A major flaw in mandate of the Drummond report

I was very disappointed to see that the mandate of the Drummond report specifically did not allow them to recommend tax increases. This deprives the people of Ontario of essential information. We're being told that various public services, all of which are valued by some people and some of which are valued by everyone, need to be cut, but we aren't being told what the alternative is.

In life in general, if you want to convince people to do something unpleasant, you have to tell them what the alternative is. For example, if you have a child who needs to get vaccinated, you tell them they have to get a needle so they don't get a big yucky sickness that will certainly make them miserable and might even kill them. But the too-narrow mandate of this report is akin to walking up to that child and saying simply "I'm going to stick a needle into you."

The child may or may not understand, and may or may not accept, the idea that doctors sometimes have to do unpleasant things to you to make you healthy. But, in any case, they'll be far more likely to think it's reasonable to stick a needle into them if you first tell them what you're trying to prevent. Even as an adult who understands the concept of vaccination, you'll want to know what you're being vaccinated against and maybe google the disease if you aren't already familiar with it before you allow a needle to be stuck into you.

But the government isn't telling us what exactly they're trying to prevent with these cuts; they're just taking as a given that the alternative is too expensive.

And, in life in general, if you want to convince someone that something is too expensive, you start by telling them how much it costs. For example, imagine you get the notion of buying a good bottle of real champagne. So you go to the best wine merchant in town ask for real champagne. He looks you up and down and says "You can't afford real champagne."

Is your reaction going to be "You must be right, you know best"? Probably not. Your initial reaction will probably be "WTF do you mean I can't afford real champagne? I can so afford real champagne!" Depending on the kind of pride or stubbornness you have, you might even feel so compelled to prove you can afford real champagne that you buy a bottle of champagne that you can't actually afford.

However, if he said something like "Of course. We have a lovely selection of champagne, starting at $750,000 a bottle," that would dissuade you far more effectively, wouldn't it? And it would make you far more likely to trust the wine merchant's judgement of what you are and are not able to afford in the future.

Of course, the reason why the government gave the Drummond Commission a mandate that precluded recommending tax increases is probably because the government has no intention of raising taxes under any circumstances. However, this is a strategic error. If the government's apparent plan of not raising taxes under any circumstances is even remotely sound, a report that includes information on how much our taxes would need to go up to support current service levels would support and build credibility for that plan. And, knowing that, the fact that they nevertheless mandated the Commission to neglect this key information leads me to question whether their plan is in fact sound.

Open Letter to Toronto City Councillors

Dear Toronto City Councillors:

Thank you for your very sensible vote to restore LRTs yesterday. I immensely appreciate seeing political cooperation to do what's right for our city, and look very forward to seeing more of the same in the future.

In the interest of achieving that, I have something I'd like you all to think about. Rob Ford unilaterally announced that Transit City is dead on December 1, 2010. Your successful vote to reverse that decision came yesterday, on February 8, 2012. That's over 14 months. Even if everything goes absolutely perfectly from now on, the best possible outcome is we're 14 months behind where we should be.

So here are two questions you need to think about quietly to yourselves and then brainstorm together until you get workable answers:

1. Why did it take you 14 months to reverse such a destructive decision that the mayor had no authority to make?

2. What will you do to make it possible to prevent or reverse future destructive decisions in a more timely manner, so we don't lose a year every time the mayor does something stupid?

I'm not posing these questions to make you defend yourselves. (If anyone posts spinny damage control in the comments I will be very unimpressed.) They are not for answering immediately, or slapping together a talking point for a briefing note and checking off the list. I'm posing these questions so you'll actually think about them, at length and over a period of time. Let them fester in your brains, think of ideas, share them and build on them with other councillors, and ultimately come up with a way to prevent this problem from happening again.

Why the idea of nominal fees for library materials grates

Recently, my city councillor asked for feedback on the idea of the library charging $2 to borrow DVDs. My visceral reaction was negative - a far stronger negative reaction than could be explained by the basic fact that libraries are meant to be free. At first I thought that this was because people who are least able to afford $2 for a DVD (like my grandmothers, for example) are also less likely to have the resources and the know-how to acquire movies for free through unofficial channels. But another aspect that grated was this treatment of certain library materials as Less Than other materials.

I've finally figured out why this is bothering me so much. It all goes back to my letter to my 18-year-old self. One of the things I wrote was:

Read Harry Potter. Read the complete works of Miss Manners. Read the In Death series. Read Introvert Advantage. Read Malcolm Gladwell. Watch Eddie Izzard's comedy and every interview he's ever done. These will all not only entertain you, but help you navigate the world better.

All of these things were transformative. From Harry Potter, I learned how to do literary analysis (yes, this is AFTER an academic career that involved lit courses in four languages) and how to use the happy place fandom gives me to chase away my dark moods. From Introvert Advantage I learned how my brain and energy work. Miss Manners gave me much-needed perspective on real-world social expectations to counteract the skewed context I grew up in. Eddie and In Death made me brave (insofar as I am brave, which is still exponentially braver than I was before I met them). Malcolm Gladwell taught me about Entitlement, which also coalesced all the other stuff I'd learned.

All of these materials are rather lowbrow. Anyone could make a convincing argument that any of this stuff is Less Than and Unworthy. Despite the fact that I've been exposed to more than my fair share of Serious Art and academic writing, it was a children's book series, a newspaper advice columnist, a couple of pieces of mass-market pop psychology/sociology, a transvestite comedian, and a series of formulaic mystery novels that ended up being what made me.

(At this point, some of you are thinking "What kind of pathetic person gets life-changing inspiration from such banal material?" The answer to that question is, obviously, "Someone who very much needs it.")

So, you're now asking, what does this have to do with the library?

Like most people, I don't like to pay for something when I don't know if it's going to work. This means that I don't buy books, movies, or other art/entertainment/information media if I don't know if I'm going to like it or if it's going to teach me what I need to learn from it. I borrow it from the library instead.

I didn't know going in that any of this stuff would be transformative. I didn't even know if I would like it. I added it to my library list because it seemed like it had the potential to be mildly interesting, but I never would have bought it - not even for a nominal price. There's enough pop cultural comfort food to keep me reliably entertained that I don't ever need to try anything new. The fact that I could try them all risk-free is what made it possible for me to discover all these things.

On top of that, there's also the fact that these transformative works are far from the only things I borrowed from the library during that time period (the past 8 years of my life). Most of the stuff I borrowed wasn't nearly as transformative - I'm sure I don't even remember 80% of it! But, because I can borrow as much as I want, I get to separate the wheat from the chaff and become a better person in the process. Even a nominal fee would be enough make me think twice before putting a hold on something I'm unsure about, which would have been enough of a barrier to prevent me from discovering my true inspirations.

I'm sure no one else has my exact combination of inspirations, and many people have a similarly unpredictable combination of inspirations out there waiting for them. (And I sincerely hope there are even more out there waiting for me!) The world will become a better and better place as everyone expands their horizons and finds their way to their own inspiration, so we must not introduce any cause for hesitation.

A little less conversation: building better consensus-building

One thing I find absolutely tedious about watching youtubes of Occupy is the people's mike. It takes such a long time to say anything! This also echoes something I find tedious about municipal politics: live, in-person consultations where anyone gets to get up and talk. Again, it takes such a long time! Surely it would be faster, easier, and more convenient to have everyone submit their ideas in writing - reading is faster than talking, and the writing process tends to result a more organized deputation than extemporizing does.

But, at the same time, there's a certain democracy to everyone getting up and having their say in full that we don't necessarily want to lose. So how can we make the general process of public consultation faster and easier and less tedious without making it less democratic?

Here's what I've got so far:

We start with a whiteboard, which can be either literal, virtual, or metaphorical depending on what's needed. For a set and reasonable period of time, everyone writes on the whiteboard every factor they can think of that needs to be taken into consideration for the issue in question. Each factor only needs to appear on the whiteboard once, no matter how many people think it's important (we'll address the number of people who think it's important in a minute.) So even if every single person in the room thinks it's important for the new widgets to be backwards-compatible with existing widgets, only one person needs to stand up and say so or send in an email saying so for it to get written on the whiteboard.

This is also a question and answer time. Anyone can post or ask a question, and anyone can answer or expand on anyone else's answers. All questions asked and all answers given are recorded on another whiteboard for everyone's review.

After the period of time for contributing to the whiteboard is over, there's a voting period. During the voting period, everyone votes on each factor on two axes: Agree/Disagree and Important/Unimportant. You can cast a neutral vote by abstaining. Once all the votes have been tallied, you can see what the collective's priorities are. Then they can take action to implement everything that gets a high number of Agree and Important votes and avoid everything that gets a high number of Disagree and Important votes. Things voted Unimportant but with a clear Agree or Disagree consensus will be addressed if doing so doesn't interfere with the things voted Important. Things voted Important but without a clear consensus could be subject to further discussion/dissection, or looked at in terms of how they related to other Important factors with clearer consensus.

Whiteboard and voting will be made as accessible as possible. The whole thing could be online if everyone involved has internet access, but if that's difficult for anyone then in-person, telephone, write-in, and any other kind of input method people might require should be allowed.

The enormous advantage of this method would be that it eliminates duplication. Instead of having to hear (or even read) dozens of impassioned pleas on the importance of backwards-compatibility, only one person has to bring it up and the importance will be made clear in the voting phase. At the same time, if one lone maverick is insistent that the widgets should glow in the dark, it's right up there with all the other idea and will stand and fall on its own merits. If other people think it's a good idea, it could go through even though that one guy doesn't have very much reach.

This method of consensus-building is far from perfect, but I'm putting it out there as a starting point. Improvements welcome.

Things They Should Invent: minimum Service Canada staffing levels proportionate to the number of unemployed Canadians

Recently in the news: there are delays in Employment Insurance because the government has cut EI processing jobs.

That seems rather backwards, doesn't it? Demand is up, so you cut back your workforce? I can't imagine that decision being made anywhere in the private sector. (Of course, I also couldn't imagine it being made in the public sector.) If Service Canada increased the number of EI workers during times of high unemployment, they would not only be addressing the increased demand, they'd be marginally reducing demand (and the unemployment rate) by hiring unemployed people. Automatic job creation!

Therefore, I propose they make a policy that the number of EI workers has to be at least X% of the number of people on the unemployment rolls.

At this point, you're wondering why I want them to make a policy rather than just being smart and hiring more people. The reason for making a whole policy is to prevent the same problem from reoccurring in the future. The government could spin it beautifully as a sustainable policy to better serve Canadians and put people back to work - alluding to the fact that private sector totally hires people when demand goes up, to play to certain segments of their base. Once it's all written down and codified, then they'll have to jump through hoops to lay off EI workers during times of high unemployment rather than the current situation of having to jump through hoops to hire more EI workers during times of belt-tightening.

You're probably also wondering why I put the wiggle-words "at least" in there. That's to give Service Canada reasonable leeway in its staffing. If they have some people who are nearing retirement, this will allow them to hire replacements (and get them trained and reasonably experienced) before the retirees leave with all their corporate memory. This also prevents them from necessarily having to lay off workers at the slightest fluctuation of the unemployment rate.

At this point, you're probably wondering "But what if improved technology results in fewer workers needed per unemployed person? Then they'll be stuck with all these extra workers." That could be addressed with a clause requiring an automatic review of the prescribed minimum threshold whenever existing workers find themselves with a certain amount of downtime.

Things Politicians Should Invent: keep track of constituents' track record

I write to my elected representatives on a fairly regular basis, often expressing concern about possible outcomes of certain policy proposals. There have been times when I've been clearly right or clearly wrong. In other words, my emails says "I'm concerned that if you pass this piece of legislation, this Unquestionably Bad Thing will happen." And sometimes it either does or does not happen. In many cases it's too soon to tell, and in many other cases I'm expressing a personal preference rather than making a prediction, but sometimes my emails contain predictive statements whose accuracy can, at some point in the future, be objectively verified.

It occurs to me that I'm most likely not the only constituent making predictive statements whose accuracy can be verified. And if this is the case, politicians' offices could keep track. Perhaps patterns will emerge as to which constituents have the best foresight, and then politicians could weight the opinions of those with the best foresight more heavily, to the benefit of us all.

Some post-election information

1. The report from Three Ontario Votes (which I've mentioned before) is now out. I'm disappointed they didn't do a full seat count for the AV model, but otherwise it's informative.

2. My traditional post-election test of the Hill & Knowlton Election Predictor: Using the actual popular vote as reported by CBC, Hill & Knowlton predicts Liberal 56, Conservative 31, NDP 20. Actual seat count: Liberal 53, Conservative 37, NDP 17.

Voter's Resources

Since we just had a federal election in May, I'm not rewriting everything from scratch. The pertinent links are below. For how to use them, click on "How to Vote", "Where to Vote", and "How to Vote Strategically" below. As usual, this post will be updated until election day. If I've missed anything, please let me know in the comments.

Getting Started

Election day is October 6.

Voter information from Elections Ontario

My How to Vote
My Where to Vote
My How to Vote Strategically


Platforms

Conservative
Green
Liberal
NDP

Tools

CBC Vote Compass
Election Prediction Project
Hill and Knowlton Predictor
DemocraticSPACE
LISPOP
Riding-by-riding polls for the GTA

Voted

Another election on a beautiful day, and another provincial election nursing a virus (which has mutated from a sore throat to a runny nose today). I encountered many many doggies today and got a lot of petting in, including my next-door neighbour's dog for the whole elevator wait and ride. Hopefully that's enough good luck.

I didn't get a voter's card this year and had to wait in a bit of a line to register (a process that was a bit slower than I recall) but it got done in under half an hour with no particular difficulties. I voted in a seniors' residence instead of a school this time. Some of the residents were milling around outside watching all the comings and goings, and I believe some of them were working at the polling station. Nice friendly community-like chat waiting in line, dogs and children got squeed at, and the whole process took under half an hour.

Now I'm at home to nurse my cold and a glass of wine, and watch results.

Teach me how union finances work

There is clear choice in this election, said Hudak from Dundas on Saturday. Taxpayers can’t afford to pay big union boss salaries anymore or pay for their ad campaigns, he has said.

Does Tim Hudak not understand how union finances work, or do I not understand how union finances work?

My understanding, extrapolated from conversations with union members and observations from having worked in a unionized environment, is that union members pay union dues out of their salaries, and the expenses of operating the union (including advertising and any pay the union leaders receive for doing their union leader duties) are all funded from the union dues. My understanding is that the employer does not pay into the union (wouldn't that be a heinous conflict of interest?) So the amount of money a union spends on various things is between the union and its members.

Extrapolated to the provincial government, this means that the money union leaders get for their work as union leaders and the money unions spend on ad campaigns come out of the pockets of provincial public servants, in their role as the employees. The taxpayers, in their role as employer, aren't paying for any of it. And what the unions spend money on is between them and the public servants - the taxpayers and the government, in their capacity as employer, have no say in it or authority to change it.

Am I understanding this correctly? If not, please correct me in the comments.

Wherein I once again consider a career as a political advisor

Me in January 2009.

Bob Rae today.

The Ontario voter list mystery

I'm not on the Ontario voter list this election. I'm never on the Ontario voter list. Every single Ontario election since I was 18, I didn't receive a voter card and had to register on election day.

I have voted in (and registered at) every Ontario election since I was 18. Last election, I lived at the same address as I do now, so my registration from last election should be valid.

I was registered federally for, and voted in, the election this past May, and I'm pretty sure both federal and provincial get their voter's lists from the tax rolls. I recently got a jury duty questionnaire, which means provincial does know about me. But I'm not on the voter's list. And the same thing happens every election. Weird.

Ever wondered what Ontario would look like with a different electoral system?

Check out Three Ontario Votes. You go and cast an imaginary ballot under three different electoral systems, and after the election they'll release the results, so we can see what our province would look like with a different electoral system.

Previous results models for different electoral systems use real-life election data, which is problematic because some voters' strategies might be different under a different electoral system. But this model lets you cast a vote under each of the systems being tested, for the election that's actually happening right now in real time.

We'll get extremely useful information out of this study - more useful than any existing data to inform any future decisions about electoral reform. I strongly encourage everyone of all political stripes to go to Three Ontario Votes and vote with each of the ballots so this information will be as complete as possible.

Why it would not be appropriate for the library to charge for hold delivery

I've seen a number of comment-thread commenters suggest that, as a budgetary measure, the library should start charging to deliver holds. But that wouldn't be appropriate, because if the library were to charge for delivering holds, it would create a two-tiered system.

Popular novels tend to accumulate far more holds than the library has copies even before they're released. This means that all copies in the system are sent to people with holds on it, and (with the exception of the "Best Bets" section) none of the copies are in the library.

Currently, anyone can put a hold on a book, so everyone has an equal chance of getting at the book. You just have to get in line.

But if they started charging money for holds, only people who can afford to pay would place holds. This means that richer patrons would get at the books before poorer patrons, because the poorer patrons can't afford to get in line. Speaking as someone who could easily afford to pay a fee for this service if necessary, I consider that unfair, unacceptable, and contrary to the mission of libraries.

At this point, some people are thinking "But what if you can place the holds for free, just not have the delivered to your home branch?" The problem is that would still create a two-tiered system. Think for a moment about how such a system would work. Either patrons would only be able to put holds on books that live at their home branch, or they'd have to pick up the hold wherever the book happens to be. If we are limited to putting holds on books that live at our home branch, that's a two-tiered system because the pool from which we can place holds is significantly smaller. If we have to pick up holds wherever they happen to be, then we might have to go to any corner of the city - very likely over an hour by bus given how wide-spread our city is.

I also question whether that would actually save any significant amount of money given how often books need to be shipped around anyway. If you return a book at a different branch (say you return it at the branch near work even though you checked it out from the branch near home) they have to ship it home anyway. If it's already been subject to a delivery hold, it will need to be shipped home. And if they're shipping them to one branch anyway, how much more expensive could it be to ship it to another branch?

In any case, charging for holds would have the basic effect of allowing richer patrons to access our entire library system, while poorer patrons are limited to the collection at their local branch, which completely defeats the purpose the fantastic library system our city has worked so hard to build.

Why Rob Ford and his allies should be responsive to slactivism

Doug Ford says:

“Ford Nation is too busy working, paying taxes, creating jobs. That’s what they are doing.”

But then Rob Ford said:

“I encourage people to come to the executive committee next Thursday,” he said during an interview on CP24. “Everyone has five minutes to talk to me personally at our executive committee. I invite the whole city. I don’t care if we have to sit there for three days. I don’t want to have people ... they have five minutes to tell me what business do you think we should be in. And it’s next Thursday at 9:30 at city hall. Come and let me know what you think – the average taxpayer out there – what are we doing right, what are we doing wrong. I want to hear from the people and I encourage them to come.“

So if their base consists of very busy people, why do they insist that people make the time-consuming effort of going all the way down to city hall and waiting around all day to speak in person? As a person who is in fact busy working, I find that prohibitive. Shouldn't they be more responsive to emails? Petitions? Facebook groups? I've noticed on more than one occasion they seem to write off existing feedback as insufficiently effortful and encourage people to use other methods of communication. If their base consists of busy people, they should be making it easier, not harder, to state one's case.

How long do we have to keep stating the obvious for?

Despite the bombshell nature of many of the cuts suggested this week by a city-hired consultant, there is no stampede of Torontonians signing up to tell the politicians face-to-face, or in writing, how they feel about them.

I'll admit it never occurred to me to tell politicians how I feel about them. You know why? Because it's so blatantly obvious that they're destructive and unworkable, and I figured it's just as blatantly obvious to anyone who lives in the world. The KPMG study proves that there simply aren't workable cuts to be had by listing what few remaining things could even legally be cut. It isn't advocating cutting these things, it's pointing out how destructive large-scale cuts would be by saying that these important things are the things that would remain to be cut if large-scale cuts were to happen.

It really frustrates me that not wasting my time stating the obvious to politicians could be interpreted as support for or indifference to such destructive measures. And I think, on top of all the damage already being done to our city, this need to constantly be loudly shouting the obvious at the top of our lungs is also destructive to our city, because it takes away energy that could otherwise be used to think of ways to make things even better.

It's like if you had to say to every person you encountered "Please don't hurt me," and if you didn't they'd hurt you. That would be really draining, wouldn't it? You have to be totally on top of making sure you noticed every single person around you and said "Please don't hurt me" to them, plus it would preclude saying "Hi, how are you?" or "I love your shoes!" or "Can I pet your doggie?" And on top of that, it would also take up the energy you need to think "This sidewalk would be more easily navigable if the planters were flush with the curb" or "Hey, that store might sell greeting cards" or "What if I used the egg slicer to slice the mushrooms?"

Real life operates under a tacit assumption of the obvious. Of course people don't want you to hurt them. Why can't politics do the same?

In which my planned blog post is obsoleted

I was going to blog about this, but POGGE beat me to it and did it far better than I could have. Please go read POGGE if you'd normally read my posts on municipal politics.

Building a better Senate

As I've blogged about before, there are things I like and dislike about the Senate. The things I like tend to be those that provide a counterpoint to the House of Commons, while what I don't like tends to be when the Senate blindly rubber-stamps the House of Commons, without using the safety net afforded by their unelected nature to provide true sober second thought. So I was disappointed that recent discussions of Senate reform have the Senate either becoming more like the House of Commons without a clear differentiation between the two, or simply want to outright abolish the Senate without introducing sober second thought elsewhere.

So I've started brainstorming some ways to make the Senate more of what I like about the current system with less of what I dislike about the current system and about others' ideas for reform. Here's what I've come up with so far:

What if senators had to be non-partisan?

Currently, senators are affiliated with a political party (generally the party that appoints them, although I think there might be a few individual exceptions.) This is a hindrance to sober second thought when they vote along party lines.

What if we took the complete opposite approach and outright prohibited partisanship in senators? They aren't allowed to be members of political parties, they aren't allowed to donate or work in support of parties or candidates, and people who have engaged in these activities within a certain period of time before appointment are not allowed to be senators. These kinds of standards exist for certain types of high-profile or influential public service positions, so it seems feasible to extend them to make a non-partisan senate.

What if senators could not serve under the prime minister who appoints them?

A problem with the current system is that senators might feel beholden to the PM who appoints them. To solve this, what if prime ministers appointed senators to replace those retiring under the next mandate? Under this model, Stephen Harper would look at which senators will be retiring in 2015-2019, and come up with a short list of possible replacements. The flaw in this plan is that prime ministers can serve multiple terms, so it might not be entirely effective.

What if senators were drawn out of a hat?

Currently, prime ministers appoint one senator to fill each senate vacancy. What if, instead, they selected a number of people for a senate candidacy pool, and then whenever a vacancy comes up, they draw a name at random from this pool of candidates? All candidates appointed by all prime ministers remain in the pool until they reach the age of 75, unless they do something really bad that merits elimination from the pool (this would be carefully defined in the law.)

What if senators were picked at random from the general population?

Instead of the prime minister appointing people, what if we had "senate duty" along the lines of "jury duty"? People are selected at random from the voter list and told to report to Ottawa for a year or five years or some other defined term for senate duty. Relocation expenses are covered, you get a senator's salary, and maybe they have a rule that your employer has to keep your job waiting for you like with the military. I can make an argument for making senate duty mandatory, and I can make an argument for letting people who aren't interested simply opt out. There would also have to be a way to screen out people who aren't mentally competent etc., although they probably already have something like that for jury duty.

What if Senate votes were secret?

It would certainly be more difficult for senators to be beholden to their political masters if no one knows how they voted (or perhaps even how many votes for or against each bill got). This might sound like a bad thing because it's less transparent, but it would also provide a counterpoint to the House of Commons where there are open votes and party discipline.

What if all political candidates had to work with exactly the same funding?

In the news lately has been the Conservative government's desire to get rid of the $1.75 per vote subsidy, leaving only fundraising to pay for election campaigns.

I've been thinking about what I like and dislike about election campaigns, and I think I'd like it better if fundraising wasn't even allowed. I'd rather have all candidates in each race allocated the exact same amount of money, with wouldn't be enough for a particularly lavish race, and strictly limited in the kind of donations they're allowed to accept.

Whatever the amount of money is, it should limit candidates to communicating with voters (in person, online, by phone), having an office, and handing out/mailing printed materials. No assholic TV commercials, no ridiculous promotional stunts, no rallies or parties apart from election night itself. (I'll allow lawn signs too, although I think they're silly and we'd be better off without them.) There would be budget for the minimum staff necessary, at the going rates for seasoned professionals. (This leaves the candidate with the option of larger paid staff who are less experienced.)

The amount each candidate receives should be commensurate with the realities of the riding. For example, candidates in downtown Toronto can probably get everywhere by transit and don't need a car, whereas a private plane would be a necessity for candidates in Nunavut. However, the Toronto candidates would probably have to pay more for office space.

No one would be allowed to donate money to election campaigns. Candidates would not be allowed to use their own money for campaign stuff. (They'd probably be allowed to buy themselves suits etc., but they can't pay for their own domain name - that has to come out of campaign funds.) People cannot make in-kind donations (i.e. no donating free printing for flyers). The only donation allowed is volunteering one's time. I haven't decided yet whether donating one's own professional services should be allowed or prohibited.

The goal here is to put all the campaigns on rather minimalist equal ground and leave the candidates with not much to do but dialogue with voters. This would leave us (and the media) with nothing to focus on but issues and candidate-voter relationships, which would make the whole thing a lot more pleasant for everyone.

Things They Should Invent: measure the non-NIMBY vote

In Local Motion, there are two stories of excessively NIMBY behaviour. In one case, a family put up a fence in their yard so the kids could play safely, and the neighbours objected because the norm in the neighbourhood was not to have fences. In another, a family wanted to tear down their old house and build a new accessible one to accommodate member of the household's disability, and the neighbours objected because of the historical nature of the house being torn down.

Both of these cases ended up having public meetings held about them, and it occurred to me that this is inherently unfair. Do you want to go to a public meeting about the Jones's fence? If you think their fence is an outrage, your answer is going to be "Hell yeah!" But if you don't care either way about their fence, your answer is going to be "Of course not, I don't care if the Joneses build a fence!" The vast vast majority of the neighbourhood might be completely indifferent, but the Joneses still find themselves in a public meeting facing dozens of angry opponents. No one is going to bother to go all the way to a public meeting and stand up in front of people just to say "Really, I do no care one bit," but most of the neighbourhood probably feels this way.

Non-NIMBYs often truly don't care, and may even think the issue is none of their business. This makes them harder to count, but we really do need to come up with a way to have the indifferent vote counted without requiring too much effort by the indifferent.