Fixing the system

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, December 1, 2012 at 11:17 AM - 0 Comments

Chris Selley calls for a move to a ranked ballot.

In the longer term, however, there is a simple and bloody obvious solution to all of this, which is to hold an instant runoff election, using a ranked ballot, in each riding. Non-winning candidates are disqualified in succession, and their votes redistributed, until one has 50%. That way, everyone who goes to Ottawa does so with a majority mandate from his or her constituents. No partisans need be denied their candidate. Citizens needn’t be denied a robust debate between as many different views as desire to be heard. And people who don’t want to vote for anyone but the Greens, or the New Democrats or Conservatives, needn’t do so: They can mark a single X and head home.

No new electoral districts or ridings. No “list members,” who represent nobody but their party. Just the same old House of Commons, but populated using a fuller, more thoughtful, more pragmatic and more democratic expression of voters’ wishes.

How many Pierre Poutines are out there?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher review the latest numbers from Elections Canada.

Dickson writes that Elections Canada has received 1,147 complaints of inappropriate calls, in 247 ridings, including 252 complaints from Guelph, where the “Pierre Poutine” robocall send hundreds of voters to the wrong polling station. Dickson notes the calls in Guelph are the subject of an investigation that is “separate, but related” to his own.

A total of 1,043 complaints are from voters who say they were directed to a wrong polling station by callers, 625 of them from live or recorded callers “claiming to emanate from Elections Canada.” Elections Canada does not call voters to tell them their polling stations have moved. The other calls are rude or harassing calls from people identifying themselves as Liberals or New Democrats, calling at odd hours, swearing or rudely demanding donations.

Did Obamacare win the election?

By Jaime Weinman - Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM - 0 Comments

Buried in Mitt Romney’s post-election analysis of why he lost – he blames it on “gifts” to minorities, young people and single women – is an interesting admission about the impact of Obama’s health-care reform on the election.

“Obamacare” didn’t come up a whole lot in the election, because Obama didn’t want to talk a lot about it (polls show it is still unpopular overall) and Romney, while pledging to repeal it, was not in a position to make it a centrepiece of his campaign (having famously passed the same plan in Massachusetts, every explanation of why he wanted to repeal it had to be prefaced by an explanation of why state laws are different from federal ones). But the health-care reform was a big factor in the Democratic mid-term disaster of 2010, and though it became less of an albatross for the party once it squeaked by the Supreme Court, it was still expected to be more of a liability than an asset for Democrats this year.

But according to Romney, Obamacare worked to mobilize voters. He thinks this is a bad thing, a case of the government doling out favours to special interest groups; but liberals and Democrats might feel that Romney is making a stronger case for the effectiveness of Obamacare than Obama ever did:

“Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he said, was also a useful tool in mobilizing black and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers: 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus.”

A lot of liberals are already making fun of Romney, or expressing horror at this point of view: that when people feel the government is making their lives better, it’s some kind of “gift” or bribe, rather than the government doing its job. That’s part of the worldview that Romney expressed in the 47% remarks, and which underlay a lot of the philosophical differences in the campaign. But what’s really odd is to hear the Republican candidate tell people that Obamacare was an asset for the Democrats, after telling us for years that it was going to be their Waterloo.

How could Obamacare be such a liability for the Democrats in 2010, and then, according to their own opponent, a major asset in 2012? This speaks to the big problem the Democrats still have to deal with: while they’ve built a workable majority of voters in the past two Presidential elections, many of their voters are not likely to show up during mid-term elections, which have much lower turnout, and a much older electorate. The Democrats did extremely well in the 2006 election because older voters were frustrated with the Iraq war and took their frustration out on the Republicans. But in 2010, the Democrats were in charge, and the natural disadvantage of the party in power was compounded by the Medicare cuts that Obama’s health-care reform incorporated. The older electorate of 2010 voted against the Democrats because they saw Obamacare as hurting rather than helping them. But in 2012, more people were voting who had trouble affording medical insurance, and they broke for Obamacare, not against it.

The challenge for the Democrats in 2014, when they will once again be the party in power, will be to find a way to minimize their expected losses by figuring out a way to get their base to show up for mid-term elections in greater numbers. If they can ever do that, Republicans will be in real trouble for a while. (On the other hand, if the Democrats find some way to make young voters feel betrayed – like for example cutting the benefits they can expect to receive if and when they retire – then their voting coalition could evaporate.) Meanwhile, Republicans’ challenge in 2014 will be to find a way to avoid blowing their third consecutive chance to take back the Senate, meaning that we can expect them to apply a lot of pressure to keep people like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock out of future Senate races. Whether any of this works, I don’t know; this is one thing that not even the polls can predict – yet.

‘No one is more surprised than I am’

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM - 0 Comments

Peter Penashue has released a letter to his constituents.

I was very clear during the campaign that we would follow the rules. I specifically indicated that, in accordance with the law, we could not accept corporate donations. I was not aware of any problems or irregularities during the campaign.

No one is more surprised than I am at the allegations that have arisen since the campaign. No one is more disappointed. That’s why there is a new Official Agent in place to examine all of the paperwork and to work with Elections Canada to correct any mistakes.

Does Peter Penashue have anything to say for himself?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM - 0 Comments

Last week, the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister seemed to say that he’d have something to say today, but it now doesn’t seem there will be any kind of public statement from Mr. Penashue.

“I don’t know anything about it,” said Agatha Ryland, an assistant in Penashue’s constituency office in L’Anse au Loup, N.L. Reached by phone, Ryland said Penashue is travelling the remote Labrador coast handing out several Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medals for community service and achievement. Penashue’s spokesman Cory Hann could not be reached by email or cellphone, and there was no answer at the minister’s Ottawa office.

Penashue to explain himself, eventually

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM - 0 Comments

Peter Penashue emerged from the House after QP this afternoon to comment on the questions about his election campaign. Or at least to say that he will be commenting next week.

I will be explaining my situation and I think it’s very important that I speak with my constituents … we have an official agent reviewing the file and hopefully we’ll be in a better position by then. But I want to speak with my constituents and I think it’s very important that I do that … There’s lots going on and I want to speak with my constituents and explain what happened during the election and I think once they hear the explanation I think they will be in a better position to understand how things unfolded. But, in the meantime … once this week is over, I’ll be flying to Labrador and I want to speak with my constituents.

More questions for Peter Penashue

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 2, 2012 at 8:58 AM - 0 Comments

Laura Payton raises more questions about Peter Penashue’s election campaign. Chris Hall wonders when the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister will be allowed to respond.

And then there’s Penashue himself. While all this plays out he sits in the Commons, taking the heat, but taking no questions. It’s a difficult position to be in. Attacked, but muzzled. Apparently unable to defend himself, or to explain, which is the essence of parliamentary accountability … The Conservatives clearly believe the best tactic is to let others answer for the weakened members of the herd, and to turn the focus back on past opposition breaches whenever they can. It certainly muddies the water. But it doesn’t allow people like Penashue to see their own way clear of a controversy, even in cases when it could be of their own making.

The post-Etobicoke Centre future of elections

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 29, 2012 at 12:41 PM - 0 Comments

Stephen Thiele and Gavin Tighe, Borys Wrzesnewskyj’s lawyers, consider the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decisions.

In today’s modern era where most people have access to computers and telephones, it no longer makes sense to rely on a purely paper-based system of voting and record-keeping. Voting over the Internet utilizing a secure pin number already exists and has been adopted by various organizations without complaint. Such a system would eliminate, among other things, the need for the completion of a paper “Registration Certificate” for unregistered electors, do away with “vouching” in order for an elector to prove his or her identity, and possibly eliminate the need to show up at a polling station at all.

Such a system may also make voting more convenient and thus “enfranchise” more voters by making it easier for electors to vote in elections. Accordingly, we hope that the decision of the Court may have some unintended positive consequences for electoral reform. A system not unlike that used by the Canada Revenue Agency in the filing of tax returns could be envisaged for the operation of elections.

See previously: Accepting imperfection

Supreme Court rules no by-election in Etobicoke Centre

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 9:48 AM - 0 Comments

The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Conservative MP Ted Opitz and there will be no by-election in Etobicoke Centre.

The full ruling is here. The Canadian Press explanation is here.

Update 10:12am. A statement from Mr. Opitz.

I thank the court for its carefully reasoned decision. It is important to respect the will of the voters in Etobicoke Centre which was demonstrated by the result of the election. I agree with the court’s decision where it identified the importance of enfranchising the electors of Etobicoke Centre. As the court decision confirmed, a fair election took place, the result was clear, was then confirmed on a recount and the result has now been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Fifty two thousand people in Etobicoke Centre followed the rules, cast their ballots and today had their democratic decision upheld. I look forward to continuing my work as the MP for Etobicoke Centre, as we continue to implement Prime Minister Harper’s economic action plan to create and protect jobs.

The Prime Minister’s Office is pleased.

Update 10:32m. A statement from interim Liberal leader Bob Rae.

While we are disappointed in today’s split decision to overturn the Ontario Superior Court ruling, we accept it as the judgement of the majority of the Court. No doubt there will be a need to review both the opinions of the majority and the minority, and assess what further changes are needed to our election laws.

In addition to the split ruling today, there still exists a disturbing trend of irregularities and reports of election fraud stemming from the 2011 general election. We cannot forget that Canadians across the country were deprived of their right to vote through a coordinated attack on our democracy. Though Mr. Wrzesnewskyj’s case did not deal directly with these matters, it cannot be divorced from the allegations that have called into question the strength of our democracy. There is still much work to be done and many questions to be answered in order to restore our confidence in Canada’s electoral institutions.

I would like to thank Mr. Wrzesnewskyj for his tireless efforts in pursuing this cause. His dedication to upholding the integrity of Canada’s electoral system and the faith we have in Canada’s democracy is nothing short of remarkable. Regardless of the capacity, I know Mr. Wrzesnewskyj will continue to serve his community and the people of Etobicoke Centre.

‘We’re just better at it’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM - 0 Comments

Laura Payton revisits the “very ethnic” ridings the Conservatives targeted in the 2011 election.

CBC News has examined the election files of a number of Conservative candidates, including those on the list of the 10 targeted ridings. The records in the Elections Canada files indicate strong control from party headquarters, large amounts of money spent on communications and polling, and tight, take-no-prisoners messaging. That said, the analysis also shows it’s not just about money. Of those 10 target ridings, the candidate who took the riding out-spent the other candidates in six of the races, but sometimes just barely …

The presentation distributed by Nejatian laid out the numbers: by 2017, about half the 7.1 million people in the Greater Toronto Area would be visible minorities. A full 1.3 million would be South Asian and another 900,000 would be Chinese. Other targeted groups included Ukrainians, who make up more than 20 per cent of the population in Manitoba’s Elmwood-Transcona riding, and Jews, who form more than 35 per cent of Quebec’s Mount Royal and, in Toronto, 25 per cent of both Eglinton-Lawrence and York Centre. For advertising purposes, those are large but focused groups, groups that you can reach easily through advertising in the language spoken at home.

A ruling on Etobicoke Centre is at hand

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 19, 2012 at 3:15 PM - 0 Comments

A note from the Supreme Court advises that a ruling in the case of Ted Opitz et al. v. Borys Wrzesnewskyj et al. will be delivered at 9:45am on Thursday.

See previous coverage of Etobicoke Centre here.

He’s new here

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM - 0 Comments

Peter Penashue explains the trouble with his campaign expenses.

“Look, last year was my first election. I worked with an official agent, that was his first [and] all of this happened within four weeks, and I recognize that we need to clarify some issues,” Penashue said.

The Commons: Gerry Ritz did not inspect that ground beef

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Shortly before the farce was laid bare before the House yesterday, Stephen Harper stood and offered an important clarification on the contractual obligations of the Minister of Agriculture.

“Mr. Speaker,” the Prime Minister explained, “it is not the minister who does food inspection; it is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that does food inspection.”

Indeed, the nation’s conveyor belts are not directed through Gerry Ritz’s Parliament Hill office. Each package of meat, each piece of produce, is not personally stamped by him with his ministerial approval. He does not spend his weekends swabbing for bacteria, or at least he is not required by the standing orders to do so.

Nonetheless, it is the opinion of both the New Democrats and the Liberals that Mr. Ritz should bear some of the blame for the largest beef recall in this country’s history.

“Mr. Speaker, 44 days after the onset of the crisis of contaminated meat, there is still another product recall that has just taken place,” Thomas Mulcair reported this afternoon. “Does the Prime Minister realize that his Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is responsible because it is his program, his way of doing things, that put the lives of Canadians in danger?”

The business of responsible government is a constant debate about what precisely the government is responsible for. Continue…

More questions for Peter Penashue

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 10:56 AM - 0 Comments

The CBC raises more questions about Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue’s election campaign.

Mr. Penashue previously faced questions about campaign spending earlier this year and dealt with them in a vaguely hypnotic fashion.

Early adopters

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM - 0 Comments

The Conservative party’s interest in cap-and-trade actually predates its 2008 campaign platform. In 2004, the party’s platform expressed an interest in the concept.

A Conservative government will implement the commitments of Stephen Harper’s February 2004 paper, “Towards a Cleaner Canada,” including: Legislate caps on smog causing pollutants like Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Negotiate power plant and smokestack emissions limits with the United States and border states. Investigate a cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.

The same commitment to “investigate a cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants” appears in the Conservative party’s “policy declaration” of March 19, 2005.

Bob Mills, a Conservative MP at the time, apparently assisted in the drafting the 2004 policy paper. On June 8, 2005, Mr. Mills stood in the House and stated a commitment to cap-and-trade.

Unlike the smog blind Liberals, the Conservative Party of Canada has a real plan to deal with air pollution. We will legislate caps on smog-causing pollutants like nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds. We will also propose a cap and trade system within Canada that will give companies incentives to actually reduce smog-causing pollutants.

According to David Akin, the Conservative party’s 2008 policy declaration expressed support for “support a domestic cap-and-trade system that will allow firms to generate credits by reducing smog-causing pollutants.”

The smallest mandates

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM - 0 Comments

Last night, Jason Kenney wondered via Twitter what the lowest share of the popular vote had ever resulted in a party forming government.

BC Iconoclast has gone through the returns and finds that last night’s win for the PQ—with 31.9% of the vote—is the second smallest mandate in Canadian history, undercut only by the BC Liberals’ win in 1924 with 31.3% of the vote.

A total of 35 mandates have been won with less than 40% of the popular vote. Nine of those were in federal elections, including 2004 (which ranks as the 12th smallest), 2006 (10th), 2008 (19th) and 2011 (32nd).

The existential crises of the modern political reporter

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM - 0 Comments

Ezra Klein considers truth in the American presidential campaign.

Quite simply, the Romney campaign isn’t adhering to the minimum standards required for a real policy conversation. Even if you bend over backward to be generous to them — as the Tax Policy Center did when they granted the Romney campaign a slew of essentially impossible premises in order to evaluate their tax plan — you often find yourself forced into the same conclusion: This doesn’t add up, this doesn’t have enough details to be evaluated, or this isn’t true. I don’t like that conclusion. It doesn’t look “fair” when you say that. We’ve been conditioned to want to give both sides relatively equal praise and blame, and the fact of the matter is, I would like to give both sides relatively equal praise and blame. I’d personally feel better if our coverage didn’t look so lopsided. But first the campaigns have to be relatively equal. So far in this campaign, you can look fair, or you can be fair, but you can’t be both.

Mark Leibovich goes looking for joy.

But what’s been completely missing this year has been, for lack of a better word, joy. Yes, it’s always kind of fun to follow Joe Biden around and wait to hear what will come out of his mouth next, and who knows what Paul Ryan has hidden under his oversize jacket. But the principals don’t seem to be experiencing much joy as they go through their market-tested paces. A kind of faux-ness permeates everything this year in a way that it hasn’t been quite so consuming in the past. The effect has been anesthetizing and made it difficult to take any of the day’s supposed gaffes, game-changers and false umbrages seriously. The campaigns appeared locked in a paradigm of terrified superpowers’ spending blindly on redundant warfare. How many times do they have to blow up Vladivostok? Where were the surprises, the pleasures of discovery and the true emotion of the newly vitalized? The volunteers who decided to get involved because so-and-so inspired them, not because the other guy (the socialist or the plutocrat) scared them? They seemed in such short supply. This might or might not be the most important election of our lifetime — as we are told it is every four years — but it really did feel like the most joyless.

Sasha Issenberg says campaign reporters can’t see the campaign.

Over the last decade, almost entirely out of view, campaigns have modernized their techniques in such a way that nearly every member of the political press now lacks the specialized expertise to interpret what’s going on. Campaign professionals have developed a new conceptual framework for understanding what moves votes. It’s as if restaurant critics remained oblivious to a generation’s worth of new chefs’ tools and techniques and persisted in describing every dish that came out of the kitchen as either “grilled” or “broiled.” “When I went to work for my first campaign, in 1994, I was actually surprised at how journalists tended to think one step ahead where campaigns are four steps ahead,” says Joel Benenson, a former newspaper reporter who now serves as President Obama’s chief pollster. “Think of it as a level-five player in chess and a level-eight player in chess. You had people covering campaigns who are at the mercy of the grandmasters of politics.”

The new 338-seat reality

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM - 0 Comments

Mitch Wexler at PollMaps.ca has applied 2011′s election results to the proposed new riding maps. The Conservatives gain 25 seats, the NDP pick up eight seats and the Liberals somehow manage to lose two seats.

Another one for the Conservatives?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 1:42 PM - 0 Comments

Glen McGregor figures the Conservatives would be favoured to win the new riding of Nepean.

A Citizen analysis using 2011 poll-by-poll results shows that, had this smaller riding been in place in the last election, Poilievre would still have won easily with 51 per cent of the popular vote and an 11,000-vote plurality over the nearest challenger. Though rock-solid, Conservative support in the area is not quite as strong as it is within the larger boundaries of the existing Nepean-Carleton riding, which includes rural areas that helped earn Poilievre 54 per cent of the total votes.

The Liberals and New Democrats would do only slightly better in the new riding, the poll breakdowns show. The Liberals would have finished with 27 per cent of the vote and the New Democrats with 18 per cent, both only small gains. The pattern is similar using results from the 2008 election, when 52 per cent of electors in polls that are now in the proposed Nepean riding would have voted for Poilievre.

The new Ontario battleground

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, August 27, 2012 at 2:47 PM - 0 Comments

The proposed riding boundaries for Ontario have been released. Most of the new ridings would be created in and around Toronto: one in Oakville, two in Brampton, one in Mississauga, two in Markham and two in the city of Toronto itself. There is also plenty of smaller adjustments.

The reasons for the proposed changes are offered here.

‘I take full responsibility’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, August 24, 2012 at 11:21 AM - 0 Comments

The CRTC has fined the Liberal riding association in Guelph for an inappropriate robocall made by Frank Valeriote’s campaign during the last election. Frank Valeriote is apologetic.

“I accept the findings of the CRTC regarding the election call placed by my campaign designed to educate Guelph voters about specific policy differences between myself and an opponent. We were unaware of certain requirements and inadvertently neglected to include some identifying features in the message, such as a phone number and address. When I first learned of the errors in the call earlier this year, I was fully and immediately cooperative with the CRTC; I take full responsibility and apologize for the infringement.

“This has been an important learning experience, not just for me, but for all MPs and future candidates. Consequently, I have volunteered to do whatever I can to assist the CRTC to educate MPs, candidates and their staff to the full extent of regulations governing calls and the use of auto-dialers. It is important for these types of investigations to take place regularly to ensure that Canadians are aware of our rules and that they are respected.”

‘Our voting system is weakening Canada’s cohesion’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, August 20, 2012 at 2:17 PM - 0 Comments

Stephane Dion’s speech on electoral reform to the Green party convention this past weekend.

The text is here. Mr. Dion previously explained his idea here.

Debating the debates

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, August 3, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

TVA has announced a series of three debates for the Quebec campaign.

Normally these debates are organized under the aegis of a consortium of Quebec television networks under the utterly fatuous notion that television networks put aside their corporate differences for the public good. But these are not normal times. And so, beginning Aug. 20, TVA anchor Pierre Bruneau will moderate (or referee, depending on your point of view), three days of one-hour debates anchored to the themes of government, the economy, social policy, and the issues of Quebec’s nature and identity.

The event kicks off with Liberal leader Jean Charest crossing political swords with Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois on Aug. 20, continues the following night with Francois Legault, head of the Coalition pour l’Avenir du Quebec butting heads with Charest and then finishes Aug. 22 with what might be the most interesting undercard in recent Quebec political history: Marois vs. Legault.

Radio-Canada will host a debate with four leaders on stage.

The next federal election isn’t for another three years, but it’s never too early to think about how the current national debate system—two debates, one in English, one in French, with four or five leaders onstage—could be changed. Continue…

The battle of Quebec

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Stephane Dion challenges Stephen Harper.

Dion said Harper should not be afraid to publicly say he prefers a Quebec premier who espouses federalism — just as former prime minister Jean [Chretien] did. “It seems to me that a prime minister should not be shy to say that he wants all the premiers to believe in the country.”

The Conservatives and New Democrats are officially staying out of the Quebec race. Bob Rae tweeted his best wishes for Jean Charest last night.

Martin Patriquin and Paul Wells consider the campaign ahead.