Despite the close finish, or maybe in part because of it, the big story from election day seems to be the low voter turnout. The most common assumption is that low voter turnout indicates high apathy. Although, for the record, I support a person’s right to not vote, I’m disinclined to believe that apathy was the key factor. I think that low voter turnout indicates indecision.
In part, it may be because people didn’t feel well-enough informed. There’s so much information that gets floated around, and it’s hard to sort through. And people know that the truth is often obfuscated to serve political agendas and media bias. Facts are sometimes just opinions. Statistics can lie. Trust No One.
That makes it hard to make a decision in the best of times, and these are not the best of times. The difficulty of deciding is directly proportional to the lasting importance of the decision. And the entire world is at an important juncture right now. I don’t know whether we call it a crossroads, or a turning point, or the part with the rock on one side and the hard place on the other.
However we want to frame it, the next four years are important, and we’re potentially facing an economic and social problem we haven’t seen in seventy years. We can’t just be content to say “here’s the new boss, same as the old boss” this time. What happens next matters. It’s not a situation where we’re all going to be okay no matter what because this is Canada, and gosh darnit, we’re Ontario.
I don’t think fewer people voted because more people didn’t care. I think fewer people voted because more people were scared to make the wrong decision. There will always be a certain number of people who routinely abstain from voting for whatever reason, but when people who normally do vote decide in large numbers that they won’t, I think it must be something besides apathy at play.
I don’t think people suddenly decide they don’t care anymore when the decision matters most. They’re just afraid of making a mistake when they feel like marking that ballot could also mean leaving an indelible mark on Ontario–their lives and their children’s lives.
I don’t think people don’t care. I think they’re scared. And I don’t really blame them.
When I first posted about the upcoming Ontario election, I said I was going to post lots of things about parties and platforms. Hey, surprise! I didn’t.
Kind of a funny thing happened. I did research the parties and platforms and candidates in my riding. I did decide who I’m going to vote for, and I count myself lucky that not only is it the party I would most like to vote for, but I also think the candidate is going to do an amazing job as MPP.
Oh, what the hell—I’ll be voting Liberal. If you haven’t decided yet, please feel free to take my word for it and go out and vote Liberal, too. Especially if you’re in Perth-Wellington, because John Wilkinson is pretty much tops, as far as I can tell. It’s been an honour and a blessing to have him represent us, and I hope we will continue to have him working for us in Toronto.
But the funny thing that happened is this:
I kind of realized that I don’t care that much about elections. And I feel bad if I dropped the ball on anyone who was counting on me. Sometimes lately kind of a lot of people look at this blog, so maybe?
Anyway, I don’t intend to say that elections aren’t important. They definitely are. I just didn’t want to write about it. All the really interesting, cool stuff happens after that. And before that. And I think understanding that stuff is the really important thing. At least for me.
But I also think the reason we have a representative government is so that you can elect someone to do all the thinking and worrying for you and you can go about your quite-likely-equally-important business while they do that. So if you don’t happen to care about the stuff that happens behind the scenes, then, um… probably don’t read this blog anymore?
But do read it because I like when people do. And sometimes it’s pretty much as funny as you’re ever going to get in a political blog, so there’s that. But mostly the making me feel good thing.
ONE LAST WORD ON THE ELECTION
You may also recall that I posted a video about taking my kids to vote in the federal election. Please take your kids to vote with you. Tonight I told my kids that tomorrow is election day, and they were squealy and excited to the amount of Bieber. It’s like a holiday for them, and I’m not even letting them miss school this time.
I don’t know whether my parents ever voted when I was growing up. I think maybe I remember them doing it once. They may have voted all the time. It wasn’t something we talked about. But it’s like reading: if your kids see you do it, they’ll learn that it’s, you know, normal and expected and just something you do.
If you don’t take them to vote with you, please make sure your kids know what you’re doing when you go vote. Make sure they understand what you’re doing. Discuss it with them. I asked my kids to tell me what things they thought mattered the most and then we looked at and talked about party platforms to see how they fit. They probably only understood about half of what I even said, and the actual impact of about 3% of it, but it’s about teaching them the exercise of voting.
If they grow up knowing how to get educated and vote, they’ll never face what I did, feeling daunted and overwhelmed when I finally decided I wanted to participate. So please include them somehow.
Okay, I guess that’s all I have to say about that. Now go have your say!
At the beginning of this week, I noticed an Ottawa Citizen opinion piece by Janice Kennedy being floated around Twitter. It wasn’t by any means the first time I’ve seen a very biased and unsupported article being flouted as indisputable fact. I doubt it will be the last. I don’t normally engage with the people who float them around, and I only very seldom comment on the articles themselves, which are sometimes in online newspapers or other magazines, and other times just blog entries from respected individuals.
So I don’t intend to attack any particular individual writer. In fact, I don’t even blame the writers of these articles for the problem I think is becoming endemic among people who want to be—and usually appear to be—politically-minded citizens. But to illustrate my point, I’m going to address Kennedy’s piece, because it’s popular and timely.
The thing about the article, titled “I don’t recognize this Canada” and available here, is that almost none of the opinions are supported with even loose facts. It’s rhetoric and misrepresentation on the scale of the best political smear campaign, and twice as dangerous because people assume that a journalist adheres to some ethical code that would prevent such a thing.
I wouldn’t want to take anything out of context, so the entire article is quoted here, with my comments interjected at relevant points. Any bold font, excluding the title, has been added by me merely in order to draw attention to the particular points I’m addressing.
Parliament resumed this week. So did the profound nuttiness.
It is no coincidence that, also this week: a Mexican refugee claimant and mother of two Canadianborn children was ordered deported – despite credible fears for her safety from an abusive ex-partner, a Mexican police officer; Walt Natynczyk, Canada’s high-flying top general, faced questions about his taxpayer-funded $93,000 Caribbean vacation flights; unionized Air Canada employees were, for the second time in under three months, effectively deprived of their right to strike.
Really? Because that sounds like exactly what a coincidence is. But using the phrase “it is no coincidence” gives the whole thing an air of conspiracy. Even if perhaps, at most, Air Canada and its employees felt the pressure to conclude their negotiations before Parliament could get around to back-to-work legislation, which would mean it’s not a total coincidence, phrasing it the way Kennedy did implies that there was something malicious at the heart of this confluence of events. I’d have to venture to say there wasn’t.
And did I mention the resumption of Parliament?
Parliament is the stage for Stephen Harper’s Conservative agenda. And this week’s news stories about labour abuse, top-brass entitlement and screwed-up immigration priorities are all, not coincidentally, mirror reflections of the Harper Conservative perspective.
(Note: I did not say “conservative perspective,” certainly a legitimate political option. I refer to the narrow focus of a prime minister who seems bent on creating Texas North, a man who once called Canada “a second-tier socialistic country.” ”Harper Conservative” means something specific.)
Yes, yes he did. ELEVEN YEARS AGO. And taking that line out of context is a move straight from the Liberal mud-slinging playbook of 2006, when it was already outdated. And let’s not forget that was the same campaign in which the Liberals ran an ad claiming that Harper was against abortion and wanted to criminalize it. It is a total coincidence that as I write this, some of Harper’s own backbenchers are taking a rare stand against him because they think he’s too strongly in favour of a woman’s right to choose. So, let’s not take our journalistic cues from attack ads, hm?
This is all not to mention, of course, that the quote is generally taken grossly out of context, from what I gather. Originally published in the National Post, Harper’s article containing the phrase seems to have been scrubbed from the face of the earth, but one source gives some insight into what he really meant and why he said what he did.
Under the Harper Conservatives, it’s fine to threaten back-to-work legislation even before a strike is called, even when no essential services are involved. It matters not a whit that this country has, and believes in, labour rights. With a sleight-of-hand well practised at turning black into white, the Harper government professes to respect those rights while persistently stomping all over them. This is nuttiness.
I can’t keep up with who I’m supposed to hate. Weren’t we pissed that the government didn’t interfere with the postal strike fast enough? Cause frankly, I didn’t really consider that an essential service. There are not so many things that go by Canada Post that couldn’t just as easily have found their way by some other route. The same is not true, in my opinion, of Air Canada’s service.
So is the Harper Conservative promotion of military imagery, which flies in the face of its own truth. Even as lower-ranked members of the armed forces remain underpaid and overworked; even as returning combat veterans remain undertreated; even as ombudsmen who champion their causes get swiftly replaced – the brass get to take pricey free vacation flights. (Ignore the PM’s chastising rhetoric this week, the hasty retort of someone obviously reacting to an embarrassment.) Black is white.
First of all, the end of this paragraph has nothing to do with the beginning of it, and I just don’t know what to do with that. There’s a sort of metonymous manipulation here, in which Kennedy attempts by way of juxtaposition to paint all military affairs and policies with a brush that ought really only be applied to some.
Also, everything mentioned is vague and the assessments aren’t supported by any kind of fact. I read A LOT about politics and I only know what two of the references in this paragraph are to, and them only vaguely. I’m sure Janice Kennedy did her research. I’m not sure everyone who passed this article around the digital world has any idea what she’s talking about. And I’m also sure Janice Kennedy knows that.
And yes, of course, ignore the PM’s recent comments and all current political stances and goings-on, but whatever you do, DO NOT ever stop bringing up that eleven year old comment and misrepresenting it. Good advice from the journo world, right there.
Under Harper Conservative nuttiness, which maintains “getting tough” as sacred mantra, lists of immigrant bad guys are trotted out with great public fanfare. Meanwhile, immigration authorities show just how adept they are at getting tough – not by rejecting unskilled 17th-cousins-twice-removed of members of vote-rich ethnic communities, but by ordering the deportation of young mothers with credible scare stories. Black is white, and the result is nutty.
With the Harper Conservatives back in the House in full majority finery, we have returned to the politics of naked emperors praised for their shining raiment. Everything is haywire as they trot out their daily distorted realities.
This paragraph in particular (and the article as a whole) hits one of my least favourite sensationalist scares: the idea that democracy is dead. And of course, Stephen Harper single-handedly killed it. It’s not dead. This isn’t our first majority government. Everyone keeps acting like this rodeo has never been in town before and all the locals are getting swindled by the cowboys. That’s really, definitely, without a doubt, NOT what’s happening.
What really bothers me about the Death of Democracy argument is that it’s intended to sell newspapers and embitter citizens against individuals, and the people who propagate it either don’t realize or don’t care that it’s an ultimately nihilistic stance that discourages people from being engaged with politics and government. It demoralizes and disheartens, and leaves people apathetic. Continually declaring the death of democracy is the very thing that’s killing it.
But I digress…
On the military front – and despite the disproportionate sacrifices of our soldiers – Afghanistan is sinking back into a Taliban quagmire. Yet Harper glibly capsulizes the mission as “a great success.”
How nutty is that?
Yep. Know where he said that? Kandahar. Know who he said it to? The troops serving there.
If you were standing in front of people who just flew across the world and put their lives on the line for something, to borrow a phrase from the inimitable Howie Mandel as Bobby, what word would you say?
I’m not sure how Kennedy knows he was glib about it. Maybe he was. I never saw a video tape.
Furthermore, the comment is again taken entirely out of context. My point is not to argue about Afghanistan and how successful the mission there has been. My point is that there is a context in which this comment doesn’t mean what Kennedy wants you to think it means. But I’m going to encourage you to make up your own mind. You can read a lot more about Harper’s address to the troops here or here or even here. And probably a number of other places to which our mutual friend Google would be willing to direct you.
Internationally, the possible recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations is not even considered, thanks to this government’s knee-jerk support for Israel. True, it’s a delicate and complex issue, and Palestine is probably not yet ready for statehood. And true, Israel is a longtime ally that must be respected as such. But no Canadian government should be so craven as to reject absolutely the truth that Israel is often far from blameless, and that Arab nations are not always villainous.
I don’t think anyone, at least not on behalf of the government as a whole—or even just Harper’s Conservatives—has done that. I certainly don’t see where that’s happened. I’d be happy to have Kennedy show me, or anyone really, if it’s happened. I’m just at a loss here.
As an aside, perhaps some modifiers are just dangling, but is Kennedy trying to imply that the Canadian government with its “knee-jerk” reaction has single-handedly decided the stance of the entire United Nations on Palestine? Surely, she’s not even trying to slyly imply that to those not reading critically enough to catch such an unintentional overstatement.
What distorting Canadian lens renders our current Middle Eastern policy so un-nuanced and lopsidedly predictable? For that matter, what blindness must exist for a government to repeatedly ignore any and all Muslim interests, at home or abroad?
Any? Yes, I entirely agree. There’s an issue that needs attention. I sure as heck don’t know what to do about it, but I guess she’s right that the government doesn’t much address certain things that it perhaps should.
All? At home and abroad? I strongly disagree. Again–if there’s some evidence of what’s being suggested, I’d be more than happy to admit my error.
Then there’s the environment. With disastrous evidence all around us, it cries out daily for action – and is ignored by a government that sees few political brownie points on that front, in Albertan tarsands or anywhere else.
Instead, we get nuttiness dressed up as public policy. A massive new omnibus crime bill is introduced – with no price tag – even though the unConservative reality is that crime rates are actually down. Lots more jail time will be served, despite overwhelming evidence from the United States that this approach has been catastrophic. At the same time, thanks to political optics and archaic rhetoric lifted from the U.S. reverence for “the right to bear arms,” Canadian gun control is about to be loosened.
I don’t know that I’d have called it nuttiness, but I respect the theme and stylistic choice. I also agree with most of what Kennedy is saying in this paragraph. I would note, though, that I don’t think the decision to scrap the long-gun registry has anything at all—not even a smidge—to do with the American right to bear arms. It seems to me that Kennedy is intentionally and erroneously playing on the hard-wired Canadian desire to be anything but American.
There are so many things wrong with our national picture these days, from empty swagger to lost compassion to a tragically eroded sense of international diplomacy, that it is no longer even recognizable. It is a picture that now looks not only mean, but stupid.
How did this happen, this paleolithic official mindset with its darkly Disneyfied world view? The Tea Party wannabes who control Parliament represent no more than a third of Canadians, and yet they’ve put their stamp on all of us. Their counter-intuitive politics have become our mark of Cain.
The tragedy here is that a good country is being steadily turned into a bad joke. And that is nuttiness at its most disturbing.
I guess Kennedy isn’t as good with mathematical logic as she is with rhetoric, since the Harper Conservatives have 39.6% of the popular vote. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she just has trouble with fractions and wasn’t deliberately misleading anybody in an effort to play on the Left-loved “They Shouldn’t Have Won” post-election dirge.
I’m just going to let the rest of these paragraphs, in all their rhetorical brilliance, lie. Because it’s really just a summary conclusion and not worth addressing separately. But in eleven years, someone please remind me to refer to “Janice Kennedy who once said Canada was becoming a ‘bad joke’.” Thanks.
MY POINT?
People seem to love being nihilistic and angry. They swallow whatever pseudo-political gruel is put in front of them because they think that if they’re upset, that must mean they’re knowledgeable and that they care. This is my opinion, anyhow, and it’s based entirely on observation and not on any psychological expertise I certainly don’t have.
I don’t think most people know what Stephen Harper or John Baird (Don’t we love to hate those guys? Sure sells newspapers!) do on an average day. I don’t think most people know what Parliament does every day. I don’t think most people have any idea what the MP they voted for does every day. The civilian involvement in politics is being reduced to a too-easily manipulated swaying of opinion.
And that’s dangerous. The principles on which democracy functions are being destroyed in a fire of propaganda that, sadly, starts at the grass roots, where truth is expected. We should be able to rely on news media and certain pundits and public figures to provide relevant information and not just the best stories. I think they’ve let us down.
More importantly, I think we’ve let ourselves down. I think we do every time we read an article and decide whether we believe it or not without questioning any of the facts behind it. I think we contribute to the problem every time we pass that article on and add our own uneducated ascension to it. I think we’re all responsible. That’s how democracy works.
I’m nobody’s opinion leader. I know that. I’m a girl who’s just smart enough to know she doesn’t know enough. But if there’s one thing anybody would ever listen to me about, I hope it’s this: ask questions, look for facts and learn to distinguish them from opinions, and engage with your government, not just with politics.
To do otherwise is just plain nuttiness.
This is an open letter to ALL candidates for political office, but it is certainly one that some of the candidates in my riding could benefit from.
On Monday, I attended a Perth-Wellington all-candidates meeting–the first all-candidates meeting I’ve attended since the 2000 federal election, which happened to have been the ONLY all-candidates meeting I’d ever attended.
For most people, the ultimate voting decision comes down to a mixture of party and candidate. Some people may prioritize one over the other, but I don’t think many people could vote for one without confidence in the other.
An all-candidates meeting, then, is a great opportunity to get to know the people who would like to represent you in Parliament. In part, it is an opportunity to ask for clarification or further information regarding party policies, and it’s a great time to ask how candidates foresee policies affecting the riding.
On a more basic level, though, I think it’s about asking two questions:
- How well do these candidates understand this riding and our needs?
- How well would each of these candidates represent us?
So, candidates, here is my debate advice from a layperson with remarkably little business offering such advice:
KNOW YOUR RIDING
If you can’t apply your party’s policies directly to the riding you’re supposed to be representing, then you’re not a good choice for representative. It’s as simple as that, really. At that point, I feel like you’re desire is to represent the party and not to represent the people in your area.
If you don’t seem that connected to us before you even start spending half of your time somewhere else (in my case, only two hours away; in some cases, even farther with fewer visits home) then we have trouble believing you would be staying in touch with us, our views, and our needs if you were elected.
DON’T BE SO VAGUE
I heard a lot of “We support better education,” “We are in favour of easier access to healthcare,” “We support families having choices,” “We like pizza and puppies.” Well, who doesn’t? Honestly, which party is out there running on a platform of poor education, longer hospital wait-times, fascist control of our lives, and the banishment of tasty snacks and adorable baby animals? None of them.
When you talk in general terms, not only do you kind of waste everyone’s time because we could have gleaned all that from the party platform and the debate is supposed to be about digging deeper, but you also sound like you don’t really know anything more specific than that. It doesn’t look good.
JOIN TOASTMASTERS OR SOMETHING
Part of your job is to ACTUALLY physically represent us, the people who voted for you, when you get to Toronto (or Ottawa, if that’s the case). You should be able to speak publicly–including extemporaneously–knowledgeably and with confidence. This isn’t just a matter of how you present yourself and looking the part. It’s about how you are going to represent US and advocate for OUR NEEDS.
It’s hard to put faith in your ability to argue on behalf of what’s best for our little slice of the world if your five-minute opening remarks are weak, or if you give vague, conviction-less responses to questions. If you flounder under the pressure of a local teacher asking about education policy, then what are you going to do when you rise to speak in front of a house full of politicians?
Practically speaking, your ability to walk the walk and talk the talk with the big boys does matter. So, do what you have to do to learn how to speak publicly. Except don’t picture us all naked. That’s ew, and not acceptable.
Okay, that’s all my unsolicited advice for today. Well, not all of it, but I’m saving the rest for yelling at the TV while I watch Dr. Phil.*
[*no, not really]
In the Spring, a bill was introduced that is supposed to attempt to prevent human traffickers from taking advantage of Canada’s generous immigration system. This session, debate continues as the Bill is in its second reading. It’s not actually called the Anti-Refugee Bill. Elizabeth May dubbed it that–on Twitter, I think.
I want to try to discuss what’s going on in Parliament, at the federal and provincial level, because I think too many people–including former me–are only interested in the “choosing someone” aspect of politics and have little knowledge of what goes on in Ottawa or Toronto once those people ride off into the election sunset.
I, personally, want to pay more attention to what’s going on every day–not just to learn HOW it works, but to learn WHAT they’re doing. And since really this blog only exists for me to think out loud about what’s going on, that’s what I’ll do.
C-4: THE GIST
The Bill provides for groups of refugees, once labelled as irregular arrivals by the Minister of Immigration, to be detained for up to one year, and to in effect, have all other rights granted to legal immigrants suspended for five years. Such refugees–who would be designated as foreign nationals–would not be able to appeal decisions, apply for permanent residence, or sponsor their families’ immigration to Canada for five years.
It also allows for large fines and other consequences for refugee vessel operators who cannot provide necessary documentation or do not otherwise comply with requests and regulations.
POINTS FOR (by no means exhaustive or fully explained)
By making Canada’s immigration system a less desirable destination for illegal migrants, we would discourage traffickers from making Canada a destination of choice and thereby abusing our immigration system.
Illegal immigrants “jump the queue” and force legitimate refugees to wait longer for consideration and processing. (Mike Wallace)
Preventing trafficking to Canada discourages human trafficking overall, and the Canadian legislation should be one facet of an international approach. (Brian Storseth) According to Storseth, Canada is working with 100 other countries to create that global effort. [I can't verify whether that's true or how, or how effectively, that's being done.]
Illegal immigration is, well, illegal. Extenuating circumstances notwithstanding, it is criminal activity and should be punished.
POINTS AGAINST (ditto, regarding exhaustion and explanation)
The proposed amendments punish the refugees and do nothing to hit those perpetrating the crimes of human trafficking. They also create the possibility for “innocent immigrants” to be mislabelled as illegal refugees and left with no recourse.
The bill would result in the detention, for up to 12 months, of children. Well, of anyone, but the children thing is the cruellest and runs in contravention to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Jamie Nicholls, NDP) and as a result, the Bill stands every chance of being condemned by the UN, which would look bad on Canada (Elizabeth May, Green–I think).
Additionally, it may simply be unconstitutional and in opposition to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The costs incurred, especially as related to detaining children, would be astronomical. (Jamie Nicholls, NDP)
Changed Canadian legislation is unlikely to deter those profiting from human trafficking from continuing to take money from and transport those in desperate need. (Jamie Nicholls, NDP)
It discriminates against people arriving on boats as opposed to by airplane or in cars.
The Bill gives too much power to the Minister of Immigration to act unilaterally and on mere suspicion.
To me, this bill is really about passing the buck. It’s about hoping that human trafficking/smuggling will become someone else’s problem. It doesn’t offer solutions to the fundamental problems or target those at the heart of the problem. It targets the immigrants themselves, but as Louis Palmondon stated in debate, “those who actually do the smuggling are left with impunity.”
I think most Canadians see that as an injustice. I think most Canadians can’t abide the thought of detaining children for a year–or separating them from their detained families if that were a consideration. I think most Canadians would rather continue to be a destination of choice for illegal refugees than see them treated that way.
However, I’m often guilty of substituting my own sensibilities for those of others–that is to say, I sometimes assume that everyone sees the “plain as day common sense” that’s right in front of me. And that’s not always the case. Mike Wallace insists that the vast majority of the people in his riding are in favour of this bill and don’t want illegal immigrants allowed to pass through the same system as legal immigrants. I know a lot of people would just as soon not have any refugees in Canada and will no doubt be in favour of this bill.
At the end of the day, I see why the problem of illegal refugees is worth addressing. I even understand the logic behind this bill and how it got here. I just don’t agree that it’s an effective way to meet the intended objectives.
But I don’t get a vote. So I guess we’ll see what happens if/when it goes to a third reading. As I post this, the second reading is ongoing.
The Ontario General Election is very quickly approaching, and the leaders’ debate will take place September 27, hosted by Steve Paikin. Oh, sorry, not hosted–I mean moderated. I sometimes forget it’s not just tea with friends being televised.
The leaders of the big three Ontario parties are invited to participate: Dalton McGuinty for the Liberals, Tim Hudak for the PCs, and Andrea Horwath for the NDP, who as it happens, got the coveted middle spot. And she should be as happy as people seem to think she should be, because some leaders didn’t get a spot at all.
Green Party leader Mike Schreiner is hoping to also be asked to participate in the debate.
I’m not a Green Party follower.
I honestly have NO IDEA whatsoever what that party is all about and I haven’t got to reading their platform yet. Here’s what I know: in the last general election, the Green Party received 8.02% of the popular vote.
Remember my math from my look at proportional representation? Same thing here:
In Ontario, there are 107 seats (and were in 2007)
Each seat, therefore, represents about .95% of the population–just under 1 anyhow.
If you believe in proportional representation, then the Green Party should have had 8 seats in our 39th Legislative Assembly. They had… drum roll, even though I bet all of you know… none. There are a lot of minor parties that DON’T typically get a full percent of the popular vote. Actually, none of the rest of them made it to 0.9% in 2007, though some came close. But the Green Party got a significant chunk of the vote.
Jeff Keay, is a CBC dude, if you will, who has issued a statement–on behalf of the media consortium in control of the debate–that the Green Party didn’t meet the requirement of having a seat, with the insinuation that these are the hard-and-fast rules of political debate as Moses brought them down from the mountain and we cannot alter them. Well, the fact is, the consortium made the rules. They can change them.
I think the Green Party deserves a spot in the leaders’ debate.
Not because I agree with (or, hell, even KNOW) what they’re all about, but because I believe in a government in which everyone is represented, and 8.02% of voting Ontarians do know and agree with what they’re all about. When the media essentially declares the Green Party to not be a legitimate option, they’re completely disregarding the voices of enough of us to make up several seats, and several votes, in every decision made for the next four years.
I know we don’t use proportional representation, but I believe in it and will act, whenever possible, as if we do. I think the Green Party has earned its place in the debate. If you think that 8% is too much to be ignored–and I know some of you do, and not just when it would suit you–then maybe you can throw Mike Schreiner and the Green Party some support.
HOW? you say:
There’s a petition you can sign here:
http://letmikespeak.ca/en/sign
And I guess that Jeff Keay is the guy at the front of this, so you can contact him here:
On Twitter (it doesn’t appear he’s using to engage, per se, though.)
On the Phone: (416) 205-3987
Okay, look, Jeff Keay is the head of English Media Relations at CBC. I strongly suspect he had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the decision to not include the Green Party in the debate, so I’m not saying harass this guy. But he is the frontline man, and he’s a guy who understands the importance of listening to stakeholders.
Mostly, maybe sign the petition. And maybe call after hours and leave a polite message on Jeff Keay’s answering machine. I mean, if you’re not busy. You’d win all my respect if you did that. And my respect is highly coveted.
Sources for this Article
Ontario general election, 2007 on Wikipedia
I’ve been much more neglectful of this blog than I wanted to be when I started it. I regret that mostly because if I’m neglecting it, then I’m also neglecting learning things about stuff, which is why I started this blog.
I’ve been a little overwhelmed with other life things–even stupid girls have responsibilities sometimes–and I’ve been stealing moments to read legislature transcripts (that’s what the Hansard is for all those* still hanging on that cliff) and party websites and statistics and research. But I haven’t had the opportunity to sit down, sift through my myriad bookmarks, and synthesize it all into something meaningful.
I’m also just finding it really hard to find reliable sources of information about provincial stuff. I’m trying to actually look into some of the things that the parties are presenting as the issues and get to facts behind them, and sometimes, I just plain can’t find facts. I’m on the brink of doing something crazy like calling the local candidates and finding out how much they know.
I don’t want to seem mean-spirited, but it has occurred to me that I’d like to ask them some questions about the facts and logic behind their parties’ platforms. But then I can’t find the facts, so that plan falls apart because they’ll just feed me whatever they’ve been told to feed me. I wish you could rely on debates to get to the real gritty stuff, but could they possibly make those questions any more generic and spinnable? I don’t think they could.
Well, that’s the update: I’m busy, still a bit confused, and mildly frustrated by provincial politics. Aren’t you glad you read this whole thing?
*I like how I said “all those” – three people subscribe to this blog and I’m one of them.
So, hi Tim and Jay!
Sources For This Article
NONE, NOT EVEN WIKIPEDIA
I’ve become really interested in a couple things lately: one is proportional representation and the other is provincial politics. So imagine my surprise when I found out that in 2007 there was a referendum in Ontario to decide whether the province should move to a system of proportional representation. Surprise and disappointment.
The disappointment itself is two fold. The first fold is that I’m disappointed in myself for not even knowing that. The second fold is that I’m disappointed in the way I’m learning that the whole thing went down. I suppose thirdly I’m disappointed that people didn’t vote in favour of proportional representation, but since I didn’t even vote, I can’t really complain about that.
Spoiler Alert! If you’re still on 2006 of Ontario politics, stop reading now!
In the 2007 General Election, people received two ballots upon arrival at their polling station. One was to make their selection for MPP, and the other was to vote in the province-wide referendum on electoral reform.
The Results
102 ridings voted in favour of keeping first-past-the-post, while 5 ridings voted in favour of moving to mixed member proportional. Looking at the actual votes, 37% voted in favour of mixed-member proportional and 63% in favour of sticking with the same. So there’s no way to interpret those results in favour of mixed member proportional.
But I do think there’s more to learn from a deeper look at the results. First of all, the number of people who didn’t vote in the referendum at all struck me a little bit. I would think that for politically-minded people, the system should be just as important as the representatives. So I think the following results probably indicate not that people didn’t care about the reform, but that they didn’t understand the options being presented:
4 457 829 people voted (a 52% turnout, by the way)
Of the General Election Ballots
3,412 declined (why did those people even go?)
10,865 unmarked (again…)
19,654 rejected (that’s kind of a lot!)
for a total of 33,931 voters that somehow didn’t get it done.
I mention this to establish a baseline for human error.
Of the Electoral System Referendum Ballots
21,790 declined
111,766 unmarked
28,512 rejected
for a total of 162,068 people who didn’t get it done.
That’s well above the established (see, a second ago, when I established it) level of human error in voting. Almost five times as many people screwed up or decided not to vote in the referendum as did the general election.
I guess you could say that maybe all those declined and unmarked ballots were from people who were well-informed but just really didn’t care what kind of electoral system we use, but I bet they were from people who just had no idea which way to vote. And bless their hearts for not casting an ignorant vote, but if that many people decided not to vote, then what are the odds that everyone who did vote had a full and critical knowledge of what they were voting for? Not good, is my speculation.
But Before All That
In March 2006, Ontario appointed a group of randomly-selected citizens (not politicians) from every riding to consider electoral reform. This process alone is, I think, really darn cool. Extra darn cool even. It’s pretty extensively described on the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly website.
They did their assembly-ing and decided in May 2007 to recommend that Ontario adopt a system of mixed member proportional representation. Their final report is quite comprehensive if you’d like to understand the system. Really, it’s easily one of the best documents explaining something politics/government-related I’ve read, and I’ve read a lot of them lately.
On that recommendation, Ontario decided to hold a referendum in conjunction with the 2007 General Election to be held in October. The committee recommended that they start an education campaign immediately. That job was handed to Elections Ontario. They started in August 2007 on a campaign that spent half as much money as it was supposed to and that was widely criticized by the members of the Citizens’ Assembly and by politicians from every party for not being informative or extensive enough.
Yes, it was a panpartisan disgruntlement
I’d like to pause here to reiterate that people from every party were dissatisfied–shouldn’t that tell us something right away? No party, not even the Liberals who at the time, stood to lose the most power in the switch, were opposed to this reform. Let’s please all think about what that means for a second.
[Did you pause to think about it? No? Okay, pause now. I'll wait]
And moving on…
Toronto ridings were much more likely to vote in favour of the switch, and since the campaign run by Elections Ontario, which is based in Toronto, was both underfunded and short-lived, I might posit that many of the community presentations, flyers, and newspaper and radio advertisements may have been centred in Toronto. I couldn’t find any solid evidence one way or the other about that, so I’m not going to go any further with my theory. But if you’ve got answers, I’d love to find out the facts on that.
Survey says
I don’t put a lot of stock in polls or surveys (and someday perhaps I’ll blog about why) but The Globe and Mail reported in late September that 47% of people polled knew absolutely nothing about the referendum. Only 12% said they knew a lot, and honestly, you have to know a lot to make a decision. Although apparently the people being polled didn’t think so because half of them said they were voting against the reform or “remaining undecided” while just over half of those who had already decided (so excluding the undecideds) said they were planning to vote for it.
So, at three weeks out, half of the people who had made a decision had decided to vote IN FAVOUR of reform. Then how did we end up with only 37% votes in favour? My theory is that a lot of people who knew nothing about it–some of whom probably didn’t even know what the second ballot was for when it was handed to them–ended up making a snap decision and simply voted against change. I think it’s natural, when unsure, to choose the option that clearly says “keep things they way they are” and that’s understandable when, let’s face it, electoral systems being what they may, life is pretty good in Ontario for the vast majority of voters.
I’m loath to sound like the kind of person who declares that this must be a mistake because it’s impossible that not everybody thinks what I do, and I do recognize that proportional representation is not without its own drawbacks, but it just seems like it didn’t get a fair shot in this particular referendum. I really hope that we get another chance… maybe as early as 2015?
Sources for this article
Wikipedia (always, always Wikipedia):
Ontario Electoral Reform Referendum
Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform (Ontario)
Newspaper-type sources (grains of salt not included):
CBC News: Nearly 3 million residents still don’t know about referendum, says Elections Ontario (Oct 8, 2007)
Ottawa Citizen: Province blamed for ignorance on electoral reform (Oct 4, 2007)
The Globe and Mail: Referendum? Now what referendum would that be? (Sept 24, 2007)
Elections Ontario Past Results
Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform and Their Final Report (pdf)
There are 100 days to go until the 2011 Ontario General Election! We’ve all got our various countdown apps set, I’m sure. The parties are starting their pre-campaigning campaigning, and I’m running two campaigns of my own.
The first is “Please Take Your Kids to Vote With You” and it consists entirely and solely of this amazingly cute video of my children:
The second campaign has a working title of “Please Educate Yourself About the Issues, the Parties, the Platforms, and the Candidates and Then Go Vote, But if You Don’t Bother with the First Four Parts, Please Stay Home and Don’t Cast a Vote Based on the Attack Ad You Most Recently Watched” but that’s kind of long, so the short title is “If You’re Ignorant, Don’t Vote!” Also, this paragraph and the inevitable snide tweets I will make are the extent of that campaign.
But enough about the causes I support made up. On with the business!
Obviously, I know nothing
Do you know nothing, too? If so, stay tuned because I’m going to try to figure out things like ‘What is the provincial government even responsible for?’ and ‘What are the issues at hand?’ and ‘What are the platforms?’ and ‘What is it about the fight scenes in the Bridget Jones movies that makes them the best fight scenes ever?’
I probably won’t blog about that last one. Well, not here anyway.
First point of order: the division of labour
I had a rough idea of what the federal and provincial governments are individually responsible for, but I wasn’t entirely sure about everything. I’m kind of a “straight to the source” girl, so I checked the Constitution, and learned a lot. (And, surprisingly, the Constitution is actually not a bad read. I used this PDF of the consolidated version with amendments.)
According to the Constitution, a Provincial legislature has the power to make and change laws pertaining to the following (liberally paraphrased):
Housekeeping sorts of things
- Creating Provincial offices and paying the people who fill ‘em
- Maintaining and selling land belonging to the province
- Municipal Institutions (should we care more about that?)
- Local works and infrastructures that are just for and within the Province
- Incorporation of companies, and marriages (which are almost the same thing)
The Things We Tend to Care a Lot More About
- Taxation
- Racking up Provincial debt, and paying it, too, I suppose
- Provincial prisons, hospitals, asylums, and charities
- Property and civil rights within the province (we probably have the luxury of not having to care much about this, but it’s still really important, I think)
- Justice and courts and punishment and such-like
- A lot of stuff having to do with natural resources
- Education
- Old age pensions (although that’s partly federal, too)
- Agriculture
- Immigration
Also, “Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province” can be addressed by the Provincial legislature.
So, it’s interesting to know not just the capabilities of the Provincial Legislature, but also its limitations. I tend to think that the Provincial government handles most of the things that affect our daily lives directly, and yet–perhaps it’s just me–people sometimes take it for granted. And maybe that’s a good thing in itself–do we have such a great government right now that people feel comfortable just letting them do their thing? Maybe. Maybe not.
What Next?
I’ll be spending a lot of the next 99 days figuring out which way I want to vote (which I won’t be announcing here, and I will try to keep my posts as unbiased as possible), so I’ll be back with a lot of information for anybody else who happens to be completely ignorant about everything, and a lot of boredom for anyone who reads this even though they haven’t spent their entire lives with their heads in the sand.
Today’s goal is to take a peak at the Liberal, PC, and NDP platforms and begin to do some research into the facts behind them. I’ve also been reading the most recent Hansard (don’t I sound so freaking knowledgeable referencing that?) and it’s been pretty revealing about platforms, too. So if you’re wondering what the Hansard is, I’ll fill you in tomorrow!
Sources for this article
The Constitution
Elections Ontario 2011 site
Preface #1: This post is based largely on my opinion and not on facts, which is kind of against what I’m trying to do here, but I’m nothing if not opinionated, so exceptions must be made.
Preface #2: I have to admit that until an embarrassingly short time ago, I didn’t even know that Canada has a senate.
So, my point is, I don’t pretend to be an authority on anything, and certainly not this. Feel free, as always, to correct me or argue with me.
You probably already know that on Tuesday (June 21), the Conservative party introduced the Senate Reform Act. I’ll say right off the bat that I don’t think this particular combination of changes is a good idea.
The Highlights
There are two parts to the reform:
1) Provinces will be encouraged to elect nominees for the Senate
2) Senators will serve nine-year terms instead of serving until they’re 75
An Elected Senate
Erm, no, not really.
Provinces will be strongly encouraged–not required–to allow citizens to vote for people they would like to have in Senate. This isn’t really new–everyone could have done it, and Alberta has been doing it for a while. The Senate Reform Act, if passed, “would require the Prime Minister to consider the recommended names from a list of elected Senate nominees when recommending Senate appointments” but the PM would not be required to draw from that pool of names. So, for all these elections are really worth, the Prime Minister may as well just post a Facebook poll.
In fairness to Stephen Harper, in 2007, upon learning an Alberta seat would be open in the Senate, he did announce immediately (the next day) that it would be filled by their most recently elected Senator in waiting. The Act doesn’t require future Prime Ministers to do so, though, and it just seems to me that this portion of the Act falls something short of being an effective, dependable reform. It has the potential to, depending on the Prime Minister, be a waste of time and resources.
Most importantly, I don’t think that this system–even if it was binding for the Prime Minister–corrects the problem it was supposed to correct, which is that Senate seats can be bought with either promises or cold hard cash. Harper is widely known to have spent the last few years stacking the Senate with people who support this reform, which is kind of funny given what this reform is about, but I think his intentions were more or less honourable.
It’s naive, in my opinion, to think that electing a Senate would mean that people can no longer get seats based on who their friends are. That will be how they get on the ballot. And then the same political games and strategies that we all love to hate about MP elections will be just as rampant–and effective–in Senate elections. Assuming these reforms are enacted, my sincerest hope is that it turns out that most Canadians don’t care enough about the Senate for it to be worth them going to the trouble of full-scale campaigning. I’ll explain why in a minute.*
Reducing the Life Sentence
Having Senators serve until they’re 75 creates the potential for some problems, and not the least of them stems from the human proclivity for laziness when failure is literally not an option. With a minimum age of 30 to be eligible for senate, that means that a Senator could serve for 45 years, which does, I admit, seem awfully long, and there is probably a legitimate concern that some of these Senators–especially those who weren’t necessarily politically minded to begin with–become old dogs not keeping up with the new tricks.
On the other hand, though, a nine year term is awfully short–and a bit of a tongue-in-cheek concession from the original proposal of eight, I’m guessing. Like most of the people who felt eight was too short, I think nine is still too short, and that it precludes the Senate from performing its intended function. (More on that in a minute, too*)
I think what it will create is a second much more dangerous tier of party politics and backroom strategy. With 105 Senators, on average and possibly using some sketchy math work, eleven or so Senators will retire every year, which means that every Prime Minister has an awful lot of immediate power in the Senate, especially given that there’s no obligation whatsoever to appoint the elected nominees (and can I please point out that even the term ‘elected nominees’ that arises from this process is (oxy)moronic?). So if you think that Senators were being appointed based on their promises to support a given policy or party before, I don’t know how this seems like an answer to the problem at all.
The one saving grace of this part of the reform is that Senators will only be allowed to serve one nine-year term. They can’t ever be Senator again. Although I still think that nine years is too short, I’m glad that this means that the Senators can still make decisions, voice opinions, and generally do their thing without being encumbered by the ever-present knowledge that they have to win another election. Which brings me to…
*Here’s the More:
The argument that our current Senate is simply not democratic–though true–is irrelevant. It was never intended to be democratic because it is meant to be a check against the pitfalls and shortcomings of a democratic system. Senators aren’t supposed to have to worry about votes and campaigns and strategy. The Senate’s ‘sober second thought’ is supposed to be free of all those things to provide a level of consideration in which campaign promises and pandering and keeping one’s job past the five-year mark aren’t a factor. If it can’t do that anymore, then it becomes a bit of a waste of a very nice Chamber.
I really do {heart} democracy!
I am pro-Senate because I believe in the value of those checks and balances that it provides, but don’t misunderstand, I think having a body of representatives that is elected and serves a fairly short term before being reconsidered for re-election based on the current views and needs of the citizens is equally–okay, more–important. But we already have that. It’s called the House of Commons. We don’t need another one. If they’re going to go ahead and make the Senate a second House of Commons, I think we’d be better off to get rid of it completely and open up more seats in the actual lower house. But that’s another topic for another day…
Sources for this article
Democratic Reform June 21, 2011 news release (that’s where the quote came from)
Wikipedia: Senate of Canada
Wikipedia: Alberta Senate Nominee Elections
