VANOC: Oppressing Olympic fans in both official languages

While I think that there are more pressing issues, such as the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili, and the horrendous response from VANOC and the International Luge Federation, basically blaming the now-silenced victim for his own death.  Or the fact that the Olympic Cauldron is behind a fence that makes the whole site look like it’s in jail, which symbolizes perfectly VANOC mismanagement of the whole Olympic fiasco.  I’ll briefly write about the place of French-language at the Olympics.

I personally think that… it’s generally OK.  The overwhelm majority of Olympic-related signs in Vancouver are bilingual.  The Opening ceremony was in both official languages.  What many do not understand is that Vancouver, while being in Canada, is not a very francophone city.  And it is Vancouver who host the Olympics, not bilingual Canada.

Since John Furlong doesn’t speak French, VANOC could have a second person speaking in Molière’s language at the opening ceremony.  Other than minor elements such as the one previously mentioned, the 2010 games are fairly bilingual.  Or at least, as bilingual as Vancouver can get.

Of all the things that are badly managed by VANOC, the place of French at the opening ceremony, is a relatively minor mishap in my opinion.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Please find below my Statement of interest.  Good luck to all candidates, and to me too.

________________________________________

By providing a middle ground to owning a vehicle and relying on transit and cycling, the Co-operative Auto Network contributes to improving the lives of its members, our communities and the environment. It is with this vision in mind that I offer my abilities to CAN and submit my candidacy to the Board of Directors.

My priority, as a member of the board, would be to expand the Car co-op network into the suburbs (Surrey, Richmond, etc.). This would benefit not only potential members currently living in the suburbs, but also those who occasionally require a vehicle in suburbia. Other projects are to provide documentation in other languages, keeping sound financial management, providing better access to the Board of Directors and a review of the complain process.

Living in South Vancouver (Marpole) since 2001, I joined CAN before there was a vehicle in my neighbourhood. Since then, my involvement has included volunteered for a few presentation shows and working in the main office as a Call Centre Manager and a Member Care Co-ordinator, first on a full time basis, then on-call, from 2007 to 2009. Fluent in French and English, I also speak decent Spanish and basic Cantonese. I am currently completing on a part time basis a certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University. I also comment on social and environmental issues in a monthly column in L’Express du Pacifique newspaper and on the web: www.vancf.net.

Thank you,

Frédéric Van Caenegem

A similar phenomenon (screaming out loud meaningless numbers) also happened recently at the Copenhagen summit on climate change. When it comes to global warming, we hear talks of reducing CO2 emissions by 10% in 5 years; 20% by 2020; 25% less of now; 30% based on 1990 emissions; etc. Everywhere, officials and politicians are shouting numbers and targets. These promises and numbers have no more chances of becoming reality than I respecting my New Year resolution.

My father often says that politicians that do not respect their promises should be sent to the guillotine. While the style is a bit extreme, he has a point. Politicians do not suffer punishment when promises are broken. Even worse, they regularly are re-elected. And for that no one is to blame but us.

The Kyoto Protocol had ambitious targets and look where it got us? Most of the countries that endorsed it are in no position to reach their targets. Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol under Jean Chrétien and it made his government look good. However, that same government introduced ridiculously insignificant measures when time came to be concrete about global warming. Just read for yourself: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/08/12/kyototue030812.html. The result of inaction is an increase of CO2 emissions of 26% since 1990! We were supposed to reduce them by 6% under the Kyoto protocol. At least the Bush administration was clear that they were not even going to try reaching their targets.

The problem with the Kyoto protocol was not lack of ambitions, but lack of concrete measures. A real reduction of greenhouses gases emissions requires commitment by citizens, industry and institutions. It requires money, methods and penalties. It needs money to build green transportation infrastructures, to mass produce solar panels or protect the Amazon rain forest. And it requires stiff penalties for industries or countries that do not reach their objectives, or worse, do not even try, such as Canada.

All the media focus is on meaningless numbers. While groups are pushing for concrete measures and objectives, this gets no recognitions in press time. The extremely meagre and disappointing Copenhagen Agreement has at least one positive thing that Kyoto Protocol didn’t: measures. The agreement reached in Copenhagen, while disappointing, may be a step in the right direction. In that agreement there are no targets and numbers, but funding. The funding is not enough, however, it is probably better than some ambitious toothless protocol.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

First, I was stunned by the results of the electoral change (STV) referendum last May.  Although, I respect the will of the people, I still think British Columbians were wrong.  I sometime feel that people are waiting for a simple solution that will fix everything.  In the meantime, we let go of good compromise that improve some things.  The proverb says, “loose the battle, but don’t loose the lesson”.  I have yet to learn an positive lesson from that experience.

The second, more positive and more important reason regarding my recent silence is that I am busy with studies that I started in May 2009.  I am attempting to complete a Certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University (http://www.sfu.ca/cscd/).  These studies keep me quite busy and focused so I think I have to apologized if I have not written on my blog recently.  But silence is not always negative.  In this case, silence comes from pursuing other activities.  So I guess it is true then, Silence is Golden and I hope you can stand the overwhelming sound of silence.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

If you can’t see the video, the text is available on cknw’s website here: http://www.cknw.com/blog/christys_bc_15/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10031397

Frédéric Van Caenegem

One aspect on which very little has been written on is the ridings under BC-STV and FPTP electoral systems. One quick look at the map will show one thing very quickly: the ridings are bigger under BC-STV! That being said, are they better?

The current system divides the territory into ridings that have roughly the same population. Simple right? Well not so much. Under the FPTP electoral system, democracy can be rigged by controlling the geography of ridings. This is actually very common in the United States and it is called gerrymandering.

In Canada, there is less gerrymandering. The main reason is that in Canada, independent commissions draw the ridings; while in the United States, it is the congressmen themselves that draw up these districts. After each election, these are redrawn to maximize their probability of being elected. Look here at Florida’s 3rd district for example!

Even though nothing prevents these commissions to be partisan, the situation has remained fairly civilized north of the border. But I have a feeling that with governments and political parties being less and less cautious about political manipulation, it is just a question of time before we get to that point too.

And here is another reason why I like BC-STV: gerrymandering is impossible under BC-STV ridings. Effectively, ridings being bigger and more competitive, geographic manipulation cannot assure re-election!

In addition of getting rid of gerrymandering, another thing I noticed from the BC-STV map is that these ridings make sense. Under FPTP ridings, quite often the ridings are weird, being in the middle of a neighbourhood for no reason. What makes the people living north of 49th street so different from the people living south of it?

Under BC-STV, ridings make much more sense. Burnaby-New Westminster is… Burnaby and New Westminster. Under BC-STV, ridings tend to correspond much more to geographic entities that are known to everyone. There are almost no artificial lines that have no social, regional or even municipal meaning.

Ridings under BC-STV make much more sense and correspond to real entities: regions, municipalities, etc.  That makes BC-STV impossible to manipulate through gerrymandering. The ridings under the current electoral system can be manipulated by political interests!

Remember to vote on May 12, polls are open from 8AM to 8PM. If you don’t know where to vote, contact ElectionsBC.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Few have been as honest and insightful as former Deputy Premier Christy Clark on CKNW yesterday. Here’s the video everybody needs to see before they vote in Tuesday’s provincial referendum.

As Christy says, this is the most important vote we’ll cast. Please forward this to everybody you know.

Regards,
Shoni Field
British Columbians for BC-STV

Some MMP supporter say vote no for STV, because we are going to have instead a supposedly better system in MMP. While I certainly respect that some people may prefer MMP to STV, I urge voters to actually vote regarding the two systems proposed on the May 12 referendum (STV and FPTP).

MMP (Mix-Member Proportionality) is an electoral system used in many countries, like Germany for example. Under MMP voters make two choices: a local MLA as we currently do, and a party vote. Half of the MLAs are elected in ridings, and the other half are named by parties as per their share of the vote.

Some argue that MMP is better than STV, however I disagree. Under MMP, Parties name half of the MLAs, with no or very little say by voters. And by this, MMP is just non-compatible with Canadian political values. In fact, the latest point is the main reason why the P.E.I. and Ontario referendum failed miserably in 2005 and 2007 respectively. Please read this report about this issue.

I know that most supporters of the MMP system do support change for the STV electoral system. But some just pretend if we vote no to STV, then we could have a “better” system in the long run. I heard that before, like the Vancouver municipal referendum in 2004. Since then, have we talked about electoral reform in municipal politics? Let’s be clear, those who say we should vote no for STV in exchange for something better just want one thing: to keep the current system!

If they truly want “something better next time”, they would vote for STV. Because STV is better (but that is my biased opinion), but also if STV gets in, there will be a review of the electoral system after three elections. This is the plan of the Citizens’ Assembly. This is why, people who truly believe in MMP vote for STV!

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Last short article: STV ridings vs FPTP ridings

> When you first time heard about BC-STV?

In 2004, when the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform (http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/) decided that STV should be used for British Columbia. I didn’t follow that much the discussion about the work of the Citizens’ Assembly so I was quite surprised by their decision. At the time I was a loose supporter of MMP electoral system (used in Germany). I was actually a bit disappointed by their decision actually. But after looking into more details at BC-STV, I started to like it more and more!

> What do think about this new system according to your own understanding?

My post here (http://blog.vancf.net/2009/02/10/bc-stv/) will answer most of this question. But to actually answer it…

Years ago, when I looked at the problems of our electoral system, I started to imagine what would be a perfect electoral system and… I didn’t find it. It seems to me that each system is perfect in some way and fails completely in an other way.

The current system (First Past The Post: FPTP) doesn’t provide representation for the diversity of political opinion. A party can easily get 18% of the vote and no seats and, on the same election, an other party will form a majority government with… 37% of the vote!

Proportional electoral systems (PR: used in many European countries) will fix that but… it creates chaotic politics where there are so many political parties that politics becomes overwhelmingly complicated, everyone gets represented, but there is no consensus building. As I have seen in a French comedy show a few years ago, “If for some reason you don’t a find a party that represent you, you don’t have to worry. You can simply create your own political party and vote for yourself!”

In Germany, they use a mix system. Half of their Parliament is filled used FPTP and the other half using PR. It actually makes it better in some ways! It moderates the problems of both systems. But it doesn’t eliminate them completely.

So when the Citizens’ Assembly proposed that we should use STV I was… surprised! This system is almost not used anywhere I didn’t know a lot about it myself but, as I mentioned earlier, the more I looked at STV, the more I liked it!

STV is a compromise system. A way to have proportional representation and keep local representation. In many ways, STV is not perfect and this imperfection is its strength!

In STV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a voter’s first choice is eliminated, their vote is simply transferred to their second choice! And that makes all the difference in the world. It gives voters have a lot of power as their vote has significant impact!

> Do you think there are still some shortcomings in this new system? Compare to the old one?

It’s got complex mathematics, I know a lot of supporters of STV don’t like to mention this, but STV has complex mathematics that are actually based of simple principles. They are not too difficult to understand, but you need to look at it closely a few minutes to understand these mathematics. The current system can be understood in 2 seconds! And sometimes people are used to that simplicity and have difficulty to realize that electoral system can bit a bit more sophisticated. STV is more sophisticated, but barely more complicated than the current electoral system. And anyone can understand it. Hopefully most pro-STV volunteers can also explain it!

> Which one are you prefer? Why?

BC-STV! It provides proportionality and fair results, gives almost everyone an MLA they voted for, get rids of strategic voting and actually improves local representation. FPTP… is simple! But unfair and gives a lot of power to party strategists and not to voters.

Hope these answers helps,
Frédéric.