Green Grumbles

I am having increasing problems calling myself an environmentalist. It is not that I don't believe in fighting climate change and saving our planet. My opinion on that hasn't changed. However, I am increasingly distressed by the rhetoric and tactics employed by what should be my side of the debate. It is not now, nor will it ever be, appropriate to call someone a "climate change denier". While there is not anything technically wrong with the term, the implication is reprehensible. I compare it to calling Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. Yes, technically they are denying that climate change is a reality, and yes, technically his middle name is Hussein. However, the implications of both of those statements are morally wrong. It is wrong to compare climate change to the Holocaust. It is wrong to use a man's name to spread Islamophobia.

I also disagree with the simplification that the fight against climate change can only be successfully waged with certain EU certified tools. Kyoto is a horrible treaty. It will and has made the problem worse. The European Union has done a lot right in fighting climate change. However, most of their "results" are a combination of good carbon luck (the collapse of the Eastern Bloc; temperate climate that doesn't require air conditioning) and coincidence (Margaret Thatcher's war on the coal miners leading to less coal use in Britain). We should not and frankly cannot use the European model here or in the developing world. Yes, we need action on climate change and yes, we need it yesterday. However, this does not justify making hasty and foolish decision. There is always time for good policy.

Finally, as I've been posting this weekend, I am tired of stunts in lieu of real action. Having 100,000 out of over 33,000,000 people turn off their lights for one hour is not a success. If you want to raise awareness, get involved in politics. Write your local representative. Talk to your friends and neighbours. Stunts don't work and they give people a false sense of success. This is a serious issue and its about time we dealt with it seriously. The foot soldiers in the environmental movement are used to being a fringe movement. Frankly, they've employed fringe tactics. We need to convince people this is a little more important than an endangered bird or 'killer' fur (not that I'm opposed to either of those causes). We need to employ the same kind of boring and studious approach we take to tax and fiscal policy. We need to have an honest debate about how to proceed. We need to stop worrying about making the cause cool and spend more time fixing the problem.

Quick Question

So the Earth Hour supporters are trumpeting their success at lowering energy use by about 5% in Ontario (more in Toronto the Green). I wonder if the Earth Hour folks bothered to look at energy use between 9pm and 10pm. Did we see a spike as people came home, turned on their lights, televisions, checked their e-mail etc? In other words, did earth hour reduce energy use or just transfer it to the subsequent hours?

Side Note: Reducing energy use is great. It is particularly great if the energy you use actually contributes to global warming. Many jurisdictions in Canada get their juice from low carbon and no carbon options like nuclear, hydro and wind.

Carbon Tariffs Will Hurt Canada, the Poor

Call this green reality check day or something. So, economists are all excited about the idea of imposing carbon tariffs on goods manufactured in countries with poor environmental records (read China). Canadians shouldn't just reject this idea we should run from it screaming. Let's start at home. Canada has a poor record on the environment. Some of this is our fault. Some of it, frankly, isn't. As everyone knows, Alberta has the world's second largest reserves of oil in the world. Unfortunately, those oil reserves are expensive to attain, both economically and ecologically. This means that barring a major breakthrough in oil sands technology it is going to be more ecologically damaging to get a barrel of oil from Alberta than from other oil producing nations. If the world adopts a carbon tariff system, Alberta will be the loser. If Alberta loses, we all lose. Now I know that the US probably couldn't impose tariffs on Canada under NAFTA (see Jack, it has its perks) but that wouldn't be true of the EU and others. If the Dems down south are serious about renegotiating FTA's the US might be able to sneak this past an unsuspecting Canadian government. I am not willing to gamble the booming Albertan economy on the prospect that some of the manufacturing might come home (no proof for this claim by the way). However, even if you have in for the good people out West, have some sympathy for the world's poor.

We have witnessed in recent weeks how the rise of oil prices has directly impacted the cost of food. People around the world rely on oil (unfortunately) for the pesticides that protect their food, the machines that cultivate their food and the vehicles which bring them their food. Oil goes up, price of food goes up. If oil sands production in Alberta is cut by eco-tariffs and their is no new production elsewhere, the price of oil will go up. If the price of oil goes up, the price of food will go up. This means that people will go hungry. This doesn't even bring into account the hypocrisy of Western governments who are denying other countries their best path to development. Until we can offer countries like China more affordable cleaner technologies, it would be unjust to impose trade sanctions. It would be particularly unjust since we have a global environmental regime that requires nations like China to do nothing to fight climate change. If we are going to confront this crisis we need to do so in cooperation with the developing world, not by engaging in a Pyrrhic trade war.

Earth Hour

I don't get this. I just don't understand it in the least. People turning off their lights for an hour is not going to help stop climate change. Let's be clear on this. What we need is for people to adjust their habits on a DAILY basis. We need people to use their cars less, to use energy less. However, a stunt like this does no more than Live Earth did last summer. It is a stunt, nothing more. Does it raise awareness? If you aren't aware of this at this point, you are living in a cave. What we lack is any sort of agreement on how to deal with this problem in a way that will actually work. This is true both nationally and internationally. Kyoto is dead and dead for a very good reason. Let's stop patting ourselves on the back for stunts and get down to work.

Plus Ca Change...

It appears fratricide is back in vogue in Quebec. I don't have a lot of patience for stuff like thus. We elected Stephane Dion leader of the Liberal Party of Canada less than a year and a half ago in an open and democratic process. Now, admittedly not everyone agreed as to who the best man for the job was. However, I thought we agreed what the job was. When the Liberal Party elects a leader they are looking for many things. They are looking for someone who shares their vision of Canada. Someone who would as Prime Minister advance the issues and ideas that have drawn us to politics. We are looking someone who can win a general election. Stephane Dion has not had the opportunity to do any of these things. To call for a leader's resignation before he has run a single national campaign is absurd. It is akin to firing a coach during pre-season. Yes, we have lost some by-elections. Yes, Stephane Dion and his Quebec team are partially responsible for at least one of those losses. However, by-elections are not elections. Just ask Dalton McGuinty. The Premier saw his party lose by-election after by-election between the 2003 and 2007 general elections. Did that have any predictive value? No. McGuinty won the 2007 election and won it easily. By-elections are strange beasts. I cannot say that I am thrilled with all of the decisions M. Dion has made. I have criticized him on this blog and elsewhere. However, he is the leader of the party and until there is a general election that should not be in question.

The Buzz About Buzz

There is a rumour out there that Buzz Hargrove is considering running for the Liberals in my home riding of Toronto-Danforth. First, I really don't believe it. I find it highly unlikely that Hargrove would want to run for the Liberals in a riding like Toronto-Danforth. The NDP wins in Toronto-Danforth by appealing to champagne socialists not Rosie Riveter. There are just not that many CAW workers in the riding. While Hargrove may not be as unpopular as Sid Ryan, the CUPE head and perennial NDP candidate in Oshawa, there is no proof that he is adored by the general public. On a more personal note, let me say this. If he runs in what is now an open nomination contest, I won't vote for him. If he is appointed by M. Dion, I won't work for him. There are plenty of contests that could use an extra volunteer (Gerard Kennedy's run against Peggy Nash comes to mind) and I'm sure Buzz will get along without me. I want Jack Layton out as much as the next Grit, perhaps more, but I don't want to send another NDPer up to Ottawa in his place.

Whatever Happened to Democratic Renewal

Anyone who read this blog during the Ontario election knows that I am no fan of electoral reform or more accurately electoral reform when it is synonymous with some system of proportional representation. However, that does not mean we don't have to take efforts to restore interest in the democratic process. Something has changed in this country. Okay, a lot of things have changed in this country, but something has made people decide that voting isn't important. When a centre-left newspaper is publishing editorials like this, it is time to reinvest in citizenship. What does that mean? Well, here's one way to do it. Here are some ways to get more attractive candidates. However, beyond my ideas, I think this is a discussion we need to be having. The only thing I'm not willing to listen to is that the only constant in the last 50 years, our electoral system, is responsible for the decline in participation.

I'm Worried About Jim Flaherty

The Minister of Finance up on Parliament Hill seems a tad confused these days. It seems he still thinks he works at Queen's Park. How else to explain his pre-occupation with a provincial budget as his own budget is under intense scrutiny up on the hill? I guess he's trying to fill the leadership void the Tories are facing at Queen's Park. You know what leadership is to me John Tory? Letting your former leadership rival who's no longer in your caucus do your job for you. That's leadership. Oh and Mr. Flaherty which of the following factors is hurting manufacturing in Ontario today the most?

1. The downturn in the US economy
2. The consistent and steady decline of the Big Three auto manufacturers
3. The infrastructure deficit which afflicts Toronto and other major cities
4. The rise of newly industrialized economies such as China
   
5. Corporate tax rates which are a smidge higher than some other jurisdictions
6. Aliens

If you said number five or six, you need your head examined. Tax cuts are not a panacea Mr. Flaherty. Ontario is a competitive jurisdiction. That's why companies like Toyota are building manufacturing plants here. However, no matter how competitive the taxes, in bad economic times people don't tend to open factories.

Let the Madness Begin

You don't have to be an American or even a sports fan to understand the allure of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Tip-off is in about 10 minutes, hope you've got your brackets done!

Obama Nails It

Anyone who hasn't seen the Obama speech this morning needs to. I have never seen a politician be so honest about racism. This kind of honesty is usually limited to quiet private conversations and comedians. This is an unbelievably bold speech. He may have either won or lost the presidency today depending on the reaction.

Don't Appoint Candidates

That's the message loud and clear tonight. Now, Cherniak's out ahead of this one saying that Martha was appointed in Willowdale. That is technically correct but the appointment was preemptive and popular within the riding association. Martha probably could have won an open nomination race, the appointment just made things easier. Saskatchewan's a different kettle of fish. There was a very popular candidate out there. In all likelihood, in a democratic race Joan Beatty wouldn't have been the nominee. By-elections are all about local politics and the ability of the individual to represent the constituency in Ottawa. A nomination race gives the illusion at very least of a grassroots candidate. An appointed candidate gives the impression that he or she will represent Ottawa to the riding instead of the other way around. Beyond the loss tonight, the nomination battle in Saskatchewan has placed one of our best organizers in that province, David Orchard, outside of our big tent. There is no reason to appoint a candidate for a nomination. If a candidate can't win a nomination battle, they are unlikely to do well in a competitive election. Democracy starts at home.

Obama for President

After months of deliberation, I have decided to throw the entire weight of this blog (about 1g) behind Barack Obama. Why Obama? One word. No, not hope. Policy. Obama is the candidate with the best ideas to lead America forward. Let's go through some of the highlights.

• Obama is the only candidate who has been right on Iraq since day one. While it shouldn't matter whether or not you supported the war, it is a lot easier to advocate withdrawal if you have a consistent position. It is always best to be able to draw a clear distinction between you and your opponent. Hillary Clinton can't do that. Obama can.
• Obama has by far the best policies on education. Hillary's are similar but are filled with one line throw aways like "Cut the minority dropout rate in half." How? I don't know. I don't think she knows. Obama's policies are actually explained. He also has a better program for making college affordable. He opposes the focus on standardized testing. He also includes teachers in his policy, something noticeably absent from Hillary's plan.
• Obama has the most feasible health care policy. Clinton has criticized Obama for not going far enough with his health care policy. Hillary's may be closer to the ideal, but it will never happen. There is a sliver of a chance that Obama could make his health care proposal a reality. I will take the realist over the idealist on this one.

Beyond policy, Obama is also by far the more electable candidate. He also has inspired young people to vote for the first time in a generation. There are some who claim that Obama's ability to mobilize is attributable to his successful use of the internet. I disagree. The internet is a great fundraising tool. It has been fairly unsuccessful as a mobilizing agent. Howard Dean was the first American candidate to really use the internet but his campaign couldn't mobilize anyone. Ron Paul has dominated the internet campaign in 2008 but has been able to get only about 5% of the Republican vote. Obama has connected to people in a way no other candidate has. He has used the internet, but that is not the only reason for his success. He has been effective at talking to people in a way that gets them excited.

Side note: Class has played a strange role in this campaign. Obama has won, according to exit polls, among upper income Americans. However, Obama has also won some of the poorest states in the union (MS, AL, SC, ID) while Clinton has won a lot of the wealthier states (CT, NY, NJ). I have no clue what this means. I just thought I'd point it out.

By-Election Fever

The blogosphere seems to have been hit with a case of by-election fever. Why? I'm not really sure. The most compelling race out there is the one (SK) that no one is covering. If Bob Rae or Martha Hall Findlay don't win it's a disaster. Joyce Murray losing would be equally disastrous considering we've won that riding the last two times out. The last won might be a toss-up. However, Saskatchewan is a province that Liberals need to do well in if we are going to retake government. The natives (and non-natives) are restless on the prairie, just ask Lorne Calvert. Federal angst is compounded over Conservative plans for the Wheat Board (compulsory I know nothing about the wheat board parenthetical) The Liberals have a chance to tap into that natural gas induced unease. Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is a swing riding. We need to win in swing ridings in order to get back into government. Is a loss there disastrous? No. However, it won't bode well for our ability to form a government in the next election.

Spitzer and Ferraro

I figure I should probably add my two cents to the Spitzer story. This is at the end of the day about a man making a horribly stupid mistake. A mistake that hurt his career and more importantly his family. People have already noted that this will cost Hillary at least one delegate in Denver, such is the state of American politics these days.

More important than Spitzer's traveling penis is Geraldine Ferraro's mouth. Ferraro got into hot water after a California paper printed some unbelievably racist comments she made about Obama. If you haven't seen Keith Olbermann's comment on this affair, here it is. Olbermann is great at being self-righteous and this is him at his zenith. However, if you go past the rhetoric, as is so often the case, Olbermann is right. Ferraro's comment's are despicable. Clinton's response is inexcusable.

Loyalty

Jason Cherniak has started a bit of a sh*tstorm with this post. Now, I have a lot of time for Cherniak. I think he has made and continues to make an enormous contribution to the success of the Liberal Party. However, I have two major issues with his post. First, I blog as a Canadian. I blog as a Torontonian. I very rarely blog as a Liberal. Yes, I am a card carrying member of both the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party. Yes, this blog appears on the Liblogs blog roll. However, this blog is about my opinion, not the party line. I make an attempt, when I blog, to contribute to the debate on issues of import to the country. If you want to know what the party line is on a given issue, there is a link on the sidebar to LPC, check it out. The Liberal Party doesn't pay me to blog. I owe them nothing. Second, even when I do blog as a Liberal, I still think it appropriate to criticize the party line when I disagree. The Liberal Party is most effective when it is a big tent. The Liberal Party at its best is not bound by ideology (like the NDP) or rigidly controlled from the leader's office (like the Conservatives). We are a party that actively debates the issues and from that active debate decides upon the best course of action. If we cease to engage in debate, we lose something that is central to our party. I don't think we can criticize Harper for being controlling and not allowing dissent unless we encourage debate in our own party. I will work hard to ensure the Liberals win the next election. My loyalty, however, will always be to myself and to my country.

Now, as for the question of whether or not these internal debates weaken our image in the eyes of the media and the general public, I cannot be sure. I don't believe the media get their view of a fractured Liberal Party from the blogosphere. I think it comes from stuff like the nonsense that was alleged to have happened during the Outremont by-election. I think it comes from certain high officials criticizing the leader in general instead of on a certain decision. I think Stephane Dion is criticized for his inaction not because other Liberals want to go, but because he himself seems to want to go. It is inconsistent for a leader to decry the actions of a government as being harmful to the future of the country and assert, as he and Bob Rae did on Hamilton on the weekend, that he alone has the power to control the timing of the next election, and then not bring down the government. If the government is destroying our country, then we need an election. If M. Dion doesn't want an election, fine. Then let's work with the Tories on the budget to try to find some middle ground. Let's drop the fire and brimstone rhetoric. If this government is terrible, M. Dion should be able as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada to convince the Canadian people of this fact and win an election. If the government is bad but workable, let's make it work. M. Dion could demonstrate leadership by working for a better compromise. He has shown that he is capable of this. He did it on Afghanistan. The Tory attacks are only effective if Dion is not demonstrating leadership. Abstaining on everything is not demonstrating leadership.

Mississippi

Barack Obama has won the Mississippi primary by a predictably large margin. A couple of things stand out from the exit polls. First, this appears to be one of the most racially divided primaries to date. Barack Obama has been consistently beating Hillary Clinton by wide margins among African Americans. However, he has also been doing fairly well among white voters in most states. In Mississippi, by wide margins, whites voted for Clinton and Blacks voted for Obama. This is a disturbing trend for Obama. Also troublesome for Obama is that in Mississippi's open primary (anyone can vote for either party) Republicans broke for Clinton. Now, the Clinton campaign will probably spin this as Clinton reaching out across the aisle to Republican voters. I don't buy that argument. I think what you are seeing is an attempt by Republican voters to extend the Democratic race as long as possible. Clinton is behind. The more delegates she can win, the longer she can stay in the race, the easier it becomes for John McCain. It is a trend worth looking out for in the future.

Monday Thoughts

Some non-OYL related thoughts on the weekend:

• Obama won convincingly in Wyoming. It won't mean much in terms of the delegate count but it does stop any talk of Clinton momentum coming out of Texas and Ohio.
• The Democrats would be wise to redo in some fashion the primaries in Florida and Michigan. There's well over a month until April 22nd and the Pennsylvania primary. Surely, they could get a race together by then.
• A big win for the Democrats in a special congressional election. The dems took the seat previously held by Republican speaker Dennis Hastert. If the Republicans can't win in southern Illinois, they are in big trouble.
• Looks like Obama may come out of Texas with more delegates than Clinton.
• Okay, so this is sort of OYL related. The message from both Stéphane Dion and Bob Rae over the weekend was that the Liberals have the power to call the election and will use that power. I have no clue what that means in terms of election timing.
• Layton appearing on Lou Dobbs is hilarious. If the NDP wants to refight the 1988 Election, we should be happy to let them at it.
• We are a couple of weeks away from the start of the Toronto FC season. Come on you reds!

The Battle on the Mountain

The OYL AGM is in the books and it was one to remember. A fierce, if civilized, contest between two teams ended in a mixed bag result. The two teams squabbled over approaches to the senior party and the rules for the creation of new clubs among other things. In the end, OYL Beyond (led by incumbent president Jacob Mksyartinian) took the big jobs while OYL Roots (led by incumbent Eastern Region coordinator Mary-Rose Brown) took the most spots. The breakdown is as follows:

President: Jacob Mksyartinian (Beyond)
Executive Vice-President: Kayla Lewis (Beyond)
Vice-President Federal: Elyse Banham (Roots)
Vice-President Provincial: Joanna Murrell (Roots)
Treasurer: Ryan Singh (Beyond)
Communications Director: Zac Spicer (Roots)
Policy Director: Chris Drew (Roots)
Recruitment Director: Laura Wiesen (Beyond)
Riding Director: Terry Chemij (Roots)
Student Director: Magda Dronicki (Roots)
Toronto Region: Jonathan Tsao (Beyond)
Central Region: Jonathan Pinto (Roots)
South-Central Region: Deep Chawla (Roots)
Southwest Region: Mandy van Waes (Roots)
Eastern Region: Krista Balsom (Roots)
Northern Region: Joey Montpelier (Roots)

Some quick analysis:

• Three of the top four races were razor thin. Mksyartinian and Murrell reportedly won by less than 20 votes while Banham cruised to victory by a single vote.
• Brown (Presidential candidate, Roots) may have been hurt by her sponsoring of an unpopular (and eventually defeated) amendment on gender parity. The top-down nature of the amendment didn't mix well with the Roots team's grassroots message. Brown was not only one of the chief defenders of the amendment in the morning's constitutional debate, but also repeated her support for the amendment in the presidential debate. Considering the margin, this may have been key.
• The most distressing part of the result for Beyond has to be the regional coordinators. Toronto voted in large numbers (the lines were ridiculously long for Toronto delegates and non-existent for everyone else) so the other races were close. However, without regional coordinators the prospect for the Beyond team's future success diminishes dramatically.
• The Queen's University Liberal Association (QULA) leaves a little bruised as all three Queen's candidates on the Beyond team went down to defeat. Sam Yorke was defeated for VP Provincial, Radey Barrack lost out for Communications Director and Samantha Smitiuch was beaten in Eastern Region.
• One of the biggest issues of the convention, the failure of the outgoing executive to ratify 14 new clubs in time for the AGM, is already solved. The passed constitutional amendment will force the executive to meet at least forty days before the next AGM in order to ratify new clubs.
• In spite of the extremely tight race, there were no recounts. While delegates today were happy to finally have results after a 90 minute wait this afternoon, the fact that a one-vote margin didn't trigger an automatic recount is a little disturbing. There was no recount apparently because the teams agreed, before the final tally, to forgo any recounts. A constitutional provision for a recount would not be an unwarranted proposal at next year's AGM.
  

The biggest message from this weekend has to be that the OYL has to unite or risk an all out civil war. The presidential debate on Saturday was at times tense with supporters from both teams drowning out their opponent. The split result and the closeness of most of the races means that the delegates were fairly evenly spit. Mksyartinian has got to find a way for this executive to work effectively under his leadership. Likewise, the Roots members that make up a majority of the executive must be willing to work with their President. Otherwise, a very successful AGM (high turnout and enthusiasm) may turn into an unsuccessful year.

Old Tricks

That's what the folks at Fair Vote Canada are up to these days. Seems they don't like Ed Stelmach getting a stable governable majority. Why? Well, it doesn't represent the "popular vote". Unfortunately, the popular vote is about as real as the Easter Bunny. So, here, for free, another civics lesson for the folks over at fair vote. Here's how the Single Member Plurality system that is currently in place works:

In every riding in the province candidates ran for election. Some (okay, most of these candidates) sought the endorsement of a non-democratic institution called a political party. Political Parties are big powerful interest groups that have a large influence on democratic results. One representation of this power is that many jurisdictions print the party's name under the candidate's on a given ballot for the purposes of simplicity and transparency. However, they are not being elected; their nominated candidates are. In each of Alberta's 83 electoral districts people went to the poll and they voted for which of the CANDIDATES on the ballot would best represent the people of that riding in Edmonton. Now, granted ONE of the considerations when deciding on which candidate to elect is which party they belong to. However, things like name recognition, view of the candidate (ie did you like them when they were at your door), candidate's position on local and provincial issues, etc. also factor into the decision. After each voter in each electoral district had made this calculus the votes were counted. In SMP votes are counted as follows.

1. Votes at each polling station are separated by candidate into piles and tabulated.
2. The results from all the polls are added together.
3. The candidate with the most votes (or a "plurality") is declared the winner and becomes the elected MLA for the riding.

Once a winner in each riding is declared, the elected members are sorted out. The Lieutenant Governor then makes a calculation: who is most capable of governing the province? That person he names Premier. He does this most easily by looking at which political party the elected candidates ran for in the election. In this case, 72 of the 83 delegates were endorsed by the Progressive Conservative Party. Thus, the Lieutenant Governor will ask the leader of that party, Ed Stelmach, to be Premier of Alberta. That's it.

Where does the popular vote fit into all this you ask? Well, it doesn't. At no time were Albertans asked which party they wished to govern the province. They were asked one question and one question only: Which of the candidates would best represent your riding in Edmonton? That's it. That's the question SMP answers, and it answers it well. If you want to ask the electorate a different question, fine. However, don't expect SMP to provide the answer to a question it doesn't ask.

Clinton's Big Night

Hillary Clinton is back... sort of. She has won the Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas primaries. Barack Obama won the Vermont primary and is leading the Texas Caucuses which are still reporting results. Texas is likely to be a wash in terms of delegates. Clinton's primary victory gave her exactly four more delegates than Obama. This is because delegates are elected by a sort of Multi-Member Plurality version of PR. Her win in Ohio gives her a twelve delegate edge. She picked up five more in Rhode Island. So, all those wins last night gave her 21 more delegates than Obama. Subtract the result from Vermont, you're down to an 18 delegate edge before the Texas caucus results come in. Obama had a much bigger win in the so-called Potomac Primaries a while back (about 45 delegates over Clinton). However, the media will play this as a big win. The perception will be larger than reality. Having said that these good times are unlikely to roll for Clinton as the road ahead gets bumpy from here to Pennsylvania. Obama is likely to win by sizeable margins in Wyoming this weekend and Mississippi next week. This is still Obama's race to lose. All Clinton did last night was to give herself another day to fight on.

Stelmach's Big Win

Alberta has delivered a landslide for Ed Stelmach. The PC's won 72 out of 83 seats. The Conservatives even broke into the Liberal stronghold of Edmonton. This was a disastrous night for Kevin Taft. There is no other way to put it. Stelmach should have been beatable or at least woundable. Stelmach instead won a massive victory. Why? You've got me. I don't have enough knowledge of Albertan politics to explain this result. Even Albertans seem confused. The one party state is alive and well in Alberta. After all, Ed Stelmach: The Same Thing Albertans Can Believe In.

Elections Everywhere

The next three days see three major votes. Today, Russians go to the polls to elect Dmitry Medvedev as the next President of Russia. Tomorrow, Albertans will choose to extend the Tory dynasty into yet another decade. Finally, on Tuesday, four states will have their say in the endless primary season south of the 49th. The only question is when will Canadians across the country get to vote?