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!

Ontario Vote Projection

Based on the results of the 2011 election, I am projecting a Liberal majority.

Here is the table of results for 2011.  Voter turnout was 49.2% of eligible voters which means there were 9 million eligible voters.

Assuming 50% come out to vote this time, and taking into account approximately 5.5% population growth, there will be 4.757 million voters this election.  Let's round up to 4.8 million.

There are 1.1 million civil servants that Tim Hudak alienated with his 100,000 jobs cut slogan.  Let's assume most (not all) of them turn out to vote, to save their jobs.  Let's assume half of them are married and that, half of their spouses are not civil servants, themselves.  Let's assume that most of the spouses vote and that they cast their ballots for anyone but the PC's.

Let's assume ethnic groups comprise about one quarter of the voters who go to the polls.  Let's assume just 25% of them cast ballots for the PC's.

When you subtract the civil servants, their spouses and 75% of ethnic voters, Tim Hudak's PC's are competing for what's left of a drastically shrunken pool of voters, about 2.8 million.  If they weren't scared off by Tim's hundred thousand job cuts and they forgave him for the so-called arithmetic error (what kind of a bonehead makes a stupid mistake like that?) in his Million Jobs Plan, then there is a chance some of these remaining 2.8 million will vote for Tim.  But how many?

Let's assume Andrea Horwath does no better or worse than last time, about a million votes.  That leaves 1.8 million for Tim to split with the Liberals, the Greens and all the other parties running in this riding or that.  Last time, these fringe parties siphoned away nearly 300,000 votes.

I assumed that of the remaining 1.8 million votes, 200,000 went to the Greens and to the fringe.  That left 1.6 million.

The polls suggest the Liberals are capturing 35% of uncommitted voters.  But let's assume that, of this remaining 1.6 million, the Liberals gather just 25%, 400,000.  That leaves 1.2 million votes for Tim Hudak and his PC's.

The 2014 chart looks like this:

According to my calculations, owing to the fact that popular vote does not necessarily translate exactly into a proportional number of seats, my numbers project a landslide majority for Kathleen Wynne and her Liberals.

What if this is the year everyone turns out to vote?  Will that make a difference?  Yes, but no.

If all 9.6 million voters cast a ballot on election day, Tim Hudak's PC's have a bigger pool to work with.  But according to my calculations and resulting chart, below, even this kind of fantastic turn-out will not help the Tories win the election.

It looks like it'll be a majority under any scenario.

Coincidentally, a new poll released today seems to agree. 

Ontario Votes 2014 - Their Platforms on a Napkin

Any questions?

Only One Choice on June 12 in Ontario

Ontario goes to the polls June 12 to elect a new government.  Disclosure: I am a Liberal supporter.  But I will add in the same breath that I have voted PC in the past and would do so again if they represented the better choice.

So I went to the Ontario PC website.  This is what I saw: Nothing.  Nothing but platitudes,that is, that are designed to look, feel and sound good at the thirty-thousand-foot level but, as soon as you click for more, well, there isn't any more.  For example, the website opens with, "Nearly 1 million workers in Ontario are out of a job or need a better one".  Wait a minute.  Ontario's population consists of just 13.5 million people of whom 68.4% are of working age (15-64) according to this government fact sheet.   That means there are 9.2 million working age residents.  The PC's assertion that 1 million of them are "out of a job" means that Ontario's unemployment rate is 11%.  That's funny.  Because I could have sworn Ontario's unemployment rate was 7.5%, as widely reported this week, including here.   Maybe the Conservatives really meant that, of the 1 million, more of them "need a better" job.  That makes sense.  My friends hate their jobs.  My relatives complain about their jobs too.  Heck, I'd be surprised if less than half of the people working today wouldn't say they "need a better" job.

After making a -- let's call it a weak case -- for 1 million higher quality jobs, the Conservatives lay out their plan for how they will create the jobs.  It consists of: (1) "Lower taxes and less debt" (sounds good but how do you lower taxes and reduce debt, I wonder); (2) "Affordable energy" (sounds great); (3) "Train more skilled workers" (we're doing that now, aren't we, and anyway, why, so they can go to Alberta -- in other words, how is that going to create jobs?); (4) "Increase trade with our neighbours" (isn't that what NAFTA and a ninety-cent Loonie are supposed to do?); and (5) "End the bureaucratic runaround that inhibits job creation" (translation, move government out of the way and let business do its job -- this is the piece we are all supposed to rally around, but what does it mean, exactly?).  As you can appreciate, I was left wondering what the PC's meant by these sounds-good-feels-good-must-be-good statements.  Trouble is, a click on any of them produced -- well -- again --nothing.

At least the NDP had a bit more substance in their website.  That is, until I was invited to download their Plan for Affordable Change and got to the part that said, "We will also work with Jack Layton and the federal New Democratic team to push for the expansion of Canada Pension Plan benefits".  Huh?  Jack's been dead for nearly three years.  Maybe the NDP plan needs to be refreshed a little.   Maybe the whole website needs to be updated?  Odd, because it's the NDP that triggered the Ontario election, after all.  I would have thought they'd have had their marketing materials ready to roll.

I was almost afraid to peer under the hood of the Ontario Liberal website but, to my relief, what I saw were mostly thoughtful and well-articulated policies and strategies, starting with an honest acknowledgment that Ontario operates in a highly competitive world.  Overall, in addition to a strong desire to attract businesses, create jobs, and foster economic growth, the Liberals seem to have good strategies for fighting income inequality and a scary dearth of retirement savings for a majority of Ontarions.  In that sense, they seem to be heeding the warnings of some of the most celebrated economists of our time, namely, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and, most recently, Thomas Pickety.

I have said before that capitalism is like a nuclear reaction which, if left to its own devices, blows up like an atom bomb.  Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals are the moderating rods in that nuclear reactor that tame the beast and harness its power to sustain society for generations.   Not only does she have my vote for Ontario in June, she has my vote of confidence for prime minister of Canada some day.  Perhaps that's why the current prime minister, Stephen Harper, feels threatened enough to break tradition and wade into this provincial election.