I'll join the chorus of blogs writing about the only real thing to write about today.
I first took serious notice of Barack Obama the night that he lost the New Hampshire primary against Clinton. This was the first of his "Yes We Can" speeches. Like most people north of the border who never had the privelege of hearing his 2004 DNC keynote address, I was astonished at this man's eloquence and confidence. The way he spoke moved me. It wasn't so much the content of his speech, although there was much to like about it, but the tone and cadence with which he spoke. The man can speechify.
Thereafter I followed him closely. In March of 2008, the Jeremiah Wright saga blew up and threatened to torpedo Obama's chances for the nomination. Unlike other politicians, Obama didn't flinch; he didn't deflect the criticism or gloss over it with personal attacks on Clinton. What he did was gather people together, and had a serious discussion about race in America. As an American friend of mine said at the time, "he's treating us like adults". He turned a potential crisis into a political victory by confronting it head-on.
The resulting speech, A More Perfect Union, is the greatest political oratory I have personally witnessed in my young life. It is a re-hash of his stump speech, but it is also much more; it is a conversation with a nation about the elephant in the room - race. And, like my friend noted, it was done as if the people he was speaking to could be mature enough to handle it.
Now he is President-Elect. I look at the overjoyed reactions across America and the world last night and wonder if there isn't a bit too much expectation of the man. For sure, he is an inspirational figure, a once-in-a-generation politician. But he will only be the President, and as powerful as that position is it is not a cure for all ills that face America and the world.
But that isn't the point right now. Obama has given many people an interest in politics, a reason to engage with their own society, who thus far ignored it completely. He has been the catalyst for involvement by the people. This is the most important thing. Because the way to solve economic problems, the way for America to solve its economic and social inequalities, is not necessarily through Obama, but through the involvement and dedication of the people themselves. We will see what the next four years will bring, but it is not a stretch to say that there is hope in America that hasn't existed in decades.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
A goat becomes a gunslinger
So here's the scene:
A much-maligned quarterback has 2:40 to win his team the football game. Down by 4, he quickly gets into trouble on his own side of the 50-yard line, taking a full minute to march only 20 yards. On third and long, with 1:20 to play, he drops back.
The defenders rush him
They break through
Two of them grab his jersey
Somehow, the frightened quarterback manages to wiggle free of their grasp. He takes a couple steps and throws up a prayer.
Off his back foot.
Into double coverage.
40 yards down the field.
Miraculously the receiver makes the grab, by catching the ball between one hand and his helmet.
From that point it is only a matter of time. An attempt at perfection is lost in one unlikely drive by the opposing team and its "Gunslinging" quarterback. Millions rejoice in an outpouring of schadenfreude.
But what is the margin between Gunslinger and Goat?
A much-maligned quarterback has 2:40 to win his team the football game. Down by 4, he quickly gets into trouble on his own side of the 50-yard line, taking a full minute to march only 20 yards. On third and long, with 1:20 to play, he drops back.
The defenders rush him
They break through
Two of them grab his jersey
Somehow, the frightened quarterback manages to wiggle free of their grasp. He takes a couple steps and throws up a prayer.
Off his back foot.
Into double coverage.
40 yards down the field.
Miraculously the receiver makes the grab, by catching the ball between one hand and his helmet.
From that point it is only a matter of time. An attempt at perfection is lost in one unlikely drive by the opposing team and its "Gunslinging" quarterback. Millions rejoice in an outpouring of schadenfreude.
But what is the margin between Gunslinger and Goat?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Ontario Election Post-Mortem
In November 2004, the McGuinty Liberals promised a citizen's asembly similar to the British Columbia version to examine electoral reform. In the spring of 2006, the Ontario Citizen's Assembly, comprised of 104 Ontarians, reviewed electoral reform while considering eight principles and characterisitics. After eight months of consultation with experts and deliberation, the Assembly decided on electoral reform and an MMP system.
The run-up to the referendum on 10 October was filled with controversy, especially from the Pro-MMP side. It was thought that:
1) The decision by Elections Ontario adhere to strict neutrality was a de facto endorsement of the status quo. Alternatively, it was argued whether or not it was feasible to expect a body couched in neutrality to argue one way or another on this issue. Some suggested that responsibility for the referendum should have been taken out of the hands of Elections Ontario completely, and equal funding given to the opposing sides of the MMP debate directly from government.
1a) In any case, the "Vote for MMP" side enjoyed a vastly disproportionate amount of private funding and widespread support among many elites. This was countered by editorial boards of major Ontario newspapers, who came down opposed to change.
2) Elections Ontario did not do a good job with informing the public. This argument seems specious in light of the fact that ads were placed in newspapers, television, and radio; paper inserts also accompanied voter registration cards (Ontario still registers voters before every election). The criticism might be more justified in regards to (3)...
3)...holding the referendum on the same day as a general election would take the focus away from the issue.
4) the terms of victory were too high. Acceptance of MMP hinged on garnering 60% of votes cast and a majority in 64 of 107 ridings.
5) MMP was the wrong PR method. Some may have been more amenable to an STV system recommended for BC by their Citizen's Assembly (although STV is not technically a PR system).
The result: a shellacking at the ballot box, as retention of FPTP enjoyed a 2-1 margin of votes. MMP only won a majority of votes in 5 downtown Toronto ridings, 4 of which traditionally swing toward the social-democratic NDP.
A few notes about the rest of the election: it was a depressingly boring campaign that effectively ended in late August when PC leader John Tory promised public funding for private religious schools. The Liberals seized upon this (and arguably played up anti-Sharia fear) and a groundswell of oppositon across the spectrum in Ontario made this single issue the defining one. Interestingly the Liberals are in favour of the current education system that fully funds Catholic schools.
-the Liberals won a sweeping majority (in FPTP terms): 71 seats out of 107 with 42% of the vote. The Green party more than doubled its vote count from the last election and may have enjoyed much of the protest vote (although it could be said that the 'protest vote' mainly just stayed home).
-the turnout was the worst on record: 52.6%.
-there had not been a referendum in Ontario in 83 years. The 1924 refendum was on prohibition.
The run-up to the referendum on 10 October was filled with controversy, especially from the Pro-MMP side. It was thought that:
1) The decision by Elections Ontario adhere to strict neutrality was a de facto endorsement of the status quo. Alternatively, it was argued whether or not it was feasible to expect a body couched in neutrality to argue one way or another on this issue. Some suggested that responsibility for the referendum should have been taken out of the hands of Elections Ontario completely, and equal funding given to the opposing sides of the MMP debate directly from government.
1a) In any case, the "Vote for MMP" side enjoyed a vastly disproportionate amount of private funding and widespread support among many elites. This was countered by editorial boards of major Ontario newspapers, who came down opposed to change.
2) Elections Ontario did not do a good job with informing the public. This argument seems specious in light of the fact that ads were placed in newspapers, television, and radio; paper inserts also accompanied voter registration cards (Ontario still registers voters before every election). The criticism might be more justified in regards to (3)...
3)...holding the referendum on the same day as a general election would take the focus away from the issue.
4) the terms of victory were too high. Acceptance of MMP hinged on garnering 60% of votes cast and a majority in 64 of 107 ridings.
5) MMP was the wrong PR method. Some may have been more amenable to an STV system recommended for BC by their Citizen's Assembly (although STV is not technically a PR system).
The result: a shellacking at the ballot box, as retention of FPTP enjoyed a 2-1 margin of votes. MMP only won a majority of votes in 5 downtown Toronto ridings, 4 of which traditionally swing toward the social-democratic NDP.
A few notes about the rest of the election: it was a depressingly boring campaign that effectively ended in late August when PC leader John Tory promised public funding for private religious schools. The Liberals seized upon this (and arguably played up anti-Sharia fear) and a groundswell of oppositon across the spectrum in Ontario made this single issue the defining one. Interestingly the Liberals are in favour of the current education system that fully funds Catholic schools.
-the Liberals won a sweeping majority (in FPTP terms): 71 seats out of 107 with 42% of the vote. The Green party more than doubled its vote count from the last election and may have enjoyed much of the protest vote (although it could be said that the 'protest vote' mainly just stayed home).
-the turnout was the worst on record: 52.6%.
-there had not been a referendum in Ontario in 83 years. The 1924 refendum was on prohibition.
Monday, September 17, 2007
On MMP
There is an election coming to Ontario on October 10th. More importantly, there is a referendum that day on how future elections will be conducted in this province.
I will let the official website do most of the explaining, but basically we can choose either to keep our "First Past the Post" (FPTP) way of electing representatives or choose a Proportional Representation system, MMP.
MMP is not the panacea that some claim. Its proponents contribute arguments that are either a) refuted by the experience of MMP in other countries, or b) sufficiently vitriolic enough about the shortcomings of FPTP that it hides the similar deficiencies in MMP. It isn't enough to show that FPTP is unfair in some way; one must also be convinced that MMP will change the system for the better.
I agree that MMP is more democratic. But that doesn't make it better. There is such value bound up with the word "democracy" that people tend to forget that, in the Platonic sense, democracy would be pretty much untenable in any modern society. For example, we elect representatives (less democratic) instead of voting on every single thing ourselves (more democratic). But the second option is not desirable; it would take too much time away from work and leisure. This is why we elect people to study the issues and come to decisions, feeling free to input where interest dictates.
I would be more inclined to vote for this version of MMP if the threshold was higher, but 3% is much too low. Our system is designed for big 'catch-all' parties that bring lots and lots of issues underneath its big tent. If you give an incentive for people to leave these parties and form single-issue ones, because all you need is 3% of the seats to voice your issue in parliament, it WILL happen. And when that happens, you'll have the traditional 3 parties plus some single-issue new ones that now have a voice and an ability to get their issue across by playing Kingmaker in forming government coalitions. Well the problem is that small parties don't win seats if they get 10% of the vote (in which case a sizeable number of people would agree with the issues)...under this version of MMP they will gain seats if they win only 3%. I don't think a party that has the support of 3 out of 100 people should have that much influence (and because every parliament will be a minority one, they will potentially have a great deal of influence).
Why shouldn't a party that wins 35% of the vote have a majority, so long as they win a majority of ridings? It might not be "fair" in the hypothetical, academic sense, but it's a system that everyone understands because it makes sense in reality. The party that wins a plurality of ridings wins a plurality of power. Say you were to elect a leader for your student chess club (because I know that's how you roll). 3 candidates split 97% of the vote [38%, 35%, 25%] but the one who got 38% of the votes wins. Is the fact that she won illegitimate, just because she didn't get over 50% of the vote? Should the candidate who wants to turn the chess club into a checkers club, who won 3% of the vote, have a say in how the chess club is run? Even though 97% of the people in your chess club most definitely do not want to turn it into a checkers club?
I think what ultimately wins out for me is the FACT that this will lead to a continual cycle of minority governments combined with a much greater influence by marginal parties. and I can't see how an infamously partisan Canadian political system will somehow shed its image and become more German, more inclusive and collaborative, simply because of MMP. Our politics isn't divisive as a result of our system - our politics is divisive because of our history, of our economic success and lack of adversity.
ALL that said, ultimately I don't think it will matter, because I doubt that 60% of Ontarians will vote for it. Maybe 64 of the ridings but not 60% of the whole participating electorate. First off, no old person will even understand the question, and those people have nothing better to do than vote. Secondly, even though the question is pretty clear, you can bet a lot of [insert PC way of saying "retarded people"] will be voting without any idea that a referendum is taking place, and in the process of attempting to understand what a "First-Past-The-Post" is and how they can get there, their heads will collectively explode.
I will let the official website do most of the explaining, but basically we can choose either to keep our "First Past the Post" (FPTP) way of electing representatives or choose a Proportional Representation system, MMP.
MMP is not the panacea that some claim. Its proponents contribute arguments that are either a) refuted by the experience of MMP in other countries, or b) sufficiently vitriolic enough about the shortcomings of FPTP that it hides the similar deficiencies in MMP. It isn't enough to show that FPTP is unfair in some way; one must also be convinced that MMP will change the system for the better.
I agree that MMP is more democratic. But that doesn't make it better. There is such value bound up with the word "democracy" that people tend to forget that, in the Platonic sense, democracy would be pretty much untenable in any modern society. For example, we elect representatives (less democratic) instead of voting on every single thing ourselves (more democratic). But the second option is not desirable; it would take too much time away from work and leisure. This is why we elect people to study the issues and come to decisions, feeling free to input where interest dictates.
I would be more inclined to vote for this version of MMP if the threshold was higher, but 3% is much too low. Our system is designed for big 'catch-all' parties that bring lots and lots of issues underneath its big tent. If you give an incentive for people to leave these parties and form single-issue ones, because all you need is 3% of the seats to voice your issue in parliament, it WILL happen. And when that happens, you'll have the traditional 3 parties plus some single-issue new ones that now have a voice and an ability to get their issue across by playing Kingmaker in forming government coalitions. Well the problem is that small parties don't win seats if they get 10% of the vote (in which case a sizeable number of people would agree with the issues)...under this version of MMP they will gain seats if they win only 3%. I don't think a party that has the support of 3 out of 100 people should have that much influence (and because every parliament will be a minority one, they will potentially have a great deal of influence).
Why shouldn't a party that wins 35% of the vote have a majority, so long as they win a majority of ridings? It might not be "fair" in the hypothetical, academic sense, but it's a system that everyone understands because it makes sense in reality. The party that wins a plurality of ridings wins a plurality of power. Say you were to elect a leader for your student chess club (because I know that's how you roll). 3 candidates split 97% of the vote [38%, 35%, 25%] but the one who got 38% of the votes wins. Is the fact that she won illegitimate, just because she didn't get over 50% of the vote? Should the candidate who wants to turn the chess club into a checkers club, who won 3% of the vote, have a say in how the chess club is run? Even though 97% of the people in your chess club most definitely do not want to turn it into a checkers club?
I think what ultimately wins out for me is the FACT that this will lead to a continual cycle of minority governments combined with a much greater influence by marginal parties. and I can't see how an infamously partisan Canadian political system will somehow shed its image and become more German, more inclusive and collaborative, simply because of MMP. Our politics isn't divisive as a result of our system - our politics is divisive because of our history, of our economic success and lack of adversity.
ALL that said, ultimately I don't think it will matter, because I doubt that 60% of Ontarians will vote for it. Maybe 64 of the ridings but not 60% of the whole participating electorate. First off, no old person will even understand the question, and those people have nothing better to do than vote. Secondly, even though the question is pretty clear, you can bet a lot of [insert PC way of saying "retarded people"] will be voting without any idea that a referendum is taking place, and in the process of attempting to understand what a "First-Past-The-Post" is and how they can get there, their heads will collectively explode.
Friday, January 05, 2007
[Insert Benny Hill theme here]
This is probably the most insane thing you will ever see in an NHL hockey game:
The best part about all of this wackiness is Ray Ferraro's reaction on the broadcast. He absolutely loses it; I'm pretty sure that neither Bertuzzi nor McSorley had to deal with an out of control reaction like that. And they almost killed people.
Unfortunately, the hilarity serves to mask another awful Oilers loss. I am fairly sure that the only way you can blow a 3 goal lead, at home, to a team who had gone into a shootout in Vancouver the night before, is if you are the 06-07 Edmonton Oilers. The defence was awful, Roli looked like a back-up, and the inexplicable Nedved pickup proved predictably futile.
I don't want to generalize too much, but Petr Nedved is abysmal at everything. There's a reason he is a -20 so far this season and it was readily apparent last night.
The best part about all of this wackiness is Ray Ferraro's reaction on the broadcast. He absolutely loses it; I'm pretty sure that neither Bertuzzi nor McSorley had to deal with an out of control reaction like that. And they almost killed people.
Unfortunately, the hilarity serves to mask another awful Oilers loss. I am fairly sure that the only way you can blow a 3 goal lead, at home, to a team who had gone into a shootout in Vancouver the night before, is if you are the 06-07 Edmonton Oilers. The defence was awful, Roli looked like a back-up, and the inexplicable Nedved pickup proved predictably futile.
I don't want to generalize too much, but Petr Nedved is abysmal at everything. There's a reason he is a -20 so far this season and it was readily apparent last night.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Lidstrom's Got the Munchies for a California Cheeseburger
If the pseudo-intellectual 'Vote For Rory' argument wasn't good enough for you, a fellow Fitzpatrickian has created some good old fashioned attack ads that should sway your sensibilities:
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Vote For Rory...s'il vous plait
Comparing the Vote for Rory campaign with international politics might be a ludicrous venture, but here I go.
This whole scenario reminds me of the French anti-constitution vote in 2005. Typical political considerations contributed to that outcome: nationalists did not want a non-French authority exerting even more control over French law, leftists were wary of other Euro corporations and their intentions on France. However, one of the main reasons the non vote won out was because people were sick and tired of political elites telling them that it was a done deal; Chirac et al. didn't even properly lay out the benefits of accepting the EU Constitution until it was far too late, simply because it was assumed that the French people would continue their historical support for further EU integration. It was an arrogant tactic that looked past the importance of the actual vote. As a result, French people from across the political spectrum united to give them their comeuppance.
Fast forward to the NHL in 2006. I don't think that this campaign would have attracted very much attention beyond the Hockey's Future hoards and some bloggers, had not the talking heads (re: hockey elites) begun to froth at the mouth.
Every day that a Matheson, McCown or some other pompous asshole comes down from the mountain to bitch-slap the 'mere' fan and try to sort out their shenanigans is a day that the Vote For Rory campaign gains momentum. "How dare those fans vote for someone so unworthy! Look at them furrow their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation!"
I'm sick of hockey media types, the majority of whom are complete hacks, using the word 'fan' as a pejorative. "Oh those wacky fans," they seem to say, "I'm sure glad I'm not one of those anymore."
Never mind that an admittedly viral movement has breathed some air into the lifeless corpse that is the NHL All-Star Game - a game that means nothing, attracts few viewers and (usually) even less debate; a game in which some selected players actively seek to avoid participating; a game that does not even resemble hockey in the way that it is usually played. The All-Star Game is a meaningless joke; it divides one half of meaningless and boring NHL power play contests from the other half until the real hockey starts up in the spring.
Yet we are supposed to be upset that fans have inexplicably taken an interest this time around.
Vote For Rory has become an indictment against this sort of arrogance. And just like France's vote, the actual deservedness of the legislation is not what is leading people to vote one way or the other. It's the pompous assholes doing the chiding, ironically, who are the greatest Vote For Rory adverts around.
This whole scenario reminds me of the French anti-constitution vote in 2005. Typical political considerations contributed to that outcome: nationalists did not want a non-French authority exerting even more control over French law, leftists were wary of other Euro corporations and their intentions on France. However, one of the main reasons the non vote won out was because people were sick and tired of political elites telling them that it was a done deal; Chirac et al. didn't even properly lay out the benefits of accepting the EU Constitution until it was far too late, simply because it was assumed that the French people would continue their historical support for further EU integration. It was an arrogant tactic that looked past the importance of the actual vote. As a result, French people from across the political spectrum united to give them their comeuppance.
Fast forward to the NHL in 2006. I don't think that this campaign would have attracted very much attention beyond the Hockey's Future hoards and some bloggers, had not the talking heads (re: hockey elites) begun to froth at the mouth.
Every day that a Matheson, McCown or some other pompous asshole comes down from the mountain to bitch-slap the 'mere' fan and try to sort out their shenanigans is a day that the Vote For Rory campaign gains momentum. "How dare those fans vote for someone so unworthy! Look at them furrow their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation!"
I'm sick of hockey media types, the majority of whom are complete hacks, using the word 'fan' as a pejorative. "Oh those wacky fans," they seem to say, "I'm sure glad I'm not one of those anymore."
Never mind that an admittedly viral movement has breathed some air into the lifeless corpse that is the NHL All-Star Game - a game that means nothing, attracts few viewers and (usually) even less debate; a game in which some selected players actively seek to avoid participating; a game that does not even resemble hockey in the way that it is usually played. The All-Star Game is a meaningless joke; it divides one half of meaningless and boring NHL power play contests from the other half until the real hockey starts up in the spring.
Yet we are supposed to be upset that fans have inexplicably taken an interest this time around.
Vote For Rory has become an indictment against this sort of arrogance. And just like France's vote, the actual deservedness of the legislation is not what is leading people to vote one way or the other. It's the pompous assholes doing the chiding, ironically, who are the greatest Vote For Rory adverts around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)