[Videodrome]

Erin O’Toole says he’s ‘going to look closely’ at Australia’s model for mandatory voting

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole recently told a virtual crowd he is looking closely at how Australia makes voting mandatory

www.theglobeandmail.com

Wow, is Erin that dumb? It wouldn't work here...

 

[DSC]

Erin O’Toole says he’s ‘going to look closely’ at Australia’s model for mandatory voting

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole recently told a virtual crowd he is looking closely at how Australia makes voting mandatory

www.theglobeandmail.com

Wow, is Erin that dumb? It wouldn't work here...

Yes, yet another way for the Tories to piss people off! If people who do not want to vote are forced to do so, one suspects they might vote against the party who forced them!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Erin O’Toole says he’s ‘going to look closely’ at Australia’s model for mandatory voting

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole recently told a virtual crowd he is looking closely at how Australia makes voting mandatory

www.theglobeandmail.com

Wow, is Erin that dumb? It wouldn't work here...

I guess he must be really eager to have Millennials show up at the ballot box.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Erin O’Toole says he’s ‘going to look closely’ at Australia’s model for mandatory voting

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole recently told a virtual crowd he is looking closely at how Australia makes voting mandatory

www.theglobeandmail.com

Wow, is Erin that dumb? It wouldn't work here...

I'm not a fan of Mr. Otoole; however, I'm not sure why that wouldn't work here, when it seemingly works in Australia (amongst other places).

****

That should not be construed as an endorsement of mandatory voting.

I'm very much a mixed mind on this.

I do think that a situation in which 1/3 or so of the electorate rarely bother to turn out is not healthy for a democracy.

On the other hand, I could do with fewer uninformed voters.

****

I've mused about this in the past.

Among other things, I've considered the virtue of a one-time-only mandatory vote to simply get people to go out to the polls who never have done so.

The theory being, that once they realize its comparatively easy and hassle-free they might be more inclined to participate in the future.

I've considered the application of this theory to other areas of life.

I feel too many people (who can afford it) don't travel at all; sometimes, because they never bother getting a passport; ergo, one free passport should be issued to every High School student at 16, and good for 10 years.

Many low-income people lack a regular bank account (and use cheque-cashers instead, to their detriment) because they were never introduced to a regular bank or guided through the process of opening an account. So perhaps, if you don't have one by 16, the state could open a fee-free account on your behalf.

****

Back to voting; I wonder if a split-the-difference option would be a mandatory 'mock' vote in high school for every student, with the process completely mimicing the actual voting processes in our jurisdiction.

 

[afransen]

The reason why minority governments are short-lived in Canada is that small changes in electoral support result in massive swings in electoral outcome under FPTP. It's inherently unstable. A 5% swing in popular support can make a minority government want to roll the dice on getting a majority, or the opposition thinking they can increase their leverage or displace the government.

 

[afransen]

I like mandatory voting insofar as it makes voting an obligation or duty. It might move people who otherwise check out of the process to do some research and participate in the process. Of course, mandatory voting does not require one to actually cast a vote, but rather to expend the same amount of effort as casting a vote would--you can still decline the ballot if you want as a protest.

 

[lenaitch]

Back to voting; I wonder a split-the-difference option would be a mandatory 'mock' vote in high school for every student, with the process completely mimicing the actual voting processes in our jurisdiction.

Or at least a return to a decent amount of course time for civics and Canadian history.

 

[kEiThZ]

A 40-45% reduction in carbon emissions seems impossible by 2030. I have no idea how they plan on getting there that fast.

They don't have any idea either. They are mostly banking on the carbon price doing all the heavy lifting. Meeting that kind of target will take substantial actual investment. Off the top of my head:

1) HSR in the Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton corridors to cut down on short-haul aviation.
2) Multi-billion dollar investment in a national charging network. Including investment to make urban multi-residential charging possible.
3) Electrification of all public fleets, from Canada post to transit buses, to school buses, to garbage trucks and utility vehicles.
4) Major building retrofit programs for all public sector buildings to cut down their emissions.
5) Strict new standards on new construction, to ensure that they are near net zero or net zero ready.
6) Significant deployment of carbon capture on oil production.
7) Full decarbonization of the grid including building cross continental high voltage corridors, like the Atlantic Loop.

All of this would take massive investment. Something closer to $8-10B/yr if I had to ballpark it. But when I look at the budget, the Liberals are still far more interested in spending on social programs than prioritizing investment to cut emissions.

Fully eliminating all emissions from Oil/Gas and Transport industries would barely get us there. And that seems inconceivable. The other industries, I can't speculate on.

One thing to keep in mind on transport emissions is that they are substantially concentrated on fleets and on specific corridors. Electrifying fleets and building rail on the QW and CalEd corridors would easily cut transport emissions in half or more. Transport is actually one of the easier sectors. Which is why it's disheartening to see the Liberals so far behind on investment.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would love to have 30 million of those in Canada.

I hope not. Between Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Moderna, we'll have 30-40 million doses coming in the next 3 months. We just don't need extra AstraZeneca doses. And the hesitancy is going to be higher. I'd rather we not take doses that will be sitting in warehouses collecting dust here. Another 3 million AZ is enough to give Canadians who got their first dose, their second shot by the end of July. That's all we need. Trudeau should quietly tell the Americans to send the rest elsewhere.

 

[APTA-2048]

3) Electrification of all public fleets, from Canada post to transit buses, to school buses, to garbage trucks and utility vehicles.

For what it’s worth, they announced funding to transition transit and school bus fleets to electric. They expect the purchase of 5,000 buses over the next five years.

 

[afransen]

I'm not sure the battery EV market can really grow all that much faster than it will anyway. Tesla is well on track to double capacity this year and again next. I don't think incentives would help them grow any faster. It takes time to ramp up cell production.

 

[kEiThZ]

For what it’s worth, they announced funding to transition transit and school bus fleets to electric. They expect the purchase of 5,000 buses over the next five years.

Yeah. But it's going to take a lot more than that if they want to hit 40%. Effectively, we need to stop buying diesel buses immediately.

 

[Videodrome]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1387431611340308483

Ouch!

 

[APTA-2048]

Yeah. But it's going to take a lot more than that if they want to hit 40%. Effectively, we need to stop buying diesel buses immediately.

Definitely. Even with the funding, there's no practical way to stop buying diesel buses immediately. While the preliminary findings in the TTC report show some good news, there still seems to be many issues to overcome before battery-electric buses can effectively replace diesel buses.

When you think of the TTC's experience with hybrid buses, it took over a decade them to get to the point where the they were happy with them. Even longer when you consider launch of the Lockheed Martin Orion hybrid bus goes back to 1998.

 

[kEiThZ]

Definitely. Even with the funding, there's no practical way to stop buying diesel buses immediately. While the preliminary findings in the TTC report show some good news, there still seems to be many issues to overcome before battery-electric buses can effectively replace diesel buses.

When you think of the TTC's experience with hybrid buses, it took over a decade them to get to the point where the they were happy with them. Even longer when you consider launch of the Lockheed Martin Orion hybrid bus goes back to 1998.

Effectively, where a zero emissions fleet policy on a short timeline would mean something like this:

1) Field trial at every major transit agency in the country. 2020-2022.

2) Operational Concept and infrastructure requirements definition. 2021-2022.

3) Infrastructure ramp. 2023-2028.

4) First phase of bus procurement. 2021-2025.

5) Accelerated all electric bus procurement of 15 000 buses. 2025-2030.

Elements of this are already being worked on. But if the feds want to hit 40%, they are going to have to step up with a large amount of funding that lets transit agencies move to all electric bus procurement by 2025 at the latest. And then additional funding that helps transit agencies retire diesel buses ahead of schedule.

But the feds aren't doing enough. Instead, they are hoping that the carbon tax will be enough of a motivator to compel transformation. And they are sort of hoping that the 5000 buses they are helping to procure will help accelerate the move to all electric procurements.

I don't think a lot of transit agencies have truly planned for $170/tonne carbon tax in 2030. But that's 41¢/L over today's prices for diesel. Without substantial electrification, their operating budgets are going to take huge hits. Even without federal planning they should all be planning procurement that lets them end diesel bus procurement in 2-3 years and phases out their diesel fleet entirely by 2035 with more than half by 2030.