The Republican Presidential Nominee Front Runners

If you want to know who the front runners are for the GOP ticket, just pay attention to the names that are getting the most mentions after last night's final Republican candidates' debate.  Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.  Everyone else is an also-ran.

Realistically, Trump doesn't stand a chance.  His simplistic view of things open him up to future attacks by Cruz when the gloves come off during primary season, striking fear and doubt in the hearts of all those Apprentice show fans.

That leaves Cruz and Rubio for Prez and Veep, respectively; a nice fit, really, since Cruz appeals to the Bible belt and to the far-right, and since Rubio appeals to the college educated 'Establishment', as well as the Latinos and immigrants.

Cruz-Rubio for 2016.   You heard it here, first.

No Democracy in America Without Senate Reform

The U.S. Senate commands tremendous power.  Without it, laws cannot pass.  Including gun laws.  Yet the constitution of the Senate, which states that there will be two senators from each state, regardless of population, means that a citizen of Wyoming has 66 times the voting power of a citizen of California.  How is that democratic?

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the Country's forefathers arrived at what is called "the Great Compromise" or "Connecticut Compromise", which allowed for small states to have the same number of senators as large states.   Why?  Some say it was to protect the autonomy of the states, regardless of whether they were large or small.  Others claim it was a pure power grab by the small states.  The compromise was probably struck because, back then, it wasn't as big a deal.  After all, the country had 4 million residents, compared to 315 million today, and the largest state, New York, was only 11 times bigger than the smallest one, Delaware.  Today, California is 66 times bigger than Wyoming and the gap is growing as more people flock to California and the coasts than to the middle.  So unequal representation is getting worse.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that smaller states are also predominantly white, red-neck, gun-toting, conservative, Republican, so-called "Red" states.  In effect, that means that Red state voters command more voting power than Blue state voters (see Table).

How is this manifested today?  Even when a majority of Americans are for stricter gun laws, like they are today, according to the polls, and even when the President, himself, is scheduled to go on national television tonight to address the Nation on the topic of guns, terrorism and security, both the majority and the President are prevented from passing sensible laws by the minority, the small state citizens, like the ones in Wyoming, who command 66 times the voting power of the citizens of California.

So how do Americans reform the Senate?   The U.S. Constitution requires a two thirds majority to amend the Constitution but, in the case of the Senate, there is a special, additional rule that requires the consent of each and every state.  That makes it nearly impossible to change U.S. governance.

So, the nearly 40 million residents of California continue to pay their taxes and yet, do not get to advance their wishes or needs because of their extremely minuscule vote.  It seems to me the last time that happened, the year was 1776.  And the citizens revolted.

This is Why I'm Not Voting for Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada

This is Why I'm Not Voting for Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada

1.              Because they're no longer "Progressive" Conservatives.  This is the Reform Party disguised as the old PC party.  This party is as regressive as anything we've seen in Canadian politics in my lifetime (since 1958).
2. .       Because Mr. Harper unilaterally decided he didn't like the long-form census and thus, killed it.
3. .       Because Mr. Harper likes climate change and global warming.  He thinks it's a joke because Canada will benefit from a melting Arctic and from a longer growing season and from warmer winters in Calgary, his home town.  And since he thinks it'll advantage Canada over the rest of the world, he thinks it's a game that Canada will win, in the short term, and because he doesn't care about the rest of the planet.
4.        Because Mr. Harper is a control freak and a bully who doesn't tolerate dissent within his own cabinet, his party, and within the federal civil service.
5. .       Because Mr. Harper favours the wealthy.  That's evidenced by tax cuts that favour the wealthy and the higher income earners in Canada; all, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
6. .       Because Mr. Harper has overtly taken the side of Israel over the Palestinians.  Because Mr. Harper thinks Arabs may be terrorists.
7. .       Because Mr. Harper will not help Ontario administer its Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, even though it will not cost the federal government a penny to do so.  And just because he disagrees with Kathleen Wynne about it, ideologically.  So, like a child, he's not going to help her because he didn't get his way.  He didn't get her to back down.  Well, get out of the way, Mr. Harper.  Kathleen is going show you how it's done, with or without you.
8. .       Because Mr. Harper refused to take consultation from Chief Justice of the land, Beverley McLachlin, in 2013, during the consultation period on the potential appointment of Quebec justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court.  Because Mr. Harper went on to appoint Nadon, anyway.  Because the Supreme Court itself ruled that Nadon's appointment was unconstitutional because Nadon was not a sitting judge in Quebec and therefore ineligible to serve on the Supreme Court and had to suffer the indignity of being fired from the Supreme Court (or, rather, had to pretend that he had never been hired in the first place).  In other words, because Harper tried to stack the Court in his favour with judges that favoured Mr. Harper's ideology and, in the process, tried to hijack the Constitution.
9. .       Because Mr. Harper is making a mockery of democracy in Canada by using his 2011 majority win to stuff through legislation in a hurry, without debate, that is clearly against the wishes of the majority of Canadians, in some cases, via what is called "omnibus" bills, bills that are hundreds of pages long, that require lots of time for opposition parties to read and comprehend, and that contain all kinds of rule changes; but that get precious little time in Parliament and just get rammed through by the Conservatives.
10. .        Because Harper's Bill C-51 put into law power that allows Mr. Harper to eavesdrop on any Canadian he wants, in the name of fighting terrorism, and to jail any Canadian he wants, in the name of terrorism, and to arrest any journalist he wants, in the name of terrorism.  It seems to me the one terrorizing Canadians with laws like this one is Mr. Harper, himself.1
11.            Because Mr. Harper wants to ban travel by Canadians to foreign countries that Mr. Harper thinks are terrorist havens.  And because Mr. Harper won't say which countries those are, or when he will name them.  Meanwhile, businessmen, family members, journalists, anyone with a legitimate reason to travel abroad, all are left wondering how much further Mr. Harper will restrict and/or violate their human and constitutional rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.
12. .         Because Mr. Harper has bet this country's future on the Alberta oil sands and because that bet is going badly, all of a sudden, and because there is no Plan B.  Because Mr. Harper said himself that, like any good financial adviser worth his salt, we don't alter course suddenly during times of market volatility and because Mr. Harper forgot another saying of financial advisers, namely, that one ought not to put one's eggs in one basket, in this case, oil.
13.           Because Mr. Harper has shamed Canada on the world stage, by not living up to his commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions like he said he would.
14. .         Because Mr. Harper refuses to take in Syrian refugees.
15. .          Because Mr. Harper has, in his nearly ten years as Prime Minister of Canada, refused to sit down with all ten premiers all but once.
16.             Because Mr. Harper is better suited perhaps to a time long past, and because Canada deserves better than this to lead it and the world in this 21st Century.
17. 7. Because Mr. Harper is using wedge issues like the niqab and women's rights to wear such coverings (or not) during citizenship ceremonies to divide Canadians and rally his supporters so that he can win the October 19 federal election.  Shame on you, Mr. Harper!

Can Harper Win Again in 2015? You Bet He Can!

You might ask why Canadians would ever give the Conservative party another mandate in Ottawa when they go to the polls later this year (election date still to be determined).  The answer is, because only 30% or so of them need to vote for the Conservatives, that's why.

Huh?

That's right.  Canada's "First past the post" electoral system means that the candidate with the most votes in each riding wins that riding.  The party with the most ridings forms the government.  Since the advent of the Bloc Quebecois and the Green parties (ignoring the fringe elements, the Communist party and any other wackos), Canada has five parties that split the vote.  Mathematically, as long as you get over 20% of the vote, you win.  Practically, since the Greens get so few votes, and since the Bloc Quebecois (the separatists) only run in Quebec and therefore get a small percentage of the vote, that means you have to get around 30% of the vote to form at least a minority government.  A majority requires more like 40%, as Jeffrey Simpson stated recently in this G&M piece.

That means Harper, ever the political strategist, only needs to concentrate on his supporters --- business owners, farmers, gun-owners, old white guys, old white guys with money, the fossil fuel industry, the West, rural Ontarians, the wealthy, and young families with good paying jobs and kids in hockey who would like to pay less tax because, let's face it, who doesn't support kids in hockey and who doesn't want to pay tax?

What I'm saying is that Harper will pinpoint which ridings he can win and he will target the Conservatives' money on those ridings.  He will also target his platform to resonate with his supporters.  And he will go for that 40% to win another majority government.

Is that fair?  Of course, it is in Canada's system.

What can be done?

First past the post systems are supposed to eventually result in a two-party system, given enough time.  That hasn't happened in my lifetime (57 years).   In fact, it's gotten worse.  Canada has gone from three political parties to five.  Trouble is, there is only one Right-wing party, Harpers's, and there are now four parties to split the left-wing vote.

What to do?

How about adopting second-level run-offs, like they have in France and other countries?  Let's say the Conservatives and the Liberals come in 1 and 2 with, say, 38% and 30% of the vote.  Let's have a sudden-death final among the top two finalists to settle the score.  All of a sudden, we might find that the Liberals win and the result is 62% Liberal and 38% Conservative.  Huh?  That's right (or Left, depending on how you look at it).

Canada needs a two-stage election process.  Now!