Bad Graphs

I found a bad graph. Coca-Cola is doing some good stuff. For example, they are trying to reduce the amount of water they use to create their cola. Back in 2004 they used 2.7 litres of water to make one litre of pop. But they have now gone down to almost 2.1 litres of water to make a single litre of pop. That's great. And they hope to drop further.

But the graph they used on the press release was specifically designed to leave the impression that the drop in water usage was larger than it was. This is a well known technique where the graph 'skips' some values and 'stretches' the difference between the top number and the bottom number. Here is the chart that Coca-Cola gave:

This looks like a massive decrease. It goes from the very top of the chart at 2.7 to the very bottom, which is just below 2.1. Notice that anything below 2 litres/litre would fall off the graph all together. While Coca-Cola has done some great work to get their water-use ration down by almost 0.6 litres/litre, this is really only a descrease of 21.4%. 21.4% actually looks like this:

It is far less impressive if you don't break the axis. Again, Coca-Cola is doing much better at conserving water. And they committed to doing better. They should be applauded, and encouraged. I point this out only for media literacy. When looking at a graph like this you need to really be aware of how someone may be trying to mislead you. There are ways to change how a chart looks to emphasize or deemphasize how different one thing is from another. Here they were trying to stretch out the difference. If you are comparing yourself to competitors you may want to do the opposite.

Here are more examples:

For more examples, this page shows how to do these charts with a broken axis properly, and in a way that is more obvious to the reader. (Except for using a log scale, which many people wouldn't understand.) And here is a page that shows you things you can do in Excel to clearly use these techniques (but make it clear to the reader what you are doing).

The Reform Act — Party Candidates

In Micheal Chong's Reform Act, 2013, we have seen how this bill would give power to the elected MPs of a party to remove their leader, and how it takes power away from the leader to both kick MPs out of the party and bring them back in, giving it to the caucus. The final piece of the bill is how the decision to allow a candidate to run under the party name is made.

In the past, this was not an so much of an issue because MPs didn't list the party on the ballot. But that changed in the 70s, and with it the decision to allow someone to run for a particular party was given to the leader of that party. Is was up to them to sign off on any new candidate. But this directly contradicts all the changes we have established that this bill does. So now we must change how a nominated candidate becomes and official candidate for their party in an election.

Why was it decided that the leader should sign off on who can use the party name? As Dale Smith from Loonie Politics puts it, it was to stop candidates from tricking voters:

While there were concerns about this amounting to “free advertising” for the party, there were more concerns around spoofing party listings — that unless there was a control mechanism that anyone could simply declare on the ballot that they were the Liberal candidate, or that they might instead put down “Progressive Conservative Party for Canada” instead of “of Canada.”  That fail safe mechanism was determined to be the party leader’s signature.  Not once in the debates recorded in Hansard was there the concern that the party leader might use this power to blackmail any rebellious MPs — and yet that is what ended up happening.

But now leaders do use it to blackmail MPs, even though no one saw it come. It was an unintended side effect. How does the Reform Act try to fix this? By empowering local Electoral District Associations (EDAs) to sign off on their own candidates. Most ridings have at least two and sometimes many more EDAs (for example, a Conservative EDA or a Liberal EDA). The EDA take care of the local business of a political party. Between election they trying to prepare for the next election by raising donation, getting volunteers and looking for candidates. They hold nominating contests to vote on which local member of that party will run to represent the citizens of that riding in the next election.

Once a candidate wins the nomination contest in their riding, their name gets sent to the leader of the party. The leader then signs off on that candidate when the next election is called allowing that candidate to run for the party using the party's name.

This bill would change that. Instead it creates the position of a nomination officer for each EDA:

“nomination officer” means a person who is appointed by the electoral district association of a political party to endorse the prospective candidate for the party in that electoral district in accordance with section 68.

The local nomination contests I've attended have all had an appointed returning officer who counts the votes and declares the winner. This bill may require the nomination officer to be elected, which I will speak more on below. In this case, the nomination officer could do that as well as the new duty of signing the nomination papers of the winning candidate:

(2) The definition “nomination contest” in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“nomination contest” means a competition for the selection of a person to be proposed to the nomination officer of the electoral district association of a political party for his or her endorsement as the party’s prospective candidate in an electoral district.

3. The Act is amended by adding the following after the heading “Nomination of Candidates” before section 66:

Nomination contests

65.1 Nomination contests shall be held by the registered association for the electoral district to which the nomination relates at a time and date fixed by the association and in accordance with the rules established by the association.

4. Paragraph 67(4)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) if applicable, an instrument in writing, signed by the nomination officer of the political party’s electoral district association for the electoral district that states that the prospective candidate is endorsed by the party.

5. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 68:

Endorsement by nominating officer

68.1 (1) A prospective candidate for a political party in an electoral district must be endorsed by the nomination officer of the party’s electoral district association of the party in that electoral district.

Appointment of nominating officer

(2) The nomination officer referred to in subsection (1) shall be appointed by the members of the electoral district association by a majority vote.

One thing I've noticed is that the nominated officer must be voted by the members of the EDA by majority vote and not appointed by the executive. In this case, either there must be elected with the executively another officer with this position or they would merely be appointed at the start of a nomination meeting. That seems cumbersome to me. A nomination officer could be elected at an AGM year after year without having a nomination contest.

On the other hand, you could have a special meeting to elect the nominating officer, or elected the nomination officer before elected the nominated candidates. I'm not sure if this is required.

But the ultimate point is that it's up to the local EDA to approve or reject a candidate. This has benefits and drawbacks. The benefits are above. The drawbacks are that this means the central party cannot do a background check on the candidates and reject them. However, they can still recommend that the members call a new nomination meeting if they find anything incriminating. It would be up to the EDA to decide what to do in that case.

More reading:

• See the official Parliament page for Bill C-559 'The Reform Act, 2013' and read the latest version (if any changes have been made).
• Read my summary of how this bill would allow the caucus can remove the leader of the party.
• Read my summary of how this bill would allow the caucus can remove or readmit other members of the caucus.

The Reform Act — Removing and Remitting A Member of Caucus

Parliament Photo from Robert Linsdell

The Reform Act, 2013 is an act I think has a lot of potential. My last post was about the fact that it allows the caucus to strip the leader of power and make them just another MP. Another thing it does is it limits the ability of the leader of a party to remove elected representatives chosen by the members and elected by voters. This is very important because in modern times being a member of a party is a critical part of the voting equation. The ability of the leader to kick someone out because she or he stands up to the leader is undemocratic. Jean Chrétien was known for throwing people out of the party if they didn't do things his way. This enforcing of groupthink is detrimental to democracy and the health of our government.

Again, caucus is defined by this bill as everyone elected to parliament and belonging to the same party:

“caucus” means a group composed solely of members of the House of Commons who are members of the same recognized party.

So, how does removing and readmitting a member work?

Removing a member of Caucus

The bill would mandate that there would be only one way to remove an elected member of the party, making that member an independent MP. Only if 15% of the caucus ask the chair to review that member's membership, and then a majority of the caucus votes to remove that member:

49.2 A member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if

(a) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 15% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member’s membership be reviewed at a meeting of the caucus; and

(b) the expulsion of the member is approved by a majority vote by secret ballot of the caucus members present at that meeting.

This removes power from the leader to expel people that she or he does not like. Historically, I am only aware of the leader decreeing (you know, like a king) that some member of caucus has to go, and they unceremoniously strip that MP of any affiliation with the party. If this bill passes the party still retains the ability to kick someone out if they must. That is a good thing.

Academically, I noticed that this also means that there is no other way the party can remove the member. A party can't put together other ways to remove a member. For example, now an electoral district association cannot vote to remove their support from that candidate while she or he is sitting. I don't think that any party allows this to happen. But such a solution cannot be implemented if this bill passes. That would be a method I think would be good. However, since no party has that method in their constitution that I am aware of, it's a moot point.

But you may ask yourself, 'what about adding someone back in?'

Remitting a member to caucus

The bill says that there are only two ways a member who has been expelled may return to the caucus. The first is that the member is re-elected in an election (a by-election or general election) as a candidate for that party, or 15% of the caucus asks to have a vote on making that person a member again, and the caucus has a majority vote to let her or him back in the party:

49.3 A member of the House of Commons who has been expelled from the caucus of a party may only be readmitted to the caucus

(a) if the member is re-elected to the House of Commons as a candidate for that party; or

(b) if

(i) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 15% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member’s readmission to the caucus be considered at a meeting of the caucus, and

(ii) the readmission of the member is approved by a majority vote by secret ballot of the caucus members present at that meeting.

So, the first way a member can rejoin the party happens if the local electoral district association (EDA) has a nomination meeting and that person wins again. It should be noted that the Reform Act does specify how a candidate is selected and how she or he gets approval to use the party's name. (Hint: it's not from the leader or the central party, but the EDA itself. The second way listed is obvious.

Note that the caucus here cannot override the wishes of the rank and file from that EDA. The local voters can always send that MP back as a member of the party. In fact, this has been one of the criticism of this bill: that there is no way for the central party to stop certain candidates from running. While I support limiting the leader's ability to put in whoever they want, or denying whoever they want, it also means they cannot stop politically untenable people from running. And in Canada we have had some scandalous people run.

One drawback I've not seen raised is that an MP cannot simply cross the floor and join another party as has happened before.

Another major section of the bill is determining who can run under a party name, which I will discuss next time.

More reading:

• See the official Parliament page for Bill C-559 'The Reform Act, 2013' and read the latest version (if any changes have been made).
• Read my summary of the Reform Act, 2013.
• Read my summary of how the Reform Act would allow the caucus can remove the leader of the party.

Edits:

• 2013-12-11: Added the second last paragraph, starting 'One drawback...'

The Reform Act — Reviewing The Leader

I very much support the idea behind Bill C-559 "The Reform Act, 2013." Ultimately, it's about continuing Canada's long standing tradition of devolving power away from the few and toward the many. In the era of Rob Ford, having the ability to distance oneself and one's party from your leader is probably a good thing. The Reform Act allows this.

Leadership Review

If a leader is being too autocratic, too divisive, coercing the other elected members or has become a political liability (i.e., is wildly unpopular), the caucus can approach their caucus chair with 15% of elected MPs of that party asking for the leadership review. Then, they vote for or against the elader. If they vote to remove that members as leader, the caucus then votes on who will become the interim leader until the party can choose a new leader.

To this end, the bill defines what a leadership review is:

“leadership review” means a process to endorse or replace the leader of a registered party."

Then, all parties are required to change their constitution to make this one of the ways that their leader can be removed:

(k) the extract of the party by-laws that provides that

(i) a leadership review may be initiated by the submission of a written notice to the caucus chair signed by at least 15% of the members of the party’s caucus,

(ii) a leadership review is to be conducted by secret ballot, with the result to be determined by a majority vote of the caucus members present at a meeting of the caucus, and

(iii) if a majority of caucus members present at the meeting referred to in subparagraph (ii) vote to replace the leader of the party, a second vote of the caucus shall be conducted immediately by secret ballot to appoint a person to serve as the interim leader of the party until a new leader has been duly elected by the party.

Chair of the Caucus

In order to accomplish all of the above, you need a legal definition of caucus and to legally define the caucus chair. We use the standard definition of caucus, which pretty much means the elected MPs of a party:

"“caucus” means a group composed solely of members of the House of Commons who are members of the same recognized party."

 The caucasus is defined to have a caucus chair. The caucus chair must be elected by the caucus. And if events should happen that there suddenly is no caucus chair, the longest serving MP becomes the chair long enough to carry out the vote for a caucus chair.

Election of chair

49.4 (1) After every general election or following the death, incapacity, resignation or removal of the chair of a caucus in accordance with subsection (2), a chair shall be elected by a majority vote by secret ballot of the members of that caucus who are present at a meeting of the caucus.

Removal of caucus chair

(2) The chair of the caucus of a party may only be removed if

(a) the chair has received a written notice signed by at least 15% of the caucus members requesting that the occupancy of the chair be reviewed at a meeting of the caucus; and

(b) the removal of the chair is approved by a majority vote by secret ballot of the caucus members present at that meeting.

Senior caucus member

(3) Any vote that is taken under subsection (1) or (2) shall be presided over by the caucus member with the greatest number of years of service in the House of Commons.

Bar against judicial review

49.5 Any determination of a matter relating to the internal operations of a party by the caucus, a committee of the caucus or the caucus chair is final and not subject to judicial review.

This will give MPs the power the remove a leader and kick the question back to the party membership. With the growing centralization of power in Canadian politics over many decades this check against the party leader is very important. Lately there have been fewer and fewer checks against party leaders — including the prime minister — while at the same time giving her or him more direct power.

I believe that this leadership review process, along with the the removal from and readmission to the caucus of members are the two strongest parts, and most important parts, of this bill. I think it's very important that the leader of a party not be able to sway MPs away from serving the interest of the voters. But I stand by what I said at the end of my last post: the funniest part of the coming in to force bit.

More reading:

• See the official Parliament page for Bill C-559 'The Reform Act, 2013' and read the latest version (if any changes have been made).
• Read my summary of how this bill would allow the caucus can remove the leader of the party.
• Read my summary of how this bill would allow the caucus can remove or readmit other members of the caucus.

Edits:

• 2013-12-11: Added the more reading section with a link the next article in this series.

Devolving Power (Chong Edition)

Canada has a rich history of slowly and peacefully devolving power from the few to the many. It is my firmly held belief that the effects of this have been good. Giving the right to vote to blacks and women, for example, expanded democracy, expanded the discussion, included more points of view and are part of the socializing process.

I believe that in Canada too much power is held by party leaders. And more, when that party leader becomes the prime minister they wield far too much power through the Prime Minister's Office. Without discussion, debate and without even telling anyone the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office staff can issue orders, appoint people and make far reaching decisions running all elements of government. (Actually, over the last 30 years power has slowly been concentrated to the PMO's office. The wrong direction in my opinion.)

This may have been compatible with democracy when democracy was still a baby. But we have all grown, and democracy needs to follow pace. Allowing the idea of a one-person band to control all of government is a bad idea. Other countries like the UK and the USA do not allow one person this type of control.

I want power moved to our elected representatives. And by effect closer to us, the citizens and away from the rich and powerful. This is a time honored tradition in Canada.

With this in mind I was very excited when I first heard about Michael Chong's private member's bill C-559, 'The Reform Act, 2013.' In principle I agree with the aim and in general the effect of the bill:

BILL C-559

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (reforms)

Whereas Members of Parliament are elected by their constituents to represent them in the Parliament of Canada;

Whereas the leadership of political parties must maintain the confidence of their caucuses;

And whereas, in Canada, the executive branch of government is accountable to the legislative branch in accordance with the concept of responsible government, which is the foundation of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

It all sounds very lofty to me. And I agree with all of the above. There are some problems with the The Reform Act. Actually, strike that. There are no problems with this bill. The problem is that it removes things previously done to stop people from intentionally confusing and misleading Canadian voters. I hope to get to that in a future post. But these problems can probably be fixed by an amendment to this bill before it becomes law.

Having read the bill, it does 3 things:

• It changes how candidates are selected, stopping the leader from having ultimate say,
• It changes how a leader can be ousted by elected members of her or his party, and
• It changes how an elected member of the party can be removed from the party.

In short, it takes away some of the powers of the leader of a political party to force or coerce members of their party to act or vote in a certain way. I hope to get more into both the good and the bad in some future date. However, C-559 might be a very good thing, with some amendments.

But what really amused by this act, was how Chong said 'hey boss, this totally isn't against you, look we will say that we can't do anything to affect your power by making it take years to come in to effect.

COMING INTO FORCE

13. This Act comes into force seven days after the day on which the next general election following the day on which this Act receives royal assent is held.

That made me laugh. And they say there is not fun in Canadian politics!

More reading:

• See the official Parliament page for Bill C-559 'The Reform Act, 2013' and read the latest version (if any changes have been made).
• Read my summary of how this bill would allow the caucus can remove the leader of the party.
• Read my summary of how this bill would allow the caucus can remove or readmit other members of the caucus.

Edits:

• 2013-12-10: Added links to how the bill allows leaders to be removed.
• 2013-12-11: Added a links to removal/readmittance of members, and updated how the 'edits' section looks.