Calgary eliminated from the democratic process?

We don't seem to be the only city that is being excluded from the process.  If you look at where the leaders have been and are planning to go you can see that once again the East seems to be the "golden" child. So why does this happen election after election?

According to Election Canada there are 308 ridings in Canada.  Ultimately, the ridings are determined by population numbers.  What this means is if Ontario voted for the Purple party and all the provinces and territories in Canada voted for the Yellow party (this calculation excludes our friends from Quebec) the Yellow party would win by a small margin. Ontario has the largest population so people living here should have a "greater" representation in the government. Seems fair right?

What is fair? The dictionary defines fair as something "having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial."  So if all the candidates visited all of the ridings in the entire country and participated in a debate (and included all of their fellow competitors) then we could conclude that this is a fair system. Or is it?

So why hasn't Calgary been a destination of choice?  

Imagine politics like a board game. Each candidate already has a certain number of ridings (or chips).  Harper starts with 143, Ignatieff 77, Layton 37, Duceppe 49 and May 0.  The goal of the game is to win as many chips as you can.  Strategically, it would seem to make sense on trying to capture chips from ridings where there was a narrow margin of victory in the previous election and completely stay away from places where there was strong support.  Last year, in Alberta, 27 out of 28 ridings supported the Conservative Party (1 riding was won by the NDP).  Prime Minister Harper probably feels pretty comfortable with "another" blue victory in Alberta, especially in Calgary.  

This game has been played year after year and we continue to let it happen.  Is this why so many of us are frustrated? It does explain that feeling in our gut that something just isn't right.  Or is this what it feels like to get the short-end of the stick?  Imagine if one of the leaders decided not to play the game and actually did spend time in Calgary - right in Harper's backyard!  Just think of the media attention! The controversy!

But alas, the leaders have made it pretty clear the fight for democracy, the opportunity to be inspiring and the satisfaction of earning our vote as the leader of our country are clearly not part of the game rules.

As the fourth largest city in Canada, should we expect a visit?   We shouldn't be too upset. Calgary isn't the only city being eliminated from the democratic process.  Heck we could live in the Yukon or Nunavut Territory (just to name a few) where apparently the leaders don't care about you either!

What's the Big Idea?

Or, to put it another way, where are the big ideas? They are completely MIA. Not just during the election, but in most western political discourse. It seems we have moved into an age where stultifying incrementalism is all we have to look forward to. Oh . . . and talking about sweeping budget cuts is NOT a big idea. Just needed to clear that up so there wasn't any confusion.

Lawrence Martin says that we are in an age of plodders or grinders. This is an unfortunate scenario given that we live in a time that is crying out for big ideas. While some parties are pretending that we are in a worsening crime situation (we aren't) and others are waving the red flag of certain parties abandoning public health care if elected (they won't), no one is talking about radical reform of the delivery of health care - stripping it back to its purposes, examining its assumptions and implications, figuring out what we do and don't know and then marching on from there. While candidates argue about shaving points from the corporate tax rate or offering 'targeted' nickel and dime credits for sweating, no one is talking about a radical overhaul and rethinking of the entire tax structure or heretical concepts like a guaranteed living wage (whether they turn out to be 'good' ideas or not).

No, we are buried under a mound of incremental, ad hoc adjustments motivated by political points-making and expedience that has left the original purpose (if it is even relevant anymore) starving for air, miles below the band aids and sticky notes. Why is this?

Is it because big ideas shake up entire interest groups?

Is it because those sorts of shake-ups are rough on the risk mitigation of campaigning for office?

Perhaps, to paraphrase Kim Campbell, elections are no time to rework an entire complicated idea like social programs. I can buy that. I mean, look at the reaction she generated just for saying that much. However, it raises the rather crucial question of when it might be a good time to have this talk. 

The signs suggest we are stuck in an endless loop of campaigning where even the time between elections is still part of the preparation for the next election. This leaves little space for anything but tiresome tinkering and grandstanding hyperbole. Meanwhile, the talk about big ideas . . . can wait. For what?

For who? When?

Somebody needs to make a change. We can ask for it. Demand it. Make tinkering and extreme cautiousness a weakness. I'm afraid if we don't, we'll never have that talk. Meanwhile, reality continues to bite. So to speak.

What big ideas would you like to see on the table? How would you get the candidates and the government to pay attention to them?

A Disappointing Debate

Of course it was disappointing. How could it turn out any other way? Well, it could turn out another way but only if the format was radically overhauled. Have you watched two hours of television where less information was made available? Leaving aside the weekend Two and Half Men marathon on cable.

All we got was the banal repetition of the key messages that anyone can pull off the front page of each party's web site while saving themselves the two hours and not having their cynicism deepened. The questions asked were, for the most part, the kinds of questions that leave room for candidates to wax on about their vision for this or that and how policy X or policy Y would lift the country (or how their opponent's policy would lead us to ruin). 

One exception, and a useful example of the power of good questions, was the question in the English language debate about multiculturalism and immigration. This was a question about an idea that had the potential to reveal deeper character traits in the candidates and the parties. The answers to the question had the highest density of information in the entire debate. It would have been an even richer segment if the discipline of the format was different.

There is no discipline in this debate format outside of simple time fairness. Who cares how long they get to talk? Let's make sure that they are actually saying something. Candidates can exaggerate, obfuscate, and worse. The most we get to see is how many different ways they can go about not answering a question. Why can't we have a moderator that says, 'Actually, that doesn't answer the question - please answer the question. If you don't answer the question, you lose your time."

This would lead to a much higher density of information from the original answer and from the follow-ups, including the sparring. It would also lead to a higher standard of candidate, force the parties out of their carefully constructed narratives, brighten Canadian's appreciation of political discourse, and leave all of us a lot smarter when it comes to depositing a ballot or thinking about volunteering for a campaign.

A Compass with no bearing

Too busy? Disinterested? Want to get back to watching Dancing With the Stars? Don’t let a pesky election get in your way, just take this quick 30 question quiz and we’ll let you know who to vote for.

Thanks, CBC.

CBC’s Vote Compass has been a dominant topic of conversation from dinner tables to water coolers to TV pundits, albeit for vastly different reasons. For some it is derided as a biased tool crafted by either a biased network or a biased creator. For others it is a way to feel informed in their voting choice with a minimum of effort expended or attention paid. Certainly, several people will use it as a catalyst, a conversation starter, and a jumping off point to engage in meaningful conversation. 

The fact is, it has relevance and staying power, and is something we should all be aware of and reflect on.

To date it has been completed over 1.1 million times. To put it in perspective that’s the ballpark population of Greater Calgary. It is clear no matter how you look at it, it is a flawed mechanism. With that level of engagement from the public it is also something far more important—a discussion point, a conversation starter, a reason to dig deeper.

Let us first look at the reason behind creating it. CBC is not a benevolent and altruistic entity, they are in the business of making money, attracting viewers and driving web traffic. Mission accomplished. The traffic, the buzz, the discussion, they are all positive drivers for the CBC, even if some of the reaction shines a negative light on the network. That’s wonderful for the powers that be at our national broadcaster, but does that enhance anything for you, the voter? Not in the slightest.

Let's take a look at the tool itself. A series of questions on “key issues” followed by our impressions of the various leaders. Seems simple enough, and that is the problem. It’s simple, it’s trite, it’s glib, and it’s superficial. Furthermore, it’s not transparent. How are the responses weighted? Where is the emphasis? Where were the parties slotted on each issue? Why were these issues chosen?

When asked “How much should the government spend on the military?” a discerning mind immediately wonders: how much do they currently spend? What should the role of our military be? Of the money spent, how effectively is it being deployed to accomplish that goal? And yet the responses offered range from “much more” to “much less.”

Quite the critical analysis tool.

Rather than encourage further inquiry into each question or statement with links to facts, opinion, and media reports to accompany each of them, a statement or question is offered up for us to consider a simple one word response. If it spits out a response we’re happy with or expected, we’re falsely emboldened and now rest assured our lack of deep knowledge is not a problem. If it spits out a response we disagree with it reinforces our belief that it’s nothing more than a media bias being perpetuated against our chosen party, and we dismiss it out of hand. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which can further entrench partisan divisions or cynical ignorance. It could trigger some people to ask questions, but it is not presented to us in that context so it is the least likely outcome.

At its core however, the biggest problem with this kind of approach is that it focuses on issues, answers and simplicity, when elections need to be about character, questions and critical thought. The important topics are predetermined, the answers already given, and you will be done in no time! If only it were that easy…

Democracy is a full time job, and elections are one of the most important parts of that job. It is our six week window wherein we can question, prod, examine, challenge, and take to task those who wish to represent us to the world. That is a process which requires far more effort than knowing their two to three sentence stance on a handful of issues they’ve dictated to us as being important.

In the end, the Vote Compass debate and discussion can be distilled to one core question: Is the Vote Compass good for democracy?

In theory, it could be. In its current form however, it is a distraction and is unlikely to get its users to ask the critical questions needed to make a smart decision about who should be running the country.

Nor should it.

That is the job of an engaged citizen, of a worthy electorate. We need to look past the issues we’re told are at the core of this and every other election. We need to dig deeper, past simplistic, superficial positions and answers to think critically about who we are entrusting leadership to—both of our country and our ridings. We need to know why we are voting for who we choose to vote for and why we are not voting for the other challengers.

There are over a million responses logged on the Vote Compass—that is an engaged and thirsty public. Take it upon yourselves to take the next step toward critical assessment and invite others to walk with you. Whether it is family, friends, or coworkers that you next discuss this with, discuss the depth of the choices, not the breadth of them. Engage them in a discussion of substance and significance not style and sound bites

Make sure this election is a long answer exam, not a multiple choice pop quiz.

Politics is about power. Get over it.

Tom Flanagan writes in the April 4th Globe and Mail:

Almost everything uttered by every candidate and campaign team is incomplete and one-sided, when it is not completely false. Plausibility, not truth, is the test. We love to point out these defects in our opponents but are blind to them on our own side. Why? Because we are not engaged in rational discussion of issues but gathering support for our team. Words, ideas and policies become weapons to wound the other team and defend our own side.

Flanagan offers this in the spirit of an article that compares political campaigns to military campaigns and his point is as accurate as it is discomforting. But don't be distracted by your bitterness and disappointment at seeing it represented this way. No, treat it as a public service announcement that clears up an important misunderstanding about politics:

War is a tool of politics and the goal of every campaign - whether it is military or electioneering - is to gain power, hold power, or hold more power than before.

Period. That is the naked logic of politics and, as repugnant as you may find it, it is true.

It will not change. So get over it. 

We cannot be paralyzed by this simple fact. We should draw power from knowing this and stop being distracted by it.

We should start by examining our personal role. What uncomfortable facts and assumptions are we leaving buried as we cheer our favourite team on to a hoped for victory?

Then we can move on to asking questions about what the candidates think. How do they make decisions? What do you know about their character? What assumptions do they tend to make? What concepts do they understand?

The logic of politics is power. When we sit back wringing our hands because it all seems so nasty, we give ours away. In a democracy, the power needs to rest with the people. Being a smart citizen is the best way to keep it that way.

What would politics look like with more savvy and engaged citizens who weren't distracted by all the tribal shenanigans?

Different. Better.

The entire Tom Flanagan article can be found here