I thought, after the speech from the throne that that opportunity had passed. But Harper’s Conservatives pushed ahead with an economic “update” that was both wrong-headed and strangely partisan (at a time when that should be the last thing he was playing at) this in-turn activated the other three parties to form a coalition, somewhat like I’d imagined. Actually I imagined the coalition would have involved different groups (I originally thought the Green party was going to play a bigger role). Also it’s not clear whether the coalition that is taking place is the product of Dion’s strategizing. It could possibly be closer to Layton’s.

Anyway, Harper and his Conservatives can yell all they want that this is “undemocratic” or that the Conservatives were the ones Canadians elected but they’re wrong. The Conservatives were elected as a minority meaning they were supposed to work with the other parties. They didn’t. Instead the other parties, which together compose a much much greater percentage of who Canadians voted for, have come to an agreement to work together, and the’ve done so exactly as proscribed by Canadian Parliamentary rules. I think this is great. Here’s an easy page to read to understand the process. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/parl_gov_02-e.asp

Just in case, for some reason that site goes out of order or mysteriously gets changed, or you just can’t get to it, I made a PDF as an exact copy of the page, you can download it to read, study, and comment on here: Parliamentary Government

In the meantime, I’ve started a new project (conmem.ca) that a friend tells me, makes me seem like a crank and he’s probably right. I’m going use that blog as a public memory of the Conservatives’ deads. Eventually, I’ll expand the scope so that it’s more of a public conservation of memory of other issues, but right now the conservatives’ scandalous approaches to governing provide sufficient fodder. I’ve only posted two examples on that blog so far, though I have many others ferretted away, which I’ll publish in December. This month I’m a little too occupied with Nanowrimo.

As for this blog, come December (again), I ought to have some new little essays about ready to post about “intellectual property” issues.

I just read Dipper Chick’s blog post explaining the problems with the Facebook vote-swapping mechanism. Her initial and important point is that it’s a manipulation of the already problematic first-past-the-post voting system we employ. Worse, it relies on blind trust, which mitigated through a Facebook app is fickle at best. Dipper Chick points out that

“…the biggest flaw in this vote swap system lies in the group’s major premise: that anyone but a Conservative is A-ok.”

And I believe that connects with the issue that I wanted to raise. “Anyone but a Conservative is A-ok” is a negative approach to voting. It’s asserting that you dislike a certain candidate, policies, or way of representing your interests so you will vote against that to ensure it doesn’t happen. Actually it ensures very little. By voting negatively you’re not asserting a positive participatory voice.

In my opinion, the point of casting a ballot is to assert what you believe in, to state that this is the sort of representation you’d like, and that these policies or ways of handling events are they direction you’d like our country to head. When you treat an election in this manner, you’re asserting a positive, constructive voice. Rather than say “I don’t like that” and not offer a solution, you say “This is the direction I would like”, clearly the latter is the more constructive choice.

Back to the spoiler idea I mentioned at the beginning. Vote swapping with the “anything but” attitude, and thus participating in a negative vote strategy denies your choice for how you’d like the country to head. You’re saying that rather than move in the direction you think is best, you’re perfectly happy to accept another direction. Yet that other direction may be equally unsuitable as the “anything but” direction for your stance. To understand this, you must stop viewing the political spectrum in an oversimplified left/right dichotomy and instead consider each candidate and party for the individual platform it represents and actions taken.

Consider this. Accepting a simplified left/right dichotomy pretty much requires accepting that whichever party has the greatest pre-existing momentum from your side of the left or right, is the one most likely to win and thus an ok choice for your vote. But that party may not represent your voice at all if you consider its platform. Just because it is perceived to be on your supposed side of the dichotomy does not entitle it to your vote.

Swapping votes in order to strategically not-elect a certain stripe of MP only makes sense in the white-washed context the left/right dichotomy with a refusal to consider individual policy. It opens the door to manipulation through entitlement, which gets justified in pre-existing polls. If you’re just following along with the polls, what chance is there really for much change? Wherever history has built the greatest momentum, the polls are going to dictate that you follow that momentum.

For example, one could say “the liberal candidate represents the left-of-centre, polls indicate he has the greatest pre-existing support, so it’s ok to vote for him.” But looking at that candidate may reveal that he doesn’t represent what you’d like your voice to stand for. If you do vote your voice, selecting a different supposed left-of-centre candidate, you get considered a spoiler.

But what are you really spoiling? Actually nothing if you stop looking at the situation as a left/right dichotomy. Without that dichotomy it’s nonsensical to be a spoiler. The left or right ceases to have any entitlement to your vote because you’re not voting left or right. The momentum of polls ceases to influence your voice. Rather your voice gains the opportunity to positively and constructively influence the country’s direction. Vote swapping makes little sense outside the context of a left/right dichotomy.

The other morning as I walked to work, I was puzzling over the parties’ bizarre responses to letting/not letting Elizabeth May into the televised debates. Here’s my theory: Dion’s liberals have the more likely chance of forming the next government. Dion’s strategy has nonchalently been in play over quite a few months. In spite of how the media and ads are portraying the situation, Dion and the liberals are in fact on the offensive while the conservatives have been on the defensive.

To understand that, think about the justification for, and the process that takes place upon the Governor General disolving the minority government and then what must occur after the election if the party only wins a plurality.

Side note: I am not writing this from the perspective of a Liberal fanboy (in case my little hint at the beginning of this post wasn’t clear). I’m just enjoying some interesting strategies.

Maybe my statement/prediction sounds off base at first glance–I think these are main elements at play in the strategy and I’ll explain what I see in each.

• Dion/May riding agreement
• Main Conservative campaign principle is to attack Dion’s character
• A real record now exists of Conservative deeds
• Green party popularity has been rising
• The leaders’ perspectives on letting Elizabeth May debate
• Voter intentions (polls) have shown, throughout the run of this government, a sort of political stasis

The Dion/May Riding Agreement

Back in early 2007 Dion and May worked out a deal not to run candidates in each others’ ridings. Most news organizations and pundits discussed the issues in terms of how it bolstered public perception of Dion’s green credentials and added to the feeling that he’s a different, more respectable sort of politician, while it gave May a much better chance of beating Conservative Peter MacKay for the Central Nova riding (personally, I dislike the exchange because I think it semi-disenfranchises voters). However, none of that is very important. It was a well-calculated part of the Liberal strategy for a totally different reason, and I’ll say why this was actually important at the end.

Main Conservative Campaign Principle is to Attack Dion’s Character

Recall when Dion won his position in the Liberal party, the Conservatives began their campaigns (quite effectively) to drive a negative public perception of Dion. Notable is the Conservative-inspired impression that Dion is not a strong leader. It was backed by their use of weak-looking images and especially by how they framed his lack of bringing down the government on a series of confidence votes. It worked. The repetition of the weak leader meme stuck. It made its way into all the news media and citizens continued uncritically repeating the characterization until its become a hallmark of any debate about Dion. The importance and repetition the Conservatives put on this reveals their focus on character assassination as opposed to real tangible issues, it all sunk to a new low today with the puffin poop campaign gaff.

A Real Record Now Exists of Conservative Deeds

Does Dion lack leadership because of his temporary unwillingness to force an election on Harper’s orchestrated series of confidence vote landmines? Consider the major basis for the claim–the lack of bringing down the government–it doesn’t really stand up. I’m fairly certain that every party has at some point during the last few governments, voted in a way (or abstained) to avoid bringing down a government in a confidence vote, even though the party opposed the vote in principle. Why? Because it wouldn’t have benefited the given party’s situation to engage the country in an election at that moment. Same thing with the current Liberal situation.

Considering that the Conservative party hadn’t formed a government before, most of the negative arguments opponents could make against it were hypothetical or fear-based (just consider how the meme of “what’s Harper hiding” still floats). Letting the Conservative party get to work with its agenda could only provide the Liberals (and other parties) with real tangible issues and evidence to campaign against. The longer the liberals waited (as official opposition), the more opportunity they’d garner to point out the Conservatives’ lousy policies, mismanagement, or corrupt cover-ups. For example:

1) Lousy policy –> consider the bill C-61, that has spawned enormous public demonstration against its ridiculous rules and the harmful results it would wreak on Canadian freedoms and culture. Danny Williams made dissatisfaction with the Conservative/Atlantic Accord situation quite public. What about Conservative dismantling of support for fostering Canadian culture? Conservative cuts to the court challenges program? Negligent treatment of the environmental mess, which Layton has been calling attention to? Or how about the Tories shameful lack of direction and action on Kyoto.

2) Mismanagement –> no better example than the 200 page Conservative book on how to obstruct parliament (this alone ought to have incensed every Canadian citizen). Parliament is dysfunctional, indeed.

3) Corruption cover-ups –> Between the Cadman affair and the investigation into their campaign spending.

In other words, it could be argued that Dion was letting the Conservatives get their hands dirty enough to offer real issues of shame rather than hypothetical ones for the Liberals to condemn.

Green Party Popularity Has Been Rising

Where might the votes go? Think about the last election, in which Paul Martin’s version of the Liberal party was ousted largely because of its sponsorship scandal. To which of the major parties would disaffected Liberal voters turn? I suppose any right of centre or centre ones would likely go to the Conservatives. Some centre and left of centre ones would probably consider the NDP or Greens. Of course the NDP and Greens have their own base of voters, they also probably galvanize some voters that wouldn’t vote at all. Isn’t it interesting that in all the polls that keep getting published in the major newspapers, Green support seems to be rising this time around?

The Leaders’ Perspectives on Letting Elizabeth May Debate

Now, about the televised debates. The record seems to be that Harper, Layton, and Duceppe didn’t want May in the debates but Dion did. How does this fit a superficial conventional view? Wouldn’t you think it’d be Harper that wanted May in the debates but not Dion? After all, shouldn’t the Conservatives feel that the Greens are competition for the same voters that would otherwise likely consider the Liberals (or NDP)? Shouldn’t Dion be worried about that, especially when polls show the Liberals currently chasing the Conservatives? One might think Harper worries about the environmental pounding he’ll get from all the other candidates… which he more or less admits, claiming that it’s unfair to have two parties debating on the same platform (I paraphrase his stance on the Liberals and Greens). But that doesn’t explain Dion and Layton’s positions.

Layton brought scorn on himself with his position against having May in the debates. It felt uncharacteristic and contrary to the spirit NDP supporters usually express [Update 10 Aug. Layton and Harper changed their stances, so May will debate]. And Dion’s positive support of May debating–if he was really worried about the Greens getting voters that might otherwise vote Liberal, you’d expect him to have a different position. No. Dion seems to want to help, in an indirect way, the Green party gain popularity. I think his strategy almost requires that the Greens get a few seats and if they get them at the expense of the NDP or if the Greens got prior Liberal voters that Liberals cannot woo back, so much the better.

It fits well with the Dion/May riding deal that I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Dion helps May win her riding in exchange for what? What could the Liberals get from key Green wins? A coalition.

Voter Intentions (Polls) Have Shown, throughout the Run of this Government, a Sort of Political Stasis

Polls have indicated over the period of this Conservative minority government that an election will result in little difference in the distribution of MPs. The Conservatives remain in minority territory. Harper was essentially forced to call an election, cutting his losses before his opportunities (with the economy and scandals) worsened. He did this very publicly under the flimsy auspice of a dysfunctional parliament.

But if the election results in roughly the same distribution of MPs, we can’t simply go back to the exact same minority conservative government. Liberal strategy shines here. None of the parties agreed that parliament could function in that minority situation. Clearly we cannot re-elect a dysfunctional government. So we have to turn to the alternative.

A re-elected Conservative minority means Governor General Michaëlle Jean, will have to ask the leader of the opposition to form the new government or else have a fresh election (which I don’t think would be very effective). The opposition party Liberals are in this position and could form an effective coalition with the Green party (no other coalition combination makes as much sense). In other words electing Green party MPs, especially in Conservative- or NDP-contested ridings will help a Liberal/Green coalition to govern. (The other parties must have recognized that in their original stances against letting May into the debates.)

Dion’s riding swapping strategy and push to have May in the debates = shrewd. His delay in bringing down the Conservatives = useful for the campaign. The Conservatives’ only choice, if they wish to form the next government, is to get a majority, existing polls show that’s not yet likely. Besides, remember how Dion won the Liberal leadership in the first place? Similar approach. He worked out arrangements with people that were unlikely to win and obtained their base of support. The Conservatives have been on the defensive for quite some time acting like they’re on the offensive but I suspect “underdog” Dion layed his strategy and has the upper hand.

—

(16 Sep. 08 — Ok, it dawned on me that I short-cutted a bit of reasoning here. The parliamentary web site that I referenced above for why the Governor General would have to ask the opposition leader to form the new gov’t, actually includes some stuff in between. Still, I assume that if the votes tally up a Conservative minority, the opposition will immediately vote down a confidence motion and thus secure itself the governing mandate.)

In explaining why we need a strategy the report says

“Digital content will be more and more in the form of conversations between people, using many different media types.”

This requires a more solid understanding of what constitutes conversation. The different media are one issue but within the use of those media the constructs of a conversation vary hugely. From blog posts to instant messages, even the selection of hyperlinks you choose to place in your web page.

The report offers a grid (p. 10) categorizing content by its source, motivation, audience, and characteristics. I believe there is a miscategorization here in that one source is the public domain and civil society whereas other sources are the business world or academic community. The report notes there may be some overlap but I think this categorization could be reconsidered and improved. The overlap seems too great to make the existing categories meaningful. In particular, I don’t see why the public domain is held separate from the rest, since it is not the same sort of a category at all. Every other category can include the public domain.

A key assumption in the proposed strategy is that

“Information access and use supports Canada’s societal goals-In society, equitable information access fosters equal opportunity for learning, creative and commercial enterprise.”

I think this is a wonderful base assumption, not simply for recognizing the need to have equitable access but also because I think it requires recognition of the integral role that this access plays for learning, creative, and commercial enterprise. And because information access leads to what enables people to access it-so if you read the report you’ll see various (welcome) mentions of open standards and sources.

An outcome the strategy seeks is that Canada’s information assets and knowledge are preserved in digital form. There is the point that we and future generations ought to have ongoing access to our digital knowledge and information assets, especially with regard to the intellectual, scientific, and creative accomplishments. I’m glad this point is in the forefront because it is a big problem. I touched on this in a post previously, commenting on our political motivation in terms of our heritage.

Unfortunately, I feel that the strategy doesn’t outline a sufficient method for ensuring the storage techniques to make this digital preservation clearly the right choice. Not that I’m saying it isn’t, but we have many flaws to deal with in terms of digital preservation and I think those must be worked out much more completely. The plan does cover some ground in this regard.

For example, in the objectives for ensuring preservation, it states

“We are confronted with the need to choose what will be preserved and what will not.”

It calls for a reasoned framework to do so. The strategy notes that we’re incapable (presently) of storing all the information we create. But haven’t we always had this problem? We’ve never been able to store everything (digital or not) and what we do keep in museums and archives, is not necessarily placed there because of a reasoned framework. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have such a framework however, but I’m questioning what it should be used to accomplish.

For all the digital information we create, how do we determine what will be significant to the future? Nobody’s ever thought it was an important idea to record every phone conversation for eternity. However, now that we’re looking at conversations in digital mediums, weblogs for example, and we feel like they’ve got to be preserved. Is the impetus for this the digital medium? I think the more difficult part of the preservation task is determining the “what” rather than the “how”and I suppose that’s the purpose of the framework. Any framework though is going to be developed within our present context so I wonder how it will be able to account for the rapid changes that take place in digital mediums? When hyperlinks constitute conversations do they cease to be preservation worthy in the same way as day-to-day phone conversations? Interesting problem.

To continue on the “how” side of the digital preservation thread, the strategy addresses trusted digital networks (TDRs), which cover the “policy, process, standards, and technology framework for digital preservation.”So TDRs address the “how” for making digital information accessible to future generations. I think two things are lacking here. One is the specifications for what constitutes a TDR but maybe that is better off in another document. The second is a thorough discussion of what we need to do to train future generations so that they’re able to understand and access these TDRs. We cannot just assume that the work we put into creating them will easily carry on to the next generation. I would expect that a digital TDR is a complex system, relying on current technologies that may be so obsolete that they’re not even comprehensible to future generations. That’s an ongoing concern that I posted a bit about in mass replicability.

Furthermore-the TDR idea, while not completely articulated yet (and as the strategy mentions, a proper TDR does not exist in Canada yet) does promote

“…common attributes and open standards; provision of guidance and training; and development and sharing of open source tools.”

Great that it is being couched in open standards and open source.

One potential risk of TDRs is that they might concievably be used as official checkplaces for “intellectual property” rights. I think this stands a great chance of being detrimental to the assumptions of the document for equitable access and the nurturing of digital assets. I may have a pessimistic view, but current IP trends, as controlled by short-term commercial enterprise, suggest that my pessimistic view for such a rights repository would be a likely consideration for misuse or abuse.

On developing an effective TDR, the strategy promotes the idea that “Effective R&D will enable the technical foresight and constant vigilance required to manage and preserve digital information” which is nice thinking but I still think this calls for a more deliberate outline.

Switching gears, an idea the strategy introduces, which really fascinated me was

“creating new competencies and positions such as ‘digital curators‘ who would have stewardship responsibility for digital information.”

The strategy recommends raising

“the profile of digital preservation needs and challenges within creator communities…”

This is important because the changes digital media have provoked are barely audible in public discourse. As a whole, we should make these issues commonly understood by the greater population so that they can be acted on with political will. Information is within our environment and ought to be considered intimitely.

The Library and Archives Canada draft strategy covers a lot of ground and raises important points for further discussion. I loved seeing that it was introduced to the public for commentary too (I suppose I wouldn’t be writing this post otherwise).

“With opposition likely to come from broadcasters, education groups, consumers, privacy commissioners, and the technology community, copyright could emerge as an issue where the Liberals and Conservatives sing a different tune.”

Which I think would be great. I recently wrote about how “intellectual property” issues should be brought into mainstream political discourse.

Besides, I think it’s good to write letters. It’s one way to communicate between votes and I can’t assume anyone in the political sphere necessarily reads anything I put on any of the blogs/sites I write.

It’s a funny thing, protesting “intellectual property” issues. I suppose people could organize large-scale public protests. Or you could regularly do acts of peaceful protest–perhaps sharing some creative commons-licensed music would qualify. But at the very heart of it, you’re essentially dealing with something that is invisible, it’s a concept embodied in progaganda, policies, and laws, and expressed in people’s activities. It’s a bit more tricky than showing polluted lakes requiring environmental reform, or people waiting in hospitals that require more doctors.

Letter-writing and article publishing are some of the ways to address it. That’s why I published the letter on the web. It adds to the monuments of discussion and perspectives building the force behind sentiment against restrictive IP regulation.