Living in the Future

Tag: policy

Ways to Improve the CBC Vote Compass (Conclusion)
See my preamble for this exercise and analysis of each of the policy questions here: 2019 CBC Vote Compass Analysis.
First things first, let’s tally up the questions based on whether they simply ask for a policy position (good/OK), whether they could use more information for context (bad), or whether they’re based on an extremely racist proposal (awful).
Good Questions: [2, 5, 6, 25, 26]
OK Questions: [8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30]
Bad Questions: [1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 28]
Awful Questions: [17, 23, 31&32]
By my count, that’s 5 good questions, 11 that are OK but could probably use more context, and another 12 that are just bad. Overall, in my opinion, that is just not a great ratio, never mind the 4 outright awful questions.
These bad (not awful) questions usually involve asking whether voters support ‘more’ of something without ever saying what the current state of the policy is. These kinds of questions allow me to give truly unhelpful answers, unless I happen to already know a ton about the topic.
There are also a bunch of bad questions, mostly having to do with racist or bigoted views, and it’s really unfortunate we’re at a point in politics where we need to ask if Canada of all places should admit more immigrants.
The good and OK questions from the survey all describe a policy relatively clearly, but the OK ones could definitely use some extra links on the page for information in case voters want to inform themselves before deciding what they think about a policy.
I find the Vote Compass quite accurate most of the time for me, but I’m not sure everybody else feels that way, and given the large number of people who actually use it (over a million in this election), adding some context to the questions would probably go a long way towards informing voters!
Anyways, thanks for reading, and get out on the 21st and vote!
October 18, 2019
Propositions 31 & 32 (QOTD): Religious Symbols Ban
I hate this new law so much. It’s so clear from the way it was put in place and the way it’s been defended that it’s just about racism against Middle Eastern people, mostly women specifically.
The two ‘Questions of the Day’ when I took the Vote Compass were all about this law, and though they are different questions, I can’t imagine most people answering them on different sides of the political spectrum (I guess it comes back to the question about the independence of Quebec).
I don’t know much about the way that the government of Canada could challenge the laws in Quebec, but given how racist the law is, I hope it is widely contested by whatever civil liberties bodies could be responsible for standing up for the rights of these civil servants.
Once again, the question itself is fine, with the exception that there could probably be some contextual information on the page about the specifics of the law available. It pains me to see that places in Canada would come up with something like this, but that’s where we are now.
Summary: Disagreeing with a law that most reasonable people would consider racist (was there a problem with religious people interfering with their civil duties, or is the problem with people using civil services complaining about feeling uncomfortable with non-Christian religious ‘symbols’ like burqas and complaining about it) shouldn’t be political. Do better and get back to me.
Previous
Proposition 30: Religious Minorities
Table of Contents
October 18, 2019
Proposition 30: Religious Minorities
This is a weird question for me, and because there’s no context, I’m also going to call it a bad question. How much are we saying is currently done to ‘accommodate’ religious minorities, because from my perspective it doesn’t seem like much outside of the bare minimum (for a secular state which for Christianity has all major holidays off and anybody who is not Christian arouses suspicion if in positions of influence).
I don’t want to say ‘much more’ should be done, because I know things are already done, but I don’t think we should be bending over backwards to make any possible accommodation for religions when what they want accommodated can potentially hurt others (eg. anti-vaccine people). If somebody can have their life improved through ‘accommodations’, I absolutely think they should be able to if it’s not hurting anyone, but I don’t think ‘because religion’ is a particularly good reason for making these accommodations. We should just do it.
Summary: The question is tough because it lacks context, but what context would you even give? It doesn’t mention what laws or legislation it’s referring to, so we’re just left to guess based on what we know about ‘religious minorities’. They shouldn’t be treated any differently than anybody else, religious or not.
Previous
Proposition 29: Carbon Tax
Next
Propositions 31 & 32 (QOTD): Religious Symbols Ban
Table of Contents
October 18, 2019
Proposition 29: Carbon Tax
As a planet, we need concrete ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and research has shown that taxing pollution in this way is a good way to curb emissions. I think this question is still OK because it again gives a solid agree/disagree, but the idea of a ‘carbon tax’, and especially the specific implementation in Canada could easily be cited here to give context.
I think in this case in particular it would really helpful because a lot of people don’t really understand a carbon tax, and descriptions of it by its opponents do not do it justice, or try to give any context for it.
Summary: This question itself is fine, but some sources of additional info on the page would be REALLY helpful.
Previous
Proposition 28: Foreign Policy on Human Rights
Next
Proposition 30: Religious Minorities
Table of Contents
October 18, 2019
Proposition 28: Foreign Policy on Human Rights
Yes. I don’t know how this is controversial, but yes, duh.
Summary: I’m not a politician, but obviously we should take a stand against human rights abusers, even if our counties happen to share a border.
Previous
Proposition 27: Monarchy
Next
Proposition 29: Carbon Tax
Table of Contents
October 18, 2019
Proposition 27: Monarchy
Of all the questions you could ask in an election season, this might be the weirdest. None of the mainstream political parties would actually do this, whether or not they actually supported the idea in principle. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the question itself, but asking it amidst all the other ones is a little odd.
At this point, much like in the UK (where it seems anarchy reigns), the monarchy is simple a figurehead who rubber-stamps decisions made by elected officials. While it does add an extra level of bureaucracy, I am in favour of the world being more interconnected politically, rather than less, so unless we’re ditching the Commonwealth for a new World government, I see no rush to do this.
Summary: The question as posed is fine, but I don’t really see the point in asking it.
Previous
Proposition 26: Pharmacare
Next
Proposition 28: Foreign Policy on Human Rights
Table of Contents
October 18, 2019
Proposition 26: Pharmacare
Again, I feel like this is a provincial thing (OHIP+ does this in Ontario for kids under the age of 18 who aren’t on their parent’s insurance), but I am just all for it.
The question here is passable because again it’s an agree or disagree with no prior knowledge required, but even seeing some stats on the average annual household spending on drugs (with or without insurance) would be really interesting to add to this discussion.
Summary: Question is fine, obviously as a proponent of covering the basic necessities of life for everyone, I am in complete agreement.
Previous
Proposition 25: Gender-Balanced Cabinet
Next
Proposition 27: Monarchy
Table of Contents
October 17, 2019
Proposition 25: Gender-Balanced Cabinet
I’m not too concerned about a direct 50:50 split in the cabinet, but we need 2015 to have been the end of mostly white dudes in decision-making roles in politics in Canada. Sometimes, you might have more women in cabinet, sometimes more men, but the important thing is slowly tearing down the walls which were built by literally millennia of powerful men lording over everybody.
This question is fine, but it’s not like it would be written in to law or anything I don’t think, but hopefully parties will continue to pledge something like this (for candidates being placed in ridings too) to correct the long historical imbalances.
Summary: This question is fine, but might be one of the wish-washiest ones of them all (which is too bad because gender imbalance is an important issue that with a little attention we could completely fix.
Previous
Proposition 24: Wealth Tax
Next
Proposition 26: Pharmacare
Table of Contents
October 17, 2019
Proposition 24: Wealth Tax
The only people who think that wealthy people should not pay more tax are wealthy people, and people who’ve been duped by wealthy people to believe that all tax is bad. Learning a little about marginal tax rates and seeing the amount of money that rich people have left over *after* paying would convert a lot of people I think, but we’re left with no information based on this question alone.
A wealth tax is a really obvious thing, and I ~~think~~ hope people will start to demand it soon.
Summary: This question is lacking some information, but I think it’s clear enough that this gets more of a pass on lacking sources than other questions.
Previous
Proposition 23: Violence Against Indigenous Women
Next
Proposition 25: Gender-Balanced Cabinet
Table of Contents
October 17, 2019
Proposition 23: Violence Against Indigenous Women
All they are asking for is recognition? Geez what a low bar, and a bad question. This one is a no-brainer.
Summary: Next!
Previous
Proposition 22: Employment Insurance
Next
Proposition 24: Wealth Tax
Table of Contents
October 17, 2019