Image via Wikipedia

If we, the voters, work together on this, we can send a real message to Stephen Harper — Canadians don’t want his politics in Canada. Even though he may win 34% of the federal vote, we can actually have the the 60%+ of Canadians who don’t support him join together to give him less than 100 seats in parliament. How can we do this? By strategic voting.

Now, I know that strategic voting in the past was painful and useless most of the time. In many cases, people simply looked at who had the most signs for the party that they didn’t hate, and voted for them. Commonly, since the Liberals had a bigger budget, this implied the Liberals would win a bunch more seats, even in ridings only contested by the NDP. It especially enraged NDP supporters because it meant that a lot of people voted Liberal even though they supported the NDP.

Well, this year, with the internet, we have a tool which can help us vote strategically in a clear concise way. A great website was set up this year (and hopefully more, less issue oriented ones, will be set up in the future) — voteforenvironment.ca.  Don’t let the name fool you, it’s not just another “Go Green” site. If you visit, and type in your postal code, it will tell you the latest polling, for your riding! This means you’ll be able to see exactly where the NDP, Liberals, Greens, and Conservatives stand and be able to vote intelligently for the party that best reflects your values (and can win your riding.) You will be able to see if you even need to bother to strategically vote. (In my riding, for example, it tells me that it’s a race between a NDP and a Lib, so I’m good to go in this riding.)

For example, if you live in Edmonton-Strathcona, the NDP are a sliver away from winning that riding, and if a few Liberal (or Green) supporters there strategically voted, the NDP would win away a Conservative seat. Another good example would be in Oshawa, where the NDP are running a great guy who has real potential to take back a strong Orange riding (and the Liberals don’t have a chance.) Similarly, it lists a variety of ridings where the Liberals or Bloc are clearly the second place contender, and if people strategically vote, it will take away yet another prize from Harper’s hands.

Unlike previous years, where strategic voting meant voting Liberal at all times, this year things are different. With the internet, we have the ability for the first time ever to truly strategically vote and seriously change the electoral map in Canada. We can regain seats in Alberta even if everyone spreads the word and strategically votes correctly.  The NDP will gain a lot of seats, the Liberals will gain seats, and the Conservatives will lose large swaths of seats they planned to gain by dividing us. (Divide and Conquer anyone?)

Now, no party can be seen officially pushing this, but the more the grassroots get this out, the better. If this can get onto national media by Saturday, it could strongly change the direction of this election.

And this country.

1h

Edit: This means for that those Green supporters polling 8%+ everywhere could actually turn this election back for the environment by voting strategically.

Update (2): I’ve added a strategic voting widget to the right from the anyonebutharper site to help out. Feel free to steal the code.

<embed width="170" height="240" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" bgcolor="333333" allowscriptaccess="sameDomain" name="widgetbox_widget_flash_0" id="widgetbox_widget_flash_0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.theundecided.ca/strategic/widget.swf?wbx_stageHeight=240&wbx_stageWidth=170&wbx_framerate=30&widget_appId=d3f6461b-0dac-47f6-9835-da349344cac7&widget_name=Anyone%20But%20Harper&widget_token=92d3972aeb57e5f630e7ad99542d25986b36f0bd0000011cdf476220&widget_id=0&widget_timestamp=1223516709447&widget_width=170&widget_height=240"/>

Yeehaw, we’re having a grand ol’ time up here, eh?

As far as Rick Bell is concerned, the most biggest news story has nothing to do with Harper promising to leave Afghanistan entirely by 2011 or allowing the Green Party (a federal party supported by more people than the Bloc) a voice at the leadership debates, or the discovery that the Cons promises during this election add up to $8 million an hour so far (and no real explanation where they are going to pay for it). Nope, it’s the election promise of non-expiring gift cards.

James Travers

It’s that leap of faith Harper warns against at every campaign stop. Using the same fear tactics Liberals used so successfully against his Reform and Alliance predecessors, Harper presents Dion as a risk, himself as the steady status quo.

Along with a you-gotta-be-kidding makeover as the guy next door, Harper is also misrepresenting a transformational, well right-of-centre government as the cautious agent of incremental change. A narrow example of a broader technique is his promise to trim a couple of cents off the federal excise tax on diesel. Harper’s message delivered in Winnipeg this week emphasized, over and over, the plan’s modesty. The not so subliminal message is that Conservatives are doing what’s possible to help consumers while Liberals would, as the Prime Minister repeatedly puts it, raise taxes on everything.

Tom Brodbeck demonstrates how entirely out of touch he is with this interweb thingy. First stating that a Facebook wall post is a blog quote and that all Facebook posts are inherently anonymous. He then concludes that the Greens clearly have no real support, to have voted consistently for the NDP you must have a membership with them, and the media are simply fools or in cohoots with the Liberals and Greens.

Greg Weston discusses the absolute disaster which is Dion’s campaign.

It is the perfect backdrop for Stephane Dion to make a campaign announcement on education, drugs, apprenticeship programs, cellphone rates — anything that will go with television footage of a crowd of high school kids.

Instead, Dion announces to 800 suddenly scrunchy faces that if elected, a Liberal government will hire more food inspectors.

Kerry Diotte discusses crooks and liars Canadian politicians and if we can regulate their lying.

The Democracy Watch man is also disgusted with media for not repeatedly asking a key question to federal politicians each time they make a promise: “Will you resign if you break an election promise?”

OK, I’ll bite: I’ll ask it by sending this column to all of the federal leaders. But I’m not holding my breath any politician will agree to a law that forces them to be honest.

Isn’t that sad? It’s no wonder so many people are cynical about politicians.

Times Colonist discusses the sad state of affairs which is BC provincial politics. Apparently, the sitting premier, Gordon Campbell, has so little initiative to do anything that he canceled the entire fall season of legislature and essentially locked the opposition out of the democratic process entirely.

Naheed Nenshi has one of the best lines ever written by an Alberta pundit.

In Alberta, it feels somewhat pointless to write about the federal election. We already know what’s going to happen — barring a meltdown, the Conservatives will retain all 28 seats in this province. If there is a meltdown, involving a scandal with Stephen Harper, Rahim Jaffer, a tub of Jell-o and a rhesus monkey, they’ll win 27.

Ira Basen yearns for the days when politicians were honest, straightforward, and commonly went off message in talking to the media.

Timothy Garton Ash worries about the incoming tide of authoritarian capitalism.

1h

Continuing a proud tradition for two days now.

Tom Brodbeck actually has a decent point — Why were the Liberals against the child credit before they were for it? Could it be that they might simply be willing to accept what the public seems to want rather than what they think would work better? Nah…

Shorter Rick Bell: Please God, don’t let western Conservatives blow Harper’s cover by telling Canadians what he’s really up to, he first needs to get a majority. The puffin thing was a great distraction though.

Hicks on Six welcomes us to Alberta politics as usual.

… For 10 years, Calgary Health argued the provincial health system funding formula was unfair to Calgary.

For 10 years, Capital Health [Edmonton] defended the formula for its fairness in recognizing the extra costs of more fly-in patients, more elderly, more aboriginal, more on social assistance.

Calgary has won.

Greg Weston

The ad man’s attempted extreme makeover of Dion from nerdy professor to Ordinary Joe is matched only by the equally unlikely transformation of Stephen Harper from bloodless autocrat to Mr. Nice Guy in a pullover.

It’s a good thing all Canadian voters just fell off the turnip truck and banged their heads on the way down.

Shorter Neil Waugh, “Don’t mess with the new West! See, I can be original and Conservative! DRILL BABY DRILL!”

Don Martin speaks truth, this puffin poop crap is a waste of time and a distraction from real issues during this election, like how Harper and Layton ran away scared at the possibility of debating May.

Former Conservative prime minister Joe Clark:

What might Canada do to break out of our mean political cycle, between now and Oct. 14? One option appears to have been shut down on Monday, with the refusal to allow the Green Party’s Elizabeth May to participate in the leaders debates.

That should be reconsidered. Her participation would demonstrate that Canadian politics is inclusive, not exclusive. Ms. May shares essential democratic attributes with both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain - the outsider, the person the party establishments sought to exclude, the person with a message that resonates with citizens who’ve grown cynical about, or disaffected from, their political system.

Thomas Walkom, Harper and Dion == Dull and Duller

Readers ask why Canada’s election campaign seems more boring than America’s. The answer is this:

In the U.S., presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain are duelling over who is better positioned to deliver change.

In Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion are warring over who can best keep most things the way they are.

If you think that the Conservatives didn’t play games with women’s rights during the last session, think again. Antonia Zerbisias discusses the misogyny of the Conservatives. Remember, they accomplished all of that with a minority government, imagine how much more they can accomplish with a majority.

1h

Inspired by the dKos original.

Don Martin believes that because he’s interested in the election, everyone else must be as well. Since they aren’t, Dion must be a failure as a leader. Perfect logic!

Jon Ivison talks about how Harper wore a sweater and avoided dropping a baby on its head. He almost seems prime ministerial.

The Prime Minister is providing a credible facsimile of someone with whom voters can identify — someone who cares about the issues that are important to them.

Belinda Stronach asks why Canadians are not enthused about politics.

In his speech to the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama gave a stirring call to action: “We are a better country than this,” he said.

To Canadians I say: We are a bolder country than this. We have the stuff to rise to real challenges. We have the opportunity to build a Canada that is stronger still, and better able to thrive in an increasingly competitive and uncertain world.

To succeed, we must support politicians who look beyond just getting re-elected, who push beyond partisan limitations and short-term thinking, and who are dedicated to building a country, not simply to living in one.

Shorter Neil Waugh: Enviromental destruction caused by unchecked expansion of the tar sands, pfft, DRILL BABY DRILL! Anything less than that and you must hate Alberta.

According to Greg Weston, Dion has started the negative campaigning in this election. Apparently missing the last two years of negative ads by Harper. Also, Dion apparently has a French accent. Shocking!

Linda McQuaig realizes the Conservative definition of leadership, as compared to the real-world definition of the same.

Apart from a deeper hole in the Afghan quagmire, I haven’t been aware of any place Harper has “led” us to over the past 2 1/2 years, so I found this concept of leadership puzzling. Then I saw the Conservative TV ads and realized that leadership is about wearing a warm sweater and playing cards with your kids.

James Travers

Using a “typical” family as painfully artificial prop, Harper stressed here Monday that Conservatives have cut taxes, most memorably the GST, and are writing cheques for parents. Missing from the script is that the formula of reducing revenues and raising spending – military suppliers are big winners – slimmed a double-digit surplus into a rounding error and is now limiting Ottawa’s ability to react to a recession gobbling manufacturing jobs as it oozes north.

Between now and election day, all parties will roll out their economic plans. For Harper that means explaining if his second government will be more broadly activist and engaged, less laissez-faire and reliant on the market’s invisible hand, than the first.

1h

Image via Wikipedia

Today Harper, Layton and Duceppe showed their true colours. They announced today that they were willing to sacrifice all of the free press and publicity of being at a leadership debate. Why would they do such a risky and politically stupid thing to themselves and their party? According to them, they would do this because one woman, Elizabeth May, might end up on that stage beside them. They are willing to risk losing the prestige of being at the only official leadership debate because they might have to debate with this woman.

Sure, Harper will tell you it’s because he considers her to be another Liberal. However, if that was true, then he should be glad to have her on stage. He states that he thinks the Liberals’ plans are obviously bad, and that people can easily see that. So, having two people present these terrible plans should benefit his cause. It would give his party even more of a boost.

However, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to believe he is afraid people will discover that she isn’t a Liberal, but actually a member of a real alternative to the party Harper hates? Risking losing all of the prestige of the debates would make sense if he was afraid that when people really saw her party’s platform they’d see it was actually a reasonable alternative to both the Liberals and the Conservatives. In that case, not being on stage to allow her to rebut his attacks would make perfect sense. This way, he can run scared, and still pretend to claim the high ground.

Harper claims to be a brave man who will stand up for Canada, and yet he won’t even stand up for his party in a fair fight with Elizabeth May. That’s not bravery, that’s simply a petty, scared politician. A politician who thinks his platform has such negligible strength that he will run away to keep Elizabeth May from even being allowed to be at the debate. He is genuinely afraid his one chance at a majority could be stopped by her.

That is definitely a better reason for him to walk away from the debates and all of the benefits it provides in order to stop May from attending.

Layton’s not too much better. He claims that the reason he doesn’t want to attend the debate is because the Greens are a one issue party. If that were true, then he should be delighted to debate May one-on-one. He could show all of those potential NDP supporters how little basis there is to run over to the Greens and even potentially gain the Green’s 8% of the electorate’s votes (according to recent polls). This means more desperately needed NDP seats.

However, that’s not really the reason Layton doesn’t want May there. He doesn’t want May there because he knows she has a real platform. She has a platform covering everything from the economy, to the military, to, yes, environmental issues. He is afraid of her. He is afraid that her party will do better than his own, and in the end, he will end up being a weak, lame-duck leader. A leader, who, when given the best possible chance to pull the NDP into the big leagues failed because some upstart 21st century party led by Elizabeth May showed him up.

He is afraid of being yet another NDP leader who couldn’t break the 30 or so seat threshold that they’ve been trapped behind for decades.

It’s a petty reason, but it’s probably why he is afraid to debate man to woman with Elizabeth May.

Duceppe…

Well, Duceppe is Duceppe. I’m guessing he just jumped onto the bandwagon because he saw the rest of Canada’s political leaders doing it, and heaven forbid he show independence from these crass Canadian federal political games. That would imply he has some separate, original ideas from the rest of them. Albeit, Duceppe seems to be backtracking on his original position, which at least shows some backbone.

Maybe one of these boys will prove me wrong instead of throwing their arms in the air and whining like children because a real woman, May, shows up to the debate.

1h

Straight-Talking BS.

1h

The Conservative government shows their commitment to open and transparent governments this month by killing the government maintained access to information database.

The federal Conservatives have quietly killed an access to information registry used by journalists, experts and the public that users say helped hold the government accountable.

The Coordination of Access to Information Requests System, or CAIRS, is an electronic list of nearly every access to information request filed to federal departments and agencies.

Originally created in 1989, it was used as an internal tool to keep track of requests and co-ordinate the government’s response between agencies to potentially sensitive information released.

Now, users mine the database to do statistical studies, fine tune phrasing on new requests and discover obscure documents — often using the information against the government.

“It was really a tool designed to make government more open,” said CBC investigative journalist David McKie.

…

“To do this now after the CAIRS’ usefulness has been proven over and over again is indicative of the extent to which government will go to stifle the access regime,” said Michel Drapeau, a lawyer who frequently uses the system and is a co-author of a reference work on access law.

“This is terrible and I consider this to be yet one more step in making records less accessible,” he told Canadian Press.

Why would they want to remove government transparency? I wonder…

1h

Even though this issue has been beaten like a dead horse with a spastic colon. I find it absolutely unbelievable that any party, even the Conservative Party of Canada would vote non-confidence towards Elections Canada, the non-partisan federal body which ensures our democracy. By voting against the Bloc Quebecois’s bill, they are stating that the current governing party of this country has no confidence in the institution responsible for administering elections and ensuring (from Wikipedia) “that Canadians can exercise their choices in ‘federal elections and referendums through an open and impartial process.’”

I know they are upset with the voters of Canada, and I know they dislike the fact that regardless of what they do they cannot achieve a majority government, even with manipulations like the in-and-out scandal, but when a ruling party of a country votes against that country’s institution responsible for ensuring fair and open elections, there are serious issues arises. An institution which is recognized worldwide as a leader in ensuring fair, democratic elections. An institution which regularly sends its observers to other nations worldwide to ensure their elections remain fair and democratic.

Our current prime minister and his party just acknowledged today that they no longer have any confidence in that institution.

What does it mean when a ruling party openly states that they no longer have any respect or confidence for the electoral institutions of their own country? Institutions that the majority of their citizens do have confidence in. Institutions which are “the anchor of their democracy.”

And, more frighteningly, what is the next step they take?

1h

After 4 minutes of really bad spin and Conservative-style “blame the Liberals for everything the Conservatives do wrong”, Conservative House Leader Van Loan admits that the current Conservative scandal ” is the same issue [as AdScam] in that money was spent off the books in election campaigns.”

Go from marker 4:38 to 5:47 to hear the exchange.

1h

While I disagree with many of his policies, I have to pat Brad Wall, the leader of the Sask Party, on the back for his action regarding extremists on his side of the aisle. He did exactly the right thing, and should be commended for it.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall called a recent post on Small Dead Animals “intolerant and unacceptable” and “beyond the pale.” The ruling Saskatchewan Party has removed an endorsement of Wall by McMillan from its website.

While the political dialogue may get heated sometimes, and people do say things that are far more offensive and inflammatory than they intend. There are a few people of all political stripes which are plainly put, extremists, and should be rightly shunned. I completely commend Brad Wall for taking this brave stance, especially since extremists are also the type to respond very negatively to being put down in such a manner.

The internet is really a double edged sword for improving political discourse. While it has had the effect of increasing the power of the grassroots, and the voice of those who would normally be disenfranchised due to racism, classism, or any variety of reasons, it has also had the effect of amplifying those vile, disgusting voices to a degree where they cannot be simply ignored as they would have in the past. Instead, they need to be personally and publicly denounced by those from their side of the spectrum whom they support. An incredibly hard thing to do for a politician. I am very pleased that Brad Wall is showing his strength by doing this.

Thus, I commend him.

1h

ps. Personally, I don’t know of many conservative blogs in Canada (or the states) which are not mostly this vile discourse. Partly due to the fact that the loudest voices drown out the sensible ones, and partly due to the fact that many of the blogs I see regularly generally don’t link to/discuss sensible conservative views. If anyone who reads this blog knows of some, please let me know so I can include them in my personal aggregator.