Party Politics: Part One, Seeking the nomination

This week I'm starting another series of interviews and articles about the "mechanics" of party politics. I'm doing this because I'm concerned about what seems to be a very low level of understanding among the general population about what it means to be in a political party and participate in the democratic process. 

I saw a lot of this while I was in the Green Party---both by non-members and members alike. I think that this fuels a lot of the angry complaints that I hear from people who say "politicians are all crooks", "all they care about are their pensions", etc. I don't think that anyone should be surprised by this state of affairs. As of 2001, only two percent of Canadians are actually members of political parties. (See p-52 of Activating the Citizen: Dilemmas of Participation in Europe and Canada.) And remember, many (if the not the majority) of these people only join to vote for a particular candidate in a leadership campaign.  And if most people aren't active party members, don't expect the legacy media to give citizens any idea about how political parties work! 

Among other things, I think this collective ignorance also fuels the dangerous tendencies of people to seek out a demagogue who will arrive on his white horse to save the membership from all the tedious work of having to build the party and then educate the public through door-knocking, public meetings, and, events like summer barbecues. Of course I'm talking about Donald Trump. But Doug Ford and Elizabeth May are also examples of people who parachuted into a party and took it over without wasting any time actually getting to know much about it first.

I really don't like this tendency. That's because a great many of the checks and balances which preserve our democracy come from its leaders being "known quantities" who can be trusted with power. Even with the best of intentions, outsiders simply cannot possibly know enough to be good at the complex task of running a political party---let alone a government. 

My hope is that if I can publish a series of articles showing just how important a political party can be, and how much work goes into making it a functional part of society, I will encourage at least a few people to join a party themselves. And even better, I hope that some people will be hesitant to support an "outsider" who doesn't have any ties to an existing party structure. 

&&&&

My first conversation introduces a woman by the name of Dr. Michelle Bowman, who is seeking the nomination for the Guelph Electoral District Association for the Green Party of Canada. I thought it would be important for people to realize that a huge part of being a politician involves getting elected. Moreover, this is a far from trivial task---even getting the nomination can be a lot of work. 

Michelle Bowman, photo provided by her and cropped by Bill Hulet.

I say this, because running for office is a very difficult, time consuming, and, expensive job. Moreover, unless you are in one of a small number of "safe" ridings, getting elected to a large extent is based on luck. And if you are in one of those, the nomination race can be just as gruelling as a full-blown election campaign. As such, I thought that nominations would be a good start. 

Having offered that intro, here's Michelle to speak for herself.

Cloudwalking Owl · Michelle Bowman Tells Us Something About Herself

Some explanation: the "Mountain Parks" that Bowman says she worked at are the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks which are registered as a World Heritage Site through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). If readers are interested in learning more about Focus on Nature, there's a nice website to check out. And here's link to the official website for Last Child in the Woods. 

Bowman's answer makes some pretty important points that readers should understand. First of all, she has credentials and has worked in complex, extended institutions---so she's proved that she is intelligent and has the organizational ability to do the job. Secondly, she is someone who has people skills so she can relate to ordinary folks at the front door. Finally, she has personal connections within the community that will help understand local issues and tap into a pool of supporters. These are important qualities that a successful politician needs to have.

Cloudwalking Owl · Michelle Bowman Why Seek The Nomination

Why someone wants to run is extremely important. That's because the enormous workload required to do the job well, plus the extreme forbearance one needs to represent and deal with a wide variety of often extremely emotional people, requires a huge personal commitment to "the big picture". This isn't to say that all politicians or elected officials are saints, but to do a decent job instead of a terrible one requires some pretty above-average qualities. And you simply cannot make the effort if it's about "me" instead of "we".

Bowman mentions Steven Harper's attempt to deal with environmental issues by stifling scientists. This was a very big problem from about 2008 to 2015 where the Conservatives seemed bound and determined to destroy the capacity of federal environmental research. It was also aimed at shutting down the ability of government scientists to share their findings with the general public. 

This was such a concern for civil servants that their union commissioned an Environics study to objectively measure the level of concern among government researchers. The report seems to have been taken off the union website, but luckily I found a copy on the Wayback Machine. Reading it, you can see exactly what Ms. Bowman is talking about. For example:

Environment Canada, for example, has seen its science budget cut by $125 million (17.5%); the National Research Council of Canada, $129 million (17.2%); Fisheries and Oceans, $28 million (10.2%). Similarly, some but not all departmental cuts have included the elimination of FTE [Full Time Equivalent---ie: a full time job] science positions: e.g., National Research Council of Canada (798 FTEs), Environment Canada (159 FTEs), Fisheries and Oceans (73 FTEs).

It also mentions those libraries that Bowman talked about:

They include the loss of storehouses of scientific knowledge and information, including the closure of seven libraries at DFO [Department of Fisheries and Oceans], six at NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] and the consolidation of five Parks Canada libraries into one at Environment Canada.

This had a terrible impact on the moral of government scientists, as was found by Environics polling:

Over 9 out of 10 scientists (94%) surveyed feel recent cuts have had a negative impact on overall science capacity in the federal government. Nearly 6 out of 10 (59%) believe the impact is major. In addition, over three-quarters of federal scientists (78%) report cuts to capacity in their own workplace. In the words of one scientist: “In 31 years on the job, never have I witnessed such systematic destruction of the scientific capability of the federal public service.” In the words of another: “Science has been cut to the bone; there is no way to reduce further without just stopping.”

Not only was research cut that would provide evidence at odds with Conservative ideology, the scientists left were put under the control of government "minders" whose job it was to ensure that they never said anything that contradicted "Harper-speak". This ranged from onerous bureaucratic control of communications with other scientists,

Not only have more restrictive policies compromised the ability of federal scientists to collaborate with international colleagues (73% are concerned that new departmental policies on intellectual property, permission to publish, and collaboration will compromise their ability to collaborate with international colleagues), but cuts to science and so-called red tape have limited scientists’ ability to attend conferences, courses and other events directly related to their work. According to the survey, only 36% of scientists are approved to go to such conferences, courses and events, and less than one quarter (24%) of scientists feel that the approval process for conferences, courses and other events is fair, transparent and performed on a timely basis.

to having Soviet-style minders listening in on scientists while having phone conversations with journalists. (This is mentioned in the YouTube video below). 

This was such an important moment in the evolution of Canadian environmental policy-making that I think that readers who might not be fully aware of what was going on might benefit from watching the following round-table that Steve Paikin at TV Ontario (TVO) chaired on the subject in 2013. (It's one of more interesting ones that I've seen.)

Strictly from a political point of view, I think it is important that candidates have a serious reason for running for public office. It is just too much work for too small a chance of success for anyone to get involved in the process unless they have a deep-seated reason for running. Of course, I'm not suggesting that candidates all have to have the same motivation for throwing their hat in the ring. But to run and run well, my personal belief is that they should see it as a "vocation" rather than a job or something to pad a resume.

Perhaps even more importantly, I think it is really important for elected officials to have some deep, burning reason for running because if they don't the tendency will be to too readily "trade off" policy in order to win office. The whole raison d’être for Greens is to stop treating environmental issues as just another special interest that can be traded off against something else in order to win an election. If idealists won't run, we leave the door open for opportunists---and that can be a disaster.

Unfortunately, we've recently seen some elected officials run and win big who seem to have gotten involved for spurious reasons. For example, it appears that Donald Trump never expected or even originally wanted to get elected president. Instead, the game plan was to use the campaign to build up his brand and fan base so after he lost to Clinton he could launch a new right-wing media empire. Similarly, Doug Ford inherited a political machine from both his father and brother that he used to launch his leadership bid. Beyond that, his motivation seemed to primarily be aimed at tearing-down the Liberals and Toronto City Hall---who he probably thinks never treated him with the respect he deserves. Honestly, I simply don't see either as being adequate reasons to get involved in politics.

&&&&

I put a lot of work into this blog. If you can afford it, why not subscribe? Pay Pal and Patreon make it easy to do. 

&&&&

 

Cloudwalking Owl · Nomination Procedure Michelle Bowman

It's important to understand that running for a nomination is an institutional process. Michelle mentions that she had to be vetted by the Green Party of Canada bureaucracy to ensure that she doesn't have any skeletons in her closet and is considered a "good fit" for the party. By law, the ultimate decision about whether or not a person is good enough for the party is made by the leader---who has to sign the nomination papers to get someone onto the ballot. Some people believe that this gives the party leader too much power (for example, Michael Chong). But even if this power rested in the local Electoral District Association, I think it is still a good thing to put candidates under a microscope to ensure that something very surprising doesn't pop up in the campaign.

Just to suggest two examples of why this is a good idea, I suspect that many people in the Conservative Party of Ontario wish they'd done a better job vetting Randy Hillier when he first ran. Then they wouldn't have had to kick him out of the caucus. Similarly, I suspect that many federal Conservatives believe that their party dodged a bullet when Max Bernier failed in his bid to lead the federal Tories. 

Cloudwalking Owl · Michelle Bowman Talks About GPC And Leadership Issues

It's important for a candidate to have some feel for the greater party structure. That's because running a campaign is much, much more than just writing down a bunch of policy ideas and registering to get onto the ballot. There has to be a national presence too, and that can only come from a "head office" that can co-ordinate campaigns, build a profile with the national media, and so on. It is also useful to get a feel for the leader of the party. 

So check off a couple more boxes for Bowman.

Cloudwalking Owl · Michelle Bowman Do You Have Many Volunteers For Your Nomination Race

Building your nomination team is a very good "dry run" for seeing how well you can do in the general election. Bowman is identifying a small number of people who can fill key positions and making sure that they get the training necessary to "hit the ground running". She's also building a list of folks who can fill important non-leadership jobs. These people can be tapped when the time is right. But she is also being careful not to "burn out" these volunteers by asking too much of them too early in the process. She knows that the formal nomination race won't come until August and that the general election will then come at the discretion of the Prime Minister. 

So it pays for the candidate to "keep her powder dry". She doesn't want to peak too early in the race.

Cloudwalking Owl · Michelle Bowman Final Words

And the final comments show an interest in a broad range of issues that show that Bowman sees the value of creating a "big tent" while at the same time staking out a position for the candidate. Green Party candidates have tended to have more messaging leeway than other parties---probably because of the lack of centralized infrastructure as much as trying to do politics in a new way. As a result, past Guelph Greens have sometimes shown an almost small "c" conservative emphasis on market-based solutions and support for small businesses. As a new generation of voters have come of age, I suspect that this messaging won't be as effective. Instead, I think young people are interested in dealing with inequality of various forms and less likely see the market-based solutions as being the answer. 

My gut instinct is that politicians willing to suggest innovative experiments in government policy instead of neo-liberal ideology will do well. So again, Bowman seems to be setting her campaign sails to harness prevailing winds---an essential part of any winning electoral strategy.

&&&&

Moreover I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!

Why Political Parties Are Important

Last Monday there was a joint news conference by Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. They both said that they were still interested in being members of Parliament, but weren't interested in being members of political parties. Instead, they want to run as, and, if elected, sit as independents.

Jody Wilson-Raybould,
Photo by Erich Saide, image c/o Wiki Commons.

I took the trouble to watch Raybould's entire press conference on YouTube, and I have to admit that I wasn't impressed. I thought most of what she said consisted just of empty platitudes, but there were a few things that "jumped out" at me. I thought I'd take the time to "deconstruct" them for my readers, and in doing so explain why I was so disappointed.

&&&&

There is less room for partisanship in our evolving democracy.

The thing about the word "partisan" is that it really just means "someone who supports a particular point of view". If you are totally against "partisanship", you are ultimately against basing your politics on anything but immediate expediency. (That's the expressed viewpoint of Donald Trump when he says "he's a "deal maker".) I find it pretty hard to believe that this is what Raybould means. In fact, it's pretty obvious to me that she's a "partisan" in favour of her own particular way of wanting to do politics, as opposed to some other type. Reading between the lines, I might assume that what she means is that she's opposed to party loyalty based exclusively superficial reasons. But I'd suggest that that is not a fair understanding of why the various members of the Liberal party do what they do.

As an independent I will be truly free to take the guidance of the citizens of Vancouver Granville and to represent you. I will not have to try and convince myself that just because the way it has always been done means that it must continue to be done this way.

A lot of politicians make noises about "taking the guidance" of the citizens, but that's pretty much an empty slogan. That's because it is enormously difficult and expensive to scientifically poll an entire riding in order to find out what people really do think about an issue. It's certainly not enough to just listen to the people who call your office on the phone, write you emails, or, show up at town halls---all of those avenues are easily manipulated by organized campaigns to sway leaders. As Liz Sandals stated when I interviewed her, she could read letters and emails from constituents where the same few talking points repeatedly came up over and over again---which indicates that they had been organized by some sort of organization (party, church, website, etc) to push a specific agenda. How exactly is listening to these campaigns an improvement over supporting a party's agenda?

Moreover, people's opinions are pretty much worthless unless they are informed. We have lots of folks spewing misinformation like "vaccines cause autism". What if a majority of the phone calls to her constituency office supported a ban on measles vaccination? Would Raybould "take the guidance" of her voters and vote in favour? Or would she follow her conscience and the best evidence that has been presented to her? Isn't part of the problem we face as a society that there are entrenched interests who have learned to effectively use propaganda to get people to do things (like denying climate change) that are objectively not in their own interest? Where What does Raybould's "principled stance" mean in this situation?

And that last sentence (I will not have to try and convince myself that just because the way it has always been done means that it must continue to be done this way.) seems to imply that the only reason MPs won't support whatever it is she is proposing is because of some sort of inertia. Does she really believe this? Or is this just another partisan smear---but one that favours her worldview instead of another's?

Before 2015 I'd never been involved in federal or provincial politics and I'd never been a member of a political party. My leadership experience before running to be your MP has been in the indigenous world. Advocating for transformation in the relations with indigenous peoples. As some of you know, in my cultural teachings, we strive to work though consensus. While there are a diversity of views, tensions and challenges, we do not entrench them in political parties. And we often frown on personal ambition. 

She freely admits that she has absolutely zero experience in parliamentary politics. She hasn't even had a membership in any political party. And yet, she ran and was immediately made the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Then she had a disagreement with the head of her party, and made a big stink over something. She got kicked out of the caucus and now wants to tell all the other politicians how they really should act.

This reminds me of a sort of fundamentalist preacher I used to hear during my childhood in "Jesusland". They used to go on and on about how awful they'd been and all the terrible life choices they'd made before they found Jesus. But now they had him in their hip pocket and they wanted everyone else do what they said they should do---specifically because of their past history of making bad choices. When I heard this, the immediate thing I thought was that it all boiled down to "I made lots of horrible life choices in the past, and now I want you to follow my latest one".

The situation isn't exactly the same. But I am concerned about her reference to "consensus". The thing about that ideal is that it gives enormous power to whomever wants to veto and prevent something from happening, but precious little to anyone who wants to do anything. Moreover, it also involves ferocious battles over who gets to define what the "status quo" is, and what is "innovation" (ie: that thing that is easily vetoed.)

The commitment to consensus, the importance of speaking the truth, and striving to honour and uphold each other. These are the core values of my culture and teachings. 

The big issue is deciding what exactly "the truth" is, and what does it mean to "honour and uphold each other"?

&&&&

These are the ultimate questions, aren't they? I often meet people who think it is remarkably easy to identify the "truth" of any problem. Generally, if they let me, I find after asking a few questions that they really don't know very much at all. This is what is known as "Socratic questioning", and it's the basis of philosophy and science. (I was dealing with it in my last editorial Truth is a Conversation.)

One of the things you learn by being in a political party (and I was for many years) is that there are a great many different ideas about "the truth" and it is tremendously difficult to create any sort of consensus about what it might be. And if you want to work together as a group towards a common purpose---be it winning an election or preventing runaway climate change---it is tremendously difficult to create a process where everyone feels "honoured" and "upheld".

It's not only a question of people having different points of view, it's also that no matter where you are in the "party food chain", you simply cannot be involved in every decision that directly affects you. The party leadership consists of many people who are all tremendously busy with the demands of government business, party business, dealing with the media, meeting with community leaders, constituents, and, preparing for the next election. And when you do get a chance to bring your concerns to someone, they have to consider how a specific decision will seem to people who don't know what you know, and who live in totally different circumstances. Moreover, all the people you deal with are human beings who get sick, are tired, are under stress, who are carrying baggage from their childhood----who basically make just as many stupid mistakes as everyone else. In fact, being in a political party is much like being in a giant, fractious, crazy family.

You have to have a thick skin and be tremendously aware of the frailties inherent in the human condition to be successful in politics. You also have to learn that "The perfect is the enemy of the good".  And the key thing you have to learn is that you cannot work with a group if your bring to it the attitude of "My way or the highway". 

If Jody Wilson-Raybould had been involved in the Liberals for any length of time she would realize how incredibly hard it is to "get along" with a huge number of people who have different personal histories, different points of view, and, different life situations. It's not a trivial thing to do. But if you can manage to do it, you are doing something of great importance to society. You are working with an institution that "stitches together" the nation and forges some sort of common worldview that can make things "work". It does this by creating a mechanism where people can get together and make the compromises that are necessary if people are going to live together---not in harmony, but at least without burning the house down. That's why we have political parties. 

I don't want to sound too harsh, but in the light of my experience in politics, I couldn't help but think that her entire 15 minute press conference was just a lot of empty verbiage that meant pretty much nothing at all. Indeed, it reminded me of an episode of the sitcom Cheers that I'd seen years ago. I found a scene from it on YouTube. Take a look and see if it rings "true" to you.

&&&&

One last point. Elizabeth May approached Raybould with a suggestion that she join the Green Party. That was, IMHO, a perfectly acceptable solution to both her and Philpott's situation. It is very difficult to get elected as an independent for purely practical reasons. It might seem that the two MPs would find themselves a better "fit" in the Green caucus anyway.

But then May said something in an interview that was absolutely extra-ordinary. She said that she would step aside and let Raybould run for the leadership of the party---presumably with her endorsement. In effect, she was treating the party leadership like her own private possession that she was free to give away to someone else. I mentioned how appalled I was by this at a breakfast meeting and someone immediately piped up and said how hard May works, and how committed she is to the environment. Luckily someone else immediately replied for me by saying that it was possible to be hard working and committed, and still have a tremendously wrong-headed view of leadership at the same time. (That allowed me to keep my powder dry.)

Elizabeth May is also someone who'd never been involved in the Green Party before she became leader. As it transitions away from her being the only elected member of Parliament, I suspect that there are going to be internal battles as something like an "internal culture" begins to grow within the Green Party of Canada. Just remember that this isn't a betrayal of anyone's ideals---it's just a symptom of childhood's end and a movement towards developing an adult point of view. I do, however, wish people would get rid of the "star candidate" complex that parachutes people into high public office with absolutely zero experience in political parties, though. 

&&&&

This week I saw a twitter rant from Adam Donaldson about how hard it is to get people to support indie media in the city. He made the perfectly reasonable point that if 1,000 people did a two dollar a month subscription to Guelph Politico, he'd have the sort of financial independence that would allow him cut a great deal of stress out of his life. Indeed, he said he was on the verge of calling it quits because it's so hard to get support from the community. I could say much the same thing. What triggered this was a complaint by someone who missed the good old days of the Guelph Mercury.

Well, I wrote a column for three years at the old Merc, and those days weren't really all that good. And I too get a bit miffed when I hear nostalgic whining about how great it was when a pile of dead trees that had been bled dry by corporate vampires like Conrad Black was delivered to your door every day. For a very long time before it died, it was a dreadful paper. And it cost a great deal more than $2/month too. We have well over 100,000 people in this city. If people had the idea that they need to pay for local news just like anything else, and were willing to pay a trivial amount of money through a Patreon subscription, we'd have a thriving independent local news culture in this city. But you've got to actually do it. 

&&&&

Furthermore, I say to you---climate change must be dealt with!

Making Up Our Minds: The Importance of "Fiddles"

I was involved in various forms of activism for many years. Amongst other things, I've sat on the board of directors of OPIRG, was Communications Chair for the Green Party of Canada, had a lot of influence in the development of the constitutions of the Green Party of Ontario and Canada, had a hand in organizing the Grand River Watershed Congress and the Municipal Democracy Movement, ran an activist school titled the Public Interest College, helped organize and negotiate with MacDonald's Canada to get rid of extruded polystyrene clam shells, started and built the Guelph Green Party Constituency Association into one of the strongest ones in Canada, started and ran a local currency system that had 23 downtown stores accepting my "LETS Bucks", sued Walmart on behalf of a coalition of religious faiths to help preserve the Saint Ignatius property, and, probably other things I've forgotten about.

As a result of this ludicrous life I've been exposed to several different ways that organizations make collective decisions. I absolutely loathe most of them. Several groups used something called "formal consensus decision-making". Basically, this is a system where each member of the group is allowed to "block" a decision that they don't agree with. In effect, each person present gets a veto over the majority. The theory of consensus suggests that the way to stop this from becoming a complete exercise in frustration is to "build consensus" through meaningful, gentle, conversation.

The problem with this is that even if there were no totally intransigent individuals totally uninterested in listening to other people's opinion---these groups seemed to be filled with them---this "consensus building" ate up enormous amounts of time at meetings. And because every decision was such a labour of Heracles, there were two results that I---and it seemed almost no one else---noticed.

First, because so many issues ended-up "falling off the clock", the paid staff and directors of these groups ended up making most of the decisions---simply because the democratic processes never did it for them. Funny thing, but most of these folks weren't too upset about this.

And second, many people were functionally excluded from taking part in decision-making. If you are a busy person---with young children, your own business, or, a demanding job---you just don't have the time to waste hours and hours of it in discussions that end up coming to nothing anyway. This meant that organizations I was involved with often ended up being controlled by people who---for one reason or another---had lots of time on their hands and no responsibilities. (I'll let the reader "fill in the blanks" on that.) As a general rule, these are not people with a great deal of experience in the practical realities of the world or much of an ability to "put themselves in other people's shoes".

Jo Freeman, photo by Carolmooredc.
Public Domain, c/o Wiki Commons

I'm not the only person who has recognized these problems. There was a paper written in 1970 by a woman named Jo Freeman who called this thing The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Her basic thesis was that if a group doesn't create practical decision-making structures that deal with the limitations that people's lives put on democracy, it invariably creates a vacuum that will be filled by an unaccountable elite.

Freeman's point of view is really unpopular with the people who already benefit from the existing system. I saw this starkly in a group (which will remain nameless) that I cajoled into bringing in some facilitators to talk about class issues. The person who led the workshop raised the idea that a group that holds meetings over the late afternoon, and which has very long meetings, will practically exclude participation by anyone who has a nine-to-five job or a young family. That was it. At that point (only 15 minutes into the presentation) the young, "hip", activist-types who ran the organization (and had the time to attend the marathon meetings) started screaming, hooting and hollering, and, shut down the workshop. The consultant we'd brought in was blase about the reaction and seemed resigned to this sort of response to the concerns he raised.

&&&&

I'm not raising this issue because I want to slag activist organizations. Please remember that for all my carping, I spend decades of my life working with these groups. But they were useful to me because they allowed me to understand the absolutely huge importance that process has for democracy. The point I learned was that a flawed process can result in an organization being fundamentally incapable of representing the best intentions of the membership.

This is a lesson that I've taken and used to look at the world around me. For example, people routinely forget that the way we count the votes in elections has a huge impact on the results. But consider this. Doug Ford's Conservatives won 76 seats with 40.5% of the popular vote in 2018, whereas under Tim Hudak they only won 28 seats with 31.3% in 2014. That means that a 29% increase in the popular vote translated into a 270% increase in seats and a majority government. The same sort of math holds for all the parties----Kathleen Wynn's Liberals won 58 seats with only 38.7% of the vote in 2014.

This fact is well known, if difficult to find out. One of the things that's always intrigued me about the percentage of votes cast is how difficult it used to be to find this anywhere. It is difficult---perhaps impossible---to find on the Elections Ontario website (I tried to find it when writing this editorial, but gave up.) Journalists used to almost never report it, although I did find a reference in the CBC. Where you usually can find it is Wikipedia, which is "the exception that proves the rule". My unsupported hypothesis is that Elections Ontario doesn't want to high-light how undemocratic "first-past-the-post" is, and, the mainstream media doesn't want to detract from the "horse-race" coverage that dominates most coverage. "Small change in voter support leads to overwhelming majority" headlines just don't work in that frame. The Wikipedia is written by independent volunteers without any sort of hidden agenda---which is why it is usually the source to find percentages.

&&&&

Years ago I had my portrait taken by a local artist as part of a commission he'd got to paint downtown Guelph's "characters". It was fascinating to watch him create a full oil painting in one short hour. As he said "Yes, one hour of work---and a lifetime of practice". That's what writing these stories is like for me. I've put in more than 40 years at various projects. The result is what you get. If you think that they are worth reading, why not subscribe through Patreon or put something in the Tip Jar? (Thanks Oxanna and Warren for being so awesome!) If you can't afford that, why not share through social media? 

&&&&

I have a term for these subtle little games that people use to manipulate the process. I call them "fiddles". It's hard to blame any particular individual when it comes to the creation of our absurd "first-past-the-post" system, but I certainly can lay blame on anyone who continues to support it. They know damn well that it is undemocratic, but they simply like things the way they are and to Hell with the idea that everyone should be represented in Parliament. I came across a more obviously constructed fiddle when I was involved with the Green Party of Canada.

There was a law that said that there had to be a publicly-accessible record of everyone who'd made a donation to a political party. The idea was that you could look this up and see who gave what to your local MP. The problem was that these were paper records and the listings were random. They weren't alphabetical, they weren't by size of donation, they were just tossed together like a salad. As you might imagine, this meant that it was a LOT harder to figure out cui bono (Latin for "who benefits") from a piece of legislation. This was so outrageous that a Green Party member took Elections Canada to court and a judge forced it to issue a electronic version of this list, so people could use a search engine to find the specific information that the paper version hid. (Unfortunately, I am working from memory here as I couldn't find any reference to this obscure piece of history that happened before the emergence of the World Wide Web.)

&&&& 

These sorts of fiddles exist everywhere. A friend of mine once told me how the representatives of the unions representing autoworkers raised a lot of procedural quibbles in order to "wait out the clock" at an NDP convention when it looked like a resolution committing the party to moving towards an "car-free Ontario" might pass. (She was so disgusted by the experience that she tore up her membership and joined the Liberals.) I certainly saw lots in the Green Party. With a little research I'm sure I could find some for both the Liberals and Conservatives.

This sort of thing absolutely dominates our democracy, but most folks are totally oblivious to it. Indeed, if you rub many people's noses in this stuff, they will often say that they just don't understand what the fuss is all about. And yet I'm convinced that it is tremendously important in a wide variety of ways. In Ontario we currently have a party bent and determined to rip to pieces a wide variety of infrastructure to deal with a myriad of problems---most notably anything to deal with climate change. And yet, if you look at the polling numbers, a majority of the citizenry are really concerned about it.

Image from Abacus Data, used under "Fair Use" Copyright Provision

If it weren't for the first-past-the-post fiddle, we would probably have a NDP/Liberal coalition government that would never have ripped up the cap-and-trade agreement and wouldn't have cut funding for forest fires, flood prevention, and, Dao-only-knows-what other important infrastructure.

&&&&

It's not really all that surprising that people don't know about all this stuff. Almost no one who knows a lot about how political parties actually function bothers to try to explain it to them. It's a downer to learn this sort of thing, and you don't get people involved in your group by pointing out to them how they are getting manipulated by the folks "hidden behind the curtain". The people who do know have to decide whether or not they want to use these fiddles themselves, and thereby get ahead in the organization; or make a fuss about them and end up being vilified by the rank-and-file for "being negative" and the elites for exposing how they manage the democratic system to their ends. Most of this sort of thing just goes over the heads of the membership. That's a pity, as it is something that anyone who really wants to build a true democracy should spend some time thinking about. So as Jesus says in the Gospels: "He who has ears, let him hear".

&&&&

Furthermore, I say to you---climate change must be dealt with!

Bonus Podcast! Bill Hulet interviewed by Adam Donaldson at "Guelph Politico"

This week I was interviewed with that giant of Guelph indie media, Adam Donaldson. We talked about a range of things: alternative media, the history of the Green Party, the upcoming municipal election, and so-forth.  Listen to the podcast at this link, and check out "Guelph Politico" too.

The intrepid Adam A. Donaldson, Guelph's indie media pioneer.
(Stolen off Google Images.)

&&&&

This time I'm not begging for money for me, but all indie media. Guys like Adam bust their butts working to give the public timely, useful information. I work nights, but I can follow what takes place at City Hall meetings by watching Donaldson's twitter feed. I also listen to his podcasts, which is the only place you can get long-form interviews with local politicians and officials of all stripes. I support him through Patreon---perhaps you should too.