Hubert Chathi

Hubert Chathi: I'm not happy that Obama won. I'm relieved that Romney didn't. #politics

Hubert Chathi: Get the Ontario MPPs back to work #politics

Hubert Chathi: "5 ways Canadians are protesting the budget bill" #politics #environment

Hubert Chathi: I'm speaking out in defence of nature and democracy #BLACKOUTSPEAKOUT #environment #politics

Hubert Chathi: "We've done some checking, and we've found that we need better researchers." #elxn41 #politics

Hubert Chathi: wouldn't call complaints in 45 (and counting) out of 308 ridings "isolated" #politics #elxn41

Hubert Chathi: likes today's Non Sequitur #politics

Hubert Chathi: agrees with Peter Milliken http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/14/peter-milliken-parliament.html #politics

I voted last night (we even brought Ivan along, although he slept through the whole voting process), which means that I'm allowed to complain about the results. So complain, I will.

A Conservative majority? Really? Canada, what were you thinking?!?! The Conservatives have shown contempt for parliament, shut down the house twice to avoid dealing with issues, broke their own election law (if not the letter of the law, at least the spirit of it), among other things, and you give them a majority? (Granted, over 60% of Canadians who cared enough to vote voted against the Conservatives.)

The winners

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives: Harper got the majority he wanted, and proved to Canada that he is the Teflon man. His FUD campaign worked, and he spooked people with the coalition boogey man. He somehow managed to convince people that he had something to do with Canada's economic recovery. He now has free reign for four years.

Elizabeth May and the Green Party: won in her riding, so we finally have a Green Party MP. It will be interesting to see what she does in Parliament. Maybe the Broadcasting consortium will have a harder time ignoring her next time.

The NDP: Official Opposition status, and the best election result they've ever had.

The Liberals: Michael Ignatief was probably the worst thing to happen to the Liberals for a long time. With the loss, Ignatief has resigned. Liberal Party of Canada, please pick someone good to lead you this time.

The losers

The Green Party: even though they finally have a seat, they dropped in the popular vote, but then, that's to be expected in a tight race, with first-past-the-post: the less-popular parties lose support as everyone votes for the lesser of two evils.

Michael Ignatief and the Liberals: the first time they ended up in third place. Nothing they attacked the Conservatives on would stick, and they were unable to make an issue out of anything. Ignatief even lost his own seat.

Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc: at one point, they were the official opposition, and now they don't even have official party status. Duceppe lost his own seat as well. Is this the beginning of the end for the Bloc? Or did Québec just get charmed by the NDP this time? If he wasn't a separatist, Duceppe would have probably made the best Prime Minister out of all the party leaders.

Canada: the Conservatives pulled off some stupid things when they were held in check by a minority. What will happen now that they don't have to care about what anyone else says?

Electoral reform

Electoral reform is dead for the next four years. The NDP will push for it, but the Conservatives will ignore them. They've benefited a lot from the current system. Why would they change it?

Although Proportional Representation gets the most attention, I think that there is one major flaw with most PR systems: it gives independents a harder time. I would prefer a system in which voters rank candidates by preference. Condorcet would be my preference. STV/IRV would be my second pick. Even Approval voting would be an improvement. Note that these systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive with Proportional Representation. But I think that the calls for PR would be lessened if we used one of the above systems.

Shenanigans

Someone has been telling people that their polling station has moved. Nobody knows who is behind it, yet, but it's quite a serious offence, and I hope that whoever it is gets found out.

Hubert Chathi: "he needs to be out campaigning, not in debates" translates to "he's about fluff, not substance" http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/18/cv-election-tory-candidates.html #elxn41 #politics

Hubert Chathi: is not surprised: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/22/stimulus-spending.html #politics

Yesterday, Ontario gave the Liberals yet another “massive majority” (Globe and Mail) — with only 42% of the popular vote. The Green party more than doubled their vote, up to 8% from 2.8% in 2003, they still didn't get a seat.

And there's no end to this in sight — in the “other” ballot, MMP was solidly voted down. (Globe and Mail) MMP only received 36.8% support (60% needed), and received majority support in only 5 ridings (64 needed).

Why did MMP fare so badly? Apparently, people still didn't know about the referendum. Despite the fact that everyone got a pamphlet included with their voter registration card. And multiple pamphlets stuffed in their mailbox. But in never managed to become a major debate issue. And only 52% of eligible voters decided to show up (a record low). It seems like Ontario cares less and less about politics. Ironic, since MMP probably would have increased voter turnout.

So now BC, PEI, and Ontario have voted down electoral reform. BC came close, and they'll vote again in 2009. Hopefully, New Brunswick's referendum next year will go better. As well as Québec's court case.

On October 10, Ontario will be voting on a new election system, called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). As a quick overview, in MMP, voters will vote twice in each election: once for their local member, and once for the party. Votes for the local member will be handled as before. After that, an extra number of seats will be allocated to each political party based on the number of seats that they have won, and based on the proportion of the popular vote that they obtained, in order to ensure that the number of seats that they get in the legislature more closely matches their popular support.

Past election records

A common occurrence in our current system (First Past the Post, or FPTP, also known as Single Member Plurality), is that the government does not have popular support. In other words, more people voted against the governing party than voted for them. But if the party still has a majority of the seats, in the legislature, they are able to pass pretty much any legislation that they want.

For example, in the last Ontario election (2003), the Liberals got 46.5% of the popular vote, but won 69.9% of the seats, giving them 1.5 times more representation than they should have had. In 1990, the NDP got only 37.6% of the popular vote, but won 56.9% of the seats. While some of the numbers from other years are closer, the last time that an Ontario government enjoyed popular support was 70 years ago, in 1937.

Nationally, the numbers are much closer, but still show that FPTP creates majority governments with minority support. The worst case happened in 1997, when the Liberals won 38.5% of the popular vote, but 57.5% of the seats.

First Past the Post also creates the possibility of the second-place party coming to power. In 1979, the Tories won 36% of the vote, compared to the Liberals’ 40%, but won more seats than the Liberals, giving them a (short) minority government. In 1896, the Liberals got 51% of the seats, despite winning fewer votes than the Tories. And just last year, in the New Brunswick election, the Liberals formed the government, despite getting fewer votes than the Conservatives. (Mind you, in that last case, the margins were close: the difference in popular vote was only .4%.)

How bad can First Past the Post get? Well, let's say we have two political parties. In 51% of the ridings, the races are close, but party A takes it with 51% of the vote in each of the ridings. In the other 49% of the ridings, however, it isn't even close; party B gets 100% of the votes. If all the ridings have an equal number of votes cast, that means that party A gets just over 25% of the popular vote. However, they won 51% of the seats, which means they form the government. So in this case, we can have a government that only received 25% of the popular vote. The case can be even worse when we have three political parties, in which one party can govern with majority rule, even though they only obtained 17% of the popular vote (that is, 83% of the people voted against them).

Not only does FPTP created anomalies in the governing party, it can also create a big imbalance in other parties as well. For example, in the last federal election, the Bloc Québecois won 10.5% of the vote, but gained 16.6% of the seats (over 1.5 times what they were supposed to get). This, combined with the inflated Conservative seats, gave the Bloc the balance of power. However, the NDP won more votes (17.5%), but fewer seats (9.6%, or a bit over half of the seats that they should have won), which lost them the balance of power.

Proportional representation

A proportional representation system would solve this problem: in proportional representation, parties are assigned seats according to how many votes they get. That is, if a party gets 36% of the vote, they would get 36% roughly of the power (not counting rounding).

However, a purely proportional system eliminates local representation, and kills independent candidates (not like they don't have enough problems in the current system).

Mixed Member Proportional

In a Mixed Member Proportional system, voters would vote for their local representative as before. However, they will also vote for a political party. Then, the number of seats that each party gets from local representatives is compared against the number of seats they should get, according to the party votes. Then each party's seats are “topped up,” from a pool of additional seats, to better match the popular vote. In this way, the government formed is a closer fit to the will of the people.

This method of mixing Single Member Plurality with a proportional component ensures that we still have local representation, while having a fairer government.

Objections to MMP

I received an email that listed some objections to MMP, and so I'd like to address some (not all) of them. More answers to common objections are given in “Ten Lies about MMP”.

“List members will not be interested in the public's views”

List members are the “top-up” members. i.e., the members who are not elected locally, but added to the party's pool of seats to reflect the popular vote. The idea behind the objection is that since the list members do not represent a specific locality, they will not represent anyone.

However, the list members were elected, and so it is still in their interests to represent the public. But who do they represent? Well, the people who elected them, that is, the people who voted for their party. If you are in a riding where your MPP does not represent you, then you can talk to one of the list MPPs that you did vote for.

“MMP usually leads to more political parties”

That's an objection? Right now, there is no political party that reflects my beliefs and values. No party comes close. There are so many different views and opinions. In a democracy, all of those views should be heard. Not just the two most popular views.

“MMP produces unstable coalition governments”

They're missing a step in their logic. Let's fill it in: MMP makes minority governments more likely. And minority governments are more unstable.

The above-linked document addresses that by saying that Germany, although, they use MMP, has a very stable government. And they say that a small shift in popular vote in FPTP may create a vastly different government, while under MMP, a small shift in popular vote will make a smaller shift in government.

I want to add a different response. First of all, our goal in democracy is not necessarily stability. If you want stability, you go for a dictatorship. Of course, we also don't want complete instability either. However, a democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people. Can we really say that the public's will is being followed when the majority of the population object to the government?

The will of the people is complicated. It can't be boiled down to a couple of political parties. I think that one of the best ways to represent the will of the people is through multiple cooperating parties.

“MMP benefits small parties”

While this is true, I think it is better stated as: MMP reduces the unfair advantage currently enjoyed by larger parties.

“MMP will undermine our democratic system of government”

After looking at how the current government doesn't reflect the will of the people, can you really say that it is democratic?

Problems with MMP

Of course, MMP is not perfect. It doesn't eliminate strategic voting, but it does reduce its effects. It won't guarantee that every party will get their fair share of seats, but it will make it closer than it currently is.

No voting system is perfect. But MMP is a giant step in the right direction. It will make our government more reflective of what voters really want.

Vote!

Whatever your views on MMP, get out and vote on October 10th (if you are eligible to vote in Ontario). Democracy works best when the voice of the people is heard. You have been given a chance to make your voice heard, and to affect the way that Ontario politics happens. So make sure you make an informed decision, and get out and vote!

Links

You can find more information at:

• Vote for MMP
• Fair Vote Canada (this is where I got most of the above stats)
• Dubious Democracy: Report on Federal Elections 1980-2004
• Dubious Democracy: Ontario Elections from 1980-2004
• Ten Lies about MMP
• The conservative case for MMP by Andrew Coyne, columnist at the National Post (yes, you can be a conservative, and still feel good about voting for MMP)
• The case against first past the post also by Andrew Coyne
• Your Big Decision - the information site managed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario
• No MMP - The website for the No MMP campaign
• The pros and cons of MMP - CBC's feature. Is it just me, or does the guy from the No MMP campaign sound like a dolt?

I’ve been wanting to write this for a while now. In fact, I wanted to write it before the election. But I haven’t had time. But anyways, on with the show.

In Canada, evangelical Christianity is generally associated politically with the Conservative party (much like it is generally associated with the Republican party in the States). This association is mainly because of the Conservative’s stance on morality issues, and its defense of “family values.”

A number of Christians, however, prefer to align themselves with the left-wing parties such as the NDP or the Greens because of different reasons, mainly social justice issues. I would tend to fall into this second group.

While morality issues may be important, I believe that social justice issues are more important in the Christian’s public life, and I believe that this is supported by the Bible. It seems to me that most Christians today have become like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, comparing the lengths of their tassels, instead of being like Jesus and eating with the sinners.

The Bible says a few things about how we should interact with the rest of the world — our public life: in the beginning, we are commanded to rule over the world (Gen. 1:28) (in other words, to take care of God’s creation). We are to take care of widows, orphans, and the oppressed (James 1:27, and others). We are, ourselves, to live pure lives (Gal. 5:25, and others). And we are to make disciples (Matt. 28:19–20). But we are never commanded to impose God’s law on non-believers; we are never told to make the world conform to our morality.

(Passages such as Ezekiel 33:7–9 say that we are to warn the wicked and “dissuade him from his ways” (NIV), but this should not be taken as merely getting others to follow our morals. As can be seen from these passages, the reason for trying to get the wicked to change their ways is a salvation issue. And we know that we are not saved by not doing wicked things, but by believing in Jesus. Merely getting them to follow our morals is useless when it comes to salvation.)

While the Bible does instruct us to live moral lives, it is primarily a command for personal observance, along with for instructing fellow believers and your children.

Thus when acting politically, I believe that I should be acting according to these values: care for creation; care for the widows, orphans, and the oppressed; personal purity; and evangelism. The last two are not affected by any of the current political parties. And what is left mainly puts me alongside the values of the NDP.

(Next election essay: electoral reform.)

Canadians gave the Conservatives a minority government yesterday — the second straight minority government for Canada. While you can get better analysis elsewhere, here are some of my thoughts.

Despite a poor Liberal campaign, and the various scandals, the Liberals still managed to get a third of the seats, and just under a third of the popular vote. Is this a sign of the strength of the Liberal party? Probably a sign that Canadians don’t feel comfortable giving the Conservatives a majority yet. Canadians wanted to punish the Liberals, but did not want to give the Conservatives too much power. If the Conservatives are to survive, Harper must use the next couple of years to show Canadians that the Conservatives are not as right-wing as they are perceived to be. Since they now have representation from every part of the country, they must show that they are a national party, and that they are not just the old Reform party.

Since we have a minority, the Conservatives will need the support of at least one other party to pass any bill. The Liberals and BQ each have enough seats to hold the government together on their own. The NDP is just short again (assuming all MPs show up to vote). However, that also depends on how the independent leans, as well as who becomes speaker of the house. This means that an independent might have a big influence on how the house runs (much like in last March’s budget vote). (This also depends on how the recounts go, too.)

With a minority, the Conservatives won’t be able to deliver on some parts of their platform. We won’t be seeing a 5% GST any time soon — none of the other parties want to cut the GST (ironic since the Conservatives were the ones who had introduced the GST, and the Liberals had promised to scrap it). My guess is that Harper might be able to cut the GST slightly, if he implements some income tax cuts. He’ll probably have a tough time next time if he doesn’t manage to do anything about the GST (though the Liberals managed to get reelected after breaking their original promise).

And it seems like finance is where the Conservatives are going to have the most trouble. All the other parties are more left-leaning. Harper is going to have to work hard and make a lot of compromises to gain consensus with the other parties, in order to prevent another election. None of the parties want to have another election soon, so everyone will be trying to work to hold the government together — at least for a while. But this doesn’t give Harper a blank cheque. If he governs as though he had a minority, he’ll lose support of the house.

Some things, though, will be much easier for the Conservatives. The Bloc and the NDP will both support a federal accountability act, which Harper said is the first thing that he will be proposing. And with NDP support, they will probably launch a study on electoral reforms. (I’ll talk more about electoral reforms in a future post.)

Not too unexpectedly, Alberta is completely Conservative. The results in my riding were the closest in Alberta (and the last to be decided). Despite Anne McLellan’s personal popularity, she was done in by her party. If not for the fact that she was a Liberal, she could have been reelected.

Thanks to my brother for pointing this out. FaithToday asked the party leaders about their view on faith and politics. Martin’s god is the Charter and he said a whole lot of nothing. Duceppe avoided the question. Harper and Layton said more interesting stuff.

As a followup to my previous post, it is apparently a hoax. (Schneier) The student apparently made up the entire story.

A UMass Dartmouth student was doing a project on Communism for his class on Fascism and Totalitarianism, so as part of his research, requested Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book. As a result of his request, he was visited by two DHS agents. (/.) I guess the student now has some hands-on experience with totalitarianism.

Remember, big brother is watching you.

Some sanity has returned to the Canadian copyright situation. The Supreme Court has refused to hear further arguments, which means that the levy on digital audio players has been struck down CBC. (/.) Now we just need to get rid of the levy on recordable digital media like CD-Rs.

After B.C.’s failed (for now) attempt at bringing in proportional representation, P.E.I. is giving it a try. P.E.I. will be voting this fall whether to adopt a mixed member proportional system (see the article for more details). One bad thing about that system is that it gives independents a much larger disadvantage than they already have, since they obviously can’t get any seats from party lists. And now independents must compete in larger ridings, under the regular first-past-the-post winner-take-all system.

Personally, I prefer B.C.’s proposed system. Though both referendums were/are flawed, since they only offer the choice between sticking with the old system, or adopting a single alternative system recommended by the electoral reform commission. Thus people who prefer proportional representation, but prefer another system over the commission’s recommendation, are stuck. Personally, I’d like to see a reform commission suggest a referendum using the Condorcet method (or even approval voting), and offer multiple types of proportional representation, as well as a “further discussion on proportional representation” option.