Mark Crowley 2013-05-21T19:06:00-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=mark-crowley Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Mark Crowley Good old fashioned elbow grease. Who Ever Said Canadian Politics Were Dull? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2196344 2012-11-28T17:19:21-05:00 2013-01-28T05:12:01-05:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/
First, the Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, was found in violation of the Conflict of Interest act and will be removed from office. Essentially, he voted on something he really shouldn't have and clearly took pride in not knowing how the process of government works as a defense. A process which he has been involved in for 15 years. Fascinating.

Second, we find out that Mark Carney, you know, the head of the Bank of Canada, our faithful and steady captain who rode us through rough waters, who everyone loves so much they elected him head of the international Financial Stability Board is leaving. Well, the Brits love him so much they headhunted him right out from under us. Which I guess we're fine with, sounds like he wants more of a challenge. Amazing.

Of course, he'll have to deal with the British press now, but they're nice right?
(Whoa...seriously? A moose? Who trusts a moose with money? Everyone knows only beavers, caribou and loons can be trusted with hard currency.)

Third, of course, there's sport! No, I don't mean the Grey Cup, although that was great...Argos! I mean elections, you know, the best sport ever? There were three yesterday! And they weren't boring, at all. Alright, Durham was kind of boring, but in a good way. Congratulations to Erin O'Toole, the new MP for Durham, Ontario for winning your riding by an astounding 50.7 per cent (last time I checked).

What's that? That doesn't sound that astounding to you? I'll have you know that Mr. O'Toole now has a right that only 145 out 309 members of parliament may claim. That is the right to call himself the duly elected representative of his riding who also has the support of the majority of the population which he serves.

Because for half of all MPs, more half their constituents didn't vote for them. Write that one down. 

You can see the see the official results here. The boring headline you'll undoubtedly see somewhere is that all the incumbent parties won, two Conservative and one NDP, so no change in parliament, yawn. But it was so much more exciting than that. The real winner last night by a longshot was the Green Party. They didn't win any seats but they had the political nerd class on the edge of their seats for hours last night on twitter watching #yyc and #yyj, what tweeters call Calgary and Victoria respectively (airport codes, you know).

The greens had historically high results and had a real shot at winning either seat if any other single candidate had not been there. In fact, that's true for the Liberals in Calgary as well, if the NDP weren't running it could easily have been a three way photo finish. If the Greens weren't running it's hard to tell because the NDP did so badly. But the Liberal would almost surely have won handily. Now, don't mistake this kind of talk as making an excuse or spinning the result for the Greens or the Liberals. There is a larger point here and Canadians and politicians are slowly waking up to it.

Another hint, journalists on twitter were a bit shocked the Greens were doing so well in Victoria. No one was looking at Victoria. Everyone knew it was going to the NDP...right? But Victoria was just as close as shockingly close Calgary. The bigger shock for many people was that the two old national alternatives the Liberals and the Conservatives were essentially irrelvant in Victoria. Their combined vote tallies paling in comparison to either the NDP or the Green vote on their own. So what is going on with our country?

What I think is going on is a kind of phase shift in Canadian politics. People used to feel like there were two and a half viable, national parties in Canada, plus the Bloc of course. The Orange crush in 2011 was the first step towards tearing this reality down. The order of the 'half party' was swapped from the NDP to the Liberals. We have only been slowly coming to accept that as a nation. The media in particular seems to forget sometimes which party is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and which is the third party.

But the second result of Election 41 was the election of a Green MP. A party which has polled over the years between 3 per cent and over 10 per cent support nationally. Last night's byelection shows us it was not just luck. The Greens garnered around 25 per cent and 34 per cent of actual votes in Calgary(!) and Victoria. Elizabeth May's stellar performance in parliament doesn't hurt the image of the party either.

We all need to face it, there are now four, viable, national parties in our country now. They have very different approaches to many issues but three of them have a lot more in common than they have seperating them when compared to the Conservatives, so they need to find a way to work out their differences. There is no good reason why the voters of Calgary Centre find themselves represented this morning by a candidate who received only 37 per cent of the votes cast. Especially when the next party received only 4 per cent less than them and everyone knows what the second choice of most of the remaining third of the electorate would be.

So finally the fourth piece of exciting news from yesterday, at least for me. Some hope going forward:

"There are some ridings where the vast majority of voters would like to have a progressive voice. So, if a riding is willing to have a run-off (nomination) so that the progressive voice has a chance of becoming elected, then that's something that I think is a good idea."



That quote is from MP for Vancouver Quadra Joyce Murray, who yesterday put herself forward for the leader of the Liberal Party. Oh, and she's also openly in favour of Electoral Reform. This is rare for a Liberal.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying Joyce Murray would be the best leader for the Liberals and I don't know if the Liberals would be the best party to govern at this point. But a phase shift is occurring in Canadian politics and all the parties need to wake up and deal with it. This is the kind of proposal which needs to be openly, and maturely discussed rather than dismissed out of hand or attacked as undemocratic. Nathan Cullen on the NDP side made similar proposals when running for leader of his party.

This byelection showed us that there are three viable progressive parties in Canada. Canadians are trying to vote for them, but strategic voting is hard and messy and not as good as a real proportional voting system. Until we get that, the parties need to find a way to make it easier for the progressive majority of Canadian voters to get what the they actually want, and that is a progressive government.




]]> The Case for Strategic Voting in Calgary's By-Election tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2174360 2012-11-22T00:00:12-05:00 2013-01-21T05:12:01-05:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ polls look interesting.  The most exciting is the by-election in Calgary Centre where polls indicate a three-way race between the Conservatives, the Liberals and (deep breath) the Green Party.

Now I'm on the record as being very in favour of strategic voting in elections so I won't go over all that again. Check out this amazing site run by 1CalgaryCentre which is trying to organize voters to choose a single progressive representative for their riding. If this works it could be a template for how to elect progressives going forward.

For all the talk of the NDP and Liberals merging to defeat the Conservatives, Canada is a multi-party system for a reason. Canadians recognize there are more than two sides to any issue. But this reasonable mentality is a handicap within our winner-take-all voting system which is rigged for two parties.

What could the parties do about this? They could support proportional voting for a start. But short of that the most I think parties could consider in future elections is strategically cooperating to not run against each other in a selection of ridings to increase each other's chances. Even this seems unlikely to happen. So barring the complete collapse of the NDP or the Liberals, it is up to voters to take it upon themselves to vote intelligently and strategically to achieve the goal they want.

Remember that the goal of voting is not simply to show support for the one party which you prefer. We have lots of polls for that and you can donate money to parties as well. I consider myself a progressive non-partisan voter, so rather than pick one I recently donated an equal amount of money to four progressive political organizations: The Green Party, the NDP, the Liberals and just to keep them all honest LeadNow.

An election is still a poll, the best possible poll in terms of accuracy, but the true purpose of voting is to elect someone to represent you in Ottawa who is closely aligned with your point of view. As a progressive voter these days that surely means if your favourite candidate or party is one of the three progressive, federalist parties and they cannot win, then the next best outcome is for one of the other progressive candidates to win.

By voting for a losing candidate, to show support, you may be helping to elect the worst possible outcome from your point of view. That simply isn't rational. Despite all the attempts by politicians and even the media to make elections about emotions and gut feelings, we all know it should be about rationally choosing the best candidate for you, for your riding, for your province and for your country.

So if you live in Calgary Centre and are an NDP voter, a Green voter, a Liberal voter; if you voted for Joe Clark in days gone by, then I suggest you consider yourself, first and foremost, a progressive voter. Let this guide your choice rather than the label of a single party and take a look at all the options before you vote. Consider not only which candidate or party you like the best but which one is most likely to win as well. Then go out and vote on Thursday and send a message that no one will be able to forget.

If the Conservative party wins Calgary Centre as expected, but with much lower support than ever before it will be a message politicians will take notice of but which the media will talk about for a few days at most. But imagine an actual member of parliament for the NDP, the Liberals or the Greens (!). They would rise in parliament regularly for the next three years and be announced as "The honourable member from Calgary Centre" and then proceed to tear into the regressive Conservative policies of this government. No one can ignore that. Make that happen Calgary, for all of us.



]]> Canada's Latest Shotgun Commitment to China tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2035714 2012-10-29T17:00:18-04:00 2012-12-29T05:12:02-05:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China. The basic idea for it is that our companies, both resource companies and others, do not always get a fair shake in the Chinese legal system when they have disputes. This agreement will allow both countries to go to binding arbitration at an international tribunal. We have these agreements with many other countries, but there are growing worries that this particular deal is not actually equal to both countries...and Canada may be getting the short end of the stick. Getting out of the treaty is surprisingly difficult, and it would only be good for Canadian companies if they need to use this system more than China does and if China abides by it.

The assumption the Conservative government must be making is that Canada will do better under this system than we currently do. The risk is that while we may hope Canadian companies operating in China will gain a huge advantage by having this arbitration procedure what could actually happen is that the Canadian companies we are so concerned about would be bought out by Chinese companies instead. Under this agreement, "unreasonable" attempts to stop foreign takeovers could be brought to this very arbitration board and either mandated to be allowed or incur huge fines against Canada. Unsurprisingly, a lot of Canadians, especially in the West, don't like the sound of that. And they have reason to worry:
The proposed $15-billion acquisition of Calgary-based energy company Nexen Inc. by a Chinese state oil firm is triple the current total investments by Canadian firms in the communist country...

-- Canadian Press

So it seems unlikely the Conservative's assumption will hold, China already invests more in Canada than we do in China. Under this agreement that would only be expected to get worse, not better.

BLOG CONTINUES BELOW SLIDESHOW


The result could be disastorous and irreperable impacts on our economy and our sovereignty over our own resources. I don't know about the details of the legal disputes our companies are having in China but it seems as though such a wide-ranging and risky treaty should at the very least be openly and vigourously debated just as NAFTA was.

NAFTA was a huge national debate which cost Mulroney his government (oh...maybe that's why Harper isn't interested) and that was with two democratic  nations, including our greatest friend and ally the United States. So why does this deal have so much less to worry about when it is with China which is, to put it mildly, neither of those things?

Another question is why does protection of investors rank so much higher than all other concerns for national sovereignty, our ability as a nation to switch to more post-production of raw resources and our freedom to deal with impending climate change? Now is not the time to tie our hands on increasing extraction of highly polluting resources.

The world has reached consensus on climate change and scientists every day are realizing that their most skeptical worst-case scenarios of only a few years ago are now almost certain to come to pass sooner than they feared. If this treaty goes into effect on Thursday it will be active for 31 years, until 2043. By that point studies from 2009 already predicted that the arctic ocean will be completely ice free in summer, many now think it will happen much earlier, by 2020. Will there be any arctic at all to save by 2043?

We don't know, that's the point of not making huge commitments like this from a government that doesn't even like talking, thinking or researching about the long-term future. The next 30 years are our last chance to stop or even slow huge shifts in the Earth's climate patterns. The only point of this agreement seems to be to help investors in the short term until some Chinese companies buy them out and to provide more "it will hurt the economy and cost us money" arguments against making the hard decisions on slowing climate change.

For a great overview of the technical details of the agreement see this article from the CBC, and also these descriptions from the Green Party and constitutional lawyer Clayton Ruby where he describes the legal implications of the deal and his desire to make a challenge that the FIPA deal is unconstitutional.

Take Action


On Thursday the only parliamentary committee to discuss this treaty will be meeting, without witnesses, hear about it before the PM sends off to be signed. The only hope of stopping it is to raise enough public concern that even the Conservative MPs and Prime Minister Harper reconsider the wisdom of tying Canada's hand's into an unfair deal with an undemocratic country that has much more investment in our country than we have in their's. So, if you have an opinion about it let your voice be heard:

Petitions and letters:

  • Forest Ethics -- sign their petition to support a constitutional challenge, they still have a way to go to get to the 30,000 signatures they need.

  • LeadNow -- sign their petition too.

  • SumOfUs -- great list of tips for writing meaningful letters to MPs and addresses for letters to the editor of newspapers.


Social Media:

  • Get #FIPA trending on Twitter, tweet, retweet and share. The media loves reading off tweets and using trends to guide their decision if a story is "important" or not, so use that and make the sound deafening. Canadians are a huge presence on Twitter. And who knows, if you can get a comment of concern from the Biebs himself you'll have an army of retweets as the #PRAYFORCANADA tweets of concern for all Canadians after the recent earthquake demonstrated :)

  • Comment with your thoughts below or on David's Suzuki's post and share via Facebook, Twitter, Google+

  • Follow ForestEthics, LeadNow, The David Suzuki Foundation and The Green Party on Facebook and share their great posts on this with your friends.

]]> What the Liberal Party Could Learn From Reddit tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1953329 2012-10-10T12:31:26-04:00 2012-12-10T05:12:02-05:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ short survey from the Liberal Party on foreign ownership rules for natural resources. There are two interesting things about this. First, foreign ownership of our natural resources, especially by state corporations of other nations, is an important issue Canadians need to talk about more. I'm not especially knowledgeable about it so I won't say any more, feel free to discuss in the comments and educate me though.

The second, meta-issue here is openness and political party policy. The Liberals are trying to argue that they are the party which is really consulting people and casting both the Conservatives and the NDP as unreasonable ideologues. I'm not convinced of that yet, but it might be a good strategy for them.

Personally, I don't think the Liberals should spend so much of their time demonizing the NDP as they do. As I see it, the Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party all have more in common than they do with the Conservatives and they all agree entirely on one important issue which is that the Conservatives should not win the next election. So it seems like attacking each other should be lower on their priority list than other concerns. But it's a complicated situation.

Bearing that in mind, if the Liberals want to really distinguish themselves from the other parties one really good way could be by making the party open, and I mean very open. We're talking more than a couple polls by email but a collaborative, ongoing discussion with party supporters. A discussion which explicitly guides party policy in a very detailed way, day to day.

With all the computing tools and ability to get feedback quickly through email, polls, Facebook, Twitter and Google+, it is really possible to run a political party that consults constantly on an issue-by-issue basis with their members. To be clear, I'm not proposing a system where the parliamentarians have their speeches crowdsourced and their every vote mandated by a Facebook poll.  

Democracy is about discussion and compromise, we need to trust our representatives to do the work and make hard choices and trade-offs in our interests. However, there is no reason we can't set up a system where they check in with us frequently, even weekly on all sorts of topics to guide their decisions.  

These wouldn't be polls run by a separate institute and biased towards different population segments. It would be a direct discussion online with the members or supporters of the party. The elected representatives would still have the freedom to act as they wish, but they'll have nowhere to hide when the website has all the direct poll results and their actions of those members in parliament.

Ideally, each poll or question would be logged with a discussion thread where the MP would be expected to respond with what decision they made and if it differs from the consensus, why it does. This would be a safer route than direct democracy where voters essentially write laws and tie the hands of legislators which has proven to cause more problems than it solves, at least as it has been used so far in Canada.

So, here's one more way the Liberals could choose to distinguish themselves, a bold experiment in 
consultative party democracy. It will need to go far beyond a few email polls to make waves, but there is nothing stopping them. We'll see if that's what they follow through or not.

What do you think? Would this kind of collaborative policy consultation be enough to give the Liberals a chance again?

]]> It's An Issue of Precedent, Mr. Ford tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1860181 2012-09-06T03:34:24-04:00 2012-11-05T05:12:01-05:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/
From the Globe and Mail:
"Like I said, for the last 13 years, I've always defined a conflict of interest that there's two parties. There's a benefit to the city or the member of council. And that's when I declared a conflict," Mr. Ford said.

When Clayton Ruby, the lawyer cross-examining Ford, pointed out that neither the Municipal Conflict-of-Interest Act (MCIA) nor the council handbook define a conflict that way, Mr. Ford said he had not read either document.

He added that he skipped his council orientation in 2000 because, as the son of an MPP, he already understood how city hall functioned.

Ford's understanding of a conflict of interest is key because it will form part of a defence that the mayor made an "honest error of judgment," when he spoke and voted.

However, Alan Lenczner, the mayor's lawyer, told the court Wednesday morning that he intends to rely primarily on technical legal arguments, meaning the "honest error" line will likely serve as a fallback.


Now I'm not sure at all that the duly elected, though not majority elected, Mayor Rob Ford should be fired for an inappropriate vote on such a small amount of money. However, I really don't like the precedent of letting this go if Ford does end up using the 'honest mistake' defence. That would be a toxic precedent to set for our democracy.

The argument would seem to be, paraphrasing now:

"I have my own understanding of the rules, which I have used for 13 years as a councillor, which I believe I applied consistently. But that understanding of the rules was false. I never actually read the rulebook to learn the true rules. I never even attended the orientation when I was first elected because I believed that as the son of a politician I knew enough about how the system worked already. Honest mistake."

Actually, that sounds like willful negligence to me. And that is no defence. I'd rather you have said you didn't understand what the vote was about at all. It is not acceptable to argue that some elite part of our society who happen to be born to politicians already know how everything works; that they don't need to read the rules and that if they break the rules because they made them up then it's just an 'honest mistake'. No.

Again, if this trial acquits him and he doesn't use that argument as his main defence then that seems fine. I suppose that no precedent will be set, but I'm no lawyer. However, if the "honest mistake" shtick  is his primary argument then the judge needs to find him guilty on principle because it goes against every assumption of responsible, representative government.]]> What Elections Are REALLY About, Mr. Goldenberg tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1686692 2012-07-19T12:31:51-04:00 2012-09-18T05:12:17-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ Adam Goldenberg has an opinion on strategic campaigning and he is off base in so many ways. Green party leader Elizabeth May has suggested that her party and the NDP refrain from running candidates in the Etobicoke Centre by-election.

But Goldenberg says:
Elections are not primarily about picking winners and losers. The process matters more than the outcome. All of us have the right to vote for any candidate, and to have that vote counted. If there is a by-election in Etobicoke Centre, then every voter in that riding deserves the same full and fair choice, no matter how they cast their ballot.

Actually, elections are about the choosing representatives to govern in our stead. They are about policy and the future of the country. They are about Canada's place in the world, how to prepare our children for the future, how to maintain the richness and beauty and wealth of our nation for them as well as ourselves.

Elections are about choosing the people you trust to spend your tax dollars in a responsible manner and who agree with you about what the outcome of that spending is supposed to be.  So elections are exactly and primarily about who wins and who loses. It is only a side benefit that we also see how many votes all the non-winners get.

In that sense it is simply a much more accurate poll, like a census, that politicians, pundits and citizens can use to see which way the political winds are blowing. But make no mistake, the point of the election is to choose a government and that means choosing who goes to parliament. Our current system does that by picking winners and losers in the simplest and most unfair way possible, allowing the "winner" to have far fewer voters, even just half as many votes, than the combined votes for all the "losers."

May is not suggesting that the courts should consider this in their decision. Nor is she suggesting that elections Canada should consider this. She isn't even suggesting that all by-elections should be run as paired runoffs between the top two candidates.

May is suggesting the parties should make the strategic choice to not run in order to raise the probability of her desired outcome. That is simply playing within the rules of the current, incredibly flawed system. That is the only game that can be played until the system itself is improved, something May's party has committed to doing.

Goldenberg was a speech writer for former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, which is not surprising since Iggy was perennially unable to think outside the old assumptions of our democracy and what voting means.  The Liberal party has always been opposed to broad electoral reform and I really don't understand why. It could really benefit right now.

There seems to be an idea that voting with your heart is the only honest thing to do. Personally, I don't care which name is under the X I mark on that piece of paper. All I care about is who represents me in Ottawa. As a voter I know who I would want to represent me and I know who I'd like as a backup. I also know who I would certaintly not want to represent me in Ottawa. Since our current voting system does not allow me to express those preferences I need to use the hand I'm dealt with.

I need to guess how others are going to vote and mark an X under the candidate that gives me the greatest chance of getting the best outcome. This is called strategic voting and it is the only kind of voting that makes any logical sense in our system. It sucks, it's horrible, but it's all we can do right now.  May realizes people are voting strategically and is trying in her own way to make the decision easier for voters by removing the options which can have no impact on the final outcome. It's a touch decision and it's not foolproof since it involves a lot guesswork but it's better than the alternative.

Goldenberg again:
Other democracies have adopted various forms of proportional representation to enhance the electoral impact of votes for losing candidates. Canada has not yet done so. But even if, in a first-past-the-post election, votes for non-contenders have little impact on the outcome, they are not without value-and just because they do not contribute directly to the margin of victory does not mean that they should not be cast or counted.


Actually vote's for non-contenders have no impact on the outcome! That's why they're called non-contenders. The problem is we don't actually know for sure who the non-contenders are until everyone votes. This is why now is suggesting these votes shouldn't be cast or counted if there are candidates running. They are saying that the outcome is much, much more important than the vote itself.

So, when you have a situation where the possible outcomes are well known it is perfectly reasonable to consider if  some of the choices should be removed. The author argues that the benefit of a very accurate poll coming out of the election is worth suffering through a government you hate for four years.  I'm sorry but all the charities that are losing their funding would disagree. So would a large part of the 60 per cent of the country that did not vote for the Conservative party last election.

Now to be clear, I don't know if May's proposal is the right choice in every riding. People need to look at the polls and find out if the NDP have a shot in Etobicoke Centre in the new post Orange Wave world, but I gather they still don't. I also wouldn't say that strategic campaigning should be done for all by- elections as a rule. Each case should be looked at on it's own details. But we need to stop demonizing people who dare to speak the truth that strategic voting is a necessary evil in our flawed system; that there is no way to fix the system with passing through a period of strategic voting and perhaps even strategic campaigning as May is suggesting.]]> Tories Hope You're Too Bored To Care About the Budget tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1595688 2012-06-14T04:11:24-04:00 2012-08-13T05:12:05-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ what C-38 bill is about and why you should be upset about it by Lawrence Martin.

In a majority parliament the opposition is left with few options for stopping legislation that the government is adamant to pass, so sometimes they need to resort to procedural tactics to slow down the process in the hopes that the government will relent. At the very least, the hope is citizens will notice that they their representatives have done what they can, within a flawed system, to look out for their interests.

That the government is adamant is clear. According to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty:
"The bill is the economic policy of the government. It's the big plan for the government for the next decade. It's a generational plan. So it's not about bits and pieces. It's about the big picture and that's why it's important that we move forward, particularly with what's going on in the world."


That many Canadians disagree is also clear, just take a look at the amazing actions being taken by LeadNow and citizens all across the country. A vigil is being held online and across the country in support of the MPs staying up all night to do something against this fauxmnibus budget bill. Twitter was alive Wednesday night with people staying up, watching CPAC, counting the votes, and arguing about what has gone wrong -- as well as what will come next. Search for #ourbudget, #13heroes, #C38, or #splititup to see what I mean.

Of course, you might say most Canadians were sleeping and don't care. Well maybe they don't, but don't mistake that for this not being important. That is the kind of logic the Conservative party uses and wants everyone to accept, something like:

If people don't care then I don't need to worry about it. If the media isn't covering it, then it's not important. If a budget opposition falls in parliament and only a few tens of thousands of people see it and think we lost of bit of our democracy, then nothing is really lost.


Precedent has already been set, Elizabeth May's point of order to the Speaker that the omnibus bill was improper fell on flat ears. This implies that future governments have almost no limit on the ridiculous size and breadth that a budget omnibus bill can take.

Perhaps a government could literally put all of their proposed bills into one and pass it in a week and then shut parliament. Surely some would argue this would save a lot of money -- analysis and debate are expenses we can no longer afford in these troubled times apparently, you know, particularly with what is going on in the world. I can only assume he means the crisis in Syria?

Time will only tell how much this "generational plan" changes the Canada we all know and love, the one that is so often touted as one of the greatest places to live, one of the most equal, the most reasonable nations on Earth. But those studies all look to our past. What does our future hold? I don't know, Stephen Harper doesn't know, LeadNow doesn't know, even Elizabeth May doesn't know. Maybe Bob Rae knows since he's the one bowing out of trying to take on the top job...does he know something we all don't?

Whatever Canada's future holds it isn't served well by limited dissenting voices, reducing government oversight of industry and the environment, reneging on our international obligations and reiterating our nation's heavy focus on a resource first economy. What facing the future requires is education, knowledge, adaptability and vision.  

The only people showing vision right now are the opposition inside and outside parliament who are daring to stand up and call a dripping erosion of our democracy for what it really is whether the country and the media want to hear it or not.]]> Elizabeth May: Exposing the Fauxmnibus Bill tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1579560 2012-06-08T16:18:56-04:00 2012-08-08T05:12:10-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ I'm a shameless Elizabeth May fanboy! How can you not be when she gets up in the House, as she did Monday, and makes an epic speech like this?

The main point of her "point of order" is that the Conservative government's budget bill C-38 isn't fit to be called an omnibus bill, which is a bill that groups together changes to different legislation under a common theme. Bill C-38 changes so many different bills and aspects of government that it is more like a multi-year party agenda lumped into one yes or no question. May has put the question to the Speaker of the House to rule the bill "imperfect" and send it back to the government to be reworked.

The speech is one of the greatest pieces of parliamentary argument we've seen in a Ottawa since forever. The best part is that it's not just a cobbled together last-ditch argument. According to this fascinating discussion she had with Aaron Wherry she's been researching this issue of budget omnibus bills for over a year based on the previous growing size of these bills! She said,

"I expect that Speaker Scheer will do it justice. And that means listening to the arguments from the other parties in the House, constructing, researching and writing what will be, one way or the other, a precedent-setting decision."


Well let's hope so, either way, it's going to make next week an important one for our democracy.

So that's what Elizabeth May is doing to stop this insult to democracy. The main opposition parties will be trying other approaches to slow or split the bill such as putting forward hundreds of amendments and trying to filibuster the process. Ironically, they have less flexibility in the House than May because they were on the committees discussing this bill, they raised their arguments, were voted down by the majority Conservatives and get less chance to complain now that it's back in the House. Don't you love our system?

So you may be asking, "what can I do if I'm not a sitting member of parliament?" Well, the independent progressive activist organization LeadNow has an idea. You see, while the Conservatives have a majority of seats in parliament they only have 13 more seats than the other parties combined. Many Conservatives are just as upset about this budget fauxmnibus bill as progressives. Red Tories and Libertarians alike have lots be worried about with a huge bill that cuts social programs, undermines the good image of our nation and reduces the ability of opposition voices to be heard.

That's why LeadNow is calling for organized protests and letters next week targetting 13 Conservative party MPs to get them to be "heroes" and voice opposition to the budget. The idea, as I understand it, is not to get them to vote against the bill as a confidence motion, but rather to state that they would vote against it. This would force the government to withdraw the bill and rework it or split it up to satisfy the opposition.

Next week could be a great week for Canadian democracy, if any of these attempts to stop C-38 succeed then opponents will have demonstrated the robustness of our democracy; that a mere majority of seats isn't enough to steamroll over debate, tradition and fairness. On the other hand, if all these attempts fail and the bill passes it will send a chill over the country and set a precedent that will only be reversible by a significant electoral defeat four years from now.

So you know, no pressure.]]> John Baird Should be Raked Over the (Carbon Tax) Coals tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1519300 2012-05-28T13:41:24-04:00 2012-07-28T05:12:10-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ recently, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird did exactly that.

"Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected?" he asked, and the continued, "It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government. No discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families."

First, I'll assume that the minister misspoke, or was quoted wrong, and that he is not implying that a carbon tax would kill Canadian families. Second, when exactly have Canadians rejected carbon taxes? I don't remember a referendum on that. Third, worrying about public opinion is not the job of an arms-length commission that is supposed to give the government independent expert advice.

In this case, it was the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) which has for several years put forward arguments for how a national carbon tax would help Canada meet its international commitments to reduce carbon emissions without damaging the economy.

It is exactly such a group's job to give this advice whether it is popular or not. It is the government's job along with parliament to decide whether or not to follow that advice. The politicians are the ones who should balance the advice, what it is worth, how much citizens would support it and whether it should be enacted.

If public opinion is against something that all the experts agree is good for Canada, then it is the government's duty to try to convince the public it is a good thing. Then the opposition parties could argue against it if they don't agree. Then if it's not clear which side is right, an election between parties explicitly supporting one policy or another may help settle the question. 

That is, any party could actually win a majority of the votes in Canada, which at the moment none of them, including the Conservatives, can even come close to. I shouldn't have to to explain to Baird how democracy works but there it is.

No one who is attempting to make rational decisions in the interest of the country should be throwing away honest advice from experts which agree with wide scientific economic opinion such as the value of carbon taxes for managing emissions. Cutting funding from NRTEE is just further proof that the Conservatives seem to have no interest in opinions which conflict with the decisions they have already made. This is folly, not decisiveness.]]> Can Elizabeth May Stop the Budget From Passing? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1511378 2012-05-15T05:04:53-04:00 2012-07-14T05:12:04-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ slow the passage of the budget bill as a protest against the way the Conservatives are ramming it through.  Maybe we can hope that this along with other pressure I'm sure the NDP and Liberals are applying will convince the Conservatives that this level of disrespect for the process of parliament is going to cost them too much.

Parliament is meant to be a place of debate about ideas and policy. It is supposed to be slow in order to check government's power and give the public a chance to react to each piece of legislation, with calls and letters to their MPs, blogs, phone-in shows, letters even heading out on the streets in protest if need be.

That slow pace and pause between issues is actually important to make sure we can all keep up with what the government is doing in our name. That's the only way citizens have a hope of speaking up to let our representatives know how we feel about an issue.

The Conservative Party seems to believe that once it gets its election mandate, it should have a free hand to act as swiftly as possible and not need to take any questions until the next election. That's ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the party's impatience to dramatically undercut the environmental regulation process in Canada so that industry can get more resources out of the ground as quickly as possible.

The world isn't going anywhere, you know. In the long run the prices of Canada's vast resources will only rise, not drop. As an economist one would hope that the Prime Minister realizes Canada might do better in the long run by slowing the pace of resource extraction and setting up more value-adding industry in Canada. If more of the oil, minerals and lumber in Canada were being refined into final products rather than being shipped out raw we'd get more money and more jobs. So what's the hurry?]]> Would a More Fair Voting System Have Changed Alberta's Election? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1444714 2012-04-24T15:59:41-04:00 2012-06-24T05:12:01-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/
Meanwhile, the remaining parties which received about 10 per cent of the vote each get only four out of 86 seats, or four per cent of the power in the legislature each. How many distorted election results of this kind do we need to see before we admit we need a change to our voting system? Wilf Day has run the number and gets a very different account of what the Alberta election might have looked like under a fairer voting system. If you searched for FPTP or "strategic voting" last night on Twitter you'd have seen a huge outpouring of anger and discussion. So what's the answer?

I don't know if this is the answer, but at least it's constructive discussion; Stéphane Dion published an article this weekend proposing a new voting system for Canadian federal elections which he calls P3 (Proportional-Preferential-Personalized Vote). Rather than make any comments on his proposal immediately, I'll just summarize some of the important details from my first read of his article and the longer, full proposal which can be found here.

P3 has some similarities to existing proportional voting systems such as Mixed-Member Porportional (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) but it merges them in some different ways. Dion hopes that P3 will be a simpler and more appropriate system for Canada than other generic systems. The system is partially proportional in that the outcome of the election, the number of seats a party gets in parliament, will be strongly related to the proportion of votes that party received but not fully proportional.

Just the facts:

  • Most ridings would be increased in size to include three to five MPs rather than one.

  • Within a riding, voters would select a party they wish to vote for and a candidate from that party they would like to have as MP. Since there would be multiple MPs for the riding, each party would put forward multiple candidates, only some of whom might be elected.

  • Seats would be allotted to parties in each riding based on the proportion of votes the party receives. If one party does not have enough votes to warrant a single seat in the riding they are dropped from contention during counting.

  • Optional: If voters so choose, they may also select a second (and third and fourth) choice of party they would like to have seats in their riding if their first choice party is eliminated. The idea is that voters could avoid worrying about voting strategically and simply vote for their favourite party while ranking the next best parties on the ballot. However, these voters apparently do not get the choice of selecting candidates from their second choice party.

  • For each party, the candidate who actually wins the seat is selected according to whoever got the most votes from voters who chose that party as their first option. So if the Liberal party drops out of a riding and some of their votes shift to the NDP, then these shifted votes influence how many seats the NDP gets, but only NDP voters get to pick which NDP candidate goes to parliament.



The full proposal document is long but it's actually a very easy to read and a thorough analysis of the flaws of our existing FPTP voting system and the benefits of most modern proportional voting systems. Here's are some other interesting parts from the full document if you don't have time to read it.


On the strengths of the current system: 
This isn't usually how proposals for new voting systems begin, but Dion starts by pointing out that Canadians are proud of their country and for many this transfers to being proud of our electoral system. He lists the strengths of our current system as stability, accountability and territoriality. FPTP is stable in the sense that the system is rigged towards majority governments.

The past five years notwithstanding, FPTP is the only way to get a majority with less than 40 per cent of the vote. However, it can also brutally punish parties as the Progressive Conservatives and now the Bloc and the Liberals have found out. Territoriality simply refers to the fact that voters elect local representatives which is why no one ever suggests using pure proportional systems in Canada since they cannot allow for this important feature.


On why the voting system matters:
"A voting system is more than just a way of tallying votes. It sets the ground rules that have a profound influence, for better or worse, on voters' choices, the behaviours of politicians and political parties, parliamentary proceedings and government operations."


On strategic voting:
"In fact, the proportional-preferential-personalized voting system will make the job of voters easier, since they would then be able to vote their true preferences instead of juggling random strategic calculations. They would no longer have to wonder whether they should abandon voting for Party A and instead vote for Party B in order to block Party C. They would simply rank these parties according to their preferences."


On minority parliaments:

Dion admits that "the probability that the government would be formed by a single party would be lower." He argues that other elements of his system such as multi-member ridings and preferential voting for parties would encourage more cooperation between parties and thus "encourage the parties to prepare for the possibility of governing together."

On regionalism:

He points out several times that the current voting system makes Alberta look more Conservative than it really is, Toronto and Montreal look more Liberal than they really are and makes Quebec look like the Bloc has more support than it really does. This is because when it's winner-take-all everyone forgets who the losers were, even if they collectively had more votes than the winner. All that matters is how many seats you get. How many seats you get can range from all the seats with just 50 per cent of the votes in a province v.s. no seats at all with as much as 20 per cent of the votes.

In regard to Quebec in particular Dion says:

"I no longer want a voting system that gives the impression that certain parties have given up on Quebec. On the contrary, the entire spectrum of parties, from the Green Party to the Conservative Party, need to be able to take root, compete and win seats, so that they all take on a Quebec dimension."

On the advantages of multiple member riding:
"Today, voters are helpless when they are stuck for four years with a lazy, incompetent or absent MP. In the new system, constituents would be able to deal with another elected official. Competition among the five MPs in a single riding would provide Canadians with better territorial representation."

On voter turnout:

Dion argues that low voter turnout is partially caused by voters feeling the election outcome is predetermined in uncompetitive ridings. A more proportional system would make every vote count towards the makeup of parliament. Multi-member ridings make it much more likely that more than one party will win seats in each riding, this should get out some of the voter's who are currently staying home.

On the Alternative Voting system accepted at the Liberal convention:

The Liberal convention in January 2012 adopted a non-binding motion to switch to a voting system called Alternative Vote (AV). AV is a simple form of instant runoff voting where voters rank all candidates and while counting votes the lowest candidates are dropped off successively until some candidate have more than 50 per cent of the vote. It's not proportional but it is somewhat more representative than FPTP Dion says:
"Preferential voting is a step in the right direction. However, it does nothing to correct the distortion between votes and seats and the under-representation of national parties compared to regional ones. Other changes are needed to find a voting system that best fits the Canadian context."


On why past attempts to reform voting have failed (failed provincial referenda in PEI, Ontario and twice in B.C.):


Dion argues that proponents of voting reform are too harsh in their attacks of the current FPTP voting system and this makes voter defensive about the change.

Voters see the proposed systems as too academic and not tailored to Canada's specific challenges. He argues that division amongst proponents about which system is best doesn't help the cause either.

In a separate article I'll comment on Dion's proposal and maybe summarize some of the reaction from the democratic reform community once people digest this. I think it will stir lots of interesting discussion.

But I will just say that anytime a sitting MP stands up and talks intelligently and sincerely about fixing our flawed voting process they are to be commended. Especially when they are outside the Green Party or NDP which are usually the only parties which even mention such reforms seriously.
 So, what do you think of Dion's proposal? Is he on to something or not?
]]> You're Wrong, David Frum tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1395268 2012-04-02T17:38:57-04:00 2012-06-02T05:12:01-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ David Frum recently published his analysis and went a bit further asking whether or not this budget definitively proves that Canada is the "best-governed country in the advanced democratic world." He thinks it does. His question is especially interesting given that democracy is one of the areas that the Conservatives would get a failing grade on most comparisons with other developed nations.

I find myself in the situation, common after reading Frum's articles, of wanting to agree and disagree with him simultaneously. I agree with him because Canada does strike a middle way on many policy issues between a European approach on the one hand and an American approach on the other. On the issues of bank regulation, healthcare, financial regulation, and government intervention in the market he is mostly right. There is a strong case that we lead the world in sheer reasonableness. However, I take issue with his argument because this latest budget has nothing to do with making that assessment.

On a purely economic basis this budget is prudent in many ways. But as a policy document, which is the more important aspect, this budget is a dismal failure that continues this government's disregard for the health of our democracy and its inability to envision solutions for (or even acknowledge the existence of) the real long term challenges that Canada will face as a nation.

I say this budget is more important as a policy document for precisely the same reason Andrew Coyne recently penned the budget as unambitious. If ever the Conservatives were going to put forward a budget that exemplifies everything they stand for, now would be the time. In fact, it is more important as a policy document than it would be in other countries precisely because Canada is in such a good position economically compared to our peers.

So we must assume that a policy document is exactly what this budget is. We can see clearly that what is important to the Conservatives is not economic issues such as tax reduction or the deficit, or at least no more so than it was for the Chretien/Martin Liberals. No, what is important to them as a legacy is a long-term shifting of the national conversation towards their philosophy.

So when cuts need to be made, where do they come from? The cuts come from the public broadcaster which ensures all voices are heard in the national discussion even if they don't have financial resources. The cuts come from government aid for youth in our own country and  aid for the needy aound the world. The cuts come from government bodies which ensure there is a scientific basis for important decision making such as the First Nations Statistical Council, the National Round Table on the Environment, and the Economy and the National Welfare Council.

Is this part of Flaherty's claimed "responsible choices" showing "common-sense, moderate restraint?" If they keep on attacking the independent analytical infrastructure of the government in this way then common sense will be the only kind that is left on which to base policy. I suspect if they could get away with cutting Statistics Canada itself they would, after their attempt to neuter its independence last year -- oh wait, they also cut seven per cent of StatsCan's budget, at least they're consistent.

Finally, the cuts come from the organization tasked with running and monitoring the very elections which are the basis of our democracy, Elections Canada. This isn't surprising given the swiftness with which the Conservatives struck down the per vote subsidy last year and their continual disregard for democratic tradition and fairness. This has been shown again and again over past years by shutting down parliament to avoid defeat, the way they attack other parties as un-Canadian, and manipulate the financial and advertising advantage of their committed base and position in power. This is especially unfortunate timing given the ongoing and growing robocall scandal from the last election. If it turns out that the Conservative party was deeply involved in the fraud that occurred last year then cutting the funding of the body investigating it will be worthy of a scandal all its own.

In terms of vision for the future we see just as clearly what the Conservatives want Canada to be by what they don't spend money on. The Conservative vision for Canada succeeding in the 21st century seems to rely on making it easier to develop more resource projects with less risk of being slowed down by environmental concerns.

They are clearly betting that setbacks to Canadian oil development, such as the recent canceling of the Keystone oil pipeline to the U.S., will be more the exception than the rule in the future. Now they are also targeting charities that have spoken out against our environmental record. The Conservatives are assuming that demand will only increase for our oil and other resources even as the impact of climate change accelerates over the next century and new technologies change how resources and energy are used.

A truly bold vision would chart a way forward over the next 50 years shifting from our current dirty resource industries towards developing new renewable technologies. With Canada's skills, resources, and experience there is no reason Canada could not aim to become a sustainable energy superpower which would make it more likely Canada will remain prosperous in an uncertain future.

So if Canada is a leader in policy reasonableness in some ways, it will be despite this budget rather than because of it. In fact, after the next couple years of majority Conservative rule, we may have a few more things that need fixing than when they started.]]> Time to Throw Mayor Ford's Plans Under the Bus tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1376771 2012-03-26T09:05:07-04:00 2012-05-26T05:12:01-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ this article on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's defeat of his pet subway plan. After losing fairly, 24 - 19 in council, the mayor had this response:
"Obviously the campaign starts now and I'm willing to take anyone on, streetcars against subways, in the next election. I can't wait for that," he told reporters.

 Um, no Mr. Ford, the campaign does not start now because you still have TWO YEARS LEFT AS MAYOR! Are you not planning to try to run the city in that time? Are you just going to spend all your time trying to stop the project that the majority of council wants because it wasn't your idea? That seems pretty petty. It's not even like they are proposing something completely different. They are proposing a cheaper, faster alternative to get more people moving in the city. One which has already been approved by the provincial government. You want the slower to build, partially unfunded, more expensive version and now that you didn't get your way, you say you are going to spend all the remaining time trying to foil the cheaper solution? And you came in trying to cut government spending? Right...


I do not...understand. I know Mayor Ford still has a lot of support in the city but can we get rid of this clown? He's not taking the job seriously at all. He wasn't elected king -- he was elected mayor of a city where the council rules. Oh and about his "huge majority support" thing:

In this article former mayor of Ottawa Bob Chiarelli says (and the writer does not correct him)


"The mayor was elected by a very strong majority, so he's very relevant. But council is very relevant. We all have to understand it's council that rules. The mayor has one vote. Council speaks for the city of Toronto."

Actually that's not true either. Ford clearly won but it wasn't a majority and it was actually quite close. He got 47% of the vote -- more than half the city didn't want him. If there were only two candidates instead of 3-plus, the vote would have been a hair's breadth apart and it's not clear who would have won.


So he's relevant because he's the mayor. But he doesn't have a stronger mandate than the council and he can't overrule the council or fire them, unlike public servants whom he seems to love firing when they dare to disagree with him. Mayor Ford, start taking this job seriously or just stand back and let the council do it's job.
]]> Why the Media Has Mulcair All Wrong tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1378672 2012-03-26T01:15:26-04:00 2012-05-25T05:12:02-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/
The media seem obsessed with the difficulty of creating party unity and "healing the wounds," of the campaign. I really don't get a sense that there will be a lot of wounds. The NDP have less of a history of this than the Liberal party and the opportunity for growth as well as the importance of fighting a single adversary will surely focus the party to put aside their differences and work together under Mulcair's leadership.

As long as he doesn't alienate those who ran against him or their supporters it should be fine. I do hope he takes to heart the influx of new voices the party saw epitomized by Nathan Cullen and his more radical proposals for cooperation with other parties. It's clear Mulcair isn't a fan of that proposal, preferring to "unite progressives" by destroying the Liberal party. We'll see how that goes for them...

I thought Mulcair gave a speech that was clear with great ideas. You wouldn't think that to hear most media reports of how it "lacked fire'" though. During the speech he talked a lot about what the NDP can do differently than the Conservatives to bring in young voters. He claims of the youth vote: "It's not that they don't care it's that they don't trust that their vote will make a difference."

He says the NDP's performance last election showed "you can vote for the change that you want and actually get it," and again "democracy can't just mean the right to vote... it's the knowledge that your vote matters, that you take part in steering the course of our country's future."

That all sounds good to me, but in my mind the obvious, best way to achieve these noble goals is by reforming our electoral process so that all votes count equally and less votes are wasted by winner-take-all counting. So I was excited that was what he would say next. But it was not to be. His point was rather that if the NDP are a viable option to win, and you trust them to do what they actually say, then your vote will count more.

Well, yes and no Tom (can I call you Tom?).

All parties should always be trying to fulfill their promises when in government. In many ways that is exactly what the Conservative party is about to do this week with their budget and what they have already done with their ridiculous crime bill and destruction of the long gun registry. The real problem is not that politicians don't do what they promise when they get into office, it is that the wrong politicians get into office even though a majority of the country didn't want them in charge. That is why Nathan Cullen's modest proposal was so important and why electoral reform really needs to be front and centre next election if the NDP is serious about making the votes of Canadians count again.

But I'll give Mulcair the benefit of the doubt for now. All the NDP candidates are on the record as supporting electoral reform to some degree. FairVote Canada seems to be pretty happy with Mulcair's election as leader as they point out he has previously said:
 "Canadians are well aware of the pitfalls of our electoral system. They agree with us that change is needed. When we get elected, we will get elected with a strong mandate to address those shortcomings. If needed, we will cooperate with other parties in the House of Commons and the Senate in order to make electoral reform a reality."

Perhaps the acceptance speech isn't the place to bring that up again. Perhaps the short-term goal of turning the NDP into a "structured opposition" (was it unstructured until yesterday?) and a Conservative destroying machine (not to mention Bloc and Liberal destroying too) is really the best strategy for them right now.


All I can say is, he better have lots of fire on Monday in the House of Commons or the media won't stop pestering him.]]> NDP Leader: A Vote I'm Happy Not Casting tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1371811 2012-03-22T17:17:08-04:00 2012-05-22T05:12:01-04:00 Mark Crowley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crowley/ democratic reform bloggers.

"Curiosity Cat" overwhelmingly supports Nathan Cullen for reasons that make a lot of sense to me. He's in favour of electoral reform and actively wants to talk about the possibility of some kind of strategic coalition with the Liberals in the next election to ensure the majority of voter's voices are heard despite the biased and unfair nature of our horrible voting system. Chrystal Ocean who blogs at "Challenging the Commonplace" has similar concerns.

"Counterweights" agrees, but sagely cautions that it probably isn't going to happen and that Thomas Mulcair really has some advantages in having a better chance of holding the Quebec/B.C. alliance that is the "Orange Crush" NDP together.

Wilf Day, another great DemReform blogger, points out this site for New Democrats for Fair Voting, which lists the candidate's stands on electoral reform. LeadNow, which was responsible for some of that inrush of new, reform-minded NDP voters has its own list comparing the candidates on their commitment to electoral reform.

Old party insiders support Brian Topp or Peggy Nash, but they're not all bad either. Many people who see a chance for real change have rushed in to the party to support Nathan Cullen but know nothing and care nothing about the party's history. So predicting their second choices is hard. Meanwhile the party's traditional base and most of its MPs support Mulcair. His supporters were so confident he should be anointed leader they started campaigning perhaps a bit too quickly last fall.

With NDP support at record levels and Conservative support dropping, maybe the best approach for the NDP is to go with attack-dog Mulcair. Maybe they can get rid of the Liberals altogether and win the next election on their own without any compromise.

Good for the NDP, but is the best thing for a country to have a leader unwilling to reform the flawed voting system that has put us in this predicament? Is it oversimplifying the electorate to think we can ever go back to two main parties swinging at each other, no matter who the leaders are? Can the NDP really speak for all the Liberals out there? More importantly, could they ever convince Liberal voters to vote for the NDP rather than the Conservatives?

And what about Quebec? If Mulcair doesn't win the pundit class tell us that Quebec will go back to the Bloc and we'll worse off than we were before? Is that even true?

And how do all these calculations change if Bob Rae doesn't step down as planned?

All I know is, I'm kind of glad I'm not voting in this one.
]]>