Think of It as an Electoral Stimulus Package

The $300 million tab on an election puts off many people, and is a concern oft mentioned by those opposed to an election in the recent future. They cite times of economic stability that prerequisite political stability. What if we thought of all this spending as a stimulus package instead? After all, elections are good for the economy. Candidates spend around $120 billion in their local constituencies. What's more, elections are also good for the job market, temporarily taking thousands of workers off the unemployment rolls, being hired by Elections Canada instead.

The Toronto Star had a good article on this yesterday:

A look through individual candidates' 2008 receipts – available by appointment at Elections Canada – reveals the flurry of local largesse: pizza shops, printing houses, bus companies, computer stores, community newspapers, flower shops and a host of other suppliers all cashed in.

Elections Canada also hires thousands of temporary workers, Dungan notes, which could prove timely in this autumn of rising unemployment.

"You might say there are more creative ways of doing that, but it does stimulate the economy," said the professor.

"The idea that it's a complete waste is not true."

Elections Canada says it spent $280 million on the October 2008 vote, a cost that comes directly out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The figure is in line with two previous elections. The June 2004 vote cost $274 million, while January 2006 cost $272 million.

Elections Canada covers the cost of hiring workers, leasing office space for returning officers, renting polling stations, training field staff, printing ballots and voters lists, advertising, and information technology – plus reimbursing candidates and parties to the tune of about $60 million.

That reimbursement is based on a 50 per cent rebate of campaign expenses of candidates and parties. So it is safe to assume at least another $60 million – most of it taxpayer-subsidized in one way or another – is also pumped into the economy during the six-week election period.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

The possible excuse for Ignatieff's silence

In the last few federal elections, there has been only one instance of a grand idea being at the centre of a party's platform, a grand idea that could be the basis of a wide-ranging, encompassing and compelling debate. If Ignatieff is preparing his first move in such a debate, then his summer hibernation would be warranted.

For one, this would ensure that Ignatieff would not need to tip his hand too much on other issues, as the media would be focused instead on his grand "idea", and so would Harper and his cronies. This would also provide an opportunity to conceptualise new policies.

Not only that, but coming up with a grand "idea", if done right, can interest people in politics more than business as usual. People get engaged, and they get to meet the new leader who proposed such an idea.

And, as an added bonus, it motivates young people to come out and vote, and youth vote more consistently for the Liberals and the NDP.

Let's hope this is what Ignatieff has been up to.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

To pull or not to pull the plug, that is the question

To pull or not to pull the plug, that is the question. On the one hand there are clear benefits for Michael Ignatieff in attempting to force an election now. Not only would this corroborate well with what he has been saying, the polls are looking up for the Liberals and it could be that they would be able to ride the "sexy" wave into office.

However, on the flip side, outside of us political junkies, I doubt the public has an appetite for an election right now. One only needs to look as far as the voter turnouts for all the elections of the last year, federal and provincial, to understand that elections at this time seem to be a turn-off.

The concern here is that Harper would pull off an ad campaign in which he spins the story that Ignatieff is the one who caused the whole summer election. Of course, it takes two to tango. But our PM will forget this, especially as he is the one most responsible for the threats of an election. At a time like this, when the opposition parties represent more than 60% of the electorate, it would be wise to follow their demands.

Ignatieff has a tough choice. Pull the plug and you may win the election, or you will get blamed for it. At the end of the day, it comes down to this. Are Canadians frustrated enough with the lack of leadership, economic management and attitude from Conservatives to pull themselves away from their BBQs to vote this summer?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Let's get a steadier hand at the tiller

In the last election campaign, one of Stephen Harper's recurring messages was that the Conservatives would be able to keep a steady hand at the tiller. We were told that only they could successfully navigate the murky and dangerous economic waters ahead. Now fast forward to today. Does this assertion seem to be true?

If it is, then I don't know what a steady hand at the tiller is. Does a sudden increase in projected deficit figures seem like that to you? Because that is what the "steady hand at the tiller" Conservatives are presenting us with. A few months ago, the federal deficit was going to be only $34 billion. Now it's $50 billion. Who knows what it will be next.

Flaherty, and his Prime Minister, have shown that they are anything but steady hands at the tiller. I appreciate and fully support the creation of stimulus packages for the economy. I understand that this stimulus requires deficit spending. However, what I fail to understand is how the Conservatives can be considered good fiscal managers?

Previously, they maintained that there wasn't even going to be any deficit. They clearly are out of touch with the economy. So when Ignatieff says that he is contemplating an attempt at a mid-summer election, I agree. We need to get government that is at least able to predict deficits, and have the courtesy to warn the public. Unlike the Conservatives, who tell half-truths to get elected.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Fearmongerers are wrong: Electoral reform is not dead

The results are in, and BC-STV failed miserably, winning only 40% of the vote and failing to garner the majority of voes in 78 of the 85 provincial ridings. According to STV advocates, this has effectively killed any chance of electoral reform in BC, let alone the country, for at least a generation. These people are wrong.

They are being blinded by their commitment to STV. The fact is that they are assuming that all of those of us committed to electoral reform would vote for STV. Although I am not yet old enough to vote, in the BC student vote I voted against STV, and this for a perfectly good, reform minded reason. If we selected STV, it may have been a generation until we changed to a more proportional, less problematic system. The one I would advocate is MMP.

There is no reason why electoral reform cannot happen, and relatively soon. Carole James alludes to this, as she said that if the referendum were too fail, she was still committed to a referendum on MMP if we so desired.

So there is will on the political side of things to continue this process of electoral reform. Just because STV wasn't chosen doesn't mean we cannot advocate, and pass, MMP soon. We need to make it known that our will for electoral reform has not died, and that we want a referendum on MMP.

And, this time, why not bring forward the referendum to a separate day. There is no law that it must be on election day. Let's push for a referendum on MMP within two years, and that way, we can use MMP in the next election.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

STV is not better than MMP. MMP is much more proportional. Citizens' Assembly Wrong.

Upon reading through the British Columbia Citizens' Association on Electoral Reform's explanations for choosing STV over MMP, I was sorely disappointed.

The BCCAEF maintained that the proportionality obtained in STV is the same as in MMP. This, however, is not the case. There is plenty of documentation of cases in which parties under STV actually won more seats than they were entitled to on a purely proportional basis.

In Ireland's 2007 election, Sein Fein won 6.9% of the vote and elected 4 TDs while the Green Party won 4.7% of the vote and elected 6 TDs. Ireland's long governing party, Fianna Fail, won 41.6% of the vote and elected 78 TDs (47.0%). This is clearly disproportional. In fact, it accomplishes something FPTP does. Giving more seats to parties with less votes.

Here is an explanation of MMP. As you can see, in MMP, as close to proper proportionality as possible is achieved. This is not the case in STV.

On the BCCAFEA website, they maintain that MMP retains problems from FPTP. However, they do not mention any of these. In contrast, it is clear that STV retains the problems from FPTP of electing people solely based on their riding. This is what allows for the disproportion that it has seen.

Is the BCCAFEA so desperate to push through their brainchild that they will distort facts, and tell us that STV is equal to MMP in terms of proportionality? If they are, that is all the more disconcerting.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Will STV make some voters angry?

In the last referendum on the question of switching to STV in BC, 58% of voters indicated that they would prefer to vote in a STV system rather than a FPTP system. However, this statistic is very difficult to line up with poll numbers from the coalition drama at the beginning of this year.

Back then, 65% of Western Canadians were found in a Nanos poll to prefer an election were the Tories to be defeated, instead of a coalition. Now, you may ask, what is the link between STV and coalitions?

Under a proportional system such as STV, there are hardly ever clear cut majorities in the legislatures because hardly ever does one receive 50% of the vote. This consequently leads to 2 scenarios:

1. Minority government
2. Coalition government

Many Canadians view both these forms of government as unstable and thereby undesirable. The claims often take the form "with a majority, the government can pass what it wants, hence making government more stable".

These concerns were shown to be important to BC voters in the polls surrounding the possibility of a coalition at the national level, but it seems that at the provincial level, many citizens have not made the connection between STV and coalitions.

This is not to say that I do not think that coalitions are a viable form of government. They are in many cases very successful governments (take Borden's Union party).

But, what we don't want to see is voters that do not realize this aspect of STV, and are then outraged at all the coalitions being formed and the instability of government. Minority governments and coalitions are one reality that has to be grasped if proportional representation is to be achieved.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

STV: Should we apply it to the federal level?

Yet again, the Single Transferable Vote is being proposed in a referendum along with the provincial elections in BC. Single Transferable vote is a system seeking to create representation that better reflects the popular vote.

Since this question keeps recurring at the provincial level here in BC, why is it not surfacing at the federal level? STV, in its current format, is better designed for the federal level than the BC provincial level. This is the case because STV is designed to provide a voice to smaller parties, and ensure that they can compete against the usual powers. At the BC level, we only have two parties that have held seats in the Legislative Assembly. Whereas at the federal level, we have the BQ, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP.

Surely STV would be even more effective at the federal level. Thoughts?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere