What have we found? The same old fear(mongering)

Apologies to Pink Floyd, but that was my impression reading the Star's editorial on the electoral reform referendum. Once again, there's the old canard about "unstable" minorities under MMP. Too bad that the numbers don't bear that out. They also rehash the bit about how the "party bosses" can appoint the list MPPs, forgetting of course that party bosses can do the very same thing with MPPs in ridings.

Oddly they credit John Tory as a courageous for speaking out against a system that would have offered his party "marginal gain" in the Star's opinion. I say it's odd because another FPTP proponent predicted that the PCs would suffer as a permanent opposition under MMP. Those against MMP can't even decide who would win or lose because of it. There is of course no way to know that in terms of parties. The thing we do know is that voters would win, what with no more wasted votes.

There are the other usual fear-mongering bits in this article too. Things like the old scenario trotted out where a major party would form a coalition with a fringe group of radicals and impose some idiotic policy to satisfy the smaller partner. The idea that any party would do something so politically suicidal and stupid makes me doubtful. The German government has not lurched from one radical policy to another in order to satisfy minority partners. This scenario is one of the more obvious red herrings tossed out by the FPTPers. I know this because they never cite any examples.

I'm convinced that MMP is the right direction for this province. I'd like it if the biggest daily in Toronto would come around and see the light. In other words, wish you were here.

Cherniak on MMP

There's a great deal in this post to go over, but here are some of Jason's concerns with MMP and my italicized commentary:

1) Any party that gets at least 3% of the vote would elect an MPP. That means that a party like the Christian Heritage Party would have no goal other than to earn 3% of the total vote. If they were to succeed, they would have an MPP elected. They don't get that much right now, but with the knowledge that only 3% across the province earns a seat, I suspect that there would be more incentive to actually vote for them. Shock! Horror! People might vote for socially conservative political parties! I thought that democracy wasn't just a privilege we extended to those with whom we agreed.

2) With 5-10% of the vote, the Green Party would win its first seat in Canada. They would probably get somewhere between 6 and 13 elected politicians. However, since those politicians are unlikely to be elected in a riding, they would have no local responsibilities. They would only be accountable to the people who put together the Green Party list and there would be little incentive for them to worry about personal popularity. As long as the idea of the "Green Party" is popular with 5 - 10% of the population, they would probably continue to get elected as long as they want. Well, accountable to the Green Party list makers as well as the voters of Ontario. If they are idiots they will not last. By this logic MPPs are accountable only to the riding associations that nominate them. Yes they, could run as independents but you really need a great deal of name-recognition to do that. Maybe only one person can pull it off in a given election cycle. Everyone who wants to win needs the party's blessing and the riding association's blessing.

3) Parties that currently earn less MPPs than popular vote would be more represented. If the NDP were to win 15% of the vote and 7 ridings as they did in 2003, they would get their 7 local MPPs along with another 10-15 MPPs with no local responsibilities. That would give the NDP a caucus of around 17 - 25 MPPs where 7 MPPs have to worry about a local riding while 10 - 15 only need to worry about getting their names on the next list. There would be a hierarchy of sorts where I suspect that the local MPPs would ultimately get pushed to the side as the proportional MPPs suck up to those who create the list. Given that the leader of the NDP already has a riding, I fail to see how he would be pushed aside. Actually this whole hierarchy scenario seems highly speculative. Since MMP is practiced elsewhere, perhaps Jason can give us a concrete example of this transpiring.

4) If you look at the 2003 election results, you will see that the official opposition got almost exactly the same percentage of seats as they did votes. However, if there had been much of a swing further away from the Tories, we could have ended up with a legislature of almost all Liberals even though the Tories might have had 25 - 30% of the vote overall. The one advantage of MMP, in my opinion, is the guarantee that there will always be a real opposition in the legislature. However, this has never been a problem in Ontario so I don't see that theoretical concern as a reason to support MMP. If you actually get the same percentage of seats as you did votes, then MPP wouldn't really change that. The opposition has been reduced to oblivion or near oblivion in other provinces before. It could happen here.

5) The party that wins in the ridings would probably get none of the proportional seats because they would already have more seats than they "deserve". As a result, if the Liberals were to win an election under MMP, they would probably get a majority of the riding seats and few or no proportional seats. This would mean that the government would only have MPPs who do constituency work, while at least half of the opposition politicians would be able to spend all their time working at a provincial level. To me, this is one of the most profound and obvious flaws of MMP. How can you have a functioning democracy where the Ministers are busy doing local riding work but the opposition has extra free time to work at the provincial level? It would create incentive for ministers to stop doing local work, but they would also need to worry about doing the local work to get reelected. Essentially, it would be a no-win situation where the opposition always has the advantage, no matter who is in government. Oh good heavens, I can't imagine how a minister can be expected to do his or her job if they have to flip burgers and cut the ribbon on a daycare once in a while. Don't ministers get nice big office budgets and lots of advice from senior civil servants anyway? This paragraph makes it sound as though poor cabinet ministers will be working the phones in some crummy restaurant-turned-constituency office while the opposition's nefarious list MPPs sit in some kind of command centre where they may gather information from their myriad of computers and hijack TVO to send out propaganda. One imagines that list MPPs may actually go out and deal with particular issues in the province, if not in one riding, then perhaps in one area or industry - Greens fighting the proposed Durham incinerator perhaps. List MPPs are still contingent beings confined to being in one place at one time.

Jason then goes on to propose that the real problem he has with this system is that it wasn't the one that he liked in 1998. There are merits to the preferential ballot, but that does not negate the merits of MMP - nor is it an excuse to not vote for MMP.

MMP vs. Fleetwood Mac

This is either desperation or Cherniak's attempt at humour, you decide:

"2) So far, the supporters of MMP only seem to be able to argue that us NO MMP people are "lying". If that's the best they've got..."

If that's the only thing Jason thinks that fans of MMP have, then he hasn't been paying attention. Anyway, this is for you, MMP opponents:

Toronto's Subway Woes

First it seemed like Giambrone was going to close it down, but now it appears that there will be consultations and the like before anything substantive is done. In other words we are at least six months away from closing a subway line. There is some discussion as to whether this was some kind of bluff, Giambrone said not on CBC radio last night. Of course if it was a bluff, it would not profit the TTC to say so. My gut instinct on this though is that there will be a way found to save the subway line. The sort of blow to Toronto's collective psyche from losing a whole subway line as well as the optics of a Kyoto-embracing city closing public transportation will keep the line open.

In the meantime this is going to be something that plays to the coming provincial election. John Tory promises that he will rebalance provincial-municipal roles and responsibilities (and their financial burdens) so that Toronto might have a prayer of affording to run a city. Like fixing healthcare on the federal scene this sounds like the type of thing were a great deal of meeting and accord-writing can happen without anything substantive getting done. I'm not sure how the, uh, Harris rump still in Tory's Tories will take to this plan to renege on their legacy.

Meanwhile Jason Cherniak is putting the blame on the city itself. I'm not sure I get where Cherniak is going though with his post, I'm not aware of Toronto spending all kinds of money on "tearing down highways" or any such thing. It's as though he forgot about the downloading mess that we were stuck with ten years ago. Or perhaps we need to read into Cherniak's line about "a bunch of politicians far too easily reelected year after year [that] are unable to get their bloody acts together" a slightly veiled criticism of the NDP members of Toronto City Council.

Using Harper's Logic...

Cherniak has posted on Harper telling Dion that Dion's opinion on military matters is "irrelevant" because Dion has not served in the military.

By that logic, no one but teachers may comment on education, no one but police may comment on crime, no one but doctors may comment on healthcare, et cetera, indeed perhaps Harper will next suggest that only other Prime Ministers can critique him. What a stupid, stupid, cheap rhetorical trick.

On Israel, The Palestinians, and The Media

Jason Cherniak has written a post about his dissatisfaction on how The Toronto Star portrays the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I was going to just leave a brief comment, but I ended up writing the jeremiad that you see below:

On the specific matter that Cherniak claims was under-reported: I was aware of the Fatah-Hamas conflict, no I don't recall if I read it in the Star, but I was aware. I'm sure that the National Post reported this affair in a far more Israel-sympathetic way so it balances out.

I have to say that there are vicious war criminals on both sides of this conflict. Any honest inquiry will lead you to that conclusion. I am sick though, so sick and tired of reading one-sided, myopic commentary from either party. I'm sick of the ex-pat peanut gallery on both sides engaging all manner of rhetoric and conspiracy talk to suggest that they are the forces of shining truth and it's only those idiots in the media that ruin a glorious narrative.

Why do I say "war criminals?" Well, neither side in this conflict has the faintest idea what a proportionate response is, one side shells and bombs randomly, the other claims a "targetted" response that often involves bombing the hell out of an entire building, neighbourhood, city or UN Peacekeeping post.

On that note I see the slogan on pro-Israel fundraising signs that reads "We don't leave our sons behind." Sure, fine, but you'll bomb the fuck out of Canada's sons too. I don't care that Israel apologized or that Harper eagerly accepted, if one of the premises of Israel going to war was to contrast some kind of IDF "leave no man behind" ethos with suicide bombers, I really think that killing the soldiers of other countries to make that point sort of undermines it.

I don't know if I've made a coherent case here, about anything, but I'm so sick of this. I want to believe that ordinary Israelis and Palestinians are too. What fuels this conflict in part has to be the aforementioned overseas cheering sections. Everyone from US evangelicals to Saudi financiers has taken an interest in this conflict. It reminds me of Bono talking about Irish Americans who hadn't gone back to Ireland talking about the glory of the "revolution":

Really, really important discovery!

Jason Cherniak has claimed (in this blog's comments section no less) that Stephane Dion is a Monty Python fan. For a pop culture nerd like me this is fascinating. We the anarcho-syndicalist peasants demand to know!

Who is at "fault" if May does not win her seat?

I'm not a member of any political party (and I'm really not planning to change that) so I've sort of treated the Dion-May alliance/fiasco as a kind of spectator sport (albeit one with potential long-term consequences). Naturally all kinds of opinions have been flying, particularly between Grits and Dippers. My attention was caught today though by something that Jason Cherniak said:

"...if Jack [Layton] were smart he would agree to not run a candidate against Elizabeth May. Then Dion would gain much less from his deal and May would no longer be able to attack the NDP. As things now stand, if May loses and MacKay gets less than 50% of the vote, then Layton will be solely to blame. How many non-partisan progressive voters will like that one? I suspect May understands that she needs to take down #3 before she can even think about Green Party government."

I suppose, given Jason's roll in the Liberal party, he's just doing his job. That said, let me give a response to his rhetorical question about what "non-partisan progressive voters" (like me) would think about May losing Central Nova. First of all, it's one seat. I don't see how Layton would be "solely" to blame anyway. If May runs a mediocre campaign is that Layton's fault? What if the NDP candidate finishes ahead of May, is it then solely May's fault that the NDP lost? Moreover, the NDP never insisted that May run in Central Nova - a riding where the NDP was competitive (at least more so than either the Greens or the Liberals).

Now I don't want to sound like someone who's adopted NDP talking points or anything, so let me just reiterate: I don't think that anyone could point to a single individual and say that they are at fault for an undesirable outcome in an event as complex as a Canadian election.

This is starting to remind me of the bickering liberation fronts in Life of Brian, remember, what the "non-partisan progressive voter" (i.e.: me) wants is for Harper to go away.

Three Strikes vs. Unintended Consequences

Jason Cherniak has posted on Conservative attempts at putting in some kind of three strikes anti-crime legislation. Of course this is a great way to play up their "law-and-order" image.

After three serious offenses, you'd think that someone ought to be put away for good, right? Well the problem is that even the dumbest criminals can count to three, as a result, police wanting to arrest someone who already has two strikes tend to have a real devil of a time with it in the US. If the guy fears he's going away for good there's a much better chance he'll engage in a shoot-out, high-speed chase or something else that risks civilian and police lives.

Of course most "tough-on-crime" politicians just go for emotionally satisfying ploys based on the rules of a sport. The problem is that there are enough people (mostly Toronto Sun columnists) who get swept up by this incredibly stupid rhetoric. It will get most police officers injured, many of the US jurisdictions that have such laws are starting to turn away from them.

War with Iran? What War with Iran?

So it appears that Jason Cherniak has now clarified his original post. He says that it was just a simple question that has since been clarified for him by Michelle Oliel in his comments section. A quote from Ms. Oliel's comment:

"I doubt that the British can make a claim that attacking the nuclear reactor is imminent or proportionate to what the Iranians did."

Indeed. I think why so many of us were concerned about Jason's question was that we took such an assertion for granted. It was that taking for granted that caused me at least to question what exactly Jason was trying to say here.

More on Cherniak's War

Erik Abbink has a great post on the topic breaking down the rhetoric used in the original. Erik (like me but with better articulation) is aghast that Jason seems to be looking for a war.

The Canadian Observer suggests that Jason sign-up for such a reprisal on Iran himself. This is perhaps a bridge too far. Like I said in my prior post, I'm not sure how bellicose Jason is being here. He hasn't posted any clarification, so let's give him at least some benefit of the doubt. Besides, there are plenty of others who should strap on boots ahead of Cherniak, Ezra Levant, I'm looking at your sorry ass.

Oh! What a Lovely War!

It's really very difficult to grasp tone online. I hope I am wrong here, but I fear that I detected a note of excitement in Jason Cherniak's reporting of this incident as being an act of war. When he adds in the comments section of the post that maybe the British will respond with a strike against nuclear targets, it sounds again like he's hoping that will - or ought to be - the solution.

As others point out, the waterway where this all happened is disputed territory. Additionally, if you read the original CTV posting, you'll find that a similar incident had happened in the past. I suppose I should add that the US-led coalition in Iraq has no problem with arresting members of the Iranian diplomatic corps. Nor does the IDF - since we're talking about the middle east - have a problem with murdering sort of inadvertently yet somehow deliberately firing missiles at Canadian soldiers. Iran's actions, unpleasant as they may be, are more or less par for the course in this region and hardly a reason to touch off widespread airstrikes. Why would anyone want them to be a reason to do that?

I had thought that we had learned our lesson about finding flimsy pretexts for military attacks. Either way I suspect there will be a week of intense negotiations, followed by the release of the British soldiers. So I like I said, I hope I misread Jason's tone, if not that of some of those in his comments section. Iran wouldn't be any more of a pleasant place to attack than Iraq.

Edit: I'm not sure why the comments don't work on this post.
Edit: Fixed it!

I am shocked! Shocked that anyone would call Harper "far right"

I was reading Cherniak's post about Stephen Taylor's little pants-wetting over CTV's use of the term "Far Right." Cherniak makes the point that Dion is allowed to characterize Harper as he sees fit. Fair enough. What I want to know though is why the Conservatives are so cowed by the term "far right" all of a sudden? Oh wait, they want a majority. Anyone serious examination of Harper's connections should scream "far right" - or at least to the right of mainstream Canadian politics. From the National Citizens Coalition to his stance on Iraq, Harper has lots of far-right credentials.

Oh, and one more thing, Taylor makes the point that CTV needs to address the "issue" of kid gloves. Issue? Please, Harper won't speak to anyone who doesn't treat him with kid gloves. Ask the National Press Gallery.

The Conservatives like to talk tough. They talk tough about terror and law and order, but really, what a bunch of wusses. One soft interview - ON A MORNING SHOW and they start crying in their milk. No one mentioned that either. They probably put Dion in between some guy with zoo animals and a child xylophone prodigy. It's softball TV.

Some Friendly Advice to Jason Cherniak (and Other Libloggers)

I have rather enjoyed the parodies/responses to the Tory attack ads that you posted here and here. It's really not that difficult to dig up embarrassing quotes on Harper and the environment, but kudos to you for putting them in video form.

There is one thing though that I fear you may be overlooking: the attacks on Dion seem like classic Karl Rove tactics. You know this one, hit your opponent's strength. Dion ran on the environment, so that's where Harper hit him. The trap that the classic Rove move sets for you though is that you hit back in the same place. That's the desired effect - at least I think it is.

Here's why: In 2004, one of the principle perceived strengths of John Kerry as a candidate was his distinguished military service in combat (versus Bush's somewhat spotty record in the relative safety of the Texas Air National Guard). So what do to, attack Kerry's military record (by proxy of course). Sure, the Dems could hit back in the same way, but in the end, what Rove did was nullify military service as a dimension of the campaign. Partisans knew whose military record they liked better, but the general public was confused.

In the same manner, I think Harper's people want to nullify the environment as an issue. Most Canadians probably already consider Harper only slightly better than the Exxon Valdez on the environment. By confusing people on who has a good environmental record though, the Tories take it off the table as a way of differentiating between parties. Sure, nerds like me who read political blogs will know what's up, but Joe Voter just gets the vague sense that neither leader is a darling on the environment.

So here's what I'd do, make sure to respond to attacks, but also attack the CPC's perceived strengths.

Here's an example:
The Tories are trying to cast themselves as anti-corruption/cleaner government/more accountable, well, look at every government procurement. Harper's new defense spending should make this easy. Every maintenance contract that ends up in a cabinet minister's riding should get a mention. Every time you mention Gordon O'Connor, say "former defense industry lobbyist Gordon O'Connor" even if it is a mouth-full. Does anything stink about O'Connor's contacts in the industry and the C-17 contract?

See where I'm going? Don't just hit Harper where he hits you, hit him where he thinks he's stronger.