Molly

(SSD... thanks, and....doh!)

Wow. I was already permanently turned off Mulroney in '75. Danged relieved he didn't win the leadership then, and deeply disappointed and wary when he finally did. My gut had him pegged.

In taking a tax deduction for a $100 donation, Blueblood, you would actually be giving only $25 of your own money to a political party, along with $75 more that rightfully belongs in General Revenue. That's basic stuff. The hoohaw about political welfare is a sad joke that just plays on the general ignorance of voters. (It's really, really insulting, until you see how many dopes buy it completely.) The $1.95 is the least of it, and the least offensive. The deduction for donations takes more from the taxpayers than that little per vote bonus, and does so less fairly, and when you pile on the 60% refund on election expenses (which may have been additionally padded by in-out accounting )....

That's part of why I believe that party affiliations should be removed from ballots. If you can't even inform yourself to that degree, then you should probably do us all a faovr and abstain anyway.

If you are so opposed to welfare for political parties, I hope that we may rest assured that you do not claim a deduction for your political donations-- so as to avoid forcibly taking money from the rest of us.

"I see a setup in the works..." More gamesmanship, instead of leadership. More partisanship, instead of patriotism. I agree with that observation, but I don't share your apparent approval.

A lot of things could be read into that, particularly since so many very solid hands aren't in that lineup- like they've been pointedly placed in reserve. It looks a bit like letting the pups get their feet wet to learn a little something so they are worth having in the real dogfight- building the party for the longer term. Fading those guys into the background, where they are still very valuable, doesn't mean they are ready for retirement, or even that they wouldn't be assigned a cabinet post when the time comes. (I sure wouldn't blame Goodale if he did retire though. He's put in yeomans duty-- has to be awfully close to being the most experienced in the house, and doesn't want the leadership.)

I'll go you one further-- most of my voting has been done in one of the largest ridings in Canada- possibly THE biggest outside the north. Polls were a heck of a lot closer than the nearest library or internet cafe! (or high speed hookup for that matter) And not onerous. There's the odd soul who doesn't get to vote because of circumstances outside their control-- like an emergency trip to an out-of-constituency hospital-- but the very vast majority of folks who don't vote simply choose not to.

Which members are west of Ontario? Neville, Martin, Bagnell and Dhaliwal (with people like Goodale, Dosanjh and Fry not in the shadow cabinet. That's some serious talent to keep on the bench.)

Goodale isn't on that list either.

That's priceless, Camp! First you accuse ME of disregarding the (non)voters opinion as being unconsidered and worthless, then counterclaim that YOU would disregard their abstention as unconsidered and worthless! Make up your mind! Either they are competent decision makers, or they are not. You can't have it both ways. And yes, I use electronic banking... BUT I CHECK MY BALANCE REGULARLY. (And yes, I have caught screw-ups. About a month ago they magically lost a term deposit. I'm happy to report that I had a paper record of it.) I posted a link to a fairly lengthy article on electronic voting in the US-- on-site voting, without the addition complication of internet and distribution of pin numbers. You should still read it. It's not a diatribe. One of the things noted within it is that even if a system IS secure and accurate (an open question), it still must APPEAR to be secure and accurate to (nearly) all, or it misses the mark. If folks aren't convinced by the security/accuracy, then they aren't convinced of the result-- and under such circumstances of electoral doubt governance is seriously compromised. (Just check out the knee-jerk response to the coalition to see how folks respond to what they percieve as illegitimate governance.)

Don't get fast and loose with MY assumptions. 1. In order to stand, a balloting system must both be fair, and be demonstrably fair under intense scrutiny. Electronic systems do not yet accomplish that. (Get back to me when and if they ever do.) 2. I'm all for making voting as uncomplicated as possible, but not, not, not ever at the cost of #1. 3. I'm assuming that 40% have made the (wise) decision that their vote is better left uncast. I trust their judgement on that completely. Abstention is a perfectly valid act.

Nothing operates perfectly... but a box lost is at least known to be lost, along with a pretty comprehensive list of the voters whose ballots were in that box. The same cannot be said for electronic voting. And yes, I do know how poll workers are hired-- and the witnessing rights of candidates agents as well. No matter how hard a dishonest poll worker might try to manipulate an outcome, they can't plan on going unobserved, nor can they ever hope to have any impact on any but the few ballots in the very box they are charged with tending. I've done all the jobs-- DRO, clerk, candidates agent-- not an easy system to screw, and all but impossible to screw in a meaningful way. The spoiled ballot issue is only an issue if there is a systematic effort to manipulate outcome. That's harder to organize than a power outage, or a virus... and has the fail-safe of recount and review, if those doubted ballots are meaningful to the outcome. And just 'twixt you and me, I don't see an increase in the number of votes cast to be a major plus, unless accompanied by equivalent commitment to the process, and the outcome. Seriously, no one knows the value of a vote better than the individual making (or not) the effort to cast it. 30% more votes, if they are all of the tic-tac-toe variety, really aren't worth seeking out. We're better off having the decisions made by folks who care enough to put themselves out a little.

I tend to agree... either/or, but not both.... but let's give it that couple more days, to find out where they plan to find the money coming in and where they plan to spend it. That's a lot more meaningful than just 'how much'. I'll be pretty choked if it's manipulated to look smaller through sale of assets; if it isn't going to be spent at home; if it's primarily based in inappropriate tax cuts; if it's too 'trickle down' in mindset; or if it's bizarrely optimistic-- but we shall see soon enough.

The charm of the Reform movement was that it was so highly idealistic, even if, on some subjects, missing the mark by a mile. They were spot on in wanting everyone fairly in on decision-making. That remains a laudable goal. The Alliance/ Conservative incarnations replaced the idealism with equally extreme cynicism, and closed the door to all but a secretive few. IMO, they tossed out the good stuff, and kept only the undesireable bits; went from one noble extreme to the ignoble other. Agreed- "Why did Manning bother?".

My objection- the only one- is that without verifiable hard copy, and a readily 'can't be tinkered with' system, elections will not have clear results, conceded by all as being correct. Whole governments can be changed on the merit of a vote or two per poll. Feel free to call me Luddite, but it's still too important to be trusted whole to unwitnessable, unverifiable ether.

There's lots of us out there, Bill. I'm a candidate voter, more than party (becoming even moreso) and have been all over the map, depending on who is on the menu. I voted Reform though (best candidate), twice as many times as I've voted NDP (my cousin was running), and Liberal twice as many times as I've voted Reform (twice because the candidate was so very much better than all others that he'd have had my vote regardless of party affiliation, and still would), and twice because my Conservative candidate was/is a waste of skin, and that's what was left. Mannings was a different party from Harpers; Ignatieffs is a different party from Dions. Election platforms are downright irrelevant- they are so unlikely to be carried out, and policy handbooks should all have "in an ideal world" engraved on the cover. Both function primarily as a guideline to the style of thought of the personel of the moment, a wish list, not really a 'to do' list. That's just as well. Conditions change, sometimes very quickly, and policy points are often written and voted in under conditions of very casual thought, without full knowledge of the complications. We don't need to micromanage good people, if they've shown us judgement worthy of trust- that they would do what we would do, only maybe better.

...which aren't used in anticipation of incompetence in the returning office. They aren't a solution to the problem this man faced. That said, neither is internet voting. I can just see: dialing to contact the returning office about your pin being refused, and getting a busy signal--- then eventually a canned menu, and being forwarded in an endless loop.

Then the are the ones who didn't vote NDP, who wouldn't vote NDP, who actually think the same thing. Sometimes 'non-confidence' means 'we don't care for this couple of items'. Sometimes it means 'My God! I can't work with this snake!'

Then there's the training for poll workers part...

What was combative about it, Mr. C? http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/545795 I wouldn't ordinarily refer to the Star perspective for much, but this one is nicely put.

I have no trouble seeing why Harper would not be trusted AT ALL by, particularly, the lesser party leaders. That said, the stakes are too high to reject anything out of hand without seeing it first. But I wouldn't be so quick to say the coalition is dead, either. Far, far on the back burner, for sure, but we have no reason to completely trust that this budget will be any less irrationally combative than the 'update', and if that's the case, then our choice will be reduced to election or coalition. We've already been effectively without governance for far too long, and have little reason to believe another election would have a substantively different result, so the coalition could be rightly resurrected in a heck of a hurry. The King/Byng rerun won't be over until a budget is passed, and even with the Liberals being willing to see this one, it is by no means certain that it will be acceptable. The update was supposed to be no biggie, and easily passed, too, but it wasn't.

Alexandra, just get over it. Last I looked, BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan were still part of Canada, with no small number of the denizens hissing 'Separatist!' and shouting 'Traitor! at anyone (but themselves) who dares suggest we are anything BUT a single nation. No one is proposed stealing your precious oil, so you can give it a rest. (But, speaking of the arrogance of glib, shallow, know-it-all partisan political hacks, how would you respond if Mr. Harper proposed that our energy production gives us some international leverage? )

It's specious to argue in favor of tax cuts while spending is increasing by asking whether you or the government is better qualified to spend your money. The government IS spending our money. I'd rather they were taking cash from our wallets to cover what is needed, instead of running up the credit cards, ignoring the minimum payments, and pretending it won't cost us anything. ----------- We assemble governments so we can accomplish things collectively that are unlikely to be done privately. (Someone rural should know that even more than others, since so many things must be addressed locally, because scale demands so much more personal involvement in collective action in order to have minimum basic services.) Waiting for 'market forces' to provide those services can result in a long, long, long wait. Businesspeople should also know that sometimes you borrow money to make money (avoid losing it) - that ignoring a NEED until you have the cash in hand can cost you the whole enterprise. Don't seed, and you don't harvest. And a businessperson should also know that if you are borrowing money, then you darned well better be spending it on something that you can't do without, or that will make you money in the long run. Borrowing it, dividing it up among the family members, without accompanying guidelines, and hoping that some of it will be spent on something useful is not much of a business plan.

I find it interesting that folks like Blue throw around things like 'your party' with wild abandon, as though it precludes any though or assessment of the present state of affairs. Like it's a religion, a dogma, a tribe, and not a moment-to-moment decision. Just so you know, Blue, 'my party', if I can be said to have one, would be the Progressive Conservatives. Unfortunately, I no longer have that option. I figure it's a lot like the cheating spouse accusing his signifigant other of infidelity. If all one can imagine is blind devotion to a political party, even when they are way, way wrong, then one is inclined to assume the same blind, unflinching hyper-partisan faith from others. How's it workin' for ya, Blue?