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.

An Issue So Many Of Us Grapple With

This letter to the editor reflects an issue I think most of us in the progressive blogosphere struggle with, as do the folks at samara:

Voter turnout is the key to federal change

Eroding the fabric of the Canada we love

The only way that we are going to get rid of King Stephen's Reign of Control is by getting out the vote. It seems that every time I pick up a newspaper there is at least one and often more articles about how the Harper government is ripping another piece from the fabric of the once democratic, compassionate society called Canada of which we were so proud. The most recent is a smear campaign on a retired military commander who just happens to be planning to run for the Liberals. As Lawrence Martin called it in the Globe, "the sleaze machine."

Canadian democracy is gradually being diluted. Social, cultural, scientific and information essentials continue to be diminished if not removed. Treatment of veterans has become a disgrace — no an obscenity. Everything we have valued about being Canadian is disappearing and we are at the bottom of many world lists including protection of the environment. This may be the most urgent — without a habitable planet, does the rest matter?

How do we convince those who have given up on government that their vote matters? It matters not only to them but to their kids and grandkids.

How do we convince them that their needs must be voiced and demanded; that this is the only way Harper can be defeated?

How can we leave these problems to parliament and expect any change? It won't happen. We need to find a way to get to our citizens — e.g. the youth who will be living with the disastrous results of Harper's policies; the marginalized who have long ago given up on the government and don't have the energy to fight — we need to help them to understand the importance of their vote. I'm not sure how to do it but it needs to be done and I invite and encourage folks to think about it and find a way to reach these voters.

Mary Lou Reiman, Hamilton

Police Secrecy In Hamilton, Ontario

Outside of a handful of traffic tickets, I have had almost no direct contact with police in my lifetime. Yet, in my darker moments, I have always suspected that it would be fairly easy to run afoul of them, be it through an angry word or gesture that could, with an ill-trained or unbalanced officer, quickly escalate into something of tragic proportions. Let's just say that, with so well-documented cases of police abuse of their authority, some of which I have dealt with in this blog, I have but a guarded trust in them.

It was therefore with considerable and justifiable consternation I read the following headline in The Hamilton Spectator:

Police board won't open fatal shooting reports: Hamilton Police Board decides — in secret — to keep secret lessons from police shootings

In a closed-door meeting this week, the Hamilton Police Services Board decided to keep secret a series of reports into fatal shootings and woundings of civilians by police officers.

In the wake of last summer's fatal police shooting of Steve Mesic, The Spectator asked for the reports in an effort to understand what Hamilton police had learned from their internal investigations (as opposed to the SIU's criminal investigations) of the 11 civilian shooting incidents police have been involved in over the past decade.

Not only was this decision made in secret, but it also appears to have been influenced by the heavy-handed tactics of Hamilton Police Chief Glenn De Caire, who, in an apparent effort to stop the board from voting to release the sought-after information, issued this threat:

... releasing the reports would require him to "sanitize" his reports in the future, leaving board members less well informed about shooting incidents.

Given the very questionable shooting of Steve Mesic and others in the recent past, one cannot escape the conclusion that both Chief De Caire and the Police Services Board have things to hide from the public:

Several police services — Ottawa and Durham, for example — release all or part of the reports and discuss them in open sessions. In Hamilton that has never been the case; the 2012 reports for example are summarized in a single sentence in the Professional Standards annual report.

To state the obvious, how can concealing information that the public should have a perfect right to be justified in an open and democratic society?

If You Are Still Looking For A Reason To Be Outraged ...

Look no further. This is almost too painful to watch, but watch it we must:

Political Opportunism Or Epiphany?

Well, the more cynical among us might suggest that Andrea Horwath no longer has a monopoly on political expediency in Ontario. More trusting souls, in this breaking story, might suggest a different causative factor.

Young Tim Hudak, leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party, to borrow a phrase from his good friend Rob Ford, appears to have had his 'come to Jesus moment.' The hapless anti-wunderkind has renounced his heretofore unshakable commitment to right-to-work legislation that would ultimately destroy unions in Ontario.

The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways.

A Leading Exemplar of The CBC's Policy Of Conservative Appeasement

Thanks to Montreal Simon, DESMOG CANADA, Press Progress and others for alerting us to the true extent of Rex Murphy's egregious conflict of interest in his role as CBC commentator.

Murphy is yet another sad but solid indication of the policy of appeasement the Corporation has adopted toward the Harper cabal.

My own complaint to the CBC about this disgraceful state of affairs is still awaiting a response. When I filed it a couple of weeks ago, this is what I received from their ombudsman:

I write to acknowledge receipt of your email. The first step in the process is to share your complaint with the relevant programmers, who have the right and responsibility to respond. I have therefore shared your email with Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News. If you are not satisfied with the response you receive you may ask me to review the matter.

Programmers are asked to try to reply within twenty working days.

Sincerely,

Esther Enkin
CBC Ombudsman
ombudsman@cbc.ca
www.cbc.ca/ombudsman

I will post the response if and when I receive it.

A Telling Distinction