So with the upcoming elections, I'd like to hear all of your opinions.
Personally, I felt like I could compare the candidates to well-known things.
Harper is Walmart. He's been there for a while, and everyone wishes him away (but deep down everyone has a sliver of a doubt it will never go away).
Trudeau is Target. A newer, red Walmart, but still Walmart.
Elizabeth May/Green Party is Patreon. "Get us there and we'll do things for you" but doesn't look too experienced, or with too much of a plan, and much too self-important (how many of you visited the site? I mean - the top topic, right now, is "Elizabeth May Clear Winner in Maclean’s Debate". Did I miss something or is that projection?)
And finally, Mulcair is Kickstarter. "I got a plan". "Mulcair's got a plan". Yet something rubs me wrong. Also, sure HE got a plan - but does he have a team to get it done? Hell - is that plan really that thorough or in detail? I looked around (probably not as much as I should have) and all it refers it to is "Mulcair's plans".
I mean - it's better than the last election, for sure, but... still, the choices don't seem that great to me. I'm personally torn between Mulcair and May (I really like both of their platforms - though Green Party seems still a little too rail-minded while Mulcair seems like a dog chasing a car. You all know what I'm saying.)
SO, Thoughts?
Thanks for this post Killerhurtz. Unite the Progressives I'm in the anyone-but-Harper camp - and as "Lead Now" says, that has to be done riding by riding. I'm very angry at the NDP-GREEN-LIBS for not creating a general progressive party. Every time one of them phones me -- which is all the time - I say "unite the left and I'll give you money." Or some version of "get over yourselves." The PC and Reform parties did it. Now we essentially have a version of the former Reform Party. I imagine the NDP didn't want to go in that direction as they feared they would be subsumed by the Liberals -- but the NDP is in a much better position now, Mulcair is popular and we took friggin' Alberta!! To be honest and at risk of ridicule, I have always liked Justin T ever since he gave what I thought was a slam-dunk of a eulogy at his father's funeral. I've also been a life-long NDPer. Jack Layton is buried a few blocks from my Toronto place and I visit him often.
I love ya, lil, but I can't agree with this at all. Part of the reason (aside from spending limits) that our democracy is so much more broad than the US's is that we have a multiple party system, instead of two parties (a left and right). What we SHOULD have is some sort of Proportional Representation, or Ranked Ballot. Even though neither of these strategies are perfect either, the result of either attempts to prevent parties from winning with a Plurality, but not a Majority. First Past the Post, the system we use now, has the unintended consequence of killing off smaller parties until there are only two competing parties.I'm very angry at the NDP-GREEN-LIBS for not creating a general progressive party. Every time one of them phones me -- which is all the time - I say "unite the left and I'll give you money." Or some version of "get over yourselves."
Definitely with you on the alternative voting system. I think it's the only long-term alternative to the left parties merging and us becoming another two party system. At the same time, I too look at what party is likely to defeat the Conservatives in my riding and will likely vote that way. Doesn't help that no one really excites me.
We should probably have some sort of PropRep -- and the NDP would probably disappear in a partnership with the Libs. I still wish they'd unite though, and in my lifetime. A fringe group, like the CCF (forerunner of NDP) will emerge soon after. sp00ns - do you have any idea which country has a good PropRep system? When done properly, it forces alliances and strange bedfellows.
As an Albertan, I would just like to say that the national NDP and our provincial NDP are quite different. The NDP here is more on the conservative-centre side (they have to be, around these parts) and Rachel Notley did EXTREMELY well in her campaign and during the debates. Jim Prentice, leader of the PC party, was an absolute ass, the Liberals have zero respect, and Brian Jean had absolutely no sense of image. Really, she was the only option for anyone but the staunchest members of the right. The national election is nowhere near as clear cut. I believe there's a very strong anti-Harper movement on the Internet, but Alberta seems to still be supportive of him. The biggest disadvantage for the left is definitely vote-splitting between the three parties, especially as there doesn't seem to be a clearly better candidate.
I can understand how people can like Trudeau - I did, too, at first - but then at the Maclean's debate he started rubbing me wrong - I felt like he may be starting to step in his father's footsteps (and I don't like that) without mentioning that, as previously mentioned, he throws off a strong "Harper-but-not-Harper" vibe. But hey - I'm only human, and I can definitely be wrong. Deep down, I want Trudeau to be elected and fucking ROCK at it just to see myself proven wrong.
First, he conspired with people in the UK, to get the Canadian Constitution to Canada - for which there was absolutely no reason to except give the federal government a possible power to modify it, AND cause more pain to the Francophone population (as the charter was made after England's obtention of the lands after the Seven Years War. He also wasn't exactly a great economist, and somewhat antagonized Quebec simply because of the separatist movement. And he was a bit full of himself. THEN there's the conspiracy theories which may or may not be true, like that he was behind the FLQ (which was an extremist Quebec separationist group - which forced the military into the streets of the major cities). And that he was acting behind closed doors to increase the powers that a Prime Minster had (hence the Constitution patriation) to maybe take over Canada eventually, or at least set up the place so that it could be done by some party. For me though, it's mostly the focus on "how to get things done" rather than "how to make a budget to get things done" that bothered me, but oh well.
Thanks for posing this question. I like your Wal-Mart, Target, etc. analogy. My thoughts on the candidates are that, unfortunately, none stand out far and above the others as an obvious choice for me. I am definitely in the "anybody but Harper" camp, but I am still unsure whom I'll be voting for. I have some issues with all the candidates. Trudeau is clearly inexperienced and I am unsure about his ability as a leader. Other than that I mostly agree with his policies and, as somebody else mentioned, would love to see him elected, perform beyond expectation, and prove all his critics wrong. Mulcair has some solid humanitarian policies and the NDP overall seems to have the best platform (in my personal opinion). I do believe that he isn't against Quebec secession (I think it would do more harm than good for both Canada, as a whole, and Quebec) but that's not a deal-breaker. As for Elizabeth May, I am actually a big fan and I think she performed very well in the debate. She speaks well and knows her stuff. That being said I don't know how the Green Party would handle the economy and that is slightly worrisome. I don't think they have a realistic chance of winning and, as such, haven't developed their fiscal policy enough (to my knowledge). As for Harper, just no. I could get into all the reasons I dislike him as a leader (and as a person, honestly) but it seems unnecessary as others on here share my opinion and to me it seems incredibly obvious why he needs to go. Among many things, he has terrible policy regarding the environment, drugs, sex (prostitution & abortion), corporate taxes, and terrorism. Any other thoughts or insights? For the record, I am a Canadian and am deeply passionate about this upcoming election because I think it is incredibly important that we not allow Harper to continue dragging our country backwards (and to the right).
I mostly agree (especially on the choices - we have three adequate candidates and Harper, who at this point is probably only there symbolically) - though here's what I have to say to answer: Trudeau, we're on the same page - though, as I mentioned, he seems to play the "Son of Trudeau" card very much. As far as his inexperience go, for me it's not a factor because it's ambivalent - on the one hand, since he is inexperienced, he may try new things, and if the federal government needs something right now it's new ideas that work. On the other hand, he may take too much inspiration from his father and other political figures and fail at it, putting us in a bad situation - especially considering how close to Harper's opinions some of his are (most notably the military aspect and the major focus on US-Canada relations). Mulcair DOES have solid policies and such... it's what we don't know that bugs me. It feels like there's some back-end agenda that's going to get pushed or something. And, as you mentioned it, the last thing we need is a Quebec secession for a thousand reasons. May, it is exactly as you say that I think, and I do not think I can add anything to it - except maybe that I would be reluctant because, as you said, if they do not have a good fiscal policy they may try to over-develop and we may end up with a status not unlike China - we keep producing and putting ourselves in a deficit and we'd crash when we'd stop, instead of the slow build we have here. And Harper is Harper - as you said, all that had to be said was said already so let's not beat a dead horse. Though as a side note, I WILL be going in the streets if Harper gets voted back in - because that either means we have a dumbass population or that he's done some shady shit.
(Deeply passionate about it here too - except that it's not to avoid Harper dragging, but anyone. I feel we're on the verge of the catastrophe, as a country, and this elections may be a turning point.)
I have not researched the subject very well yet. I would like the NPD to win, but have little faith they actually can so I'll probably end up going for Trudeau because that's better than Harper. (anything is better than Harper). I particularly dislike the fact that he involved Canada in Wars, I would much prefer our country stayed neutral on these matters. The lack of a serious environmental policy and abandonment of the Kyoto protocol sucks too. Look at the progress of Scandinavia on those fronts in the past 10 years! We should have gone a similar route...
Please do not strategic vote and inform yourself - it's important to know who you're voting for, and why you're voting for them. For starters, I'd like to invite you to watch the Replay of Maclean's electoral debate:
As for a choice - I'd look into the Green Party's electoral campaign - as far as I can tell, they plan on completely pulling Canada from any intervention that doesn't directly threaten the sovereignty of Canada, and plan on investing heavily in small-to-medium companies along with sustainable energy and infrastructure for a green, powerful Canada (according to their word). Or if you are more of the humanitarian type, look into the NDP (don't just blindly vote for them) - military-wise, they plan on not involving Canada except if it threatens it's sovereignty (like with the Daesh) or if it's a NATO mandate, to protect our allies. But no matter who you vote for, please investigate thoroughly the candidates - because believe me, we made that mistake in Quebec (strategic vote to keep a person out of office - we ended up with something we all regretted). The only way we'll get a good candidate is if you vote for the people you really care for.
Yes. We voted Marois in to keep Sheephead out, and we regretted it. And the problem with strategic voting is that it's predictable - and the elections are built to profit of that effect - with the medias and such, someone with enough strategy can make it look like a two-choice - "it's me or it's insert bad choice here. For instance, look at Maclean's debate - the candidates had two modes: "Harper seriously fucked up" and "It's me or Harper because the other two choices may not be viable". And just like that, because we voted strategically against Harper, we may get a choice just as bad. Furthermore, strategic voting is not voting for your interests - it's voting just to avoid the worst. Only if you vote for a candidate you trust has the interests of your population group at heart can you really do that.