Ravings of a Classical Scientist

This blog is the result of a rational minded person looking at many aspects of the world around us. Warning: This blog is not for everyone, ignorance is bliss, so don't get angry at me for ruining it.

Name:
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

I'm an atheist humanist who strides to enlighten people if they have a desire to learn truths. As a professional physicist I can only be reasonable and logical because I dislike being wrong.

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Update to Settings

I've recently changed the settings so anyone can post a comment. As long as I don't get too much junk. So al those who don't know me welcome and I look forward to reading your comments.

Monday, June 21, 2004

Swaying Voters

I have been canvassing a few times for the NDP in my riding. It has really been an interesting experience. Canvassing, for those who don't know, is when you go door-to-door to the addresses that have voted in the last federal election and try and find out if they will vote for you. The main goal is to have a list of NDP supports so that you can call them on voting day and remind them or offer help to get them to the polls. But inadvertently there is also the opportunity to convince some people. The canvasser has the opportunity to have a 1-on-1 with the voter, unless there aren't hope or just slam the door in your face. You will never be able to convince the decided voter who doesn't talk to you, that's a given, but the ones who talk to you are easily swayed. It is probably the fact that just like the personal contact since you talk exclusively about issues that concern them (they parent holing a baby is informed about the daycare, child tax benefits, GST reduction etc) whereas if they watch a debate or get a flyer if they actually read it they have to sift through and may also hear some stuff they disagree with.

But the oddest part of this is the minority voter. Most of them won't open the door for you (all you see is the eye piece get darker then lighter again and here the TV in the background) mostly because they can't speak English I imagine. But once we went with an Indian guy who spoke the language. He would not only get the or open they were completely swayed by him. He said that it was only a matter of someone talking to them in their language.

This makes me wonder if the problem with our democracy is the communication, not just the language but the one-on-one. But in a country of 30 million is it a fixable problem?

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Confederation

I think we need to start rethinking confederation. The simple fact that there is a federal party with a lot of support who's main goal is the sovereign interest of one and only one province, implies confederation is in hot water. It tells me that Provinces are obsolete. Pretend that Ontario started to form a party similar to the bloc quebecois but who only holds Ontario's interest at heart. Ontario supports most of the other provinces since it is much wealthier, so what would happen if a party came in and said they only want policies that would favor Ontario (i.e. policies that keep Ontario's money in Ontario)? Well Ontario has almost a third of the seats in the house of commons so they could form a minority government on their own! They could work with the bloc (another quarter of the seats) and pass policies to keep their money to themselves. This would be great for Ontario and Quebec (BC as well), but the Atlantic provinces get the short end of the stick!

But now take a closer look at the idea. In the Ontario, Toronto is the financial engine of the province just as Montreal is in Quebec. So these provincial parties will get split on the fact that the cities are the generators of the money but the provinces where designed so that there would be a voice for the rural communities (the primary shape of the provinces at confederation). Now, the cities have become the driving force of the economy and the cities are on equal footing with rural communities. This is seen by having ridings with 20,000 voters in them in rural places, but in cities the riding have around 100,000 eligible voters (not counting the ineligible). The federal parties will have the same situation as the provincial parties in that more elected representatives come from the rural less populated areas but the cities generate al the money and pay for everything. Ergo the big cities will start asking why are we subordinate to the province when we pay for everything?

The fact that the city of Toronto has a budget greater than the Province of P.E.I. and more people begs the question why doesn't it have more power? If Toronto had the title of province it would be able to regulate it's own policies that favored it's development instead of paying for every one else's needs (Toronto gives 9 Billion more in tax dollars than it receives in services). This would obviously pave the way for Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver etc to do the same and then where would Canada be?

The very fact that the Bloc is doing so well to me says that provincial politics has become very irrelevant. The lines need to be redrawn. Most things that are provincial should be federal (education, health etc) so that all Canadian get equal treatment and opportunities and the provinces should be seen as an amalgamation of rural communities on par with cities. So the provincial governments would then become the sum of all rural communities in a province and cities would be allowed to cede from this once they become self sustainable (like Toronto). This way the political landscape would be municipal/provincial (where provincial now means all rural communities who aren't cities) and the federal government. This would eliminate some government and rebalance politics to reflect the fact Canada is increasingly an urban country.

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

Strategic Voting

I was talking to a Liberal supporter today after she asked me how I could vote for the NDP. She said this not because she disliked the NDP, but in fear that any vote not for the Liberals is a vote for the Conservatives. She actually said she'd like the green party to be in power someday. The point is instead of voting for who she wanted to win, she is voting against who she doesn't want to win. I also did this in Quebec when I voted simply because I didn't want Quebec to separate so I figured might as well try and help the other guy win.

But how do you know that playing this voting-against game is necessary? Well when you watch or read anything about the election it is the polls that set the tone. But I wonder what would happen if we had a blind election (one with no polls). If people in Ontario didn't know about the Conservatives gaining ground would those dissatisfied Liberals go NDP or Green? Or more general, how many people vote against a party instead of for a party?

Imagine that the polls suddenly showed the Conservatives diving so the Liberals would be in majority territory a few days before the election, I wonder how many people would turn to the NDP or green Party? I imagine a lot especially since the Liberals social agenda is a turtle-paced scaled down NDP platform (similar to NDP but "phased in over eternity"). Maybe the problem is the system isn't proportional representation and so all you need is a local majority for the seat.

The other problem that influence people too much is the big media outlets. Though they try to be fair, there newscasts focus on the Liberals and Conservatives making the system seem like the American system. Or are we so used to hearing about the American system that we look at our political system with an American lens?