Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

City of Edmonton council hides behind technology

| August 21st, 2006 | Comments Off | Miscellaneous

I just tried to fill out the Message to City Council (City of Edmonton) form at
http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_360_251_0_43/http%3B/CMSServer/COEWeb/mayor+and+city+council/message+to+city+council.htm
and when I finished I got an Error 404 page at
http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_360_251_0_43/http%3B/CMSServer/COEWeb/mayor%2520and%2520city%2520council/InteractiveForm_ContactCouncil.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7b72509C32-CEC6-469D-A9A8-B856A6BBEC9C%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fCOEWeb%2fmayor%2520and%2520city%2520council%2fmessage%2520to%2520city%2520council%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest
Did my message get to City Council or is this just a layer of protection for the councillors so they are not bothered by the public?

Taxes up 1600%? I think not.

| April 26th, 2006 | Comments Off | Miscellaneous

CTV News story.
CTV News is reporting today on a Fraser Institute Report that our taxes are up 1600% since 1961. I don’t know what hat they pulled that figure from. Let’s look at the details:

In 1961, the average income per household was $7,582 before taxes, and $5,000 after taxes, and an average family spent $2,824 on food, shelter and clothing per year.

Doing some math shows that the $2582 taken by the government for taxes in 1961 is 34.1% of the average household income. Food, shelter and clothing represents 37.2% of the average household income the same year

In 2005, the report found, the average family earns $95,531 before taxes, takes home $60,903, and spends $22,167 on food, shelter and clothing.

Again, doing the math, the $34628 taken by the govrenment in taxes in 2005 is 36.2% of the average family income. Food, shelter and clothing represents 23.2% of the average family income the same year.

I see an increase of 2.1% in taxes and a decrease of 14% on food, shelter and clothing. You cannot directly compare the dollar amounts from 1961 with the dollar amounts from 2005 unless you take into account all the changes in the economy in the intervening years. Comparing the percentages from each year gives meaningful results.
Where did that 1600% figure come from anyway?

Proportional Representation for Canada?

| January 24th, 2006 | Comments Off | Miscellaneous

Given the results of yesterday’s election, it is past time to retire the first-past-the-post system and replace it with a Mixed Member Proportional System (MMPS). I see you asking your self “How does such a system work?” I’ll try and help you understand it:
The concept is that the total of seats per party in the goverment should mirror the overall proportion of votes recieved. There are two sets of members elected to the House of Commons. The first are constituency representatives and the second are party representatives. When you go to mark your ballot, you would make two selections. The first selection would be for a representative for your constituency just as you always have voted. The constituency representative is elected just as they are under the current system (first-past-the-post or most votes wins). The second would be a party selection – the party representatives are elected on a regional basis (by Province for example). It is possible to vote for a candidate from one party in the constituency section, and vote for a different candidate by picking a different party in the proportional section.Wikipedia has the best description of this method that I’ve seen:

The total number of seats in the [house of commons] are allocated to parties proportionally to the number of votes the party received in the party portion of the ballot. Subtracted from each party’s allocation is the number of constituency seats that party won. The number of seats remaining allocated to that party are filled using the party’s list.

Hopefully this helps you understand the MMPS.

One drawback to this system of represenation is that it is almost impossible for a majority government to be formed unless two (or more) parties form a coalition. Under Canada’s parliamentary rules and traditions, when a minority government loses a spending or confidence vote, an election is called. This has to change in concert with any changes to the electoral system. Currently when the government falls, the leader of the ruling party visits the Governor General who then calls an election. The Governor General should be compelled to approach the other parties to try to find a workable government before calling a new election. The electorate does not want to go to the polls too often.

A method of recalling elected Members of Parliament also needs to be added to the system. If a sitting member is so unpopular that the electorate in the constituency or region (depending on how they were elected) petitions to have them removed, a by-election needs to be called for that seat. This would work to hold parties responsible for the people they put on the regional lists.

January 2006 Federal Election

| January 24th, 2006 | Comments Off | Miscellaneous

Congratulations on becoming our new Prime Minister Mr. Harper. Take your minority government and show Canada what you can do. But please don’t force us back to the polls until next year.

We did not get the government we voted for. The popular vote preliminary results from Elections Canada show that we should have a very different looking House of Commons than was actually elected. Here’s the actual breakdown of seats in the house of commons as a result of this election:
Seats Won in January 2006 Federal Election
When it should look like this based on the proportion of the popular vote:
Proportional Seats that should have been Won in January 2006 Federal Election
As Fair Vote Canada says in today’s press release:

Once again, Canada’s antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament, and may possibly have even given us the wrong government.

Canadian Politicians spin the truth….

| January 20th, 2006 | Comments Off | Miscellaneous

NewScientist.com – Algorithm detects Canadian politicians’ spin

Proof that the liberals are lying! Well maybe. Apparently they are spinning the truth more than the Conservatives and NDP. When you rank the three leading parties in the current Canadian election (from the article), here’s what you get (least spin to most spin):

  • Conservatives
  • New Democrats
  • Liberals

From the article:

Spin, in this case, is defined as “text or speech where the apparent meaning is not the true belief of the person saying or writing it”, says the algorithm’s developer, David Skillicorn at Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada.

While the developer of the algorithm has said that it’s still a work in progress, the findings are still significant. The Liberals are begging for their political lives and it’s starting to look like they’re really desperate. On the other hand, the Conservatives are simply waiting for their turn. Hopefully it will arrive on Monday.

Legalize Pot and Tax it

| November 26th, 2004 | Comments Off | Miscellaneous

Should Canada Legalize Pot and tax it? I think so. I read in Maclean’s magazine recently that Pot is Canada’s biggest agricultural product. An estimated $7 billion industry. And the Federal Government receives no tax revenue from it whatsoever. Growers often steal electricity which costs all of us tha pay for electricity. Instead of spending $400 million annually on Pot enforcement, some of that money could be spent to regulate a new industry. If the government taxed it at 10%, the take would be $700 million a year – which would pay for any enforcement required for the new industry. If they taxed it like Tobacco, it would become a significant part of the government’s annual budget which would help pay down Canada’s debt, and reduce the taxes we all pay.
(more…)

Congratulations Mayor Mandel

| October 19th, 2004 | Comments Off | Miscellaneous

Congratulations go out this morning to Stephen Mandel, Edmonton’s new mayor. Congratulations on beating incumbent Bill Smith and beating off contender Robert Noce. Now Mayor Mandel, here’s your big chance to prove to those that elected you that you can make a difference for the citizens of Edmonton. We’ll be watching to see how you keep your campaign promises.

Robert Noce and the Smoking Bylaw

| September 17th, 2004 | Comments Off | Miscellaneous

So where do you really stand on the Edmonton smoking bylaw issue Mr. Noce? You’re on the record as saying that you would revisit the bylaw if you’re elected. You’re also on the record as saying that you never said you would revisit the bylaw. Are you lying to us Mr. Noce? How can we know what you really stand for?
(more…)