Common Sense Prevails in California!

California voters have resoundingly sent a message to the legislators in Sacramento. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's listening. Only time will tell if any of them truly are!

Here are the results from yesterday's 6 proposition votes:

Proposition 1A

Proposition 1B

Proposition 1C

Proposition 1D

Proposition 1E

Proposition 1F

To see how completely out of touch most newspapers are, look at this chart provided by Veronique de Rugy:

How The Radical Left Conducts Polling

There's an hilarious story emerging out of Toronto. It concerns NDP MP Olivia Chow, wife of NDP Leader Jack Layton. She decided to host a poll on her website asking this question:

Olivia Chow plans to oppose Harper's economic statement because it provides no stimulus for the Canadian economy. Do you agree?

What follows is nothing short of pure comedy. When the poll started going against their desired 'Yes' the website admin tried resetting the results!

Let me say that again: Since they didn't like the results of the public poll they were conducting, they decided to change the numbers to what they wanted! If you only want one answer from poll respondents then just provide one possible response:

And you will evidently get the results you want. Here's what Olivia Chow was hoping for:

If memory serves me correctly, that's even better than the results Saddam Hussein used to get concerning his popularity!!!

Then to make matters worse, the Chow team released this press release. Her site wasn't "hacked". If it was then we'd be seeing her with a Hitler moustache. Who knows who voted which way and why but there was an important footnote on SDA.

Looking at the recent election in her riding reveals that she didn't win by much. Olivia Chow probably doesn't remember this election because it's the one that her & her husband completely ignored the results of! But using the same logic as the Coalition supporters, 59% of voters in Trinity-Spadina voted AGAINST her. Perhaps they were the bulk of the ones up at 3am, frustrated about losing their jobs & homes while their pathetic MP is conducting useless polls!!!

---

This got me thinking about polling in general in Canada and I've come to this pretty obvious conclusion:

Analysis of poll results by the Radical Left:

1. If they're anti-Harper, anti-Conservative Party then they're "a fair & balanced representation of Canadian views".
   
   
2. If they're pro-Harper or just neutral then "the poll results have been tampered with by a bunch of nefarious 'right wing groups' who don't believe in democracy in Canada!"

Historical Summary of Canadian Elections

In reading the comments to this post by Ezra Levant I came across yet another disingenuous talking point about the Conservatives not getting a clear majority in the recent election. Such stupidity falls under the category of "If you repeat B.S. enough times, Sheeple will accept it and no longer challenge it."

I pride myself on being a stickler for facts so such comments spur me on! Here's what I wrote to the fellow who made it:

Would you and your ilk please stop with your stupid, phoney talking point that the Conservatives only got "xx %" of the vote. This disingenuous comment has been false from the first time it was uttered and is even more so today. If you're so ignorant that you don't actually understand what I mean then please look back at the popular votes of every government where there have been at least 3 [significant] parties. It's how our system works and is basic math. So just cut it out as it's really boring us all.

When I wrote this I knew anecdotally that I was accurate but didn't know all the details. It being a miserable evening in Vancouver, I decided to do a little research. Here are some results that I think you'll find as fascinating as I did (click on the image to see it larger) :

Note: The # of Parties is based on those achieving at least 5% of the popular vote.

For those so inclined, you can download a copy of the Excel spreadsheet, complete with additional footnotes, by clicking here. The sources I used can be found here and here. If you find any errors, please let me know!

Here are some interesting facts:

1. The lowest popular vote that resulted in a minority government was 35.89% by Joe Clark's Conservatives in 1979. Note: There were three major parties at the time.
   
2. The largest popular vote that resulted in a minority government was 46.13% by Arthur Meighen's Conservatives in 1925. Note: There were three major parties at the time.
3. The lowest popular vote to win a majority government was 34.84% by John A. Macdonald and his Conservatives in 1867 (Canada's first parliament). Note: There were only two major parties at the time.
4. In a 2-party race, the largest popular vote ever achieved was 56.93% by Robert Borden's Unionists in 1917.
5. In a 3-party race, the largest popular vote ever acheived was 53.66% by John Diefenbaker's Conservatives in 1958.
6. Even at the height of his popularity, Pierre Trudeau only won only 45.37% of the popular vote [in a 3-party race in 1968].
7. Only 6 times in Canada's 40 federal elections has a party ever achieved more than 50% of the vote. Four of these times were when 2 major parties were running, the remaining two times were when 3 major parties were. The most recent of these was in 1984 when Brian Mulroney just squeaked over the half-way mark with 50.03%.
   
8. Four times in Canada's history the winning party has had a lower popular vote than the 2nd place party [1896, 1926, 1957, & 1979].
9. Those who believe that a government only has legitimacy if it gets the majority of the votes [ie. 50% + 1] thus must believe that only 6 of Canada's 40 governments had any legitimacy.
   
10. Perhaps the only consistent statistic is that since 1988, the voter turnout has been on a steady decline downward. :-(
    

The Start of my "Ignorance Is Bliss" Tour

No, I'm not actually going traveling! But I do have an announcement to make that I was going to hold off on for a few weeks. It concerns something that several longtime readers have already noticed. Namely, why did I suddenly stop talking about the U.S. Election a few days ago?

When I started my blog a few years ago, and years before that - with Letters to the Editor and frequent calls & e-mails to talk radio stations in Vancouver and Montreal and London, England - I always thought I could make a small, but meaningful difference to the public discussion. But after a series of interconnected events in a very short time frame, I have come to the following conclusion:

• 1% of the population has made current events & politics a big part of their life; some of them even blog about their views & insights; they always vote
• 9% of the population follows the news & politics quite a bit and is generally well informed; they always always vote
• 50% of the population thinks they're well informed but are not at all; they get most of their info from the headlines and the odd newscast; they almost always vote but only "study up" a few days before an election, doing their "research" by reading campaign literature and the odd newspaper editorial; their views are almost entirely based on their own prejudices and fears rather than any semblance of facts
  
• 40% of the population chooses to be completely ignorant, never reads the news, and never votes
  

The percentages are just based on my own anecdotal evidence, clearly with a bias to what I'm familiar with here in Canada. While the numbers may vary in other Western countries, I think the proportions will probably stay similar.

Ever since I was about 12 years old, I considered myself in that "top" 1%. If you're reading this blog then you probably are as well. It's not an arrogance thing. In fact, it's not even related to IQ. It's just that I always thought that staying well informed and participating as a civic duty, critical for a democratic society to remain democratic and vibrant.

Sadly though, I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people (the 90%) don't care about facts, don't care about corruption, don't care about participating to make things better. It just doesn't bother them whatsoever.

This afternoon, relating to a friend of mine this conclusion, he said, "Well, if it's only 10% that you're really speaking with, that's a much smaller group than the entire population!" True, but let's take a look at that 10%. They're a mixed bag, just like the rest of society.

To see what a blogger with a political bent regularly has to deal with, let's look at a recent example from another Vancouver blogger, David Berner. Anyone who reads David's postings knows that he very much wants Obama to win and can't stand either McCain or Palin. With that understood, take a look at this. It's a video of an effigy of a Christian woman being hung by a noose. That woman happens to be Sarah Palin. Was this shot in Iran or Pakistan or North Korea by the professed enemies of America? Nope. It was done in Hollywood, California by . . . wait for it . . . two gay men.

You would think - I would have garnered that any decent person would think - that such an action was beyond repulsive and completely appalling. Apparently not. Take a look at the comments and you'll see that 50% think nothing wrong of it whatsoever. David was so outraged by these pathetic comments that he added a follow-up post here. Picking up where he left off, what do you think would have been the reaction if instead there were two male figures, one white and one black, with some ensignia designating them as Jewish or Muslim and homosexual?

One would only hope that it would be nothing less than Righteous Outrage! But apparently if a person is a Christian or pro-Life or Caucasian or a conservative then anything goes. It's then viewed as "humor". And if you don't laugh then you're a square, unsophisticated dullard.

What's most ironic is that, other than being unable to change my ethnic background, I don't particularly fall into any of the other three categories (except when it comes to Law & Order and Fiscal Responsibility then I am definitely a proud conservative). My own views and political preferences do not act as a filter to determine what my values are for a given situation. For a great many on the Radical Left and admittedly a few nutbars on the Far Right, their values are always selective depending on who is being attacked. To see where this mentality can eventually lead, please carefully read this earlier post.

I admire David Berner for following up and taking the tough stand he has. But it's a losing cause. Hateful lost souls seem to be the norm in the new millennium, across the world. Now many of them also have computers. Ughhh! Am I guilty here of implying that free speech should be censored? For the record, it shouldn't be. But if you hold a party and an uninvited guest shows up and just wants to fight and argue with you and everyone else, is asking them to leave censoring their speech? Technically so but it certainly heightens the chances of having an intelligent conversation at your home.

Since the inception of my blog I've tried to express my views, share my insights, and engage in reasonable discussions. I've never expected anyone to agree with me but the lack of wisdom and lack of interest in any semblance of facts by way too many of those I've received public comments and private e-mails from has been nothing short of appalling. I'm tired of being angry and getting worked up by almost always faceless, nameless individuals who seem to seek great pleasure in casting their anger my way. This U.S. Election cycle has been the worst of all. And reading and listening to others that have also "dared" to not join the Obama Conga Line has made me realize that I'm not at all alone in this regard.

The comedian, Dennis Miller, once said that the brain chemistry in such individuals is messed up such that pleasure is actually achieved by getting angry and/or upsetting others. The political writer and trained psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer, said recently that those who attacked Sarah Palin in the most vicious ways were very likely undergoing severe symptoms of self-loathing (paraphrasing). Who knows where the truth lies, but these are clearly interesting analyses.

I've long been convinced there's a concerted, though not tightly coordinated effort on the part of the Radical Left to reshape our society into a Socialist Paradise. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that many of them believe they're doing it for the good of all. But since socialism destroys Incentive, it's ultimately doomed to fail. And history has shown us that when individuals object to their countries being taken down a socialist, or even worse, marxist path that great harm comes to them by these same folks who were once praising its benefits for the disadvantaged and women & children.

If the polls are accurate, next Tuesday America seems poised to vote in an Obama government. Dennis Prager has explained the marketing that many people have bought into. Mark Steyn has warned us that Obama's campaign has engaged in highly illegal actions. John Kass has warned us how the inspiration and incentive of American entrepreneurs will be killed. But the 90% of the population isn't listening. Well, perhaps some of the 50% are with the election less than a week away, but not enough.

If Obama's walk down the socialist garden path ends up being just a minor course correction, benefiting those who truly are in need and increasing taxes enough to end the federal budget deficit then it'll have been a good thing. But I have sincere fears that The Great Leaders (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid) have much more far-reaching intentions. Socialist Wealth Distribution is one. Removing the free speech rights of conservative pundits is another. Dramatically reworkng the Constitution of the United States through radical amendments is another. Taking a Kumbaya no aggression approach to foreign policy, which will immediately threaten billions of people around the world to some seriously dark forces is another. Relinquishing control of key global decisions away from Congress and handing them over to the UN is another.

Never before in recent history has it appeared that the Far Left of the United States is poised to assume so much absolute power in government. Let's hope they have sufficient wisdom to moderate their egos. Otherwise 4 years from now the halo around Messiah Obama et co. will not be glowing as brightly.

To avoid being a hypocrite for the foreseeable future I will no longer be kvetching (complaining) about politics on my blog. Nobody cares. More accurately, TOO FEW care. The NDP may very well seize power next Spring here in B.C. Like in the 1990's their policies will once again destroy the provincial economy and only then will enough voters come to their senses to kick them out. I'll likely have long moved away from here by then, mostly because they're in power but if I'm back I'll cast my vote against them too.

So I've embarked on a new journey entitled "Robert's Ignorance Is Bliss Tour". I want to see what it feels like to be at the very bottom 1% of news aware individuals! Thankfully, I know some very ignorant people who will serve as good role models! To start things off on the right note, I deliberately didn't vote in the Vancouver Fairview by-election today. First time I've missed an election in 25 years. I will not be voting in the municipal election next month and I very much doubt I'll be voting in the provincial election next Spring.

With the absence of all this current affairs knowledge clogging my head, I already seem to have a lot more space (and energy) to focus on my work, which will ramp up my billable hours tremendously. I know for a fact that many financially successful friends of mine came to the same conclusion as I now have: Tune Out, Don't Care About Society at Large, Focus on One's True Friends & Family, and Make Lots & Lots of Money! They're now rich. It's my turn to emulate their success.

Though I'll share a little secret with you: Most of my money I will be devoting to a global philanthropic effort that will loosely be modeled on the great success that BC Digital Divide has achieved these past 3 years but more focused on education with a technology & entrepreneurial bent. Simply put, I'm convinced that there are all kinds of kids out there who don't come from wealthy homes and who don't have the obvious opportunity to go onto university to pursue degrees. My efforts will be directed to helping such individuals who show a track record of intelligence, ingenuity, and hard work to achieving their professional dreams. That'll be something I'll be blogging about much more in the future too.

Vote Cancelers

There's an obvious question that has to be asked: Of all those interviewed, what percentage will be voting for Obama? :-)

Voting Day

Just got back from voting. In my Vancouver Centre riding I voted for Lorne Mayencourt of the Conservatives. Right above him was the Marxist-Leninist candidate. Good thing my hand didn't slip!!!

An Outspoken PUMA

If you're not yet familiar with the new PUMA acronym, it stands for "Party Unity My Ass!" There's nothing formally organized but there's an informal movement of Democrat women who are campaigning against Barack Obama because of what happened to Hillary Clinton. The biggest question facing political pollsters right now is just what percentage of female Democrat voters will switch over this time and vote for McCain-Palin.

Here's a good rant from one of the more outspoken PUMA women.

When Political Correctness Meets Reality . . .

Political correctness loses. Every time! But often the high priests of political correctness hold onto their false beliefs well beyond any reasonable semblance of sanity.

When historians look back at society from about 1985 until now, they'll comment on how political correctness became the order of the day. Closely connected with this, they'll note that playing the victim card became the de facto approach for many people to get exactly what they wanted, when normally they couldn't get their way. Much like a pouting child, it has become very effective in their selfish quiver of tools.

But something is changing. Reasonably minded people are getting fed up with all of this and are fighting back. Not through logic and common sense, because the thick skulls of those aforementioned high priests are impenetrable to reasonable arguments. Instead, they're fighting fire with fire. If someone insists upon some "right" that is clearly not, and then gets it granted, others then insist upon the same rights for something even more ridiculous. Mocking sarcasm is much more powerful than most people give it credit for!

Case in point is this story about the high priest of Elections Quebec, Marcel Blanchet, reversing his decision to allow Muslim women to vote with their full veil in place, thus not showing their faces. When the complaint first came in about Muslim women not being able to vote in this way, Blanchet et co. almost certainly said to themselves, "Oui, we must allow them to vote in this way. Otherwise we'd be deemed racists for not treating them fairly."

When this decision hit the media, Quebeckers were outraged and rightly so! For should this be allowed, then anyone could vote as anyone else. In fact, the same woman (or man) could vote multiple times and no one would be the wiser. Such reasonable objections had no effect on the likes of Blanchet though.

But then someone got clever. They reasoned that if Muslim women could cover up their faces then so could they. How? By just wearing a mask. Maybe one of Goofy or George Bush or Osama Bin Laden. Maybe even Marcel Blanchet masks would become big sellers! Who cares if 1,000 "Marcel Blanchets" were to cast votes. Who cares if the persons behind these masks were only 4'6" tall and had the voice of a child. The only thing that's important is that we don't infringe upon anyone's rights.

What nonsense!!