Dave_ON

Absolutely, this is the core of the issue for me. It's all well and good that joe voter is content to wallow in ignorance, but what I cannot abide is the CPC's wanton exploitation, and encouragement of that ignorance. I'm still floored at Mr. Harper's Presidential Address during the whole constitutional crisis. As if he had some right to address the nation directly or had any level of authority whatsoever to defy the will of Parliament. It was then that such phrases of "coalition of losers" or "coup d'etat" started floating around. All disingenuous and inaccurate statements aimed directly at exploiting the ignorance of the Canadians at large. I found the whole affair insulting and infuriating, I think I actually shouted back at the TV.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The CPC are a prime example of this, even though the PC's were in fact a brokerage party and were wiped out, when the right united why did they eventually change the name to Conservative Party of Canada? why not keep the old one? I'm not specifically referring to the ideological view point of the party, merely the name. That is why the NDP remained the NDP, the CRAP changed to the PC and whatever composition the LPC's eventually end up in, they will still have Liberal somewhere in their name. You are making fine points all around, but if you think that there are not a lot of people who vote LPC based on the familiarity of the name I'd have to say you're mistaken. Not everyone is a involved in politics as you or others on this board, and it's not about where a given party stands on the issues, it's about brand recognition. Just like any other form of marketing.

Didn't realize I said in the Commonwealth... oh wait I didn't. Do you honestly believe the CPC didn't affect the name change as it was more palatable and familiar to Canadians then Canadian Reform Alliance party? Do you further believe, that much of the residual popularity of the LPC isn't a result of their long standing history in the country? Further as an NDP why is it that they chose not to change the name to just the Democrat Party? Brand recognition is a reality in Canada. Why is it we still refer to the CPC as the "Tories" and the LPC as the "Grits" even though neither party is even remotely close to what those terms once represented?

You're not most Canadians, and it seems it would have had little if any impact on the numbers. Let's be frank shall we? You have on several occasions out and out stated you "don't care what the constitution says" which is of course a rather ludicrous statement. You can't pick and choose what you want in the constitutional buffet as it were, however I digress. The reality is, many Canadians surveyed at that time couldn't name the Queen as Canada's head of state, some were close and named the GG. But a disturbingly large number named the PM as head of state. Many other Canadians also could not name the type of democracy we are, many stated we were a republic! The lack of political knowledge in Canada is staggering. This statement further illustrates my point, political ignorance abounds, and utterly untrue CPC rhetorical statements such as "coalition of losers" proves you're happy to remain ignorant of reality. This statement is a sad attempt to make illegitimate a perfectly legitimate governmental make up. Whether we like it or not, or if 99.9% of Canadians hate the idea of a coalition the reality is, our system allows it as it currently stands. Now if 99.9% of Canadians don't like it and feel so very strongly about it, they need to vote in politicians who will open up the constitution and change it so that Coalitions are utterly and expressly disallowed. Then those politicians must also convince all the provinces to agree to this change, which of course would bring up a slew of other constitutional changes. This is a misunderstanding of parliamentary reality. The party with the most votes does not "rule" they by convention form the government, and as such can direct legislation as they see fit. Now in a minority situation, it's wise not to piss off the opposition as on your own you lack the majority vote to pass your agenda on a whim. It is Parliament, not the government and by proxy the caucus and the PM, that "rules". If they don't like you, the government that is, they may dispense with you at their pleasure. That is the mandate that parliament is given by their constituents, I don't know why you and those like you are insisting that somehow the government receives a direct mandate from the people. This is an utterly untrue statement, parliament who represent the people gives the government their mandate, and they can take it away just as easily. The common man also as I've already stated cannot name the Queen as head of state or name the type of democracy we are or the specific type of parliamentary democracy that we are. Are we now ruled by "common knowledge"? God help us if we are as it is sincerely lacking. Yes let's just dispense with the constitution, what has it done for us lately anyway? Let's simply run things as people perceive them to be at any given moment in time and let the rules be damned! I suggest we become a dynamic democracy, subject to the whim of the majority. You are the type of person that likes the constitution only when it supports your world view, fortunately for the rest of us, it's an all inclusive package. Here's the Ipsos Reid survey that demonstrates much of what I'm saying. http://www.dominion.ca/DominionInstituteDecember15Factum.pdf {quote] I could be wrong, of course. That's why I've come to the point where I'd actually love to see such a coalition happen! If the people love it then fine and dandy! If the people get pissed off it would be great fun watching the Opposition parties squirm! I sincerely doubt you'd find that fine and dandy and I sincerely doubt most people would even be aware of what happened. This is really just a very vocal minority, of which you are a part of, that would be upset.

I don't think we should ever underestimate the power of political brand names in Canadian Politics. The Liberals, have been the LPC since confederation, a name like that doesn't just go away. Even the CPC realized this which is why the re-branded from Reform, to the CC and finally to the Conservative Party of Canada, which is a throw back to the old Progressive Conservatives. With this simple name change Canadians began to warm up to what was until that time perceived as essentially a Western BLOC party. Conservative and Liberal are very familiar names in the Canadian Political realm and I believe it is the brand alone that has kept the Liberals from suffering the same fate as the PC's back in the 90's. The names Liberal and Conservative are familiar and comfortable terms for Canadians, especially those who do not follow politics nearly as closely as those of us on this board. Having said that, this will not continue, and they are in serious need of leadership, renewal, direction and frankly young blood. However, that's not terribly likely to happen for many years to come. We'll have to see what happens after this election, if the LPC manages to make some gains, Ignatieff will likely stay, if not, he'll suffer the same fate as Dion. The only thing is, who would replace him? There's really no one waiting in the wings that could handle the job as far as I'm aware. The same goes for the CPC, many talk of how Harper has to go, but love him or hate him, who could do a better, or at least as good as he has done? No one immediately leaps to mind. I think that even though it is likely the CPC will lose seats this election, that Mr. Harper is quite safe.

yep, "If we exclude the majority of Canada, the majority of those that remain are Tory supporters" It's all so clear now.

So let's keep tally here, we can't count "separatist" Quebec, The French (unless they voted for the CPC) or Toronto, who does actually matter in your opinion? Just those west of Ontario?

I think at this point it is more likely than not that their survival will depend on it. They haven't made any headway whatsoever and if anything have lost ground in both Ontario and Quebec. A majority is a very faint pipe dream at this point, and I'd be surprised if they manage to maintain their current seat count.

Yes excellent idea, let's exclude Quebec, Canada's second most populist province and then let's exclude Toronto, which contains a third or more of the population of Ontario. That would be truly representative of Canada.

That's only correct from a purely seat count point of view... if we deduct the 75 seats allocated to Quebec, to simplify the math we'll assume all seats are "French" we are left with 233 seats of which the CPC won 133 (deducting the 10 seats they won in Quebec) which equates to roughly 57% of English Canada seats. (this of course fails to recognize that Parts of Northern Ontario, Northern NB and Southern NS are in fact technically "french" as well) Given that we have a first past the post system it's somewhat erroneous to assume that winning a seat mean you represent more than 50% of voters in that riding, you only need more votes than any other candidate not 50 plus 1. If you take out the folks in Quebec that voted, and average the percent of vote that the CPC captured across all "English" provinces, you arrive at about 46%. This of course fails to account for the significant population differences between regions. So it's not truly representative of the "English" vote. Considering that more than half of English people live in Ontario and BC and the CPC only captured 39.2 and 44.5 respectively. Source http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html There's actually a lot of interesting information about the last election on elections Canada's website. I found it especially interesting that every single party last election lost votes except for the Greens who actually made a significant gain.

I find the demise of local candidate debates to be disturbing, and no party seems to encourage lack of participation in such events more than the CPC. Now the CPC has always been tight lipped and kept their candidates on a short leash, but I find it quite sad that we can't get to know the person we're electing. Now I can't speak for all ridings but I see a distinct lack of grass roots canvasing by our CPC candidate. Granted she's against Glen Pearson who is quite popular in London North Center and I don't think the riding has elected a non LPC for the better part of 2 decades. Thoughts? Is there visibility of all candidates in your ridings? Why the trend of local MP's actually getting engaged with their constituents? Have all traces of responsible government passed into history? Here's the article. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/18/cv-election-tory-candidates.html

Oh how I tire of this kind of tripe. Please explain precisely how the election results would be reversed? Were duly elected MP's to be ousted from the house? The electorate does not elect a government, parliament elects the government. By convention it is the party with the most seats, but this doesn't need to be the case if that party proves unable to win or maintain the confidence of the majority of MP's. That is the essence of our democracy, we can't vote on every single item, or at least we don't want to, thus we elect MP's to do this for us. They represent us and if we don't like how they vote we kick them out next election, our say on how our rep votes, begins and ends on election day. There would be no reversal, the house would have the same composition as elected by the people, the reps would not be replaced, and members would retain their seats. Only those who would write the bills to be passed by said reps would change nothing more. So in short if you don't like the idea of a coalition, or how the fundamentals of our democracy work, that's all well and good. Say as much, but please stop spreading misinformed tripe, and repeating baseless CPC rhetoric.

I'm finding this election to be rife with twists and turns. I'm quite surprised that the BLOC aren't doing better, traditionally they campaign quite well. I guess it's not over until May 2nd but it would appear I was a bit hasty in counting the NDP out. They've recovered quite nicely and are definitely on the upward trend.

It's a nominal fee you are paid, and in most cases, in Ontario at least if your trial is too short, fewer than 10 days, you only get expenses reimbursed and are still responsible for your own meals. If you have a lengthy trial then a fee does kick in. During deliberation is the only time your meals/hotel expenses are paid for. http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/general_jury_duty_info.asp Not even sure what you're referring to here or how it would apply to voting. Not precisely, at least no more so than telling someone they have to pay taxes, perform jury duty, or be drafted during war time, such as occurred during WWI. On a side note this was the result of a, dare I say it, coalition government. Civic duty is exactly that, duty or obligation. With freedom comes certain responsibilities that we all must abide by. I would suggest that if you don't want to vote or feel obligated to do so, that you should move to a country where it isn't an option, and therefore you won't have to worry about it.

Voting is a civic duty not a job. As for fining non voters, well not the greatest idea, but I doubt you'd be able to sue anyone over it, this isn't the US after all. Not to mention I'm certain it would fall under the same realm as jury duty or paying taxes, they are non optional civic duties and cannot be refused.

You're seriously dreaming if you think Mr. Harper and the CPC are anywhere near majority territory at this point. The rate at which is Ontario and Quebec support is softening he'll be very lucky to hold onto his current seat count.

What message would that send? To my knowledge blank/spoiled ballots are not tracked by Elections Canada. It's also rather stupid, if you're going to all the effort to get out to the polls you may as well vote for someone. Otherwise why not just stay home and watch Star Trek reruns?

Don't vote based on the party or the leader vote on the best candidate in your riding. Read up on their personal views, and stances on issues that are important to you and your community. Are they a long standing member in your community or a parachute in from another area? Have they impacted your community in any way? Yes there are times when individual MP's must tow the party line, but there are also many times when they do not have to do this. Your MP can make an enormous difference in your riding, so base your vote on that. I personally love our current MP in London North Center, Glen Pearson. He's an LPC member but that doesn't really determine my vote, he's done a great job since he was elected and I would still vote for him even if he switched to CPC, or even Green for that matter. That's the only advice I can offer. If you don't like any of the candidates then you'll have to vote for the rep from the party that you find least objectionable. Better an undesirable choice to none at all.

Ouch the news is just getting worse and worse for the CPC. This and the leaked auditor general report hasn't even had a chance to fully sink in yet for voters. It's not looking good for the CPC and they have a lot of ground to recover at midpoint. Ontario just continues to head south for them and it's not showing any sign of stopping. What I also find interesting is the BLOC's performance is somewhat unspectacular. They usually campaign very strongly, not sure what's going on in PQ this time around. I also find it interesting how close the race in BC has become, I think all in all this has turned out to be a very interesting election after all.

I would tend to agree with you TB, but do you think that will really happen? Honestly given Mr. Harper's past actions in parliament do you think he'll suddenly turn over a new leaf even when faced with little to no other options? Also, given his rather overt damnation of this 'anathema' can he really do so at this point without looking incredibly hypocritical? I suppose, if Mr. Harper has demonstrated one thing rather consistently that's his desire to remain in power, and his willingness to do pretty much anything to keep it that way.

It's as I've been saying all along. The CPC will not win a majority with low 40's support, they're support isn't as efficient as the LPC, which is concentrated in geographically smaller, but more population dense areas. It's also more evenly distributed across the regions. Having 70% support in Alberta really skews their national numbers. I think it's safe to say at this point that the CPC will be very very lucky to hold onto the seat count they have, and it's very likely that the LPC will go up at the expense of the NDP. All in all it doesn't bode well for the CPC in the least.

I'm glad they have, and I think you're right to coalition talk wasn't nearly as effective as they had thought/hoped it would be. Now they actually have to run on a platform, this I know is a novel idea for the CPC considering last election they didn't produce one until the 11th hour and after the debates as I recall. I think they're going to have a tough sell on their economic record though, increased spending in the military which I agree we need, but with the recent report that calls all of the CPC's numbers into question, the bill is going to be far larger than they indicated. Also this tough on crime is just another spending bill, rather than social programs they're funneling it into prisons. What I find particularly amusing is that they plan on cutting taxes, balancing the budget and returning to modest surpluses, while at the same time increasing spending. These CPC types are magical creatures indeed, wish I knew the secret as to how I could spend more money while making less. Don't get me wrong I don't think taxes should be hiked, but I also don't see an immediate need for corporate tax cuts. We already have one of the lowest rates in the world, we don't really have to worry about other countries under cutting us on that front. I'm a big fan of status quo at present, it's working so far, let's not muck it up.

Hmm if the CPC support in Ontario continues to soften at this rate we'll likely see a parliament closer to the 2006 layout as TB had mentioned in another post. This I hope would be sobering for the CPC, but if the past is any indicator, it likely will not be. This of course leaves Mr. Harper is a very sticky position. The NDP is loosing support to the LPC, so with fewer seats for both CPC and NDP, the CPC is going to have to start getting cozy with the LPC or the BLOC. They won't be operating from a position of strength. It looks at this point like the CPC is to lose seats and the LPC is set to gain This election is getting quite interesting. I'm wondering if the trend will continue.

Not bizarre in the least, it explicitly stating that they pay more attention to screening those who attend the rallies than they do their own employees who work directly for them. I would think it goes without saying that this underscores poor judgement or a lack of priorities. Whether that is true or not is a different matter, but the connection I would think should be self evident. Ok now you're just repeating party tripe. Mr. Harper needs to take responsibility for his staff and not shift the blame to others as the CPC is want to do. The CPC organizers should not have involved the RCMP in the removal of persons unless they were violent or threatening violence. This is the responsibility of the party staff. The RCMP is there for the protection of the candidates and to ensure order is kept. Heckling, which if you read the article this was not what they did or intended to do, is hardly grounds to involve the RCMP. Let the staff screen and remove at their discretion and involve the police only when civil disorder is involved. On that note the RCMP head has advised all officers that they are to no longer get involved in such matters, they are there to maintain order and security nothing more. Well of course all parties do this, the difference is the CPC got caught, and didn't handle it well when they did. In typical CPC fashion they attempt to divert, when that fails, they spin and when that failed, they finally had to own up and apologize for the incident. Here's a link to the rather heartfelt apology. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/07/cv-election-harper-apology-1239.html

This is my fundamental problem with the CPC and Mr. Harper, he's trying to win by playing games. This is not uncommon among politicians, but this was supposed to be the government that was going to change all that. Instead of transparency we receive misinformation such as this on a regular basis. If he'd drop the "we're the only democratic party rhetoric" and give some indication that his party will maintain, at the very least a live and let live stance on moral and other social issues, I'd likely be able to stomach a vote for him. As it stands now, that's not likely to happen in the very near future. The sad fact of the matter is economically I differ very little from the CPC, but I have other personal factors that must be a part of my vote which are equally important to me. I'm not too worried about the LPC turning into the NDP. Stealing NDP platform planks and under delivering after elected has been a liberal tradition since the post PET era.