You may not have realized this, but I am actually not an ice cream cone

So there was this thing called "election-themed flavour of the week, and was like, "Oh, I wonder what that is? Perhaps a selection of the most popular stories of the week!" My Awesome Housemate was like, "The flavour of the week should be orange crush!" And then we clicked on it and it is neither of those things. Instead it's a collection of pictures of attractive female candidates. Can I be appalled? The "sexiest election candidate" was one thing, because it was equal-opportunity and also you knew what you were getting into when you clicked on the link. And this one also has little blurbs underneath the pictures that half the time sounds like a personals ad… you know, "enjoys mountain biking with that special someone!" SO disgusted right now. Women are not ice cream cones. "Flavour" of the week, pah.

Brain Break Time!

You know that famous picture of Stephen Harper holding a cat? New internet meme: Cats Holding Stephen Harper. (In Soviet Russia...) I made my own entry, armed with my (admittedly poor) photoshop skillz:

Speaking of cats, a pollster going door to door found more than 50 of them in one Toronto home. The owner has been arrested and charged with cruelty to animals.

On a completely unrelated note, one blog is running a poll on Canada's sexiest election candidate. It's in the final round, with four male and four female candidates left in the running from across the country (including, of course, the Liberal stud-in-residence, Justin Trudeau). The Globe and Mail subtly disapproves. "Do Canadians need to be sexually cajoled into voting?" it asks. And, "Mr. Bussey says his superficial exercise was intended 'to encourage you to vote,' but does Canada want this cohort's vote?" Don't worry, I'm sure it will be balanced out by the people who staunchly vote for the same party their father always voted for.

Clearing the Air on Parliament and Government

Two things I want to draw your attention to. First, Peace, Order, and Good Government, Eh?'s five principles of parliamentary democracy:

1. Parliament is the core institution of Canadian democracy. The House of Commons, its elected chamber, is the one body elected by all Canadians.

2. When Canadians go to the polls they elect the House of Commons not a government. The right to govern goes to the members of the house who can secure its confidence.

3. The prime minister is the servant of the House of Commons and must be accountable to it all times.

4. When no party has a majority in the House of Commons, it is for the House to decide what kind of government it will support. In these situations, the House basically has three choices: 1) a coalition government of two or more parties who share cabinet posts; 2) a minority government in an alliance with two or more parties who agree to support it on the basis of agreed upon policies but who do not share cabinet posts; 3) a minority government that works out agreements with opposition parties issue by issue.

5. The Governor General's role is to exercise the crown's discretionary reserve powers only when necessary to permit the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy.

I think these are very important to remember, especially when we look at the next item, Dan Gardner's reasoned discussion of leadership and minority governments. On the desirability of minority governments:

Lots of people agree, at least about the desirability of majority government. Majority is normal, they feel. Majority is stable. After a string of minorities, each more rancorous and dysfunctional than the last, a majority is the only thing that can pull Parliament out of the quagmire and deliver effective government.

This is not an unreasonable view. But it's wrong. Starting with its basic premise.

Minority governments are not some strange and unfortunate aberration. One survey of democratic governments in western Europe and the British Commonwealth between 1945 and 1987 found that 87 per cent did not feature a single governing party in control of a majority of seats. They were minorities, in other words.

Within Canada, the first federal minority government was formed in 1921. Since then, there have been 27 governments, 13 of which were minorities.

Most of these minority governments were nowhere near as rancorous and dysfunctional as the last Parliament. Some functioned brilliantly. The minorities of Lester Pearson had partisan clashes and scandals — they all do — but they were among the most productive in history.

The story is the same internationally. Name a peaceful, prosperous, well-governed country and chances are you have named a country in which minority governments are the norm.

Agnes Macphail said something similar, in the speech I quoted earlier today: "I do not believe that when you have a stable government—one with a very comfortable majority, you get a good government [...] I do not see how we can expect a legislative program that will be pleasing to our constituencies."

But anyway, back to Dan Gardner. He makes the point that the Conservative minority government worked well its first year or so, until Stephane Dion became the leader of the Opposition and Harper sensed a chance for a majority:

Out went decorum, respect and negotiation. In came insults, stonewalling and brinksmanship.

The Opposition contributed to fractiousness — recall the new Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff declaring the prime minister to be "on probation" — but historians will heap the lion's share of the blame on Stephen Harper. The petty and pointless provocations. The how-to manual on obstructing committees. The constant refusal to deliver documents demanded by the House of Commons. The historic speakers' rulings. The even more historic contempt verdict.

It's a dismal record. Perhaps worst of all were the attack ads: A prime minister who sincerely intends to work with an Opposition leader does not publicly and viciously insult the man he will shake hands with over the negotiating table.

That's the biggest problem with Harper saying he won't negotiate with other leaders if he gets another minority. Leaders of minority governments HAVE to negotiate with the other leaders or nothing will get passed. It's one of the most important checks and balances of a government. Refusing to negotiate will lead to the instability Harper predicts.

Why? It's not a defect inherent in minority government. Nor is it that the big three parties have irreconcilable visions and policies. In fact, the substantive disagreements between the parties are as small or smaller than they've ever been in modern times.

No, the problem is the leader. Stephen Harper gambled everything on winning a majority. Now, after swearing that anything less would cause earth to shudder and sky to weep, it would be personally calamitous if a Conservative minority government functioned smoothly.

Harper said there would be instability, damn it. And he will make sure of it.

It may not come to that, fortunately.

It's likely the Liberals will be under new management soon, which should help blow away some of the animosity hanging in the air over Parliament Hill.

But what would make all the difference is a new Conservative leader, which is possible. Having tried and failed four times to win a majority — including twice against the weakest Liberal leaders in modern history — Stephen Harper may decide it is time for a career change. Or Conservatives may decide it for him.

Ominous.

YES. YES. YES.

On Friday, I posted about Michael Taube and his article suggesting vote mobs were a terrible idea. I was quite upset at his suggestion that vote mobs were circuses designed to get apathetic radicals off their couches and into the polls in order to screw up democracy. (At least, in final sum, I think that was the main thrust of his argument. It wasn't particularly coherent.)

Today comes this lovely response full of WIN. An excerpt:

And to Taube’s question: “Do you really think any of the major leaders honestly cares that some 18-25-year-olds who wouldn’t ordinarily vote have suddenly been convinced by a comedian’s rant on TV?”

In a word, sir, No. The vote mobs, Mr. Taube, Mr. Harper, Mr./Ms. Member of Parliament, are not for you. They’re for me. For us. For the 18-25-year-old crowd. We’re not convincing you, we’re convincing ourselves. We’re convincing ourselves that we really do matter and that we really do have potential political clout. We also mob to remind ourselves, and to tell other youth, that we are the problem. The fact that our political power goes unrealized is a problem only we created and only we can solve. Politicians don’t listen because we don’t vote. When we dance, scream, and yell “VOTE!” we’re not talking to you, Sir, we’re talking to each other.

I don’t really care whether or not the party leaders see our video. What I want is for youth across Canada to see it. They’re the reason I left my books in the library to go out in the cold and jump around, not you, not the adults, not the political leaders.

I find it incredibly sad that some see Vote Mobs as an indication of something wrong with either youth or Canada. If we were protesting anything, it was apathy. If we were celebrating anything, it was Canada and democracy. In light of events across the world, for example, the protests in Egypt, 300 young Canadians rallying in front of their school, singing O Canada and waving signs that say “Vote” is an indication of all that’s right in Canada.

You should really go read it in full, because it's many shades of awesome.

"Dirty Tricks" and "Imagined Scandals": Power, Partisan Politics, and the 2011 General Election

If I was writing a history paper on this election campaign, that is what I would call it.

First, the dirty tricks. They are the actions of a small few, and not representative of the general population:

The sum effect is that people are left with a bad taste in their mouths (a new Angus Reid survey shows 80 per cent of Canadians are politically "scattered between mistrust, cynicism and alienation"), despite the best efforts of most candidates to run clean campaigns.

"I see it as a few bad apples in a pretty darn good system," said Capstick. "If you go to local debate, after local debate, you'll see candidates shaking hands — and meaning it. Some of them even hug."

Of course, hugging doesn't tend to make headlines.

But even looking at the bad behaviour that is making headlines, experts say things could — and have been — much worse, with most pointing to previous violence by the Front de liberation du Quebec between 1963 and 1970.

J. Scott Matthews, an assistant professor of political studies at Queen's University, said the problem is that the actions of a few are being mistaken for the sentiments of the many.

And now for the scandals, which are apparently imaginary.

A Liberal ad (now revised) claimed that Stephen Harper is after “absolute power.”

Really?

And, when one person was kept out of Harper rally, the media went on a feeding frenzy. I’m not saying it was right to keep that one person out of the rally, but I’m pretty sure that our democracy was not threatened.

The same is true of the various scandals surrounding the Conservatives: Afghan detainees, Kairos funding, Rights & Democracy, Bev Oda, in-and-out funding, ethnic fundraising, Helena Guergis, Rahim Jaffer, Bruce Carson, proroguing parliament, and right up to contempt of parliament.

Time and time again, we’ve been warned that the scandal-ridden Conservatives are a threat to our democracy.

Have we lost all perspective in Canada?

No. Perhaps you have. Because the scandals surrounding "Aghan detainees, Kairos funding, Rights & Democracy, Bev Oda, in-and-out funding, ethnic fundraising, Helena Guergis, Rahim Jaffer, Bruce Carson, proroguing parliament, and right up to contempt of parliament" all sound pretty threatening to democracy to me.

Anyway. The later part of the article is less eyebrow-raising. He makes the point that no one is really focused on the issues anymore, and we're all getting distracted by this flouffy scandal stuff, which is fair--I mean, Bruce Carson and Helena Guergis won't even be footnotes in history textbooks in twenty-five years, but the actual policies governments create have lasting effects.

This is Terrible

I am appalled.

Liberal campaign organizers in central Toronto say they have seen a record level of election-related vandalism as party supporters complained of scratched cars and slashed tires, while across town, the Liberals said they had fired a campaign worker after complaints he was removing Green party literature from mailboxes.

Vandals in the central riding of St. Paul's have targeted at least 45 cars in front of homes with Liberal lawn signs over the Easter long weekend, said Lynne Steele, campaign manager for Liberal incumbent Carolyn Bennett.

There has been "much, much more" vandalism than during the 2008 election, when vandals slashed the brake lines on some cars owned by Liberal supporters. This year, the vandalism has been so widespread that Bennett's campaign is hoping to hold a postelection fundraiser to pay for repairs to Liberal supporters' cars. "Some of the people have been hit two and three times," she said.

Seriously. Seriously. What are elections in this country coming to?

People Think Really Deep Thoughts

The biggest news so far this long weekend is that the NDP have made gigantic gains in the polls, leading all the other parties to gang up on it. If anyone says that this election hasn't changed anything in federal politics, there's your most concrete example right there.

I am not a fan of attack ads, so I'm not going to focus on this (although you can easily find them on YouTube if you are interested). Instead, here are a bunch of opinion pieces about widely different topics.

1) Andrew Coyne thinks that Harper is laying the ground for a constitutional crisis. Clearly Harper knows that coalitions are viable options--he thought of forming one himself in 2004. But talking of a potential coalition government or second-party-minority government as "undemocratic" might be a preparation for a second King-Byng--if the government loses the confidence of the House, Harper might demand that the governor general call an election instead of asking another party to form the government.

2) Rita Trichur is pissed at ethnic tokenism and blatant pandering to "ethnic voters" this election. Worst of all, special focus on South Asian and East Asian communities is alienating other minority ethnic groups.

3) Joe O'Connor speculates who would be king or queen of Canada if we ever decided to rid ourselves of our current monarchy.

That's it for tonight. Tomorrow: an influx of vote mob videos!

Mob Mentality

Yesterday, I read this and it made me really angry. It's an opinion piece by Michael Taube, a former Harper speechwriter, about why vote mobs are a terrible, horrible, very bad idea. I already knew I was going to be unimpressed by the second paragraph: "A few weeks ago, there was no such thing as a “vote mob.” But an idea hiding in a deep, dark corridor of comedian Rick Mercer’s brain has, quite by accident, unleashed this holy terror onto unsuspecting Canadians." Holy terror? Srsly? Don't you think that's a bit overdramatic? Taube also says, "Thanks a bunch, Rick. Just what Canada always wanted: another excuse for young people to do foolish things in public, complete with a mob mentality. I’ll make sure you get an extra lump of coal in your stocking at Christmas for your good deed!"

Excuse me, sir. I did not realize that making a public demonstration of our intentions to perform our civic duty and vote counted as "doing foolish things in public." Please allow me to grovel at your feet in forgiveness.

Taube argues, first of all, that vote mobs aren't going to encourage anyone to vote who wasn't going to do so already. This is a common criticism of vote mobs, and my opinion on this subject is down later after I've finished ranting. Anyway, back to Taube:

Also, vote mobs aren’t going to force major changes in the political parties to recognize youth issues. Do you really think any of the major leaders honestly cares that some 18-25 year-olds who wouldn’t ordinarily vote have suddenly been convinced by a comedian’s rant on TV? I hate to break it to them, but there are already young people in all political parties who have been volunteering in campaign offices for weeks. They do everything from answering phones to helping shape policy. These are the type of young voters that the parties want to attract, not those of the circus clown variety.

At the same time, is it a wise idea to encourage young people to vote who aren’t well informed on politics and current events to begin with? For instance, there is a political radicalism among youth — especially the type of youth who would stay home on election day — that could lead to many fringe parties receiving votes. This is good for democracy, but not necessarily for political stability. While no one is expecting all young people to have PhD-level understanding of the Canadian political system, a decent amount of knowledge would be nice.

You think that just because we dance around in bright colours to demonstrate our enthusiasm, we are "circus clown" voters instead of "serious" voters? I don't think this even dignifies a response. Also: have you ever tried to control a crowd of 300 screaming young adults, or an elephant? Requires skills I imagine you don't possess. Have some respect for the circus, please.

And then--"...encourage young people to vote who aren't well informed on politics and current events to begin with." Well colour me infuriated. Do you think that all "non-young" adults who vote are informed about the issues? Today when I was standing in line at the advance poll, I heard a middle-aged man say that the results would probably be the same as last time, because nothing had happened to change people's opinions. WHAT. I wanted to turn around and tell him everything I've posted on this blog in the past month, and more. An even bigger problem is people (particularly elderly people) who vote out of tradition. Two close friends of mine say their grandmothers do this--the one votes Conservative every election because her father always voted Conservative, the other considers herself to come from a strong Grit family and so votes Liberal in every election out of family tradition. (Both of these women live in rural areas where memories are long and traditions strong.) Being informed about the issues has never been a requirement for voting for any segment of the population--and I think that young people are more likely to NOT vote if they feel uninformed.

Don't even get me started on "there is a political radicalism among youth — especially the type of youth who would stay home on election day." I feel like he's probably imagining a person who votes for the Marijuana Party but accidentally gets high on election day and forgets to go to the polls. Or something. Because all of the young people I know who are politically radical are making a point of returning a ballot this election--even if it's a blank one.

And you know what? I would like to see a decent amount of knowledge about the political system from our leaders, thank you. A lot of the most politically active students are studying politics or related fields, and know WAY MORE SHIT about parliamentary democracies than the general population.

I'm sure that Mr. Taube also imagines that young people don't read newspapers, or perhaps he wouldn't have submitted something so negative against young people to be published.

Anyway. Happier news. The CBC interviewed some vote mob participants in Toronto. It's pretty interesting.

The other day I participated in a vote mob myself, and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the experience. While it was happening--the running, the screaming, the cheering, the chanting, the waving of signs, the dancing, the singing--I felt invigorated, enthused, inspired. The only problem was that, unlike your average rally, this was explicitly being filmed for YouTube, and so the camera operators needed to get a lot of shots of us to edit together later. We would run around the intersection, dance for about a minute, cheer, dance a bit more, and then run around the intersection again... rinse & repeat... that really got in the way of the momentum and just became exhausting.

After I got home, I thought about it. I thought about the students who streamed out of exam halls as we started our mob, and who we were supposed to be trying to engage. I thought about their faces... confused, amused, or indifferent. Groups of people in colourful outfits running around, cheering, and waving signs are actually a fairly common sight on my campus. (Another reason why I took offense to Taube's "circus clown" comment...) And I thought about the twenty minutes we spent standing around before the vote mob started, waiting for exams to let out so we could make noise. A couple of girls walking by on the sidewalk knew one of the participants who was standing near me, and they came up to ask her what was going on. She explained about the vote mob movement, about low youth voter turnout, about the importance of voting. The two girls looked interested. "That's really cool," one said. "I thought you guys were like rallying for the Young Liberals with all that red." "No! No! The red is for Canada!" "Ooooooohhhhhh..."

While those two girls walked away from us more informed and interested than they had been, I didn't see any of the students coming out of the exam halls join in our dancing/running/chanting/sign-waving. I realized that our brightly-coloured mob looked closed to them--no, not even that. The mob of people had become one amorphous blob of humanity, dancing-running-chanting-singing-running-dancing-chanting, alienating rather than welcoming.

That led me to two important thoughts. First, the potential for vote mobs to attract new voters lies more in the social media aspect--having an awesome YouTube video that makes its way around Facebook and Twitter--than in the actual vote mob itself. Second, vote mobs are important NOT just to encourage students to vote--the biggest criticism of vote mobbing. Of course they're almost entirely made up of people who were always going to vote anyway. That's not a problem. Vote mobs are the highly visible physical manifestation of some young people's political engagement. Because almost 40% of young people voted in the last election, and while that is a very small voter turnout, we focus so much on the almost two-thirds of youth who didn't vote that I think a lot of people often forget about the over one-third of youth who did. Showing up for a vote mob is kind of like putting on a "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt. Maybe we're less than half of youth, but we're here, we pay attention to the issues, we're voting, and you can't ignore us if we wear bright colours and scream really loudly (although you can call us circus clowns).

At the end of the day, a sign I saw at the vote mob expresses in itself why the vote mob phenomenon, why the visibility of youth voters, is so important: "We're not just the future. We're the present, too."

Sometimes the news makes me angry

What is this you say? You want to hear more from Stephen Harper and high-ranking Conservative cabinet ministers proving they have no understanding of or respect for parliamentary democracy? Okay. Here is more. And also here.

In case you can't tell, I'm still pissed this is even happening and even more pissed that Harper's fear-mongering, anti-parliamentary attacks are working.

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!

This is How a Parliamentary Democracy Works

The CBC have an article called "Ignatieff, Harper in war of words over minority scenarios". They've got that right.

So, here's the 411, to use Layton-esque slang. Yesterday, Michael Ignatieff said that if the Conservatives win a minority, but are unable to secure the confidence of the House, and the governor general asks the Liberals if they can form the government, he will try to do so.

He acknowledged that he could try to form a government — without going back to Canadian voters — if a Conservative minority is elected but subsequently defeated in the House of Commons. Moreover, Ignatieff made no apologies for that possibility — saying that this is exactly what would normally happen in a parliamentary democracy.

Ignatieff's comments set up a clear contrast with views held by Conservative leader Stephen Harper over the legitimacy of a government led by a second-place party and promise to be pivotal issues in the remaining days of the campaign.

He's absolutely right. This is exactly what would normally happen in a parliamentary democracy. It's called the Westminster system. In the Westminster system, electors choose the MPs that make up the House of Commons, and whichever party has the support of the House gets to form government whether it has the most seats or not. Usually the party that has the most seats gets to try first, but if things change, that party loses confidence but another party gains it, then that second party can form the government. Here's the hypothetical situation in question, according to Ignatieff:

"If Mr. Harper wins most seats, forms a government but does not secure the confidence of the House — and I'm assuming Parliament comes back — then it goes to the Governor General. That's what happens. That's how the rules work.

"And then, if the Governor General wants to call on other parties — myself for example — to try to form a government, then we try to form a government. That's exactly how the rules work. And what I'm trying to say to Canadians is, I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I'll follow them to the letter and I'm not going to form a coalition."

Seriously. Trust Ignatieff on this. He's right. That's what happens, that's how the rules work. I mean before he was a politician he used to study and teach this stuff for a living at some of the greatest universities in the world!

Stephen Harper sees things another way. He's already mentioned he thinks it's "undemocratic" that the second-place party rule. He also believes that Ignatieff is secretly talking about a coalition:

The Conservative leader said Wednesday he would be “honoured with any mandate” his party receives from voters on May 2.

But refused to discuss what changes to the party’s platform he would be willing to accept to keep the Conservatives in power if they win another minority.

Instead, Harper ratcheted up his rhetoric about the prospect of a coalition, calling it a ‘black hole” that would stall the recovery, provoke more constitutional squabbling, and trigger a “national-unity crisis.” He was likely referring to comments by Jack Layton in the English-language debate, in which the NDP leader said he was open to re-opening the debate on how to get Quebec to sign the constitution.

Harper also declared that an opposition coalition would lead to another referendum on whether Quebec should separate from Canada, even though it would be up to the provincial government to put forward such a vote.

“We don’t know what that government will stand for,” Harper said of a possible coalition.

“But we do know the general outlines. There’s no focus on the economy. There are tax hikes, and of course these parties have very dangerous and conflicting views on national unity and constitutional matters. So as I say, I think the option for Canadians to avoid all of this, is to vote for a strong, stable, national majority conservative government on May the second.”

Okay. First of all, it is FAR FROM a clear choice between a Strong Harper Majority and an Evil Reckless Coalition. Firstly, majorities tend to be more reckless than coalitions, who must remain moderate in order to appease all parties involved. Secondly, Ignatieff has said time and time again that he WILL NOT form a coalition, and in the hypothetical situation he has outlined he's not forming a coalition either. Thirdly, if there is a Conservative minority, what makes a minority stable is having the support of the House. If Harper refuses to co-operate with other parties, any minority he had would be lost very quickly. And I'm not even going to get into the allegations that a Liberal government will mean another sovereignty referendum in Quebec.

But back to the CBC article, where the leaders are bickering and trying to clarify their statements.

"I have never said I will vote against his budget," Ignatieff told reporters in Saint John.

Harper would have to negotiate support with the other parties and govern accordingly, he added.

"What I've said is, I want to form a government. I want to get … the most seats. I then want to offer a budget to the Parliament of Canada and seek its support. If he gets more seats than me or my party, then he will present a budget, and hey, you know what I do with a budget: I read it."

Harper says he wants to form a majority government. Ignatieff says he would be happy to form any government at all. Clearly this makes Ignatieff a volatile vigilante bandito. Even worse, the leader of a gang of volatile, vigilante, separatist, socialist banditos! But Ignatieff responds to Harper's comments about the coalition:

"No. I repeat, no," Ignatieff said to applause from Liberal supporters.

"I don't have a problem about coalition, and I don't have a problem about respecting the constitution of my country. With the greatest respect, I would tell you that Mr. Harper has a problem with both."

Later, Ignatieff said of Harper: "What does he think he is? The king here? It's 'my way or the highway' the whole time .… He has an obligation to present a budget that has the confidence of the House of Commons .… The ruthless, relentless disrespect for Parliament is why we're having an election here."

And Gilles Duceppe weighs in on the issue with clear insight, reminding me that during the leaders' debates some people commented that he has the best understanding of how our government works:

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe was critical Wednesday of what he called Harper's "no compromise" approach to dealing with the possibility of another minority government, calling it irresponsible.

Speaking with reporters in the Eastern Townships, Duceppe said Harper "needs to respect those whom Canadians choose to send to Ottawa to represent them."

Because, see, THIS is how the Westminster system works, THIS is how a parliamentary democracy works, THIS IS HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. We, Canadians, choose our MPs, based on the interests they're trying to protect. Then the MPs go to Parliament and duke it out there over who gets to form the government, based on who has interests in common. Your MP will presumably vote to protect the same interests WHETHER OR NOT their party is government. In the case of a minority government, it doesn't have that much more power than the other parties in terms of creating legislation, except it makes the budget. Whether a minority government is formed by the largest or the second-largest party doesn't really make a difference, because either way they have to work and compromise with other parties in order to pass their budgets and their bills. So, as Duceppe pointed out, Harper's refusal to work with the MPs the majority of Canada chose, in the case that he has a minority government, is incredibly irresponsible and WILL result in him losing confidence of the House.

This seriously feels like the King-Byng affair all over again. In that case, Mackenzie King's Liberals, who finished second to Arthur Meighen's Conservatives, formed the government with the support of the Progressives. The next year, when King's government was under threat due to a scandal caused by one of his ministers, King asked Lord Byng, the governor general, to dissolve parliament and call an election, but Byng refused. Since Meighen actually had more seats than King, Lord Byng wanted to give him a chance to form government before calling an election. Meighen was prime minister for only a couple of months before his government lost the confidence of the House. Then there was an election and King won a majority.

Moral of the story? Sometimes the second-place party makes a better government.

Also, I kind of want to be governor general. But that's another story.

Mid-Week Brain Break

I don't know about you, but I sure could use some silly right now. Let us see what the Internet has unearthed...

Ah ha! Vintage Voter has pictures of the party leaders as young'uns. Here is one of my favourites, Harper's high school year book picture:

Yep, that's ol' Steve-o. Considering the fate of the long form census, looks like reality is still his pet peeve. Anyway, the others are just as completely hilarious, so click through to the end. I also think they need to add this picture, of Jack Layton at a Star Trek convention.

Also, the leaders as Muppets:

Speaking of childhood memories... do you guys remember Raffi? Because IT'S RAFFI OH MY GOD IT'S RAFFI!!!!!!!



So Decision Canada started with celebrity Stephen Harper hair makeovers, which are pretty funny, and then progressed to "Chicks with Michael Ignatieff Eyes," which is just really really weird. What are they going to do next, babies with Jack Layton mustaches?

A couple of neat things. If you're interested, the CBC has a comparison of campaign ads. Also, you should go check out Vote Lab, where you can cast a virtual vote to see how different result would be under an alternate electoral system such as mixed member proportional representation.

Let's Talk about Leadership

1) The Internet is running for prime minister. I know. It's part of a movement against internet metering.



2) Judith Timson at the Globe and Mail asks, "Where are Canada's 21st-century leaders?" It's true that when our choice is between four grey-haired white guys in suits things start to feel a little bit 1867-ish. And also things can get a little boring. Asks Timson,

Four dark suits, four tasteful ties, four grey heads. Go crazy, Canada. That is what you will get no matter which major party you vote for. I ask you, where are the 21st-century leaders? Where are the political stars, male and female, of varying ethnic backgrounds, who as one professor of communications put it after the first debate, “transcend their party identity and add to the national narrative?

I love Judith Timson because the next thing she does is call Harper not just a robot but a "Teflon father-know-best bot".

Dr. Sévigny, who teaches a class in campaigns and elections, told me in a phone interview he thought the first debate seemed “incomplete” and, to use a marketing term, “off code” for the millennials and even other generations hooked into the Internet zeitgeist, the “code” being “diversity, inclusion, collegiality.”

I found the male lone gunslinger approach of each leader alienating and old-fashioned (I tried to do this, but you did that, now it’s high noon, dude). And, in a huge collegiality no-no, there was palpable loathing onstage between several of the leaders, some of it emanating from Mr. Harper, the man who wants you to give him a majority, he says, so that all this “bickering” will go away.

All true. Speaking of prime ministerial candidates and diversity and inclusion...

3) The CBC wants to know What I Would Do if I Were Prime Minister. Are you kidding me? If I were prime minister? There are SO MANY THINGS that I would do, starting with being cool and not boring, redecorating the PMO, and... hmm... oh yeah, fixing democracy.

No, in all seriousness, The National is asking people to submit one-minute videos explaining what they would do if they could be prime minister. Some of them will be shown on the show! YOU could be on the same program as Peter Mansbridge!!!

4) Um, this.

5) So the good people at Dose.ca ran all the major party leaders' names through various name generators, and the results are hilarious.

Real name: Stephen Harper

Wu-Tang Clan name: Sarkastik Professional

Hobbit name: Mungo Toadfoot of Frogmorton

Pirate name: Cap'n Casey Deadbones

Vampire name: Aelfric Brown, Devil of Bats and Shadows

Smurf name: Smoochie Smurf

--

Real name: Michael Ignatieff

Wu-Tang Clan name: Midnight Contender

Hobbit name: Berilac Danderfluff of Willowbottom

Pirate name: Drownin' Sid Bones

Vampire name: Milosh Crowley, Tiger of Beijing

Smurf name: Spooky Smurf

--

Real name: Jack Layton

Wu-Tang Clan name: Violent Desperado

Hobbit name: Sancho Brandybuck of Buckland

Pirate name: Pirate Benjamin the Bitter

Vampire name: Emperor of Angels, Consort of The Steely Moon

Smurf name: Happy Smurf

--

Real name: Gilles Duceppe

Wu-Tang Clan name: Optimistic Lyricist

Hobbit name: Moro Bracegirdle of Hardbottle

Pirate name: No-Neck Casey

Vampire name: High Priest of Night, Erebus of The Cruel

Smurf name: Ol' Mac Smurf

--

Real name: Elizabeth May

Wu-Tang Clan name: Detective Ventriloquist

Hobbit name: Peony Bulge of Hobbiton

Pirate name: "Chocolate" Blair Read

Vampire name: Magdalene Vigée-Lebrun, Leto of The Beltane Feasts

Smurf name: Summer Smurf

If you want to try the candidates in your riding, here are the links:

-Wu-Tang Clan name generator

-Hobbit name generator

-Pirate name generator

-Vampire name generator

-Smurf name generator

My riding is a close contest between Dog-Rum Doug and Rani of Scandinavia, the Mother of Sewer Rats.

Harper: American-style republicanism, and/or personality cult

Have you read this criticism of Harper from the Winnipeg Free Press? This was published before the government fell, but its author is Not Happy.

The longer "The Harper Government" stays in office, the more radical — and transformational — it becomes.
It is dismantling, layer by layer, nearly 150 years of Canadian parliamentary democracy. Into the trash can has gone respect for the institution and traditions of Parliament, moderation in public discourse, toleration of differences of opinion, respect for civil society's institutions and even, at times, respect for the rule of law.
Politics outside Parliament has descended into a cesspool of perpetual savage political attack ads. The poisonous hyperpartisanship of the American permanent election campaign is the new Canadian norm. Inside Parliament, the opposition is largely unable to hold government to account because ministers treat opposition MPs with flippancy, disdain, contempt, derision and insults.

Ouch. That's harsh.

Harper's personality cult prompts Prof. Rose to recall French King Louis XIV and his 17th-century divine right of kings: "L'État, c'est moi" (The state is me). The prime minister yearns to replace Canada's constitutional monarchy with the American presidential-congressional system. He objects having to be accountable to Parliament, abruptly shutting it down in December 2008 to avoid defeat by the opposition. And, like the American Supreme Court, which recently abolished all limits on third-party political advertising, he believes the thickness of one's wallet -- not the democratic principle of one person, one vote -- should rule.

No matter how you feel about Harper's policies, I don't think you can deny that he's been trying to move Canada to a system closer to the president-centric American one. Unfortunately for him, if we were a republic, he still wouldn't be president. He would be the Leader of the House.

Anyway. Talking about "Harper's personality cult" reminds me of this:

Five things to read over your Saturday morning coffee

1. This take on the uGuelph ballot debacle. Worthwhile even just for this graphic:

2. This article on the importance of being politically engaged. I'm not sure I agree with it. A friend told me I should write here about how we should vote because people DIED for our right to vote, but I don't think that's actually a super-convincing argument. Partially because, as a Canadian history major, I know way too much about both world wars and neither were really fought on the basis of protecting suffrage rights. People were more worried the country would be blown up. But that's another story. Anyway, Goetz's argument isn't that we should vote because people DIED, but rather that we should vote because CANADA. I find this marginally more convincing. Thoughts?

3. This young man's reaction to the French-language leaders' debate. Don't read the comments. They will just make you angry. In fact, never read the comments on major news sites unless you don't mind being made angry because there are always people saying angering things! In this case, wondering why teenagers are allowed to vote when they're "barely out of diapers", and kids these days don't know anything anyway, and don't vote because they can't text from the polling booth, and all other kinds of things that will make you say, HELLO HAVE YOU EVER MET A YOUNG PERSON OR DO YOU JUST SEE THEM ON TV A LOT? So, yeah. Don't read the comments.

4. This piece on the vote-swapping phenomenon. I heard about this last election, I think, but I didn't pay too much attention then. I'm kinda leery about it… seems a bit manipulative and underhanded. But then I guess so is gerrymandering…

5. "Stuff" my candidate says, which will make you shake your head.

Friday Night Brain Break

New tumblr: Things Harper Does to Seem Human.

Check out The Bacon Party of Canada. Their notes are my favourite. Straight-up hilarious parodies of campaign ad rhetoric.

Leavin' Stephen:


Lead Now parodies "I AM CANADIAN":


Steve Paikin interviews Rick Mercer:

Casting ballots!

Everyone knows that election day is May 2nd, but if you will be away/otherwise unable to vote on that day, you can cast your ballot on April 22, 23, or 25 at the advance polls. More info here. Don't forget to bring your government-issued ID and an official piece of mail with your address on it if the address on you ID isn't within the riding (i.e. if you're voting in the riding where you go to school).

It actually works out really well for students that the advance polling is over Easter long weekend, because then those of us who want to vote at home have a better shot. That's what I'm doing. Watch out for me at the advance polls on April 22/23, yo! Both my home riding and the riding where I live at school are close races between Liberal and Conservative candidates, and a lot of my friends are choosing to vote at school rather than at home in order to tip the scales, but I think my strategic vote has more strategic value in my home riding. WHOLE NEW LEVEL of strategic voting!

Speaking of ballots. Conservatives are asking that the ballots from a special polling station at Guelph University be disqualified. If there was partisan election material (ads or even signs or pamphlets from any of the parties or candidates), the polling station might be illegal. Or is it just the Conservatives freaking out because Guelph, who jump-started the vote mob movement, scared them?

UPDATE: Elections Canada declared the ballots valid.

We're Not Props for Photo-Ops! Oh, ethnic tokenism.

On Wednesday a Conservative staffer sent around an email asking if there were any ethnic people in Etobicoke, and if so, could they come to Harper's rally in "national folklore costume." Oh yes. He went there.

Of course both Harper and the Etobicoke Center Tory candidate are distancing themselves from the incident, and the Grits are having a field day wandering around blustering about how people don't wear costumes, they wear clothes. I read somewhere that Ignatieff said something along the lines of, 'it's not national costume, it's national dress', which admittedly isn't much better. But I can't find that article so I'm going to assume it's a claim as unsubstantiated as the Helena Guergis attacks.

Anyway, in AWESOMENESS news, there was a counter-rally on Thursday. From the CBC:

A Facebook page formed after the email was leaked calls the email "patronizing and offensive" and invites people to participate in a counter-rally outside the Etobicoke event.

"Whether you're Chinese, Arab, Portuguese, Italian, South Asian, Irish, Vulcan, Klingon, Zombie, or Ewok. Let's show the Conservatives that "ethnic voters" are not props for photo-ops," the Facebook page says.

Salmaan Khan, a Ryerson student who helped organize the event, said he felt it was important to respond to the email.

"Personally, as a person of colour, I found the comments that were made in the email from the Conservative camp to be offensive," he said Thursday. "We are not ethnics, we are Canadians."

He said cultural garb is not necessarily a costume.

"But that's how they worded it, and I guess that's what we'll show up in."

Khan said he is not sure how many people will attend the event, or what they would wear — but he said some people are planning to come dressed as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

"We're not props for photo-ops!" Good slogan, no? Sounds like something you would chant at a rally.

Now I am not a member of a visible minority group, but according to some people I am a member of an ethnic group, so I get sensitive about these kinds of issues. The rally sounds like fun. If I were in Toronto area I might have showed up in my Dolce & Gabbana or whatever is "ethnic costume" for us "Eye-talian" ethnics. Probably leopard print.

Anyway, here is the story, with footage from the rally, on Global:

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.

Some Funny/Awesome Stuff in Case You Are Bored

OK, so I have been a little bit in absentia today, and will be kind of in and out over the next few days on account of I Work Hard For My Tuition! Also: Final Papers Gah! Howsomever, here are some Things For You:



Pretty awesome, eh?

From last week: speculating on the leaders' pillow talk.

ALSO: Did you know that Rick Mercer writes for Maclean's now? Everything he writes is hilarious.

So the other day while googling "vote against apathy" (I am now 4 of the top 7 hits, including videos) I discovered that a few weeks ago someone tweeted about my blog, and I'm pretty sure I went to high school with this someone, which is cool. Or is it creepy that I remember that? Probably creepy.

Anyway. French-language debate coming up in less than an hour, and then I will be back to the Serious, Hard-Hitting Coverage you expect of me. But hopefully this will tide you over until then.