How the media was useless to me in this election
The most depressing part of this election was how I could not get useful information about it from the media.
This is probably best illustrated by example. When listening to CBC the day after the Liberals announced their platform, I heard a report that told me Stéphane Dion unveiled it in Calgary and how it's a tough sell out west. They talked to some Liberal party supporter about the Liberal's chances to win a seat in Calgary. (The answer was "not good".)
Let's review: the Liberal's unveil their platform — the set of policies they will seek to enact if elected — and the report I get tells me absolutely nothing about the platform and focusses on its presentation.
Stories about the campaign itself, poll results and discussions about "battleground ridings" and what they meant to the parties were the most prominent stories I heard and read about during the campaign. The day of the election, all the reports I heard were about how good or bad the leader's campaigns were. Just to pick another example involving the Liberals, the analysis I heard yesterday on CBC was how Dion did not do a good job explaining the Green Shift.
Again, nothing about the Green Shift itself and how it might influence me were it to be enacted, but instead how Dion failed to sell it. In fact, I cannot recall a single report that told me much about any of the party's policies. (That said, the party's didn't exactly release their policies that quickly.)
But then again, politics isn't really about policy, is it?
Next election, I'll wait for the parties to release a platform and stay away from news about the election even more than I did this time around.
Response to my MP
I got some literature from my Member of Parliament, David Christopherson (NDP), recently that discussed what he had been doing for my riding over the summer. On the third page was an article entitled "Stopping gas price gouging!". I assume this referred to the call by the NDP for an independent gas price watchdog back in May.
The rhetoric of this statement was too much for me to take. I responded with the following.
Dear Mr. Christopherson,
In your latest report delivered to your constituents, you call for an investigation of oil companies and their "gouging" of consumers over gas prices. I think this is a misguided and disappointing course of action.
The dynamic of supply and demand offers a much simpler explanation of rising gas prices: people continue to consume gasoline while the production and reserves of oil dwindle. In order to maintain supply to continue to operate, companies raise their prices, which results in higher profits. In order for me to accept that oil companies are controlling the prices of gas outside of this mechanism, I must accept that they control every aspect of the process. Given the incredible complexities in doing so, it is not a believable proposition.
Furthermore, I have heard of many inquiries into oil company collusion, but have never heard of any cases of it actually occurring. The Competition Bureau of Canada has investigated this multiple times and found no reason to believe that oil companies were doing anything wrong. The most recent report from the United States Federal Trade Commission on gasoline prices states that price increases had little, if anything, to do with "price gouging" and that there was "no evidence that refiners conspired to restrict supply or otherwise violated the antitrust laws."
I doubt that people demanding an investigation into gas prices are willing to face the fact that oil companies make a profit because people continue to purchase gasoline. Until this is addressed, the seemingly obese oil company profits, and objections to them, will continue.
This is where I find the policy to be disappointing. In your report, you state that you are dismayed with the Conservative Party's budget for their lack of action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Lowering gas prices will certainly not help in this regard. On the contrary, high gas prices are to be encouraged.
Government should be stressing conservation, fuel efficiency and personal responsibility on the issue of gasoline consumption, not encouraging wasteful practices. Investigating mythical gouging practices strikes me as nothing more than pandering, which I consider to be less ethical than making a profit.
Why I didn’t for vote for MMP, but voted for the Green Party anyway
In the recent provincial election, I was one of the slim majority of registered voters who actually showed up to vote. I take my civic duty seriously. (Aayan Hirsi Ali provides a succinct description why.) I put some thought into the two decisions I had to make: what candidate/party to vote for in my riding and whether to vote for the proposed electoral reform, mixed-member proportional.
There was a lot of talk about the pros and cons of MMP, with most of the analysis from newspapers being negative. Neither the Globe and Mail nor the Toronto Star supported it, although the Globe was reluctantly negative. I found myself in the same camp. I would like some form of proportional representation (since winning a majority with 42% of the popular vote with 52.5% voter turnout just seems, well, off) but I couldn't get behind MMP as it was presented.
It wasn't the issue with minority governments, which is what most columnists I read had a problem with. I'm not convinced minorities lead to government paralysis; it likely results in parliamentary members working harder to get things passed, if nothing else. Of course, this may lead to more back-room dealings and betrayals, but as Bill Clinton once said (which is applicable to politics in general), "If you want a friend in Washington you have to get a dog."
Canada has had some very productive minority governments in the past and the current federal one — nothwithstanding my position on their policies — seems to be able to get things done so I'm not buying the paralysis argument. I can still be convinced otherwise, but merely touting stability isn't enough for me.
My quibbles start with the 3% threshold for getting seats from the party list. This seems a bit low to me. Lots of people said 5% is better and I would agree. No one discussed much evidence for or against either number, so I'm really going on intuition, but I'd like to make it difficult for a fringe party to get a seat. While I favour more diverse opinion, some people really are nuts.
Although not really a valid point, I saw no reason to put two votes on the ballot, one for the candidate and one for the party. I'd wager that almost everyone would vote for the party that is the same as the candidate they voted for (or vice versa). I expect most people vote based on party anyway.
My main concern was the party lists. These are the candidates that get seats based on the proportional part of the vote. They don't represent a region, which is a little unnerving in and of itself, but I could probably get past that. What was lacking was any specific process in how they are chosen. Here's something from the Vote for MMP site under the heading The Big Lie About MMP, directly from the campaign manager:
The defenders of the status quo have been repeating a statement about MMP that is fundamentally wrong: that the new at-large seats would be filled by “appointment” rather than by election.
Set aside for a moment the obvious question: why would a Citizens’ Assembly of Ontario voters propose something so stupid? Because they didn’t.
Every legislator under MMP would be elected – put in office by attracting votes and removed from office by losing votes. Three of the party leaders have already said their parties would use a democratic process to nominate their at-large candidates (standard practice in all MMP countries). Those candidates are then elected according to how successful they and their parties are at attracting votes.
If vagueness is reassuring, then colour me confident. Otherwise, I have a few questions.
It seems as though the election of these candidates rests on party promises, something we know they excel at keeping. What is the criteria for attracting votes and losing votes? What does that even mean? What would the democratic process be? Who has oversight on it?
I didn't get satisfactory answers to these questions. I was attracted to the idea of MMP, but I don't think it was carefully thought out.
Which brings me to my next point: As a population, we hardly had a discussion on the issue. I only heard about it when I got my notice that we were having an election, which was around September 10th. Now the Pro-MMP people will start screaming conspiracy and I'll say right now I don't believe it, but there is no doubt this was not talked about enough. Also, holding in tandem with an election was silly. It overshadowed the issue.
My last problem was with the Pro-MMP rhetoric. The "No" people were annoying, but the "yes" people drove me away. Look at the tenth reason I'm supposed to vote for MMP:
10. Old guard doesn’t like it
The MMP system empowers voters and gives us more choice, fairer results and stronger representation – not what the old boys club wants, but what all Ontarians deserve.
I can't think of anything dumber they could have written, besides "Uncle Fred thinks it's a good idea." Look, the onus is on the Pro-MMP crowd to convince me that their idea is sound and worth my vote. The current system certainly isn't perfect, but selling MMP as the "obvious" choice paints me as an idiot for thinking the current one isn't really that bad. It's demeaning and won't win my sympathy. Anyone remember those attack ads mocking Jean Crétien from the PCs back in 1993? That's kind of how I felt about the MMP people.
I wanted to support MMP, but I couldn't bring myself to in its current form. I would like to see another stab at it, even though it was soundly rejected in the referendum.
So why did I vote for the Green Party? Because I wanted to see what it felt like to waste my vote. It felt pretty good.
Provincial Leaders Debate
Last night, the provincial leaders debate was held between "Ontario's three biggest parties": The Liberals under Dalton McGuinty, the Progressive Conservatives under John Tory and the New Democrats under Howard Hampton. Regrettably, the Greens were left out, although I doubt what I heard would have been any better with them there.
I've never been a big fan of leaders debates because the majority of the statements aren't made to defend (or even advertise) one's position so much as to attack another's. Oh, and listening to people talk over one another drives me insane. I caught about 20 minutes of the debate last night and my fears were confirmed.
I got to listen to Howard Hampton say how much he wants to support working families without telling me how he would do so, aside from promises like raising minimum wage to $10 an hour. After doing so, he went on to berate McGuinty for his record and character and all the other things politicians do to embarrass themselves. Hampton, FTW!
Dalton McGuinty came out as the nicest of the three and made few attacks, but I suspect that's because he was constantly playing defense. Still, I was never overtly annoyed by anything he had to say. I can't say I was impressed, so at best it's faint praise. McGuinty was very good at the political pattern of answering a question by saying, "First off, I'd like to say how much I love the people of <insert region here> and feel that we are all part of one big family. The question asked is an important one and I'm glad that <insert name of entity> asked it. <insert tangential answer that at least uses some common terminology here>"
John Tory followed the same basic pattern with a liberal mix of attacking McGuinty. He managed to make a cogent point on gun control, but was the worst at talking over other people and just generally making an ass of himself. He also made the following statement about McGuinty:
You kept so few of your promises, it's destroyed credibility of all politicians.
If I had heard that line while operating heavy machinery, I'd be charged with reckless endangerment.
What I heard of the debate causes me to invoke the line from Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: "You are all equally worthless."
Tory and “other theories”
As if trying to defend the public funding of religious schools isn't bad enough, now the Ontario PC Party seems to think teaching alternative theories to evolution is a good idea.
They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs.
I'm sure the furor over this will make for an interesting case study in a political science class some day.
By the way, if this religious funding crap actually goes through — and I'll fight it if I have to — rest assured I will attempt to get funding for a Pastafarian school.
Wikipedia and politics? Surely you jest.
Here's another reason to be very skeptical of anything you read on Wikipedia regarding politics. I might be able to trust Wikipedia to tell me about the House of Commons, but not necessarily about the people in it.
The Rhino Party is coming back
(Hutch, this one's for you.)
According to the Globe, the Rhinoceros Party of Canada is looking to make a comeback. Two groups, independent of each other, have decided it's time to bring Canada's most amusing party back since disappearing after 1988 by challenging the laws requiring a $1000 deposit for federal candidates.
I'm looking forward to Nantucket as a country without the oppressive law of gravity and Illiteracy as an official language. Celery and sidewalk. Thank you. Good night.
An embarrassment to Canada
According to Yahoo! News, Mike Lake, an MP for Edmonton - Mill Woods - Beaumont, is advocating putting Bigfoot (that is, Sasquatch) on the endangered species list. This is due to a petition signed by 500 constituents in his riding.
Save me from this stupidity. Seriously. Mr. Lake is either an idiot or believes representation in a democracy means expressing every little concern that the people you represent bring up. Of course, the former probably implies the latter.
Let's add unicorns and hippogriffs to the list while we're at it. Hell, let's just go through the Monster Manual and see what we can get on there. I'm sure we can get enough signatures and present it in jest, at the very least.