Oh, hey – the author of a study on ranked ballots that relied on survey data from the last election has admitted that it wasn’t really a good study because the behaviours of voters would be different using a different ballot system. Gosh, you think? This is the same study and survey data that people have been citing in the blind panic that “OMG it will be first-past-the-post on steroids so obviously the Liberals want it!” because somehow it would give the Liberals 205 seats, based on that singular poll about second choices in the last election. It ignores that the selling feature of a ranked ballot – other than ensuring that a winner will always have more than 50 percent of the vote (no matter that you need to keep redistributing votes until you reach it) is that it eliminates the need for strategic voting, and in Australia it has given the Green and other minor parties a few seats of their own in the House of Representatives, plus allowed their National Party to remain independent of the Liberal (read: conservative) Party. Considering that they have largely relied on coalitions in the last few parliaments has shown that it’s not just geared toward majoritarianism, the way that people have been freaking out about in Canada. That said, why this particular study was allowed to stand considering its obvious design flaw is a bit galling, and this walking back from the results should have come much sooner rather than this committee hearing after months and months of false and misleading media stories proclaiming that ranked ballots would exacerbate the “distortions” of the current system, which have poisoned the well when it comes to having a reasoned discussion on the various systems that are out there. (Note: Those distortions are not real but a result of misreading the results based on a logical fallacy. Also note that I am not actually a proponent of ranked ballots, merely of proper and informed debate on electoral reform, which we have not been getting).

Good reads:

• Former foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew has been named as a special envoy for ensuring that CETA gets signed in a time of rising protectionism.
• There are questions as to whether the existence of Challenger-jet passengers during the PM’s holiday was redacted. (Can we please stop obsessing about these jets?)
• The Phoenix pay system won’t achieve its savings this year at least, but the Conservatives should accept blame for booking savings before it was implemented.
• Incidentally, it looks like the executives involved in the Phoenix debacle won’t get their performance pay.
• CSE had a huge increase in the number of domestic communications intercepted, but won’t say why.
• The RCMP are allowing female officers to wear a hijab as part of their uniform.
• In advance of Trudeau’s trip to China, here’s a look at the looming problem our canola crop is facing in their market.
• Michael Den Tandt gives a decent overall look at the issues facing our relationship with China and the bumps along the road.
• Paul Wells writes about the cabinet committee shuffle as signs of a broader shuffle in the ranks.
• Kady O’Malley suspects the government won’t really have a choice but to call a referendum on electoral reform.

Odds and ends:

Canada Post says their contract talks have stalled and are talking strike action.