Category Archives: The Issues

Federal, Issues, Media, Municipal, Provincial

Voting age

Leave a comment

How would you know…?

…that the BC Liberals (and NDP) parties are allowing those under the age of 18 to vote for the leader of the Party?

Could the first clue be the fact that the leadership candidates are suggesting, or jumping on the bandwagon, that the voting age be lowered to 16?

Talk about putting a whole new spin on the tradition of kissing babies for votes…

We have graduated drivers licensing for young drivers, those under 18 (the current voting age) are not allowed to purchase alcohol and the legal age of majority is 18.

So are the leadership candidates saying that voting is a less important or requires less judgment and maturity than driving a vehicle, buying alcohol or being considered to be legally an adult?

“Liberal leadership contender Mike de Jong says he wants to lower the voting age in B.C. from 18 to 16 in a bid to attract more voters to polls.”

Since the polls are in schools it would certainly be easy and convenient for students to vote which may well lead to a higher turnout percentage among this new group of voters – at least as long as they are in school and it is easy and convenient – artificially inflating the voter turnout numbers.

If the goal is simply to increase voter turnout why don’t we move the polls to more convenient locations? Malls, grocery stores, bars etc. Making the polls more conveniently located so that people do not have to make an effort to go and vote will also raise voter turnout.

Of course moving the polls out of the schools, thus reducing the ease and convenience for the new voters to vote will undoubtedly significantly reduce turnout among the proposed new voters to levels more in keeping with the turnout in the rest of the population.

Besides, does not a ‘fair’ election require that no group of voters have a significant advantage in the opportunity to vote? In the interest of fairness and not conferring an advantage should not voting be equally inconvenient for all voting populations?

If someone cannot go 5 or 10 minutes out of their way to vote – do we really want them voting?

If the goal is to increase voter turnout might I make a suggestion? Instead of lowering the voting age or moving polls to convenient locations we might want to try a truly radical solution – giving voters something (someone) to vote for.

I keep myself informed on what is happening in BC, Canada and around the world; keep informed on what the issues are and the events effecting the issues; give thought to what information experience/history provides on the issues; think about the future and what actions we need to take.

I am a person engaged and prepared to give informed consent on how I want the city. the province and the country to be governed.

Unfortunately (for the province, country and world) I also have nothing and/or no one I want to cast my vote for.

Being interested and engaged in the issues of government and governance I often ‘talk politics’ with others who keep themselves informed who complain of being in the same position – being informed and engaged they also find they to have no one they consider deserving of their vote.

Those among this group who feel they have to vote, having nothing and no one to vote for, find themselves condemned to holding their noses and voting for the lesser of evils. Political discussion on the ‘Net and comments made to the media by voters suggest that a significant percentage of those who do vote in provincial or federal elections are confronted by the dilemma that if/when they vote they are not voting for the direction or the policies they want the province or country to be pursuing but either 1) voting to prevent something (i.e. a Conservative majority government) or 2) voting for the lesser of evils (i.e. a minority government).

I am old enough that I can remember when elections were about issues, not about spin, mudslinging, saying as little as possible and telling the voting public what it wants to hear.

On the flipside I can remember a time when voters applied thought to the policies and politicians they voted for – not just whether they hear (or think they hear) what they want to hear.

While giving the above collection of voters something to vote for would help to stop the decline in the percentage of voters, in order to significantly increase the number of voters it is necessary to re-enfranchise the more than 50% of voters who are currently disenfranchised.

Disenfranchised? What else would you call it when the votes of these voters have no effect on government behaviours and policies that impact their lives. When voting is pointless – you have seen that your vote makes no difference to what happens to you – why would you bother to vote?

Since the number of disenfranchised voters continues to grow every election, basic mathematics tells you that voter turnout will continue to decline every election.

Governments, politicians and pundits prefer to use the term apathy to explain the decrease in voter turnout. As in ‘the voters don’t vote because they are apathetic’, an explanation politicians, pundits and the public find more palatable than the harsh truth: that the majority of voters don’t vote because nobody speaks or will speak for them.

If you are wealthy, well to do, a businessman, a corporation etcetera – the BC Liberal party (Conservatives federally) will act to advance your interests.

If you are big labour/union or one of a number of special interest organizations/groups that contribute to the political interests of the NDP, the BC NDP (federal NDP) will act to advance your interests.

[The federal Liberals, due to a lack of leadership and ideas, have become the: ‘I don’t want a Conservative government; I don’t want a NDP government; that leaves the Liberals’ party.]

The majority of Canadians and BC residents have no party, no politician or candidate for office that will advance their interests.

Disenfranchise: 1. to deprive of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship 2. to deprive of the right to send representatives to an elected body 3. to deprive of some privilege or right 4. to deprive of any franchise or right.

Represent:: 1. to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does; 2. to act for or in behalf of (a constituency) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government.

Politicians, pundits and the enfranchised public will no doubt deny this uncomfortable reality as the current state of affairs is to their advantage. Especially in light of the fact that if those who are currently disenfranchised and do not vote were to found a party and recruit candidates to represent them, the politicians, pundits and currently enfranchised public would suddenly find themselves suffering the consequences of their interests and needs being disregarded.

Clearly a situation politicians. pundits and the enfranchised public have no desire to find themselves in.

Think about it: when experienced politicians in the BC Liberal party addressed the question of increasing voter turnout they avoided addressing increasing turnout by re-engaging the non-voting voters and turned to finding new voters and that the NDP have shown no interest in addressing voter turnout.

The disenfranchised majority needs leadership and representation to emerge and give voice to their best interests.

Municipal, Snafu

Might I suggest……

Leave a comment

……city council practice what it preach?

The editorial on Abbotsford Today that began with “Last night we were roundly criticized by a City Councillor for not doing our bit to support the Abbotsford Heat hockey team” came to mind today as an irate citizen approached me (having had no success approaching the mayor or councillors) to speak about Heat attendance.

What he had to say brought the above article to mind and had me thinking that, before council starts chastising others they might want to look at their own behaviour.

But then blaming anyone or anything they can is a trademark behaviour of Abbotsford’s City Council. Well, more accurately the trademark behaviour is not accepting responsibility for the consequences of their (council’s) decisions and/or actions and always having an excuse or someone or something whose ‘fault it is.’

It is possible that council would accept responsibility for a positive outcome but we are most unlikely to ever find out given that the probability of this council making a decision based on sound, responsible decision making and fiscal management……approaches zero.

When this citizen spoke to me I did suggest that he could go as a ‘delegation’ which would give him the opportunity to address council at a council meeting – although many citizens who have ideas or comments are not comfortable standing up in public and addressing council at a council meeting.

Admittedly he is not a wealthy individual seeking to have council subsidize his purchase of a profession sports team nor did he contribute to the election campaign of local politicians nor is he likely to contribute to any politicians campaign in our fast approaching municipal election.

Still, since it was obvious he had given thought to the matter and that he had a valid point that council should consider I said that if he was agreeable I would like to write and share his point and comments with his fellow citizens.

He is a big Heat fan and as such would like the attendance to be much higher so that the Heat remain in Abbotsford.

He is also (as are many) a smoker and as a smoker he finds being “confined to the building for 3 hours” more than simply uncomfortable. Heat fans who are smokers are condemned to making a choice between watching the entire hockey game or giving into the need to smoke and watching the game only to the point they need to leave the building (and the game) to smoke.

The gentleman had checked and both the Vancouver Canucks and the Chilliwack Bruins have designated smoking areas so that fans who are smokers are not forced to choose between watching the entire game and their need to feed their tobacco addiction.

Being a fan he attended the sold out game between the Heat and the Manitoba Moose (the Canucks farm team).

6000 extra bums in the seats. An opportunity to impress the people those 6000 bums belong to and to sell those people on returning to watch more games. Thereby reducing the subsidy Abbotsford’s taxpayers shell out for the privilege of having the Heat play in Abbotsford.

And what do these potential future customers find, besides the well known built in parking problems? The smokers have the unpleasant surprise that they cannot take a smoke break between periods and then return to the game to watch the next period.

Smokers must choose between suffering through the entire hockey game without a cigarette or giving in to the need to smoke and leaving the game. Council has mandated that if you leave the building to smoke, you cannot return.

Leaving aside the fact that such a policy encourages smokers to find somewhere inside the building to sneak off to in order to be able to have a smoke and return to watch the game, can you think of any policy council could choose that would discourage smokers more from attending Heat games?

Not according to the Heat fan who spoke of all the smokers who had the unpleasant surprise of discovering council’s no smoking disincentive to attending Heat games at the sold out Manitoba Moose visit.

There is nothing that can be done about the huge parking disincentive council chose to burden the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Complex with. But something can be done about the major disincentive to attendance of councils no smoking policy.

Perhaps if council were to spend less time blaming others, they would have time to remove their own disincentives to Heat attendance.

Provincial

Carole James Legacy

Leave a comment

Watching the coverage of the challenge to Carole James’s leadership of the NDP and her resignation, the tone of the reporting gave one the impression that the dissenters within the NDP caucus were a tiny minority and that an overwhelming majority of the caucus supported James.

Until one does the math and finds that the 13 dissenting MLAs are 40% of the caucus. Thinking in terms of 40% of the caucus opposed to James’s leadership puts a quite different spin on her decision to resign rather than force the confrontation she had announced.

The irony is that James’s resignation ensures that James’s time as NDP leader will be remembered in a positive light, which is very different from what her legacy would be if she led the NDP into the next election and lost.

Several recent polls have suggested that the NDP winning the election in 2013 and forming the government was not the mere formality statements by NDP insiders and strategists declared it to be.

The fact that the best approval rating Carole James could achieve against an extremely unpopular Gordon Campbell (9% approval) was 26% suggests the electorate has serious questions about James’s ability and leadership, and that with Carole James as leader the 2013 election was a long way from a sure thing. Especially in light of the poll that put the Liberals under ‘anyone but Campbell’ in a virtual dead heat the Carole James led NDP.

In resigning now, James’s legacy is as the leader who took the party from its low point of 2 MLAs to a party poised to be crowned as BC’s governing party in 2013; a far different legacy than she would have if (when?) she led the NDP to failure and defeat in 2013.

I do not mean to belittle the job Carole James has done but I would assert that only a complete incompetent would have failed to win more than 2 seats in the election following the Liberal landslide in 2001 as the need to punish the NDP and the shiny newness of the Liberals under Campbell wore off.

The pundits within the NDP party speak of the 2013 election as James’s to lose – because of the anger with the liberals. I would like to remind the pundits that a realistic evaluation of the 2009 provincial election is that it was James’s to lose – because of all the negatives the Liberals carried into that election – and that James’s proceeded to lose that election.

Given that: a realistic evaluation of the outcome of the 2013 election, in light of a leadership change for the Liberal party with its opportunity for new direction, policies and to blame Campbell (who was ‘punished’ for his ‘crimes’ by losing the leadership and retiring from politics), is that with the doubts voters have about Carole James’s abilities and leadership James may well have lost another election (2013) that was considered ‘the NDP’s (or James’s) to lose’.

In resigning now James will be viewed as a leader who took the NDP from the wilderness of 2 seats to their current 34 seats and a party that is (was) a shoo-in to win in 2013. This legacy becomes even more golden should the Liberals rebound strongly and the NDP lose in 2013 (even though a loss in 2013 is not an improbable outcome should Carole James have remained leader).

As noted earlier there is a great deal of irony that in choosing to resign ‘for the good of the party’ Carole James will be remembered for her solid (excellent?) leadership of the NDP, with the question of the voting public’s doubts about James’s abilities and leadership being forgotten.

All because James was stabbed in the back she could shoot herself in the foot.