Some cities are apparently well run.
And then there is the Houston website.
I will leave the complaints about potholes, random road closures, and other such infrastructure troubles (as well as overall cluttered unsightliness, pollution and socioeconomic problems) aside for now. I want to discuss the website, the portal through which people connect to the city.
Houston's website is here. Note something about the drop-down menus on the front page. Yes, they go behind the pictures. They've been doing that for a while now.
I had a car accident today (got rear-ended by a guy on the interstate while stopped in traffic). Apparently, here the police don't come out... you go to a substation with the info to file the report. I don't know if that's common in larger cities so I have no comment on it. I went to the website to search for a station close to me (actually, I googled "Houston Police Department" and wound up at the police website, which is part of the main website). Note first that the police website uses a rather unattractive older template (only the front page of the website has really been changed). The left sidebar scrolls even though it doesn't take up the entire page, and it is unclear whether it refers to the police or the entire city (I'm pretty sure it's the latter).
I then spent a long time trying to find the listings of police stations. You'd think one of the top choices would be to know this. But no... although you can view crime statistics, there's no link for "find a station." At length I did find it (through the "Contact HPD" button--here it is). Note that the listings state that the storefront in Neartown is open 24 hours. So, of course, I drove there, and it is open 6 am to 10 pm. I arrived around 10:08 and will have a return trip early tomorrow morning.
Right.
For reference, here are some other cities which seem to have decent web designers... Seattle, New York, Chicago...
In this day and age, if you're a U.S. city and you don't have a good website, what are the odds of things being better once you actually get there? This complaint might seem petty, but as you might guess it's part of a pattern of rather greater frustration.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
My short absence
I haven't posted for a while... unfortunately the (my job-related) real world has impinged somewhat on my ability to comment here.
For the next week I will be on a needed vacation on the beaches of San Diego--highs projected in the low 70s. So I will have little to say about elections in the meantime, but look forward to returning a bit rejuvenated!
For the next week I will be on a needed vacation on the beaches of San Diego--highs projected in the low 70s. So I will have little to say about elections in the meantime, but look forward to returning a bit rejuvenated!
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Ruling parties easily win in Estonia
Estonia's ruling coalition of the free-market Reform and agrarian/centrist Center parties has easily won the parliamentary election, taking 60 of 101 seats (their smaller partner, the People's Union, secured 6 seats, down from 13). Center had previously been the largest party in the coalition, but their place will be taken by Reform, the party of PM Andrus Ansip, which surged from 19 to 31 seats. The new Green Party entered parliament with 6 seats and the Social Democrats saw a not-entirely-expected surge (if the polls were to be believed) to 10.6% of the vote and 10 seats.
Again, this will change little, but likely Center and Reform will now govern alone, and Ansip seems guaranteed to return to the prime minister's office.
The quick breakdown:
Reform (free-market liberal) / 27.8%, 31
Center (centrist/liberal/agrarian) / 26.1%, 29
Res Publica-Pro Patria (conservative) / 17.9%, 19
Social Democrats / 10.6%, 10
Estonian Greens / 7.1%, 6
People's Union (conservative/nationalist) / 7.1%, 6
Results are available in English from the Estonian Electoral Commission, with regional breakdown in Estonian.
Update: More detailed thought on the electoral system (also in my first post) from Dr. Shugart at Fruits and Votes, and, via F&V, an interesting blogpost by Dr. Josep Colomer on the participation of electoral-systems expert Dr. Rein Taagepera in Estonian politics.
Again, this will change little, but likely Center and Reform will now govern alone, and Ansip seems guaranteed to return to the prime minister's office.
The quick breakdown:
Reform (free-market liberal) / 27.8%, 31
Center (centrist/liberal/agrarian) / 26.1%, 29
Res Publica-Pro Patria (conservative) / 17.9%, 19
Social Democrats / 10.6%, 10
Estonian Greens / 7.1%, 6
People's Union (conservative/nationalist) / 7.1%, 6
Results are available in English from the Estonian Electoral Commission, with regional breakdown in Estonian.
Update: More detailed thought on the electoral system (also in my first post) from Dr. Shugart at Fruits and Votes, and, via F&V, an interesting blogpost by Dr. Josep Colomer on the participation of electoral-systems expert Dr. Rein Taagepera in Estonian politics.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
My political compass
I found my political compass... I'm a social libertarian and on the economic left... again, no surprises!
Economic -3.75, Social -4.41
That puts me next to Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Good place to be in, I guess. Most world leaders, policy-wise, come out in the economic-right and social-authoritarian quadrant (that is, the opposite one from me). Interestingly, none of the "economic right" i.e. more neoliberal leaders are at all on the "social libertarian" side of the bar, though I suppose it could be a matter of where you put that bar.
I'd also be curious to know where world leaders stand personally, without political constraints...
Economic -3.75, Social -4.41
That puts me next to Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Good place to be in, I guess. Most world leaders, policy-wise, come out in the economic-right and social-authoritarian quadrant (that is, the opposite one from me). Interestingly, none of the "economic right" i.e. more neoliberal leaders are at all on the "social libertarian" side of the bar, though I suppose it could be a matter of where you put that bar.
I'd also be curious to know where world leaders stand personally, without political constraints...
Estonians vote
Estonia is electing a new Riigikogu (Parliament) tomorrow, March 4. One of the more interesting sections in the country's riveting Electoral Law is the following:
Yep--e-voting. Now, one can also go in and cast an in-person advance vote on these days (though not 24 hours). Overall, 19.1 percent of electors have already voted, compared to 14.5 percent last time around (I don't think they had the online option in 2003).
Meanwhile, section 62 of the same law explains the distribution of seats, which is rather complicated. Really, what it comes down to is: an open-list d'Hondt system, with one vote per elector. I think. As follows:
As for the actual parties...
Polls show the Center Party leading with the Estonian Reform Party in second. These are the two main parties in the current center-right (liberalish) government. Currently, Reform provides the prime minister, Andrus Ansip, despite being behind the Center Party in seats. The party which won the last election by a wide margin, Res Publica, is trailing despite a merger with another conservative party, Pro Patria. Finally, the Social Democrats, the new Green Party and possibly the conservative/agarian People's Union (the last party in the current coalition) should fill out the parliament.
Estonia is generally known for low taxes, an enterprising attitude, taking initiative online (as is clear with E-voting), and being irritating to Russia (as recently). None of this will likely change whenever the new government takes office.
Section 38 (2) 3). Advance polls shall be held from the sixth day to the fourth
day before election day by electronic means. Voting opens on the sixth day
before the day of election at 9.00 a.m. and lasts on 24-hour basis until the
voting closes on the fourth day before the election day at 8.00 p.m.
Yep--e-voting. Now, one can also go in and cast an in-person advance vote on these days (though not 24 hours). Overall, 19.1 percent of electors have already voted, compared to 14.5 percent last time around (I don't think they had the online option in 2003).
Meanwhile, section 62 of the same law explains the distribution of seats, which is rather complicated. Really, what it comes down to is: an open-list d'Hondt system, with one vote per elector. I think. As follows:
- Mandates are given to any candidate meeting the simple quota in his/her constituency;
- Then, mandates are given to political parties that meet the national 5 percent threshold according to the simple quota divided by that party's total votes, with an extra 75 percent of the simple quota counting as enough for a seat or another seat, and factoring in that some candidates may have already won seats, and the seats go to the most-voted candidates;
- Then, mandates are distributed on a nationally compensatory basis between the same parties, according to d'Hondt (except that the multiplier is 2^0.9, 3^0.9 and so on). Candidates are given mandates on the order that they appear on the national list, if they got at least 5 percent of their simple quota (which shouldn't be horribly difficult). If not, the highest vote-getter gets that compensatory mandate.
As for the actual parties...
Polls show the Center Party leading with the Estonian Reform Party in second. These are the two main parties in the current center-right (liberalish) government. Currently, Reform provides the prime minister, Andrus Ansip, despite being behind the Center Party in seats. The party which won the last election by a wide margin, Res Publica, is trailing despite a merger with another conservative party, Pro Patria. Finally, the Social Democrats, the new Green Party and possibly the conservative/agarian People's Union (the last party in the current coalition) should fill out the parliament.
Estonia is generally known for low taxes, an enterprising attitude, taking initiative online (as is clear with E-voting), and being irritating to Russia (as recently). None of this will likely change whenever the new government takes office.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Finland gears up for new elections
The current Finnish government, which includes the Finnish Center (KESK), the Social Democrats (SDP), and the Swedish People's Party (SFP), has served out a full four-year mandate, and faces elections on March 18. Currently, KESK and SDP are running neck-and-neck in the polls.
Finland uses an open-list constituency PR system; parties therefore take advantage of the drawing power of star candidates, but the system is proportional within the constituencies and generally fairly proportional overall. In Helsinki and the surrounding Uusimaa area, the conservative National Coalition (KOK) and the SDP run strong, while the north and center of the country are dominated first and foremost by the KESK, which still has strong ties to its roots as the Agrarian Party. The other principal parties are the Greens (VIHR) and the Left (VAS) or ex-communists.
One issue that seems to have arisen in this campaign is a guaranteed minimum income (possibly as a replacement to some of the various welfare provisions). The Greens have backed this and it appears that the Center has given this idea support as well; the SDP is opposing it.
In the end, it looks like PM Matti Vanhanen, the most popular leader, might pull out a victory (i.e. plurality) for KESK and enable himself to stay in the big chair. Otherwise, SDP's Eero Heinäluoma will take over. Either way, it looks like the KESK-SDP coalition will remain in power for another four years.
For profiles of the top candidates, there is an article at Virtual Finland.
My personal contributions are these pictures from Helsinki, 2004:
The National Coalition (KOK) campaign booth outside the department store Stockmann
The headquarters of the Social Democratic Party, Helsinki
Finland uses an open-list constituency PR system; parties therefore take advantage of the drawing power of star candidates, but the system is proportional within the constituencies and generally fairly proportional overall. In Helsinki and the surrounding Uusimaa area, the conservative National Coalition (KOK) and the SDP run strong, while the north and center of the country are dominated first and foremost by the KESK, which still has strong ties to its roots as the Agrarian Party. The other principal parties are the Greens (VIHR) and the Left (VAS) or ex-communists.
One issue that seems to have arisen in this campaign is a guaranteed minimum income (possibly as a replacement to some of the various welfare provisions). The Greens have backed this and it appears that the Center has given this idea support as well; the SDP is opposing it.
In the end, it looks like PM Matti Vanhanen, the most popular leader, might pull out a victory (i.e. plurality) for KESK and enable himself to stay in the big chair. Otherwise, SDP's Eero Heinäluoma will take over. Either way, it looks like the KESK-SDP coalition will remain in power for another four years.
For profiles of the top candidates, there is an article at Virtual Finland.
My personal contributions are these pictures from Helsinki, 2004:
The National Coalition (KOK) campaign booth outside the department store Stockmann
The headquarters of the Social Democratic Party, Helsinki
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The crazy optician
This guy (from Toronto) is just crazy. When the consumer advocate reporter comes to talk to him again, he... opens the door in his face, tries to punch him and throws snowballs at the cameraman, then barricades himself inside the store until the riot team arrives.
Apparently, he was:
Apparently, he was:
- Making fake Oakleys and other brand-name glasses (when the reporter confronted him, blamed Oakley);
- Refusing to refund money for the above ("We don't do money back here");
- Performing eye exams, even though in Ontario, opticians are not permitted to do so ("Your eye doctor is probably going to say something like I'm not supposed to do this, but he's my competition").
Friday, February 23, 2007
Political typology
According to Pew's political typology, I am a "liberal." No surprise there...
It states that 17 percent of the public are liberals; 19 percent of registered voters are liberals.
It states that 17 percent of the public are liberals; 19 percent of registered voters are liberals.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Prodi's second fall, or the inane Italian electoral system
Romano Prodi has resigned today as prime minister of Italy, having narrowly lost a Senate vote on a nonbinding foreign policy resolution concerning Iraq (heh). Prodi needed 160 votes (a majority of members) to carry the day and got only 158.
While Prodi's Union coalition has a sizable majority in the Chamber of Deputies, in the Senate their majority is only two seats. This means that the Union has to rely on all its senators, including those from far left parties (the Communists and the Communist Refoundation). These parties often have very little in common with the centrist parties (such as the large, more centrist Margherita party or the smaller Italy of Values, among others). The Union coalition cannot cast these far-left parties aside, however, because the electoral system rewards relative majorities--to the extent that 55 percent of Chamber seats are guaranteed to the coalition or party that takes a relative majority. This electoral system was imposed by Berlusconi prior to the previous election in an attempt to manipulate the results.
However, the system is ridiculous. In addition to this 55 percent clause, seats are distributed proportionally to coalitions or parties in the provinces, to all coalitions receiving at least 10 percent nationwide and independent parties with at least 4 percent. Within coalitions, all parties receiving at least 2 percent are eligible, and the top party under 2 percent is also eligible. This is a recipe for allowing small parties to continue manipulating the larger ones--hardly a solution to one of the larger problems of the last electoral reform implemented in the early '90s.
Here's something radical: Why not an MMP or closed-list PR system with a 5% nationwide/3 SMD threshold (as in Germany)? Surviving parties would probably include the major parties of the center-left (Margherita as well as the Democrats of the Left, or a possible merger of those two), Berlusconi's Forza Italia, the rightist National Alliance, and the more centrist Union of Christian Democrats, plus possibly the Communist Refoundation and the regionalist Northern League. Yes, the smaller parties would be irritated, but given Italy's persistent instability, this solution is more than justified. [And yes, the Senate also needs to be reformed. In Italy's system where both chambers can hold the government to account, neither house should have an electoral law which disproportionately empowers small fringe parties.]
We may well see another electoral reform soon: President Georgio Napolitano, according to the NYT article, won't call elections until another reform has been enacted. Maybe this time it will finally be a logical one.
[The best overview of the history and intricacies of the system, so far as I am aware, is here.]
While Prodi's Union coalition has a sizable majority in the Chamber of Deputies, in the Senate their majority is only two seats. This means that the Union has to rely on all its senators, including those from far left parties (the Communists and the Communist Refoundation). These parties often have very little in common with the centrist parties (such as the large, more centrist Margherita party or the smaller Italy of Values, among others). The Union coalition cannot cast these far-left parties aside, however, because the electoral system rewards relative majorities--to the extent that 55 percent of Chamber seats are guaranteed to the coalition or party that takes a relative majority. This electoral system was imposed by Berlusconi prior to the previous election in an attempt to manipulate the results.
However, the system is ridiculous. In addition to this 55 percent clause, seats are distributed proportionally to coalitions or parties in the provinces, to all coalitions receiving at least 10 percent nationwide and independent parties with at least 4 percent. Within coalitions, all parties receiving at least 2 percent are eligible, and the top party under 2 percent is also eligible. This is a recipe for allowing small parties to continue manipulating the larger ones--hardly a solution to one of the larger problems of the last electoral reform implemented in the early '90s.
Here's something radical: Why not an MMP or closed-list PR system with a 5% nationwide/3 SMD threshold (as in Germany)? Surviving parties would probably include the major parties of the center-left (Margherita as well as the Democrats of the Left, or a possible merger of those two), Berlusconi's Forza Italia, the rightist National Alliance, and the more centrist Union of Christian Democrats, plus possibly the Communist Refoundation and the regionalist Northern League. Yes, the smaller parties would be irritated, but given Italy's persistent instability, this solution is more than justified. [And yes, the Senate also needs to be reformed. In Italy's system where both chambers can hold the government to account, neither house should have an electoral law which disproportionately empowers small fringe parties.]
We may well see another electoral reform soon: President Georgio Napolitano, according to the NYT article, won't call elections until another reform has been enacted. Maybe this time it will finally be a logical one.
[The best overview of the history and intricacies of the system, so far as I am aware, is here.]
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Ontario looks at MMP
Speaking of electoral reform... the Citizens' Assembly in Ontario has decided that mixed-member proportional (MMP) is its preferred alternative to the current first-past-the-post (FPP) system. See DemocraticSPACE (who also designed an MMP system for the purpose) and Idealistic Pragmatist.
Prince Edward Island's electoral reform attempt also would have implemented MMP. B.C.'s option, on the other hand, was for the single transferable vote (STV). [That option, for those who don't know, got 58 percent "yes" votes when it needed 60 percent, so wasn't adopted, but will be back on the ballot.]
This is one of the best aspects of federalism--different jurisdictions experimenting with policy; however, it does wind up being rather uncoordinated. It's certainly possible that we could see 10 different voting systems for 10 provinces, not that there's anything wrong with that. But the clamor is growing in Quebec, where there are three major parties and two growing alternatives, and New Brunswick just had a "second place winner" election in which the Liberals won despite losing the popular vote, so there are certainly other provinces that might be exploring other options.
If Ontario adopts MMP, there will definitely be a lot of pressure on the federal government to at least examine the idea of PR. (Note: the NDP introduced a motion for consideration of electoral reform, which will likely be ignored. But I always wonder why the NDP doesn't make electoral reform their #1 priority in any support deal. Yes, the short-term gains are uncertain, but one would think the long-term survival benefit is way, way bigger than in any other area. ATM fees, for instance... seriously?).
Prince Edward Island's electoral reform attempt also would have implemented MMP. B.C.'s option, on the other hand, was for the single transferable vote (STV). [That option, for those who don't know, got 58 percent "yes" votes when it needed 60 percent, so wasn't adopted, but will be back on the ballot.]
This is one of the best aspects of federalism--different jurisdictions experimenting with policy; however, it does wind up being rather uncoordinated. It's certainly possible that we could see 10 different voting systems for 10 provinces, not that there's anything wrong with that. But the clamor is growing in Quebec, where there are three major parties and two growing alternatives, and New Brunswick just had a "second place winner" election in which the Liberals won despite losing the popular vote, so there are certainly other provinces that might be exploring other options.
If Ontario adopts MMP, there will definitely be a lot of pressure on the federal government to at least examine the idea of PR. (Note: the NDP introduced a motion for consideration of electoral reform, which will likely be ignored. But I always wonder why the NDP doesn't make electoral reform their #1 priority in any support deal. Yes, the short-term gains are uncertain, but one would think the long-term survival benefit is way, way bigger than in any other area. ATM fees, for instance... seriously?).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
