Archive for March, 2017

Voting Systems – be careful what you wish for

March 25, 2017

There are numerous voting systems, none without bias. It is just that the bias favours different groups and so explains who supporters and opponents are. The recent Dutch national election reveals how proportional representation (PR) can work, and the implications if Canada chose a similar system. At present, the federal government has decided not to make changes. While criticized for reneging on an election promise, the government should be congratulated for retaining the status quo.

The Dutch example

The Netherlands adopted PR for its recent election. It works as follows. The country is treated as one constituency with 100 members elected according to the number of votes received by a party. There were 28 parties on the ballot and members elected for thirteen of them. It will take a coalition of four or five parties to achieve a majority for legislation to be passed.

A Dutch voter has no member representing her or his district if the voter has an issue to discuss. Maybe this works with a population of 17 million in a relatively small homogeneous land area, but I doubt whether it would in the widely distributed and varied Canadian situation. A voter in Newfoundland, Quebec and BC for instance would each want to be able to contact someone familiar with conditions in their location. This is one reason why a constituency system is more suited to Canada. There are others. It is possible to have a mixed system with some members elected in constituencies, and some chosen from a list of candidates proposed by parties. How the latter are chosen to be party representatives raises all sorts of issues.

In Canada it is sometimes thought that only the existing parties would run candidates if PR was adopted. This is unlikely as the case of the 28 parties on the Dutch ballot reveals. Under PR, The NDP and the Greens would have collected more seats, and the Liberals fewer seats in the 2015 Federal election, but only assuming that no other parties had formed and were on the ballot, an unlikely event.

With the existing first past the post Canadian system, you can end up with members elected with less than 50 percent of the constituency vote, but it seems to have worked out pretty well over the years not only here but in the UK and a number of other countries, …….and in contrast to the system south of the border where creation of an electoral college to elect a president and gerrymandering of Congressional districts have subverted representation.

When Provinces have held referenda on changing the Canadian voting system, there has been no strong support for change. Maybe the voters are smarter than those supporting change. To repeat, there is no unbiased voting system. Each favours some groups at the expense of others both in electing members and in the passage of legislation. A main check of the existing system is elections required at certain dates or with the defeat of the government.

A Future for News

March 8, 2017

Jodi Rudoren, Editorial Director of the New York Times Global, writes March 7th, 2017.

“The idea of NYT Global is to grow our audience around the world and to make The Times a truly international news organization. That means expanded coverage in Australia and Canada, where the decline of the local media has left readers clamoring for quality journalism.”

As a reader, it appears that the local print media in Canada is dying, at least in the case of the Ottawa Citizen, which has become an emaciated news sheet. There are some excellent columnists writing in various publications and appearing on TV, but in order to find out what is going on beyond the Canadian borders, and understanding how this might affect the country, one is forced to look elsewhere.

Each person is constrained by the 24 hours in each day and has to allocate time for news consumption by reading, listening and watching. The possibility of gaining quality access is expanding with developments in communications technology.

A Real Global Problem

March 7, 2017

The Environment

There is a problem with the environment which does not depend on conflicting opinions based on computer driven models as is the case with global warming. It is air pollution, clean air or whatever you call the ghostly daytime scenes in cities like Beijing, Delhi and now London.

The World Health Organization estimates that seven million people died from air pollution in 2012 which was about one in eight of all deaths in the world that year. It confirms that air pollution is the world’s largest environmental health risk. Most of the deaths are due to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and acute respiratory infections.

London’s air pollution today is similar to that of the 1950s which was due to coal burning power stations and coal used to heat homes. Today a main reason is the use of wood burning stoves for heating. The pollution is visible and a health hazard.

Environment Canada publishes an Air Quality Health Index and on most days there are no problems similar to those found in the cities of some other countries. As a global issue it is large and visible where it occurs.

 

Forty days into the new US administration – some thoughts

March 3, 2017

1. Michael Moore called the election correctly, unlike almost all the news media pundits. He did so by observing the enthusiastic crowds at Trump meetings, and Clinton’s lukewarm crowd support, plus the fact that Sanders supporters said they would not back Clinton if Sanders was not the candidate. Most of the media forecast the outcome they wanted, not what voters were signaling, which the democrats did not want to hear.

2. The Democrats nationally are now in the weakest position they have been in for decades with no obvious leadership candidates. They have lost Senate and House seats, governorships and control in a growing number of states. They did however get about three million more of the popular vote in the presidential contest. While this does not count in the way presidents are elected, it reinforces the message that the country is divided.

3. The newly elected president does not read mainstream media, although his staff does. He Tweets and watches cable news networks, especially Fox News. His behaviour suggests a cocktail of narcissism and mental instability. This seemed to change with a measured and lengthy speech to the joint Congressional Houses on Feb. 28th. The speech contained spending proposals which would vastly inflate the budget deficit and weaken the US dollar and raise interest rates. However the stock market has boomed since the election…..go figure.

4. The involvement of Russia in the election is still unknown, but after a brief honeymoon period between the US and Russia there are signs of future instability due to contacts between Republican cabinet appointees and Russian officials before the election. This could be linked to Trump’s tax returns which may show that he had funding from and commercial ties with Russian businesses.

5. Elected Congressional Republicans are having a hard time knowing how to respond to the President’s proposals. Some they like, but some they strongly oppose, and so does Ivanka.

6. A personal prediction (few turn out to be accurate) – the President’s close advisers, Bannon, Priebus, Conway, Spicer and Miller are unlikely to hold these positions a year from now. They helped to shape the campaign rhetoric but may not be the most adept advisors for governing.

7. Leading firms in the mainstream media are labelled as providing ‘fake news” when they criticize the new administration. These firms seem to be hanging in and retaining their influence and may become the most effective critics of the government.

Prediction – Marie Le Pen will win the French election.