Green Party of Ontario

The Green Party of Ontario is lead by Mike Schreiner. Unlike the Green Party of Canada, there is nowhere near as much cohesive support for the Greens. They also don’t seem to be doing the all-in strategy like the GPC did for Elizabeth May, so their chances of success are near zero. I don’t know much else about them except that they may or may not be quasi-lolbertarians.

Ontario Liberal Party

The Ontario Liberal Party is lead by The Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario and MPP for Ottawa South. He will be having a difficult time holding on to power because of a combination of unpopular initiatives, perceived rising cost of living, and the natural tendency for unpopularity to grow the longer you’re in office. Like the other major parties, he has some populist crap thrown in there like the tuition reduction and new citizen tax credit, but he also seems to actually have a vision in green energy and the educated workforce, which is more than I can say for the others.

For most of the months leading up to the campaign period, it looked like he was screwed and we’d get a Tory majority. Luckily, once we entered the campaign period, he seems to have caught up and is in a position to at least attempt to form a government. Unlike the others, his strategy is less clear and will involve trying to mitigate his losses as best as he can and possibly causing the others to stumble.

Ontario New Democratic Party

The Ontario New Democrats are lead by Andrea Horwath, MPP for Hamilton East. She seems to be trying to have the same disposition as Jack Layton in connecting with working families and such. The ONDP seems to be taking a leaf out of the BCNDP handbook and going for a set of piecemeal populist proposals rather than any coherent social democratic vision and leaving urban issues and the environment out.

That probably has a lot to do with their strategy. Andrew Steele had written about Ontario electoral strategy, where you can split seats up into urban, suburban, and rural and go for two of the three. The ONDP, in choosing Horwath, was going with the classic NDP working class and northern rural ridings. This is pretty unfortunate, because with Jack Layton’s passing, there was an opportunity to grab some of those urban seats.

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is lead by Tim Hudak, MPP for Niagara South. This election should have been a cakewalk for Hudak. He was going to end up with a million seats and complete the conservative hat trick. Of course, John Tory was supposed to do that last time, and, well. Hudak’s strategy has largely been to remind everyone how bad McGuinty is, which is all well and fine, but he hasn’t really told us what he’s going to do other than TAXES BAD.

Like the ONDP, the PCPO largely set their strategy in choosing their leader. What they’re hoping to do is to repeat Mike Harris’ electoral success in going for rural and suburban seats after the failed experiment in trying to go for urban seats with under John Tory. In a way, this is also the Conservative Party of Canada strategy. The problem here is that I don’t think Hudak has done enough to cement his victory among suburban ridings. Certainly, his railing against foreign workers and foreign students isn’t going to help in that demographic.

Basically

The OLP and PCPO are neck-in-neck with no one in clear majority territory. The next parliament could very well be a hung parliament. Ontario’s history indicates that we could end up with a minority government or a coalition or some kind of deal. And polling seems to indicate that a ton of ridings will be flipping, so really, this is going to be pretty messy.

So it appears we’ve replaced short-term instability and long-term predictability with short-term stability and long-term unpredictability. Everyone who won, won big. Everyone who lost, lost big.

A big problem I can identify is that people don’t care about what goes on in Parliament. For most people, politics begins when the writs are dropped and ends when a winner is declared. What goes on in between? No one knows, which is why things like confidence or contempt don’t matter. It doesn’t seem like it matters immediately, but it does set a dangerous precedent, especially in a system that largely relies on the players not being dicks to one another.

Which leads me to the constitutional issues which have been sidestepped as a result of the majority. I’ve already mentioned my displeasure with the way the prime minister of all people was trying to thwart the concept of responsible government for political expedience. We’ve been spared that negotiation phase which would’ve been even worse than whatever the UK went through in the days following the 2010 election because of the two years of misinformation the Conservative party has been broadcasting about forming governments. But now’s probably a good time to hammer some of that stuff out now that we know that it’s possible to reach those previously impossible scenarios.

The other interesting revelation that I’ve been thinking about is how Canadians think about politics. Anyone who pays any attention at all to politics can see that the Conservatives have largely lifted Republican political tactics. I know we love to believe that we’re sharper than Americans and that we’d never fall for the same tricks, but this election clearly proves that we’re just as dumb as we think they are, because Canadians lapped up those pre-writ ads about Ignatieff at face value. My guess is that we’ve just never had any party that was enough of a dick to smear a rival outside of a campaign all the time.

But the big news is how electoral politics in Canada has changed. Quebec remains diametrically opposed to whatever is going on in the rest of the country. The governing coalition is now made up of the West and Ontario. Social democracy has replaced neoliberalism as the dissenting voice against neoconservatism. Are we seeing polarization between the left and right or is the prospect of power drawing the Conservatives and NDP closer together?

One thing is certain and it’s that 2015 is going to be a very different campaign from 2006, 2008, and 2011. The immense number of flips that occurred this time means that the fight could be wide open in a lot of places around the country. Pretty much anywhere that isn’t Alberta and the West are going to see a lot of pandering to over the next few years.

Members of Parliament

You may recall that I had a bunch of ridings that I was interested in. When I was watching the results come in on election night, I think by the time a good number of Ontario results had gotten back, I pretty much tossed out my list and spent the rest of the night watching Southwestern Ontario and the GTA.

I was hoping for a Conservative minority with close to 100 NDP seats. I was definitely not expecting Toronto Liberals to get decimated. I think I knew the Liberals were done when my riding, Scarborough—Rouge River, where the previous Liberal MP won with something close to 60% of the vote, had the NDP candidate in first, well ahead of the Conservative. Definitely my surprise of the night.

The biggest disappointment of the night was Glen Pearson’s loss in London North Centre. I’d been reading his blog for a while now and from what I’ve read about him, he seemed like an amazing MP. Since I’ll be moving to London in September, this was a huge disappointment. The other big disappointment was Andrew Telegdi’s loss in Kitchener—Waterloo. Even with people being made aware of the vote split, the gap widened even more.

But I think with a lot of Toronto ridings in Scarborough and Etobicoke going blue, I pretty much gave up on the 905 ridings. That said, everything in the GTA was extremely close, with a good number of them being three way races. And while there were a bunch of good Liberal MPs that fell, there were also a bunch that I wasn’t too fond of. The one I was glad to see go was CRIA shill Dan McTeague in Pickering—Scarborough East.

And now, on to what the next four years holds for each party.

Conservative Party of Canada/Parti conservateur du Canada

This is Harper’s dream come true, being able to simultaneously gain a majority and crush the Liberal Party of Canada. The question now is how he’ll govern. I have no doubt that he’ll avoid any major controversies. Those social conservatives expecting him to repeal same-sex marriage and abortion will be disappointed. Hardcore neoliberals will be disappointed that he won’t be ripping the Canada Health Act apart.

Harper isn’t dumb. He knows that his coalition of Western and Ontario voters is fragile and suddenly going hard right is going to unsettle those Ontario pickups. However, he has plenty of sneaky ways of destabilizing and slowly reforming things. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him continue governing as he did with a minority, appearing to be moderate, but slowly undermining various institutions (remember StatsCan?) in ways that are invisible to the average Canadian.

At the same time, he’ll have to somehow keep his base happy. If he continues to pander too hard to the GTA and Ontario, he could risk pissing off the West. The idea that the Conservatives could lose the West seems ridiculous, but that’s exactly what Mulroney ended up doing in the early 90s by pandering too hard to Quebec. The result? Gotta love that word REFOOOOOOOOOOORM.

The other question is whether he’ll be on better behaviour. Are we going to see complete message control and muzzling of his caucus and Cabinet? Are we going to continue to see watchdogs gutted and bureaucrats who disagree offed? Are we still going to see ads vilifying the Leader of the Opposition? Some people might claim that it was necessary to act like a dick in a minority government, but it clearly works, so I wonder if they’ll really be able to give that up.

And it’ll be interesting to see whether he’s willing to implement those things that he’s always wished he could but didn’t have a majority to do. The thing that comes to mind is Senate reform. In this category of stuff, he can’t really blame the opposition or the Senate now that he has a majority in both houses.

Finally, there is that ticking time bomb in Quebec. That the province of Quebec has, once again, largely rejected the Conservatives is fairly significant. While they’ve chosen a federalist party in the NDP, they’re almost certain to elect a sovereigntist government before 2015. That means it’ll be up to Harper, an anglo from the West and by far the most unpopular federalist leader in Quebec, to fight for federalism. It’ll be a huge challenge, not just for Conservatives, but for federalists as well.

Liberal Party of Canada/Parti libéral du Canada

It appears the brand that the Liberal party has cultivated over the last century has finally lost its power.

I alluded before to the fact that the Liberals had been largely reduced to the major urban centres and Atlantic Canada. It’s been argued by some that the Liberals have had this structural problem pretty much since 1993. The party has never won much outside of Vancouver in the West since Trudeau and they were still able to do decently in Quebec even with the Bloc, while riding the Reform/PC vote splitting in Ontario. Once the Bloc took Quebec and the splitting on the right was resolved, those structural problems became a lot more obvious.

The problem for the Liberals since 2006 has been not resolving this problem. Dion and Ignatieff largely stayed the course in terms of the voters they were trying to court. Dion tried to appeal to progressives with his ambitious environmental plan at the expense of Alberta. Unfortunately, Canadians didn’t care about the environment that much. Ignatieff tried a very safe, low-ball appeal to centrists. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough for either right-leaning or left-leaning voters.

They’ve always assumed that they could just win by default if they reminded Canadians that the Liberals were Canada’s natural governing party. Obviously, people eventually stopped listening and since the Liberals have largely been stuck with the same electoral base they’ve had since 2006, they eventually got squeezed out. Both the Conservatives and NDP have been trying to grow their parties and the result is that all of the Liberal strongholds have been shattered. There’s nothing left. And in 2015, it’ll be even harder because that incumbency advantage will be gone.

Now, they have a ridiculous amount of work to do if they ever want to be in government again. What that would be, I have no idea. Presumably, some of it will have to do with presenting an authoritative voice in the various important issues that will be coming up, like health negotiations with the provinces or that Quebec sovereignty hullabaloo. And you know, actually say something meaningful about it, unlike Ignatieff’s surface level explorations of the subject on the campaign trail.

New Democratic Party/Nouveau Parti démocratique

It turns out the ground game wasn’t that important in Quebec. Unfortunately, that means that it’s all the easier for the NDP to lose their flash of support in four years. The example that everyone brings up is Mario Dumont’s ADQ in 2007.

The challenge for the NDP now is to become seen as a viable alternative government in four years. There’s two sides to this. The biggest problem is the perception that the NDP are disastrous for the economy. Whether they are or aren’t doesn’t really matter if people just pass over them because that one time in the past their provincial cousins governed poorly. Obviously, they’ve overcome their other huge problem, which was the perception they couldn’t win.

A lot has been made of the relative inexperience of the new Quebec MPs, but I think that’s been overstated. Yeah, there are some McGill students and that one lady, but there were plenty of other excellent candidates too. I don’t think the NDP will have a hard time filling up committee and shadow cabinet posts.

The main issue with Quebec will be how they respond to the sovereignty movement and whether they’ll be able to represent Quebec to Quebec’s satisfaction. Remember that a lot of the NDP’s support is coming from people who were voting Bloc and likely have some degree of nationalist thought in them.

Outside of Quebec, they’ve made a few gains in Atlantic Canada (although not as much as polling would’ve indicated) and surprisingly in Toronto. In addition to legitimacy, the NDP will probably have to work a lot harder to keep their seats. History has shown that people are perilously unkind to the NDP when they screw up even once.

Of course, much of the NDP’s success is because of Jack Layton. But his health is not the greatest and it was expected that he might’ve stepped down after this election if it weren’t for, you know, doing really well. This could be a problem by the time 2015 rolls around. Of course, they do have Mulcair hanging around, so he should be able to handle Quebec. I guess this would go along with building the NDP brand.

Bloc Québecois

It’s hard to say whether the collapse of the BQ was more or less surprising than that of the Liberals, but it is amazing that it only took a week or two for the BQ to just disintegrate. And it wasn’t just an unfortunate vote split like it was for the Liberals. Nope, Quebec was done with the Bloc this time around.

Is this the death of the sovereignty movement? Probably not. After all, the main vehicle for separatism has always been the Parti Québecois, not the Bloc. It was PQ premiers that held referenda and were the strongest voices for sovereignty. With another PQ government likely before 2015, it’ll be interesting to see whether Gilles Duceppe remains as popular a figure then, especially if Harper will be the one having to defend Canada.

Even though Quebec went with the NDP, it’s important to note that their choice is largely at odds with the rest of Canada, who generally went Conservative. It’s another fairly stark display of the contrast in values that Quebec has compared to the rest of Canada. And if you consider that gulf, it’s a possibility that Quebecers could decide that a Conservative Canada isn’t something that they really want to be a part of.

The question now is what the Bloc are going to do with their party. Just because they were wiped out this time doesn’t mean that sovereigntist sentiment has dissipated or that they’re never going to win again. If things go well for the Bloc and things go poorly for the NDP, we could just as easily see another dramatic swing back. Just ask Mario Dumont.

Green Party of Canada/Parti vert du Canada

They gambled and they won. Elizabeth May gets to go on to be the first elected Green MP in Canada. I’m sure she’ll be a better MP than that Conservative cabinet minister they had. What this means for the future of the party, I’m not entirely sure. They can’t just replicate what they did for May, so it’ll be interesting to see whether the increased profile of their leader will be enough to tip the scales.

See you in 2015 (unless Harper breaks his own fixed-date election law again lolololol).

The last few years have taught me that I shouldn’t take for granted that people know how a Westminster Parliament works. That’s pretty unfortunate, because every thread of this election campaign that isn’t about the economy (more on that in a moment) revolves around Parliament and the exploitation of the fact that Canadians don’t know how it works. This has made it very difficult to understand why we’re having an election in the first place and it’ll likely be the case that the campaign doesn’t actually end after all the voting is done.

So why are we having another dumb election again just two and a half years after the last one? Because the government could not retain the confidence of the House of Commons. This was the result of the government being found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose the cost of various programmes. It is not because the opposition didn’t support the budget (although that would likely have been the case were it not for the contempt charge).

The charge of contempt of Parliament is similar to that of contempt of court, in which you’re charged if you’re found to be obstructing Parliament from performing its duties. This is for Parliament to decide and is pretty serious business. In the case of a government, the most severe punishment the Commons has is to withdraw its confidence in it.

The Conservatives have been brushing aside the contempt charge as political shenanigans because Canadians don’t understand the implications. This is why it’s important to examine the leadup to the vote itself. Most notably, it required the Speaker to rule against the government for a breach of privilege before it was handed off to committee to produce a report. This is important, because this isn’t the first time that this government has been ruled against for withholding documents.

Recall the prorogation of Parliament at the beginning of 2010. The prime minister requested that Parliament be prorogued in part to dodge questions surrounding Afghan detainee transfers. After Parliament had resumed, the government refused to provide documents regarding the transfers citing cabinet confidentiality. The Speaker basically said that Parliamentary privilege superceded cabinet confidentiality and that if they didn’t work something out with the opposition, they would be ruled against. That time, the government obliged.

That covers contempt, but I want to talk about confidence, because this is the thing that most people misunderstand about Parliamentary democracy and nothing’s changed since December 2008, when Stephen Harper was on the verge of losing the confidence of the House of Commons, only to stave it off by proroguing Parliament.

This misunderstanding of confidence is rooted in the misunderstanding of just who it is Canadians vote for in elections. You are not voting for a prime minister. You are not voting for a party. You are not even voting for a government. You are voting for a Member of Parliament. This may seem like a silly distinction to make, but it matters when we talk about forming governments. Peter Russell always makes these sorts of things succinct and easy to understand: “We elect the Parliament and the Parliament decides who gets the right to govern.”

Confidence of the House of Commons is all that’s required to become a prime minister and form a government. It’s based on the principle of responsible government, that the government is accountable to Parliament. The party with the least seats could form the government if it had the confidence of the Commons. And it’s just as possible that we could end up electing 308 independents who’d then need to figure out how to form a government.

The interesting thing is that within this framework, there is a way to form a government without having to face another election. This is deliberately allowed so that a government that doesn’t have the confidence of the Commons doesn’t just give up and ask for another election. The assumption here is that, within a reasonable amount of time, Canadians chose that particular Parliament to work with and it’s the duty of Parliament to be able to form a government with the members that it has.

The problem is, of course, that the Conservatives have been telling Canadians that forming a government in that way is unconstitutional. Which is silly, because anyone can just go to Wikipedia and find an example or two. There are plenty of things the Conservatives can attack such an arrangement for, whether it’s warranted or not: relying on the Bloc, the NDP’s governing record, or instability. The one thing they can’t and shouldn’t be attacking is constitutionality, because in doing so, it attacks the basic principles of Parliamentary democracy.

And for me, that’s what this election’s mainly about. A lot of people might criticize Trudeau centralizing power in the PMO or Chrétien for strong-arming Parliament, but I can’t speak to that, because I wasn’t cognizant of how they ran their government at the time. But I do know that Harper runs his government too dictatorially for my tastes and that his party is too obstructionist when dealing with the opposition. It shows in his campaign and contrasting that with Ignatieff or Layton or even Duceppe, I don’t get the sense that any of them would clamp down on their government anywhere near as much as Harper did. An open, transparent, and credible government is far more important to me than our economic recovery.

That’s not to say that the economy isn’t important. It is, but if a Liberal or NDP government is all it takes to ruin the recovery, then the Conservatives have done an awful job. This is not to mention that the stimulus spending is a direct result of the opposition forcing the government to act in December 2008. Remember in the dying days of the 2008 campaign when Harper flatly denied that Canada would be affected by the economic crisis?

Anyway, what are the prospects for each of our fine participants?

Conservative Party of Canada/Parti conservateur du Canada

The Conservatives ran their campaign with a very unambitious strategy: focus on a handful of swing seats and flail arms wildly about the dangers of a coalition to the rest of the country. And for much of the campaign, it looked like it was going to work. Most of the people they were targeting don’t care about Parliamentary shenanigans and are far more interested in how a Conservative government would benefit them.

The campaign hit a few snags. They were only minor snags from the campaign’s point of view, but it definitely intensified anti-Conservative sentiment, which made it all the more crucial that they pick up those few seats they were targeting. And Harper was able to fend off attacks from the opposition like some sort of giant immovable rock, not really hitting back, but repeating the same wearisome talking points again and again.

The thing that has put a Conservative majority in danger is, surprisingly, the NDP surge. Outside of Ontario, it puts several Conservative seats into play that were thought to be safe and within Ontario, it could affect just enough seats that the hope for a majority fades away. The huge tactical error that made this possible was the focus of attacks on Ignatieff alone.

Post-election prospects are fairly shaky. If the Conservatives lose enough seats, it could be enough for Harper to call it a day or be forced out. If they maintain or gain seats, but still have a minority, he could conceivably hold on, even if he does eventually lose power, since there could be a chance that any arrangement by the Liberals and NDP is as unstable as he says it is. Still, it’s a significant repudiation of the choice that Harper has presented to Canadians.

Liberal Party of Canada/Parti libéral du Canada

Michael Ignatieff’s career as a politician has been pretty unlucky. Remember that back in 2006, he was supposed to be the next Trudeau. He came back to lose the Liberal leadership race (which he probably should have, having spent so little time as an MP) and had to wait through two years of Dion capitulating to the Conservatives. When he finally became the leader, he continued a string of tactical errors and was subjected to good old Conservative character assassination for two years. He finally gets the chance to run a campaign and actually does it well, but ends up getting passed over for the NDP.

It sucks, because while he isn’t as progressive as Dion, he’s certainly a better leader. He’s a much more able speaker and campaigner. He had solid policy proposals and his war room was on the ball. Even if he didn’t win, he probably would have been able to continue and live to fight another election.

Except Quebec started to notice that the NDP existed. And then everyone else noticed that the NDP existed. Even Ontario, who hates the NDP is starting to notice. Even worse is that Jack Layton is a lot more likeable than Michael Ignatieff. Of course, much of that is perceived, since Layton hasn’t been the target of a two-year concerted character assassination effort.

At this point, things are not looking good for Ignatieff post-election. If he loses seats, that’s bad. If he loses Official Opposition status, that’s really bad. His only real hope is that the NDP vote is vastly overestimated in polling and that they’re not able to get the vote out. What’s more interesting to think about is how the Liberals will act in the next Parliament when it comes to supporting or forming a government. It’ll boil down to good old Liberal internal strife, so that’ll be exciting.

And of course, there’s the whole having to rebuild the party again. The Liberals have struggled to grow their base of support outside of Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto. Now, they have even less of a hope in Quebec and are in danger of losing Atlantic Canada. And each of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal are seeing red ridings in danger of flipping to orange.

New Democratic Party/Nouveau Parti démocratique

In retrospect, it’s pretty hilarious how Ignatieff and Duceppe kept on calling Layton out for considering his party a viable alternative to the Liberals and Conservatives. A lot of people wonder why he kept on presenting himself as this alternative and the genesis of that messaging comes from the 2004 election, where a large criticism of his campaign was that he wasn’t serious about running to form a government. And so, since 2006, the NDP have been trying to present themselves in that light, as hilarious as it may have seemed at the time.

Well, it looks like it finally paid off. That mindset seems to have pushed the NDP to make some organizational and strategic changes, the most notable of which has been in their push for Quebec. It’s kind of amazing how just having one MP in Quebec, even if he was pretty influential, was able to help their push into the province. The combination of Mulcair’s popularity and Layton’s performance in the debates created the conditions for that first Quebec poll that opened up this feedback loop of support.

Outside of Quebec, my guess is that there are enough people who wouldn’t mind voting NDP but never felt that the NDP would win in their riding or that the NDP would be effective as a third party. Now that they have a real shot at forming the Official Opposition, all of those people who would have liked to vote NDP now have their chance. In addition to these voters, we have people who never voted NDP before because they seemed kind of sketch, but now, they’re polling above the Liberals, so why not.

The challenge for the NDP, as it always has been, is to convert those polling numbers into votes. It’s helped that their polling has been on an upward trend even in the last few days of the campaign. By far the weakest aspect of the Quebec campaign for the NDP is the party organization on the ground, considering that up until pretty recently, there was almost none.

Bloc Québecois

Much like the Conservatives, the Bloc Québecois really only needed to assert that they’re the only viable choice for Quebec. And Duceppe was probably right. There was still deep mistrust of the Liberals, Conservative ideology doesn’t really line up with the province’s, and the NDP was pretty much absent. Of course, it’s that last one that’s easiest to work with and once Layton started going for the province hard, people started to notice.

From my internet forum hangouts, I’ve come to realize that people don’t vote Bloc because they’re sovereigntists. People vote Bloc because they feel that it’s the party that defends their interests the best, regardless of whether how they feel about sovereignty. And it so happens that beyond the sovereignty question, the Bloc and NDP have a lot in common.

Green Party of Canada/Parti vert du Canada

The Greens are all about the environment. Apparently, their economic policies are more laissez-faire than that of the Liberals, but it’s not like it matters. Honestly, I don’t know why people continue to think they can win any seats. Their support is spread across the country and not concentrated enough to get anyone elected. For the Greens, the campaign will largely be about the continuing adventures of Elizabeth May and trying to win her a seat.

Ridings

I’ve got about 20 or so ridings I’m watching.

In BC, there’s Saanich—Gulf Islands, where Green Party leader Elizabeth May is taking on Conservative minister Gary Lunn. If she can’t do it, then the Green Party could be finished, since they appear to have poured in a ton of resources into that riding. The other interesting one is Vancouver South, where, in one of the narrowest victories in the country, Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh won by 20 votes against the Conservative in 2008.

In the rest of Western Canada, there’s Edmonton Strathcona, the Eye of Layton, held by Linda Duncan in a province otherwise painted in blue. In Manitoba, Winnipeg North is held by Liberal Kevin Lamoreaux, who took it in a byelection from the NDP a few months ago.

In Quebec, we’ve got Pontiac, where Conservative minister Lawrence Cannon looks like he could fall to an NDP scrub. While it looked like it would’ve been a tough fight, it looks like NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair is going to hold on to Outremont pretty easily against former Liberal minister Martin Cauchon. And while they might seem safe, I’m a bit worried for Papineau (Justin Trudeau) and Westmount—Ville-Marie (Marc Garneau). There’s also some talk of Gilles Duceppe being on the defensive in his riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie

In Ontario, there are a ton of swing ridings. Guelph is a pretty tough fight with a ton of shenanigans going on. London North Centre is going to be my home in a few months and it could be danger zone for Glen Pearson. Peter Milliken’s departure makes Kingston and the Islands a really close fight. And there’s the super narrow victories in Kitchener Centre and Kitchener—Waterloo that the Conservatives will have a hard time defending. And I’ve heard rumours that Ottawa West—Nepean, home of John Baird, could be in play as well.

In the 905, there’s Ajax—Pickering, where Mark Holland is fighting off Chris Alexander. Ruby Dhalla looks like she’s going to lose Brampton—Springdale. I would really like for the Liberals to be able to retake Vaughan from Julian Fantino. And for a longshot, there’s Bev “^not” Oda’s riding of Durham.

In Toronto, we’ve got York Centre, where Ken Dryden is somehow in danger. Joe Volpe is also in danger of losing Eglinton—Lawrence. Trinity—Spadina is usually a pretty tough fight, but the NDP boost is probably enough to keep Olivia Chow safe. Parkdale—High Park makes me sad, because both Gerard Kennedy and Peggy Nash have been excellent MPs. And of course, there’s my unexciting home riding of Scarborough—Rouge River.

Back then, George Smitherman and John Tory were the frontrunners, with Adam Giambrone not far behind. Rocco Rossi seemed like a respectable candidate, while Rob Ford and Sarah Thomson were the lololol candidates. Then, one thing lead to another and John Tory decided he didn’t want to be liked by everyone but lose another election while Adam Giambrone was forced out because he cheated on his girlfriend. And so we are left with…

Rob Ford

Rob Ford is currently the councillor for Ward 2 – Etobicoke North. He is famous for being angry at city council and saying terrible things. He’s pretty much adopted the McCain-Palin campaign strategy, because, well, he is essentially the embodiment of McCain and Palin.

He’s got McCain’s strange fixation on inconsequential spending while not having any sort of real plan to deal with, you know, real problems. He’s also got Palin’s knack for saying weird and dumb things and being irrationally angry at government. He’s got the bonus of just being an angry person in general.

Why is this depressing? Because at this point, he’s leading by a fair margin.

Joe Pantalone

Joe Pantalone is currently councillor for Ward 19 – Trinity-Spadina and the Deputy Mayor of Toronto. He seems to be the most experienced and competent of the candidates still in the race and as a bonus, he’s the progressive of the bunch. Unfortunately for him, he’s one of Miller’s biggest allies on council, so that means he isn’t palpable with rage and is overshadowed by the other four candidates who are, they will assure you, very angry.

Rocco Rossi

Rocco Rossi used to be the national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, but has never been elected to any public office. He started off the race seeming to be a decent alternative to John Tory. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, he felt the need to up the ante and that has lead him to make a bunch of insane announcements, like needlessly antagonizing anyone who doesn’t use a car or building a tunnel from Allen Road to downtown Toronto, evoking memories of some other failure in Toronto’s history.

George Smitherman

George Smitherman was the MPP for Toronto Centre and Deputy Premier of Ontario, while holding a bunch of high-profile cabinet positions in Dalton McGuinty’s government. In the earliest stages of the race, he was the frontrunner until he actually had to start campaigning. I guess he figured it’d be easy or something because his campaign sucks and was totally blindsided by Rob Ford. Now, he’s trying to out-angry Rob Ford or something.

Sarah Thomson

Sarah Thomson was a publisher and CEO. God only knows why she’s running for mayor, but somehow, she’s managed to stay above Joe Pantalone in the polls. She is slightly less angry than Smitherman or Ford and is slightly less insane than Rocco Rossi.

John Tory’s ghost

Hilariously, even after John Tory announced that he would not be running for mayor, John Tory is still the most popular candidate. John Tory is essentially one of those candidates that’s really popular and everyone knows he’s competent and wishes he’d be the guy, but for whatever reason, on election day, no one actually votes for him. This trend has occurred in the 2003 Toronto mayoral election, in the 2007 Ontario general election both as an MPP and as the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, and finally in the 2009 by-election in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock. I guess he decided that he didn’t feel like losing again so he’s punishing us by letting Rob Ford win.

At this point, if it were really close between Smitherman and Ford, I’d vote for Smitherman, because he’s not Rob Ford. Otherwise, I’ll throw in a vote for Pantalone and proceed to move to K-W forever.

Ontario

The Ontario Progressive Conservatives are in the midst of a leadership race after John Tory failed to win a seat. Looking at the candidates that are running, this seems to be interpreted by the party as a failure of the Red Tories instead of a failure of John Tory. As a result, there’s no real moderate conservative running in this race. This leadership race is pretty much a fight between the various wings of the party.

Hillier has the rural vote. This isn’t terribly interesting except for the question of how such an electoral strategy would work. Apparently, he’s pretty anti-government too. I’m not exactly sure how he’s supposed to appeal to anyone who isn’t in a rural riding. Klees is in a similar situation, with the social conservatives. I wasn’t even aware that there were enough social conservatives in the Ontario PC to form a faction.

Then we’ve got Christine Elliott, who doesn’t really own a faction. Compared to all the other candidates, she’s in the best position to represent the moderate conservatives. Of course, she’s also backed by some pretty hardcore conservatives, which is a bit worrisome. There is also the fact that it’s likely that the party doesn’t want to give the Red Tories another shot after John Tory screwed up so badly. Given the other choices though, if she doesn’t go for the moderates, it’s unlikely that anyone else would appeal to them.

The most interesting thing about the race is that Tim Hudak is the frontrunner. The problem with John Tory’s failure is that the Ontario PC have seemed to take it as a sign that the electorate isn’t interested in moderate conservatism. Of course, that’s not true, since the issue that destroyed Tory was religious school funding and his decision to try and win a seat in Toronto. Yet, the PCs seem to be really eager to prop up a hardcore neoconservative and invoking memories of Mike Harris.

I can’t see any reason why the PCs would think that anyone in Ontario outside of the hardcore elements of their own party would like to return to the days of the Harris conservatives. For one thing, all those kids in school during the strikes? That’s us, and we can all vote now. I can’t say that there’s a lot of people my age who have a fondness for Mike Harris.

I don’t think that another Mike Harris can win against Dalton McGuinty unless McGuinty does something to anger the public immensely. That something could be the sales tax harmonization, but from my understanding, it was something the PCs were pushing for too. McGuinty hasn’t done anything bad enough to make the public not like him, even after he did the health premium stuff.

That leads me to believe that the support around Hudak is just the old Harris people trying to gain control of the party again rather than any special electoral strategy behind it. Otherwise, I can’t see how they think they can win against a strong Liberal government.

Canada

And into Canada proper, there’s the question of who would replace Stephen Harper when he decides to step down. This is an interesting scenario, because of the timing. Harper’s inability to secure a majority government against successive severely weakened Liberals has given the Liberals the chance to form up under a stronger, more popular leader. At this point, it’s difficult to say whether Harper will be leading the Conservatives into one more election. There’s not as much speculation surrounding this because there’s no leadership race yet. That hasn’t stopped people from tossing out names.

Among the people who’ve had their names tossed, there are two that are of particular interest to me, mostly because they’re the sort of conservative who I wouldn’t mind leading the party or the country, and if they work at it, maybe even voting for them. This is mostly because they don’t seem like they’d play the political games that Harper’s been playing and are both fairly moderate conservatives.

The first is Jim Prentice. He’s pretty big on the Internets for crafting the hated Bill C-61. For me, that is minus-points. But besides that, he seems like a fairly capable leader and a moderate conservative. He was a part of the former Progressive Conservatives and ran for the leadership. He’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative and he was the biggest pusher for merging with Reform.

The more interesting one is Jean Charest, currently the Quebec Liberal Premier, and former leader of the federal PCs. He’s definitely got the skills for leadership, he’s a Red Tory, and managed to salvage the PCs after they imploded in 1993. Of course, he’s got support in Quebec, but it’s more of a crapshoot determining if he’d be able to win over the Reform “WEST FIRST” chaps in the party.

Early in the campaign when no one knew who he was, Obama’s charisma was a valid consideration to bring up. Was there any substance to his rhetoric? How would he govern? Did he have the capacity to handle the Presidency? As the campaign went on and he demonstrated that he was competent, this argument became less and less of an issue. And in the months following his electoral victory, he proved that he could act quickly and decisively and act transparently, through his first executive actions and cabinet appointments.

So why is the fact that he’s popular still a strike against him now that we’ve learned that he’s not just an empty suit and he is fully capable of the Presidency? If you’re a conservative and reasonably well-informed, there are so many other points to hit him on. I suspect it’s because most of the people that subscribe to the “popularity makes me suspicious” meme are not well-informed.

It’s an easy argument to make, because most people will consider it reasonable to mistrust something that’s popular. That cynicism appears to most people as intelligence. It’s the same reason people believe in retarded conspiracy theories. It’s the belief that you’re not one of the sheeple and that you’re sticking it to The Man.

During every election cycle, there’s always someone that reminds everyone else that the Antichrist is supposed to charismatic. I guess the implication is that we’re not supposed to vote for that particular candidate, but that conclusion is retarded based on theology. I mean, if a particular candidate is the Antichrist, they’d be in power regardless according to prophecy. So why does that have any bearing on your political views?

The other case study in “popular people are bad” is always Hitler. The fact that this argument even works betrays the lack of informedness among the people having the conversation. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history can explain why. Reagan was ridiculously popular, but American conservatives still worship him. Or how about Roosevelt or Kennedy?

This argument is made even more ridiculous when you consider that most of the people that I talk to are in their twenties. They’re always suspicious of super-charismatic politicians? Who was the last politician with charisma that they would’ve been suspicious of? Was it Clinton or Chretien? George H.W. Bush? Brian Mulroney? For the States, it probably would’ve been Reagan, but none of my friends would’ve been born. For Canada, it’s even more hilarious, because it’s probably be Trudeau.

But this matters because this idea harms good candidates while promoting bad ones. Under this hypothesis, getting people to like you and having a firm grasp of English and rhetoric is bad while oversimplifying issues and sounding like an idiot is good. What other reason is there for labeling anyone who can put coherent sentences together an elitist? Why else would McCain be pressed to choose Palin? Why else would George W. Bush win the presidency twice?

Not supporting a particular politician just because they’re charismatic is just a way for someone to avoid being called out for not actually understanding anything and is a convenient way to avoid having fact bear on their political views while not having to justify it.

How about intellect? No, I’m not going to go for the “lolol bush is dumb”, since I honestly don’t think that’s the case, as much as we’d like for it to be true. He’s no mastermind, but he certainly knew what he was doing. It’s certainly easier for him to get away with crap under the guise of his alleged stupidity. It was easier for him to convince people that he was just a regular guy. He essentially made it bad to be an intellectual. And in office, he continued that war by ignoring and working against the scientific community.

How about civil rights? From the Patriot Act to the domestic spying program to the suspension of habeas corpus for those under suspicion of terrorism, the Bush Administration has seen a number of restrictions on civil rights in the States, both through legislation and illegally. You didn’t think warrant-less wiretapping was legal did you? I don’t care if it was for the security of the nation. Democratic nations have a little something called Rule of Law and that rule should never be compromised for any reason.

How about economics? Remember how Bill Clinton left office with a surplus? Bush decided that would justify some massive tax cuts. Not too long after that, there was 9/11 and a recession, and a bit later, a war to fight. And there was no more surplus to act as a safety net, leading to some fairly large deficits. And let’s not forget massive deregulation of the banks that have landed us in our current financial pile of crap.

How about foreign policy? It’s amazing how quick it took for Bush to squander all of the goodwill that the world had for America just after 9/11. Starting an ethereal war against terror, invading Iraq even though there was no reason to and lying about it, and deliberately antagonizing enemies are all the mistakes that Bush made while he was trying to impress the nation with his bravado. Because of his actions, the world is a much more dangerous place.

How about religion? Somehow, Christianity in America transmogrified into some sort of political entity and an extension of the Republican party over the last decade because of Bush. Seeing my religion used as a political tool that’s used by politicians that I don’t agree with is not something that makes me happy. Much has been made about the fact that Bush is a devout Christian and Christians seem ridiculously quick to forgive him of his faults because of it.

Based on his actions, I find it incredible that any Christian can consider him a shining example of our faith. If he is a Christian, he’s done a poor job of showing that he is one. Sure, he might earnestly appeal to God in his speeches and he might pray for the nation. However, I don’t think that a Christian would subvert Rule of Law, lie to the public, or politicize their faith. This doesn’t really indicate whether a person is saved or not, but it gives insight to their character, and I would find it troubling if someone with poor character were going around calling themselves a follower of Christ.

Ultimately, Bush’s legacy will be overshadowed by all of these problems. He acted against the interests of the nation, so he was a bad president. He knowingly lied and subverted the law, so I’d even say he was a bad person. Unless they address each of these huge problems that he’s wrought, I will be very skeptical of anyone who claims that Bush was good measured against any metric, and I’ll be questioning their judgement pretty hard.

Essentially, if you said that the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition was undemocratic, you were either lying and misrepresenting how Canada’s government works or you don’t understand how Canada’s government works. If you were misrepresenting, then congratulations, you’re a liar. If you don’t understand parliamentary democracy, then I suggest you get on it, because you’re being a bad citizen. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t just get to waltz into a voting booth and make a little x next to your candidate of choice. You have a duty to be informed and this includes understanding how this entire machine works.

People blame this on the incredible gravitational pull of the States’ elections, but I don’t think this is true at all. I mean, the electoral college system and the simultaneous House and Senate elections are a system that’s just as complicated as our own parliamentary system. The problem is that people don’t actually understand either of these systems, but think they do. Their perception of democracy is one of 50% + 1. People don’t want to go through the effort of understanding how the entire thing is put together.

There’s a reason why our country is lead by a Prime Minister and not a President. You might think that they’re two names for the same job, but they’re not. The President is the head of state. The Prime Minister is the head of the government. The President of the United States acts as both the head of state and head of the government. Canada’s head of state is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, who is represented by Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean, Governor General of Canada.

The head of the government in Canada is the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada. This is an important distinction, because we, the people, do not choose the head of the government. We elect members of the government. The Prime Minister is chosen by the Governor General, based on which member of the government would command the most confidence in the House of Commons. Usually, this is the leader of the party with the most Members of Parliament. This does not necessarily have to be the case.

This distinction is emphasised more in a minority government. I think that we’ve been spoiled by having so many majority governments that we come to expect them and think of minority governments as temporary anomalies. We’ve come to believe that minority governments are bad because they’re perceived to be unstable and unable to accomplish anything. And it’s become apparent that the minority governments themselves think this too. Instead of concentrating on governing, they’re obsessed with trying to get a majority in the next (presumably quickly approaching) election.

I’ve always been a firm believer in the merits of minority governments. Instead of just handing over the reins of Parliament over to one party, the government is forced to work with other parties. There are many industrialized democratic states in which minority and coalition governments are the norm. This becomes more important as we move further away from having our Parliament dominated by two parties.

History shows us how minority governments should work. Lester B. Pearson, the fourteenth Prime Minister of Canada, is considered to be one of our greatest Prime Ministers, but he never had a majority government. He led two consecutive Liberal minority governments, in which he chose to work with the Tommy Douglas’ New Democrats instead of antagonizing the opposition. With their support, he put into place many institutions that are still in place today, like universal health care, race-free immigration, and the Canadian flag. His government planted the seeds for what would eventually grow into NAFTA and official bilingualism.

In today’s case, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, put the interests of his party before the country, and as a result, he lost the confidence of the House. The proposed coalition government was a government that was willing to govern and place the country before party. They chose to cooperate together instead of trying to tear each other down. In other words, they’re working in the way that minority governments were intended to behave.

Democracy in Canada was working as intended. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.

Let’s have a look back at the election. The Conservatives constantly pushed the fact that there would be no deficit. I mentioned to some people that that was a retarded idea. The surplus was already getting tremendously thin because of Harper’s previous tax cuts. It was incredibly stupid to make a promise that would box them in like that, especially given that the word crisis was being thrown around.

Essentially, the Conservatives had two choices. One was to break the promise and go into a deficit by spending on a stimulus package. The other was to do whatever it takes to balance the budget. One of these ideas was good economics. The other idea would have prolonged a recession. Thankfully, the Conservatives decided to go with good economics. Unfortunately for them, it now looks like they’ve either lied during the campaign or they just learned some introductory macroeconomics in the last week or two.

To compound on that problem, the Conservatives decided not to take an opportunity to fix the economy this week, but instead tried to destroy the opposition by taking away public financing for political parties under the guise of protecting the economy. I can’t really blame them. If their goal is to ensure permanent Conservative control of the government, then this was an excellent opportunity. If their goal is to save Canada’s economy, this is pretty much the worst thing they could be doing.

In 2003, Jean Chretien introduced some legislation that would ban corporate and union money donations, lower the personal donation limit, and create a public financing system in which each party would get $1.95 per vote per year. This way, we remove lobbyist influence and at the same time, the parties that have traditionally relied on this money won’t suddenly implode.

Now Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty want to take away this subsidy. It’s not difficult to see why. The other parties rely on the subsidy to survive. The Conservatives don’t. In scrapping the subsidy, the Conservatives will essentially bankrupt the opposition and make it impossible for them to ever challenge the Conservatives again. This is even more suspicious after the election that was seemingly called for no reason – except to drain the finances of the other parties.

The worst part is that they tried to cover this up as something to help the economy. If you want to reform party financing, go ahead, just don’t try to pass it off as a consequence of fiscal policy. And I don’t care what you think about the current state of party financing. Trying to defeat your political opponents by deliberately running them out of money is not a win for democracy. Even more so if it leaves any opposition completely crippled.

And why is Stephen Harper so terrible? Because he only saw two outcomes to this. Either there’d be another election, which he would pretty much be guaranteed to win, likely with a majority, or the parties would wallow in their weakness and get trampled by losing all of their money and being unable to operate. He obviously didn’t think the other parties would have the spine to seriously consider a coalition. He also obviously miscalculated. And so instead of trying to solve our economic problem, he’s inflicted a political crisis on himself, all because he couldn’t let the opportunity pass to give the other parties another kick to the shins.

And now, we have the Conservatives trying to fight back by doing what they do best – spreading misinformation. Already, we’re seeing them paint the opposition as greedy and trying to undemocratically overthrow the government. This is why Civics was required in Grade 10.

So at this point there are a bunch of things that the Conservatives would like for us to forget. They’d like for us to forget that they were trying this exact same thing back in 2004 that the opposition is doing now. They’d also like for us to forget that they only had 37.6% of the vote and only have a minority government. Finally, they’d like us to forget that this minority government and coalition government stuff is how the parliamentary system is supposed to work.

Interesting times for Canadian politics, that’s for sure.

On October 14th, Canada held its 40th General Election. On the surface, it seemed like nothing changed. Seats were flipped and Stephen Harper remains a Prime Minister with a minority, just as it had been since 2006. But for the two major players, the Conservatives and the Liberals, everything has gotten considerably worse.

Yes, Stephen Harper managed to get the Conservatives another term in power and even gained a bunch of seats. But, he’s failed to get a majority after facing a severely weakened Liberal party twice. He couldn’t do it against Paul Martin and a Liberal party that was caught in a scandal. He couldn’t do it against Stephane Dion, even after controlling the narrative about Dion being a weak leader and shoving misinformation to everyone about the Green Shift. It’s becoming less likely that he’ll see the majority that he’s been fighting for since he became leader. This draws us to consider who might be succeeding him and it appears that there’s no one obvious yet. This will be a problem for them.

On the other hand, the Liberals couldn’t be in worse shape. Most of the seats that were changed were ones that were red. The party is in a poor state financially and with another leadership race so soon after the last one, the strain on the monies will only get worse. The party’s share of the popular vote is getting gobbled up by the NDP. The chances that the Liberals go the way of the Progressive Conservatives is getting larger and larger and the next leader will be determining whether the Liberals survive or not.

And that brings us to the Liberal leadership race. Immediately, we’re faced again with Michael Ignatieff facing off against Bob Rae, but things are looking a bit different today than it was two years ago. For one thing, there isn’t the cornucopia of candidates running. This time, we aren’t seeing the bitter divides between the two frontrunner camps that plagued the last race. It looks like the Liberals have realized the situation they’re in. And in addition to the sombre mood of the party, there’s the sombre mood regarding the economy.

These two factors greatly reduce the chance of anything like Dion’s from-behind victory from happening again. On the other hand, from the endorsements and support that he’s been getting, it looks like the party is almost ready to just hand Michael Ignatieff the leadership. On the plus side, it doesn’t seem like there will be an irreparable rift between the two frontrunner campaigns this time around. However, I’m not happy with the near-presumption that Ignatieff will just take a stroll until May and win. I think he should have to fight for it. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like he’s going to be getting much of one.

I’ve honestly never understood how it was possible for Bob Rae to become a serious contender to lead the Liberals. I know he’s smart and has all the qualities for the job and it looks like a lot of Liberals do too. But outside of that, there are too many people who have a dislike for him, regardless of whether or not he deserves it. It doesn’t matter if he’s changed his positions or that he may have done the best he could in the early 90s, you can bet that the Conservatives will attack that angle relentlessly. Just look at how they controlled Dion’s image.

The other guy is Dominic LeBlanc. He’s young, smart, and is apparently a fine MP. His biggest challenge is the fact that we’ve been hearing nonstop about Rae and Ignatieff for over two years now, while he’s relatively unknown nationally.

I guess it’s fairly obvious who I think should be the next leader of the Liberals by default. But I will qualify that by revisiting the 2006 leadership race. In 2006, I thought Gerard Kennedy should be the leader. He swung more to the left side of the party and had a pretty good record. As the Minister of Education in Ontario, he did a lot to fix the screwups that are the reason that Mike Harris is so reviled by students.

Michael Ignatieff on the other hand was not those things. He’s definitely more of a centrist. His initial support for the Iraq war threw a wrench in his campaign. But most importantly, he was a very new MP and had just returned from the States. Before his return and shortly after it, there was speculation that he returned to try to run for the leadership of the Liberals. The question to me was why we would want someone who came back just to do that?

Two years later, through his time as an MP, we’ve learned a lot more about him. He’s definitely intelligent, but more importantly, he’s also very articulate. Despite being away from Canada for so long, he has an excellent understanding of the national culture. He’s got a vision for Canada, as a nation and for our standing in the world. He has the progressive values that the Liberals stand for. He’s not one of the old-school guys from one of Chretien’s or Martin’s camps. He’s got the support of the party. He understands that the party desperately needs to be transformed and rebuilt. And he’s likely not going to get trapped and smeared by the same Conservative strategy that took down Dion.

He’s someone I can respect and someone who’ll probably be able to make me switch my vote back to red.

Anyhow, we got back to the hotel at about 10 pm and realized that we hadn’t eaten yet, so we ordered some pizza from Pizza Hut, which I was thrilled with since that was during the height of Code Geass R2 mania. Anyhow, while were nom-nom-noming on delicious stuffed crust, we had the TV on. It was only two nights before that Obama gave his nomination acceptance speech in Denver. That night, CNN was running a documentary about Obama’s life from the start all the way up to present day.

The dream that I had when I fell asleep was unique in that I could clearly recount the details. I was at the White House and everyone was in like the garden or something sitting around a bunch of tables like you would at a cafe, and George W. Bush was addressing everyone there. Now, Bush being Bush, he was saying some garbage, the details of which I don’t remember. But, I did think what he said was incredibly stupid, so being the devastatingly sarcastic smartass that I am, I heckled him.

Understandably, Bush was pissed as hell that I was heckling him. He walked over, very angry-like and confrontational and overall had a fairly threatening composure. Of course, as luck would have it, Obama was at my table, and he noticed angry Bush approaching. He decided to step in and try and calm him down, but Bush wasn’t having any of it. So, Obama being the cool guy that he is, decides to swing back with an utterly devastating remark to Bush.

How did I know his remark was devastating? Because immediately, Bush looked absolutely dejected and he turned around and walked back to the stage slowly. And what would be an excellent burn without a high-five? So I gave Obama a high-five and we were very pleased with ourselves and smiling and all.

Congratulations, America and hi5, President Obama.

John McCain

My first impression of John McCain was during the primaries, in which he struck me as a very ardent supporter of the Iraq war and as someone who is aggressive and uncompromising when it comes to foreign policy. Later, I picked up on the fact that he wasn’t seen as a Republican and was deeply unpopular with much of the party since he was seen as someone who wasn’t bound by the party line.

In retrospect, his victory in the primaries seems analogous to that of Stephane Dion’s in the Liberal leadership: everyone else was out by default. Romney was a Mormon and wouldn’t get the support of the Evangelical base. Huckabee was unpopular with the corporate Republicans. Giuliani’s strategy just sucked.

However, his biggest mistakes were made in the last few months, leading up to and since both party conventions. Like Hillary Clinton, he began being a respectable second choice should Obama lose, and like Hillary Clinton, McCain began to squander that goodwill by running a dishonest and dirty campaign. And in both cases, as we near draw closer to decision day, both campaigns were imploding.

The problem for McCain is that no one actually likes him, unlike Clinton. Clinton was able to continue to maintain control of her supporters and ultimately brought them over to Obama. McCain’s supporters are clearly prepared to throw him into a ditch the first chance they can get.

The other problem for McCain is that he’s not as cool and collected as Clinton was. Clinton had the stones to continue for a few days before suspending her campaign after June 3. On the other hand, we have McCain acting on impulse, throwing random crap at us since the DNC convention. We’ve had the impulse pick of Sarah Palin as running mate, the haphazard drama over the financial crisis, and the inability to stay on message over the last few weeks.

And unlike Clinton, he’s unlikely to have a chance to regain whatever positive opinions the public may have had left of him.

Sarah Palin

Interestingly enough, I had heard of Palin before her pick as running mate for McCain. It was on the PA forums, where people were throwing out possible female Republicans who may take a shot at 2012. At the time, we knew as much about her as we did when they introduced her: a young reformer and wildly popular in her state. And of course, when she was announced, there was a slight panic and speculation about how it might change the race.

This will likely prove to be McCain’s biggest mistake. Palin’s inexperience and ignorance of any issues beyond managing her state was clearly demonstrated in an entire series of interviews. She was under investigation for abuse of power. And yet, she is far more popular than McCain among Republicans. Even now, there is speculation that she’s turning on the campaign and looking out for herself. However, her extreme right-wing views and ignorance probably drove away independents and undecideds that McCain desperately needed.

She started off as a fairly dangerous and aggressive candidate, but ultimately was trounced by both Obama and Biden and has now ended up as a liability to McCain.

Joe Biden

I had three picks for Obama’s running mate: former General Wesley Clark, Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, and Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware. And lucky me, Obama chose Biden.

Biden is one of the senators that I’ve heard about outside of the campaign, and in fact, for a few years now. He’s always struck me as the type of guy that doesn’t take crap and will call you out on your crap. He’s incredibly experienced and is incredibly knowledgeable in foreign affairs. He’s an excellent speaker and is very likable.

I’d watched his speech as Obama introduced him as his running mate. Right out of the gate, he was taking excellent jabs at McCain and introducing his story at the same time. It was then that I knew that Obama made the right choice and that the rest of the campaign was going to be awesome.

I think it speaks volumes about the difference between Obama and McCain in their selection of their running mates. Biden was carefully considered and was chosen to compliment Obama in his administration. Palin was chosen without much vetting and was an obvious political move.

Barack Obama

Like Biden, I’ve been following Obama for a few years, ever since I heard about him on Slashdot. It was my English teacher that said that words have power and Obama is a clear example of this. He is one of the most eloquent and powerful speakers that I’ve personally seen. Even if he didn’t run for president, it’s evident from his speech at the 2004 DNC convention that he’d have a lot of influence.

It bugged me when Obama’s opponents attacked him for his oratory, mostly because it preys on people’s stupidity. People constantly ignore the fact that the world’s most influential leaders are such because they were powerful speakers. The argument that style and substance are mutually exclusive is a retarded one that only stupid people would buy. Unfortunately, the fact that this election might be considered a contest at all is proof that much of America is still dominated by stupid people.

But of course, Obama isn’t all style. His legislative record is proof of this, like the law that’s colloquially known as Google for Government. He has a comprehensive platform. Unlike McCain, he’s able to give detailed explanations of his policies. Beyond his progressive policies, he’s committed to things that everyone should want, like increased government transparency and accountability.

And even if he has relatively little experience to McCain, he’s proved that he’s able to manage and organize a campaign far better than he has. Where he might be inexperienced, he will surround himself with smart people. He’s collected and makes measured decisions. And of course, Obama is intelligent and has a charisma aura and is just plain awesome.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have problems with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Harper keeps a fairly tight leash on his party and its members. He governs as though he has a majority by forcing confidence motions. His party deliberately obstructs Parliament. His party ran attack ads for a year before the election. Beyond my problems with his ethics, I’m also not a fan of conservative ideology, whether fiscal or social. I just don’t believe that cutting services and taxes is a good idea.

Stephane Dion and the Liberals are a lot more interesting. I had my reservations about Dion, since he pretty much has no charisma, which is important to have when campaigning. I have no doubt that he’d make a pretty good Prime Minister. The problem, of course, is getting there. He’s reasonably smart, is a progressive, and doesn’t seem to hold contempt for democracy like Harper does. His platform has stuff that I can agree with, and while I’m not a huge environmentalist, I can understand that the Green Shift is a way to tackle global warming and poverty at once.

Finally, we have Jack Layton and the NDP. Much of the NDP platform is similar to that of the Liberals, except for their proposal to reverse corporate tax cuts. The most notable thing for me is that their stance on digital issues is a lot more firm than that of the Liberals. Jack Layton also has been a pretty good leader, if a bit aggressive in attacking the other parties. Of course, they carry the stigma of Bob Rae’s Ontario NDP, who managed to make everyone forget that and somehow end up as a prominent Liberal.

A lot of the time during election seasons, I will often hear at church the congregation being asked to pray for Christian leaders among our politicians. Of course, we never really go into how we could recognize a Christian leader in our government. How would a Christian MP do his or her job? Would they represent their constituents’ views, even if they were contrary to their own or would they vote based on their faith? Would they respect the democratic process or would they willfully obstruct and disrupt it to get the results they want?

To be honest, I suspect that when we Christians ask for Christian leaders in our government, we don’t actually want honest, accountable politicians, but just a guy who promises to vote against abortion and same-sex marriage. Do we seriously consider the character and integrity of who we’re considering to give our vote? If we don’t, then we’re being disingenuous when we pray for Christian leaders to rise up. Of course, if you’re fine with Christian leaders who aren’t principled, then I guess I’d have to concede that point.

And this is the problem that I have with the conservative parties in North America. It turns out that they aren’t accountable, they aren’t transparent, and they don’t have an ounce of integrity left intact. All of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada and John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican Party should not have the vote of any Christian that values honesty, integrity, and accountability.

McCain and Palin together have done nothing but lie about Obama’s policies and character, lie about their qualifications for the office that they’re running for, and lie about Palin’s questionable history and both of their poor track records as senator and governor. Their party has done nothing but smear and swiftboat the opposition since they’ve been in power. Their party’s politicians are constantly trying to evade subpoenas and investigations.

In Canada, it’s not much better. The Conservatives are the party that had a 200 page booklet published and distributed among their caucus detailing how to obstruct parliamentary committees. This is the party that runs attack ads on Stephane Dion using that retarded picture of him over and over again. I’d honestly expect snarky, mean-spirited ads to come out from the NDP more than the Conservatives.

These are the people that Christians support. Is it any wonder why most people don’t see us as people who value integrity and accountability?

This is a problem. It causes an unrealistic expectation of what this thing we have built can and cannot do. This becomes more of a problem now that our society is fairly integrated with it. Ten years ago, people were kind of crawling around and exploring this new-fangled thing. Today, people are participating in it. It has defined our society. We now have this thing sitting around that can reach everyone in the nation that everyone can be a part of.

You may remember that I am a fan of Barack Obama. I have mentioned in passing that one of the reasons why I support him is because of his promise to make government data online in universally accessible formats, which is one of the many things he has included in his technology platform. The thing is, though, this will not be a huge thing to anyone who doesn’t understand how computers work. Most people don’t see why this will help “create a transparent and connected democracy”.

Of course, this ties into the other issue of open formats. People don’t understand why keeping documents as Microsoft Word files is a bad idea. People don’t understand why digital rights management is unnecessary. People don’t question service providers on things like bandwidth caps or network neutrality.

I am a fairly large proponent for using technology to improve our democracy. It stems largely from the same basic argument that I laid out in my last post about social relationships and technology. We’re still not taking technology seriously and using it properly. Again, the same basic problem is the people. Technology is not magic. It doesn’t automatically solve all our problems.

How does our government become corrupt? We let it become corrupt by being uninformed and apathetic. Technology solves one of those problems. Obama’s technology platform gives people the tools to be informed. Making government data available, making live feeds of government proceedings available, web tools to track government finances, and using wikis and blogs for public communication are all ways to give people information and let them do something with it.

It’s these sorts of things that convince me of Obama’s trustworthiness. And the wonderful thing is that he’s proven this power. He’s already crafted legislation that created USAspending.gov, he’s centralized his supporters on his website by giving them forums and blogs, and he’s managed to outraise every other candidate using his website and refusing lobbyist money at the same time. It’s also these sorts of things that have convinced me of the power of technology to shape an open and accountable government.

And this is why we need to understand how all of this works. I’m sure you can see how easy it would be for someone to do just the opposite of all of this and actually take away our rights and freedoms using technology, simply because we don’t understand it. It’s already started with digital rights management and the DMCA in the US. This is why technology occupies a large weight in terms of my political considerations. It’s definitely the reason why I’m an NDP supporter, what with their support of network neutrality and real copyright reform (as opposed to the Conservatives’ and Liberals’ capitulation to American interests).

Again, technology is something that we shouldn’t and can’t be afraid of if we want to harness it for good. If we don’t, we’re just letting it sit around as an easy way to catch up on TV shows when it can be so much more. And the danger is that if we don’t use it, someone else will.

At the beginning of the race, I’d believed that as long as the Republicans don’t win, the States should be set. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were very strong candidates and both should have been able to beat McCain. I’d chosen Obama for his commitment to open governance, his goal to unify the nation, and his belief in rising above the same old crapflinging in politics.

My point of view began to change when Obama started overtaking Clinton in the primaries and Clinton’s campaign began becoming increasingly negative. And as Obama began winning more and more and her victory slipped away, in her desperation, she revealed her true nature. In the last few weeks she has definitely differentiated herself with Obama.

The last few weeks of her campaign have been nothing but lying and flinging crap at Obama. This is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been campaigning against. This is the reason why Hillary Clinton cannot be allowed to win. This is the reason why, at this point, I would not be able to bring myself to support her if she won. While they may be almost identical in policy, their character is obviously completely different.

And the reason why Obama needs to win is because he’s been taking all of this crap and not doing the same in return. He isn’t lying about his experience. He isn’t bringing up Clinton’s slipups. All he has been doing in response to these attacks is refuting them one right after another and demonstrating his ability and commitment to not get entangled in that crap, while trying to focus the contest on the issues.

And at this point, it is impossible for Clinton to win without the Democratic superdelegates overturning the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Should this happen, it would deal two fairly significant blows to democracy in the States. Party officials overturning the will of the people is not something that is a good sign, and in doing so, it would signal a rejection of change in the way American politics is conducted. I’m sure that after eight years of George W. Bush, more of the same is the last thing the United States needs.

As you all know, there’s a little contest being held right now by our neighbours to the south. It’ll be a while before it’s finished, but it seems like things are moving at right about this moment. Yes, I know I’m a Canadian and don’t have a say in this, but I feel the need to echo what many people I respect are saying. And ultimately, the outcome of this fight will affect us up here.

There’s a ridiculous difference in the atmosphere of this presidential race from the one we had in 2004. Back then, all we cared about was getting the Republicans and Bush out. The choice was basically Bush vs. not Bush, and that sort of race doesn’t exactly inspire people. Not so, this time.

I should mention that I am very, very liberal. Many times, people confuse that for being Liberal. That is not so, as I am so liberal that I am not Liberal, but New Democrat. It’s taken me a while to come to terms with this, but I’ve fully embraced this fact during the last election.

Anyhow, essentially, I’ve decided to throw my worthless, non-US-citizen support behind Barack Obama.

So why did I feel a need to go ahead and voice my support for him? Everything that I’ve read about him leads me to believe that he really gets it. For me, the largest issues in politics pretty much revolves around civil liberties, democracy, accountability, and technology. He pretty much hits the nail on the head with respect to these things.

There are many people that have some fame and notoriety on the Internet who are smart and share my sentiments. Randall Munroe and Lawrence Lessig are among several who’ve written about their support for Obama. These are people whose opinions I trust, for their work in the area of the above issues.

Specifically, it’s his positions on network neutrality and his plan to keep the government accountable through the use of technology, making government data open by using standard machine-readable formats. And it’s this smart combination of technology and democratic governance that appeals to me and, evidently, many notables who have the same concerns.

I highly suggest that those of you who also share my choice of election issues to read the endorsements by Randall and especially Lawrence Lessig’s. Lessig’s posts really describe Obama’s character well and the stark difference that the other candidates sort of emit. It’s really been a long while since I’ve felt excited at the prospect of how the Presidential elections can change the States.

Long ago, in OAC, there were three ultra math courses: Algebra and Geometry, Calculus, and Finite Mathematics. All three were the pinnacle of math in high school. Then, a few years ago, the government obliterated OAC and redid the entire school system, and the three math courses we ended up did not strike fear into hearts as the ones before them did. We now had Advanced Functions and Introductory Calculus, Data Management, and Geometry and Discrete Mathematics.

With this setup, we got vectors, differential calculus, and combinatorics, which was pretty cool. We also got profs crying for the first three months because we couldn’t integrate until then.

Now, the new setup is as follows: Advanced Functions, Calculus and Vectors, Data Management. Advanced Functions seems to be the part of calc that wasn’t differential calculus. Data looks relatively unchanged. And we have calc and vectors.

The biggest changes are with calc. Essentially, they’ve destroyed the most interesting math course in high school by taking out combinatorics. After they did that, they realized they had enough room to stretch out half a course into its own course. And then, they took differential calc and stuck it with vectors.

I’ll admit that vectors and combinatorics really have nothing to do with each other and really the only reason why they were together before was that they were both sufficiently interesting and really, only math and engineering majors would need vectors and combinatorics. That and those two topics seemed to tie in proofs quite nicely.

But calc and vectors? I honestly don’t see how this will help the situation if the government is after lower failure rates, which it clearly is all its concerned about in light of these changes. Considering that most science and business people will likely need calc at least for analysis, throwing vectors in there essentially screws them over. And if the vectors weren’t deadly enough, the proofing will finish the job.

That is unless I am mistaken and the math courses really got owned and they took out proofs, which will crush any future prospective math majors.

So, ultimately, who will get destroyed by this turn of events?

• Non-semestered students – they have the privilege of taking a prerequisite course at the same time as their introductory calculus course! Because differentiating exponential functions while you’re being introduced to them is the best way to learn!
• Arts majors – have fun watching your average plummet.
• Science majors – you’ll be ahead of the artsies in vectors, but proofing will still crush you.
• Math majors – have fun trying to abstract things when all the math you’ve done in your life has been algebra.
• Engineers – have fun when you realize that the prof just went through three courses in two weeks.

I mean, living in a western democracy doesn’t really matter, the pulse of your homeland is in your blood, and you’re proud of it. You know that the Chinese people are entitled to any of the land that they’ve occupied for any amount of time over the past 6000 years.

And life in China beats life in North America any day. China’s becoming more and more prosperous everyday, and will eventually beat the US at its own game. There really isn’t any reason at all why our parents left the country and made us live here for all of our lives.

Taiwan really needs to suck it up and give up its autonomy to rejoin the great People’s Republic. Being a part of the great nation should outrank any other silly concern, like democracy or stirring up the wrath of Beijing these past fifty years.

Dammit, I’m wasting my time here in Software Engineering. What I need to do is write a book on Chinese politics, make millions, and unite China and Taiwan because I am highly knowledgeable in this area. THE ? KINGDOM SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!!11

The twenty-first century economy is not under-girded by steel. The 21st century economy is under-girded by software. Which is as crucial as the underlying element in economic development in the 21st century as the production of steel ingots was in the twentieth.

The talk has definitely reminded me of what I’d hoped to do with my fancy-schmancy Software Engineering degree. It led me to recall why I was so adamant about free software and what I believed freedom of information meant for the world. It brought back what I’d learned at CC at the Social Justice workshop and how to tie my passion for Christ, for computers, and for social equality together. If anything, the talk reminded me of my importance because of the importance of software and why it will be and is important.

There are a lot of good quotes from the talk, and I’ll post them here.

On owning software:

Imagine if you will for a moment a society in which mathematics has become property, and it’s owned by people. Now every time you want to do anything useful – build a house, make a boat, start a bridge, devise a market, move objects weighing certain numbers of kilos from one place to another – your first stop is at the mathematics store to buy enough math to complete the task which lies before you.

On the importance of software:

It is that software provides alternate modes of infrastructure and transportation. That’s crucial in economic history terms, because the driving force in economic development is always improvement in transportation. When things move more easily and more flexibly and with less friction from place to place, economic growth results, welfare improvements occur.

On software and political upheaval:

The gate that has held the movements for equalization of human beings strictly in a dilemma between ineffectiveness and violence has now been opened. The reason is that we have shifted to a zero marginal cost world. As steel is replaced by software, more and more of the value in society becomes non-rivalrous: it can be held by many without costing anybody more than if it is held by a few.

On the One Laptop Per Child project:

We can also change the infrastructure of social life. That OLPC has every textbook on earth. That OLPC is a free MIT education. That OLPC is a hand-powered thick-net router. When you close the lid as a kid and put it in the shelf at night, the main CPU shuts down – but the 802.11 gear stays running all night long on the last few pulls of the string. And it routes packets all night long and it keeps the mesh. The village is a mesh when the kids have green or purple or orange boxes. And all you need’s a downspout somewhere, and the village is on the Net. And when the village is on the Net, everybody in the village is a producer of something: services, knowledge, culture, art, YouTube TV.

On citizen journalism:

Now what is journalism like when every village has a video camera and is on the Net? What is diplomacy like? What does it mean if the next time somebody starts some nasty little genocide in some little corner of the Earth the United States Government would prefer to ignore, that there’s video all over the place all the time in every living room. What’s it mean when children around the world are networking with one other over the issues that concern them directly without intermediation, everybody to everybody, saying, “Do you have what we need? How come you have what we need? How come we can’t do what we can do? Because your father’s rich? Because we’re dark? Because we live down here?”

To the developers:

If we know that what we are trying to accomplish is the spread of justice and social equality through the universalization of access to knowledge; if what we know we are trying to do is to build an economy of sharing which will rival the economies of ownership at every point where they directly compete; if we know that we are doing this as an alternative to coercive redistribution, that we have a third way in our hands for dealing with long and deep and painful problems of human injustice; if we are conscious of what we have and know what we are trying to accomplish, this is the moment when, for the first time in lifetimes we can get it done.