Voting - Governance & Politics

There is a federal election going on in Canada that inspired this little epistle.

Canada has 343 electoral districts to be represented in the House of Commons.  For purposes of this epistle, I am limiting the number of national parties to 5, Bloc Quebecois, Conservative Party of Canada, Green Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, New Democratic Party of Canada.

But the Bloc is not actually a national party as they run only in Quebec.  They may wish to rethink that as if they pick up members from other provinces they might improve their chances of realising their manifesto. So I am assuming, for the purposes of this, that they have done that and are running candidates in every electoral district.

In fact, I am assuming all the above 5 parties has nominated a candidate for every riding.  Thus we assume there to be a total of 1 715 candidates.

The election is held and the outcome is as close as one party could hope for. All the parties ranked equal in the pre-election polls.  All the parties tallied exactly the same number of votes, except one party.  That party won every electoral district, every seat, by 1 vote.  Thus every vote counted and 343 voters elected all the soon to be sworn in Members of Parliament.

This means that we see the improbable possibility that 20% plus 343 Canadian electors elected 343 Members of Parliament.  

We see the corresponding improbable possibility that 80% less 343 Canadian electors are not represented in the House of Commons to deliver the common good for all Canadians.

How often does this situation or one similar to it play out electoral district by electoral district?  Does this mean that a high percentage of Canadian electors are not represented in the House of Commons, perhaps even well over 50% of us? Does this situation lead us down a treacherous path to lack of faith and trust in our democracy, causing it to rot from the inside?

Just a thought.  Thanks for reading this.

M G Klein April 22, 2025

CFO Impacts - Economics and Finance

Let’s use an imaginary case of an emergency services firm, Emergency Services Inc.

Its object is to provide emergency service on a for hire basis.  The CFO of this firm is looking at a particular example to see if much can be learned from that example that might be applied across the enterprise.

For example: the firm operates a fleet of emergency vehicles complete with all supplies it might need to cover a 10 service event 12 hour shift, including appropriate staff.  Each vehicle has an AM and a PM shift.

For whatever reason the PM shift is busier than the AM shift.  In fact the AM shift is often not asked to provide any intervention service at all while the PM shift often uses all its supplies required to rescue 10 individuals.  Occasionally, the AM shift rescues no one while the PM shift rescues as many as 20 individuals, having to replenish its supplies by purchasing them from medical service centres near its theatre of activity.  

The fees earned for the service vehicles are $13,000 per shift, active or on standby.  A full set of supplies costs $3,000 per vehicle.

The CFO has to report to the annual board and shareholders meeting.  Both the board and the shareholders are looking for an increase in dividends and share buybacks to improve their return on investment.  

The CFO is contemplating the possibility of staff reductions.  It seems obvious to him that he can raise productivity by laying off the PM shift. CFO’s know that increase in productivity will be reflected in improvement in share price and earnings per share.

What is the rationale the CFO is using?

Just a thought.  Thanks for reading this.

M G Klein April 22, 2025