Election 08 now goes down in history for being the first federal election campaign to have generated such public disdain that over 40% of the electorate didn’t bother even to cast a vote. Only 59.1 percent of us showed up at the polls.

Did vote swapping or strategic voting work? Not on your life. And the lowest voter turnout ever suggests that it helped achieve the opposite of what their proponents had wanted.

A commentary by Elsie Hambrook, Chair of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women, is a must-read.

When Doris Anderson, former and famed editor of Chatelaine and lifelong activist, came to Saint John on a stormy winter night in 2003, drawing hundreds of women to hear her speak on electoral reform, she confided something that, years later, still makes some of us think…

Getting the message out to the public [no matter what it is] is damn hard these days. Not just because the media and corporate and party elites are so strongly against democratic and electoral reform, but because, among other things, locations where people come together are increasingly not available for canvassing or soliciting.

For example, at the All Candidates Meeting in my community, I wanted to distribute Fair Vote Canada flyers on the seats in the theatre. I’d printed off 250 flyers, plus sheets of the FVC petition for candidates and audience members to sign (was hoping to ask a question at the mic on ER/PR).

When I arrived at the ACM venue, I asked permission of the manager to distribute my flyers on the theatre seats.

Denied.

So I asked permission to distribute the flyers outside, at the front of the building.

Denied again.

Even the purportedly public sidewalk fronting the building was off-limits….

Full article

I spent a good part of today and yesterday running errands in my downtown neighbourhood. On both occasions the only canvassing I saw was for the Greens. In both instances it was a pair of Green supporters. It’s all rather low key.

And low key is the way I would capture this entire campaign. Dunno what it’s like elsewhere in Soviet Canuckistan, but out here there’s alot of election fatigue. Going back to 2004

• 2004 Federal election
• 2004 Municipal election
• 2005 Provincial election
• 2006 Federal election
• 2008 Federal election (Oct)
• 2008 Provincial by-election (Oct)
• 2008 Municipal election (Nov)
• 2009 Provincial election (May)

So here in Vancouver’s West End that’ll be 8 elections in 5 years–and 3 in a period of about 6 weeks this year. Even for us political nerds it’s hard to get too enervated by it all.

At the ballot box those sentiments could pan out in a number of ways. Many fence sitters might decide to stay home instead. Some will snark vote: either vote for the Tories to give someone a majority and to get some peace, or do the Anything But Harper schtick and try to support the local candidate best positioned to keep the Cons out. And there’s always the FYou vote, which in BC was NDP for a long time, then Reform/Alliance, but now seems splintered between the Dippers and Greens. Though I expect a lot of Greens will split towards the Liberal or New Democrat who can win in their consituency.

Vancouver Centre–OK I’ll call it. Michael Byers squeaks out a <1, 000 vote plurality over Hedy.

Unless she romps it again….

I went to North Vancouver’s all candidates meeting on Wednesday night and was left with a few impressions (side note: there’s a prediction on the winner of this – and several other – ridings at the end).

 1. Compared to the 2006 debate at the same venue, the crowd was incredibly respectful. Despite being marginally pro-Saxton (though from my vantage point I may not have been able to gauge audience reaction entirely accurately), there was only one moment of heckling, which was over before the debate was 5 minutes old.

2. Don Bell knows what plays and what doesn’t in the riding. Bell is an old pro, probably running his last campaign, who is putting up a heck of a fight in a right leaning riding. He can come off as awkward from time to time double checking his policy notes and stumbling over his words. However, the answers he does provide (including the best joke of the night) show an inherent knowledge of North Vancouver’s electorate. Don Bell knows North Vancouver and North Vancouver knows Don Bell.

3. All the subtleties that Don Bell knows about North Vancouver, Andrew Saxton doesn’t. He’s a new comer, it shows and North Vancouver doesn’t like newcomers – just ask Warren Kinsella. He was awkward, caught in contradictions once or twice and really fell off the wagon towards the end of the night as his jokes fell flat and his short, pointed answers, turned into meandering forays into a party platform he wasn’t entirely familiar with and a defensive answer about missing debates and failing to fill out questionnaires. Saxton has the potential to do well. He may win this election, but in a few more years he’ll be a much better candidate with a much better understanding of North Vancouver’s fussy electorate. Let’s hope that the local Conservatives don’t eat their own and give Mr. Saxton a second chance should he require one.

4. Jim Stephenson was not nearly as good as he was in 2006, but was still a pleasure to watch. A great understanding of his party’s platform and a very engaging style proved him to be the most likable candidate on stage. Perhaps resigned to a third place finish, the most interesting moments of the night were the little bones he kept throwing the Liberals.

5. I’m looking very much forward to the NDP candidates next film – he fought the good fight. He had nothing to lose and it showed, still good for him to show up. In 2006 the NDP candidate missed this debate because she was recovering from exhaustion in hospital. The Libertarian candidate, well, she sure didn’t hold back (and good on the audience for respecting her for that).

 6. This debate reminded me of why Don Bell won this riding in 2004 and 2006, and why he’s going to be the victor on October 14th, that’s right I’m calling it. Don Bell, North Vancouver – Liberal HOLD, but not by much.

7. While I’m here, I’ll also make a few more calls: West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast -STSC, oh the anticipation….John Weston, Conservative PICKUP by a country mile, but not a majority. Vancouver Centre…Hedy Fry Liberal HOLD, with a reasonable plurality – 2-4th may be seperated by no more than a point.

 If anything comes up in the next few days I’ll be back…

Fait étonnant, c’est un Gilles Duceppe visiblement agacé des attaques que subit Stéphane Dion à propos de la qualité de son anglais, qui s’est porté à la défense de ce dernier. Qualifiant la sortie de Stephen Haper à l’endroit du chef du Parti libéral de « coup bas », M. Duceppe est d’avis que les commentaires du genre n’ont pas leur place en campagne électorale. Selon le chef du Bloc québécois, plusieurs leaders politiques éprouvent des difficultés à s’exprimer dans les deux langues officielles.

Bonjour my friend, how are you mon ami ?

Il faut avouer que le bilinguisme des chefs des cinq principaux partis politiques varie énormément d’un à l’autre. Et si le français de Jack Layton est de loin supérieur à celui d’Elizabeth May, il est permis de s’étonner des propos de Stephen Harper dont le français est relativement du même calibre que l’anglais de Stéphane Dion.

Toujours selon Gilles Duceppe, « M. Dion fait des efforts pour parler en anglais et je pense qu’il a progressé. On demande beaucoup plus aux francophones de bien parler anglais qu’aux anglophones de bien parler français. Il y a deux poids, deux mesures. »

À ce propos, il est indéniable que le bilinguisme canadien n’existe que sur papier. En effet, selon Statistique Canada (chiffres de 2007), seulement 17% des Canadiens sont bilingues. Or, cette donnée masque le véritable écart qui existe entre le Québec et le ROC. En effet, si l’on fait exception du Nouveau-Brunswick où il atteint 33,4% – principalement en raison de la population acadienne –, le taux de bilinguisme est beaucoup moins reluisant dans le ROC, où il varie de 4 à 12%, qu’au Québec où il atteint 40,6%.

Baignant dans une Amérique en grande majorité anglophone, il est généralement admis que les Québécois d’origine francophone ont tout à gagner à maîtriser l’anglais.

Cela dit, en ce qui a trait au « bilinguisme canadien », ces derniers n’ont pas de leçons à recevoir de CTV, de Stephen Harper, ni même de l’ensemble ROC.

I had a Dr.’s appointment in Kerrisdale this afternoon. My journey from work (1st and Boundary) to West Boulevard took me along Broadway, up Nanaimo, across 33rd–must of it the Vancouver Kingsway riding (VK).

VK is of course the riding of David Emerson. Paul Martin convinced Emerson to run for the Grits. Once Martin went down to Harper in 2006, Emerson went from “Stephen Harper is teh evil” to “sure dude, I’ll totally be your minister.” Many in the riding were choked about this–and still are.

So you’d think there’d be little support for the Tories in VK, right? Well if signs are…a sign of anything, there’s a lot of Blue (Cons.) in that there riding. There’s also a lot of Orange (NDP) and Red (Lib.). A lot of each. Here’s a bit on each candidate:

Salomon Rayek is a businessman who runs an import/export business.

Wendy Yuan is the CEO of Bradley Pacific.

Don Davies is a lawyer specializing in human and worker rights.

Doug Warkentin is a researcher engineer and environmental entrepreneur.

I found the rich swarths of colour profoundly moving. If only every riding was as engaged!

Reprinted with permission from Fair Vote Canada.

Open letter from Fair Vote Canada to strategic voters and vote-swappers

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.” – Albert Einstein

Another federal election and another disaster for democracy.On October 14, millions of Canadians – possibly eight million – will become orphan voters, casting ballots that send no one to Ottawa. As usual, the election results will be wildly distorted.

Some parties will get a portion of seats far exceeding their portion of the popular vote, while others will get too little or none at all.We may even see a party opposed by six voters in every ten take majority control in the House of Commons.

Why we call this exercise “democracy” is a continuing mystery.

During every election in recent memory the frustration created by an undemocratic electoral system leads some to conclude that voters should try to “game” the system. Instead of marking the ballot for a party you support, they say, be “smart” and vote for a party you do not support in order block another party that you despise.

A recent poll by the Toronto Star indicated that about half of those supporting the Liberals, NDP and Green Party would consider casting a negative or “strategic” vote, abandoning the party they actually prefer, to vote for another party in the hope of stopping a candidate from the front-running Conservatives.

In addition to 40% of the eligible voters who choose not to vote we could now have another large group of people who have given up on sincere voting and genuine democratic representation.

This is no way to nourish pride of citizenship or public respect for the laws that emanate from an unrepresentative Parliament.

Citizens in most major democracies take for granted their right to cast a vote that elects the representation they want. In the upcoming election, the majority of Canadian voters will all but certainly be denied that right.Fair Vote Canada cannot advise voters whether to cast negative votes or to participate in vote-swapping schemes on October 14. It’s rarely a clear or easy choice.

What we can advise is that all Canadians should be coming together to demand reform of our country’s undemocratic election process.

If you have not already done so, join and support Fair Vote Canada. Sign the Fair Vote Canada petition calling for a national referendum on electoral reform. Urge other organizations to make active citizenship, equal votes and proportional representation for all Canadians a part of their basic mission.

Together we can win.

British Columbians showed the way in 2005 when 58% voted by referendum for proportional representation, only to be frustrated – in the short-term – by an undemocratic government-imposed threshold of 60%. On May 12, 2009, British Columbians will vote again in an electoral reform referendum. With our encouragement and help, they can lead Canada on the path of democratic renewal.

The electoral system has orphaned many of us. We must refuse to be silenced. Democracy has been long delayed, but if democrats are steadfast, democracy will not be forever denied.

Fair Vote Canada
Orphan Voters

Please help spread the word about the importance of reforming our electoral system – distribute this letter widely. – Ocean.

Say I support a party and want it to govern. I want it to win seats this election. My vote supports it financially, and money is the lifeblood of politics. Under the political financing law, each vote provides the party $1.75/year. So 1 million votes gives my party $7.5 Million dollars over a four year term. That goes a long way to providing my party the resources to grow support in the near term, and over time, hopefully lead to forming a government.

But what if my party’s candidate has no chance of winning in my riding? Do I vote “strategically” (really tactically) to stop my least favorite outcome? This not only deprives my party of money and gives it to my opponents, but if I make this choice in election after election, likely reinforces the perception in the general electorate that my party is a fringe party, with no chance of winning and not worthy of support. This perception becomes self perpetuating, and my party likely never gets elected. Am I prepared to continue working for and supporting such a party?

 Electoral success is the result of conviction and persistence over a number of years. Strategy by definition means a long term perspective.  There are 35% of Canadians who didn’t vote in the last election. Perhaps as my party grows its support and get its message out, these voters may find my party offers them a real choice they want to support. But they won’t have this choice if my party becomes irrelevant. Voting with conviction for my party is the best strategic vote I can make. If I don’t support my party, how can I expect others to do it.

There’s been a slew of all-candidates’ meetings as of late; haven’t made it to one. Darned job!

Some allege Lorne Mayencourt (Cons.) is withdrawing via passive participation, skipping a number of events that his competitors are all attending. Many have been impressed by both Carr (Green) and Byers (NDP), in terms of their performances on the hustings. But by far, what I’m hearing most is:

What are the polling numbers in the riding, so I can decide how to vote?

Not for whom, but how. Because many see this election as the most contestable since 1993. No one I’ve met thinks Carr could win the first elected Green seat in Canada–but would vote for her if it didn’t increase Mayencourt’s chances via progressive vote splitting. Many more would love to vote for Byers, but fear the same thing. In fact, some who voted for Svend Robinson in 2006 because of his work on queer rights are much more afraid of Mayencourt squeaking in due to a split vote.

I had hoped to vote in the advance polls, but I too am waiting to see what the numbers on the ground say. I would vote for Byers if he has a chance of knocking incumbent Liberal Hedy Fry out of her seat–even though I prefer a carbon tax to the NDP’s gotta-protect-labour-jobs-no-matter-what alternative. I’d even vote for Carr if she was close to Fry and ahead of the others.

Polling numbers for Van Centre s’il vous plaît….

This afternoon I received an email from the local Conservative campaign. It brought up several interesting points which I’d like to address here.

 

On Campaign Literature:

The Weston Campaign email mocked the on-the-ground organization of the Liberal, Green and NDP candidates. Of specific note, there was the suggestion that no literature has been mailed out by any of the major parties. It’s an interesting point, and I was planning on writing something about it anyway. While I don’t know what date, specifically, the note was written, my experience is significantly different than the one expressed by the Weston Campaign email.

 

While I haven not, to date, received any NDP literature, I don’t recall ever receiving any NDP literature in this riding – very much a non-issue (and I don’t know that if I were the Conservatives I’d necessarily be gloating about this– the more strong campaigns around to split the vote, the better).

 

The Liberals have managed to provide literature in a mail out in my neighbourhood. While aesthetically reasonable on the outside, it’s poorly designed, bland and amateurish inside and on the back – I find this a bit shocking as it looks to be a simple template, how do you screw up a template?. In short, it looks as though it was thrown together at the last second (which undoubtedly it was given the late nomination of the candidate). Because the Liberals got in the game late, they had to choose a template (again assuming) for the flyers loaded with information on the platform, history and the candidate which, really, makes the brochure daunting for anyone looking for quick hits about the candidate or party. However, at least they got something out before advanced polling unlike some parties (see above, below). Quick note: it says a lot that I’m complaining about a party giving me too much info, doesn’t it.

 

Blair Wilson’s campaign/office has provided my area of the riding with several mail outs – one a slick looking effort, which was very accessible. Clear, plain language combined with a simple premise – though a little light on party platform…and really, if you were going to highlight anything, would it be your proposed raising of the GST? Nonetheless, easily the best literature I’ve received during the campaign. We also received a riding update after the writ dropped (though published before Blair joined the Greens) which was timed very well.

 

On to the Conservative Campaign, from whom I have yet to receive any literature from whatsoever. Well, that’s not exactly true. I have received information from their North Vancouver candidate (quite the publication I might add) and 20 percenters 2-3 times a week from Lee Richardson’s office. All that comes to mind is that before casting stones at the ineptitude of your opponents, perhaps one ought to consider making sure that they are aware of the boundaries of one’s own riding…I suppose it’s still possible that I’ll receive some information (perhaps waiting for the platform to be released) before voting day. However, none of this is particularly useful for those of us that have already voted. Bravo.

 

On Vandalism:

Beyond the normal mischief associated with vandalizing campaign signs, the Conservatives have charged that there has “been politically targeted” vandalism against them in West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – STSC. It’s quite obvious that the same is true of the Liberals in both that riding and North Vancouver as well – I’m sure that the Greens and NDP have also had some similar experience. I particularly find such action distasteful when involving signs on private property and hope that those who enjoy defacing signs at least respect private property and the right of citizens to express their choice for MP.

 

I bring this up mostly because of the news coming out of Toronto regarding vandalism to the homes of Liberal supporters. Let’s hope that the silliness here doesn’t progress to anything beyond throwing a sign in a bush (and that the box cutters that have been cutting up Liberal and Conservative signs are put away for the remainder of the campaign).

 

One final note. Things seem to be tightening up, ever so slightly on the ground in both North Shore ridings– it almost (ALMOST) feels like there’s a fight a-brewin’ in West Van-Sunshine Coast-STSC and perhaps Don Bell’s campaign has found some strength and traction. We’ll see, I suspect that a Liberal charge is likely too little too late, assuming they can even maintain the trickle of momentum they have managed the last few days.

Being an east coaster Newfoundlander originally, my political perspectives were shaped somewhat differently than that which I am accustomed to in the Riding of Skeena- Bulkley Valley. In Newfoundland a radical might be one who considered serious campaigning on the Sabbath. Well in this riding, lets just say the idea of British Columbia laying claim to more relevant political extremes, is not a myth.

The Friday all candidates meeting seemed to show the diversity well in the forefront, as all six candidates struck a claim to their ideological tent that provided varying degrees of comfort to the realities of the day.

The newest candidate in the riding is none other than Mary Etta Goodacre of the fringe Canadian Action Party. Her candidacy is noteworthy by virtue of her family affiliations. Her husband Bill is a current councilor and Mayoral candidate in Smithers for the upcoming November municipal elections. Her ideological bent can be best typlified as being left of left. Her major platform consisting of trying warn the electorate of the 9-11 conspiracy which was ” mastermined by a cabol of the very rich and wealthy” You can see that her platform is less resonant with even the extreme fringes of the riding. Still her spunk and determination to tell her narrative is inspiring for those who believe in the democratic space of our nation.

To the right of her was the Liberal candidate Corriane Morhart a social worker and a firm believer in the “Smithers is hockeyville” movement as she donned the sweater which acted as the shield to our towns claim to the title a few years back. She was probably the least polished of any Liberal Candidate I ever encountered. Along with her attire she used most of her closing remarks to request a moment of silence in memory of the hiway of tears victims. One of the family members in a question, posted pictures of a few of the missing girls on the stage in a further touching moment in their memory.

In addition two more of the also-rans in the meeting were the Green and Christian Heritage candidates Hondo Aarnot and Rod Taylor respectively. While both are not contenders to the MP prize, their visions were more palatable to the extremes in the theater and riding. Hondo Arenot, in addition to tabling the green agenda made a impassioned plea to the electorate to cast a vote to the Greens as the ” NDP of the 21st century” Taylor a well respected mill worker, is also a candidate for the CHP’s National Leadership. His interaction with the audience was well received even if not convincing. His usage of strong language such as ” demographic winter” in discussing our aging population was very insightful. While many may not vote for either candidate their story left all with food for thought.

From here it leaves the two contenders Conservative Sharon Smith and NDP MP Nathan Cullen. Both presented their and their parties vision for the riding but Cullen offered the most realistic resume for the future as he offered his qualms regarding the Blue Pearl mining project off Hudson Bay Mountain. The project is believed to be fast tracked without proper vetting from all stakeholders. His call on the company to further engage the locals appeared polished and well-engaging to appeal to the broader audience. Smith’s passionate plea for all stakeholders fisherman, experts, communities and Aboriginal groups offered her a outlet to engage to her electorate. Still she seemed to be more concerned in not going to far away from the Harper agenda and it showed in some of her pauses in conversation.

In a nutshell in addition to the audience questioning, which included a lady launching a speech that included ” believing that all third boys should have a vasectomy” the exercise probably changed few minds. Still the all-candidates meeting served its purpose to give all candidates a voice that can be heard. Moreover, it is gratifying that the meeting was held on Friday rather than Sunday for example, as that would of left those like CHP’s Rod Taylor to skip in reverence to the Sabbath. Although , as the campaign heads to the homestretch the electoral winter as approaching many who are wishing for a day of rest. And that perhaps will be a thanksgiving for all.

Since Harpee has ascended to the leadership of the Tories, one theme that continues to pop up from time to time has been about a (non-Tory) coalition government in Ottawa. While my Oh Gawd Not Him inclination finds any alternative appealing, my democratic integrity sensor says “not on.” Here’s why.

But you didn’t say….

Coalition minority governments are not only common in many parts of the world, they’re the norm. Many of these jurisdictions use some form of proportional representation to elect government members; a few others use our first-past-the-post system.  Countries like Ireland, New Zealand, and Slovenia have had few (any?) majority governments in the last decade: formal coalition governments are the best way to have stable minority governments.

There are  a couple of differences in such places when compared to Canada. First, no one expects to get a majority, so the question of with whom a party will coalesce is always on the table, explictly or tacitly. Second, voters usually have some mechanism to prioritize their support through a ranking system if they so wish. Finally, in a number of such countries, parties campaign as coalition partners from the outset.

Our system  produces majority governments more often than minority ones, which leads the 2 major parties (Grits and Tories) to campaign towards a majority, leaving the idea of coalition off (their) table. As well, many voters in “swing” (i.e. contestable, changeable) ridings vote strategically–usually to keep someone else out: while many assume this only applies across the left/right divide, there are some who vote NDP to keep out Liberals, or Liberal to keep out the NDP–and they would be unhappy to see their democratic intention suddenly trumped by party leadership.

But most importantly, the Greens, Liberals, and NDP (the most plausible possible coalition partners) have not campaigned as a coalition. In fact, with the except of a handful of ridings, they are competing head-to-head-to-head across the country. So each candidate’s votes are counted separatedly anyway: were a consolidated campaign run (one candidate for their coalition per riding), voters would know precisely what they are voting for.

If the Tories were to win the most seats by even 1 seat, they get to form the government. The other parties can bring them down if they don’t like it. Or they can agitate for electoral reform.

A call for STV

Last year Ontario voters rejected a new electoral system called mixed member propotional (MMP). Among the concerns friends of mine in ON had were:

• A number of MLAs who were not required to provide consituent-level services (while most others did)
• If I don’t like the new system, I’m stuck with it (can’t vote how I always did)
• Further entrenchment of party power (only party list candidates could win the additional seats, not independents

Single Transferable Vote (STV) addresses these concerns to my liking–at least as it’s proposed here in BC, where we’ll be voting on it again in the 2009 provincial election. BC STV allows those who:

• Like the current system can vote for their one preferred candidate only
• Want to rank all candidates in their electoral district can do so
• Only want to rank some candidates can do so
• Want to support independents can do so
• Want to vote for a minor party to do so without fear of “wasting” their vote and letting the baddies in instead

It is, in other words, change for those who want–flexible change–and the status quo for those who like things the way they are.

If STV gets through this time in BC I can assure I will support the Greens and independents in the next provincial election in 2013.

Last night I attended an all candidates meeting in White Rock.

Attending:

• David Blair (Green) showed up late and nearly missed the opening remarks.  He was well spoken but seemed out of his depth on many non-local issues.  Blair’s personal platform was being anti-”business as usual”.
• Russ Hiebert (Conservative) came off much like his leaflets: Aren’t Harper and the Conservatives great?  He was an excellent speaker although there was a lot of flipping through the “official party position book” (I was able to predict every answer Harper made in the leaders’ debate tonight).  Only Hiebert was consistently able to answer questions before being cut off by the clock.  The other candidates tended to whisper conspiratorially to one another a lot while he was speaking.
• Brian Marlatt (PC) never once broke from his monotone, borderline unintelligible pontifications, and came across as being heavily medicated.  He had a lot to say about the Conservatives being evil Neocon Bush-puppets.  Unfortunately Marlatt very rarely got to the topic at hand before being cut off by the clock.
• Judy Higginbotham (Liberal) got off to a slow start, and had to pause dramatically in order to allow supporters to identify applause lines.  She mentioned the greats of the Liberal Party – Chretien and Trudeau – quite a bit more than I would consider wise in the West.  Higgenbotham was a good speaker, but had a lot of problems with the clock.  At first she just got distracted and trailed out when time ran out, and later ineffectively fought the buzzer on almost every question.  This resulted in her mic being cut off around 10 times in the evening while she yelled as loud as possible with the crowd yelling back “Time’s up!”.  Rather unbecoming.
• Peter Prontzos (NDP) showed up with his tie-dyed daughters in tow, who proceeded to loudly heckle Hiebert.  He echoed the PC sentiment that Harper is an evil Neocon, but with the caveat that the Liberals are almost as bad.  He called them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum at one point.
  

Health Care
Only Hiebert acknowledged that provinces run health care, and that increased salaries are the only way to get and retain more nurses and doctors.  He also mentioned getting foreign trained doctors re-certified faster.  All the other candidates waxed eloquent about more accessible training for nurses.

Income Trusts
Hiebert took a beating about the change in taxation status, but countered pretty effectively with supportive quotes from Liberals from days gone by.

Safety of the Railway Line Along White Rock’s Shore
Higginbotham: Yes, we are going to move it inland, just as soon as the US agrees to pay for it.
Hiebert: We’ll make it safer as is.
Everyone Else: Of course we’re going to move it!

At this point the moderators actually allowed a question about Clinton’s responsibility for the current US financial crisis.  Marlatt and Prontzos took this as an opportunity to rail on about Neocons and Bush.  If I had realized that the bar for questions was so low I would have submitted some of my own!

Do You Personally Support Same Sex Marriage?
Blair had the most memorable line of the evening here, with “as long as it doesn’t involve me personally”.  Higginbotham’s answer was interesting in that she never directly answered it, instead talking about how not allowing SSM is un-Canadian.

Genetically Modified Organisms
Hiebert was the only candidate against mandatory labeling.

Afghanistan
Prontoz had an eyebrow raising response to this one, advocating that we pull out now, but go back in with the United Nations, and intervene in Darfur as well.

Senate Reform
Much to my surprise, Marlatt actually came out against Senate reform.  Blair really stumbled on this one, falling back on his old standby “more study is needed”.  Higginbotham said something to the effect of “I will be so amazing as your representative that the Senate will be irrelevant”.  I swear to God.

Fixed Election Dates
As the crowd booed Hiebert, a dude with long hair and a crazy beard got up to cheer.  This fellow turned out to be a Whalley street preacher named Brian, who (after the debate) had far more to say about Jesus than I was interested in hearing.  He told me that he was torn between Hiebert (for his leadership qualities) and Blair (for his empathy).

All said and done, Hiebert was the clear winner.  Regardless of whether you liked his policy, he came across as the most calm and informed; even though under constant attack from all the other candidates he remained composed while defusing the most damaging claims.  And his ability to fully communicate his message within the allotted time was very compelling.  Yay for practicing and cheat sheets?

More of Raven’s writings can be found at Fumbled Mumblings.

An explosive account in a major column today reveals that the federal NDP back in Ed Broadbent’s time, rejected the Liberal government’s offer to change our voting system to proportional representation.

Why?

Because “the MPs were afraid of losing their seats.”

The electoral crapshoot would long be a thing of the past had NDP leader Ed Broadbent and his caucus seized a never-before-disclosed offer from prime minister Pierre Trudeau immediately after the 1980 election. The Liberals captured 147 of 282 seats with 44 per cent of the popular vote, but failed to elect a single MP west of Winnipeg despite the support of about 25 per cent of western voters.

A Liberal majority with no western seats ignited western rage. Not only do ongoing unrepresentative and perverse electoral outcomes undermine democratic legitimacy and suppress turnout, they rupture the bonds holding the country together, artificially fomenting regional alienation and fracturing national unity.

Trudeau invited Broadbent to his office for a chat. The NDP had captured 26 of its 32 seats in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. with about one-third of the vote. Trudeau said he would introduce legislation for proportional representation if the NDP would co-sponsor it.

According to well-placed sources, Broadbent said he would take the proposal to his caucus. The answer was no.

Broadbent told the prime minister NDP MPs were afraid of losing their seats. Trudeau declined to forge ahead alone.

This is a lengthy column, with lots of info, and likely to get substantial attention.

As part of Radio One’s coverage of the federal election, candidates from Surrey North were invited to a live discussion/debate this morning. Candidates from the Greens, Grits and NDP were in attendance; Tory candidate Dona Cadman was not.

For those unfamiliar, Cadman is the widow of Chuck Cadman. Chuck led a grassroots movement here in BC to update the Young Offender’s Act after their son was murdered by another youth. When the Reform Party was gathering steam out West, Chuck was one of a number of locally respected activists who were recruited for their hard work. And populist appeal.

Chuck served in Parliament from 1993 until his death from cancer in 2005. Over those 12 years he was a Reform, Alliance, and ultimately independent MP. When the right merged into the current Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) Cadman lost the CPC nomination–but easily won as an independent. Many outside BC first became aware of him when he voted with the Martin Liberals to prevent an election a few months before his death.

Dona Cadman endorsed her friend Penny Priddy for the NDP in the last election and Priddy won easily; Dona’s support no doubt helped, but Priddy has been a powerful and popular figure for years.

Dona has also alleged the Harper Tories tried to “buy” Chuck’s support in Parliament, offering inducements such as a life insurance policy. I’ve no idea about these allegations’ credibility. But I do know this: Dona is now the candidate for the very party she accused of being unethical. Bizarre. Priddy has declined to run for re-election as well, making Surrey North all the more interesting.

Dona’s either been Harped into a muzzle or has decided to avoid reporters. She did do an all-candidates meeting last night though. But her communication skills and lack of a populist bent are almost anathema to her husband. Or….she went for the nomination to sabotage Harper. Haven’t seen any polls yet, but the buzz is, the Tories are out of this one already.

Will the NDP hold the seat? Will it be a Liberal pick-up? Or will vote splitting between the 2 hand it to the Invisible Womanâ„¢? Oooooh…..exciting!

Congrats to Layton and Harper for proposing more time to discuss the economy. Let’s build on this idea for future election campaigns: have 4 debates, one a week on a major issue. Fifteen minutes is not enough time to explain a policy on the environment, healthcare, etc. but 2 or 3 hours should be. Hold one debate in each of the different regions of the country with one French language debate in Quebec. Our democracy would be better for it.

On a fecund Sunday the husband and I were clicking around when we chanced upon JoyTV, our regional Christish (rather than Christian) channel here in the Lower Mainland. The show was some interview chat thing hosted by a rather self-involved young man. Who spliced in onanistic “reflections” on politics and voting between the actual interview/chat portions of the show. This was apparently a recast of a live show on Vision TV from last week.

We don’t have–many, at least–theocratic evangelicals in Canada. I have a few friends who are Saved and while we don’t agree on all things we also are quite OK at finding commonalities between us, yes even when one of us is a sodomite. It’s one of the things I love about Soviet Canuckistan: we generally can get our heads around the difference between what “affects me” and what “upsets me.”

But I digress…

The show caught my attention because it featured a one-on-one interview with Green leader Elizabeth May and all-about-me dude. She was impressive: easygoing, forthright, sensible, gutsy. I loved her speaking out in favour of social justice and secular pluralism as a Christian herself. I think dude was a bit scared of her. Too right.

Among the subsequent panelists were reps from each of the 4 main parties (ici, ce n’est pas le Bloc…they weren’t interested). Two of the reps are Vancouver Centre candidates: NDP Michael Byers and Tory Lorne Mayencourt. Byers came across and bright but a bit like a pit bull; Mayencourt when from silly to incomprehensible in about 30 seconds. If Grits can abandoned the Liberals because of Dion, every self-respecting Conservative in this riding should leave Mayencourt high and dry himself.

Byers hammered the Liberal candidate for Dion’s passive support of the Tories this last session of Parliament. Green dude hammered Mayencourt’s rather tragic claims to the Tory’s having a credible environmental policy. No one came across as awesome, but Lorne was by far the loser.

The debates are gonna be interesting….

The polls suggest the current electoral system favors the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc at the expense of the NDP and Greens. Some argue this discourages people from voting, and propose proportional representation (PR) as the solution. Perhaps it is part of a solution. But a real issue which is never discussed is lack of representation by population (Rep by Pop), which causes some votes to be worth more than others.

If anyone should be discouraged it is residents of Ontario, Alberta and BC. These have 1 MP for every 120,000 in population. All the other provinces are over-represented, from the extreme case of PEI which negotiated a great deal at Confederation (4 MPs for a population of 140,000) to Quebec (1 MP per 103,000). So at this election, the 4 Maritime provinces will elect 32 MPs as BC elects 36, even though BC has double the population. This isn’t fair.

 Electoral reform, combining Rep by Pop with some form of PR (say 1 for every 2% of the vote, or 50) will solve part of the voter turnout issue by making sure every vote matters equally. The greater responsibility falls on politicians. Get voters engaged by proposing and debating ideas instead of launching personal/negative attacks or bickering. Voters are disenchanted with politicians. If the politicians change the way they behave, maybe voters will as well.

Bloggers everywhere are writing about strategic voting.

Some argue that progressives should vote strategically. Others argue against, making the compelling case that it is never right to vote for the lesser of evils rather than for a party which best accords with one’s values.

This will be my last post on this topic.

As I responded in a comment on another blog, I think people of good conscience can take different sides on strategic voting and both be right.

I’ve weighed back and forth whether voting strategically is the ethical thing to do – for me – and I don’t pretend to know what’s right for anyone else.

But after thinking hard about it, having for a moment thought that, for the first time in all my voting years, it was right that I vote against one party and not for the party whose values most reflect mine, I just can’t do it.

For me, a vote for a party I don’t support goes against everything I believe in, and the principles and values which have guided me throughout my life. But I do understand someone arguing that to uphold their own values – which could be very similar to mine -, they must do exactly opposite to what I’ve decided.

It may be that the tension between the two positions is really that captured between two levels of thought or discourse, between the philosophically ethical and the specifically moral. Which is why each position can be both right and wrong.

From this point on in this election and for several months beyond to the May 2009 BC election, I’ll be spending my time working toward democratic reform. That must start with a change to our voting system, to proportional representation.

Had PR been in place for this election, no voter would be confronted with the dilemma of choosing to vote other than what’s in their heart.

[Cross-posted at Challenging the Commonplace]

 

I’ve very little info about this All Candidates Meeting except to report that:

• it was hosted by the BC Nurses Union;
• took place at the Coast Bastion in Nanaimo;
• was attended by Christina Knighton (Green),  Brian Scott (Liberal) and NDP incumbent Jean Crowder; and
• Conservative Reed Elley was a no-show.

A report in the Cowichan NewsLeader on Wednesday indicated a fifth candidate running: Jack East, for the Marxist-Leninist Party.