"Unite the left": a response to daveberta

There's nothing more predictable than Canadians talking about party mergers after an election where things didn't go their way, and this Alberta election has been no different. I mostly ignore that kind of talk--I think so drastically differently about this sort of thing that there's simply no common ground for conversation. But daveberta has a thoughtful post about the topic that's at least worth addressing, even though I can't agree with a lot of it. So here's a response to each of his six points, one by one.

1. Bad blood. I completely agree that there's a lot of unnecessary bad blood between the Alberta Liberals and the Alberta NDP--when one party is openly calling the other "irrelevant" and the other party is equating the first party with their archrivals, there's not much room for détente. But bad blood isn't the only obstacle to a merger, or even the biggest one. The only reason to ever merge parties is when there are negligible, if any, differences between them (the Wild Rose Party and the Alberta Alliance spring to mind). It's never a good idea to merge parties when the party memberships have very different opinions about all sorts of things, and there is a world of difference, both policy-wise and party-culturally, between the Alberta Liberals and the Alberta NDP.

2. It's aiming at the wrong target. Dave tells us that "with voter turnout at 41%, I'd be willing to suggest that all the parties are scraping the bottom of their support-levels and need to look at the 59% of non-voting Albertans for growth." I completely agree. The first response to this election, for all parties, needs to be to figure out who those non-voters are and why they're not voting. There have been a lot of hypotheses tossed around about that, but at this point, that's all they are.

3. Pass the vote. Dave argues that a merged party could easily occupy a much smaller part of the political spectrum, and leave a lot of Albertans without a party to vote for. I couldn't agree with this more strongly. Trying to unify such diverse groups under one big tent, even if it were to work, would marginalize a whole big whack of Albertans. This might not matter to those whose political opinions would be encompassed by the hypothetical new party, but believe me, it matters to the rest of us. We can't let that kind of kludge fix be our response to a very real problem.

4. Greens on the left? Dave argues that the Alberta Greens--especially the 22% of voters in Lacombe-Ponoka who gave the party its biggest non-victory victory yet--are not actually very left-wing. I agree with that, and furthermore, I'd argue that this has to be okay with those of us who are left-wing. Trying to shoehorn them into models that work for us but don't work for them is neither fair nor productive.

5. Different aims. Dave says that "it's clear that the Alberta Liberals are in it to form government, but I'm not sure that's the same goal of the New Democrats." I wouldn't phrase it this way at all, but I do think he's on to something. In fact, I'd argue that nothing epitomizes this difference more than his statement that "party archetypes in both camps really need to put aside their biases and prejudices and take a serious and objective look at why their parties are not connecting with Albertans." What am I (or for that matter, what is he), chopped liver?

It has always been a puzzle for me that Canadians in big-tent parties assume that a party that never gets the largest share of the vote "isn't connecting with the people." In fact, if you add up the ~10% of the vote the Alberta NDP tends to take and the ~28% of the vote the Alberta Liberals tend to take, that's a good 38% of Albertans who suddenly don't count as "people" in sentences like those. And I have to say, this attitude is especially frustrating for me as someone who's lived in a country like Germany, where parties like the Greens (at 8%) and the Free Democrats (at 10%) would never think they need to raise their vote totals to 40% or more or else give up entirely on representing the people who support what they believe in.

In any case, the notion that the NDP "doesn't want power" is a silly one--all political parties want power. But "power" is a much larger concept than "forming a majority government all by our little selves." There are lots of models for taking power, and even forming government, that don't require that. By that token, my big recommendation on this front is to think outside the box. Which might well mean looking beyond the borders of this country for possible answers and thereby moving outside of our comfortable Canadian merger-utopia narratives.

6. First-past-the-post. I have to nitpicky-quibble with Dave's talk of changing the system to "STV or PR" (proportional representation is a category of electoral systems, of which STV is one specific example), but I do agree with the sentiment. The only long-term, non-kludge fix to the problem of representation in Alberta is electoral reform. It's is the only thing that's going to make our legislature look like what we actually vote for. Shoehorning in a kludge fix when there's a legitimately available real fix is like tying your car's engine together with twine.

On the other hand, since electoral reform isn't going to happen tomorrow, the short-term solution to making our legislature look a lot more like what Albertans want to vote for isn't fewer parties on the left, but more parties on the right. Right now, the PCs stand for very little other than keeping themselves in power, and they're such a big tent that the actual right in Alberta feels completely alienated. Like it or not, those people deserve to have a party they can really support, too--and it would have the additional advantage of levelling the first-past-the-post playing field a lot more. It wouldn't be perfectly representative, but it would be more so than what we have, in the short term.

Six bits of IP trivia

I've been tagged for the "six unimportant/trivial things about me" meme by both Candace and Ben. I kind of already did this one once with personal stuff, though, and I'm reluctant to fill the world with still more irrelevant personal trivia about me. So rather than be a killjoy and just ignore their tags, I'm going to compromise by making this about IP-related trivia that's political or bloggy.

1. I get ridiculously annoyed when other bloggers refer to me or my blog as anything but "Idealistic Pragmatist" or "IP," even if it's an honest mistake (so now you know how to annoy me if you want to!). Thankfully, though, most people do in fact call me one or the other of those...and oddly enough, that even extends to face-to-face interaction. In fact, I attended a blogstravaganza in Ontario once where I introduced myself to everyone by my real first name, and they spent the rest of the evening calling me "IP." This still amuses me today.

2. Speaking of blogstravaganzas in Ontario: I spend a month out of every summer in Waterloo for work-related reasons, and every year when I'm there, I manage to get together with other bloggers. We always have a great time, and our colourful mixture of political stripes always produces some really interesting conversations. Strangely enough, though, the Edmonton bloggers have never done this, even though we seem to get along well enough online. I have no idea why that is, but it seems like a crazy oversight.

3. I am a lot more partisan than I've been told I come across in this blog. There are three main reasons why this doesn't shine through here: one, I want this blog to always reflect my personal opinions rather than those of my party, so I don't let myself use it to score cheap political points (even when I desperately want to). Two, I think people are more likely to take what I say here seriously if I can distance myself from the blind partisanship of a lot of political blogging. Three, I think maintaining that slight distance makes for better persuasive writing.

4. Despite my own personal partisanship, I've never been able to bring myself to unequivocally tell random strangers that they should vote for my party. I believe strongly that people should vote for the party whose policies they like best, see, and that conviction is stronger than my partisanship. At times, in fact, I have been known to tell people: "well, if you think that, then you should vote for [x party that is not the NDP]"--a tendency that annoys a lot of my NDP friends in real life! I can't help it, though. I really do think having a diversity of choice is more important than everybody agreeing with me, and I'm glad when people who don't agree with me have choices they can support, too. Everybody should have that.

5. When I lived in the U.S., I used to wake up on election day with a sick sense of dread in my stomach. Part of it was the inevitable long lines at the polls and the overworked-rudeness of the people in charge, but most of it was the severe limitation on my choice that always made voting feel like some sort of bad medicine. In Canada, though, I've actually gotten tears in my eyes each of the three times I've voted (once federally, once municipally, once provincially) due to just how different the whole thing feels. I'm sure that someday it will seem completely banal to be able to go behind the screen and check an "x" in the box of a candidate I actually can believe in, but I'm not there yet.

6. If I could change only one thing about the Canadian political scene, it would be the near-complete inability of public servants to put the fortunes of their parties aside long enough to admit that there are areas where they agree enough to work together. I hate this so much, words can't even express it. In fact, when the Conservatives and the Liberals reached their agreement on Afghanistan, I found myself caught between profoundly disagreeing with what they came up with and wanting to applaud them for actually being able to admit that they had common ground. This country has such blinders on when it comes to political cooperation, it's appalling. It's a huge, huge cultural blind spot, and it's the most destructive thing about our politics.

Tag, you're it:
1. Mushroom
2. Gauntlet
3. skdadl from pogge
4. We Move to Canada
5. ALW
6. Blogging for Democracy

Insulted or amused?

Apparently, I am a "sometimes loyal to a fault Liblogger," and one of "the most loyal members of the Liberal base."

I have to say, I've been called a lot of names in my day, but never that.

Liberal entitlement at its finest

Oh, Liberals. Almost two years later, and still on the same old tirade? Honestly, if you really have nothing newer to slam the NDP and the Bloc with than "you guys kicked us out back in November of 2005, thereby giving the voters the chance to pick somebody they liked better," then they must be doing something right.

The best part, though, has got to be the wording. The House of Commons is being asked to "condemn the irresponsible and self-serving actions on Nov. 25, 2005 by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois which led to the installation of a government that is hostile to the rights and needs of vulnerable Canadians" (emphasis mine). Liberal governments are elected, but other kinds of governments--those are installed. Because if anybody gets in but the Liberals, there must have been some terrible mistake. Like a coup d'état, maybe, or a seekrit scandal involving millions of forged ballots.

If this were happening just a few weeks later, I'd swear it was an April Fool's joke. They're at the point where they're writing Rick Mercer's material for him.

"That may be where this is headed"

Many U.S. Democrats have been salivating over the thought of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket--the idea being that they wouldn't have to choose between the two figures their party clearly seems to like, just in different ways. Up until now, though, it's been very much a fantasy. It's awfully hard to imagine either of these two settling for the vice presidential nomination after coming so close to winning the presidential one, after all.

But I have to wonder whether there have been initial talks behind the scenes or something, after this quote from Clinton:

On The Early Show, co-anchor Harry Smith said to Clinton, "We talked to a lot of people in Ohio who said there really isn't that significant a difference between you two, and they'd like to see you both on the ticket."

"Well, that may, you know, be where this is headed," Clinton said. "But of course, we have to decide who's on the top of the ticket, and I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

Hmmm. Iiiiinteresting. It would certainly be a good way of maximizing the excitement that's built up around this race among Democrats and their supporters, without anyone feeling like the loser.

The Not Voting party wins the day

Alison at Creekside has invited me to comment on the disproportionality of the Alberta election results. There's no way I could top Kuri's post on that subject (with a twist!) over at thought, interrupted by typos, though, so I won't even try.

Alberta election redux, all partisanship aside

The expected and negative:

The Tories won a majority of the seats. Honestly, until the votes cast in Edmonton and Calgary start counting as much as the ones cast in the rural areas, there's not much that can be done about that, even in elections where every little thing doesn't go their way.

Turnout was well down even from what the Alberta turnout normally is: a mere 41%.

The unexpected and negative:

Where should I even begin?

The Tories won a majority of the vote. Not by a lot, but 53% is still an absolute majority. I didn't have terribly high hopes for this election, but I certainly expected the vote percentage to go down under Stelmach, not up.

The NDP caucus was cut in half. The Liberal caucus was also cut in half. The sole Wildrose-Alliance party seat was lost to the Tory wave. All in all, this makes for a massively weakened opposition, and a kick in the crotch to democracy.

No hint of the much-ballyhooed Liberal gains in Calgary. I'm no Liberal, but I admit that I believed the hype.

Even in "Redmonton," only the core urban constituencies remained various shades of red and orange.

As for individual seats, the biggest single loss is David Eggen, and yes, that works even in an "all partisanship aside" post. That man has been the hardest-working MLA in the legislature, and if anyone deserved to win reelection this time around, it was him. And the runner-up may well be the Liberals' Mo Esalhy, for whom I have the profoundest respect. Lots of good people lost their seats this time, but those are the two that stand out as completely tragic.

The expected and positive:

Edmonton-Strathcona's new MLA is the marvelous Rachel Notley, with close to 50% of the vote. A lot of New Democrats are fond of saying "the legislature needs a Notley," but for me it's very much "the legislature needs RACHEL Notley," and I couldn't be prouder to have this amazing woman as my MLA. (Confidential to Mr. Berta: Seriously, all partisanship aside. Give her another look with less partisan glasses once the pain of this loss wears off, and I think you'll see what I see. Even if you never let yourself admit it.)

One of the Tory gains was Janice Sarich. I don't agree with her about pretty much any of the core issues, but I appreciate the way she has reached out to the agents of democratic reform in this province, and occasionally even counted herself among them. She's been a surprisingly positive force in this province as a civilian, and presuming Ed Stelmach doesn't surgically remove her spine as soon as she gets sworn in, I think she'll be a positive force in that caucus, too.

The unexpected and positive:

...

I got nothin'.

Post-budget puzzlement

I'm finding myself a little bit...puzzled by grassroots Liberals these days. I'm hoping maybe somebody out there can help me out.

Before Flaherty announced the Conservatives' 2008 budget, the common wisdom among many grassroots Liberals was that this was going to be the Liberals' chance to prove that they had the fortitude to handle an election. The matter was a simple one: if Dion was a real leader, he'd oppose the budget, and if he wasn't willing to oppose the budget, then, well, that must mean he wasn't a real leader.

Then, the budget was announced, and shortly thereafter, Dion announced his party's support for it. The frustration was palpable among those very same grassroots Liberals: after all, their leader had just proven that he wasn't a real leader. Because the only reason why he could possibly have been willing to vote for the budget was because he didn't have the balls for the election. Right?

But what if there's another explanation? What if Dion is supporting the budget not because he's Not A Leader, but because he and his caucus actually...*gasp*...like the budget?

Don't believe me? Have a look at the official party line. This Conservative budget is a "watered-down Liberal budget" that "adopts many measures the Liberals have championed." I don't know about you, but to me that sounds less like Not A Leader and more like a leader with ideas that--at least when it comes to how to run the country's finances (not to mention Afghanistan)--are so similar to the Conservatives' own ideas that the two parties are virtually indistinguishable these days. I mean, über-Liberal Jason Cherniak's biggest criticism is that the Conservatives' last two budgets weren't conservative enough. This isn't just the strategic ranting of a partisan New Democrat, this is how things are.

Don't get me wrong, I get why the Liberals would be upset by the actions of their party these days. Believe me, I do. What I'm not getting, though, is why they're angry at their leader for supposedly being cowardly when the real issue is that he and his caucus are simply out of step with what they stand for.

"Shameful, offensive fear-mongering"

It seems that the Clinton campaign has been distributing a photograph of Obama in African dress, playing into the (false) rumour that Obama is a Muslim. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, described this as "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election."

In other words, implying your opponent is a Muslim is a worse thing to do than saying your opponent has a secret love child, or a wife who's either a drug addict or a supporter of puppy-killing? Uh-huh.

Far be it from me to condone dirty tricks, but is what this implies about modern-day U.S. culture not a lot more horrific than the offending photo?

[Update: Naomi Klein agrees.]

An alternative for would-be Nader voters

I've never voted for Ralph Nader, but I absolutely understand the mindset of those Americans who do. It's not because they believed that there was literally no difference beween Bush and Gore in 2000, or that there's literally no difference between McCain and either Clinton or Obama in 2008. It's because they recognize that there's a lot more political diversity out there than they're seeing represented in their available choices, and so they're opting to use their votes not to vote for president, but to say: "hey, we deserve a broader spectrum of choice than we're getting."

There are those who call these kinds of votes "protest votes," but really, that's too simplistic a description of the thought process behind them. What it's really about is how, when your Political Compass score is way down in the lower left quadrant, the differences between any of the multitudes of candidates in the upper right one just don't look that major to you. They certainly seem a lot less important than working toward a more diverse political spectrum that might actually stand a chance of someday encompassing your own views.

The problem, though, is that any hope of increasing that diversity is a vain one. The combination of direct voting for president and the first-past-the-post electoral system does an excellent job of decreasing the chances of any third-party emerging in the U.S. from "not very likely" to "no chance in hell." It just ain't gonna happen, ever. And there's the rub: if voting for Nader has no chance of changing anything, that means that the effect of voting for Nader is zero. In the short term, and in the long term as well. Anyone voting for Nader is essentially opting out.

If you're already opting out, then, why not really opt out? And no, I don't mean "don't vote," I mean "leave the U.S. behind in favour of a country that already runs political candiates who represent your views." The bureaucracy of such a move is maddening, but trust me, the relief at regularly having more choices than "right-wing" and "righter-wing" is worth any amount of paperwork. You've already reached the conclusion that you don't fit into the political and cultural mainstream of your country, so isn't emigration the logical next step? And for that matter, if what you're really interested in is sending a message, just imagine the message that would be sent by masses of lefty Americans stampeding across the border! It'd be a sight to behold.

The plot thickens

Okay, remember when I pointed out the similarities between the West Wing's 2006 presidential race and the current, real-life one? Well, it's actually much weirder than that: it turns out that the West Wing writers actually based their original conception of Santos on Obama, way back when. Which means they wrote their story about Faux-Obama (Fauxbama?)...and then, a couple of years later, it started coming true.

As the article says, "a bizarre case of art imitating life - only for life to imitate art back again."

The Alberta election, from my idyllic little corner of the province

I haven't been talking much about the Alberta provincial election, although not because I haven't been thinking about it. In fact, I've been working (though I'm sure many would say not hard enough!) on the campaign to elect Rachel Notley in Edmonton-Strathcona. See, although I'm far more interested in federal politics than I am in provincial politics, for Rachel I'll make an exception.

Edmonton-Strathcona is a damn fine constituency to live in for an Alberta New Democrat. Since 1997, it's been held by Raj Pannu, the provincial NDP's beloved former leader. Just how beloved is he? Well, in 2004, he was reelected with more than sixty percent of the vote (his nearest rival got 18%). When Raj announced his decision to retire, you could practically hear the keening. Shortly thereafter, though, the questions started flying: who could possibly replace Raj in the NDP's most reliable Alberta stronghold? And then Rachel stepped up to the plate.

Much hay has been made in the media about the fact that Rachel is the daughter of Grant Notley, the Alberta NDP's most successful leader. Having known her for a number of years, though, I can assure you that this is the least interesting thing about her. Rachel's one of us--a political geek--but she goes beyond that to be one of the most creative and imaginative political minds I have ever run into. She's also down-to-earth, incredibly genuine, and she's got more energy in her left toenail than the rest of us have in our whole bodies. When I heard that she was going to be running to replace Raj, I instantly stopped worrying. I honestly can't think of anyone else I'd rather see representing me in the legislature. And she hasn't been coasting on Strathcona's "they always vote NDP" image: she's been going door-to-door to meet voters at least once a week, no matter what the weather, since she started her campaign in June of 2006.

Last night I went to the Strathcona All-Candidates' Forum, where I had a great time watching Rachel clean up. Now, I've already told you my biases, so you have no reason to believe me on that front, so I'll instead turn you over to Ian from terahertz, hardly a partisan New Democrat, who took some really detailed notes. I do disagree with Ian on one point: I had low expectations of the last-minute-appointment of a Tory candidate, which he then exceeded handily (in fact, I'll go so far as to say that if his party has any sense, they'll give him a winnable constituency next time). I was honestly expecting a lot more than we got out of the Liberal candidate, though, especially considering the fact that he's been endorsed by daveberta. (To tell you the truth, that only confirms my suspicions that Mr. Berta has gotten a lot more indiscriminately partisan in recent years, which is disappointing.)

In any case, in an election where the polls have been discouraging (neither the Liberals nor the NDP have managed to capitalize on the province's generalized annoyance with the current government), and the knowledge that we're likely going to be stuck with this guy for another four or five years is settling in, the Edmonton-Strathcona race has been a real bright spot. And when it's all over and the votes have been cast, we here in Strathcona will at least be able to be excited about our newly-elected NDP MLA Rachel Notley, who's going to kick some Tory ass in the legislature.

Reactions to Castro's resignation

I'm utterly fascinated by the characterizations of Cuba's Fidel Castro that have been coming out of the world press in light of his resignation. They often say even more about the cultures where the statements were published than they do about Castro:

Canada's Globe and Mail: "His retirement draws the curtain on a political career that spanned the Cold War and survived U.S. enmity, CIA assassination attempts and the demise of Soviet Communism."

Britain's Telegraph: "Ten American presidents from Eisenhower to George W Bush wanted him gone - some wanted him dead - but they came and they went and he stayed, stubbornly alive, stubbornly in power."

The U.S.'s New York Times: "The charismatic Cuban leader [waged] a guerrilla war against the then-dictator Fulgencio Batista, promising to restore the Cuban constitution and hold elections. But he soon turned his back on those democratic ideals, embraced a totalitarian brand of communism and allied the island with the Soviet Union."

France's Le Figaro: "The last survivor of the Cold War, he defied all predictions by maintaining the only communist regime in the Western world [...] at great cost to his people and without conceding one bit of control."

Germany's Spiegel: "He made Cuba into the lighthouse of Latin America, and then he himself dimmed its ability to shine."

Canadian F-Word Blog Awards

Well, I'll be damned.

I didn't talk about being nominated for a Canadian F-Word Blog Award (in the Best Political Blog category) because although I appreciated being nominated, I didn't think there was really a chance I'd make it any further than that. You know, what with being so sporadic a poster over the past, oh, four or five months. But apparently I have made it to the finals anyway.

Thank you so much to everyone who voted for me, and special thanks to skdadl for nominating me. (Confidential to her: Yes, I do consider myself a feminist, despite the fact that I once said I'd never win any awards as one.)

Anyway, I only vote for myself in these things if I think I deserve them, so I'm still not sure how my vote's going to go in that category. But if you read feminist blogs and/or blogs written by women, get thee hence! The final round of voting begins on February 22nd and ends on February 23rd. And there are lots of other categories as well, some of which are far more interesting than Best Political Blog (I particularly like that there are categories for comments!).

Quirky 'Edmonton' has own voting patterns, culture

Remember that old Onion article "Perky 'Canada' has own government, laws"? Well, there's something reminiscent of that in this unintentionally hilarious Calgary Herald article about how shockingly different Edmonton is from Calgary.

My favourite bit:

Yes, this is a very different town. In fact, New Democrats aren't just a known species here. People like Rachel Notley, taking over for Raj Pannu in Edmonton-Strathcona, have even been described as, wait for it, "Shoe-ins." Not surprisingly then, they do indeed have different concerns and areas of focus than those cowboy-hatted, naval-gazing urbanites 275 kilometres down the QE2.

I suspect they meant "shoo-ins" and "navel-gazing" (does the Herald no longer use human beings for proofreading?), but it's funny enough even without the spelling errors. "You mean, there are entire constituencies in this province where voting NDP is commonplace? Can that actually be true??? Gasp!!!"

While that bit may be funny, though, the Calgarian driving around town and marvelling that we actually have variety in our election signs is just plain tragic. Lesson learned: my God, living in Calgary would suck.

An open response to Chantal Hébert

The other day, I went to go see Chantal Hébert speak at the University of Alberta. It was a terrific hour and a half; she was as insightful as ever and quite funny in a very human way. But when she started going on again about how another Conservative government should trigger talks about uniting the Liberals and the NDP in happy harmony, I had to challenge that in the question period. The response was predictable: the NDP is in a "sorry state" because they've never formed a federal government, and they have to give up their "holy war on the Liberals" because they're not going to kill them off no matter what Jack Layton thinks. And since we're not going to have proportional representation anytime soon, the NDP should stand aside and let the Liberals kill them off.

If it had been just her and me in the room, there are so many ways I would have wanted to respond to that. I would have talked to her about what it's really like to live under a two-party system where only a tiny fraction of the political spectrum gets represented. I would have made her a list of all the ways the NDP has influenced politics in this country without ever seeing power on the federal level, some of which have been extremely profound (I mean, health care springs to mind just immediately). I would have brought up how the NDP represents between fifteen and twenty percent of the Canadian people, and how no one in, say, Germany would even think to say that the Greens (at 8%) or the Free Democrats (at 10%) are in a "sorry state" and should give up the ghost. I would have detailed how it was the feeling of disenfranchisement resulting from choosing between a centre-right and a right-wing party too many times that drove me to come to Canada in the first place, and how if too many people like her make my beloved Canadian political diversity go away, I'm up and moving to New Zealand. But the next guy with his hand up was shooting daggers at me with his eyes, so I just agreed with her that the NDP should quit trying to kill off the Liberals, and shut up.

Now, I've written this post one too many times for even my comfort, so I won't go on and on. But Blogging Horse made a terrific point a couple of weeks back that I think deserves a little bit more attention: the fact that the entire reason political parties exist is to "aggregate interests." Big-tent parties are by necessity unable to actually aggregate all of the interests of their membership (or even all of the interests of the mainstream of their membership!) due to those interests being so broad, which means that they aren't serving the sole purpose of political parties. BH used that point to tweak the Liberals, but I'd argue that it applies equally to the Conservatives these days. (Ask any Canadian right-winger whether they actually feel represented by the current government's policies. I suspect they'll either start ranting or give you a sad look and talk about how there's no other choice.)

No, fewer parties isn't the answer. And that would be true no matter which side were to end up victorious in the great battle to gain sole control over centre-left voters.

Realistically, I suspect there's no reasoning with Hébert on this one. She's enough of a product of the political culture she grew up in that she's not going to be giving up on the prediction that continued Conservative governments will force an amalgamation of left-wing and centre-left parties. My prediction, though, is that continued minority governments (of whichever colour) will eventually force the existing parties to learn to work together in true multiparty coalition governments in Parliament, after the voters get their pick among a series of real choices.

It's going to happen.

With or without electoral reform.

(Like it or not.)

Another game!

Remember the game we played a couple years back of "Joe Lieberman or Chuck Cadman"? Well, how about a game of "Reality or West Wing"?

On the Republican side, a relatively early winner, but still a dark horse candidate whom no one expected to actually be able to pull it off. A comparative outsider to his own party, loathed and mistrusted by the old guard, but a crossover hit with independents. Aging, but still fiesty. Someone known for "telling it like it is." Someone who has to pick a social conservative he can't stand--a former opponent in the primaries--as his running mate in order to win his own party's trust.

On the Democratic side, a bitterly fought nomination that ends up lasting a lot longer than anybody expected. After Super Tuesday, people start speculating that it could actually last all the way to a brokered convention, which makes political junkies everywhere pee themselves with excitement. The convention itself is a circus, but in the end, the inspirational young guy with no real foreign policy experience prevails against all expectations and goes on to become the first candidate of his ethnicity to win the nomination. And in the general election, it ends up being spun as youth vs. age, and as experience vs. new blood.

All right, all right, this one's a little more obvious than the last one: so far it's just West Wing. But it could be, who knows?

(If a nuclear accident in California ends up giving Obama the push he needs to win, though, I'm outta here.)

The Edmonton Journal speculates electionly

Hmm. I've been thinking Albertans might resist the idea of a federal election right now because we've already got our hands full with the ongoing provincial one. But the Edmonton Journal's editorial writers, at least, are ready.

As you might expect, by the way, this is my favourite part of that editorial:

If another minority were chosen, as polls suggest is the most likely outcome, another vote would surely be politically unacceptable for two or three more years. MPs would have no choice but to work together in good faith cobbling together policies a majority of Canadians could feel comfortable with.

(Come on, don't laugh! It could happen! In Europe they do it all the time, thanks to systems of proportional representation we'll have to consider seriously if our politicians can't learn to play together more constructively.)

I've been making this argument for literally years. Plenty of people used to laugh at me back then--it's not often you hear people saying that we need proportional representation to make things more stable--but I guess this many years of a minority government has brought at least a few more people around.

Anyway, what do you folks think? Election yay this time, or election nay? And if so, then when?

Race or gender?

I'm afraid I'm travelling so much in the early part of this year that unless there's an election, I'm not going to be finding much time and energy to post anything you can really sink your teeth into. But here's a little tidbit about the U.S. Democratic primaries that might amuse you in the meantime:

CNN did a story about how South Carolina black women are facing a tough decision between Obama and Clinton. "For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?" A unique dilemma...because of course, no voters have ever had both a race and a gender before, and so this is the very first time anybody's ever had to make a decision like this, right?

The best part, though? Readers got pissed off by the story (you think?) and so CNN did a story on that, too. The best quote is: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"

*snerk*

Unofficial 2007 Blogging Dipper Awards

Apparently, I have been nominated for the "Best Feminist Dipper Blog" award in Uncorrected Proofs' Unofficial 2007 Blogging Dipper Awards. Gosh. I'm afraid my feminist content here is actually pretty meagre. I mean, I've always been partial to this ancient post, but it seems auspicious that its first sentence is "I'm never going to win any awards as a feminist." And it wasn't written in 2007, either.

Anyway, if you're interested in voting, feel free to drop an email to politicaldiscord@hotmail.com. My personal choice in that category is Politics 'n Poetry, though.