The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...)

[Malthus]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

Hatreds, maybe not. But I do notice that the 1991 New Brunswick election led to a party whose platform was basically “opposition to bilingualism” forming the official opposition. And I seem to remember that Moncton didn’t become a bilingual city without people objecting. New Brunswick certainly isn’t a place subject to excessive inter-community strife, but even there we can find some.

You can find some anywhere. The problem is that you have proposed a cause-and-effect realationship which has no predictive power - or rather, the real-world evidence is against it.

You may be confusing cause and effect here. I’m not sure what “distorted and abused ethno-nationalism” is exactly, but certainly it doesn’t appear out of the void. Very uniform populations see little in the way of inter-community strife; how can it be otherwise? Places where many nationalities coexist are more interesting, no doubt, but historically they’re where problems arise.

I disagree. Having a “very uniform population” may lead to an increase in bigotry, which is then vented upon those rare persons who are not of the majority - hence cross-burnings on lawns and the like are more likely where the population is mostly of one majority ethnicity, directed at those few rare outsiders daring to live there - than in a multi-cultural setting.

Why, Canadian culture of course, what else? Regardless of where they’re from, Torontonians watch the Leafs on CBC Saturday night (ok, maybe not right now :p) and talk about how proud they are of being Canadian. And of course they use English as their common language of communication, even though it’s quite possible that less than 50% of them actually speak it natively. Torontonians can have different origins, but they are one people. Do you see the distinction?

You are simply wrong. Try hanging out in my neighbourhood this summer, and catch the Ukranian festival that closes off the street.

What you miss is that people are quite capable of having multiple levels of identity and allegiance - they idenify as (say) Ukranian in ethnicity and culture, while still being “proud Canadians” in nationality.

In Quebec this isn’t an issue (or if it is, it is the whole issue): that many people in Quebec want their nationality to line up neatly with their ethnicity. People from Quebec often seem to view non-Quebec Canadians in the same light, as their mirror-image - your post is a perfect example of this - as “ethnically Canadian”, a Canadian “people” who identify themselves as “Anglos” as much as some Quebec folks identify themselves as “Québécois”.

But such is not the case. Many if not most outside of Quebec have multiple levels of definitions for themselves - whether provincial (Newfoundlanders for example), or ethnic-religious (Jewish), or by culture or origin (Ukranian, Jamacan). Their view of being “Canadian” has less to do with self-idenity as an ethnic group, and more to do with allegiance to a particular vision of how society ought to be run, a particular set of laws and institutions which, for many, created a safe haven from the hell-holes they or their ancestors fled from. Often, these hell-holes were created by folks who wished to create ethnic conformity (for example, in Europe).

Hence the simmering dispute with Quebec. It is not, reagardless of what some people from Quebec may think, a symmetric ethic conflict between two big ethnicities, defined primarily by language. It is, rather, a conflict over how society ought to be ordered - as ethnic enclaves, or as a society where ethnicity is irrelevant.

Bilingualsim is a well-intentioned but doomed compromise. Doomed, because really aside from gov’t coercion or inherent interest in the language there is no particular incentive to be bilingual in French, as opposed to (say) Spanish, Russian or Chinese. The reason is that we live on a continent where French is very much a minority language, and the language of commerce, of science and of culture is primarily English.

[Spoons]

And just to prove to our international friends (and ourselves) that Canadian politics aren’t always as serious as they sometimes seem to be, may we present … Mulroney: The Opera.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Rysto

There was a riding in the maritimes where voters received phone calls exhorting them to vote for the NDP candidate … who had dropped out of the race. :dubious:

Interesting. Does anyone know whereGary Lunn’sstaff from the last election are?

He pulled the same dirty trick. RCMP are apparently not interested in investigating vote fraud though.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

In a riding that is currently polling at 32.0% for the Conservatives, 35.5% for the Liberals, I can see their concern over 700 votes that, owing to the nature of the vote mob, are not likely to be for the Conservatives. However, trying to take the ballot box, as the local candidate’s communications director is alleged to have done, is right out. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.

It played out rather schizophrenically for the Conservatives, as it turns out:

In a letter to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton demanded that all votes cast on campus by students be declared null and void.

After Elections Canada declared the ballots valid the Conservative Party tried to shift the blame to someone else:

“we applaud the decision not to disenfranchise University of Guelph students because of errors by the local Returning Officer. These student voters should not suffer because of mistakes by the local election officials.”

I note that they did not say: “Sorry our lawyer tried to invalidate the student’s ballots, and sorry that we tried to steal the box of votes.”

[Baffle]

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

The conservatives have filed a complaint about an advance polling station at University of Guelph, claiming there was partisan material present. If their complaint is upheld, about 700 votes would be thrown out.

In a riding that is currently polling at 32.0% for the Conservatives, 35.5% for the Liberals, I can see their concern over 700 votes that, owing to the nature of the vote mob, are not likely to be for the Conservatives. However, trying to take the ballot box, as the local candidate’s communications director is alleged to have done, is right out. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out.

My local riding. It’s been a Liberal stronghold since 1993, despite a series of lackluster representatives. It’s also a riding where the Greens made an exceptionally good showing, if you’re curious about the politics of the area.

I don’t really have my finger on the pulse of the conservative supports in the area, but the left-wingers I know are certainly unimpressed. (Not as though they would have voted Conservative before.) But the city is expanding quite rapidly and its new neighbourhoods have a very similar character to other Toronto suburbs – full of Toronto commuters, and disconnected from the traditional local Guelph politics (the educated, environmentalist politics typical of a university town). The polls on this one are very close, and this kind of shenanigans from a candidate’s primary representative won’t play well.

[RickJay]

Threehundredeight’s projections as of today:

Conservatives: 152
Liberals: 73
Bloc de Separation: 50
NDP: 33

The polls are just amazingly sticky, and don’t move. This is remarkable when one considers just how bad the Conservative campaign has been, with one imbecilic gaffe after another. Granted, Harper performed well in the debates, and the other parties aren’t exactly lighting the world on fire, but the CPC has had an embarassment almost every other day while the Libs and Dips have been relatively gaffe-free.

If it ends up this way, Michael Ignatieff will be PM of a coalition government sometime this year. Yeah, I know he claimed he wasn’t going to start up a coalition. It’s bullshit. He won’t SIGN a coalition agreement before the fact like Dion, Layton and Duceppe did in 2008; he’ll wait until Parliament sits, vote down the government immediately, and then go to the Governor General with the support of Layton and Duceppe and ask to form a government.

Of course, the other intriguing possibility would be that if they finish at 150-153 seats, Harper could lure a few MPs to his side with goodies and Cabinet appointments. He’d do it in a heartbeat and I’d bet dollars to donuts they’re already making lists of the likeliest backstabbers in the other parties.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

Update on the Guelph incident - the votes (241, not 700 as reported earlier.) will stand, but Elections Canada will put an end to the special balloting at on campus events. That’s too bad, as this article in the Globe and Mail underlines the difference between voting intentions in the 18 - 24 demographic. The only party that doesn’t stand to benefit from the youth vote is the Conservatives.

However, there’s nothing to stop the University-based ‘Vote Mobs’ from converging on their local Elections Canada office for their rallies.

[Muffin]

@RickJay

Of course, the other intriguing possibility would be that if they finish at 150-153 seats, Harper could lure a few MPs to his side with goodies and Cabinet appointments. He’d do it in a heartbeat and I’d bet dollars to donuts they’re already making lists of the likeliest backstabbers in the other parties.

|It would be funny as hell if Guergis were to be elected and then courted by Harper.

[RickJay]

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

Update on the Guelph incident - the votes (241, not 700 as reported earlier.) will stand, but Elections Canada will put an end to the special balloting at on campus events. That’s too bad, as this article in the Globe and Mail underlines the difference between voting intentions in the 18 - 24 demographic. The only party that doesn’t stand to benefit from the youth vote is the Conservatives.

Well, it’s only “Too bad” if you support the Green Party, the Bloq, and, to a lesser extent, the NDP. The Liberals also poll lower with youth. So it’s “Too bad” in a partisan sense. (We’re also assuming that youth would vote this way if they were substantially more engaged, which is not necessarily true.)

I’d like to see more youth voting. I’d like to see more of EVERY age group voting. But, to be honest, it’s the responsibility of the voters to drag their asses to the polls, and playing fast and loose with election rules, with voting stations in places where people are openly campaigning and there’s election literature around, doesn’t strike me as being the right way to do it.

I like the idea of voting mobs and other ways of rallying people to get to the polls, but let’s worth within the rules; we have very fair and open elections and to be honest I think they way they’re run should not be changed without a good reason.

Voting in Canada is easy, and if you can’t find a few minutes to zip over to the local school or library or wherever, it’s your own damn fault.

[Gorsnak]

@RickJay

Voting in Canada is easy, and if you can’t find a few minutes to zip over to the local school or library or wherever, it’s your own damn fault.

Are you kidding me? My polling station is two doors down and across the street! It is likely to cost me a solid 5 minutes to vote. Maybe 8 if there’s a bit of a line. I won’t have you making light of the sacrifice I’ll be making to participate in our democracy.

[Baffle]

@RickJay

playing fast and loose with election rules, with voting stations in places where people are openly campaigning and there’s election literature around, doesn’t strike me as being the right way to do it.

I know that’s the conservative spin on the events, but people who were actually present have a slightly different take on it.

From the link above:

@The Globe and Mail

Ramzi Nashef, a Liberal party volunteer who was at the University Centre, disputed Mr. Hamilton’s claims that there were partisan materials near the voting station. He said Liberal and Green Party officials were initially told Elections Canada was considering the entire University Centre as the voting station, and that both parties distributed campaign literature about 200 metres away from the building.

The Elections Canada official then returned to tell them a new ruling had declared the entire campus should be free of partisan materials during voting, and both parties returned all their materials to their offices, Mr. Nashef said.

“Playing fast and loose with election rules” isn’t a well-defined term, either. But Elections Canada themselves said, “All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Elections Canada Act and are valid.” Could you explain what you mean by your statement?

Also, for the sarcastic:

@The Globe and Mail

Lineups snaked around the Centre’s atrium as students waited more than an hour on average to cast ballots.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

@RickJay

Well, it’s only “Too bad” if you support the Green Party, the Bloq, and, to a lesser extent, the NDP. The Liberals also poll lower with youth. So it’s “Too bad” in a partisan sense. (We’re also assuming that youth would vote this way if they were substantially more engaged, which is not necessarily true.)

Yes, I admit that “too bad” is a blatantly partisan remark on my part. I didn’t promise to be non-partisan; I only promised to be respectful. However, based on the results cited in the Globe and Mail article about the youth vote, if the only voters were those between 18 - 24, we’d end up with a Liberal minority government. (104 seats to the Liberals, 60 Bloc, 53 NDP, 46 Conservative, 43 Greens) Despite the Liberals polling lower (23.9 with the youth vote, 29.3 in the national average), that’s a very different looking parliament than the one currently projected at threehundredeight.com…

It is very easy to vote in this country - between the regular polls on election day, the advance ballots, the special ballots, the possibility of arranging for voting by proxy, there’s not much to it. For all that, this election is a challenge in terms of exams, moving back off campus, summer jobs for students. Anything that encourages more people to vote is all to the good of democracy, as far as I’m concerned. Advance polls and special ballots in seniors homes? Good idea! Candidates’ volunteer teams running shuttle buses to and from the polling station? As long as they respect the rules regarding partisan materials in the actual polling station, Great! And I say that knowing full well the conservatives stand to benefit from getting their own supporters to and from the polls. I’d even rather someone voted conservative than that they didn’t bother to vote at all. (Of course, I’d rather they voted Liberal, but you can’t always get what you want, as some wise men once sang…)

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

@Muffin

|It would be funny as hell if Guergis were to be elected and then courted by Harper.

I can’t believe I’m in the position of feeling sorry for Guergis. She’s an airhead, her husband spends his summers coating the surface of stagnant ponds and as far as I can tell, she still clings to the conservative principles that made me despise her in the first place. Never mind - the RCMP cleared her of all accusations. Where’s the apology? Where’s the reinstatement? Instead, she has been treated in an appalling manner.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs someone to shun, he has Bev Oda.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Cat_Whisperer

I think bilingualism could become a non-issue in one generation if we committed to all Canadian kids learning both languages, across the country.

Every city that has a Muslim mayor, raise your hand.

Okay, okay, you’ve made your point. But here in British Columbia we’ve had a Sikh premier and as you know, from a Canadian perspective the terrorist threat from some the Sikhs has beem far more of a problem than some of the Muslims.

[RickJay]

@Baffle

I know that’s the conservative spin on the events, but people who were actually present have a slightly different take on it.

I’m not saying the votes shouldn’t count. But clearly, things were not done precisely the way they should be, as indicated IN THE VERY LINK YOU PROVIDE, where Elections Canada is saying that they’re not going to let this sort of thing happen again. Your own cite is my cite.

As there is no evidence that the votes were not cast in good faith, they must count. You have to err on the side of letting the voter have their say. I think precisely the opposite way of the various Republicans in the USA who seem obsessed with preventing voting; while rules have to be in place, you need to tip to the side of letting the vote count, even if there’s a small chance of fraud. But one of the reasons I’m confident that’s the right way to do things is that we run elections really, really well here. Our elections are just phenomenally well organized, all things considered. But the thing is, it’s BECAUSE of that that I can say “meh, if the odd ballot is bullshit, it’ll all wash out in the end.” Continuing to run them really, really well is what allows us to be pretty forgiving in this regard.

But obviously this didn’t go precisely according to the rules or else Elections Canada wouldn’t be sending out special instructions not to do it again. Explain to me why Elections Canada would send special instructions out to their returning officers saying “don’t let this happen again” if it had been run completely according to Hoyle?

It’s clear that the returning officer fucked up. However, it’s equally clear hundreds of voters shouldn’t have their ballots tossed because a returning officer fucked up in a way that can’t be demostrated to have defrauded the results of the election. It’s equally clear that the imbecile who tried to steal the ballot box should be in prison but for some reason they haven’t arrested him.

[QUOTE=Le Ministre]
Yes, I admit that “too bad” is a blatantly partisan remark on my part. I didn’t promise to be non-partisan; I only promised to be respectful. However, based on the results cited in the Globe and Mail article about the youth vote, if the only voters were those between 18 - 24, we’d end up with a Liberal minority government.
[/QUOTE]

Sure; with some assumptions you didn’t state, that’s true. And if only voters 65 and up voted we’d have a gigantic Conservative majority and legislation that everyone has to eat dinner at Swiss Chalet at 4:30. I don’t want to live in that country.

It’s also interesting, albeit meaningless, to note that if only age 18-24 voters voted that would be the worst relationship between popular votes and seat distribution in the history of Canadian general elections; the Green Party would almost tie for first in popular vote and yet would finish FIFTH in seats held.

[Baffle]

@RickJay

I’m not saying the votes shouldn’t count. But clearly, things were not done precisely the way they should be, as indicated IN THE VERY LINK YOU PROVIDE, where Elections Canada is saying that they’re not going to let this sort of thing happen again. Your own cite is my cite.

I recognize that fact, and it puzzles me. This sort of ‘special ballot’ station (which is different from an advance poll, and that’s where Michael Sona’s confusion seems to have arisen) isn’t unusual, and it’s been done on campus a few times in the past. I don’t understand Elections Canada’s ruling – why should this be prevented at all?

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

@Leaffan

But the problem is that the federal government enacted a law. The federal government chose the boundaries and then the municipal, small-town folks were expected to comply. In the Pakenham case the lady in question had been the Postmistress for decades. Then the feds come along and said “Sorry. You’re not qualified to do your job.”

So, are you saying that you believe official language policy should be determined at the local level only? Or are you just saying?

I live on the boarder.

Try not to crush him.

@RickJay

That is a matter of interest to the business, not me. And of course, the statement that “90% of the population speaks French” quite absurdly ignores the fact that linguistic minorities congregate.

I’ve heard it suggested that the reason why enforcement of the commercial signage provisions of the Charter operates on citizen complaints only was actually to be more lenient in places where “linguistic minorities congregate”, as you put it. If no francophone, or no unilingual francophone anyway, lives in a particular place, then signage in French isn’t necessarily needed there. The person making this suggestion (who supports bill 101) blamed “vigilantes” for fanning the flames of linguistic conflict by making official complaints against shop owners in places where they don’t live and don’t shop.

@RickJay

I guess I’m different in that I have some interest in, and an opinion on, about public policy concerning the freedom of expression throughout my country, not just my province of residence.

It’s especially a question of the fact that as an English Canadian, you see the whole country as an entity on which you have a right of regard. To me, what Ontarians or Albertans do isn’t something on which I should have more control than on what Americans do.

To be honest, it’s the same difference that explains why, per mnemosyne, some English Canadians are insulted to have trouble being served in English in Quebec, while I wouldn’t even expect service in French in federal government buildings in some parts of Canada.

Many people, like myself, would prefer to see the restrictive aspects of Bill 101 reversed, but don’t see anything wrong with the fact that most people in Quebec speak French or conduct their personal lives and business in French. You seem to assume, again and again, that opposition to the fomer indicates some sort of antipathy to the latter.

Many Quebecers consider that bill 101 is what first allowed us to conduct our (public) personal lives and do business in French in Quebec, and still allows us to do it now. So hostility to one is seen as hostility to the other. I’m not saying I agree completely, but that’s the idea.

@Cat_Whisperer

I think bilingualism could become a non-issue in one generation if we committed to all Canadian kids learning both languages, across the country.

Canadian kids already learn the other official language in school. But even if they have good teachers (which isn’t certain), if they’re not to use the language, they’re not going to retain it. If you think a fully bilingual populace is what we should be striving for, what you should be supporting is exchange programs for young Canadians to go develop their language skills elsewhere in the country. (Interestingly, that sounds like the kind of thing Trudeau and his kin would have proposed.)

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

You’d be astonished how seldom lines like ‘Je mange l’odeur de tes cuisses.’ or ‘Où dois-je naturaliser le pétrole de mon cœur?’ come up in everyday conversation… (Both actual lines from ‘Le Vampire et la nymphomane’, music by Serge Provost to a text by Claude Gauvreau.)

I guess you’re just not romantic enough.

Malthus, I’ll be answering you tomorrow.

[RickJay]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

It’s especially a question of the fact that as an English Canadian…

Absolute horse shit. It’s simply that I am Canadian, full stop, and matters of civil rights of other Canadians are of interest to me. I’m a citizen of this country and civil rights are a rather important issue to a concerned citizen.

The division between French and English, in terms of civil rights, is of no concern to me.

To be honest, it’s the same difference that explains why, per mnemosyne, some English Canadians are insulted to have trouble being served in English in Quebec…

I know nobody like that and I certainly am not one of them. There’s absolutely no logical connection between my objection to some of the provisions of Bill 101 and whether or not I can be served in English at a store in Riviere-Du-Loup. I can’t even begin to draw any sort of logical thread between them.

Perhaps you know such people or have heard of them. I haven’t, and I’m sorry, but not only can I not speak for these people, I don’t even comprehend them and don’t understand the connection. Nobody in this thread has complained about not being able to get English service in a store in Quebec. So why’re you even bringing it up? What does it have to do with the issue at hand?

[Baffle]

@RickJay

Absolute horse shit.

I’m glad you and I have something upon which we can agree.

[RickJay]

In terms of the polls, threehundredeight is still reporting an estimnte of:

CPC - 152
Liberal - 73
Bloc - 50
NDP - 33

In an interesting note, however, they report the “ceiling” for the parties - e.g. how well they COULD do if things go very well in May 2 for them - as being highly favourable for the Conservatives; whereas the Tories could peak out at 178 seats, the Liberal ceiling is at 101 (which puts the CPC at 135, essentially not a lot different from what they have now.) This is a significant drop for the Liberals’ upper end estimates, which means that their odds of actually winning the election are going from “slim” to “none.”

I think it’s obvious, really, what will happen if the Conservatives win a minority; Parliament will sit, the Liberals will immediately call for a vote of non confidence, the opposition will unanimously vote the government down, and Ignatieff will go to the G-G and demand to be made Prime Minister. It’s been the plan all along. I don’t see how there’s any other reational explanation for why the Liberals wanted an election now; no serious observer, at any point in the last year, has ever thought they could win a plurality of seats in an election. Ignatieff has chosen his words carefully, saying the party that wins the most seats gets “a chance” to form a government, but he has no plans to allow it to survive. There’s no formal coalition, but I’d bet good money there’s a gentleman’s agreement already in place, or that the agreement (which by now has already been negotiated) will come only after the vote of non confidence and Ignatieff will say “Well, gosh, what a surprise this is. I really honestly meant no coalition before but by golly, now I have no choice.” Trust me; the Liberals plan to rule no matter how many seats they win.

One of the cornerstones of the Liberal campaign, that there’s no coalition plan, is 100% lie. You’ll see.