While Alberta's monolithic media has been blasting bangs to accompany Jason Kenney's anointment, the whimpers have been left to the common man to provide if they even discover that Alberta's oldest political party, the Liberals, is clinically dead.
Today, on the eve of the deadline in that party's unstoried leadership race, their one and only candidate, St. Albert mayor Nolan Crouse, withdrew his name "for personal reasons." The Calgary Herald provided no front-page coverage; the Edmonton Journal barely a mention.
In passing, let us remember that this party ruled Alberta from 1905 to 1921, first under Alexander Rutherford, then Arthur Sifton, and lastly, Charles Stewart. They walked in the politically wilderness for decades as Alberta became dominated in turn by the United Farmers, Social Credit, and then the PCs. After 70 years of irrelevance, Laurence Decore nearly restored them to power in the 1993 election. They never stood a chance thereafter, but until 2012 the Liberals still regularly received 25% of the provincial vote.
The final collapse of the party has been curiously timed. One would have expected, given the acrimonious take-over of the PCs by the hard right, that the Liberals would have benefited from renewed interest. It is no secret many former PCs have no interest serving Jason Kenney's agenda. I think many more Albertans will probably feel the same in short order as they realize the PCs have utterly vacated the political centre and anything within throwing distance of it to merge with the big-C Wild Rose Party.
So what finally killed the ailing Liberal Party?
It's easy enough to say that the NDP beat the Liberals at being the centre-left. This is obvious. It may also be fair to say that up until two weeks ago, the PCs had been out centre-righting them, too. Fear of a Wild Rose government pushed traditional liberal supporters right, and then in 2015, the other way.
This needn't have been the case, but unlike the NDP, the Liberals coasted for years under the illusion that they were the logical replacement once the province realized how dissatisfied they were with the PCs. This took longer than they thought, and they proved incapable of dealing with the rise of the Wild Rose Party. Ultimately, the solid but ordinary David Swann lost out big time to a much more extraordinary Rachel Notley.
I can only imagine that in the end the numbers killed the Liberal Party. They had been burdened with high debt, limited activity, and terrible polls. While never anywhere near as dependent on corporate donations as the PCs, their banning hurt them too. They undoubtedly expected a bump in membership and donor support following the PC convention. This likely did not materialize. While this is hypothetical, I really supposed it had to be the realization that the party had lost its remaining vitality.
This final embarrassing collapse instead yields a rather significant amount of room for the Alberta Party to grow. Don't be surprised if a number of high profile Albertans start giving their support to this party in the near future. An Alberta Party successfully integrating the residue of the Liberal Party and the left-wing of the PC party could prove to be very powerful, especially in rural northern Alberta and Calgary.
Thanks for reading.
While writing this article, the CBC reported that two people have stepped forward to claim leadership of the Alberta Liberal Party. Such a late competition gives me little reason to believe this event in any ways contradicts the essence of what I've just written - Adam
A discussion of politics, science, emerging technology, and international affairs all centred on Alberta.
Thursday, 30 March 2017
Friday, 24 March 2017
By-election Time!
Well, Spring Break looms, so it looks like I finally have time to write what's on my mind. The world weeps. Coincidentally, today I can also vote in the advance polls for one of Calgary's two by-elections. To be honest this year I'm having an awful lot of difficulty choosing who I should vote for.
First of all, a shout-out to the Christian Heritage Party's Jeff Willerton (the "Real Conservative!") for putting out the most interesting campaign advertisements of this election. His posters were big, colourful and sturdy, and always left me wondering just where the CHP got all that money from. His brochures were also entertaining, and really helped my wife and I make up our minds. "Why did you keep this? Just to make me mad?" she asked of the brochure that came in the mail. I'm sure we'll be voting for someone else.
As regards the (fake?) Conservative Party, turns out one of my friends knows their candidate, Bob Benzen. Apparently he's a real nice guy, but just doesn't know anything about politics. I got the same impression from his campaign brochure. Also, I don't want to vote for a leaderless party, especially one so full of clown-shoe candidates like the Conservative Party's. This also excludes the NDP, I guess, though I must admit I know next to diddly about their folks. Go figure.
I even checked out the website of the "National Advancement Party of Canada." They have a lot of policy positions, and I went on to read a bunch of them, before I though, "what's the point?"
So, the Liberals or the Greens. Who to chose?
I generally agree with the Liberals the most, historically, and I know voting for them would make my dad proud. However, they already have a majority, and to be honest, while I understand why the new budget was the way it is, I'm still unimpressed. Deficits until 2055? No new taxes? Differed military spending? Let's be real here. The Liberals could have brought the GST back up to 7% and brought the government back into surplus by Christmas. They could have eliminated some BS-tax credits that only help the super-rich, but nope, not today! Now, I would be afraid of Trump, too, but I still think they could have done more, and better. Their candidate in my riding, Forsyth, doesn't seem to have many public positions beyond supporting the government, a trait I hated when the local conservatives ran under it and still do with everybody else. Having ideas like an individual should be a natural part of being an MP.
So, do I vote for the Green party? Honestly, I just might. I read their platform in its entirety back when I was in the army (wow, recent!) and honestly it impressed me. I sympathize with their issues, and really, they probably are on the right side of history on most of their opinions. I don't really know much about their candidate - I don't even remember her name at the moment - but I do know she spent years learning about Indigenous Canadians. I believe our relationship with our indigenous people is possibly the most important national issue in the country today, so this is a good thing. Lastly, Elizabeth May has been one of the best MPs in recent memory. Ultimately, maybe it's time I finally reward the Green Party with my vote.
What do you think? Thanks for reading!
First of all, a shout-out to the Christian Heritage Party's Jeff Willerton (the "Real Conservative!") for putting out the most interesting campaign advertisements of this election. His posters were big, colourful and sturdy, and always left me wondering just where the CHP got all that money from. His brochures were also entertaining, and really helped my wife and I make up our minds. "Why did you keep this? Just to make me mad?" she asked of the brochure that came in the mail. I'm sure we'll be voting for someone else.
As regards the (fake?) Conservative Party, turns out one of my friends knows their candidate, Bob Benzen. Apparently he's a real nice guy, but just doesn't know anything about politics. I got the same impression from his campaign brochure. Also, I don't want to vote for a leaderless party, especially one so full of clown-shoe candidates like the Conservative Party's. This also excludes the NDP, I guess, though I must admit I know next to diddly about their folks. Go figure.
I even checked out the website of the "National Advancement Party of Canada." They have a lot of policy positions, and I went on to read a bunch of them, before I though, "what's the point?"
So, the Liberals or the Greens. Who to chose?
I generally agree with the Liberals the most, historically, and I know voting for them would make my dad proud. However, they already have a majority, and to be honest, while I understand why the new budget was the way it is, I'm still unimpressed. Deficits until 2055? No new taxes? Differed military spending? Let's be real here. The Liberals could have brought the GST back up to 7% and brought the government back into surplus by Christmas. They could have eliminated some BS-tax credits that only help the super-rich, but nope, not today! Now, I would be afraid of Trump, too, but I still think they could have done more, and better. Their candidate in my riding, Forsyth, doesn't seem to have many public positions beyond supporting the government, a trait I hated when the local conservatives ran under it and still do with everybody else. Having ideas like an individual should be a natural part of being an MP.
So, do I vote for the Green party? Honestly, I just might. I read their platform in its entirety back when I was in the army (wow, recent!) and honestly it impressed me. I sympathize with their issues, and really, they probably are on the right side of history on most of their opinions. I don't really know much about their candidate - I don't even remember her name at the moment - but I do know she spent years learning about Indigenous Canadians. I believe our relationship with our indigenous people is possibly the most important national issue in the country today, so this is a good thing. Lastly, Elizabeth May has been one of the best MPs in recent memory. Ultimately, maybe it's time I finally reward the Green Party with my vote.
What do you think? Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
Finally, a new Poll, and more weirdness...
For the first time in three months, somebody decided to poll Albertans regarding their political views. Mainstreet conducted a fairly large survey of 2589 people across the province, asking them their opinions in both provincial and federal politics.
It is obvious by now that I'm an NDP supporter (by circumstance, rather than choice), and the initial results looked highly discouraging. According to their numbers, the NDP fell to third place among voters, with only 23% support. The Wildrose Party won the round with 38%, with the PCs finishing a strong second with 29%. The Liberals and Alberta Party, those two seemingly dubious entities, trailed significantly with only 5% support each.
Looking deeper, there were further surprises. The PCs lead the pack in Calgary, with 38% support, and the WRP is in a measely third - with 22%, outside the margin of error to be considered equal to the NDP's 26%. In Edmonton, the WRP are in a baffling second place, again outside the margin of error, leading the PCs 26 to 21.
There are some unsurprises. The NDP lead Edmonton with 43% support (with the closest competitor having only 26%, they're still in place for another sweep of that city in 2019). The Wildrose Party has a stranglehold on rural Alberta; with the PCs they would have 75% support (assuming naively nobody would jump ship in the process).
One issue with the polling data is that it relies on the outdated 2011 census for its weightings. The poll was conducted Feb. 9th-10th, days after the release of the new census data. It was undoubtedly too late to change the planning of the poll, but it is curious why they would plan their poll around so obviously important a date. Given that rural Alberta has continued its losing streak relative to Calgary and Edmonton over the past 6-7 years, we can safely assume the results over-represent the overall favourability of the WRP, while downplaying the governing NDP.
How would things really look if they used the 2016 data?
According to the new census, 1.4 million people live in Calgary and area (which curiously excludes Foothills County and bedroom cities like Okotoks), 1.3 million in Edmonton and area, and 1.4 million in the rest of the province. One gets proportions of roughly 35% of the population living in Calgary, another 30% in Edmonton, and the remainder elsewhere. This is a part of a long term trend wherein Calgary and Edmonton gain more and more prominence compared to the rest of the province.
Given this, 43% NDP support in Edmonton turns into a base of 12.9% provincially. 26% in Calgary means one can add another 9.1 to that base - where we get the figure close to Mainstreet's result, 22%. But then, one needs to consider the remainder of the province. Weighed equally with Calgary, the 16% NDP support in the rest of Alberta would add a further 5.6% to the total. With rounding, one gets a result of 27.6% support for the NDP provincially - a fairly higher amount than one would be lead to believe.
For the WRP, their 48% lead in "rest of Alberta" gives them a base of 16.8%. However, they can only add 7.7% to that for Calgary; meanwhile Edmonton grants them a further 7.8%. Rather than having a 38-23 lead over the government, the WRP actually only has a 32.3%-27.6% lead; almost within the margin of error.
From the looks of things so far, I'm beginning to suspect the PCs are actually doing better than the polling suggested. Lets do the same test: Edmonton is a bust for them: 21% support gives a base provincially of only 6.3%. However, things do pick up! With the "rest of Alberta's" 27%, they go up another 9.45%; finally, with Calgary's significant 38% support, they get another 13.3%. In total, their provincial support can be estimated at 29.05%.
Now, I have to admit my process here is pretty sketchy. I simply don't know how Mainstreet defines these areas. You could consider this an educated guess, or wishful thinking, or data mining; whatever.
But I think we continue to have a horserace.
Mainstreet's Massive Sampling Bias
According to Mainstreet's own data, they surveyed 2598 Albertans for the results above (though the projections were based on a smaller sample of "decided" voters - 2,382 strong). From this respectable cadre of 2382 decided/leaning voters, however, we get this age breakdown:
18-34 year olds: 360
35-49 year olds: 590
50-64 year olds: 647
65+: 785
So, percentage-wise, these poll results were based on a sampling mix of 15% 18-34s, 25% 35-49s, 27% 50-64s, and 33% senior citizens.
This weighting simply does not at all reflect the population of Alberta; it doesn't even closely resemble the make up of Canada's oldest province, Newfoundland. Alberta is the youngest province in Canada, with a median age of 38, if I recall correctly. How is it that this survey so overwhelmingly samples the aged?
Maybe that old adage that polling is limited to people with landlines is truer than I thought (even though I've been polled on my cell, once).
Perhaps we'll only really know how people think when the votes are cast.
Thanks for reading.
It is obvious by now that I'm an NDP supporter (by circumstance, rather than choice), and the initial results looked highly discouraging. According to their numbers, the NDP fell to third place among voters, with only 23% support. The Wildrose Party won the round with 38%, with the PCs finishing a strong second with 29%. The Liberals and Alberta Party, those two seemingly dubious entities, trailed significantly with only 5% support each.
Looking deeper, there were further surprises. The PCs lead the pack in Calgary, with 38% support, and the WRP is in a measely third - with 22%, outside the margin of error to be considered equal to the NDP's 26%. In Edmonton, the WRP are in a baffling second place, again outside the margin of error, leading the PCs 26 to 21.
There are some unsurprises. The NDP lead Edmonton with 43% support (with the closest competitor having only 26%, they're still in place for another sweep of that city in 2019). The Wildrose Party has a stranglehold on rural Alberta; with the PCs they would have 75% support (assuming naively nobody would jump ship in the process).
One issue with the polling data is that it relies on the outdated 2011 census for its weightings. The poll was conducted Feb. 9th-10th, days after the release of the new census data. It was undoubtedly too late to change the planning of the poll, but it is curious why they would plan their poll around so obviously important a date. Given that rural Alberta has continued its losing streak relative to Calgary and Edmonton over the past 6-7 years, we can safely assume the results over-represent the overall favourability of the WRP, while downplaying the governing NDP.
How would things really look if they used the 2016 data?
According to the new census, 1.4 million people live in Calgary and area (which curiously excludes Foothills County and bedroom cities like Okotoks), 1.3 million in Edmonton and area, and 1.4 million in the rest of the province. One gets proportions of roughly 35% of the population living in Calgary, another 30% in Edmonton, and the remainder elsewhere. This is a part of a long term trend wherein Calgary and Edmonton gain more and more prominence compared to the rest of the province.
Given this, 43% NDP support in Edmonton turns into a base of 12.9% provincially. 26% in Calgary means one can add another 9.1 to that base - where we get the figure close to Mainstreet's result, 22%. But then, one needs to consider the remainder of the province. Weighed equally with Calgary, the 16% NDP support in the rest of Alberta would add a further 5.6% to the total. With rounding, one gets a result of 27.6% support for the NDP provincially - a fairly higher amount than one would be lead to believe.
For the WRP, their 48% lead in "rest of Alberta" gives them a base of 16.8%. However, they can only add 7.7% to that for Calgary; meanwhile Edmonton grants them a further 7.8%. Rather than having a 38-23 lead over the government, the WRP actually only has a 32.3%-27.6% lead; almost within the margin of error.
From the looks of things so far, I'm beginning to suspect the PCs are actually doing better than the polling suggested. Lets do the same test: Edmonton is a bust for them: 21% support gives a base provincially of only 6.3%. However, things do pick up! With the "rest of Alberta's" 27%, they go up another 9.45%; finally, with Calgary's significant 38% support, they get another 13.3%. In total, their provincial support can be estimated at 29.05%.
Now, I have to admit my process here is pretty sketchy. I simply don't know how Mainstreet defines these areas. You could consider this an educated guess, or wishful thinking, or data mining; whatever.
But I think we continue to have a horserace.
Mainstreet's Massive Sampling Bias
According to Mainstreet's own data, they surveyed 2598 Albertans for the results above (though the projections were based on a smaller sample of "decided" voters - 2,382 strong). From this respectable cadre of 2382 decided/leaning voters, however, we get this age breakdown:
18-34 year olds: 360
35-49 year olds: 590
50-64 year olds: 647
65+: 785
So, percentage-wise, these poll results were based on a sampling mix of 15% 18-34s, 25% 35-49s, 27% 50-64s, and 33% senior citizens.
This weighting simply does not at all reflect the population of Alberta; it doesn't even closely resemble the make up of Canada's oldest province, Newfoundland. Alberta is the youngest province in Canada, with a median age of 38, if I recall correctly. How is it that this survey so overwhelmingly samples the aged?
Maybe that old adage that polling is limited to people with landlines is truer than I thought (even though I've been polled on my cell, once).
Perhaps we'll only really know how people think when the votes are cast.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, 6 December 2016
Hindsight into the Future!
Yesterday a poll was published in Alberta. Unsurprisingly, it put the Wild Rose Party in the lead with 35% of voters supporting them. Nonetheless, the poll was a part of news stories that served to inspire this piece. So, let us review:
1. Somebody robbed the Wild Rose Party of some of its computers, and its membership data. This information is now being used to support Jason Kenney's leadership campaign.
2. The Provincial government reduced the donation cap from $15,000/$30,000 to $4000/year.
3. Federal government approved new oil pipelines, including the Kinder-Morgan pipeline to Burnaby, and generously credited the Alberta government for its leadership on climate change in making their decision.
4. The NDP are holding steady with 31% support in the latest public poll.
I feel I should address the latter before carrying on. People have a right to feel skeptical of this result, given that the last two polls put support at 19% and 15% respectively. However, I feel that history is on the side of the latest poll. A review of Alberta's elections going back to the days of Grant Notley shows that the Liberals and NDP polled in every election generally 35% to 50% of the electorate. As much as the conservatives would like to believe, there has always been a significant centre-left population within the province. One doesn't have to go back far to hear calls to unite the left in Alberta to oppose the PCs!
Given the likelihood of a Kenney victory, polls giving the PCs and WRP a combined support of roughly 75% pointed to a historic conversion to conservative politics that is without parallel. So polls that combined had the Liberals and NDP sinking below that 30% support threshold should be treated with skepticism.
So, on to the future...
Two and half years to go until the next election (in theory). A lot can happen. But there are things pointing in the direction of another surprise NDP success in 2019. Note that I didn't say win; I am not sure of that possibility, but the idea that the NDP are simply going to be wiped out in the next election I find increasingly unlikely.
The critics of the government have to deal with the reality that the NDP are already the highest grossing political party in the province. The banning of corporate donations crippled the PCs and Liberal parties, and the Wild Rose's much acclaimed ability to receive individual donations has already proved wanting. The dramatic reduction in the annual individual limit is going to yet another nail into the opposition parties, who have always benefited from the deep pockets of some select supporters. The NDP basically has almost three years to pad a donation lead before the next election, while the other parties struggle with declining revenue.
The other issue facing the opposition, particularly the WRP is the looming redrawing of the province's constituency boundaries. Alberta, contrary to popular belief, has long been one of the most urbanized provinces in the country, and an NDP government is much more likely to acknowledge that fact through action than anybody else. So, while the province's population continues to drift into the cities, it is likely that the seats will finally follow. While the PCs, NDP and WRP are all competitive in northern Alberta, the potential loss of seats in rural southern Alberta will do the WRP undoubted harm. To lose even two seats through redistricting here would wipe out 10% of their caucus, and this is a distinct possibility. To offset this they would have to do better in the cities, but they have always struggled to win there, a fact unlikely to change in North Calgary or Edmonton anytime soon.
Then there is the more sinister thing - Jason Kenney led implosion of the PCs. While destruction was always Kenney's stated intention, implosion is becoming a more apt word by the day. The reports of bullying, shenanigans and skulduggery emanating from the PCs can have no other effect. Jason Kenney will win the party leadership; there's simply no way he can't - the fix is in. And the fix is obvious. As much as the PC establishment is trying to make a fight of it, they are bound to lose as Kenney stocks the delegations with his supporters. Kenney always had a fine line to walk, though - he made it plain he wished to end the PC association, as he should have. However, he needed to keep its membership and supporters onside while this was happening, and here he is failing.
Many people have been comparing the takeover to what happened to the federal PCs over a decade ago. The comparison is not exactly apt - McKay surrendered his party to Stephen Harper after all. In any case, it needs to be remembered that the support they were expecting in the 2004 election did not exactly materialize - the Liberals won a minority. Indeed, the Conservatives have only won a single majority in the whole period I have been alive - so maybe there is a warning there.
Here I must admit I've sat on this article all weekend... and now more fuel for this fire.
The protest in Edmonton on Saturday only adds to my growing conviction that the conservatives are farting their future away. Some Albertans are whining that the media isn't covering the rally fairly. They are right - but their work is wrong. The media should be crucifying Chris Alexander for his wimpy reaction to the chants of "lock her up." Ezra Levant should be getting sued (again), for slander, and all the awful things said and done need to be exposed by media - print, radio and TV. That they've been generalizing what happened is a total disservice the province (another shock); but it is a credit to the people here that most people have noticed just how insane the whole thing was. Just like how the 2012 election was lost in a lake of fire, the 2019 election is probably going to boil down, in some way, to the sins the opposition has committed in the previous four years, the list of which grows longer and heavier by the day.
1. Somebody robbed the Wild Rose Party of some of its computers, and its membership data. This information is now being used to support Jason Kenney's leadership campaign.
2. The Provincial government reduced the donation cap from $15,000/$30,000 to $4000/year.
3. Federal government approved new oil pipelines, including the Kinder-Morgan pipeline to Burnaby, and generously credited the Alberta government for its leadership on climate change in making their decision.
4. The NDP are holding steady with 31% support in the latest public poll.
I feel I should address the latter before carrying on. People have a right to feel skeptical of this result, given that the last two polls put support at 19% and 15% respectively. However, I feel that history is on the side of the latest poll. A review of Alberta's elections going back to the days of Grant Notley shows that the Liberals and NDP polled in every election generally 35% to 50% of the electorate. As much as the conservatives would like to believe, there has always been a significant centre-left population within the province. One doesn't have to go back far to hear calls to unite the left in Alberta to oppose the PCs!
Given the likelihood of a Kenney victory, polls giving the PCs and WRP a combined support of roughly 75% pointed to a historic conversion to conservative politics that is without parallel. So polls that combined had the Liberals and NDP sinking below that 30% support threshold should be treated with skepticism.
So, on to the future...
Two and half years to go until the next election (in theory). A lot can happen. But there are things pointing in the direction of another surprise NDP success in 2019. Note that I didn't say win; I am not sure of that possibility, but the idea that the NDP are simply going to be wiped out in the next election I find increasingly unlikely.
The critics of the government have to deal with the reality that the NDP are already the highest grossing political party in the province. The banning of corporate donations crippled the PCs and Liberal parties, and the Wild Rose's much acclaimed ability to receive individual donations has already proved wanting. The dramatic reduction in the annual individual limit is going to yet another nail into the opposition parties, who have always benefited from the deep pockets of some select supporters. The NDP basically has almost three years to pad a donation lead before the next election, while the other parties struggle with declining revenue.
The other issue facing the opposition, particularly the WRP is the looming redrawing of the province's constituency boundaries. Alberta, contrary to popular belief, has long been one of the most urbanized provinces in the country, and an NDP government is much more likely to acknowledge that fact through action than anybody else. So, while the province's population continues to drift into the cities, it is likely that the seats will finally follow. While the PCs, NDP and WRP are all competitive in northern Alberta, the potential loss of seats in rural southern Alberta will do the WRP undoubted harm. To lose even two seats through redistricting here would wipe out 10% of their caucus, and this is a distinct possibility. To offset this they would have to do better in the cities, but they have always struggled to win there, a fact unlikely to change in North Calgary or Edmonton anytime soon.
Then there is the more sinister thing - Jason Kenney led implosion of the PCs. While destruction was always Kenney's stated intention, implosion is becoming a more apt word by the day. The reports of bullying, shenanigans and skulduggery emanating from the PCs can have no other effect. Jason Kenney will win the party leadership; there's simply no way he can't - the fix is in. And the fix is obvious. As much as the PC establishment is trying to make a fight of it, they are bound to lose as Kenney stocks the delegations with his supporters. Kenney always had a fine line to walk, though - he made it plain he wished to end the PC association, as he should have. However, he needed to keep its membership and supporters onside while this was happening, and here he is failing.
Many people have been comparing the takeover to what happened to the federal PCs over a decade ago. The comparison is not exactly apt - McKay surrendered his party to Stephen Harper after all. In any case, it needs to be remembered that the support they were expecting in the 2004 election did not exactly materialize - the Liberals won a minority. Indeed, the Conservatives have only won a single majority in the whole period I have been alive - so maybe there is a warning there.
Here I must admit I've sat on this article all weekend... and now more fuel for this fire.
The protest in Edmonton on Saturday only adds to my growing conviction that the conservatives are farting their future away. Some Albertans are whining that the media isn't covering the rally fairly. They are right - but their work is wrong. The media should be crucifying Chris Alexander for his wimpy reaction to the chants of "lock her up." Ezra Levant should be getting sued (again), for slander, and all the awful things said and done need to be exposed by media - print, radio and TV. That they've been generalizing what happened is a total disservice the province (another shock); but it is a credit to the people here that most people have noticed just how insane the whole thing was. Just like how the 2012 election was lost in a lake of fire, the 2019 election is probably going to boil down, in some way, to the sins the opposition has committed in the previous four years, the list of which grows longer and heavier by the day.
Sunday, 13 November 2016
Thoughts on the US Election
This is going to be an unorganized rip through my thoughts on the US election.
Since the winner was a narcissist, I will begin with some ego-aggrandizement of my own. I predicted (not here, but on facebook) that Donald Trump would win the election, while losing the popular vote by over a million. The first thought is blatantly true (I had no idea he would win so much, though), while it appears the second thought may come true soon. Also, and this I felt essential, voter turnout was much, much lower than in 2012. Isn't it amusing to know Mitt Romney got more votes than Clinton?
Nonetheless, my thoughts are certainly with the protesters. It's hard to defend a man being elected in such a dubious way, and clearly the electoral college needs to be abolished. Get working on a constitutional amendment, now.
My other thought concerns the importance of messaging during an election. Here I will draw comparisons to the last two elections I voted in: Canada's last October, and Alberta's in April, 2015. I really think Hillary Clinton suffered for lack of a message; when during her concession speech, she said, "this was never about me," I had to laugh. Your election slogan was "I'm with her!" and beyond that, she had no ideas about the shape of things to come, just that she had more experience than Trump (which isn't hard. Arguably, so do I - at least I was in an actual military).
Experience can be good or bad. In Clinton's case, unfortunately, her experience resonated with Americans as being of the negative sort. It is ok to be sceptical of "experience" being a primary factor in hiring a politician anyway. While Americans wondered just who she owed debts to, I think historically to the disastrous governments of Lloyd George after WW1 and Winston Churchill in the 1950s. Experience isn't everything. Canada has enjoyed a relatively successful history of experienced leadership. If a Prime Minister served longer than two terms in office, they seem to do a good enough job to earn a place on our money.
Two-terms (8-9 years) seems to be a big barrier, especially to Conservatives, to break. Borden needed to leave office, having nearly destroyed the country (and conveniently fallen in with the British establishment). Mulroney resigned as the most unpopular Prime Minister ever, and last year, Stephen Harper went down to colossal defeat. With his cabinet members abandoning ship, Harper still charged into the election believing his experience alone would vanquish his rivals.
When the Liberals swept Atlantic Canada, I was surprised only that the NDP didn't win a seat. Having family from there, and keeping track of their affairs, it did not shock me that they universally rejected a party that patronised and insulted them. My neighbours here in Alberta, on the other hand, wondered just how dumb they could be. I hear echoes of this discourse in the aftermath of the American election.
Harper's record, outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan was pretty shit, and he should have known it. Those two provinces, insulated by oil economies, survived Harper's time as PM as the only two which enjoyed any real growth. His stewardship of the rest of the country was undeniably worse. British Columbia saw it's average annual income drop year after year. Economic decline in the rest of Canada was concealed by blowing up the housing market to titanic proportions. Now the country is worse off than the USA in 2007-2008, and the new Prime Minister is doing a great deal to try and diffuse it. So, campaigning on experience when most of the country hates you we must admit is a poor formula. That the Clinton and Harper campaigns couldn't believe the facts must point to a great amount of conceit in both groups.
As a last word on messaging, I would like to compare the "surprise" NDP government of Alberta to that of the perennial heirs-apparent, the Wild Rose Party. Notley's victory in April 2015 is, depending on your point of view, intensely correlated to the fact that she had a positive message that resonated with the province. The late Mr. Prentice was eternally trying to remove his foot from his mouth, and most importantly, the Wild Rose Party, didn't have a message for Albertans. Who can forget the debate, when Brian Jean successfully imitated a medieval monk with his mantra of "no new taxes." The NDP won because in April 2015, they appeared to be the only option.
So Donald Trump won, too. He acknowledged there was a problem in the way the USA was doing things. The people who had suffered from decades of de-industrialization and mergers and downsizing who spoke up and handed him power. This possibility was always present; it was the failure of the Democrats, and pollsters, and media, that they ignored the data they did not welcome.
Will they learn from this? Not by the looks of it.
Thanks for reading.
Since the winner was a narcissist, I will begin with some ego-aggrandizement of my own. I predicted (not here, but on facebook) that Donald Trump would win the election, while losing the popular vote by over a million. The first thought is blatantly true (I had no idea he would win so much, though), while it appears the second thought may come true soon. Also, and this I felt essential, voter turnout was much, much lower than in 2012. Isn't it amusing to know Mitt Romney got more votes than Clinton?
Nonetheless, my thoughts are certainly with the protesters. It's hard to defend a man being elected in such a dubious way, and clearly the electoral college needs to be abolished. Get working on a constitutional amendment, now.
My other thought concerns the importance of messaging during an election. Here I will draw comparisons to the last two elections I voted in: Canada's last October, and Alberta's in April, 2015. I really think Hillary Clinton suffered for lack of a message; when during her concession speech, she said, "this was never about me," I had to laugh. Your election slogan was "I'm with her!" and beyond that, she had no ideas about the shape of things to come, just that she had more experience than Trump (which isn't hard. Arguably, so do I - at least I was in an actual military).
Experience can be good or bad. In Clinton's case, unfortunately, her experience resonated with Americans as being of the negative sort. It is ok to be sceptical of "experience" being a primary factor in hiring a politician anyway. While Americans wondered just who she owed debts to, I think historically to the disastrous governments of Lloyd George after WW1 and Winston Churchill in the 1950s. Experience isn't everything. Canada has enjoyed a relatively successful history of experienced leadership. If a Prime Minister served longer than two terms in office, they seem to do a good enough job to earn a place on our money.
Two-terms (8-9 years) seems to be a big barrier, especially to Conservatives, to break. Borden needed to leave office, having nearly destroyed the country (and conveniently fallen in with the British establishment). Mulroney resigned as the most unpopular Prime Minister ever, and last year, Stephen Harper went down to colossal defeat. With his cabinet members abandoning ship, Harper still charged into the election believing his experience alone would vanquish his rivals.
When the Liberals swept Atlantic Canada, I was surprised only that the NDP didn't win a seat. Having family from there, and keeping track of their affairs, it did not shock me that they universally rejected a party that patronised and insulted them. My neighbours here in Alberta, on the other hand, wondered just how dumb they could be. I hear echoes of this discourse in the aftermath of the American election.
Harper's record, outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan was pretty shit, and he should have known it. Those two provinces, insulated by oil economies, survived Harper's time as PM as the only two which enjoyed any real growth. His stewardship of the rest of the country was undeniably worse. British Columbia saw it's average annual income drop year after year. Economic decline in the rest of Canada was concealed by blowing up the housing market to titanic proportions. Now the country is worse off than the USA in 2007-2008, and the new Prime Minister is doing a great deal to try and diffuse it. So, campaigning on experience when most of the country hates you we must admit is a poor formula. That the Clinton and Harper campaigns couldn't believe the facts must point to a great amount of conceit in both groups.
As a last word on messaging, I would like to compare the "surprise" NDP government of Alberta to that of the perennial heirs-apparent, the Wild Rose Party. Notley's victory in April 2015 is, depending on your point of view, intensely correlated to the fact that she had a positive message that resonated with the province. The late Mr. Prentice was eternally trying to remove his foot from his mouth, and most importantly, the Wild Rose Party, didn't have a message for Albertans. Who can forget the debate, when Brian Jean successfully imitated a medieval monk with his mantra of "no new taxes." The NDP won because in April 2015, they appeared to be the only option.
So Donald Trump won, too. He acknowledged there was a problem in the way the USA was doing things. The people who had suffered from decades of de-industrialization and mergers and downsizing who spoke up and handed him power. This possibility was always present; it was the failure of the Democrats, and pollsters, and media, that they ignored the data they did not welcome.
Will they learn from this? Not by the looks of it.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, 5 November 2016
Book Review: Notley Nation
Notley Nation
By Donald Braid and Sydney Sharpe; Dundurn Books, 2016
As you might have guessed by now, I come from a very political family, and I have spent most of the last 20 years in Alberta. I returned to this province in 2010 - coincidentally the same year one may as well take as the starting point in the author's argument: that the successes of Justin Trudeau, Rachel Notley, and Naheed Nenshi all reflect the growing strength of a younger, more urban and more progressive Alberta, and Canada at large.
Accordingly, as someone who has been in Calgary long enough to remember the mayoral election of 2010 (and voted in it), much of the book is hardly a surprise. Of the 10 chapters, 9 are basically historical, while one is analytical. Therefore I feel the book is most valuable to the Canadians living outside of Alberta.
As a historical account, the book serves fairly well in taking a blow by blow approach to the decline of the Progressive Conservative Association, and the rise of Rachel Notley and the NDP. The coverage of events is a good deal more fair than the portrayal one would receive in Canada's newspapers - ironically, as Braid continues to be a reporter for the Calgary Herald/Sun/National Post. Braid and Sharpe do a wonderful job illustrating the comprehensive decline of the PCAA's relationship with the people of Alberta. It wasn't just that they were doing a bad job governing; it becomes quite clear the "association" no longer gave a hoot about its membership - only corporations. Truly, the impression one gathers is of a highly Corporatist political body.
As someone too young to know Premiers Lougheed or Getty, the historical diversions about these men is welcome. A standout chapter, though, is the story of Grant Notley, "the Social Conscience of Alberta," as a posthumous biography labelled him, and the upbringing of his daughter, the future Premier of Alberta. Their story is amazing in terms of their hardwork, dedication, and values.
The real hit in the book, however, is the unfortunately titled chapter, "Math is Hard," the analytical chapter discussing the changing role of women in politics, and just how important it is. This chapter was very illuminating to me, and served to impress on me how important gender representation truly is.
The only downside to the book is that Braid and Sharpe are occasionally too gentle on some of their subjects. In the aforementioned chapter, the authors provide a very good explanation for the terroristic internet traffic coming from Alberta's far right. However, they don't go far enough to discuss the obvious criminality and insanity of much of the content. I feel it worth noting just how frequently the female members of Notley's government have received death threats. They only mention one, and an early one at that.
Another weakness is their discussion of the media environment in Alberta; clearly this would be a conflict of interest for Braid, as he still works in it, but no story of the Alberta NDP government is complete without exploring the extremely hostile media environment they exist within. Braid himself is one of the few remaining voices of reason and decency within the mainstream media here - and his realistic and reasonable treatment of the economy and Oil business in Alberta will no doubt drive many readers crazy.
In sum, the book is a solid 4/5 - at least to me. If you happen to be an interested outsider, this is probably the best account yet of what has happened in Alberta since the retirement of Ralph Klein.
Thanks for reading.
By Donald Braid and Sydney Sharpe; Dundurn Books, 2016
As you might have guessed by now, I come from a very political family, and I have spent most of the last 20 years in Alberta. I returned to this province in 2010 - coincidentally the same year one may as well take as the starting point in the author's argument: that the successes of Justin Trudeau, Rachel Notley, and Naheed Nenshi all reflect the growing strength of a younger, more urban and more progressive Alberta, and Canada at large.
Accordingly, as someone who has been in Calgary long enough to remember the mayoral election of 2010 (and voted in it), much of the book is hardly a surprise. Of the 10 chapters, 9 are basically historical, while one is analytical. Therefore I feel the book is most valuable to the Canadians living outside of Alberta.
As a historical account, the book serves fairly well in taking a blow by blow approach to the decline of the Progressive Conservative Association, and the rise of Rachel Notley and the NDP. The coverage of events is a good deal more fair than the portrayal one would receive in Canada's newspapers - ironically, as Braid continues to be a reporter for the Calgary Herald/Sun/National Post. Braid and Sharpe do a wonderful job illustrating the comprehensive decline of the PCAA's relationship with the people of Alberta. It wasn't just that they were doing a bad job governing; it becomes quite clear the "association" no longer gave a hoot about its membership - only corporations. Truly, the impression one gathers is of a highly Corporatist political body.
As someone too young to know Premiers Lougheed or Getty, the historical diversions about these men is welcome. A standout chapter, though, is the story of Grant Notley, "the Social Conscience of Alberta," as a posthumous biography labelled him, and the upbringing of his daughter, the future Premier of Alberta. Their story is amazing in terms of their hardwork, dedication, and values.
The real hit in the book, however, is the unfortunately titled chapter, "Math is Hard," the analytical chapter discussing the changing role of women in politics, and just how important it is. This chapter was very illuminating to me, and served to impress on me how important gender representation truly is.
The only downside to the book is that Braid and Sharpe are occasionally too gentle on some of their subjects. In the aforementioned chapter, the authors provide a very good explanation for the terroristic internet traffic coming from Alberta's far right. However, they don't go far enough to discuss the obvious criminality and insanity of much of the content. I feel it worth noting just how frequently the female members of Notley's government have received death threats. They only mention one, and an early one at that.
Another weakness is their discussion of the media environment in Alberta; clearly this would be a conflict of interest for Braid, as he still works in it, but no story of the Alberta NDP government is complete without exploring the extremely hostile media environment they exist within. Braid himself is one of the few remaining voices of reason and decency within the mainstream media here - and his realistic and reasonable treatment of the economy and Oil business in Alberta will no doubt drive many readers crazy.
In sum, the book is a solid 4/5 - at least to me. If you happen to be an interested outsider, this is probably the best account yet of what has happened in Alberta since the retirement of Ralph Klein.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, 3 November 2016
American elections are a mess.
I think it's very fair to say that any illusions we had as to the efficacy and fairness of American elections has been dispelled by the nonsense of the past several years. Clearly, there is a systemic problem with American democracy that they will have to address if they wish to hold on to whatever reputation they have left. It is very difficult to think of any other democratic system where such unpopular candidates remain viable - no less both of them. However, this is what they've got. It's also what they've got to change.
Mercifully, the Americans do possess an example of how to run elections right: Alberta.
First of all, all American states should switch over to non-partisan electoral commissions. Certainly these are not perfect, but in comparison to many American jurisdictions, the Canadian experience is a beacon of light. The issues with gerrymandering and voting station irregularities need to be addressed if the Americans wish to maintain the notion that their system is legitimate, and most of their issues can be linked directly to partisan interference.
A second area worth examining is the elimination of corporate donations from elections - and putting caps on personal donations, as Alberta is currently considering. Obviously this would require a constitutional amendment to overcome the infamous ruling of the Supreme Court, but this is being worked upon. The results of such a decision are likely to be as startling to Americans as they have been to Albertans. To see a single political party lose 99% of its donations, as has happened to the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, is a shocking expose of corporate power and influence. Bereft of such funding, it is interesting to ponder what form the Republicans and Democrats would turn into.
A third area of necessity is the abolition of the Electoral College. In spite of his momentum, I believe it is impossible that Donald Trump could win the popular vote; but, I feel a victory through the electoral college, a la George Bush 2000, is becoming increasingly possible. I think most Americans would admit that this system does not make much, or indeed any sense. Nonetheless, one can see the relevancy of the electoral college to the distortion of elections. It is difficult to think how the Republicans could have been viable for the past 25 years without the college. Skewering results through this ancient manipulation has only served to keep the Republicans stuck in a losing mindset. As with example 2, it is interesting to ponder the shape the Republicans would have taken if they had to change for the electorate - rather than manipulate the electorate to themselves.
The Americans will still have some fundamental issues with their democracy, largely stemming from the institutional stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have over their system. However, with these three reforms, inevitably the American democracy would come to better reflect their own population's wishes, and in turn the more successful democracies to their north.
Thanks for reading.
Mercifully, the Americans do possess an example of how to run elections right: Alberta.
First of all, all American states should switch over to non-partisan electoral commissions. Certainly these are not perfect, but in comparison to many American jurisdictions, the Canadian experience is a beacon of light. The issues with gerrymandering and voting station irregularities need to be addressed if the Americans wish to maintain the notion that their system is legitimate, and most of their issues can be linked directly to partisan interference.
A second area worth examining is the elimination of corporate donations from elections - and putting caps on personal donations, as Alberta is currently considering. Obviously this would require a constitutional amendment to overcome the infamous ruling of the Supreme Court, but this is being worked upon. The results of such a decision are likely to be as startling to Americans as they have been to Albertans. To see a single political party lose 99% of its donations, as has happened to the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, is a shocking expose of corporate power and influence. Bereft of such funding, it is interesting to ponder what form the Republicans and Democrats would turn into.
A third area of necessity is the abolition of the Electoral College. In spite of his momentum, I believe it is impossible that Donald Trump could win the popular vote; but, I feel a victory through the electoral college, a la George Bush 2000, is becoming increasingly possible. I think most Americans would admit that this system does not make much, or indeed any sense. Nonetheless, one can see the relevancy of the electoral college to the distortion of elections. It is difficult to think how the Republicans could have been viable for the past 25 years without the college. Skewering results through this ancient manipulation has only served to keep the Republicans stuck in a losing mindset. As with example 2, it is interesting to ponder the shape the Republicans would have taken if they had to change for the electorate - rather than manipulate the electorate to themselves.
The Americans will still have some fundamental issues with their democracy, largely stemming from the institutional stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have over their system. However, with these three reforms, inevitably the American democracy would come to better reflect their own population's wishes, and in turn the more successful democracies to their north.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)