White Guys 43, Black Guys 1 - Black Guys declare Victory, Chicks Shut Out Yet Again

Okay, so we’re all happy for Barry Dunham... now what?

We will all remember where we were last night when John McCain made his dignified walk across the stage and it was no longer in question, Barack Obama was going to be the 44^th President of the United States.

It strikes me as important to get this down (or 'up in the cloud') for posterity.

I was at a rather small bar in the West End with my girlfriend, Jodie and our friend Mike. We shared a ridiculous number of surprisingly good hot wings, several pints of beer and endured the cheering of hockey fans on the other side of the bar watching the Canucks shut out the Predators. The CNN feed on our side of the bar had no volume, but I had picked up wireless from the coffee shop next door and was giving additional updates and context as the projections came in.

We sparred back and forth about the value of projections. Myself on the defensive... though I guess I'll even do the other two a favour and prepare a hot dish of crow for them – perhaps I can get the bar's recipe for tangy hotness. Yes, projections in 2000 were famously wrong at a late hour, but as I pointed out they are based on a long history of statistical analysis and that the laws of large numbers make them very reliable as a whole, if individually unstable... and of course the same law means that every now and then the whole collected projection can go to hell, but that's extremely unusual and the wise money can be put on the projections. Anyhow, I belabour a point which I had the grace to not rub in then – or was it that anytime I opened my mouth I was shouted down? Anyhow, in type... "Nyah nyah!"

When McCain took the stage to concede they switched the audio from the game to CNN.

I was disappointed on some level that McCain didn't make the core of his speech something to the effect of "YOU – my own party – threw me under the bus, you fuckers!" But I have to respect his reserve and dignity. It has to be tough to know that in the past 24 hours your life has peaked. Not many of us will ever face that moment except from a long nostalgic way off, and fewer will be able to say that that moment came when we were 72 years old.

By the time Obama was making his acceptance speech, the entire place was quiet... though it didn't take long before one drunk blow-hard was sharing his opinion with everyone. Once that fellow spoke up it wasn't long before the spell had been broken for others and they too quit their rapt listening and began chatting again.

By my count it took 32 minutes from McCain's concession until Obama was campaigning for 2012. You'll recall the sentence "We may not get there in one year or even in one term."

When Obama's speech was over and the hockey game was back on I took my moment to shout the defiant sentence that had been floating in my head, ready for this very moment, for days... "Take that 'Real America!'"

No one has any real reason to believe my own claims on this, but I called this (yeah it was a 50/50 chance) back at the DNC. In a conversation I declared that Obama had for all practical purposes asked Joe Biden to be the Vice President, not just the VP candidate. My intention at the time had been that I felt this election was the Dems to lose. Over the past seven weeks I have allowed myself to get shaken from time to time into caution by nay sayers and conspiracy believers. There were arguments that were hard to dismiss, but I didn't want to believe. 'The Bradley Effect.' 'Massive digital election fraud.' 'Military Coup by Cheney.' (Okay, I suppose that last one may still be an option.) But time after time I kept coming back to my guarded optimism. Every time Sarah Palin opened her mouth; add the economic disaster that landed largely in the Republican's hands; tepid debate performance after performance by McCain; in fighting; Republican endorsements of Obama by the likes of Colin Powell; McCain's apparent frustration and eventual veiled despondency – the list goes on.

In the past week I felt a growing sense of comfort. Less and less did my doubts rise. A few days ago I told myself that it was no longer worth worrying about and that the question was now whether Barack would merely win or win by a landslide.

Last night, shortly after I arrived at the bar they called Pennsylvania in Obama's favour and I truly felt like I knew it was over. A little while later Ohio was declared his and I breathed a shuddering sigh of relief. There were a few moments where I felt emotional over the remainder of the night as I was defending the value of projections, but I had largely already processed my feelings of relief over the past week.

Somewhere in the darkest part of my soul I find myself wishing that the first words out of Obama's mouth when he stood at the podium last night had been "Allah Ackbar!" Possibly followed by "Learn your Morning Prayer by 5am January 21st or lose your tongues, infidels!" And then with a puckish grin "Heh heh... just kidding."

Today it seems everyone's Facebook status is either a statement of relief (okay, there is one exception I've noticed – a friend who falls in the category of religious right... I shake my head at their dire warning of the end of days) or a humorous comment about the sudden lack of news.

I feel lighter today, or as though I've been holding my breath for eight years.

It's like the end of a TV series. The final episode has come and gone and everyone will be discussing it for days, how in the final scene Hillary woke up and said to Bill "I just had the weirdest dream." Or perhaps it's more like Star Wars... the Rebel Alliance prevails in the final reel and deposes the evil Empire.

In any case, the sequel is bound to be interesting. He's put on one hell of a show, but now he really has to perform. It's going to be virtually impossible for him to live up to expectations, but he has the acumen to redirect those expectations towards realities both as they actualize and as they are anticipated. Let's face it, if the woodland critters came from the forest and gathered at his feet with wide-eyed adorable expectancy, it still wouldn't be enough for his detractors.

A Stern Phone-call from the Boss

I know that this is a week late, but I had a busy week last week with reshoots on 'Beast...' so I'm just getting around to watching the DNC & RNC today... heck, I'm not even going to finish watching DNC highlights today, let alone catch up on analysis of the various passes, yields and of course Hillary's dramatic movement to suspend proceedure.
THAT was great theatre.
But then, Melissa Etheridge gets up on stage for a victory medley of songs.
I'm not really a fan, but I did buy her first CD back in... '88 was it that it came out? For that matter, when was it that she came out?
Anyhow... I'm off topic by a mile in just two sentences.
M.E. was at her throaty best on-stage in Denver last week... except for one lousy little galling thing.

I imagine that she took a phone call later that night.

M.E.: Hello?
B.S.: Hi. Is that Melissa?
M.E.: Yes. Who is this?
B.S.: Bruce.
M.E.: Bruce? I don't know any... oh. wait. THAT Bruce.
B.S.: Yeah. That Bruce.
M.E.: Bruce, from New Jersey, Bruce.
B.S.: Exactly.
M.E.: Look, Bruce I think I can guess what this is all about...
B.S.: You do, do you?
M.E.: Yes...
B.S.: Then why the fuck do I have to make this phone call!?
M.E.: I thought...
B.S.: First Reagan, now this.
M.E.: Well yeah, but he was a Republican.
B.S.: What kind of difference does that make?
M.E.: You let Kerry use 'No Surrender' - heck you even came out and played...
B.S.: What does that song mean?
M.E.: You mean 'No Surrender?'
B.S.: Yes. What does it mean?
M.E.: It means... uh...
B.S.: Don't think to hard now. It's right there in the lyrics...
M.E.: "No retreat... no surrender..."
B.S.: Riiiight. It was a good motto for that campaign...Christ, that fucking campaign...
M.E.: So...
B.S.: That's what it means. Simple as that. Now... what does 'Born in the U.S.A.' mean?
M.E.: "I was Bor-"
B.S.: NO!!!
M.E.: You say it like fifty times -
B.S.: It's ironic!
M.E.: But you sing it so anthemically.
B.S.: That's anger Melissa! Anger! Do you understand irate anger!?!
M.E.: Is that intended to be ironic?
B.S.: I swear to god, next R&R.H.o.F dinner, I'm gonna smack you right in the face. That song is about a country gone wrong. It's not about pride. When Republicans mis-use it, it's one thing. They look like idiots. But when it's used as a victory song for a history-making moment in Democratic Party nominations... FUCK! Melissa, Democrats should know better. The DNC should know better. Obama should know better. YOU SHOULD FUCKING KNOW BETTER!
M.E.: I'm sorry, Bruce. I'm a bad lefty. I screwed up. I'll never do it again. You are right, and by 'right' I mean 'correct' not...
B.S.: Yeah yeah, I know what you mean, I'm not nuance challenged like the rest of you.

Where is West?

No secret, but the ongoing conflict between East and West has found new life. Yeah, not much of a news flash there, it’s been blatantly obvious since one fall Tuesday seven years ago - has it been that long already? And doubtless it was actually pretty obvious before that for anyone who was paying attention - but that seems to have been part of the issue… no one was.
Like some geo-political Valdez, with a drunk Captain at the helm, Western civilization ran aground on the shores of Islam.
It’s been obvious that the definition of ‘East’ in East versus west has changed over not only the course of my lifetime, but for a lot longer than that. It’s face has several times been worn by Communist China and it’s ideological Asian allies. It has been the Soviet Union. And, of course now it is the fundamentalist vein of Islam. Lot’s of virtual ink has been used yakking over how different this paradigm is. How it’s not political, but religious. How the geography of the opposition is both unconstrained and interspersed with less radical mindsets and to a lesser degree even interspersed with our own. I couldn’t comment upon an idea that is new to me on this front, let alone one that is new to anyone else who is at all in touch with the state of the world we live in.
I fully expect that this particular stand off will out live me. Though I do hope that it’s eventual outcome crystallizes in my lifetime. It’s such a big question - one of the biggest of our time, up there with peak oil and global warming - and one that would be particularly unfulfilling to leave unanswered in my day… even if the ‘answer’ is nothing more than a projection. Perhaps I should re-phrase this. It is a certainty that this divide will remain long after I am gone. But perhaps the core issue might lean towards resolution before I am done.
What I have been thinking about that may seem more original - it certainly does to me - is the notion of how we - The West - have changed.
I’ve taken to using the term ‘Neo-West’ of late as I feel it more accurately identifies who ‘we’ are.
Once upon a time, the West was Western Europe. Then the New World began to exert it’s might in the world - as the ‘we’ of the America’s found our ideological voices and the ingenuity to muster our resources into some relevance. This primarily came into focus through the two global conflicts of the 20th century. And with the rise of the Pax-Americana, shifted drastically through the cold-war to roughly where it is now.
But even that designation is misleading. The ‘West’ of my high-school days is significantly different from the ‘Neo-West’ of today. Certainly in a political sense. The geography of who is counted among the West has shifted, though in many ways the demographic of the people within those areas remains in many ways the same.
Obviously I am speaking foremost of the former Soviet Union. While significant parts of that vast land-mass are strife ridden and much of that strife is a Muslim/Non-Muslim divide, most of that it small scale. The land that was once behind the Iron Curtain and made up the greater part of the perceived ‘East’ of the Kennedy/Kruschev through Reagan/Gorbachev eras is now inarguably Neo-West.
The Land of the Rising Sun - once an enemy so reviled that the moral compass dropped quickly to the bottom, like say an atom-bomb, thus allowing the inhumane notion of visiting the horror of that same weapon upon them was seen as collateral damage - are now a thriving Neo-western nation. Indeed, one of the most thriving. If the definition of Neo-West is ‘industrial capitalist democracy’ (which isn’t necessarily the definition, but certainly works as starting criteria) then it’s arguable that Japan is the epitome of Neo-Western civilization. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! The unavoidable inclusion of Japan alone clearly severs the implicit understanding of my grandparent’s generation that ‘West’ meant white (or even pre-dominantly white) nations.
There are also countries that were the afterthoughts of Western Civilization. Places that were culturally and politically ‘West’ and had be so affiliated for generations, but by an accident of geography were typically ignored as being part of the family. Australia and New Zealand are the obvious examples here. Both colonies of Britain, both settled under similar circumstances to one another and to a lesser degree Canada. Both participated in the World Wars, are essentially English speaking, and have long been consumers of Western culture. It’s hard to say that they haven’t been part of the club. But they were always wallflowers at the member functions.
There is an obvious geo-centric argument to go against my claim that Canada has been a part of the West as long as the U.S. has been. We participated in both World Wars more immediately than the US - and going with my earlier thoughts that seems to have been one of the keys to membership previous to the past twenty years. And as the US became the dominant force in Western culture, Canada was both literally and figuratively right alongside. Yes, we as Canadians come similarly close to being the red-headed step-children along with our brethren from Down Under, but I feel that we’ve been sitting at the big kids table for most of a century.
Undoubtedly many more countries and or regions can lay claim to being part of the Neo-West. Western Europe is a given. Large portions of South and to a lesser degree Meso-America are ‘in the club.’ Parts of Africa, for sure seeing as the ‘white’ requirement has been dropped.
Israel? Why not. Israel certainly qualifies by any measure previously mentioned, and if being ‘pre-dominantly white’ is no longer relevant then why should religion? Excepting that the ‘East’ of this equation is primarily defined as Muslim. That alone firmly puts any Judaic society on the ‘camp of opposition’ to the existing ‘East’ simply by definition. There’s nothing that says this is a ‘Christian-nation’ thing. That’s an idea whose fleeting relevance gets more and more quaint in the face of rising US religiosity.

My point - for the moment - seems to be that ‘East’ and ‘West’ while still relevant terms, don’t in fact mean ‘East’ and ‘West’ cartographically anymore. It’s obvious that Western culture is no longer ‘Leave it to Beaver.’ Not even close. Though I think in many ways, by those of us who have been part of the ‘West’ since before our grandparents were born, it’s easy to forget. We may be a global society, but superficially at least, a patina of our former centricism remains while the fruit underneath the skin comes in so many different flavours - often a melange of the greater selection.
What does it all mean any more? How do these increasingly arbitrary divisions have such long legs?

Oh, why can't we all just get along? ;-)

An Open Letter to Ralph Nader

Dude! Please!

Are not the last eight years of history enough? Or have you completely forgotten that if you had not run in 2000 there would have been an entirely different president (and party) in the White House for no less than four of the past four years - arguably the most critical of those four years, no less.

"So?"

That type of question hardly warrants a response. Perhaps you haven't read a newspaper in the past 78 months, but the corrupt fuckwad who stole the office in 2000 has made a real hash of things since... you did read about the events of that sunny Tuesday in New York one September, right?

I challenge you to put together a list of positive gains that have come from a result of your act of diluting the votes of the Dem's in 2000. Here I'll even give you a bit of help: Al Gore won an Oscar last year. (C'mon, you ought to be able to come up with one more - I'll give you a hint, it also involves Al Gore having more time on his hands than he would have as President and thus winning an award of some significance.)
Okay, now does anything on that list come close to matching the other side of that coin?
That being: Throwing the world into further religious and political instability and putting your own country into financial ruin in the course?

"Oh yes, but this is different. Not even the Republicans would vote for a candidate as right-wing as GWB this time around. How do you think John McCain became the apparent nominee?"

You're missing the point. Even I agree that when it comes to Elephants, McCain is about as good as it gets - you are right that is how he managed to get to where he is and he has the current climate to thank... I guess you could say he has you to thank. I 'get' that you think that there is political value in a third candidate - an option. I totally believe in a 3+ party system. I think it works quite well for us in Canada... and our third party is WAY closer to having a snowball's chance than your independent ass.
But as 'decent' an option as McCain is, your country NEEDS to change. The Democrats are already hell bent on leveling the playing field. Perhaps no one has pointed this out to you, but they're taking advantage of the nearly sure-fire-win situation that they are in and are on the verge of nominating either a woman, or a black man (and it's really looking like it's the latter). The Republicans have fucked things up so much that the Dem's feel totally comfortable taking an apparent surefire win and making a bit of a race of it by putting a historically earth shattering candidate up for the big office.
So let's look at this...
The Republicans are putting up a guy so moderate he's practically a Democrat on some issues.
The Democrats are, one way or the other, going for the hail mary.
There might actually be a race going on here as a result.
What if that race is as close as 2000? What IF Ralph?

Defending the Music XIV: The Bombs Never Hit You When You're Down So Low

Hitting the home stretch now, the last eight of twenty-one. I've saved my two all-time favourites for the back-end, and I've already done all the artists that I'd consider to be the least of the best. I did a few bands early on that sit amongst the absolute cream, but from here on out that's all there is. Stuff I really really love.

I figure that of the eight artists left I'll start with the two that I fell the least responsible for my own appreciation of. Two bands that friends pestered me into liking. And obviously they were right. I love both these groups. I'll tackle them chronologically.

The first one I have Jason and Paul to blame for, but it my first experience with the band was with a girl.

I hadn't even heard of Midnight Oil before Marquetta had a crush on me. Back in first year university, my only year in residence, a girl from a building across the quad had a big crush on me. It was kind of unfortunate really. She was cute and I'm betting that a few more years of maturing would have made her gorgeous in a sexy-librarian kind of way. She was cool and I really enjoyed hanging out with her - good thing as she knocked on my door practically every day. But she just wasn't 'my type.' One thing she was really great at was identifying music that I would like. She turned me towards a number of bands - one other of which is yet to come on this list - which were 'alternative' when that still meant something which have gone on to major mainstream success. One related thing that connected us (and this is going to date me) is that we were the only two people we knew with those new-fangled CD players.
One day Marquetta brought over 'Diesel & Dust.' "Listen to this. You'll like it." Damned if she wasn't right.
I didn't really pay a lot of attention to Midnight Oil for the next few years. I owned "Diesel & Dust" and listened to it, but it wasn't in high rotation.

Eventually I found myself playing music with other guys. Jason pushed for us to play "The Dead Heart." That 'de doo doo doo - doo de doo' intro and extro was a LOT of fun to play. We learned a lot about dynamics playing our way out of that song. It was one of our better numbers and we also worked on some other Midnight Oil songs. It soon became apparent to us just how good these guys were as musicians. They had a remarkable ability to make quite complex songs sound much simpler than they were.

By this time "Blue Sky Mining" had been released and I had added it to my regular playlist.

During one of the summers I spent house painting Paul was bound and determined to convert everyone who he painted with into rabid Oil fans. He owned all their albums and played them on the company ghetto-blaster every chance he had. His plan worked. By the end of the summer I too owned all the most significant Oil albums - as did several of my other co-workers. I'd also found a new favourite Midnight Oil song, which holds the title to this day. (For the record, the video almost comically fails to capture the power of the song.)

I was the right age to be easily inflamed by the politics of their music. I was in my activistic stage and they were the soundtrack to the injustices of the day.

I missed Another Roadside Attraction in '93 because I was on tour. In fact, I missed the A.R.A. tour all three times because I was on tour. Without fail I'd be in Winnipeg and they'd be in Saskatoon. Two nights later we'd be in Saskatoon and Winnipeg would be rocking out. Grrrr.

That tour was politically linked to the logging issues in the Clayoquot though the band was also touring in support of "Earth and Sun and Moon" which was for practical purposes their last big album. They already had a political issue that was killing them as a band...

They didn't have much to complain about during the Clinton administration. Or rather they thought it diluted their message to start picking at the minor indiscretions of the world's remaining super-power. Think what you like about that. I don't know that it's as righteous as I'd like to think Midnight Oil as being, but that was what they claimed eight years later when I did finally have a chance to see them live.

Midnight Oil in the Commodore Ballroom was the most awesome show I ever saw in that spectacular venue. Imagine the Lurch-like six and a half foot bald-headed Peter Garrett whirling and spastically dancing (There's plenty of examples for your imagination in the linked videos.) mere feet above your head.

They declared that night that there was something wrong in the world again (Hmmm... I wonder what?) and that they has something to say and thus they were back. Sadly it wouldn't last long. Six months later Peter Garrett finally did something he had threatened to do before their breakout "Diesel & Dust" - he quit the band and went into politics. Apparently he figured he could accomplish more in the Australian Parlaiment. He is now the Minister of Enviroment, Heritage and the Arts.

While I do wish for another chance to see them live, or a new album, I respect Peter Garrett's committment to walk the talk. There are a number of bands on this list with strong politics. Few were ever as strident and none put their money where their mouth is with this much fervence.

Political Triage over Political Harikari

Well, Damn.

STV was voted down.

I suspect that a public that was more aware of the issue would have voted in favour. Oh well.

But it was close - more than close, really.

Way more than 60% of the ridings voted in favour by a simple majority - requirement #1 met.
Over 57% of the total voting public voted in favour. Less than 3% shy of the 60% required.

Clearly a sizable majority of the province wants change. In fact it seems pretty clear that STV is acceptable to most or all - 60% majorities are intended to protect minorities, which in this particular referendum is an illogical concern as the STV system is designed to benefit minority opinion.

The government could push STV through without much flak as it stands. The voice of the province is pretty clear. But it's dubious that they would as it doesn't serve their power position much if at all. But ignoring it would be political suicide so they have to do SOMETHING.

Curious to see what and how.

The simplest answer would be to push it through - the process has been started, the mechanics of the system are worked out and the people are in favour by a demonstrable margin.

But probably deciding upon some sort of watered down electoral reform that the parties come up with that doesn't undermine their position as badly will be the answer - - and what kind of reform is that?

Another referendum, or another Citizens Assembly is probably too much effort and cost, and too scary to let go the control of their fate yet again.

And yet another cheap excuse for a post...

The following is my response to the message I posted in my last post: "More on STV."

Apologies for not reformatting either into a more readable structure - busy day.

Thanks for your considered response... I was beginning to think that I may never hear anything back! (I hope I've finally got this posting as something other than 'guest' - I'd like to have SOME sort of identity.) Over the past few days I've been making a point of discussing this with virtually everyone I cross paths with. Still the balance of opinion seems to be woefully under aware of the issues - even some of the more educated and erudite folk I know have little real understanding of the processes involved. I've had to explain numerous times how the system works - at varying levels of detail depending on the interest and political capacity of the people involved. (More on that in a moment.) But generally - and this could be a function of the segment of society I typically associate with - it seems as though the weight of opinion is in favour of reform... actually I can't recall anyone declaring that they were intending to vote 'no.' As I have talked about it more and explained all I can on both sides of the issue, the more and more convinced I have become that I too will be voting 'yes.' In fact, I would pretty much call it a certainty at this point. My main concern remains that people are under educated on the issue - not that there is much to be done either way with merely six days and counting to go. My gut tells me that disenfranchised voters who don't understand the new system are more likely to vote 'yes' as their knee-jerk, thinking that it's a strike against the Liberals (which it may or may not be, depending on how you expect the system to work in the end.) Pass or fail, I take issue with blind voting. Drives me nuts. To this end I've made a point of trying to properly represent both sides of the argument when discussing the issues with people. (I would suggest that it is this effort that has actually swayed me solidly in favour.) A further concern I have is how spoiled ballots will be counted. With a double majority needed to pass the referendum, spoiled ballots could seriously favour the 'no' side. I spoke with an Elections B.C official just last night in quiring about the counting process and so forth. He could not tell me (read: 'he did not know', not the more sinister 'he wouldn't tell me') whether the 60% of the total or the 50% in any specific riding was of total ballots or of valid ballots. If spoiled ballots are counted to towards the total, a spoiled ballot is then as good as a 'no' vote! Potentially good news for the 'no' side. I can see a situation where voters are handed their referendum ballot (which aparently they have the option to outright decline) and respond with a "What!?! There's a referendum and it's been so poorly publicized that this is the first I've heard about it!? Well then, I'm expressing my outrage by spoiling this ballot." Admittedly this is all hypothetical, and the scenario laid out should be of no concern to the detractors as it works entirely in favour of the 'no' side of the debate. One more thing that I would like to respond directly to - hopefully in aid of getting more clarification:
Quote:
Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself. This level of reform strikes me as a once in a generation opportunity. Any other reformative measures (Recall, for example) are more along the lines of tweaks to the existing structure. (Indeed, Recall itself needed to be tweaked.) It is thoroughly unreasonable to expect that any electoral process we agree to is going to be a sweep. There is simply no way we will get it all right the first time around. (Of course getting it 'ALL right' will never be possible, simply due to varying opinions, but for the sake of argument let's assume that 'acceptable to the majority is synonymous with 'all right.') So it seems to me, that with no other forward-moving option on the table, we should embrace what has been presented with the knowledge that we have a legislated chance to adapt it (or give it the heave-ho) after an opportunity to road test it. I don't really think three elections is a long-time. Sure, it is at least 15% of most of our lives, but I think that it will take at least that long for the process and it's fall-out to become apparent. For better or for worse, we cannot fairly assess the system without reasonable time and practice. Yes, if we say 'no' to STV now, we will have a chance in the future for another crack at PR. I truly believe that we are much further than 12 years away from it if this is the choice we make. There is no evidence of this of course, except for how long it has taken us to get to this point in the first place. Lastly, and 'just for the record'... I can see how I may have come across as believeing that the CA was a waste of tax payer's money. Actually, I believe that it is a fantastic excercise in democracy. I was merely stating that I would understand the cornerstones of that argument fairly easily. Once again, thanks for the reasoned response. As previously mentioned, I expect I am going to be putting my 'X' in favour of BC-STV, but your aid in helping me find clarity (such as it is) is greatly appreciated, and I hope that I can use the further information you have provided to accurately present the 'No' side of the equation in my continued quest to educate those whom I cross paths with over the next week. Perhaps I'll even give a few of them enough reason to vote 'no.' Which would be my ultimate personal victory. I'd rather have someone voting 'no' from an informed position than 'yes' because they thought the acronym 'BC-STV' was 'neat' (or any other poor excuse for a decision.) Not part of the argument at hand, but an amusing anecdote to close on... Friday, my Voter Registration that I mailed... god knows how long ago... (I moved to a new riding in the past year.) was returned to me by Canada Post, despite it being "Business Reply Mail, Postage Paid of Mailed in Canada" and Elections BC's address being clearly labelled on the front - by Elections BC itself. No explanation. If I were an inherently more suspicious person... 8-o

More on STV...

I finally got a response! Hooray!!!


Anonymous wrote:
Hi, New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate... I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote. I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself. I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system. I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system. Actually so am I. One of the main reasons I set this site up was to get more open debate about it, rather than simple cheerleading or denunciations even the more 'informed' public has so far received. Short time line of seven months after year long committee may have been another of the CA's weaknesses, but can't blame members for that either.
Quote:
So... on to other concerns... Playing devil's advocate here. All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire. If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit. Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances? If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system. I appreciate your approaching this with an open mind. This is an essential question I should get into further. After a lot of waffling back and forth, what finally decided me to actively campaign against BC-STV is the fact that CA members, I'd been discussing and debating this with elsewhere, seemed quite happy to stick with STV (which is a bit much for an MMP supporter being asked to support this in hopes of further reform) and three more elections minimum before even a 'review' is considered is just too much time lost to me. Proponents often argue that electoral reform is either 'dead' permanently, if STV fails now, or will be at least a couple elections before it gets back onto the table, complaining that would be too much for them...well. But, voting for STV will, again, mean a guaranteed delay of several more elections (and who knows what politically, in the meantime) while already present disatisfaction with SMP/FPTP will likely ensure the issue will stay very much alive. Carole James has recently reaffirmed the BC NDP's support for ER, whatever happens this referendum, and the Greens and other smaller parties will also continue pushing for it, as will a lot of people like myself.
Quote:
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic. Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings. I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!' I'm afraid some of arguments against it haven't been well put either, true enough, too unfocused to begin with for sure. STV of differents formats apparently means different results in different places at different times, and too many people too often just choose the examples that best suite their own arguments. (except for ME, of course! ) How it would play out in BC can't be predicted for sure, but again, it's really up to proponents and CA members, who have supposedly studied this in depth, to demonstrate why we should take the risk of supporting a new and barely tried system with mixed results, why these benefits are in fact likely in BC, and why these would in fact be beneficial. And if they still can't, then what was their decision really based on...? I personally believe that corruption is more likely among candidates who are running mostly for and by themselves, or for a particular locale alone (and I suspect historical records would tend to show that) and have less reason to conform to party discipline and platforms. So the theory goes, that is. Ireland OTOH indicates that party discipline could become even more rigorous in other ways to compensate, so it may again depend on how parties again approach this. Another thing that I don't like about it, adding yet another level for parties to manipulate results....though I'm sure propenents would dispute that too. = Mostly I don't like this approach because I want to have an decent idea what members actually stand for, something they can always lie about in any system but which there is at least a general party position now to call them to account on. My support for all forms of PR was originally conditional on some effective nomination process for grassroots members. (yet another issue)
Quote:
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a probelm that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own. Despite what others say STV is much more complex than others in ways that really count, and, though the basic idea of it can understood by most with use, I don't believe the myriad of possible outcomes can be predicted and therefore elections themselves become far more difficult to predict, which is a real potential problem when we have a system that will demand more than ever from parties on how to alocate their resources. It's fashionable to trash parties nowadays (often for good reason, yes) but this shouldn't be the basis on which their effectiveness should be judged or elections decided. Also an added problem for voters like me trying to guess who best to support in my much expanded 'constituency'. Don't think that's an exaggerated concern on our part.
Quote:
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.I really don't know if that's true though, and as I've argued before, I don't know that voting STV will bring about more truly proportional systems sooner, I doubt it for a variety of reasons. The issue isn't the Marijuana Party or whoever, but whether a PR system should have such high minimum thresholds, and how such high thresholds could effect the political balance. Unless or until all party structure starts to fragment further, BC-STV would mean a three party system which would either give a structural advantage to one end of the political spectrum or another, depending on which way the third party shifts, or it gives the lucky third party a huge amount of bargaining power over its coalition partners, by virtue of nothing more than being in the enviable position to negotiate with either front runners as sole arbiters or 'king makers'. That is the opposite of 'proportional' in my opinion, danger to all PR system but particularly with this form.
Quote:
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim. Interesting angle, some might be making that argument amongst friends, but doubt it would win many others over. Citizens' Assemblies aren't wrong because of cost or even in principle IMO, this particular process was just flawed the way it was set up and therefore came to a flawed decision -in my opinion, yes.
Quote:
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections. Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.Hope that helps a bit but up to you of course. Either way you decide I appreciate your intelligent questions, if you want to discuss this further please do. Raised some valid points that should be considered more.


Next... my response in return.

BC-STV better than your average STD.

The following is a re-posting of a message I left on a BC-STV discussion board. It covers most of my thoughts thus far.

Hi,
New to the forum, and relatively new to the issue and debate...
I count myself as 'undecided' but leaning towards being a 'yes' vote.
I feel as though there are a lot of elements of the issue I still need answered for myself.
I am concerned by the huge numbers of people who know very little about it. I have been vaguely aware of the referendum for... I don't know how long - ages. But the specifics have not been well distributed - despite the CA report being delievered to every household. In the three days it has been since I took it upon myself to figure out what the details are I have also taken it upon myself to talk to as many of my friends and peers as I can to discuss the merits and problems with the proposed system.
I have yet to have a single person be able to talk about it straight up. Most have needed to be directed to information explaining the proposed system and in a few cases the response has been the equivalent of "There's a referendum?" At this point I am more concerned by the lack of awareness (let alone understanding) than I am by any declared weaknesses in the STV voting system.
So... on to other concerns...
Playing devil's advocate here.
All possible weaknesses aside, it seems to me that the detractors are regularly leaving out a significant piece of information that makes all forseeable and unforseeable consequences less dire.
If the referendum passes favourably then we are committing to three elections under the STV system. 12-16 years maximum, depending on how you count it. By which time, the advantages and disadvantages of STV politics will have been given a good opportunity to show themselves in practice. Yes, there are several examples of how the system works in other democracies. It is fair to assume that the results will be similar. But similar is not the same. We will really only know exactly how the system works for British Columbia by putting it to the test. Having said that, I must admit that I would like to be reasonably assured that we're onto an idea that has SOME merit.
Now, am I misunderstanding circumstances?
If STV is a dismal failure, are we really stuck with it? The way I read the circumstances, we are at the very least going to have an opportunity to ammend the system.
The report by the CA paints STV as such a positive point of change that it comes across as a no-brainer... which ought to be a red-flag for any cynic.
Certainly my inital response was that it sounded too good to be true - I figured that Senator Palpatine had to be waiting somewhere in the wings.
I can't deny that the report's various broad claims such as that it will improve local accountability and deter partisan obediance are specious, but so far I have yet to find an argument against it that amounts to more than an equally specious 'Oh no it won't!'
The system is rather confusing on the surface. The complexity of the formulae is rather exaggerated. There is no way that the public as a whole is going to wrap their heads around the mechanics of it until it is in use. That is unfortunate, but I doubt that a system could be proposed which wouldn't ultimately suffer the same problem. This has more to do with the intellectual laziness of humanity as a greater whole than the 'X times Y plus ones' of it. Hate it all you like, it's a problem that will only be avoided by sticking with the current system, or by adopting an even more basic solution, both of which have myriad problems of their own.
Another major argument against STV that I'm having trouble buying is that it fails to provide effective proportional representation. Actually, let me rephrase that. I believe I see exactly how it can fail to provide effective proportional representation, but I look at the representation currently in the Legislature and have to wonder how staying with the FPTP system does a better job? The claims in the report that show the Marijuana Party managing to procure a seat are dubious - particularly considering that the sampling votes that it was based upon (the last election) didn't include second voting preferences, let alone third and further. But it seems to me that a greater balance between the established parties would be all but inevitable, and while that may not be the ultimately desired outcome, it is better that what is in place.
I could give creedence to the argument that STV should be voted down because passing it would give value to the process of the CA and simply encourage further usage of it as a political process and further wasting tax-payer's money. But I don't hear anyone making that claim.
I still feel unconvinced in either direction, but if I were voting tomorrow, I would be voting 'yes' as it seems to me that while the proposed system does leave something to be desired, staying put is likely to solve less. We can not make improvements if we don't make changes, and we will NEVER make a change that solves all the problems at once, our best bet is to make an educated guess and take a leap of faith, see how it sizes up, and make further tweaks from there. I currently believe that the educated guess that has been tabled is relatively sound, but I'm feeling tentative. David Schreck's claim that if we're feeling uncertain we should vote 'no' falls apart for me in the face of the term for review after three elections.
Am I missing something? Please, I'd rather feel confident in my choice and the in the arguments I will be making in the next ten days with my friends and peers.

Un-precedented Political Progress in British Columbia? Too good to be true?

I can't imagine that this isn't a slam-dunk in the democratic process, but then again, I could not have concieved of a nation stupid enough to re-elect George W. Bush. Luckily I am not talking about the same nation.

The referendum that will be accompanying the B.C. election has all the markings of a no-brainer to me. So much so that I am actually a bit wary of it. All the literature I've found is SO persuasively written that it raises my suspicions. So, I've delved deeper - hunting out every fact which seems obfuscated... and all the information is easily accessible... and it all seems above the board... and rational and wise. Everything seems to say EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT IT TO SAY! Yes, there is something almost too good to be true here.

It seems bizarre to me that the B.C. Liberal government, who has benefitted from the electoral system that is in place would push such an inclusive democratic process that could only serve to undermine their status and power. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that Senator Palpatine is waiting in the wings, letting us walk willfully into a trap that seems like an ideal political situation. WHAT AM I MISSING? Why isn't there a big movement to demonize the STV electoral system by the corporate entities that by all measures I can imagine only be hurt by the electoral reforms?

Well, until I can find evidence that contradicts the apparent circumstances, I stand as an advocate. We are only committed to it (if the referendum passes) for three elections (Yes, potentially 12 damaging years of our history - but NOT forever.)

The one element that I am most in favour of is the manner by which the new system was developed. The Citizens' Assembly. How progressive is that!? I've tried to find a hole in that process as well, and it too seems to be as above the board as can be. I hope that it is a big enough success that we as a Province will adopt it on other issues. Perhaps even convince other Provinces of it's value - even get it implemented Federally on select issues.

Further posts to come as my understanding develops and/or if more information arises.