Why the Green Party Leader Failed

 

Former Green Party of Canada leader, Annamie Paul. Image c/o Wikimedia.

Last week the leader of the Green Party of Canada resigned after a disastrously short time at the helm. There have been allegations of racism and antisemitism, but I think that just about all the mainstream media have totally misunderstood what happened to Annamie Paul. I think my readers might benefit from my analysis. But to understand that, I'm going to have to do a bit of a "deep dive" and explain some political concepts that I don't think the vast majority of people think about much.

&&&&

In the interests of full disclosure, I founded the Green Party of Canada EDA in Guelph. I also sat for a while on the Green Party of Canada Federal Council as the Communications Chair. I also spear-headed a not very successful campaign to reform the constitution of the GPC. My involvement dramatically declined once Elizabeth May became leader. I don't know much more about the personalities involved in the recent dispute. But for reasons I hope will become obvious in the body of this Op Ed, I think that that's irrelevant. And I have double-checked the points I want to make with regard to the constitution, so I think I'm on pretty firm ground. 

Having said that, as a general case, I see all my statements as being provisional. If new information comes along that would cause me to modify them, so be it. If some reader takes issue with the facts as I describe them below, I'm always interested in listening to constructive criticism. (That's why this blog has a Comments section.) 

&&&&

The first thing that people have to understand is that there are different layers to causes. An old nursery rhyme points a finger toward this issue.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost,
for want of a shoe the horse was lost,
for want of a horse the knight was lost,
for want of a knight the battle was lost,
for want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
So a kingdom was lost—all for want of a nail.

The point is that issues that seem insignificant to people can cascade into bigger and bigger problems---to the point of having catastrophic consequences.

President Harry Truman was famous for putting a sign on his desk to the effect that "the buck stopped" with him for any decision that the US government made. 

Harry Truman. Public domain image.

The sentiment sounds good, but unfortunately it doesn't really make any sense. Institutions follow their own internal logic based on the way they were set up. President Truman was at the mercy of the structure of both the Democratic Party and the United States of America. Similarly, I think Annamie Paul was at the mercy of the constitution of the GPC.

I generally believe in what people call "systems analysis" instead of individual responsibility. Our cultural/religious tradition predisposes us to blame individuals for the decisions they make instead of their past history or the institutions they serve. (There's that whole silly story about a talking snake and eating some fruit---.) I would argue that blaming the individual helps people channel their strong emotions, but in most cases if you look beneath the surface you can find a failed system that caused or at least made the problem worse. 

Take the example of Catholic priests raping children. Who was responsible?

Of course, the priests bear some guilt, but I would argue not most of it. How about the Bishops who kept hushing things up and transferring the offenders to new (dare I say "virgin") parishes? How about the teachings of the church---that say that every single person has total and absolute control over their instincts (like the sex drive) and thereby ill-prepare people to channel them into healthy outlets? And how about teaching that the sex instinct isn't normal and natural, but rather the promptings of Satan---doesn't that bear some of the blame too?

Beyond these issues, how about the way the church chooses people for the priesthood? Why did they select so many young men who had such complex issues over sexuality? Could it possibly be that they had a bias towards repressed, up-tight, conformists because the higher-ups didn't want the sort of independent, confident, thoughtful men who might "rock the institutional boat"? 

Looking at problems from the perspective of systems is hard to do. I too get the momentary "rage rush" that comes from wanting to beat some offender to a bloody pulp. But when I am able to put some distance between myself and the situation, I generally can see some sort of institutional mechanism that has fostered the problem before us. At that point my reason steps in and I tell myself "if we really want to fix the problem, reform the system---don't brutalize the individual".

With regard to the Green Party of Canada, I would argue that the constitutional structure of the party makes it almost impossible to govern. Elizabeth May is such a famous and charismatic leader that she was able to keep it a lid on it for her term of office. But leaders like May are few and far between, and I think that someone like Paul didn't have much of a chance to calm down the Brahma bull that is the GPC. 

An apt metaphor for Annamie Paul and the GPC? Public Domain image c/o Wikimedia Commons.

 

When Annamie Paul got elected, I suspect she didn't really understand the situation and assumed that she would be able to take over where May left off. But she lacked the fame and charisma that her predecessor had, which meant that she was never able to get the system to work for her. The result would probably seem to her to be a baffling refusal to comply with the leader's direction. And, I suspect it seemed to her like there was some sort of institutional prejudice. Moreover, with the right (ie: "wrong") mix of personalities, I can see how this would have led to a nasty feedback loop of bruised egos that lead to the very public melt-down we all saw. 

&&&& 

If you like these articles and you can afford it, why not subscribe? Pay Pal and Patreon make it easy to do.

&&&&

But before I get to that, I want to discuss another issue that I think most folks really haven't thought much about. Just what exactly is "politics"? I would argue that the basic, molecular building block of politics are personal relationships between individuals. 

Consider where politics comes from. In the pre-modern era, politics was all about networks of personal relationships. The Queen exerted her control over the state through appointing a group of courtiers, or, a retinue.  Here's a painting of Queen Elizabeth the First and her retinue, painted by Robert Peake in 1601.

Public domain image, photo c/o Wikigallery

Each of these courtiers would in turn have their own retinue, who would help him or her undertake the tasks that the monarch had entrusted to them. If it was needed, some of this "staff" would also have a retinue that they would assemble to help with their responsibilities. This entire system was called "patronage". Patronage is how authoritarian states are able to operate. It's also why they tend to be both very decentralized and prone to corruption. That's because loyalty only comes from being purchased (hence corruption), and, people tend to only be loyal to their patron (hence decentralization). 

Power flows from the top down in an authoritarian state, but in a democracy it is supposed to come from the bottom up. People who wish to amass power and influence in a democracy have to be elected by a group of supporters, not appoint a retinue of followers. 

But there is more than one of way to build supporters in a political party. The problem is that some methods are more inherently democratic and make the party more resilient while others are more top-down and make the party more fragile. My concern with the Green Party is that early on it sleep-walked into a system that is not very democratic and quite unstable. 

Under Canadian election law the basic building block of any political party is supposed to be the Electoral District Association (EDA). These aren't national organizations but instead are rooted in a specific geographic community, such as Guelph. 

The idea is that a group of people want to support some political ideal so they reach out to find similarly-minded individuals, sell party memberships to them, form an executive, raise money, bring in speakers, hold rallies, etc. They build a war chest, train volunteers how you run an election campaign, and, seek out people with a local profile to run as a candidate. Do this in communities across the country and you end up with a strong political party.

The key point to understand about this system is that it "roots" the member in a specific community. This carries with it two intangible, but extremely important virtues. 

First of all, in an EDA people have a much better chance to get to know the personalities and past history that each of us "carry around on our shoulders" (to use a phrase from Wendell Berry). For example, you can learn if someone can or can't be trusted to complete a task they've taken on, whether they can get along with different types of people, if they have a real commitment to the project or are just trying to build their own "brand", etc.    

Secondly, in a local EDA you have to work with other people who often don't see the world the way you do. This means that to accomplish anything you have to learn how to explain yourself, negotiate compromises with different points of view, and, prove to the other members that you will honour whatever collective decisions made---whether you agree with them or not. 

Under this old way of amassing political power, a pyramid is created where a small number of individuals build a "power base" of supporters in their local EDAs. This is then used to build connections with other local leaders within the party. Eventually a small number of people build followings of other local leaders, which gives them influence in the party-as-a-whole. They jostle with each other until some individual gets enough supporters among this group to end up in a leadership position.

In contrast, there is another road to political power that recently emerged from modern media. I suppose you can trace it all the way back to Pierre Eliot Trudeau and "Trudeaumania". That is, the leader of a party can become so famous that they end up being able get followers all across the country whom have never met and know almost nothing about him or her. This allows leaders to totally by-pass the local EDAs, which then becomes much less important to the internal political structure than things like social media and television news. 

This new way of building support involves creating a "brand" through manipulating the media. I suggest Trudeau the elder as the beginning of this in Canada because he was really good at pulling "stunts" that endeared him to his supporters. To understand what I'm talking about, take a look at the following short video.

 

I don't know if this pirouette was on purpose or just a quirk of Trudeau's personality, but it was certainly part of his "brand" to make fun of the monarchy, hang out with rock stars,  and generally "ham it up" for the cameras. This wasn't a liability, but key to his enduring popularity as a politician. That's because the average Canadian really didn't know much about him as a human being---they just responded to a two-dimensional persona that had been crafted by the mass-media. 

This really came home to me when he died. I---probably like the vast majority of other citizens---had no idea that Pierre Trudeau was a devout Catholic. Which just goes to show that it's tremendously important to keep reminding yourself that no matter how much you think you know something about a person in the "public eye", you really only know what little manages to get through the keyhole that is the media. Another example that should make you think is Bill Cosby. How many folks who thought of  him as "America's Dad" would have believed he was a serial rapist?

The thing is that Trudeau used his personal popularity to cement a close tie to the Liberal party---which was (and still is) firmly embedded in community EDAs. But now it is possible to build your brand to the point where you can thumb your nose at the local branches of your party and still end up being the head of a political party---hence Donald Trump.

The progression of this new way of building power in a political party manifests itself in things like directly electing the leader through a one-person, one ballot system. In contrast, under a community-based system each EDA elects delegates (based on the number of dues-paying members in that riding) who then go to a convention and negotiate among themselves to elect a leader. In addition, parties that go for this direct vote system usually allow leadership candidates to sell memberships and allow these new members---many of which have zero history or loyalty to the EDA where they live, or even the party itself---to vote for "their guy". 

The GPC chooses its leaders through a direct member voting system, just like most of the others. (I understand the Ontario provincial Liberals still use a delegate/convention system---I don't know about the NDP.) But it has gone one step further than the other parties and doesn't even have EDA delegates at their conventions (which they call "General Meetings")---which I think all the other parties still do.

If you look at the constitution of the GPC you will see the following clause: 

Article 8 General Meetings of the Entire Membership of the Party
8.1 General Meetings shall consist of:
8.1.1 individual Members in good standing who have one vote, and
8.1.2 delegates or Members carrying proxies, who are in good standing, and who have voting rights under one or more Bylaws that provide for voting by proxy. (Proviso: This clause shall not come into effect until the Members adopt such a Bylaw or Bylaws.)
8.2 A quorum shall be fifty (50) Members present at a General Meeting who are in good standing, representing at least two regions, as defined in the Bylaws.
8.3 General Meetings shall be held at least once every two years.
8.4 Sixty (60) days notice to Members is required to call a General Meeting.
8.5 General Meetings of Members shall be called in accordance with the Bylaws.
8.6 Special General Meetings of Members shall be called in accordance with the Bylaws.

Yes, you read that right. Some of the Green Party of Canada's most important decisions aren't made through consulting duly elected delegates from local EDAs across the country (like every other party I've ever heard of), instead they are made by whomever can afford and wants to show up at the convention. All you need to get things passed at a GPC General Meeting is for 49 random members from the area where the meeting is being held plus one more from somewhere else.

Think about the above state of affairs. Someone can show up at a Green Party of Canada convention who has amassed a great deal of credibility in his community, has inspired hundreds of members to join the party, and, built up the EDA into a major force---but his vote is no more important or weighty than someone who is considered a "flake" by the members of his community and hasn't lifted a finger to build the party. 

There are attempts to deal with this imbalance by having on-line referendums, but even if there were no problems with that system (I think that there are, but that's not the point I'm trying to make in this article) it still dramatically weakens the authority of the EDA in the structure of the party. What this means is that if you want to become a real influence in the GPC, there's no real sense in trying to build up a strong membership base and local organization. In fact, it's just a waste of your time and effort.  

To consider where real power lies within the GPC, consider the following two clauses in its constitution:

Article 6 Accountability
6.1 All Units and individuals within the Party are accountable to:
6.1.1 the membership in General Meeting,
6.1.2 the Federal Council when the membership is not in General Meeting.
6.2 Decisions of the Members in General Meeting shall have precedence over decisions of Federal Council, and any Federal Council decision that is inconsistent with a decision of the Members in General Meeting shall be null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.
6.3 Filings, and appointments, of the Party required by the Canada Elections Act, or other statute or regulation, including the endorsement of a candidate during an election, are under the direction of the membership in General Meeting or Federal Council as per Articles 6.1 and 6.2.
6.4 Unless otherwise specified by this Constitution, the Bylaws, or by the membership as the case may be, Federal Council, on behalf of the membership, is responsible for the overall implementation of actions as called for in this Constitution, the Bylaws, or in other decisions of the membership in General Meeting.

Article 9 Federal Council
9.1Composition of Federal Council The Federal Council shall be composed of:
9.1.1 A President.
9.1.2 The Leader.
9.1.3 One (1) representative from each Province of Canada.
9.1.4 One (1) representative representing the Territories of Canada.
9.1.5 A Fund Representative.
9.1.6 The Executive Director.
9.1.7 Two (2) Youth Representatives.
9.1.8 A Vice President English.
9.1.9 A Vice President French.

Real structural power resides with the Federal Council---who are elected on-line through the general membership, just like the Leader. And these people aren't beholding to their local EDA, which means that if you want power within the party, it makes a lot more sense to become nationally famous for one reason or another. This is hard to do, though, so another route is to become associated with someone else who is. If someone is really famous, their endorsement will go a long way towards getting you the votes you need to get your seat. At this point, the party begins to look like an old-fashioned patronage system with the party leader being able to rule through creating a retinue that rules the party. Does this remind you of anything?

Donald Trump and his cabinet. Public domain government image c/o Wikimedia.

Once Elizabeth May's mandate ended and she became a "lame duck" leader, Paul tried to fill her shoes. But she lacks the extreme public profile of May, which means that she'd never had the ability to get the Federal Council to abide by what she told them to do---because they aren't part of her retinue. 

Indicative of the point I'm trying to make is the actual policy where all of this blew apart. One of Paul's staff members made an outrageous threat against a sitting Green MP, namely that he would organize a campaign against her re-election if she didn't stop criticizing the government of Israel. Paul refused to fire him, and she crossed the floor to join the Liberals. (Here's an interesting article by Yves Engler that describes his take on the conflict.) I won't get into the specifics, but I would like to point out that the Greens are supposed to be focused primarily around an environmental understanding of politics and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is pretty far removed from that. A party that is firmly rooted in local Canadian communities wouldn't be stripping its gears over something so peripheral to the group's core mandate. Instead, this is exactly the sort of argument that one can expect from atomized individuals who's political engagement begins and ends with what they see on the Web. (Which isn't to deny that this is a big issue---but it just doesn't directly affect the vast majority of Canadians or environmentalists in particular. Instead, it's just one more generic issue that people have flame wars over on discussion boards.)

&&&&

Parties need the ability to survive ups and downs. This isn't going to happen if you build yours around something as volatile as celebrity leaders and web-based outrage. I contacted several party members for this article and the phrase I heard repeatedly was "dumpster fire". As the Biblical adage suggests, "a house built on sand cannot stand".

Unfortunately, the structural tendencies that I identified above are at work with all the other parties right now. I suspect that they are just more well-developed with the Greens because they don't have the long historical baggage of the others---including the retention of a delegate system for conventions. But I think that these parties have also been weakened by the same processes that I believe plague the Greens.

&&&&

How can the Greens---and by extension all the other parties---overcome the problem of centralizing power through rule by popularity contest and social media flash mob?  

In Marxism there is this idea called Parliamentary Cretinism. This is the idea that politics begins and ends with elections. I meet people over and over again who believe that there is this sort of iron curtain between activism and politics---you simply cannot be involved with both. This is complete and utter nonsense! This is a ridiculous idea---on par with reducing farming to just picking the crop without taking into account preparing the field, planting, weeding, fertilizing, etc.

For example, the NDP and public healthcare didn't spring fully-formed onto Parliament, they developed because of a long, intensive program that involved local EDAs---first in Saskatchewan and then across the country---organizing public meetings where people like Tommy Douglas explained what a single-payer healthcare could look like. And the Quiet Revolution that changed Quebec from a priest-ridden backwater into a powerful modern economy didn't just happen because of a vote in the Legislative Assembly. There was an entire generation of activists who fought against the status quo through things like the Asbestos Strike of 1949. That dispute involved activists who later became prominent leaders of the Liberal party---including a young Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

The Green Party of Canada could build for the long-term by getting back to it's roots. The Greens started out trying to be a party of activists who tried to be on the fore-front of big issues. When I was building the Greens in Guelph the operating principle was that we would only become successful if we served the people of Guelph---and we didn't need to wait to get people elected to do that. To that end, we "spark-plugged" a lot of different events in the community---from hosting "slow food" dinners, through organizing a slate of reform-minded candidates for municipal council, launching province-wide protests against solid waste, to bringing together representatives from all the environmental groups we could find along the Grand River for Watershed conferences.

The EDAs of political parties have potential resources that other activists can only dream of. They can fundraise by issuing tax receipts worth up to 75% of the donation. And they can use connections to other EDAs across the country and other similar parties around the world. (When I was with the Guelph Greens we helped the Irish Green Party with recycling information, Russian Greens concerned about solid waste from fast food restaurants, and, the Romanian Greens researching a Canadian-designed nuclear reactor that had been built in their country with slave labour.)

Politics is an integral part of democratic citizenship---it doesn't just happen during elections. And the Green Party needs to make building strong EDAs dedicated to helping raise the political literacy of local citizens key to success within the party---instead of trying to find already famous people to join and fill its key slots. The way to build strong EDAs is to serve the people, and this should be the only way to become a leader of the party. If the GPC doesn't take this route, IMHO, it doesn't deserve to survive as a political force. And the way to do this is to reform the constitution so it becomes a genuinely community-based party. 

&&&&

That's as good a place as any to end this. Remember to keep a positive attitude and work for good any way you can. 

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

How the Sausage Gets Stuffed

This blog is kind of a strange thing. It's not a charity and it's not political. In fact, it's a business. But I believe it serves a very important function in our community. What it is trying to do is create a space in the "body politic" where people can learn important, but rarely expressed facts about our society. Moreover, the editorial stance that I have taken on fits into the old model idea that the job of media is "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable".

This stand is in direct competition to two other models that are pretty much dominant nowadays. One of them could be characterized as "be totally objective to the point of refusing to take a stance on anything". Elizabeth May mentioned this in her announcement of her resignation as leader of the Green Party:

Photo from official GPC website.

I hold the media to account for failure to deal with the science in the course of this campaign. For continuing to talk about climate change as if people understood it. It's as if we were having a debate about the economy where no one in the room understood inflation.  

Elizabeth May, as quoted by Canadaland Short Cuts

                                  

This is a fundamentally ridiculous editorial stance to take, as the science has been proved, the results are already in front of our eyes in the form of floods and wild fires, and, the threat is objectively more dire than anything else that has faced human civilization. Yet, it is arguably the way most of the legacy media---including the CBC---still follows the story. (If you want to see how a large media organization that does take the climate emergency seriously would cover the file, I'd suggest taking a look at the National Observer.) 

The other model, of course, is the one taken by propaganda outlets that are actively trying to deceive readers as a way of supporting increasingly reactionary conservative political ideologies.

&&&& 

I suspect that most readers don't have a clue about how much work goes into creating my weekly editorials plus the "deep digs" that I've been putting out at the rate of about one a month. 

The thing to understand is that in order to write anything worth reading, a journalist has to be somewhat obsessive. In my case that means that I pretty much spend all day thinking about the stories that I'm writing.

Moreover, it means that I have to devote a huge amount of time exposing myself to many different things in order to "develop" stories. Most days this starts when I wake up, as I usually start reading news stories and listening to podcasts on my cell phone while still in bed. This continues after I get up with listening to podcasts while cooking breakfast. I generally listen to the Rachel Maddow Show, the Ezra Klein Show, Today Explained, Front Burner, bits of The Current, Guelph Politico, Open Sources Radio, and, The Weeds---as well as others that don't come out on a regular basis.  I usually also spend an hour or so watching the previous night's CBC national news on YouTube (this has the advantage of allowing me to fast-forward through bits of "fluff" and avoid most of the commercials). In addition, I try to read five different news sources every day: The National Observer, The Toronto Star, Guelph Today, The Guelph Mercury/Tribune, and, Adam Donaldson's Guelph Politico.

The value of this insane amount of news exposure is that it feeds my conveyor belt of ideas that I need to keep running in order to produce enough content to build a readership.

In addition I spend a lot of time going to events in order to "develop" community stories. This includes attending most of the Thursday "Breezy Breakfasts" organized by James Gordon and Phil Ault, as well as special events like James Gordon's Climate Emergency Show, the Green New Deal meetings, the Guelph screening of Election Day in Canada, Emerge Guelph's Talk as if Climate Change Mattered event, and so on. I find these events tremendously useful as they introduce me to people that I can interview at a later date so I can do my "deep dig" stories. 

&&&&

This raises the next issue. When I do interview someone, I have a process where I record them. If they don't want to "be the story", I use this information to go do future research. Unlike many mainstream reporters, I am generally not content to simply come up with a quote, attribute it to someone, and, then write the story. I try to go the one step further and double check what they are saying to see if it is actually true or not. Moreover, I also try to expand upon a statement to explain in greater detail---if necessary---so the reader can understand the context. 

If someone is a big part of the story---like a politician or local community leader---I try to create transcripts. Most reporters are increasingly content to just edit the sound file and put it up as a podcast. It is my opinion, however, that there is something about the written word that is superior to the spoken. One key part of this is the fact that if someone says something that is obscure or complex, if you are just hearing it, you generally don't have the option of going back to carefully parse out what they just said. In contrast, if you are reading a statement, the person transcribing the interview will have forced themselves to make sure that they understand what was said. Moreover, the reader is able to reread any sentence, or, stop and do a Google search to explain a new word or concept that they don't understand. This dramatically improves comprehension. 

Transcribing interviews is tremendously slow and tedious. A one hour interview can take weeks to transcribe into notes through an hour or two of work every day. To understand this point, consider that only about 40 seconds of an interview creates a page of writing in my reporter's news pads.  (Incidentally, I use news pads for the same reason any other journalist does, to create a permanent record that could protect me if I am ever sued for libel.)  

When I am actually writing a story I try to check everything I write to find out if I'm mistaken or not. In this particular Op Ed I had a specific example from the mainstream media of a national newspaper spouting anti-climate change propaganda. I spent a fair amount of time on the Web looking for confirmation and ended up with an article from the American National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the subject. It was quite long and went into some very specific scientific detail. After I'd invested the half hour or so in reading it, I came to the conclusion that the situation was a bit more ambiguous than I thought, so I removed the sentence because I thought it wouldn't be fair to leave it in. 

Even if I do keep an idea in the article, I still often have to put a lot of effort into making sure that it is correct. 

For example, in this particular Op Ed, it took me about a couple hours to come up with the quote from Elizabeth May. First I had to listen to the podcast from Canadaland. That gave the knowledge that it was actually there. Then I spend about a half hour rooting around on line to see if I could find the original source for the clip used by Jesse Brown. (Best practice involves using the original source if possible---this protects people from being quoted out of context.) I wasn't able to find it, and I tend to trust Canadaland anyway, so I gave up and decided to find it on the podcast. This took some time futzing around with the streaming feed until I found it. Then I had to transcribe her words. That took another 15 minutes or so. Then it was time to dig up a photo of Elizabeth May on line, which was easy as politicians are usually happy to let you use pictures from their websites. 

&&&&

I suspect that some readers are now saying to themselves "Why in God's name would anyone put so much effort into writing something that only a small number of people read?"

When I started this project I had two ideas in mind.

First, when the Guelph Mercury finally shut down after decades of agonizing decline it occurred to me that an opportunity presented itself to come up with a new model of creating local news. 

Secondly, I was aware that one of the few parts of the news industry that was actually thriving were specialist background journals that were aimed at experts in particular fields. These set out to inform Executive Officers about specific political, economic, scientific, etc, stories that are critical to the decisions they make as part of their jobs. These publications generally have very low circulation, charge very high fees, and, are behind very zealously-protected paywalls. My thought was "what if someone created a similar type of publication for the citizens of a community?" 

Finally, I knew that my years of slaving away at my "day job" were finally coming to an end. In addition, after years of work in Green politics and various activist projects, it occurred to me that I was pretty much free of all other entanglements. Moreover, this activity---plus my various literary projects over my life---gave me a pretty good background that I could use to build up this experiment. 

It would like to have a large number of paid subscribers plus a much larger pool of readers. But I know that I am already having a positive impact on the community. One example comes from a fellow who is relatively high up on the Wellington Water Watchers who told me that a significant fraction of people concerned about their work have been reading up my article about gravel pits and the DoLime Quarry. If memory serves, he said people say it is the best introduction they've found to the subject.

I've also gotten a lot of positive feedback from Guelph city staff. As one person I met at a party told me "I'm a head of a department and I like to read the blog because I learn stuff from it that I didn't know." These are people in a position to use the information I dig up to do a better job for the city. I can't think of a better audience. 

One last point. This isn't about me doing this. I'm trying to do a "proof of concept" for a new and better type of journalism in this city. This is why I make the effort to get financial support instead of just doing this as a "labour of love". I do have financial costs---both personal and with regard to the blog. But it's also important that I show that I can create a business that could potentially become a paid job. I'm not going to be able to do this for that many more years---I am getting old and I already have arthritis that causes some pain while writing these articles. The reason why no young people are doing this sort of journalism isn't because it is inherently impossible to make a living doing this, it's because people have become socialized to expect their news for "free". I'm trying to educate an entire community in the necessity of paying for real news.

&&&&

This gets me to the cost of putting out this blog. I mentioned that I have have five different news sources I try to read every day. I subscribe to two on-line news sources plus two podcasts. Together these add up to considerable amounts of money:

• The Toronto Star, $203.40/year
• The National Observer, $158.20/year
• Guelph Politico, $120/year
• Canadaland, $120/year

A little over $600 is nothing for me to sniff at, especially as my income dropped by about 40% in May when I retired. Moreover, there are other expenses. I don't get many "freebies" because most groups and individuals refuse to see me as a "legitimate" journalist. That means if I review a new book, go to an event, etc, I'm usually expected to pay the full cost instead of getting a press pass or review copy. 

A while back a friend asked me how much I make off paid subscriptions in a month. He was surprised when I told him that it only came to about $89 from Patreon and $7.50 from PayPal, or $96.50/month.  

Don't get me wrong, this is pretty good for the indie media scene. It takes years to build up a brand, and I've only been doing this for about two and a half years. But it's far from enough support to entice a young person into taking over the business. That's why I keep asking people to support the blog, either through subscriptions or by buying advertising. (I have yet to get a single advertiser.) 

But still, the money helps. Recently I decided that I need to start using the telephone, so I'm investing in a VOIP land line ($10/month) and an on-line recording device so I can do phone interviews. This might not seem like a lot, but it comes down to more than 10% of my gross income---. In addition, there are other costs that any small business incurs: business cards, stationary, reporter's pads, computer equipment, etc.

Moreover, I think it's time to think about advertising outside of social media, which seems to be somewhat "tapped out". (Last month I got bounced from the Guelph sub-Reddit---for reasons none of the moderators wanted to explain to me.) 

&&&&

Well, there it is. I've laid out how much time and money I spend on putting this blog together. Consider this something of a "funding appeal" like you regularly get from TVO or the United Way. If you would like to help me, you can subscribe through Patreon or PayPal---even as little as a dollar a month really helps. But even if you can't afford that (I know a lot of you give substantive amounts of money to worthwhile charities), consider sharing my blog with your friends on social media---word of mouth is key to finding new subscribers.

&&&&

  

Furthermore, I say onto 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!

Leading by Example

Years ago I was doing some banking with some volunteers in the local Green Party riding association. Basically I had to cosign one volunteer Chief Financial Officer off the bank account and put another one on. This resulted in my standing on the sidewalk with a woman while we waited for another guy to show up. One of the woman's co-workers happened by and they had a bit of a conversation. He asked what she was doing and when she explained, he started up with the usual "yeah, this is all idealistic but no one actually walks the talk---people are all hypocrites" blather.

It was a bitterly cold winter's day. The roads were clear but a blizzard was coming in and there was a howling wind with snow flurries. In the midst of this guy's rant our fellow rolled up on his old Dutch bicycle. The cynic's mouth literally dropped and his eyes bugged out. He simply couldn't believe that someone was so concerned about climate change that he would ride a bicycle in that sort of weather. It rendered him actually speechless to see someone "lead by example".

&&&&

In the struggle for Indian independence there was a campaign titled "Swadeshi" that used "leading by example" to encourage Indians to think about how their day-to-day decisions impacted their country's economic independence from the British Empire.

Basically, the idea was that India's rural poor had been grotesquely exploited by an economic system that forced peasants to grow cotton, ship it to England, where it was turned into cloth, which was then shipped to India where it sold for less than that created by domestic production. This kept the peasants poor and stopped local Indian industry from developing as a competitor with Britain. 

The Congress Party of India sought to raise people's consciousness by encouraging people to buy cotton and spin thread which they then sold to artisanal weavers to make a special type of cloth known as "khadi", which they could buy and make their own clothes from.  Indeed, this was such an important campaign that people staged protests where they burnt English cloth to show that they would no longer buy or wear it. People bought their membership in the Congress Party with homespun thread. At one convention, Mohandas Gandhi (then President of the party) devoted a 40 minute talk to quietly sitting on a stage with a spinning wheel making thread for the weavers. 

Khadi is still sold in India.
This image from the Womenweave
organic co-op. Used under the "Fair Use" provision.

&&&&

When I first started working on this blog I wanted to make it an "open book" project. That is, I thought that I'd keep track of my hours and thereby tell readers how much time I put into researching and writing these missives. I quickly decided keeping track of my time would be a waste of effort. To a certain extent most of my life is now devoted to the project---I go to events and talk to people and that helps with stories. Even when I'm at home by myself I am often reading or listening to podcasts. Even when I'm not doing much of anything at all, at least part of me is always thinking about a story.

What I can do, however, is mention in this blue type whenever I spend some money for the blog. To that end, this week I sent $100 to the Linux Mint project because I upgraded the operating system on my computer. I did this because they had stopped sending security upgrades for the version I'd been using for about five years.

If you'd like to help me with these and other costs---plus give me some money to offset all those hours spent researching and obsessing---why not subscribe through Patreon or toss something in the Tip Jar? If nothing else, share the stories you like on social media.

&&&&

Gandhi was a real master of the concept of "leading by example". Unfortunately, a lot of this is lost on people who don't understand the issues he was dealing with. For example, he started out trying to be a "proper English gentleman" during his legal career. This involved wearing a suit and tie. But eventually, he stopped trying to "ape" the British and instead decided that he would live and look like an ordinary, poor Indian. This helped immensely in his attempt to connect with the Indian masses---who were alienated from the tiny Anglophile elite who tended to lead the independence movement.

Gandhi, seated in the middle. The early elite, Anglophile.
Original image from Life magazine archive.
Public Domain image, copyright expired, c/o Wiki Commons.

A later Gandhi who was actively trying to court the vast majority of Indians.
Another public domain image. From the The New Indian Express website.

This process also extended to attempts to change the attitudes of Indians with regard to what Gandhi considered their own particular prejudices. For example, at the first Congress Party of India convention he attended he volunteered to be in charge of providing and cleaning the latrines. As an upper cast Hindu (Gandhi's father had been a prime minister in one of the "princely states"), it would have been seen by most people as absolutely bizarre for him to take on a task that should only be done by a Dalit (the horribly exploited class of "untouchables" created by India's caste system.) But this was just another case of his trying to build bridges between the different groups. The existing divisions between the different religions and castes of India had been exploited by the British for centuries. Gandhi not only saw a moral imperative in breaking down these barriers, he also saw that many people would not support independence if it meant that majority Indians would be free to horribly exploit their particular minority group.  

&&&&

The reason why I'm going on about this issue is because I think that it's time the environmental movement started to exploit the tactic of "leading by example". I say this because this is one of the few ways that it is possible to change the minds of the 30% or so of the population who are fighting absolutely tooth and nail against doing something to stop the human race from committing mass suicide.

There's a retired University of Manitoba psychology professor by the name of Bob Altemeyer who devoted his career to studying what motivates right wing people---both leaders and voters. The conclusion he came to was that these people are pretty much impervious to evidence and logic. But the one way that they do tend to change their worldview is through personal and vicarious experience. That is to say they build their worldview around people, not ideas.  

Let me illustrate with a couple examples. 

Altemeyer did some research on worldview changes among people who go to university. What he found was evidence that the old adage of "the fellow lost his faith when he went to college" is actually true. A lot of people do go through profound worldview changes. But what he found was that it wasn't because their course work enlightened them. Instead, it was because they were exposed to a lot of different people with different life experiences. It was the informal social interaction that destroyed their preconceptions about the world. 

Let me illustrate with one of these "worldview changes" that people have gone through in our lifetimes. At first the idea that gays could marry was opposed by a majority of Americans. But now a majority are in favour of it. What changed? Because of court rulings and a concerted campaign for gays to "get out of the closet", a lot of people who were opposed to gays in principle found out that some of the people in their lives who they really liked or respected were, in fact, gay. This forced them onto the horns of dilemma. They either had to drop kick these people out of their lives or change one of the basic building blocks of the way they viewed the world around them. In many cases, they chose the latter instead of the former. 

Chart from the Pew Forum webpage, presumably used with
their permission, as they have it set up to easily download.
Click on the image for a clearer image. 

This isn't a question of demographic shift (ie: "civilization progresses one funeral at a time"), because if you break the survey sample into different age cohorts you see the same change in attitudes.

Pew Forum et al. As you can see, lots of people---regardless of age---changed their minds about gay marriage at
roughly the same time. Altemeyer says this didn't happen because of evidence or logic.
Instead it was learning that uncle Fred was gay and Aunt Muriel is a lesbian.

(If you are interested in learning more about Altemeyer's work, he published a free to download Ebook that on the subject. If you are interested in learning more on the subject covered in this post, you might want to read my first book Walking the Talk. At the top right side of this site there is an advert for it with links to where you can buy it either as an Ebook or paperback. The paperback is also on sale at the Bookshelf downtown. And the public and university libraries each also has a copy.) 

&&&&

One of the first things that I saw after Steve Dyck announced that he was running for the local Green Party of Canada nomination was a snide remark about the fact that he was currently in Central America. The idea was that if he really believed in climate change as an issue, he wouldn't have blasted off a huge amount of carbon into the atmosphere for a frivolous winter vacation. This isn't a "one off". The web is awash with memes talking about the disconnect between what leading environmentalists say about the environment and how they live their lives. Here's a small sample that I'm sharing with you under the "fair use" provision of the copyright law. 

From the "Bookworm Room" 

From "The Top 12 Celebrity Climate Hypocrites"

From "Leading Malaysian Neocon"

From garyvarvel.com.

     

I could post a lot more of these. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of folks out there who think that if you really do think that climate change is an existential threat, then you should live your life in a way that looks like you really believe it. I think that they have a point. 

If an environmentalist says that the world is reaching a crisis point over carbon dioxide, then they shouldn't be jetting around the world to go to on vacations, conventions, to visit family, etc. This isn't to say that your particular trip is going to tip the balance, but learning to do without this is something that shows that you really mean what you say. Otherwise, it looks like you want other people to give up their "goodies" while you keep yours. And that stinks. Even worse, it is sabotaging the environmental movement when we need to bring as many people "on board" as we possibly can. 

This isn't to say that many environmentalists haven't already made big changes in the way that they live their lives. But some high-profile environmentalists still seem to live excessively "large lives". But the point is that there needs to be a conscious campaign to harness the symbolic value inherent in "living the like you already live in the world you want to inhabit". Gandhi knew how to do that, I don't see why modern environmentalists cannot do the same thing. 

&&&&

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!