One of the things that bugs me personnally the most about elections now, is how every day, the first thing you will hear every morning on the radio, is the latest prediction about how many seats will go to this party or that, according to the latest polls. Although I realize this site is somewhat about that, too, I wonder if this isn’t one of the worst possible deterrents to having a fair election.

The strategic voting phenonomena is becoming, in my opinion, out of control. Elections have become like a horserace. Many voters see voting about picking a winner, and others see it simply as a way to try to influence who will not be elected, as opposed to who will be…

I would like to see an election reform that would make public opinion polling legal up until the time the writ is dropped, and from then on, illegal. I think this would make the campaigns better, I think it would help democracy by bringing back the suspense element that was part of the democratic process in the days before mass media and polling. People could still read columns and opinions, listen to the candidates speak about their platforms and views, and then decide who would best represent their interests, riding by riding, and leader vs. leader.

Public opinion polling is subverting true grassroots democracy. Why not keep it out of elections?

Despite Vic Toews’ recent divorce in this ultra conservative riding, the free BBQ the Provencher Conservative Riding Association hosted at a park in Steinbach, MB was well attended. This free BBQ is an annual event and was much better attended this year than last. The high attendance is a surprise to some who believed that his divorce, along with the media stories regarding his infidelity & fathering a child out of wedlock with a much younger woman (Calgary Herald, Saturday, May 17, 2008) would dampen his ability to command another victory in Provencher.

In January, Stephen Harper shuffled him from the high-profile Justice portfolio into the influential but less noticeable job of Treasury Board President. The move puzzled me and many other conservatives. It was seen as a demotion, even though Conservatives seemed to like Toews as Justice Minister. I liked him as Justice Minister. In March it became clear why he had been moved, as his wife of 32 years filed for divorce with an uneven split of assets in her favour. The move was to distance him from the spotlight and minimize damage to Stephen Harper who obviously had prior knowledge of Mr. Toews extra-marital affair.

It was in March when this information hit the local papers, that the Conservative Riding Association started to discuss if Vic Toews was still the candidate they felt best represented them in Provencher. Mr. Toews plead his case to the board and stated he would not step down despite his divorce proceedings. After doing some local polling, the Conservative Riding Association decided to stick with Mr. Toews. After seeing the turnout of hundreds at the BBQ, it appears the board made the right decision.

A lot worse today then they were yesterday and yesterday it wasn’t very good…As has been reported on tonight’s The National, the NDP Candidate, Dana Larsen, was sacked today. If you’re interested in the details, I recommend catching a repeat of the show on Newsworld (or CBC if it’s still early where you live). In short, it involved copious amounts of drugs and a video camera. Frankly, Jack Layton didn’t have much of a choice – smoking a little pot is one thing, this was another entirely. On the one hand, I think that this is a loss for the politics of pot (not something near and dear to my heart, but something worth a good debate). On the other hand, it gives the NDP an opportunity to reassess their goals, strengths and weaknesses in the riding. Should they consider a candidate from North or West Vancouver that may grow support at the south end of the riding, while risking some support in their more traditional strength on the Sunshine Coast? Alternatively, they can choose a candidate with connections to unionists in Squamish in the hope of regaining a more traditional voting bloc. Or, they can stick with the status quo and choose a Sunshine Coast resident in the hopes of consolidating their support in the only part of the riding where they have shown consistent strength in the last two elections.

My feeling is that if the NDP want to stay relevent in the riding, a task which may be difficult anyway given three legitimate (if uninspiring) candidates now with almost a two week head start, they should choose the latter option. This election does not seem to be fertile ground for NDP gains in this riding (they never do, really – the big NDP gains in West Van – Sunshine Coast – STSC during the 2004 election are attributable to new boundaries). The NDP need a strong local (to the Sunshine Coast) candidate to maintain a foothold until next time. Even a strong candidate at this point would be hard pressed to maintain the 20% that the NDP managed in both 2004 and 2006. So, where do these freed votes go?

Alors comme ça, un vote pour le Nouveau Parti Démocratique est un vote pour le Parti conservateur?

C’est ce que le candidat bloquiste dans Jeanne-Le Ber, Thierry St-Cyr, a pris soin d’annoncer dans son comté.

Le pire, c’est que le Bloc Québécois pense probablement que c’est vrai.

Il y a une forte croyance dans le milieu politique que la fragmentation du vote joue fondamentalement en faveur de leur adversaire. Et ce dernier pense exactement le contraire.

Jouons aux mathématiciens. Si Moi consiste à un vote pour vous-mêmes, Adv1 est votre adversaire principal et et Advn est tout autre candidat…

   VMoi = 1Moi
   VAdv1 = 1Adv1
   VAdvn = xAdv1 + yAdvn

x et y étant des variables répondant à divers critères difficilement chiffrables, il devient clair que tous les votes n’ont pas le même poids pour les candidats politiques.

Pourtant, la science mathématique est formelle : un vote pour le NPD, c’est un vote pour le NPD, pas un tiers de vote pour le NPD et deux tiers pour le PCC. Il n’existe pas de fraction de vote pour Élections Canada.

La division du vote ou le vote stratégique ne donnent pas la victoire à un candidat. Ils ne sont qu’un prétexte pour expliquer les défaites à venir… et un argument percutant pour toute campagne de peur digne de ce nom. Bref, l’insulte suprême pour tout électeur qui se respecte.

C’est aussi une façon mesquine de remplir son devoir de citoyen. Aux dernières nouvelles, on vote pour un candidat, pas contre un candidat. Et pousser le cynisme au point de voter stratégique, c’est aussi le plus formidable manque de respect qu’on puisse faire au système démocratique.

The Green Party has come out with its platform (also see an analysis here).

According to the party, its policies are based on three principles:

1. Integrated policies: They support each other and are fiscally responsible.
2. Grassroots democracy: Citizens have the power; government exists to serve them.
3. The common good: Government must work to reduce inequality, ensure quality public services and help citizens to be empowered and engaged.

On paper, this looks alright, but how are they going to implement and live by these principles?

Some highlights from the platform:

Return the GST to six per cent, to invest in infrastructure. Expand the exemptions on food items, and extend them to children’s clothing and books. Provide rebates for rural Canadians.

This makes sense, as virtually all economists agree that government should rely primarily on consumption, rather than income, taxes. The exemptions envisaged here are also reasonable.

Renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Ah, there you go. Someone must have peered into the playbooks of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. NAFTA should be revisited, as it makes very little sense for Canadians at this time. What is more, it has failed to live up to the great promises with which the agreement was sold to Canadians so many years ago, such as, most notably, the free movement of people and labour across the U.S.-Canadian border. Seeing how the Americans are building ever higher walls between themselves and Canada in the north and Mexico in the south, the spirit of NAFTA is very much dead, or at least on life support.

• Bring in income splitting and low-income support as part of our Green Tax Shift.
• Eliminate income tax for those earning $20,000 or less.
• Work toward a Guaranteed Annual Income in place of the current maze of programs.

Reasonable ideas as well, with the only proviso that income tax should be eliminated on incomes up to $25,000.

Cut debt for post-secondary students through measures including a Canadian National Student Loan and Bursary Program. Forgive half the loan for students who complete degree or certificate programs.

Excellent idea but short-sighted all the same. What we need to build our knowledge society and economy is not more rules or exceptions to student loans, but a clear commitment to open, low-cost and accessible university, college and vocational education. Many other countries, less prosperous than Canada, provide free university education, so here’s an area where Canada has a chance to excel if Canadians could finally muster the necessary will to make it happen.

Meet the United Nations’ target that 0.7 per cent of Canada’s GDP go to Overseas Development Assistance.

Noble idea, but completely unfeasible, especially in the economic climate that we find ourselves in today and for the foreseeable future. Charity begins at home. As long as there is a single homeless person in the streets of any Canadian city, our resources must go to worthy causes in Canada and not be sent halfway around the world, where they usually end up in the wrong hands and pockets.

In Kelowna the runway expansion will allow for direct flights from Europe, a big deal in a local economy that enjoys a slice of the uber rich market of world travellers and multi million dollar vacation homes. Add in internationally renowned skiing, the growing reputation of valley wineries, and a new University and sectors of the local economy are anticipating a boost, especially when Kelowna is facing the onslaught of the pine beetle and devestation in the forestry sector. Where the money came from at the federal level is a bone of contention…how could it not be?

Full disclosure – I freelance community orientated work for this paper.

If we had proportional representation, then all votes would matter in this federal election.

Instead, with our first-past-the-post system, there is a chance that Canadians will get the “majority” Stephen Harper has been threatening. That is, a disproportionate number of Conservatives will be elected to the House of Commons on the basis of less than 40% of the popular vote – not 50% + 1, as a true majority would warrant.

Now in my federal riding, there isn’t a hope in hell of either a Liberal or Green winning. No matter the quality of the candidate or party platform, the Liberal will come third and the Green fourth.

However, if our first-past-the-post system were replaced by a system of proportional representation – Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) or Single Transferable Vote (STV) -, then in the first case voters would make two selections: one for the candidate, the another for their party of preference.

With STV, which is coming up for referendum in BC in 2009, voters would have at least three choices, marked in order of preference: 1, 2, 3.

Here’s how I would vote in each of these cases and the likely result in the riding.

FIRST PAST THE POST

Result: Counts for nothing

—————

MIXED MEMBER PROPORTIONAL (two ballots, 1 for candidate, 1 for party)
Candidate –
Party –

Result: Likely win for candidate; Party vote goes toward proportional representation in the HOC

—————

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE (single ballot, select candidates in order of preference)
1 –
2 –
3 –

Result: Least portion of the vote is wasted. Best reflection of voter preference.

—————

Both MMP and STV better reflect voter choice and help support democracy. FPTP does neither.

Which would you choose: First past the post, or a system of proportional representation?

Angela Reid, Green Party Candidate in Kelowna Lake Country has been planning on running in the Kelowna municipal election since November 2007.  Reid will be participating in both races this time around.

Reid ran for the federal Green Party the last time out and hadn’t planned on being the candidate this year due to family priorities.  In an email exchange Reid says her reasons for deciding to add the federal race to her schedule was to make sure there was a qualified prepared candidate running for the Greens in Okanagan Lake Country and she didn’t want to let area voters down. Reid is well known locally for championing green issues and runs a green consulting company.

Once the federal election is done, Reid will return her focus to the local municipal election where three of seven council seats have been vacated, “…I will do my best to represent Green Party policy and raise more awareness about our platform that covers a broad range of issues.  I will then apply the same kind of long-term. logical, sustainable approach to my municipal campaign.”

 As a City Kelowna is in the midst of revising the Official Community Plan with an eye to sustainability, the plan is called”2020 Greening our Future.” Perennial environmental issues here include rapid development and water scarcity.

Cette femme est recherchée. Personne ne l’a vue depuis que La Presse a mis en exergue son passé de porte-parole québécoise pour l’Opus Dei. Silence radio depuis ce moment. Elle n’a pas été aperçu lundi soir lors du conseil de ville de St-Bruno-de-Montarville, où elle a été élue comme conseillère municipale.

Des rumeurs indiquent qu’elle était plutôt à son lancement de campagne. Bizarrement, aucun journaliste n’a relevé la nouvelle. Comme s’ils n’avaient pas été invités…

Pour ceux qui ne l’auraient pas reconnu, il s’agit de la candidate conservatrice dans Saint-Bruno – Saint-Hubert, Nicole Charbonneau Barron. La photo utilisée ci-haut provient de son site internet.

DemocraticSPACE’s Update #4 (17 Sept) shows the Conservatives 5 seats short of a majority. DemocraticSPACE currently projects the Conservatives with 150 seats on 38.9% support, the Liberals well behind at 86 seats and 25.5%, the NDP at 30 seats and 16.9%, the Greens at 0 seats and 9.7%, and the Bloc at 40 seats and 8.0% (32.7% in Quebec). See http://democraticSPACE.com/canada2008 for complete details, including regional breakdowns and riding-by-riding projections.

The local subscription daily in Kelowna, the Daily Courier posted a story about the lack of enthusiasm for politics up at UBCO. UBCO is a only a few years old, and has a fairly small student body.  But the piece states, the students have let the party affiliate clubs lapse and haven’t got them going for the year yet.  This is deep blue conservative country, but a little student interest would be nice. See how much they care http://kelownadailycourier.ca/stories_local.php?id=134778 

Sent out by the NDP:

Jack Layton is coming to Edmonton this Saturday at noon for a huge rally at the Winspear Centre. Our campaign momentum is building, and we are seeing record high numbers for support.  The latest Ekos poll, for instance, puts the NDP in second place at 22% in Alberta, way ahead of the Greens and Liberals!

The rally on Saturday is going to be very exciting, and extremely important.  We need to keep that momentum going!  A strong showing of support in front of the national media on Saturday will help us across the country and here in Alberta. We already have candidates and activists coming from across the province, but we need you as well!  There will be a bus taking people from Calgary to Edmonton on Saturday for the rally, making stops in Red Deer and Wetaskiwin.  We need you to reserve your seat however as space will be limited.  Please contact rparks@albertandp.ca today to secure your spot.

Finally, Harper accepted to release the price of the Afghan war mission.  No date has been set yet, everyone is just waiting for the numbers.  Will they be higher than the conservatives estimates ?  Media have been really quite on this issue.  Some don’t even say the release date is unknown and just end the article with “Harper said he accepted to release the information”.  Come on bring the numbers !

Contrairement au reste du pays, un choix stratégique n’est pas évident. Dans la région de Montréal, à part de Thomas Mulcair du NPD à Outremont, la bataille est entre le Bloc et les Libéraux. Si je crois que le Bloc n’est plus pertinent, mais je déteste les Libéraux même que je suis féderalist, je vote pour qui? Dans les régions, c’est le Bloc contre les Conservateurs. Mais si je crois que le Bloc est passé et j’ai craint d’une majorité Conservateur, je vote pour qui?

Mon avis: à court terme, il faut voter avec conviction ”pour” quelqu’un, il faut contribuer le temp et de l’argent pour leur aider à gagner des votes; à long terme, il faut demander et actionner un changement du système électoral pour un dans lequelle on ajoute un certain nombre de parlémentaires en proportion du vote national obtenu par leur parti à celles qui gagnent dans les circonscription.

The battle in the riding of Hull-Aylmer seems to be being overlooked or grossly misrepresented. The Liberals are being very quiet, the Bloc Québécois is claiming they can win it, the Conservatives are saying it is possible they could win it, and then the NDP is claiming they are the real opponents for the Liberals.

 Hull-Aylmer is certainly up for grabs. The Liberals won the riding in 2006 with only a 1,785 vote margin. The Bloc Québécois finished second. It is interesting to note, however, that the Liberals lost more than 2,500 votes from their 2004 performance while the Bloc gained 162 votes. While the Bloc gain may not seem significant, it is actually far greater than it seems. In 2004, the Liberals had 33.9% of the vote in all of Quebec. In 2006, they had 20.7%, a reduction of 39% of their support. Marcel Proulx did better than the Liberals province-wide, managing to keep 87% of his vote from 2004.

 However, Bloc support in Quebec went from 48.9% in 2004 to 42.1% in 2006, a reduction of 14%, while support in Hull-Aylmer stayed constant, even increasing. The Bloc Québécois has a solid base in Hull-Aylmer, and though Bloc support provincewide will probably decrease by a few points on October 14, there is a good chance the Bloc vote will remain relatively stable here in Hull-Aylmer.

 The Liberals are seeing their provincial support decreasing even further into the high-teens. Marcel Proulx will feel the pinch, and if he loses only 10% of his support, he would be below the Bloc performance of 2006. The Conservatives and the NDP are fielding good candidates in the riding, and it is very possible that part of the Liberal and Bloc vote will bleed to these two parties. The question is whether it will bleed more from the Liberals or the Bloc. Considering the weakness of their leader and their campaign at the moment, it looks like the blood will be red.

 Raphaël Déry, the candidate for the Bloc in Hull-Aylmer, looks to gain from the problems in the Liberal campaign. The Conservatives, though they did increase their support significantly from 2004 to 2006, still finished over 8,000 votes behind the Liberals. Hull-Aylmer is an urban riding and has a long history of Liberal support – it is unlikely that the Conservatives will be able to make up that margin. As for the NDP, their confidence is bordering on the ludicrous. They are polling weakly in the province, and there isn’t any sort of orange wave appearing on the horizon. They finished over 9,000 votes behind the Liberals and will likely finish fourth on election day.

 It is true that more voters  in Quebec are looking at the Conservatives and the NDP. But, any study of the riding will show that most of those voters won’t be Bloc supporters. At 29.37% in 2006, the Bloc reached its base level of sovereigntist support. It is a mistake to discount the issue of sovereignty in this election. It may not be the topic on everyone’s lips, but a good portion of the population (35%-42% depending on the poll) still support the sovereignty option, and sovereigntists rarely vote for anyone but the Bloc. In 1995, Hull voted 30.27% in favour of sovereignty. That base still exists, and it will be much harder to bleed support away from the Bloc – who has some of the most loyal supporters – than it will be from the Liberals, who are suffering everywhere.

 So, in short, Hull-Aylmer is up for grabs. But let’s be realistic: only one party has any chance of grabbing it away. 

Perhaps I should switch my affiliation from non-partisan to neoRhino. Anyway, 10 days in and I’m already bored by the Canadian election. This led me to imagine how the leaders debate might play out if Canadians party leaders to speak in Dr. Seuss. Here’s what I came up with:

**************

“Dion is no leader,
He’s out of touch too,
Come mid-October,
Please vote Tory blue”

“Harper is scary,
He’s Dubya’s shill
Vote for me Liberals,
I need your goodwill.”

“Stephen and Stephane
In the East and the West,
But here in Quebec,
Vote seperatist.”

“My right-wing opponents,
Oh how they rave,
But vote for the Dippers,
And I promise to shave.”

“Four leaders in suits,
Four men, all irate,
Vote Green this election,
And watch the debate.”

********************

Feel free to post your own version in the comments below.

Over at my other place, I’ve written three posts since June focused on the GST for municipalities. One was in response to a TorStar report on the Liberal strategy for municipalities. The second responded to another (and supporting) editorial in The Star. The third was a copy of my letter written to the Liberal Party’s Urban Committee and commenting, in a fair amount of detail, on their full report to the party.

Only the Greens have seen how RIGHT and REASONABLE the One Cent Campaign championed by Toronto Mayor David Miller, and endorsed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is.

This policy shouldn’t fail to convince people who give it more than two cents’ thought.

While I appreciated the announcement of the Liberal Party’s proposal of a catastrophic drug plan, I’m tired of the meme “healthcare,” which is code for the medical and acute care industry.

WHY do parties and politicians insist on maintaining the fiction that health is equivalent to care-after-the-fact? Worse, that sickness prevention requires only the targeting of individual behaviour, such as addiction and eating and exercise habits?

There is a consistent message coming from Canada’s public health professionals, the World Health Organization and international agencies, and even from our own government’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones (whose report was quietly tucked away by the Harper government). It is this:

Social conditions crucially matter. And they can be deadly.

Investing more and more money on doctors, nurses, hospital beds, trauma care … is wrong-headed. First, our acute care system needs a management overall, rather than just more money thrown at it. Second – and more importantly – we need fewer SICK PEOPLE, fewer people made vulnerable to illness.

Poverty causes stress. Stress is a proven primary underlying cause of heart disease, diabetes, and other major and chronic illnesses.¹

Given these facts, which have been known for decades by researchers of the social determinants of health, it’s clear that poverty is the #1 killer and our largest health threat.

People need less stress in their lives. With less stress, we’ll be healthier. With fewer stressed people, Canada’s acute care system can undergo its own recovery.

Whether members of the medical and drug industries would be happy with fewer sick people is another matter.

¹ Google ‘poverty causes stress’ and you’ll be swamped with references. Also simply ’stress causes’; your search result will uncover a huge number of diseases linked to stress.

[Cross-posted at Challenging the Commonplace.

Tim Naumetz of the Canadian Press last week pronounced Cambridge as a riding to watch. Here’s part what he said:

In southwestern Ontario, a key battleground in these gloomy economic times, Cambridge is shaping up as a nail-biter. The incumbent Tory, second-termer Gary Goodyear, has gone through some tough scrapes in Parliament. Manufacturing accounts for 20 per cent of jobs. The fact that four Liberals battled it out for the nomination, and that was last November, may be a clue. link

While it’s true that Gord Zeilstra of the Liberal Party has a head of steam and that Gary Goodyear has a less than stellar record as an MP, the two other parties may play spoiler. Max Lombardi of the NDP and Scott Cosman of the Greens could pull enough votes away from Zeilstra to ruin any chance at an upset.

Given that Mr. Cosman is a virtual unknown in the riding (even within the local Green Party association) and was nominated after the election call, it’s unlikely that we’ll see much of an impact from the Greens. The NDP, however, have an opportunity to capitalize on the significant manufacturing job losses that have plagued Cambridge in recent years. If the NDP can mobilize the local labour pool in their favour, they may be able to pull votes from both the Liberal and Conservative candidates – though it’s unlikely it would be enough for a win.

At this point with 27 days to go, I’ll go out on a limb and predict a narrow Conservative win in Cambridge. That prediction, of course, is subject to change – stay tuned.

A new poll from Segma released today shows that the conservatives are closer to a Tory majority. The poll gives 42% for 173 seats to the conservatives, 18 more than the 155 seats required for a majority governement. The liberals, NDP and green are way behind with 68 seats (23%), 25 seats (16%) and no seat (10%) respectively. In Québec, it’s 33% for Bloc Québécois, giving them 41 seats.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080917/CPELECFED02/80916257/6488/CPACTUALITES (French)

Un nouveau sondage de la firme Segma publié aujourd’hui montre que les conservateurs formeraient un gouvernement majoritaire. Le sondage donne 42% des intentions de votes, pour 173 sièges aux conservateurs, 18 sièges de plus que les 155 sièges requis pour former un gouvernement majoritaire. Les libéraux, le NDP et les verts sont loin derrière avec 68 sièges (23%), 25 sièges (16%) et aucun siège (10%) respectivement. Au Québec, le Bloc Québécois obtient 33% des intentions de votes pour 41 sièges.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080917/CPELECFED02/80916257/6488/CPACTUALITES