Attention Sarfraz Khan, Bob Murphy, and James O'Shaughnessy:
I am a Ward 22 voter, and I don't feel I can vote for the position of councillor unless I know about more than one candidate's platform.
I haven't been able to find any of your platforms. They aren't listed on the City of Toronto Elections website, googleable, or findable on social media.
So please post your platform somewhere online, and inform the City of Toronto Elections people of its location so they can add it to their website. If you create a twitter profile with a link to your platform, and put #topoli and #Ward 22 in the description, your electorate will find you. (Also, if you post it in the comments here, it will become googleable within a couple of days.)
By doing so, you'll be giving the people of Ward 22 an alternative to simply voting for the loudest person by default.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2014
Friday, October 03, 2014
My municipal election voting dilemma
There are currently 4 candidates for city councillor in my ward: the incumbent and 3 challengers.
The incumbent has the expected online presence. But I can't find any trace of any of the 3 challengers. I've googled with multiple combinations of keywords, I've searched social media, I've looked up possible matches on LinkedIn (multiple possibilities for each name, none of whom say they are running for city councillor). Even the City of Toronto elections website that lists all the candidates for each ward doesn't have any contact information for them - not even an office phone number, just their name and ward number. None of the organizations and media outlets that send questionnaires to each candidate have gotten responses from any of the challengers (if they were in fact able to get in touch with the challengers). None of the organizations that endorse candidates have endorsed in my ward. I not only find no evidence of any of the challengers running a campaign, I find no evidence that anyone else has been able to get in touch with the challengers in their capacity as candidates.
If this situation persists, I'm left with a dilemma: should I vote for the incumbent, or for no one?
The incumbent's record is decent enough that I don't see a reason to try to unseat him, but it's quite plausible that there could be another candidate who aligns more closely with my views. (There was in the last election.) It's also quite plausible that none of the other candidates would align as closely with my views. It all depends on what the other candidates' platforms are.
I don't think that simply showing up should be enough to win my vote. Earlier in the race, the incumbent was the only council candidate for the ward. I googled around the question of whether we'd still vote for councillor if there's only one candidate (wasn't able to find out conclusively), and decided during this process that I wouldn't vote for a candidate running unopposed. I'd be okay with them winning, of course, but I wouldn't give them a vote just for being the only one there.
So, on one hand, I feel like I similarly shouldn't give a candidate my vote just for being the only one visible. But, on the other hand, they've clearly run the best campaign. But, on the other other hand, what if they're not actually the best candidate? But, on the other other other hand, how would I ever know?
Things They Should Study: why do people get themselves put on the ballot but not run a campaign?
The incumbent has the expected online presence. But I can't find any trace of any of the 3 challengers. I've googled with multiple combinations of keywords, I've searched social media, I've looked up possible matches on LinkedIn (multiple possibilities for each name, none of whom say they are running for city councillor). Even the City of Toronto elections website that lists all the candidates for each ward doesn't have any contact information for them - not even an office phone number, just their name and ward number. None of the organizations and media outlets that send questionnaires to each candidate have gotten responses from any of the challengers (if they were in fact able to get in touch with the challengers). None of the organizations that endorse candidates have endorsed in my ward. I not only find no evidence of any of the challengers running a campaign, I find no evidence that anyone else has been able to get in touch with the challengers in their capacity as candidates.
If this situation persists, I'm left with a dilemma: should I vote for the incumbent, or for no one?
The incumbent's record is decent enough that I don't see a reason to try to unseat him, but it's quite plausible that there could be another candidate who aligns more closely with my views. (There was in the last election.) It's also quite plausible that none of the other candidates would align as closely with my views. It all depends on what the other candidates' platforms are.
I don't think that simply showing up should be enough to win my vote. Earlier in the race, the incumbent was the only council candidate for the ward. I googled around the question of whether we'd still vote for councillor if there's only one candidate (wasn't able to find out conclusively), and decided during this process that I wouldn't vote for a candidate running unopposed. I'd be okay with them winning, of course, but I wouldn't give them a vote just for being the only one there.
So, on one hand, I feel like I similarly shouldn't give a candidate my vote just for being the only one visible. But, on the other hand, they've clearly run the best campaign. But, on the other other hand, what if they're not actually the best candidate? But, on the other other other hand, how would I ever know?
Things They Should Study: why do people get themselves put on the ballot but not run a campaign?
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Why was Rob Ford able to kill Transit City unilaterally?
On his first day as mayor, Rob Ford came into work early and killed Transit City.
With all the other things that happened since then, I've forgotten how this happened and why it was possible. I was under the impression that it needed to be voted on by Council, and googling around the idea I see lots of people saying that he shouldn't have been able to do it unilaterally and it should have been voted on by Council.
But he did it and, at the very least, set transit back a year until Council was able to reinstate it a year later. Why was he able to do that? Why did it take Council a year fix it?
I feel like I should understand this before I vote for the next mayor. Will the next mayor be able to do similar things unilaterally?
With all the other things that happened since then, I've forgotten how this happened and why it was possible. I was under the impression that it needed to be voted on by Council, and googling around the idea I see lots of people saying that he shouldn't have been able to do it unilaterally and it should have been voted on by Council.
But he did it and, at the very least, set transit back a year until Council was able to reinstate it a year later. Why was he able to do that? Why did it take Council a year fix it?
I feel like I should understand this before I vote for the next mayor. Will the next mayor be able to do similar things unilaterally?
Friday, June 13, 2014
Post-election round-up
- Signs I saw in my own riding: 1 Liberal and 1 Conservative. I also saw a few Kathleen Wynne signs in her riding (which is adjacent to mine).
- Robocalls received: 1 from my Liberal candidate and 2 from my Conservative candidate. I consider robocalls a bad thing.
- Flyers I received in my mail: 1, very well-targeted, from my Liberal candidate. I consider this an appropriate way for political parties to advertise.
- TV commercials I saw: entirely too many, all negative in tone, nearly all Conservative. I consider political TV commercials a bad thing.
- Test of the Hill Knowlton predictor: when we input the actual vote percentages, it produces Lib: 55, Con: 32: NDP: 19.
- Test of the Too Close To Call predictor: when we input the actual vote percentages, it produces Lib: 56, Con: 30, NDP: 21.
- The actual results: Lib: 59, Con: 27, NDP: 21
- Lesson for the parties to take away from this election: Shifting left of your usual position gets you more seats; shifting right of your usual position gets you fewer seats.
- Robocalls received: 1 from my Liberal candidate and 2 from my Conservative candidate. I consider robocalls a bad thing.
- Flyers I received in my mail: 1, very well-targeted, from my Liberal candidate. I consider this an appropriate way for political parties to advertise.
- TV commercials I saw: entirely too many, all negative in tone, nearly all Conservative. I consider political TV commercials a bad thing.
- Test of the Hill Knowlton predictor: when we input the actual vote percentages, it produces Lib: 55, Con: 32: NDP: 19.
- Test of the Too Close To Call predictor: when we input the actual vote percentages, it produces Lib: 56, Con: 30, NDP: 21.
- The actual results: Lib: 59, Con: 27, NDP: 21
- Lesson for the parties to take away from this election: Shifting left of your usual position gets you more seats; shifting right of your usual position gets you fewer seats.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Voted
An uncomfortably hot day - normal summer temperatures, but early enough in the summer that I'm not used to them yet - but a quick and easy vote. I actually got my voter card in the mail (a first for an Ontario election, even though I've already voted six times provincially (including 2 by-elections) over the course of 15 years, and three of those times were at this address. There was no line, the polling station people were friendly and cheerful, and everything went as smoothly as humanly possible.
Except that dogs are avoiding me today.
As I've blogged about in previous elections, good election outcomes correlate with me petting a doggie on my way to vote. So I took the most roundabout route justifiable to my polling station, with the goal of petting a doggie along the way.
Unfortunately, the dogs just weren't buying it!
I greeted every opportune dog with "Hi puppy!" and a face full of love and enthusiasm, which usually gets them to try to jump up on me. But none of them seemed interested. I commented "Oh, what a cute/gorgeous dog!" to promising-looking dog owners, but got a lower response rate than usual, and, even when the human responded, the dog was uninterested and didn't engage with me at all.
I don't get why dogs aren't interested in me today! Do I smell? Do I not smell? Can they tell I have an ulterior motive?
Ultimately, I gave three dogs a single tap on the back (while admiring them in a socially-appropriate manner, with their humans encouraging the interaction), but they didn't consent to more. I hope that's enough to count as petting a dog for election outcome purposes.
Except that dogs are avoiding me today.
As I've blogged about in previous elections, good election outcomes correlate with me petting a doggie on my way to vote. So I took the most roundabout route justifiable to my polling station, with the goal of petting a doggie along the way.
Unfortunately, the dogs just weren't buying it!
I greeted every opportune dog with "Hi puppy!" and a face full of love and enthusiasm, which usually gets them to try to jump up on me. But none of them seemed interested. I commented "Oh, what a cute/gorgeous dog!" to promising-looking dog owners, but got a lower response rate than usual, and, even when the human responded, the dog was uninterested and didn't engage with me at all.
I don't get why dogs aren't interested in me today! Do I smell? Do I not smell? Can they tell I have an ulterior motive?
Ultimately, I gave three dogs a single tap on the back (while admiring them in a socially-appropriate manner, with their humans encouraging the interaction), but they didn't consent to more. I hope that's enough to count as petting a dog for election outcome purposes.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Saving for retirement ≠ pension
I recently took the 2014 Ontario Vote Compass test. I found it was useful for identifying areas where parties' platforms weren't what I expected or their positions relative to each other weren't what I expected. But one of the questions baffled me. It asked if I agree or disagree with the statement:
"Ontario should require workers to save more for retirement."
At the end of the Vote Compass test, you can click on a link to see the rationale for the compass allocating each party's position to each issue. And when I clicked through for this one, it became apparent that the issue they were talking about was the creation of an Ontario pension plan. By "require workers to save more for requirement", they meant "create a provincial pension plan.
This is gravely misleading! While saving money for retirement is certainly an important part of a pension plan, the two concepts are certainly not interchangeable. The big deal about a pension plan is not that you divert money from your income to save for retirement, but that the plan turns this money into a steady source of income for your old age.
Saving money is simple. Turning your savings into a pension is complex.
Saving money is arithmetic - actually, it's just addition and subtraction (and maybe even just addition depending on how you do the math), with no multiplication or division necessary. Turning your savings into a pension is...I don't even know what kind of math it is, and I got an A in every math class on my high school's curriculum.
You can tell immediately if you're succeeding at saving money - the balance of your savings account goes up and doesn't go down. You can't tell if you're successfully creating a pension for yourself until it's too late.
Saving money is a diligent personal behaviour. Turning savings into a pension is an entire profession, requiring its own training and expertise.
To reduce a pension plan to "you should save more money" is like reducing having perfect teeth to "you should brush your teeth." Yes, the diligent personal behaviour is necessary, but you also need the professional expertise to achieve your goal.
The enormous benefit of having a pension plan instead of doing it yourself is that your pension is managed by expert professionals who are hired by expert professionals, and whose primary mandate is to make the pension plan succeed. If you hire a financial planner as an individual, you're stuck with just your own non-expert knowledge to determine whether they're competent or a charlatan, and it's quite likely that their primary mandate is to sell specific financial products or have a high number of transactions or pull in new customers, depending on their compensation model. Finding a skilled and competent financial planner who will work in your own best interests is not necessarily a simple matter for those of us who aren't financial experts ourselves, and we can't necessarily tell if our planner is in fact doing their job properly before it's too late.
With a pension plan, you also have economies of scale, and can mitigate risk by diversifying more than an individual can and by distributing risk over a longer period of time than an individual's personal retirement savings.
I think the Vote Compass test may have landed on this phrasing because one of the parties has nothing in their platform about creating a new or expanding an existing defined-benefit pension plan, and instead uses the phrasing "Give Ontarians the opportunity to save more for their retirement..." by promoting PRPPs. But this does not negate the fact that the other parties' platforms talk about actual defined-benefit pensions, where a given input will guarantee a given output. This is far more than simply requiring people to engage in diligent behaviour, and the CBC and the Vote Compass people do us a disservice by representing it the way they did.
"Ontario should require workers to save more for retirement."
At the end of the Vote Compass test, you can click on a link to see the rationale for the compass allocating each party's position to each issue. And when I clicked through for this one, it became apparent that the issue they were talking about was the creation of an Ontario pension plan. By "require workers to save more for requirement", they meant "create a provincial pension plan.
This is gravely misleading! While saving money for retirement is certainly an important part of a pension plan, the two concepts are certainly not interchangeable. The big deal about a pension plan is not that you divert money from your income to save for retirement, but that the plan turns this money into a steady source of income for your old age.
Saving money is simple. Turning your savings into a pension is complex.
Saving money is arithmetic - actually, it's just addition and subtraction (and maybe even just addition depending on how you do the math), with no multiplication or division necessary. Turning your savings into a pension is...I don't even know what kind of math it is, and I got an A in every math class on my high school's curriculum.
You can tell immediately if you're succeeding at saving money - the balance of your savings account goes up and doesn't go down. You can't tell if you're successfully creating a pension for yourself until it's too late.
Saving money is a diligent personal behaviour. Turning savings into a pension is an entire profession, requiring its own training and expertise.
To reduce a pension plan to "you should save more money" is like reducing having perfect teeth to "you should brush your teeth." Yes, the diligent personal behaviour is necessary, but you also need the professional expertise to achieve your goal.
The enormous benefit of having a pension plan instead of doing it yourself is that your pension is managed by expert professionals who are hired by expert professionals, and whose primary mandate is to make the pension plan succeed. If you hire a financial planner as an individual, you're stuck with just your own non-expert knowledge to determine whether they're competent or a charlatan, and it's quite likely that their primary mandate is to sell specific financial products or have a high number of transactions or pull in new customers, depending on their compensation model. Finding a skilled and competent financial planner who will work in your own best interests is not necessarily a simple matter for those of us who aren't financial experts ourselves, and we can't necessarily tell if our planner is in fact doing their job properly before it's too late.
With a pension plan, you also have economies of scale, and can mitigate risk by diversifying more than an individual can and by distributing risk over a longer period of time than an individual's personal retirement savings.
I think the Vote Compass test may have landed on this phrasing because one of the parties has nothing in their platform about creating a new or expanding an existing defined-benefit pension plan, and instead uses the phrasing "Give Ontarians the opportunity to save more for their retirement..." by promoting PRPPs. But this does not negate the fact that the other parties' platforms talk about actual defined-benefit pensions, where a given input will guarantee a given output. This is far more than simply requiring people to engage in diligent behaviour, and the CBC and the Vote Compass people do us a disservice by representing it the way they did.
Saturday, June 07, 2014
Voters' Resources (Ontario 2014 edition)
Getting Started
Election Day is June 12!
First, go to the Elections Ontario website website and to find out your electoral district, your candidates, and where to vote.
Here is the ID you need to vote.
On Election Day, your employer is legally required to ensure that you have three consecutive hours during polling hours during which you are not schedule to work. This means that if your voting hours are 9 am - 9 pm and you work 11 am - 7 pm, you employer is required to allow to you either come in at noon or leave at 6 pm. However, if you work 9 am - 6 pm, there are still three free polling hours after the end of your workday.
Issues
The platforms:
Conservative
Green
Liberal (there is a more comprehensive PDF under each section, but I can't find the whole thing listed on one page)
NDP (apparently you can download the whole thing as a single document if you fill out a form providing your email address)
There's also the CBC Vote Compass, which asks you about your positions on various issues and shows you which parties' positions are closest to yours. I found it particularly useful for showing me where parties' relative positions were not what I expected - and therefore where I need to focus my reading and research.
Strategy and Predictions
My "How to Vote"
My "Where to Vote
My "How to Vote Strategically"
Riding-by-riding predictions:
- The Election Prediction Project
- Hill + Knowlton Election Predictor. (You need poll data for this. You can input your own that you find in the media or on the internet, and Hill + Knowlton regularly tweets predictor results based on recent polls.)
- ThreeHundredEight (scroll down or use your browser's search function to find riding projections)
- LISPOP
- Too Close To Call, (scroll down or use your browser's search function to find riding projections) which also has a riding by riding simulator into which you can input poll data and see how various ridings come out. (I found I had to disable Ad Block for the simulator to work properly.)
- Election Atlas
Election Almanac lists quite a lot of poll data and seat projections from different sources. I have no way to tell if it includes every poll, but there are quite a few.
These predictors all use different methods so what's interesting and informative is to see the extent to which they agree or disagree about the outcome in your riding.
***
This post was last updated on June 7, and will be updated throughout the election campaign, right up until voting day. If there's anything you think belongs in here but hasn't be posted yet, let me know in the comments.
Election Day is June 12!
First, go to the Elections Ontario website website and to find out your electoral district, your candidates, and where to vote.
Here is the ID you need to vote.
On Election Day, your employer is legally required to ensure that you have three consecutive hours during polling hours during which you are not schedule to work. This means that if your voting hours are 9 am - 9 pm and you work 11 am - 7 pm, you employer is required to allow to you either come in at noon or leave at 6 pm. However, if you work 9 am - 6 pm, there are still three free polling hours after the end of your workday.
Issues
The platforms:
Conservative
Green
Liberal (there is a more comprehensive PDF under each section, but I can't find the whole thing listed on one page)
NDP (apparently you can download the whole thing as a single document if you fill out a form providing your email address)
There's also the CBC Vote Compass, which asks you about your positions on various issues and shows you which parties' positions are closest to yours. I found it particularly useful for showing me where parties' relative positions were not what I expected - and therefore where I need to focus my reading and research.
Strategy and Predictions
My "How to Vote"
My "Where to Vote
My "How to Vote Strategically"
Riding-by-riding predictions:
- The Election Prediction Project
- Hill + Knowlton Election Predictor. (You need poll data for this. You can input your own that you find in the media or on the internet, and Hill + Knowlton regularly tweets predictor results based on recent polls.)
- ThreeHundredEight (scroll down or use your browser's search function to find riding projections)
- LISPOP
- Too Close To Call, (scroll down or use your browser's search function to find riding projections) which also has a riding by riding simulator into which you can input poll data and see how various ridings come out. (I found I had to disable Ad Block for the simulator to work properly.)
- Election Atlas
Election Almanac lists quite a lot of poll data and seat projections from different sources. I have no way to tell if it includes every poll, but there are quite a few.
These predictors all use different methods so what's interesting and informative is to see the extent to which they agree or disagree about the outcome in your riding.
***
This post was last updated on June 7, and will be updated throughout the election campaign, right up until voting day. If there's anything you think belongs in here but hasn't be posted yet, let me know in the comments.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
How to Vote Strategically
Some people vote for the party whose platform they find most suitable (the Best Party). Other people try to prevent the party whose platform they find most harmful (the Worst Party) from being elected, by voting for the party that's most likely to defeat the Worst Party (the Compromise Party). This is called strategic voting.
The most important thing about strategic voting is that your strategy has to apply to the reality in your riding. The media feeds us provincial polls for breakfast every day, but they're not directly relevant. Regardless of what the rest of the country is doing, your vote will only be used to elect your own MP. If your riding is already disinclined to elect the Worst Party, there's no point in a strategic vote - you'd just end up making the Compromise Party look more popular than they really are.
So here's what to do if your priority is stopping the Worst Party from winning:
1. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's going to win in this particular riding?"
If the answer is a party other than the Worst Party, vote for the Best Party. If the answer is "the Worst Party" or "it's too close to tell," go on to step 2.
2. Ask yourself: "If I don't vote, who's most likely to defeat the Worst Party in this particular riding?"
This is your Compromise Party. Read their platform. If it's acceptable, vote for the Compromise Party. If it's not acceptable, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: ignore the provincial polls; think only about the situation in your riding!
Tools to help you figure out likely outcomes in your riding can be found here.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Where to Vote
Some people (such as university students renting housing in the community where they go to school or have a summer job who also still have their parents' house as their "permanent address") are in a situation where they could legitimately vote in one of two possible ridings. This post is intended to help them decide where to vote.
Where to Vote:
1. If one of the ridings is a really close race, vote in that riding. If both are close, vote in the riding with the closest race. If neither is really close, follow the instructions below.
2. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, decide which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision for the province (hereafter the Best Party). Then decide which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision for the province (hereafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
3. Based on your own needs and your own vision for the province, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
4. If it's more important to you that the Best Party win, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
5. If it's more important to you that the Worst Party not win, and the Worst Party has a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party in the riding where the Worst Party is most likely to win.
6. If the Worst Party doesn't have a chance in either of your ridings, vote for the Best Party in the riding where the Best Party is least likely to win.
Tools to help you figure out which party is most likely to win in your riding can be found here.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
How to Vote
1. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, decide which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision of the province (hereafter the Best Party). Then decide which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision of the province (hereafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
2. Based on your own needs and your own vision for the province, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
3. If it is more important to you that the Best Party wins, vote for the Best Party. If not, continue to the next step.
4. If it is more important to you that the Worst Party does not win, assess the Worst Party's chances of winning in your riding.* Not in the province as a whole, just in your riding. If you feel that there's too great a risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party. If you feel the risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding is acceptably low, vote for the Best Party.
Remember: do NOT use province-wide polls to inform your strategic voting. Your vote is only effective in your riding. No matter how earnestly you vote, you cannot cancel out votes in another riding. Vote strategically only if the situation in your very own riding demands it, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing. The process for how to vote strategically can be found here.
Tools for assessing a party's chances of winning in your riding can be found here.
Thursday, April 03, 2014
What if the media stopped covering election campaigning?
I've blogged before about my displeasure with media coverage of Toronto elections. Apart from the length problem (I still maintain they shouldn't start covering municipal elections until September, with voting day in late October), I wonder if a solution might be for media to stop covering the campaign trail completely.
I don't mean that they shouldn't cover elections, I'm just pondering whether it might be better if they didn't follow all the candidates around and report on the speeches they make and activities they do every day.
This would save media outlets a lot of time and resources. And then they could put this time and resources into analyzing candidates' platforms and incumbents' records and fact-checking their statements, with the goal of providing us with a factual analysis free of spin. And since the media are no longer spending all their time running around chasing the few candidates they have deemed front-runners, they'd have the time to analyze all the candidates.
Instead of hosting debates, they should conduct in-depth one-on-one interviews with the candidates with a cross-examination level of intensity. For video and audio media, these interviews should not be aired lived, but rather aired after there's been time to fact-check the candidate's statements.
In addition to all of this, print and online media especially should publish primers on the issues. In doing this, they shouldn't allow the candidates to define the issues and their scope, but rather look at them as objectively as possible, with the goal of informing the uninformed, especially newcomers etc. who haven't been following all the issues for the whole election cycle. At the municipal level, this would be especially useful for school board trustee elections, because all voters get to vote for school board trustees, but not all of us are students, teachers or parents and therefore we aren't all up on the issues within the school board.
I think the end result could be a far better signal to noise ratio in election coverage, and therefore make it easier for the uninformed to become informed. It might also be more affordable for media outlets (especially for provincial and federal elections where there's a lot of travelling), and certainly less stressful for reporters.
It would probably also incentivize politicians to focus more on policy than on soundbites, because, under this model, campaign trail soundbites aren't going to get media coverage, but sound policy and knowledgeability (or lack thereof) are.
I don't mean that they shouldn't cover elections, I'm just pondering whether it might be better if they didn't follow all the candidates around and report on the speeches they make and activities they do every day.
This would save media outlets a lot of time and resources. And then they could put this time and resources into analyzing candidates' platforms and incumbents' records and fact-checking their statements, with the goal of providing us with a factual analysis free of spin. And since the media are no longer spending all their time running around chasing the few candidates they have deemed front-runners, they'd have the time to analyze all the candidates.
Instead of hosting debates, they should conduct in-depth one-on-one interviews with the candidates with a cross-examination level of intensity. For video and audio media, these interviews should not be aired lived, but rather aired after there's been time to fact-check the candidate's statements.
In addition to all of this, print and online media especially should publish primers on the issues. In doing this, they shouldn't allow the candidates to define the issues and their scope, but rather look at them as objectively as possible, with the goal of informing the uninformed, especially newcomers etc. who haven't been following all the issues for the whole election cycle. At the municipal level, this would be especially useful for school board trustee elections, because all voters get to vote for school board trustees, but not all of us are students, teachers or parents and therefore we aren't all up on the issues within the school board.
I think the end result could be a far better signal to noise ratio in election coverage, and therefore make it easier for the uninformed to become informed. It might also be more affordable for media outlets (especially for provincial and federal elections where there's a lot of travelling), and certainly less stressful for reporters.
It would probably also incentivize politicians to focus more on policy than on soundbites, because, under this model, campaign trail soundbites aren't going to get media coverage, but sound policy and knowledgeability (or lack thereof) are.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
To what extent is the media responsible for Rob Ford being mayor of Toronto?
Very little about this Rob Ford saga has surprised me.
I mean, I wouldn't have guessed crack and cunnilingus specifically, but, extrapolating his public behaviour before becoming mayor, I was completely unsurprised by drunkenness, drug use, sexual harassment, and anger issues. When rumours of organized crime affiliation first reached my ears (shortly after Gawker first reported on the crack video story - long before the official police reports started coming) my first thought was "That would explain everything!" When the video of him ranting and raving and threatening to kill someone came out, I was rather surprised that there weren't already similar videos in public circulation. He strikes me as having enough anger issues that this wouldn't be an unusual occurrence. (Although maybe that's why there's no video - perhaps it's business as usual Chez Ford?)
Basically, everything that has come to light has been within the range of what I would have expected of him back when he was running for mayor.
So why did so many people not see this coming?
And to what extent it this the media's fault that they didn't?
Heather Mallick has written that perhaps the media has been too polite to Ford. But I think it's eve moreo than that. I think the problem was that the media was automatically treating him as a frontrunner in the 2010 mayoral election. As I blogged about during the last Toronto election, there were some 40 mayoral candidates, but the media treated only a handful of them as remotely viable candidates. And this handful included Rob Ford.
With 40 candidates, surely any viable position must be duplicated in there somewhere. And, with 40 candidates, surely there must be a few people who are less problematic individuals than Rob Ford.
Should the media have been covering others more prominently and treating them more seriously rather than treating Ford as a front-runner (and for far longer than a municipal election even deserves to be covered for) just because, like, they've heard of him?
But they did treat him as a front-runner, which may have led some voters to think that he must be a viable and reasonable candidate. Toronto is a city with a lot of newcomers - both from other countries and from other parts of Canada. We're probably more dependent on the media to contextualize our elections than other communities with fewer newcomers would be. How many people weren't completely up on Ford's history but were led to believe that he would be a reasonable candidate because the media had placed him in the top 5 out of 40, and then in the top 30 out of 40?
Lately I've been seeing articles being tweeted into my twitter feed proposing various people as candidates for the 2014 mayoral election. I'm not happy about this, because the last municipal election lasted way too long and it's even earlier now. But this also has me wondering whether this premature coverage is leading to the same kind of premature declaration of frontrunners that may have given us Ford in the first place...
I mean, I wouldn't have guessed crack and cunnilingus specifically, but, extrapolating his public behaviour before becoming mayor, I was completely unsurprised by drunkenness, drug use, sexual harassment, and anger issues. When rumours of organized crime affiliation first reached my ears (shortly after Gawker first reported on the crack video story - long before the official police reports started coming) my first thought was "That would explain everything!" When the video of him ranting and raving and threatening to kill someone came out, I was rather surprised that there weren't already similar videos in public circulation. He strikes me as having enough anger issues that this wouldn't be an unusual occurrence. (Although maybe that's why there's no video - perhaps it's business as usual Chez Ford?)
Basically, everything that has come to light has been within the range of what I would have expected of him back when he was running for mayor.
So why did so many people not see this coming?
And to what extent it this the media's fault that they didn't?
Heather Mallick has written that perhaps the media has been too polite to Ford. But I think it's eve moreo than that. I think the problem was that the media was automatically treating him as a frontrunner in the 2010 mayoral election. As I blogged about during the last Toronto election, there were some 40 mayoral candidates, but the media treated only a handful of them as remotely viable candidates. And this handful included Rob Ford.
With 40 candidates, surely any viable position must be duplicated in there somewhere. And, with 40 candidates, surely there must be a few people who are less problematic individuals than Rob Ford.
Should the media have been covering others more prominently and treating them more seriously rather than treating Ford as a front-runner (and for far longer than a municipal election even deserves to be covered for) just because, like, they've heard of him?
But they did treat him as a front-runner, which may have led some voters to think that he must be a viable and reasonable candidate. Toronto is a city with a lot of newcomers - both from other countries and from other parts of Canada. We're probably more dependent on the media to contextualize our elections than other communities with fewer newcomers would be. How many people weren't completely up on Ford's history but were led to believe that he would be a reasonable candidate because the media had placed him in the top 5 out of 40, and then in the top 30 out of 40?
Lately I've been seeing articles being tweeted into my twitter feed proposing various people as candidates for the 2014 mayoral election. I'm not happy about this, because the last municipal election lasted way too long and it's even earlier now. But this also has me wondering whether this premature coverage is leading to the same kind of premature declaration of frontrunners that may have given us Ford in the first place...
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Building a Better Senate redux
I previously blogged some ideas for improving the Senate, building on the advantages of the existing model by making it less partisan.
While reading this article (although not directly related to its content), I came up with a simpler way to do the same thing.
First, we make senators non-partisan. They can't be members of a party, they don't identify themselves as "Conservative senators" or "Liberal senators", there are no Senate party caucuses. They're just senators.
Then comes the important part: government of the day cannot appoint any senators who are or have ever been members of its political party (or any of that party's predecessors). It can appoint people who are or have been members of other political parties, it can appoint people who have never been a member of any political party, but it can't appoint from its own party.
Possible corollary, depending on what percentage of the people who are good senate candidates have ever been members of political parties: each government must appoint a minimum number of senators who are or have been been a member of another political party. I can see pros and cons of this.
But, either way, it would be the political equivalent of having one sibling cut the cake and another choose the slice.
While reading this article (although not directly related to its content), I came up with a simpler way to do the same thing.
First, we make senators non-partisan. They can't be members of a party, they don't identify themselves as "Conservative senators" or "Liberal senators", there are no Senate party caucuses. They're just senators.
Then comes the important part: government of the day cannot appoint any senators who are or have ever been members of its political party (or any of that party's predecessors). It can appoint people who are or have been members of other political parties, it can appoint people who have never been a member of any political party, but it can't appoint from its own party.
Possible corollary, depending on what percentage of the people who are good senate candidates have ever been members of political parties: each government must appoint a minimum number of senators who are or have been been a member of another political party. I can see pros and cons of this.
But, either way, it would be the political equivalent of having one sibling cut the cake and another choose the slice.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Plastic bag ban vs. weak joints
I don't normally use reusable shopping bags, but I ended up doing so one day recently, and I discovered another problem with banning plastic bags: weight distribution.
On the day I was shopping with a reusable bag, my purchases turned out to be heavier than I'd anticipated when I left the house that morning. The peaches in the grocery store turned out to actually be good for the first time in ages, so I bought a couple dozen in addition to my usual produce. The frozen yogurt I wanted was only available in a 2L container. Some of the cleaning products I use regularly were on sale at an especially good price. And, right before I left the house that morning, I discovered that I'd run out of milk. All my purchases still fit in my reusable bag, but I was carrying nearly 20 pounds more than I'd planned. This extra weight was too much for my shoulder. I knew if I carried all this stuff home in my reusable bag, I would, at the very least, need to apply Icy Hot before bed.
Fortunately, plastic bags are available. I got two plastic bags and had the cashier put some of the stuff in each bag. Then I had my reusable on one shoulder, my purse on the other shoulder, and one plastic bag in each hand. The weight was distributed more comfortably, I wasn't going to do injury to any of my joints, and I could walk home like a normal person. If I'd had more stuff to carry, I could have taken more plastic bags and hung them on my elbows and forearms by the handles. The plastic bags are small enough that you can shift the weight distribution around quite easily, without having to unpack anything, without even breaking stride. None of this is news, people do this every day.
But how would this have played out after the plastic bag ban?
Paper bags would actually have made things worse. Because they don't have handles, I would have had to carry the paper bag with my arms wrapped around it. However, because I have narrow shoulders, carrying a paper bag this way causes whatever's on my shoulders to fall down to my elbows. So my big reusable bag hanging on my shoulder with my heaviest purchases would have come crashing down onto the place where my elbow meets my forearm, and could have done some serious damage.
Buying more reusable bags from the store would be really annoying, because I already have way too many at home that I don't use and they're probably going to end up in the landfill eventually anyway. Reusables could also be problematic for people who are shorter. I'm 5'7" and, when I carry my reusable bag in my hand, it dangles down as far as my ankle bone. (In comparison, plastic bags hit not too far below the knee.) Someone who is shorter might have more trouble carrying a reusable in their hand - especially if it's heavy enough that they can't comfortably carry it with their elbow slightly bent or hang it from their forearm. Shorter tends to correlate with older and with more physical limitations. My one grandmother is 4'6". Does she even have the option of carrying a reusable bag in her hand? (I don't know, we haven't tried. When her grocery store asks her if she'd like a plastic bag, she says "Yes please, I'd like 10" and uses them for household purposes, as the finds them more practical and economical than the garbage bags commercially available.)
But the only other option would be to take everything I can comfortably carry home, empty my bag and put my stuff away, and then head back out to get the rest of the stuff. This triples my errand time if I'm doing the errand in my neighbourhood, and makes it even longer if the stuff I need to buy is in another neighbourhood.
This would be even worse for people who are less physically capable than I am. I'm not especially strong, but I'm not especially weak either. I'm not post-menopausal, I don't have recent injuries, I don't have specific diagnosed joint problems, I don't have arthritis. Other people with these problems - which will become more and more prevalent with the aging of our population - would have even more trouble with some unexpected weight, and weight distribution would become a factor when carrying even less stuff. On top of that, taking some of your purchases home and then going back to the store for the rest is more likely to be more difficult - and more time-consuming - for people with more physical limitations, who might not be able to handle as much walking in a day.
This could also be a financial burden, by making it more difficult to buy the more economical larger sizes. In the trip I described in the first paragraph, if I'd needed to lighten my burden, I would have ended up not buying the cleaning products (thus missing an opportunity to stock up while they're on sale) and/or buying 2L of milk, which costs nearly as much as 4L. If this happens often, it will start to add up - especially since there is a correlation between people with more physical limitations and people with tighter budgets.
Some people are probably reading this pointing out engineering solutions, and engineering solutions do exist. I'm not saying there's no possible way to get the stuff home, but that's not the point.
The point is that this introduces a whole extra burden of inconvenience. Not only do you have to think "Can I carry all the stuff I need?", you also have to think "How, exactly, am I going to carry all the stuff I need? What will go on my shoulder? Is it too heavy for my shoulder? What will go in my hand? Is it light enough to hang on my forearm?" And you have to decide this before you leave the house in the morning if you're planning to pick up groceries on the way home from work.
The point is that this burden of inconvenience is borne disproportionately on those with joint problems and other physical limitations, for whom the threshold where weight distribution becomes a factor is lower.
The point is that this burden of inconvenience is exacerbated by physical limitations, because not only is the weight distribution threshold lower, but, if you walk slower, taking two trips takes up more time. And this extra time, in turn, exacerbates the weight distribution problem because you have to carry the weight for a longer time.
The point is that, with the aging population, the demographic who has physical limitations - especially joint problems - will only increase, leading more and more people to have to bear this burden of inconvenience.
The point is that this burden of inconvenience also falls disproportionately on the less fortunate, because it will make buying larger, more economic sizes more difficult, because it will make stocking up when things are on sale more difficult, because those with less money tend to live in less conveniently-located housing and therefore have farther to walk (which, as mentioned above, exacerbates the physical burden by having to carry an iffy weight further, and also exacerbates the financial burden by making it more difficult to take multiple trips if you do want to stock up) and, to add insult to injury, because the remaining handled bags available in stores will be more expensive (one or two dollars for a reusable as opposed to five cents for a plastic bag).
The point is also that this inconvenience (which, remember, came in the name of environmentalism) will make people who don't drive for all their trips more likely to drive for certain trips. If you're a car owner who normally takes the subway to work and buys groceries on your way home, but, because carrying all your stuff home in your reusable would wreck your shoulder, you have to take two trips, why not just go home, grab the car, drive back to the store, and save yourself the heavy carrying?
And the point is that this additional inconvenience that disproportionately burden those who already have more difficulty with the activities of everyday life was introduced impulsively, without study, without time to consult the public, without even telling the public it was coming so we could let our councillors know what we think, by councillors who, according to some reports, weren't even intending to vote for a ban. And all in the name of something that won't even achieve its stated objective of reducing the amount of plastic in the landfill, because we'll all end up buying (less useful and less convenient) garbage bags anyway.
Updated with an analogy: This is like they didn't allow taxis to park within reasonable pick-up distance of the grocery store, using the logic that taxis emit pollution. Some people never use taxis. Many people only rarely use taxis. But sometimes you have unforeseen circumstances where you need a taxi, and it's a really dick move to eliminate the option. Especially since people are still merrily driving around in their pollution-emitting cars and the taxis are only a drop in the bucket. And if it turns out there are in fact so many people taking taxis to the grocery store that it's causing a major pollution problem, that's probably a sign of some kind of infrastructure flaw that needs to be identified and fixed at its root, not by making it difficult for the people who already have the most difficulty to do their grocery shopping.
On the day I was shopping with a reusable bag, my purchases turned out to be heavier than I'd anticipated when I left the house that morning. The peaches in the grocery store turned out to actually be good for the first time in ages, so I bought a couple dozen in addition to my usual produce. The frozen yogurt I wanted was only available in a 2L container. Some of the cleaning products I use regularly were on sale at an especially good price. And, right before I left the house that morning, I discovered that I'd run out of milk. All my purchases still fit in my reusable bag, but I was carrying nearly 20 pounds more than I'd planned. This extra weight was too much for my shoulder. I knew if I carried all this stuff home in my reusable bag, I would, at the very least, need to apply Icy Hot before bed.
Fortunately, plastic bags are available. I got two plastic bags and had the cashier put some of the stuff in each bag. Then I had my reusable on one shoulder, my purse on the other shoulder, and one plastic bag in each hand. The weight was distributed more comfortably, I wasn't going to do injury to any of my joints, and I could walk home like a normal person. If I'd had more stuff to carry, I could have taken more plastic bags and hung them on my elbows and forearms by the handles. The plastic bags are small enough that you can shift the weight distribution around quite easily, without having to unpack anything, without even breaking stride. None of this is news, people do this every day.
But how would this have played out after the plastic bag ban?
Paper bags would actually have made things worse. Because they don't have handles, I would have had to carry the paper bag with my arms wrapped around it. However, because I have narrow shoulders, carrying a paper bag this way causes whatever's on my shoulders to fall down to my elbows. So my big reusable bag hanging on my shoulder with my heaviest purchases would have come crashing down onto the place where my elbow meets my forearm, and could have done some serious damage.
Buying more reusable bags from the store would be really annoying, because I already have way too many at home that I don't use and they're probably going to end up in the landfill eventually anyway. Reusables could also be problematic for people who are shorter. I'm 5'7" and, when I carry my reusable bag in my hand, it dangles down as far as my ankle bone. (In comparison, plastic bags hit not too far below the knee.) Someone who is shorter might have more trouble carrying a reusable in their hand - especially if it's heavy enough that they can't comfortably carry it with their elbow slightly bent or hang it from their forearm. Shorter tends to correlate with older and with more physical limitations. My one grandmother is 4'6". Does she even have the option of carrying a reusable bag in her hand? (I don't know, we haven't tried. When her grocery store asks her if she'd like a plastic bag, she says "Yes please, I'd like 10" and uses them for household purposes, as the finds them more practical and economical than the garbage bags commercially available.)
But the only other option would be to take everything I can comfortably carry home, empty my bag and put my stuff away, and then head back out to get the rest of the stuff. This triples my errand time if I'm doing the errand in my neighbourhood, and makes it even longer if the stuff I need to buy is in another neighbourhood.
This would be even worse for people who are less physically capable than I am. I'm not especially strong, but I'm not especially weak either. I'm not post-menopausal, I don't have recent injuries, I don't have specific diagnosed joint problems, I don't have arthritis. Other people with these problems - which will become more and more prevalent with the aging of our population - would have even more trouble with some unexpected weight, and weight distribution would become a factor when carrying even less stuff. On top of that, taking some of your purchases home and then going back to the store for the rest is more likely to be more difficult - and more time-consuming - for people with more physical limitations, who might not be able to handle as much walking in a day.
This could also be a financial burden, by making it more difficult to buy the more economical larger sizes. In the trip I described in the first paragraph, if I'd needed to lighten my burden, I would have ended up not buying the cleaning products (thus missing an opportunity to stock up while they're on sale) and/or buying 2L of milk, which costs nearly as much as 4L. If this happens often, it will start to add up - especially since there is a correlation between people with more physical limitations and people with tighter budgets.
Some people are probably reading this pointing out engineering solutions, and engineering solutions do exist. I'm not saying there's no possible way to get the stuff home, but that's not the point.
The point is that this introduces a whole extra burden of inconvenience. Not only do you have to think "Can I carry all the stuff I need?", you also have to think "How, exactly, am I going to carry all the stuff I need? What will go on my shoulder? Is it too heavy for my shoulder? What will go in my hand? Is it light enough to hang on my forearm?" And you have to decide this before you leave the house in the morning if you're planning to pick up groceries on the way home from work.
The point is that this burden of inconvenience is borne disproportionately on those with joint problems and other physical limitations, for whom the threshold where weight distribution becomes a factor is lower.
The point is that this burden of inconvenience is exacerbated by physical limitations, because not only is the weight distribution threshold lower, but, if you walk slower, taking two trips takes up more time. And this extra time, in turn, exacerbates the weight distribution problem because you have to carry the weight for a longer time.
The point is that, with the aging population, the demographic who has physical limitations - especially joint problems - will only increase, leading more and more people to have to bear this burden of inconvenience.
The point is that this burden of inconvenience also falls disproportionately on the less fortunate, because it will make buying larger, more economic sizes more difficult, because it will make stocking up when things are on sale more difficult, because those with less money tend to live in less conveniently-located housing and therefore have farther to walk (which, as mentioned above, exacerbates the physical burden by having to carry an iffy weight further, and also exacerbates the financial burden by making it more difficult to take multiple trips if you do want to stock up) and, to add insult to injury, because the remaining handled bags available in stores will be more expensive (one or two dollars for a reusable as opposed to five cents for a plastic bag).
The point is also that this inconvenience (which, remember, came in the name of environmentalism) will make people who don't drive for all their trips more likely to drive for certain trips. If you're a car owner who normally takes the subway to work and buys groceries on your way home, but, because carrying all your stuff home in your reusable would wreck your shoulder, you have to take two trips, why not just go home, grab the car, drive back to the store, and save yourself the heavy carrying?
And the point is that this additional inconvenience that disproportionately burden those who already have more difficulty with the activities of everyday life was introduced impulsively, without study, without time to consult the public, without even telling the public it was coming so we could let our councillors know what we think, by councillors who, according to some reports, weren't even intending to vote for a ban. And all in the name of something that won't even achieve its stated objective of reducing the amount of plastic in the landfill, because we'll all end up buying (less useful and less convenient) garbage bags anyway.
Updated with an analogy: This is like they didn't allow taxis to park within reasonable pick-up distance of the grocery store, using the logic that taxis emit pollution. Some people never use taxis. Many people only rarely use taxis. But sometimes you have unforeseen circumstances where you need a taxi, and it's a really dick move to eliminate the option. Especially since people are still merrily driving around in their pollution-emitting cars and the taxis are only a drop in the bucket. And if it turns out there are in fact so many people taking taxis to the grocery store that it's causing a major pollution problem, that's probably a sign of some kind of infrastructure flaw that needs to be identified and fixed at its root, not by making it difficult for the people who already have the most difficulty to do their grocery shopping.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Plastic bag braindump
1. "But Whole Foods doesn't use plastic bags and they do fine..." The experience of an individual store not providing something is not indicative of the experience of its unavailability in the entire city. It's easy to plan for one store in your many errands not having bags - if you misestimate, you can always get an extra bag from another store. But it's far more inconvenient, and your planning has to be far more perfect, if you can't get another bag, at all, ever, from anyone.
Analogy: most shoe stores will put an extra hole in your sandal straps if you ask them to. I once went to a shoe store that didn't have the tool to do that with. No big deal, my regular shoemaker was willing to do it for free. However, the relative inconvenience of that one non-hole-making shoe store is not indicative of the impact of banning that shoe-strap-hole-punching tool from Toronto city limits.
2. "Shopping without bags is easy! All you have to do is get these bins and keep them in your trunk..." Not if you don't have a car it's not. Since the stated reason for eliminating plastic bags is environmental, all discussion of the matter should focus on the carless trip chain, which benefits from things like light weight and waterproofness and handles and not having to carry big bulky sacks around all day just because you might want to stop in and pick up a couple of things after work. Making it more difficult to live without a car would be even worse for the environment - especially since this is Toronto, where there are many high-density neighbourhoods with shops within walking distance or public transit of homes. And, because I'm frustrated by how often people are promoting a car-based outlook in the name of environmentalism, I'm instituting a new rule: everyone who says it's easy to do away with plastic bags and then cites a car-based example is banned from using a car on their next comparable shopping trip.
3. "But I don't like plastic bags. I have sooo many of them and I don't even like them!" So why do you keep taking them? I've seriously seen this multiple times - people who actively embrace a ban because they feel that they have too many plastic bags in their own home. I don't like those awful "reusable" bags and already have more of then than I'd like, so I don't take them any more, not even when they're being given away for free. I also don't like cantaloupe. Or tampons without applicators. Or bubble gum. So I don't buy any and say no thank you if they're ever offered to me for free. It's really rather simple. Just because you have trouble saying "No thanks" or not reaching out and accepting what is thrust in your direction is not a good basis for a ban. "And sometimes they get holes in them!" So do shoes. And underwear. And "reuseable" bags for that matter. That isn't a good reason to stop (and ban!) their use.
4. "This is a failure of leadership by Rob Ford." No, it isn't. Don't get me wrong, I have no fondness for Rob Ford and would love to seize a chance to criticize him, but it's not his job to make council not vote stupidly. It's council's job to not vote stupidly by virtue of being remotely competent adults. In fact, because we don't have a party system at the municipal level and voted for our councillors on the basis of a non-party system, it would be morally wrong and a betrayal of voters for the mayor to whip the vote. (I know he attempts to do so from time to time; that is something you can cite when looking for examples of poor mayorship.)
5. Would the cost to retailers make it worth adhering to the ban? Some media coverage (e.g. the first letter to the editor here from C.R. Ihasz) has mentioned that paper bags are significantly more expensive to retailers than plastic, and some coverage has mentioned that some retailers have already ordered and paid for enough plastic bags to meet their anticipated needs for the next 12-18 months. I haven't seen anything about what the consequences of providing plastic bags after the ban would be, but it seems like the sort of thing that would be punishable by a fine. It might be more cost-effective to retailers to continue providing plastic bags in violation of the ban, and just accept any fines as the cost of doing business.
Also, paging C.R. Ihasz: I would like to know the name of your store so I can direct some of my business there.
6. How will this affect farmer's market farmers? When I purchase soft, easily squishable produce (peaches, strawberries, etc.) from a farmer's market, I have them put the Foodland Ontario basket in a plastic bag and carry the bag around by the handles. That protects the fruit from being bruised or smashed as much as possible while keeping it clean and easy to carry. But when I buy harder, sturdier produce (apples, carrots, etc.) I have them take it out of the basket and just put it in a plastic bag. The basket isn't necessary to keep the fruit from bruising or smashing, and it's lighter to carry that way. The farmer keeps the baskets I don't use and fills them up again the next week. But if the farmers can't provide plastic bags and we have to do our market run with reusable bags, then we'll have to keep all our baskets to keep the fruit as segregated as possible in the reusables (or else the apples will bruise the peaches and the carrots will burst the berries.) I'd be using twice as many baskets under these circumstances, which means that my farmers would have to buy twice as many baskets (which are surely significantly more expensive than bags.) Plus, I have no use for the baskets once I get my food home, so that's something even bigger and bulkier going into the waste stream in addition to my usual one plastic bag a day.
7. What about retailers who reuse plastic bags? Some small businesses I patronize (i.e. owner-operated, only one or two employees) don't have their own plastic bags. If I need a bag for my purchase, they give me a bag they used when they bought something at a store, or promotional bags given to them by their vendors. Including these in the ban may would be ridiculous.
8. Legislate handles! If it turns out that City Council isn't able to undo this ridiculous over-reaching ban and retailers are left only able to provide us with paper bags (which would actually increase my household waste footprint, because I have no further use for paper once I get them home so they'd go straight into recycling while I still throw out one plastic bag a day full of food waste), City Council should pass a law requiring all bags to have handles! At least that would solve the logistical problem of an errand trip chain with multiple stops. It's true that a handle requirement would be far beyond the scope of what City Council should be legislating, but so is an outright ban.
Analogy: most shoe stores will put an extra hole in your sandal straps if you ask them to. I once went to a shoe store that didn't have the tool to do that with. No big deal, my regular shoemaker was willing to do it for free. However, the relative inconvenience of that one non-hole-making shoe store is not indicative of the impact of banning that shoe-strap-hole-punching tool from Toronto city limits.
2. "Shopping without bags is easy! All you have to do is get these bins and keep them in your trunk..." Not if you don't have a car it's not. Since the stated reason for eliminating plastic bags is environmental, all discussion of the matter should focus on the carless trip chain, which benefits from things like light weight and waterproofness and handles and not having to carry big bulky sacks around all day just because you might want to stop in and pick up a couple of things after work. Making it more difficult to live without a car would be even worse for the environment - especially since this is Toronto, where there are many high-density neighbourhoods with shops within walking distance or public transit of homes. And, because I'm frustrated by how often people are promoting a car-based outlook in the name of environmentalism, I'm instituting a new rule: everyone who says it's easy to do away with plastic bags and then cites a car-based example is banned from using a car on their next comparable shopping trip.
3. "But I don't like plastic bags. I have sooo many of them and I don't even like them!" So why do you keep taking them? I've seriously seen this multiple times - people who actively embrace a ban because they feel that they have too many plastic bags in their own home. I don't like those awful "reusable" bags and already have more of then than I'd like, so I don't take them any more, not even when they're being given away for free. I also don't like cantaloupe. Or tampons without applicators. Or bubble gum. So I don't buy any and say no thank you if they're ever offered to me for free. It's really rather simple. Just because you have trouble saying "No thanks" or not reaching out and accepting what is thrust in your direction is not a good basis for a ban. "And sometimes they get holes in them!" So do shoes. And underwear. And "reuseable" bags for that matter. That isn't a good reason to stop (and ban!) their use.
4. "This is a failure of leadership by Rob Ford." No, it isn't. Don't get me wrong, I have no fondness for Rob Ford and would love to seize a chance to criticize him, but it's not his job to make council not vote stupidly. It's council's job to not vote stupidly by virtue of being remotely competent adults. In fact, because we don't have a party system at the municipal level and voted for our councillors on the basis of a non-party system, it would be morally wrong and a betrayal of voters for the mayor to whip the vote. (I know he attempts to do so from time to time; that is something you can cite when looking for examples of poor mayorship.)
5. Would the cost to retailers make it worth adhering to the ban? Some media coverage (e.g. the first letter to the editor here from C.R. Ihasz) has mentioned that paper bags are significantly more expensive to retailers than plastic, and some coverage has mentioned that some retailers have already ordered and paid for enough plastic bags to meet their anticipated needs for the next 12-18 months. I haven't seen anything about what the consequences of providing plastic bags after the ban would be, but it seems like the sort of thing that would be punishable by a fine. It might be more cost-effective to retailers to continue providing plastic bags in violation of the ban, and just accept any fines as the cost of doing business.
Also, paging C.R. Ihasz: I would like to know the name of your store so I can direct some of my business there.
6. How will this affect farmer's market farmers? When I purchase soft, easily squishable produce (peaches, strawberries, etc.) from a farmer's market, I have them put the Foodland Ontario basket in a plastic bag and carry the bag around by the handles. That protects the fruit from being bruised or smashed as much as possible while keeping it clean and easy to carry. But when I buy harder, sturdier produce (apples, carrots, etc.) I have them take it out of the basket and just put it in a plastic bag. The basket isn't necessary to keep the fruit from bruising or smashing, and it's lighter to carry that way. The farmer keeps the baskets I don't use and fills them up again the next week. But if the farmers can't provide plastic bags and we have to do our market run with reusable bags, then we'll have to keep all our baskets to keep the fruit as segregated as possible in the reusables (or else the apples will bruise the peaches and the carrots will burst the berries.) I'd be using twice as many baskets under these circumstances, which means that my farmers would have to buy twice as many baskets (which are surely significantly more expensive than bags.) Plus, I have no use for the baskets once I get my food home, so that's something even bigger and bulkier going into the waste stream in addition to my usual one plastic bag a day.
7. What about retailers who reuse plastic bags? Some small businesses I patronize (i.e. owner-operated, only one or two employees) don't have their own plastic bags. If I need a bag for my purchase, they give me a bag they used when they bought something at a store, or promotional bags given to them by their vendors. Including these in the ban may would be ridiculous.
8. Legislate handles! If it turns out that City Council isn't able to undo this ridiculous over-reaching ban and retailers are left only able to provide us with paper bags (which would actually increase my household waste footprint, because I have no further use for paper once I get them home so they'd go straight into recycling while I still throw out one plastic bag a day full of food waste), City Council should pass a law requiring all bags to have handles! At least that would solve the logistical problem of an errand trip chain with multiple stops. It's true that a handle requirement would be far beyond the scope of what City Council should be legislating, but so is an outright ban.
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Spiting Rob Ford: ur doin it wrong
Dear Toronto City Council:
I totally get wanting to stick it to Rob Ford. I'm no fan of the man myself. He came into work early on his very first day to cancel Transit City, which (as I explained to him in email shortly after his election) would hurt me more than any other government policy enacted in my lifetime. With that action, he lost any further benefit of the doubt I might have given him, and, before we even get into policy quality, I'm not above enjoying a little flicker of schadenfreude every time he's defeated.
However, by banning plastic bags in Toronto, you've just ensured his next election victory.
What you've done is introduced an inconvenience that people will notice every day, and that Ford opposed. Every single time someone ends up buying more groceries than they planned for; every single time someone opens the hall closet and their stash of those bulky annoying "reusable" bags that it's never actually convenient to use falls on their head; every single time someone needs to get shoes repaired, go to the farmer's market and buy clothes all in one trip; every single time someone runs out of garbage bags because they keep forgetting to buy garbage bags because they've never had to buy garbage bags before in their life because their grocery bags have always done the job, this irritant you've introduced will come up and slap them in the face.
As we know, Ford appeals to voters who don't closely follow the details of municipal politics, who don't have (or don't care to have) a broader view and are more likely to vote on things that affect them personally and directly. We saw this in the last election, with people swayed by groundless claims that a subway could be built quickly and cheaply, or by the prospect of saving a measly $60 a year on vehicle registration tax (an amount so negligible that they wouldn't even notice if $60 were pickpocketed from their wallet over the course of a year.) If spin and catchphrases and negligible cost savings could win him an election, imagine what a tangible daily irritant will do!
There are many things you could do to spite Rob Ford that will also make life easier and more fun for Torontonians. You could restore the library and bus services that were cut. You could build more bike lanes. You could extend Pride funding. You could build all of Transit City in its original form.
Or you could solve this whole plastic bag debacle by requiring stores to give away biodegradable plastic bags. As I've blogged about many many many many many times before, biodegradable bags would make environmentally optimal behaviour effortless. You don't have to remember to bring your reusable bags, you don't have to remember to buy garbage bags. You just go to a store and buy stuff without thinking about bags, and they give you a biodegradable bag. Then, when you get home, you reach for the nearest plastic bag to use for garbage, and it's biodegradable. You'd have to go out of your way to put plastic into the landfill. And, as an added bonus, it would spite Rob Ford because he's not so very into the City telling businesses how they can do business. You could also do so by extending the organic waste collection program to highrises, which will spite Rob Ford by costing money to implement, and do way more to address your ostensible goal of reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills than a plastic bag ban would.
I totally get wanting to stick it to Rob Ford. I'm no fan of the man myself. He came into work early on his very first day to cancel Transit City, which (as I explained to him in email shortly after his election) would hurt me more than any other government policy enacted in my lifetime. With that action, he lost any further benefit of the doubt I might have given him, and, before we even get into policy quality, I'm not above enjoying a little flicker of schadenfreude every time he's defeated.
However, by banning plastic bags in Toronto, you've just ensured his next election victory.
What you've done is introduced an inconvenience that people will notice every day, and that Ford opposed. Every single time someone ends up buying more groceries than they planned for; every single time someone opens the hall closet and their stash of those bulky annoying "reusable" bags that it's never actually convenient to use falls on their head; every single time someone needs to get shoes repaired, go to the farmer's market and buy clothes all in one trip; every single time someone runs out of garbage bags because they keep forgetting to buy garbage bags because they've never had to buy garbage bags before in their life because their grocery bags have always done the job, this irritant you've introduced will come up and slap them in the face.
As we know, Ford appeals to voters who don't closely follow the details of municipal politics, who don't have (or don't care to have) a broader view and are more likely to vote on things that affect them personally and directly. We saw this in the last election, with people swayed by groundless claims that a subway could be built quickly and cheaply, or by the prospect of saving a measly $60 a year on vehicle registration tax (an amount so negligible that they wouldn't even notice if $60 were pickpocketed from their wallet over the course of a year.) If spin and catchphrases and negligible cost savings could win him an election, imagine what a tangible daily irritant will do!
There are many things you could do to spite Rob Ford that will also make life easier and more fun for Torontonians. You could restore the library and bus services that were cut. You could build more bike lanes. You could extend Pride funding. You could build all of Transit City in its original form.
Or you could solve this whole plastic bag debacle by requiring stores to give away biodegradable plastic bags. As I've blogged about many many many many many times before, biodegradable bags would make environmentally optimal behaviour effortless. You don't have to remember to bring your reusable bags, you don't have to remember to buy garbage bags. You just go to a store and buy stuff without thinking about bags, and they give you a biodegradable bag. Then, when you get home, you reach for the nearest plastic bag to use for garbage, and it's biodegradable. You'd have to go out of your way to put plastic into the landfill. And, as an added bonus, it would spite Rob Ford because he's not so very into the City telling businesses how they can do business. You could also do so by extending the organic waste collection program to highrises, which will spite Rob Ford by costing money to implement, and do way more to address your ostensible goal of reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills than a plastic bag ban would.
Friday, May 04, 2012
Teach me about the Canadian Forces drug plan
Reading this article, the following description of a drug program the Canadian Forces is considering cutting struck me as odd:
In any case, I think it's inappropriate for Viagra (or any other drug) to get special treatment. It shouldn't have a special program, it shouldn't be specifically cut back. Choices of specific medications should be between doctor and patient, and drug plans should cover what the doctor prescribes. To prioritize or pick on specific drugs because they make someone's inner 12-year-old snicker makes you no better than Arizona.
Within government, officials have expressed concern for years about the rising cost of the wildly popular Viagra program, which saw members limited to six of the little blue pills a month — at a cost of between $15 and $22 per pill.The article gives the impression that the Canadian Forces have a Viagra program that is separate from their ordinary drug plan. Is this actually the case, or are the numbers quoted above just what happens when you apply the ordinary drug plan to Viagra?
In any case, I think it's inappropriate for Viagra (or any other drug) to get special treatment. It shouldn't have a special program, it shouldn't be specifically cut back. Choices of specific medications should be between doctor and patient, and drug plans should cover what the doctor prescribes. To prioritize or pick on specific drugs because they make someone's inner 12-year-old snicker makes you no better than Arizona.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Things They Should Invent: improvement-only program and policy reviews
When a government announces it's going to "review" a program or policy, it most often means they're looking for places to cut funding.
I think that's limiting. They should also be reviewing not just for efficiencies, but for effectiveness. How could the program or policy fulfill its intended purpose better? They should be required to review everything through this lens at regular intervals, as a completely separate process from efficiency reviews. No looking at saving money, just looking at how the program could be better. Then they could issue reports, and interesting stuff would gain media attention and, if it's popular with the public, public support.
For example, parental leave could fulfill its mandate most effectively by providing 100% parental leave benefits, which would nearly double the cost of the program. It could also fulfill its mandate more effectively than it is now by offering the option of compressed parental leave, which would have little impact on the cost. This probably wouldn't come up in an efficiency review, but it would be a significant way to improve the effectiveness of the program.
This could also help win over the "Yes, but..." vote. If politicos know that a program is going to be subject to an effectiveness review, they might be willing to vote in a program that's better than the status quo but not as good as it could be, because there's a mechanism to help it get as good as it could be.
How many sub-par programs and policies are we subjected to because there's no apparatus for "How can we make this better?", only "How can we make this cheaper?"
I think that's limiting. They should also be reviewing not just for efficiencies, but for effectiveness. How could the program or policy fulfill its intended purpose better? They should be required to review everything through this lens at regular intervals, as a completely separate process from efficiency reviews. No looking at saving money, just looking at how the program could be better. Then they could issue reports, and interesting stuff would gain media attention and, if it's popular with the public, public support.
For example, parental leave could fulfill its mandate most effectively by providing 100% parental leave benefits, which would nearly double the cost of the program. It could also fulfill its mandate more effectively than it is now by offering the option of compressed parental leave, which would have little impact on the cost. This probably wouldn't come up in an efficiency review, but it would be a significant way to improve the effectiveness of the program.
This could also help win over the "Yes, but..." vote. If politicos know that a program is going to be subject to an effectiveness review, they might be willing to vote in a program that's better than the status quo but not as good as it could be, because there's a mechanism to help it get as good as it could be.
How many sub-par programs and policies are we subjected to because there's no apparatus for "How can we make this better?", only "How can we make this cheaper?"
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Things They Should Invent: substitute MPs
This post was inspired by two things. First, the by-election for the late Jack Layton's riding is on March 19, 2012, which is nearly 7 months after Mr. Layton's death on August 22, 2011. This means the people of Toronto-Danforth have gone without representation for 7 months.
Second, there was a brief bit of an issue where a plot point was that MP Sana Hassainia had her three-month-old baby with her in the House of Commons. The fact that she's working when her baby is three months old must mean that she doesn't get much, if any, maternity or parental leave, likely because it wouldn't be fair to ask the people of Verchères–Les Patriotes to go a year without representation. But, at the same time, the vagaries of life such as childbirth and illness happen to everyone, and MPs deserve some leeway when it does happen, just like any other worker.
Solution: substitute MPs who can step in when an MP needs to take extended leave for whatever reason, and represent the constituency while waiting for by-elections.
Here are a few ideas to serve as a starting point:
- The substitute MP would be appointed by the party of the sitting MP. If it's a by-election situation, the substitute MP would not be permitted to run in that by-election or campaign for the party's by-election candidate. (They are, of course, welcome to run in future elections).
- The substitute MP's primary mandate is constituency work, and they are to be as productive and pro-active in this area as possible.
- Substitutes would still vote in the House of Commons. In general, substitutes would have to vote in accordance with the party line, but there would be specific, quantitative procedures to allow them to break from party line when the majority of their constituents want them to do so. (Possible variation: the quantitative thresholds for breaking with the party line could vary based on the percentage of votes won by the sitting MP.)
- Substitutes are not permitted to be party leaders, ministers, or critics. If the MP they are replacing held any of these roles, the roles must be passed on to another elected MP on an interim basis.
- If an MP crosses the floor, a by-election is called and in the interim a substitute is appointed from the party to which the MP belonged when they were elected. This would accommodate the needs of voters who vote by party while still permitting constituents to re-elect the floor-crossing MP if they choose, in full knowledge of their party affiliations.
- Some provision needs to be made for substitutes for independent MPs, but I don't have any specific ideas at the moment. I have no particular objection to the independent MP simply appointing their own substitute, but it would be nice to have more of a safety net than just one person asking around until they can find someone able and willing.
Second, there was a brief bit of an issue where a plot point was that MP Sana Hassainia had her three-month-old baby with her in the House of Commons. The fact that she's working when her baby is three months old must mean that she doesn't get much, if any, maternity or parental leave, likely because it wouldn't be fair to ask the people of Verchères–Les Patriotes to go a year without representation. But, at the same time, the vagaries of life such as childbirth and illness happen to everyone, and MPs deserve some leeway when it does happen, just like any other worker.
Solution: substitute MPs who can step in when an MP needs to take extended leave for whatever reason, and represent the constituency while waiting for by-elections.
Here are a few ideas to serve as a starting point:
- The substitute MP would be appointed by the party of the sitting MP. If it's a by-election situation, the substitute MP would not be permitted to run in that by-election or campaign for the party's by-election candidate. (They are, of course, welcome to run in future elections).
- The substitute MP's primary mandate is constituency work, and they are to be as productive and pro-active in this area as possible.
- Substitutes would still vote in the House of Commons. In general, substitutes would have to vote in accordance with the party line, but there would be specific, quantitative procedures to allow them to break from party line when the majority of their constituents want them to do so. (Possible variation: the quantitative thresholds for breaking with the party line could vary based on the percentage of votes won by the sitting MP.)
- Substitutes are not permitted to be party leaders, ministers, or critics. If the MP they are replacing held any of these roles, the roles must be passed on to another elected MP on an interim basis.
- If an MP crosses the floor, a by-election is called and in the interim a substitute is appointed from the party to which the MP belonged when they were elected. This would accommodate the needs of voters who vote by party while still permitting constituents to re-elect the floor-crossing MP if they choose, in full knowledge of their party affiliations.
- Some provision needs to be made for substitutes for independent MPs, but I don't have any specific ideas at the moment. I have no particular objection to the independent MP simply appointing their own substitute, but it would be nice to have more of a safety net than just one person asking around until they can find someone able and willing.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
On Gary Webster
I am sickened and disgusted and terrified by the firing of Gary Webster, and I am so absolutely livid that this is being done in my name.
In addition to being an insult to Mr. Webster, the TTC, the people of Toronto, and basic good sense, this disgraceful behaviour is a slap in the face of the hundreds of thousands of Torontonians who came here specifically to flee this kind of corruption.
On top of that, this raises the very important question of what kind of person would be willing to replace him under these working conditions? When the previous incumbent was fired for refusing to falsify a business case, do we have any chance of getting a competent or ethical replacement?
I sincerely hope Mr. Webster wins millions and millions of dollars that the city can't afford in a massive wrongful dismissal suit. Even if he doesn't need the money, I hope he wins on principle.
If I were a lawyer, I would be volunteering to represent him pro bono.
If I owned a business, I'd be wracking my brains to figure out how to hire him for more than he made at the TTC.
Things They Should Invent: consulting firm staffed entirely by former senior civil servants driven out of their jobs for doing their jobs. (Gary Webster, Linda Keen, Richard Colvin, Munir Sheikh, etc.)
I've never donated money to a political campaign. I dislike the fact that you cannot donate anonymously. More than once I've googled someone and their political donations have come up on the first page of results, and I don't like the idea of a prospective employer or client or someone else with whom my relationship would be purely professional and apolitical having access to that information.
But my visceral reaction here, for the first time in my life, was that I want to donate as much money as possible to whomever has the best chance of beating out the people responsible for firing Mr. Webster in the next election.
In the meantime, there's a petition to get them removed from the TTC Board.
In addition to being an insult to Mr. Webster, the TTC, the people of Toronto, and basic good sense, this disgraceful behaviour is a slap in the face of the hundreds of thousands of Torontonians who came here specifically to flee this kind of corruption.
On top of that, this raises the very important question of what kind of person would be willing to replace him under these working conditions? When the previous incumbent was fired for refusing to falsify a business case, do we have any chance of getting a competent or ethical replacement?
I sincerely hope Mr. Webster wins millions and millions of dollars that the city can't afford in a massive wrongful dismissal suit. Even if he doesn't need the money, I hope he wins on principle.
If I were a lawyer, I would be volunteering to represent him pro bono.
If I owned a business, I'd be wracking my brains to figure out how to hire him for more than he made at the TTC.
Things They Should Invent: consulting firm staffed entirely by former senior civil servants driven out of their jobs for doing their jobs. (Gary Webster, Linda Keen, Richard Colvin, Munir Sheikh, etc.)
I've never donated money to a political campaign. I dislike the fact that you cannot donate anonymously. More than once I've googled someone and their political donations have come up on the first page of results, and I don't like the idea of a prospective employer or client or someone else with whom my relationship would be purely professional and apolitical having access to that information.
But my visceral reaction here, for the first time in my life, was that I want to donate as much money as possible to whomever has the best chance of beating out the people responsible for firing Mr. Webster in the next election.
In the meantime, there's a petition to get them removed from the TTC Board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)