I never knew this man.

I never knew this man. 

Growing up, every year as November 11th approached, we were told stories of the bravery of men who went to war to fight for our freedom, of the many that were lost in battle.  We would read poems, sing songs, and as we grew older, put on plays.  Books were written, movies were made; Poppies were worn.  The message was everywhere, of how men in their youth had put their lives on the line. 

But these remained stories, disconnected from today by the stretches of time and the nature of how their tales were told, in lands far away and in settings unfamiliar.  What really happened was interpreted by others, and the lines between fiction and reality blurred as the years went by.  Hollywood would produce blockbusters depicting the battles of war, young men who would normally have more days ahead than behind, youthful in their bravery, their naivety and their fears, cut short by the events that unfolded or celebrating in the glory of victory.

And still I never knew this man.

With the timing of the two world wars, and some knowledge about my grandparents and their parents before them, mixed in with the messages we were fed about the youth of war, made it all clear to me that - by luck or by happenstance - our family had been spared from the prospect of being torn apart; spared from having to send one son or another off to the front lines.  And every November I celebrated the sacrifices of others, with a side of guilt on behalf of our family for not contributing to the narrative.

And yet I never knew this man.

I never knew that the stories and depictions were wrong.  That it wasn't only the teens and twenty-somethings that were heading overseas.  I never knew that my assumptions about our family were all wrong.  I never knew that, at the ripe age of forty and having two young children of his own, this man I never knew signed up to take part. 

Perhaps all those years I was just too young to understand.  Or perhaps I was just desensitized with the inundation of the stories and glorification of it all.  Perhaps it was the perspective you get when you first hold your newborn in your hands, the moment all of your priorities shift.  Perhaps it was only then when the sacrifices and bravery became real.  Not the bravery of the battlefield, the ones that are celebrated on screen and in tales told; but the bravery of boarding that ship, leaving two small children behind, not knowing when - or if - he would get to hold them again.  His youngest was only 6.

I never knew this man, this man who took up arms.

I never knew that on October 28, 1916 -  100 years ago, almost to the day - he landed in England to take his position.  He suffered gun shot wounds on more than one occasion, and an unknowable number of moments where he would have faced uncertainty; uncertainty about whether tomorrow would come, uncertainty of whether he would ever see his two small boys again. 

Yet this man did return home. 

Two and a half years later, wounded and discharged, he crossed the ocean and was reunited with the family he left behind.  This man survived his tour, returned home, and lived on to see his seventy-ninth birthday.  And perhaps it is because of this - that he survived and didn't fit the young age profile that the wars are depicted with, that I never knew that this man had even served.  Perhaps it is because he did return that I did not know; his story was left to him to tell, and perhaps he did not want to tell it.  Perhaps he didn't want to take away from the stories of those that stood beside him and didn't return home.   Or perhaps his tale was lost in the haze of time or did not make the final edit of the poems and storybooks and movies that we've been consuming all this time. 

I never knew this man, this man who was far from his youth when he stepped up for the sake of the greater good.  The sacrifice it took to walk away from his two small children, the bravery of walking into the unknown.

I never knew this man.  His name was Alonzo. 

I never knew him.  Yet his blood runs through my veins.

Alonzo Nathan Clark (1875 - 1954).

http://21stbattalion.ca/tributeac/clark_an.html

The 5 ridings I am watching

There are five ridings I am watching in this federal election.

•          Whitby (ON)
•          Etobicoke North (ON)
•          Calgary Heritage (AB)
•          North Vancouver (BC)
•          South Okanagan-West Kootenay (BC)

1.  Whitby/ON.  This is my home riding, and has been very deeply blue since Jim Flaherty ran for office in 2006; before this it was a Liberal riding.  Flaherty was great for Whitby; he brought investment into the town, and he represented the riding well in Ottawa.  He was one of the few MPs that could stand up to the leader and get away with it.  His relationship in Ottawa was unlike most of his peers.  With his passing and the subsequent by-election, our old mayor, Pat Perkins, took his seat last fall.  Since this time she appears to be a backbencher in Ottawa, with little voice into the Prime Minister's office; this I am not surprised - not because of her, but because of how Harper runs his government.  In the 2014 bi-election she won with 49% of the vote, but only 32%  of eligible voters cast their votes.  Since this time the Liberal candidate has lost ground to the NDP candidate, with what appears to be a vote split for 2015, which should give PC a clear win despite a diminishing Conservative base since Flaherty's last bid.   Two factors may change the tide for this riding:  (1) will the recent fall of NDP from the 3-party-race have an impact on the vote splitting, favouring the Liberals; and (2) will the social-media push to get couch-sitters off their asses and out to the polls favour the Liberals.

Projected:  Conservative (CPC- 49%, L- 33% ,  NDP- 14%,  GPC- 3% ).

2014 bi-election election:  Conservative /Perkins (CPC- 49%, L- 41%,  NPD- 8%,  GPC- 1%)   

Number of votes separating 1st and 2nd place:  2 999.  Or 4% of the abstained voters.

Abstained: 74 325 (68% of eligible voters)

2011 Full election:  Conservative / Flaherty (CPC- 59%, L-14% ,  NPD- 21%,  GPC- 5%)  

Number of votes separating 1st and 2nd place:  23 220. 

Abstained: 37 480 (37% of eligible voters).

2.  Etobicoke North/ON.  Toronto appears fairly Red-Orange in the polls, but I am curious whether the Ford-Nation voice will impact this corner of the city.  I'm also curious whether last weekend's rally (that the Ford brothers put on for Harper) will have a negative impact on Harper nationally.  I mean, with the attack ads on Trudeau about supporting legalization of marijuana, do you really want to be associated with the international "Crack Smoking Mayor" sensation?  Note that since the 2011 election the PCs have lost significant ground in this riding, at the expense of the Liberals.

Projected:  Liberal (CPC- 21%, L- 61% ,  NDP- 15%,  GPC- 3%).

Last election:  Liberal (CPC- 32%,  L- 43% ,  NPD- 24%,  GPC- 0%)  

Difference separating 1st and 2nd place: 3 308

Abstained last election:  29 416  (48% of eligible voters).

3. Calgary Heritage/AB.  In this 2015 campaign Harper, not the PCs, has been the target of the social media outcry.  Arguably the ABC (Anything But Conservative) campaign is really ABH (Anyone But Harper).  I am interested to see whether this translates into a hit against his local campaign.  Harper has also said that if he doesn't get a majority he will step down... does that mean a possible bi-election in this riding early next year?  Note that since 2011 he has lost ground, but still holds the majority.

Projected:  Conservative  (CPC- 64%, L- 20%,  NDP- 10%,  GPC- 3%). 

Last election:  Conservative (CPC- 74%, L- 7% ,  NDP- 12%,  GPC- 6%)  

Difference separating 1st and 2nd place: 36 175

Abstained last election:  36 779 (39% of voters) *as Calgary Southwest

4. North Vancouver/BC.  This one is due partly to a personal connection since it is my cousin running for the Liberals in this riding.  And if the polls are accurate he has a high probability of winning.  I am actually more interested in what he brings to Ottawa.  Jonathan was raised in an environment that promoted social responsibility, yet he has a depth of business leadership experience, as well as environmental responsibility through his work in green technologies.  It will be interesting to see this blend of orange (social responsibility), traditionally blue (business leadership) and green (environmental responsibility) brought forward in a red Liberal package to Parliament Hill.  I really do feel he will be an agent of change, helping to bring this country back to a proper balance of these ideals.  

Projected:  Liberal  (CPC- 30%, L- 49% ,  NDP- 11%,  GPC- 9%).

Last election:  Conservative (CPC- 48%, L- 30% ,  NDP- 17%,  GPC- 5% )  

Difference separating 1st and 2nd place:  11 311

Abstained last election:  28 431 (32%)

5. South Okanagan - West Kootenay /BC. Excluding Elizabeth May's riding, the riding of Victoria shows the highest support for the Green Party.  However, it is the riding of South Okanagan-West Kootenay that is more interesting to watch.  While I don't expect to see a second seat won for the Greens, I am curious how constituents will vote here.  Vote splitting will only work against the long term goal of evolving the voting process, therefore it is better for the Greens to send their vote to Red/Orange... yet voting against Green has a negative impact in that it devalues their position.  This is really a case of "vote locally" versus "vote federally".

Projected:  too close to call (CPC- 33.8% , L- 21.9%, NDP-33.8% , GPC - 10.0% )

Last election:  Conservative (CPC- 45%, L- 7% ,  NDP- 39%,  GPC- 8% ) *redistributed  

Difference separating 1st and 2nd place (2011):  2 960

Abstained last election:  33 025 (37%)*

The Green Party has a sizeable voter base here, yet they risk handing the riding to PC because of vote splitting, thereby putting short term goals ahead of long term goals.  The Liberals here are making the same voting error, if their objective is to oust the Conservatives.

Further Green Party analysis.

In contrast, other areas where the Greens have made ground the lead candidate is far enough ahead that the impact of vote splitting is negligible.  Such is the case in Victoria/BC.  Here the NDP have locked up the seat, so it is safe for the Green voter base to support their party without risking long term goals.

Projected: NDP (CPC- 15% , L- 16%, NDP-40% , GPC - 28% ).

Other ridings significant to the Green Party (Projections for 2015):

Minor risk of vote splitting:

•          Esquimalt - Saanich - Sooke/BC  (CPC- 25% , L- 22%, NDP- 35% , GPC - 18%)
•          Nanaimo - Ladysmith /BC  (CPC- 28% , L- 19% , NDP- 36% , GPC -17% )
•          Thunder Bay - Superior North /ON  (CPC- 21, L- 27, NDP- 33, GPC- 19)

Area safe to vote Green in 2015:

•          Dufferin - Caledon/ON  (CPC-52% , L-25% , NDP- 11%, GPC - 14%)

Past results from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_electoral_districts

Projections from: http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html (Oct 17th data)

The problem with our voting system.

An election is not supposed to be about who wins and who loses.  This isn't the Jay's bid for the championship or about how many times the Habs beat the Leafs.  This is supposed to be about representation.  Democracy is about representing everyone, not a popularity vote for one leader.

The whole concept of the election process is to elect someone whom you feel can best represent your opinions and beliefs in the forum of Ottawa, in collaboration with other MPs that may have complimentary and/or opposing viewpoints.  The idea is that 100 000 people collectively elect 1 MP, and that this MP and 337 other MPs will govern on behalf of everyone.  This is what voting locally is all about.

However, we have evolved into a system where we are voting federally, for a leader, not for a local candidate.  The MPs are merely figureheads for one of a handful of leaders.  This is acutely apparent in this year's 2015 election with Harper refusing to allow local candidates from participating in local debates, and where they must toe the party line.  In this election, Harper has ensured everyone vote federally, and your MP will represent Ottawa's interest in your riding, instead of the other way around.

So how do we fix this?  How do we ensure we have proper local representation in Ottawa, regardless of political affiliation with a party leader?  A few ideas are being thrown around; proportional representation and ranked ballots are two of these.  There is no easy answer, but one that needs to be studied properly by a team of people representing the public, including all parties, not just the one with the most votes. 

This will have the impact of providing a more diverse representation of the country's constituents in Parliament Hill.  Isn't this what democracy is about - representing everyone? Isn't this what Canada is about - diversity?   Take our current model: The Green Party received 6.8% of the vote in 2008, but won no seats.   Yet 6.8% of 308 seats is almost 21 seats.  Those 6.8% of voters - 937,613 voters - had 0% representation on Parliament Hill.  Something is wrong with this model.

Only 59% of the electorate voted in 2008.  In my mind this is the leading culprit to voter suppression, a belief that it is a waste of time to cast a ballot because there is only one winner, and we stifle the ability to evolve out of a 2-party system.  Three leaders are proposing to look into this issue, to explore options to change how we vote, to support a more representative approach.  One leader is not - the one currently holding power.

I am not opposed to PCs on Parliament Hill.  I am opposed to oppression of 3/4 of our population at the hands of an old, outdated voting system.

Divisive Politics

Recently someone said to me "I see you are a Liberal supporter, based on your posts on Facebook."  So let me set the record straight.  I'm not a Liberal supporter, nor am I anti-Conservative.  What I am is anti-Harper.   I feel during his tenure as leader of the government we have move distinctly away from those things that make this country great.  And to elect him again would continue us down this path of intolerance and divisive politics.

When Harper ran for office in 2006, his campaign was centred around "an open and transparent government," to go up against the Liberals as they were fighting off scandals.  And it worked.  But since stepping into office his party has been plagued with one scandal after another, which they have brushed off or ignored.  They have systematically worked to dismantle any transparency that still existed; they have muzzled scientists, they have crippled Elections Canada, and they denied any wrongdoings in many scandals, including the Robocalls and the Senate expenses.  Harper is largely known for being a control freak, having his hand in everything, yet when a senior staff member is accused of something illegal, he claims he knows nothing about it.  His team has resorted to American-style attack ads instead of focusing on real issues.  They work to foster an us-against-them mentality, including the recently announced "barbaric practices" snitch line.

This has all been under the leadership of Stephen Harper.   

It didn't used to be like this.  And it doesn't need to be.  But for things to change, Harper has to go.