A Few Quick Notes 615

-After several cold and grey days today was a pleasant change of pace.  Eventually it was even warm enough that we needed to use the AC in our car.  Of course, even this high wasn't particularly high and was certainly no where near the low 20s that were in the forecast a few days ago.

-Yesterday afternoon we tuned into the livestream of the PC convention in Newfoundland once we learned that the virtual tie on the second ballot was forcing a do-over/third ballot.  Not only was it great to see all kinds of people I know (i.e. friends, former profs, former co-workers, and friends of my parents), but it was also neat to watch an entirely unscripted television event.  Neither the viewer nor the producers knew what was going to happen and it was exciting.

-For some reason I recently remembered the idea of mushroom barley soup.  This morning I started preparing a batch that we could have for lunch.  Wow, that was tasty.  I'm not quite sure why we haven't been making more of this stuff.

-I saw diagram outlining the ideal viewing areas for the recent Northern Lights eruption and it seems that Saskatchewan was one of the worst viewing locations.  I guess now I don't feel so bad that we didn't try to wait for the clouds to clear.  Hopefully we'll get another chance soon.

A Few Quick Notes 596

-After a few days in the -35 zone we've moved back into slightly more reasonable temperatures.  Though I don't think we actually made it above zero today, with the help of the sun it was warm enough that we actually had a little slush to contend with as we were making our way home from work.    Hopefully this will be frozen by the time I have to head back to work tomorrow morning.

-You know what's great about this time of year?  It's great that when I drive to work it's not pitch black.  It's strangely comforting to know that you're not arriving at work an hour before sunrise.  And it's not bad that the sun doesn't set until about an hour after the workday ends either.

-After work on Friday (at least I think it was Friday) I received a very strange robocall that seemed to be about electoral redistricting in Saskatchewan.  Just about the only thing that I could make out was that the call supposedly came from 'Chase Research.'

Turns out I wasn't the only one in Saskatchewan to get such a call and that these calls have now been the subject of a number of media reports, including this one.

-Somehow, after years of trying, I've finally managed to get Jeannette to listen to a few of my regular podcasts.  The new This American Life has now become a shared Sunday ritual (instead of one I shamefully engaged in alone whenever I could sneak a listen).  And over the past few weeks I've managed to sneak in RadioLab, 99% Invisible, and the always informative Inside Jobs Podcast.  For whatever reason I haven't quite managed to draw Jeannette into my Jordan, Jesse GO!/Stop Podcasting Yourself web.

-I made eight small raspberry tarts tonight.  Now that they're out of the oven I have no interest in eating them.  Maybe by tomorrow morning I'll rustle up some kind of willingness to sacrifice my health so that these guys don't end up sitting on the counter and spoiling.  

What a tough life I lead.

Cameron - 2

Neil - 0

A Few Quick Notes 593

-Despite the fact that we've had nice weather during the day recently, our nights and mornings have definitely been getting cooler.  I'm constantly surprised in the afternoon that I need to take the sweater off that I'd been wearing all morning.

-This weekend, thanks to a reminder from my mother, I purchased some millet.  Since we fed this stuff to our pet budgie in the early 1990s I've been curious about the stuff.  Maybe I'll manage to get around to cooking some of it tonight.  I'm imagining that it will be comparable to quinoa, but I guess I'll have to wait to find out.

-I realize that I'm likely of a dying breed, but I really love waking up to a freshly delivered newspaper.  While I also check online news sources, there's nothing quite like being able to flip through the newspaper every morning.

-Today, while running an unrelated errand I happened to walk by the parliament buildings and was able to see the remnants of some protest activities.  I guess these protests were timed to coincide with the first day of the House's fall sitting.  I also witnessed a corresponding increase in the number of police officers.

-While out on my aforementioned errand I had the pleasure of walking along Sparks Street.  Despite the fact that the pedestrian-only nature of Sparks Street is one of the things I like most about it, I keep getting the sense that it's perceived as some kind of failure.  Though I don't necessarily head there all that frequently, it always seems like a resounding success to me.

-I suspect that the cooler evening and nighttime temperatures are slowing down the growth rates of our plants.  Presumably in the relatively near future I'll have to start wrapping everything up for the season. It will be strange to see our bare balcony after so many months of relatively rampant plant growth.

-On a related note, I think I spotted someone in an adjoining backyard engaging in some anti-squirrel sling-shotting.  I would guess that this means that I'm not the only one frustrated by their presence.

A Few Quick Notes 591

-We're in the midst of another hot and humid day in Ottawa.  As we keep creeping further into September I keep tricking myself into thinking that we'll soon be past such days - but they keep on coming.

-Our squirrel keeps coming back, though it's damage from this morning's visit wasn't as bad as a few visits.  I guess I really need to consider ramping up my cayenne use if I want to got a few days without these guys visiting and tearing everything up.

-So it turns out that the Quebec election was pretty eventful.  Not only did the PQ do a little worse than expected (along with the CAQ), the Liberal outperformed expectations.  At the end of the day the PQ managed only four more seats than the Liberals (and they were about nine seats short of majority territory).  Maybe most impressively, the PQ, the Liberals, and the CAQ all received less than 1/3 of the total vote - though the Liberals and PQ were close with 31% each.

And the least expected development of the night was likely the shooting that occurred at the PQ election night party.  Fortunately I had called it a night by the time this happened so I didn't trick myself into thinking that I should watch the coverage as the details of the shooting emerged.

-Aside from the sinkhole coverage, the big news from Ottawa today is that by 2014 there should be a AA team based here.  While I'm a little bummed out that we'll have to wait another season, I'm definitely looking forward to attending some minor league baseball.

-So if you're looking for some ongoing courtroom drama consider following the case regarding Toronto's mayor, Rob Ford.  It seems that if this conflict of interest based case goes against Ford he could find himself out of a job in the near future, or at least that is one interpretation of the possible outcomes.

There are no dead voters in Newfoundland!

For the past few days I've been thinking quite a bit about the enforcement of electoral law at the federal level in Canada.  Consequently I've been reading about the offences that have been investigated/prosecuted over the past 20 years.

While after every election we tend to find that there are a handful of financing/advertising related cases, I was pretty shocked to see that duplicate voting seems to be one of the most common offences (and even as one of the most common offences there are only, at most, a handful of cases dealt with by Elections Canada after each general election).

Finally today, and I really don't know why it took me this long to make it here, I decided to see if provincial electoral laws had similar conviction/infraction patterns.  Not surprisingly, I decided to start my investigation in Newfoundland.

After quickly skimming Newfoundland's Elections Act and finding the relevant sections I made my way over to CanLII to see if any of the relevant sections have been cited in any cases in their database (I had to use this imperfect approach because unlike Elections Canada, Elections Newfoundland and Labrador does not have a section of its website that includes such information).

Anyway, the CanLII information was quite revealing.  Apparently there are no cases that cite the passage about duplicate voting (which I feel I must include here for its humour value)

193. (1) A person is guilty of an offence who, at an election,(a)  applies for a ballot in the name of some other person, whether that name is that of a person living or dead, or of a fictitious person;(b)  having voted once at that election, applies at the same election, for another ballot; (c)  votes in more than 1 electoral district; or(d)  aids, abets, counsels, procures or endeavours to procure the commission by a person of an act described in paragraph (a), (b) or (c). 

As it turns out, there weren’t even any cases citing s. 194:

194. A person is guilty of an offence who, at an election, votes or attempts to vote knowing he or she is disqualified from voting or not qualified to vote at that election.

I thought it was also noteworthy that while one of the offences common at the federal level (the failure include a statement from the official agent authorizing the publication of election material) is also against the law in Newfoundland (s. 198) it seems that that section has not been cited in any cases included in the CanLII database.  Overspending expense limits is another potential violation that has come up from time to time federally but not once provincially.

I can’t help but wonder if it is really the case that those involved in the electoral process in Newfoundland are really more law-abiding than those involved in the analogous processes federally?

Or, maybe, it’s not that the case that these infractions aren’t taking place, but that they aren’t necessarily being investigated to the same extent.  If one takes a look at the organizational chart for Elections Newfoundland and Labrador there it isn’t obvious that any of the positions mentioned would conduct investigations into such matters after an election’s results had been made official (though the Elections Act does confer such an investigatory power upon the Chief Electoral Officer, at least in relation to the examination of records relating to party or candidate finances).  And I hope I’m mistaken, but I did not see anything in the act that would conclusively give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to investigate potential infractions committed by individuals or entities other than parties or candidates (ex. voting for a dead person).

And in case you’re curious, if you ever are found guilty of voting for a dead or fictious person the punishment can be severe. 

208. A person who is guilty of an offence under section 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 or 199 is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both a fine and imprisonment. 209. A person who is guilty of an offence under this Part that is not an offence referred to in section 208 and for which no other penalty is specifically provided, is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to both a fine and imprisonment.

So I’m not really sure where all of this gets us, but I do feel it’s at least something to know that there isn’t much evidence of Elections Newfoundland and Labrador going after people in the courts for election finance violations, advertising violations, or voting violations.

Predictable response?

The introduction of amendments to the accesss to information law in Newfoundland earlier this week caused quite a furor. Not surprisingly, the media and the opposition parties were less than keen to see changes that will make it easier for the government to deny access to information. 

Aside from the fact that these amendments seemed tailor-made to cause the uproar that they caused, I find the timing quite strange.  If you wanted these amendments to seem like normal housekeeping amendments, which seems to be what the government wants, why would they more or less hide the details of the changes until the end of the legislative session and then try to ram the bill through on the same week it was introduced?  Could they have come up with an approach that would be more likely to raise suspicion among the critics whose ire they were hoping to avoid? If so, I'd be curious to see such an approach implemented at some point in time.

Because of cabinet exemptions to the law we will likely never know, but I would really love to know how long these changes have been in the works and how long the text of the current bill has been ready. In other words, how long were they sitting on the bill in its final form before they introduced it? (And as far as I know there hadn't been much discussion of such a bill/changes in the run-up to its introduction - a fact that likely intensified the feeling of shock among opponents).

While here are other aspects of this bill that merit consideration, the issue of it's timing seems particularly peculiar to me.

The vote-a-thon really is just voting

So last night I broke down and went to the House of Commons vote-a-thon.

I arrived at about 11:00 PM, just in time to catch the reading of the last 200 motions.

Much to my surprise, at about midnight Harper and the rest of the front benches showed up.

Voice voting started shortly afterwards.

They then rang the bells for 30 minutes before starting the roll call votes.

From then on it was just roll call vote after roll call vote.

I called it a night just before two and about 7 votes.

It's still ongoing, if you're interested or if you don't believe me that they really are doing about 24 hours of straight roll call votes.  Oh, and it's about as boring/absolutely fascinating as you would expect it to be (kind of reminds me of watching the GG's door in December 2008, or OJ's white Bronco in the nineties).

The all-night vote-a-thon

So in just a little while the Canadian House of Commons is set to begin would could be close to 24 hours of straight voting (they'll be voting on hundreds of proposed amendments to the recently introduced budget).  Because the Conservatives have a majority government the outcome isn't really in question, though I guess when you're trying to coordinate such large number of people for such a long period of time unexpected things may crop up.

Anyway,  for a while I'd been thinking about heading over to check out a little of this vote-a-thon, despite the fact that it will probably be just about the most boring thing in the world.

Then I went out for a walk.

Originally I was thinking I might just pick out a coffee.  Turns out that I ended up going for a slightly longer walk and ended up walking past Parliament.

By the time I made it to Parliament I had pretty much come to the conclusion that I probably would just give the whole vote-a-thon thing a skip and maybe just watch the streaming version, if anything.

Of course now that I'm back home and I get the sense that the voting is just about to get underway I'm a little more interested in the idea of heading over to watch the late night parliamentary antics.

Of course another problem is that if I head out to the House of Commons I'll lose my online coverage of the 'filibuster' currently ongoing in the Newfoundland House of Assembly (which is currently in recess while they resolve a point of order relating to comments about whether or not someone called someone racist and whether or not the comments are unparliamentary).

Anyway,  what a night.  I have more strange opposition-induced middle of the night legislating than I ever thought I'd have a chance to witness.

I think I may have fixed the internet again

So shortly after my recent post (and an email to webmasters) about the New York state senate's anti-anonymity on the internet bill's website and the non-appeareance of comments comments from the past week appeared.

While I don't know if my actions were directly responsible for the appearance of comments on the site, the time does seem a little suspicious.  That being said, I really hope that New York State Senate doesn't have a system that requires additional feedback before they post comments on legislative proposals.  Such a system would seem to undermine much of the point of a system of web-based commenting on legislation.

Anyway, it's nice to see that there are now 16 comments on this questionable piece of legislation.  It would be even nicer if the public had some way of knowing how many comments have been submitted and if any have been rejected.

The appearance of inclusiveness in New York

Some of you may recall that a few days ago I posted about a bill before the New York state Senate that would prohibit anonymous commenting on websites.  While looking into the bill while I was preparing the post I stumbled across a New York state website that provides access to a copy of the text of the bill (as well as all other bills before the legislature as well as other legislative documents), as well as some additional information about things like expected fiscal implications.

One aspect of the website that stood out immediately was that at the bottom of the page they provide an opportunity for members of the public to publicly comment on the bill or give the page a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down.'  Not surprisingly, to comment they require one to sign in through one of any number common web identifiers (Ex. OpenID or a Yahoo account).  Though this hurdle is likely meant to cut down on nonconstructive comments and spam.  Once you've submitted a comment one is notified that before comments are posted for the public to see they must be approved by a moderator.

Because no one had yet commented on the bill, or at least that's how it seemed at the time, I thought that I might give their system a shot and show who their whole system worked.  And as this is the first time I've seen this option available to members of the public I thought I would try to help those responsible for implementing the system out by giving them some traffic.

I can't remember what my first comment a few days ago was, but I know it was pretty mundane.  I probably commented/asked about enforcement.  Whatever the case may be, it's now been almost a week since I made the comment on the site and it still hasn't been approved by the moderators nor have I received a notice indicating that my comment has been rejected.  Even the 'thumbs down' that I gave the bill hasn't yet made an appearance.

While I think it is admirable of the New York State Senate to try to use new technologies to encourage the participation of the citizenship in the legislative process, I fear that implementing a system that is either non-functional or incredibly slow may actually be worse for public participation.  Also, by making the terms of comment moderation unclear users aren't able to know if any comments that do make it past the moderators are really reflective of public sentiment, or if the comment they are reading are those comments favoured by the moderator/censor.  Even if the comments aren't being censored/skewed the fact that they are moderated makes it hard for a skeptical public to know that this is actually the case and that the viewable comments do accurately reflect the views of the comment posting public.

My gut is telling me that it seems likely that the level of discussion that we are seeing on these New York Senate bills will be not to dissimilar from the type of discussion we might come to find standard in a world where anti-anonymity on the internet legislation is the norm.

NY's potential contribution to the perfection of the internet

On the Media, a great public radio show from New York, just brought to my attention a bill from New York that is aimed at the elimination of anonymous commenting on internet sites (I can't tell if their goal is to reform the entire internet, or just the part of the internet that resides in New York state - in either case the whole thing seems a little futile).

Given that the bill is less than a page long (and is really just an amendment to the civil rights law) I was able to breeze through it in just a few minutes.

The first aspect of the bill that caught my attention was the definition of the term 'anonymous poster.'  In the bill an

ANONYMOUS POSTER IS ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO POSTS A MESSAGE ON A WEB SITE INCLUDING SOCIAL NETWORKS, BLOGS FORUMS, MESSAGE BOARDS ORANY OTHER DISCUSSION SITE WHERE PEOPLE CAN HOLD CONVERSATIONS IN THE FORM OF POSTED MESSAGES.

According to my reading of this definition the 'anonymous' descriptor is really superfluous as they seem to be referring to any and all who post messages on websites.  Why not use this basic definition of a 'poster' and then suggest that anyone who engages in such actions without providing their legal name and contact information is an 'anonymous poster'?  Or is that too obvious a solution?

Another definitional matter that is worth thinking about is that they haven't defined what constitutes a 'message.'  Might a 'thumbs up' or a 'like' be a 'message'?  In some ways, these non-verbal interactions with web-based content may be just as important or meaningful as various forms of written contributions.  And what about videos or audio content, are these things 'messages'?

Aside from obvious jurisdictional, technological, and enforcement issues, I was also struck by the bill's brief business end.  If passed the bill will require

A WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR UPON REQUEST SHALL REMOVE ANY COMMENTS POSTED ON HIS OR HER WEB SITE BY AN ANONYMOUS POSTER UNLESS SUCH ANONYMOUS POSTER AGREES TO ATTACH HIS OR HER NAME TO THE POST AND CONFIRMS THAT HIS OR HER IP ADDRESS, LEGAL NAME, AND HOME ADDRESS ARE ACCURATE. ALL WEB SITE ADMINISTRATORS SHALL HAVE A CONTACT NUMBER OR E-MAIL ADDRESS POSTED FOR SUCH REMOVAL REQUESTS, CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ANY SECTIONS WHERE COMMENTS ARE POSTED.

First of all, who can lodge such a request?  Is this opportunity open to anyone, and if so how are they expected to go about doing this?  Can I use New York and its courts to unmask trolls even if I nor the trolls are in New York?

Secondly, and this is maybe the most striking feature of this bill, the suggestion that one can engage in anonymous posting as long as 'anonymous posters' provide their name, address, and contact information seems to be something of an oxymoron to me.  It would seem to me that if an 'anonymous poster' is providing all of this information that they are no longer anonymous - but that's just my non-legal reading of this text (and if you recall the earlier definition 'anonymous poster' meant basically anyone posting anything on the web so maybe this isn't as crazy as it seems).

Of course, the substantive issue that this bill seems to be addressing is the legitimacy of anonymous communication.  It would seem that those in support of this bill don't think that residents of New York/users of the internet should be able to engage in anonymous communication despite the fact that anonymous communication has a long and storied history in the United States, The Federalist Papers being a particularly prominent example of an important anonymous publication in the US.  Given first amendment protections of free speech in the US this position seems strange, and, based on a quick internet search, not only that is likely to fare well under the harsh light of judicial review.

Anyway, I guess we'll see if this makes it anywhere (and as nothing has happened since the bill's introduction on March 21 my fears may be for naught).

You all remember the Millington Massacre, right?

Somehow, and I really don't know exactly how, I've been included on the fundraising mailing list for the Tuscola County, Michigan's Sheriff.  Thanks to a scan from my Uncle I've been able to examine the most recent mailing, a letter from the Sheriff seeking donations to the Michigan Sheriff's Association.

One thing that amazed me about the letter, though it probably shouldn't have, was the clear inclination to emphasize threats to the community and the pervasiveness of crime.  In just the second sentence the letter warns that

Every day we hear of the ravaging effects of violence, theft, predators, drug abuse, and many other deadly types of crime.

Seems to me that the Sheriffs might be better served by focusing on the good work they've already been doing preventing crime rather than emphasizing the continuing spread of crime under their watch. You know, provide some evidence that existence of Sheriffs helps keep a lid on crime rather than implying that crime has continued to spread.  But this disinclination to highlight achievements was really hammered home when by the Sheriff suggesting not that he is busy doing everything is his power to keep you safe, but that "I will do everything in my power to keep you safe [emphasis in original]." I can't help but come away with the feeling that the message is that he will step up to the plate and start doing his job, the job for which he is currently being paid by the County, once the voters have made enough donations to his Association.  Or am I being to cynical? 


(I was curious to know how much crime there is in Tuscola County and how many of the reported crimes are resolved, so I visited a Michigan State Police site that provides crime and arrest stats on county and agency basis.  It seems that in 2010 the Tuscola County Sheriff received 89 reports of Burglary - Forced Entry while the county total was 179. As far as arrests go, the Tuscola County Sheriff reported 7 Burglary - Forced Entry arrests while the arrest total for the county was 18.  I should also mention that in the same year there were zero murders reported and zero arrests for murder.)


Anyway, fear mongering aside, the part of the letter that really got under my skin was the following sentence.

My law enforcement officers witness some of the worst crimes against humanity.

Really?  Are you sure about that?


At this point I think it is important to think about what a crime against humanity really is, and whether or not such crimes really exist in a rural county in one of the richest countries in the world.  The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as follows:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a)     Murder;(b)     Extermination;
(c)     Enslavement;
(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f)     Torture;
(g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j)     The crime of apartheid;
(k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Unless the "crime against humanity" the Sheriff is talking about is simply the "great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health" that may come as a result of living in Michigan, I have a hard time imagining that the Sheriff of Tuscola County, Michigan's "law enforcement officers witness some of the worst crimes against humanity."  Not only do I doubt that they witness the "some of the worst crimes against humanity," I doubt they even witness any such crimes.

So not only does this letter betray a limited understanding of the term 'crime against humanity,' I think it goes one step further.  By labelling run-of-the-mill rural crimes as 'crimes against humanity' the significance of the term in the global context risks being diminished.  By using the term in this way at least one key aspect of the concept, which is that the crimes must be "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population," is lost.  Thus recipients of this letter, or other individuals who've seen the word used in a similar way, may not understand the significance and particular meaning of the term.  When they hear the term in relation to a real 'crime against humanity' they may not understand the widespread nature of the crime that the term is meant to indicate.  We risk diminishing our common understanding and appreciation of the particularly heinous nature of this class of crime, a class of crime that has included such things as the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide.

Sure, to quote Cheech and Chong, "Things are tough all over," but that doesn't mean that when describing these problems we should overemphasize the frequency of their occurrence or overstate the nature of the problem.  Not only does the bearer of this questionable news risk undermining their own credibility, but they risk diminishing our collective understanding of important and meaningful concepts like 'crimes against humanity' that have very specific definitions and are thus not something that should be used as a rhetorical tool.

Are the feds really bigger than the provinces?

Despite provincial control of much of the social welfare structure and onshore natural resource development many people in Canada, including many political scientists, tend to think of provinces as relatively insignificant. Last night I was trying to come up with a way of demonstrating the importance of provincial politics in Canada.   Eventually I settled on conducting a quick comparison of the total spending as outlined in the 2012-2013 Newfoundland and Labrador and federal government estimates.  I was surprised that the comparison shows that while the per capita expenditure in the federal budget is approximately $7 242 the per capita expenditure in the Newfoundland and Labrador budget is almost twice as much at $12 684.


I realize this isn't a particularly rigorous comparison (in that I've only looked at one year and one province), but caveats aside, the size of the difference really amazed me.  Who would have guessed that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador spends almost twice as much as the Government of Canada on each resident.  Crazy.


If I get a bit more work done I may try to expand the comparison both in terms of the number of provinces examined and the number of years.

I feel a little ashamed

It's a little embarrassing that until reading this Ottawa Citizen article I wasn't thinking about the impending 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the patriation of the Canadian constitution.  And without the Charter we wouldn't have the Oakes test, and where would be we be then?

Maybe on the night of the 17th I'll have to have a celebratory beer or something.

Anyway, I guess I have to agree with Jean Chretien that this is an anniversary worth noting, though I am not sure if such an event lends itself to easy celebration?

I can't wonder if the anniversary lacks a little of the oomph one might expect because some of the changes didn't take effect for a few years, somewhat diminishing the claim that this is really the 30th anniversary of the Charter.  This fragmented start date really throws a spanner in the works, so to speak, of anniversary celebrations.

Intentionally impenetrable?

My feeling is that the US presidential process must be intentionally impenetrable.  Otherwise why would it continue to be so complicated?  We  know that there are much more straightforward ways for parties to choose candidates.

Anyway, what I really find baffling about the presidential primary process is that it consistently favours the voters of certain states.  For instance, if you happen to live in New Hampshire or Iowa you always have a chance to have your vote/caucus participation counted.  Voters in other states will almost always find themselves voting, if they even choose to vote, in a primary process that is functionally meaningless.

I guess I'm curious why the parties and the voters in these states are seemingly Ok with this repeated disenfranchisement?  Do parties not care that many of their supporters may never be able to vote in a meaningful primary because of their state of residence?

Also, don't the media entities in those states want to get in on all of that primary based advertising money that their counterparts in early primary states are pulling in?

The whole thing is definitely kind of weird.

Thinking about Florida's population

Earlier today, while doing some reading about population trends in major North American metropolitan areas I started poking around the web to find more up-to-date population numbers.  Not to far into my search for numbers I happened across the Google Public Data site and started playing around.

It didn't take me long to display Florida's population information.



[Embedded image]

And then it didn't take me long to observe that Florida's population has basically doubled in the past 30 years.  In 1980 the population was 9.7 million and as of mid 2011 it was 19 million.

My immediate thought was that this meant that at least 50% of Florida's population has been in the state for less than 30 years.  From there it didn't take me long to realize that to assume anywhere close to 50% was seriously overestimating the portion of the population that had been in Florida for 30 years.

First of all, mortality rates were something that I needed consider.  If we take the 1980 mortality numbers and assume a consistent mortality rate and apply this number the population for the 30 year period we find that 3 million of the starting 9.7 have since died.

Secondly, internal migration is something that we need to consider.  Some portion of the population living in Florida in 1980 are now living somewhere else.  It didn't take long to find some numbers on internal migration from the Census Bureau.  I was particularly surprised to learn that despite it's reputation as a hub for retirees "Florida experienced net outmigration of those aged 85 and over."  Anyway, though this is definitely a rough guess, I kind that suggesting about a 1% rate of outmigration a year would be fair.  Again this ends up being about 3 million of the starting 9.7 million.


And while I'm sure that I should think about more than just death and internal migration, if we take just these two factors and apply them or the 1980 population of 9.7 million we likely now have only about 3.7 million of those people still living in Florida. Another way of thinking about it is to say that only about 20% of those currently residing in Florida have been there for 30/32 or more years. 


Given that some Pew numbers I found suggest 70% of Florida's adult population wasn't born in the state I am inclined to think that my numbers aren't too far off the mark.


I guess the point I'm getting at is that whether we say that 70% of Florida's population wasn't born in state or that only 20% have been there for more than 30 years it does seem to be the case that most taxpayers and voters in Florida do not have a long history in the state and thus are not likely to have first-hand experience with the economic/social/political developments that have taken place over the past few decades.


Following from that point, to what extent does this reality undermine political socialization that is somewhat reflective of Florida's historical development?  Put another way, is Florida making Floridians of its new inhabitants or is Florida just full of north easterners (one of the areas from which many of Florida's internal migrants come)?  I can't help but wonder if jurisdictions with similar population trends have less predictable political outcomes because of the lack familiarity the incoming population has with the traditions of the area.


If nothing else, it's kind of amazing to think that less that only about 20% of Florida's population have lived there for more than 30 years.  

Fun(ish) fact

A few days ago I was thinking that over the past 20 years in the Canadian House of Commons there have been quite a number of parties that have been the Official Opposition.  Turns out there have been six.  In chronological order, the parties were: the Bloc Quebecois, Reform, the Canadian Alliance, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberals, and the NDP.

If my calculations are correct, the only party to have had official party status at some point during this 20 year window but not to have been the Official Opposition was the PC party.

Wasn't I right about this being a fun fact?

Not just watching on Twitter

So it seems that CBC's The House is providing westward rolling live coverage of the NDP convention (this means that you have to move one stream west each hour).  I have decided to supplement my Twitter consumption with this coverage.  The total package has been much more exciting than I expected.

Now that the first ballot results have come in I have no idea how the rest of the day will play out.  One of the first complicating factors is that turnout in the first round was about 50%, and most of these ballots were cast in advance with their preferences locked in.  Whether or not eligible members nationwide opt in or not may have serious consequences.  Secondly, that the first round results lead three candidates to drop out will add to the mix and allow for some movement in support in the second round  (subsequent preferences are in play for those who voted in advance and their live voters now have to figure out who they are going to support).

Does it get more exciting than a political convention where the leadership is actually on the line?

A Few Quick Notes 574

-While today was beautiful, it was nothing like yesterday's mid-twenties masterpiece when we reached something approaching weather perfection.  It was a pleasure to have the chance to live through such a beautiful day.

-I guess I'm now 8 for 24 in this year's RUTRTW contest.  Unfortunately at least three of these wins have been for 'donuts,' and I have no idea what to do with the winning rims.   If someone wants them maybe I could mail them out all at once or one at a time depending on demand.  Anyway, if you think you might be interested in up to three free donut rims leave me a comment and I think about how to proceed.

-At least my record isn't 0 for 68, which how bad the RCMP's was when it came to picking Canadian politicians with connections to the USSR.  You can find the CBC's story on the topic here.

-The NDP leadership convention has not started.  And while I didn't pay too much attention to the first few months of the race, over the past few days I have been enjoying watching the final manoeuvres.  I will also be curious to see who is eventually selected to be the leader and how the preferential voting system ends up working out.

Today while thinking about convention coverage I thought to myself that I would 'watch it on Twitter,' and then realized that that is likely how I will follow the convention.  It's kind of amazing that reading a series of short updates is sufficiently engaging and informative that I would consider doing this.

A Few Quick Notes 572

-Much to my surprise we had a few hours of snow today.  Fortunately relatively warm temperatures meant that we didn't see much accumulation.

Fortunately for you, I was able to capture this non-accumulation through the power of time-lapse.




[Embedded video]

-I must be 5 for 19, with a +/- of about three on the total number of cups, in this year's RUTRTW.  And to think that this represents only a fraction of my coffee consumption.

-I made a nice batch of breakfast Afghans today.  I am really quite fond of this recipe.

-This evening I started making some bread.  After about an hour of the bread not rising I realized that adding some yeast would probably help that out.  I think I fixed things, but they still aren't perfect.

-This whole Robocall things keeps on trucking along.  It seems that today's big news was that the CEO has now 'requested' to appear before a parliamentary committee and discuss the investigation.