Elections, Social Media, and Bozo Eruptions - Time for Sanity?

I haven't written on this blog for a long time, but with the current Federal election taking place and the number of candidates being forced to resign over social media screwups, perhaps we need to take a step back and consider if a person's past online statements are really necessarily enough to be dismissed. By my count, there have so far been two Conservative, two Liberal and one NDP candidates that have been forced to resign their candidacy for past posts on various social media platforms (with an additional Conservative candidate being dumped for urinating in a cup at a client's home)

While this might thrill the hyper-partisans of the other parties (full disclaimer - yes that includes me sometimes), I think Canadians need to really consider if the statements made in the past are significantly important or serious enough to impact their ability to be an effective Member of Parliament and represent his or her constituents in a manner that is both professional and ethical. In my view, this is distracting from the election as a whole, and while the media might like it for some brief excitement in the daily news cycle, one has to wonder at the long term effects (if any) on the types of people who get selected for running for public office.

Realistically, none of us are perfect, and I would not feel too much risk if I bet that almost everyone who partakes in social media, especially in the political debates, have at least once posted something that is offensive to at least one other person. That is the reality of life - what one person thinks is okay, may be offensive to another; and if a disagreement gets out of hand, words are spoken that are meant to hurt or provoke. The difference is that social media records this for all time, no matter what the circumstances were that lead to it or if is actually relevant to the events of today.

In common law there is a concept of Statute of Limitations, where the actions of a person in certain issues, such as slander, are no longer considered to have legal ramifications (I'm using this as an illustration, I am not a lawyer, so my definition may be a bit off). I suggest that if we want people to continue to come forward and participate as candidates there should be a statute of limitations for social media, say two or three years. Why? A person's views may have changed, the person may have not been in the best mental state at the time of a posting, or maybe even having written something after a few too many beers. And in the case of teenagers, well, realistically speaking, the number of teens who have not done or said something moronic during that time period in their life would be almost non-existent...

That being said there are a few caveats to this:

• Posts that can be considered by the general population to be discriminatory towards a specific group of people (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)
• Misogyny
• Posts that threaten violence to a person or persons

All in all, to me the ultimate test may be to just let the candidate run on their past record. If they can convince voters in their riding that they deserve to be elected, that is far better than the shrill voices of the political bubbles on social media that demand blood.

Missing & Inaction

For many years, Alberta has been known across Canada for it's entrepreneurial spirit and its can-do attitude. Of course, at the heart of that attitude is unflinching readiness to perform great amounts of work to accomplish great goals.

However, our elected officials, both in Alberta and in the Federal government (including the PM who's riding is in Calgary) seem feel that the important work of running a province or a country respectively does not need that much attention. I'm speaking of the disturbing trend of reducing the sitting times of the two levels of governments, supposedly for "consultations" or "caucus meetings". While the Federal government seems happy proroguing parliament when it pleases, the Alberta governments tendency to take time off on a whim is a more serious issue at the moment.

As pointed out at Christmas in the Edmonton Journal, total number days the Alberta legislature sat in 2009 was 64 and then last year was 50. It would seem that this year, it will be even less, with the legislature apparently not going back into session until sometime in the second half of February. Admittedly, the number of days has fluctuated wildly over the past few decades as shown in a Pembina.org report.

The problem here is that there is no reason for the legislature not to be back at work. There are numerous issues that face this province - health care, education at all levels, homelessness, infrastructure, and on and on. While the implementation of government programs is of course carried out by the provincial bureaucracy, there is still leadership needed from the cabinet as well as full discussion by the entire legislature.

This is even more disturbing after the release today of the fact that Premier Stelmach is the highest paid premier in all of Canada and the government ministers earn "the most among the provinces and territories". Remember, this is after the ministers gave themselves a pay raise shortly after the last election, without outside consultation or discussion with opposition MLAs.

I can imagine what my boss would say if I went up to him and said - "I'm taking off for a couple of months, by the way, thanks for the big raise!" - I would end up in the Alberta Works employment line the next day.

Now, I'm all for fair compensation for executives. However leaders must meet the expectations of the stakeholders, in this case the voters of Alberta. During the past few years there have been a number of problems that have appeared or worsened. Some have been a direct or indirect result global recession - reduced income from resource revenues among the most notable. But, this does not excuse poor management!

We've had the highest per capita spending in Canada for a while. Despite this, we have infrastructure problems, a collapsing health system and insufficient allocation of resources for education. On top of this, the government is in a cycle of deficit budgeting to pay for everything.

Note that I don't follow the belief that governments should be run like a corporation - they are radically different than corporations, both in terms objectives and its methods. Governments provide necessary services using taxes to fund them; it should not be making a profit (although, in the case of natural resources, I agree with the Alberta Heritage Fund as a way of compensating the extraction of resources). The thing is, efficiency should be measured against government operations. Root causes of the problems should be found and addressed, and streamlining of operations and reduction in bureaucratic red-tape should be implemented. More to the point, input from the public should be collected and acted upon - use the ideas from the people to find solutions! Talk to the people, not down to them!

The Alberta PCs have had 40 years to work at the problems facing this province, and while the province has grown and is better off than was, many of the problems facing us have been here for a long time and have gotten worse. So, I'm still unsure why the Stelmach government believes that they deserve the high rate of compensation that they gave themselves, or the extended time away from work.

If they feel that they are bereft of ideas on how to solve the problems facing the province, then let's call an election! Otherwise, get back to work!

Guest Post: Public Education Must Be Inclusive

I was approached soon after I started this blog by Robert Hurdman (Twitter handle @RobertHurdman) who is an active participant in the online Twitter discussions for Alberta politics and wanted some space to occasionally share his political thoughts without the hassle of starting a full time blog.

So, without further ado:

---

Dave King, formerly the Minister of Education in Peter Lougheed's provincial government, has started a website (http://separateschooleducation.ca/) and a petition about public education in Alberta. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that there are much larger issues with our public education system, I'd like to elaborate my reasons for signing his petition.

I tend to agree with Mr. King's vision of what the public education system should be. Public schools are funded by the government in order to provide a certain education to all children. Because the system uses public funds and is intended to benefit all children, it should be inclusive and it should reinforce our values of multiculturalism and tolerance. Catholics, who share these values, seem to feel attacked by Mr. King's suggestion that their school system should be “disestablished.” In reality, this is not a proposal to take away their schools as much as to end the duplication of resources that result, for example, in two underutilized elementary schools neighbouring each other in established communities such as Midnapore (where I attended elementary school) and the attendant transportation costs. There is also the lack of involvement in the governance of schools that results from segregation and confusion about who can support which system. This was particularly apparent during the recent school board election and the lack of press coverage.

There are strengths that exist in the Catholic system from which all schools could benefit. One example is in learning and living their values. My children's public school talks about a “value of the month,” but little real learning accompanies these values. Further, there are families of many other religions who would be happy for their children to experience moral or faith-based education at school. Witness the number of private and charter schools that provide these programs. Rather than force parents to choose a private school, it seems that it would be preferable to offer faith-based classes in community schools which are targeted toward the community they serve and completely optional. This way, more students could participate in reinforcing their values and exploring their beliefs. I may not choose to send my child to a class about Catholicism, but I would extremely interested in exposing my child to Buddhism or Taoism or aboriginal beliefs in an effort to help understand the cultures of our land and our extended family.

In light of this view of a public education system that is inclusive of all students, I would propose more than a merger of the public and Catholic school boards. Excepting the duplication of resources, I see the Catholic schools as very similar to charter schools in that they provide the publicly-mandated curriculum with a special focus. The problem that I see is that charter schools are able to exclude students arbitrarily. This is particularly unfair to families who live in the neighbourhood of the school and are forced to travel because the school won't accept them, as well as students who struggle in school. It's very easy for a charter school to exclude all but the students who score in the top 1% on tests. They may then boast that they have a great program of instruction because (surprise, surprise), their students are scoring in the top 1% on tests. I believe that choice is of great value to families and I believe that charter schools fill a valuable role. However, they should no longer be allowed to exclude students based on any criteria except location (for transportation reasons) as long as they receive public funds.

There also exist private schools in Alberta. Private schools are funded 60%-70% by public funds. Private schools must meet the same curriculum as other schools in order to offer a recognized diploma, but they are under no requirement to accept all students, they are not required to employ teachers that belong to a union (the ATA) and they are able to charge tuition. I don't believe that private schools present any danger to the program of public education. They provide choice for parents who have the desire and resources to participate. Again, as long as they are exempt from providing an environment that is inclusive of all students, I don't believe they should receive any public funds.

Saying that the funding should follow the student sounds good in theory, but encounters problems when followed to its logical conclusion. We all pay taxes that are collected by the provincial government to fund the public education system. This includes families with children who attend school, single people and families without children, families who will leave Alberta before their children attend school and families who will immigrate to Alberta after their children are grown. There are no exemptions. It is understandable that parents who choose a private school would prefer to have their tax dollars redirected to support their child's school. But if we allow that, do we begin to offer full funding to home schoolers? Do we offer full refunds to families without children in public schools? If we do, we might as well cut out the tax middleman and simply charge tuition for all schools with a lifetime payment plan. This is not the view of education as a public good that we currently hold in Alberta.

I believe that there is much value in an inclusive public education system. As long as our tax dollars are supporting schools, I believe those schools must accept all students who live within a reasonable distance. Allowing schools to offer diverse programs or a novel focus provides choice, which is valuable to parents who want to provide the best experience for their unique children. These programs could focus on fine arts, sports, religion, back-to-basics, or any other focus that there is a demand for. If parents choose a program within the public system, it will be publicly funded. If parents choose a program outside the public system, they should expect no public funding.

Going Forward into Next Year

I'm writing a shorter and far different post than what I had originally intended today, having writer's block as well as typing on my work laptop from a motel room in Ponoka. Regardless, now that I have thrown my support behind the Alberta Party while using social media to advertise this,I know that I'll need to be careful in what I post online. Online, everyone can view what you've said, as a lot of politicians have realized after the fact.

A lot of my thoughts are turning towards strategies and how to apply them to the upcoming provincial election (there has got to be betting pool around somewhere about if or when it will happen in 2011). I don't really want to say much in a blog that could be perused by people on the other teams, but a few things:

1. While there are a limited number of voters available, only 41% votes in the last election. So a lot more voters can be added into the mix, throwing off polling numbers. I think the most successful party is going to be the one that can engage the largest proportion of the remaining 59% as well as those voters who already vote.
2. I think that a generational shift is occurring in Alberta. The "youth" vote of the Gen-Xers and Gen-Ys are starting to become involved. The Nenshi campaign in the Calgary mayoralty race demonstrated that if you have a platform that actually has issues that people are interested in and, more importantly, a leader that is willing to openly engage in debate, the younger voters will get out. As noted in his Globe and Mail article, Éric Grenier stated that the inclusion of the youth vote would radically transform the House of Commons, with the federal Green Party winning an estimated 43 seats. Now that is something that parties in all levels of government should be taking note of!
3. Traditional polling is a dying metric. As most polling takes a random sample of voter intentions by landlines, they are missing the fact that an increasing number of people, particularly those under 40, are not using landlines anymore. Furthermore, polling generally asks who a person favours, not if that person is actually going to take the time to go and vote. For both these reasons, it is getting harder to really feel that the polling is a truly statistically relevant, despite what pollsters say.

Why am I pointing these out? Well, the first two points are about who is going to get the votes in the next election. None of the traditional parties in Alberta (PCs, Liberals, or NDPs) have been able to gain significant amounts of new voters since the last election. Instead, the Wild Rose Party has until now been the only party to really get some movement on that.

However, I feel the Alberta Party has significant momentum, particularly among the younger voters. There is also noticeable interest in rural Alberta, even out here in Ponoka, where I'm talking about it with some of my colleagues. There is an excitement that seems to be building that is not apparent with most other parties - people want something different and are looking towards the Alberta Party to provide that.

This desire for significant change that is driving people to learn about the Alberta Party is parallel to the greatly successful Nenshi campaign: people want change and they are willing to take a risk on the unknown if they feel that their wants, needs and values are being not only listened to, but understood and will be acted upon. Of course, a leader of the party must be elected and this person will be instrumental in how the public at large perceives the party. At the time of this writing, there are two potential candidate considering entering the race, but in the interim, Sue Huff is doing a great job in getting the message of the party to the media and, in my opinion, is so far greatly boosting its fortunes.

As for the third point that I stated, I think it is about believing in the party, its message and the people who are in it. Mainstream media in Alberta will not pay much attention to the Alberta Party until a critical mass is built. But as Nenshi and his people showed earlier this year, polls don't necessarily mean much and a superior campaign, ideas and people can beat out the top dogs.

So, as things wind down for Christmas and New Years, I'm already starting to think towards the long slog that will eventually (likely sometime in 2011 I think) lead to a provincial election. Then will the fun begin!

Happy Holidays!

To Start With

This is my first foray into serious blogging, although I've been posting off and on to my other blog, which is primarily targeted towards other software developers and tech geeks (such as how to set up Apache web server in Ubuntu to direct traffic on multiple aliases to virtual machines). However, in the past few months, I've been going back to my political science roots, taking part in the on-line Twitter (handle: @chrisjmcclure) conversations for first the Calgary mayoralty election. Now, I've become involved with the Alberta Party, which has grown past its beginnings to start gaining attention by the provincial media and the more politically involved members of the public.

While Twitter is fun and allows for specific information to be quickly disseminated to an audience, its very nature does not allow much detail or depth of conversation without a lot of work. So I figure I'll start posting my thoughts onto the web, knowingly opening myself up to the trolls (hi there!), while writing alongside serious writers (journalists, professional and regular bloggers) on one side and those who are professional or post-graduate political commentators. But isn't the web the great equalizer?

Regardless I'll be writing about everything political - my education is international relations, but with my involvement in the Alberta Party I imagine it will be mostly Alberta provincial for a while. I promise not to be too academic - hopefully...

So to actually get to the meat of this post - why the Alberta Party for me? Basically, the desire for change, but change in a way that is meaningful to the all of the people of Alberta. I'm 36, and except for four years in China in my late twenties, have lived my entire life in Alberta. I've have never had a different ruling party in power in the provincial government except for the PCs. To me this is not a healthy democracy. Furthermore without an effective opposition, we are left with a direction-less government with minor corruption and endemic mismanagement (health care anyone?). There is also hostility to criticism, with those outside the the beliefs of the party being labeled elitists, socialists or communists (or, as is en vogue "leftist pinkos"), regardless if that is even technically or ideologically correct. Anything to differentiate the "us" from "them".

As a university educated Gen-Xer centrist, who do you vote for if you dislike the ruling PCs? Liberals are an anathema to a majority of people in Alberta, even though the party had absolutely nothing to do with the NEP (provincial and federal parties are separate people!) and it was a generation ago. Moreover, they have never been able to propose a vision that is agreeable to people here. NDP is way too left on the political spectrum and Wild Rose is much to far to the right. I had been voting for the Alberta Green party, as I have deep interest in seeing environmental policies pursued, but that ended after they imploded a couple of years ago.

So the Alberta Party has appeared. And instead of confrontation, isolation and secrecy as exists with the current ruling party, the Alberta Party wants open collaboration. This seems to me as a very Canadian way of doing things and is something that we promote in schools, universities and even in the business world. It should also be something that is done in politics. Whether or not this is possible to do on a large scale remains to be seen. But with modern technology and social media, it is something that at least seems possible.

Earlier this week, I helped to form the Calgary-Buffalo Constituency Association, and surprised myself by volunteering to be one of the 'Officers-at-Large' for the constituency. However, this is the first chance I've seen in my life to make an impression on the way the province is run and it is too tempting to pass. I suspect that I'll be volunteering quite a bit of time in the coming months (around my MBA courses that I'm taking) as the party moves from a grass roots movement to a real political option for the next provincial election. Personally I'll be working towards helping to shape policy in the following areas, as they are some of what I consider to be important areas that are overlooked in favour of those that get more votes:

• Environmental issues - not just oil sands related, but water & land protection
• Election reform - moving towards a system of proportional representation, that would allow better representation for all Albertans
• Governance - an overhaul of how issues are handled from the people, to the government and to the bureaucracy

In closing I think it is important that people realize that although Alberta is a great province to live in, it can and should be greatly improved in many areas to reach the potential it has of being one of the best places in the world to live. For me, the Alberta Party represents the best option in provincial politics to attain that.