Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Will Hutton discusses how the growing gap between the rich and everybody else is eating away at Britain's collective well-being, while Phillip Inman warns the new Labour government of the problems with serving the business sector at the expense of the general public. And 350.org responds to the Cons' sloganeering with a campaign to stop allowing wealthy oil companies from dictating Canadian public policy. 

- Euan Thomson warns that a punitive approach to addictions and mental health is now being treated as received wisdom by right-wing parties across Canada - though there's some reason for optimism that voters are rejecting it along with other elements of the conservative culture war. Nik Barry-Shaw notes that Pierre Poilievre is parroting the talking points of big pharma in seeking to deny people access to affordable medication through pharmacare. Adam King points out how more and more health resources are being diverted to for-profit nursing agencies. And Kristina Olson, G.F. Raber and Natalie Gallagher study the results of gender-affirming medical care and find overwhelmingly positive outcomes. 

- Lora Kelley interviews Elaine Godfrey about the conditions which have facilitated the spread of election conspiracy theories. And Dave Karpf writes that Elon Musk's strategy as the outsourced voter turnout director for Donald Trump is to blatantly commit crimes such as making cash payments to voters - with what seems to be an entirely correct expectation that he'll never face any consequences. 

- Finally, David Angus Ness makes the case to build based on the principle of sufficiency which ensures that people have enough of what they need.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Bryn Nelson offers a call to action against the anti-science, anti-reality industry seeking to blast out propaganda to keep corporate coffers spilling over at the expense of public health and safety. And John Woodside sets out the greenwashing plan being used to try to force through even more dirty energy development in the tar sands, while Nina Lakhani reports that the journalists seeking to offer full and accurate information about climate issues are under constant threats of violence.

- Meanwhile, Yongxiao Liang, Nathan P. Gillett and Adam H. Monahan find that we're already on a path toward more than 2 degrees of global warming once we account for variability in ocean temperatures. Gabriel Rau et al. warn that warming groundwater poses threats to life both above and below the surface. And Dylan Baddour and Alejandra Martinez report on the escalating costs of droughts in Texas (and elsewhere) which are borne by publicly-subsidized insurance programs. 

- Mike Savage offers a reminder that wealth inequality remains a crucial issue for the general public in the UK - even as Keir Starmer has purged anybody who might advocate on the issue from his caucus in the name of bland corporatism.

- Finally, Jared Wesley and Alex Ballos point out how Danielle Smith is following the Republicans' playbook to prevent people from exercising their right to vote. And Jason Foster and Rebecca Graff-McRae write that the seemingly random acts of arbitrary governance from by UCP can generally be traced back to an attempt to dissolve any civic institution or source of information which could possibly check the exercise of partisan power.

#Elxn44 Roundup

Assorted reactions to a federal election which changed so little.

- The Canadian Labour Congress points out that we can't afford to be stuck with the status quo when there's an opportunity for parties to chart a more equitable and sustainable course for Canada. And Aaron Wherry wonders how the federal parties will adapt to another apparent run of minority Parliaments by working on systemic cooperation rather than turning every confidence vote into a game of chicken, while Alex Marland points out the range of outcomes in historical minority governments from generational change to complete gridlock. 

- Seth Klein writes that the new Parliament will hold Canada's climate future in its hands. And Morgan Sharp argues that young voters will be looking for the parties to work together on that front, while Vijay Tupper makes the case that Jagmeet Singh needs to serve to counterbalance the influence of the fossil fuel sector. 

- Justin Ling writes that the main factors driving the outcome proved to be fatigue and resignation. Cameron Holmstrom writes that there were ultimately no winners among Canada's political parties.  

- Meanwhile, PressProgress reports on the problems with ballot box access in a pandemic election, including unconscionably long lines in some areas and a complete lack of polls in others. 

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan offers a reminder that the pandemic's disproportionate impact on women is far from over - and that countering its effects needs to be another top priority in the next Parliament.

On time-shifting

There's been some discussion about parts of Canada's federal election campaign which are surfacing somewhat earlier than usual - ranging from party platforms (with the notable exception of the Libs'), to typical late-campaign scare tactics. But it's worth noting that there's obvious reason to make closing arguments from almost the beginning of the campaign - as well as a need for parties to consider what the means as the campaign progresses. 

The provincial elections held in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic have generally seen both a continuation of the trend toward increased advance voting, and a substantial increase in the use of mail-in ballots. But by the time the votes have been counted, the overall turnout hasn't been all that strong.  

And that combination of increased early voting and decreased election-day turnout raises important considerations for campaign. 

First, it means that persuasion in the opening days of the campaign will actually serve to lock in votes early - or conversely, that a failure to reach people by that stage could put them out of reach for the duration of the campaign. And so even to the extent a party might otherwise be tempted to hold off on messages or platforms to reduce the time in which they can be picked apart, the balance tilts strongly in favour of ensuring that early voters have a chance to see what's on offer. 

By the same token, the events which would normally be seen as shaping the outcome of an election - from debates to gaffes to movements behind a particular leader - are all likely to have comparatively less effect than in previous elections due to the votes which have already been banked by the time they would take place. 

At the same time, while those most motivated to vote need to be reached with persuasive messages early in the campaign, the voters left to be accessed on election day are then likely to be those who have put relatively little thought into how to vote as a matter of both partisan support and process. (This factor looms particularly large given the prospect of a COVID wave increasing the risk of attending any remotely busy polling station.)

That doesn't reduce the need to be perceived building momentum in the course of the campaign, or eliminate altogether the prospect of a late-campaign shift. But it does mean that the message for election-day voters may need to focus more than usual on making the case for people to vote at all - while at the same time taking into account the risk that relatively unmotivated voters may be tired of the campaign by then. 

We'll find out in time whether the federal campaign follows the pattern set at the provincial level. And it may be that a national-level air war leads to somewhat different results. But we shouldn't be surprised to see an "always be closing" principle applied in a campaign where potentially decisive votes may be cast long before election day. 

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- David Graeber wrote (just before his death) about the need to do more than default back to an unacceptable "normal" once the COVID-19 pandemic is under control. 

- Arthur White-Crummey and Lynn Giebrecht have been writing a series of stories on the longstanding lack of regard for residents and workers in Saskatchewan's long-term care homes, while Dylan Scott notes that the U.S. has matched Canada's pattern in seeing more and worse COVID outbreaks in for-profit facilities. And Bryn Levy reports on the push for stronger protection at the Prairie Pride meat-packing plant where an outbreak was hidden from the union as well as the public.

- Brennan Strndberg-Salmon makes the case to give young people the chance to vote in elections which will shape their future. 

- Dianne Buckner reports on the movement to challenge payday lending which traps people in cycles of debt.

- Stephen Leahy examines the potential for the world to shift to 100% renewable energy by 2030.

- And finally, Emma McIntosh reports on the Peter Bryce Prize for whistleblowing rightly awarded to John O'Connor for his work calling attention to cancer around Alberta's tar sands in the face of suppression from industry and governments.

PINNED POST: On advance preparation

I've noted before that Scott Moe's spring election posturing prevented Elections Saskatchewan from putting together a full postal balloting system for this fall's provincial election. And I haven't yet heard of any municipalities going to a full vote-by-mail balloting system for their subsequent votes (though I'd be interested to hear if any are trying).

But that doesn't mean voters can't cast a ballot by mail - only that they'll need to be prepared well in advance in order to do so.

With that in mind, here are links to the mail-in ballot application processes for...

- Elections Saskatchewan (Application deadline has passed)

- City of Estevan (November 9)

- City of Martensville (Application deadline has passed)

- City of Meadow Lake (Application deadline has passed)

- City of Melfort (November 9)

- City of Moose Jaw (Application deadline has passed) 

- City of North Battleford (Application deadline has passed)

- City of Prince Albert (Online deadline has passed, November 9 in person)

- City of Regina (November 9) 

- City of Saskatoon (October 30 online, November 8 in person)

- City of Warman (Application deadline has passed)

- City of Weyburn (Application deadline has passed) 

Note that the timing of an application will be crucial. In most cases cities should be receiving applications by now, meaning that the primary concern is to make sure applications are sent in time to be received by the deadlines above.

Other cities including Lloydminster and Yorkton have approved of mail-in balloting processes, but don't appear to have detailed information available online. I'll update with links as they become available.

[This will be a pinned post throughout election season - I'll plan to update it as registration windows open and close.]

On opportunism

When Scott Moe first heard about the coronavirus, he smelled opportunity. And that can take many forms.

No, Moe didn't call the spring election that he initially planned. But he did take the opportunity to prevent Elections Saskatchewan from pursuing a modernized voting process or a full mail-in balloting system for the election date set for this fall.

And here's part of the fallout from that opportunism:

In-person advance and election day polls cannot be held safely within Peter Ballantyne First Nation communities due to a COVID-19 outbreak, says Elections Saskatchewan.

...

Extraordinary voting will be offered to residents of these communities, but residents must apply within the next two days.

“This will be your only opportunity to get a ballot,” Elections Saskatchewan said in a statement.

...

Residents — members and non-members — of Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation communities must call Elections Saskatchewan at 1 (866) 351-0040 before Oct. 20 at 5 p.m. to apply for extraordinary voting.

And who's affected in particular? 

Well, the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation has about 5,700 members, including ones in the communities of Southend, Deschambault Lake, Pelican Narrows, Sandy Bay, Amisk Lake, Sturgeon Landing and Kinoosao who will be prevented from voting normally. And the 2016 results (PDF) show those communities supporting NDP incumbent Doyle Vermette (see p. 86-89) - with the combination of advance polls and regular polls providing a margin of over 500 votes in a constituency won by about 1,700 total.

In other words, the direct result of Moe's cynical and callous view of COVID-19 is the risk of disenfranchisement of thousands of voters - and potentially an electoral advantage for Moe's party. 

Hopefully it will be possible to get voters registered in time to avoid any disruption. But having seen what flows from Moe's view of the opportunity raised by a pandemic, Saskatchewan's voters should respond by taking their own opportunity to elect a better government.

Wednesday #skvotes Links

Saskatchewan's election day is rapidly approaching (and indeed voting is already underway). And with plenty of content being generated, I'll plan to offer some link posts dedicated to news of interest to voters.

- PressProgress has been providing plenty of important election news - even if it has regularly been ignored by the mainstream media even after it's been reported and thoroughly documented. In particular, it's exposed how a SaskParty donor was handed a $60 million contract to take over services formerly provided on a profitable basis by STC, and highlighted W. Brett Wilson's shamelessness in insisting that outside money should be able to define Saskatchewan's political debate.

- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has surveyed voters about their views on climate change and the environment, including finding a strong majority supporting a transition to 100% renewable energy over the next 20 years. And John Klein's latest update highlights the utter failure of the Saskatchewan Party to meet the emission reduction targets which it chose to set for this year. 

- Jason Hammond offers his take on tonight's leadership debate and what comes next.

- And finally, the Leader-Post and Star-Phoenix' editorial boards highlight the importance of voting, even as COVID-19 has made it more difficult to do so. (And I'll offer a reminder that the deadline to apply to vote by mail provincially is tomorrow.)

On risky responses

Plenty of people have taken note of the Saskatchewan Party's "Kate" data collection scheme - and it's given rise to much due mockery, as well as some important recognition of the underlying system. But if it's true that the Sask Party's plan for now is to blast messages out to mobile numbers, it's worth noting how any direct responses to the scheme may lead to election-campaign mischief.

If indeed the marketing group behind the messages knows nothing about respondents besides the randomized number dialed initially, then even a humorous response provides some significant data.

Presumably most of the texts will go without responses. As a result, anything written back is likely to be read, and to mark a recipient as having an interest in Saskatchewan politics. And any negative or mocking response figures to flag the number as being linked to someone less than enamoured with Scott Moe's government.

Which is a problem, since systematic information about non-supporters can be an extremely dangerous thing in the hands of a political party's third-party operatives.

For the primary Canadian example, one need only look to one of the associated companies of the Sask Party's contractor, which employees exposed as having called non-Conservative voters with false information about polling station relocations. That led in turn to an investigation which stalled only due to an issue in proving the specific intent of the people ordering and making the calls - but which confirmed both the calls themselves, and the Cons' awareness that they would include incorrect information. 

Lest there be any doubt, it's entirely fair and normal for political parties to seek to contact voters for both persuasion and voter identification.

But it's also well worth noting how any information can be misused in the hands of unscrupulous operators - particularly when the Saskatchewan Party seems to see no issue putting its voter outreach in the hands of a group responsible for past misinformation. And Saskatchewan voters will need to be aware of the risks of handing them the data to make a voter suppression scheme work.

On necessary steps

Following up on the status of Saskatchewan's pending provincial election, let's note how it fits into one Scott Moe's refusal to reconvene the Legislature.

Here's what the Chief Electoral Officer has had to say about the province's options:

On Monday, Michael Boda sent Premier Scott Moe and the House leaders in government and Opposition a set of recommendations on what is needed before people cast their ballots.

"This has to be in the very near future. We are not talking weeks from now, but days from now in order to confirm that I would be getting assistance," Boda told CBC News on Tuesday.
...

Boda said he will need legislators to work together to give him the emergency powers to adjust the electoral process in order to "reduce risk of COVID-19 and adjust for inefficiencies that come as a result."

Section 7 of the Election Act does not afford the chief electoral officer powers during a pandemic.

Boda said if, for example, there needs to be an increase in absentee ballots, he would need to adjust the system to secure more of those ballots.

In other words, the Chief Electoral Officer has made clear that even if Scott Moe has run out the clock on any opportunity to move toward a full mail-in system, legislative changes will be needed in the very near future to allow him to do his job. And the Saskatchewan Party's response has been...to slow-play any response even while claiming to accept the recommendation.

Even if there weren't many other compelling reasons to recall Saskatchewan's legislature immediately, it's a must if we're going to have a safe and fair election. And if Moe is once again prioritizing political games over fundamental concerns including public health and electoral integrity, then Saskatchewan's citizens will have every reason to take away his control over our government.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Irfan Dhalla argues that we have a choice between merely containing COVID-19 and outright eradicating it - and that we'll be far better off pursuing the latter option. And Jim Pankratz writes that we should be entirely willing - and indeed happy - to deal with the amount we borrow collectively to avoid the worst of a pandemic, rather than accepting a massive death toll in a futile attempt to maintain a facade of economic activity.

- Meanwhile, Donna Lu reports on the positive effects of Finland's basic income experiment even before it was overlaid with an immediate health risk associated with service work. 

- Keith Leslie highlights how for-profit service has long been recognized as a problem in Ontario's long-term care homes. And Amina Jabbar and Danyaal Raza make the case to eliminate the profit motive, while Kathleen Harris recognizes a growing movement for a national and universal public system.

- Doug Cuthand writes about the dangers of the spread of COVID-19 through northern Saskatchewan.

- Chloe Alexander and Anna Stanley expose how the fossil fuel sector is trying to exploit the coronavirus to dodge environmental obligations and demand public money to prop up an industry already dying of natural causes. And Josh Sigurdson reports that Scott Moe is pushing for a bailout for the CFL while refusing to offer anything more than pennies for people facing immediate shortages of housing, food and other necessities.

- Finally, Charlotte Hill, Jacob Grumbach, Adam Bonica and Hakeem Jefferson rightly argue that voters shouldn't be forced to vote in person - particularly in the midst of a pandemic where the result is a danger to the health of everybody involved. But Arthur White-Crummey reports that Elections Saskatchewan is warning that it isn't ready for a ballot by mail this fall - in large part because Moe's games around a snap election prevented it from preparing through 2020 so far.

On absenteeism

The U.S. has seen some of its state elections turned into anti-democratic abominations by the absence of effective absentee balloting - with the lack of effective voting serving as an explicit strategy by Republicans to exclude people from exercising their right to vote.

Fortunately, Saskatchewan doesn't have the extreme exclusions against absentee voting which have been the source of the greatest controversy in the U.S. But voters should nonetheless take note of the limited availability of voting by mail - and ask what the Moe government plans to do about it.

Saskatchewan's elections are governed by The Election Act, 1996, which allows for any voter to request an absentee (mail-in) ballot nine or more days before the election by declaring that they "will be unable to vote at an advance poll or on polling day in the constituency": section 86(2). 

That means voters aren't required to meet a specific standard of age or absence in order to request a ballot by mail. But it does mean that by law, voting by mail is the exception rather than the rule. Even in the midst of a pandemic where any physical interaction creates foreseeable and avoidable risks to public health, Elections Saskatchewan doesn't appear to have authority to make mail-in ballots available in the absence of an individual request.

Other provisions also apply to homebound voters, but with similar limitations (the requirement for an advance request, and a substantial level of advance notice).

Those provisions may have been sufficient during an election period when going to the polls in person could be considered a reasonable default expectation. But it now looks likely - if not inevitable - that this fall's election will take place in the face of a continued need for social distancing.

Which means that it will fall to Moe and his government to decide whether to update the law to make sure that Saskatchewan's residents can vote without jeopardizing public health - or whether they'll choose to force citizens to choose between their votes or their lives as their Republican allies have done so callously south of the border.

On antisocialism

Plenty of attention is rightly getting paid to the unabashed evil that is the Republicans' insistence on holding previously-scheduled elections at a time when it was certain to make. But how much worse is it then for a politician to actually treat the spread of COVID-19 as an excuse to precipitate an election which wouldn't otherwise have occurred?

And similarly, Republican governors have been called out for overriding public health measures taken by local authorities. But how much worse is it to stifle municipal steps to protect against the spread of COVID-19 in the name of consistency, while simultaneously complaining about the prospect of the federal government setting stronger common standards at the national level?

Fortunately, Saskatchewan's people have thus far been responsible enough to go a long way toward limiting the spread of the coronavirus - and Moe has eventually given in on most of his worst decisions (though it's worth noting that the effective ban on stronger municipal measures remains in place).

But Moe has demonstrated that his and most powerful instinct is toward exactly the kind of antisocial choices which have resulted in no end of rightful criticism for his Republican counterparts. And it's well past time for more of Saskatchewan's media to start holding him to the same level of scrutiny they've faced.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Linda McQuaig writes that Canada's federal government should look at buying the soon-to-be-vacated GM plant in Oshawa to begin production of electric vehicles. But Nav Persaud notes that even when the Trudeau Libs make promises about using government power and resources for the public good, they ultimately end up going along with the wishes of the corporate sector.

- E. Tammy Kim writes that instead of relying on corporations to address housing shortages, cities should ensure the actors who cause and profit from rising rents are taxed to cover the cost.

- Ivana Kottasova reports on a new study showing how the global environment can't handle the damage caused by the U.S.' increase in fossil fuel production and consumption. And Fatima Syed reports on Doug Ford's extension of anti-government dogma to the treatment of endangered species in Ontario.

- Meanwhile, Erika Shaker examines the predictable effects of Ford's plan to undermine student newspapers and organizations as part of a more general attack on post-secondary education, while Nora Loreto points out that it particularly stands to weaken students' voices in the general public. And Martin Regg Cohn views the false promise of tuition cuts as following in the PCs' buck-a-beer tradition of counterproductive, faux-populist policies.

- Claire Clancy reports on recent findings of Alberta's Elections Commissioner concluding that Rebel Media and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have broken election laws. And Elizabeth Thompson reports that a single guilty plea and small fine looks like it may close the door on any public knowledge of SNC Lavalin's system of illegal federal political donations to the Libs and Cons.

- Finally, Trish Hennessy discusses some trends to watch for - and positive change to pursue - in the year ahead.

New column day

Here, on how political fund-raising scandals in Ontario and British Columbia only highlight the complete lack of rules governing donations in Saskatchewan.

For further reading...
- SCOTUS' Citizens United decision is here (PDF). And Michael Hiltzik discussed its effect after the fact, while Charles Wohlforth offered a personal view on how fund-raising affects political decision-making.
- Martin Regg Cohn broke the news about Ontario's fund-raising quotas for cabinet ministers here. And Adrian Morrow followed up by exposing both a fund-raiser closely tied to the Hydro One privatization's beneficiaries, and the connection between corporate subsidies and donations.
- Meanwhile, Gary Mason reported on Christy Clark's five-figure access fees. And the CP reported on the dividing line between the B.C. Libs who want to keep the status quo as long as they can, and the NDP which is pushing for limits.
- The Globe and Mail's series on money and politics featured a column on Saskatchewan's particularly outdated rules governing political donations. And Tammy Robert has been reviewing the current state of donations in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, the CP surveys fund-raising rules across Canada. And Duff Conacher points out that any province looking to remove big-money donations from its political system will find a prime example in Quebec.

On accurate readings

Paul Barber offers a rundown of the problems with an overreliance on polls, while Heather Libby goes further and suggests that we ignore national polls altogether. But I'll follow up on the argument I've made before that rather than taking any concerns about poll data as a basis for throwing polling out the window altogether, we should instead treat them as reasons for caution in interpreting useful information.

Barber focuses largely on the methodological issues involved in trying to get a representative sample from an electorate in which people are less and less inclined to respond to requests to participate in the first place. And there are certainly reasons to question each of the workarounds on their own.

That said, if we face the choice of either (a) lending at least some credence to the view that each methodology might have some merit while using competing polls (and ultimately electoral results) as a check, (b) buying completely into one style of poll and thus excluding all other data, or (c) trusting no polling information at all and thus relying solely on parties and pundits to tell us where an election stands, I'd have a hard time seeing how we're well served by any option other than (a).

And fortunately, the poll information we have is then compiled in ways which makes it relatively easy to analyze national-level data. So while we should absolutely question whether a single poll tells the full story (particularly in its subsamples), we can check with public aggregators for both a big-picture look at the national race, and a test as to the plausibility of new polling information.

Of course, those sites focus largely on the national level. So what about Libby's view that there's a meaningful distinction between national and riding-level poll data, and that we should pay attention only to the latter?

The problem there lies in the limited number of riding-level polls actually conducted. Parties, pollsters and media outlets may decide to conduct polls in ridings of particular interest - but we should have learned by now that national and regional trends make a huge difference in determining what ridings actually affect electoral outcomes in the first place. And then, if a small number of polls are conducted in a riding, a single skewed sample or methodological issue can grossly warp the results.

Again, those are cautions as to the use of riding-level data alone. But if we can compare a single-riding poll to see how it fits into broader national or regional pictures, then we have a far better chance of finding the right balance between the two.

And that should be our ultimate goal. While some partisans who should know better have been particularly motivated to cherry-pick polls to tell only the story they want told, the fact is that all polling information is potentially useful if we recognize its limitations. And rather than looking for excuses to throw out some or all of the data we have based on either partisan preference or methodological squabbles, we should instead be incorporating it into a full analysis of what's happening around us.

Support and illumination

David Moscrop laments the role of opinion polls in shaping political events - and there's certainly reason for caution in presuming that immediate polls will have a lasting effect. But I'll argue that at least as politics are now covered, polls in fact serve as an important check on the tendency of campaign coverage to become completely detached from the views of the public.

After all, the same citizens whose votes determine the outcome of a campaign are generally expected to follow that campaign with varying levels of care through media intermediaries. And I discussed the problem with the direct impact of media here, as the most subtle of campaign narratives - whether or not they're generated deliberately or based on facts - can swing enough votes to change the outcome of an election.

It's certainly fair to point out that polls can help to shape those narratives. And the effect can run in both directions: just as they can offer a signal as to which parties are viably positioned to offer an alternative government (as happened for the Alberta NDP in this month's election), they can also offer a warning that the public may wish to reconsider a trend (as arguably happened for the Wildrose Party in 2012).

But that serves only as a side effect of polling rather than a primary purpose. At their core, polls are the basic evidence-based means of measuring public opinion - which seems like rather an important factor in talking about how the public will choose to be governed.

With that in mind, let's ask this question: what's the alternative to paying attention to polls as a means of assessing where parties stand, for the purpose of both strategic voting (as identified by Moscrop) and merely talking about the progress of a campaign?

While it's easy to find elections where polls have come under fire for failing to reflect outcomes (see the UK's recent vote or Alberta's 2012 election), omitting them from election coverage won't stop pundits from offering their own prognostications - which at best reflect an unstated set of personal biases and assumptions, and at worst are downright intended to shape the campaign narrative to favour one party. And this month's Alberta vote reflects an obvious example where the polls told a far more accurate story than the insiders.

Which leads to this question: would Alberta have been better served by not knowing that enough voters were receptive to an NDP government to create the potential for change?

Before answering "yes", it's well worth questioning the alternative of having campaign narratives shaped entirely by the people who are able to spin stories in the absence of evidence - and not at all by the public whose interest is intended to be served by the election.

Of course, one might validly point out that we'd be better off with a radically different form of campaign coverage which focuses far more party platforms and values, and far less on spin from all directions. But until we've taken some giant leaps in that direction, we're best off treating polling as a check to test whether narratives match public opinion - not as a problem to be eradicated in favour of even more air time for evidence-free speculation.

On blurred lines

In today's Leader-Post, John Hopkins responds to this week's column. But while he tries to point some fingers away from the Regina Chamber of Commerce, he only raises larger issues as to the relationship between the Chamber and the City.

In effect, Hopkins argues that it wasn't the Chamber that copied the City's "Regina Votes" theme, but the other way around. (Which is difficult to verify, as archives seem to be rather sparse in trying to track down the history of both sites.)

But of course, that doesn't address the use of what's unmistakably a City logo (and indeed, now an updated one) on the Chamber's site. And more importantly, it simply feeds into the concern that we have no way of knowing where our public institutions end and where the Chamber's influence begins.

If the current city administration has indeed copied an election theme from the Chamber, and doesn't see any concern with the Chamber in turn splashing its logo on an advocacy site, all at the same time that the City hawks the Chamber-backed stadium project in the middle of an election campaign which should determine whether or not Regina residents actually want to push ahead...well, that looks all the worse to me as a matter of overall perception and electoral fairness, even if it shifts a bit of the immediate blame from the Chamber to the City.

At higher levels of government, similar issues are resolved by drawing clear lines between general administration, electoral oversight and campaigning. But this year's campaign is only highlighting a glaring absence of similar protections at the municipal level. And if the Chamber genuinely doesn't see why anybody would be concerned, that probably signals that it sees itself as benefitting from a city administration which hasn't addressed the issue.

[Edit: fixed typo, wording.]

On public interests

Reiko Aoki's idea to provide electoral weight to children while allowing a child's parents to exercise the right looks to have one major problem on its face (which I'll deal with in a later post). But for now, it is worth using Aoki's concern about weighting the interests of different groups as a starting point to point out the real value of a vote - and in particular the reason why most citizens should want to emphasize the power of a vote rather than being cynical about the prospect of one vote deciding an election.

As things stand now, most mainstream political discussion takes place through the lens of parties which have their own reasons for keeping a relatively narrow focus on tranches of marginal voters. Yes, any party would love to win a substantial share of the 40% of disaffected voters into its own camp - but since that's seen as a remote possibility at best, more effort gets put toward influencing the much smaller number of voters who are seen as far more likely to be able to tilt the results of the next election. And that may make for a rational short-term choice from the perspective of a political strategist.

But what makes that strategy rational is the assumption that a large and increasing number of voters won't show up - or at least, not based on the actions of any political party. And that latter point is key, as a message from a perceived outsider to a citizen or community whose members hold and reinforce a sense of being uninterested in the political sphere figures to have little impact.

So the real question looks to me to be this: how can we convince the 40% of citizens who don't bother to vote that their votes do matter, even when the parties' rational strategy doesn't seek to engage them all that closely?

Fortunately, there seems to be a relatively simple answer.

No matter how idealistic or cynical a view one wants to take, there doesn't seem to be much room for dispute that governmental authority as determined through electoral politics is one of many interconnected sources of power in society at large. And importantly, the electoral arena is the only one where that power is allotted equally among individuals, rather than being subject to concentration which excludes most of the public.

So for anybody outside the genuinely elite few which are able to exercise disproportionate influence in other spheres, the ability to have decisions made based on collective interests and preferences is a solution, not a problem. And the most obvious course of action for any individual who perceives a need for change in society at large is to emphasize the system that allows for the shared interests of the many to be reflected in the law of the land - rather than abandoning it to those who already have so much clout through other means.

But of course, the idea of using the radically equal system of one person, one vote only works for somebody who perceives both a need and a likelihood of actually making changes. So what about those who simply don't think it's worth bothering?

I'd hope that the answer to the first question would change a few minds on its own. But it's also worth asking rhetorically whether it's possible to fully disengage.

There, it's easy enough to make the seemingly uncontroversial point that government both directly (through its own actions) and indirectly (through its authority to regulate other actors in the interests of whoever is seen as worth catering to) impacts the lives of everybody under its jurisdiction. Perhaps more importantly, though, the real cynicism which so many people apparently hold would seem to reflect some acknowledgment that there's a gap between what is and what ought to be. And the recognition that something better is possible should at least serve as reason enough to look for opportunities to get there - even if such opportunities aren't seen as obvious among one's current political choices.

Of course, no one post or argument is likely to make a great deal of difference on its own. But I'll suggest to those who see the need to achieve better societal outcomes that the first step is to start talking positively about the value of democratic decision-making as the best means for most citizens to have their interests taken into account. And the more that message spreads among Canadians who are disengaged from the party system, the more incentive Canada's political parties will have to pick it up for themselves.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your midweek reading.

- Thomas Walkom ponders the possible outcome of an election whose core message is whether or not to give the Cons a majority:

(G)iven the mood of the country, an NDP-Liberal coalition properly arranged ahead of time (with, for instance, common candidates) might win the next election — which, for politicians, is what matters.

With their anti-coalition propaganda, the Conservatives have already defined this coming contest in dualistic terms — good versus evil, us versus them.

If voters truly believe that they face a stark choice between Harper and the forces of Anti-Harper, the Conservatives could be unpleasantly surprised.

Now, I still don't see common candidates in advance of an election being a viable option (as distinct from a willingness to work together afterward). But if the Libs would allow the "Harper vs. Anti-Harper" them to develop rather than insisting that the latter will be ignored if they don't agree to do Michael Ignatieff's bidding, I'd agree with Walkom that we'd be likely to see a result that would disappoint the Cons.

- Meanwhile, anybody looking to speculate on when the next election might take place will want to take a look at Alice's handy guide.

- David McKie notes a disturbing drop in the use of access to information requests by journalists:

perhaps it's time for journalism schools and newsrooms to wake up and use a law that provides access, albeit difficult access, to important information. To be sure, journalists are using the act to tell stories, such as an excellent behind-the-scenes account last fall in The Ottawa Citizen that provided a window in the chaos that resulted after an earthquake shook the foundations of buildings in Ottawa and surrounding towns and cities on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border. The story was one of mind-numbing confusion that left some federal officials red-faced and embarrassed. But more importantly, the story also provided a useful example of why it's important for governments to be prepared for catastrophes and what can result if they aren't.

Stories like this need to be told. We must know the true cost of prison reform. We have to know the real impact of the government's stimulus spending. We need to have a meaningful discussion about the future of health care. Many of the records that help shed light on these and many other issues can only be pried loose with the help of access to information. Going through the process is not for the faint of heart. But neither is being a journalist facing a federal government bent on spin and obfuscation and a bureaucracy that is justifiably scared, and many times forbidden from talking to journalists. So let's all get cracking. There's too much at stake for journalists to be on the wrong side of a downward trend.

- And finally, The Real News features Tom Ferguson on the dangers of big-money, low-turnout politics: