I’ll stay out of the predictions game outside of my province. So since everyone and their Mom is posting on this, lets cut to the chase:

Battleford-Llyodminster:
Winner: Gerry Ritz (CON)

Blackstrap:
Winner: Lynne Yelich (CON)

Cypress Hills-Grassland:
Winner: David Anderson (CON)

Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River:
Winner: Rob Clarke (CON)

Palliser:
Winner: Ray Boughen (CON)

Prince Albert:
Winner: Randy Hoback (CON)

Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre:
Winner: Tom Lukiwski (CON)

Regina-Qu’Appelle:
Winner: Janice Bernier (NDP)

Saskatoon-Humboldt:
Winner: Brad Trost (CON)

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar:
Winner: Nettie Wiebe (NDP)

Saskatoon-Wanuskewin:
Winner: Maurice Vellacott (CON)

Souris-Moose Mountain:
Winner: Ed Komarnicki (CON)

Wascana:
Winner: Ralph Goodale (LIB)

Yorkton-Melville:
Winner: Garry Breitkreuz (CON)

The squeakers will be in Palliser, Regina-Qu’Appelle, and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. Given the strength of the New Democrat candidates in all three ridings (all of whom have been on the hustings since early 2007) and the upswing in NDP support province-wide, I don’t think I’m going out on too far of a limb in calling for victories in 2 of the 3 ridings.

Goodale will easily retain his seat in Wascana, but I just don’t see Orchard pulling it out up in DMCR.

The NDP will finish a strong second in Palliser, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Saskatoon-Humboldt, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Blackstrap, and Prince Albert, putting some distance between themselves and the Liberal candidates.

The Conservative support is rock solid outside of the main urban centres, and while they might see a slight drop in their overall percentages, they will still win handily over their competitors.

The final tally: CON 11, NDP 2, LIB 1.

Nationally, I’ll deal in generalities:
- The Conservatives will win an increased minority government
- The Liberals will win seats numbering in the low 90s
- The New Democrats will break 40 seats increase their seat total (35-40)
- The BQ will take 1 or 2 of the existing Conservative seats in Quebec
- The Green Party will not win a seat
- All the leaders will win their seats, except Elizabeth May who will finish a close 3rd.

On a beaucoup parlé de la campagne libérale, de ses ratés et de son chef mais si la lecture des sondages est exacte, le grand perdant de cette élection devrait être le chef conservateur Stephen Harper.

Comprenons-nous bien : la performance de l’actuel premier ministre, quoique très ordinaire depuis le débat des chefs, n’est pas catastrophique. Dans la moyenne pour être exact. Mais ce n’est pas là-dessus qu’il sera jugé.

Les conservateurs, comme la majorité des mouvements de droite, veulent des résultats. Les coupures aux subventions dans le domaine culturel et dans le développement économique des régions sont des exemples bien réels de cette idéologie politique. Si le retour sur l’investissement n’est pas bon, on coupe ou on remodèle le programme. La logique peut tenir.

Stephen Harper a décidé d’utiliser un des échappatoires de sa propre loi sur les élections à date fixe pour se lancer dans une campagne électorale qui n’avait pour but que d’aller chercher les sièges manquants à une majorité conservatrice. L’opportunisme politique avec un grand O, quoique le seul reproche qu’on puisse lui faire est d’avoir voilé sciemment l’esprit de la loi qu’il a mis en place.

Le résultat net, en date d’aujourd’hui, est que le Parti conservateur a fragilisé sa place à la Chambre des Communes. Après avoir créé de toutes pièces le personnage de Stéphane Dion, il a laissé les autres partis redéfinir son image. Il les a même aidés, par exemple avec sa position face à la situation économique mondiale. On ne se donne pas de chances lorsqu’on dit aux Canadiens d’investir dans la Bourse, alors que ceux-ci ne cherchent qu’à se faire rassurer. Pas plus qu’en présentant une plate-forme électorale (qui, malgré certains bons côtés, avait plutôt l’air d’un plan B fabriqué à la va-vite)… après le vote par anticipation.

Que feront les militants conservateurs après l’élection? Attendons les résultats, mais Stephen Harper devra répondre de ses actes. Si le résultat net de l’élection est le retour à la case départ, c’est que le premier ministre aura échoué son plus gros test politique.

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.

We finally have our first election poll for Saskatchewan (no longer just “the west”). I’m not generally one to go by individual poll results, so take these with a grain of salt. However, since they are all we have, lets look at them a little closer. The poll, conducted by News Talk 650/Angus Reid, questioned 800 voters from across the province. The results (+/- 3.5%, 19 out 20 times):

Conservatives: 40%
NDP: 35%
Liberals: 17%
Greens: 7%
Undecided: 28%

Interestingly, in opposite fashion to the national trends of the past week, Dion’s approval ratings are extremely low in the province, even lower than Elizabeth May. Stephen Harper is thought to make the best PM of the bunch, with Jack Layton having the highest approal rating. In 2006 the split was 49/25, the Liberal 2006 total was not reported but was higher than the current 17%.

A little speculation, again with a huge grain of salt. The NDP are serious challengers in 3 ridings, Palliser, Regina-Qu’Appelle and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. In 2006, the Conservatives enjoyed  leads of 6.5%/9%/10% over the New Democrats in SRB, R-Q, and Palliser. Assuming that these provincial trends breakdown evenly amongst these ridings it suggests that Nettie Wiebe in SRB has a decent chance of overcoming her 1,919 vote deficeit from 2006. It also means that Janice Bernier might be closer than expected for the New Democrats in Regina Qu’Appelle and that Liberal support may collapse enough to give Don Mitchell a chance in a relatively tight three-way race in Palliser.

Additionally, these numbers suggest that in most of the ridings with a major urban portion (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Saskatoon-Humboldt, Blackstrap, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, and Prince Albert), where the NDP finished second or a close third, that the New Democrat campaigns could enjoy significant gains on the Tory incumbents while pulling away from the Liberals.

For the Liberals, I don’t think this means Goodale is in trouble in Wascana, as his closest competitor is a Conservative candidate and King Ralph has consistently bucked provincial trends. A poll conducted by the Regina-Leader Post in Wascana, conducted between Oct 3 and 7th and interviewing 801 voters (3.4%, 19 out 20 times), gives the following breakdown of decided voters:

Goodale (Lib): 51.4
Hunter (Con): 34.3
Moore (NDP): 11.1
Wooldridge (GP): 3.2

If these number hold true, it would suggest that my analyses of Wascana and Ralph bucking the provincial trends (yet again) were not far off the mark. Some further analyses by Murray Mandryk. However, in DMCR it could mean that despite having a strong organizer like Orchard running, the Liberals may not have enough to overcome Conservative incumbent Rob Clarke, with some support swinging to the NDP instead

Anyhow, as a politics addict I couldn’t resist a little speculation on a one-off poll. So take it with a grain of salt, disagree if you want, I am always open to different interpretations of the numbers.

_________

cross-posted on my blog.

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.

The Conservative candidate David Anderson in Cypress Hills – Grasslands scuttled an All Candidates forum in Assiniboia, SK after he refused to attend. That’s according to Duane Filson’s campaign office. The Chamber of Commerce in that town had planned to hold a forum during the election, but decided not to have one after only the Conservatives decided to boycott. Anderson also was the one candidate of the four invited to an agricultural forum in Swift Current to not show up during the campaign.

Anderson has not avoided all chances to speak with the public as he was this past week on CKRM 620AM radio with Amber Jones of the Greens, Nettie Wiebe of the NDP, and a Liberal candidate (whose name escapes my memory) discussing strictly agricultural issues. Anderson was not debating against the other parties nominees from Cypress Hills – Grasslands riding in that radio program.

I got a strange phone call this afternoon, from a local number I didn’t recognize. I picked up the phone and said hello, and a nervous woman’s voice said, “Hello, I’m calling on behalf of Michelle Hunter, the Conservative candidate in the riding of Wascana. Can she count on your vote on October 14th?”

I was a little taken aback, especially since I hadn’t heard the question clearly, so I asked the caller to clarify if Michelle was asking if I’d vote for her. The woman confirmed that’s what she said, so I gave my honest answer.

“No. You cannot count on that, because Mrs. Hunter didn’t even show up to an all candidates forum I attended at the UofR, and when I emailed her to ask why, I never got a reply.”
“Oh. I’ll let her know that,” the apparently startled woman responded. *click* – she hung up.

Two minutes later my phone rang again and it appeared to be the same number phoning back. Good, I thought, a little worked up now that the woman hadn’t even asked for my phone number to confirm they could get back in touch with me should Michelle actually want to respond to my question (yeah, right!). And this was what I heard in response to my next, “Hello?”:
“Hello, I’m calling on behalf of Michelle Hunter, the Conservative candidate in the riding of Wascana. Can she count on your vote on October 14th?”

“I just told you that I would not be voting Conservative because Michelle didn’t even respond to my email. And you have a problem with your phone system because you just phoned here.” “Oh, okay, thanks.” *click*

*sigh*

And I wonder if the supreme irony could be that my phone number ended up on their call list because I’d emailed it to the Conservative campaign office asking them to call it with an answer to where I could hear Michelle speak in public. I’ve spoken with the other 3 parties candidates in Wascana, in public, but have yet to hear Michelle speak for herself. Twice, I’ve had different people speak to me on her behalf.

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar (SRB) is the best chance for a pick-up by the New Democrats in Saskatchewan.

The incumbent, Carol Skelton, who enjoyed a good deal of personal popularity (and was at pains to associate herself with the Conservative brand in any of her communications) is not running again. In her place, the Conservatives nominated Kelly Block, one of the higher-ups of the ruling Saskatchewan Party (i.e. Conservative Party), former rural town mayor, and a member of several health boards. She was nominated this past summer by the party.

Nettie Wiebe was re-nominated in January 2007 to represent the New Democratic Party for a second time, she ran and lost to Skelton in 2006. A farmer, professor, and activist, Nettie has been hard at work in the riding for the past 3.5 years building both the NDP brand and her name. In particular, her and her team gave much focus to the rural portion of the riding over the past 1.5 years leading up to the election.

Roy Bluehorn was the last minute nominee for the Liberal Party and is a young aboriginal policy analyst with ties to the urban portion of the riding. There are also candidates running under the Green, Christian Hertiage Party (vote against immorality!), and the Libertarian Party.

The battle in this election will be between Nettie Wiebe and Kelly Block, with both camps running high resource campaigns. The lack of an incumbent this time around would seem to give the name recognition to Nettie Wiebe over Kelly Block.

A quick look at the 2006 results broken down between the urban and rural portion of the riding gives an idea of where the main contenders stand heading towards October 14th:

	Rural	Saskatoon
Total Voters	11446	36752
Vote Total	7961	21392
Turnout	69.6	58.2
	-
	Total Votes
	Rural	Saskatoon
Green	153	585
C.H.	41	217
Lib	528	3048
Con	5140	8191
NDP	2125	9287
	-
	% Vote
	Rural	Saskatoon
Green	1.9	2.7
C.H.	0.5	1.0
Lib	6.6	14.2
Con	64.6	38.3
NDP	26.7	43.4

(more…)

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.

Looking on the ground in Regina I can note a couple things.

Cal Johnston is running a pretty solid campaign in Regina. Tons of signs, bright shiny pamphlets. In fact the only mailout I have received thus far has been from his campaign.

The problem for Johnston is that just as much of the urban part of the riding is in Moose Jaw. I doubt that his popularity is carrying over to that part of the riding.

From what I can tell Moose Jaw is a two horse race between Ray Boughen and Don Mitchell. Ray Boughen should have no trouble carrying the rural part of the riding.Â

If Johnston’s popularity can’t carry over to Moose Jaw, then he will be in third place.Â

Is Cal Johnston’s perceived popularity taking away votes from the Conservatives or the NDP? That will determine who wins Palliser.

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.

Quelqu’un va-t-il oser le dire? Et si les troupes de Jack Layton formaient la prochaine opposition officielle? Ce rêve que caressent les néo-démocrates depuis tant d’années semble désormais à portée de la main. C’est du moins le cas si on en croit les tout derniers sondages.

Le Harris/Decima, tenu du 21 au 24 septembre, révèle en effet que les conservateurs recueillent 36% des intentions de vote, suivis des libéraux à 23%, des néo-démocrates à 17%, des verts à 12%, puis des bloquistes à 9%. C’est ainsi que depuis le début de la campagne, l’écart entre le NPD et les libéraux a fondu de moitié, passant de 12 à seulement 6 points.

Même son de cloche chez Ekos qui dévoile quant à lui un écart encore plus mince, soit 5 points; le Parti libéral étant à 24% et le NPD à 19% (sondage effectué du 21 au 23 septembre).

Finalement, le Nanos quotidien était hier le premier à donner le NPD troisième au Québec : derrière le PC et le Bloc, mais devant les libéraux.

Sans proportionnelles, c’est à partir de 20% des voix que le nombre de sièges commence réellement à refléter le nombre de votes. Or, s’il est peut-être illusoire pour Jack Layton de penser atteindre la barre des 25%, il ne semble cependant pas y avoir de plancher pour les libéraux. C’est d’ailleurs pourquoi le NPD continue de tirer sur le parti de Stéphane Dion à boulets rouges. Leur plus récent effort à cet effet est la mise en ligne de pas moins de 87 vidéos sur YouTube dépeignant les libéraux comme un parti absent. On y voit en effet les chaises vides des députés libéraux lors de 43 votes de confiance. Des absences qui ne sont pas sans contredire l’argument voulant qu’ils soient les seuls à s’opposer de façon efficace au Parti conservateur.

Comme si ce n’était pas assez, l’ancien président du Parti libéral, qui était en fonction de 1998 à 2003, Stephen LeDrew, a publiquement souhaité que sa formation politique subisse une cuisante défaite aux élections du 14 octobre. « C’est la seule façon de s’assurer que le parti sera reconstruit sur des assises solides », estime-t-il. Dans une lettre ouverte publiée dans le National Post, M. LeDrew déclare en effet que les libéraux de Stéphane Dion ne vont nulle part. Il met entre autres le blâme sur l’impopularité du chef, l’ensemble du programme électoral, mais plus spécifiquement sur la formule de la taxe sur le carbone qu’il décrit comme « incompréhensible ou carrément stupide ». LeDrew conclut en affirmant « À moins d’un miracle, les libéraux vont subir toute une raclée durant cette élection. Et c’est exactement ce dont ils ont besoin s’ils veulent que le parti demeure une force nationale viable ».

Il va sans dire que pour le NPD, cet appui inespéré ne pouvait pas mieux tomber. Continuant à faire flèche de tout bois, le chef néo-démocrate semble bien décidé à convaincre les Québécois d’entrer à leur tour dans la danse. Jack Layton est d’ailleurs le seul chef de parti à ne pas fermer la porte à la création d’un CRTC québécois; une revendication du gouvernement Charest.

Si la tendance se maintient, Thomas Mulcair ne sera peut-être pas le seul néo-démocrate à se faire élire au Québec.

Riddle me this. How can people that are now talking about strategic voting be so supportive of the Green party and Elizabeth May?

She just told people to vote for someone else other then the Green Party. Their platform is basically the same as the Liberal party, but a little more extreme. So why did people that hate Harper so much want her in the debates.

If she is more articulate and appealing then Layton or Dion in the debates people will vote for her instead of them.

My prediction: The Green party will be the “Ralph Nader” of this campaign. Not so much that it will win the Conservatives the election, but it will win them the majority.

Michael Byers, (NDP Candidate – Vancouver Center), very passionately told an audience today the tar sands should be shut down. It is not the official position of the NDP, who want a moratorium on the pace of the tar sands development, pending studies on the environment.

However, there are many voices in this country, sending distress signals using the internet, that want the tar sands development to stop, yes stop, now, because it has become “the dirtiest oil on the planet”.

If one pauses before thinking the thought “that no matter what the cost, the world needs oil and Canada needs to be richer in the world”, then maybe it is possible to think about the kind of planet this will be if we ruin it for our children and theirs.

Surely if humans survived on this planet in previous centuries and millenia without such a huge dependence on oil, we can figure out a way to do it again before it is too late…

Article removed at author’s request.

A minor controversy has been brewing this week in the Saskatoon riding of Blackstrap. The news media recently became aware of an internal grievance filed against Patti Gieni by two co-workers over alleged bullying in the workplace. The New Democrat candidate is an employee of the Saskatoon Transit Commission and was working as a dispatcher at the time of the alleged incident.

A subsequent investigation initiated by the City of Saskatoon found that Gieni had breached 11 policies related to bullying, she was re-assigned to be a bus driver afterwards. Gieni has since taken a leave of absence due to stress brought on by the ordeal and the death of a close loved one. However, the process is still on-going as a grievance on behalf of Gieni has been filed by her union.

Today the Liberal candidate in Blackstrap, Deb Ehmann, has called for Gieni’s resignation from the race, citing the “serious” allegations against her. For her part Gieni has been above board about the incident with the New Democratic party from the beginning and sees no reason to step down.

Trying to put aside my partisan glasses as best as possible with this situation, what I see is a Liberal candidate trying to make political hay out of an incident before all has been settled. Given the sad state of affairs for the Liberals in Saskatchewan (and Saskatoon in particular) I am not surprised that their Blackstrap candidate has decided to stake her flag on this hill. However, without a formal and final conclusion on this matter the Ehmann should tread lightly. In light of recent departures of NDP candidates in BC, and candidates from the other parties over the past week, it would seem that Ehmann is trying to capitalize on the current wave sweeping our news media. That being said, should the allegations be proven true at the end of the process than it will surely have an impact on the ability of Gieni to run for public office in the future. It should be noted that the Conservative candidate has declined to wallow in the mud along with the Liberal on this issue.

On a personal note, I have know Patti Gieni for the better part of two years and have found her to be nothing but a gracious, outgoing, and enthusiastic person. She has been a great New Democratic candidate, a great campaginer who understands and cares about the issues, and would make a great MP for the residents of Blackstrap.

The remaining Saskatchewan seats (at least those in the south) should be much easier to make predictions on, for those of you not familiar with these ridings I think it will become quite clear as to why pretty quickly. So let’s continue:

CYPRESS HILLS – GRASSLANDS
Incumbent: David Anderson (CON)
Last Election: 66.5/16.8/12.9/3.8
2008 Candidates:
CON – David Anderson
NDP – Scott Wilson
LIB – Duane Filson
GPC – Bill Clary
Analysis: Over the past three elections the Conservative/Alliance candidate has not garnered less than 60% of the popular vote. Need I say much more?

Prediction: A quick and easy decision. Seat to CONSERVATIVES.

SOURIS – MOOSE MOUNTAIN
Incumbent: Ed Komarnicki (CON)
Last Election: 62.8/14.0/18.5/4.7
2008 Candidates:
CON – Ed Komarnicki
NDP – Raquel Fletcher
LIB – Marlin Belt
GPC – Bob Deptuck
Analysis: Except for small challenge from Independent candidate Grant Devine in 2004 (yes that guy), the Conservative/Alliance parties have had over 60% of the popular vote in this riding.

Prediction: Another quick and easy decision. Seat to CONSERVATIVES.

(more…)

I am writing this to explain how in the NDP,  Jack Layton has limited control over who the candidates are. 

Unless one has studied political science, one may be unaware of the differences in the structure of our political parties.  In the Canadian political system, there are two types:  Cadre and Mass. 

In the former, “cadre” the power begins at the top – any leader of a cadre party, or, the group that governs that particular party, has the right to decide in any riding, who the candidate will be.  Hence you will have the effect of “parachuted candidates”, sometimes getting the nomination to run during an election over a party member who is popular among the constituents of that riding.  The Conservatives and the Liberals are both “cadre parties”.

In “mass” parties, it is the opposite:  power begins at the bottom, at the grassroots level.  The party members in each riding have an open, democratic vote as to who the candidate will be and there cannot be ‘parachuted candidates’, against the wishes of the party members.   The NDP and the Green Party are ‘massed-based’ parties.  Potential election candidates can be screened before a vote at the constituency level, but if the candidate wins a vote by their riding association, they become the candidate and that is that…

The NDP have lost a few candidates in this campaign, because this is the way candidates are chosen.  It is a shame that some candidates who decide to run, in ridings where they are respected, knowing that if they manage to make it to the campaign, their personal views on such things as marijuana laws could set off a crisis within the party they are running for because of their personal views.  But I personnally applaud those who run, even if they are eventually forced to resign because the media finds some issues “scandalous” and unworthy of an audience.  I believe it is the right of citizens to run in an election to educate the public and reform things that may be needing reform.

But in a democracy, there should be an open forum and the will of the electorate to decide who to vote for,  and for what reasons, should be left up to those in the riding level, especially in a mass party.

Did you know there are people that believe that the pill (and other hormonal contraceptives) causes abortions?

I assume you all know that hormonal contraceptives stop an egg from being released from the ovaries, preventing fertilization.

What these people are saying is that it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus, therefor aborting a pregnancy. Now if that were the case, I would agree that it was abortion. However it’s not the case. I can see where they’re coming from but they’re lying to people to make their point and that is reprehensible. It prevents pregnancy, but in my opinion it’s not an abortive measure.

On the flipside, there are upsides to contraceptives. Less teen pregnancies for one, and some women take the Pill as a life saving drug to help prevent ovarian and other uteral cancers. Other women have health risks associated with pregnancies. For instance, some kidney issues can result in death if she becomes pregnant. So lack of the Pill would kill women.

Now, the thing is that they’re lobbying in the US to criminalize contraceptives. They’re focusing on hormonal methods, for the moment. I wasn’t able to find anything Canadian related.

I do think it’s something we’re going to need to keep an eye on.  Ask the candidates in your riding what their position is on this if you feel this something that needs to be brought up.

A link for you.
This is an anti-contraception movement website.
http://www.thepillkills.com/index.html

 *Now before you start commenting on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of abortion, please let me make something clear: I believe that abortion should be looked at on a case by case basis. As I said, there are health reasons why women should have the right to abortions. It depends on the situation, and we cannot possibly know every situation that can or will arise.

Article removed at author’s request.