WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICER

Municipal elections attract the least attention of the three levels of government.  Having participated in elections at all three levels I can say that in Hamilton, Ontario at least some things go smoother.  Yesterday I was deputy returning officer for the election for the city of Hamilton (Ontario).  At the end of the evening the actual vote count is known comparatively rapidly partly because they rely more on computers (but backed up by paper ballots).

Four years between municipal elections with a two hour training session plus manual to read.   One can get a little rusty.  I was asked to work at a by-election in another part of town (actually on what we call the Mountain), so that helped a little.  As I mentioned I have also worked at provincial and federal elections with many over lapping tasks, but each is also unique.

Patience is required.  Most voters do not understand the technical process.  As an example the returning officer is expected to check off a sequential number on one sheet and transfer it to the voter on the official list as one tool to help balance.  It is simple enough but when there is a long lineup and other problems pop up it might not get done properly.  Most voting is pretty regular and smooth, but there are lots of exceptions.

There is the voter who is not on the list.  There is the voter who is on the list, but unable to attend for a variety of reasons and assigns a proxy.  There are voters who do not speak English very well,  There is the voter who wants to make a change to their address, spelling of their name or their school support.  There is the voter who makes a mistake and wants a new ballot.  A few times I sent back a voter to get a form and they were anxious not to have to go back to the end of the line.  All this time we are required to maintain a level of privacy to each voter.

It is not always busy, in fact sometimes it is downright boring.  You eat and visit the washroom when you are able, but that is not always predictable.  Some bring a book or knitting. Of course talking to your fellow workers is normal, but you cannot talk politics.  It can be very tiring and balancing at the end of the evening can be very frustrating.

I have worked at half a dozen elections, but this was the first where I was really in my neighborhood.  I met neighbors from only a few doors away from mine.  The most unexpected encounter was a man who had a connection to my wife's family.  I recognized his name only because a relative had given me his aunt's maiden name when I worked on a family tree years ago.  It turned out this man was her brother.  Although we had been fairly close to this family, even more than just at Christmas we had gone our separate ways.  I learned a little about my wife's cousins. and that we are all more connected than we realize.

Municipal turnout is usually less than for the two higher level elections.  Residents in a town have more everyday contact with municipal services such as garbage, police, fire, parking, recreation facilities, snow plowing, street signs, etc.  A lot of higher level politicians have gotten their start at a local level, but at the time they are not nearly as well known.  Ironically it is possible to have an impact with a single vote, but somehow we are not engaged at the local level.

Checking over the results it is very common for someone to get elected with less than 50% of the vote.  Often there are some issues that create interest, but the winning factors seem to be related to how well connected a candidate is.  Incumbents have an advantage.  Any newcomer has to make an effort to draw attention.  In truth not that many people attend debates or other formal events.  Most newspaper descriptions are scant and superficial--everybody wants economic growth and better communication. 

The ideal is to get one candidate over 50%+1   Political parties deciding on who should lead their party mostly adopt that system.  The reason why is perhaps because they recognize that is the best way to have everyone accept the results and more importantly wiling to work as a team.  In many countries it is common to have a second election for a high office if the first does not result in 50%.  There is usually a time delay and of course expense.  Time delays can be important to get moving on ongoing projects, but perhaps a delay might be worth it to get the right decision makers in place.  Again expense is a concern, but admittedly democracy is expensive.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/03/two-round-elections-food-for-thought.html

Elections have more credibility when more voters express their opinion (with the secret ballot), but it seems it is a difficult task to get everyone out.  Canadians have made it easier for voters at all levels to cast their ballots, but we still find it difficult to get out much more than half the eligible voters.  The reasons why are part of countless debates, but surely one problem is that many feel their vote won't make any difference in their everyday life.  Our first past the post system is one reason where in fact it is very common for the winner to have gotten less than half the votes. Politicians understand this and the clever ones with financial support certainly take advantage of it.  They end up representing you whether you voted for them or not.

Elsewhere I have advocated for a proportional system, but admittedly that works best when there is a well established party system.  Many people can be heard to say they vote for the person, not the party, but that is hard to believe.  At the local level it is often said that party politics don't belong.  One reason might be it is desirable to give individuals with convictions an opportunity to express them.  Inevitably party politics do factor into municipal elections, but there is still hope they can be minimal. Read more:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/your-guy-didnt-get-in.html

The idea of ranked voting is to get a decision that everyone can live with as soon as practical. When the winner might have less than 30% it seems unfair to dismiss the person who was only a small percentage behind with obviously other candidates factoring in.  As I understand one variation under a ranking system a voter can choose a second and third and even more candidates. If no one achieves 50%  the last place candidate is eliminated.  Their votes are transferred to their second choice.  If their second choice is eliminated then their votes are transferred to their third choice.  And so on until the goal of 50%+1 is reached.  A voter is not requited to rank everyone as it is recognized they might prefer a particular candidate be elected.

This can be much quicker and cheaper than going to a second round.  Voters have to decide ahead of time who might be an acceptable choice if their candidate doesn't go over the top.  No time for deals after the initial voting (unlike in political leadership conventions).  Some voters will see the advantage of researching the issues.  They might start off voting for someone who has indicated they favour a particular solution to a perceived problem or they might vote for someone they have some favorable awareness of.  But what happens when their first choice doesn't measure up?

A country, province/state or municipality work best when the population supports those elected to represent them.  Like many I believe a better solution lies with the system.  One good sign was that a number of voters brought their children so they could see the process.

TRUMP AND THE PURSUIT OF DEMOCRACY

Last night was a good night for Mr Trump and his situation is looking very bright.  Donald Trump is a master at getting our attention.  He admittedly says some smart things, but is generally appealing to fear and ignorance.  But that is not so much the theme of this blog post.

The Republicans have set up rules to choose their presidential candidate.  There are trade-offs between getting a mass appeal candidate with one that is acceptable to the Republican establishment.  In theory that is reasonable and even democratic.  Each state sets its own rules about who is eligible to vote and how they allocate the delegates who make the final selections at the convention.

At the moment there are a lot of people who are manoeuvring to stop Trump from getting the nomination.  Donald is complaining that it is unfair.  He contends that because he has been getting the most votes in most primaries he should get the nod and there might be trouble if he doesn't.

He illustrates the problem of "first past the gate post".  No one can be quite sure, but on the surface he has not won the majority in most primaries.  There have been as many as 16 candidates most of whom got at least a nibble of support.  As the candidates drop out it is not feasible to determine who a second or third choice might have been.  Perhaps Donald might deserve to win if this could be determined, but again on the surface it could also appear that the majority of voters have voted against him.

A dilemma for the Republicans who know from polling that the odds are against a Republican victory, especially with Trump or Cruz in the presidential race and likely it will affect both the Senate and House races and maybe even for Governors.  And maybe even worse affect the Supreme Court.  They need a candidate that can compete in the general election and help boost the Senate and House of Representatives, but the top two candidates poll very badly in that regard.

A compounding part of the problem is the length of the process.  The remaining primaries have only three candidates to choose from so you are getting closer to a pure decision.  Many might have preferred one of the candidates that dropped out, but that option is off the table (at least for now).  Others might want to force a decision at the convention and vote strategically.

There has been a mix of open and closed voting opportunities.  By open it is meant that non registered Republicans are eligible to vote for a Republican candidate and in a closed primary only registered Republicans are allowed to decide.  If it is really to be a party decision then it does make sense to not let outsiders effect a decision.  On the other hand it is argued they really want to know who has the best chance to win the general election.  A lot of opportunities to tilt the choice to the advantage of the Democrats.   In closed primaries only registered Republicans can vote and a lot of them represent the establishment.  Open primaries are hard to analyze because some Democrats can vote for the one they feel they can beat the easiest and assuming Hillary has her nomination sewn up.  Independents may just feel the Republicans are more interesting and still be open for a different vote in November.

Contrast to Canada as I understand it.  As a non party member I willingly give up my power to choose a candidate to represent any party.  I await the choices of those committed to a party philosophy and/or character and am grateful that I will have more than two choices.  Should I feel one party has all the answers or the overwhelming majority of the best answers I might be willing to invest in a party membership to help choose the best representative.  But I am lazy and not too sure that anyone has vastly superior answers and I like to think all my options are open.  If a particular party chooses a candidate that I feel is unsuitable I have a number of alternative choices.

Canada is examining alternatives to the first past the gate post and hopefully we will gain a better system where my vote will actually make a difference.  Americans really have two choices and one does look to be in the service of the 1% and the other has been somewhat corrupted.  For practical purposes there really are no other options.  Not much competition and not really fair to the average voter.  But theoretically every American does have a chance to help decide a party representative.

The big questions might be who do you really want to represent your party?  Who will you support?  What is the best way to organize the procedure? If nothing else Americans need to shorten the process so more work can get done.  Perhaps more importantly they need to cut down on the expense that only leads to corruption and limited choices.

Donald, instead of complaining about how unfair you are being treated, you should concentrate on winning the support of the majority.  Yes the details of the procedure do slant things, but you still have not quite got the majority behind you.

As an outsider it all seems like a nightmare.  Are Americans really that crazy that they can't understand the system is not working for them.  The majority know things are not like they should be, but they are blaming the wrong causes.

As a final note of a somewhat self righteous blogger I feel the media (and educational institutions) has not done its job in informing voters.  For my views on how the media has distorted this and other elections:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/03/the-media-and-american-election.html

Movie Ratings....What's your take?

Movie Ratings.  I look at them, do you?  I have contributed to them, how about you?  In one sense the ratings are merely a popularity contest with only a slight connection to merit--even slimmer link to your personal preferences.

Movie ratings are a short cut to making decisions.  If you are just planning a weekend outing to visit a movie theatre and maybe eat out you might have ten choices to make or maybe just two after you eliminate all the "crazy" or inappropriate ones  There is a lot of hype to get your attention and maybe some comments from your friends.  A rating can make the choice a little easier.

How about confronted with a choice of DVDs at your library or convenience store?  There can be a very wide range of choices from old to almost current  and very diverse genres.  Maybe when you go home you check out a few ratings for your next trip.  Or maybe you use your smart phone on the spot.

Streaming services offer an even wider range of options.  I was impressed by Netflix who after evaluating my film choices would give me personalized ratings of other films based on those choices.  Still I would look for other ratings.

The ratings can easily be distorted and when you see films that are only .1 different you really are in danger of making a mistake against your own aesthetic preferences.

Have you noticed there are often very high ratings on just opened new movies, but that over time the ratings seem to come down?  More rarely you may see a movie move up in ratings.

Genres such as action films create expectations.  Viewers looking for blood, speed and explosive action can be very reactive to movies that don't rise above previous films.  Those looking for titillation can also be cruel to lesser or shorter displays of skin.  Romance can also cause disappointment if they don't work out to fantasized scripts.

The biggest gap seem to be between what might be called "art" films and those for the mainstream.  Supposedly art films are a little more difficult to understand and the popular movies go for the jugular straightaway.

Have you ever contributed to a rating?  I have and if I am being honest I am not totally honest.  One factor is called "anchoring" which just means you start with the established rate and either move it up or down depending on how much you agree with the crowd--but of course you are already influenced by the crowd.  Then there is the concept of fairness--do I think the crowd gave it an honest look and in some cases I attempt to correct their error possibly by over compensating.  Then I admit I like to promote what I like and discourage what I don't like.  I am not sure how objective I am as it all seems in comparison to what others have decided.

Some people have a vested interest in the ratings and not just those with a financial stake in a production.  Probably most obvious when a movie first comes out which is why ratings start high and then get lower as others view the film.  If you are an early adopter type (for movies at least) you have a vested egotistical interest in boosting your choice.  Many of us are fans or celebrity watchers--we boost our heroes (established in previous movies)---others of us like to think we are very discriminating and tough

Different systems;  4 star, 5 star, ten--increments.  When you look at Olympic judges where decimals can go out to 3 or more places.  It really comes down to a ranking system--is this one better then that one, then what about this one that sort of fits in between?   Rotten Tomatoes gathers as many official reviewers as possible and simply decides if a review is fresh or rotten, although it sometimes seems  arbitrary as many reviews contain both positive and negative points.

What can you do?  There are only so many leisure hours in a day and going beyond movies there is a lot of competition for your attention.  Of course we look for something we can trust so we tend to gravitate towards a reliable reviewer or system.  Something that reinforces our own bias and prejudice.  Occasionally we are disappointed, but on the whole this natural process works for most of us.

You can spend a lot of time evaluating movie choices.  Does the time add to your enjoyment?  Or does the time merely subtract the time watching?

When I went to high school (over forty five years ago when there was a grade 13) Shakespeare was always a part of the course.  The average high school student really is bored with the straight reading of Shakespeare and going into minute details seems like torture.  The words already strange sounding are made more mysterious with colloquial meanings.  At one point it annoyed me that the teacher could get so serious about such little details.  As I get older I appreciate many of those little details, because they add up to a different deeper impression when understood better.

Those who read my reviews and comments might be struck with my diversity, but really I avoid some categories altogether.  At the same time I fear being stuck in a rut.  There is a huge world out there with lots of beautiful and interesting things I am totally unaware of.  As you open up possibilities the choices can get more difficult.

Film festivals are my favorite place to start.  I trust the selection committees to make some good choices.  A really popular movie with strong financing doesn't need festivals as much as the more arty type of movies.  There is little danger of missing a popular movie, particularly in a genre you already favour, but without the big bucks small movies too often get overlooked.  Winning an award at a film festival gives some promotion and helps to attract money.  Most festivals now have audience awards that reflect consumer popularity.  The more awards the more publicity.  Independent movies, known as "Indies" are not financed by the big studios and find festivals critical to getting launched.

Reading reviews is also key, but not just one.  It is amazing going over the reviews at IMDB the contrast of opinions on the same movie.  In fact often my choice is not made with someone I find agreeable, but with someone not so agreeable--I choose to seek out what they reject.  Many people seem to favor movies with established stars or directors or writers.  Unfortunately I have discovered they all need the money and/or attention.  In Bollywood I am most impressed with Aamir Khan--he is in big demand, but is a very conscientious thinker, selecting one movie a year and going into a great deal of preparation.  Actors able to act in different languages also seem to have more freedom--Mads Mikklesen can be seen in Danish, English and French, usually at a high level.  At one time a movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock was pretty much a guarantee of a masterful suspense film.

In small markets there are few arty movies shown and they usually only last for a short run at best.  Maybe I am just too cheap, but most of my movie viewing is by DVD and increasingly with streaming and there you have a tremendous amount of choice, but you have to wait longer than movie goers for the new films.

Photos:  The three movie posters are from movies that had high ratings and lived up to the hype.  Partly because some individuals are indicators of potential quality.  They are selected for their power and they usually make good decisions.  Alfred Hitchcock, Mads Mikkelson and Aamir Khan.