Welcome to the second, less frequently-posted decade of RevMod.

Contact me at revmod AT gmail.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

The rules, the recap

Ah, the glory days of RevMod, when I was must-read blogging. At the height of the last election campaign, I was seeing 200 hits a day... small potatoes for some of my own regular reads, I know, but quite a spike for me. And yet, strangely enough, there were only about twenty entries for the last gaffe contest. Perhaps it was in anticipation for the disappointment the winner would feel in never receiving the prize offered.

By special request, here again were the final scores for the four parties:

A short recap - most of the Conservative points came from various candidates and sitting members sharing their socially conservative views - views that reminded many people east of the Canadian Shield that (at the time, I think less so now) you could easily draw a stright line of development from Reform through Canadian Alliance to the newly "merged" Conservative Party. Had the Tories been running on those views, there would have been no gaffe points awarded, but Harper's team was running away from the social conservatism as fast as he could go. Every time another candidate opened his mouth, they pulled Harper back in. It played right into the Liberal strategy: Conservatives are scary. (Calgary Grit noticed the first stirrings of this strategy redux for this election.)

In the meantime, the Liberals gained most of their points by proving that they too had some pretty socially conservative candidates. That was costly because of their own strategy: "We aren't the Reform Party."

The NDP's points, as I recall, mostly came from Layton himself. Good old Clarity Act. Mother of God, I hope Layton keeps his yap shut on Clarity this time around.

I can't remember where the BQ earned their couple of points. So much of it was in French, after all.

A refresher on the rules:

1) The scoring will begin on the day the writ is dropped for the Federal election - entries will be cut off midnight the next day. Entries will include the predicted total score for each party.

2) Two numbers determine the score - the quality of the gaffe ("sig") and the rank of the gaffemaker ("prom"). Both scales will score on a range from one to three. GaffePoints ("GP") for an individual gaffe will be calculated by multiplying "sig" by "prom". Party scores will accumulate by adding the GPs of each gaffe.

3) Contest entries will be scored by measuring the distance (plus or minus) between the prediction and the score for each party - lowest total difference wins.

4) I am the final and only arbiter of the quality of the gaffe ("sig") and the rank of the gaffemaker ("prom"). Debate, however, is encouraged in the attached comments section - I can be convinced.

5) Scoring will close at 0800 MST on the day following election day. SPECIAL PARIZEAU RULE: Scoring will double for gaffes made on election day, including acceptance and concession speeches.

6) For the purpose of the contest, "gaffe" is defined as an unplanned error in fact or judgment. It might be a mistake for the NDP to release a platform paper advocating gender segregation of schools, to the derision of the Canadian electorate, but it's not a "gaffe". On the other hand, if Jack Layton explains the policy by making an aside about high-school boys being distracted by the firm and supple bodies of women in the full bloom of their hot, hot youth, that would be a "gaffe".

Given my obvious reluctance to interact with the (I'm sure fine) employees of Canada Post, so as to submit to James Bow his already-earned prize, this year's prize will be something I can give without ever getting off my ass: a twenty-dollar donation to the local candidate of the winner's choice, in any provincial or federal election of the future, in the name of "Revmod Gaffe Contest". I'm not giving candidates who skirt the edges of Canada's anti-hate legislation that $20, but I won't be judging or vetting beyond that. Sure, make me give the money to Rob Anders - hilarious!

Enter here

No comments: