LPC Leader Candidates Confused over Voting Systems & Ballots

The following I just sent off to the Justin Trudeau campaign. However, it might equally have been sent to other candidates running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

In reading Justin Trudeau's policy regarding electoral reform, I came across the following comment:

"I do not support proportional representation because I believe deeply that every Member of Parliament should represent actual Canadians and Canadian communities, not just political parties. I support a preferential ballot..."

Trudeau appears to confuse the type of ballot voters use with the voting system to which the ballot is applied. He also appears to consider only forms of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) to be proportional representation systems. Both views are incorrect.

I am a British Columbian. My province has had experience with the issue since 2005, when our first electoral reform referendum was held.

The electoral system that BC's Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform recommended was the Single Transferable Vote. Like the Alternative Vote which Trudeau favours (and other Liberals say they support but which is yet another majoritarian system like FPTP), STV uses the preferential ballot. Unlike AV, the STV is a system of proportional representation. In fact, STV has been argued to be superior to MMP precisely because its raison d'être is proportional representation of voter constituencies, not proportional representation of parties.

If Trudeau is serious about wanting Canada's voting system to "represent actual Canadians and Canadian communities, not just political parties," then he should be enthusiastically pushing for STV and not perpetuating the myth that any discussion of PR vs. FPTP is one of MMP vs. FPTP or a one-tick ballot vs. a preferential ballot.

Chrystal Ocean
Liberal Supporter
Duncan BC

If politicians or political candidates are going to comment or, worse, develop policy on an issue, it behooves them to learn some of its pesky minutiae. As it stands concerning electoral voting systems, the vast majority of politicians have a muddled perception of them.

Recommend this post

Well, that was fun! But a fond farewell

Over the past three months, I've written extensively about the BC Liberal leadership race and made public my struggles to make the right choices.

First, I wondered if I should join the BC Liberal Party. No other way existed to vote so directly for British Columbia's 35th premier. Therefore, I decided, Yes, go for it - and signed up for membership on February 2nd.

It felt very strange. Not once during my 40 years of eligibility to vote had I been a member of a Liberal party; in fact, I'd only been a member of any party once before.

Then was the agonizing to and fro decision-making process. I scrutinized policies, public statements, the 'debates', campaign styles, and so on, all the while trying to decide among flavours of vanilla.

Which candidate would be the best both to keep the BC Liberal Party caucus together and to present a serious, viable option for British Columbians in the 2013 general election?

In the end my vote was: 1-George Abbott, 2-Mike de Jong and 3-Kevin Falcon.

Immediately before voting, I thought of switching 1 and 2, for reasons of strategy. Wish I had. But heck, mine was just one vote among approximately 50,000. The switch would have made no difference, except to me. It would have meant greater vote efficiency. Oh, well.

Finally, I did some more agonizing this morning. Then sent off this email:

Dear BC Liberals and the BC Liberal Party:

Since I signed up for membership on February 2nd and throughout the weeks of the BC Liberal leadership race, I have found new friends and thoroughly enjoyed my experience with your Party. I can fault nothing in the way BC Liberals have welcomed me, treated my concerns, or fault the actions of the candidates and, for the most part, those of candidate supporters. It has been an absolutely fantastic few weeks.

I have been a member of a political party only once before. That too, was an experience of mere weeks. It was not nearly so positive. A disagreement concerning actions of the leader prompted my membership cancellation back then.

For this nonconformist thinker, it will only be a matter of time before something similar happens with the BC Liberal Party - more likely concerning policy than (non)actions of Premier-Designate Christy Clark. I am too stubbornly independent not to speak out.

I have always been most effective as a researcher, author, blogger and now Twitter aficionado, when a staunch nonpartisan. I'm just one of those people to whom partisanship does wonky things to her cognitive faculties.

This feels wrenching, but... Please cancel my membership in the BC Liberal Party.

The Party responded quickly. I have returned to my nonpartisan status.

Am feeling sad right now. It was a great ride; and I met online some fine people. Hopefully, we'll stay connected. I'll do my part.

As for that great ride...

I was thrilled most by the a) online b) preferential ballot c) weighted voting system.

FAN... TAS... TIC.

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Party Leadership Race - Done

VOTED!

As a spanking new member of the BC Liberal Party, I have just voted for the party's next leader and this province's 35th Premier. It came down to a matter of choosing among flavours of vanilla, but ultimately the choices were clear given the candidates' proposed policies. Here's how I voted:

1-George Abbott
2-Mike de Jong
3-Kevin Falcon
4-Christy Clark

Lots of people were bowled over by Clark, but I just didn't buy it. She talks a good sound bite, but how surprising is that? For one thing, she has had four years on her own radio show to hone her already good communication skills. Beyond that, Clark had little to offer in the way of substance. For example, her proposal to inject $15 million into the community grants program - which is vital to BC's nonprofit sector - falls far short of the cuts made to the program in 2008. At least Falcon and Abbott agreed to reverse those cuts, an increase of $39 million.

As I explained in my last preferences post, I chose de Jong for 2nd spot for several reasons, including that of strategy. I also think he would make a good Premier. Too bad that he is likely to be the first off the ballot. Strategy would have been simplified for many Liberal voters had one or both Ed Mayne and Moira Stilwell stayed in the race. Then second-place position would have made the race really interesting.

If you are keen to know the outcome of the leadership race as it is announced, you can watch the announcement(s) livestreamed on CBC Vancouver. The outcome of the 1st ballot is to be announced at 6:10 p.m., 2nd ballot at 6:20 p.m. and 3rd (or the 1st or 2nd ballot outcome, if it's the final ballot) at 6:30 p.m.

ETA: Am delighted with this online voting! And the preferential ballot. And, in the case of a BC party leadership race, the weighted vote, one that gives each riding in the province an equal number of votes. In a region such as ours, one-member-one-vote makes no sense for any political party - or other entity - which claims to be representative of the entire province. You simply CANNOT represent an entire province if virtually your entire voting base is in one city or metropolitan area. Good on the BC Liberal Party for having elected - by 1,319 to 23, or 98.3 percent - to bring in the weighted vote. The BC NDP, meanwhile, voted against such a motion and thus chose to keep OMOV.

Recommend this post

Why Not a Metered Internet?

The headline of the Globe and Mail article asks the question, Why Not a Metered Internet?

The argument that follows defends the big telecoms in terms of market forces: for example, the cost of infrastructure building.

Here's a different answer to the question: with a metered Internet we would have another case of them that haves and them that don't.

We already have a growing economic inequality gap. With Internet metering, we would have an associated inequality gap in terms of fundamental communications access.

An inequality gap already exists with respect to telephony. The lowest income households haven't room in their budgets to acquire that all-important telephone number. They've not a telephone or cell phone or other mobile device to which such a number could be attached. For those households that have a desktop computer with Skype installed, they cannot make full use of the VOIP provider's services or those offered by similar providers. Such services would provide them with an online number (just like a phone number), thus allowing them to receive incoming telephone calls to their computer.

Why can customers in Canada - unlike those in most of the developed world - not obtain online numbers?

Again, a CRTC decision lies at the heart of the matter.

Access to incoming phone calls. Access to the full services the Internet can provide. In both cases, it's about communication with one's friends, family and community; access to one's regional district, provincial or territorial government and services; access to the federal government and services; access to information regarding elections, parties and candidates; access to news and information.... It's about access to democracy.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Party Weighted Vote Proposal

The BC Liberal Party on February 12th will decide whether to adopt the weighted vote or to retain the current one-member-one-vote policy. It will take a two-thirds majority for the motion on the weighted vote to pass.

Weighting votes, goes the reasoning, would be more inclusive of less populated regions and smaller constituency associations.

As the situation currently stands, in terms of vote concentration the BC Liberal Party truly only represents a handful of ridings, all in the lower Mainland. And now, during the current leadership race (and the last one that elected Gordon Campbell), thousands of new members are being signed up in single ridings, three in Surrey alone. Certain campaigns are rumoured to be virtually ignoring other ridings.

Additional rumour suggests a movement afoot to nix the weighted vote, thus favouring those leadership campaigns that have been most active in bulk membership drives. That all six candidates have declared support for the change has not stopped the seeming dirty tricks, including delegate stacking.

But back to the weighted vote... Under this proposal, each of the 85 BC Liberal constituency associations (CA) would receive a value of 100 points. Therefore, the vote of a member whose CA has 100 members would be valued at 1 point, a CA with 500 members would award each vote a value of 1/5 point and a CA with only 20 members would value each vote at 5 points.

In this way, the voting interests of each region of the province is equally represented in the Party.

In principle, one-member-one-vote appears to be the most democratic. However, it appears less so when you consider the following situation in which one riding has five members, the other 500:

Each of the one out of five members in the smaller CA must work harder to represent the BC Liberal Party in their riding. Such is not the case with one out of 500 members. In other words, members in low-member CAs must pull more weight.

Should the votes of members in such CAs count for less, or not at all? Because that is what results under the current OMOV system; three or four ridings ultimately determine the outcome.

The bottom-line choice for Party members: for the BCLP to be, in terms of actual vote representation, the 'Surrey Liberal Party' or that it live up to its name and represent the voting interests of members throughout the province.

ETA: Have just signed up for membership (eek!) because there's no way I want to miss the opportunity of being 1 out of 70,000 90,000 who will choose the next Premier of this province. How long I'll remain a member is another issue. I like being a non-partisan, so we'll see.

ETA2: The BCLP web form, like 99 out of 100 web forms, includes a mandatory phone field. To get the form to go through I had to use an obviously fake number. Damned annoying.

ETA Feb 12: The weighted vote was chosen by an overwhelming majority! By 1,319 to 23 or 98.3 per cent. Well done, delegates!

Recommend this post

BC Liberal Leadership: Order of preference 2

[UPDATED Jan 20, 10:00 a.m.]

My three top issues that will guide my decision remain as before:

Democratic reform. Support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments. This is the key issue for me. We work, play, live and die in communities. Local elected officials are the closest to the people and best positioned to identify their communities' unique strengths and needs; and to provide the best solutions. Therefore, the greatest political power should rest with local - not provincial, not federal - governments.

Further democratic reforms I'd like to see: outreach and meaningful engagement with the public, resumption of powers to MLAs, open government, electoral reform.

Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour and a gradual reduction of earnings taxes. I favour the HST, a carbon tax with teeth and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class.

Climate change. Greening the economy which must work in sync with the taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.

Given the dominant themes stated above, of the realistic contenders for the BC Liberal leadership race the following is my current order of preference. This new list acknowledges that Christy Clark, George Abbott and Kevin Falcon are thought by Liberals to be the frontrunners; and that Mike de Jong, while currently considered by as being in fourth place could be, given the positive reception he has been getting, a challenger on the second ballot. Placing Moira Stilwell or Ed Mayne in any position other than fifth or sixth is an exercise in futility, so I've simply dropped them off my preference list.

1. Christy Clark. Over the past couple of weeks, Clark's public messaging and videos have suggested a lack of vision (see this, for example: nice music, nice ambience, no policy statement). As I write this, the first all candidates meeting has just completed. Clark continued her "we must listen to the people" mantra almost ad nauseum. My advice to the candidate: Be careful not to portray yourself in your public appearances as merely interested in consultation; that can suggest that as Premier you could be indecisive.
   
   At the same event Clark fortunately did announce a major policy proposal, the creation of an Office of the Municipal Auditor General.
   

   Over the last several years, as the economy has shifted, municipalities have struggled to determine how to fund services and deal with the shifting of responsibilities from senior levels of governments. This new office would look at the competition between commercial, industrial and residential taxation, the role local government is playing and find ways to make sure the taxpayer is being well-served.... [T]his new office would be able to select its own areas for review, react to requests from municipalities and look at suggestions from the public.

   Couple this with Clark's call for a Community Gaming Grants review and an initial 12.5 percent increase to the program, of the major contenders Clark stands first in terms of policy acknowledgements of the importance of communities and local governments. Therefore, I currently place her first in this list.
   
   
2. Mike de Jong. de Jong appears to be the most real in terms of outreach, in trying to engage not just Liberals but the general public. He truly appears to be listening to the ideas presented to him at his Open Mike sessions. Among those I like: lowering the voting age to 16, a call for an online vote of the HST referendum, support for the carbon tax.
   
   ETA Jan 20 10:00 a.m.: Just now on CFAX, I liked de Jong's nod to the Citizens' Assembly and his discussion regarding lowering the voting age and increasing citizen participation generally. He's not backing off on the voting age proposal, which had been a concern of mine. Still haven't heard de Jong say anything about municipalities.
   
   
3. George Abbott. As the campaign has proceeded, I've been less enchanted with Abbott. It's nothing I can put my finger on; more that his conciliatory positioning makes me question whether much would get done under his leadership. Abbott isn't short on policy, for which I give him credit, but can he make the hard decisions when necessary?
   
   
4. Kevin Falcon. Falcon suggested lowering the HST first to 11 percent then to ten percent. Where does he plan to make up the shortfall? Falcon also has signalled a backtracking on the carbon tax.
   
   In general, some of Falcon's responses or statements expose a defensiveness which is unattractive in a political leader. He tends also to listen through a particular lens to questions posed to him; not just in terms of which questions he chooses to answer but in his responses. In many cases, he is not responding to the question at all, but giving a response in reference to an issue only remotely related to it.
   
   ETA Jan 18, 12:30p: For example, just now in the Vancouver Sun online chat session, Falcon gave a terrible, defensive nanny-state answer to my municipalities question. This was a case (of several) of not answering the question put to him:
   
   What policy, if any, would your government implement in support of increasing the power (areas of responsibility) to, and autonomy of funding for municipalities?
   
   Regarding funding, 'autonomy' was a key word. Falcon's answer began with a defence a) against claims, which the question didn't make, that the provincial government had continued to download responsibilities to local governments while b) reducing their provincial funding. Provincial funding wasn't part of the question either; autonomy of funding was.

Recommend this post

BC NDP Leadership: Order of preference

Finally! More, though not all expected, contenders for leadership of the BC NDP have entered the race.

Adrian Dix isn't expected to do so until next week. That is past the due date (January 17th) for new members whose votes can affect the leadership race.

That January 17th deadline irks me to no end. It has affected my decision with respect to which of the two parties I will sign up for membership in order to cast a vote for its leader. My preference would have been the NDP. However, the deadline has given me and other reflective British Columbians no time to assess currently absent detailed policy or leadership styles; whereas the longer leadership period of the Liberals has. Ergo, unless a scientific miracle happens, I'll be signing up for a Liberal membership.¹

As with the selection of leader of the BC Liberals, how NDP candidates stand on the following three issues will shape my decision:

Democratic reform. Support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments (candidates are ignoring this, yet it's the most crucial of democratic reforms), outreach and meaningful engagement with the public, resumption of powers to MLAs, open government, electoral reform.

Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour and a gradual reduction of earnings taxes, ultimately to zero. The latter punish enterprising activity, behaviour that should be encouraged. I favour the HST, a carbon tax with teeth and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class. (I also favour the elimination of all corporate taxes provided that corporations no longer have person status; if they continue to be deemed in law as persons, then they can damn well pay income taxes like the rest of us.)

Climate change. Greening the economy, which must work in sync with the taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.

Given the dominant themes stated above and the scant information presently available (two candidates haven't yet websites), of the six current and expected contenders for the BC NDP leadership race, this is my present order of preference. I admit doing a dice throw for most. Absent policy, detailed or otherwise, doesn't help.

1. John Horgan. He has the nicest website of all candidates, of either party. That visual communication appears to be part of an overall communications strategy, with good engagement by Horgan and his team on Twitter and Facebook. Would be nice to have an Islander heading the party.
   ETA Jan 15 8:15a: In the Globe and Mail, Horgan is described as "a Roy Romanow kind of New Democrat." I'd take that as a compliment, John. In fact, it's enough for me to move you up to 1st place and to move Larsen down to your old 3rd place spot.
2. Mike Farnworth. His leadership announcement contained the most substance. I like the suggestion of using carbon tax to fund public transportation alternatives, his emphasis on sustainability (does he support Sustainable BC?). The call for a commission on education sounds nice and is getting a lot of play in the media. However, as with all commissions, committees, consultations, town halls, inquiries... unless their recommendations are given teeth, they are meaningless.
3. Dana Larsen. I've a soft spot for rebels, nonconformists and people who push the status quo. I also like Larsen's platform. (OK, it's more that he has one.)
4. Nicholas Simons. Not enough information to make a judgement.
5. Harry Lali. Hasn't a website, so I've no idea what he stands for.
6. Adrian Dix. Hasn't yet entered the race.

¹That I'll soon become a big 'L' liberal has me shaking my head. Don't recall ever voting Liberal, federally or provincially, during my 40 years as an eligible and dedicated voter; I've voted Progressive Conservative, NDP, Independent or Green. But this is an important opportunity to participate, directly, in choosing the next Premier of this province. It's an opportunity I'm not going to pass up. Who will I vote for? Don't know yet. Stay tuned!

Recommend this post

It's Baaaaaack!

Just like I said last time, the per-vote subsidy will be in Harper's next election platform - and likely in the upcoming budget. See around the 10-minute mark.

Recommend this post

BCNDP New Member Deadline Dissuades New Members

Any non-members of the BC NDP who want to have a say on the party's new leader - who will be elected April 17th - must sign up for membership in the party by January 17th.

So far, the only declared "heavy-hitter" in the leadership race (according to insiders) has been John Horgan, who announced his intention January 10th. Other 'heavy hitters' rumoured to enter but yet to declare are Adrian Dix and Mike Farnworth. (Just caught on Twitter: Farnworth is set to announce tomorrow.)

From the perspective of seriously interested nonpartisans, undecideds, dissatisfied members of other parties, and so on, the timing for membership sign-up to the BC NDP is abysmal.

All these would have to happen before I, for example, took the step and became a party member:

1. All men and women who had intended to declare for leader had done so
2. All leadership contenders had set out, in clear form, their proposed policies
3. All leadership contenders would have debated one another at least twice; i.e., at All Candidates Meetings
4. All leadership contenders would have had reasonable time to respond to questions I (and others) had asked to them
5. Given all the above, I'd have had time to reflect

The timing of the new membership deadline makes all but #1 impossible and #2 unlikely. One can only assume that the BC NDP does not want new blood or fresh ideas, that it does not want new people who would make decisions on selection of a leader or, for that matter, selection of a party for membership, so seriously and thoughtfully.

Therefore, I suppose that people such as myself are left to change the channel back to the leadership race of the BC Liberals. As for the NDP, whoever the current membership of the party choose, it is likely that he or she, together with the current provincial council, will conduct business pretty much as usual.

ETA: This man's run for the BC NDP leadership would seriously interest me.

Recommend this post

UPDATE Jan 4/11: BC Liberal Leadership - Order of preference

[See ETAs below]

It's early days yet in the BC Liberal leadership race, but it appears there will be only the five contenders who have already declared - although a BC Liberal in good standing could run for leader as late as 13 days before the leadership vote. [See ETAs Dec 21 2:40 p.m., Jan 4 10:15 a.m.]

When evaluating the possibility of a new government, these issues rank as the top three for me:

Democratic reform. Outreach, meaningful engagement with the public, resumption of powers to MLAs, openness and transparency, electoral reform, support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments.

Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour. A gradual reduction of earnings taxes, which punish enterprising activity, behaviour that should be encouraged. I favour the HST, the carbon tax and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class.

Climate change. Greening the economy, which must work in sync with the taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.

Of the five contenders for the BC Liberal leadership race, this is my current¹ order of preference given the dominant themes stated above:

1. George Abbott. Said to be the least polarizing of the candidates for Liberals, Abbott is aligned with the old guard. He and Kevin Falcon have been playing catch-up in terms of who can get the most endorsements from Liberal MLAs and members of the current Liberal cabinet. Last I checked they were tied at 12 each. What I like about Abbott: his ability to bring opposing sides together, his support for the carbon tax, the HST and lowering the voting age to 16. Against: his Falcon-like response to cap 'n trade: best to wait for more partners. [See ETAs Dec 18 5:00 p.m., Jan 4 10:15 a.m.]
2. Mike de Jong. de Jong appears to be the most real in terms of outreach, in trying to engage not just Liberals but the general public. He truly appears to be listening to the ideas presented to him at his Open Mike sessions. Among those I like: lowering the voting age to 16, a call for an online vote of the HST referendum, support for the carbon tax. I've yet to get an answer from de Jong about cap 'n trade and I'm disappointed in his early lack of vocal support for and pessimistic messaging re the HST. In my view, a defeat of the HST in the referendum is not a given. Opinion appears to be changing, more British Columbians are sitting on the fence hoping for more information about the tax, and the anti-HST commitment has lowered in numbers. [See ETA Jan 4 10:15 a.m.]
3. Kevin Falcon. Falcon suggested lowering the HST first to 11 percent then to ten percent. So far there has been no proposal for making up the shortfall. Falcon also is backtracking on the carbon tax and cap 'n trade in tune with demands from big industry, including oil and mining. [See ETAs: Dec 18 5:00 p.m., Dec 21 11:00 a.m.]
4. Christy Clark. A huge demerit for Clark is the secrecy regarding her possible role in the sale of BC Rail, otherwise I might have ranked her #1 or #2. A huge plus for Clark: She was a late but strong vocal proponent of BC-STV, the new, elegant electoral system that was defeated by referendum in 2009. Other points in Clark's favour: support for the HST, the carbon tax and lowering the voting age. Like Stilwell and de Jong, Clark has avoided answering the cap 'n trade question. [See ETAs: Dec 18 4:00 p.m., Dec 21 11:00 a.m.]
5. Dr. Moira Stilwell. Stilwell has been the most direct in answering my questions, for which I give her mucho kudos. She supports the HST and the carbon tax. Her answers so far waffle or are lacking regarding cap 'n trade and lowering the voting age. [See ETAs Dec 18 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Dec 21 11:00 a.m.]
6. ETA Jan 4 10:15 a.m. - Ed Mayne. New entrant to the race. Not enough information yet to assess him as Liberal leader or Premier. One thing I like is his support for the HST referendum to remain in September. British Columbians could need time to assess the impact of removing the HST and to make an informed decision.

Supporters of the lower-ranked candidates will work to poke holes in this ranking. That's fine; fire away on Twitter.

To some candidates, my opinion won't matter. I am a non-partisan and hence have no vote in electing the leader of the BC Liberal Party and this province's next Premier.

To other candidates, the smart ones, my opinion and that of other members of the voting public, will matter.

In the end, it is not just about winning the leadership of a given political party. It is about winning over the majority of British Columbians.

¹By "current" I mean as of 11:00 a.m. December 18 2010. That is, "subject to change without notice." I'll be adding ETAs as required to explain inevitable shifting of ranks.

--

ETA Dec 18 12:05 p.m.: Latest response from Stilwell: on #capntrade It's a great idea, but we need to find more partners for it to actually work well. My reply: Unless 1 govt starts cap 'n trade, wht's incentive 4 others? Who takes lead in Cda? Relevant: http://bit.ly/h2Ie4g. Subsequent Twitter conversation. Still waiting for response on voting age. In the meantime, Stilwell is still ranked #2.

ETA Dec 18 4:00 p.m.: First change! The rankings of #2 and #3 have switched.

Christy Clark came out early in favour of Mike de Jong's proposal to change the voting age to 16, one of the important facets in a democratic reform package. I've heard back from Stilwell regarding both cap 'n trade and the voting age. Regarding the latter, Stilwell wants to hear from the public; which plays right into the status quo and the vested interests that will fight to keep the electoral system (not to mention party discipline) as is.

Stilwell's answer on voting age is as much a waffle as any other. If you can be elected leader of your party by votes from 14-year-olds (yes, the BC Liberal Party Constitution permits this), then you're a hypocrite not to defend a policy position that would allow 16-year-olds to vote in provincial elections.

ETA Dec 18 5:00 p.m.: My foggy brain recalls a tweet from someone reporting on George Abbott's telephone town hall yesterday. Apparently, he was asked if he supported Mike de Jong's proposal to lower the voting age to 16. He said Yes. Trying to find that tweet or get other confirmation. [Dec 21: Got it - see last paragraph]

Spotted a rumour on Twitter that Falcon also supports lowering the voting age. Trying to get confirmation on that also. [Dec 21: Got it] If true, then Stilwell stands alone.

ETA Dec 21 10:00 a.m.: Yesterday, Falcon introduced a plan for BC's northern regions. Kudos not so much for the plan - that's up to northerners to approve -, but for its specificity. As far as I've been able to track, no other candidate has presented a (detailed) plan for northern BC. Then today, the Falcon team announced this. Gotta admit that's pretty cool and could be part of coming changes to engage the public in political decisions.

Clark has been and continues to suggest she'd call a snap election. From the perspective of the electorate, it's a bad idea and reeks of political opportunism. Voters need time to assess the new Premier and his/her style of governance. We'd also benefit from observing the NDP Official Opposition under its new leader. The two years until the next scheduled election would be ideal. Clark also so far has come out with no policy. In this video, she gives a general discussion regarding fiscal responsibility; says her government would strike up an "economic advisory panel" and only then decide on a taxation policy. Voters are to elect a Clark-led Liberal government on this basis? That she'll strike up an advisory council on monetary issues? Not good enough.

Given i) the latest Falcon announcements and the additions to the ETA of Dec 18 5:00 p.m. regarding Falcon, and ii) the issues with the Clark campaign, rankings have changed. Clark has fallen from 2nd to 4th and Stilwell from 4th to 5th. Abbott and Falcon have moved up, from 3rd to 2nd and from 5th to 3rd place, respectively.

ETA Dec 21 2:40 p.m.: Interesting development yesterday re entrants to race. Parksville mayor "seriously considering" entering and filed letter of intent to party last Thursday.

ETA Jan 4 10:15 a.m.: Just finished watching George Abbott's announcement. "It's as much about the how as the what." Was impressed with Abbott's passion (!) about open government and greater involvement by, and better representation of British Columbians. Among the policies Abbott proposes is including a vote on the carbon tax along with the HST referendum. I think that's fair, given how the scheduled hikes in the tax will impact British Columbians differently. I favour the carbon tax and its continuation as previously set. I also favour more involvement by the people in the determination of such policy. Was impressed sufficiently and have been less impressed by Mike de Jong lately, that I've moved Abbott to the number #1 spot.

Am waiting for an email response to this question, which I asked via Twitter: Munis must chg laws, allow not public hsg but low-cost hsg dev. How wld u persuade? http://bit.ly/gkBmU.

Abbott team has responded quickly to my reminder. I grant that today is a busy day and understand the delay, appreciate response.

Ed Mayne, now former mayor of Parksville, has entered the race. See list above.

Recommend this post

Of Decades Past and Future

As 2010 comes to a close, my hope for the coming decade is for an overhauled Canadian Parliament and similar changes to the BC Legislative Assembly. I doubt anything substantive will change in terms of policy or direction - for this country, this province or its communities - if these changes do not happen.

I hope for the people's representatives to be elected through a new inclusive electoral system; that the powers of back-benchers be returned; that the power in the office of the heads of governments be vastly reduced; and that Question Period, a farce today, be returned to a venue for vital rigourous debate on issues important to Canadians.

I hope for a reversal of the power and responsibilities of Canada’s three tiers of government. Local governments must have more power, greater areas of responsibility and additional means for acquiring their own, direct, revenue. Many Canadians appear, rightly, to have had enough of the paternalism of the federal and provincial governments toward municipalities; the governments closest to the people are those that should have the greatest political power to effect change.

Of the years 2001 through 2010, they constituted the most miserable and worst decade for me personally. The misery was lessened, however, through new friends and learning that this community truly was a ‘community’ in the old-fashioned sense. My rapidly-acquired and subsequently persisting straitened circumstances also came with a silver lining. They forced a reassessment of my values and shoved the activist in me out of the closet. Had my personal circumstances not been so bad I may never have opened my eyes to the distress around me or become such a strong proponent and activist for democratic (and housing) reform.

Recommend this post

Response to James Bow's "The Forgotten Bloc"

Fellow non-partisan James Bow writes an important article on The Forgotten Bloc - the 40 percent of the electorate who are non-voters in this country. I wrote the following response in the comments section:

James Bow’s comments are bang on, including the one to Robert McClelland.

[To Bow's question "Why is no party leader or policy maker going out and talking to the 9.5 million Canadians to ask them why they don’t vote?," McClelland responded: "Because non voters are generally imbeciles that are impossible to placate. So it’s simply not worth the effort."]

After voting at municipal, provincial and federal elections throughout my eligible years, the last straw for me federally was the election of Oct 2008 and provincially, the May 2009 election and failed referendum for electoral reform in BC.

I declared myself [at 58 years of age] henceforth to be a non-voter until substantive democratic reform took place. Having done so, I was surprised and sadly gratified to discover others coming out of the woodwork.

Let’s face it, if you’re a non-voter, the arrogance, derision and hostility of many members of the still voting public do nothing to encourage non-voters to self-identify. Attempts to explain why we don’t vote are brushed off as irrelevant because “if you don’t vote, you have no right to be heard or complain.”

We are labelled ‘apathetic’ when, for the majority of us, apathy is the antithesis of what we feel in terms of the state of politics in this country or the options provided at ballot box.

Many non-voters, including those among youth, are more, not less, involved in their communities and globally, working to effect change, than are most voters. This participation and engagement is discounted, yet is more meaningful given the state of our politics than a 15-minute act every four years. For some voters, that act may be the only participation in civil life they engage in. Yet it is non-voters who, as a bloc, are labelled ‘lazy’.

With all this and media types perpetuating the myths, no wonder this huge minority - which threatens to become the majority - remains largely silent.

[Cross-posted at NADER]

Recommend this post

BC's Political Scene: Voting age hypocrisy

For decades I have supported lowering the voting age to 16 for election of officials to all levels of government. I might even support lowering it to 14.

This week BC Liberal leadership hopeful Mike de Jong was first out of the gate with the proposal to lower the voting age in this province to 16. None of the arguments against the change have borne up, not even under the most halfhearted scrutiny.

The No side's primary objections: that 16-year-olds are immature, lack the skills to think critically and cannot form opinions independent of the influence of others (isn't the latter what political campaigns and mid-term communications strategies are about? - peddling influence?).

I recently suggested that those 18plus-year-olds who are slagging 16-year-olds observe their own chatter in terms of maturity, critical thinking, independent opinion... In other words, pot meet kettle.

I leave it to another to flesh out why lowering the voting age makes sense and to rebut the nonsense arguments of the naysayers. For me the bottom line is this:

The BC NDP allows members as young as 12 years old to vote for the party's leader. The BC Liberal Party permits 14-year-old members to vote for leader. Therefore, anyone against lowering the voting age to 16 who also runs as a candidate on behalf of the NDP or Liberals - for party leader or for a MLA spot - is a hypocrite.

Recommend this post

UPDATE: Alberta, look behind your back

Alberta, your buddy Steve has done another number on you. He's done it to British Columbia and Ontario too, this time with plenty of company:

In April, the Conservatives announced with great fanfare Bill C-12, which would add 30 seats to the House of Commons, taking it to 338 from 308, to address severe underrepresentation among Canada's fastest-growing provinces.

Sounds good, although this was only a start to correcting that "severe underrepresentation." But what sounded reasonable, equitable and fair, rang alarm bells among certain folks who have benefited from that unfairness, most notably MPs who represent their parties constituents in the Maritimes and Quebec.

One can only suppose that Albertans, British Columbians and Ontarians don't matter as much to the leaders of Canada's political parties as do the voters in other parts of the country.

What other reason could there be for the leaders of all parties having "agreed to quietly sink" the legislation?

There is nowhere for (certain) Canadians to turn. Every one of Canada's rotten political parties have allowed the travesty of unequal representation to continue for decades. Now, in refusing to begin to correct it, they have tacitly agreed that all Canadians votes should NOT be treated equally.

Why am I surprised? Whenever parties have been in or near power they have resisted electoral reform; once relegated to the political wasteland, they have been in favour of it.

It's Shamocracy 2.0.

ETA: Desperate denials are now shooting forth from the PMO.

Tweeted from Althia Raj of Sun Media: "PMO sends out info alert denying Globe story on C-12 saying govt no intention to kill. But is silent on how they'll push it forward."

A few minutes later, Raj writes: Reality check on #C-12. There have been precisely 0 speeches on this bill. http://bit.ly/eZ4tLm

That aligns with Rosie Barton's sardonic comment of the bill appearing to be "at a molasses like pace."

In my view, if no action is taken on a Bill, it's as good as dead.

Recommend this post

Post Revival 2.0: We are Separatists

This is starting to become an annual event!

What is it about this time of year that makes Canada's federal parties suppose they can write off citizens' rights, in the service of their own self-interests? Perhaps they think we won't notice.

The prompt for this reprise of a reprise of an original post written two years ago is another collective, self-interested act by all parties, done in full knowledge of its result being further erosion of the democratic rights of a large swath of the electorate.

***
January 2009

For a long time, I've pondered the benefit of my community, now Vancouver Island, being part of the political entity that is the Dominion of Canada. Not because of any dislike for Canada's land, waters or people - that aspect of being Canadian makes me go all mushy inside - but because I can't see how a nation so large, structured as Canada is politically, can fairly represent and administer and distribute justice to all of its people.

As long as Canada maintains the power structure that it has now, then I would prefer that British Columbia be a nation unto itself - i.e., separate from Canada. Even better, that Vancouver Island go it alone.

Our top-tier government has only grown more powerful over the decades, not less. It has been steadily sucking political power from the nation's provinces, territories, regions and municipalities. Thus the federal government, together with its puppet masters, has steadily been eroding the ability of citizens in their communities to directly influence change.

More and more, citizens are taken as irrelevant by our politicians. The support of the federal government by large corporations powers the agenda of Canada's politicos. Their concern for the people functions only as an electoral device to "win" a mandate to govern, one that is rigged by our outdated voting system. And then the winning party governs for the CEOs. For "ordinary" Canadians (to which our political parties so fondly refer), to think otherwise is to be delusional.

Recently, I emailed these reflections to Daphne, and asked: Have you ever thought about things like this?

We don't always agree and I wasn't expecting agreement here.

"Yes," replied Daphne, "have pondered this and have talked to others over the years... At one time, I printed T-shirts which depicted Vancouver Island as forming the Vancouver Island Liberation Organization, hence breaking away from the rest of Canada."

Vancouver Island Liberation Organization T-shirts, anyone?

We are not alone in wanting to detach ourselves from the rest of Canada, friend Daphne explained. An emerging notion is that of Cascadia. The boundaries of Cascadia vary but in most proposals, all or part of British Columbia, Oregon and Washington state are included.

While some notion of Cascadia might be workable in the future, Daphne and I prefer thinking only in terms of BC or Vancouver Island separating from Canada.

Seriously, we're fed up with successive governments which are supposed to be OF, FOR and BY the people being instead OF, FOR, and BY Canada's CEOs. And a heckuva job those CEOs have been doing lately!

Consider one example which exemplifies the joined-at-the-hip relation between Canada's government and big business.

Successive governments have been selling off our¹ resources under the guise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership "agreement" endorsed by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the USA. (Don't be fooled. The name keeps changing, but the agenda remains the same.)²

Instrumental to the SPP is our very own Grand Ayatollah, one Tom d'Aquino, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Mr. d'Aquino is one busy guy! Read the article. You'll understand why we two, having trashed our rose-coloured glasses long ago, prefer to divorce ourselves from Canada Inc.

¹ A sizeable chunk of "our" natural resources are on and in traditional native land and water.
² Excellent Canadian sites for information on the SPP include Global Research and the Council of Canadians.

[This post was co-written by Daphne Moldowin and Chrystal Ocean.]

Recommend this post

In Defence of Jenny Kwan

Jenny Kwan, the BC NDP MLA who spoke out yesterday on behalf of true democratic process in her party... she, who thus ultimately spoke out on behalf of the people of British Columbia... That Jenny Kwan was lambasted today by the majority of guest commenters on the popular Bill Good Show.

One commenter accused Kwan of having been silent throughout her tenure as one of only two NDP MLAs sitting as Official Opposition from 2001 to 2005. The man's observation didn't mesh with mine. It was Kwan's feistiness during that period that first drew my attention to her.

Another commenter remarked that Kwan had done nothing useful over her 14 years as an MLA and that she had been a constant annoyance to the party. Worse, accused the man, he couldn't count the number of times Kwan had cried in public.

CRIED. IN PUBLIC.

How positively sinful!

How so much more appropriate that politicians endlessly express (manufactured) outrage - OUTRAGE, mind you -, that they bluster, shout, wave their arms about. I mean, really, that's so much more... what's the word I'm looking for... manly.

That Kwan has indeed been an MLA for 14 years; that 12 other MLAs in the party refused to don the famous yellow scarves two weeks ago (40 percent of the NDP caucus, in all); that MLAs, their constituency associations and their canvassers are more directly in touch with voters and their intentions... all these are irrelevant.

Why? Because the three governing institutions of the NDP have decreed it so. The party, they say, determines the leader. MLAs have nothing to say in the matter.

That suggests a major and fundamental flaw in either the party's constitution or its application.

Recommend this post

Recall This When Christy Clark Campaigns for the BC Liberal Leadership

All democratic and electoral reformers, get out your notepads, do write-ups in your blogs and include the following video:



Did you get that? During British Columbia's 2009 referendum on electoral reform, Christy Clark may have come late to supporting BC's version of the Single Transferable Vote (BC-STV); but once she did support it, she did so passionately, without reservation and on-air.

Therefore, I've a question for Ms. Clark:

In your (expected) campaign to become leader of the BC Liberal Party and therefore, Premier of this province, will you promise - with consequences if you don't keep your promise - to renew democratic reform, particularly electoral reform as proposed by the BC Citizens' Assembly?

Recommend this post

Electoral Reformers, There is Hope

Electoral reform is currently second place in a Globe and Mail poll asking "what the next discussion Canada needs to have."

Go. Vote.

Yes, the environment, currently number one in the poll, is a vitally important issue. However, unless our 'representatives' in Parliament actually represent& we, their constitituents, over their own - which means their party's - interests, then the environment or anything else we may care about won't get addressed.

Recommend this post

Local NDP Members Disgruntled By Carole James & Company

Since the 2009 election (crowning?) of this riding's NDP candidate and ultimately-elected MLA, Bill Routley, there has been a fracturing of the local NDP constituency association.

From this nonpartisan's point of view, I can see why. Our former NDP MLA, one DOUG Routley, was forever helpful. BILL Routley not so much. When a constituent (me) requested his assistance regarding a government service, there was no response. Doug, who moved one riding north, would have fallen over himself trying to help.

How many other constituents of Bill Routley have been left without a response from their MLA?

Then there were signals of undemocratic process during the nomination of Bill Routley to NDP candidacy and, later, underhandedness and a not-so-wholly-honest campaign during the 2009 provincial election. Rumours floated of the campaign using Bill's connections with high muckety mucks in BC's labour movement. Throughout, it appeared that campaigners were trying hard to trade on Doug's good reputation and to confuse locals into thinking it was the familiar Doug for whom they were voting, not Bill.

Another distinction between the two Routleys is that Bill supports Carole James. Doug, whose constituency association was calling for a leadership convention in 2011, hasn't outright opposed her leadership, but he also has refused to express his support or to wear one of those famous yellow scarves at last weekend's NDP gathering.

With past shenanigans and current goings-on, one might understand, therefore, why there could be some hard feelings among the (still?) NDP party faithful in the riding of Cowichan Valley.

Recently, Sharon Jackson, a local city Councillor and dedicated political and social campaigner, was attending a local event celebrating former NDP Premier Dave Barrett's 80th birthday.

Jackson wrote the following in an email sent to me and to others:

Carole James and her entourage were there... Pity; because of that, all the really interesting people left early.

I think Carole and Moe and their power hungry in-crowd are destroying the party and dooming us to another Liberal Government.

It will be interesting to see if Gordon Wilson makes a comeback.

It's a sad state of affairs for the locals. Many of the NDP faithful have been disenfranchised by recent events and the rest of us - well, the ones without appropriate connections - are left without an MLA who will work for them.

Related - BC NDP: Both Sides Out of Mouth Syndrome

Recommend this post

BC NDP Numbers Show Rift between Powerbrokers, Grassroots

During the weekend "showdown" over Carole James' leadership of the BC NDP, a clear difference in the divisions between party officials and the NDP caucus became evident.

Yes, James was approved as leader by 84 percent. This vote included members of the provincial party executive, other party officials, certain members of the federal NDP and a stacked number of delegates representing organized labour.*

NDP MLAs are not permitted to participate in such votes.

MLAs are the elected representatives of the people in their ridings. The NDP currently has 34 MLAs.

No report mentions whether all of the NDP's MLAs showed up at the weekend event. However, we know that 13 of them, almost 40 percent of the NDP caucus, outright opposed or refused to show support for James' leadership.

If MLAs care about keeping their jobs, they'll have their fingers on the pulse of their communities.

Perhaps those 13 MLAs know something that their party officials, big labour management and others who circle the party backroom don't.

* I hated, hated, hated when I was a union member having my membership used to support a specific party. Wouldn't have mattered what party. Such practice is wrong and anti-democratic.

Recommend this post