Molly

People can agree with that? That it's okay to vote in complete blind ignorance, and that it's someone else's fault when you do? That it's somehow the job of political parties to save you from your own lazy ignorance? That offends me to my toes. It is so completely back-assward.... that it's..... just.... beyond description.

I`m wondering how long it will take for a "private member" bill restricting access to abortion. Not very darned long, I bet. The arrogant ones will hope to have the poop disperse before the next election. (Fat chance.)

In this country, we don`t vote for political parties. We vote for human beings, who then act as our representatives in parliament.

We are not disagreeing. (I guess I should have made that two separate paragraphs. )

I would think that it (rather than the direct vote subsidy) is the place to start! No more tax deduction. If you are going to give money to a political party, let it at least be your own money, and not mine.

" the angry country in decline south of the border." Ha! She`s got you pegged!

Wayne Easter? That`s an interesting thought. It might be getting too local and concentrated, though. Interim and ultimate are two very different things, too.

Interesting that you would choose 2nd degree murder, the Latimer 10 years-- 10 years, when the jury that convicted him thought that one tenth of that sentence would be fair and appropriate. The only thing that mandatory minimum sentences guarantee is miscarriages of justice.

I have wished many times that Ralph would take on the leadership with intent- I`d be happy to step out of retirement to work full time to seeing him elected. He won`t though, largely because "he has(n`t got) the chops to be a real mean s.o.b. for any length of time." He has neither a thick enough skin nor a sufficient disrespect for the people and institutions of Canada to be the kind of prime minister this nation now seems to demand. He`s just a man of absolutely consistent integrity and hard work. (I think of the times I campaigned against him.... You just cannot imagine a more thankless task. ) Edit: He`s as charismatic as `making sure to do both the dishes and your homework in a timely manner`, though. Hard sell for folks looking for drama and impudence.

That is a thin, thin excuse, and honestly, if folks really are that childishly trusting and naive, that stupid and lazy and undemanding; if they truly are so irresponsible in their choices, then they surely do deserve precisely what they`ve gotten! If people must be spoon-fed the rudiments of their own governance to the point of needing someone to read them the declarations they`ve signed ... then they haven`t earned the right to be consulted. Better that they shouldn`t vote at all than vote in such stunningly unresearched ignorance. :angry: I much prefer to believe that the folks of that riding did what they did in full knowledge of the implications of their choice. Functionally, they voted `None of the Above`, and that`s a perfectly valid thing to do. (I, for one, will never forget the name of one Joanne Zazalenchuk. I remember her with respect and appreciation.) They don`t get to claim a mulligan and try to repudiate their choice, and Aw shucks, you fooled poor little me!, blame it on someone else. They aren`t victims.

Not knowing the royal itinerary, I can`t confirm that line.

If they haven`t already named Goodale as interim leader, then I sure don`t know why not; and then they have a good solid 2 years to worry about someone who is more than just a placeholder. All the talk is about how much needs to be done, and that it shouldn`t be rushed. This speculation is two years premature-- uninformed guesswork.

Ah, here we go: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Berthier+Maskinong%C3%A9+victor+nomination+paper+questioned/4727585/story.html Any elector can tender objection (It doesn`t have to be a candidate.) ; she had 138 nominators, so until 39 of those names are challenged, she`s still well in the clear; the Conservative candidate was the first to call for a new election, but did not make a formal objection (and the one who did had better be dead certain it will stick, or be known as a poopoo head forever); and I`m doing my level best to resist making comments about folks getting the governance they deserve. (Folks didn`t know what they were signing? How could that be? Are they illiterate?)

IMO, there's a greater chance of her keeping the seat on the basis of having won it by about 6000 votes. The point of nomination by 100 is to establish that you are a serious candidate... and it appears that point was made. If I had to bet, I'd say by-election in a few months/ no charges. EDIT: BTW, most folks get lots more than 100 signatures, just to make sure that more than 100 are valid. Surely to goodness she had help getting them, and it isn't really an issue.

That's not a tough commute...

(Harper in a rub and tug.... Makes my eyes water imagining that.) ---- Bringing this up 15 years after the fact, to try to get election reaction is as sleazy as it gets, regardless of who did what, or who leaked it. Lord knows I'm no fan of Layton, but I am truly disgusted that partisan electoral conduct can get this low. This is lower than vandalizing the goods of campaign workers. This is lower than trying to grab a ballot box. This is lower than phoning people in the middle of the night, claiming to be your opposition asking for a vote. This is snake-belly, bottom of the sewage ditch LOW. I am ashamed that it would be done in my country.

Don't we all!

And it's a way to toss them some money and prestige. A perk for good behaviour.

Right. You hate the outcome, so it must be better to fundamentally change the way we elect our representatives than it would be to earn the win via current rules. Well, I hate ehe outcome, too, but I hate anything that further empowers parties (over voters) much, much more.

That's the guy who came first to my mind, but he's already made his mark. The dinosaurs will be threatening to burst from their cages, and they'll be tough to squelch. My 'I told you so!'s are at the ready.

The real check is in the hands of voters, who have been trusted to have made a responsible, thoughtful choice of representative. If people have chosen well, then their representative will not endorse bad conduct or bad legislation, and it will not pass. If, however, they have unquestioningly selected whatever kind of crook or blockhead wears a particular party label, then they get the governance they deserve.

Not really. You see, while EC has the official count, every candidate and candidate's agent has the same information by virtue of having witnessed the counting. It's perfectly legitimate for them to share that information with one another... so long before EC is prepared to offer up a report, the information is already legitimately dispersed among hundreds of people. They can threaten to prosecute folks to try to plug that *ahem* leak, but I can't imagine what they could do to prove who leaked it, short of sequestering everyone who has anything to do with the election at all- EC staff, candidates, campaign workers-- everyone.

I'm shocked by the low turnout overall. Low turnout obviously favours the Tories, but I truly expected it to rise, and rise substantially.

What?! One of the hangers-on around our fastball team, one night after having consumed far, far too much beer, proposed the strategy of exhausting the opposition by allowing them free run of as many bases as they could sprint. After a few innings, they'd be so tired out they wouldn't be able to defend themselves... Sunshine, if 'sovereignty' is so much the centre of your existence, then you really should just get off the pot.

That's 'cause for many of us it was just plain unthinkable. (Still is.) Oh well. I called Ralph Goodale and Elizabeth May. That's about all, though. I'd have put $10 on Nettie Wiebe if I could have found anyone willing to bet against her, but there were no takers.