The Conservatives, Pt. 3: The Red Tories

 Lost in all the talk of SoCons and Libertarians are the old mainstays of Canadian conservatism: the "Red Tories." What are they, you might ask? Well, they are those "light conservatives" who believe in change, but not so fast. They believe in small government, but government that still helps those who need it. They value education for preparing society for the future, and are willing to accept new people and ideas if you can convince them. They hold old, traditional values, too - like the importance of family and faith, sure, but also ideas that with power comes responsibility, and that the individual doesn't take primacy over the needs of the community (I hope this definition is acceptable). This non-ideological (pragmatic?) approach to conservatism was the dominant approach in Canada until the 1990s, when the populist Reform Party supplanted them in importance, and then absorbed the Progressive Conservative Party.

Why did it have to be so? Because with a few exceptions, the PCs didn't win elections. The Liberals ran Canada almost without pause from 1920-1984, and the Conservatives, then the Progressive Conservatives, couldn't do anything to stop it. Only with the acceptance of Quebec nationalists (later Quebec Nationalists) and the residue of the provincial Social Credit movements could the PCs finally win two majorities in a row - 1984 and 1988; the only time conservatives have done that in Canada since 1891. 

Now, it may seem like the Red Tories compromised their values for power. Some certainly did. Some joined with Reform to compete with the Liberals; others simply joined the Liberals, who were closer to their values than the Reformers (this can be seen in their traditional strongholds in Atlantic Canada, which are as close to a Liberal fortress as Alberta is to the Conservatives). However, it should be remembered that the merger was an uneasy one, and that, secondly, for many years Red Tory views were generally accepted or welcomed.

With the SoCon coup on Erin O'Toole, a blue tory masquerading as a Red one, it seems clear that this is no longer the case. Are Red Tories acceptable in the conservative coalition? Only for their votes, it would seem. They exist solely as votes in the House of Commons. Their views could not be more stark than those of the louder members of the party. So, while Conservatives bemoan the division in Canada, just a cursory search of polling data shows the division isn't national, it's political, and largely confined to their party. 

In almost any poll we see an almost even split of Conservative supporters who are for or against any issue. No other party has such a cleavage. Half of their voters think Climate Change is an issue; half do not. Half believe that "Gay Marriage" (equality) is acceptable; the other does not. Even with COVID-19, half were in favour of restrictions, and half were against the Convoy Protests. So, I think it's fair to say then that the Red Tories make up half of the party, and maybe around 15% of the electorate, but they make up easily less than half of the CPC MPs, donors or braintrust. 

Eliminating O'Toole is one thing; the MPs electing Candice Bergen, of MAGA hat fame to replace him (on an interim basis) points to an alarming reality: the CPC is going the way of the Republicans of the USA. However, the vast majority of Canadians do not, and still do not think or feel this way, just the loudest, maybe plurality of PPC and CPC supporters. We consistently see that half of the latter do not align with Trump, QAnon, Abortion Activism, or anything like that. They have a different image of conservatism in their minds and hearts. If what they see in the CPC isn't what they want, they may start looking elsewhere. Maybe to a new Progressive Conservative Party, even if they know it may not win.

We shall see. 

Northern Development 1: Churchill

 As it currently stands, Churchill is a dying, isolated town at the northern edge of Manitoba - and Canada's railroad network. It is host to two noteworthy things: polar bear tourism and a wheat export terminal. It is connected to the rest of the country by rail and air, and thanks to the former, it is the most integrated of Canada's Hudson Bay settlements. Given its strategic location and pre-existing infrastructure, it should be among the pillars of a Canadian northern strategy.

1. Public Sector initiatives

1a. The Military

Churchill's first importance in the era to come is as a strategic military base. While Churchill is removed from the region of the Northwest Passage, it could play a significant role in supporting Canadian sovereignty in that region. Given its connection to the rest of Canada through its railroad, Churchill would be the logical place for a supply depot and maintenance base for Canadian ships and aircraft, while benefiting from geographic isolation from potential conflict areas further north. 

Further, its environment provides the Canadian military with an essential training area for Arctic and northern conditions - something which it is already doing in an impermanent and inconsistent way. 

Accordingly, Churchill should be prioritized at the located of a combined Naval-Air Force-Army-Rangers base. 

What should first take shape is the refurbishment and expansion of a military airport, hand-in-hand with the development of a naval dockyard capable of docking and repairing a large number of Canadian warships. The air field would provide staging, maintenance and observation services for the region, capable of Armed, transport and surveillance missions simultaneously, while the naval yard would provide basing opportunities for the navy. Housing of families and personnel would be considered essential - this is no temporary post.

As the navy and air force establish themselves in Churchill, they can start sparing excess construction capacity and experience to allow the army to develop a permanent training centre, depot and Ranger HQ in the town. Further excess capacity can be redirected towards other new Canadian northern bases in Iqaluit, Nanisivik, and Tuktoyuktuk. 

The end stage for each service should look like this:

Navy

- Docking facilities for at least six warships;

- Repair facilities for at least one ship;

- Establishment of housing and shore facilities for the crews and their families;

- Including parts and ammunition depots.

Air Force

- Air Field and hangars for Fighters, Transports, Drones, training, and surveillance aircraft;

- Advanced radar stations and possibly air defence capability;

- Housing for crews and their families

- Depots for parts and munitions;

- A northern air training centre.

Army

- Training centre for northern operations;

- Ranger Headquarters and depot;

- Depot for training, munitions and parts; and

- Base defence force.

1b. Government services 

The new government establishments at Churchill should include Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans, and University services. Environmental and Railroad regulatory personnel would also need to be present. With such an investment in military and government services as listed above, there would also have to be provincial investments or support for expanded healthcare and primary/secondary education. 

A Northern University has been proposed for many years, but so far there has been very little movement towards this. Such a place in Churchill would be a logical first home for Inuit and Cree studies, and natural sciences focused on the Arctic environment, flora and fauna. A Northern Engineering program would enable Canada to develop expertise in constructing, maintaining and improving northern settlements, which will be key to growth elsewhere. Lastly, given the importance of the North to the future of the world, International Relations should also be key. 

As a final consideration, it might also make sense to renationalize the old Canadian Wheat Board, and its terminal at Churchill.

2. Private Sector initiatives

This massive public sector investment would see the movement of thousands of government employees, soldiers, their families, and the various teachers, health care workers, construction workers and others to make it possible. Accordingly, Churchill should turn into a bonanza for some time. To ensure that the boom doesn't just come and go, leaving another depressed military station like Cold Lake, there are a few initiatives that could encourage a more stable and growing economy. 

Deeper integration with the rest of Canada could be accomplished through the expansion of the local airport and railroad. More reliable movement of goods and people should encourage easier tourism and lower cost of living and travel. 

Expansion of the port to include LNG and oil export terminals could broaden the economic base of the city. Installation of cranes could also allow for ocean going merchant vessels to make stops at Churchill. A further expansion of the port could allow for dockyard facilities for Cruise ships and pleasure craft, or a fishing fleet, which could add tourist dollars and new business opportunities to the city. While there is limited potential for a commercial fishery there, some amount of fishing could help support the population. 

(Incomplete, but better than nothing)

 

NDP Fails but Opportunity Emerges: the case of Alberta

(Begun October 3rd, 2021)

Following our latest Federal election, NDP partisans have been trumpeting the claim that their party was the only party that both won more seats and got an increase in the vote compared to 2019. That is true. The People's Party gained a lot more votes, but nowhere came close to winning anything (I suspect that might be all they want, anyway). The NDP won a net of one seat, while gaining +120,000 votes. That's something. However, what is the quality of their claim? 

We can look at a lot of qualifiers. First, look at their spending, which was significantly higher than in 2019. One seat and +1.8 percentage points in the popular vote? Hmmm... then there's the fact they actually lost seats in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. No pickups, only losses. That can't be good - they're hardly a national party, especially when you consider that half their caucus is now from BC. Their traditional base in Saskatchewan seems dead, buried and cold, as are others in Northern Ontario and interior BC. 

So, given that three parties saw declines in support - Liberals, Conservatives and especially Greens, the NDP don't have much to celebrate but one: the election of Blake Desjarlais in Edmonton Griesbach. He doesn't just flip a seat, but the seat of Kerry Diotte, one of the most embarrassing MPs in the country. More significantly, he points to a possible future, one where Edmonton is more orange than blue. 

In fact, the NDP came very close to winning Edmonton Centre, too - they were within a few thousand votes in a three-way-race. Elsewhere, NDP candidates combined with Liberals would defeat the CPC everywhere but Edmonton-Wetaskiwin - an urban/rural split riding that likely won't exist during the next election. Across the province, NDP vote shares went up 7.5 points - a greater amount than the PPC and Maverick gains put together. 

Given the increasing rightward shift of the CPC, I think a reckoning is due in urban Alberta. The province votes Conservative not because of values or interests, but identity. If the conservatives continue to mutate into the Canadian version of the "Know-Nothings," what appeal will they hold for the educated, cosmopolitan and wealthy citizens of Calgary and Edmonton? Less and less, I think. 

The NDP is best poised to take advantage of the opening space in Alberta. It is, at heart, a western protest party, albeit one grounded in left-wing politics. They are not the eastern-dominated Liberals, or the rural-and-white-dominated Conservative Party. The NDP better reflects the ideals and values of the province, as seen in the growing strength and support of the provincial party. As more and more Albertans fail to see themselves reflected in the Conservative Party, we should start seeing more of them finding a home with the NDP, a party comfortable with diversity, science, and complexity, like most Albertans. 

Were I an NDP strategist, I would be preparing for the next Canadian election with a plan to flip Edmonton Centre, Riverbend, Mill Woods and Manning. Yes, six Edmonton ridings. I fully think it's a possible goal. 

The Conservatives, pt. 2: The Libertarian Wing

Libertarianism is an ideology that I understand for its theoretical simplicity, but less for its applicability. Still, I looked upon the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul with a lot of excitement, and he introduced me to the term. I was attracted to an American presidential candidate who desired to end their foreign wars, and legalizing marijuana sounded like a sound idea. Later, the Libertarian version of Star Trek entertained me (it's still great). While Libertarianism has existed as a political identity for some decades, I reckon people have had similar experiences as me, as the Libertarian Party in Canada had its greatest success in 2015, while the People's Party, the Libertarian offshoot of the Conservative Party of Canada, did even better (though poorly still) in the following 2019 election.

While it has yet to elect a labelled Libertarian at the Federal or Provincial level, Libertarianism seems to be an ideology in the rise on the Canadian Right. Anti-lockdown protests, whether business shutdowns or the wearing of masks have been present and persistent across the country. Much of the conservative media establishment shows a great deal of admiration, toleration or promotion of these ideas too when they aren't waving away the stench wafting from the rotting corpse of Red Tory values of obligation and duty. Going back further, Libertarians were prominent opponent of both marijuana and gun regulations, the latter of which they continue to oppose in a significant way. As Canadian society moves in the direction of greater individualism and less communalism, Libertarianism is in, and speaking with a strength exceeding its numbers. 

Yet there is a great irony in the movement and its apparent success. That is, the Libertarian movement in Canada is chained to its ideological rivals, and it doesn't even seem recognize it.* They seemingly forget: Libertarian values don't make them conservative, they make them liberal. Meanwhile, they remain wed to a more sizeable, more cohesive and dedicated group: the Social Conservatives. The only thing tying them to the Conservative Party is a desire for small government. However, the outcomes of power for both groups couldn't be more different. Libertarians want a small government so individuals can make more choices for themselves. Social Conservatives want smaller government so that Churches can reconquer the lost social services and charity they once provided. It would be foolhardy for any libertarian to think that a Social Conservative government, even trapping itself in Libertarian talking points as they do, would in any way allow for more freedom for individuals. 

Would there be as many or more rights for LGBTQ people? There is no way. Would there be as many or more rights for religious minorities? I highly doubt it. Would there be as many or more rights for women? Come on. Lastly, would there be as many rights and protections for children? Who are they trying to kid? The Social Conservative movement, wedded as it is to Old Testament interpretations of morality and justice, would, in time, reduce or eliminate rights for all of the groups just listed. When you add it up, that's the vast majority of the population losing its protections, agency, and rights. Libertarians can forget about their two big successes: the right to die and drug legalization. Do any of us think the Socons would expand drug access? You can see the proof in Alberta where Safe Injection sites have been shut down or removed to more remote locations, with hundreds of deaths insuing - and the UCP have only been in power two years.

The fundamental truth of the Libertarians is that they are in fact nothing more than Liberals who hate Health Care. All the rest is cognitive dissonance. Or maybe it isn't. Should we be surprised looking at them? We see mostly young, white men. Would they lose their rights, privileges and protections? Or would they be left the only ones with rights? Regardless, the big issue remains that Libertarianism is modern conservatism at its most intellectual and presentable. However, they are clearly being used - and not using the others, to further an agenda that couldn't be further from their own supposed values. These Trojans must know there's Greeks in the Horse, but so long as they're both moving in the same direction, who cares what happens at the end?

 

*Update, Feb. 3rd 2022 - in the wake of the O'Toole episode, I wonder: do all the disparate camps in the "Big Blue Tent" not know that they are polar opposites, or are they just using each other for power?

The UCP's Q1 Fundraising Disaster

2020 was a calamitous year for Alberta, like most places, but particularly for the governing United Conservative Party. While public dissatisfaction with their governance rose steadily throughout the year, many people seized upon rising fundraising totals for the opposition NDP and shrinking fundraising totals for the government as evidence of a desired shift within the province. To the delight of the government's boosters, the UCP delivered a strong fourth quarter performance at the end of 2020 that not only defeated NDP fundraising in those months, but over the year entirely. Perhaps fears of an NDP resurgence were phantoms, not real... 

But this recent success only makes the recently released Q1 disclosures more disappointing for them. It is bad to be out-fundraised by your opposition - and in this case the NDP more than lapped them 2:1. It is embarrassing to be out-fundraised in terms of large donors (people donating amounts greater than $250/year) when you are a conservative party, a party of the deep-pocketed. Lastly, it is embarrassing to be out-fundraised by small donors by a scale greater than 3:1 - the NDP outraised the UCP $800,000 to $233,000. Perhaps most significantly, though, the Q1 UCP saw a drop off in donations exceeding 67% from Q4 2020, and this during tax season.

Historically, the second and third quarters of a year are dry spells for UCP fundraising (in fairness, their supporters were preparing for an election in 2018, fought one in 2019, and suffered a plague in 2020 - but three makes a pattern), so we could anticipate further financial troubles for this troubled party. Fears of an NDP resurgence are not phantasmagorical, but solid, and their support is stiffening as it deepens. Or so it would seem. 

However, one thing stood out to me as I briefly surveyed the UCP disclosures for the first time earlier today: lots of UCP MLAs popped out of the page at the top of the donor list. It made me wonder: was UCP support even hollower than it appeared? Is this a party essentially laundering its government salaries back into itself? I had to have a look, and here is what I found.

To get started, lets keep in mind this number: $591,597.71. This is the amount the party raised during Q1 2021. Of this amount, $233,450.45 came from donations below $250, while the remaining $358,147.26 came from individuals donating above $250. 

The current donation limit for an individual in Alberta is $4243, and the following UCP MLAs donated that amount: Devin Dreeshen, Tanya Fir, Nathan Horner, Jason Kenney, Tyler Shandro, and Travis Toews; their donations thus total $25,458. Meanwhile, Children's Services Minister Rececca Schulz missed the memo and only donated to the old limit of $4000, but at least her husband Cole chipped in another $3000. So far, $32,458.

Going further down the list, Matt Wolf, Twitter's Mr. Congeniality, once again put in his 200,000 cents. His equal, at least in the legislature, is the otherwise unnotable MLA Searle Turton. Rick McIvor made a contribution of $1,150; Tanya Fir's mother Josie with $1000; Dan Williams with $630; staffer, and former Daveberta cohost Ryan Hastman with $626.16; MLA Shane Getson with $600; UCP Executive Directer Dustin Van Vugt with $568; and, rounding out the donors north of $500, pipeline enthusiast and MLA Michaela Glasgo with a donation of $525. This brings us to a running total of $41,557.16, or 7% of the total.

In between $500 and $250, the list starts off with some celebrity, with Leela Aheer finally making an appearance with a donation of $450. Tying her in enthusiasm are Rick McIvor's wife, Christine, and MLA Joseph Schow. Roger Reid, MLA for the riding which includes the ever consequential Eastern Slopes, put in his $400. MLA Matthew Jones comes next with $390; then fellow Calgary MLA Josephine Pon with $325; staffer, and high school classmate of mine Evan Menzies with $301, who just beats out fellow staffer Brock Harrison by the narrowest, Price-Is-Right margins ($300). 

Now of course, this is just the first quarter of what will surely be a long and bitter year, but I couldn't help notice the absence of so many UCP MLAs from the list above. Surely a few are stewing around below that magic $250 threshold that makes anonymity disappear, but it was a surprise to me, and likely the UCP braintrust that the list above has only 17 out of the UCP's 62 remaining MLAs. Surprising too was the facelessness of many of their MLAs; I had to run each name through Wikipedia and the donor list just to be sure there wasn't anyone I missed. I was chagrined as a political junkie to have not heard of most of them. 

In the end, you probably came here to find out how incestuous the UCP's fundraising situation has become. The answer, at least as far as I, with my limited means and intellect could determine is $44,623.16, which represents only 7.5% of their overall quarterly fundraising. However, it makes up 12.5% of the big donor money received in Q1 2021. 

Now this share is unlikely to grow throughout the year - there are simply more Albertans than UCP MLA or staffers, and a turn around in the province's fortunes could turn around people's views of the UCP. Time will tell.

Fun facts

In the whole disclosure, there are only 74 big donors from Alberta's second city, Edmonton - a few of whom were donating to Constituency associations in Calgary. Weird. (Edmonton appears in a search 83 times; 207 for Calgary). Representing the province's lesser cities are ten donors each from Red Deer and Sherwood Park; five each from Lethbridge, Lloydminster and Spruce Grove; four from Leduc; and 3 each from Medicine Hat, Okotoks and Cochrane. At this point I grew bored and stopped counting.

What to Make of the Conservatives, pt. 1

I must admit that I've spent an undue amount of time lately thinking about the dysfunctional conservative parties of the United States and Canada. I wonder about the composition their coalitions, about how they hold them together, and I wonder who has power - or who is grasping for it. At least in Canada, we can talk about our Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) as a "big tent" party: a collection of moderates (the "Red Tories"), libertarians, and social conservatives ("socons"). In my own lifetime, Canada's conservatives bridged into other areas too: environmentalists, Francophones, visible minorities, and other, regional interests, whose prominence wax and wane with the times. Regardless, the CPC aren't the country's Natural Governing Party, like the Republicans or the Liberals, but they are always seen as the government in waiting.

This wasn't always the case. Conservatives have seldom governed Canada since the death of MacDonald in 1891,* but they've been very competitive and generally popular in the almost 33 years I've been alive. Arguably, this electoral weakness is even overstated. Division within the various conservative movements in Canada has often been blamed for the Liberal Party's 20th century dominance of the country. Looking through federal election results, it's easy to see why. Groups like Social Credit, the Creditistes,** Reform, and even the PQ and Greens all diverted votes away from their time's primary Conservative Party, and these are just some parties that actually won seats. Often, their combined popular vote exceeded 50%, something the Progressive Conservative Party was actually able to score once, on its own in 1984 - the only time in modern history any Canadian party has done so.*** It's easy to see why writers like John Ibbotson thought Canada was going through a "Blue Shift" under Harper; but maybe it already was blue...

Regardless, things went off the rails. By 1993, the record success of the PCs was in ashes: events during their reign resulted in the PCs splitting into three major parties which were subsequently blown apart by a revitalized Liberal Party running up the middle. While the Liberals would win in 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2004, they governed from a socially-left, economically right-wing manner. The size of the Federal government was reduced, the deficit solved, welfare reduced, and so too the national debt. They carried on the environmental policies of the previous PCs, which wound up with the Kyoto Protocol, interpreted by Alberta as an assault on its interests. They also legalized Gay Marriage, which was also opposed by the provincial government in Alberta, but also the majority of the Canadian population at the time. Throughout this period, the PCs, Reform and Parti Quebecois still received over 50% of the vote in each succeeding election. If they could be re-united, they could rule Canada forever. While it didn't work in 2004, it worked for the next three elections.

However, as you might be gathering, I've also lived to see a lot of this appeal fade. The Canadian Conservatives have once again gone off the rails. What was described as "missing on an empty net:" the 2019 election, was an epic failure of modern Canadian conservatism. The 50%+ support of bygone days had by then largely evaporated. Though the CPC won the popular vote in 2019, it was with a meager 34% support, 36% if you include the breakaway People's Party and other perennial right-wing offshoots - while the Liberals had 33%. Hardly dominant stuff. In fact, the Conservatives won the popular vote only because of unusually high voter turnout in Alberta coupled with unusually high support for the party there and in Saskatchewan. They won one other province (Manitoba), and barely won a tight four way race in BC, while losing every other province and territory, places where 2/3 of the Canadian population resides.  

What explains their failure? So people find it easy to blame Trump, but let's look at Canada. There's something to be said for the reviving popularity of left-wing ideas, as the resurrection of the NDP and leftward shift of the LPC can attest to. Combined, they got almost 50% of the vote in the last election. However, let's look at the CPC: the environmental wing is almost fully gone, pushed out by Western oil interests. The CPC purged itself of its Muslim supporters during their electoral campaign in 2015. Another growing part of the Canadian population, the First Nations, Inuit and Metis, have never really been courted by the CPC and typically feel betrayed by them more than the other parties. Furthermore, Canada's "Red Tory" tradition, once so strong in the cities of Ontario and in Anglophone communities to its east seems to be going extinct. These are just some explanations for the CPC's current decline - so what about the other groups? Who is keeping the CPC viable?

Well, I've already mentioned them: the vestigial Tories - who have likely left the party altogether with the recent failure of MacKay; the Libertarians, at least those who have stuck around after the failure of Bernier; and the Canadian Social Conservative movement. There is also a growing Francophone base around Quebec City, though few of these voters are members, donors or volunteers (activists, in short). The CPC seems to have the Anglophone farmers of Ontario and the West, who are activists, and seemingly many people one could describe as partisans of the Oil and Gas industry. The values and way of thinking of the members of these various groups can be very different - but to some degree we can boil it down to a unity around the ideas of a smaller, less regulated Canadian state, and the need to keep the "left" out of power. 

Whatever it is, I just can't shake a feeling of pessimism towards this party and its prospects. I don't know why I care; maybe because my mom worked for them; maybe because I voted for them; maybe because I, in some way, could describe myself as "conservative." Maybe its because, no matter how vacant of ideas or good sense, the CPC still seem next in line to take power... or is it because they aren't more deserving of it? Why am I spending so much time thinking about them and looking at them with dread? Is it because they have 30% voter support? Or is it only 30%? Is it because they could form government? Is it because I know that this version should not form government? Or finally, is it because I think they're turning into something worse?

This is probably a good point to leave. In the next installment, I want to look at the Libertarian wing of the party.

* In the last 130 years, Conservative parties have run Canada for a total of 44 years, more or less. 18 of these years have come since the 1984 election. Since 1891, the Liberals have run the country for the remaining 86 years, as they continue to do today.

** The Social Credit Party and Creditistes were literally just the Anglophone and Francophone division of the Social Credit movement in Canada. The Western based party couldn't tolerate a Francophone leader and split off and disappeared after 1965, its voters likely going PC.

*** This victory in 1984 came after 20 years of almost unbroken Liberal rule and the final disappearance of the Creditistes in Quebec.

Deleted Scenes

P2: It's probably not hard to argue that a lot of this trouble has to do with American influence. Just look at the Republicans: it's now hard to see them as anything other than a coterie of White Protestants flirting with fascism - a more poisonous pill in this country, which is more diverse, more Catholic (and it would it be more on point to say: far, far less Evangelical Protestant), and even more democratic. That said, Stephen Harper "united the right" and won his first two elections while George Bush was President. However, he had strong organized support who we will be focusing on later.

Trump, though blameworthy, is hardly worthy of blame for the receding support of the party. Other dynamics have been underway for years which have resulted in the Conservative Party being united in name only, a partnership more in myth than fact, and one more marginal than it would appear.

A Modest Proposal: A Modern, Relevant Electoral College for the USA

It's pretty cringe in the 21st century for the Americans to still be electing presidents on the basis of an agreement made with slaveholders three centuries ago. It is past due that the system be changed to better reflect the true values and interests of the United States. Therefore, I recommend that the electoral college be no longer based around a unrepresentative and arbitrary score in the current electoral college, but by the number of NFL teams a candidate wins in the popular vote.

It's incredibly simple: if a state with NFL teams votes for X, X gets one vote per team. If another state votes for Y, Y gets electoral votes equal to the number of teams, too. The results for the 2016 are eerily similar to the actual, official results: Donald Trump beats Hilary Clinton by a score of 18 teams to 14 - a margin of 9:7, or 1.29:1. The actual results having been merely 1.33:1. Trump even has the distinction of sweeping both the AFC and NFC South divisions. That's way better than winning Wyoming or Idaho - seriously!

In the potential event of a tie between the major candidates, instead of subjecting the nation to the highly partisan and unrepresentative whims of the Senate and Supreme Court, one could instead just use the Super Bowl as a tie-breaker. The timing is perfect - late January - and the winning Candidate could be sworn into office on field in front of an actually packed and enthused arena. 

No longer would the American presidency be tainted by the ghost of slavery. Their election would be dependent upon the parts of the USA in which people actually live, thereby giving the office a much needed dose of legitimacy. Plus, through turning democracy into an appendage of sport, it will hopefully redirect violent energy out of the streets and on to the playing field. For all these reasons, it is time that the USA adopt the NFL as its primary means of electing a president.

Prospects for 2020

Given current polling and projections, the current NFL Electoral College looks like this:

Biden Football Conference

- The whole AFC East and North, plus Las Vegas, Denver and the Chargers (11)

- The whole NFC East, North and West, less Dallas (11)

Trump Football conference

- Tennessee, Indianapolis, Kansas City and New Orleans (4)

Toss-ups

- Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Miami, Atlanta (6)

Which I think really illustrates the economic and demographic weakness of the Red States.