Tag Archives: NATO

Roundup: Approval voting and numbers with meaning

Posted on by

While everyone has been enthralled with the electoral reform debate (no, not really), and been gripped with substance over process (no, not really), there was an op-ed in the Citizen last week that I never really had a chance to talk about amidst a number of other things going on, so I thought I’d take a moment now to address it. The issue: the electoral system known as “approval voting.”

So what is it? Basically you take the same ballot you have now, and you mark it for as many people as you want to. Supposedly this discourages strategic voting because you can vote more than once and can vote for both the person your heart wants to vote for, as well as the one you hope to defeat the person in there now. And okay, sure, it’s simple, and sure, it gives you that emotional thrill about being able to vote for more than one person (which I don’t think is that big of a concern for most people, but maybe I’m wrong), and if you do something silly like vote for everyone on the ballot (because they’re all winners for participating?), then it basically cancels out the vote and doesn’t come out any worse off. But I keep going back to the basic question: what problem is this trying to solve?

If that problem is the emotional dissatisfaction with electoral outcomes, then I’m not sure that this is the problem that we should be addressing, and I also have to wonder about the unintended consequences of picking such a system. And what could those be? Really, the quality of the data that an election produces, and what that data tells us about the election. Because believe it or not, that actually matters. What percentage a candidate received matters a lot. It gauges support, it sends a message about how solid or tenuous their support is, and about how much support their rivals have, which could mean clues for them as to how to better organise in the following election, and who to target. If the number of votes cast is divorced from the number of electors, what kind of message are we able to send? That would seem to be a pretty important consideration to me, and to a lot of people running, I would imagine.

I also have an issue with how this portrays what a vote means. In our system currently – and yes, this electoral system purports to keep the system otherwise intact, along the lines of “one simple trick to make the system more emotionally satisfying!” – when you cast a ballot it is to decide who will sit in the seat that represents your geographic area. And this is where a lot of electoral reform nonsense falls apart – it becomes about feelings rather than the fact that there is one seat and you have to help decide who fills it. How casting votes for multiple people to fill that one seat seems to defeat the purpose in many ways, and admission that it’s too difficult to make a decision so let’s cop out and muddle it so that I don’t feel so bad when I do it. But democracy is about making choices, and we should make it clear that it’s what it is, and just what that choice is (i.e.: Who is filling this one seat, rather than who is going to form a government, because that is decided once a parliament has been assembled). We’re not making that clear, and we’re constantly talking in terms of horse race numbers and leadership politics, and not about the actual choice that faces people, and I think this is something we should be paying more attention to, and being more vocal and precise about, so that we don’t wind up with yet more pie-eyed schemes that are designed to make us feel better while not actually doing what we’re supposed to. And this isn’t something that I’m seeing in the discussions on electoral reform – just a lot of pouting about “fairness” based on made-up numbers that don’t actually mean anything, and approval voting would make the numbers that do mean something, mean even less.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rebutting the reformers’ complaints

Posted on by

If it were possible for someone to write a column that was basically one long subtweet, then I’m pretty sure that it’s what Andrew Coyne did with his column on electoral reform, with me as his unspoken target – particularly as he parroted several of my arguments (that no one else seems to be making) without actually getting their substance correct. So here we go.

When proportional representation advocates complain that the allocation of seats among the parties in the legislature does not resemble their relative shares of the votes cast — with the especially unhappy effect of allowing a minority of the voters to rule over the majority — first past the post’s defenders reply: why should it? Members were elected in 338 separate riding elections, not in a single nationwide vote.

Yes, and that’s pointed out for a number of reasons – that the vote share figure that reformers cite as evidence is not actually real (hence its use as evidence is meaningless), and the fact that each MP is elected to a single seat in a separate election has a particular meaning that gives them individual agency rather than making them a thrall of a particular party. This is an important consideration in the electoral system because it gives a clear line for how MPs are empowered, which is what we keep insisting we want. It also demonstrates that if the complaint is that MPs aren’t empowered, it’s because it’s their own choice or ignorance – not the electoral system that is at fault.

When reformers point out the imbalance this creates between voters — in a given election it typically takes many more votes to elect a member from one party than another — first-past-the-posters look positively mystified: everyone gets one ballot. And when the former observe that under first past the post the votes cast for anyone but the leading candidate in a riding are “wasted,” in the sense that they do not contribute to electing anyone, the latter lose all patience. How could any of the votes have been wasted, they ask, if all were counted? The candidate who was elected may not have been everyone’s choice, but he still represents everyone.

Here Coyne adopts the same specious math that the Broadbent Institute was pushing over Twitter yesterday, which ignores how ridings actually work, and that elections are 338 separate events, and mashes the figures together and divides by 338, pretending that it’s a number with meaning when it’s not – just like the popular vote. It’s pretty much like bringing a unicorn to a logic exam. As well, he doesn’t make a compelling argument about why votes are “wasted” because it ignores the broader political ecosystem. It has little to do with the fact that the MP who won the seat represents everyone, but that the vote itself is but one small piece of political engagement. Casting a vote is not the end-all-be-all of political engagement. Rather, the system is built for people to be joining parties and engaging at a grassroots level to develop policy and for riding associations to act as interlocutors between the local community and the caucus, even when they don’t have a local MP in that party. As well, the percentage by which the MP won the seat is a figure that matters. If it’s by a slim margin, then those votes against are certainly not “wasted” – they have a meaning in the message that it sends to the MP about where his or her support lies. That matters.

To reformers’ complaints about how the system works, in other words, the answer commonly offered is: that’s how the system works. It is as if that were not just the system we have now, but the only system there is. And of course if you assume that then yes, reformers’ objections become literally incomprehensible. They might as well object to the weather. If only one member can be elected per riding, then obviously it’s silly to talk about wasted votes, or to complain that voters who supported another candidate are not represented. That’s life. Suck it up. The resulting parliament was not proportional? That’s not how our system works.

No, that’s not why one has to point out that it’s how the system works – one needs to point that out because you need to understand how the system works before you go about changing it, which usually means breaking things and making them worse. It has been proven that every time we tinker with our system, we make it worse, which leads us to want to tinker with it more, breaking it even further. Why? Because people don’t understand how the system works, so they assume that it’s broken, particularly if they get emotional that it doesn’t do what they think it should. This is the whole premise of my book – that we need to stop and understand how and why things work the way they do before we go about messing with the system some more because history has shown repeatedly that tinkering makes it worse. Ignorance is literally killing our democracy, and no matter how well intentioned its reformers tend to be, they almost always make it worse.

At any rate, it’s worth debating. Some might argue that single-member ridings give constituents a clearer sense of who to take their problems to, and who to hold to account. Others might reply that, with several members competing to represent them, constituents might get better service: if one didn’t answer your letter, another might.

From here, Coyne goes off about how maybe multi-member ridings would be better, possibly sprinkled in with single-member ones where they would be too large (hello, all of rural and remote Canada), which immediately brings up questions about how that could possibly be considered a more fair system. And while he touches ever so briefly on accountability, he gets the premise wrong – an MP’s job is not to “service” one’s constituents. It’s about holding the government to account. This, however, is lost on the reformers, whose fetishisation with fantastical notions about “representation” overshadow all other aspects of how the system works in its broader ecosystem. Yes, representation is a part of it, but it is not the totality, and yet that is what all of their reforms are geared toward with no regard for the bigger whole.

So no, it’s not about whether other systems are possible – it’s about not making things worse because you don’t understand how things work now. That’s a very different thing entirely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Perverting the Westminster system

Posted on by

Amidst the various detritus floating out there of post-Brexit thinkpieces, one could blink and miss a pair of posts the Andrew Potter made yesterday, but let me state that it would be a mistake to do so. The first post was a response to another trolling post from someone else who stated that a Brexit vote would never have happened in the American system because of all of its various checks and balances. Potter, however, doesn’t rise to the bait in quite the way you would think, and instead looks at the ways in which Responsible Government in the UK has gone wrong of late, which led to this situation. Things like the referendum itself not being a usual parliamentary instrument, or the fixed-parliaments legislation, and the ways in which party leadership contests have done away with the usual accountability mechanisms on the leaders that are being elected rather than selected. In other words, it’s the perversions of the Westminster system that have caused the problems at hand, not the system itself that is to blame as the original trolling post would otherwise indicate. And for those of you who’ve been following my writing for a while, this is a recurring theme with me too (which you’ll see expounded upon in my book when it’s released next year) – that it’s the constant attempts to tinker with the system that wind up being the problem because we’ve been forgetting how the system is actually supposed to operate. If we left the system alone and used it the way it’s intended, we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems creeping in, forcing people to demand yet more tinkering reforms.

The second post from Potter is a continuation from an aside in the first piece, but it’s worth a read nevertheless because it’s a quick look at ways in which the changes that America needs to its system go beyond simple electoral reform, but rather a change to a Westminster-style parliamentary system rather than its current morass that more resembles a pre-Responsible Government reflection of the “balanced constitution” model that the UK was experimenting with at the time. One imagines that it would mean turning their president into a more figurehead role than also having him or her be the head of government as well as head of state as the office is now (this is the part that Potter glosses over), but the rest of the points stand – that a confidence-based system instead of term limits would allow its heads of government to burn out in a third term rather than create independent power bases that are then used for dynastic purposes (witness both the Bush and Clinton dynasties), that problems with things like Supreme Court appointments would rectify themselves, and that it would force reforms to their party system that would largely prevent the kind of outsider demagogue problem that we saw in the current election cycle with Trump and Sanders. It’s certainly thought provoking, and a timely defence of our parliamentary institutions as they are supposed to function.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Use your Australian comparisons wisely

Posted on by

If it’s not the leadership omnishambles in the UK that’s holding our attention, it’s the indecisive election result in Australia. While that would be something in and of itself, we find ourselves with pundits eager to take some lessons from Australia, only to completely balls things up along the way. To wit, Kelly McParland writing in the National Post delivered this hot mess yesterday which manages to conflate every possible thing in Australian politics in order to prove a point – not necessarily a bad point – but went about it in entirely the wrong way. So, for Mr. McParland’s edification, let’s break it down a little.

First of all, the “six prime ministers in six years” has virtually nothing to do with the ranked ballots in Australia. The system of caucus selection of leaders there (which is how leaders should be chosen, as I’ve argued elsewhere numerous times) has gone to extremes, creating a culture of paranoia and betrayal. But that’s not the fault of the ranked ballots since it’s a different process. That parties will spill leaders shortly before an election in the hopes of having a more appealing leader is party politics enabled by the ability to have spills, rather than the ranked ballot effect. Conflating them is not helpful.

The ranked ballots themselves allow for more small parties to exist independent of “big tent” brokerage parties because ranked ballots discourage tactical voting – something McParland neglects to mention while returning to the Canadian canard that the Liberals only want ranked ballots because they think they’ll clean up by getting everyone’s second place votes. That has led to the need for the Australian Liberals (read: conservatives) to require a coalition partner to govern, which is a consideration to make if we want ranked ballots, but it is a giant conflation to mix this in with the stability of their system and leadership woes.

The problem of the Australian Senate is the bigger nub of the argument, but which gets lost in the rest of the McParland’s confusing mess. The Australian Senate is chosen by single-transferable proportional voting, and the system has been effectively gamed in the previous election so that a bunch of marginal players got seats and subsequently created a huge problem in their upper chamber, requiring more tinkering of the system to be forced through and the Prime Minister calling for double-dissolution (so that both chambers be elected at the same time – a rare occurrence usually reserved for political crises) in order to break the legislative deadlocks. Those tweaks appear to be causing even more problems with this election, but we may see how it all shakes out in a few weeks. (Note that these ballots tend to be the size of placemats, because of the way they’re structured with the enormous number of parties running). And while the problems with these marginal parties being given outsized powers of persuasion in the previous parliament are very valid points to make, it gets lost in the sea of conflations that plagued the rest of the piece.

So I get McParland’s point about electoral reform advocates needing to be careful what they wish for, and can even agree with it to a large extent, this was utterly the wrong way to go about it.

Meanwhile, here’s a primer about Australia’s lengthy counting process – so lengthy that their Senate preferential distribution process could take over a month. Closer to home, here are some of the ways in which the electoral reform committee plans to engage with Canadians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Happy Dominion Day!

Posted on by

Happy Dominion Day! In lieu of the usual rant, today I leave you with a few items for your perusal: a look at ten animals that helped shaped Canada, a look back at the creation of the flag, 40 famous Canadians giving their memories of childhood summers, and Maclean’s has 111 stories from Canadians. Now go enjoy the day, to the sounds of my July 1st theme song.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A test of bicameral wills?

Posted on by

Whether through stubbornness or pique, the House of Commons voted to adopt nearly all of the amendments the Senate proposed to Bill C-14, with the exception of the biggest and most important one – the one which would eliminate the requirement of a “reasonably foreseeable” death before someone could be granted medical assistance in dying. And then, the Commons more or less announced that tomorrow will be their last sitting day before they rise for the summer, essentially daring the Senate to return a bill to a chamber that has gone home (well, they are supposed to come back on the 29th for Obama’s address), and leaving the spectre of there being no law in place, which has all manner of medical community stakeholders concerned (never mind that the framework of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Carter decision is in place and would ensure that nobody would be charged for providing the service). It’s a little more ballsy than I would have given the Liberals credit for a few weeks ago, particularly before I saw the background paper that Jody Wilson-Raybould released with her…questionable justification for drafting the law the way it was. Now comes the difficult part – will the Senate stick to their guns and insist that the amendments to eliminate “reasonably foreseeable” be maintained if the bill is to remain constitutional, or will they back down because they’ve made their point and the Commons is the elected chamber?

This is the part where I chime in with a few reminders that this is the reason why our Senate exists the way it does – it enjoys institutional independence and cannot be threatened by the Commons so that they can push back on bills they find unconstitutional, particularly a controversial one like this, where MPs are proving themselves to be timid in the face of a Supreme Court of Canada decision that lays out what they deem to be an appropriate constitutional reading of the issue – something the government is basically flouting in an attempt to push back on this bit of social evolution for as long as possible. And as I’ve stated before, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the Commons is waiting for the Senate to “force” them to advance things. Will it turn into a ping-pong between the chambers? Not for much longer, I would say, but it is going to depend on who blinks. If the Senate does dig in its heels on this and insist that doing otherwise would be to let an unconstitutional bill pass, then there is every reason to suspect the government take the “forced into this” option and let the Senate be the punching bag when religious and disability groups complain. There are people suggesting that the Supreme Court should break the impasse, which I would loudly denounce because it’s the very last thing we need. It’s not their job, and it would signal a complete abdication of the rights of Parliament and Responsible Government that our predecessors fought long and hard for. (Also, stop demanding these bills be referred to the Court – legislating is not a game of “Mother May I?”). This whole exercise is why the Senate exists. Let’s let them do their jobs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two bills heading back

Posted on by

It looks like the Senate has nearly finished with two of the contentious bills on its plate, and both are headed back to the Commons with amendments. The first is the obvious one, Bill C-14, where the biggest change has been to drop the requirement that a condition must essentially be terminal for the law to grant a medically-assisted death, but other amendments such as allowing for advanced directives failed in part because Senator Murray Sinclair made a compelling case that the language in the amendment was sufficiently unclear. The challenge there is that while the government promises further study in the language of the bill, there is little guarantee that will actually happen, or if it does, that legislation will follow, because MPs are terribly spineless about these sorts of things and they require being “forced” by the courts.

The other bill is C-7, the RCMP unionization bill, where the list of exclusions that the government had put into the bill has been removed, and somewhat inexplicably, a provision that a union certification vote has to be done by secret ballot was inserted (though I suspect the latter was a compromise with the Conservatives to get them to pass the more important amendment of striking down the exclusions). In that case, the government has a hard time justifying those exclusions, particularly as they both make little sense, and perpetuate the problems of the Commissioner’s office already having too much power, while it would continue to give him even more.

So what’s next? Once those bills head back to the Commons, we’ll see how much the government plans to dig in its heels, and how tough senators can talk about insisting that those changes be in the bills, particularly as they have the weight of the Supreme Court of Canada behind them in both cases. The biggest problem the Senate will face is splintering resolve – enough senators are not willing to stand up to the elected Commons even in the face of a bill that is likely not to pass constitutional muster because the Commons is the elected chamber. Never mind that the Senate was created as an appointed body so that it could do just that – stand up to the elected chamber when need be, because their lack of a need for re-election allowed their reflection on bills to be more “sober,” and this is a case where that particular “sobriety” is needed in the face of pressure from religious and disability groups. But, as I maintain, it remains likely that the Commons is looking for an excuse to be “forced” to accept these changes, and the Senate threatening to use their veto would be excuse enough for MPs to make the needed changes in a way that allows them to hide behind the Senate and skirt responsibility, as they did the courts before them. We’ll have to see.

Continue reading →

QP: Not taking the budget bait

Posted on by

The day before budget day, and the Commons was not as full as it could or should be. Rona Ambrose led off, her mini-lectern on Andrew Scheer’s desk as it often is these days, and she read some concern about her supposition about the budget. Justin Trudeau insisted that they had a plan, and that the previous government didn’t get the job done. Ambrose tried to retort that they had the best job creation record in the G7, then turned a lament about raising taxes. Trudeau reminded her of the debt-to-GDP ratio. Ambrose insisted that investment has “fallen off the cliff” since the election, but Trudeau responded that economists said that this was the time to invest. Denis Lebel took over to ask about public confidence in the economy, which Trudeau reiterated their investment promises, and Lebel lamented the state of the forestry industry as an example of a measure needed in the budget, but Trudeau didn’t bite, and told him to wait for the budget. Thomas Mulcair was up for the NDP, and decried Bombardier’s plan to outsource some jobs, and demanded the protection of jobs in Canada. Trudeau agreed that they wanted to protect good jobs, which was why they were taking the time to assess Bombardier’s proposal. Mulcair demanded commitments on EI, for which Trudeau reminded him that they made commitments in their platform and they would keep that promise in the budget. Mulcair switched to English and lamented the conditions on First Nations reserves, for which Trudeau yet again reminded him that they made promises to renew the relationship, and that the budget would contain historic investment. For his final question, Trudeau asked about a family where the children were kidnapped to Kurdistan. Trudeau insisted that the return of those children were a high priority.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Sajjan takes the heat

Posted on by

Senate QP invites a minister, round three, with special guest star National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. There were a few technical issues with the earpiece at the centre desk on the floor, and the Liberals invited Sajjan to use a desk on their side instead. Senator Carignan agreed, saying that it was technically the government side of the chamber, and once Sajjan was settled, Carignan led off, asking if Canada was officially at war with ISIS as France and the United States were. Sajjan gave a personal definition of war as being what we remember with the World Wars, and that this conflict was not of the same scale, but that didn’t lessen the commitment to the fight.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A vote for support

Posted on by

We have the motion on the Order Paper now for the debate and eventual vote on the newly refocused mission in Syria and Iraq, and to the relief of those of us who care about things like Crown Prerogative and the powers of the executive, it’s crafted simply in the language of supporting the mission. This is critical, because asking for authorisation is a giant can of worms that nobody really should want to even contemplate opening, but even with this language, it’s going to cause headaches going forward. To recap, asking for authorization is something that launders the prerogative and thus the government’s accountability. When something goes wrong, they can shrug and say “the House voted for the mission,” and to varying degrees, the Harper government did this, particularly with relationship to Afghanistan. These non-binding votes are a rather unseemly bit of political theatre that purports to put the question to MPs – because apparently they need to have buy-in when we send our men and women in uniform into danger, or some such nonsense – and it gives parties like the NDP a chance to thump their chests about peacekeeping and pandering to pacifistic notions (and does anyone seriously buy that nobody is trying to stop the flow of money, arms and fighters to ISIS without Canada butting to the front of the line to finger-wag at them?), and parties like the Conservatives a chance to rail that they were doing so much more when they were in charge (when they weren’t), or when they were in charge, to pat themselves on the back for everything they were doing (when really, it tended to be a bare minimum at best, or a symbolic contribution at worst). Of course, all of this could be done with a simple take-note debate without a vote, which is how it should be, because a vote implies authorisation, and that’s how the NDP have read each and every vote in the past, and they will loudly remind everyone in QP and elsewhere about it. Trudeau has been trying to keep expectations measured by saying that they recognise the role of the executive in making these decisions – but he went and proposed a vote anyway, muddling the role of MPs in this situations like these. That role, to remind you, is to hold the government to account, so if you’re going to have a vote on a military mission, then one might as well make it a confidence vote because foreign policy and control of the military is at the heart of the Crown’s powers. (These authorisation votes that aren’t confidence measures are playing out in the UK right now, which is making a mess of their own system, for the record). Trudeau should have known better than to continue this pattern of confusion and left it at a take-note debate, like it should be. A vote, whether it’s an actual authorisation or just a declaration of support, only serves to make the waters murky, which we need our governments to stop doing before they do lasting harm to our system of Responsible Government.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151173568729088

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151589626966016

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151991277723648

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698152397277917184

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698153619657461760

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698154371541032961

Continue reading →