Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Picking sides | Main | Martin, Chrétien, Gagliano, lalalalala »

Monday, November 28, 2005

Hold nose; mark X

I'd like Stephen Harper to be our next Prime Minister, given (and I cannot stress this proviso enough) the realistic choices, all two of them, currently on offer, but the Conservative candidate in my riding has no chance. And that's not pessimism — it's fact. The Liberal incumbent, Sarmite Bulte, stands a reasonable chance of losing, but if she does lose it's definitely going to be to the NDP candidate. A Conservative vote in Parkdale—High Park is pretty much wasted, as far as I can see, since it squanders a real opportunity to influence the balance of power in the House of Commons.

At first blush it seems like people in my situation should vote NDP, in that fewer seats for the Liberals is a good thing for the Conservatives (to say nothing of the fact that I'd rather support just about anyone, and most anything, than Paul Martin). On the other hand, a seat that switches from Liberal to NDP could end up a wash if Paul Martin and Jack Layton end up swinging some kind of coalition. But if that's the case then it won't much matter who I voted for, right?

Wikipedia's extensive entry about tactical voting quotes Labour MP Anne Begg as follows:

Tactical voting is fine in theory and as an intellectual discussion in the drawing room or living rooms around the country, but when you actually get to polling day and you have to vote against your principles, then it is much harder to do.

I'm willing to entertain arguments that tactical voting is just voodoo, but not along those lines — the only way I could vote my conscience on January 23rd would be to set my ballot on fire. If anyone wants to talk me down from Jack Layton's ledge, I'm all ears.

(Cross-posted to Tart Cider.)

Posted by Chris Selley on November 28, 2005 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hold nose; mark X:


That's like saying "do I cut off both my ears or do I cut off my nose?"

Voting NDP is too painful to contemplate (although still better than Martin's Liberals.)

At least here in London the Conservatives are viable.

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-28 8:40:03 PM

That's like saying "do I cut off both my ears or do I cut off my nose?"

Voting NDP is too painful to contemplate (although still better than Martin's Liberals.)

At least here in London the Conservatives are viable.

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-28 8:41:15 PM

A principaled person, votes their "principals"!

Voodoo politics in spades, need I say more?

WW 2 vet.

Posted by: stephenmichaud | 2005-11-28 9:04:15 PM

Chris, I was in the same boat as you in 2000, when I was living in Toronto-Danforth, aka Laytonia. Jack was still in municipal politics then, and Dennis Mills was the Liberal MP. I did not want the Liberals to win and the Tory candidate was even having trouble convincing his parents to support him, so, like you, I contemplated my options. In the end, I reasoned that one could vote against something just as legitimately as one could vote for something. This happens frequently in referenda and in cases where candidates are unopposed. I used my vote to challenge Mills the most effective way that I could. It didn't work and I felt dirty afterward.

These days, the stakes are higher, since parties now get campaign funding based on their share of the popular vote. Vote Tory, and the party gets an extra few bucks for your vote. Vote NDP, and they get the cash. What's more, the more points the NDP scores in the popular vote, the louder their demands for electoral reform and proportional representation. Add that to the very real possibility of an NDP-Liberal coalition, and I think you're looking at a much riskier proposition than I was. Tread carefully.

Posted by: Kevin Libin | 2005-11-28 9:05:48 PM

I've only missed one vote in my life, Chris, when I got caught unawares while stationed abroad (my fault), and in that time I've only once voted tactically, due to a specifically unfortunate pallete of candidates from any the parties which I would otherwise vote for.

Other than in rare exceptions such as a peculiar riding battle like that, I would suggest that one always vote for the candidate representaive that one honestly thinks would be best for the job. If democracy works, it works that way. If democracy doesn't work, that's a topic for another thread.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-11-28 9:32:01 PM

Just vote your conscience. Tactical voting cannot work unless you band together with thousands of others who otherwise would have voted Conservative - and even then, you have no assurance that the secret ballot was cast your way. A single tactical vote for the NDP is worthless, except that it puts cash in their pockets. And, perhaps, if the number of Conservative votes is respectable, your riding may be able to attract a better candidate next time.

Posted by: NCF TO | 2005-11-28 9:41:09 PM

If you are not sure whether the Liberals or NDP is better, it's probably a wash. Why not vote Conservative even as a protest vote.

Posted by: Pete E | 2005-11-28 10:17:12 PM

My vote equations:

NDP=Liberals=money for either party.
Conservative=money for the Conservatives

Where do you want taxpayers money going to?

Posted by: Friendly Stan | 2005-11-28 10:17:22 PM

If you are not sure whether the Liberals or NDP is better, it's probably a wash. Why not vote Conservative even as a protest vote.

Posted by: Pete E | 2005-11-28 10:17:45 PM

I get to vote for the first time this year and I'm voting CPC no matter what. I would never vote "strategically".

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-11-28 10:25:24 PM

Interesting that the name of a popular dry cleaning business is "Martinizing" - brings new meaning to being taken to the cleaners by Paul Martin!

ref: Henry Martin thought of using a newly discovered solvent for drycleaning in the forties

Posted by: john brown | 2005-11-28 10:27:18 PM

Vote for a winner. Watch the polls and put your vote on the horse that's gonna win. Go help them in their canvassing, pass out flyers, chat all day long with them. Pretty soon any Conservative principals you thought you had will be gone. Sheesh. I waver between being human and destroying my country through socialist dogma.

Posted by: Conservative | 2005-11-28 10:35:56 PM

Did anyone watch and notice peter mansbridge's comments after Harper spoke this afternoon. Unabashedly pro martin to the point you could see him flush, he couldn't wait to start stabbing. His true colours reflecting off the top of his naked noggin, red. I guess his X, Wendy, had him figured a long time ago.
If we quit voting will they all go away?

Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-11-28 11:12:57 PM

Don't worry about voting NDP, Chris. After all, a vote for the NDP is a vote for Stephen Harper. Or at least that's what I hear. Then I watch all the NDP supporters jump to the Liberals so there won't be any creeping privatization of healthcare. Mission accomplished. Hopefully those fools will vote their conscience this time (doubtful) and you won't have to make that decision.

Posted by: Alex | 2005-11-28 11:23:00 PM

Unfortunately, As I See It, getting them to all go away involves garlic and wooden stakes, and tends to be more trouble than it's worth, since believe it or not there are actually negative consequences to pure anarchy.

No, it is better to harness them to our work, as was understood by the founding fathers of the United States of America. Unfortunately, we Canadians are not doing a very good job of it, in toto, at this time.

Hopefully things will be better when I host my big party on July 15 2015, in honour of the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. It would be a shame if such a grand celibration were reduced to being morose, especially if by state fiat, edict, or decree.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-11-28 11:32:52 PM

Let's be honest folks: if the liberals get in this time, this confederation is going to come apart at the seams. Forget your greedy, grasping cousin in Quebec; Alberta (the richest and best province in the union) will be out the door.

Of course, should that happen, "Laytonia" will at last be content because then it really will have the national stage to itself.

Posted by: bk | 2005-11-28 11:35:30 PM

Sorry this is so long but I don't know how to do it any other way. Help anyone for the next time?

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map

ROBBINS comprehensive poll of Canadians pre-election-see Ipsos Reid (mainstream) as well.
Nov 16, 2005

A representative sample of 18,443 Canadians between November 11th and 16th, 2005. This survey features a margin of error of 2.15%, 19 times out of 20 @ 98% competency. This poll was paid for by a U.S. company doing business in Canada.

Question #1
At this moment which of the following federal political leaders and their parties are you supporting?
Jack Layton and NDP 22.30 %
Paul Martin and Liberals 32.10 %
Stephen Harper and Conservatives 32.21 %
Gilles Duceppe and Bloc 13.33 %
Question #2
A federal general election will be called in weeks or months. Knowing this, how important is the actual timing of the election to you?
Very Important 19 %
Important 16 %
Unimportant 34 %
Very Unimportant 31 %
Question #3
If you had to choose one which outcome would you prefer:
Paul Martin Liberal Majority government 32 %
Stephen Harper minority government 68 %
Question #4
In your opinion, which party will most likely form the next government?
Paul Martin’s Liberal Party 35 %
Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party 65 %
Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party have a very slim statistical lead over Paul Martin’s Liberals. Outside of Quebec the Conservatives hold nearly (39%) of the Canadian public’s support. More than one in four Canadians outside of Quebec supports the New Democrats. Two out of every three Canadians outside of Quebec do not support the present governing party. Slightly less than one out of three respondents in this poll of Canadians currently support the governing party.
Conservative support is highest in Alberta (59%), followed by Saskatchewan (44%), with (35%) of support coming from Ontario, marginally higher than support the Conservatives are currently receiving from British Columbians (34%).
Paul Martin and his Liberal Party receive their greatest support in the Maritime Provinces including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador (40%) followed by (37%) in Ontario. Liberals lowest support is in Alberta (21%) and Quebec (22%).
Jack Layton and the Federal New Democrats receive their greatest support in British Columbia and Saskatchewan (32%) with their lowest support in Quebec (13%).
Bloc Quebecois supporters are most concerned about election timing (Question #2) with the bulk of its supporters (92%) choosing “Very Important or “Important”. However those Bloc supporters who selected ‘Unimportant’ choices are confident they will beat the Liberals “whenever an election is called”. Liberal supporters tend to choose either “Very Important” or “Unimportant” in terms of the timing of a general federal election.
(1.5%) of total respondents in this poll, who ALSO support Jack Layton and the New Democrats prefer a Paul Martin majority to a Stephen Harper minority government. Over (98%) of Bloc supporters prefer a Stephen Harper minority government to a Paul Martin majority government. No Conservative party supporters select a Paul Martin majority government. Oddly, only (95%) of Liberal supporters in this poll want a Paul Martin majority government.
On the other hand (23%) of respondents who support the New Democrats believe Paul Martin’s Liberal Party will “most likely form the next government”, whereas (7.5%) of Liberal supporters believe Stephen Harper will. These numbers reflect voter fluidity between the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Insight- Both Conservative and Bloc Quebecois party support is reasonably solid. It is likely that in the coming weeks Conservative support will range between (31%) and (34.5%). Bloc support will range between (13 and 14%); Paul Martin’s Liberal support will range between (29.5% and 34%). ROBBINS believes Jack Layton and the NDP will range between (17.5 and 23%) depending on his performance.
ROBBINS believes that considering this poll and current trends (particularly in Quebec) that it is doubtful that the Federal Liberals will achieve more than (35%) of public support in the next election. We believe the pressure is downward from there. ROBBINS forecasts that the Conservatives will NOT receive less than (31%) of public support in the next election with pressure upward to a higher total.
ROBBINS does not believe that the New Democrats will achieve less than (17%) of public support in the next general federal election, however ROBBINS believes that the New Democrats could win as much as (24%), however the pressure upward beyond (20%) is thin. Moreover, the impact on seat totals for the NDP is negligible between 20% and 23.5%. The additional 3.5% between 20% and 23.5% impacts more on Liberal seat losses and Conservative seat gains, although any gains the NDP makes generally helps the Conservative party.
Insight/Electoral Seat Forecasts/November 17, 2005 Pressure is being brought to bear against the federal Liberal of Party. This pressure is caused most overtly by Opposition parties who have promised to bring down the government exacerbate existing problems the governing party already had in Quebec where they stand to lose another 10-12 seats. The Opposition parties have taken this collective position in response to a number of issues, but certainly the initial Gomery Report is a major factor. The Liberals have responded to the pressure by announcing tax cuts, but this announcement may have created additional problems relating to ethics, most specifically “Why didn’t you announce this tax relief earlier?”
This pressure is creating a significant electoral shift in Canada’s largest province Ontario, where currently 30 Liberal seats are in jeopardy. ROBBINS believes that of these seats, 7 have already been lost to the Conservatives, and 3 to the NDP. The remainder is too close to call. Contrast this with 3 current Conservative seats and 1 current NDP seat which are both too close to call. Neither the Conservatives nor the NDP have lost seats in Ontario according to our findings.
In British Columbia another significant battleground province, of the total 36 available seats only 19 are decided, with 17 seats too close to call. Of the 19 decided 16 belong to the Conservative party, 1 to the Liberal party and 2 to the NDP.
Alberta has 28 total electoral seats and the Conservatives have 26 of these in their pocket, with 2 Liberal seats too close to call. Manitoba has 14 seats available with the Conservatives holding at least 5, the NDP 4, and the Liberals 1.
In Saskatchewan, a stronghold for the Conservatives in 2004, the trend continues. Conservatives are guaranteed at least 9 seats in 2006, with the balance, save for 1 Liberal seat up for grabs as well.
The Maritimes may be the only part of the country where the Liberals are still held in reasonably high esteem. In New Brunswick the Liberals will win at least 3 but will need to fight for another four. The Conservatives will hold 2 seats and the NDP 1. In Nova Scotia the Liberals will hold 4 seats for certain and be forced to fight for 2 more. Conservatives will hold 2 seats, and fight for 2 more, while the NDP will hold 1 and have to fight like mad for another 2 (Halifax). Prince Edward Island one-time Conservative bastion will retain 4 for the Liberals while Newfoundland and Labrador holds another 4 for that party with another 2 on the bubble.
This poll including strategic calling, and research assessments which follow provide us with the following conclusions: Currently the Liberals are relatively certain of 85 seats, the Conservatives 96 seats, the NDP 19 seats and the Bloc 60 seats, for a total of 260 ‘guaranteed seats’. The Bloc will compete in another 6, the NDP another 17, the Conservatives another 30, and the Liberals another 32.
Using averaging based on trends I would judiciously assess seats totals based on the results of this poll as follows: Conservatives (113), Liberals (108), Bloc (64), NDP (27).
With these numbers as our guide it appears that the next election is mostly about who will win government, the Conservatives or the Liberals. We are reasonably certain of two things, namely the Liberals will have fewer seats in the next parliament and the conservatives will have more.
The Bloc and NDP will also have more seats but the significant consideration is that no single party will be able to pass legislation without the help of the Bloc Quebecois, unless it is a combined Conservative-Liberal position, or combined Conservative-Liberal-NDP position. The only response to this likelihood is if Ontario decides to shift support to the Conservatives to a seat total of 45-50 and reduce Liberal seats by a corresponding amount of 8-10 (after factoring anticipated gains and losses) to a similar total. This appears to be the trend in Ontario beginning with ridings in London, Ottawa, Hamilton and Toronto. The area of Scarborough refuses to budge. If this shift takes place than Conservative seats in Ontario and the Maritime provinces will match up more closely to Conservative seats in the western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
One obvious trend line, which benefits the Conservatives and NDP, is for NDP gains to equal Liberals losses particularly in urban areas like Toronto and Vancouver. There are about 6 seats across the country where the Conservatives battle the NDP for seats, with at least 2 of these featuring a Liberal challenge as well. With Quebec set to steal at least 10 from the Liberals, it is clearly evident that the opportunity for a Liberal NDP combination being = > than 155 are quite slim. The opportunity for a Conservative Liberal combination being > than 155 are near absolute. The opportunity for a Conservative Bloc being > 155 are very high, as is the opportunity for a Liberal Bloc combination being > 155. The difficulty with this latter relationship is that the Bloc will increase its presence in the province of Quebec predicated primarily on being anti-Liberal. So a Liberal Bloc relationship is not likely to work without the federal Liberals getting a new leader.
Ontario will have to recognize the problem of a Liberal Bloc relationship and think seriously about shifting loyalties to the Conservatives in the area of another 25-30 seats. This would permit a Conservative government to work with the New Democrats, and act as a bulwark against Bloc demands. This type of shift (which we are beginning to see signs of) would push the Liberal seat totals to fewer than 100.
These outcomes can only be altered if Stephen Harper is able to convince Canadians that the Liberal party has lost moral authority that the Bloc ‘de facto’ will control Canada, and that the Conservatives ‘deserve an opportunity’. This argument can be underscored on the basis that the problem will once again come down to Quebec, and that it is the Liberals, which got us here in the first place.

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2005

Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-11-28 11:38:15 PM

I was wondering how that would work. lol

Posted by: Jeff Cosford | 2005-11-29 12:44:32 AM

Thorough analysis. Thick like mollasis.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-11-29 12:59:31 AM

It seems that we are destined to have, at best, minority governments for at least the next four and perhaps six/eight years.

Voting for an independent candidate used to be basically a waisted vote when there were only two parties and one of them inevitably ruled with a majority. Today the vote of even one person such as a Chuck Cadman or any of the other independents becomes much more critical. We have become an increasingly diverse society to the point where one questions the viability of one party representing barely 50% of popular opinion on anything. However, if one is to engage in politics, then it becomes all about party loyality on many issues when one chooses a party to support. If an independent is very clear about basic issues prior to an election and does not represent any "vested" single interest (and herein lies the biggest hurdle to this proposition)it may be doable.

Both the liberals and conservatives have policies that an independent could support just as well as policies that and independent could not support (hopefully for solid, grounded reasons). If there is an independent in S. Harper's riding who has a good many of the following interests, then I would consider voting for this person.

Totally against the official bilingualism that was forced on us by the Trudeau administration and succumed to be all parties since. I abhor what this has done/is doing in terms of people being hired and more particularly promoted within the civil service, the military, and the RCMP - not to mention the billions of dollars that have been spent on written translations, mickey mouse courses in attempts to "make" all government employees bilingual, etc. etc. First of all -publically acknowledge that this is a huge problem and secondly work to correct 2.5 decades of slippage.

Lets get rid of the culture of "political correctness" that has been foisted on us by the feds and local governments and start standing up and being counted. How many parents in western Canada have been sucked into believing that if their children are fluently bilingual in French and English that it will bode well for their futures in Canada only to find out that it really doesn't matter how fluent one is in Standard French, the opportunitis will more than likely go to Francophones anyway when it comes to federal government. In at least some areas, there seems to be much more interest among young people these days to learn Spanish rather than pursue French.

Abortion is not a swear word and something to be excluded nor is pro life something to be extolled to the exclusion of abortion. The religious right have their interpreations just as do agnositcs just as do athiests. No faction has, nor should have, the single right answer to this (and don't) so don't make it a political issue.

It seems that society has evloved to the point where same sex marriage is not a really big thing anymore but there are factions within all parties who are still harping on this. Political correcteness becomes a major driver. An independent with an open mind isn't controlled by political correctness. SSM is o.k. and is continuing to be increasingly acceptable world wide - so don't sweat it. Energies are better spent on other matters now.

Two tiered health care is upon us whether we like it or not and it becomes a matter of how best the public good can be served by taking out the emotion and bringing to bear thoughts/actions about how to make it work. People who stand immovable on one side or the other of this issue are not being very helpful.

Separation of the west is not constitutionally do-able BUT increasing devolution of power/economy is. Lets get at it with a western based party(or group) with western based interests and forget about trying to become good eastern politcial beings with all the associated baggage to try to gain federal power - it simply isn't going to happen. It has worked in Quebec and it will work here if the will is there.

Posted by: calgary clipper | 2005-11-29 4:11:53 AM

Chris - vote with your principles!
I am - in Ch'town, which has been liberal for decades. You'll be glad you did.

Posted by: charlotte | 2005-11-29 7:16:31 AM

The Tories finished a distant third in my riding in 2004 (a combined 30,000 Lib-NDP votes versus just 8,000 Tory). All the Halifax seats are two-horse races between the Liberals and the NDP. Given that the Liberals MUST GO, and a Tory vote in this riding will not accomplish that, what else am I supposed to do but hold my nose and vote NDP to improve the chances of sending the local Liberal home?

(Granted, I had reached this conclusion last time, but I got to the voting booth and just couldn't bring myself to mark that "X" by the NDP. It goes so against the grain...)

To hell with PR (I don't want unaccountable party-picked hacks getting seats-at-large); I say we need some kind of transferrable ballot or runoff system. I'd gladly mark a ballot "1. Tory, 2. NDP", for instance.

Posted by: Ian in NS | 2005-11-29 7:44:57 AM

Well, I'm hoping the Conservatives completely crash and burn this election, but that notwithstanding, in your case you should vote your principals for the cash to your party and the moral suasion (sp?) you add through the popular vote. IF the Liberal still wins in your riding, you'll feel silly about giving that very real support to the NDP.

Your other option is to vote Green, who I think will draw most of their support from people who would like to vote Liberal but can't stand to this time (like me)--they could really use the money and the popular vote percentage. I'm hoping they will eventually be/do to the Liberals what Reform did to the old PCs.

Posted by: Eric Grant | 2005-11-29 7:47:14 AM

Unless there is a coalition (or many turns like in France which is not the case), one should vote after his own conscience.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-11-29 8:15:53 AM

Whenever faced with this predicament, one viable option is to write in your own. My personal choice this election? Mr. Floatie, the pre-empted candidate for Victoria city counsel:


Posted by: Unkempt | 2005-11-29 8:21:20 AM

Calgary Clipper - nice analysis.
As I See It - it helps, in long posts, to break the typeface up by inserting spaces, i.e., paragraphs.

We have to remember that the majority of Canadians do not support the Liberals. The fact that these votes are divided into FOUR main parties permits the Liberals to govern despite the fact they don't have a majority. Compare the Liberals governing with their 34% and Bush and the Republicans with their 60% in the US.

There was an interesting editorial in the Toronto Star today. 'Interesting' because it reveals the brainwashed mindset of many Canadians, particularly in Ontario.

The important issues were:
1. Canada must have a gov't that counters the US
2. Canada must keep Quebec in the country
3. must maintain a public-only health care
4. must do something about poverty.
5. must work with the UN.

Note - these are ancient themes of the 60's and 70's (the Vietnam war, the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, the UN in its heyday, the gradual increase in population and diversity). These themes are no longer valid and ignore, completely, that forty years has gone by..and the world is different.

There is not one word about today's issues:

1)the democratic deficit - the corruption of the Westminster system to government by appointed cronies and the electorate's loss of control of the gov't
2)the economic and political results of a policy of enforced bilingualism
3) the dangerous results of Canada's inability to develop a high-scale investor class and its fallback on US and foreign investors==>
4) the piggyback economy of Canada, with its inability to develop its own industries, research and manufacturing and reliance on foreign investment
5) the rise of the West, in population and economy, and the inability of a centralized government to acknowledge this

and, along with this refusal to acknowledge that a generation has passed and the issues are different, we refuse to critique our Mantras:

6) the failure of a public-only health care system and the two-mode style of the rest of the world (except in Cuba and N. Korea which follow the Canadian pattern)
7) the corruption and failure of the UN after one generation - and Canada's refusal to recognize this.
8)the economic and political costs of one-province domination by extortion (Quebec)
9) the psychological and political insanity of self-definition only by a negative value (not-American).


I think what Harper and the CPC have to do, is repeat, that they only want and expect a MINORITY. They must not even use the word 'majority'. That will frighten the people who Live Within the Star's Themes of a generation ago. It must be a minority, with all the scariness reined in by the NDP, Bloc, etc.

I think people are transfering their being afraid to change onto Harper. I can't for the life of me, understand what is 'scary' about him!! He's a solid, quiet, never-frothing guy, typical family (gosh, it's even one boy and one girl). Unlike Martin and Chretien, he's someone with no ties to Canada's Mafia Cartel (Desmarais, Power Corp, Magna)etc, etc.
Here's Martin, with his corrupt Canada Steamship lines, his Cartel links, his lies, lies, lies to the Canadian public (e.g., his lies that SSM is a charter right )..etc, etc. Now, that's scary.

I think that people are brainwashed into the ideology of a generation ago - all listed point by point in the Toronto Star - and don't realize that these are both invalid and have put this country into a serious political and economic situation. They might be aware that change is needed, but - haven't thought it through. So, they are scared of change, of dropping those themes...and instead of addressing the problems, say that 'Harper is scary'.

It's easier to be afraid of Harper than to face that list of empty themes.

Posted by: ET | 2005-11-29 8:43:26 AM

Right, so ballot immolation it is, then. I'm in.

Posted by: Matt | 2005-11-29 9:33:43 PM

To every one: Voting Liberal would be undemocratic and an act of treason at this time thus not an option...There is plenty of other choices including Rhino!

And whatever you do though: VOTE!
Staying at home in protest is also an act of treason in these dark days of our country...Dictatorship is at our doorstep, STAMP IT OUT NOW!!!

Posted by: metalguru | 2005-11-30 9:23:28 AM

I am interested in Independent Federal Canadidates in 2006, Primarily in Vancouver, BC and likely moving outward.
So if you are inteerested in letting my know, send contact and website info to me and I'll add it to my website's election section and any quote or statement I can in it's full context.

Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday

Posted by: Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday | 2005-12-12 9:48:13 AM

December 18, 2005

I believe the blogs here are a pretty fair depiction of what is going on in many homes across the country right now. Now this isn't absolute but I can tell you that there is more interest and discussion on this election than the press is given due notice to.

I think we bought into that no-one wants an election at Christmas, but when its cold and people get together, with an election on, they talk, and they are talking plenty.

Right now, husbands and wives are debating the election. Liberals women (some) are very seriously looking at Stephen Harper. Liberal men like the tax cuts by Martin, but the small businessman who is a Liberal voter likes Stephen Harpers announcement.

My hunch is that this debate will be vigorous in homes across the country over the holidays. There is really a lot at stake, and the Quebec question has made people very sober (no Christmas pun intended) about this election.

The decisions the parties make in the New Year are going to push or pull quite a few people to one side or another. There will be tension in decisions up to voting time, or voters (not necessarily because of a gaffe) will assimilate the information and make a move prior to that.

Posted by: ROBBINS Sce Research (1998) | 2005-12-18 11:57:49 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.