Alberta Election Tomorrow!

With Alberta seeming to have the choice between one right wing party and well another even more right wing party it seems like Alberta will have it's first most exciting election in a long time. With the Wildrose holding onto a lead and the PC slightly edging upwards tomorrow  is going to be something to watch. For political Junkies like me this is very exciting. So here are my projections for tomorrow night. As you can see I give the Wildrose a strong lead, because the PC a few days ago I thought might be able to really bridge the gap, but the latest polling says otherwise.

Wildrose : 41%         46 seats (Majority)
PC          :34%          38 seats
Liberals   :12%           0 seats
NDP       :12%           3 seats
Alberta Party:1%        0 seats


As you can see even though the Alberta Liberals have the same percentage as the NDP they end up with no seats, because there votes isn't as concentrated in specific areas like the NDP. It is a shame that the Alberta Liberals will go from official opposition to no seat status even though they may come up with more votes than the NDP. I guess this only proves we need democratic reform, because as you can see the Liberals will get a substantial amount of support, but no seats to represent those people. Also the Wildrose will get a majority even though they didn't get the majority of the seats.

Quebec Desreves Everything?

The NDP Brian Topp a man who is running to lead the NDP is proposing that the province of Quebec be given 25% of the seats of the house of commons no matter what happens. Not even considering of course that Quebec today doesn't even deserve 25% of the seats. I don't know if he knows about this, but there is something called "rep by pop" the Liberal party pretty much created it in this country. Even though some prairie provinces and Atlantic provinces including Quebec got some extra seats they got it, because of the laws that were created to make sure they get representation and not be overflowed by the bigger provinces.these sort of laws over represent some parts of the country over the other I think we should move to make our house of commons truly rep by pop by giving more seats to the provinces that are growing much quicker versus the rest of the country. It's to hard to take away seats, but giving Quebec 25% of the seats when it currently represents less than that, and is growing much slower than the rest of the country is just insane. My province doesn't even deserve the seats in currently has. Our commons should be trying to move into the direction of making it truly "rep by pop." This policy is a desperate attempt by Brain Topp. There is no justification for giving Quebec more seats.

National Popular Vote

We all know that the current electoral system is broke in the U.S . In 2000 Al Gore won the Popular vote and he still lost the election. 2000 wasn't the only time if you continue to look back in history 1 in 14 times the winner of the national vote lost the election. In order to change the system is all that hard when a recent poll shows that 70% are willing to change the system. In order to change the system you don't need to change the constitution. As the electoral votes of a state is given according to the state laws. Meaning that if every single state pass a bill to give there electoral vote to the candidate who wins the national vote versus the candidate who wins the state vote.

Right now, presidential campaigns focus their attention mostly on the so-called swing states, where the vote could go either way, ignoring a good portion of the electorate. The consequence is that the popular vote totals in any election are not what they might have been had the candidates known they would have to maximize their nationwide vote in order to win.

Watch this here

If this solutions seem far away it isn't currently 8 states have passed the NPV (National Popular Vote). which means that these states promise that in an election if a candidate wins one of these states they will not just give the electoral votes to that state winner. The state will give it's electoral votes to the winner of the popular votes. California, Colorado and Rhodes Island have already passed NPV and is sending it over to the governor. Another 10 states have passed NPV in at least one house. The NPV will not go into effect until enough states have adopted NPV that together they hold the majority of the electoral votes.

This isn't perfect, as it doesn't mean that a candidate needs over 50% which is why the NPV should include IRV, but in a political system where there are only 2 major political party this isn't a major issue at the moment, but should never the less be included in the future.

Read more here

Read more about NPV

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/22/sracic.president.election/index.html?hpt=po_bn1

NDP On Quebec

The NDP leader Jack Layton said that Quebec would just need 50% +1 to be it's own country. That is just crazy. You can't just destroy and split up a country with a simple majority. I would not accept if just 50% +1 of Quebec wants to be it's own country. You would need much more in order to take apart a country. I think a super-majority (2/3) is a good clear majority in order to take Quebec out of confederation. Anything lower shouldn't be accepted. A simple majority is too little for something too important. In BC you need 60% to pass Single transferable votes. It didn't pass twice in the province even though one time it passed by 58%. So democratic reform is should be harder to pass then independence of a province that has been in the country for over 140 years.

Electoral Reform!

The deal made by the Conservatives and Lib Dems is that they would form the next government, but there has to be a referendum on electoral reform for the Lib Dems to be happy. I support changes to electoral reform. In the U.K the system that was put up on referendum was voted on May 5th. The U.K people unfortunately voted against IRV was unfortunate, But that shouldn't discourage us from changing are electoral reform. Just look at the last election 40% of people voted conservative yet Harper has a majority that in the House of Commons represents more than 50%. How is it fair that 60% of people voted for other parties yet a party that gets less than 40% gets a majority. We need to change our electoral system, and the fact that a referendum was put up for a vote in the U.K is an important first step.  

Vote!

                          I know since the election was called our Blog has been hoping that people throughout Canada will vote with the party that is fiscally responsible and has a clear vision for Canada. That Party is the Liberals, but now let's get away from what party you should vote for to a more pressing issue for me.
                          In the last election the party that got the most votes was the INGTV party which stands for (I'm Not Going To Vote Party) In the last election this party got 41% of the eligible voters of Canada. This party got 9.8 million votes nation wide. Beating out all the other parties. If these voters actually created a party on the ballot they could actually win an election, but some people think that voting doesn't matter, because one vote can't make a difference. That kind of thinking is what creates the rapidly growing INGTV party. This parties platform includes doing nothing and allowing other people to make the descion for you. If you don't vote May 2nd you can't complain about the result. If there is a Tory majority that cuts health care and you didn't even vote you can't complain saying if you voted Harper that you didn't know that's what you were voting for. And if you voted for another party you could complain, because you try to stop it. The strongest activist of this party are the youth. Apparently the platform appeals to the younger generation, but I don't think that that is true. This year many youth groups have been trying to get out the vote. Advance polls are showing a 30% rise in participation. We need to keep this moving in the right direction. The party that I want to lose on May 2nd more than the Conservatives is the INGTV party of Canada. They are bad for Canada and are the worst thing for our democracy. One of my solution to try and raise voter participation is to create proportional representation. Studies have shown that countries with proportional representation have much higher voter turnout then countries with FPTP (First Past The Post)

History Will Be Made

in the 41st Canadian election. All the polls have one thing in common: the NDP is way up and the Liberals have tanked. Not only that, but they are closing in on Harper. I doubt they could form the government, but there will be questions asked about the future of the Liberal Party and uniting the left.

I do not think that a merger would be viable. These parties are more different than you'd think. What really needs to happen is electoral reform. The opposition parties must unite to force a bill supporting proportional representation. Then, maybe a merger like the Liberal/National coalition could form between the Canadian Liberals and NDP. They would be able to maintain their own platforms and run candidates against each other while keeping the advantage of power.

A merger would be possible, but only after voting reform.

Harper Quotes: Too Late?

The Liberals have hit the jackpot; but has it come too late in the campaign?

The party has obtained a 500 page book on Harper's quotes. No, not the visionary, good ones, but the controversial ones. All compiled by the Tories back in 2003. My personal favourite is:

"It's [proportional representation] certainly an option. Electoral reform is an option is an option I would look at. Proportional representation probably wouldn't be my first choice, but it's something that I think the party should look at as an option and I think we should change the current system."

So, where is my rep-by-pop? Harper did not make one attempt to change the current system since he took power. With the rise of the NDP, the first-past-the post system now favours the Conservatives who can rule with a plurality in many ridings that they would not have under PR or at least Instant Run-Off. Stephen Harper was right: the FPTP vote is unfair. We must install a new, fairer method of election.

But, has this breakthrough came to late in the election campaign? We will only know on election night. With the Liberals looking pretty dim in the polls, we must hope that these quotes can help the "boot Harper out" cause.

You can download the book here.

Related articles

• How a Yes vote to AV could lead Britain to proportional representation (economist.com)
• Tory majority could hinge on where votes bleed to NDP in final week (theglobeandmail.com)

Money and elections

It is common knowledge that money wins elections. If we look at tables containing the candidates and the money they spent, there is a clear correlation between money spent and who wins. This is the whole basis for most of the uproar about sponsorship scandals. But remember : correlation is not causation. Although more money might cause higher chances of victory, it could be that higher chances of victory causes more money. Or it could be that a candidate's appeal to the voting public causes both money and high victory percentages.

Let's first use an analogy to simplify the issue. When do you cheer for a sports team:

A) When they have a sure win

B) When they stand a possibility of loosing

C) When they stand a possibility of winning

D) When they have a sure loss

Most people would answer A, B, and C. If you answered A, it is probably because you wanted to cheer for your favourite team, which is currently dominating. If you answered B, it is probably to encourage your team to play a bit harder to minimise the chances of a loss. If you answered C, it was probably to get the final push going and claim victory. But if you answered D, it is because the team is your favourite, and it is unlikely that you would ever not cheer for it. Now just replace "team" with "politician and party", and "cheer" with money.

But if you don't like the logic type of argument, because the situation is actually more complex, then entreat the statistical argument. In the book Freakonomics, authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner provide statistical proof that the candidates spending hardly matters at all when it comes to elections. They do this by comparing elections where the same candidates ran against each other (because the candidate is relatively constant). They found that when a candidate slashed their spending in half, they lost only 1% of their vote. (They used the 1000+ Congressional races where two candidates ran together for several times in a row, from 1970 until 2005, when the book was published. You can read the entirety of this argument on pages 8 to 11.)

But if you present the anecdotal evidence of various politicians who were elected "by money", as it would seem, allow me to present counter-evidence. Steve Forbes and Michael Huffington did not win their elections, and neither did Thomas Golisano, who spent $93 million of his own money over three elections, and won 4%, 8%, and 14%.

In conclusion, money does not win elections, and neither do elections win money. The chances of success of a candidate, based on their personality, their appearance, their charisma, and their platform win elections. Money is simply a byproduct of the of the chances, and has very little effect, the same way cheering has very little effect on the game at hand.

U.K. Votes for Reform!

The U.K are going to have a referendum on changing the current voting system to another one. The current voting system they use is called "first past the post." They plan to change it to is instant runoff voting. On the ballot, instead of picking one choice, you list your first second, third, fourth choice and so on. Then if no one has the majority of votes, the candidate in the last place is eliminated. Then they take the eliminated candidates votes and give it to the second preference. This continues till one candidate gets 50% +1 of the vote. Now I know that there is no perfect democratic system so right now this is the best it may get, so I support changing the system in the U.K, and I hope it passes .

Image via Wikipedia

Example of Instant Runoff Voting Ballot

Britain's government will hold a referendum next year on changing to a proportional voting system — a reform that could permanently affect how the U.K. is governed.

Prime Minister David Cameron's Downing Street office said Friday an announcement will be made next week.

Any change could make European-style coalitions commonplace in the U.K. Britain currently has its first coalition government since World War II.

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.K. coalition to hold electoral reform vote (theglobeandmail.com)
• David Cameron will campaign against vote change (independent.co.uk)
• Referendum On Electoral System 'Next May' (news.sky.com)