The Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform will make recommendations next spring on whether to change the way votes are translated into seats (FYI, you can make your own submissions HERE). Ontarians will vote in a referendum on Oct 4, 2007.

But the question is: what vote threshold is needed for important changes? This question, of course, lies at the heart of the debate surrounding the Clarity Act, which mandates a “clear majority” on a “clear question” in any future Quebec separation referendum. In 2005, British Columbia said 60% was necessary to change their electoral system (and 50% in at least 60% of the ridings). Ontario has followed suit. This is reflected in Bill 155: Electoral System Referendum Act, 2006 (or click HERE for 700kb PDF), introduced on October 24, 2006 by the Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni (Minister Responsible for Democratic Renewal). In other words, the YES vote must be 1.5 times more than the NO vote for it to pass, a plurality of 20% (i.e. 60/40 = 1.5; plurality = 60-40 = 20%).

This 60% threshold is significantly higher than the usual 50%+1 principle that guides most democratic action. And it is especially important since British Columbians endorsed changing the electoral system by a 58-42 margin, falling just short of the 60% threshold, despite the recommendation of what I think is a system (Single Transferable Vote or STV) that is not understandable to most people and which doesn’t address the shortcomings of our current winner-takes-all-system. Moreover, the motion carried in 77 of 79 ridings. Did that 58% represent a clear majority? Premier Gordon Cambell thinks so, as he has since said that there was a “clear mandate for electoral reform”, despite not reaching the 60% threshold.

If you have thoughts on Bill 155, send a letter, email or call your MPP — here is the contact information for all Ontario MPPs.

I would like to open this up to discussion — what do you think should be the threshold for important changes? 50%? 60%? Two-thirds? Somewhere in between 50% and 60%?

[FYI, I believe it is reasonable to require a slightly higher threshold for important changes (on the assumption that a razor-thin victory is not a clear mandate) -- but 60% is too high. When the B.C. Premier says there is a clear mandate with 57.69% approval, he is correct. I believe a plurality of 10% (i.e. 55-45%) is a clear mandate.]

Update: you might be interested in my proposal for a mixed local/regional parliament, which combines our current system with regional members who represent sub-regions of Ontario (Central Ontario, Eastern Ontario, Northern Ontario, Peel-Halton, Southwestern Ontario, Hamilton-Niagara, Toronto, and York-Durham). These regions members are elected by party vote, while local members are elected as per usual.

TÉLÉCHARGER / DOWNLOAD PDF	22 OCT 2006
	PQ	PLQ	ADQ	QS	PVQ
%	38,0%	34,9%	14.4%	5,2%	7,5%
SIÈGES / SEATS	72	46	7	0	0
2003 ELECTION	45	76	4	-	0

Un sondage effectué par SOM-The Gazette (18kb PDF) indique que l’appui pour le PLQ est à la baisse, principalement en raison de la crise forestière qui frappe plusieurs régions du Québec. En pondérant ce sondage avec les quatre derniers, le PQ obtient l’appui de 38 % des électeurs, le PLQ 34,9 %, l’ADQ 14,4 %, Québec Solidaire 5,2 % et le Parti vert recueille pour sa part 7,5 %. Lorsqu’on transpose ces résultats en siège, le PQ en obtient 72 sièges. Le PLQ récolte 46 sièges et l’ADQ ferme la marche avec 7 sièges. Si la tendance des sondages se maintient, Jean Charest risque de perdre les prochaines élections générales, lesquelles pourraient se tenir dès le printemps 2007.

***

The latest SOM-Gazette poll (18kb PDF) shows support for the PLQ dropping, due to the forestry crisis in Quebec. Including this poll into our 5-poll average gives current support for the PQ at 38.0%, the PLQ at 34.9%, ADQ at 14.4%, Quebec Solidaire at 5.2% and the Parti Vert and others at 7.5%. The regional break-down of this support gives the PQ a clear majority with 72 seats, the PLQ with 46 and ADQ with 7. This update continues to show Premier Jean Charest in danger of losing the upcoming election, which must be called by Spring 2007.

Many thanks to Vincent Robidas for translation.

We have set up pages for the November 27 by-elections in Repentigny and London North Centre. You can find tabs in the navigation menu to the left. Feel free to drop by and add your thoughts on how it might shape up or what you are seeing on the ground.

USA 2006 HOME | BLOG

We have completed updates to all Senate races through Thurs Oct 25. In general, there has been a slight movement towards the Republicans. There is one significant change to note: Missouri’s Senate race, one of the closest in the country, has flipped back to Republican Jim Talent, although the projections are within the margin of error, so it is really too close to call as this point. With Missouri in the Republican column, the Republicans would take 50, the Democrats 48 and there would be 2 Independents (Joe Lieberman of CT and Bernie Sanders of VT). Sanders will sit with the Democrats; Lieberman was a democrat unlike losing his nomination race in September, so it’s unclear whether he will continue to sit with the Democrats or not. Either way, with two weeks before election day, the Senate is shaping up to be a neck-and-neck battle, with Missouri, New Jersey, Tennesee, and Virginia the 4 closest races, and Rhode Island, Montana, and Maryland close behind.

SENATE
	REPUBLICAN	DEMOCRAT	INDEPENDENT
PRE-ELECTION	55	44	1
CHANGE	-5	+4	+1
PROJECTED	50	48	2

	%	%	%
STATE				PROJECTED WINNER
ARIZONA	54	44	2	JON KYL
CALIFORNIA	34	60	5	DIANNE FEINSTEIN
CONNECTICUT	6	39	55	JOE LIEBERMAN
DELAWARE	35	64	1	TOM CARPER
FLORIDA	35	64	1	BILL NELSON
HAWAII	34	65	1	DANIEL AKAKA
INDIANA	98	-	2	DICK LUGAR
MAINE	75	25	-	OLYMPIA SNOWE
MARYLAND	45	54	1	BEN CARDIN
MASSACHUSETTS	30	70	-	TED KENNEDY
MICHIGAN	44	53	3	DEBBIE STABENOW
MINNESOTA	41	56	3	AMY KLOBUCHAR
MISSISSIPPI	60	38	2	TRENT LOTT
MISSOURI	49	48	3	JIM TALENT
MONTANA	46	51	3	JON TESTER
NEBRASKA	37	63	-	BEN NELSON
NEVADA	55	44	1	JOHN ENSIGN
NEW JERSEY	47	50	3	ROBERT MENENDEZ
NEW MEXICO	34	66	-	JEFF BINGAMAN
NEW YORK	33	66	1	HILLARY CLINTON
NORTH DAKOTA	34	66	-	KENT CONRAD
OHIO	42	56	2	SHERROD BROWN
PENNSYLVANIA	45	55	-	BOB CASEY JR.
RHODE ISLAND	46	54	-	SHELDON WHITEHOUSE
TENNESSEE	47	51	2	HAROLD FORD JR.
TEXAS	60	38	2	KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
UTAH	70	26	4	ORRIN HATCH
VERMONT	38	-	62	BERNIE SANDERS
VIRGINIA	50	48	2	GEORGE ALLEN
WASHINGTON	44	54	2	MARIA CANTWELL
WEST VIRGINIA	34	64	2	ROBERT BYRD
WISCONSIN	37	62	1	HERB KOHL
WYOMING	68	30	2	CRAIG THOMAS

Why Recognizing Quebec as a Nation is Problematic
By Gregory D. Morrow

Having been educated and having lived for many years in Quebec, I certainly believe that Quebec is distinct. And for me, Montreal is the prototypical Canadian city — French and English, yes, but multicultural in every sense of the word — a model Canadian society that should be exported across the country. Despite this, I find the attempts by the Ignatieff Liberals to recognize Quebec as a nation in the constitution highly problematic for 5 reasons:

1) The francophone nation is not synonymous with the province of Quebec.
2) There are many civic nations in Canada; a definition of nation based on civic values begs the real question of cultural difference.
3) Recognition doesn’t bring substantive change; it is merely a symbolic and semantic gesture that doesn’t give Quebec any additional powers.
4) The only substantive changes — Senate reform and compensation for public actions that impact property rights — which are contingent upon Conservative support, will radically alter the public sector’s role.
5) Canada cannot be “completed” by constitution; unlike the U.S., Canada’s constitution is not an originating document; instead it must be allowed to evolve with changing circumstances.

I explain each of these arguments below.

(more…)

Updated: 24 Oct, 4:14pm PT; all meetings reported. Results of B.C. appeal still pending. These numbers do not reflect back-filled candidates.

There has been much discussion about what the Liberal leadership Super Weekend results mean for the first ballot. Many have assumed that since Michael Ignatieff has the largest share of ex-officio support, he will jump from 30% to 35% on the first ballot. It is unlikely the jump that Ignatieff will receive will be as high as 5% — it is more likely about 2%. According to Wikipedia, there are 877 ex-officio delegates. Using this data, we can make some estimates of what the first ballot might look like. Note: this will continue to be updated as new information is received.

What happens after the first ballot is anyone’s guess at this point. It all depends on who the bottom 4 candidates back, and whether they can bring their delegates along with them. Due to his support of the Afghanistan mission and focus on fiscal measures, it is reasonable to assume that Brison will back Ignatieff, or at least most of this delegates will move that way. Volpe’s delegates are unlikely to back Ignatieff, because of the bad blood between those campaigns. It’s reasonable to assume that Volpe could back Rae. Dryden’s support is more complex, with some supporters backing his progressive social programs shifting to Dion, Rae and Kennedy, while others who like the “Big Canada” approach might follow Ignatieff; so it’s likely that Dryden’s support will be more evenly split among the top 4. Just for discussion purposes — i.e. pure guesswork — we might see the second ballot shape up something like this, which sets up a very interesting third ballot in which either Kennedy or Dion’s supporters will determine who Ignatieff will face on the final ballot (Kennedy and Dion remain very close for #3 and #4 — Kennedy has more elected delegates but Dion has more ex-officio support) .

Note: I have confirmed with the Liberal Party that the only rule is that the person with the fewest votes gets dropped from the subsequent ballot. Some have speculated that anyone less than 5% will be dropped. This is NOT the case.

(more…)

Our apologies for being being offline for a few hours this evening. We’ve upgraded to Wordpress 2.0.4 and beefed up our spam blocking. So if you find that your comments are not being posted, feel free to drop us an email.

USA 2006 HOME | BLOG

We are pleased to present our first projections for the 2006 U.S. Governors Elections. The trend mirrors that of the Senate and the House — that is, the Republicans losing positions to the Democrats. Currently, we have 7 Governorships changing parties — in Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota (this one is very close), New York, and Ohio.

GOVERNORS
	REPUBLICAN	DEMOCRAT	INDEPENDENT
PRE-ELECTION	28	22	-
CHANGE	-7	+7	-
PROJECTED	21	29	-

	%	%	%
STATE				PROJECTED WINNER
ALABAMA	56	41	3	BOB RILEY
ALASKA	55	43	2	SARAH PALIN
ARIZONA	41	57	2	JANET NAPOLITANO
ARKANSAS	44	55	1	MIKE BEEBE
CALIFORNIA	51	40	9	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
COLORADO	40	55	4	BILL RITTER
CONNECTICUT	65	34	1	JODI RELL
FLORIDA	56	42	2	CHARLIE CRIST
GEORGIA	54	41	5	SONNY PERDUE
HAWAII	74	25	1	LINDA LINGLE
IDAHO	64	34	2	C.L. OTTER
ILLINOIS	38	54	8	ROD BLAGOJEVICH
IOWA	49	50	1	CHET CULVER
KANSAS	41	58	1	KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
MAINE	45	51	4	JOHN BALDACCI
MARYLAND	44	54	2	MARTIN O’MALLEY
MASSACHUSETTS	33	58	9	DEVAL PATRICK
MICHIGAN	45	52	3	JENNIFER GRANHOLM
MINNESOTA	46	48	6	MIKE HATCH
NEBRASKA	77	21	2	DAVE HEINEMAN
NEVADA	53	45	2	JIM GIBBONS
NEW HAMPSHIRE	23	73	4	JOHN LYNCH
NEW MEXICO	32	66	2	BILL RICHARDSON
NEW YORK	28	71	1	ELIOT SPITZER
OHIO	36	61	3	TED STRICKLAND
OKLAHOMA	35	64	1	BRAD HENRY
OREGON	44	51	5	TED KULONGOSKI
PENNSYLVANIA	42	56	2	ED RENDELL
RHODE ISLAND	50	49	1	DONALD CARCIERI
SOUTH DAKOTA	66	32	2	MIKE ROUNDS
SOUTH CAROLINA	55	44	1	MARK SANFORD
TENNESSEE	30	69	1	PHIL BREDESEN
TEXAS	39	23	38	RICK PERRY
VERMONT	59	39	2	JIM DOUGLAS
WISCONSIN	47	51	2	JIM DOYLE
WYOMING	34	65	1	DAVE FREUDENTHAL

boo
1. A sound uttered to show contempt, scorn, or disapproval.

I’m with Paul Wells on this one. How can Michael Ignatieff’s supporters display such contempt, scorn and disapproval of Stephane Dion? He is a man of integrity, which is becoming increasingly in short supply among Liberals. And it wasn’t just because Ignatieff’s supporters didn’t want to hear Dion take issue with Ignatieff on the unity question — earlier they booed Bob Rae because they didn’t want him to take issue with his positions on torture or the Iraq war. Ignatieff’s team is not doing itself any favours with these classless acts; given the umm…. perplexing positions that Ignatieff has taken of late, and Ignatieff’s use of the Martin-esque act of desperation (i.e. bash Bush) this past week, is it too early to suggest that Ignatieff’s ship is taking on water? What do his supporters think? Stephen Harper and Jack Layton aren’t going to use his past writings to expose weaknesses or flip-flops? Given that Ignatieff has all of a couple months of political experience, his supporters would be wise to allow their candidate the opportunity to explain himself among friends, before he gets savaged by the other side. But, if the Quebec debate is any indication, it may not come to that after all.

From our detailed analysis of the riding-by-riding delegate results, we have found that the Liberal leadership race is much closer among winnable ridings — Ignatieff has 26.1%, Rae 21.4%, Kennedy 20.5% (and Dion dropped back to 13.5%). Here, we take a close look at the 60 battleground ridings in which the Liberals narrowly lost (i.e. lost by less than a 15% margin). These 60 ridings are the key to the Liberal fortunes in the next election. Here are the number of delegates for each candidate in those 60 battleground ridings — it is important to emphasize that these numbers are objective; they simply represent a tally of how each candidate fared in ridings in which the Liberals lost by 15% (i.e. ridings which can reasonably be won in the next election).

	IGNATIEFF	RAE	KENNEDY	DION	VOLPE	DRYDEN	BRISON	MHF	UNDEC.
BATTLEGROUNDS	25.0%	23.2%	22.1%	14.6%	4.5%	5.6%	1.9%	1.0%	2.2%
OVERALL	29.7%	20.3%	17.4%	16.7%	5.4%	4.4%	3.0%	0.7%	2.4%
CHANGE	-4.7%	+2.9%	+4.7%	-2.1%	-0.9%	+1.2%	-1.1%	+0.3%	-0.2%

ANALYSIS
Among the 60 key battleground ridings, the race is very different from the overall results. While Michael Ignatieff holds a near 10-point lead over Bob Rae and near 13-point lead over Gerard Kennedy, among the 60 ridings in which the next election will be won or lost, it is a close 3-way race between the three. Less than 3 points separate the three candidates; Ignatieff has 25.0% support, Rae has 23.2% and Kennedy has 22.1%. As we noted in our review of winnable ridings, delegate results should not be taken as a barometer of support with the overall electorate, but it may indicate an ability to mobilize the Liberal base in battleground ridings. This is good news for Bob Rae, who received 2.9 points higher in battleground ridings, and is especially good news for Gerard Kennedy, who received 4.7 points higher. But the news is bad for Michael Ignatieff, who received 4.7 points lower in battleground ridings and Stephane Dion, who received 2.1 points lower. So for Liberals who are concerned about electability in the next election, this analysis suggests that there are three candidates with similar support in key ridings.