TIME TO VOTE! THAT MEANS YOU! YES, YOU, READING THIS RIGHT NOW!

VOTING TIME!!!!!!!!!



Here is a useful election FAQ if you're unsure about how long voting will take, how to vote if you wear a face covering, or what kind of ID you can bring.

Still undecided? Here's one more platform-comparing tool.

And now go vote! And to awesome people like my Awesome Housemate who are working the polls this election: you guys are awesome. You are like millions of hand across the country holding the democracy tent over our heads.

Okay, awkward simile time is over. Time to vote!

Coast-to-Coast with Editorials

So this is pretty neat. It’s a collection of abridged editorials from across the country. I, of course, cannot refrain from adding my commentary.

From the Vancouver Sun:

…the Conservatives should be returned to Parliament with a majority. A minority government will be unstable at a time when we need stability. Without a majority, Canadians will have no idea who their leader will be. The fact is that the opposition could defeat the government on the budget within a matter of weeks of the next sitting of Parliament. Then, either Ignatieff (or possibly his successor, whoever that might be) or Layton could ask the Governor-General to invite one or the other or both of them to form a government.

. . . Canada can't afford an election that delivers a result with so much uncertainty.

. . . Despite the Tories' flaws, however, a Conservative majority is the only path that at this time leads us to a Canada that will remain the prosperous, peaceful and predictable country in which we are fortunate enough to live.

False. We are not a republic. Not knowing who the leader of our government will be doesn’t really change much. The prime minister is the leader of the party that forms the government. Let’s not inflate the position with too much importance.

Honestly, majorities are scarier because they’re the closest this country can legally get to a dictatorship. Minorities have to compromise, not be reckless—be predictable. Majority governments have historically been the most unpredictable, and passed the most bills that weren’t in their platforms.

And you know what? No matter what happens in the House of Commons, the core of the civil service remains stable, with just a few changes at the upper bureaucratic levels. Civil servants will be peeved if the upper administration keeps changing on them like that, but the people who actually do the stuff to run our country are going to be here doing the stuff that runs the country regardless of the situation in the House.

From the Winnipeg Free Press:

That the country even talks about coalitions composed of weak parties focused on buying votes, instead of focusing on the fragile economic recovery, is all the evidence Canadians should need to conclude that seven years of minority government, of the posturing and name-calling and brinksmanship that results when no one ultimately is in charge, must end. Canada must get more serious about its present predicaments and future prosperity. That leaves only the Conservatives.

To be sure, Conservatives over the past five years, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in particular, have contributed much to the rancour that today sours our polity. But just as surely, over the past five years no political party or leader has shown more disciplined commitment to the engine that makes all else possible — the economy. For all the talk of a hidden, right-wing agenda, none has emerged over five years and there is no evidence it will over the next four.

Oh, please. Our economic recovery is hardly fragile, little thanks to the Conservatives. It was Paul Martin’s banking regulations that left us in such a good place to being with. And as I mentioned earlier, no one ever is “ultimately in charge.” The prime minister’s powers are supposed to be fairly limited, to a leadership role over his own party, and the ability to appoint people and recommend things to the governor general. In fact, the Speaker of the House is far more “ultimately in charge” of the House of Commons.

Of course a “hidden, right-wing agenda” hasn’t emerged over the last five years—that kind of thing is really difficult to have with a minority government. The fact that we haven’t seen a hidden right-wing agenda doesn’t mean there isn’t one (not that I’m saying there is).

From the Halifax Chronicle Herald:

Voting intentions have moved to the poles as we have got closer to the polls, turning this into an effective contest of the NDP left and the Tory right.

You can peg this partly on Prime Minister Stephen Harper being a polarizing leader. And also on his strategy of eking out a majority by winning over targeted demographic groups in a few marginal ridings instead of aiming to make the Tories a bigger-tent party.

That left a lot voters essentially disengaged. But they have decided they want to be heard in this election. And they've been jumping to Jack Layton to do that . . .

It's an astonishing result when most people, at heart, are probably still somewhere in the middle, not looking either for a big expansion of government, or a drastic shrinkage of the social safety net, but simple competence in managing the economy and public finances and in ensuring crucial public services like health care are there when needed.

True that. Truuue that.

Getting Ready for the Big Day

I made an election playlist on YouTube of all the most epic, empowering, pro-political engagement songs. If I've forgotten one that is key to your empowerment, comment here or drop me a line at voteagainstapathy[at]gmail.com.

Also preparing election results drinks! I'm watching the results come in with my Awesome Housemate after she comes back from her Awesome Job as a poll clerk. At a polling station. See, these are just the kinds of people I hang out with so you can understand how I'm confused about this apparently low youth voter turnout...

Andrew Coyne explains why he's voting Liberal.

If we return the Conservatives with a majority, if we let all that has gone on these past five years pass, then not only the Tories, but every party will draw the appropriate conclusions. But if we send them a different message, then maybe the work of bringing government to democratic heel, begun in the tumult of the last Parliament, can continue. And that is why I will be voting Liberal on May 2.

Are you still undecided? Apparently, undecided voters are more likely to vote for someone who looks like them. So, you know, if you're a white guy, you've probably got lots of choice.

Chantal Hébert says that the real winner in this election is democracy. Well, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but mine sounds more epic. Actually, she says that the winner is citizen engagement.

The populist mood that could result in a dramatically realigned Parliament on Monday changed the face of municipal politics in Calgary and Toronto last fall, bringing a left-leaning mayor to Alberta’s energy capital and a right-wing one to the home of Canada’s caviar Left.

The wave that could carry Jack Layton and the NDP to a historical finish next week has tapped into the same powerful desire for change but it is different from the one that propelled Rob Ford to the Toronto mayoral office in one significant regard.

In Quebec, where the so-called orange wave originated, the surge of support for the NDP is borne out of more hope than anger.

In spite of the best efforts of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to claim the role for himself, it is Gilles Duceppe who has emerged as the angry man of the campaign.

The more the Bloc Québécois leader has raised his voice over this campaign, the less his call for a seventh strike vote against the rest of Canada has resonated.

To a lesser degree the same could be said of the Conservative and Liberal campaigns.

If anything, the developments of the past five weeks have shown that there is a lot more appetite for a discourse based on hope than one based on fear.

Hear, hear!

This week the Young Liberals released Angry Bairds, which is exactly what it sounds like.

Saturday Morning Catch-Up

Some news stories from the past few days I haven't gotten around to yet.

1) What would a Harper majority look like? To me, scary, but I think that this author is intentionally trying to be terrifying:

While parties in modern Canada rarely ask for a majority expressly to do big things, it endows them with unfettered authority. A majority as prime minister allows you to summon and dismiss Parliament, set election dates and name the governor general, senators and judges, among other appointments.

By and large, you are — borrowing a line from Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson — a "friendly dictator."

So what would Stephen Harper do? While he may pay lip-service to social conservatives, he is unlikely to reopen the debate on abortion, same-sex marriage and capital punishment. He knows that's playing with fire.

What he is more likely to do, though, is what he is doing already: appoint more conservative judges, deny funding to liberal-minded non-governmental organizations like Planned Parenthood, abolish the gun registry and get tough on crime.

Where he is likely to move aggressively is reshaping the state? Here, expect him to use the deficit as reason to shrink the size of government. That may mean slashing the public service, starving (or selling) the CBC, and privatizing government services.

Expect him to lower taxes and explore ways to empower the individual. Expect him to reform the Senate. Expect him to offer the provinces new authority, including Ottawa's residual powers. While he is unlikely to initiate constitutional reform (he doesn't like convening first ministers), expect the national government to be less national.

At the same time, watch for the Conservatives to give more substance to citizenship, which they think is too easy to acquire. There will be new emphasis on national history and national symbols, particularly the monarchy. The Conservative will continue to trumpet the North, espousing a new kind of nationalism.

Abroad, Canada will continue to regard the United Nations suspiciously. There will be no return to peacekeeping, as the Liberals suggest, or a human-security agenda. Military spending will rise while international assistance is reassessed. A foundering CIDA will be reorganized, even abolished.

The government will pursue a new deal with the United States on border and security issues. It will build on new free trade with Europe. Canada will remain Israel's best friend.

Those who expect the same tone and tenor of the last five years — a centrist stewardship, reflecting a comfortable moderation, veering right only on the margins — should not be surprised to see the empowered Conservatives abandon that kind of caution.

*shudder* Also, I just want to say that I don't think you need to make citizenship harder to get when the majority of adults born in Canada already can't pass citizenship tests. I remember my friends memorizing long lists of lieutenant-governors past, and I can't even name any of the current ones.

2) Reality Check on post-election scenarios and the constitution. This lays out potentials for what might/could happen with various election results. With a Conservative minority:

All we know for certain is that in this third scenario, a minority Conservative government would have to table a throne speech to lay out its priorities and a budget (the one in March was never passed), presumably within the next month or so.

If a minority Conservative government were to lose either of those votes, or any confidence vote within, say, four to six months, Harper would have to resign. But he would have the option of asking Gov. Gen. David Johnston for another election.

Normally, the governor general is supposed to act on the "advice" of the prime minister. But in special circumstances like these, "the reserve powers of the Crown come into play," Franks points out.

"These reserve powers permit the governor general to reject Mr. Harper's advice if he requests a dissolution when he holds a minority of seats in the House of Commons and is defeated early in the session of the new Parliament."

At that point, the governor general would inquire whether another party leader could gain the confidence of the House and govern instead, with the support of one or more other parties.

Franks suggests Johnston might well make the leaders commit to such an arrangement for 18 months to two years; indeed, commit to it in writing and make the agreement public.

Franks is basing these time limits - at least four to six months before Johnston would grant another election, and 18 to 24 months for an alternative government to work - on what Adrienne Clarkson wrote about her preparations in case Paul Martin's minority Liberal government fell back in 2004.

That was the year, incidentally, when Harper, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton prepared a letter to remind Clarkson that she didn't necessarily need to grant an election if Martin lost a confidence vote in the House.

Overall, Franks says, "the governor general's first and most important duty is to ensure that there is a prime minister."

3) There have been some youth debates this week, which are interesting to look at not only because it's young people being completely politically involved, but also because they actually cover youth issues (and articulate what they think youth issues actually are). For example:

Elizabeth Dubois, chair of the campus political action committee for the Young Liberals of Canada, reminded young Canadians of the Liberals' Learning Passport, which would provide $1,000 of financial assistance to post-secondary students each year for up to four years.

She said the platform promise was designed to ensure youth had access to "tools to build our future."

Alykhan Velshi, who is working a second election in the Conservative party war room, insisted that the Liberal plan isn't the best option for youth.

"It's very deep in their platform . but they're also taking something away. They're going to raise taxes on students," he warned, referring to the Liberals' plan to eliminate current textbook tax credits currently offered to students.

The pair was joined by Isaac Cockburn, who has worked at NDP headquarters in Ottawa and as an assistant to the NDP's Nathan Cullen, and Jonathan Halasz, co-president of the Carleton University Green party. Each party representative is under the age of 30.

The Bloc Québécois declined to join the English-language debate.

Cockburn immediately echoed his party leader Jack Layton's message that "Ottawa is broken."

"This type of back and forth is what he's talking about," he said, promising he wouldn't join "rigorous partisan stuff" as his peers poked at their opponents' policies.

Cockburn said Layton was the sole leader who would address rising tuition fees, while other parties have said the concern is not a federal responsibility.

4) It's hard to respect our MPs when their behaviour would be getting them a time-out if they were children.

How can the grown men and women who wish to govern our nation expect to be taken seriously as trustworthy, thoughtful people when their behaviour suggests they are hysterical toddlers? Whenever I tune into Question Period I last about 20 seconds before I have to change the channel because the bickering sounds like an out-of-control Middle School classroom.

So how about it, folks? If you want to govern the country, how about showing some self-control and good sense? Quit shouting in the background while other people are trying to speak. Quit calling each other names. Quit using scare tactics to try to convince the populace that negotiating in a coalition scenario is worse than having one man’s ideas shoved down our throats.

5) If young women voted, things would be different. We already know that the composition of Parliament is more likely to reflect the votes of older men rather than younger women. This survey also points out to some striking differences of opinion between young women and young men.

“Time after time I have seen in national polls that young women tend toward views that favour environmental sustainability and social justice, while young men’s attitudes tend toward maintaining the status quo,” says the President of McAllister Opinion Research.

Here's some stats:

Agree/Strongly agree that “Canadian girls receive adequate support to achieve their potential in life.”

63% of young women
100% of young men

Agree/Strongly agree that “Violence against women is a serious problem in Canada today.”

92% of young women
42% of young men

When asked if the following facts should be a concern or not for Canadians, here is what young women and men had to say:

“Teenage girls are 3 times as likely as boys to suffer from depression”

96% of young women are concerned
61% of young men

“Men outnumber women 4 to 1 among Canada’s elected representatives”

80% of young women are concerned
38% of young men

“2/3 of minimum wage workers in Canada are women”

90% of young women are concerned
55% of young men

I think the first statistic is possibly the most striking. All the young men surveyed felt Canadian girls receive adequate support to achieve their potential, but less than two thirds of the young women surveyed agreed.

Study Break for Democracy

The sun is shining, the daffodils are out, and I should be studying, but the news is calling to me. So I am taking a study break and it is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED because it's for democracy.

Since the orange surge, Jack Layton might be downshifting in order to avoid missteps and keep criticism at bay. Meanwhile in the Harper camp a whole new scandal breaks loose (as you'll know if you watched The National between the Habs game and the Canucks game last night). The Tories' optics aren't so good these days at all; the Liberals recently got their hands on a compilation they made of Harper's most incriminating and controversial quotes. Note to self: if my leader says lots of controversial and incriminating things, don't collect them and and organize them nicely in alphabetical order by subject matter, because my biggest rival WILL find it. Also: if I don't collect them all into one big binder it's so much easier for me to say, "I have no idea what you're talking about!" when someone brings them up. It's like the long-form census.

Speaking of the Liberals, Michael Ignatieff admitted today that he smoked pot when he was younger (probably in grad school). Consensus: "It obviously didn't ruin my life but a glass of wine is so much more relaxing." (that's paraphrased, obviously)

Peter Mansbridge's voice is so much nicer than anyone else's, but then, we already knew that

Peter Mansbridge has been interviewing all the leaders. And since Peter Mansbridge should totally be our king, you should go watch!

Elizabeth May

Jack Layton

Michael Ignatieff

Stephen Harper

You might remember that Ignatieff's interview set off some firecrackers with his talk of forming a government if the Conservatives fail to gain the confidence of the House. And the Galloping Beaver has an analysis of Harper's interview that is pretty interesting.

A few last things before the advance polls open

1) All you need to vote is proof of identity and proof of address. That's a government-issued photo ID and, if your driver's license has your parents' address on it but you want to vote at school, a piece of official mail with your address. You can find out more at Elections Canada. If you're not sure where to vote, Vote.ca is a really easy-to-use resource.

2) If you're still undecided, Apathy is Boring has handy-dandy summaries of the platforms of each the 18 parties running candidates this election. (For example, the Rhinoceros party: "Democracy Reform: Voting areas will be decorated and soft music will be played"; the Christian Heritage Party: "Women's Rights: The CHP is the only pro-life party in Canada today"; the Marxist-Leninist Party: "Defence and National Security: Withdraw Canada from NORAD and NATO".) Seriously, check it out.

3) Find yourself a vote date! "Vote, Actually" from Lead Now:



4) Results of the latest poll. Absolutely shocking.

5) Another analysis of the latest poll results. Still shocking. It's shaping up to be a potentially historic race!

6) It's illegal to publish election results on the Internet (including Facebook and Twitter) when polls are still open in some areas of the country, in case it influences voting in those regions. Tweeters are fighting back. If you live in BC you probably won't have to worry about this.

7) Elizabeth May with Paul McCartney and... a baby? Anyway. I bet Stephen Harper feels silly for singing all those Beatles/John Lennon songs now, knowing they're friends of Pierre Trudeau and Elizabeth May. Via Vintage Voter.

8) The vote mob movement made it onto the BBC! You know you're newsworthy when. Perhaps we shall set off an international student movement. ...yeah, right.

Well, as far as I know that's it. For those of you who are planning to vote in the advance polls, as I am, happy voting to you!

Food for Thought

We're now in the second, post-leaders' debates, phase of this election campaign, and that's when things start getting nasty. Before they get do, some thoughts on the campaign so far.

Decision Canada compiled these Campaign Coles Notes, which are worth a read. I found them a bit too summary-ish and lacking in analysis, but that's what you get from Coles Notes. Which is why you should always read the actual book. Anyway. It mentions us (youth voters)!!!!!!!!!

There were a couple things I disagreed with. This one, for example, I found a bit fearmongery:

3. A Conservative minority might open other doors.

If Harper is held to a third minority, he will return to the nation's capital as prime minister. But for how long?

He has warned of a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois "coalition" government. A formal coalition, with New Democrats holding spots in a cabinet led by a Liberal prime minister Michael Ignatieff, will not happen. But Ignatieff does say Harper would need to "try" to gain the confidence of the Commons. Moreover, he says he is willing to "work" with other parties.

Translation?

A re-elected Tory government could be quickly defeated in the Commons. If Ignatieff receives a commitment from the NDP and Bloc to support a Liberal minority government, he could approach Gov. Gen David Johnston and ask to become prime minister without another election.

Constitutional experts say Johnston would be hard-pressed to say no.

I just want to put it out there that a coalition government isn't as evil as everyone seems to think it is. A lot of countries that have proportional representation, for example, are constantly ruled by coalition governments. A majority coalition is about as stable as a one-party minority, although a minority coalition government can be on shaky ground.

Everyone's acting like this is some crazy unprecedented thing, the idea that Ignatieff might ask the governor general to try to form the government. Um, no, it isn't. You know what was some crazy unprecedented thing? Harper going to ask the governor general to prorogue parliament in order to avoid potentially losing power.

As for Governor General David Johnston, he's a constitutional expert in his own right. I'm sure that if any constitutional matter comes up, he will deal with it admirably.

Anyway. The Coles Notes piece also mentions that "Harper is actually pleading for a majority to provide 'stability'" and that

This election is happening because the government was found by a majority of MPs to be in contempt of Parliament.

The Liberals hoped to make this a core election issue, blasting away at Harper for his obsession with control and disrespect for democracy.

There's no evidence the issue has caught fire yet — either because Canadians don't care, don't know enough, or are content with Harper.

This brings me to the next piece. Here's the core of it:

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff displayed verve, agility and intelligence in both leaders' debates this week, but he won't win this election unless he undermines Stephen Harper's compelling, repeated promises to provide economic "stability."

It is a weak claim that should be easy to counter without overstating the case. Harper is no more solely to blame for the recession than he is primarily responsible for the recovery. But so far no one has laid a glove on the eerily imperturbable Conservative leader, with his hypnotist voice and bland expression.

Instead, Ignatieff has missed opportunities to challenge Harper's claims to economic invincibility by focusing obsessively on the prime minister's anti-democratic instincts and behaviour. We get that. It's scandalous and unacceptable -but a lot of voters care more about jobs, the cost of gasoline and taxes than what they see, wrongly or not, as petty infighting.

Those are the voters Ignatieff has to reach. He could begin by reminding them it was Liberal governments that created the wellregulated banking system Harper likes to boast about internationally -often in the face of criticism from anti-regulation zealots like the old Harper.

Then it basically tears apart the Conservatives' economic performance over the last few years. Which is what Ignatieff should probably be doing if he wants to win. It seems that by focusing on Harper's undemocratic actions--which I obviously think are very important--he's trying to win over right-leaning voters who don't particularly approve of Harper. But I think a better way to get hold of those voters would be to push the centrist thing--that the Liberal platform, if you look at it from an economic perspective, isn't too different from the Conservative platform. And also Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty fail at the economy and Paul Martin wins at it.

Speaking of campaign promises, here are two handy resources from Decisions Canada: the interactive campaign-promise tracker, and the campaign promise reality check. Here's what all the parties have to say on education:

Conservative Party of Canada

• Promise interest free student loans for part-time workers.

Liberal Party of Canada

• Pledge $1 billion annually for high school students to attend university or trade school.
• Pledges a Veterans learning benefit.
• Pledges an Aboriginal learning benefit.
• Wants language training for new Canadians.

New Democratic Party

• Would create integrated, community based child-centred early learning and education centres.
• Pledge more money to the provinces to lower tuition fees.
• Would increase the education tax credit amount.
• Plege increased funding to Canada Student Grants for marginalized groups.
• Would invest $1 billion in Aboriginal education.

I was going to include the promises on employment issues, too, but they were really long and the Liberals and Greens were the only ones who have promised youth employment initiatives. But definitely go check it out! It's a great tool for comparing what the parties have to say on different issues.

As for the Reality Check, here's an excerpt from the one on the Liberal Passport to Education ("If you get the grades, you get to go!"):

Will the plan increase demand for post-secondary education?

It might, but there's no guarantee Canada's institutions can handle that. Universities are already turning away applicants, as they operate above capacity, and many university graduates have had trouble finding skilled work.

When government starts providing something that increases the demand, without increasing the number of seats, there are two main options, Milligan said: redistribute who gets the seats, or increase tuition fees.

"With the capacity constraint, quantity isn't going to budge. What will budge is the price," he said. "There will be more room for tuition fees to go up, since everybody has an extra $1,000 in their pocket."

Recently, for instance, some provinces increased their fees when the federal government introduced the Millennium Scholarship Fund.

All very good points, as those of us who are graduating and are now saddled with student debt know.

One last tidbit (I know, I know, this is already super-long!). Stéphane Dion is afraid that Conservative attack ads will do the same thing to Ignatieff they did to him. I don't have much to say about this, except that attack ads, honestly, turn me off. I've said before that we can, and should, hold our politicians to a higher standard of political discourse, and that starts with not voting for people who attack other people! But I agree that attack ads do seem to be strangely effective.

The newest twitter celebrity

If you weren't watching/tweeting the debate last night you missed this woman:



Her name is Mme Paillé and she's asking about unemployment in those over 50. She herself is currently unemployed.

Well, of course, the leaders all spent the next 20 minutes trying to prove how their own platform planks would help poor Mme Paillé. The twitterverse was confused for a while, and then we realized that Mme Paillé was the "Joe the Plumber" everyman type for this election and "Mme Paillé" became the number 3 top trending topic in Canada. And then someone made a facebook fan page for her. The CBC has a collection of the best tweets.

Anyhow. The Journal de Montréal interviewed Mme Paillé for her reaction to the whole thing. She thinks Layton and Ignatieff did the best job at answering her initial question, and said Harper "had no empathy" for her situation.

Now people are offering her jobs over twitter but she's waiting to see if any come up in her area.

Oh, Mme Paillé. Hero of the people.

UPDATE: Because the CBC decided to post a new article five minutes after I posted this. So apparently there were about six facebook groups, one of which declared Mme Paillé the winner of the debate, and one of which declared her the new minister of labour. Not too shabby. Someone also suggested that she should be in charge of the next referendum.

If you weren't watching the NHL draft lottery you may have noticed there was a debate

So there was a debate. It was interesting. Actually, no, that's a complete lie. It was really, really boring. Except for when they yelled at each other. Stephen Harper didn't look directly at the camera or at the other leaders, stayed very calm, spoke in a patronizing tone, downright lied more than a few times, and said, "That's simply not true" a whole lot. Jack Layton was friendly, made some good points, called Harper out for having changed his ideals from when he first arrived in Ottawa, and basically turned out very well. Gilles Duceppe attacked Harper (his strategy this whole campaign), said a few things about Quebec that I could TELL the second came out of his mouth would be misinterpreted/misquoted, and got a bit angry which made his English a little bit sloppy. Michael Ignatieff did the best at bringing up youth issues, made some very insightful and incisive remarks about Harper's rule, and produced the most soundbites. Like he was basically speaking in soundbites. Very history prof. Obviously as a history student I approve, although he used a lot of what I call "essay words".

If there are awards, then Harper wins the one for cool-headedness. However he somehow managed to not really answer the questions put to him by the other leaders. He dismissed talk of his contempt charge, trust, and accountability, and shied away from talking about the Auditor General's report that he misquoted. He was also very dismissive and patronizing towards the other leaders, their platforms, and their points.

Jack Layton was definitely the most friendly and personable. Ignatieff called him "Jack" throughout the debate (maybe the other leaders did too but I didn't notice) and he somehow manage to seem more human and more normal than the other leaders. He also had a few good burns against each of the other leaders, especially Ignatieff's absence from the House of Commons and Harper's change of opinion since he came into power.

I personally love Gilles Duceppe, although he doesn't come across nearly as well in English as he does in French. I thought he seemed a little emotional in this debate--although I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, the idea that we should have unemotional and therefore impartial leaders is kind of a fallacy. He absolutely ATTACKED Stephen Harper with the 2004 coalition agreement, which shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who's been following him so far. Unfortunately Duceppe's comments about multiculturalism not working in the Quebec context were misinterpreted. It's important to remember that Quebec's model of integration is different from the model of multiculturalism in the rest of Canada, but IS NOT ASSIMILATION. (Sidenote: as the daughter of an immigrant I personally feel that integration works better than multiculturalism. The problem with multiculturalism is that everybody cares so much about what piece of the cultural mosaic you come from when you just consider yourself Canadian.)

Michael Ignatieff WINS on youth issues and WINS on women's issues and WINS on immigration issues and WINS on sound-bite production. But he did get a little bit passionate--as I mentioned before NOT A BAD THING. Also he didn't have a good response to Layton's accusation that he's absent a lot from the House of Commons, or any of the accusations that his platform has a lot of the same holes in it as the Conservative one. And while Ignatieff may have won on youth and women's issues, by being the only leader to actually bring them up (other than gang violence), he really didn't say that much on them.

Anyway. I wish they would have covered some different issues, or at least not always let each question turn into the same argument over and over again. I also would have loved to see them scream insults at each other but maybe that's just me.

Memes! Duceppe, Harper, Layton.

Michael Ignatieff on Youth

Election Coverage News

So the French language leadership debate was scheduled for the same time as a Montreal Canadiens playoff game. Clearly, this was a disaster. (Actually, it was, because as anyone from Quebec knows, the Habs are practically a religion.) So Gilles Duceppe got it moved. So pro, Gilles, so pro.

According to a new poll, 21% of voters are using social media to discuss and debate the election. Apparently middle-aged voters more so than young voters, probably for the practical reason that young voters have much better things to do with their social media. I think I shall take this as a call to arms and encourage you ALL to spend more time posting political statuses on Facebook. It's what all the cool kids are doing.

I think by now all of the major parties have released their platforms. In the coming week or so I'll be looking at them and seeing how they compare on youth and student issues. After that I will probably do some quick overviews of the more minor political parties. And of course I'll have a lot to say for the leadership debates!

Looking Deeper

One of my favourite things about being a student is having all of these people, in a very small geographic area, learning about and becoming specialists in all sorts of different things. And then whenever you talk to people, they're all coming at the issue from very different perspectives and backgrounds.

"I'm actually not a fan of the Liberal platform," a friend of mine, majoring in Global Development Studies, mentioned recently. "It's so focused on numbers and money. A lot of social problems just can't be reduced to the economics of it."

I pointed out that the government's job is basically to allocate resources, so the money side of things is really all they can look at, beside making or changing laws. She shrugged.

"I just don't like this focus on the deficit. I feel like they're going to end up cutting programs that provide a lot of good services to communities. You know who's platform is really well thought out? The Green Party."

Fair enough.

Another friend, a business student, told me, "I was reading the Liberal platform, and I wasn't very impressed. They're so focused on getting rid of this deficit, they want to get rid of it too soon. Carrying a deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing. We're so used to hearing about the deficit in the 90's, which shouldn't have happened because our economy was in a good place. But when the economy is doing badly, being leveraged gives you a lot more flexibility."

She explained that worrying about keeping a balanced budget in tough economic times makes you afraid to spend, and the government should spend because it's easier for it to take a hit and go into deficit than it is for individuals to go into debt due to losing their jobs or not having the same social programs.

"The Conservatives are promising to get rid of it sooner," I said.

She rolled her eyes. "Their economic policy has always been for less tax, less spending, and whatever sounds good to the average person, who is not a trained economist. They're pandering to get the votes."

This post isn't intended to be for or against any particular party. I just want to encourage you to approach the party platforms critically, and talk about them with people who are coming from a completely different perspective. Discussion is healthy!

I wish this meant tuition cuts, but I don't think it does

Transcript:

We all know the best way to ensure our kids get good jobs in the future, is to give them a great education today...but a university or community college education can be expensive. That's why the Liberal Plan will put four thousand dollars in a post-secondary savings fund for every high school student in the country. That's our message to young Canadians:
if you get the grades, you get to go. That's the Canada we want. That's the Canada you deserve.

Grit vs. Tory: Youth and Student Issues

So the Liberals released their platform over the weekend, and the Conservatives are basing theirs on the budget that the House never voted on.  Here is a handy issue-by-issue comparison, if you're interested.  I mainly wanted to see who turned out better in youth issues and student issues, and the Liberals won this one.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Liberals:
- In year two, provide $1,000 each year to every university or college student, for up to four years. Low-income families get more ($1,500).
- Forgive $1,500 in student-loan debt for Canadians who volunteer with the Canada Service Corps.
- $200 million over two years for aboriginal post-secondary education.
Conservatives:
- Will allow Canadian students at foreign universities to qualify for existing tax breaks if their study term is less than 13 weeks.

Or, you know, the Liberals could just lower everyone's tuition by $1000.  Please please please?  

The Liberals also plan to provide incentives to medium-sized businesses who hire 18 to 25-year-old workers.  And then there's this, not strictly a youth issue but a student one: 

VETERANS
Liberals:
- Free tuition, up to four years of post-secondary or technical training, for veterans who've completed their service.
- Will review controversial lump-sum payment disability award.
Conservatives:
- Will put into effect a new Veterans Charter Act which expands eligibility for monthly allowances for seriously injured veterans and also boosts benefits.
RURAL
Liberals:
- $500 million to ensure 100 per cent high-speed Internet connectivity within three years.
- Student loan forgiveness for those who served in rural or underserved small towns: $8,000 per year (up to $40,000) for family doctors; $4,000 (up to $20,000) for nurses and nurse practitioners.
Conservatives:
- To attract health care workers to rural areas, Tories will forgive up to $40,000 in loans for new family doctors, and up to $20,000 for nurse practitioners and nurses.

So, yeah.  I would say the Liberals won this round in the youth vote race.  

Mobilizing Youth Voters: just fracking give us something to vote about!

Another good piece, this time at the Ottawa Citizen, although it's much more skeptical about youth actually coming out and voting, which I hate.  I wouldn't call youth "elusive."

"The jury is out to a certain extent on what ultimately are the causes of youth-declining voter turnout," says Keith Archer, a political science professor at the University of Calgary.
"The parties have been slow in reaching out to young voters where they may pay attention to politics."

I would say that that's it exactly.  There are campaign signs all over the city but none on my university campus.  And young people who go and actually look at the party platforms come away without any burning desire to elect anyone, because most of the issues just don't apply.  It's not that youth don't care about who's running our country, it's that we don't care about most of the issues on the party platforms.  The fact that promises directed towards young people are almost entirely absent erases us from public discourse on electoral politics and alienates us from electoral politics.  

So, how will parties get young adults to care, and in turn, get them to the ballot box?
The Conservative party hopes to engage younger adults by treating them like any other voter, rather than pander to specific demographics.
The party no longer has a youth wing, and a spokesman says it's up to individual campaigns to reach out to younger voters in their ridings.

This is exactly NOT what to do if you want to gain support among young people.  The Conservatives have a stable amount of support from the kind of young people who always vote no matter what, it's true.  But that kind of tactic isn't going to win them many more new voters.  For all of their desire not to "pander to specific demographics," most of their platform seems to be aimed at young families, and the number of voters under 25 who have young children is not that big.  They also target seniors--I think young families and seniors already form the core demographics behind their support, so this makes sense.  But you can't get youth voters by "treating us like any other voter," you have to reach out, because literally no plank of the Tory platform would make any difference in my life.  

Green party leader Elizabeth May says the commonly held belief that "young people don't vote" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Her party is spending time on campuses with its youth wing, as well as using social media to communicate with tech-savvy youngsters.

See, THIS is what you need to do in order to attract new youth voters.  I've already mentioned that the Green Party have by far done the best job at reaching out to young people.  In order to get young people to vote for you, you have to (1) campaign directly to them, and (2) make sure you campaign on issues that they care about.  Elizabeth May is winning at this.  

I don't know.  This reminds me more and more of the movie The Trotsky, where all the adults believe the students are apathetic, but in the end it turns out they were just bored and with enough of a push they were mobilized into activism.  Actually, I think maybe they should have a screening of that movie in each party HQ.  

Greens Advocate Youth Employment Initiatives / Les Verts ont une stratégie d'emploi pour la jeunesse

Transcripts / transcriptions:

Good Morning.  Well, here we go.  For the fourth time in seven years, Canadians are going to the polls again.  And every time we go into an election campaign, it seems like it's more negative and nastier than the one before.  Sadly, this one looks like the nastiest campaign in Canadian history and we're only on day one.  Canadians know we can do better, and I know that my colleagues who lead the other federal political parties can do much better.  You've shown Canadians for the last few years how you can disagree on things.  Let's do something different for a change.  Let's start this federal election campaign showing Canadians that it's possible to agree.  Greens want to create this place where we can agree and we're launching it today.  Here's our first important policy proposal to all the other federal political parties, for something where we can show Canadians we can work together for everyone's benefit.  Here we go. We've seen persistent unemployment, even as we are coming out of a recession, among our youth.  Youth unemployment is a significant problem, and it's not getting better.  We need a new program, something that gets job training to Canadian youth, something that gets them the jobs they want, something that helps them get through university without emerging with an horrific student debt.  A program for our youth, job training, jobs for the future, and helping them get through school, is something on which we can all agree. The details are on our website, but come on guys, let's agree on something.  Let's start this election campaign by giving Canadians something positive they can believe in.

Bonjour.  Pour la quatrième fois en sept ans, le Canada déclenche des élections fédéral.  Malheureusement, ces élections seront sans doute les plus négatifs de toute l'histoire du Canada.  Les canadiennes et les canadiens devront enfronter??? 36 jours de politiques où tous les coups sont permis, des plus basses injures aux coups de pieds dans les genoux.  On en est au premier jour, et déjà, les canadiennes et les canadiens en ont assez.  Alors voilà six ans que nous avons un gouvernement minoritaire, sept ans quand on pense à les Libéraux.  Et enterrit???, cela signifie que tous les partis devraient se consulter, coordonner leur interversion??? et coopérer, parce que les électeurs n'ont donné pas un mandat clair à aucun d'entre eux pour gouvernement seul.  Je croix que la majorité des électeurs seraient d'accord pour dire qu'ils ont lamentablement échoué au test de la collaboration.  Alors, voici le défit que je lance à tous les autres partis et tous leurs chefs.  Vous avez prouvé que vous étiez particulièrement doués pour la chicane.  Pourquoi ne pas prouver aux électeurs que de temps en temps, vous pouvez vous entendre, montrez aux canadiens et canadiennes que leurs chefs sont capables d'êtres positifs, et pas seulement négatifs.  Pour le reste de la première semaine, le parti Vert vous proposa chaque jour une question ou une idée sur laquelle nous croyons que tous les partis peuvent s'entendre.  Voici donc notre premier proposition pour une question sur laquelle tous les partis devraient pouvoir s'entendre.  Il nous faut une stratégie d'emploi et de l'éducation pancanadienne pour les jeunes.  Le récession a frappé les jeunes de plan floué???, avec le ??? crise économique que tout le monde connaisse, ce sont les jeunes qui seront oubliés.  Certains commencent à peine leurs, alors que d'autres terminent leurs études post-secondaires.  Ils n'ont pas encore les compétences pour être compétitifs sur un marché de l'emplois saturé, mais il ne pourront pas acquérir ces compétences sans emploi. Sans emploi, ils ne pourront pas continuer à financier leurs études, et en payer pour des droits de scolarité qui grimpent en flèche.  Nous devons faire quelque chose différent.  Maintenant je veux proposer à tous les autres partis en politique, aux canadiens, à les autres chefs, à M. Layton, M. Harper, M. Duceppe, M. Ignatieff, un nouveau idée.  Pourquoi pas mettre sur pied un nouveau programme pour les jeunes?  Un programme pour l'emploi, un programme pour les études.  C'est très important que notre jeune connaisser bien que tous les partis et tout la société n'oublie pas leurs problèmes et leurs défis.  Alors, maintenant nous pouvons commencer des matinées??? en inviter pour éviter que les jeunes canadiennes et les jeunes canadiens ne tombent au travers les mailles de filet, et ratent ainsi l'occasion de parfaire leur éducation, et d'obtenir les compétences requises a l'étape la plus important de leurs vies.  Nous pouvons créer une génération qui participe pleinement à la vie socio-économique.  On ne pouvons ignorer la question pendant encore quatre ou cinq ans, le temps que la reprise économique fasse son chemin.  Nous découvrions alors que nous avons une génération entier de jeunes canadiennes et jeunes canadiens sous-qualité, qui sont perdus dans notre société.  Au parti Vert, nous préférons de loin la première solution, et nous croyons que tous les autres partis le préfère aussi.  C'est pourquoi je demande aux autres chefs de parti de se lever aujourd'hui et de dire Oui, nous pouvons nous entendre pour cette question.  Aujourd'hui, nous pouvons tous admettre que le Canada doit invister??? aux les jeunes importants immédiatement.  Merci et bonjour.