Gauntlet.ca

Gauntlet.ca 3.0

2009-09-28T09:39:00.004-07:00

This blog started out life as a Scoop site running on an old computer that ran Linux on the floor of my apartment. Five years (and two homes) later I ran out of the floor-space and patience to be dealing with my own hardware, and so I decided to switch to a blogger site hosted on a friend's server. I've been blogging in more or less that format for the last four and a half years.

In the meantime, I've learned a lot more about web development and content management, and I'm interested in putting what I've learned to use. School and work also mean that I've had less time to indulge in my blogging over the last few months. You may have noticed it's been almost two months since I posted. So this seems like a good time to put Gauntlet.ca up on a lift and tinker with the engine.

So Gauntlet.ca is going to be experiencing some downtime. But it will be back. Thanks for your patience.

Thinking Ahead

2009-08-04T13:22:00.002-07:00

Doug Griffiths, MLA for Battle River - Wainwright, is right.

Read his article on the need for nuclear power in this province. It's important.

But also ask yourself this: is he making a conservative argument, or a liberal argument?

I think the answer is neither. Which goes to show what I've been harping on for a long time: the most important problems that Alberta faces in the next 50 years cannot be solved by disagreements over how conservative or liberal we are.

We have to decide if we're making decisions for now, or for the future.

I vote for the future. And if Griffiths was in charge, I'd vote for him. Which is saying something.

Green Post-Mortem

2009-08-03T21:29:00.003-07:00

I'm going to admit to a sort of train-wreck fascination with what's been happening in the Alberta Green party for quite some time. So when "Mary Martin" posted on a recent blog that some things had recently been posted on the facebook page for the Greens in Alberta, I had to take a look.

It turns out that the posts on the facebook page confirm some things that I heard a long time ago. In what I think was my first post on this saga, I mentioned that I had heard some things, and that what was being reported was not what I had heard. In my most recent post, I talked about people mistaking honest mistakes for something malicious. What I was alluding to in both places has now been discussed in public on the facebook page, and a lot more.

Paul Last had some long conversations and a meeting with Joe Anglin about the whole affair, and he posts a lengthy recap. Some of the highlights (with some updates from another discussion on the page):

[Update: The two links above are no longer functional on the facebook site. Mary suggests in the comments section below that they have been removed by the facebook group administrator. - Gauntlet]

Members of the past executive went to some effort to prevent Joe Anglin's motions from being considered at an AGM.
Joe Anglin at some point offered to resign, or not run for the leadership, or both. I didn't quite understand the context of that.
There is documentary evidence that shows David Crowe, the previous financial officer, did not do what he claims to have done on his website.
The party was actually voluntarily de-registered in order to avoid the embarassment of what would have happened if they had attempted to maintain it.
A company owned and operated by David Crowe and Susan Stratton reportedly provided illegal loans to the party in 2008. (This is what I had originally heard was going on.) The receipt of these loans was approved, at least in part, by David Crowe. So in this sense, he was authorizing the expenditure of interest to himself.
These loans were evidently not disclosed to the auditor, their auditor has resigned, and it very unlikely that any other auditor would agree to audit the party's books without a full forensic audit. That is not a financial possibility, and was a major reason for the party's demise.
Anglin accuses a number of past executives of falsely signing a document indicating that the party was incorporated under the Business Corporations Act.
Someone is prepared to file a claim for extortion against David Crowe on the basis of a recorded phone call.

As for the value of the rest of this information, it's nil. We know more, but we've learned nothing. It's unfortunate that none of the parties deeply involved in this process seem to have ever realized that what was at risk was something much larger than whether or not their opponent got what was coming to them for their mistakes or misdeeds.

City of Edmonton Citizen Panel Reports

2009-07-22T10:37:00.002-07:00

As I mentioned some time ago, the City of Edmonton undertook a pilot project this year to involve a group of citizens, randomly selected and representative of the city's population, in a long-term education and consultation process that would help the City Council guide its decision-making in the 2010 budget process.

The results of that process are avaialble here.

The difference between polling people who have not been informed or educated on a topic and polling people who have is astounding. Consider that the last two referendums held on electoral reform had less than 50% support, but that the citizens' assemblies which were randomly selected and given an even-handed education on the topic always voted more than 95% in favour of reform. The only possible explanation is the education they received. I think the same positive effect is visible here. The report lists four wonderful recommendations:

Continue to increase the density of our city through long-term planning.
Ensure that our transportation system emphasizes the convenience of users and the uniqueness of Edmonton’s climate.
Use environmental and economic sustainability as the basis for policy decisions aimed at livability.
Use proactive and preventive methods to reduce crime and increase safety, such as early intervention and gender-specific safety initiatives.

The panel also recommended a change in thinking toward greater citizen involvement in democratic decision-making, and toward an understanding of the interconnected nature of the decisions the city has to make.

I think this is an intelligent, visionary, and brave direction to have given the city, and I hope that the city takes full advantage of it. We'll see if it translates into action on the part of Edmonton City Council.

Elections Alberta: Greens no more.

2009-07-15T12:31:00.005-07:00

In a culimination of a long series of posts here on Gauntlet.ca, we can now make it official.

The Edmonton Journal reports that the Alberta Green party has been de-registered and will not contest the next provincial election in Alberta. Steps have been taken to start the process of re-establishing it at some point in the future.

Maybe it's best for the Green Party that it be enabled to start from scratch with a clean slate. I can't help but think that if leader Joe Anglin and his associates had been helping to resolve past errors rather than prosecuting them, the outcome might have been more positive for all involved. Including Albertans, who have now had their choices in the next election reduced.

How not to report on polls.

2009-06-25T09:53:00.003-07:00

Check out this story at the CBC. It's not alone, it's just the most stark example of this problem I've seen recently.

The liberals are at 32.6, the Conservatives are at 34.8. The difference is 2.2. Both of those numbers have a +/- of 1.7%. Which means the Liberals are between 30.9 and 34.3, 19 times out of 20. The Conservatives are between 33.1 and 36.5, 19 times out of 20.

Those two ranges overlap for 1.2%, only 0.5 less than the margin of error. So that tells me that they are basically tied now, just like they were two weeks ago.

They report a 0.9% drop for the Liberals this way:

The Liberal numbers in the poll released Thursday are a drop from the 33.5 per
cent support reported in a similar EKOS poll conducted last week.

Now, the difference between 33.5% and 32.6% is 0.9%. Which is inside the margin of error. So has the support for the Liberals actually declined? We don't know.

Headline: Support doesn't change, parties still tied.

Now look what the actual headline was.

Book Review: The Political Brain

2009-06-11T12:08:00.003-07:00

Drew Westen and his wife suffered the loss of an unborn child. So when he says that the Democratic party in the US needs to communicate better on the issue of abortion, he speaks from the position of a person who understands personally how emotionally conflicted we are in how we view the unborn.

But Drew Westen is also a neurologist, so he also speaks from the position of a person who understands where emotional conflicts like this come from, how they work, and how significantly they effect our most important political decisions.

The basic premise of The Political Brain is that you cannot sell political ideas on reason alone, or even on reason first. Our brains are not wired to exclude emotion from our decision-making. Far from it. The vast majority of our decision-making can be attributed to emotion first and foremost.

I had my own emotional conflict absorbing that premise. On the one hand, the fact that appeals to rational decision-making are fundamentally ineffective is unnerving. It rattles my sense of my own rationality, and of my ability to use reason to convince others. It makes me question whether my own views are correct, and whether or not I can promote them.

On the other hand, there is almost a sense of relief. Maybe we are all deluded in how we think our own decisions are made, but at least if we know the nature of the delusion, we can utilize its features to be more effective communicators of political ideas. It also, frankly, makes it easier to understand what seems at times like the mass stupidity of politics.

I also found it difficult to digest his advice, sometimes. For instance, he suggests that an absolute ban on abortion should be characterized as a rapist's bill of rights. That narrative has the same flaw he sees in the dominant conservative narrative - an absence of motivation for the antagonists. People who would ban abortion no more love rapists than people who would support gay marriage hate families.

The problem is that if you fail to take people on in an emotional way, you cede the entire playing field to the enemy. And the neurological effect of silence is equivalent to the effect of agreeing. So you have to disagree, and in an emotionally evocative way.

Westen's advice to the left seems to be that they need to draw a distinction between having moderate policies and having moderate (or as he calls it, dispassionate) politics. If you want to unite and convince people it's all about big emotion.

Yes, it's not how we have told people for hundreds of years that we should aspire to make decisions. It's just the way we actually do, and always have. The more I understand the game of politics, the less I like it. But hopefully the more I understand it, the better I can get at it. Because it never seems less important.

Book Review Suggestions?

2009-05-24T06:27:00.003-07:00

My list of future book reviews is down to 1 book, and I purchased the last copy of "The Political Brain" in Edmonton yesterday, so the list will soon be empty.

Do you have any suggestions for what should be added to the list? Let me know. I'm more likely to review it if it has practical implications for the practice of democracy.

Book Review: Nudge

2009-05-24T05:53:00.003-07:00

Here's the book Nudge in three paragraphs:

Human beings are bad at making rational decisions in their own self interest where they lack the opportunity to practice, with strong and immediate feedback on their choices. That covers a lot of areas.
The way you give a person a choice will have a sometimes massive effect on the choice that person will make. This effect cannot be avoided.
It is therefore appropriate to structure choices in a way that promotes good decision making, so long as this does not prevent anyone from doing exactly what they want to do.

That is what Nudge is about. Let's stop pretending that human beings are good at making difficult decisions, and start helping them where we know what the good decisions are.

This book had plusses and minuses for me. First of all, after reading Blink!, a couple of the first few chapters were sort of review, but focussed on the particular problem of "choice architecture."

Second, the last half of the book is devoted to proposing and defending specific nudges in the area of health, finance, education, etc., but those proposals are in the context of the United States. I found this section difficult to get interested in. Also, because I'm always reading these things with an eye to what they mean for democracy, those were not my primary areas of interest.

So what does "Nudge" mean for democracy? Well, nothing good.

People tend to make bad choices when the costs and benefits of those choices are time separated, when they are difficult, when they are made infrequently, where there is not good feedback, and where it is difficult to relate the choice you made to the effects that choice has on your life.

Sounds like voting, to me.

So our voting decisions get made on the basis of things like similarity bias, or conformity. That's why in US Presidential nomination races, winning Iowa is so important. It's at the start, and it makes it look as though others are voting for you.

So interestingly, talking about how few Albertans actually vote is likely to have the effect of making fewer Albertans vote. If you take ideas like that seriously, you start to feel sympathy for spin doctors, and start to question whether you are really better off after watching the TV news.

The generalized prescriptions of Nudge are pretty straightforward. Pick better defaults. Use incentives, or make those costs or benefits more salient to people. Give feedback. Expect mistakes, and deal with them gracefully. Draw direct links to consequences. Structure chocies so that known short-cuts in decision making will not result in bad decisions.

Interestingly, the new federal regulations regarding credit cards are a good example of some of these ideas. The annual report required from the credit card company is taken directly from the second half of this book on giving more feedback. The fact that the reports have to indicate how long it would take to pay off your debt using minimum payments is an example of making information more salient, and drawing links to consequences for your life.

Overall, the book was interesting, particularly in its first half. I think it actually suffers, though, from a problem of scope. The idea of choice architecture is something that can be applied to just about any area of endeavour. It would influence the design of the buttons on a remote control (How many times has your TV done something, and you say to yourself "what did I press?" TVs should expect error, and provide feedback.), as well as the design of a national health care insurance program. The authors have addressed those issues that they thought were most important, but the second half of the book was too devoid of story to be particularly interesting. You know that they're right, you just don't want to read it any more.

Still, I'd recommend it for anyone who's concerned about getting regular people to make difficult decisions better, where there are objective and rational grounds to believe that some decisions are clearly better than others.

Much Ado About Green Nothings

2009-05-11T22:38:00.004-07:00

When last I updated you on the situation with the Alberta Greens, their leader Joe Anglin claimed that the party was on the brink of deregistration by Elections Alberta because they had retained an accountant who determined that there was not sufficient information to provide Elections Alberta with the required financial reports.

There have also been concerns about the ability to issue tax receipts for donations, and about inappropriate loans to the party being approved, and other anomolous "issues" and "damage".

There are evidently legal actions underway, possibly in more than one direction.

What is new is that the former CFO of the Greens, David Crowe, has stated his case more thoroughly. He posts here (h/t Daveberta) that he provided all of the financial information to Joe Anglin's administration, but that Joe Anglin's administration failed to forward that information in its entirety to their accountant. In support of this he links to a conversation between himself and the accountant in question in which the accountant told him that he did not have the entire financial database, but just a report from it.

So what the heck is actually going on? I don't know. But I have a guess. I think Joe's people misconstrued some honest mistakes made by the past executive as something malicious. They undertook a hostile takeover, and unsurprisingly subsequently got the minimum amount of help from the old administration in transition, which was significantly less than they needed in order to understand what was going on. As a result, they've made their own honest mistakes. So everyone blames everyone else for the demise of the party, when in reality, the party is just fine.

Or, maybe these people are right. Maybe one or both parties is illegitimately trying to screw the other party over. But I subscribe to Hanlon's Razor: never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Why Twitter?

2009-05-11T22:27:00.002-07:00

So I jumped on the twitter bandwagon a while ago, and I put a twitter gadget on my google homepage, put my tweets on the blog, and I followed a bunch of people and a bunch of people are following me.

Here's the thing: I don't get it.

Am I getting to the point where there is social media I just don't "get"? Am I that old?

All I've used it for is to get breaking news, and that is just as easily accomplished with an RSS feed and a news aggregator. And there, there's no limit on the characters forcing me to use shortened-url services that reliably fail.

Can anyone explain to me the point? Because right now it's just making my homepage load slower.

Please Vote for BC-STV!

2009-05-10T14:33:00.003-07:00

I want to live in a world where I have my equal say on the expectations that society can hold me to. I want to have some say in the laws, and how they're enforced. And I want everyone to have the same say. That's why I like the idea of democracy.

But there are good and bad ways to do democracy.

Good ways ensure that people can see the effect of their participation in the system. It gives the system legitimacy. Bad ways tend to ignore what the majority of people prefer, and make it an easy system to ignore.

Good ways increase your options and allow you to choose the representative you want. Bad ways limit your options and force you to pick the lesser of evils.

Good ways ensure that your representative does what the voters want them to do. Bad ways ensure that the representative does what their party or their leader wants them to do.

Good ways encourage the ambitious to prove themselves. Bad ways encourage the ambitious to destroy the alternatives.

Good ways make sure that the barrier to entry of a normal, independent Canadian is low. Bad ways force people who want to participate in politics to sell their support to others.

Good ways make votes more important than money. Bad ways make votes easier to buy than to earn.

On Tuesday, the people of BC have an opportunity to choose a better way of doing democracy than the one we have.

Please vote for BC-STV.

Book Review: Outliers

2009-05-06T15:27:00.005-07:00

Malcolm Gladwell has made himself a favourite of mine. After reading "The Tipping Point" and "Blink!", and reviewing them here, when I found a copy of "Outliers" in a Wal-Mart while doing some Christmas shopping a few months ago, I had to pick it up.

It is merely the realities of being a father of two and a law student that have prevented me from finishing it, and telling you about it, until today.

Here, Gladwell takes his characteristic style of combining social and cognitive science with compelling story-telling, and turns it to a more traditional object. "The Tipping Point" dealt with the idea of what makes an idea spread among people. "Blink" dealt with the power of the unconcious mind. "Outliers" has a more traditional idea at its core: Outliers - those people who seem to achieve so much more than everyone else - are not self-made. They are the result of two things: opportunity, and perseverance.

Now, it's not surprising to anyone that you need opportunity, and you need to take advantage of it in order to succeed. But Gladwell convincingly pushes this idea to its extreme. Not only do you need opportunity and perseverance, but you need pretty much nothing else. For instance, you do not need talent. Why? Because there is no such thing as talent. There is only practice. Which requires only opportunity and perseverance.

And opportunity can take strange forms. Your birthdate, your ethnicity, your birthplace, the sort of work your parents do, your culture, all these things can have profound and post-dictable (hard to know about in advance, but after the fact you can see the relationship) effects on your success. Your parents can also have profound effects on you through their parenting style, but those effects are much more likely to be cultural than intentional, and typically relate directly to getting you opportunities, and teaching (or imposing) perseverance. In particular, he focuses on the teaching by demonstration of the value of meaningful work: anything complex, autonomous, and rewarding (where reward and effort are related).

The second main theme of the book is the idea of cultural legacies. This is the idea that a significant part of who and what you are is determined by things that happened and circumstances that existed generations ago. These legacies are long lasting, powerful, and ambivalent. They may be valuable to you, they may be destructive.

By way of a subjective review, this is not my favourite of Gladwell's books, merely because what is surprising here is not the conclusion, but the reasons. At the same time, it is compelling, and it is political, which is different for Gladwell. He is saying, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, that you do not get what you deserve in this world. Successful people do not, in any moral sense, deserve their success more than other people might. Which means that if you believe that people should get what they deserve, you need to decide what you think people deserve. And if your answer to that is "an equal opportunity to succeed," there is a lot of work to be done.

On a more personal note, when he talks about the impact of your parents' culture, your own age, your location, I can't help but draw parallels to my own life. I have a great deal of family. My father had 11 siblings, and my mother 8. Most of those aunts and uncles had multiple children, and some of those cousins now have children, too. I'm pretty sure some of my cousins' children have children. So my family is massive. But the vast majority of it is in Ireland. So my parents developed a network of friends in their new home. Out of four or five families in that network that had their kids here, each with three or four children, all within a few years of each other, there are three of us who have now finished or are finishing law school. Almost 25%. I don't know how that compares to the rest of my family in Ireland. I can say that I'm not aware of any of my family in Ireland having more than one post-secondary degree.

Now, I like to think I'm smart. But Gladwell would suggest that there is something about being born in the late 70s / early 80s to parents who emigrated from Ireland to Alberta in the mid-1970s with a trade. Something that gives you the opportunity and the attitude necessary to succeed in that particular way.

If you find that suggestion ridiculous, but you enjoy having your mind opened to new possibilities, you should read Outliers.

My eyes are up here.

2009-04-27T15:20:00.002-07:00

This made me laugh.

Now where do you think the President of France and the King of Spain are gazing in this photo?

The more names change...

2009-04-26T06:40:00.005-07:00

There is an epidemic of identity crisis going through Alberta's opposition parties right now.

David Swann was elected leader of the Alberta Liberal Party after taking up the damn-near-obvious idea that word "Liberal" in Alberta is a burden. At least, he said, everything was "on the table." Well, as it turns out, the entire staff of the ALP was on the table, but the name no longer is. The Liberals had their AGM yesterday, and have decided, after a great deal of soul searching, that the idea of changing the party name is no longer up for consideration. Wait... no. It says David Swann has decided that a name change is off the table. The members evidently didn't even vote on it.

Weird.

The Wildrose Alliance (nee Alberta Alliance and Wildrose Parties) leader Paul Hinnman has stepped down, and there is speculation as to who might replace him, and whether they will change their party name.

The Green Party came within one vote of changing the name of it's party to "Progress Party" at its last AGM. But the resolution was defeated. Current and past executives continue to fight one another in court while the current executive seems to be begging Elections Alberta for its life in the face of reporting irregularities. Meanwhile, Edwin Erickson, who is working with Joe Anglin (leader of the Green Party) on the Bill 19 protests, and who is the former deputy leader of the Green Party, is actively seeking to create a new political party called (you guessed it) the Progress Party.

[Update: The above paragraph was edited to remove a factual error made in good faith. I'd like to thank Connie Jensen for her patience and good humour.]

There are people in this province who know that the best route to a vibrant democracy is not to create a bunch of still-smaller factions of anti-government sentiment, but to unite around something popular and positive that can inspire. The sad truth is that those people do not have a political party in Alberta.

Yet.

How my last month went...

2009-04-24T21:25:00.001-07:00

So yeah. I might take some time off.

New Logo!

2009-04-21T11:07:00.004-07:00

I know you'll all be excited... Gauntlet.ca has a new logo! Yes... that checkmark in a circle thing was supposed to be a stylized capital "G". I think this one works better. Enjoy!

Bill 205

2009-04-18T10:48:00.002-07:00

I saw in the Edmonton Journal today that Airdrie-Chestermere MLA Rob Anderson has moved Bill 205, a private members bill that would limit third-part advertising expenditures.

This is a delicate topic. In a democracy, you expect there to be freedom of speech, and that includes the freedom to do with your property as you see fit. But in reality, human beings are susceptible to the forces of effective advertising.

I know, I know. Advertising doesn't effect you. It's just everyone else on the planet that they are aiming at when people pay millions of dollars for 30 seconds on Superbowl day.

That, in and of itself, is not a problem. If we were all able to bombard one another with effective advertising all the time, then who cares? No, there are two associated problems. The first is that not everyone has access to very expensive media campaigns. That's the motivation for placing limits on how much can be spent on this sort of thing. The second problem is that you don't necessarily know who's spending the money. You can't always judge the message by its source.

So Bill 205 requires donation limits to third-party advertising accounts, and it requires reporting of where those donations came from.

Of course, the donation limits are around $30,000 during an election year, so all that does is prevent the uber-wealthy from single-handedly running third party advertising campaigns. I haven't actually noticed any uber-wealthy individuals running third party advertising in elections. Have you?

So the limits aren't strong enough. But then again, neither are the donation limits to political parties. Why? Probably because there is another reality to be dealt with: democracy costs money, and someone is going to have to pay for it, or what we've got is not really democracy. The Alberta government doesn't like the idea of public funding for political parties outside of donation tax credits, so that's not going to happen. So the limits are basically meaningless.

The disclosure rules exist, though. So that's good. Except... I don't remember anyone running third-party advertising and hiding their identity. Do you?

So this bill will kinda solve a couple of problems that don't really exist.

Meanwhile, the Chief Electoral Officer (who was fired) has repeatedly recommended that the same law be amended to incorporate rules that say that if a political party accepts illegal contributions, it can't keep them. For the time being, there's only a $1000 fine. So a $2000 illegal donation is a really good deal. He also says that he has recommended half a dozen times that people be prosecuted for offences under the act, and nothing has ever happened.

Those are real problems. I wonder why Bill-205 isn't addressed to them.

BC-STV gaining momentum

2009-04-11T13:22:00.003-07:00

Well, they are off and running in BC, and electoral reform will once again be on the ballot.

If you are not from British Columbia, you may skip down to "EVERYONE" below.

If you are from British Columbia, and you know everything there is to know about the BC-STV method, what it means, how it was chosen, and so on, you may skip to "EVERYONE FROM BC" below.

For the remainder of you:

Do you think that a party with 30% of the votes should get somewhere around 30% of the seats in your legislature? Seems fair, right? If so, you are a fan of what we call "proportionality." BC-STV is more proportional than the system you are currently using, and so it is more fair.

Do you think that political parties are paragons of virtue, and deserve to be the gate-keepers of democracy? Nonsense, right? If it seems to nonsense to you, then you want to limit the power of political parties in our electoral process. BC-STV does that by making it easier for people to get elected without party affiliation.

Do you think people are capable of disagreeing on more than one thing, and that maybe more than one disagreement should be up for debate in an election? Seems obvious, doesn't it? But the existing system prevents a variety of opinions from being represented. BC-STV makes our political conversation more diverse.

Maybe you don't really care about these things, and you don't see why you should. That's fair. That's fine. But take this to heart: A crapload of random people like you were force-fed an education in electoral systems a few years ago, and those people damn near unanimously said that BC-STV would be better than what you have. That's the same thing that happens in every jurisdiction where random people are given an education and asked to choose.

Don't assume that the status quo is better just because you don't understand the alternative. Find out about it. It is better. And if you're not willing to find out about it, don't vote.

EVERYONE FROM BC

We need you to lead the way. Canada needs electoral reform. But someone has to lead the way. Please, please, please vote YES for BC-STV.

EVERYONE

If you can, help.

Update on Green Troubles

2009-04-06T09:21:00.003-07:00

One of the things that excites me about blogging is that sometimes, you learn a lot from your comments section.

Last week I posted on the troubles facing the Alberta Greens. That initiated a conversation in the comment section between a number of people closely involved in the matter. For those of you who don't want to read through the comments yourselves, here are the salient points:

A few days before Christmas 2008, the former CFO, David Crowe, resigned.

Joe Anglin, current leader of the Alberta Greens, states that in December of 2008, at which point he and others already knew there were "significant problems" that "go far deeper than just failing to file a year-end financial statement" in the Alberta Greens, he hired Myers Norris Penny (an accounting firm) and a lawyer to help figure out the financial situation of the party and meet their regulatory requirements under the Elections Act.

The accountants told him that there was not enough information to complete an audited financial statement. They disclosed what they knew to Elections Alberta, and began meeting with them to resolve the situation. Nothing significant has changed since then.

According to this facebook post linked by Lawrence Porter, the Secretary of the party Madeleine Oldershaw resigned in January due to executive meetings being called on short notice in places she could not attend, and there being no opportunity to teleconference into them.

Lawrence Porter claims that in January, Joe Anglin claimed that the prior executive had failed to meet a requirement for incorporation that Lawrence claims does not exist. He also claims to have been getting a cold shoulder from the new executive.

Madeleine Oldershaw claims that everything the executive needs to make the reports has been provided to them, and that the former CFO had offered to do the reports himself. She accuses Joe Anglin of approaching Green members about working with former deputy leader Edwin Erickson on the creation of a new "Progress Party". Edwin left the party in February and announced that he was attempting to create this new party.

Connie Jensen, President of the Alberta Greens, confirmed what Joe Anglin had posted, and disputes that Lawrence Porter has been getting a cold shoulder.

Thomas, a party member, notes that there is a Court of Queen's Bench application outstanding in Red Deer (presumably to obtain the required documents?), and claims that from his vantage point it looks like repeated requests were made of the old exuecitve to get at original documents and files, and those requests have not been met. He also asserts that the incorporation requriement Joe spoke of in January is real.

David Crowe, the former CFO who resigned in December, chimed in to say that he had not received "anything close to a specific request." He also notes that the new executive may be violating the law by failing to promptly appoint his replacement. He further says that he gave the new executive everything they needed to get contribution tax receipts out on time.

And the conversation continues.

My questions:

Is Joe Anglin working with Edwin Erickson on the creation of the "Progress Party"? If so, why?
What are the significant problems that Joe Anglin claims existed in the party prior to the new executive coming in?

Update: Joe Anglin answers these questions below.

Updates on Green and Liberal Woes

2009-04-02T16:09:00.004-07:00

On the Green Party situation, check here for an enlightening comment from leader Joe Anglin, explaining the Green Party's situation in more detail. Kudos to Joe for being frank about it. And thanks again for reading.

On the Liberal Party's situation, check out Darcy Henton's story in the Journal, and Daveberta's fancy camerawork for the raw footage.

In other collapsing Alberta party news...

2009-04-01T10:31:00.003-07:00

Joe Anglin, leader of the Green Party, says that he doesn't think the Green Party is going to be able to avoid deregistration by Elections Alberta unless they decide to overlook the fact that they can't submit their audited financial statements for last year.

Seriously. This is dismal.

ALP Lays Off Entire Staff

2009-04-01T09:07:00.002-07:00

The official opposition of the wealthiest province of one of the wealthiest nations in the world cannot afford to hire someone to answer the phones.

Daveberta reports that the last two employees of the Alberta Liberal Party have received layoff notices.

I asked a while ago whether the ALP could be saved. This doesn't bode well for it. They still have their caucus employees, but I don't know if those people can legitimately take on party organization responsibilities. Or whether they want to.

Even if they do, it's not clear that the ALP has found a sustainable position, yet. I hear that fundraising is drying up. With no employees, one imagines the downtown office space is next to go. After that, it will likely be rural constituency associations that will atrophy and die for lack of support. Goodness only knows how many constituency associations have sufficient volunteer resources and experience to be able to continue functioning absent the support of a central party. One wonders whether or not they will even be able to maintain a membership list.

This comes mere days after the ALP sent out a message in which David Swann was more or less begging for money to keep the office running. Did they not see it coming? How disorganized IS this party right now?

And how bad will this have to get before people start noticing that democracy is dying in this province?

Bag-of-Hammers Dumb

2009-03-30T16:21:00.004-07:00

The LPC's Renewal Committee came out with a number of proposals that I think were right on target. The right things to do, not just the easy things to do. I commented before on how that result was bemusing to me, because I have long since given up caring what happens to the LPC.

Well, the national executive decided that of all of the proposals made by the Renewal Committee, only one would see the light of day at a convention: the one-member one-vote leadership process. The rest were voted down. That was dumb. And not just because the proposals would have helped.

The situation they've left themselves with is that in the absence of a leadership race, and in the absence of a meaningful policy discussion, the LPC wants people to spend over $1000 a shot and go to Vancouver so that they can ... wait for it ... re-do a vote that was soundly defeated in Montreal.

Don't get me wrong. I think OMOV should be adopted, and as long as it isn't I applaud anyone who brings it forward to try again. But this is the only substantive decision that is going to be made at this convention. The only one.

And this decision - the decision of whether every member of the party should be given the right to vote in leadership races, or whether that right should belong only to those people lucky enough to be convention attendees - will be made by ... wait for it ... convention attendees. The only way OMOV is getting adopted at this convention is if Iggy comes out personally in favour of it. So really, we could just let Iggy decide, and all stay home.

Let's all hold our breath, shall we?

I hope for the LPC's sake that the convention facility in Vancouver has the ability to shrink the hall to match the number of attendees. Because I predict attendance at this convention is going to be a serious embarrassment for the LPC. Which means they will probably lose money.

Highly Bemusing

2009-03-28T13:51:00.003-07:00

There will be two electoral reform do-overs in BC this year. In May, the British Columbia government will re-do a referendum on adopting BC-STV, a more proportional and more democratic electoral method than the rest of the country uses. Last election, it was defeated, barely, with only 59% of the popular vote. (It needed 60%. Don't ask me why.)

And at their national convention, the Liberal Party of Canada will vote on whether to adopt a weighted one-member one-vote method of selecting their leader. So instead of having to get elected as a delegate to convention and paying over $1000 in delegate fees and travel expenses, all you have to do is have a membership, and show up at your local poll on election day.

That one got less than 50% support at the last convention, and it needed 75%, or something like that. The rest of the constitutional amendments passed, but this one was voted on separately. (Don't ask me why.)

According to Calgary Grit, they will also be voting on a measure to effectively eliminate the federal nature of the LPC, and centralize more of the party machinery. Another good suggestion that I've been arguing for since the Red Ribbon renewal commission that preceded the last national convention. It's really a shame that the party brass have come around to my point of view only after I ceased giving a damn what happened to the LPC. Otherwise I might be happy about it.

As it is, I'm bemused.

Alberta Government Fixes Bill 19

2009-03-20T09:31:00.003-07:00

Credit where credit is due.

The government has proposed amendments to Bill 19, the Land Assembly Project Area Act.

Some of the problems with the old act were that it provided no guarantee of compensation to landowners for restrictions placed on their land, it provided no limit on how long those restrictions could last, and it seemed to exclude the act from the requirements of the expropriation act.

The government maintains that this third problem was an appearance only. That said, their proposed amendment is to remove the offending section entirely, and replace it with nothing. It would be an interesting question to ask the Infrastructure Minister what purpose that clause was supposed to serve other than excluding the application of the expropriation act (or common law rules of expropriation), and why that purpose is being sacrificed entirely in the name of mere clarity.

With regard to the lack of compensation and the lack of limits, there is now a two-year limit, and - more importantly - the landowner can force the government to purchase their land from them at fair market value any time after it's been designated.

As far as I'm concerned, that eliminates the problems that existed with Bill 19. I think the act is reasonable with the proposed amendments. Ed Stelmach's conservatives deserve criticism for having presented this Bill in its original form, and little credit for having made the obviously necessary amendments.

That said, there is no value in continuing to oppose it on the sole grounds that there has been inadequate public consultation.

Informed Citizen Opinion

2009-03-19T13:58:00.003-07:00

The City of Edmonton is running an interesting pilot project in democratic method right now. They have formed a Citizens' Panel, consisting of 50 randomly-selected residents of the city, and have arranged to provide those citizens with an education into the issues facing the city, it's current vision, its expenditures and revenues, and ask it for substantive recommendations that will be taken into account in writing the 2010 budget later this year.

You can take part through the facebook group, and you can watch videos of portions of the sessions they've been holding.

It's a very interesting concept. I have been a fan of this kind of democracy by sampling ever since the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform came out with the BC STV recommendation at the last BC provincial election, a recommendation that came remarkably close to being adopted by referndum, and which will be considered again by the citizens of BC in May.

The results of this sort of process are, unfortunately, completely dependent on its setup. There is a risk of it being a foregone conclusion. I'll be interested to see what comes out of it.

LPC: Iggy will decide.

2009-03-16T13:55:00.003-07:00

People lament the lack of involvement in political parties in this Country. But let's look at the way electoral exigencies have affected that national convention of the Liberal Party of Canada.

First, because of a possible governing coalition, all of the individuals contesting the leadership of the LPC withdrew, and the deadline for nominations has long passed, meaning that there will be no decision made by the members of the LPC at its Vancouver convention on who will be the leader of the party. There is only one candidate. He will be acclaimed.

Secondly, because the Liberals don't want the Conservatives to steal (and mischaracterize) their ideas prior to an election campaign, the Liberals are refusing to allow the public to see the political policies that will be discussed. Further, they are saying, openly and honestly (for a change) that the relationship between those policies and the actual electoral platform is at the full discretion of the leader.

A person they didn't get to choose.

And people are supposed to want to pay $1000 and go to vancouver at their own added expense to spend a few days doing what, exactly? Oh, I suppose there are constitutional amendments to be made. Back when I cared what the LPC did, I made a number of suggestions in that regard. But the deadline for becoming a member and registering yourself as a delegate, if it hasn't passed already, is probably very near. There has been no announcement of which I'm aware as to what constitutional changes are even going to be debated.

The 2009 LPC Convention in Vancouver: No leadership debate, no useful policy debate, and a constitutional debate we won't tell you about in advance. $1000 well spent.

Perhaps there will be a break-out session on why people don't bother to get involved in political parties.

Movie Review: The Watchmen

2009-03-10T00:15:00.002-07:00

OK, so I haven't read the graphic novel, but I have seen the movie.

And I didn't like it.

I'm not in the habit of using gauntlet.ca to bitch about bad movies, but I need to vent.

I fell prey to the pretty girl they put out on the talk-show circuit, talking about having to fight in her skimpy outfit. Turns out, she's in one fight scene in the outfit, and it doesn't make any goddamned sense. It's like the ninjas attacking one at a time. Fighting a couple of people who just blasted their way into a jail. Instead of, you know, escaping through the hole they just blasted. WTF?

At one point she's naked. Sounds great, right? Except it's a sex scene between two actors that don't seem to have a lot of chemistry going, whose relationship is founded on god knows what - they know some of the same people who play dress-up? And it's vaguely comical. The sex scene. For comic relief. And it's got Leonard Cohen's "Halleluia" playing in the background. And it goes on and on and on.

I mean, come ON. If you are playing Leonard Cohen's Halleluia during a sex scene? I'm not some sort of music snob, but COME ON. First of all, if you have to use it, use the KD Lang version, because when she sings it it is beyond moving. But a comical sex scene? The lyrics are about the torture of love! A comic relief sex scene? People were laughing, but at the WRONG PARTS.

And the actress is just not that good. She's supposed to have been raised in a loveless home by a drunk mother, and to have beat the living hell out of criminals for a good part of her formative years, be isolated from the world, and in a relationship with a blue guy who is incapable of emotion. She should be dark. But she's not. She's... like a sitcom character.

I wanted it to be good. There were ideas in it that were good. When Dr. Manhatten has a revelation, it's almost moving. Rorshach and the Comedian are fantastic characters, excellently played. The conflict between hope and despair for all of humanity is almost there. You can almost sense it. But then they do something that's just a bit too cartoony, and it's gone.

Maybe those themes are better developed in the comic books. But the titty scene was way out of place, the dialogue was hitting us over the head with the same "theme" over and over, Dr. Manhatten's schlong probably deserved an acting credit it was on screen so much, and it was all very distracting from what could have been a good dark, violent, gruesome, historical fictional apocalyptic movie, if you are into that sort of thing in the first place.

Disappointing. Rent it.

Rick Miller replaces Judy Wilson as Liberal Chief of Staff

2009-03-03T15:38:00.003-07:00

Daveberta brought my attention to a press release announcing that Judy Wilson is leaving as Chief of Staff of the Alberta Liberal Caucus effective Friday, and will be replaced by Rick Miller.

Here's wishing Judy and Rick well in their future endeavours. Rick will need it, at least.

Tiny Perfect Blog called it quite some time ago. Of course, I think she's going to have to revise her argument that Miller is involved in what she calls the revolution group.

...and it's not getting any easier

2009-02-26T12:39:00.004-07:00

As a followup to the "It's not easy being green" post, this is more along the lines of what I had heard was going on. Daveberta, AGRDT, and TPB all have details.

Essentially the deputy leader of the Green party is leaving to start the Alberta Progress Party.

He probably could have achieved the name change in the Green party, as they came within a vote of it at their last AGM. But evidently he thinks that the Green party is going to sink under accusations of bad finance practices.

... it looks as though certain members of the former party executive may have self-approved illegal loans to the Party, in what can only be viewed as an attempt to profit from tax-deductible donations intended for the party.

I don't know where he's getting that. That's pretty big to put in a press release. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes out in the wash.

The concept of a centrist party in Alberta is good. I'm all for it. Hell, I'm actively engaged in trying to create one myself. So I sympathise with Edwin Erickson's intentions, here. I just don't think "I'm starting a new party beacuse the last one I was involved with might have been misappropriating political donations" is exactly the foundation that I'd want to be standing on, you know?

Even if your intentions are good, your party ends up looking like a lifeboat for Greens. And in the mind of the public, "green" and "centrist" are not words that go together well (ma Michelle).

It's not easy being green.

2009-02-21T11:39:00.004-07:00

It seems Liberals are not the only ones in Alberta sick of fighting against their brand instead of with it.

I had heard rumours that some things were up on the Alberta Green front, but this is not what I had heard. According to this story at The Weekly Albertan (which I've never heard of, and for which I cannot vouch) the Alberta Green party came within a single vote of changing their name to the Progress Party.

Ironically, some people threatened to leave the Greens for the Liberals if the Greens changed their name. I wonder if these people care as much about the name of their destination as the name of their departure point, because the ALP is looking at a name change in the coming year, too.

An insider's look at the future of Alberta politics

2009-02-20T15:26:00.000-07:00

For almost a month now, I've been involved in this group of people that has been called the "futility faction", the "revolution group", the "edmonton group", and any number of other silly things. This is the group of people that Daveberta has recently blogged about being involved in. Dave was the one who invited me to join.

I haven't mentioned being involved before now because the group has asked for a degree of discretion from its participants. That secrecy has helped create some uncertainty and intrigue around what this group is, who's involved, and what it stands for. That uncertainty is actually an accurate representation of the group. The group is not monolithic. We have people who have different ideas about the role we should play, and how we should play it. And we haven't made any decisions.

We are just a group of people dissatisfied with the state of democracy in this province who have decided to put Albertans first, listen to one another, and take action. We don't know what it is we're going to decide to do, if anything. But we want to do something, and we're still talking about it. Joining the PC party is the only thing completely off the table.

Anyone who says anything more than that, or different than that, is misinformed or worse.

What comes out of it remains to be seen. But I'm excited by the quality of the people, and the quality of their contributions. I'm proud to have been involved in it for the last little while, and I sincerely hope something comes out of it that I can be proud to associate myself with into the future.

As you know, I have my thoughts on what needs doing. But I think the more Albertans of every political stripe (and especially un-striped Albertans) we include in the conversation, the better the outcome will be. So if you have thoughts on what direction this group should go, you know where the comment link is.

Gauntlet.ca in AlbertaViews

2009-02-18T15:06:00.002-07:00

I just got my complementary copy of AlbertaViews in the mail. Complementary, because they edited and reprinted by Black Swann post of a while ago.

But of course, you've already read that post. You'll want to get the magazine because the page I'm printed on contains very tasteful nudity.

What the heck?

2009-02-12T13:59:00.003-07:00

I saw a story in the Calgary Herald yesterday via TPB that Bridgett Pastoor, MLA for Lethbridge, was considering moving away from the Alberta Liberal Party, possibly to the Progressive Conservatives.

This morning, iNews880 was reporting that she had confirmed that she was considering switching teams. I took it that she had made the confirmation today, but that might have been inaccurate. The story also ran in the Edmonton Journal today, I think.

Just now, iNews880 has a press release from her saying she is ruling out crossing the floor.

What the heck is that? She seems to imply in the release that she was just chatting with old friends, and that people are making too much of it, but she doesn't deny that she was considering it, and she says that she's "going back" to working as a liberal caucus member.

So was she considering it? And if so, what made her change her mind? Did she get an earful from her constituents? Strange.

Awesomeness

2009-02-09T20:38:00.001-07:00

First, care of Rick Mercer, care of Calgary Grit.

Second, care of Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying.

Can the ALP be saved?

2009-02-09T13:28:00.003-07:00

Interesting conversation going on over at Daveberta.ca.

Justin (Archer, I presume) makes a cogent point in the comments:

The question that I pose to you and any others who feel that the ALP is no longer worth saving is this: is there something better that you can start from scratch? Does the ALP, with its membership list, volunteer base, organizational memory, Official Opposition status and corresponding budget, 9 MLAs, constituency associations, etc. really have a net negative value? Because if it doesn't have a negative net value, than maybe it is wiser to salvage than to scrap.

He goes on...

Swann has initiated a renewal process already. If its the name that's the problem (and I think it is), lets change the name. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water, why not participate in the renewal process of an organization that admittedly has its warts, but in the end has a lot going for it too.

Well, the debt doesn't help either. And according to Dave Cournoyer, the debt is forcing the ALP to abandon their downtown Edmonton office, too, so the problem spreads.

Still, Justin said something similar to this when we had dinner with Dr. Swann. At the time, I was less certain of the answer. I'm more certain now.

Let's say you have a junker of a car. It runs, but it needs work. It's got wheels, tires, an engine, a gas tank, a transmission. Let's say it has only a couple problems: it's heading for a cliff, and the power steering and brakes doesn't work.

How happy are you at this point that the engine works properly?

The ALP loses. Again and again and again, it loses. Unless it can change itself in ways that will make it win, all of the resources it has are negatives for people who want a vehicle of change, not a vehicle of protest.

Yes, there is a renewal process going on. And if I thought that the missing parts were close at hand, and all we had to do was install them and turn the sucker around, I'd be all for it.

But the problem is not just the name. I think the real missing part here is regular Albertans. Despite everyone's best intentions, even if you change the name right away, I don't see any reason to believe that regular Albertans are going to be interested in getting in, when it seems like so many of the current occupants are jumping out.

a small group

2009-02-07T21:46:00.005-07:00

Tiny Perfect Blog brought my attention to a story in the Calgary Herald about this group of people trying to start a new political party. Maybe.

[Update: Check the comments for TPB's take...]

From the way the Herald describes it, it's not certain that they're actually trying to start a new party. Not sure what else they'd be trying to do, seeing as how David Swann has his own renewal process... maybe it's all a farce to distract a few malcontents. :)

TPB is excited about what exactly Swann knew and when. She seems to think this is really a liberal operation designed to allow them to escape their debt. Maybe a sort of a back-up plan if Swann can't get the 75% support he needs at an ALP convention to change the name.

She also seems to think it's too mickey mouse to mean anything. There's good reason to be skeptical. But still, as Margaret Mead said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

'A Party called "Liberal" cannot win in Alberta'

2009-02-07T14:23:00.002-07:00

Jeremy Loome makes a strong case that the Alberta Liberal Party needs to change its name, not just its policies. "A Marlboro is still a Marlboro," he says.

He's right. But is the PC party in this province going to roll over and let everyone forget that this "new" party used to be called "Liberal"?

No. So Jeremy doesn't go far enough. the Alberta Liberal Party, even with a different name, cannot win in Alberta. It never has, and now it never will.

What we need is something else, something that arises from a different source, and has the support of regular Albertans.

Cynic mode, ENGAGED!

2009-02-04T00:21:00.002-07:00

So the ERCB is going to do something, gosh darn it, about those pesky tailings ponds.

They are going to ask, no... insist, nay... demand that the tar sands companies come up with a plan for reclaiming the tailings ponds with some specific timelines. And gosh darn it, they will be required to adhere to those timelines, whatever they may be.

Yes, sure, the tailings ponds are technically an essential part of the way that bitumen is removed from tar sands. Yes, sure, as long as they continue strip-mining tar sands, they are going to need tailings ponds or some other long-term storage of massive quantities of liquid waste. So yeah, the timeline will probably say something to the effect of "look, we'll clean it up when we're done here. Which will be in about 30 years."

And yes, no one has ever actually reclaimed an oil sands tailings pond. The oil sands companies themselves say that they are still working on the technology to make that possible. So whatever plan they would give us would be, at best, an optimistic guess.

And yes, there is a real possibility that once the sand is all gone, the companies will simply cease to exist, so there will be no one to force to actually implement these reclamation plans.

Sure, sure, we make them pay "deposits" on their costs of reclamation. But their costs are "negotiated" between the company and the government. And they are not available for public scrutiny.

Oh, and the amount of money we're collecting per hectare in security deposits wouldn't clean up a gravel pit of equivalent size, much less a toxic "pond".

Oh, and these "ponds?" All told, we're talking about an area about the same size as the City of Edmonton. I think, maybe, we can go with "lakes."

OK, so we've got massive lakes of toxic sludge, no proven technology for reclaiming them, no way to operate without them, operations that are going to continue for decades, companies that will probably cease to exist when these plans actually require them to do something, and security deposits that are woefully inadequate.

But hey... at least we've managed to sock away hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties to help deal with the inevitable day that the sands run dry... wait... we haven't?

Aw, fuck.

Cynic mode, disengaged.

Democratic Renewal Project Launches Website

2009-02-02T16:44:00.004-07:00

Thanks to Matt Grant for the comment letting me know that the Democratic Renewal Project has a website up.

The DRP is a group that I first heard about at a democratic renewal meeting held in Edmonton last July. One of the attendees said that he was starting it up, and wanted help.

The premise, as I understand it is:

a) Convince the centre and left parties in Alberta to merge, or if that doesn't work;

b) convince them to divy up the ridings and run only one candidate per, or if that doesn't work;

c) for the DRP itself to endorse only one of the parties in each of the ridings, and encourage strategic voting of the sort that got Linda Duncan her seat in Ottawa.

Daveberta is happy to see people thinking outside of the box. I find it difficult to get too terribly excited about this particular group because I don't think its strategy can work. First, a) and b) just ain't hapnin'. And c), even if it worked perfectly, would only increase the size of the opposition slightly.

If combined we had enough votes to get enough seats to actually implement electoral reforms, then I'd be more interested.

As it is, it's a call for a de-facto long-term merger around the unifying principle that we are not Progressive Conservatives.

Colour me uninspired.

As Matt points out, there are a lot of fronts opening up in the fight for a reinvigoration of Alberta politics. The DRP, these other people (who really need a name, or something), the Alberta Liberal Party's own process, and I'm hearing rumblings about things going on... on the right wing!

The thing is, I don't think any of these is totally duplicative of the others. In order for a new party to be legitimate, the ALP has to remain. For the ALP not to collapse under the weight of its own debt, it needs to renew. For the DRP, the more parties there are, the more necessary or helpful their little project becomes.

So I say the more the merrier. Whatever gets more people engaged.

The challenge

2009-01-28T17:22:00.005-07:00

David Swann has appointed Mo Elsalhy the chairman of a committee that is supposed to report in one month on what the Alberta Liberal Party needs to do in terms of a renewal process.

It's fun to see some of the ideas that I talked with David about at dinner being included in that process. Specifically, it seems that whether or not you are a current member of the ALP is not a requirement for participating in that committee. That's a good start.

But if the objective is to end up with a political movement that can have a chance against the PCs in this province, Swann's process is not the only game in town. There is also this secretive group, trying to create something new entirely.

Which one of those efforts is better placed to succeed is still an open question, to me, but I'm inclined to believe that the ALP will have difficulty attracting enough new people to make the deep changes that would be necessary.

In reality, neither of these efforts is going to work unless they can appeal to people who have previously voted PC. How do you get people to do that? Well, as I've said before, I think you have to avoid disagreeing with the PCs, and focus on being more important than they are.

What is more important to people in Alberta than being Conservative (or Liberal)?

One of the answers, I think, is populist democracy.

I think an organization that lowered the barriers to equitable and meaningful participation in Alberta's politics to the floor, an organization that had few ideological shibboleths, an organization that made the experience of politics interesting again, could see success.

Making sure regular Albertans have real power over their own government is more important, in my mind, than all the question of how government power should be used. And I don't think I'm alone in that.

I have some ideas on how to lower the barriers to participation. What I'm not so clear on is how do you make the experience of politics interesting to people?

What do you find interesting? Why?

Alberta Government Involved in Cover-up?

2009-01-26T13:41:00.005-07:00

OK, here's what I'm getting from this story:

The Alberta Progressive Conservatives said that they would release information about who was using the government's planes.
April 2004: They failed to do so.
June 2004: Charles Rusnell with the Edmonton Journal filed a Freedom of Information Request for the flight logs. They were required to provide them within 30 days.
July 2004: They don't. Subsequently, Charles Rusnell files a FOIP request for information on how his original request is being responded to.
November 12, 2004: An e-mail is sent from a freedom of information coordinator to senior department officials saying give them the information "on or after November 25."
November 22, 2004: Provincial election.
November 25, 2004: Documents are released.
Mr. Rusnell smells a rat, and files a complaint with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
March 2005: A oral inquiry is held by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. At that inquiry, the November 12 e-mail was entered as evidence by the government, but was modified to read "on or before November 25". Mr. Rusnell, as a result of his second FOIP request, already has a copy of the original e-mail.
That inquiry finds that the government deliberately delayed releasing the documents until after the election, and that they maniupated the freedom of information request for political reasons.
As a result, Alex Pringle (my first year criminal law professor) was appointed a Special Prosecutor by Alberta Justice, and initiated prolonged negotiations toward obtaining access to the pertinent records. The negotiations were unsuccessful.
June, 2008: An RCMP officers signs a sworn affidavit that he has received information that one employee was instructed to not release the documents until after the election, and that another was instructed to stop looking for information on who might have changed the e-mail. The affidavit is used to obtain a search warrant.
July 18, 2008: The RCMP raid three offices including Service Alberta and Alberta Justice to determine who altered the e-mail, and collect six boxes and numerous computer records.
The government and current and former employees involved in the matter claim solicitor-client privelege over the contents of the boxes.
Recently, Pringle negotiated the release of some of these documents to the RCMP, and those over which privilege is alleged will be sent to a judge to determine if privilege should apply.
Pringle expects to decide whether to lay charges shortly.

First of all... this all sounds so familiar... where have I heard it before? Oh. Right. That.

It reminds me of Nixon, who they say was villified not by the illegal behaviour, but by the cover-up. Paint my cynical, but I don't hold out a lot of hope that anyone will ever be held accountable for anything, here. Maybe Pringle can prove me wrong.

Big Day

2009-01-26T10:26:00.002-07:00

I read an interesting comment on the front-page of some newspaper or another today, that a senior Conservative official said that this budget is being "handled by grown-ups". So no political games this time. Well that's good news, I guess.

The bad news is that it took almost losing power before the Conservatives thought about maybe not having infants in control of the nation's finances.

The NDP and the Bloq are promising to vote against the budget no matter what, holding out hope that the coalition that Dion agreed to and Michael Ignatieff supported will hold strong if the Liberals decide to vote against the budget.

The Liberals, which is to say Michael Ignatieff, will support the budget of course. The reasons are plain. First, positive poll numbers notwithstanding, his party is not ready to fight another election. Second, he is still only interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada until May. Any decision he made to vote against the budget would come under immediate criticism as coming from a person who has not only never faced Canadian voters, but who has not ever even won a vote of his own party's membership. All that if he were to throw Canada into an election. Imagine if he were to usurp the Prime Minister's chair. Third, Canadians do not want an election right now. Fourth, the budget is probably helpful enough, thanks to the fact that there are grown-ups involved.

Now the NDP and the Bloq are going to call Ignatieff a hypocrit and call the Liberals liars for not following through on the coalition arrangement. People won't buy it.

So after all that excitement a couple of months ago, expect tomorrow to be dull in the extreme.

Barack and Michaëlle

2009-01-23T15:23:00.004-07:00

I read something today which led me to imagine a conversation between Canada and the United States:

"You elected a black man with an ethnic sounding name head of state? Good for you guys. You know who our head of state is? A black immigrant woman from Haiti whose first name has an umlaut. Try to keep up."

Echoing Obama

2009-01-21T10:37:00.003-07:00

I think Obama probably put it better than I did recently.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
...
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
...
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill.
...
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that Alberta needs a new kind of politics. Yes, we can disagree over whether the government should be small or large, over whether taxes should be higher or lower, over whether we should utilize the power of cooperation or the power of competition to promote our collective well-being. But really, these are disagreements about how to achieve something.

The important question, the one that isn't being given the prominence of place that it deserves, is this: what, exactly, are we trying to achieve?

Albertans do not seek a short-term improvement in their quality of living above all else. Albertans are bigger than that. We want to make of Alberta a legacy to future generations, so that Albertans 100 years from now will know that we held their well-being as close to our hearts as our own.

Alberta needs a politics that allows us to publicly debate what we want to achieve. The existing parties do not have answers to that question.

The politics of left or right is obsolete. We need a politics of destination, not merely direction.

Federal Liberal Renewal Commission

2009-01-19T09:00:00.002-07:00

On the one hand, I'm hopeful that people in Ignatieff's inner circles have taken the fact that this next convention is going to be a leadership coronation as an opportunity to focus discussion on important topics that got short shrift at the Montreal convention.

They are striking all the right notes in a release like this.

It will also make key recommendations on common areas of inquiry suggested by grassroots Liberals from across the country. These include:

• the leadership selection process;
• the federated structure of the party;
• the contributions of Commissions to achieving equitable representation in the party and the pursuit of our electoral objectives; and
• the development of a clear process and tools for connecting grassroots policy development to all levels of the party.

I'm happy that some of the ideas I presented here are on the agenda. Specifically the harder-to-do but necessary steps of eliminating the separate provincial governance structures.

That said, I'm suffering from liberal party reform fatigue. I am still skeptical as to whether or not you can generate enough interest around these discussions in order to make the valid points, and overcome the institutional momentum problem of asking delegates to a leadership convention to vote against have leadership conventions.

We'll see.

Dinner with David

2009-01-13T23:51:00.003-07:00

I posted recently on what I think David Swann should do with the leadership of the Alberta Liberal Party. I wrote at the time "If Swann was asking for my advice, and I know he's not..."

Well, that post caught the eye of Justin Archer, who has been deeply involved in the ALP for a while now, and he asked me if I'd be interested in making that argument to David Swann in person.

As it turns out, David was in town today for a caucus meeting, and he was going to be meeting Justin for dinner, so Justin called me and I had dinner with David Swann tonight.

My argument was basically what I've said here and here, with the addition that there needs to be some sort of announced, exciting renewal process that Albertans can take part in without necessarily having to join the ALP.

He was frank with me, and I wasn't there looking to scoop anybody, so I'm not going to be sharing the details of our interesting conversation. My ability to have constructive conversations with people like David Swann is more important than my ability to share them on this blog. :)

I can, I think, share some general impressions I had.

I hadn't talked to David since before his entering the leadership race. In entering that race he had evidently decided that the ALP is in a better position than any group in the province, new or existing, to undertake the kind of political construction project that is going to be necessary in order to really fix democracy in this province.

Agree or disagree with him on whether the ALP is the way to go, I am heartened that he seems to understand exactly the scope of what's necessary.

Is the ALP the way to go? I'm still skeptical. As I expressed to David, there is a serious problem with institutional momentum, not to mention the debt, and the brand liability. Whatever the ALP decides to do in order to renew itself is going to have to overcome that institutional momentum somehow. But as long as David seems to want to do what's necessary, and he does, I'm willing to help in whatever way I can.

Still, I'm not the leader of anything, which leaves me in the pleasant position of also being able to help anyone else who thinks they have a way of changing Alberta politics for the better. I'm hopeful that I'll be able to have conversations with those sorts of individuals in the coming weeks, too.

I suspect David wouldn't have any problem with that. He said himself that either the ALP has to change, or we have to have something new. I believe he still thinks that's true.

What Alberta Politics can learn from Spaghetti Sauce

2009-01-12T10:18:00.005-07:00

If we are to have a new political party in Alberta, it must be chunky sauce.

Let me explain.

Malcolm Gladwell gave a talk at a TED conference. The video of the speech is entitled "What we can learn from Spaghetti Sauce". The short-hand is this:

A smart man was hired by a smart company to determine the perfect spaghetti sauce. What he discovered was that there is no perfect spaghetti sauce. There is instead a set of spaghetti sauces - a relatively small set - and if you have one of each kind, you will have one that appeals very strongly to nearly everybody.

The spaghetti sauce companies at the time were competing on essentially a single variable: how "authentic" the sauce was. Turns out, they were placing themselves on a spectrum of choice that no one really cared about. Most people don't even like "authentic" spaghetti sauce. It's watery. They bought it because it was the only choice. When the company started competing on different spectrums, like "chunkiness", they started to stake out real market share.

"What does this have to do with Alberta Politics?" you ask. Well, people are talking about creating a new political party in Alberta. And that idea has been criticized in a couple of ways that make really good sense. First, it risks splitting the left-wing vote even more. Second, it might be viewed as an attempt to put a new coat of paint on the ALP, if it wasn't ideologically different from it.

Like I said, good points, both. But look at the turnout in the last Alberta provincial election: 41%. And it's going down.

Maybe the political parties in Alberta are like spaghetti sauces. Maybe the way you pull people from both the left and the right of the political spectrum in Alberta is not by being centrist on the left-right spectrum. Maybe it's by choosing a side on a different axis entirely. By being "chunky" sauce.

If that is possible, it is the answer to both criticisms. We don't have to find some way to define ourselves in distinction to the Conservatives and the ALP. Indeed, if we accomplish either or both of those things, we're probably alienating exactly the people whose help we need. What we need to do is define ourselves as taking the centre of a spectrum that the existing parties aren't competing on. Splitting the vote on the left doesn't matter, so long as we're also splitting the vote on the right!

That's the challenge I think we're facing. Picking that spectrum; picking that side. Something that is neither conservative nor liberal nor socialist, but Albertan. Something that is supported by a silent majority who do not get what they want from the existing parties, and who likely don't even know that they want it because no one is talking about it. Something that speaks to the bigness of spirit that Albertans share, and provides us with a real opportuntiy to be a part of something good; something larger than ourselves.

I think it's about time. I think it's about time that we had a new political party in Alberta, and I think that political party should be about time. It should stake out a position on the spectrum of yesterday, now, and tomorrow. And it should take now and tomorrow, and leave yesterday for everyone else.

The fundamental question that this party uses to guide its decision-making - its touchstone - should be this: "What will best balance the interests of Albertans today with the interests of Albertans of the future?"

We can disagree over what the answer to that question is. We can disagree over whether the answer to that question requires bigger government, or smaller government; whether it requires more environmental protection or more economic development; whether it requires saving or spending.

But as long as we agree that the answer to that question should hold the most sway over us, we have a shared touchstone. A touchstone that is more compelling and more important than our differences. A touchstone more uniting than ideologies built to address the challenges of a different country as it existed centuries ago. A touchstone that speaks against the pettyness of politics, and speaks to a politics that Albertans can be proud to be part of - a politics of vision, purpose, generosity, and democracy.

That's how a new political party in Alberta can work. That's how we can be chunky sauce.

Motivational Challenges

2009-01-05T13:46:00.003-07:00

I've been in contact with Ignatieff's campaign team in Alberta over the past few weeks. There has been what is for me an uncomfortable attempt to change the Ignatieff leadership camapign team into a sort of a permanent election readiness team for the province.

It's uncomfortable for a couple of reasons. First, despite the perceived electoral benefit of portraying Michael Ignatieff as de jure leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, he's only de facto leader until the nomination deadline (at the earliest). Which means that the leadership team must remain a leadership team.

I think there's an opportunity to take an uncontested leadership and turn it into an opportunity to make substantive improvements to the structure of the Liberal Party of Canada, and Ignatieff's quasi-leadership campaign would be an excellent vehicle to do that. It would also serve as a salve against the affects of liberals in Alberta again having their opportunity to contribute to our national politics reduced.

Which brings me to the second discomfort: there are real, good reasons for liberals in Alberta to be interested in leadership races in the LPC. They have a lot of power in those races. There are not real, good reasons for liberals in Alberta to get involved in federal campaigns. Because we can't win here, not as we're currently operating. So the only motivation would be practice.

So I feel as though I'm being asked to continue in a procedure that is doing something relatively meaningless, failing to do something meaningful, and asking me to do something that is pointless until the meaningful thing happens.

Did that make sense? Probably not. Whatever. What I'm saying is that this seems like a better use of my time.

New Political Party in Alberta?

2009-01-05T06:43:00.003-07:00

I knew I'd be back to blogging when school came around. I didn't know it would be the morning school came around, before I'd had my breakfast. Interesting choice of timing.

Not the only one, either. Centrebloq arrived, anonymously, on the blogging planet last month, and this month has inside access to efforts to create a new political party in Alberta.

I'm going to score that one highly on the unlikely scale.

Don't get me wrong. Whether this is real or not, and whether centrebloq's awareness of it is coincidental or not, I think it's generally the direction that the less right-wing of us in Alberta should want to go. Centrebloq's pessimism for the idea seems almost... forced.

I have none.

Hoping for a Black Swann

2008-12-14T14:07:00.003-07:00

So the news is that David Swann won the leadership of the Alberta Liberal Party on the first ballot yesterday. Congratulations to David and his supporters.

As some of you may recall, in the aftermath of the last provincial election I came to the opinion that what the Alberta Liberal Party needs to do is start from scratch. Get rid of the name, get rid of the policy, get rid of the structure, and start again from the grassroots at square one.

I had a brief conversation with David Swann back then, before he had announced his candidacy for the leadership of the ALP, and he seemed open to the idea. Later, in his leadership campaign, he was the candidate most willing to consider making hamburger out of sacred cows like the Liberal moniker, mergers with other left-wing parties, and electoral reform. In his acceptance speech, he said everything is on the table: principles, values, name, everything.

But it’s hard to know whether that is what gained him the support that he received. He is also a tireless advocate for public health care and environmental sustainability. It’s hard to believe that Alberta Liberal members think themselves engaged in anything other than electing a party boss. Hard, but not impossible. Hope springs eternal. And if they did, and if David Swann gives them what they wanted, they will have placed themselves so far outside of the Alberta political mainstream as to eliminate any real chance of progress.

I'm hoping that's not the case. I'm hoping he's going to do what no one expects, and become the Black Swann of Alberta politics.

If Swann was asking for my advice, and I know he's not, this is what I would tell him:

The ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in a democracy is voters. That’s not “populism.” It’s reality. Say so, and you can’t go wrong with voters. It also provides you with a strong argument for party reform.
You are not a Premier-in-waiting. Pick someone you respect to manage the legislative aspects of the party, focus your own efforts on renewal. Alternatively, hire an outsider as executive director with responsibility for renewal, pay them what they’re worth, give them this list, and leave them alone.
Draft a minimalist constitution for a new party designed for openness, democracy, cost efficiency, scalability, and flexibility. Include a simple principles section that sets out the principles of the new party as: maximizing equitable and accountable democratic participation, adherence to the rule of law, individual freedom and responsibility, and the highest sustainable quality of life in the long run.
Above all, the structure should make membership and nomination valuable. The nomination and leadership processes should empower the members. And the nomination and leadership processes should be your policy process. Un-elected candidates should be with the MLAs in your policy meetings.
Call a party-wide vote with only two orders of business: a new name, and the new constitution.
Promise to resign the leadership if the party fails to adopt either. Then, campaign like you mean it.
When you win, people will leave. Let them. That helps cement the impression that the party has changed in the public's mind.
Get all of your MLAs to call one person every day and ask them for $10,000. I’m not kidding. If it works 1% of the time, you will have paid off the party debt in a year.
Take the money, and spend it on professional fundraising, professional field organization, professional market research and professional communications. In that professional order. Professional.
Adopt a short platform, each plank of which is Popular, Practical, and Progressive

THAT's what you meant by senate reform?

2008-12-11T00:21:00.006-07:00

I seriously considered commenting on the possibility of this last week, and thought "better" of it. Harper would both appear to have given up his authority, and would add another reason to take it from him if he were to attempt to stack the senate with Conservatives before a confidence vote, I thought.

Silly me. Silly, silly me.

Michael Ignatieff Appointed Leader

2008-12-10T12:26:00.003-07:00

It's official.

As the National Executive notes, the convention will go on as planned. We are just in the weird situation where due to forces outside of our control, the Liberal Party was called upon to unite around a leader faster than our leadership selection process would have allowed. But because of Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc's selfless actions, the Liberal Party has been able to do that and respect the rules of its constitution at the same time.

If the convention is going to be uncontroversial with regards to leadership, that actually opens the door for delegates who are interested in party reform and policy to make their voices heard.

If you think that we should have OMOV, become a delegate.

If you think that we should have national, non-convention votes for the national executive, become a delegate.

If you think that setting and enforcing nomination rules should be done by a body appointed by the national executive and not by the leader, become a delegate.

If you think that members should have the right to go to the permanent appeals committee whenever there is a violation of the party's constitution, become a delegate.

Bob Rae Withdraws

2008-12-09T12:27:00.003-07:00

Bob Rae has seen the writing on the wall, and given the choice I talked about yesterday - between withdrawing or fighting his own leader during an election or coalition government - he has decided for the non-self-destructive alternative.

There are two things about this that I find amazing.

The first is that I called it! I can't believe that. I never call anything. :)

Second, that he didn't even wait to make his case to caucus and the rest of the party that the interim leader should not be a leadership contestant. I expected it later this week, not today.

I have always questioned whether or not Bob Rae was really interested in the well-being of the Liberal Party, or if he was only interested in his own leadership of the party. Those questions have been answered. Whoever you support in the leadership race, Bob Rae is the man of the hour. He deserves heaps and heaps of credit for making the right decision here.

Also, the members of the Liberal Party of Canada have every right to be extremely disappointed with this turn of events. We, as party members, have a very few powers. We choose the leader, we choose the candidates, we choose the constitution, and we choose the policy (for whatever that's worth). Here, it feels as though the constitutional processes are totally overtaken by results, and we don't get any direct say in the leadership.

Usually, I would be livid, but I have come to agree with those who say that the political situation demands that we have a permanent leader now. And Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae have made personal sacrificies in order to see that happen, but so have the members.

Party unity is going to be the big challenge now. But based on the behaviour of the leadership candidates, there is a real hope that people can see the big picture. Michael Ignatieff looks to be appointed as interim leader tomorrow, and confirmed as permanent leader (as soon as the party can engineer the passing of the candidate nomination deadline).

As the Oilers said about their recent game against the San Jose sharks... "A win's a win. We'll take it."

National Executive Gets It Right

2008-12-09T01:19:00.003-07:00

At least one group seems to be talking about this whole mess in terms that are consistent with the constitution of the party. The National Executive. As required, they are going to consult with caucus (and as not required but a nice touch, virtually everyone else), and appoint an "interim" leader. The existing leadership process will continue as per normal.

That is, until Bob Rae decides that he's being asked to pick between withdrawing for the good of the party, or running a leadership campaign against the leader of the party while that leader is either in a federal election, or in the Prime Minister's chair.

That's not fair to Bob, but that's what he ended up with.

The word "unseemly" comes to mind.

Your Moment of Zen

2008-12-08T14:54:00.003-07:00

From Stephane Dion's statement today:

After the election on October 14 I announced I would stay on as Leader of the Liberal Party until my party could select my successor.

[But, things have changed ...]

So I have decided to step aside as Leader of the Liberal Party effective as soon as my successor is duly chosen.

Well. Thank goodness we got that sorted out. Before, you were staying until the leader was selected. Now, you're leaving when the leader is selected. Good to know.

Far be it from me to criticize the guy on his way out for his communication skills, but he could have thrown the word "interim" in there, you know, somewhere.

The only Rae to make this work is....

2008-12-08T13:28:00.005-07:00

Michael Ignatieff has sent a letter out to supporters with the title "Winning Leadership the Right Way" saying, in part:

Third, should I succeed in winning the support of the national executive of the party and our caucus as leader, I remain committed to having that leadership confirmed by our party at our upcoming convention in Vancouver, as our party's constitution requires.

Here's my concern. I think people are being left with the impression that this "confirmation" of his leadership, or "ratification" as other people have called it, is something less than a full-out leadership campaign.

As far as I can tell, it isn't. It can't be, unless all the other candidates withdraw.

And if there is a regular leadership race going on, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the idea of one of the candidates in that race holding the position of interim leader.

Why? Because the leader has a lot of power that could be used to push the result of a leadership vote one way or the other. Some of that is structural power (like the ability to de-register EDAs with the help of two Officers over whom he has a veto power of appointment), some of it is political power (like being on TV all the time, and getting a line-by-line veto over policy).

I'm not sure how comfortable Ignatieff should be with this idea, either. On the one hand, there is a lot that can go wrong in an election campaign, and he will be campaigning for PM as the guy who probably might be the leader of the party in another two months. On the other hand, what does essentially being the leader do to your ability to recruit people who would like you to become the leader? Will people get involved if they think it's fait accompli?

And how do you run an electoral campaign with a guy in charge who is being actively and overtly challenged for the leadership by a segment of his own party? I said overtly.

To quote Jim Karygiannis, this is a gong show.

So the caucus has decided that political expediency requires us having a leader. And they've decided who they want as leader. And they have convinced Dion to resign. LeBlanc is out. But if they want this to work, they're going to have to convince Bob Rae to drop his leadership aspirations too.

How does that happen? I'd imagine Michael offers him two choices: If Michael becomes PM, Bob gets his pick of the cabinet spots (oh, goodness...), if not, Michael promises Bob a real leadership camapign during which Michael is not leader, but merely a candidate.

Rae's alternative - campaigning against the leader of your own party while he is leader, and potentially while he is fighting a national campaign - can't be terribly attractive.

So look for Bob to make his case on Wednesday that appointing either of the leadership candidates amounts to requiring the other candidates to commit treason against their party in order to give party members their democratic say in the leadership. Look for that argument to fail, and for Bob Rae to withdraw from the leadership race more or less immediately after the decision by Caucus.

The rest is paperwork.

Oh, and this bit:

Under the party's constitution, the national executive must decide in consultation with the Liberal caucus what method will be used to select the next leader, said Liberal Senator David Smith.

Yeah, that's not exactly true. They have to appoint the interim leader, and they can decide how the vote will be conducted (what kind of ballot, etc.), but the Constitution decides the method. Not the National Executive. It surprises me that Senator Smith would say otherwise.

Let's Follow the Rules.

2008-12-07T22:10:00.004-07:00

Issue: There is a proposal to elect an interim liberal leader at a caucus meeting on Wednesady, and ratify that decision at the May vote in Vancouver. Can this be done?

Pertinent Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada provisions:

s. 10 (2) (g) Subject to the relevant provisions of this Constitution, a member of the Party has the right to vote on the Leadership Vote and on the Leadership Endorsement Ballot.

s. 23 (2) The National Executive may:
(a) reduce any time qualification established in this Constitution during which a person must have been a member of the Party;
(b) reduce the amount of notice required under this Constitution for any candidate selection meeting or delegate selection meeting.

s. 53 Whenever a Leader is to be chosen for the Party, the Party must elect a new Leader according to the procedures set out in this Chapter (which is referred to in this Constitution as a “Leadership Vote”).

s. 54 (2) If the Leader publicly announces an intention to resign or if the Leader delivers to the National President a written resignation or a written request to call a Leadership Vote, then the Leader ceases to be the Leader on the earlier of the appointment of an Interim Leader and when a new Leader is elected by the members of the Party.

s. 54 (3) In the circumstances set out in Subsection 54(1), if the Leader publicly announces an intention to resign or if the Leader delivers to the National President a written resignation or a written request to call a Leadership Vote, the National President must call a meeting of the National Executive to be held within 27 days, and at that meeting the National Executive must:
(a) in the circumstances set out in Subsection 54(1) or if the Leader so requests, in consultation with the Caucus, appoint an “Interim Leader”;

(b) set a date for a Leadership Vote to be held within six months;

s. 54 (7) The person appointed as the Interim Leader may exercise all the powers of the Leader under this Constitution until a new Leader is elected by the members of the Party.

s. 56 (1) The Leader is elected at a National Leadership Convention with the delegates to that convention being elected in proportion to the popular direct vote received by each leadership contestant in accordance with this Constitution and the Party Bylaws.

s. 57 (1) The National Executive may make any bylaw in accordance with the procedure set out in Section 26 to regulate the procedures of the Leadership Vote, but any bylaw that the National Executive makes must be consistent with this Constitution.
(2) Bylaws anticipated by Subsection 57(1) may include but are not limited to:
(a) voting procedures (including Internet balloting and electronic balloting);

s. 65 (4) The National Executive may call an extraordinary convention of the Party at any time.

(5) In the case of the actual or expected dissolution of the House of Commons, if a Leadership Vote is called or where other circumstances exist that make it significantly impractical to hold a convention, then the National Executive may reschedule any convention of the Party for a date within six months of the original date.

Analysis:

First of all, I have to assume that the references to s. 54(1) in s. 54(3) are intended to be references to s. 54(2). That appears to be a typographical error.

Now, if the leader resigns (again), the National Executive is required to call a(nother) meeting at which they can appoint an interim leader (s. 54(3)(a)). They do so in consultation with the Caucus. However, they are also required to set out the terms of the leadership race (s. 54(3)(b) and following subsections). That is not optional, it is required. They "must" do so. Every interim leader is followed by a full leadership vote (s. 54(7)).

No one has any power to abridge these requirements to make the decision of the national executive a permanent one subject to ratification by a convention. If they did, they would be violating ss. 10(2)(g), 53, 54, and 56(1).

What the national executive can do is change the deadlines for membership and the dates of the delegate selection meetings and the convention (ss. 23(2), 54(3), 65(5)). It can move the dates of the delegate selection meetings and the convention forward. Alternatively, it can call an extrordinary convention for leadership only (s. 65(4)). In either circumstance, it can also pass a bylaw that allows the leadership vote by the delegates to be done over the internet or over the phone (s. 57(2)(a)).

Conclusion:

If the party wants to replace the leader before the vote in late January, the leader should resign and send a letter to the national executive asking them to appoint the interim leader selected by caucus. The national executive should immediately hold a meeting setting an extraordinary convention for January for the sole purpose of doing an emergency leadership selection and abridging whatever deadlines and notice periods are usually required. The national executive should also pass a bylaw allowing the leadership vote at that convention to be done electronically. The existing convention process underway for the Vancouver biennial convention should continue, with the exception that the leadership process for that convention should be cancelled.

The Caucus has the power only to consult with the national executive in their selection of an interim leader.

Unbelievable

2008-12-07T21:49:00.003-07:00

Honestly, don't these people know I have an exam tomorrow morning?

OK, so the deal now (updated here)is that Rae and Iggy are both on board with a fast leadership process, and LeBlanc is going to drop out, and Dion is going to resign on Wednesday (again).

The Liberal party has come up with a proposal to speed up its leadership contest and find a replacement next month in time for a crucial budget vote. That vote could plunge the country into an election or see the Harper Conservatives replaced by a coalition government.

The proposal, which the Liberal party executive was poised to consider by conference call late Sunday, would give every party member a vote by a combination of phone and online ballots. The idea was being vigorously promoted by Rae.

However, Ignatieff's camp was arguing that the proposal would violate the party's constitution and that the May 2 vote to choose Dion's successor should go ahead as planned.

Iggy's camp is right. It would violate the constitution. It would be nice, but it's not legal.

Update: it looks like the national executive has said no to the plan.

People are claiming that Iggy's camp is pushing for the matter to be decided at Caucus on Wednesday. It can't be. The national executive (not the caucus) can select an interim leader (if Dion resigns (again)), and they may take the advice of the Caucus. I think they would be well advised to do so. But even if they do so, the only way the May vote is going to be a mere "ratification" of that decision on a permanent basis is if Rae pulls out of the race.

That's a degree of magnanimity that I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for.

Update: I seem to be the only person who knows all this about interim leaders, because the CBC reports that this is basically a done deal. I'm going to substantiate my argument and post separately.

And let me say... as a person who places a great deal of impormtance on the idea of separating the political sing of the party from the membership wing of the party, the leadership decision doesn't belong to caucus, and they had better not attempt to take it from the members. Because I'm running starkly low on reasons to be a member as it is.

How to replace Dion early

2008-12-07T11:03:00.004-07:00

Evidently, this video fiasco has been enough to galvanize people against Dion.

The news articles on CBC today are about the fact that Rae is calling for Dion to have been replaced by the time Parliament comes back, but saying it can't just be the caucus and the national executive making a decision.

With John Manley coming out against Dion's continued leadership, and people reporting (though I haven't actually read a quote anywhere) that Ignatieff was making negative comments about Dion's continued leadership, the question arises: how can the liberal party possibly rid itself of Stephane Dion early?

There are basically two possibilities:

Stephane Dion resigns (again) effective immediately, and the national executive appoints an interim leader. That leader would be someone other than a current leadership candidate, and the leadership race would continue as expected.
The National Executive uses its various emergency powers to move the delegate selection meetings to mid January, and writes a bylaw to require those delegates to cast Single Transferrable Vote ballots over the Internet immediately after being elected.

I was surprised to discover that #2 was an option, but so far as I can tell, the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada allows it. And all things considered, if you think the need to replace Dion is urgent, it's not a totally undemocratic way of doing it. In fact, by not requiring anyone to travel anywhere or pay delegate fees before voting, you're actually making it a little more democratic. Chances are, though, the convention will lose money.

So it can be done. The question is whether it should be done. I'm not convinced yet, but there is a strong argument that allowing Dion to lead us into another election in February would be a disaster for the party.

For those who agree, my suggestion would be this: Convince Dion to resign, and appoint an interim leader who will get real progress on the budget so we can vote for it without losing face. Failing that, go with #2 above.

Well, That's Not True.

2008-12-05T13:37:00.003-07:00

So I'm reading an editorial linked to by a friend on facebook, and I come across this little tidbit:

Canadians pondering electoral reform should be thinking about the present turmoil in Ottawa and whether they like it as a possible norm under the system of proportional representation.

And I think to myself... "well, that's not true." The rest of the article is quite good, describing all the totally functional coalitions that have been important parts of Canada's history. But this quote is just plain wrong.

I'll keep saying this as many times as necessary, and you should take it to heart and repeat it to people you hear making this mistake:

Minorities under proportional representation are not like minorities under first past the post.

Why? Simple. Under first past the post, small changes in polling numbers make for big changes in seat counts. So when you have a minority government, your motivation is to try and change the poll numbers a little bit, then go back to the polls. That's why minorities are more or less useless right now.

Under proportioanl representation, a small change in the poll numbers means a small change in the seat counts, so there is no motivation to go back to the polls. Parties cooperate because they don't have any better alternatives.

Will there be coalitions and the like? Yes. But beacuse everone knows that the current balance of power is unlikely to change much they will be accepted with a hell of a lot more grace than Prime Minister Harper has recently displayed.

Harpers New Avoiding Accountability Act

2008-12-04T12:31:00.003-07:00

So, Stephen Harper has asked the Governor General for a prorogation of parliament until January, and has received it.

That means parliamentarians go home, and will start up again in almost two months. Where we will pick up where we left off.

We can get into debates about whether or not the GG is doing the right thing. My opinion is that she did do the right thing. What Harper was asking for was allowable under the constitution, and I think the GG should allow whatever the PM requests as long as it's not entirely unreasonable or unconstitutional.

But right now, the GG is not the issue. The issue is that Stephen Harper saw parliamentary accountability coming his way, and he's decided to run. To avoid it, he's willing to throw any kind of insult or accusation, no matter the consequences for our nation's democracy or unity.

For all his talk about standing up for Canadian democracy, he refuses to be held accountable by our elected Members of Parliament.

The Conservative party in this country is an embarassment to democracy. First, they break the rules designed to protect our democracy. Then, when they lose, they cynically hold on to power, and falsely accuse the other side of being undemocratic.

Harper is deserving of the scorn of every Canadian that calls themselves a democrat.

At least nothing too terribly interesting will happen on this front until well after my exams are done.

The Prime Minister is a Liar

2008-12-03T17:10:00.003-07:00

"Overturn the results of the election"
We don't elect Prime Ministers, we elect Members of Parliament. The House of Commons decides who the Prime Minsiter will be. The results of the election are not being overturned.
"The opposition does not have the democratic right"
Sure, let's just invent a category of rights. :) They do have the legal and constitutional right, and it's a right that has been exercised in this country before.
"A Coalition with the Separatists"
It's a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. The Bloc Quebecois has agreed only to vote with the government on confidence votes, which is the same thing that they have been doing for the Conservatives for the last couple of years.

And most importantly, Harper has said nothing but nothing that would explain why he thinks that the government should not be accountable to a majority of the House of Commons.

Epifunny

2008-12-02T21:21:00.003-07:00

Man, people at school today were pissed off.

I don't get it. It's as if people don't understand the concept of majority rule. Like, if a majority of people with similar enough views are willing to work together, that they still don't count for anything because they are divided. Like the largest plurality is the only legitimate source of power.

I wonder where they would have gotten that crazy...

Ohhhhhhh!

Layman's Guide to Responsible Government (Or "How can they do that?")

2008-12-02T10:43:00.006-07:00

There are a lot of people that seem to be asking "How can these guys do that?" with regards to the coalition government. I understand it's confusing to people who aren't intimately familiar with how Canada's federal government works.

The short version in this: if you have a minority parliament, there is more than one potential government at a time. If the current government loses important votes, one of the other governments in the same house can be asked to take over. Here's how that happens.

First, Canada is governed by a Prime Minister and Cabinet. Technically, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor General. The Prime Minister appoints the members of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet can only stay in charge of the country so long as they have the support of a majority of the members in the House of Commons. That's called the "confidence of the House."

Nowadays, the way we make sure that the PM has the confidence of the House of Commons is to appoint as PM the leader of a party that controls more than half (a majority) of the seats in the House. So not only do you have to have the confidence of the House, you have to be right there in the House, answering questions. That's what we call "responsible government."

If no party has a majority of the seats, the Governor General has to decide who is most likely to be able to maintain the confidence of the House. By default, it's usually the leader of the party that got the most seats (in this case, Harper). However, if the minority government loses the confidence of the House (if their laws are defeated in the House of Commons), the Governor General is required to do one of two things: they can call an election, or they can try and find someone else who will maintain the confidence of the House, and make that person Prime Minister instead (in this case, Dion).

Often, parties will trade their support of the government for seats in the Cabinet. When that happens, it's called a "coalition government." The Liberals and the NDP are forming a coalition government. Between the two of them, they still don't have a majority, so they would actually be a minority coalition government.

In order to convince the Governor General that they will be able to maintain the confidence of the House despite the fact they control a smaller minority of the seats than the Conservatives, they have made an agreement to get the support of the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc, however, will not have any seats in the Cabinet, so they are not officially a part of the coalition.

So the opposition parties will vote against the government next Monday (assuming nothing weird happens, like proroguing Parliament or Harper resigning), and Harper will ask the Governor General to call an election. Given the fact we just had an election, and the fact that the other three parties have agreed to support Dion as Prime Minister, the Governor General will likely refuse to call an election, and will instead make Dion Prime Minister.

That's the end of the layman's explanation. Here's the layman's justification:

Harper needs to find 12 Members of Parliament not in his party who are willing to vote with him. How many does he have? Zero. No one will help him.

Dion, on the other hand, needs another 78 people to vote with him. How many does he have? 86.

86 ... 0.

Oh, I almost forgot.

2008-12-01T16:40:00.003-07:00

Remember how I was getting involved in a leadership race that would pick the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada? Turns out, now this race could also pick the next Prime Minister.

If you're suddenly, inexplicably more interested, here's the link. :)

Done Deal?

2008-12-01T15:39:00.003-07:00

Mrs. Gauntlet.ca just called me to ask me, "OK, what the hell is going on?"

A couple of things. First, the three oppositions parties have signed an accord that describes what they would do and how in a new government. Why did they do that? It's like most promise ceremonies. You make some promises to the people to whom you're making the promise, but in front of everyone important. That way, the people who are important can a) hold you to your promises to each other, and b) act with confidence that you're going to keep them rather than make yourself a liar in front of all those people.

In this case, the important people are a) voters, and b) the Governor General, who is being given good reason to believe that there will actually be a functioning government if she doesn't call an election next week.

I wasn't sure how serious this all was until today. But today, they had this ceremony, and Jack Layton was calling on Harper to accept the decision of the House gracefully.

On one hand, you have to think this is hard for Stephen Harper. He has nothing to blame this state of affairs on but himself. On the other hand, it's democracy at work. He offered a vision of do-nothing neo-conservative governance, and he couldn't convince even 10 opposition members to support it. Obviously, he's not the Prime Minister Canada wants right now.

It was also interesting to see the Bloc sign on. Evidently, they are taking themselves out of the game as a playing chip, because now, if Harper offers anything they want, they would have to back out of a publicly-made commitment. So even the Bloc is committed.

What can happen? I'm still waiting for word on whether or not the opposition days can be rescheduled again. I know that Harper can prorogue Parliament, but that would be just ridiculous considering the circumstances. I sincerely believe rocks would be thrown at windows.

I'm beginning to think this is a done deal. Anything that Harper can do now to hold on to power actually would be undemocratic, and he would start to feel it.

And as for Iggy not being supportive of the idea, that was evidently another episode of front-page hogwash. The people in the media who report things like this need to take a serious look at the reliability of their sources. There seems to be an epidemic of that going on right now.

Ignatieff, who is the front-runner to succeed Dion in an upcoming leadership convention, said the three candidates were "at one" in their belief that "the only leader who can lead us in this context is the duly elected leader of the Liberal party."
"I support the accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality that our party has always believed in," he said.

The Drama Continues...

2008-12-01T09:54:00.003-07:00

OK, here's the updated situation. Stephen Harper has backed off on eliminating the cash-per-vote political funding, but has proposed to de-index it (which means it wouldn't increase to keep up with inflation). On the proposal to ban public sector strikes for a few years he has pulled back completely. On the (lack of) fiscal stimulous, he has pushed the budget a few weeks early, and is hinting that there will be help for the auto industry.

The opposition day that was scheduled for today has been pushed back to December 8. So no non-confidence motions for at least another week. If anyone knows whether there is anything preventing him from pushing that date back even farther, I'd appreciate you sharing. I know a little parliamentary procedure, but not that much.

The news is that the Liberals and the NDP have reached some sort of deal that would see the Liberals take PM (Dion), Deputy PM, and Finance, but would give the NDP 25% of the cabinet for two and a half years. Details are sketchy, and there are contradicting reports.

Meanwhile, it is also reported that Michael Ignatieff is opposed to a coalition, and because he has the support of such a large part of the caucus, there are suggestions he and his supporters might keep Harper in power. That seems highly unlikely to me for all kinds of reasons. I'll have more to say after Michael communicates himself on the issue. That's a test for his campaign.

It's great fun watching the Conservatives saying that political uncertainty that comes with a change of government or an election is what we need to avoid right now, at a time of economic uncertainty. First of all, didn't you guys call an election during this period of economic uncertainty? Second of all, political uncertainty is what we should be avoiding? Not, say, a worsening economic crisis? 'Cause everyone else in the friggin' world seems decided on avoiding a worsening economic crisis.

And these accusations that the coalition talks are "undemocratic"? Someone start recalling ambassadors from all those undemocratic regimes with which we have diplomatic relations.

From Wikipedia: Countries which often operate with coalition cabinets include: the Nordic countries, the Benelux countries, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and India.

Fair Vote Canada made a good suggestion: Jack Layton at some point said that he would make an electoral reform process toward proportional representation (PR) a condition of supporting any minority government. Well... I wonder if it's a condition of supporting a minority government in which he is a coalition partner?

I doubt it would be made such a requirement now. You can't threaten people with taking away something that they don't already have (because we are irrational). So maybe the NDP join the coalition, and then make PR a condition of remaining. Sounds good to me.

WTF? Good Question.

2008-11-28T14:01:00.003-07:00

As a service to some of my less news-aggregating readers, here's the (rapidly-changing, as in I had to edit this post while I was writing it) sitch.

Economic crisis hits.
Election - Harper wins minority.
Dion resigns shortly thereafter, remains as interim leader.
Countries around the world start bailing their economies out.
Flaherty introduces "fiscal update." No bailing, and blatantly partisan fundraising changes. (Thursday)
Opposition parties say "screw that, we're voting against it."
Conservatives say "Well, we're not changing it."
NDP Call in Ed Broadbent, Liberals call in Chretien to figure out who would run a coalition government if they vote down the government next week. The story is that the NDP don't want Dion.
Conservatives say "Whoa. Whoa. OK, fine. We won't do the fundraising thing." (Friday)
Liberals and NDP say "We're still bringing you down." Bloc say "Hey, if the Libs and NDP are going to do something for manufacturing and forestry in Quebec, we're in."
Liberals put forward confidence motions that can be called up Monday.
Governor General is being briefed on the situation.

Upshot: The Conservatives, unless they do something to garner the support of one of the opposition parties, will likely lose government next Monday. The GG will likely make a Liberal Prime Minister. Which Liberal? Sources say Dion, temporarily. Chretien and Broadbent are working on it.

I'm serious. This shit be happening.

Harper Backs Down? - Updated

2008-11-28T10:32:00.001-07:00

Sometimes, something seems like a good idea, and then, not so much.

Update: Liberals and NDP say "too late." Bloc are supportive. Can Harper back down further than this? Will he?

500 Words on Cash-Per-Vote Funding

2008-11-27T09:35:00.006-07:00

The federal government gives money to political parties in three ways: tax rebates for donations to political parties from Canadians, campaign expense refunds, and the cash-per-vote system that Finance Minister Flaherty is proposing to eliminate.

As cynical as it may be to make a change to the election finance system because it is advantageous to your own party, it is at least as cynical again to oppose it on nothing more than its disadvantage to your own party. I think we have to decide whether our campaign finance system is better off with or without Flaherty’s proposed change on more objective criteria.

The campaign finance system needs to achieve a few objectives: It needs to ensure that differences in wealth do not lead to unfair differences in influence in democratic decision-making (that’s why there are limits on who can donate, and how much). It needs to ensure that there are enough resources in the system to allow for an effective national debate on issues of federal importance. It also needs to be fair; to ensure that all this is accomplished without structurally preferring individuals or ideologies of one type or another, except in ways that reflect the preferences accorded to those individuals or ideologies by Canadian voters.

So, we look at the system now, and we look at the system after the proposed change. The only difference is the non-existence of the cash-per-votes. So how does cash-per-votes affect these factors? With regard to wealth and influence, the cash-per-votes system prevents the need for donations, which likely has some effect in reducing the influence of wealthy individuals. However, given the limitations on who can donate, and how much, it’s unlikely that the effect of removing it would be terribly great. With regards to ensuring adequate funding, that is why cash-for-votes exists, and removing it would negatively impact that aspect of the system. With regards to fairness, cash-for-votes is fair among those to whom it applies, but it excludes two groups: independent candidates who can never receive the funding, and new political parties which can’t receive it until after they have contested an election. Removing it would remove those aspects of unfairness (though independent candidates would continue to be disadvantaged in other ways by the donation system).

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the government has an obligation to provide funding to political parties that can’t convince Canadians to support them. So, to determine which effect is more important you have to consider whether or not the reduction in funds makes the remaining funds inadequate, and if so, whether that’s more important than the enhancement in fairness.

People may have arguments either way on that. If they don’t, they’re lying to you about what the issue is. Yes, this is self-serving for the Conservatives. Yes the Conservatives are cutting only that source of political funding in which they have the smallest advantage. But if we oppose it for no other reason, we are putting our interests ahead of Canadians’ democracy, too.

Per-Vote Public Funding of Political Parties on Chopping Block

2008-11-27T07:59:00.003-07:00

Interesting.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will ask the five political parties to give up the $1.95-per-vote subsidy that parties need to pay for staff and expenses.

Opposition parties are likely to see the measure as a declaration of war only weeks after the election because of the Conservatives' commanding strength in fundraising.

The president of the Treasury Board rejected that suggestion.

“It would hurt us the most,” said Vic Toews, although he refused to confirm the measure publicly.

Such a measure would cost the cash-strapped Liberals $7.7-million, the NDP $4.9-million, while the Bloc Québécois would take a $2.6-million hit and the fledgling Green party would be out $1.8-million.

Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who won the most votes, stand to lose $10-million.

But proportional to revenues raised last year, the taxpayer subsidy represents 37 per cent of the totals raised by the Tories. That's far less than the 63 per cent chop for Liberal coffers, 86 per cent for the Bloc and 57 per cent for the NDP. The Greens stand to lose 65 per cent of total revenues.

You know, when Chretien imposed this scheme, he knew it was going to hurt the Liberals the most. That's why LeDrew called it "dumber than a bag of hammers." But he did it anyway, because he thought it was the right thing. Now, Conservatives are way ahead in the fund raising game, and so they've decided to eliminate the public funding part of it without eliminating the donation limits. It's the politically expedient thing.

But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong. What do you think about public per-vote funding? Because I'm not sure how I feel.

UppalGate 2008: Redux

2008-11-25T22:51:00.003-07:00

When James Ford first announced that he was running as an independent to challenge Tim Uppal, I said "kudos." I think people should get involved, and stand up for what they think is right. They said it might have been legal, but it was unethical.

After I got to know James Ford a little more, I discovered that he was a much worse choice for MP than Tim Uppal. Then, Ford damn near beat Uppal. Did beat him, in two out of the three municipalities in this riding, actually.

Then, to my surprise, Ford kept after him. Started saying that Uppal was unethical, and didn't deserve the job of MP. And I started to wonder if there had been any moral principle behind Ford's attempt at unseating him at all.

Then, there was a protest outside the newly elected MP's constituency office on his first day in Ottawa.

In response to that, the Sherwood Park News ran an editorial saying that the voters had spoken, and that Uppal deserved the benefit of the doubt.

In response, Ford sent a letter to the editor. In my estimation, he has gone completely off the rails. A couple of choice quotes:

Would you, as the editor of the Sherwood Park News, have an employee stay on after he has broken laws?

and...

Uppal and the Conservative party have already proven lawbreaking...

Aside from his slaughtering of English grammar (this guy wrote a book?), let's do a little fact-checking, shall we? Ford himself maintained that nothing Uppal did in the nomination process was illegal, or even contrary to party rules. It was merely unethical in his view. The only other legal isues that have been raised with regards to Uppal were a bunch of lawsuits he was involved with. All of them, I believe, have been settled out of court.

So where, exactly, is Mr. Ford getting this idea that Uppal is a law breaker? And speaking of being a law breaker, Mr. Ford might want to bone up on defamation law.

I'm not saying. I'm just saying.

Ford then proceeds to assert that "we" can ask the ethics commissioner and Elections Canada to immediately place an MP on a leave of absence, review his case, have him resign if charged, and set out an immediate by-election.

Can "we"? Can "we" really? 'Cause I took a honours degree in political science focussed on accountability in the federal parliament, and I'm pretty sure all of that is bullshit. All of it.

The ethics commissioner deals with MPs, not nominees. And with conflicts of interest, not with law enforcement. Is he misunderstanding the role of the ethics commissioner, or accusing Uppal of being in an undeclared conflict of interest?

Elections Canada enforces only elections legislation. Again, does Ford not get it, or is he accusing Uppal of having cheated in the election?

To my knowledge, neither of them have the ability to place MPs on leaves of absence, charge them with legal offenses outside of their mandates, require them to resign, or even - in the case of Elections canada - set out elections.

I mean, come on. How did this guy almost become MP of Edmonton-Sherwood Park without knowing that the Prime Minister sets by-election dates? What else does this guy not know about the basic functioning of the job he wants?

This has gotten completely out of hand. Ford needs to backen ze up. Pronto. And for the sake of his reputation, stop talking.

Starting Up

2008-11-20T11:41:00.005-07:00

So I got in touch with Ali Jonzon, who (if I remember correctly) was Michael's national youth campaign chair last leadership. I first met Ali working on Paul Martin's leadership bid back in 2004. She passed my name along to the person organizing Michael's Northern Alberta campaign. So now, I'm running Michael's campaign in Edmonton-Sherwood Park. That's how (not) complicated it is.

The Northern Alberta team going to be having a meeting by the end of the month. Hopefully I'll be able to attend and get to know people better.

In the meantime, I've set up the Michael Ignatieff Edmonton-Sherwood Park facebook group, and sent invitations out to all my facebook friends who live in the riding. Our riding President was in Michael's camp last time, and will be again this time which is great. Our past candidate, Rick Szostak, is going to remain neutral for the time being, as he'd like to focus on building up the grassroots support in the riding. He has a lot of good ideas for how to make that happen, and how to make the party more viable in Western Canada. He'll give Michael a fair hearing before making up his mind, and that's all I can ask for.

I've also started reminding myself how this whole thing works, and what I have to do. There are a number of different tasks in a leadership campaign, and a number of different timeframes.

The timeframes are these:

Phase 1: Now until Membership Deadline (February 6)
Phase 2: Membership Deadline until Delegate Nomination Deadline (TBD)
Phase 3: Delegate Nomination Deadline to Delegate Selection Meeting
Phase 4: DSM Day (March 6-10)
Phase 5: DSM Day to Convention
Phase 6: Convention (April 30)

The tasks, from the point of view of a local campaign, are these:

Fundraise (Phases 1-5)
Get volunteers (Phases 1-3)
Recruit members to the party (Phase 1)
Recruit delegate nominees for Michael (Phases 1-2)
Raise support among existing members for Michael and his delegates (Phases 1-3)
Run a DSM Day Strategy (Phase 4)

Other than that, you just have to keep in touch with your regional camapign team to take advantage of any contacts made through Michael's website, and things like that.

So that's what I'm signed up for. Basically, it's a lot of data management, volunteer management, phone calls, and a couple of big events. I don't know how much I can tell you about how it's all going, because I don't want to give up any information that other campaigns could use in order to better allocate their resources. But I'll try to give you some idea of what it's like. That's what I'm here for.

Thar be treasure!!!

2008-11-17T15:02:00.004-07:00

Note to the pirates who have taken possession of a supertanker full of multiple billions of dollars of oil:

Just take out a map, and draw an X on Saudi Arabia.

Done.

Michael Ignatieff for Leader

2008-11-14T15:48:00.006-07:00

I have decided to officially support Michael Ignatieff in the 2009 LPC leadership race. What that's going to mean will depend partly on the amount of time I have available, and what his campaign people want me to do for them, but I'm hoping to take on a role similar to the one I had last time around. I ran the Edmonton-Sherwood Park campaign for him, and made it the second most successful riding for him in the province.

(Did I really write my LSAT on the same day as the DSM two years ago? Man. That was a good day for me. :)

I still think he's the right man for the job, even if that job seems less likely to be Prime Minister. There are other people, even now, who impress me more on their party reform cred, but I continue to believe that we should be electing party presidents on that basis, not leaders.

I will readily admit that I don't know enough about LeBlanc to be able to have an educated opinion about him. He might be great. But he's an unknown quantity for me. And Rae has never impressed me. I pause at the idea that I might be letting my previous decision interfere with the current one. But frankly, I see a lot of people who I respect, who disagreed with me on who the best leader was last time, warming to Michael's side. People I really would not expect. Like Paul Wells , and Warren Kinsella, and Jeff Jedras, and others. And it's only the first week of the campaign, effectively. I'm comfortable deferring to both my previous judgement and their current judgement. At least if we're wrong, we're wrong in good company. :)

So I've renewed my membership in the Liberal Party of Canada, I've entered into negotiations with my wife with regards to a family trip to Vancouver in May, and I've sent notes along to the people who I worked with last time around to let them know that I'm in if they want me. I've also started to look over how much work it was last time around. Yikes.

I'm not going to wax poetic here about Michael. I don't have time to do it as well as BCer did, and that's not what this blog is for, anymore. But I will try to share as much of the experience with you as I can, as I did last time.

Here we go.

Le Blanc Slate

2008-11-13T10:13:00.003-07:00

Last time, my choice was between Ignatieff and Kennedy. I have never had any inclination that Rae would be the right man for the job.

Ignatieff is in, Kennedy is out.

So. What up, LeBlanc?

What up indeed.

On Liberal 308

2008-10-30T14:51:00.006-07:00

Some people I respect are getting involved in a group called Liberal 308. It has a facebook group and a blog. They say they are working toward a policy document outlining strategies in a few areas:

structural change to the LPC
effective grassroots organizations in all 308 ridings
better fundraising
better election readiness and campaign support for candidates

The top two seem to encompass the bottom two. And I'm a big fan of the top two.

And yet... there is something really holding me back from subscribing to this sort of thing.

Here's what it is: Where is the commitment to actually do anything productive? Joining a facebook group is easy. Reading a blog is easy. Writing for a blog is easy. That's all easy. Even, at this point, identifying the flaws in the Liberal Party of Canada is easy. Identifying some solutions seems pretty damn easy, too. We've all been proposing them for over two years, haven't we?

And I don't see how the Liberal 308 idea, as well-meaning as it might be, is going to actually accomplish anything without providing an impetus to act.

So... what do we do?

Well, I'm working on something. I'll get back to you.

Fair Vote's Problem

2008-10-27T10:43:00.004-07:00

It took me a while to come around to supporting Fair Vote Canada.

The reason that I didn't for some time was because they seemed to be promoting a specific solution to the problem of electoral reform, and a specific solution with which I disagreed.

They have modified their aim, somewhat. They now propose a process toward electoral reform as opposed a specific reform. However, their instincts are the same.

Take the example of this fact sheet on why Alternative Voting is a phony reform.

Look at their arguments against it.

Like our current system, the Alternative Vote is a winner-take-all system. In
each riding, one group of voters elects an MP (and wins representation in
Parliament) while all the other voters in that riding lose their right to
representation.

Yes... but under AV, the "group" of voters is actually a "majority." That's not true now.
Many voters are already in ridings where the MP is their second or third
choice. That’s the problem, not the solution.

The problem, if you want good local representation, is that often for a majority of voters there was a more preferred candidate who didn't get elected. AV solves that problem.
This system “guarantees” the winner has majority support? Counting ballots
in a different manner does not magically produce a politician with majority
support when it didn’t exist otherwise.

What exactly are you suggesting? That we should have a "none of the above" on the ballot? Do you have an electoral method that produces politicians with majority support? So who cares?
The Alternative Vote can actually distort election results more dramatically
than our current system. For example, in the 1997 election the Liberals won
38% of the votes but captured 51% of the seats. A study of voter preferences1
found the Liberals would have gained 57% of the seats, even with the same
level of support, had the Alternative Vote been used. Why? When forced to
rank parties, most voters who supported other parties would have ranked the
Liberals second, not because they wanted Liberal representation, but
because they disliked other parties even more.

Now this is a legitimate complaint. AV tends to select compromise candidates in a single riding. That will tend to result in a House of Commons overwhelmed by the "compromise" party, even if individuals' first preferences did not go to that party in any comparable proportion. AV is designed to have the single representative from a riding be more representative of that riding. Proportionality is designed to have the House of Commons be more representative of the entire country. Both objectives cannot be served at the same time. Pick which is most important to you. Also, consider what forcing parties to play to the middle would mean for electoral politics in this country.
Not surprising, due to these shortcomings, only 3 of 211 countries in the world
use this system to elect their parliaments (Australia, Papua New Guinea, Fiji).

We use FPTP. Should people take us as evidence that PR is bad? Or because we are in the minority, are we calling Canadians stupid?

The only real objection here is that AV makes things less proportional, not more. But national proportionality is not the only reason you might want to reform the electoral systems in this country. Our existing system pleases no one. Whatever principles you think our electoral system should serve (save randomness), the current electoral system does not serve them. And Fair Vote alienates people who might otherwise be willing to submit the electoral system to review by arguing that their preferred systems cannot be considered in that review.

And why? If these systems are as bad as Fair Vote claims they will not stand up to authentic scrutiny. So why attack them at all? And if you're going to attack them, why attack them in a way that reduces your credibility like this?

The facts speak for themselves: When Canadians have the alternatives explained to them, they always pick a more proportional alternative than the one we have. So Fair Vote's best strategy is to promote a truly impartial process in which all alternatives are considered. Because who can disagree vehemently with looking over our options?

Attacking the validity of other potential reforms, however, puts the lie to the idea that Fair Vote is in any way impartial. So it shoots itself in the foot.

2008-10-25T20:44:00.003-07:00

I guess I have to stop reading Paul Wells again.

Two years ago, tomorrow, I decided to stop reading Paul Wells because he didn't seem able to put reason ahead of his desire to see Dion succeed in the leadership race. Specifically, on that day, he ascribed to Michael Ignatieff certain constitutional policies that Michael personally disclaimed, on the basis of the actions of some of his supporters.

Today, in his first post on the new leadership race, Paul is able to say, as a compliment to Michael Ignatieff, that he hasn't seemed to put his foot in his mouth since the leadership race. And he's going to have to "consider" that. But he's also reminding people what he thinks Michael thought about the constitution issue two years ago.

Still, a mother worries. The trajectory of Ignatieff’s constitutional policy last time could perhaps best be summarized thusly: (1) tambours et trompettes, as above; (2) quick backtrack, emphasizing the “will take time” part of his manifesto, and insisting that he was talking about vague wishes for someday, not a near-term policy of constitutional upheaval; (3) resolutions at Liberal party functions calling for constitutional change; (4) deciding, when Stephen Harper introduced the Québécois nation resolution to short-sheet the Bloc, that this was all he had ever called for in the first place and that he should have credit for putting the issue on the agenda.

"Perhaps" and "best" are being defined very loosely by Wells, here. Michael didn't do 3. Some of his supporters did 3. But two years later, Wells is still unable to draw a distinction between a person and his supporters.

The funny thing is, it seems like Wells is more likely to be supportive of Ignatieff this time around, whereas I'm less. That said, I'm less likely to take part in the whole thing at all. But on his first post on the leadership race redux, almost two years to the day after the first time, Paul had to go and remind me why I stopped reading him last time.

Gauntlet's LPC Renewal Platform

2008-10-24T13:47:00.004-07:00

'Tis the season for liberal party reform proposals. I commented on Dave Taylor's proposals for the ALP. I also noticed Jeff Jedras over at BCer in Toronto was talking about proposals to renew the structure of the LPC. He linked to a few here that he and I had worked on together a while ago.

Update: Calgary Grit gets in on the game.

So, I'm joining in. This time, I'm just trying to promote the conversation about what should be done with (to) the Liberal Party of Canada. Which means that I'm freer to be imprecise, and to suggest things that aren't ideal, but which reflect ideas that deserve to be discussed. I've taken full advantage of that freedom, I think.

So here you go. Let me know what you think.

Oh, and to those of you who looked these over, I appreciate your having taken the time.

Dave Taylor's ALP Renewal Plan

2008-10-24T12:24:00.004-07:00

Holy moley. I've just been reading through Dave Taylor's list of things the ALP needs to make happen in order to move the ALP forward. As a guy who wrote a database system for his campaign because the one provided by the party was inadequate, I'm glad to see that he is aware of some of those deficiences. But honestly. It is long, and it is detailed in the extreme (really? We need to move to plastic membership cards? really?).

I'm sorry, I can't even bring myself to recap them for you. It's just so dull. Read it yourself.

What do I find interesting? Well, for one thing, this idea that the party's communications should be scientific, and should focus on what works, not what has been done in the past, seems to contradict somewhat Taylor's assertion that the word "Liberal" is sacrosanct. He seems entirely pragmatic except in that one instance, and I still haven't been convinced that there is any reason we should be conservative about the name Liberal.

Our name is our compass, he has said. Seems to me the Saskatchewan Party still has a compass. Seems to me the Conservative Party has a compass. Seems to me making a difference is more important than being right all the time. But whatever.

Second, bit of a chicken and egg problem, here. As one example, if he wants to do these things, the party is going to need professional information technology staff working there full time. That kind of thing costs money. They don't have any. And all of his suggestions for how they can get some will require information technology staff. So it all seems kind of pie-in-the-sky.

Third, some of you will be aware that I advocate for a division within a political party between the administrative and political functions. The political focus should be on the next election, the administrative focus should be on the long term, and both will be done better if they're not being done by the same people. To say that this view is not reflected in Taylor's plan is accurate, but massively understated. It would be like saying "the rocky mountains are large."

Number of times Taylor refers to working with the President of the ALP: Zero.

Number of times Taylor refers to working with or "directing" the Vice Presidents: Many, many.

This is, however, what the ALP has come to. They're not just picking a leader. They're picking a chief operating officer, a chief volunteer, a chief fundraiser, a chief information technology expert, and who knows how many other functions. Evidently, they're picking a defacto President, too. And we can be sure that they're getting the best one possible, because they're not paying them for the privilege of taking on these duties. They can't afford to.

So bully for Dave that he has some ideas of what would be better than what we've got. It is not dispelling my concerns that we might be better off starting from scratch.

Enourmous Loophole in MMP? Not really.

2008-10-20T10:56:00.000-07:00

So Ralph Anderson made a comment a while ago about the possibility of cheating in a MMP system. He suggested that by not running a party-affiliated candidate in the local election, but instead running an "independent" candidate who would join the party after the election, a party could artificially boost the proportional seats assigned to them. He called this an "enormous loop hole."

That intrigued me, so I looked into it. I found evidence of something similar. In the 2001 Italian elections the two major coalitions utilized a technique called "decoy lists" that works much the same way. Instead of independent candidates, however, they just ran coalition candidates from a party that was not contesting the proportional ballot so that the truly popular party could win proportional seats even where the constituency seats were already won by a member of the same coalition.

Without wanting to go into the details, there's a couple of reasons I don't think this would happen in Canada. First, it doesn't seem to happen anywhere except Italy. Second, in Italy in 2001 they had 47 parties. Third, the Italian proportional representation system is designed in such a way that combined with a large number of parties it tends to exaggerate the effects of this kind of a strategy. So there wouldn't be as much to gain from it here as there is in Italy.

Also, I don't see why you couldn't eliminate the problem by just making it a requirement that if you want your party's name on the proportional ballot, you have to have a candidate listed on the local ballot in that constituency. That doesn't seem like too high a standard to place on small parties. If you expect to get second ballot support from people, surely one of those people is going to be willing to get a bunch of signatures and let their name stand. It would also make decoy list and fake independent strategies extremely risky. The only way to safely use them would be to advertise the fact that you were using them. Considering it doesn't happen in most places now, it's even less likely to happen if the parties had to advertise it.

So I'm not worried. But even if I was... when it comes right down to it, you can't argue that decoy lists and fake independent candidates are a problem unless you accept the premise that proportionality is desirable. Once you've accepted that premise, MMP - even with the risk of decoy lists and fake independent candidates - is still one of the best options available, and significantly better than what we have now.

Book Review: Influence - The Psychology of Persuasion

2008-10-19T23:21:00.004-07:00

It wasn't on my list of future book reviews, but I heard about Dr. Robert B. Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, and really wanted to read it.

Basically, the book is about all the dirty tricks that "Compliance Practitioners" (which include everything from car salesmen to prison interrogators to politicians) use to make you comply with things you otherwise wouldn't. The author asserts that in order to conserve intellectual effort we have evolved decision-making shortcuts that avoid the need for thinking. They work well most of the time, but the Compliance Practitioners are exploiting them to our disadvantage.

The book is full of fascinating examples of how the different techniques work. Basically, there are six:

Reciprocity - when people give you something, even just a concession, you feel like you have to give them something back.
Consistency and Commitment - you tend to do things that are consistent with your immediately previous thoughts, statements, and actions; and once you have decided to do something, you justify that decision in ways that make it difficult to reverse course, even when the reasons you did it in the first place aren't there anymore.
Social Proof - you tend to accept as correct whatever you see people like you doing.
Liking - you are more likely to do things for people you like, who are similar to you, physically attractive, who have complimented you, with whom you have cooperated on something, and with whom you have positive psychological associations.
Authority - you tend not to question the instructions of an authority. Titles, dress, height, and status symbols all tend to create authority in the minds of people.
Scarcity - things seem more valuable if they are soon to be more difficult to get. This also works for ideas, like liberty.

The author describes himself as a life-long "patsy," and at the end of each chapter he proposes some method of avoiding having these techniques of compliance employed on you. I found the suggestions somewhat unrealistic. His solution for the "Liking" technique, for example, is to ask yourself before complying with someone's request whether or not you like them more than you would have expected to. Call me pessimistic, but I don't see that happening. His whole argument is that these decision-making processes are automatic. He doesn't explain how that is to be overcome except to insist that we have to stop and think.

Then he suggests that we should rebel against compliance practitioners who debase the value of these useful decision-making shortcuts. Again, I can only see that working if we can take what has been automatic and make it a conscious process, in which case we have already lost the benefit of these shortcuts anyway.

In addition to being unconvincing, these sections of the book felt separate - somehow tacked on to add pages, or something. By the 5th technique, I just stopped reading them. With the exception of those sections, the book was very good. It's full of interesting - and sometimes disturbing - stories of how easily human beings can be convinced to do things that would otherwise seem completely opposed to their own best interests. The ideas dovetail nicely with the ideas of automatic decision-making expressed in Blink! and with the physiological understanding of how ideas are formed and triggered in the mind expressed in The Political Mind particularly in the latter case in the chapter on consistency and commitment.

Really, though, it's a more useful text for a person who wants to become a compliance practitioner than for the person who is trying to avoid complying with others.

This has a similarity to Made to Stick in that it's a book that tells you how to get other people to do what you want them to do. Which makes it eminently political. Specifically, it seems to me that a careful consideration of these principles could make door-to-door canvassing and fund-raising efforts a heck of a lot more successful.

Alberta Liberal Leadership Race

2008-10-18T12:08:00.003-07:00

Yes, it's true. The Alberta Liberals are looking for someone to replace Kevin Taft as leader of the official opposition. Your candidates are Dave Taylor, David Swann, and Mo Elsalhy.

I have been going back and forth between thinking we need a new party and we need a better Liberal party in this province. The evidence from those three web sites is that a better Liberal party is a long way off.

Elsalhy gets credit for including concrete objectives that he would like to achieve for the ALP (not for the government of Alberta). His website says he's "open" to the idea of working with the other opposition parties. That's basically a non-starter. I'm not terribly impressed.

Dave Taylor wants to bring the party to the centre, and says he is an "unapologetic" liberal (Remember this from the "New Liberal" thing a while ago? Same people). Unapologetic is a euphamism for "doomed to failure." The ALP can't win until it is fixed. As far as I'm concerned the problems with the ALP aren't going to get solved unless the guy in charge is aware of them, how serious they are, and has a plan to fix them. I see none of that from Dave Taylor.

David Swann says almost nothing on his website. He has been involved in these democratic renewal conferences that went on in Calgary and Edmonton, and he has expressed support for ideas like merging the three left wing parties in Alberta, and democratic reform, and changing the name of the Alberta Liberal Party, but none of that turns up in his one-page "platform" on his website. So what are you buying there? Who knows?

Still, according to the news reports from the recent AGM, Swann had the lead in terms of delegate support there. I'm willing to bet, however, that Dave Taylor has got the money advantage on him.

Anyway, if you're interested, you have three more weeks to buy a membership in the ALP. You can do it securely online here. It's $10. The election will be by mail-in ballot.

I don't know. What do you think? Is it worth it? What would work better?

Uppal-Gate 2008: The Fight Continues

2008-10-17T07:15:00.002-07:00

Anything that was wrong with a nomination process is entirely addressed by running as an independent and giving people a choice. They had a choice, they made that choice. They chose Uppal in a fair and democratic process.

But Jim Ford has decided that the fight between himself and Tim Uppal isn't over. Jim's justifications for going on?

"He's a bad character, he doesn't deserve to be there."

"I started this because of the lack of political ethics and I think I should stay on it," Ford said. "As a personal need, but also because my campaign workers, all of the people I talked to on the phone overnight and today at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, they're all saying don't give up on this, go for it."

So it's not the ethics of the party anymore. Now it's the ethics of the candidate. He claims he only lost because of a cash infusion to Uppal's campaign from Conservative headquarters. Maybe. But so what? You have a problem with how difficult it is for independents to get elected in this country? Me too. But you were a part of the most powerful political organization in these parts. What did you do about it? Nothing. What are you proposing to do about it? Nothing. You still think the nomination rules are unfair? Me too. What did you do about it until someone gamed the system? Nothing. After someone gamed the system, you intentionally ran for an office that couldn't solve the problem, and resigned any office that could.

I want to believe better of Mr. Ford, but I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that his problem is with the democratic process, and not just Tim Uppal.

Post-Election 2008 Post (post)

2008-10-15T17:10:00.005-07:00

OK, in numerical list format. Here we go.

Uppal-Gate 2008 (The Finale)
I am shocked that James Ford got over 30% of the vote in Edmonton-Sherwood Park. Shocked. My cynicism with regards to independent candidates in this country has been severely shaken.
I would be more comfortable that this was a good sign for democracy, however, if I hadn't attended a forum which featured about 400 old white people who were protesting the nomination of a young brown guy with a turban and a beard. Whether we know it about ourselves or not, we are biased toward people with whom we can superficially identify. And that is a bad quality.
Ask yourself this: if the tables had been turned, and Jacquie Fenske had won the nomination in the exact same manner over Uppal, would someone else have run as an independent? Would anyone have paid any attention? I don't think so.
Also, a little lesson in math: If the conservatives pull in more than 66% of the vote in a riding, you need more than one person to split the conservative vote. Good to know.
Linda Duncan
Good for her, but it does not mean what the newspaper editorialists are going to tell you it means. Albertans have not stood up for themselves against an absentee Prime Minister who takes their loyalty for granted. Some hard work paid off, and a few more people voted NDP this time. That's all. We weren't a monolith before this, so this doesn't remove our monolith-ness.
Stephane Dion
He is right on the issues, and wholly unsuited to the task of retail politics in this country. He can't fix the country, or the world, and he refuses to recognize that there's anything seriously wrong with the party, so he should leave gracefully with our thanks. (Did anyone else notice an eerie similarity between David Swann and Michael Ignatieff last night? "Everything should be on the table.")
58%
I over-estimated turnout for this election. I was right that it would be lowest-ever. In the face of a collapse of world markets, we had an argument between "everything's fine" and "I'll call meetings," with a little "let's stop giving corporations tax cuts" for garnish. You can hardly blame Canadians for not giving a crap. So don't.
Calgary Grit's Projections
I was unduly harsh before. Calgary Grit's projections were inaccurate because the polling on election day was different from the polling a few days before. I still prefer reading about seat counts to reading about national vote percentages.
Electoral Reform
Maybe now that they're a party that is under-represented in the House of Commons, the Liberals will get their heads around the need for electoral reform. I don't know. Which of the two following graphs would you prefer as the composition of the House of Commons?

3 out of 5 is Awful.

2008-10-14T20:37:00.003-07:00

Update: Duncan is in the lead in Edmonton-Strathcona. I'm pretty sure about the other two predictions, though.

I made some predictions. Three were good. Two were not. First, the results from the election are outside the 95% certainty threshold. So no, Calgary Grit's projections were not close.

Second, Jim Ford did a hell of a lot better than 15-20% in my riding of Edmonton-Sherwood Park.

There is a strange sort of glee looking at Peter Mansbridge furrow his brow and say "Who's that third independent coming up on the board? I thought I saw one in Edmonton, but that would mean someone was beating a conservative in Alberta. Must be only a couple of polls reporting" (Paraphrasing)

Well, no. As of right now, after see-sawing back and forth with Tim Uppal the whole night, he sits at 31% of the popular vote in this constituency, about 1000 votes behind Uppal, and about 5000 votes ahead of the third place NDP candidate.

I'm looking at the number 2 on the gray bar on CBC Newsworld, and I'm watching a flashing blue riding on my computer screen for a while now, so I'm confident he won't actually win it.

But holy cow. I did not see that coming. I'm not sure what it means, if anything at all, but I'll get back to you on it.

Things to Look For Tomorrow

2008-10-13T22:53:00.004-07:00

I'll be studying while I watch the results on TV. Here's what I'll be looking for:

Elizabeth May - Does the exposure of a nationally televised leaders debate trump the exposure of two and a half years as a Minister?
Prediction: No.
Coalition Math - Will the Liberals and the NDP combined have more seats than the Conservatives? A two-part coalition is a lot easier to hold together, and doesn't require anyone to give any significant power to the separatists.
Prediction: It's close, but no.
Calgary Grit - how close were his seat projections to the actual results?
Prediction: Remarkably close given the fact that they do not take into account local conditions.
Jim Ford - when you have a conservative run a strong campaign in protest against the Conservative candidate in Alberta, what is the most you can expect?
Prediction: Ford will finish second with between 15% and 20% of the vote.
Linda Duncan - can she stop the Tory sweep of Alberta?
Prediction: It's close, but no.

Enjoy the election. I'll enjoy a break from this constant reading and writing of politics in addition to my schoolwork.

Gauntlet Predicts Lowest Ever Turnout

2008-10-12T18:51:00.003-07:00

Based on the advanced poll numbers, we should actually come in under the dismal 2004 turnout of 60.9%. I personally predict about 60.5%.

We have to do something. We do, though. Don't we?

Let's DO something.

OK. Now I'm confused.

2008-10-12T18:05:00.003-07:00

So I thought I owed the Green Party $100. Seems not.

In fact, according to this guy, a Green supporter should never vote strategically, because they are in a different league. Even if that means electing a Harper majority, do not vote anything but Green. They put the planet before people, he says.

Which is funny, because whatever his reasons for suggesting Greens shouldn't vote strategically, I'm willing to bet it's putting the short-term interests of some person or group of people ahead of the long-term interest of the "planet."

Just a hunch.

So thanks for the clarification, Liz. I'm putting my checkbook away. Enjoy whatever it is you think you're going to accomplish.

James Ford's Race

2008-10-12T13:59:00.005-07:00

I've commented on how glad I am that James Ford is fighting back against what he perceives as an unfair nomination process in Edmonton-Sherwood Park.

I'm glad that someone is drawing attention to the problem of how our political parties are not particularly democratic.

That said, there are some things I need to say about James Ford.

Ford has said that he would "call on political parties" to have the same requirements for voting in nomination processes as there are for voting in federal elections. If you can't vote for the candidate, why should you get to pick the candidate, he says.

I think that suggestion is monumentally stupid.

First, we have freedom of association in this country. I don't see any reason to say that we should exclude members of political parties from that. Let them do what they want, as long as it's done on an even playing field, and the voters can hold them to account for it.

Second, according to Ford's theory we should exclude landed immigrants from volunteering for political campaigns, donating, speaking about politics, etc. I mean, they don't get to vote, so why should they have any influence whatsoever? They obviously have some anti-Canadian agenda that they're working toward by electing traitors to parliament, right?

Ridiculous. The question is not why non-citizens should have a say in the nomination of candidates in this country. You don't ask why a human being should have a right. The answer is because they are a human being. The question to ask is why they shouldn't.

Ford's answer? Non-citizens shouldn't be able to vote in nomination races because we are considerate, and they are naive. We make our own decisions, and they do what they are told by community leaders. We show up unreliably, and in small numbers. They show up every time, and all of them. In buses! Our ethnocentrism is principled, whereas theirs is base. We are bad at democracy, and they are good at it.

That does not seem like a good answer to me. It seems like a decidedly bad answer. A guy who can run on a platform of excluding people from democracy is not a person who deserves the authority that a democracy confers.

Holy shit. I owe the Green Party $100!

2008-10-12T13:44:00.001-07:00

Ask and thou shalt receive. Sometimes, less than 24 hours later.

Remember This?

2008-10-11T21:01:00.004-07:00

Elections Canada says Stephen Harper spent $1.3M more than he was allowed to spend in the last federal election, and accounted for it in a way that it would be refunded to his candidates. Stephen Harper's response was to accuse Elections Canada of liberal bias, and to sue them to keep the money he doesn't deserve.

He then called an election, contrary to the spirit of his fixed-election-date law, before any of this could be sorted out by the courts.

I'll donate it.

2008-10-11T19:43:00.002-07:00

The Green Party, if it were to throw its support behind a different party, could prevent Conservatives from being elected in "dozens" of ridings in this country. They also stand to lose $1.87 per year per vote they sacrifice. With thousands of votes, that's a lot of money.

So... I'll personally donate $100 to the Green Party of Canada if Elizabeth May can prove that she thinks that Canada and the Environment are more important than the Green Party by calling for Green voters in close ridings to vote for the candidate with the best chance of preventing a Conservative MP from being elected.

Anyone with me?

You gotta be proud.

2008-10-11T19:17:00.005-07:00

Author (paraphrasing): Stephen Harper offered "financial considerations" to dying MP Chuck Cadman if he would vote with the Conservatives.

Stephane Dion (paraphrasing): That's bribery, and it's a crime.

Stephen Harper (paraphrasing): That's defamation. I'm suing.

Author (paraphrasing): I have it on tape.

Stephen Harper (on tape, verbatim): "the offer to Chuck was that, it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."

Stephen Harper (under oath, verbatim): He has done some editing there. “What I do know is that this answer is not the answer to this question, I think there's been some editing in this question, so I don't think it goes from this question to this answer.

Stephen Harper's Expert: Umm.... no.

Stephen Harper's own expert is contradicting something that Stephen Harper said under oath. If that's true, that would add alleged perjury to the alleged bribery.

You gotta be proud.

Oh, and still no word on whether or not the Conservatives are going to violate election spending laws this time the way they did last time. We'll see. That is, we'll see if the Elections Commissioner (or whatever he's called) doesn't mind getting fired like Harper did the last guy who tattled.

You don't get do-overs when you're Prime Minister

2008-10-09T18:55:00.006-07:00

Dion was asked "If you were prime minister now, what would you have already done that Stephen Harper has not done to deal with the economy?" (Paraphrasing)

He found the question confusing. He wanted to know when, in this hypothetical situation, he had become Prime Minister.

The interviewer didn't understand his confusion, and so he posed the same question to Dion a number of times with the same response, each time Dion suggesting that they should start again.

I understood his confusion right away. What he would have done would have depended on how long he had been there. And he was not leader of the Liberal Party when Stephen Harper got the job, so that would seem like a particularly unusual imaginary start date. It was a poorly worded question.

What Dion can be criticized for is his inability to explain to the questioner his objection to the way the question was being phrased, and for his silly choice to repeatedly attempt to answer the question that was asked.

Now, people are criticizing Mike Duffy for going after Dion on it. Some Liberal MP who was asked to comment on it said that Mr. Dion has a hearing difficulty. As a result, some people seem to think that Duffy was picking on Dion, a la the Chretien's face ads in 1993, and that it's going to garner Dion sympathy and Duffy scorn.

But it was not a hearing difficulty. That's spin. Dion heard the question and understood it better than the questioner did. So no, Duffy was not picking on him for a physical disability. He was picking on him for his English-language communication skills. That's old news. It doesn't make Duffy despicable, nor is it a great revelation about Dion.

Stephen Harper has said you don't get a do-over when you're Prime Minister. True enough. But you can evidently insist that the media submit their questions in writing, so...

Vlogging the Edmonton-Sherwood Park All Candidates Meeting

2008-10-09T13:49:00.003-07:00

This is my first attempt at using a bunch of technology. Never used this camera before, never used this video converter before, and I've never used the blogger video upload features before. We'll see how it all worked. Sorry it took so long.

Toward Better Campaigns

2008-10-09T12:13:00.005-07:00

Aaron Wherry with MacLeans has been occasionally meandering into media introspection land over the course of this campaign, asking good questions like:

To what extent is public polling merely a reflection of what the public is being told? And at what point does what the public sees for itself override what it has been told?

He carefully claims to not have the answers. But he points you to the fact that the debates have changed the direction of this race, and not in the way that the pundits predicted. The polling numbers are approaching a statistical tie.

He also points you to the CBC's two X-Challenges, where on the economy and the environment, people who reflected the political preferences of their region at the start shifted massively in preference after having been directly exposed to the parties' pitches on those topic areas. Despite the fact Conservatives were heavily favoured going in, Liberals were favoured on the economy and Greens were favoured on the environment coming out.

What does all this mean? Well, to answer Aaron's first question, polling tells you what people will say when they are asked a polling question. What they will say when asked a polling question will depend, perhaps significantly, on what they have been told. I would say that what they have been told affects the polling results to a great extent.

To answer your second question, what the public has seen for itself and what it has been told are not two different categories of things. Media is not crtically received by people, or advertising would be worthless. We are sponges for whatever is sent to us.

The better question, which Aaron has also asked, is this: Why is it that when the candidates explain themselves to Canadians directly, there are significant changes in preferences, but when the candidates explain themselves through the filter of news media, there are not?

I would suggest that the answer is because the news media are, if Aaron can believe it, actually focussed too much on either substantive things like policy, or meaningless things like process stories. Canadians, like anyone else, make their decisions on the basis of factors that they do not themselves understand. But what we can tell, from their behaviour, is that their preferences are more likely to change after they have observed representatives of the parties in direct conflict with one another.

So it's not that the news media are doing something wrong, Aaron. It's just that they're doing something pointless.

This, plus my experience at the local debates in my riding (I'm still working on the video, people. I'll have it as soon as I can), convince me that we would be better off if the campaigns focussed much more on putting people in rooms together. Once per language in 5 weeks seems inadequate. Dividing them by language also seem monumentaly stupid.

But of course, that kind of campaign is only valuable to parties if what you're trying to influence is the national voting percentages. Under this electoral system, it's not. What you're trying to influence is the local voting percentages in a majority of ridings. That doesn't require national debates. That requires campaigns more along the lines of the ones we've got.

Want better campaigns? Get better elections.