Hummingbird604.com » politics

My interview with David Berner on The Power of Social Media in Public Policy

Raul — Fri, 20 May 2011 03:07:15 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, I was asked by David Berner to be a guest on his show on Shaw Community TV on The Power of Social Media in Public Policy. Given my experience in the field (I teach and do research on Public Policy, and I have a strong social media presence and work and consult on this topic), I felt particularly honored and felt that this was an incredibly fitting opportunity to discuss issues of how we use social media in public policy. Below is the full 30 minute show.

Thanks to David for inviting me to his show and giving me the opportunity to discuss issues that I’m passionate about and that I’m currently working on. It was a wonderful conversation. And I think it’s particularly timely.

UBC Vote Mob: Rock Your Vote! Wed Apr 20th 12:00-14:00

Raul — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:30:14 +0000

photo credit: NathanF

Full disclosure: One of the organizers of the UBC Vote Mob, Alyssa Koehn, is currently my student (she is taking my Public Policy course). Which makes me all the more proud to promote her event, as I know that her intent in organizing this event is to encourage youth to vote in the upcoming Canadian election. The UBC Vote Mob will take place on Wednesday April 20th at the grassy knoll area (right across from the Student Union Building) from 12 noon to 2pm. If you want more information on Vote Mobs, you can check the Lead Now website. You are encouraged to wear red, white, and maple. The idea of Vote Mobs is to encourage youth’s participation in political life, using social mobilization techniques that may harness the use of social networks.

Feel free to share this post (and be forewarned that this is a non-partisan event, it’s primarily a “get your vote on” event).

I’m speaking at @northernvoice #nv10

Raul — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:45:27 +0000

Earlier this year, I submitted three panels to Northern Voice 2010, as you may have read on my blog. One of the three got accepted, and I am very honored to be joined by the fantastic folks who will be part of this panel. Joining me in the panel are David Hume, Andrea Reimer and Ian Capstick.

Government 2.0: Politics, Policy and Social Media in Canada: A Multi-Level Exploration

US President Barack Obama has been touted left, right and center as “the social media president”. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a Twitter account, yet fails to engage with his constituents. Politicians, bureaucrats, policy makers and public service providers have been heavily criticized for their inability to incorporate social media into their political campaigns and overall platforms and strategies. Yet, we find a dearth of analytical explorations of successful experiences and lessons learned. This panel will explore how the government at various scales (federal, municipal, provincial) is working towards incorporating social media, what are the challenges. etc.

Andrea Reimer will speak to the political circumstances that led to approval and expansion of social media tools in the local government in Vancouver. She will describe the experience in Vancouver with social media, open government and a number of other initiatives she has championed. Andrea’s work was instrumental in having Vancouver approve the open data initiative.

Ian Capstick brings bring a perspective from Ottawa (federal implications) and as a citizen who organizes in-person open source events and consultations which almost always start as a reaction to a need from digital grassroots.

David Hume will share his experiences as the government of British Columbia’s first-ever Executive Director for Citizen Engagement in BC’s Ministry of Citizens’ Services and the lessons that this provincial government has learned from the past 12 months.

Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD will describe his experiences as the editor of BCVote.ca (a pluralistic, non-partisan aggregator) during the BC Premier election of 2009. He will also aim to provide an analytical framework that can be used to outline best practices of social media use in public policy and politics.

Our panel will take place on Friday May 7th, 2010 from 10:30am to 11:30am at the UBC Life Sciences Centre building and will be moderated by David Eaves (thanks Dave for accepting the invite!).

I organized this panel mostly because of the fact that I teach in a Department of Political Science, that I teach Public Policy (both at the domestic and comparative level) and because a lot of my own consulting work is in the field of public policy. Moreover, for those of you not following at home, I have conducted research on information dissemination policy instruments for pollution control (pollutant release and transfer registries), and online tools are the best platforms for citizens to use these PRTRs to put pressure on polluters to reduce their emissions.

Mangano on “The Business Case to End Homelessness”, @boardoftrade event

Raul — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:07:27 +0000

I have participated in numerous events of the Vancouver Board of Trade, primarily to report on them (as media) but this time, I was invited as a guest of Dave Macdonald, someone whose company I really enjoy and whose insights are valuable to me. Dave is very well aware of my interest in sustainability, social policy and particularly, urban structure and poverty issues. Dave also invited Toby Barazzuol along as a guest. Toby is, very much like Dave, a very smart man (and someone with insight into the actual situation of the Downtown East Side). I preface my post with this overview as it is important to indicate that the people who joined me to this event are very much people who have had the time to reflect on the myriad complex factors that intervene in homelessness.

Credit: D.C.Atty

Quite frankly, to say that I was utterly disappointed with the talk that Mr. Mangano offered is putting it really really mildly. I really didn’t get anything out of it that I couldn’t have gotten from doing thorough research on the internet, on Google Scholar, and talking to researchers who study homelessness. Don’t get me wrong. Mangano is extremely funny, and a good speaker. I am pretty sure he has worked really hard to solve homelessness in the US. I am also fairly sure he is successful and he knows his stuff. It’s the content and delivery of the material that I was definitely not impressed with.

Bear in mind, before continuing on with my assessment, several things. First, I am an academic. Trying to convince me of something without empirical evidence is going to be very, very hard. Mangano started showing slides with data about 5 minutes before the end of his talk. Yeah… not the best timing. Second, public policy is my domain of expertise. I have taught public policy. I conduct research on public policy. My students have conducted research on homelessness, poverty alleviation and urban decay, particularly in the Downtown East Side. I know about how complex the issues with homelessness are. Heck, I’ve written about it extensively! Even though my own focus (environmental public policy) is not directly associated with issues of mental health, poverty, drug use, etc. I am still someone who thinks things through the academic analytical lenses. I know how hard it is to design public policy for homelessness, and I was disappointed that Mangano didn’t provide a list of potential policy options specifically applicable to Vancouver. I am pretty critical when I see people’s presentations, particularly because I am just as tough on myself when I give talks.

Credit: Publik16

The irony for me was that several of Mangano’s main points were things I have talked about before in my own blog! I have written on everything, from the closure of the temporary (HEAT) shelters, to the anthropology of poverty in the Downtown East Side, to highlighting events on homelessness, to the need to provide warm clothing to homeless people in the winter. I even wrote a post on the lessons in public policy for homelessness that Mayor Robertson should think about. I have highlighted Homeless Action Week both in 2007 and 2008. So, this is a topic I haven thought about for a long time.

Mangano expressed a few good points that are very much worthy of highlighting here.

* Homelessness is not dependent on the economy. In economic booms, homelessness increases because of rising housing prices. In economic downturns, homelessness increases because of job loss and other factors associated with lower income.
* Economic principles per se aren’t going to solve homelessness.
* It is important to focus on ONE specific area of homelessness policy – ending STREET homelessness – focus on the most vulnerable and the disabled.

According to Mangano, the following points are key elements to success

- Definite support from mayors and council and the political will to work on the issues of homelessness
- Reframing policy from the social service frame to the business case (how can we serve this people)
- Accepting that solving homelessness will take time
- Strategic timeline
- Identification of successful case studies and strategies and investment in evidence-based options (based on research)
- The business community to invest in this process too.

What didn’t work in the US (according to Mangano)
- Ad-hoc crisis interventions (shuffling leads to morale deflating – stats he provided 75 homeless/day use St. Paul’s Hospital – $ 700 from the moment they step into the hospital onward)
- Good intentions don’t end homelessness
- Increased resources without innovative ideas, strategic planning and long-term strategy don’t work.

I scanned the room as I arrived and I noticed that not only was the room full (for a beautiful summer day, having to shell out cash to participate in an indoor event and have to wear suits, you really must be passionate), there were a lot of well-known advocates for the issue of homelessness, including people from the Vancouver Foundation and the Street To Home Foundation. I recognized many people that I knew from before, like Mike Harcourt, Andrea Reimer (a Vancouver councillor who, the more I talk to, the more impressed I am with). The Vancouver Board of Trade should feel really happy with the attendance, because there were a lot of participants as well as high-level, policy decision-makers in Vancouver were sitting in that room, along with all the other board members and guests.

My overall assessment of Mangano’s talk

Mangano’s talk sounded very much like an ode to Mayor Gregor Robertson. Every opportunity he had he lauded Robertson’s efforts. If I wanted to pay (and in this case, I didn’t pay for my own ticket but Dave did) to hear someone praising the mayor of the city I live in, I would do it. But I really don’t like paying to hear someone do that. Don’t get me wrong. I have met Gregor myself, I have had a chance to talk with him about issues and hear his own viewpoints. Mayor Robertson is (in my view, from my limited interactions with him) someone who has expressed a genuine interest in thorny issues such as homelessness, environmental protection, accessibility to housing, etc. I have very high hopes set on Gregor Robertson, and with smart people like Andrea Reimer in council and a few other councillors and COV staff I’ve met, I am sure Vancouver will look for ways to end street homelessness.

Mangano’s talk was funny and entertaining but he wasted too much time in side stuff and didn’t get into the real “meat” of the talk until the end. And yeah, that part about NOT having questions/answers period? Pretty bad.

One point that really struck a chord with me was Mangano’s phrase “I have been to the Downtown East Side already, I don’t need to go there again”. This phrase sounded to me really dismissive. It sounded very much like “I don’t need to see more, I already know what the issues are there“.

I have to repeat through my assessment (which I’m sure sounds like a scathing indictment) that I am very sure that Mangano knows his stuff and that he has worked really hard to solve homelessness in the US. Sadly, his talk at the Vancouver Board of Trade did not give him enough credit. What he said and the way he delivered it wasn’t really what I am sure he can offer, nor what I needed/wanted to hear.

My expectation coming into this talk was an overview of specific, evidence-based, research-grounded policy options to tackle homelessness in Vancouver. In no way, shape or form did I get this. So what *did* I get, you ask? Well, I got a chance to hear someone who is highly praised in the US as an authority in homelessness provide a few points that I think are worth revising. I expected a talk of much higher caliber, but then again, maybe Mangano’s timeline didn’t provide for enough time to cover everything (although I would have EXPECTED him to be able to manage his time). The fact that he didn’t get into the data until the very end and that he didn’t provide policy options was a real disappointment.

But amongst the great things I got? I got to hang out with Dave and Toby, I got to meet some really nice people, I got to see a Vancouver Board of Trade from the perspective of an attendee rather than as a representative of the media (and remember, I have given numerous keynote talks, so I’m not looking at this from the perspective of a participant but from the perspective of someone who talks to large audiences about complex, thorny policy issues). And I got to talk to Andrea Reimer, Suzanne Anton, Mike Harcourt. So, in terms of being able to access important people and talk about issues, it was a success for me. And in the end, I did hear some interesting stuff from Mangano. Just not enough.

Dave’s assessment of the luncheon/talk can be read here.

Guest post by Jane Sterk – Leader of the Green Party in British Columbia

Raul — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:04:05 +0000

Following the model of my previous interview with Premier Gordon Campbell, I opened the forum to both Jane Sterk and Carole James to answer my interview questions. Here are Ms. Sterk’s answers. Thanks SO much for answering my questions!

Credit: Greens For Allen

Q: Give me 3 reasons to vote for each one of the other parties (NOT to vote for yours).‬‪

I certainly cannot recommend that you vote for the other parties or give you reasons to vote for the other parties. If the Green Party was not running I would not vote. There is one thing that the other two major parties here in BC have that the Green Party does not have – experience in government at the provincial level although I personally have municipal government experience. Of course, the experience of these parties is both a good and a bad. ‬ The Green Party is a newer and smaller than the old political parties. As such, we have significantly less political baggage or special interests to which we are beholden (for example, the Liberals have many big business connections and the NDP have many big union connections). So, although we are untested in government, we are ready to enter the BC Legislature as MLA’s beholden only to the citizens that elected us. I would like to encourage each citizen of BC to consider the various parties positions and track records and to vote for the one that best represents your values – the one that you think will work hard to build a better BC. The Green Party platform may be found at http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/greenbook ‪

Q: Explain to me what the main differences you see in your platform as opposed to the other parties‬

I think there are two things unique about the Green Party that are really becoming explicit in this election:

(1) our understanding of the connection between a healthy environment and a healthy economy and

(2) our commitment to a new kind of politics.

First, we understand that a healthy environment and a healthy economy go hand in hand. Our 2009 Platform is based upon this basic insight and you will find that our practical solutions are designed to ensure we see genuine prosperity for generations. Because we think long-term, we work hard to bring in ecological tax-shifting, to diversify our energy production, to invest in education, and much more.Second, we seek a new kind of politics. We recognize that the negativity of the partisan bickering between the two parties in power – the Liberals and NDP – is turning people off politics and leading to poor governance. We are proud of our ability to embrace good ideas that come from either the right or the left and our eagerness to work with other parties for a better BC. We hope that you will consider voting for BC-STV in the referendum to ensure we can move toward more positive politics in BC.

‪Q: Explain to me your social media strategy, long term.‬

One of the key principles of Green politics is Participatory Democracy. We understand that this means an active engagement of citizens through multiple mediums and through mediums that are a part of their everyday lives. In other words, the communication needed for a healthy democracy needs to be understood as taking place within the information-sharing infrastructure of our day-to-day lives. Mobile communication technology is revolutionizing how people communicate and our methods of campaigning (as well as our methods of staying in tune with the political will of BC citizens while in government) is changing. We Greens are campaigning on facebook and twitter and I have a YouTube channel, but much more needs to be done. We are excited about the possibilities of policy development through wiki’s and the potentials for flash referendums. Advancements in communication and transportation technologies have dramatically changed our society in the past 15 years. As a result, the nature of government is changing and it is an exciting time to be involved in making it happen. The most important thing is that citizens get involved and work together for a more healthy and prosperous BC.

Related posts:

Carole James guest post – Leader of the NDP

Premier Gordon Campbell’s Guest Blog

Green shoes, green taxes, green hypocrisy?

Premier Gordon Campbell’s Guest Blog

Raul — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:30:48 +0000

Credit: Frozen Reflections Photography (used with permission)

A few days ago, Premier Gordon Campbell (leader of the British Columbia Liberals) offered to answer up to 5 bloggers’ questions and be a guest writer on our blogs. I’m glad I was one of the 5 bloggers whose questions were answered, given that I’m the editor of the non-partisan, pluralistic blog BC Vote. Furthermore, having taught Public Policy before (and knowing that my former students would expect me to be involved in the policy-making life of British Columbia) and being interested in environmental policy and politics in the province that I call home, it makes sense for me to write more about politics and policy in BC (although I have done so in the past, just for the record). I actually think one of my best posts was this one (Putting back the public in public policy). Premier Gordon Campbell’s responses to my questions are presented below. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions!

Q: Give me 3 reasons to vote for each one of the other parties (NOT to vote for yours).

A: I think everyone entering public life does so to make a positive contribution. Having said that, it should come as no surprise that I would not actually vote for the other parties. The NDP’s policies would put jobs at risk and that’s something I can’t and won’t defend. I do think the Green Party is committed to the environment and that is good but I believe the way to restore it is through a strong economy.

I would encourage all voters to compare platforms and decide what direction they feel would works the best to keep BC strong. The BC Liberal Platform can be found at http://www.bcliberals.com/platform/

Q: Explain to me what the main differences you see in your platform as opposed to the other parties

A: The BC Liberal platform lowers costs on the economy, and lays a foundation for job creation with lower taxes and sound fiscal management. We know from experience that leaving more money in people’s pockets and reducing the cost of doing business actually stimulates the economy and is an incentive for job creation. In contrast, the NDP’s platform adds more than $1 billion in new taxes, including a tax aimed at our resource industries that is expected to cost our province 60,000 jobs. According to the Chamber of Commerce, the additional wage costs the NDP plan on adding to small business will result in 50,000 jobs lost. In today’s economy, we can’t afford to lose even one job. Finally, the NDP have a platform that adds billions in deficits which are taxes on the future. They are still making up their budget as they go along and that creates real uncertainty at a time when we need to build stability and confidence.

Q: Explain to me your social media strategy, long term.

A: I don’t think anyone can predict where social media will be headed in the future. If you think back five years, Facebook was brand new and very few people were using it. The Twitterverse hadn’t even been invented. People, especially younger people, are looking for ways they can access information efficiently and conveniently and stay in touch in real time. Technology is changing faster than many of our social institutions. But it is changing them. Social media, in particular, provides new opportunities for people to engage with politics and government.

As has been said: “Things will change less in the next two years than we expect, but far more in the next 10 years.” We all have to find time to learn how to use these new technologies to make our lives better.

NOTE – In the spirit of full disclosure and pluralism I have also contacted the offices of the Leaders of the NDP and Green Party to ask if Ms. Carole James and Ms. Jane Sterk would be interested in answering similar questions and/or guest post on my blog.

Public policy, budget prioritization and the money question

Raul — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:12:48 +0000

Nancy tweeted a Money Question this afternoon on whether we disagree with sports figures earning as much money as they do when there is so much poverty and disadvantaged people struggling to get by.

Daily Money Q to ponder: Are we OK with sports figures earning the salaries they do, while other citizens are in desperate circumstances?

It is RARE that I get asked questions that make my blood boil and that’s perhaps one of them (not because Nancy asked it – Nancy is a very dear friend of mine – it’s because I rarely think about this issue, and when I do, I always get upset).

When I teach Public Policy (both at the undergraduate and graduate level), I always have a lecture on fairness, equity and justice. These are always important topics for decision-makers in designing public policies. Why? Because, with a limited amount of resources you have to do a gazillion things. So you (as a policy maker) need to prioritize. What can I do with these resources and how can I best put them to good use to serve the public interest? What is fair and equitable and just? Is it fair that these sports figures (or politicians) are paid THAT much?

I always ask my students (and whomever listens to me, whenever I give a keynote or an invited talk) to think about issues in terms of trade-offs. If I spend X thousands of dollars on implementing Y policy, then I get Z results (in terms of people taken off the streets, or streets paved, or seats funded for post-secondary education, or litres of water treated). But since resources are scarce, I have to spend them on Y policy instead of W policy, then I am trading off something. I am giving resources to a cause and NOT to another. There’s a zero sum game, where some win, some lose.

For example, think about it this way – if instead of paying multi-million dollar salaries to sports figures (or politicians), you could spend all that money in something else.

Let me give you the figure I used as an example for Nancy (as listed below)

hummingbird604 I do have a firm opinion – it’s stupid. With 1 month Mexican soccer team’s salaries I’d pay 5 years of PhD ed for 100 pple

This time, I’ll do the exercise with the actual salaries I knew of. The office of the wife of the former President of Mexico was spending about $ 300,000 dollars per month (at the time I did this calculation – right now, said office does not exist as far as I know). What would you do with $ 300,000 dollars? Well, I can tell you one thing – given the monthly allowance that Mexican granting councils gave to PhD students at the time (I was doing my PhD then), you could fund the monthly allowance of 300 PhD students with the money this otherwise useless office used. 300. PhD-level, smart, intelligent people. Per month.

Think about it, people. What do you say is the best use of your money? Educating 300 people with PhDs or ensuring that the wife of the President has a nice office and staff for her ‘charity’ work? Whenever I reflect on it, I am always reminded of what my Dad used to tell me – “for the Romans, bread and circuses“. I have the same opinion of high salaries for sports figures.

Now, feel free to let your thoughts pour here

President Obama’s inauguration liveblog

Raul — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:06:10 +0000

I’ll have to admit that, while I am very happy that President Barack Obama has been sworn in today as the 44th President of the United States of America, I wasn’t checking the Inauguration myself. I woke up way too late. But I’ve been checking the Twitter feed and live streams. And The National post’s liveblog.

I know that today, my American friends living in Canada and many of my non-American friends will be talking all day long about this momentous and really exciting occasion, particularly on Twitter. This is, indeed, part of the making of history. And something that I noticed is that The National Post is live-blogging using Cover-It-Live and doing a mashup of Twitter commentary. Three friends of mine whom I met through Twitter are in Washington DC for the inauguration (Nadia Nascimento and Anthony Nicalo who hosted an inaugural reception and Tom Williams, who apparently also talked to The National Post).

It’s fascinating that mainstream media and new media are so intimately intertwined in the coverage of the Obama inauguration. Finally, it seems that there is no more divide. Just as Obama offered words that speak to bridging differences (of religious creed, sexual orientation, and race), co-existing together harmoniously and collaborating, I seriously hope that today marks a new day not only for America but for the world, a day where the source from where the news came from (be it mainstream media and new media) is no longer relevant.

Canada’s coalition government and the demise of the Harper government

Raul — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:22:52 +0000

The past couple of days have been very rough for me, so I’ve had very little to time to analyze the current political crisis of the Conservative-led government in Canada. Therefore, I can’t really offer much analysis. But one point that really strikes me as kind of odd is that the general perception I see on the mainstream media (AND on social media too) is that the coalition government is a bad thing in light of the current global economic crisis.

Let me bring you back to the notion of “creative destruction” popularized by the economist John Schumpeter (those of you who have studied the economics of innovation and technological change will immediately recognize the name). The basic premise underlying creative destruction is that innovation is spurred by the demise of obsolete technologies and the creation of new ones.

What does creative destruction have to do with political stability? Well, here’s my hypothesis – unless current Primer Minister Harper is unseated and its Conservative government is brought down, serious changes in the Canadian governance structure will never see the light of day. Why? Because the Conservatives need to really understand and get a grip on why they won the recent Oct 14, 2008 election. They didn’t win out of being THE BEST option. They won because of FEAR of the unknown.

Fear is really the worst adviser. I am well aware that fear of domestic political instability (coupled with economic destabilization) may lead Canadians who might have voted for the Liberals to actually support the current Conservative government (in hopes that by virtue of keeping Harper in the PM office, this fact in and of itself may bring stability to the country). But you can’t win without losing first. To me, it looks as though this could actually be beneficial for the Conservatives: learn from the BIG mistake of fear-mongering and learn to GOVERN.

Gregor Robertson is the new Mayor-elect of Vancouver

Raul — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:52:34 +0000

Well, he did it. Not only did he become Vancouver’s next mayor, he did so with a Vision majority in City Council. That fact sure speaks volumes to the need for change within the Vancouver area. There were, of course, civic elections all over Metro Vancouver, but the focus was inevitably on Vancouver proper.

I wrote a post a few weeks back on homelessness public policy to which the lack of responses completely frustrated me, because I don’t think a lot of people understood that one key issue to address the homelessness challenge (a key element on which Gregor based a substantial portion of his platform) is establishing strong relationships (and by strong I mean, where there is flow of funds!) with the provincial and federal governments.

Unless Gregor is able to create a consolidated, all-encompassing, across-all-levels-of-government kind of public policy for the homeless, we are about to stay exactly where we are.

On the good news front, I am glad that people did take to heart the challenge of becoming engaged in their own, local-level, municipal politics (something I was worried about a few months back). Participation in this civic election was unparalleled and that pleases me.

EDIT – Thanks to Tod Maffin for spotting a mistake on my post – it’s fixed

The West End evictions and this week’s municipal elections

Raul — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:57:19 +0000

If you are a Vancouverite and able to vote (Canadian citizen, older than 18 yrs old), you probably DO know that Vancouver’s municipal election takes place on November 15th, 2008 (8am to 8pm). You can start doing advance voting at 5 locations in Vancouver (read more here).

There’s an issue that I find has not been discussed at length (or maybe it has but I haven’t read much about it in the past few weeks/months) – the issue of evictions in order to increase rent. While I do not live in the West End, I have MANY very close friends, both civilians and tech/social media/PR people who have their homes there.

It does worry me that evictions to renovate and then increase rents continue to happen. This issue is something that has been written about extensively (I’ve read lots of stories in many major newspapers) . The question I have is – does anybody know if the candidates for city mayor have expressed any formal position on the issue?

Why do I think this issue is relevant, when there are others (homelessness, transportation, etc.) that are also key? Well, simply because if the trend continues in the West End, the likelihood that these kinds of evictions will happen (I haven’t read many reports about occurrences of evictions to increase rent outside the West End) in other areas may increase. My main concern, of course, is my own neighbourhood (Mount Pleasant)!

What do you think of this issue?

The relevance of the American election for Canada

Raul — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:30:22 +0000

So I’ve been wondering about this point recently (and I recognize that I haven’t written much political stuff recently, with the exception of my posts asking Canadians for more interest in the Canadian Federal election – is it true that the American election is much more relevant for Canadians than the recent Prime Minister election? I sure would hope not. I understand where people come from when they say this, but truthfully – despite the economic and political (worldwide) power that the United States hold, and its inextricable relationship with Canada, I don’t think that the international arena (and particularly, the elections in ONE country) are supposed to be MORE relevant to its neighbouring country than the election of the one person who is supposed to lead the country.

For example, I can assure you that for Mexicans, the election of President Felipe Calderon and the comings and goings were WAY more important (and are WAY more relevant for Mexican society) than what’s going on in the United States, despite that it is its largest trading partner. I agree, this 2008 presidential election is going to be a watershed moment. This is a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see either the rise of an African American to the Presidency or a woman to the Vice-Presidency (with the chance that potentially, she could become the first female President).

But let’s keep things in perspective. Regardless of who wins the election, Canada will still have to deal with the decisions that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to take, and the domestic political and economic dynamics. Surely, these dynamics will be INFLUENCED but not DICTATED by what is happening in the United States.

Canadian elections results 2008 and poverty – Blog Action Day 2008

Raul — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:30:26 +0000

By now, I think everyone knows that Canada has a (now relatively stronger) minority Conservative government. Despite the abismal voter turnout (40% of Canadians who are eligible to vote chose not to) the Conservative party gained MP seats and the Liberals lost them. Once the dust settles, my biggest question to the new Conservative government remains. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT POVERTY ALLEVIATION?

I mean, let’s be honest. With regards to homelessness and poverty, a tendency to pass the buck seems common… “it’s not MY responsibility, it’s the responsibility of the other level of government“. Since today is Blog Action Day and the focus is on poverty, will the new Conservative government say that their platform is actually working towards economic recovery or will they say that it’s going to alleviate poverty? Because, really, what progress have we achieved in regards to a national homelessness policy and/or a national poverty alleviation strategy? I’m curious to hear…

Politics 2.0 – Data and research methods (and Twitter)

Raul — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:00:47 +0000

I briefly saw a little segment by Susan Ormiston on The National (the night news) where she explained what has been going on Twitter. She has teamed up with Dr. Greg Elmer from the Infoscape Research Lab at Ryerson University. I hadn’t heard about them (although I kind of think that Dr. Elmer was here for Cossette Convergence/VIDFEST — but then again remember that I am not really a tech/new media/social media researcher (like danah boyd or Frank Stutzman). So I should be cut some slack

However, as a researcher and a scholar, I kinda like to know the research methods when I examine a project. Given that I do social media as a hobby, but still look at it from the research perspective, I was kind of taken aback when Susan was explaining that Twitter was “sort of a micro-blogging platform” ( I know I’m being nitpicky, heh ).

They (and by they I am meaning Greg and his team) implemented a tracking mashup “OrmistonOnline” and its corresponding website where they were tracking the Canadian politicians debate that happened tonight (with Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Elizabeth May, Gilles Duceppe – I hope I didn’t miss any candidate!).

I saw part of the debate, and I was kind of taken aback that at some points, the leaders weren’t really very polite to each other, interrupting each other. But I digress. My point of this brief post was that I’d be interested in seeing a global mashup (e.g. not only tracking with the hashtags #ormistononline but tracking for all and each one of the candidates).

I also saw some really neat graphs on television, and I’d be interested in knowing the methodology behind them. I must say that I like the approach of surveying new media on the part of mainstream media. As I have said before, bloggers and journalists both have a role.

And *geek alert* Greg Elmer’s website is powered by WordPress.

The importance of voting in American, Canadian and Vancouver elections

Raul — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:30:16 +0000

One of the areas where my mother does research is in electoral studies (however, she studies elections in Mexico more than anything, although lately she’s been interested in Canadian elections). She was mentioning how important it was to galvanize people and make them want to go and vote.

It’s true that many, many people refuse to vote because they don’t think that their vote is going to count. I was reading some statistics on how many people have voted in recent Canadian elections and I recall a figure hovering around 64% or so (of the whole electorate).

The most recent election for President was the most contested in Mexican history and I can assure you that one of the reasons for that was precisely that a lot of the people who many people thought wouldn’t vote did indeed cast a ballot.

Even though I’m not American, I’m pretty darn sure I have American readers (and of course, Canadian) so I’d strongly encourage you to register to vote. Hat tips to Steve Jagger who tweeted this video (source: YouTube) where lots of US movie stars encourage viewers to vote.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UaRXvRwhOk&hl=en&fs=1]

Politics 2.0? Are Canadian politicians using Web 2.0 the right way?

Raul — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:10:57 +0000

While I know that there is already buzz around the town on the use of Twitter (seen a couple of posts by Buzz Bishop and Kate Trgovac, as well as one on The Tyee’s The Hook, led by Monte Paulsen), Facebook and other Web 2.0 applications by Canadian politicians (like Elizabeth May, Stephane Dion and Stephen Harper), I am a bit surprised that almost nobody has (at least from what I’ve been reading on the sphere) touched on the very basic element of Web 2.0 – interactivity and bi-directionality.

Even if I don’t follow everyone who follows me on Twitter, I ALWAYS interact with the people who follow me. I have just briefly seen the Twitter account of Elizabeth May and she is not following anyone and has not interacted with anyone. The opposite attitude was that of the Twitter account of Barack Obama who basically followed everyone who was following, and then some more.

I don’t know Liz May, but some of my very closest friends do, and if any of those would like to relay this message to her and to the rest of the politicos in Canada, please feel free to do so – TALK TO YOUR FOLLOWERS. Yeah, you could argue with me that Obama never did talk to anyone on Twitter, but the point I’m trying to make is that Twitter should not be treated *just* as a news broadcast. If those of us who evangelize about all things Web 2.0 are really interested in harnessing social media for change, we need to explain to the “newbies” that the crux of social media is the bidirectional, interactive conversation that occurs within the realm of blogs, Twitter, vlogs, Facebook, etc.

And yeah, boo for fake Twitter accounts for political figures!