data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a1338/a13387937f1648887c83c30b49f6169e6d99d0be" alt=""
Gerard's almost making me go blind. The hair...! The hair...!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1b7c5/1b7c59f831370d8fd6ec1e8862f3a14a5cea4b80" alt=""
But the news can't be all bad. Unions use e-voting to choose their leaders, and the fairly decent sized city of Markham Ontario has employed the process on a number of occasions; the 2nd time out they even got the higher turnout they were looking for.
Well, when I was doing my e-voting research back in the early 2000s, I came across a rule of thumb that might explain where and when the process can work. At the time, I was pondering a claim made by David Dill, another well-known e-voting skeptic. He argued that:
"Someone sufficiently unscrupulous, with an investment of $50,000 [U.S.], could put together a team of people who could very easily subvert all of the security mechanisms that we've heard about on these [voting] machines," he said.
...and I was discussing this claim with some of the other people involved in my research. One of them asked: "Who would risk that kind of money (and a possible jail sentence, if things didn't go as planned) for this?" This being the presidency of a fairly decent sized trade association, which involves receiving a stipend in the low five-figures, a certain amount of fame locally, and a few trips to the U.S. or overseas. The answer, of course, was: nobody in their right mind. We were dealing with business-men and, if they had that kind of money lying around, there would surely find more useful ways to invest it.
And so there is your rule of thumb: where the prize for stealing an election is is not worth the cost, e-voting can work fine! So: for union or campus elections, why not? The Mayor of Markham makes about $150,000 per year so, again, is trying to hack the vote there worth the candle?
On the other hand, a national election where the prize is control of a small (but very ferocious, mind you) army and a budget in the billions...
Well, in that case I would be worried.
...the spike on right side of the above graph which, depending on your data source, indicates the warmest or 2nd warmest year on record.
Now here comes the good part. Several months ago, talk of the next El Niño event began perculating on some of the climate science blogs, because there hasn't been one in awhile and they tend to follow La Nina events.
And, from today's Fiji News:
So lets do a full circle and return to the Hadley Center forecast from 2007:
Some have wondered whether the momentum towards action on the AGW issue could be sustained over a short stretch of less steamy weather, and indeed a few polls have shown less public support (esp. in the U.S) for the kind of actions scientists have called for.
You can't help but wonder if the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen could have come at a less fortuitous time.
Iggy got buffeted in the press this week, and it looks like its shown up in the latest polling numbers (although its all within the margin):
I suppose the problem with convincing everyone that the timing of the election is in your hands, is that you might get blamed for (almost) precipitating an unpopular election. That's my 1st take on these numbers, if it isn't a matter of interpreting twitches. Again, once in a campaign, I doubt anyone will care who started it, esp. if its a more conventional fall election.
From Christian Conservative:
And (just to sum up) what has happened is that two of the four leadership candidates (alleged front runner Tom Hudak and rural seperatist Randy Hillier), who have vowed to abolish the tribunal, have rendered themselves unelectable in Ontario. I would further argue that Frank Klees' more modest proposal, to allow "Whites Only" signs and "No Irish Need Apply" want ads back in the province, would prove similarly unpalatable to Ontario voters should he become PCPO leader.
That leaves us with Christine Elliot--moderate, female--the McGuinty government's worst nightmare (and Warren Kinsella's!). But, no! She may be among the front runner's at this point, but Christine is too damn Liberal and incorrectly gendered for the PCPO base. Watch an "anyone but Christine" movement to appear between now and the convention. Whispers of rebellion are already in the air!
So in the end we will wind up with the Ontario Conservative Party embracing a totally toxic policy, making Kinsella's job in the McGuinty war-room next time out trivially easy, and a Liberal government in Ontario from now until the cows come home.
I remember a case on our side of the fence, when the federal libs ran on a "tax on everything". We knuckled down and maintained a brave face and prayed that the whole damn thing wouldn't go nuclear. Fun stuff! Soon it will be the turn of my Ontario conservative brothers to learn what happens when you walk up to one of the third rails of Canadian politics and start licking it.
PS. A bit of a mini-kerfuffle blew up last when it was revealed that he Elliot campaign paid for the poll in question. Mind you, IPSOS has a rep to maintain and probably wouldn't juice its questions too severely, and in any case (see 1st link above), Elliot's people have released the poll. Other than the use of the term "scrap", which Hudak and Hillier have employed on several occasions, nothing seems too untoward about it.
Not to repeat myself, but here's the short version; their long-range weather predictions are based upon biblical exegesis.
Good luck to my English readers (assuming I have any, that is).