Canadian Election Results 2011

This post is written with some mild non-Conservative flavor and is not really relevant for Tory voters.

The Conservatives have won their majority government, the NDP forms the official opposition, the Liberals have no place in Parliament for the first time ever in Canadian history and the leader of the Green party won the party's only (and first) seat in parliament. Two of the party leaders were not elected in their respective ridings and the landscape of the country is vastly different. However, courtesy of our voting system the majority of people (60%) will have voted for a party candidate that did not win the election. Rather than tucking into the ice cream and sobbing (or perhaps after) focus on the things that can be done now.

Talk to your candidate. The most important consideration of democracy is that you have a voice in parliament; as long as your MP accurately represents your concerns, beliefs, and priorities, then it does not really matter what party they belong to. (Except for the probability of whip votes).

Talk to other people. Create a dialogue about what is going on in parliament so that when another election rolls around the ground-work is already laid for accurate representation of previous actions, rather than the political mud-slinging that tends to choke the airwaves around election time, obscuring the real issues.

Talk to yourself. I don't mean pretend you have a Bluetooth so you can wander around muttering to yourself, I mean take heart. It likely won't be so bad. Consider the bright side: we live in a first world country - in all seriousness things are never going to get too bad. This just means we must all be more attentive to political occurrences than we have been, and that has never been easier than in this day and age. 

Non-Strategic Voting

In Canada there is a debate between two types of voters: people that vote 'with their gut' and strategic voters. Since the conservatives are the party favored to win, strategic voting is typically reserved for people voting in the fashion most likely to unseat the incumbent Tory politician. This must take into account the fact that the Liberal opposition is not always the second candidate in the race - it is occasionally NDP, Bloc, or even Green, despite the fact that they have not attained a seat. This form of voting throws its support behind any other alternative, so long as it isn't Conservative (or, theoretically, whatever 'winning party' the voter dislikes.) On the flip side, voting with one's gut relies on the voter ignoring the dynamic, and focusing on the benefit gained from any vote to support a favored party/candidate; a lot of these voters think about the dollar funding given to a party from every vote they receive, and the candidate's likeliness to stay in politics if they are not elected in one race. 

The other dynamic in voting is between supporting the candidate in your riding and supporting the party they represent - both notions that are, in reality, fraught with peril. Finding official party platforms is incredibly easy, but forming a personal relationship with a candidate is easier. Considering how easily candidates swap parties, and that they are rarely required to vote with their party, a case could be made that it is more beneficial to vote far the candidate, hoping that they support your views regardless of the party.  However voting with the party could theoretically harness the support of a group of party MP's that support your views, though they may do so less of the time.

Observing the subsequent four voting profiles reveals the imbalances:
1. Voting with your gut for your candidate can yield the greatest satisfaction. If your candidate is elected, you are guaranteed someone in the house of commons that will accurately represent you. The downside is that you may or may not see much results from that representation, subject to the full house makeup.

2. Strategically voting for the candidate means that you will most likely not NOT support the person that is elected - this is different from supporting the candidate elected. This is the most rare voting style since it is not typically the case that people hate their candidate so much that they would support ANYone else (regardless of their beliefs.) This could be a good solution, however if you have been following your MP and dislike their voting history, but suspect they may win anyway.

3. Voting with your gut for a party means, again, that you can console yourself with the dollar of support if they lose, but you may also gain the benefit of mostly supporting what will occur in the house if the party wins and, again, harnessing a 'block' of votes in the house.

4. Strategically voting for a party means that you are more likely to enjoy election day, owing to the increased likelihood that the party you dislike will be ousted, but not necessarily the subsequent four years, since the elected MPs are more likely to be split between other parties.

Typically, then, if you want to micromanage your candidate and be heavily involved with politics your best plan is to vote for a candidate with your gut instinct (this requires the large amount of trust that if you find a candidate compelling, others will too, since if your candidate fails you are S.O.L)), but if you don't want to pursue further attention to politics, preferring to 'set-up' a government you like, then let them run it, you would benefit best from strategic party voting: It is easiest to assess a party by their history, and so you can examine the ruling party, decide if you like them or not, then take a minor gamble that the next party, whoever it is, will do better, since assessing the fitness of a party to run is ridiculously difficult.

Budgeting the Balance

I have finally figured out what the conservatives are offering this election. While other parties have offered fancy, exciting, subsidies and other programs, the Tories have put forth only hesitant, cautious programs that may or may not materialize in a few years, once they balance the books.
That, right there, is the main message of their campaign. Once more, in slow motion, for anyone who missed it: Once they balance the books.

Every program being introduced (except scrapping the long-gun registry - which I wish did not compel me as much as it did) comes with the rider that it can only happen after they balance the books. Only the conservatives can make the claim that they can balance the books, since they have the closest community with the budget and fiscal reality of our country right now, and it serves to underscore the attitude they present that they 'know what they're doing' and 'they have been in power for a while now.' If the conservative party could roll up its sleeves, I have no doubt they would be rolling right now.

Taking this tack ensures that every benefit brought up by other parties, any new programs, looks financially irresponsible because they are spending money while we are running a deficit. The hilarious benefit for this is that the stronger promise made by the other parties, the bigger the benefit for the conservatives; Especially considering some of the monetary promises being offered by the Liberals for this election. Even considering the hike in corporate tax rate, and the promise to lower the deficit to 1% of the GDP by the second year, the final bill looks daunting.

The solitary position the conservatives take (anyone who has seen the CBC voting compass should be aware how lonely the Conservative's position is - they look like the kid who farted during class photos) ensures that anyone who drifts their direction is going to be sucked into the gravity well of idealism that is the Conservative stance. Considering the recent panic over Canadian household debt, this means anyone with an predilection to 'save' is going to drift in the Conservative's direction, whether they like it or not (subconscious priming is very powerful).

All these factors add up to make a hell of a stealthily effective campaign. Except for the fighter jet issue. What the hell is with that?

The title is a quote I found online:

"After the government takes enough to balance the budget, the taxpayer has the job of budgeting the balance."

— Unknown

Wryagra: Curing your Electile Dysfunction

I am assuming the election fun has started, as evidenced by the massive conservative banner hanging out by the highway turn-off for my hometown, but other than paper signs, I can see no indication that a genuine struggle for the 'throne' is underway.

What do you mean? There's been dozens of talking points!
Nothing really serious though.
The conservatives started off with a promise to maybe introduce income splitting for families with kids, possibly, if they can balance the budget, but the very notion is designed to benefit the upper middle class society where one parent works for a very high wage, and the other stays at home and raises the kids - it's enough to make one wonder if we have a population drop in Canada. "C'mon Canadians! Reproduce for Harper!"

The Liberals, not to be outdone in treating voters like they are idiots, announced that, if elected, they would offer a $1000 non-repayable cash 'gift' to students, which sounds like a pretty good idea because, hell, I'd love a cool thousand! In order to do this, however, they would be cancelling the tuition and textbook tax credits, which lowers the overall actual financial gain dramatically. Not to forget the gift would come off the amount students would be allowed to take out as a student loan. Obviously it would be more profitable to simply transfer money from a loan to a gift, but considering the credit issue as well, it just means this boon has its serious downside.


The green party is starting at a minor disadvantage since their leader is a woman (Females are still showing a marked discrepancy in political activity), but they exacerbated the problem so fragrantly by having her promise 'greater civility in parliament' that she has been effectively hamstrung by her own good intentions. It's true parliament is nasty, brutish, and long, but a lot of people, maybe even the majority, associate that kind of 'can-do' attitude with success and ability. Her dithering about the second-class treatment she received for the debate has certainly not helped matters.

The Bloc Quebecois is fighting the current Canadian exasperation at Quebec's antics, but they'll still likely get a decent showing for their regional affinity. Probably no point to memorizing "Prime Minister Duceppe" though, rumors of his departure after this election is undermining the strongest point they have - his experience.

As for the NDP, well, I'll just leave this here:

Needless to say, I have been following the election in the same way a mother follows her small child who is carrying around their full potty. It's possible they're just proud of themselves for what they have produced, but it's more likely they are going to smear everything until we are all neck deep in shit.