If Conservatives in this country seem unduly obsessed with blaming everything that doesn't go their way on "elites," just remember — it's not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you.

We may recall that there was a big brouhaha some years ago when Canada's then-Conservative government proposed a few modest changes to our nation's voter ID laws. Over 70% of the public supported these changes, including a proposal to stop letting ID-less voters prove their identity by having someone "vouch" for them at the polling station, but that support was drowned out by the opposition of the important people, who were unanimously opposed.

Journalists wrote long editorials describing how Canadian democracy would lay in smoldering ruins if we got rid of vouching, and — even more horrifyingly —eliminated the right of voters to identify themselves with those little Elections Canada cards you get in the mail (as opposed to one of Election Canada's 40 other acceptable forms of ID). The opposition parties wheeled out expert witness after expert witness to testify against the changes, and the head of Elections Canada, Marc Mayrand was indignant enough to blow a chunk of his budget commissioning a bunch of big-shots to run around calling the Tory changes an "attack on democracy." (Mayrand, of course, was hardly a disinterested party, given the Tory changes also proposed stripping certain powers from his office). In the end, the Conservatives partially conceded to their elite opponents, watering down their reforms somewhat, but the PR damage remained immense.

Flash forward to today, and it's now the Liberals who are pushing changes to how Canadian elections work. Far more dramatic changes, in fact — they're proposing ditching the electoral system Canada has used for more than a century-and-a-half and replacing it with something brand new. Most observers conclude that adopting an alternative voting system, in turn, will work to the Liberals' electoral advantage. As the CBC's Eric Grenier put it, in the aftermath of any Liberal change to the system "the scales may be tipped in their favour enough to ensure no other change could ever occur."

The Trudeau government believes they both can and should make this change through statutory law alone, and oppose holding a national referendum on the matter. The Canadian public overwhelmingly disagrees, with the percentage opposed ranging somewhere between the mid-60s to low-70s. Elite opinion, however, is entirely elsewhere.

Most of the "expert" panelists called before the Liberals' electoral reform committee have spoken strongly against the idea of a referendum, as have pro-electoral reform lobby groups like Fair Vote Canada. Even good ol' Marc Mayrand has been piping up once again, saying he thinks the government doesn't have to hold a referendum if it doesn't want to, echoing the Liberal Party line that parliament has "the support of Canadians and they should be making those decisions."

If you're looking for a good answer on why the Tories' mild, popular changes to our electoral process received such strenuous resistance while the Liberals' far more dramatic and unpopular proposals received so little, I'm afraid there isn't one. The only real explanation is that in this country, elite opinion overwhelmingly congeals around whatever is good for the parties of the left. They put up a mighty pretense of being evidentiary and impartial, yet somehow they always wind up reaching the same conclusions.

The Tories' voter ID laws were seen as working to the advantage of the Conservatives (wrongly, as the 2015 election proved) so the important people were opposed. Changing the electoral system, by hook or by crook, in contrast, will almost certainly make it harder for Conservatives to get elected, so it's something worth endorsing.

As I noted in a previous column, there is no magical "right" answer to the challenges of voting. Even putting aside what we think about minority governments and whatnot, multiparty democracy is a mathematically imperfect concept that cannot be "solved." There is no genius voting system hidden away somewhere that is capable of producing outcomes agreeable to everyone. Anyone who claims ownership of such an elixir is lying, probably at least partially to themselves.

What Canadians have right now is an electoral system whose origins are lost to history, meaning the public does not attribute its flaws or virtues to any particular prime minister or party. That's about as close as you get to neutrality these days. It's certainly miles better than a system that makes phony pretenses of political indifference while being crafted by the most cynically partisan among us.

Photo Credit: CBC News

 

Written by J.J McCullough

In the world of finance, we speak of bubbles, artificial increases in price driven by speculation rather than any real change in the item's intrinsic value.

When a bubble bursts, investors who got taken in by the hype get hurt.  They get soaked.  Hosed.  Wiped out.  Wondering why they didn't see the signs.

Bubbles are a by-product of rumours and hearsay and insiders jealously protecting precious information from the public.  And those who can distinguish a bubble from an actual change in value, and those who can plan appropriately in both cases, can protect themselves from shocks and uncertainty while doing well themselves.

So is it such a stretch to imagine that bubbles exist in the political realm as well?  What if the pollsters, pundits and other paid experts have gotten it so wrong, so often in Canadian politics because they bought the hype and didn't properly value the parties, leaders and candidates?

Think of the Michael Ignatieffs, the Thomas Mulcairs, the Paul Martins, the Tim Hudaks, the Pierre Karl Peladeaus, the Olivia Chows.  Think of how many people were counting Christy Clark out, how many first-generation Quebecers were ready to pack up and move down the 401 over the Parti Quebecois' Charter of Values, and how the CPC tried to convince us that Justin Trudeau was just not ready.  Think of all the political careers that came to sudden and ill timed ends and think of all of those that could have been and never got started.  All because the people we pay to tell us what's really going on in Canadian politics get caught up in mindless speculation.

But then again, politicians pay these people to make them seem like a big deal.  Suspect polls, softball questions from journalists and astroturfed support on social media may be dodgy, but it's all par for the course.  Even if they are making something out of nothing, the purveyors of these services can still say they are achieving name recognition for their clients.  And in a country like Canada, where politics is relatively small-ball and low-dollar, and where most elected officials enjoy a relatively low public profile, that's no small feat.

The real trouble starts when the political establishment itself doesn't notice a bubble brewing.

Populist politicians- Trumps, Dutertes, Fords, Le Pens- all have one thing in common.  They aren't taken seriously by those with power until it's far too late.

So when a "connected" political person says, "So and so isn't a serious political operator," or, "Those people are not worth worrying about," you can bet your bottom dollar that they won't see the train until right before it hits them.

Smart politicians are prepared for every eventuality, no matter how outlandish.  This is what Kathleen Wynne did when she abruptly announced that there would be no further green energy contracts signed in Ontario.

She saw that Patrick Brown was getting traction over rising hydro bills- something no other PCPO Leader has been able to do yet- and she took the pot off the boil quickly.  Rates will still go up, of course, but now that Wynne has "acted" she will be spared the worst of the fallout.

Brown- who may or may not have realized that Wynne yanked the rug out from under him- immediately took credit for the Premier's change of heart.  After years of stonewalling from the OLP on this issue he may have felt some celebration was in order.

It only takes a moment for a bubble to pop, however, and by acknowledging the Premier's gesture he allowed voter frustration over the hydro issue to dissipate.  If rates go up again he will find that he will have to start all over from the beginning- and he'll have to work twice as hard since voters now see that Wynne can and will act to ease their hydro burden, and voting against her might cause her to be less than merciful.

Wynne can also see that there is another bubble forming behind Patrick Brown- pressure to find an issue on which he can distinguish himself from the Liberals in time for the election.

As much as he's been presenting himself as a candidate who is offering change for change's sake and little else, Brown's dalliance with the opponents of the sex-ed curriculum, his alliance with physicians' groups upset over the way they've been treated by the Wynne government and, indeed, his stoking of the hydro bill fire speaks to a desire to gain the upper hand wherever he can get a handhold- or to give his more aggressive allies an opportunity to watch the Liberals squirm.

But now the alliance with the so-cons has ended and the OMA's agreement with the province has been scuppered.  If Brown can't drill Wynne on hydro during Question Period, well, what's left?

And so Kathleen Wynne quietly hopes that in order to keep his attack dogs at bay, Patrick Brown takes the bait and pledges himself to Something Really Stupid- another 100,000 job cuts, another Faith Based Schools, another No Foreign Workers.

If that bubble bursts, the PC's are going to be all wet- and the Liberals are going to be safely high and dry for another election cycle.

Written by Josh Lieblein