On Voter Engagement

One of the purported panaceas for electoral disaffection, subscribed to by many, is some form of proportional representation, a subject upon which I admit to being poorly-schooled. Beyond some of the basic arguments both for and against PR, I know little. However, one of the most frequently-stated reasons for embracing it is that it would do much to remediate people's oft-stated reason for not turning out at the polls: the belief that their vote doesn't matter, certainly a perception that has been, I believe, promoted and exploited by the Harper regime to its advantage.

Although not considered a version of it, ranked balloting, also sometimes called instant runoff voting, seems to me a first good step toward electoral reform. Essentially, it involves the following, as described by Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto:

Instant runoff voting ensures that no one can win with less than 50% of the vote. It eliminates the risk of 'vote splitting', where two or more candidates ‘split’ the votes of a certain group. It also means that no one has to vote strategically – you can vote with your heart each time.

Ranked Ballots allow voters to choose multiple candidates, ranked in order of preference. It’s easy as 1,2,3. On election day all of the first choice votes are added up (just like we do with our current system). If someone wins 50% or more of the vote, they are declared the winner and the election is over. However, if no one receives more than 50% the candidate with the least votes is eliminated from the race.

With ranked ballots, there is no need for costly multi-round voting because voters have already marked their second choice. If your preferred candidate is eliminated from the race, your vote is automatically transferred to your second choice. Again, the votes are counted and if someone has a majority, they are declared the winner. If not, another candidate eliminated and it repeats until there is a majority winner.

However, while advocates of ranked balloting do not necessarily think it would be the best reform for provincial or federal elections because it wouldn’t fully address the problem of distorted results in a multi-party system, many are enthusiastic about its potential in municipal elections.

A report in today's Globe and Mail says that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is considering giving municipalities the option of adopting a ranked-balloting system, a reform that would take effect at the earliest in 2018. What I find interesting about this possibility is the fact that even though municipal government has the most immediate impact on our lives and our communities, it traditionally has low rates of voter participation. Changing the format would offer a good test of the belief that making people's votes count would encourage greater rates of participation.

Should that thesis prove true, we would then have a solid statistical basis for more significant reform at the provincial and federal level.

On The Perils Of Retirement

As a retiree, I occasionally think that maybe I have too much time on my hands - too much time to follow politics, especially its more sordid aspects which, sadly, seem to define almost all politics today. National, provincial and municipal affairs appear beset with a kind of self-indulgence and selfishness (perhaps the two are synonymous) that, I believe, is wreaking havoc on the social health of the nation. Federally, we see a government mired in corruption and seething with contempt; provincially, a rabid and pervasive partisanship seems to have the public good as only a distant afterthought; municipally, we have the spectacle of a scorched earth policy being practised by Toronto's chief magistrate and his brother. Something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark.

I do not live in Toronto, but anyone who thinks that the damage being done by the Ford follies is confined to Ontario's capital city is deluded. Putting aside all of the criminal and unethical acts he seems to partake in, the mayor's absolute refusal to see council's stripping of his powers as anything other than politically-inspired renders him manifestly unfit for public office, since clearly the demands of his and his brother's egos take precedence over the stability and well-being of the city of Toronto. But what about the fact that this debacle is being watched closely nationally, even internationally?

Despite their obvious intellectual limitations, I am convinced that on some level the Ford brothers must know that their insane antics are deeply corrosive to everyone's faith or trust, however slight they may be, in politicians everywhere. As but one example, they must know, yet they do no care, that reducing yesterday's council meeting to little more than a tag-team wrestling match, complete with the obligatory cat calls to the spectators, removes any dignity that one might associate with public office.

I am posting no video here of yesterday's events, but anyone so inclined can find them easily enough on the Internet - video of the Fords with Peter Mansbridge, on Cnn, and with NBC's Matt Lauer. To watch any of them will confirm the abject narcissism of the Ford brothers, but they will also probably consolidate a cynicism and disgust that only the insensate could be immune from. I can't bring myself to post them

The true irony here is that there really is only one solution to the wholesale destruction of politics taking place at all levels: voter engagement. But the longer the selfish, the ignorant and the mercenary dominate politics, the less and less likely it is that significant numbers of people will be willing to get involved, even if it is only to go to the ballot box, to stop the madness.

I am not at all hopeful about the future we are leaving to succeeding generations.

This Is Why They Can't Have Nice Things In Toronto

Watch below as reputed drug dealer Councillor Doug Ford thuggishly engages in some sanctimonious and hypocritical grandstanding in 'defence' of his hapless brother:



As well, you might want to read Joe Fiorito's piece in today's Star on the inanity and hypocrisy of those who still support Rob Ford.

Rick Salutin on Civic Embarassment

We are in Edmonton right now, and when people ask us where we are from, I mention our community as being about 70 kilometers from Toronto; I then hasten to add that we have nothing to do with Rob Ford, one whose escapades every westerner we meet seems to be well aware of. Never have I felt a greater urge to distance myself from Ontario's capital, with obvious good reason.

I therefore found especially interesting Rick Salutin's thoughts on civic embarrassment and its effects on the people. You can read it here.

Off to Banff tomorrow. I wonder if the Rockies will resound with derisive laughter as well.

On Polarized Politics

Well aware that the universe does not revolve around the City of Toronto, which is within an hour's drive of my abode, I rarely write posts that pertain to it. I make an infrequent exception today because of a greater truth that the risible antics of its mayor gives rise to.

It is hardly a revelation to say that we live in poisonously polarized times; for this troubling fact I lay the bulk of blame at the clay feet of the extreme right-wing. I have opined many times here that the Harper government is the most divisive in our history, reliant as it is on tactics ranging from demagoguery to name-calling to open contempt for our democratic traditions. And the results of that elevation of party politics over the well-being of the country is evident in many ways, including the recently reported loss of faith in democracy.

Nonetheless, I was reminded of how much I too have fallen victim of this polarization when The Mound of Sound responded to one of my posts about Mr. Harper:

I never much liked the Progressive Conservative party although there were some MPs I truly did respect and I held no enmity to most PC supporters. The Harper Conservatives are a different story entirely. I despise the party, its Fuhrer and its MPs and Senators. I don't feel much better about those who vote for it either. Harper has divided and shamed the nation and those who support him are responsible.

The Mound's comment made me remember earlier times in our political history when I felt little ill-will towards those who embraced a political philosophy different from my own, times when disagreements could be reasonably discussed and resolutions often found. One example would be the long reign of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, in part attributable to the steady hand of Bill Davis, the premier from 1971-85, one of a long line of Conservative premiers who governed with both moderation and consensus.

So how does this pertain to the ongoing sad spectacle of Rob ford and his thuggish brother Doug? In his column today entitled It’s time for conservatives to rescue the brand, Royson James, The Star's municipal affairs columnist, offers the following observation:

Reasonable, fiscal and progressive conservatives should be very concerned that the current city hall administration has damaged the right-wing brand...

They are red Tories and blue Liberals and practical New Democrats and they’ve managed to build a city with heart — an urban region that does such a good job balancing the interests of its people that this has become a brand admired and recognized around the world.

James has much more to say, essentially arguing that there are good and able people of moderation much more fit to help govern the city than the current administration, and that it is in the interests of those people to see the end of Rob Ford's reign, even if they identify themselves with the right. I hope you will take the time to read his entire piece.

For me, James' column is both a poignant reminder of the way things used to be on all levels of government, and an indication of what is still possible if both politicians and voters act out of concern for the collective good rather than the selfish advancement of their personal agendas. Without doubt, we have had enough of the latter.

The Small-Mindedness of Rob Ford

It has been said that to be a great leader, a person has to have a great vision. I'll let you decide where Toronto May Rob Ford fits into this equation by reading this story about what he thinks people should be marching and demonstrating for.

A Crippled General Laid Bare

That is the phrase Star columnist Royson James uses to describe Toronto Mayor Rob Ford. Even if you live nowhere near the city, his analysis of power misused and abused makes fascinating reading for anyone interested in the mentality and tactics of the right-wing.

Changes at the Hamilton Market

One the one hand, I am reluctant to use this blog to address a local as opposed to a provincial or national issue. On the other hand, however, it is generally accepted that local government is the level that most directly affects citizens and should, at least in theory, be the most responsive to citizens' concerns. With that in mind, here is a piece I recently wrote on changes about to be implemented at the farmers' market in Hamilton, Ontario:


Much spirited discussion has taken place recently over the changes to be unveiled early in the new year at the Hamilton Market. Anna Bradford, the city’s director of culture, has been quoted in The Hamilton Spectator as wanting to 'change the dynamic' of the venerable institution in order to appeal to those seeking 'a trendy shopping experience', asserting that the marker needs to attract young families and hip urbanites in order to survive.

The consequence of that vision is the imminent ejection of many long-term stallholders because, owing to space constraints in this 'improved' facility, the number of stalls will be reduced from 172 to 146.

I find myself wondering if the bureaucrats setting this new direction have ever spent any time at the facility. If they had, I doubt that this rush to make it a more 'upscale', 'trendy' and 'hip' place to attract a new and improved clientele would hold much currency.

The notion of the market place spans thousands of years. The Greek agora, for example, was a place of assembly where people from various walks of life exchanged ideas and made purchases from a variety of stall holders, a community hub for a society that valued true democracy.

The Hamilton Market, an institution dating back to the 19th century, has, until now, held hard to that ideal. Thinking back to my own childhood, I remember an open-air facility where produce was in abundance but amenities were not. Little shelter was offered in inclement weather. A multitude of languages were spoken. And the people came.

It was a time when interactions with both the crowds and the vendors were key parts of the market experience. The destination functioned as a kind of social equalizer, a place where people from all walks of life and social stature, from the recent immigrant to the store merchant to the captain of industry, mingled within an environment where such distinctions were at least temporarily suspended. It was and up till now has been a world both dynamic and animated, much as I imagine the agora of long ago was.

Today, we come from outside the city every week for that experience, plus the opportunity to buy products that are not readily available elsewhere, from the fine apples of a local grower to the range of organic produce available at Dilly's, whose winter tomatoes rival those of summer but, unfortunately, will no longer be available because the vendor somehow failed to qualify for a place in the revamped facility.

In my view, most people who patronize markets are seeking neither an aesthetic nor an antiseptic experience. Nonetheless, I fear that is exactly what is in store for them thanks to the vision of bureaucrats that acknowledges neither the history of the Hamilton Market nor the special place it holds in the hearts of its long-time patrons. It will be everyone's loss.