Disenchanted, Disengaged, Disenfranchised

In the most recent Ontario general election voter turnout was at an historic low, only 49.2% of eligible voters actually bothered to cast their ballots. This was despite a concerted effort by Elections Ontario to make voting easier and more convenient than ever.

The following was included in a late summer media release:

“It’s now easier than ever to vote in a provincial general election” said Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa today at a media conference held in Toronto. Stating that making voting easy was the core driver for Elections Ontario, Essensa took attendees through a review of the voting options available, highlighting the More Days More Ways approach which gives voters more flexibility than ever before to choose how, when and where to vote. 

On election day, most voting locations:
Will be wheelchair accessible, as indicated on your Notice of Registration Card.
On election day, all voting locations:
Will have magnifiers, Braille ballot templates and other tools to assist voters who are blind or with vision loss.
Will provide pens and pads to help electors who are deaf, deafened, or hard of hearing to communicate.
Will provide the elector the opportunity to book a sign language interpreter paid by Elections Ontario through the Canadian Hearing Society's Ontario Interpreting Services to be with you at your voting location.

During the 15 days preceding election day:
In returning offices and satellite offices, assistive voting tools will be available that feature:
Audio headphones
Tactile buttons
Large keypads marked with Braille
Paddles
A "sip and puff" device
If you have restricted mobility:
You may transfer to a more convenient voting location within your electoral district. Contact your Returning Officer to make arrangements.

Almost $92 million later, it didn't seem to work. In fact, its almost axiomatic (for me) that whenever a big government (like Ontario's) institutes a program to fix a problem, not only is the problem not fixed, but it is often made worse. Such was the case here. Obviously "ease" of voting was not preventing people from voting in this election. It was something more fundamental. Why did 67.8% of the population turn out to vote in 1975, dropping to 49.2% in 2011? Was it more convenient then? Hardly. So the answer must be something else and I suspect the answer is incentive. No, I'm not suggesting that we pay or reward people who vote. Nor would I suggest that people be coerced to vote, as they are in Australia. I'm suggesting that people need a reason to vote, a reason to believe that their ballot may change what is, after all, an entrenched system.
There is some evidence for this. In 2008, Obama's election was a spike in the usual US voter turnout, maybe because people were under the misimpression that an Obama victory would change things. US turnouts seem to be far worse in percentage terms than Canadian federal elections. Ontario turnouts resemble the US.
The upcoming US election will be interesting, or not, depending on who is chosen by the GOP. If a razor blade will be needed to separate and distinguish the policies of Obama and the GOP candidate, then look for a low turnout. That's what I'm predicting.     

Heavily taxed secularists are not very generous

In human relations, at the corner of religion and politics, there lies personal responsibility. For some of us, that corner does not exist exactly, rather it is metaphysics (worldview) and politics. Either way, at that intersection, personal responsibility and self reliance are among the most highly prized virtues among libertarians. Libertarians invariably prefer that people in trouble deal with their own problems or seek voluntary help rather than accept legislated handouts. Libertarians prefer donation to taxation. Many people mistake this attitude among libertarians as being cold and uncaring, but it is more likely an aversion to coercion. Most libertarians regard voluntary donation as their own personal responsibility, helping those that need help in any way they can. Libertarians also believe, that when people are coerced to give, they end up feeling and acting less generously. There is evidence for this.

The Fraser Institute publishes an annual report called "Generosity in Canada and the United States - The 2011 Generosity Index." The report lists the 64 States, Provinces and Territories that comprise the United States and Canada. These two countries that have a great deal in common, with some subtle (and not so subtle) differences that make this a valid comparison.
The Canadian Provinces do not fare well in this comparison. All the Canadian Provinces and Territories are in among the bottom 27 positions out of total 64.  Quebec has the lowest average charitable donation in local dollars with $606 in 2009, while the average amount given in South Dakota in the same year was $7580, a huge difference. In a measure that Fraser Institute calls the "generosity index," Utah ranks as the most generous, number 1 out of 64, while Quebec is 59, Ontario ranked as 46 of 64. So whats going on here?

One of the not so subtle differences between the two countries is that the US is generally more religious than Canada, and likely the most secular of the Canadian provinces is now Quebec. Utah, on the other hand has a large percentage of Mormons that may still practice tithing. Many religions make charity an obligatory part of being faithful. So religion may account for American generosity, though I think Americans are generous by nature. What I don't get is this recent article by someone that clearly hates Ayn Rand, calling Americans greedy etc. They most certainly are among the world's most generous people, as this article posted on the same day as the previous one indicates.

In the National Post, a recent column by Barbara Kay recognizes the religious differences between the two countries. But she goes one step further: "Big governments assign all responsibility for social justice to the state. Smaller governments assign some responsibility to the state and some to the individual. Statism dampens the impulse to be generous at an individual level." Quebec is both secular and has big government, maybe that's why this relatively rich province is so stingy with its donations?

Ms. Kay ends up with: "Taking personal responsibility for alleviating the sufferings of others is the mark of a mature individual. Statism tends to suffocate the blessing of empathy. Statism promotes civic immaturity. One more in a long litany of reasons for working to bring down the size of government." I could not agree more.  

Christopher Hitchens Tribute Debate with Tony Blair

Most of you know by now that Christopher Hitchens died today, too young.
The Munk Debates have made available the video of the debate between Hitchens and Blair for the next 72 hours.
HERE.

AGW - Running out of time and support.....

oops

Have you ever been so engrossed in your work that you are oblivious of your surroundings? It frequently happens to Wile E. Coyote of Looney Tunes fame. Poor coyote doesn't realize he is not supported by anything until, well....until he realizes it, then it's too late.

So it is with the people that brought you the global warming catastrophe and how to prevent it, the IPCC. Their recent meeting in Durban South Africa is over now, and to hear and read their reports, the planet has been saved for our children and so on. Well, if I were them, I'd say its time to look around for their support if they can find it.

Last year at Cancun, that climate conference "kicked-the-Kyoto-can-down-the-road." This year, the Kyoto Accord is being abandoned, kicked out, as it should be. Canada, an early adopter of Kyoto back in 1997, is one of the first to dump it, saying that it would do so this week. Russia and Japan are also not renewing their Kyoto vows. The US was never part of it, and China and India were excused because they had a "note" that stated they are underdeveloped. Right. Who's left? Europe, and they are in good shape, aren't they?

In fact climate change has become money exchange, and really it has always been just that. The battle to save the world from impending climate doom has really morphed into the something the South African hosts called, "Climate justice." And Climate justice is a euphemism for taking from rich countries (that produce wealth and a byproduct called CO2) and giving to poor countries (that can only produce shit apparently). Giving how much? How about $100-Billion a year to expiate our guilt for working hard, establishing good trade rules, and having a descent standard of living. That's right, the whole Durban thing ended with an agreement to keep the Kyoto idea alive by "promising to fund a Green Climate Fund to the tune of $100-billion per year as a farewell gift ............to appease their own citizens."

I am not appeased, but unfortunately Canada has signed on to this fund. The good news is that few agreements of this sort are ever honoured. This article in the National Post suggests that the $10 Billion fund to help save Haiti, (remember that?) is still owing. The rest of the "deal" signed in Durban pushes everything significant off to 2020. What is saved for now, is the next conference in Qatar. Most of today's politicians will be long gone by 2020, and if nothing significant happens that can be pinned onto climate change or global warming, well, the rest of us will forget about it too. Can't happen soon enough.