MMP fosters Walmart politics

A frequent objection to the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) election reform proposal is that it’s too democratic. Just as it will smooth out the blatant over- and under-representation of today’s system (e.g. the 1990 Ontario NDPs, today’s Green Party), it’s possible that certain, less desirable political parties (the Nazi/Facist Party or one-issue parties the typical examples) could earn a seat in the House. The proposed legislation already addresses these “undesirables” with its requirement that parties must receive 3-percent of the popular vote to gain one of 39 list member seats – some, including the Globe & Mail, want this threshold raised to 5-percent. More than the suggested increase, the very fact that a threshold even exists looks to me to be in direct conflict with the basic principles of democracy. Two thoughts come to mind:

• There’s a simple solution to having Marijuana Party MPs walking the halls of Queen's Park; don’t vote for them! If 5-percent of Ontarians vote for the Weed Party, that’s (unfortunately for some) a reflection of 5-percent of the province’s population, not a fault of the system. Sweeping the actual seat under the rug isn’t going to change the fact that you live in a land of stoners!
  
• Aren’t the ability for every voter to have their say, and for political movements to develop at the grassroots level, essential and founding principles of democracy? How then, can anyone justify a quota for defining party credibility? We’re up in arms about predatory pricing and anti-competitiveness whenever Walmart sets up shop in another community. We’ve got legislation preventing the telcos from collusion and predatory pricing. Yet when it comes to our system of government, even a proposed better model, we penalize grassroots political organizations for being…well, grassroots. How undemocratic.

Am I oversimplifying?

Tory can still pull it off

Whether he read my blog or not, Tory sure changed his tune on the faith-based schooling issue. He may be paying the price for it now, but it's still early to call the time of death on his campaign. From here, I think he needs to do three things:

1. Stick to his guns - he was firm in his support of the idea in the first place and has to stand firm with the new plan, including my original idea that he commit to developing an ideal solution before the next election.
   
2. Come up with the sound bite(s) - There are a bunch of ways Tory can turn the flip flop sentiment around, and they all require a stinging one-liner or two. He can turn it around on McGuinty and that voters are understandably more accustomed to leaders chaning their minds after the promises have been made and election results tallied. He can draw on the Leadership Matters theme, that what voters are seeing is smart leadership, something perhaps they can be forgiven for not recognizing. Whatever the issues, there's a zinger or two that can change public opinion around on this.
   
3. Hope - and I suppose praying would be appropriate - that he made the tactic switch on the issue far enough ahead of the election. A week earlier and I think he would have been fine - time will tell if the remaining 5 days is just enough for voters to move on to the big picture decision.

How Tory can win the Ontario election

Change tune on the faith-based schools issue .

Tory has accomplished two significant things with his plan for funding faith-based schools, one obviously being to anger more than a handful of voters.

But just as importantly, he has single-handedly set the agenda for the entire campaign. Last week’s debate, daily news coverage, negative attacks; all have been centred on this (up until Tory raised it, virtually non-existent) topic. Hampton and McGuinty, for all their attacks on the idea, haven’t had much else to talk about. For this reason, he shouldn’t drop it entirely, but he should definitely change tact.

Here’s how I think he can make it work.

Instead of steadfastly sticking to his original proposal – a typical tactic of politicians who think voters see them as perfect policy robots and not human beings – he should commit to coming up with a better solution in his first term as Premier. Now that the issue is out in the open, too many Ontarians have a strong opinion on the topic for it to go away. Tory can still hold claim ownership of the issue, and get voted in as Premier, by committing to do all the necessary research, economic modeling and stakeholder outreach to come up with what will a better plan.

Doing so wouldn’t be backpeddalling, nor would it be “pandering to the polls,” but would instead be a smart person refining (but still sticking to) a smart idea based on new evidence and lessons learned. There’s simply little chance he can get elected with the plan as it is now. Investing a few years will almost certainly result in a much better solution that addresses concerns of both faith and equality supporters. What’s more, if properly crafted and indeed the best solution, the new plan would serve as the defining issue of the next provincial election, one that Tory would be well poised to win.

Will he do it?

I suspect pressure is pretty high on him to stick to his guns (for aforementioned robotic reasons), and I’m not entirely certain that he reads my blog on a regular basis. If he’s going to do it though, time is of the essence. If he changes tact now, it’s a shrewd move that shows he can learn from voter sentiment but still lead on an issue. If he waits, it’s a last minute attempt to win back voters he’s lost.

ontario election

Humour, Good Ideas in Globe & Mail Letters to the Editor

More and more over the last 3-5 years I've found myself deriving enjoyment from newspapers' editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor. My loyal followers will know that the Toronto Sun is a frequent source of joy, brilliance and blog fodder. This time it's the Globe that's caught my attention, starting first with two hilarious letters to the editor from September 5.

First is this letter on the public outcry in response to revelations that Canada has a thriving horse meat economy, written by Fred Bealle of Vanier, Ontario:

When did horses start being pets instead of mostly utilitarian transport that was rewarded by being eaten after long service (Will Canadians Stomach A Horsemeat Industry? - Sept. 4).Cows are nice. I love cows. Cows are very affectionate. You can even ride one if you are not in a hurry. And on the way, the cow thoughtfully provides you with milk and cheese. Find a horse that will do that as efficiently.

I really do not understand why it is horrible to eat horses or cute little canines, and it is okay to enjoy a beefsteak. As for myself, I smugly avoid meats while I tuck into my rice and beans. It's about global warming, you know.

It's about global warming....HA! I'm still chuckling. Next comes George James from Port Hope, who has this to say about the provincial Liberals' election promise to give Ontarians a new holiday in February (the paper titled the letter, All in the family day):

I strongly support the Liberal proposal to add a public holiday known as Family Day in February (February Blahs Mark Ontario's Political Calendar - Sept. 4). It will give my wife time to catch up on the laundry and the housework.

On a more serious note, I think the most insightful, constructive and straightforward letter to the editor I've ever read came from the pen of Parker Quast of Oakville yesterday. Weighing in on the now pivotal provincial election issue of funding faith-based schools tabled by John Tory, Parker says:

I think it is a really bad idea to have kids with different religions split up in schools. This will lead to kids arguing that their religion is right and better than the other, instead of being friends. It will cost so much money just to set up a school to teach one religion. The parents should teach religion at home and, if a school teaches religion, it should be one class that teaches all religions. That way kids will know about them all and won't think there is a ''right or wrong'' religion.

If it's not enough that Parker has a point, consider this....he's ten years old. He's a keeper!

The Problem with Spam: It Works

Here's a recent spam email I received that caught my eye. In addition to being a testament to the success of myriad international anti-spam legislation and do-not-email registries, this one stood out as an illustration of an intriguing, in some ways disconcerting reality; spam, no matter how bad it may be, clearly works.

Can also be trimmed, needed up, about months! Ben laura lane home.
Need, growing fast, or! Body weight generally into best, not trim, nails.
Often seems smaller than.
Nail cap on first, without adhesive it, looks too. Coons for example questions?
Large tend towards kittens usually.
Weight generally into, best?
Reg trademark paws, inc lafayette la. An fullgrown largeboned maine.
Order by phone clawsreg sizes most average cats wear.
Example questions call email we recently got.
Made in usa, all rights reserved, copy dr. In usa all rights reserved copy?
Glove caps can also be trimmed needed up.
Or largebreed smallboned adult often.
On first without adhesive it looks too dont. Seems, smaller than an fullgrown largeboned maine coons.
Declawing extremely happy again.
Made, in, usa all rights reserved copy dr schelling.
Generally into best not, trim, nails before.
Imagine anyone, putting family member through pain declawing!

(In the spam, the picture above links to a company called U.S. Drugs)

Why? Because no matter how cheaply spammers can acquire their email lists, those lists still cost money. To offset even minimal costs, spammers have to sell at least one product for a campaign to be effective. Spam can be successful with even the most miniscule of click through and conversion rates...as long as they're not zero.

Therein lies the disconcerting aspect of this spam...there is absolutely no reason this email should have generated a single click through, let alone a sale. Forget needing calls to action, effective key messages or appealing to readers' emotions; this email barely even tells me what it's selling, and what it does go onto say lacks any logic whatsoever.

I can't figure out why this email was ever even sent, let alone why it generated a return. The fact that I've seen this particular email before only adds to adds to its mysterious apparent success.

Spammers wouldn't keep sending these emails if they didn't deliver results. Even if it's only a single sale for every 1,000,000,000 emails sent, the very fact that they keep ending up in my in-box means that they're generating revenues from somebody, somewhere.

As a marketer, I'm intrigued. Is direct email ultimately just a numbers game, with at least some results guaranteed regardless of content? As a communications consultant, I'm offended. What does this email say about the importance of key messages, value propositions, brand attributes and other things I spend a good chunk of my day doing? And what about consumers as a whole? Are we that lazy that we (at least some of us) will buy whatever's put in front us, even if we don't don't what it is?

On a more positive note, there's a lesson to be learned from this email in the form of a potential solution to the spam problem, a solution rooted in free markets, not legislation. One only needs to look at the impact of PIPEDA and the plethora of U.S. anti-spam laws have had on reducing the amount of spam you and I receive to see how legislation doesn't work. A free market solution would look something like this:

1) Disband all efforts currently underway to enact anti-spam legislation or do-not-email databases, for they are more likey to end up being gun-registryesque boondoggles with little or no results.

2) Put funds that were earmarked for said legislation into educational programs to make consumers more aware of the threats posed by spam, and simple ways to combat spam problems (namely, don't even read or open them).

3) In doing so, put the onus on the consumer, not governments, to turn off the spam hose.

Put another way, instead of coming up with a list of people not to spam, make those people acutely aware of how and why they shouldn't justify spam by reading emails or following links therein. Legislation, as we have seen, is but a minor inconvenience to spammers. As with many things, the real solution lies in hitting spammers in the pocketbook, turning off the revenue tap that continues to reward them and justify further spam campaigns.