34 replies to this topic

[AxlsMainMan]

I'm seeing Rush in a few months.

They put on a superb show, Sir

[AxlsMainMan]

Health care top issue for Canadians: election poll

By Carmen Chai, Postmedia News
March 26, 2011

Health care tops a long list of concerns Canadians want federal parties to address during the election campaign, a Postmedia News poll shows.
The online poll conducted by Ipsos Reid exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National revealed that 18 per cent of Canadians felt health care was the most compelling issue, but that the economy, taxes and jobs should also garner politicians' attention between now and voting day May 2.

"The concern is about what the health-care plan is for the future. There's a sense that health care is drifting along, but it's an important part of our identity as Canadians. And, as our population is aging, it's a life and death issue. (Voters) are concerned about health care and it's just that they don't see anybody having a particular compelling plan on it," said Darrell Bricker, president of the global polling firm.

Ipsos Reid asked Canadians to name an important issue they'd mention if a local candidate for Parliament knocked on their door in the middle of a campaign. Fifteen per cent of respondents selected the economy, 12 per cent chose taxes and eight per cent felt unemployment was a national issues parties needed to address.

Bricker said the wide range showed the election, triggered after the government was defeated in the House of Commons on Friday following a Liberal non-confidence motion, doesn't really have a focal point.

"It's an election about nothing at this stage. There's no compelling issue that's emerged that says what this campaign is about," Bricker said.

He said polling results in 1988, for example, showed that more than 70 per cent of Canadians named free trade as an issue parties needed to take a stance on while campaigning, while ethics played a key role in 2006.

Bricker said that in 2008, the economy was a top priority for Canadians heading to the polls, but because the situation has improved, health care has returned to its original position higher up on the radar.

The federal government has limited jurisdiction over health care, a concept most Canadians aren't aware of though, Bricker noted.

Still, federal politicians have already promised to improve health care across the country with more doctors, and tax credits for families caring for ill relatives.

The dead on arrival budget pitched by the Conservatives this week included a clause that would offer some forgiveness of student loans to doctors willing to work in rural areas after the NDP demanded an increase in the number of doctors and nurses.

Meanwhile, the Liberals proposed a family care plan with a proposal that would add six months of employment insurance - instead of the current six-week coverage - to workers staying at home to care for a sick family member.

Trustworthiness - an issue the Liberals hope to highlight - was cited as the top issue by seven per cent of those asked, while the environment got support as the top issue from five per cent of those polled.

Between March 21 and March 23, 1,014 Canadian adults were interviewed online for the survey, which was weighted to bring it in line with Canadian demographics and has a margin of error of three percentage points nationally, 19 times out of 20.

Read more: http://www.canada.co...l#ixzz1HoBLrWxS

[artcinco]

I'm seeing Rush in a few months.

They put on a superb show, Sir

Seen them a few times over the years. Definitely a good show.

[AxlsMainMan]

Has U.S.-style 'voter suppression' made its way to Canada's election?

One vital question has received little attention so far in this election campaign: Whether “voter suppression” has migrated north from the United States.
The term refers to efforts by one political party, not to win votes, but to convince people not to vote at all. Democrats have long accused Republicans of trying to undermine voter registration drives and of poisoning the well of public discourse through their take-no-prisoners rhetoric.

Most nonpartisan political observers are appalled by the idea of voter suppression because, if true, it would mean a political party is deliberately undermining the health of the body politic and weakening democracy.

The Liberals believe that one reason they lost so badly in 2008 was that about 800,000 people who normally vote for them didn’t vote at all, contributing to the record low turnout in the last election.

They blame the relentlessly negative tone of the Conservative campaign, though they forget that the performance of then-leader Stephane Dion and his highly unpopular Green Shift carbon tax proposal surely had more to do with it.

In 2008, the Liberals managed to suppress their vote all on their own.

This time out, the Conservatives have once again bombarded viewers and listeners with negative advertising. The Grits have countered, belatedly, with negative ads of their own. Their problem, however, is that the Conservative base of around one voter in three is far more committed to their party than the rest of the electorate is to any party.

What we don’t know is whether there is an ulterior motive to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper’s incessant claims that, unless he wins a Tory majority, the Liberals will form a coalition with the NDP supported by the Bloc Québécois. Canadians objected strongly to such a proposal in 2008, which is why all three opposition parties deny having any such plans this time.

The Conservatives might be calculating that, even if the coalition bogeyman doesn’t win voters over to their side, the prospect might discourage some Liberal supporters from voting at all–a second-best result.

This may be a conspiracy too far. In all likelihood, no party is engaged in an overt campaign to depress voter turnout. But both the Liberals and the Conservatives may be hoping that, if they can mobilize their vote while discouraging voters who incline to their opponent, that’s not the worst thing in the world.

Call it passive voter suppression–a very Canadian way to play a nasty game.

http://www.theglobea...article1978944/

[freedom78]

Has U.S.-style 'voter suppression' made its way to Canada's election?

One vital question has received little attention so far in this election campaign: Whether “voter suppression” has migrated north from the United States.
The term refers to efforts by one political party, not to win votes, but to convince people not to vote at all. Democrats have long accused Republicans of trying to undermine voter registration drives and of poisoning the well of public discourse through their take-no-prisoners rhetoric.

Most nonpartisan political observers are appalled by the idea of voter suppression because, if true, it would mean a political party is deliberately undermining the health of the body politic and weakening democracy.

The Liberals believe that one reason they lost so badly in 2008 was that about 800,000 people who normally vote for them didn’t vote at all, contributing to the record low turnout in the last election.

They blame the relentlessly negative tone of the Conservative campaign, though they forget that the performance of then-leader Stephane Dion and his highly unpopular Green Shift carbon tax proposal surely had more to do with it.

In 2008, the Liberals managed to suppress their vote all on their own.

This time out, the Conservatives have once again bombarded viewers and listeners with negative advertising. The Grits have countered, belatedly, with negative ads of their own. Their problem, however, is that the Conservative base of around one voter in three is far more committed to their party than the rest of the electorate is to any party.

What we don’t know is whether there is an ulterior motive to Conservative Leader Stephen Harper’s incessant claims that, unless he wins a Tory majority, the Liberals will form a coalition with the NDP supported by the Bloc Québécois. Canadians objected strongly to such a proposal in 2008, which is why all three opposition parties deny having any such plans this time.

The Conservatives might be calculating that, even if the coalition bogeyman doesn’t win voters over to their side, the prospect might discourage some Liberal supporters from voting at all–a second-best result.

This may be a conspiracy too far. In all likelihood, no party is engaged in an overt campaign to depress voter turnout. But both the Liberals and the Conservatives may be hoping that, if they can mobilize their vote while discouraging voters who incline to their opponent, that’s not the worst thing in the world.

Call it passive voter suppression–a very Canadian way to play a nasty game.

http://www.theglobea...article1978944/

If everyone in the US voted (and the parties didn't change their positions) the Democrats would win an overwhelming majority of the time. So, given that, what incentive is there for Republicans to encourage higher turnouts? Does anyone think that parties really care about the body politic or democratic health? Of course not! It's about winning and politics has become a turnout game.

On the other hand, the nature of parliamentary elections should minimize this effect. You guys have less than two months of real campaigning; for our Presidential elections we now have about two years (ugh).

[artcinco]

I think it is weak to blame the other party for the fact that voters didn't turn out on election day to vote for you. In the business world if there were fewer customers than the previous year, the owners would try and figure out what they did differently or what made some of their customers go elsewhere. They would then try and correct it to win back the customers. In politics it has to be the mean campaign of the other guy. It could never be that some voters saw you in action the past term and were less than satisfied and either chose to stay home to send a message or heaven forbid vote for the other party.

[freedom78]

I think it is weak to blame the other party for the fact that voters didn't turn out on election day to vote for you. In the business world if there were fewer customers than the previous year, the owners would try and figure out what they did differently or what made some of their customers go elsewhere. They would then try and correct it to win back the customers.

In politics it has to be the mean campaign of the other guy. It could never be that some voters saw you in action the past term and were less than satisfied and either chose to stay home to send a message or heaven forbid vote for the other party.

The point, though, is that this isn't like business at all. Coke and Pepsi are competitors...but at the end of hte day they both make a lot of money. Coke doesn't win by getting Pepsi drinkers to stop drinking pop...Coke "wins" by getting them to switch to Coke or by getting prior non-pop drinkers to start drinking Coke. Think of it this way...if there were one million people who do not drink pop and we know that, IF they start drinking, they'll drink Pepsi 2:1, what does Coke do? They still want those people drinking pop because it still means an additional 333,000 new customers (i.e. more profit). They'll still try to get those Pepsi drinkers, old an new alike, but they still benefit from getting more people drinking pop, even if some go to the other side.

Now in politics, that model doesn't work at all. It's a zero sum game. Every voter who goes to the other guy is the exact same as a voter of yours who stayed home. Your goal isn't more votes, regardless of the other guy's total. Your goal is the MOST votes...even if you win one vote to none. If a candidate is behind by 10,000 votes, that ground can be made up in three ways: (1) getting a non-voter to vote for you is +1 (2) getting a voter for your opponent to switch to you is +2 or (3) getting an opponent's voter to stay home...another +1. Of course, they're going after all of these, but getting voters you can't get to at least stay home is part of the battle, regardless of what it does to democracy. Yes, of course, a candidate is also responsible for his/her own voters and getting them out. This is one reason the Obama campaign was so strong...they were great at turnout. But the opponent doesn't have to sell himself in order to make an impact...they simply need make you or the process unpalatable.

[artcinco]

I see your points about how my business analogy and politics isn't a great fit, but how can one party MAKE a voter who supports the other party stay home? The voter staying home makes that decision for whatever reason. The opposing party campaigns for their candidate and against their candidate's opponent. If points are made about a candidate in ads or in the media, and that makes a supporter then decide to not to support them, then that speaks to me of a bad campaign or a flawed candidate. And this idea that a majority of the voters who don't vote would automatically favor one party over the other, how is this known? Personally I think if people don't care enough to bother to vote, or decide they won't vote for whatever reason, that those choices are actually votes. They voted they didn't care or none of the candidates earned their vote.

[freedom78]

I see your points about how my business analogy and politics isn't a great fit, but how can one party MAKE a voter who supports the other party stay home? The voter staying home makes that decision for whatever reason. The opposing party campaigns for their candidate and against their candidate's opponent. If points are made about a candidate in ads or in the media, and that makes a supporter then decide to not to support them, then that speaks to me of a bad campaign or a flawed candidate.

And this idea that a majority of the voters who don't vote would automatically favor one party over the other, how is this known?

Personally I think if people don't care enough to bother to vote, or decide they won't vote for whatever reason, that those choices are actually votes. They voted they didn't care or none of the candidates earned their vote.

You can't MAKE them (without the use of force). The goal is to either waver their support for the opposition such that they would rather NOT vote than vote for ANY candidate OR make them disgusted with the process. This doesn't have to work in a big way...this is about the margins, which are important in many elections.

On the other hand, there are tactics used by parties/candidates inteh US designed to lower turnout. Specifically, it's not uncommon to see thigns like ads targeting specific demographics that gives the day AFTER the election as "election day". Less nefarious but probably more effective are the sorts of laws (i.e. "you must present a photo id") that will affect the poor or elderly adversely and moreso than other parts of hte population.

[Timothy]

Lets just day its all gods fault!

[AxlsMainMan]

Harper wins by avoiding looking bad

By Paul Willcocks, Postmedia NewsApril 12, 2011 7:42 PM

VICTORIA — It always seems a bit goofy to be scoring a political debate like a boxing match or a dog show.
But that's largely what these one-off encounters are about. The four party leaders spent Tuesday evening trying to persuade voters to give them the prize for best in show.

And like a dog show, the ribbon doesn't go to the smartest or friendliest, but to the one who looks like the best example of his breed.

On that basis, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives should be pleased.

Harper's message was simple — economic growth is the priority, his government is competent and people should pay no attention to all that talk of contempt for Parliament and wasteful spending.

That's all "bickering," not something Canadians should be worried about.

He had an advantage. Front-runners always do. The other leaders — especially Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff — had to look significantly better than people expected; Harper just had to avoid looking worse.

Mostly, he did that.

But not always. It should irritate some voters that Harper seemed so dismissive of the finding that his government had wrongfully concealed information from MPs and been found in contempt of Parliament.

That is not just squabbling, or political games. The Speaker supported the finding and the record shows that the Harper government's secrecy made it impossible for MPs to do their job of scrutinizing the costs and benefits of legislation.

And Harper's claims that he did not contemplate some form of coalition government in 2004 were contradicted by NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, who co-signed a letter to then governor general Adrienne Clarkson that seemed to suggest that was his plan.

Ignatieff spent much of the debate stressing three themes. Harper is an undemocratic control freak who won't work with others; the Conservatives will waste money on more prisons, fighter jets and corporate tax cuts at the expense of the interests of ordinary Canadians; and the only alternative is a Liberal government. "You didn't tell Parliament the truth," he said. "You abused democracy."

Ignatieff was OK. But there was no magic moment of connection that would make an uncommitted voter sit up and decide that Ignatieff really gets it and would be a great leader.

Layton performed at a similar level. He had one of the better lines — "I don't know why we need so many prisons when the crooks seem so happy in the Senate."

But while he was successful in challenging the Conservative record and raised fears about their actions if they win a majority, Layton had a harder time differentiating the New Democrats from the Liberals.

As always, Duceppe had an advantage. His job was just to push the other leaders into positions that would play badly in Quebec, demanding, for example, that the province's language laws be extended to cover federally regulated workplaces.

He, too, had a good line. The debate was based on six questions from Canadians. When Harper responded to the first, Duceppe congratulated him for answering a question from a citizen for the first time in the campaign.

There wasn't a lot of policy discussion, beyond the themes the parties have already laid out.

That was particularly striking when the leaders dealt with the last question, about health care.

None of them had any new ideas or approaches. The issue quickly became how to pay for care. Harper said tax cuts meant a stronger economy and more money for services; Layton and Ignatieff said any government would have to choose between health care and jails, jets and corporate tax giveaways, to use the talking point.

Three weeks to go until election day. Perhaps some of the debate themes will stick — the Conservatives should be vulnerable on their undemocratic tendencies, for example. Or perhaps new issues, like the suspect $50 million in G8 spending will emerge.

If not, we are likely on the way to another minority government. Nothing the leaders did Tuesday was enough to change that.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz1JMwXJ2HY

[artcinco]

I saw some news story about one of the candidates claiming they had voted in US and British elections. What's up with that?

[AxlsMainMan]

Ignatieff spent 25+ years in the US and only came back 5 years ago so he probably did vote in US elections.

[freedom78]

Ignatieff spent 25+ years in the US and only came back 5 years ago so he probably did vote in US elections.

I don't know much about him as a politician, but as a scholar he's worth a read. I've assigned a thing or two from him in my classes.

[AxlsMainMan]

Here come the Tories