and look forward.
Dion, however, is the big loser out of last night. His party had it's worst ever showing in terms of percentage of the popular vote, falling to 26%, 2% below the previous low water mark set by the Turner Liberals in 1984. He lost twenty-six seats in the House, and is finished as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Dion is only the second leader of the Liberals never to sit as Prime Minister (Edward Blake was the leader of the Liberals from 1880-1887). Dion will either resign within weeks, or be forced out in a previously scheduled leadership review in early 2009. If he goes the first way, the Liberal Party can be healed of this trauma, and get on with getting back to power. If Dion goes the second way, it may finish the Liberals for good and all. The Liberals are completely out of money, their donor base is depleted and exhausted, their base is evaporating, and has essentially retreated to western Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Atlantic Canada. The extra expense of a convention simply to get rid of Dion, followed by another convention to elect his successor could break the Liberals.
Oh, and the Greens. Oh the Greens. It warmed my heart to see Elizabeth May (eMay) go down hard. That bloviating hypocritical liar got thumped by Peter Mackay, and watched her one MP (and her party's claim to legitimacy) get flushed down the toilet in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. Hilariously (in a dark way), it seems like eMay's antics were what took down the Liberals. Essentially all of the Greens' gain in the polls from 4.5% to 6.8% came from the Liberal vote. Hopefully we won't need to hear whining about eMay being in the leader's debate next time. They don't any longer meet the bar of one MP (even if obtained by nefarious means) and weren't truely close to winning anywhere. Even in Central Nova eMay fell thousands of votes short. Also hilarious, she has vowed to run in Central Nova again. She won't get another assist from the Liberals like she got this time. The next leader of the LPC won't be so enamoured of her, after her party stripped 2% of the vote off them.
Overall, I'm not happy with the result, but I'm not despondent either. The fact that the NDP came close to running the table in Northern Ontario, falling short in Kenora by about 2000 votes, and being out of contention in Nipising-Timiskaming, is good. The taking of Edmonton-Strathcona is fantastic, and watching Jack Harris absolutely crush his opponents in St. John's East was gratifying. But we have another Conservative government. We are going to likely be treated to more of the bully-boy tactics that characterized the last Parliament. We are going to have to take a couple more years of nasty, mean-spirited and ideological cuts. We'll probably have to organize to defeat another attempt to introduce draconian copyright legislation, attempts to eliminate a woman's right to choose, another attempt to roll back same-sex marriage and goodness knows what else. We will probably also see pandering to Quebec, such as Stephen Harper ending the federal spending power in Quebec. Once again, we will have to count on the unappointed, elitist, Senate to put the kibosh on the excesses of the government (that one really irks me).
Much remains to be seen. I hope that Harper summons Parliament as soon as possible, but somehow I don't see it happening. Harper doesn't want to face criticism, and the question period is just to hard for his government. They still don't understand how to behave like a government, rather than a group of hooligans who managed to take over the premises.
It's going to be an interesting couple of years.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 96
Harper Wins Minority, NDP gains 7
Just a quick note to say that I will have a full post on the election results when I get myself together.
The good: thank gawd for the Bloc Quebecois. Without them, Harper would have a majority today, and that doesn't bear thinking about. Also good, for the first time ever the NDP has won a seat in Quebec in a general election, Jack Harris wins St. John's East by a crushing margin and Linda Duncan breaks into Fortress Alberta, taking Edmonton-Strathcona for the NDP. The NDP wins big in Northern Ontario, taking seven of nine seats in the region (all except Kenora, Nipising-Timiskaming and Parry Sound-Muskoka).
The bad: NDP only gains seven. Boo. Peggy Nash gets defeated in Parkdale-High Park. Double boo. The NDP doesn't make any breakthrough in BC, instead netting a loss of one seat. NDP manages to place first in popular vote in Nova Scotia, but still only gets two seats.
More to come in another post.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 96
The good: thank gawd for the Bloc Quebecois. Without them, Harper would have a majority today, and that doesn't bear thinking about. Also good, for the first time ever the NDP has won a seat in Quebec in a general election, Jack Harris wins St. John's East by a crushing margin and Linda Duncan breaks into Fortress Alberta, taking Edmonton-Strathcona for the NDP. The NDP wins big in Northern Ontario, taking seven of nine seats in the region (all except Kenora, Nipising-Timiskaming and Parry Sound-Muskoka).
The bad: NDP only gains seven. Boo. Peggy Nash gets defeated in Parkdale-High Park. Double boo. The NDP doesn't make any breakthrough in BC, instead netting a loss of one seat. NDP manages to place first in popular vote in Nova Scotia, but still only gets two seats.
More to come in another post.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 96
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
NDP Ad Shows Harper's Fiscal/Economic Policy as a Jenga Game
I discovered this fantastic new internet ad by the NDP today. A little late to post it now, on the night before election day, but hopefully some people who are up will watch it before deciding who to vote for. It's 1:26, and worth every second. It very artfully explains what is wrong with Harper's economic policies through the metaphor of a Jenga game, and uses the same visual metaphor to explain what the NDP would do differently. Extremely effective, and I wish they had come up with it a week earlier, to potentially give it time to go viral.
Anyway, here it is:
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency:97
Anyway, here it is:
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency:97
Monday, October 13, 2008
Elizabeth May (eMay) Sells Out Her Party and Reveals Some Bitter Partisanship
In the closing days of the election campaign, Elizabeth May (from here on in: eMay) has sold out her supporters, and Green candidates across the country, by saying that where it close between a Liberal and a Harpocon, or a New Democrat and a Harpocon, Greens should vote for one of the other two parties. You might think, yes, that is rational strategic voting to try to avoid another Conservative government. You'd be wrong.
At the same time as making her call for strategic voting, eMay made it abundantly clear that she doesn't want Greens to vote for NDPers. In the Toronto Star, as well as other papers across Canada, we find this snippet:
Elizabeth May has a long-standing history of making ridiculous, and bitterly partisan, attacks on Jack Layton and the NDP. Lets cast our thoughts back to 2007, when eMay struck her deal with Stephane Dion to endorse him for the PM's chair in return for the Libs pulling out of Central Nova (where they had finished third in 2006, with the Greens barely a blip). She then promptly turned around and demanded the same thing from the NDP. Unsurprisingly, the NDP, which finished a close second in Central Nova in 2006, told eMay to take a hike, in about so many words. eMay decided then to unleash a screed against Layton, charging that “there’s something wrong with Jack Layton if he’d rather open up discussions with the Taliban than the Green Party...” Not only is this a blatantly, bitterly, partisan thing to say (never mind being inaccurate), it is also a complete renunciation of the Green Party policy on Afghanistan, which favours a negotiated settlement.
Now, Elizabeth May is lying again. She has now "updated" her position, and claims that she doesn't endorse strategic voting. Get your story straight. I don't understand how anyone can support the Green Party when it is led by Elizabeth May. She is a proven liar and hypocrite, never mind advancing regressive opinions on abortion or comparing lack of action on climate change to Nevile Chamberlain appeasing the Nazis at Munich. She is trying to pull on the Green Party what Hazen Argue pulled on the NDP. And one day she will be as reviled in Green Party circles as Hazen Argue is in NDP circles.
As the last day before the election winds down, I want to remind everyone to vote. Vote for who you want, just get out there and do it. Democracy only functions if the people exercise their franchise and get involved in it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 98
At the same time as making her call for strategic voting, eMay made it abundantly clear that she doesn't want Greens to vote for NDPers. In the Toronto Star, as well as other papers across Canada, we find this snippet:
"I think she's muddying the waters," [Green candidate in the Ontario riding of Simcoe-North] Valerie Powell said. "I think she's the best prime minister, and we have to keep working hard as Greens to make sure we have as many MPs as possible."Lovely. That's really doing politics differently. Not only is that nasty and negative, it is completely false. Jack Layton has been a campaigner on environmental issues for decades. He bikes to work on Parliament Hill. He led the process which completely re-wrote Bill C-30, Harper's regressive environmental legislation to make it a strong, progressive, law to control and reduce carbon emissions (this is a bill, the rewriting process of which eMay called a "pointless exercise", and for which she absurdly claimed credit not two weeks later [source]). NDP policies on the environment under Layton received high marks from the Sierra Club until eMay left that organization to lead the Green Party, at which time the NDP (shockingly) dropped in the ratings, while the Green Party soared.
Asked if she is muddying the waters, May responded, "It's true I am."
"I love Valerie and I read her full quotes and they weren't harsh or unfair. She's right, life would be simpler if I acted like (NDP Leader) Jack Layton and didn't care if Stephen Harper formed government again.
"Life would be simpler if I were a complete hypocrite like Jack Layton and pretended I cared about the climate when all of his strategy makes his own personal success more important than survival of the climate and decent climate policy.
"I'm just not that person."
Elizabeth May has a long-standing history of making ridiculous, and bitterly partisan, attacks on Jack Layton and the NDP. Lets cast our thoughts back to 2007, when eMay struck her deal with Stephane Dion to endorse him for the PM's chair in return for the Libs pulling out of Central Nova (where they had finished third in 2006, with the Greens barely a blip). She then promptly turned around and demanded the same thing from the NDP. Unsurprisingly, the NDP, which finished a close second in Central Nova in 2006, told eMay to take a hike, in about so many words. eMay decided then to unleash a screed against Layton, charging that “there’s something wrong with Jack Layton if he’d rather open up discussions with the Taliban than the Green Party...” Not only is this a blatantly, bitterly, partisan thing to say (never mind being inaccurate), it is also a complete renunciation of the Green Party policy on Afghanistan, which favours a negotiated settlement.
Now, Elizabeth May is lying again. She has now "updated" her position, and claims that she doesn't endorse strategic voting. Get your story straight. I don't understand how anyone can support the Green Party when it is led by Elizabeth May. She is a proven liar and hypocrite, never mind advancing regressive opinions on abortion or comparing lack of action on climate change to Nevile Chamberlain appeasing the Nazis at Munich. She is trying to pull on the Green Party what Hazen Argue pulled on the NDP. And one day she will be as reviled in Green Party circles as Hazen Argue is in NDP circles.
As the last day before the election winds down, I want to remind everyone to vote. Vote for who you want, just get out there and do it. Democracy only functions if the people exercise their franchise and get involved in it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 98
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Harper Has Been Hiding a Deficit
So it turns out that all of Stephen Harper's assurances that the country is not in a deficit were false. Based on Ministry of Finance figures, blogger Michael Watkins has discovered that over the first six months of the fiscal year, Harper's government ran a deficit of $23 billion. This is far more that the deficit over this same time period from any other government this decade, and it is unusual for the government to see first half losses, indeed, there is usually a spike in the surplus in the first three months.
All of the documentation for this situation can be found at mikewatkins.ca. He's done a great job laying out the proof of Conservative perfidy and fiscal failure. I highly recommend reading it for yourself.
This is proof that not only can the Conservative Party of Canada not be trusted as fiscal manager (uh, no shit! Look at Ontario under this same Minister of Finance or Canada under Brian Mulroney), it proves that they are willing to lie about it, and hide the truth from Canadians (again, no shit. Flahrety lied about the shape of Ontario's finances, and a claimed small surplus turned out to be a $6 billion deficit).
The CPC is corrupt, and full of lying bastards who will do whatever it takes to hold on to power. What do you know, that is almost an exact description of the Liberal Party of Canada too. We as Canadians need to throw these bums out, and stop electing black cats, white cats, or spotted cats. Mouseland needs to elect mice to run the show. For those of you who don't get the reference, google "Tommy Douglas" and "Mouseland".
Six days left until the election folks.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 103
All of the documentation for this situation can be found at mikewatkins.ca. He's done a great job laying out the proof of Conservative perfidy and fiscal failure. I highly recommend reading it for yourself.
This is proof that not only can the Conservative Party of Canada not be trusted as fiscal manager (uh, no shit! Look at Ontario under this same Minister of Finance or Canada under Brian Mulroney), it proves that they are willing to lie about it, and hide the truth from Canadians (again, no shit. Flahrety lied about the shape of Ontario's finances, and a claimed small surplus turned out to be a $6 billion deficit).
The CPC is corrupt, and full of lying bastards who will do whatever it takes to hold on to power. What do you know, that is almost an exact description of the Liberal Party of Canada too. We as Canadians need to throw these bums out, and stop electing black cats, white cats, or spotted cats. Mouseland needs to elect mice to run the show. For those of you who don't get the reference, google "Tommy Douglas" and "Mouseland".
Six days left until the election folks.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 103
Monday, October 06, 2008
The Home Stretch
The election has entered it's final stretch, with seven days of campaigning left. The game has started to change. With the economy melting down around the ears of Canadians (witness the TSX being down as much as 1100 points this morning, and closing down 570-odd), Steve Harper finally blinked and admitted something was wrong. But he didn't take the opportunity to unveil his magical vanishing platform, instead he tried to turn a mea culpa moment into another opportunity to rail against the Liberal carbon tax plan. Too late, Steveo. Canadians are (finally!) tuning in to this election, and they don't like what they see.
Much as I have ranted against a focus on polls in this election, this is a moment in which I think looking to them is justified. Every poll reporting over the last two days (generally three day rolling polls) is showing the CPC below the level of support achieved in 2006, with Harris/Decima showing them as low as 32%. Nanos shows the CPC at 34%, the LPC at 29%, the NDP at 20%, the BQ at 11% and the Greens at 6%. The Conservative message is obviously falling flat on its face. Canadians are not an inherently conservative group of people. We support government intervention in the economy and, to blatantly steal Stephane Dion's good line, Harper's laissez-faire, I don't care attitude isn't going to cut it (of course the Liberal economic plan is pretty laissez-faire too. Dion's economic plan seems to involve meeting with bankers and capitalists so they can tell him what to do. You know, SOP for the Liberal Party of Canada). You can smell the stink of desperation coming of the planned release of the CPC platform tomorrow. They never intended to release it until they got hammered over their lack of a platform in both debates.
Harper will still, probably win this campaign, but any chance for a majority has gone right out the window. Given the poll numbers in Ontario and especially Quebec, the CPC will be lucky to net a gain of ten seats overall this election. After this, the knives may come out for our Robot Emperor.
Oh, and in my neck of the woods, Jack Layton was in town for a rally. Fantastic energy, and probably about 500 people out. Yelling, screaming, all revved up. Jack gave a great speech, and showed why he is the best one to lead this country. As the signs they were handing out said, "United with Layton" "We Will Beat Harper".
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 105
Much as I have ranted against a focus on polls in this election, this is a moment in which I think looking to them is justified. Every poll reporting over the last two days (generally three day rolling polls) is showing the CPC below the level of support achieved in 2006, with Harris/Decima showing them as low as 32%. Nanos shows the CPC at 34%, the LPC at 29%, the NDP at 20%, the BQ at 11% and the Greens at 6%. The Conservative message is obviously falling flat on its face. Canadians are not an inherently conservative group of people. We support government intervention in the economy and, to blatantly steal Stephane Dion's good line, Harper's laissez-faire, I don't care attitude isn't going to cut it (of course the Liberal economic plan is pretty laissez-faire too. Dion's economic plan seems to involve meeting with bankers and capitalists so they can tell him what to do. You know, SOP for the Liberal Party of Canada). You can smell the stink of desperation coming of the planned release of the CPC platform tomorrow. They never intended to release it until they got hammered over their lack of a platform in both debates.
Harper will still, probably win this campaign, but any chance for a majority has gone right out the window. Given the poll numbers in Ontario and especially Quebec, the CPC will be lucky to net a gain of ten seats overall this election. After this, the knives may come out for our Robot Emperor.
Oh, and in my neck of the woods, Jack Layton was in town for a rally. Fantastic energy, and probably about 500 people out. Yelling, screaming, all revved up. Jack gave a great speech, and showed why he is the best one to lead this country. As the signs they were handing out said, "United with Layton" "We Will Beat Harper".
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 105
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
