Calling All Canadians...Who do you support in Monday's election?

[Zap!You'reFrozen]

Pretty self-explanatory really.

[sosa]

I can't choose. I'm not at all impressed by the arguments put forward by the Conservatives against the liberals. For one thing Paul Martin hasn't been implicated in anything and for another I remember the last time we had a conservative PM and know that everything they are accusing the liberals of they themselves did, only about 10 times worse.

So I'm kind ofleaning towards the Liberals because I like their policies better, but I also like some of the NDP platforms. If I vote NDP though its a vote taken away from the liberals and if there is one thing I am sure of it is that I don't want Stephen Harper to become Prime Minister. That would be just way too embarassing.

[dipchick]

I'm not saying, but my ballot went off on tuesday - so my vote will be counted... I don't like anyone who is liable to get elected, but as an actual voter, at least I can legitimately complain for the next few years!

[arginjapan]

I don't like anyone who is liable to get elected, but as an actual voter, at least I can legitimately complain for the next few years!
Huh? Last time I checked Canada was (nominally, at least) a democracy; it isn't the U.S.S.R where you were forced to vote-you have a choice whether you want to or not. And there is not one of those flithy, south-of-the-border toadying slugs I would ever sully myself by voting for. Not voting in no way removes my right to complain about those who purport to "lead".

[Guy Ginpot]

Bearing in mind I am a native Albortion and son of a one time politician and Progressive Conservative candidate, I am voting with my heart. Sorry dad. It was different back then.

My Vancouver riding is currently represented by big ol' dyke, Libby Davies of the NDP.

So this time, just like the last, I'm voting for Libby.

Stephen 'Pudgy Nazi Christian' Harper can kiss my skinny socialist ___.

gg

[dipchick]

[QUOTE= And there is not one of those flithy, south-of-the-border toadying slugs I would ever sully myself by voting for. Not voting in no way removes my right to complain about those who purport to "lead".[/QUOTE]

So, spoil your ballot. Or vote Marajuana. But if you don't vote in some way, your vote doesn't count.

How's this - don't complain to me.

[arginjapan]

So, spoil your ballot. Or vote Marajuana. But if you don't vote in some way, your vote doesn't count.
Um, how's this-ever consider that not voting is voting?

How's this - don't complain to me.
No worries on that one.

[dipchick]

[QUOTE=arginjapan]Um, how's this-ever consider that not voting is voting?
QUOTE]

Interestingly, I heard a discussion on just this on yesterday's CBC National - online. Essentially, what I took away from it was that yes, not voting is voting IF you are active in some other way. That is, if you make sure that your voice/opinions are heard in other arenas.

So, there is a significant difference between someone who doesn't vote, but actively protests against gov't initiatives/policies/actions (ie Canada's indirect participation in the Iraq war via our contribution to "peacekeeping" in Afghanistan) and someone who never gets off their butt in any political manner. In fact, I would argue that my vote is much less significant than an actual act of protest. But much more significant than nothing.

If you see what I'm saying...

[Skyknight]

Um, how's this-ever consider that not voting is voting?Sorry, not voting means you vote for pure evil according to Rick Mercer.

In a nutshell, it's like this:

A lot of people don't want to vote as they feel they're voting for the lesser of two evils. However, if they don't vote for the lesser of two evils, then there's a greater chance the greater of two evils will get in. So not voting in effect means you vote for pure evil.

Having said that, I sent in my vote last week. I don't think it will really help however but any vote cast against Stephen Harper is a good vote as far as I'm concerned.

[sincity]

Geez Louise, give me some advance notice next time. I didn't know there was an election...and I've got CNN.

I remember in 1983 when I was a youth delegate to the Progressive Conservative Party's leadership convention in Ottawa. In the weeks leading up to it I'd been invited by Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, John Crosby and the other hopefuls to numerous schmooze parties where I'd shake their hands and then turn my attention to their cheeses and chickens. Clarkie, simpering idiot that he was, always put out a good spread, I'll give him that (but that's all I ever gave him). And he and the rest of them would always look the other way when I ordered my rum cokes. Anything to get my vote.

I even used to get a Christmas card from Brian...

Politics can be fun alright but I must be fed. You tell the next government to send me a chicken and then I'll vote for them.

[Skyknight]

Well there is no joy in Canada as Satan... I mean Stephen Harper has won the election. The only saving grace to this is that it's only a minority which means they'll have to be careful in what they try to push through.

The Conservatives only hope right now is to get the Bloc on their side as they'd be able to win just about any vote in this way.

Personally I hope this becomes another situation like when Joe Clark defeated Pierre Trudeau back in the 70's. Clark won with a minority, was very unpopular and when the next election was called (I think it was 9 months later) the Libs won with another victory. While I don't feel that Paul Martin's Liberals are a great party, I simply feel that Stephen Harper's Conservatives are worse.

Lesser of two evils. What can you say?

[sosa]

Its definitely not a bad result. It was good to see the NDP put in a strong showing. And the Liberal defeat was pretty mild, compared to the drubbing they handed the conservatives when they came to power in 1993.

I'm hoping it'll be something like the Joe Clark interlude too. I don't think Canadians outside Alberta are at all taken with Harper but merely wanted to vote for somebody else. Give him a few months in office trying to advance his conservative agenda and we'll probably be seeing most Canadians running back to the Liberal Party double time.

[arginjapan]

Its definitely not a bad result.
I agree with sosa, skyknight-this isn't necessarily a bad result.

Two successive minority governments may be signalling a change in the way Canada sees itself being governed; rather than handing out absolute majorities every time like Santa dispenses Christmas presents, the result has a number of positive angles:

1) It's a minority, which means people will be relatively safe from Conservative policy. Despite it's name change, the Conservative party in it's current incarnation will never be able to remove itself from its reactionary, Reform party roots. Canadians were smart enough to see that and protect themselves from it. Harper will have to move closer to the political center if he has any chance of surviving the next election, which will automatically risk alienating the core western support that got him this far. In any case no need to worry about the Conservatives-at least for now.

2) It's a wrist-slap to the two major parties; for the second successive election, the two major parties were unable to count on traditional core support for them. Which is going to be a humbling experience, particularly for the Liberals, who have grown fat off of playing on the fears of the Canadian electorate of having an absolute Tory majority in power. Which leads to:

3). Voter empowerment. I think with this result Canadians will finally wake up and realize that they do have a choice; if you live in Anglo Canada you have three choices, in Quebec you have four. Soft NDP supporters will no longer be scared to vote NDP. The way the House has been configured after this and the last election means that the two main political parties can no longer take anything for granted.

4). Finally, and most importantly, true regional parity. For FAR TOO LONG the two main parties have geared policy/played to voters in Quebec and Ontario; now that Quebec has effectively been taken out of the federal picture by the Bloc, the 106 seats in Ontario are no longer enough to carry a party to power. The western provinces comprise 92 seats, essentially equalling Ontario. Pick up a few seats in Atlantic Canada and you could conceivably be in power having suffered a catastrophic loss in Ontario. In other words, political parties in the latest Canadian political climate are going to have to start considering more completely/gearing policy that is inclusive of ALL regions of Canada, and not just what's best for Ontario and Quebec.

Coalitions seem to work out okay with regularity in Europe; no reason as to why they can't work in North America. Give Harper's government two years at the outside in terms of survival, but I seriously hope that Canadians are done with the days they hand out absolute majorities to one or the other, then spend the next four years bitchin_g about how their region is being marginalized.

[Skyknight]

I agree it's not a "bad" result, it's just not what I consider to be a good result.

The main problem, at least as I see it, is the typically polar way in which Canada as a whole votes. They vote either Conservative or Liberal (to put this in American terms, Republican or Democrat). The party does well enough and the people vote for them again, they do poorly and they go over to the other side. It just flip-flops between the two. Nothing is learned and the best person for the job isn't necessarily voted into office.

You just need to look at the Brian Mulrooney years and the total hatred for the man even years later. When he stepped down as head of the party, he did it too late, he essentially destroyed the PCs by sticking around too long. People voted Liberal and they walked in with a landslide, even though the head of the PCs was a different person (she didn't however didn't distance herself from him which was her greatest flaw) at that time people had enough of the PCs and simply voted the other way. It wasn't even based on issues, people simply wanted them out of office based on what Brian had done. He had what a 13% approval rating when he finally stepped down? This resulted in only 2 seats in the House of Commons which means the PCs lost official party standing.

In provincial politics it can get a little more interesting in which you find regional parties take power but ultimately the same "idea" takes hold. You don't like the party in question you simply vote for the other party. It's no longer a question of what the individual politicians do, and not simply a question of who the leader of the party is, but you vote simply for "the other party".

While I didn't like the Liberals this time around, I couldn't in good conscience vote for the Conservatives. And as much as I like Jack Layton (I've actually met the man and I think he's a great guy) I'm not ready for an NDP government running the country. The rest of the parties out there don't really count as far as I'm concerned and their only real purpose is as a... well... retaliation vote against the big four.

So yeah, the current government will have about a year before there's a vote of non-confidence. By that time the Libs will have hopefully chosen a stronger leader (Paul Martin had his strengths, but not as a leader) and can lead the party to another majority win.

[arginjapan]

The main problem, at least as I see it, is the typically polar way in which Canada as a whole votes. They vote either Conservative or Liberal
That's the point I was making: this and the last election have been a marked departure from the past because representation has been well divided among four parties. It isn't polarized and concentrated in the hands of two. If anything, a divided house with successive minority governments will result in whatever party is in power having to develop policy that is more truly reflective of the Canadian electorate's desires.

Nothing is learned and the best person for the job isn't necessarily voted into office.
I think something was learned-that Canadians don't automatically have to vote one party into a majority. Things still get done without it. And if not the best person for the job of PM is voted into office (for example let's use Harper) then having a minority government limits the amount of damage they can do.

You just need to look at the Brian Mulrooney years and the total hatred for the man even years later. When he stepped down as head of the party, he did it too late, he essentially destroyed the PCs by sticking around too long.
That may be, but the latest version of the Canadian right has just taken office. Conservatism will be around for a long time to come, no matter what name it uses.

You don't like the party in question you simply vote for the other party. It's no longer a question of what the individual politicians do, and not simply a question of who the leader of the party is, but you vote simply for "the other party".
Yup-that could have well been the case here, but the only exception is that this time Canadians didn't vote for the other party, they voted for the three other parties. Big difference I think.

So yeah, the current government will have about a year before there's a vote of non-confidence. By that time the Libs will have hopefully chosen a stronger leader (Paul Martin had his strengths, but not as a leader) and can lead the party to another majority win.
And things will go back to exactly the same way they have always been. I'm hoping they don't; as I've said there are plenty of examples in Europe where there are vibrant, functioning democracies that routinely elect coalition governments. Far more democratic that having absolute rule by one party based on garnering 38% of the overall vote like the Liberals did in 1997.

[edinjapan]

I'm just wondering how long it will be before Harper says something racist. I'm not very enthused with him as he acts like a carbon copy of GWB and doesn't appear able to think rationally.

The Liberals are so corrupt they make the politicians in Saitama look like saints and like a FSU militiaman they don't even properly conceal thier wrongdoing.

The NDP can't balance a checkbook-how can we expect them to balance a budget!

Will someone please raise Sean O'Sullivan from the dead.

[Guy Ginpot]

Well the Conservatives finally got in but today in Vancouver the sun came up and it was a beauty day regardless.

Stephen Harper claimed that he will now begin to rebuild Canada. Fat chance with 124 out of 308 seats. The Conservatives actually spread their support right across the country including 10 seats in Quebec. However, they have a total of 0 seats combined in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, the three largest cities.

Meanwhile, Gilles Duceppe, even though he's down 3 seats and down to 42% of the popuar vote in Quebec, instead of the over 50% he was predicting, has been crowing loudly that he holds the balance of power [true], that the Conservatives better be tossing money bombs his way [we'll see], and that separatism has never been stronger [pants on fire].

All more of the same in a slightly stiffer package.

The news I really find stunning though, is that sincity, former PC youth delegate, was on the pork barrel for nothing more than free drinks and chicken.

I would have thought that the real issue of the day was Mila, loosely swathed in nothing more than her favourite baby seal skin coat, and did she taste like chicken.

gg

[arsene lupin]

But after reading some of the posts on here about the "evils" of the Conservative Party and Stephen "Satan" Harper it seems evident most would rather accept Martin lying to people about the tory agenda and shrug off 13 years of Liberal scandal and inept leadership.

For the record, I didn't vote Conservative nor am I a member of the party. I just have the foresight to see through the Red machine's bullshit and incompetence, and realize if Canada is going to be a major player on the world scene change is needed.

[Skyknight]

But after reading some of the posts on here about the "evils" of the Conservative Party and Stephen "Satan" Harper it seems evident most would rather accept Martin lying to people about the tory agenda and shrug off 13 years of Liberal scandal and inept leadership.

You're a perfect example of what's wrong with Canadian voters. "I don't like the party in power so I'm going to vote for the other guy and screw the issues." You wind up voting for the party and not for the individuals. You merely swing your vote and in 4 years decide to swing your vote back the other way.

For your information, I personally don't feel Stephen Harper is a good choice for Prime Minister. However, I feel his getting in with a minority (hell, just about any minority government would have been good) is the shakeup that parliament needed. The current gov't will be in power for about a year, most likely having to go it alone since honestly nobody will want to from a colition government with them. The NDP has too different a viewpoint, the Libs are the official opposition and the Bloc wouldn't touch them with a 10 metre pole. Oh I'm sure there will be some help from the parties here and there, but only if it serves their own purposes. In the end, the Conservatives will be going it alone and trying desperately to keep their rather tenuous hold on power.

And as for 13 years of "Liberal scandal and inept leadership" what about the Brian Mulrooney years? If there was ever an inept leader, he was the one. King Jean Chretien did a good job at the beginning, okay he was a bit of lying two-faced _______ but just about every politician is like that. He also overstayed his welcome like a houseguest that really doesn't know when to leave. Although for a while there the man was untouchable, I swear he could have run through parliament covered in blood, singing praises to Satan himself and people would have still voted for him. Of course part of this was the choices in opposition, but Jean knew how to play politics.


For the record, I didn't vote Conservative nor am I a member of the party. I just have the foresight to see through the Red machine's bullshit and incompetence, and realize if Canada is going to be a major player on the world scene change is needed.
So you voted NDP then? Or possibly wasted your vote for voting Green? It's your choice to vote for the party you feel is best suited to run the country, but the "Red machine's bullshit" is no greater or worse than the bullshit spewed by any other political party.

Grow up and face facts, for the most part there's no big difference between any of the parties out there. When you've got politicos that literally change sides for "political reasons" does it mean their ideology actually changes?

When Jean Charest went from being a PC to the leader of the Liberals in Quebec, it was done for political reasons and a need to get a strong name in there. It had nothing to do with his political views, it had nothing to do with the fact that he agreed with the Liberal ideals or even that he thought the Liberals were the better choice. This is the man that (correct me if I'm wrong) was the deputy PM under Brian Mulrooney. Can you honestly say that such a person suddenly changed his views? No, he changed his colours, got himself a new red suit but underneath it all he's still the same guy he was before.