Tue 3 Jul 2007
I’ve begun the process of tying up loose ends (you heard that right…people who have outstanding debts with me… 
) I’m giving myself a week to make as much progress as possible and have set July 10th as my goal. This came as a conclusion while lying in bed being bored while I was in the hospital. (For those who don’t know, I was in the hospital for 8 days receiving treatment for a prolonged illness)
Part of this process is getting a variety of topics off my list that I’ve been meaning to mention, but have neglected. Some are comments on news, some are mini rants, some are just topics that have been on my mind. I’ll warn you that this is going to be eclectic, as tying up loose ends can be, but no one is forcing you to read them. Lets start with a few pet peeve rants:
Local News Papers: Wow. They are horrible. While in the hospital I only could read news papers for my news (instead of the internet) and I don’t believe I’ll ever buy a Record again due to fluff stories. Same with the Chronicle Journal. Give me my Globe over a local paper any day.
Standing Ovations: I went to the Stratford Festival and saw Oklahoma, and while it was good, it was definitely not standing ovation material. Unfortunately it’s a common trend for performances I go to. Has society just lost its ability to judge truly great performances and standing ovations are the new standard of applause? What do you do when there is an exceptional performance? I hope to go see King Lear at the Festival, and it better be really good if people give it a standing ovation…or…I’m complain on my low traffic blog.
Engineering Technology: If you have a diploma in Engineering Technology, you are not an Engineer. You are an Engineering Technician or Technologist. Simple as that. Take some pride in your education and profession and stop pretending to be something you aren’t.
Okay, lets hit a few things really quick: Bob Barker has left the Price is Right 
, Richard Stallman is coming to campus 
, The Loonie reached a 31 year high , Unemployment reached a 33 year low , Waterloo was named “Most Intelligent Community” , Omar Khadr won a legal ruling , Comuzzi joins the Tories …Really that’s enough said on those topics. If you want to know more about my views on any, just ask.
Some interesting things were brought up this week in the news, the abolishment of the penny and a national do-not-call list. I support both, the first because it is fiscally the right thing to do, and the second in my view allows for individuals to choose solicitations or not. Oh, and apparently the government is looking into how easy it is to harm a lot of people using dirty bombs.
Topics that relate to me…I put myself on the waiting list for a Peace Tower Canadian flag, estimated arrival time, 2025. As well, a BC Supreme Court ruling struck down the part of the Indian Act that says Native Status can only be passed through the male line. It will be appealed, but in the end it may mean that I will have full Native Status…like my Mother, Grandmother, aunts, uncles, and three of my cousins have.
I still haven’t made up my mind on the referendum in the fall on electoral reform, specifically, Mixed Member Proportional Representation. I’m leaning towards not supporting it. I believe some type of electoral reform is needed, it’s just that MMPR puts more power in political parties by the lists as opposed to something like STV, which is about actual candidates. Parties play a role in weeding out poor candidates as nomination meetings, but MMPR to me seems to open it up for parties to elect members who would otherwise not be electable. It’s not very democratic from what I see. Either way, my decision is not final, and I’ll continue reading about the topic.
Now for a topic that’s been on my list for a long time. Take a look at this comparison of two different channel groups for Star Choice programming. Notice anything interesting? They are both the exact same price. I’m thrilled that Star Choice caters to the homonegative TV viewing crowd.
Currently Listening to: Powerthirst
Random Wikipedia Article: Salvia divinorum
Jeff;
MMP does NOT put more power in the hands of parties. It puts power in the hands of VOTERS by giving us a vote that counts, that actually helps to elect somebody.
This allows us to finally hold political parties accountable. By getting rid of phony-majority, single-party monopoly governments, it also allows the government to be held accountable to the Legislature.
Wayne
Wayne,
Thanks for weighing in. My point was that I think there are better ways to empower the voters and change the electoral system in a positive way. I agree that electoral reform is needed. The lists that exist in MMPR are what bother me, as opposed to a different system like STV. BC has been working on a variation of STV and while I’m just a lowly citizen with one vote without a formal political science education, my research is swaying my opinion to disagree with MMPR. A No vote in the referendum is not a No vote for electoral reform.
I also have problems with the referendum being held with the election. Parties will politicize it and there will be so many items in the air that the topic won’t be given full attention.
-Jeff
I agree with Wayne. Also, it makes the 70% of local MPPs far more accountable than today. Since at least 85% of voters now vote for or against the party they want or don’t want to form the government, they have to vote for its local candidate. With two-vote MMP you can hold both your MPP and the party accountable, separately.
You should watch the Citizens’ video at:
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/OCA%20eng%20web_MASTER-001.wmv
And read their reports on why, after designing an STV model for Ontario, they voted 75/25 to prefer MMP.
That you as well Wilf for commenting.
I followed the entire process for the Citizens Assembly (I even received a letter to participate but was not chosen for my region) and have read all the literature that has come from it (and have seen that video previously). The Assembly was to bring up a solution, but it is still in the hands of the voters to decide if that it the preferred solution.
I generally vote for candidates as opposed to parties, as they are the people who will actually represent me. While I am a member of the Liberal Party (both Ontario and Canada), I have voted for candidates for the NDP in the past (when I disagreed with the decision of my party nomination and thought the NDP candidate was better).
It’s my impression that the majority of citizens prefer not to affiliate with a party (maybe you guys, as members of Fair Vote Canada can provide me with the percentage of voters who are members of parties), especially young voters. Very few of my friends are members of political parties or will identify with one if you ask which they fit in with.
FPTP is simple, that is what has kept it for so long. MMPR is complex in comparison. It’s going to be hard to convince the public that it’s better, along with perceived notion that it will allow parties to select part of their caucus without true voter say. I can foresee back room deals of upping a candidate on the party list to bring in long time supporters who just could never be elected. When I vote for someone, I want to know who my vote will be going to. At least with STV I can see them all on my ballot and rank them.
-Jeff
Nice that a party member has felt comfortable voting for another party. However, most have not.
With two-vote MMP you can vote for the government you want — which is the point of our parliamentary system — and vote for the candidate you like best, while still holding your party accountable: the best of both worlds. In New Zealand’s last election 20% of locally elected MPs were of a party different from the party that carried that riding.
Can you really see the Liberal Party upping a candidate on the party list in a back room deal to bring in a long time supporter who just could never be elected? First, why would they do that? How will that attract voters to cast a vote for the Liberal Party?
Second, with MMP the list MPPs are to compensate for local results not matching the overall party vote, so if a party wins lots of local seats — as Liberals quite often do — they will rate only a handful of list seats. Maybe someone from the Barrie area, where the Liberals were blanked in 2003, will be the top person on the list who hasn’t already been elected locally. And maybe a woman who was nominated in a safe Tory seat, as too often happens to women. When you, as a party member, are voting in the nomination process for list candidates, aren’t those the kind of people you’d want to nominate?
Unfortunately, I can see any of the parties doing a back room deal.
I’ll give an specific example I could clearly see happening (and yes I know it’s Federal MPs I’m using, but it’s a situation). Recent ousted from the Liberals MP Joe Comuzzi has now joined the Conservatives. I’m from Thunder Bay, and the Conservatives are always last with little votes. It’s between the Liberals and NDP. I could see the Conservatives putting Comuzzi on their list because of his experience despite the fact he’ll never be reelected in his riding again.
At the core I guess I’m not a big fan of the party system. Some real reform would be elected PM and Cabinet and have no parties…but money will keep that from happening.
I also see parties using this as a form of employment equity to have a “diverse” caucus. I oppose employment equity because I think only the best candidate should win. (Which in elections doesn’t always happen unfortunately).
Either way, that was a few thoughts…sorry for the delay, I was in the hospital for pneumonia for a few days.
-Jeff
One thing that MMPR does not address is vote dilution, which results in unbalanced parity for urban populations.
More importantly, it severely hinders the proportional representation of minority groups that are often centered in urban areas.
See: http://lawiscool.com/2007/07/29/vote-dilution-means-minorities-have-less-voice/
While MMP as it is proposed might not be your preferred solution to what’s ailing us, it is far better than what we have because voters can cast a positive vote that counts toward the final shape of the legislature.
As you know, right now, more that 50% of voters in Ontario generally vote for “losers” and do not receive the representation they deserve.