Google re-evaluating its position in China

Google made an interesting announcement today about their approach to doing business in China. Apparently they intend to take a stand again and stop censoring the results on google.cn, even if this means they are prevented from conducting business in the country. I think the unstated message is that Google believes the "attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered" were conducted from within the Chinese government and this has prompted their change in stance (or at least, I can't follow the logic of the article any other way).

Somehow I don't see the Chinese government doing anything more than shrugging its figurative shoulders, but it will be interesting to see what, if anything, is the fallout.

BC-STV

I am becoming increasingly fed up with the fear-mongering and misleading statistics being used by the campaign against the BC-STV electoral system being voted on next week in British Columbia.

I'm voting yes to STV for one very simple reason: it removes the fear of vote splitting, allowing me to indicate my true preferences. Period.

Have you ever heard any of the following statements?

• "This is an NDP riding, there's no point even voting for someone else."
• "This could be a close battle. Voting for the Green party might help the Liberal party get in."
• "I like this party but I don't like their candidate in my riding."

With STV, you'll never have to hear those again. You can indicate your true first preference and, if they don't get elected, your vote gets counted for your next choice. No more vote splitting. And voting is dead simple: you write a "1" next to your first preference, a "2" next to your second preference, and so on.

Any electoral system is a complex balance between individual and group freedoms, degree of proportionality, cost, and many other factors. There is no "perfect" system. BC-STV may get tweaked over time but, in the meantime, the freedom to vote the way I want is reason enough to support it.

It's a shame that our province doesn't seem able to manage a real debate about this significant and important issue but don't be fooled by the mudslinging from either side. If you find the pro and con sites for STV in BC a little too heated, the Wikipedia articles on STV and FPTP (as well as on other voting systems) at least list both pros and cons for each. I also found the website of the Electoral Reform Society in the UK had useful and interesting reading (including pros and cons) on many different electoral systems. Although their stated preference for STV may bias their assessments of other systems, the site is much more balanced than any of the BC sites.

The will of the people

Steven had a post about the recent Canadian political events wherein he concludes:

So best I can tell, when the Governor General does allow the opposition to take power without an election there is noise, controversy and eventually change so it cannot happen again. And when the Governor General does not give power to the opposition then history seems to just continue along. I guess I must have missed McArthur's convention.

Perhaps this is nitpicking, but we're not talking about the Governor General giving power to the opposition; we're talking about the Governor General giving power to a new coalition, one with the support of the majority of parliament.

Now I agree that the Governor General has this option but certainly no obligation to choose it. On the other hand, I still can't fathom why we would want another election right now: Canadians elected 308 MPs to represent them and if the majority of them want a change in parliament then that is the will of the people, particularly this soon after an election. The incessant cries of Canadians who seem to think they live in an the US and therefore elected the Prime Minister are driving me nuts.

I also disagree that the Governor General has lost her authority to act against the will of the Prime Minister. By convention, she normally follows the advice of the Prime Minister, but, at least as far as I'm concerned, this is only in his role as the head of parliament. The Prime Minister in Canada is not a political office; he does not have any special privileges and should not; the Governor General is bowing to the will of the people (as represented by their elected MPs in parliament), not to the Prime Minister.

The Governor General has a tenuous position in that being seen to oppose the will of the people would likely result in a swift call to remove what has become a largely ceremonial position. However, I also think we have a history of intelligent, reasonable, and competent Governor Generals and I'm glad the position is still not technically powerless. In this case, I think calling a timeout is a reasonable decision, allowing both sides a chance to back down. If the non-confidence vote goes ahead in the new year, though, I'd hope she won't waste our time and money with another election.