Alberta’s turnout was among the lowest in the country, fourth from the bottom, with the Northwest Territories (48.6%), Nunavut (49.4%) and Newfoundland & Labrador (48.1%) the only provinces or territories lower.

In the case of Alberta … that 94.6% virtual seat sweep was courtesy of 34.2% of the Alberta electorate. The other 65.8% of Alberta voters either stayed home or voted other than Conservative.

Now consider Newfoundland and Labrador…. Reports were common of demoralized Conservatives and the CPoC’s struggles to find people willing to run as candidates against the moneyed avalanche which was the ABC campaign.

Should progressives be pleased with the demoralization of the CPoC’s supporters in the province?

No, not if they hold that democracy should be inclusive of and for everyone, not just those with whose views they can agree.

I feel as bad for the disenfranchised Conservatives in NL as I do for the 65.8% disenfranchised Albertans who either voted differently or didn’t vote at all.

The numbers are telling. No matter which political ideology you hold, surely you can see that forcing a multi-party democracy into a two-party voting system is unfair to the electorate, undemocratic and horribly wrong….

Full article goes on to respond to a Toronto Star item on proportional representation. Predictably, The Star once again employs scare tactics in its endless argument against reforming our electoral system.

C’est sans surprise que Meili Faille du Bloc Québécois conserve son poste de député à Ottawa. Félicitation à cette femme de terrain qui saura travailler fort pour la région, malgré le rôle du bloc dans l’opposition. Je reviendrai avec une impression plus exhaustive dans les prochains jours.

Avec un taux de participation régional de 67.44%, mes prédiction n’était finalement pas farfelues. En effet, en constatant à quel point Brigitte Legault à chauffé les fesses de Michael Fortier, qui n’a pas su convaincre les résidents de Vaudreuil-Soulanges avec son attitude plutôt arrogante, les résultats d’hier montrent à quel point le paysage politique de la région, jadis très fédéraliste. à changé en 5 ans. Je crois que Michael Fortier a sous-estimé la popularité de Meili Faille dans la région. Cependant, de par son statut de star, son score est beaucoup plus intéressant que lors des élections de 2006, où les Conservateurs avaient reçu une maigre troisième place. Félicitation aussi à Maxime Héroux-Legault pour son 10% de la faveur populaire. Sans enlever le fait que Maxime à trimé dur, ce résultat est probablement lié à des votes pour le parti NPD et sa philosophie qu’au candidat lui-même. Par ailleurs, Jean-Yves Massenet récolte un mince 4%. Je ne crois pas que c’est la faute du candidat. En effet, Jean-Yves est une personne qui gagne à être connu dans la région. Par contre, une meilleure visibilité sera la bienvenue la prochaine fois. Candidat aux prochaines élections provinciales, monsieur Massenet?

Je terminerai en disant que le résultat aurait été tout autre si ce n’était de la bonne performance de Brigitte Legault. Elle a su tirer son épingle du jeu avec brio. Sa prestance et son aisance devant un auditoire (voir les débats locaux) lui a bien servi. Il est clair que le fédéralisme selon le parti Libéral rejoint encore bon nombre de citoyens de Vaudreuil-Soulanges. Probablement que les anglophones de la région ne sont pas séduit tant que ça par les politiques plutôt à droite des Conservateurs.

En conclusion, il est clair que tant que les gens et organismes de Vaudreuil-Soulanges sentiront qu’ils sont bien servi à Ottawa, Meili Faille restera.

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.

Someone over at another blog made the following comments:

All I am asking is that the rest of us … appreciate how those most informed on this critical issue are so conflicted in our allegiances… Let’s hope that in the next government … we begin the process of moving to a new electoral system where people no longer have to make such undemocratic decisions at the ballot box. [my emphasis]

My response.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) had an ingenious idea for this election campaign, called Canada Votes: X-Challenge: a townhall-like meeting where voters have a chance to confront candidates of the main political parties. The CBC ran two instalments, one taped in Toronto and the other in Vancouver. The way it works is that members of a studio audience, all of whom state their voting preferences prior to the show, ask candidates questions. The candidates, then, have one minute each to respond, followed by two minutes each for rebuttal – or “free-for-all”, as the show’s host called it.

After each question, the studio audience votes on who they thought answered the question most expertly and truthfully. The results are revealed before the next round starts. At the end, the audience is asked to vote on the final winner based on his or her performance throughout the entire townhall meeting.
(more…)

I ventured over to the Centre Eugène-Sauvageau in Gatineau today to vote. I was there early, having arrived at about 9h45. The community centre is familiar to me as I worked there during the last provincial election for the advanced voting days. The place wasn’t exactly packed this morning but there was a steady stream of people coming and going. Due to the early hour, the voters were mostly elderly though there were a few young people there. I did my part to help get Raphaël Déry of the Bloc Québécois elected.

As always seems to be the case when I vote, my polling station was the busiest and the only one with a line-up. I didn’t mind waiting, but the person behind me was quite annoyed. She had an appointment at 10h00. Egads!

This made me think of what my girlfriend had told me about earlier. She had voted in the advanced voting in her riding of Ottawa-Orleans. While she was voting, she became moved at how simple, free, and easy it is to vote in Canada. She has a friend in Mexico who had a difficult time voting in the last election, having to wait hours to cast her ballot. I’m sure many of you recall the turmoil of the last Mexican election, with each party claiming victory and the eventual losers holding raucous rallies in the capital. And then there are third world countries where people don’t get to vote, are violently prevented from voting, or where elections are rigged and meaningless.

We are incredibly lucky to live in a country with free and fair elections. It is not only our privilege to vote but our duty. It only takes a few minutes and, even if you have an appointment at 10h00, be happy that your only voting obstacle is a busy schedule. It could be much worse.

Cross-posted to Sovereignty en Anglais.

The Calgary Herald has been tracking opinion through one of its online forums:

Of the 17 people who firmed up how they’re going to vote in the last week of the campaign, 41 per cent picked the Greens, 24 per cent are headed to the NDP, and 18 per cent plan to back the Conservatives. The Greens are also the top choice for 34 voters who haven’t yet made up their minds. Stephane Dion’s Liberals, however, trail all parties among the survey’s decided and undecided voters.

That poll, of course is anything but scientific and representative, but it’s quite interesting all the same. It may, however, reveal traces of a very general trend. Then again, it’s not really news that Liberals finish dead last in Alberta, particularly in Calgary.

As the politicians make their final pleas for our votes, let’s remember that no matter who wins tomorrow life goes on. Canada will still be the greatest country in the world as long as we vote with conviction for our candidate and party of choice. Happy Thanksgiving! 

Below is my final chart of how the democraticSPACE projected vote totals in Edmonton-Strathcona have changed over time (between September 25th and October 12th). The graph displays averages of democraticSPACE’s projected ranges.  According to these averages, the Conservatives are currently projected as one point ahead of the NDP, but the democraticSPACE projection model doesn’t take potential strategic voting into account.

I’m glad I’m not in the position–as the real masterminds behind democraticSPACE are–of having to make a prediction about this race. It’s simply not possible this time. I admit to having access to a bit more data than democraticSPACE has, but even so, I wouldn’t hazard a guess. I will say that I can foresee anything from a rather more marginal win than usual for Conservative candidate Rahim Jaffer (if the progressive strategic vote for NDP candidate Linda Duncan turns out to be weak or non-existent) to a comfortable win for Duncan (if the Liberal vote collapses into the single digits). Both of those scenarios are possible. More likely than either one, though, is one of the various nail-biter scenarios in between. At this point it all comes down to three factors: 1) how well the Tories are able to get out their vote, 2) how well the NDP is able to get out its vote, and the most important and yet least controllable factor: 3) just how strong the Anybody But the Conservatives movement is in the riding–i.e., how willing the Liberal and Green voters are to switch their votes to oust a Tory.

It’s already been said by the Ottawa Citizen, the CBC, the Calgary Herald, and the National Post, but to say that this is a riding to watch is a massive understatement. And for all those denizens of the riding who are sick of your vote not counting, well, just consider this election a rare gift.  Because oh boy does it count this time.

Further reading:
Edmonton-Strathcona: a snapshot
Winners and losers in Edmonton-Strathcona
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Conservatives
Edmonton-Strathcona: the New Democrats
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Liberals
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Greens

Quoi de mieux pour Jack Layton qu’un passage à l’émission « Tout le monde en parle » pour bien conclure sa campagne au Québec. Troisième et dernier chef à se présenter à l’émission après Gilles Duceppe et Stéphane Dion (Stephen Harper a quant à lui décliné l’invitation à cinq reprises) M. Layton en a profité pour souligner quelques-unes des propositions de son parti. Le retrait des troupes canadiennes de l’Afghanistan, l’abolition des baisses d’impôt aux entreprises et son projet de bourse du carbone – servant à taxer les grands pollueurs plutôt que les familles comme le proposent les libéraux, selon lui – furent les principales propositions qu’il a développées.

Présente sur le plateau, la journaliste politique Emmanuelle Latraverse en a profité pour lui demander s’il était ouvert à former un gouvernement de coalition avec Stéphane Dion. Le chef du NPD a déclaré qu’il préférait attendre les résultats de l’élection. En réponse à la journaliste qui lui a alors fait remarquer qu’il lui faudrait multiplier les sièges pour remplacer le premier ministre actuel, M. Layton a alors ajouté « Tout le monde dit aux gens qu’on ne peut pas faire les choses. J’ai écouté ça pendant toute ma vie. C’est une attitude défaitiste et moi je n’accepte pas cette approche de la vie. » Il s’agit effectivement d’une mauvaise attitude dont les Canadiens devront se défaire s’ils veulent mettre fin bipartisme et ne plus être condamnés à choisir le moindre de deux maux.

Questionnée à son tour par Guy A. Lepage sur la course, Emmanuelle Latraverse a affirmé qu’elle croyait que les conservateurs ont perdu tout espoir de faire des gains au Québec et qu’ils pourraient également perdre plusieurs circonscriptions dans la province.

Un peu plus tôt dans la journée, le chef du Nouveau Parti démocratique a maintenu que son caucus québécois pourrait compter des membres de plus suite aux élections du 14 octobre. À Montréal entre autres, les candidats Daniel Breton, dans Jeanne-Le Ber, et Anne Lagacé-Dowson, dans Westmount-Ville-Marie, ont selon lui « de bonnes chances de remporter leur circonscription. »  Accompagnant son chef au Marché Atwater, cette dernière a soutenu pour sa part qu’elle sentait que l’électorat penchait désormais en faveur des néo-démocrates. « Les gens savent que nous sommes le seul parti à tenir un véritable discours progressiste. »

Dans un rassemblement au Club Soda plus tard en soirée, le chef du NPD a dit qu’il privilégiait un fédéralisme flexible et asymétrique qui respecterait les champs de compétence du gouvernement québécois. Il s’en est pris par la suite aux chefs des autres partis de l’opposition en les accusant de s’opposer à M. Harper au Québec tout en le soutenant au Parlement. « Gilles Duceppe a voté pour deux budgets de Stephen Harper qui ont laissé les familles de côté en donnant des milliards aux banques et aux pétrolières On ne peut pas se présenter contre Stephen Harper au Québec et le soutenir à Ottawa. », a-t-il lancé à l’endroit du chef bloquiste. M. Layton a rappelé du même souffle que le Stéphane Dion avait lui aussi appuyé Stephen Harper pas moins de 43 fois (sic) au Parlement. « Si vous ne pouvez pas faire votre travail comme chef de l’opposition, vous ne pouvez certainement pas faire le travail d’un premier ministre. », a-t-il conclu.

The excerpt below is from a rather lengthy post written by a perplexed and frustrated Green Party member (me).

Help!

I just have to wonder how often Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, can be misconstrued in the media. Is it a concerted effort by ALL media types deliberately to distort her meaning or is there something about what May is saying which makes her position, at minimum, ambiguous? I mean this question seriously.

A few hours ago, the GPC issued yet another press release about May’s stance on strategic voting. I’ve lost count of how many there have been.

So, the Kingston Whig Standard supposedly took a oujai board to Sir John A. MacDonald’s grave and asked for some election predictions.

 I can’t find it online, and didn’t actually read the article (yes, they printed this, it wasn’t just a drunken journalistic escapade), but a reporter told me today that good ol’ John A. predicted 4 Green ridings. They had their eyes closed, they didn’t touch it, and John. A. predicted 4 Green ridings.

I can tell you now, I think two of them will be Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and Guelph. Central Nova has a shot, Vancouver Centre has a shot, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country has a shot. There could be a ton of flukes and a ton of students who aren’t counted in polls (because its still illegal to poll cell phones, thank God) who could give surprise results if they actually get themselves out to the polls.

But John A. says four… it’s probably more than DemocraticSpace will give us.

Stéphane Dion est un homme étonnant. Pas tant l’homme que la chance qui semble toujours au rendez-vous. Son parcours atypique, ses victoires surprenantes (gagner la chefferie libérale notamment) sur fond de naïveté bienvaillante…

Excellent papier de Roy MacGregor dans le Globe and Mail de jeudi : Stéphane Dion est (presque) toujours arrivé à ses fins. Loi sur la clarté, conférence sur les changements climatiques, chefferie libérale, il ne manquait que quelques jours à cette campagne pour raffermir cette idée de gouvernement libéral minoritaire.

S’il avait fallu qu’il soit charismatique…

Faisant campagne au Québec en fin de semaine, Stephen Harper a déclaré aux journalistes qu’il n’avait rien de nouveau à dire aux Québécois, mais qu’il allait plutôt insister sur l’importance du choix que ces derniers auront à faire mardi prochain. En moins de 100 mots, M. Harper résume de façon très concrète la situation au Québec, mais du même souffle, nous permet également de déceler ce qui cloche avec sa propre vision. Décortiquons :

« Il y a trois choix au Québec, mais cela revient comme ailleurs à deux choix véritables. Le Bloc va continuer à être un critique efficace, mais à la fin il ne pourra rien changer. »

Harper aura beau marteler ce clou aussi souvent qu’il le veut, les Québécois se souviennent que l’élection de 74 députés libéraux fédéraux au Québec en 1980 n’a pas empêché le rapatriement de la Constitution. Ils se souviennent également qu’aux dernières élections, ils ont dû être représentés par Michael Fortier, alors que ce celui-ci n’avait même pas été élu. Deux faits parmi tant d’autres qui justifient l’appui inconditionnel de nombreux Québécois au Bloc.

« Or, les Québécois, qui sont des gens pragmatiques, devront choisir entre mon parti qui leur offre un fédéralisme conforme à leurs aspirations et le fédéralisme centralisateur de Stéphane Dion. »

Voilà où le bât blesse. Le fédéralisme offert par les conservateurs n’est justement pas conforme aux aspirations des Québécois. Certes, il s’en approche – et il ne faut surtout pas minimiser ce pas dans la bonne direction –, mais cette prétention révèle à quel point Stephen Harper, malgré toute sa compétence et sa sincère volonté à comprendre le Québec, est victime d’avoir avoir de mauvaises antennes chez nous.

« Les Québécois ne veulent pas de la conception du fédéralisme de Stéphane Dion. »

C’est un fait que la vision extrêmement centralisatrice de Stéphane Dion va à l’encontre de la volonté de la grande majorité des Québécois. Hormis le 5% des fédéralistes dont le cœur bat à la vue du portrait de la reine sur le billet de 20$ et le 20% des souverainistes qui n’auraient pas été satisfaits par Meech, le Québec compte environ 75% de nationalistes qui souhaitent simplement que le Québec puisse avancer sans les entraves fédérales habituelles; soit via une souveraineté en partenariat avec le Canada ou soit un fédéralisme le plus asymétrique possible.

Le jour où un parti politique fédéral comprendra cela, il remportera facilement une majorité de sièges au Québec; ce qui ne s’est pas produit depuis la fondation du Bloc québécois.

Reste que Stephen Harper a raison sur le point le plus important : les Québécois sont des gens pragmatiques et ne demandent qu’à faire un choix. Encore faut-il qu’on leur fasse une offre à la hauteur de leurs aspirations.

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.

Chris Warkentin, the incumbent MP for Peace River, was never the local Conservative party’s first pick for MP, even if he was former MP Charlie Penson’s pick.  At least, as I’ve mentioned before, his nomination raised enough ire within the party that in the last election, Grande Prairie town councillor Bill Given took him on as an independent, in large part because he didn’t get a chance to try for the nomination himself.  Given’s Conservative support helped him come in second in the last election, Warkentin’s closest competition by far with around 9800 votes.  Of course, compared to Warkentin’s almost 28,000 votes it wasn’t a close race whatsover.  (Incidentally, this election Given says he’s voting Green, an interesting choice since the Greens received only 2% of the vote last time, and have a very small, if dedicated, core group running their campaign.  Green candidate Jennifer Villebrun, however, has done well at forums and is both well-spoken and upbeat, and will likely get a boost from the popularity of leader Elizabeth May.) But what will happen to all of those disaffected and largely Conservative voters who voted for Given?  That’s 9800 voters who already broke with a long tradition of voting Conservative in the Peace River riding once in the past.  Will they mark their “x” by Warkentin’s name now, despite their dissatisfaction with him, out of party loyalty?  Or will they seek another alternative in this election?  Perhaps like Given, those voters will turn to the Greens, with their fiscal conservatism.  Or might they even turn to the NDP, third place after Given in the last election?

There are some other factors to consider too.  The nuclear issue continues to polarize the riding.  In Valleyview, a Conservative bastion where in my experience to be progressive was almost to be spit upon in the past, audience members at the recent forum stood up and called out to Warkentin to “take a stand, take a stand” on the proposed nuclear power plant, frustrated with his continued waffling (Warkentin has stead-fastedly refused to take a position on nuclear, saying either that it’s a provincial issue or that he has no personal opinion, and carefully saying nothing about his party’s support for nuclear energy in general).  If Warkentin said he supported nuclear, there are any number of people who would agree.  There are also those who would refuse to vote for him as a result.  But trying to straddle the fence doesn’t seems to be earning Warkentin any points, if the Valleyview forum was any indication.

 Another factor is Warkentin’s group of core supporters at the Peace River Bible Institute in Sexsmith.  They were out in force at the 2006 election forum in Grande Prairie, having travelled out together in several identical white vans to ask questions of candidates like why the government allowed nudity in art.  Yet they were conspiciously absent at the most Grande Prairie forum in this election (while nuclear protestors were there and asking questions).  It could be that the Bible College crowd doesn’t feel Warkentin needs any more extra help, now that he’s an incumbent and sure to win. Or could it be that they are upset with Warkentin for not doing more on their key issues, abortion and gay marriage? After all, it has been tough lately for Warkentin to walk this line as well.  His religious beliefs clearly include a personal opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and if you press him personally, as I did after the Peace River forum, he will admit to having personal views to that effect.  But he hasn’t said so flat out while campaigning, and his religious supporters expect him to do actually something about it.

 It’s not that Warkentin hasn’t tried.  He has raised the issues in the House of Commons, memorably trying to focus on the alleged damage gay marriage does to children (his cries of “what about the children” were subsequently dubbed “the Lovejoy factor” by the Upper Canadian blog), and supporting a crime bill, C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Act), that might have reopened the abortion debate by giving special status to the life of an unborn child as a victim.  Which seems like a good point to note that Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada today for his role in making abortion legal in Canada, an award Warkentin also opposed.

 But Warkentin was dealt a blow when the Conservative Justice Minister dropped C-484 in August, right before the election.  The cynical, or the realistic, might say that the Harper government was afraid of being called anti-abortion during the election, a dangerous political position when polls consistently show Canadians remain supportive of legal abortion.  Warkentin was one of the few MPs who vowed to carry forward the bill despite his own government’s refusal to support it.  But with Harper and his spokesperson continuing to say another Conservative government will not support private members bills on abortion, does Warkentin really have a chance?  And will his statements in the House be enough for his religious supporters, or are they becoming frustrated with what, to them, may seem like a lot of talk and very little action, and a lack of support from Harper?

 There is one last change in the riding since the last election, and that is the introduction of candidates for two parties that have never had a presence before, the Canadian Action Party (CAP) and the Libertarians.  The votes they will draw will likely be small, but there is no question Peace River residents have more choice than ever before on their ballots.

 All of this may add up to a more interesting election result than expected, or it may amount to nothing more than a little more mild grumbling as people obediently mark their “x” for the Conservatives as they always have.  Fortunately, we’re only one long weekend away from finding out.

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.

Whatever the result on Tuesday, this election continues the downward spiral of political discourse in Canada. Gone are the days of big ideas like Medicare, Just Society and Free Trade, where debate raged on the merits of the programs, and criticism of leaders was based on their actions, not their personality, physical quirks or “spin”character assassination. While in the past politicians may have disagreed on policy, and even disliked each other, they at least appeared to respect each other enough to be civil in public and when conducting the business of government. Partisanship is one thing, vitriol quite another.

Now politics and elections have degenerated to personal attacks and characterizations of leaders intentions, and sloganeering, with little substantive discussion of policies or ideas. As a result, respect no longer exists between opponents, the willingness to compromise is not evident, and therefore the government ceases to function effectively. Its no longer business, its personal. Why has this happened and what are the consequences?

We have not only imported negative campaigning from the US, but have taken to focusing on “the leader”. Except we are not electing a president, we are electing a party/team to run a government. No question the leader is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. So we hear too much about Harper, Dion, Layton and May, which supports an environment for personal attacks, than we do about party policies and teams (Only the Liberals tried this for a short time when things were not going well). Combined with negative campaigning, where the focus is simply to attack your opponent as opposed to proposing solutions of your own, emotion is trumping reason, and the soundbite is trumping real information.

The consequences are 1) party leaders who have been denigrated to such an extent that all suffer from a lack of wide spread public respect and trust. As a result, many self-respecting individuals with ability decline to seek public office 2) voter apathy with 35% of the population not voting (although an unrepresentative electoral system also hurts)       3) 40% of the voters in Quebec have declined to participate in the governing of Canada by supporting the Bloc whose primary goal is to breakup the country 4) a media focused on the horserace (who is winning or losing) and trying to “even things out” to keep the race going, instead of critically evaluating  and communicating party policies to the public. This leads to soundbites and spin, as opposed to ideas.

The only way to stop this negativity is for voters to demand better. We need to encourage positive behavior from all participants (including the media) and challenge them when they do not meet our expectations and do their job. And I mean challenge all of them, those we support as well as those we don’t. The sooner we return civility and respect to our politics, the sooner we focus on ideas and not personalities, the better our country will be in the end.

It was a pleasure, I’ll confess, to wake up this morning to the flensing of Mike Duffy for his disgraceful, boorish, unethical behaviour last night. And it was a relief to see that one solid Canadian value–fairness–is still so vigorously in effect.

In a way, the treatment of Stephane Dion by CTV sums up the election campaign as a whole: its peculiar nastiness, a rotten import from the south that the Tories, since the day they mocked Jean Chretien’s facial disfigurement, still imagine will play well up here. And maybe in little jerkwater hamlets like Delisle it does, but not among civil Canadians.

The Conservatives are all over this soft lob from Duffy, of course. Earth to the CPC: we aren’t buying it. Decency still counts for something, even during an election campaign. Dion is starting to look positively magisterial compared to the cold-eyed autocrat you want us to support for his “leadership” qualities. The awkward, gangling, nerdy fellow from Quebec might even have a shot at being the next Prime Minister. And this, despite the last-ditch smarmy interventions of oh-so-wise journalistic talking heads whose corporate groupthink has helped to paralyze the body politic for decades.

What a desperate, contemptible move by a party whose fortunes have waned so rapidly over the past few days. And don’t blame all of the latter on the incredible shrinking economy. Canadians are rightly worried: indeed, in the words of one financial commentator today, “Even panic is starting to look like a realistic response.” But in such times we want reassurance–not bizarre suggestions that we spend money on stock bargains. We are looking for a sympathetic connection and a comprehensible plan.

Instead, when a man is asked an ambiguous question that would pose a challenge to most of us even in our first language, we’re treated to petty, slimy personal insults. If Dion in now in sight of a minority victory, this shameful little episode might just push him past the finish line. And if that happens, while I shall never vote Liberal in my life, I’ll be cheering.