Turnout (was re: Private to everyone)

Guys, guys, guys: the comparison is not as between federal and provincial voter turnout in Newfoundland and Labrador. The comparison is between provincial voter turnout among the various provinces.

And the picture is not a very pretty one. Out of the ten provinces, in the most recent provincial general election, Newfoundland and Labrador had a voter turnout of 57.9 percent, or sixth out of the ten:

Prov	Election	Turnout	Rank
BC	2013	57.1	7
AB	2012	57.0	8
SK	2011	66.0	3
MB	2011	55.8	9
ON	2014	52.1	10
QC	2014	71.4	2
NB	2014	65.4	4
NS	2013	59.0	5
PE	2011	76.5	1
NL	2011	57.9	6

And, as noted by one of the very papers that the much-maligned (for no good reason) Samara study cites, between 1965 and 2009, Newfoundland and Labrador's provincial voter turnout averaged 71.1%... again, sixth out of the ten provinces:

Maybe there's some evidence of high voter engagement that Samara missed, and which would put paid to their conclusions.

The provincial voter-turnout record is not that evidence.

Hedging their bets

It is an interesting exercise to cross-reference Liberal leader Dwight Ball's leadership finance disclosure against the statutory financial disclosures of provincial political parties and candidates.

Ball receieved donations from a total of 106 different corporate donors, including the separately-accounted golf tournament. They include both large and small business donors, as separate from donations made by individuals (or by the Town of Deer Lake.)

Of the 106, 70 show up on past party or candidate donor lists as published by Elections Newfoundland and Labrador between 1996 and 2011, both years inclusive. For no obviously good reason, with just days to go before 2014, the 2012 political finance disclosures have still not been, um, disclosed.

Those 70 companies have between them made 974 political contributions to parties or candidates over the years, with the lion's share of the total going to either the PC Party or individual PC election and by-election candidates:

Of the 70 companies, thirteen have only ever given to Liberal party or candidates before, and thirteen have only ever given to the PC party or candidates.

Now, it is well-established that corporate Support for Democracy™ in Newfoundland and Labrador, and elsewhere, where it is still legal, tends to follow the party that is in power. Limiting ourselves, then, to the period from 2004 to 2011 inclusive, when the provincial PCs have been in power and up for re-election, the picture shifts somewhat.

Between 2004, the first full year of the PC era, and 2011, the most recent year for which stats have been published by the woefully inadequate elections office, 60 of Dwight Ball's corporate donors made contributions to provincial parties or candidates. The 60 companies between them made 508 political contributions, with an even larger majority of the cash going to the incumbent Tories:

Of those 60 companies, nine had dyed-in-the-wool Liberal links, having only ever given to the Liberal party or candidates since 2004. But nineteen of the 60 — nearly a third of the total — have only made reportable contributions to the PC party or its candidates while Danny Williams or Kathy Dunderdale have been Premier.

There is no surer sign of political bets being hedged, than when Support for Democracy™ starts to treat the opposition party with something resembling an even financial hand. And these figures are based only on what the Captains of Industry gave to the Ball campaign. The other candidates have not made similar voluntary disclosures.

Democracy #fail

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement studies the electoral finance laws of all ten provinces, and comes up with some brutal conclusions [emphasis added]:

Based on the FDA scoring scale (see Conclusion section), Newfoundland and Labrador received an unsatisfactory score of 51.3 percent. This score means that Newfoundland and Labrador has numerous deficiencies in its electoral finance legislation and borders on a failed democratic state. The FDA believes that this legislation is not working in the interests of the majority in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Although there is electoral finance transparency and campaign expenditure limits, Newfoundland and Labrador does not limit contribution amounts, offer public subsidies, or regulate third parties. It allows contributions from corporations and trade unions and imposes minimal penalties for electoral misconduct. The FDA believes that the shortcomings in these areas could undermine a fair and democratic election process in Newfoundland and Labrador. Candidate and party funds might not reflect popular support due to a lack of caps on contributions and allowance for corporate contributions. The absence of third party regulations might allow for wealthy segments of society to have a disproportionate influence on election outcomes.

(Radio-Canada account; full report available here)

Odd map out

Britain, Canada, Australia, and the United States share much in their political systems, including bicameralism, federalism in the case of the latter three, single-member electoral districts for national-level elections, and, with the wonderful wrinkle of Australia's preferential balloting system, first-past-the-post voting for elections to the lower house of the national-level legislature.

Still, one of these things is decidedly not like the others. Here are the national-level electoral maps of the largest cities in each of the four countries, starting with the central urban portion of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia:

Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

London, England, United Kingdom:

And New York, New York, U.S.A.:

The truly scary thing: New York's not even the worst. Try Miami. Or Chicago.

A tale of two cities

The following two charts show the pattern of corporate and business contributions to provincial political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, made by donors in each province's respective capital city region. Colour-coding is per the traditional colour scheme for the three main parties. (There is also a small amount showing for the Nova Scotia Greens in 2009.)

Election-year columns are indicated with an asterix. Note that both charts are at the same vertical scale.

Between 2005 and 2009, over two election campaign cycles, business and corporate donors in metro Halifax contributed just over $1.5-million to NS provincial political parties and candidates.

Of that amount, 57% went to the PCs, 32% to the Liberals, and 11% to the NDP. The ratio of PC:Lib contributions was, at its HIGHEST, $2.74:$1.00. In 2009, the business sector actually slightly favoured the Liberals over the PCs, $1.00:$0.91


Between 2005 and 2009, over one election campaign cycle, business and corporate donors in metro St. John's contributed just over $1.9-million to NL provincial political parties and candidates.

Of that amount, 89% went to the PCs, 11% to the Liberals, and 0.2% to the NDP. The ratio of PC:Lib contributions was, at its LOWEST, $5.58:$1.00. In 2008, it was $17.17:$1.00.

Halifax has a metropolitan population of just over 400,000, and numerous regional corporate head offices.

St. John's has a metropolitan population of just under 200,000, and fewer head offices.

Corporate donations to parties and candidates were prohibited in Nova Scotia starting in 2010.

[Data source, Elections Nova Scotia and Elections Newfoundland and Labrador financial reports, 2005-2009 inclusive. "Metro St. John's" includes donations listed as being made from St. John's and all municipalities from Bay Bulls to Conception Bay South, and north of that line. "Metro Halifax" includes all contributions listed as being from Halifax, Darmouth, Bedford, Cole Harbour, any of the Sackvilles, and other addresses sharing a three-digit postal FSA prefix with the urban and suburban portions of Halifax County.]

Trending topic

In response to a sudden blurst of interest in the subject on the twitters earlier today, here is a canonical listing of political contributions made by local governments since the dawn of time in 1996.

All contributions have been made to parties outside of writ periods, with the exception of the first two in the table, which were election-period contributions to an independent candidate in The Straits and White Bay North.

[Edited to add....] Also in 2004, the Progressive Conservative party receive a contribution of $150 from th Western Health Care Corp. This would seem to be the only such contribution on record from any of the regional health care authorities to any party or candidate.

Year   Donor                              Candidate/Party   Amount 

1996   COMMUNITY OF GREEN ISLAND BROOK    COATES, Dennis    $353.41
1996   SANDY COVE COMMUNITY               COATES, Dennis    $111.00
1998   Town of Musgravetown               Lib               $150.00
2001   Town of Cottlesville               Lib               $150.00
2001   Town of Cottlesville               Lib               $ 50.00
2004   Town of Stephenville               PC                $750.00
2005   City of Corner Brook               PC                $750.00
2005   Town of Stephenville               PC                $750.00
2006   City of Corner Brook               PC                $750.00
2007   City of Corner Brook               PC                $750.00
2008   City of Corner Brook               PC                $750.00
2009   Town of Carbonear                  PC                $400.00
2009   Town of Harbour Grace              PC                $160.00
2009   Town of Marystown                  PC                $375.00
2010   Town of Badger Incorporated        PC                $400.00
2010   Town of Carbonear Incorporated     PC                $150.00
2010   Town of Carbonear Incorporated     PC                $100.00

Voting with their wallets (II)

An interesting bit of commentary from Craig Westcott, via Polemic and Paradox:

Examine the record if you’re in doubt that the provincial Tories have shifted several leagues to the left. Since taking office under Danny Williams in 2003, the current administration has grown the cost of government by 82 per cent in eight years. Most of the growth occurred in the last six years. In February 2010, Statistics Canada reported that the provincial government had 54,761 people on the payroll. That includes nurses, teachers, wardens and police officers, along with the direct line civil servants at Confederation Building. The number has increased substantially since then.

In a province with a fit and willing workforce of just over 150,000, a civil service of that size is clearly not sustainable. But add to that figure the demographic implosion already under way and the looming drop in oil production and the approaching crash promises to be potentially cataclysmic. In just nine years, 26 per cent of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador will be 65 years of age or older. That’s more than one quarter of our citizens who will be retired and needing increased levels of health care and social supports.

This graying of our citizenry is taking place after oil production has peaked and is already winding down. Essentially, the province has about 20 years of reserves left and they are declining. There will be a bump in production when Hebron comes on stream in six years time, but it will be short-lived. The trend of diminishing oil revenues for government coffers is clear for anyone who cares to look.

Unfortunately, very few among us, including leaders in the business community and the House of Assembly, have cared, or should that be dared, to look.

Economist Wade Locke has predicted a decade of provincial government deficits ranging between half a billion and a billion-and-a-half dollars annually starting next fiscal year.

What has our so-called ‘conservative’ government done to prepare for and mitigate the repercussions of this looming fiscal blow? Led first by Danny Williams and now Kathy Dunderdale, they have been shovelling oil dollars into the ever growing maw of government, all for the purpose of staying popular and getting re-elected. Until the ascendance last year of Jo Mark Zurel to the presidency of the St. John’s Board of Trade, the leaders of our local business community lustily cheered them on.

Indeed.

On that last point, this chart shows the remarkable Support for Democracy exhibited by capital-area business donors to the three political parties since the dawn of recorded history (in 1996). Remember, these figures are ONLY for corporate and small-business donors from the northeast Avalon (Bay Bulls to Conception Bay South, and points north of that line). They do not include personal or union donors from the metro St. John's area, or donors of any kind from anywhere outside the northeast Avalon.

Paler colours indicate fundraising in election years, which is not directly comparable to non-election years. And yes, all three parties are represented on the chart. Barely.

In 2010, the governing Progressive Conservatives raised $690,000 in reportable contributions, versus the Liberals $31,000 and the NDP's $59,000. That is the highest amount the Tories have ever raised in an off-election year.

Of the PC total that year, fully $383,000 — over 55% — came from business donors in the greater St. John's area.

Between 2004 and 2010 inclusive, the first full year that the Williams supposed "Conservatives" were in power, the northeast Avalon business community has favoured the "Conservatives" almost nine to one over the other major parties combined. Of every St. John's area business dollar pumped into political financing in those seven years, 89.7 cents have gone to the Tories, 10.1 to the Liberals, and just 2/10 of a cent to the NDP.

In the entire fifteen-year history of Elections NL financial disclosures published on the intertubes, St. John's area business donors have given a grand total of just under $16,000 to the NDP or NDP candidates — one quarter of one percent of all their contributions to all parties and party candidates during that period.

The business community in St. John's clearly has something against the NDP. And their eagerness to be on the Government Side was never as enthusiastic, even in the Tobin years, as it has been since 2003.

And yet, thanks in no small part to their own unwavering support for the democratic process, that same business community have been instrumental in helping to elect, re-elect, and preserve in office a government and party so left-wing it would make every NDP government in the history of Canada blush blue in comparison.

Good going, guys.

[Data source: Elections NL financial disclosures. Figures for a handful of minor parties and independent candidates excluded. Data does not incorporate the still-unpublished financial returns for the two by-elections held in 2010.]

Democracy Watch watch (III)

It was so delightful to see the ever-vigilant Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch weigh in on the issue of voter turnout and the extended Christmas break that the newly re-elected PC government have given themselves. As VOCM reported Thursday:

Democracy Watch Weighs in on Election
Thursday , October 13 2011

Democracy Watch says there are a number of ways to improve voter turnout and make the electorate more engaged in the process. Spokesman Duff Conacher was responding to low voter turnout in this week's provincial election. Just under 58 percent of the province's eligible voters cast their ballots this time around, the lowest turnout in recent memory. Conacher says there have poor voter turnouts in other provinces and in recent federal elections as well. He says the electorate are fed up with politicians and want to see measures put in place to ensure honesty and real change. He says sometimes all it takes is a clear outline of party policy.

Meanwhile, Premier Kathy Dunderdale has already announced that the Legislature will not open for the fall session. Conacher calls that decision an "undemocratic move".

For the record, here are some of the other democracy-related issues that the very busy Democracy Watchers failed to notice during the past eight years:

2003 (and onwards): The ever lazier and lazier provincial legislature.

2005 (and onwards): The vitriolic and demagogic attacks on private citizens and public figures alike.

2006: The major ethical problem posed by a prominent and independently-wealthy politician's impulse towards ostentatious charity.

2006: The appointment of an all-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission, instead of a non-partisan one.

2006: The attack on a sitting judge who dared to not side with the government in a legal matter.

2007: The brazen reversion to 1950s-style Duplessis-Smallwood government by carrot and stick.

2007: The appointment of a former President of the governing party as Chief Electoral Officer.

2007: The amendment of the Elections Act to allow voters to vote in elections that haven't actually been called yet.

2007 (and onwards): The mysterious non-appearance of the promised whistleblower protection legislation.

2008: The Great Patriotic War of Freedom From Information, fought on many different fronts.

2008: The partisan cook-up involving the Speaker of the House of Assembly, to throttle caucus funding for the official opposition.

2008: The attack on a judge in an official inquiry who had the temerity to, you know, inquire.

2008: The government announcing that it will just plain ignore a court decision which didn't go the way it wanted.

2009: The failure of the Chief Electoral Officer to show the least bit of curiosity about the conduct of the 2001 St. Barbe by-election, after new facts came to light.

2010: Ethnic demagogery.

2010: Yet another attack on a quasi-judicial body, this one conveniently out of province.

2010: The clumsy attempts to justify the Duplessis-Smallwood carrot-and-stick approach to government.

2011 (and earlier): The participation of the provincial police force's union in fundraising for the governing party.

2011 (and earlier): The pattern of political finance contributions by municipal governments and other public entities.

The Amazing Atrophying Democracy (III)

Another depressing milestone has passed in the long, slow decline of whatever passed for democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With Saturday's release of the final list of candidates for the upcoming provincial election, the 2011 election has the fewest number of people running as independent or minor-party candidates since 1982. There are just three independents, and no minor parties running at all.

This chart shows the historical trend, with the number of indepedent or minor-party candidates shown in grey, with the exception of several minor parties which are highlighted by colour:

The minor party episodes include the 1956 attempt by the CFF (forerunner to the NDP) to break into provincial politics; the 1959 Newfoundland Democratic Party; the 1970s and 2000s (New) Labrador Party*; the 1975 Smallwood "Liberal Reform" schismatic party; and 1999's Newfoundland and Labrador Party.

This next chart shows the cross-jurisdictional comparison in the current (or latest) provincial and territorial* elections, and the 2011 federal election. To adjust for the differing sizes of the various elected chambers, the figures are shown as the number of candidates per available legislative seat. So, for example, in the current Newfoundland and Labrador election there is an average of less than 1/10th of a minor candidate running per district.

"Minor parties" for the purpose of this comparison excludes the Liberals and (Progressive) Conservatives, and the NDP in every province except PEI, where the NDP could not put up a full slate of candidates.

It also excludes the Quebec-specific Parti Québécois and ADQ, as well as the Saskatchewan Party and Yukon Party, which are the rebranded successors to those jurisdictions' former Progressive Conservatives. Also shown, for comparative purposes, is Québec Solidaire, the closest Quebec equivalent to an NDP, as well as the Green Party in all provinces and federally.


Current elections are marked with an asterisk. As the nomination deadline has not yet passed for Saskatchewan's current election, 2007 data is shown.

What does it say when the democratic margins are healthier in Yukon, a territory with roughly the population of Mount Pearl or Conception Bay South, than in a province? There are more independent candidates currently vying for one of the 17 seats in the Yukon legislature — including, improbably, Elvis Aaron Presley in Pelly-Nisutlin — than there are in the 48 districts in Newfoundland and Labrador.


* The New Labrador Party came before the Labrador Party; the "New" governs "Labrador", not "Party".

** The electoral systems in Nunavut and the NWT are not organized on party lines; all candidates are unaffiliated for territorial electoral purposes.

Nice work if you can get it (III)

This chart compares the number of annual sitting days of the amateur legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, notionally a province, with the number of sitting days of the sittingest territorial legislature in any given year, and with the number of meetings of St. John's city council, a municipal government:

In all but one year since 2001 inclusive, the sittingest territorial legislature has out-sat the House of Assembly. (That legislature is generally that of Yukon, although each of the other two territorial legislatures has been the sittingest at least once during that time.) In provincial election years 2003 and 2007, all three territorial legislatures out-sat the House of Assembly; as recently as 2009, two of three territorial legislatures did.

In five of the past eleven years, including 2011 to date, St. John's City Council has met as often, or more, than the House of Assembly which created it.

Nice work if you can get it (II)

This cleverly colour-coded chart shows the number of sitting days of the House of Assembly, by calendar year, going back to 1987. Columns are coloured according to the governing party which controlled the legislative agenda for most of the year. Pale colours indicate election years, during which there is naturally less time for House business to begin with. (The 2011 figures are for year to date.)

Disregarding election years, during the Clyde Wells era the House sat an average of 88 days a year. Under Tobin, that plummetted to 53, declining further to 51 under Grimes, and 49 under Williams.

Something to bear in mind, when incumbent MHAs, or fresh-faced candidates, come to your door, auditioning for what has become, in essence, Newfoundland and Labrador's most lucrative part-time seasonal job.

Nice work if you can get it

This is the agenda for this afternoon's meeting of St. John's City Council.

The City of St. John's has a population of about 100,000, a budget in 2011 of just under $225-million, and a municipal work force of 1200 to 1400, depending on the time of year.

This will be City Council's thirty-third meeting of 2011.

That is the same number, co-incidentally, of sittings that the House of Assembly has had this year.

The House of Assembly is the legislature for a province of just over 500,000 people, whose government has budgeted nearly $8-billion in expenditures this fiscal year; a government with over 11,600 people directly on the payroll, with another 21,000 working in the health-care system, nearly 11,000 in the public post-secondary educational institutions, more than 9500 in the public education system, and over 2000 who work for provincial crown corporations.

Thirty-three.

In three of the past six years, St. John's City Council has had as many meetings, or more, than the House of Assembly has had sittings.

So far in 2011, there has been at least one territory — the NWT — whose legislature has out-sot the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly. It has been a decade since this provincial legislature out-sat all three territories; every year since 2001, at least one territorial legislature sat more.

It has been 16 years since the elected House of Assembly held more sittings than the appointed Senate.

Only once in the past decade has the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly ranked higher than eighth, out of all thirteen provinces and territories, in terms of number of sitting days of its legislature.

With a ridiculously abbreviated provincial election campaign about to start, here's a good question you may want to ask any incumbent who shows up at the door looking for your vote:

Good sir/madam, if you don't seem to like the job very much, if you don't want to provide oversight of government, if you don't want to spend time working on sound legislation, hearing from witnesses in committee, and all the other things that healthy legislatures in healthy democracies like PEI and Nunavut do, why on earth should I hire you again this time as my MHA?

Obviously some mistake

The Dunderdale2011 Party reports tonight:

Six people were seeking the nomination. A total of 1,616 people cast ballots in the nomination process.

Surely they meant "A total of 1,616 Dunderdale2011 members cast ballots in the nomination process", didn't they?

After all... isn't that what the Dunderdale2011 constitution demands?

So we're clear here

A former Executive Director of the PC Party, twooting as Whiff83 on the Twitter, twought one maxmulligan2010 all he needs to know about what political parties are, and what democratic institutions are, and how the two — at least as far as the PC Party is concerned — have nothing much to do with one another, really:


For the record, the Constitution of the non-democratic institution called the PC Party provides, hidden waaaaaaaaay down near the bottom, in Article 3:

The purpose, aims and objectives of the Party shall be:

a. to form the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to provide good government to the people of the Province;

b. to foster interest in Government and in the political process in Canada and in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador;

...

e. to elect a Leader of the Party;

f. to provide for a nominating process for the selection of candidates for election as Progressive Conservative members of the House of Assembly;

...

i. to provide for democratic procedures and practices to effect the purpose, aims and objectives of the Party.

Of course, after what the PC Supreme Court of Star Chamber has done with the interpretation and application of the words "member" and "membership", it's easy to reconcile the Constitution of The Party with the former Executive Director's unusual take on what The Party isn't.

Precedent-setting

The PC Leadership Convention 2011 Rules Committee has issued its ruling on the messy business raised by Mr. Brad Cabana:

The problem with Mr. Cabana's appeal argument is that it is based on a false premise. In general terms he stated that the Constitution of the PC Party does not have a formal definition of a member and that without a clear definition of what constitutes a member, the Party should follow the spirit of the Constitution, remain consistent with its stated purpose, aims and objects and uphold the principles of democracy by equating the eligibility for membership referred to in Article 5(1) with actual membership. Contrary to Mr. Cabana's submission, this Committee finds that the Constitution incorporates a clear definition of what constitutes membership in the Party.

Article 5(1) establishes eligibility for membership by requiring that a potential member be resident or domiciled in the Province and that they “support the principles and aims of the Party”. By satisfying these two stated conditions, one becomes eligible for membership in the Party. However, that does not mean that eligibility can somehow be equated to actual membership. To the contrary, Articles 5(2) and 5(3) go on to state how actual Party membership is established or consummated.

[…]

...[O]nce you are eligible to be a member pursuant to the conditions stated in Article 5(1), if you are a member of any of the aforementioned affiliated associations and groups, then you shall be a member of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[…]

Therefore, contrary to Mr. Cabana's appeal argument, there is a clear definition of how one becomes a member of the PC Party. If you are an individual member of one of the enumerated affiliated associations or groups in Article 6, then providing you are a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador and you support the principles and aims of the Party, you are a member of the Party. Alternatively, if you are a member of the Provincial Executive Council as defined in Article 7, then providing you support the principles and aims of the Party, you are a member of the Party. These definitions of membership are clear.

[Boldface in the original, underlining added.]

“Member” is not defined in the definitions section of the Constitution, or in the Appendix thereto which governs the nomination and election of a new leader when that office becomes vacant from time to time. This means that one has to read the Constitution as a whole, as the PC Leadership Convention 2011 Rules Committee has done, to find out what the word “member” means.

So here's the funny thing: having gone through this exercise, we now know what the m-word means according to the interpretation of the PC Party itself. But the m-word is found in numerous other parts of the Constitution, including Article 12, which governs the selection of the Party's election and by-election candidates. Article 12, Section 3 provides:

6. Eligible voters entitled to vote for a person to be elected as the Party Candidate are those persons who are members of the District Association, ordinarily resident in the Electoral District at the date of the Nominating Meeting and who are not less than eighteen (18) years of age either at the date of the nominating meeting or at the date of the election, if the date of the election has been set.

In order to vote in a PC Party nomination meeting, you must be a member of the Party, as defined by the Constitution, and as helpfully clarified by the Rules Committee. You gotta jump through the hoops, not just walk in off the street.

But as John Babb and others have constantly bragged, throughout the Danny-Dunderdale era, the Party is an “open” party, in which anyone — not just members — can vote in a nomination.

Which means, if the Rules Committee's ruling on Cabana is correct, then every contested PC nomination during the Danny-Dunderdale era has been conducted improperly, contrary to the PC Party's own constitution.

Every. Single. One.

Joan Burke, Dave Denine, Kathy Dunderdale, Clyde Jackman, Charlene Johnson, Tom Marshall, Bob Ridgeley and Shawn Skinner all won contested “open” nominations during the 2003 general election run-up. (Darin King did as well, but went on to lose the election; his 2007 nomination was uncontested.)

Ed Buckingham, Steve Kent, Terry Loder, Calvin Peach, Tracey Perry, Susan Sullivan, Wade Verge, and Wally Young all won contested “open” nominations in the 2007 campaign.

Jim Baker, David Brazil, Felix Collins, Sandy Collins, Tony Cornect, Derrick Dalley, Paul Davis, John Dinn, Clayton Forsey, Terry French, Keith Hutchings, Darryl Kelly, Kevin Parsons and Kevin Pollard all won contested “open” nominations to be PC by-election candidates from 2002 to 2010.

Only Tom Hedderson, Roger Fitzgerald, Ray Hunter, and the Osborg (by virtue of being the sole survivors from the B.D. (Before Dan) era); and Harry Harding, John Hickey, Jerome Kennedy, Kevin O'Brien, Patty Pottle and Ross Wiseman (by virtue of being acclaimed) would appear to have never won a contested “open” PC Party nomination.

Every one of their colleagues — every single one — became a PC party candidate in a voting procedure that the PC Party Rules Committee, in the matter of Re Cabana, has by necessary implication now ruled internally unconstitutional.

Oh yes — as also did Mr. Vaughn Granter last week in Humber West.

If Brad Cabana is wrong, and the Rules Committee is right, then thirty-one Tory MHAs, a majority of Members of the House of Assembly currently sitting — and more than half the cabinet, including the Premier herself — got there by way of a process that their own party now regards as unconstitutional.

The party is open

Good ol' John Babb opened up The Party's nomination in Humber West today at noon, and will close it on Monday at noon, thereby generously giving one business afternoon and one business morning for contenders to get their paperwork in.

Four of the past five PC nominations, this one included, have opened on Friday to close on Monday.

None of the by-election nominations since the last general election has been longer than two business days or three calendar ones.

Good ol' John Babb also helpfully tells you that, in the very likely event of a contested nomination, "Voters are reminded to have two pieces of I.D., one of which must include a street address and picture."

"Voters". Not "PC Party members". After all, there is no such a thing, except when there is.

Just so we're clear

Not Principal Skinner outlines what passes for membership rules in his party:

"We tried to be as flexible as we could and as open as we could, and the names that Mr. Cabana brought forward to us are not being people that have been engaged in our party or engaged in any of the activities of our party," Skinner told reporters.

One can only hope that one of those reporters asked why those very same people — those who have not been engaged in the party nor engaged in any of the activities of the party — are entitled to nominate PC candidates, but not PC leaders.

And perhaps Not Principal Skinner can outline where in his own party's shoddy constitution the requirement is to be found that links party "membership" to engagement.

Order of operations

A comment on the CBC report on the PC Star Chamber's decision today:

S.Penney wrote:
Posted 2011/01/11at 3:49 PM ET

Good. Let him run as an MHA first. I sense some political opportunism here. Perhaps he thought Dunderdale would cave, and he could ride Danny's coattails. Now he'll have to work for it. If he bails completely, we'll know it was opportunism. But, if he runs as MHA, he may be legit.

(Mkay. So running on Danny's coat-tails is a bad thing now?)

However, for the record, and for S. Penney's benefit:

The former leader of the PC Party, one Danny Williams, launched his campaign for the leadership of that party on December 5, 2000.

He was acclaimed as its leader on April 7, 2001.

Then he was elected to the House of Assembly, for the first time ever, in the Humber West by-election on June 19, 2001.

In other words, at the time he ran for leader of the PC Party, he was in pretty much the same position, insofar as the Penney Principle goes, as one Brad Cabana.

Whose boy is you?

The reaction to the decision of Brad Cabana to enter the PC leadership race has been lamentably predictable.

“He’s not even one of the Newfoundland Cabanas.”

To wit, some comments from CBC’s coverage:

Spudss wrote:
Posted 2011/01/10 at 1:01 PM ET
What in God's name is a Brad Cabana from Ramia ? We have had our share of nut-bars from the mainland mudelling in our politics...now, because of this clown, the province has to stagger around without leadership until this convention is over...what a bloody nusence this guy is!!!!

BigHeddy wrote:
Posted 2011/01/10 at 4:55 PM ET
This gent isnt even a Newfoundlander,its clear that the PC members want miss Dunderdale to leed them into 2011,Take them to court will you Mr.Cabana.How much respect or support do you think you will gain by doing such a foolish thing.Its like a schoolyard bully,Let me play with you ,or i'll beat you up.

From comments on VOCM’s coverage:

Wasting his time Said:
Awww, how sweet. Not only does he love Danny, he wants to be him. What part of NL did the Cabana's settle in anyway? Never heard of that name, could he be a mainlander?

Darrell Said:
Another CFA looking to take a hi paying position away from a true Newfoundlander we already had one at Eastern Health

PB Said:
He is not even a NATIVE Newfoundlander... Good luck with your political aspirations,,,in ALBERTA....

From comments on VOCM’s Question of the Day on Tuesday:

Central Said:
if it was a newfoundlander yes but not someone from another province, its no difference he won,t get a look in

Townie Said:
This guy is a joke and he isn't from NL. The big joke of 2011

Gord Said:
The guy from Saskatchewan don't stand a chance

Paul Said:
Why this Brad Cabana from Saskatchewan, and who the heck is he?

Lou Lou Said:
I am all for a competition, however, as soon as I heard Mr. Cabana speak I was sure he wouldn't get my vote.
-He appears to be oblivious to process
-He is a Mainlander

NFONE Said:
He's a no body go back to the mainland

And from comments on the Telegram’s web coverage:

HARVEY - January 10th, 2011 at 11:20:39
Mr. Cabana...a mainlander becoming the first Newfie joke of the year!!!

mary - January 11th, 2011 at 08:31:55
This guy was the mayor of a community of 96 people, this is not exactly experience He is a self proclaimed political scientist - in other words, he says he is one. He has lived in NL for less than 2 years and he claims to have roots here some 200 years back. Methinks that this is a CFA who thinks NLers are suckers and/or needs a CFA to help them.

And:

is this a joke - January 11th, 2011 at 10:50:21
This must be a joke, go back to Saskatchewan.

Looking across Canada — you are allowed to do that — Premier Greg Selinger of Manitoba is originally from, um, Saskatchewan. Yukon Premier Denis Fentie is from Alberta. David Alward, champion of New Brunswick and Newfoundland Tories alike, at least for now, was born in Massachusetts.

Historically, ten of the pre-Confederation Prime Ministers of Newfoundland weren’t “native”. The first, Philip Francis Little, was born in PEI. Kent, Monroe, and Alderdice were from Ireland; Charles Fox Bennett, the great anti-Confederate nationalist hero, was English, as were Whiteway, Goodridge, and Lloyd. Thorburn was Scottish, as was the father of representative government, William Carson.

Historically, Irish Newfoundlanders named John Cannon and William Power were both active in 19th-century politics in Lower Canada, now Quebec, and were among the founding generations of prominent political families there. (John Cannon, yes, is one of those Cannons.)

At the federal level, Carbonear native William Duff was elected MP in Nova Scotia; Harbour Grace’s Sir Thomas Roddick in Quebec; St. Georges’ John Albert Messervy in PEI; and Saul Bonnell in B.C.

More recently, Gull Island (Newfoundland) native Louise Feltham was a one-term PC MP from Alberta, Placentia native Harry Verran was a one-term Liberal MP from Nova Scotia, and current Conservative MP Rob Moore from New Brunswick was born in Gander.

Not only does New Brunswick has a Premier who was born south of the border and an MP from Newfoundland, its governing caucus has a multiple-term MLA and cabinet minister, Margaret-Ann Blaney, who comes from… Corner Brook. The one in Newfoundland.

Another recovering Corner Brookster, Derek Wells, served as a Nova Scotia MP and is still active in provincial and federal Liberal politics in that province.

A bookish man from Grand Bank became Senator Eugene Forsey of Ontario.

A Townie named Jim Armour is vice-chair of the North Grenville Public Library Board in eastern Ontario, for crying out loud, among his better-known partisan political backroom activity.

And out on the left coast, an expat Newfoundlander of some prominence, who now lives in the beautiful mid-Island, is now actively helping to organize a revival of the long-defunct Conservative Party of British Columbia.

There may (or may not) be some technical reason, internal to the PC Party of Newfoundland and its shoddy constitution, why Brad Cabana shouldn’t be allowed to run for his party’s leadership.

There may or may not be some reason why Brad Cabana should not meet with the approval of either eligible PC Party voters or the general electorate.

His birth certificate is not one of those reasons.

Statutory interpretation 101

The "Fixed Election (Date)" provision of the House of Assembly Act, as amended, with much ballyhally, by Danny Williams-Government during His first term, provides as follows:

Duration of House of Assembly

3. (1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty’s name, prorogue or dissolve the House of Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit.

(2) A polling day at a general election shall be held on the second Tuesday in October, 2007 and afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the fourth calendar year following the polling day at the most recently held general election.

The words "notwithstanding" and "dissolve", like the rest of subsection 3(1), are important and mean stuff.

The ability to read legislation is a good thing for veteran political observers to have. So, no, there is in fact no need for the so-called "fixed election date" legislation to be changed, in the highly unlikely event a Premier ever wanted to call a snap election for some reason, because the legislation does not, in fact, fix the election date.