Canadian Federal Election 2015

[Metcarfre]

Personally, I'd keep the lower house FPTP and make the Senate functionally PR. If the Senate were somewhat beefed up but still the (polically) weaker house, I think it would be more effective as the "sober second thought" that the Senate is meant to perform.

In reality, however, we're more likely exchanging one set of headaches for another.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Well, see, I'm a Senate abolitionist, so that doesn't really fly with me. I'm really wary of anything that can result in a deadlock between the two houses, like they often have in the US.

[BlueChloroplast]

I'm not sure if I was able to vote in the MMP thing, I can't remember what year it was. I agree with having local MP's, and I was for MMP when the vote came around.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

The MMP referendum was concurrent with the 2007 Ontario election. 37% of voters and 5 of 107 ridings supported MMP. To pass, it required 60% popular support and at least half of all provincial ridings having more than 50% popular support.

Honestly... I don't think they were terribly serious about wanting to do it.

This time around, though, the NDP and Liberals have said they're just going to do it. Not necessarily MMP, granted, but there will be no referendum on whether to ditch FPTP if the Dippers or Grits win. It will just happen. Period.

[Metcarfre]

It will just happen. Period.

Well, I mean... except politics, of course.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Sure. But with the Liberals and NDP both promising it, it's a pretty sure thing to pass. They'll have the votes.

[Master Gunner]

What do you think of Alternative Vote or Simultaneous Runoff type systems? I've generally thought that to be a decent way of mixing local representation and independent candidates with getting more proportional representation in the House of Commons.

I also used to lean rather right (I grew up in a rather conservative household (at least prior to Harper), and my brother is still a major American Republican believer), but now...well as far as the ISideWith poll goes, I'm extremely far left.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Frankly, I don't care for IRV/STV systems at all.

Conceptually, I don't like the idea of IRV. Instant runoffs don't actually strike me as any better than FPTP - they don't give me any extra choice, don't result in proportional representation, and don't result in better representation. The claim is that every candidate always has a majority; I say that's bunk. It's almost certain that no candidate is a first choice of the majority. You end up with an unhappy compromise holding each seat. If you're going to do a run-off, I want an honest-to-god runoff, with multiple election days. That way, people actually get to choose a candidate. Problem being, of course, that voter turn-out would be atrocious. And it's unworkable in a Westminster system, anyway. Totally impractical.

STV at least lets you have proportional representation. But... at that point... why not just go with a PR or MMP system, and do away with the preferential ballot? There's no point to it. It provides no benefit if you're adjusting things to be proportional, and is needlessly complicated.

Also, any preferential ballot system (especially STV) results in behaviour known as "donkey voting" - so-called because you "vote like an ass." Basically, parties will put out example ballots of how to vote to best benefit their candidate in each riding. Then supporters of that party will go vote identically to the example ballot. Which means you're not actually getting a true ranking of each elector's preferences; you're getting donkey ballots that are the result of political parties gaming the system for their benefit. Which completely undermines the point of the system, since no true preferences are recorded.

Ranked ballots are inherently flawed. They allow gaming far too easily to be a good idea. They cannot achieve their stated goal.

Donkey voting, by the way, is not possible in PR or MMP systems. Though I'm sure there are other ways to game them, they seem more structurally resilient.

[BlueChloroplast]

What would be nice is being able to pick and choose on the major issues as I like some things from one party and some things from other parties.

[Lord Chrusher]

Any dramatic change to the Senate will require the consent of the provinces. Since the smaller provinces would lose out, they would try to block any move to abolish the Senate.

I also think that the Commons should remain first past the post and that the Senate should become some form of proportional representation with each province having equal numbers of Senators.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Unfortunately, that would also require provincial consent under the 7/50 rule. If we're going to be talking about impossible constitutional amendments, I figure I might as well talk about the impossible one I actually want.

[Master Gunner]

My issue with pure proportional representation is that it can remove or hinder local representation, and the individual MPs would become almost completely irrelevant. As the MPs are going to be appointed by the party, each party is going to tend to appoint people who will just vote the party line without thought - doing anything else would just be weakening the party's position. Not to mention independent MPs would be right out.

It would also result in less representation for minority groups or rural ares - anyone outside of the Quebic-Windsor corridor would basically cease to matter from a party's perspective (at best, they'd provide just enough attention to the rest of the country to prevent the formation of strong regional parties - not that any regional party would ever be able to accomplish much under proportional representation).

Even if they assigned a guaranteed number of seats to representatives from each province, they'd still be mostly drawn from the major population centers and be party lackeys.

Ranked ballots, at least from my perspective, provide a solution that gets somewhat close to the same split in parliament as proportional representation; while having each MP still (theoretically) accountable to local constituents. With ranked ballots, there would still be a path available for independent candidates and minor parties capable of representing the needs of areas unhappy with their situation under the major parties.

Practically speaking, it would all be the same (party lackeys and an ignored populace occur under every system), but philosophically I like the idea of individual accountability among our legislatures.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

MMP does exactly that, while remaining proportional. Under MMP, most MPs are local, and tied to individual ridings. Only the top-up list MPs are appointed directly by the party and are not linked to ridings.

And it does it without the problems of ranked balloting.

Frankly, I see the evil of a few non-riding MPs as being lesser than the evil of donkey voting (which completely undermines the whole system to the point that it's no better than FPTP). But I suppose that's a matter of taste.

[Master Gunner]

How is donkey voting any different the strategic voting currently going on? For those strongly aligned with a party, it would be exactly the same; but others have the freedom to vote as they please. So "worst case", assuming everyone votes the way the party they're most aligned with tells them to, it would be pretty much the same as it is under FPTP. But even 10% of voters acting independently could cause significant swings in a large number of ridings.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

You're absolutely correct that it's no worse than strategic voting under the current system. It may even be marginally better, depending on how it works out. But given that the problem can be done away with entirely under MMP or a similar system, without doing away with the benefits of IRV/STV, I don't see any reason to prefer a ranked ballot system.

If you can gain the benefits and avoid the problems of ranked balloting under a different system, why wouldn't you choose that other system?

[Metcarfre]

Huh, I just realized I'm in a brand-new - and somewhat more competitive - riding than in the last election (I didn't move).

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Update: Hodge-Podge

I was out of town for the weekend, so I wasn't keeping up with the campaign. Let's catch up a bit, shall we?

Polls

More churning around the same levels of support; no big shifts, no surprises.



The Economy

The big news, of course, is that the markets took a bad dive yesterday on news out of China. The dollar took a hit, too. This would generally be an advantage for the Tories, since traditionally they're seen as the party best able to manage economic crises (though I don't buy it; the economy does what it does, government be damned, for the most part). They're certainly trying to capitalize on that reputation, at any rate - they've been banging on the economy drum for months.

Turns out, though, it might not actually help them this time around. Polls are suggesting that Canadians increasingly don't see the Tories as anything special when it come to the economy:

On questions related to which party or leader is best able to handle the economy, respondents in three of four recent polls gave the Conservatives and Harper an edge of just one or two points over Tom Mulcair and the New Democrats. In only one poll, by Ipsos, did the Conservatives manage a wide lead on this issue (38 to 28 per cent for the NDP).

But in the same poll, Ipsos found that the Conservatives were tied with the NDP on who Canadians trusted to create jobs. Léger gave a two-point edge on this question to the New Democrats.

The Liberals trailed in third on both issues, but only by a narrow margin. This mirrors the national voting intentions polls, as do the regional breakdowns. The Conservatives win on the economy and jobs in Alberta, the Prairies, and narrowly in Ontario. The NDP prevails in British Columbia and Quebec, while the Liberals do best in Atlantic Canada. This is no different than the parties' regional standings in the polls.

Link

The article goes on to say that the issue does remain slightly advantageous for the Conservatives, but it's in no way decisive.

The upshot is, I think, that while this downturn may have proved decisive in past elections, it won't this time. This isn't the big event we've been waiting for that will cause the polls to shift in a big way. We're in for more circling about the same numbers we've been seeing for weeks, I'd wager.

Meanwhile, the major parties all talked about their economic plans... without actually saying much.

Link

Frankly, I think the most notable thing is that the NDP is seen as such a good economic manager by such a large proportion of the electorate. That seems unlikely to have been the case as recently as five years ago.

The Duffy That Keeps on Giving

The trial just keeps on rolling ahead here in Ottawa. Nothing Earth-shattering, but the cracks are showing. It's been a line of one current PMO staffer after another (including the PM's current chief-of-staff), and it's becoming pretty clear that their claims to not have known about the Wright payment aren't credible in the least. As are Mr. Harper's claims to not have known. No smoking gun, but it's politically damaging. Though how damaging is up for debate; I remain convinced that they've already lost all the support they're going to over this issue.

Andrew Coyne has a good editorial on this over at the Post: Link

Women's Issues Debate Cancelled

The "Up For Debate" leaders' debate has been cancelled due to the non-participation of Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair. It had been scheduled for September 21st, and would have dealt exclusively with women's issues. Mr. Harper just... refused to go. And Mr. Mulcair has stated that he will only participate in debates that Mr. Harper participates in, so... he's out, too. Apparently the organizers didn't think it would be worth it to just have Mr. Trudeau and Ms. May debate, so they nixed the whole thing.

Shame, too, I think. Women's issues rarely get the play they should in national campaigns; this is a loss. I'd have liked to have seen a debate dedicated to native issues, too.

There is a bit of a silver lining, though - the organizers are apparently not giving up. They're currently hoping to conduct one-on-one interviews with whichever leaders will participate, and then release the video on the date that the debate would have taken place. That's something, at least. I'll be keeping an eye on what they're planning, for sure.

Link

Ottawa Mayor Snubbed

This one is probably mostly of local interest to me, but I'm going to include it anyway, since I think it shows the parties' attitudes toward major cities and involves a cabinet minister.

Bit of background: every election, the mayor of Ottawa meets with the local candidates from every party to brief them on issues of local importance, and areas where the city wants to work with the government in the future. It's intended to keep all levels of government on the same page concerning local issues. I'm sure other municipalities do similar things.

The mayor met with the Green and Liberal candidates recently, no problem. He's scheduled to meet with the NDP candidates next month. He was supposed to meet with the Tory candidates this morning... not one showed up. They all cancelled, as recently as last night.

This includes Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre, who is a local MP.

Apparently, they're going to try again at some point.

Now, there's some context, here. The relationship between the city and the federal government has been... strained. The mayor used to be a minister in the Ontario provincial government. A Liberal government. And there's been tension over local issues (light rail construction and a very contentious memorial that the feds have been ramming down the city's throat... ask me about it if you want to hear a rant).

Given that context, this comes across as petty and obstructionist. And it plays into the reputation of Mr. Poilievre as a hyper-partisan hack not actually interested in governing well. I really don't think the Tories are doing themselves any favours by pulling stunts like this. I expect it to hurt them somewhat, locally.

Link

[Master Gunner]

ask me about it if you want to hear a rant

Goooo on.

[Metcarfre]

The Tories? Obstructionist? You don't say.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

ask me about it if you want to hear a rant

Goooo on.

Okay, then. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The monument in question is "Tribute to Liberty: Memorial to the Victims of Communism."

The entire thing has been what I would describe as a gongshow.

Problem 1: Location

They want to build this thing on a piece of land on Wellington Street (that is, the street the runs in front of the Parliament Buildings and the Supreme Court). It's one of the last open pieces of land in the area, and is of extreme symbolic value. This particular plot of land is in front and to the side of the Supreme Court. It's part of what is known as the Judicial Precinct - basically, you have the Supreme Court in the middle, a big lawn out front, the Department of Justice to the right of the lawn, and the plot of land in question to the left of the lawn.

Here, this might make it clear:



The plan has been, for decades, to build a Federal Court building on that plot, since the Federal Court is scattered around in office buildings. It has no permanent home.

The point is to create a triad of judicial buildings that mirror the triad of legislative buildings just down the street at Parliament. This branch of government is meant to have a prominent location on Wellington, as befits an important national institution.

But the Tories decided, out of nowhere and without consultation, they were tearing up the plan. No new court building. No judicial triad. None of that. We're getting a monument instead. Why? Well... see that map up there? And you see who the courthouse would be named after?

Pierre Trudeau.

The Tories don't like that. They've also never really liked the courts, and have in the past few years gotten into some very public fights with the Supreme Court... that they've lost. Ditto with the City of Ottawa.

The conventional wisdom around here is that the monument is going in to stick a thumb in the eye of Trudeau (and anyone who likes him), the eye of the Supreme Court (and especially the Chief Justice), and the eye of the City of Ottawa. It's about spite and about proving that they can, because they can't be stopped.

But, that's an insane conspiracy theory, right? Well... it would be... except that the memorial wasn't originally meant to go there. It was meant to go in a different location (labelled "RAIC proposed site" in this map):



The government moved it. Unilaterally. Without consulting the charity founded to fund the memorial. Without consulting the city. Without consulting the NCC (the federal body responsible for national institutions in the capital).

And now they're refusing to move it back, despite public opposition.

Problem 2: Size

Oh, whatever. I'm just complaining about nothing, right? So what if a little statue goes up on this land. They can still build the courthouse right? And it's not all that noticeable.

Well... sure. Except this was the memorial:



It entirely filled the plot of land. There was no room for anything else. It was supposed to be over fourteen metres high. It was bigger than the National War Memorial.

You'll notice I said "was." That's because the design has changed. Now it's only going to be eight metres tall. They've also shrunk its footprint:



Oh, yeah. Big change. Yay. Still doesn't fix the problem.

Problem 3: Content

The design of the memorial itself is an issue. First, it's a big brutalist concrete thing plonked down in the the judicial precinct. It's not appropriate, from a design perspective, for the location. The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada agrees; they want it stopped. The mayor of Ottawa has called it a "blight."

Second, it was meant to show images of, well, mutilation and suffering on the big "memory folds." It was to include a statue of a half-buried corpse. Look:



...great. Just what I want.

At least those have been nixed: the statue is gone, and the images need to be of happy refugees and hope. Still...

Third, it was originally titled "Memorial to the Victims of Totalitarian Communism." That vital little word was removed by the government. Which is no good, I think. We have two legitimate communist parties running in this election. And communism itself has a lot of real, thoughtful supporters who don't want to hurt people. The totalitarianism was the problem. But, for Tories, communism is bad, and therefore needs to be blamed. We need to show the world that Canada is ideologically opposed. Which, maybe you agree... but it politicizes the monument. It isn't about victims anymore. It's about vilification.

Fourth, it's a huge memorial for the victims of a thing that didn't happen here. On the last piece of high profile land in the capital that could host a building of national importance. Being put there to degrade the prominence of other national institutions. Just... come on.

Problem 4: The Price Tag is Rising

Basically, this thing was to be paid for by donations and the federal government. Turns out that the charity founded to collect donations isn't doing so well. They don't have the cash. So what's happening? Well, the feds are increasing what they're spending. They originally slated $3 million of taxpayer money for this. Now it's up to $4.2 million. So far. It's expected to continue to rise.

Meanwhile, the charity isn't going to reach its target.

Oh. Also? The memorial will include the names of donors. No other monument in the capital does this; it's considered inappropriate. Monuments are meant to be about their subjects, not to memorialize donors. But, well... not this time! Why? Well...

Problem 5: Politics! Cronyism! Kickbacks!

The whole project is corrupt as hell.

It was a pet project of Jason Kenney.

One of the original founders of the group pushing for the memorial specifically didn't want it to become a Conservative pet project. She was pushed out of the group when the project was hijacked. She doesn't like what the memorial has become or where it's going to go. Too bad. It's happening.

And the charity group? It has deep personal, political, and financial ties to the Conservative Party. Of course.

Finally, the Tories have an interest in appealing to certain ethnic groups to court their vote. Specifically, the Ukrainian community in Alberta. Politics.

You can read about the whole sorry, disgusting mess here. It's actually really, really dirty.

Problem 6: Nobody Wants This Thing

But the government doesn't care; they're gonna build it.

Even though the NCC doesn't want it (Documents were leaked. They secretly hate it, but are stuck.)
Even though actual architects don't want it.
Even though the city government doesn't want it.
Even thought the Chief Justice doesn't want it.
Even though the original founder of the charity group doesn't want it.
Even though 83% of people in the region don't want it.
Even though 77% of all Canadians surveyed don't want it.
Even though 63% of Tory voters don't want it.

If the Tories win the election, we're getting it. And we're expected to just suck it up. They aren't even listening to the complaints; they just keep repeating their talking points.

Ironic, given that this is a memorial for people harmed by non-democratic regimes, eh?

[Master Gunner]

Well. Fuck the Tories, then.

[Hekla]

Wow, that was worth the rant. The monument's placement almost seems absurd considering the opposition.

And also, whatever one thinks about the appropriateness of the monument's title (which I don't think is at all acceptable) and aim, it doesn't even really fulfil that purpose in a pleasing way. There are so many more clever things they could have done with the imagery of the Cold War.

...

And in other news, I've got a moving date now. I'll entering Canada on the 1st September exactly. And I'll be living in what I think is the most over-represented province in Parliament, so woo‽

[Metcarfre]

PEI?

[Master Gunner]

Yes, he's apparently doing a Masters in Island Studies there. Despite repeated attempts to dissuade him, he still thinks going to PEI is a good idea.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

Wow, that was worth the rant. The monument's placement almost seems absurd considering the opposition.

Well, thank you. And, yeah, you'd think, right? But you'll find that Canada is, in many ways, an absurd country.

Really screwed up part? This isn't the only giant, controversial monument that the government is putting up. They're trying to put up a 24 metre tall (!) statue in Cape Breton. In a protected national park. Requiring the destruction of a granite outcropping that was part of the reason the park is protected in the first place.

Look at this thing:



A gift shop and restaurant are included as part of the design. So are things called, I kid you not, the "Commemorative Ring of True Patriot Love," the "True North Commemorative Square," and the "With Glowing Hearts National Sanctuary." It is, again, bigger than the National War Memorial. They're paying for it by selling corporate sponsorships, which will be prominently displayed on the memorial. The war memorial.

The thing has been called "offensively tasteless," a “hubristically arrogant act of arrogant unoriginality,” "vulgar and ostentatious," and "a monstrosity."

Of course, despite strong opposition, the government is pushing ahead. The fear is that they'll start digging and paving before the election, so we end up stuck with it, even if the Tories lose.

See... this is a little thing about the Tories that you might not know if you don't live in Ottawa: they love monuments. Absolutely love 'em. They've built or modified, like, two dozen of them in the city since they came to power. They've renamed major roads and government buildings after Tory politicians.

My theory is that they see themselves as outsiders in a Liberal Canada - I imagine a large part of that comes from their Reform roots. And they don't think they're going to be around long. The "Toronto/Ottawa elites and liberal media" were always going to give them the boot some time, so they wanted to make a literal, physical, lasting mark on the country to try to get their name and ideology into the national psyche.

On a certain level, that's fair. And a lot of what they've done I have no problem with - the Valiants memorial is tasteful; the Holocaust memorial they're putting up is appropriate; adding the years of the South African and Afghan conflicts to the National War Memorial should have been done. But sometimes the monuments are inappropriate (adding "In Service to Canada" to the National War Memorial) or plain ugly (the Firefighters' memorial) or unnecessarily political/ideological (the War of 1812 monument on Parliament Hill).

And they've been getting bolder and bigger with what they've been doing. Kind of pushing the envelope to see how far they could go before someone told them to knock it off. Which is how we got these ridiculous things at the Supreme Court and in Cape Breton.

Guess we finally found the line they can't cross, eh?

And also, whatever one thinks about the appropriateness of the monument's title (which I don't think is at all acceptable) and aim, it doesn't even really fulfil that purpose in a pleasing way. There are so many more clever things they could have done with the imagery of the Cold War.

Exactly. We actually have a former government bunker just out of town that they've turned into a Cold War memorial and museum. You can tour it. It's fascinating. That place does a better job presenting the Cold War and connecting it to Canadians than this memorial does.

And in other news, I've got a moving date now. I'll entering Canada on the 1st September exactly. And I'll be living in what I think is the most over-represented province in Parliament, so woo‽

Ooh! It's also the (not) home of the famous Senator Mike Duffy!