Ignatieff is about to be dumped by his party.

[Dave_ON]

We've already beaten him to the point that he won't be PM in the next election. Now we have to keep the pressure on so we can gain a clear majority and send the Liberal party into fourth place behind the NDP and Bloc. We need to nullify the Liberal party from being a threat to Canada.

We mustn't allow them to continue, we don't want another coalition attempt to be made. Canada depends on us to defend her from these forces. Only the Conservatives can deliver her to safety.

Only time will tell I suppose, there's no election called nor is there one in the foreseeable future. Fortunes change rather rapidly in the political sphere, as the CPC found out last election.

Seriously what threat does the LPC pose to Canada? Please elucidate the rest of us; we're not all privy to knowledge. Why the seemingly rabid hatred of the LPC, you sound oddly like those folks that used to say Harper had a hidden agenda.

[wyly]

I fail to see how not voting would force any kind of change, that simply means that fewer and fewer people are deciding who the government is which would make it even less likely that change will be inacted. That sounds like the most undemocratic decision you can make. Even a bad choice is better than not voting at all, the only way you can make your opinion heard is by voting.

our electoral system sucks, I'm wasting my time voting without Porportional Representation my vote becomes irrelevant...without PR millions of Canadians have no one to speak for them and we are forever ruled by a minority...

[wyly]

Only time will tell I suppose, there's no election called nor is there one in the foreseeable future. Fortunes change rather rapidly in the political sphere, as the CPC found out last election.

yup, 3 months from now when winter unemployment numbers peak it could all reverse...

[Mr.Canada]

yup, 3 months from now when winter unemployment numbers peak it could all reverse...

It's my non partisan observation that Mr. Ignatieff has a serious image problem much the same way Harper had a serious image problem when he first became leader of the Canadian Alliance.

Harper isn't viewed in the same light as he was 7 years ago. Harper has worked had to fix his image and it's paying off now. Mr. Ignatieff needs to take a long hard and honest look at his own image and seek advice on what he can do to fix so he may better connect with everyday Canadians.

[Topaz]

It's my non partisan observation that Mr. Ignatieff has a serious image problem much the same way Harper had a serious image problem when he first became leader of the Canadian Alliance.

Harper isn't viewed in the same light as he was 7 years ago. Harper has worked had to fix his image and it's paying off now. Mr. Ignatieff needs to take a long hard and honest look at his own image and seek advice on what he can do to fix so he may better connect with everyday Canadians.

IF Harper wants to connect with Canadians then maybe your leader can start by answering questions that is put to him in the House in question period. He seems to like playing the "game" as you said but Canadians don't want games they want answers! His ego seems as to be as high as yours, but even Harper hasn't called himself Mr. Canada has he?

[Mr.Canada]

IF Harper wants to connect with Canadians then maybe your leader can start by answering questions that is put to him in the House in question period. He seems to like playing the "game" as you said but Canadians don't want games they want answers! His ego seems as to be as high as yours, but even Harper hasn't called himself Mr. Canada has he?

I cannot possibly answer for the PM and what he does or says in the HoC. However if you have a question for me I'll do my very best to provide a thoughtful answer.

[Oleg Bach]

Processed people who are conditioned by our status quo in regards to what education are NOT educated..Ignatieff is a rube...sure he has the papers and credentials - but he is a robot...and robots is what the powers that be want running the show. I think that we should be realists and have Iggy and Harper..rehearse with their own rock bands...and have a battle of the bands...Who ever puts on the best show, the most high spirited event - gets to sit in the golden chair...

[Smallc]

That will show 'em!

Seriously though. You'll vote, and more than likely it will be LPC.

If there is no real choice, I choose nothing...even though I feel that we should always vote, sometimes you just can't. That said, at this stage I would vote Conservative if I were to vote. I probably will vote regardless, because as I said, I feel that we always should. I'm simply making mouth....err, finger noises.

[madmax]

I fail to see how not voting would force any kind of change, that simply means that fewer and fewer people are deciding who the government is which would make it even less likely that change will be inacted. That sounds like the most undemocratic decision you can make. Even a bad choice is better than not voting at all, the only way you can make your opinion heard is by voting.

Well said.

[myata]

We've had this 1.5 party system for ages now and voting within it won't change one bit about it. The pathetic choice we have now has everything to do with the fact that the two behemoth parties can be 100% certain that one of them would get the pie. So they start looking like identical twins, only maybe with a different face, at the top.

The only way to change that is to show that we aren't going to play their games anymore. I.e., ultimately, be honest with ourselves. If we don't like either of the choices that could matter (the other ones being just consolation, outlet), no point in taking any. That way, when voter participlation slides down to really ridiculous levels, somebody would have no choice but to start think about practical democratic reform.

I simply can't see why I should make myself vote for Iggy just because I don't agree with Harper. And voting anybody else, in this system, Simply Doesn't Matter. One Tidy Bit. Period.

This as a dumb no choice as it gets. It's got nothing to do with accurate representation of population, and as far as democracy is concerned - only with its 18th century version.

[Topaz]

We've had this 1.5 party system for ages now and voting within it won't change one bit about it. The pathetic choice we have now has everything to do with the fact that the two behemoth parties can be 100% certain that one of them would get the pie. So they start looking like identical twins, only maybe with a different face, at the top.

The only way to change that is to show that we aren't going to play their games anymore. I.e., ultimately, be honest with ourselves. If we don't like either of the choices that could matter (the other ones being just consolation, outlet), no point in taking any. That way, when voter participlation slides down to really ridiculous levels, somebody would have no choice but to start think about practical democratic reform.

I simply can't see why I should make myself vote for Iggy just because I don't agree with Harper. And voting anybody else, in this system, Simply Doesn't Matter. One Tidy Bit. Period.

This as a dumb no choice as it gets. It's got nothing to do with accurate representation of population, and as far as democracy is concerned - only with its 18th century version.

I think a lot of Canadians feel the way you do and the only way to get clear answers is for the media to hold once a month, those election debates and ask the tough, straight questions and show no mercy! This way, they can't lie, change the question or use personal attacks against the questioner, Agree?

[Mr.Canada]

We've had this 1.5 party system for ages now and voting within it won't change one bit about it. The pathetic choice we have now has everything to do with the fact that the two behemoth parties can be 100% certain that one of them would get the pie. So they start looking like identical twins, only maybe with a different face, at the top.

The only way to change that is to show that we aren't going to play their games anymore. I.e., ultimately, be honest with ourselves. If we don't like either of the choices that could matter (the other ones being just consolation, outlet), no point in taking any. That way, when voter participlation slides down to really ridiculous levels, somebody would have no choice but to start think about practical democratic reform.

I simply can't see why I should make myself vote for Iggy just because I don't agree with Harper. And voting anybody else, in this system, Simply Doesn't Matter. One Tidy Bit. Period.

This as a dumb no choice as it gets. It's got nothing to do with accurate representation of population, and as far as democracy is concerned - only with its 18th century version.

Yeah right. I'm sure Ignatieff would love to see himself as the same as Harper but he isn't at all. Liberals are anything but the same as the Tories. Nice try.

Everyone's vote is worth the same, the value of one. Just because your socialist doesn't get in doesn't mean the system is broken it means that your party choice isn't as popular as Rabble would have you believe.