Babel-on-the-Bay
Babel-on-the-Bay is the personal website of Peter Lowry. It is a vehicle for political commentaries.
Babel-on-the-Bay

You can have communication or speculation.

by Peter Lowry

There is a line in the Paul Newman movie Cool Hand Luke when first the villain explains that the problem is a failure in communication and then, towards the end, it is repeated by the film’s star.  In the first case, the line is used as a replacement for an apology.  In the second use, it expresses hopelessness.  And a failure to communicate is both.

What some people do not understand is that a lack of communication from a person or organization says a great deal about that person or organization.  It allows others to speculate on their intent, motivation, capabilities, manners and fortitude.  The truth is replaced with rumours.

Some time ago, Babel-on-the-bay received a complaint that something we had written annoyed this individual.  The person told us that they did not have time to read what we write but someone had told him what we had written.  Since he failed to communicate what specific item was not to his liking (or his informant’s), we were left very much in the dark.  All we could do was thank him for his communication.  He had failed to communicate.

This is not to suggest that communicators will always win kudos for what they communicate.  There is still a tendency to shoot the messenger.

While we do not always listen to our own good advice, we do have some tips for the neophyte communicator.

First and foremost, you must always know your audience.  Woe onto him or her who takes the wrong approach with the wrong audience.  If you do not know the audience are you going to speak down to them or accidentally use words they might not understand?   A writers’ tool such as the Gunning fog index can help a writer by ensuring that you are communicating to as broad an audience as possible.

And if the audience does not know you, it is strongly recommended that you refrain from telling jokes.  Joking can get you in trouble.

If you have not been introduced in a way that emphasizes your authority with the subject, try to work in your qualifications (as modestly as possible).

Keep your communications brief.  Keep your sentences short.  Keep your paragraphs short.  Keep your items short.  Keep your speeches, newsletters and letters short. One, two-sided sheet of paper makes a reasonable length, general information newsletter.  Lengthier material will be set aside to be read later and never read.

In addition, stick to the subject.  There always seems to be that urge to stretch a newsletter with material that has nothing to do with why you are communicating.  And when you are done, stop.

– 30 –

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Comment for today.

by Peter Lowry

Should Alf Apps be told to fall on his sword?

For the Liberal loss in the last voting discord?

He was not one to tell the leader what to do,

Party president, Apps wasn’t Michael’s guru.

________________________________

The Democracy Papers.

by Peter Lowry

This is the sixth of the Democracy Papers written in 2007 in answer to the Ontario referendum that year on electoral reform.  The referendum was defeated but the need for reform continues to rankle.  We believe Canada must have an elected Constitutional Conference.  Electoral reform is just one of the topics to be brought to the gathering.  For this reason, the Democracy Papers are being updated and rerun.

Chapter 6 – Examining proportional voting.

Have you wondered why those who support proportional voting in the October referendum only mention two examples of legislative bodies that are elected by that method?   There are other examples and some of them have important lessons to share with Ontario voters.

The poster child of proportional voting is New Zealand.   That country has had mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting for the past ten years.   All most Ontario voters know about New Zealand is that the people speak English, the South Island has the mountains and the small country exports a lot of frozen lamb.   The Ontario voters who could name the prime minister of New Zealand might not be more than two in a thousand.

The other example, only mentioned in passing, is Germany.   Proportional voting has existed in some of the German states and in that country’s federal government since the days of the Weimar Republic.   MMP was just a temporary compromise after the Second World War.

Proportional voting is one of the most common voting systems in the world as many third world countries use it to overcome low literacy rates among voters.   It is much easier for an illiterate voter to choose a party symbol rather than deal with the complexity of candidates’ names.   Ontario does not have a major problem with voters’ literacy.

There are many variations of proportional voting.   The best example of pure proportional voting is the system used to elect the Knesset of the State of Israel.   This has been the system used since the first election in the new state in 1949.   The number and make-up of political parties shift as the do sands of the desert areas of the country.   The large cabinets are usually made up of representatives of various parties.

An important example of mixed-member proportional representation is the House of Representatives that forms part of Japan’s Diet.   The appointed members and elected members do not always enjoy friendly relations.   Riots in the Diet are an embarrassment to their countrymen.

A closer example of proportional voting is in the United States where the system is used to select the President.   The Electoral College, charged with selecting the President, is elected state by state on a proportional basis.   If the Americans used FPTP voting for President, Al Gore would have won the election in 2000 against George Bush.

A number of cities in the United States have also experimented with proportional voting systems.   Most notable was New York City.   It implemented proportional voting in 1936 in an attempt to clean up imbedded corruption in the city government. This voting system was revoked after a decade by what many claimed were the elites who were unhappy about the number of radicals, blacks and communists who were getting elected.   More importantly, the proportional voting system earned the enmity of the major newspapers and the experiment ended.

Most of Europe, as well as the European Parliament, use proportional systems of one sort or another.   One notable exception is France.   The French instituted proportional voting after the Second World War but switched back to FPTP in the late 1950s.   With the exception of the federal election of 1986, the French have preferred their system of run-off elections that ensures all successful candidates have a majority of votes.

The mother of parliaments, Great Britain, has held onto first-past-the-post voting in single candidate ridings.   Despite this, the country has gone along with proportional voting on representatives to the European Parliament.   The devolved governing bodies of Scotland and Wales which could be looked on as provincial bodies (unless you are a Scot or Welsh) are using MMP voting.

While the majority of countries in South America use proportional representation to elect their governments, only Bolivia and Venezuela use mixed (both constituency and list candidates) representation similar to what has been suggested in Ontario.   Closer to home, the next major country to use mixed representation is Mexico.   It is possible that those promoting MMP have decided not to say to people in Ontario: “Let’s have a government just like Mexico’s.”

What becomes clear as you examine the various countries and their electoral systems is that the dynamic countries that offer the leadership to the rest of the world are mainly those countries that have retained first-past-the-post electoral systems.   The countries that have opted for proportional systems are mainly countries that are trying (though not always succeeding) to develop a consensus approach to governance.

For all the weaknesses and frustrations of first-past-the-post, the conclusion is that North Americans like it.   They know it is a system that forces candidates to take the time, make the effort and show the determination to win.   Our first-past-the-post electoral system challenges the candidates, not the voters.   It is the voters who benefit.

©Copyright 2007, 2011, Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Comment for today.

by Peter Lowry

Mr. Harper is said to have built a coalition,

Much better than Mr. Mulroney’s creation.

Mr. Mulroney had Quebec in the equation.

But Mr. Harper’ll borrow from Mr. Layton.

_____________________________

To your health.

by Peter Lowry

We were listening to Deb Mathews, Ontario Minister of Health and Long Term Care, the other day.  She was in town through the wonders of modern telephony.  She was having a telephone version of a town hall meeting with Babelites on the subject of health services in our province.

We do not recall ever meeting Dr. Mathews but have heard good things about her and wanted to hear what she had to say.  Being home alone for the evening and having not yet eaten, we put the program on the kitchen phone speaker and prepared a light dinner while listening.  That was a mistake.

We have never having been good at multi-tasking.  The Minister was talking about meeting community health care needs when we inadvertently sliced our thumb instead of the dinner roll that was being held so carelessly.  We were standing there getting blood all over the counter and thinking how much we hated those commercials by the Ontario Government about health care options.  That is where you see someone do something such as burn their hand in the kitchen and then stand there and consider all the health care options instead of heading for the medicine chest.

Since we have not been able to get a family doctor in Babel, that listed option was out.  We have no idea where to find a nurse practitioner and phoning the local MPP’s office to find one seemed like a slow procedure.  Going to the local hospital or a clinic for a four to six hour wait among all those germs, while real emergencies were handled, also seemed impractical.  After all, two stitches and a hand painted with antiseptic were hardly worth the wait time.

We finally stemmed the flow of blood and, with a one-handed application of a couple band-aids, resolved the problem.  Sure, there will probably be a scar on our thumb but it will help us to remember to always hold knives properly.

Regretfully, somewhere along the way, while doing our first-aid bit, we hung up on Dr. Mathews.  We really wanted to discuss finding family doctors with her.  It sounded like she was full of ideas and maybe she could help.

We occasionally get new doctors in Babel and they take on new patients.  The problem is that they do not want any older patients with chronic health concerns.  Why would they?  The payment system is devised for doctors to process their patients rapidly and efficiently.  That does not work with the older patients.  These people want to spend the doctor’s time talking about their various ailments.  Some of them are intelligent and, having had much life experience, want to discuss the options for their treatment.  Many have chronic conditions that challenge the doctor’s knowledge of their trade.  These people obstruct rapid, efficient processing.

The Ontario Medical Association has made it clear to doctors that they should not discriminate against these older patients but nobody seems to be paying any attention.

In Babel, the doctors get around the OMA brass by letting the hospital front for them.  The hospital controls the paperwork for people who want a family doctor.  They demand information such as age and ongoing health concerns and then stipulate that patients will be barred from the practice if they lie about anything.

We tried to take the hospital to the Ontario Human Rights Commission for this discrimination but the lawyer-adjudicator claimed that the hospital did not control the doctors.  When we pointed out that the hospital gave the doctors the right to practice at the hospital, the lawyer ignored the connection.  We lost.  And, not being a lawyer, we could take the case no further.

We really wanted Dr. Mathews to suggest a way around this discrimination but missed our chance.  We are also trying to remember not to use our left thumb on the space bar while typing.  That thumb is not healed yet.

– 30 –

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Comment for today.

by Peter Lowry

A parent who denies their child’s sexuality,

Might be somewhat removed from reality,

But kids can usually solve it with puberty.

_____________________________

The will of the people.

by Peter Lowry

How do you make change happen?  There are many steps in that journey.  You start with an idea.  You make your case.  And then you promote it.  You endure the apathy, the critics, the naysayers and their sneers.  You build your support.  You compromise to make common cause with others.  Your strength is your determination.

Your cause must be simple.  It must be easy for everyone to understand.  You do this with a simple statement, such as by saying there needs to be an elected constitutional conference for Canada.  That is the entire idea.  Canada has had many examinations of its structure and governance over the years but never a successful one.  One reason is that the bodies doing the studies have never been elected to that purpose.  The idea is as simple as saying that it is time the people had their say.

But the breadth of the idea is huge.  To any Canadian with a millilitre of intelligence there has to be something in that statement that impacts on a personal want, wish or wonder.  It can be a ‘why?’ or ‘why not?’

But be ready for the spurious arguments.

It is expensive some will say.  Not doing it is becoming more expensive.

It will cause discord.  It can pull this discordant country together.

Where will you find people who can do this?  Ask and they will come.  They will be academics and politicos.  They will be monarchists and republicans.  They will represent the right and the left and the perennial also-rans.  They will be people with ideas and people who will fight for the status quo.  They will be people who believe in Canada.  And they will be people of a region.

And when they come to a conclusion, we can all vote on whether we want to make their ideas happen or not.

We cannot prejudge what they will decide.  We do not know.  There are many scenarios.  There are many visions of our country.

What will they do about the Senate?  Will they do anything about our first-past-the-post voting?  Will they give the provinces more powers?  Or less?  Will they want to change how we choose a supreme court?  Do they want to retain the monarchy?  What kind of a country do they think we want?

Maybe we should keep an open mind.  We could use the electoral districts to choose these representatives.  We should give the elected constitutional conference sufficient time.  How about two years?  Then give them a year to sell their solution to the Canadian people.  You can bet their solutions will be important enough for a national referendum.

The solutions will not come easy but if we think about them, we will get the answers.  Canada deserves no less.

– 30 –

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Comment for today.

by Peter Lowry

Mr. Harper is not much of a cabinet maker,

With the people available, he’s more faker.

He’ll get the Ottawa mandarins to quaver,

Seeing Harris’ Ontario henchmen in favour.

______________________________

The Democracy Papers.

by Peter Lowry

This is the fourth of the Democracy Papers written in 2007 in answer to the Ontario referendum that year on electoral reform.  The referendum was defeated but the need for reform continues to rankle.  We believe Canada must have an elected Constitutional Conference.  Electoral reform is just one of the topics to be brought to the gathering.  For this reason, the Democracy Papers are being updated and rerun.

Chapter 4 – Brush up on your calculus for voting methods

In October, 2007, Ontario voters were presented with a referendum ballot that asked them if they wish to have mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting.   This is a system in which each of the political parties provides a list of people eligible to be appointed to 30 per cent of the seats in the legislature.   If chosen, these selected people would not have a constituency and would not be directly responsible to the electors.

On top of that, if the voters agreed to MMP, they would have to learn a new math.   It is all in the plan for MMP produced by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.   What the citizens’ assembly attempted to do was to give more legislature seats to smaller political parties by appointing members to the legislature instead of electing them.   This requires a very confusing if not mind-boggling mathematical process for appointing 39 people to the legislature.

With this new math also comes a new language for elections.   The simplest of these terms is quotient.   We learned that one in the lower grades at school because it is what you call the answer when you divide one number by another.   The example given is when you divide the Ontario population of 12,160,000 by 90 electoral districts and you find there is a quotient of 135,100 people per riding.   Those are very large ridings.

But the quotient, according to this new math, can change if you have an ‘overhang.’   This is one of the more interesting of the new terms.   Overhangs occur when your party wins more local ridings than the number to which it would be entitled according to the party vote which has been separated from the candidate vote.

In effect, the system penalizes parties that win more seats than the citizens’ assembly think they should.   Under these game rules, parties who overhang will not get any of their list candidates appointed to the legislature.   A party with more elected seats than all other parties combined could thus be restricted in its ability to form a government.   The final results are determined by a calculation using something called the ‘Hare formula.’   This formula is used to help distribute seats to losing candidates.

This means a candidate who has lost the election in his or her riding can still be a member of the legislature because of the Hare formula.   Technically, loser candidates are known as ‘list candidates.’   These are people who run in ridings and are listed in order of preference by their political parties and the names are given to Elections Ontario before the election.   These listed people will be available for appointment to the legislature, only if they have been rejected by the voters in their riding.

What this means is that the citizens’ assembly was trying to give political parties the decision making power over that of the voters.   If the party’s candidates are rejected by the voters in a riding, the party can still appoint them.   This conclusion is not surprising.   Since the citizens’ assembly members were themselves chosen by lottery, there was no requirement for them to understand democracy.

Under this formula, to form a majority government, a party has to have a minimum of 65 members in the legislature, holding either riding or proportional seats.

Much of the 2007 effort of Elections Ontario was to try to simplify the citizens’ assembly proposal for Ontario voters.   We expect that was the reason literature spent little time clarifying the disproportionality figures.   We also remain somewhat in the dark about the so-called Loosemore-Hanby Index.

Luckily for Ontario voters, all this confusion was to be swept away by the people (one per riding) hired by Elections Ontario.   These people were there to explain MMP voting to Ontario residents before the October 10 election.   Elections Ontario decided to spend just $6.8 million on all of their educational efforts.   The ‘Yes’ side thought they should spend at least $13 million of taxpayers’ money to help people understand the proposal.   Judging by the mathematics involved, that figure was low.

The people who did not help clarify the situation were the Conservative and Liberal parties.   Why should they?   The proposal did nothing good for either of them.   The citizens’ assembly was just another election promise from Dalton McGuinty that he really should not have kept.

But the funniest error of all was the union support that was going on riding by riding, organizing for a pro-MMP organization called Fair Vote Ontario.   The unions thought that MMP would bring the NDP more seats in the legislature.   Now there is a group that really needs to study the mathematics.

©Copyright 2007, 2011, Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Comment for today.

by Peter Lowry

Researchers call it the Don Cherry effect,

Loud-mouthed, opinionated, you detect.

It is not as good as our hockey can offer,

But it’s the best a right-wing can proffer.

____________________________