Election 2015

[AgentSmith]

I can't see the NDP coming back too strong after all this. I think the most they can hope for is a few more seats but come election day I can see them still being third place.

 

[dapaterson]

I can't see the NDP coming back too strong after all this. I think the most they can hope for is a few more seats but come election day I can see them still being third place.

The phrase you're looking for is "regression to the mean".

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is yet another survey, of sorts, about "what's at stake" in this election. I'm posting it because of the highlighted bit which repeats what I have said a couple of times and something I think bears repeating:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/thanksgiving-politics-with-a-side-of-turkey/article26741796/
My emphasis added

Thanksgiving politics, with a side of turkey

MARGARET WENTE
The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Oct. 10, 2015

I can’t remember when my mild-mannered friends have been so worked up over an election. You might have to go back to the free-trade election of 1988. In general, the phrase “exciting Canadian election” is an oxymoron. But not this time. People are passionate about it. No one knows what will happen on election day – or the day after that. My friends are shouting at each other over dinner tables. Thanksgiving won’t be dull. Let the bread rolls fly!

Here’s how the conversation will play out around my table. Many of my loved ones think you’d have to be deranged to vote for Stephen Harper. This truth is so self-evident that you’d be better off admitting you’ve joined the Ku Klux Klan. Harper has destroyed democracy. He has trampled people’s freedoms. He has tarnished Canada’s reputation in the world. He is whipping up Islamophobia and tearing the throat out of the country’s social cohesion. Not to mention the long-form census.

Then there are the Justin Trudeau loathers (mostly older, mostly male). We all know the rap on him. He’s an airhead. Vladimir Putin would eat him for lunch. He’ll wreck the economy and spend us into the poorhouse like his father did. He’s glib, but so what? He needs adult supervision (also known as “good people around him”).

A number of people I know agree with some or all of this assessment but they don’t care. They’re voting for him anyway. They can’t stand Harper, and Trudeau isn’t Harper, and that’s good enough for them.

Some of us had hopes for Thomas Mulcair, not so long ago. But he has collapsed under the weight of his own contradictions. He says he’ll balance budgets, but people are skeptical. The righties think he’s a socialist in sheep’s clothing, and the lefties think he’s sold out. He’s too soft on terrorism for some, and too soft on the oil sands for others. Also, snarly. A lot of folks would like to see him prop up Justin, though.

The funny thing is that it’s hard to explain to outsiders what all the squabbling is about. Our battles feel intense and visceral. But to other people, we are the Peaceable Kingdom. Our scandals (Mike Duffy, anyone?) are ridiculously puny. Our corruption is negligible. Even our culture wars are minuscule, and almost totally symbolic. The social and economic crises that are tearing other countries apart are scarcely on the radar here.

The great thing about our political system is that any party that wants to get elected has to move toward the centre of the road. And the centre of the road has seen a great convergence. No matter who’s in power, Canada remains a prosperous, highly redistributive welfare state. Every party – even the Conservatives – supports universal health care and child support and decent old-age pensions. They all support the middle class, which, so far as I can tell, means nearly everyone. They all support transfer payments from richer provinces to poorer ones, and from richer citizens to poorer ones. Every party – even the NDP – believes in moderate levels of corporate and personal taxation, as well as balanced budgets over time. No one wants to nationalize anything. Free trade is widely accepted as a good thing (even by Mr. Mulcair, who was for the TPP before he was against it). The debt crisis of the 1990s made fiscal moderates of us all, in theory if not always in fact.

As for the culture wars, forget it. Canadians don’t fight over abortion, gay marriage or capital punishment, and it’s unlikely that we ever will. The niqab fight is mostly much ado about nothing. While most Canadians hate the niqab, acceptance of Muslims and other religious minorities is widespread.

Most important, we don’t fight over immigration. There’s a reason for that. Opposition to immigration arises when immigrants don’t do well culturally and economically. Our newcomers, on the whole, do well. That’s because, unlike most other nations, we select the people who come here – and we choose wisely.

Sure, our parties have their differences on Canada’s proper role in the world. But the fundamentals don’t change. The U.S. is our friend, like it our not. We support the UN and NATO. Our defence resources are small. We aren’t about to change sides in the fight against the bad guys, even though we may change the terms of our engagement. Every leader, no matter how transformational he wants to sound, faces the same constraints and challenges that his predecessors did.

Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter how you vote, or who wins. The differences among the parties and their leaders are substantial and important. My point is that nobody can screw it up too badly for too long – not Mr. Trudeau, not Mr. Harper, not Mr. Mulcair. Our national equilibrium is too robust for that. Our system is pretty good at correcting itself.

So if you want to rant about the sorry state of our political culture or the deficiencies of our leaders or the awfulness of our choices, by all means go right ahead. But don’t expect any sympathy from me. I think our choices are just fine. Raise your eyes from your turkey dinner and take a look around the world. Then tell me who else’s problems and who else’s choices you’d rather have. Then we’ll raise a glass and count our blessings.

I'm not quite as sanguine as Ms Wente, I suspect we are about to elect the worst of a bad lot, but, on looking at all the other "lots" out there, in the USA, for example, then our "bad lot," even the worst of it, looks like it's pretty acceptable.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an interesting comment on the niqab debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-court-a-niqab-and-a-powerful-lesson-in-humanity/article26729938/

A court, a niqab and a powerful lesson in humanity

DAVID BUTT
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Oct. 09, 2015

David Butt is a Toronto-based criminal lawyer.

A chubby three-year-old was playing on his well-manicured front lawn in a small Ontario town in the early 1960s. Two nuns, in traditional religious habits, came walking his way on the sidewalk, chatting amiably while their long black garments and headwear flapped energetically in the light breeze. The three-year-old, raised Protestant, found himself encountering nuns for the first time. With nothing more than a glance, he instantly judged them through the highly constricted lens of his limited experience, and ran terrified into his house, yelling, “Mummy! Mummy! The witches are coming!”

The little boy’s wise and compassionate mother took his hand and gently led him right back out to the sidewalk, where she engaged in conversation with the nuns, during which she breezily introduced her son. In the course of his mother’s short, pleasant exchange with two other friendly women, the little boy’s fears vanished.

That little boy was me, and almost 50 years later, when a woman whom I can identify only as NS walked into my law practice wearing a niqab, memories of that encounter with the initially mysterious and terrifying nuns came flooding back. By then I was an areligious middle-aged white male. Some might call me “old stock” Canadian. How could I possibly relate to this totally unfamiliar woman with her face partially covered out of religious devotion? Channelling my mother on that small-town sidewalk so many decades before, I choked down my fear, and opted for pleasant conversation.

It worked, for both of us. I represented NS in an epic legal battle over her niqab. She alleged suffering sexual abuse as a child, and she just wanted to wear her niqab while undergoing the immense stress of the witness box in criminal court. The defence objected vigorously, and the prosecution, showing no moral courage at all, stayed neutral. She took her fight alone, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, where she was largely vindicated.

And I came to know and admire NS as a warm, feisty, resilient and deeply Canadian woman. Coming from very different backgrounds, but marching together as lawyer and client, we shared countless laughs, along with the inevitable multitude of sorrows and disappointments spawned by a bitter fight in which the legal establishment largely lined up against us.

While the precedent-setting niqab case, “The Queen versus NS,” is now one for the history books, the enduring lesson of the case is neither legal nor historical. The enduring lesson is that very early in the lawyer-client relationship I enjoyed with NS the person, her niqab metaphorically disappeared. It became no barrier at all once we both made what was really a very simple effort to connect through conversation, a basic yet powerful form of human outreach and warmth. It is astounding, and uplifting, how frequently and how rapidly the prejudices we form at a distance can be eradicated with as little as a dash of sincere social engagement: when we stop projecting our ignorant stereotypes onto others, and start actively listening to who those others really are. I learned that powerful lesson as a three-year-old holding my mother’s hand while she chatted with a couple of nuns in full regalia, and I relearned it when I lucked into the privilege of representing NS.

That is why the current abuse of identity politics around the niqab is so deeply troubling. Those who practice this demeaning form of electioneering reveal themselves as no more advanced in their thinking than the three-year-old who let fear, ignorance and pejorative stereotypes drive his judgment of people based solely on their religiously motivated wardrobe choices.

How many people spewing thinly disguised anti-Muslim rhetoric about banning the niqab can honestly say they have taken the time to foster real human connection with women who choose to wear one? Even so much as a simple conversation? And if they have not done so, why is what they say about the wearing of the niqab worthy of even the slightest serious consideration? Why do we tolerate dehumanizing pronouncements by people speaking from a stance of ignorance about, and disengagement from, the folks they dehumanize? If we have learned anything from the many racist stains on our collective historical tapestry, surely it is that ignorance and disengagement are powerful catalysts for the emergence of hate. So it is distressing indeed that hate’s well-known catalysts should be the stuff of contemporary electoral politics.

A few points:

First: I am one of those who doesn't know anyone who wears a niqab; I don't think I've ever met someone who wears it, much less spoken to them.

Second: I firmly support any person's right to wear whatever she wants, in most circumstances, including a face mask, if it satisfies a deeply held belief. In fact, I'll go further and say that I support anyones right to wear whatever they want, in most circumstances, just to satisfy a whim. BUT: I oppose forcing any woman to wear a veil or a face covering or a body covering just to satisfy some men's medieval notion of modesty.

Third: I do not believe the niqab debate is inherently racist, although I am sure some people doing some of the talking are just plain, simple racists. I think that what we are hearing and reading is an inchoate response to fear, some reasoned, some unreasoned, of the global situation, especially in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia; Islam, and the cultures associated with it are all tied together in that fear. Most people cannot even understand, much less explain what frightens them so they focus on one, simple, visible symptom: the niqab.

 

[George Wallace]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an interesting comment on the niqab debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-court-a-niqab-and-a-powerful-lesson-in-humanity/article26729938/

A few points:

First: I am one of those who doesn't know anyone who wears a niqab; I don't think I've ever met someone who wears it, much less spoken to them.

Second: I firmly support any person's right to wear whatever she wants, in most circumstances, including a face mask, if it satisfies a deeply held belief. In fact, I'll go further and say that I support anyones right to wear whatever they want, in most circumstances, just to satisfy a whim. BUT: I oppose forcing any woman to wear a veil or a face covering or a body covering just to satisfy some men's medieval notion of modesty.

Third: I do not believe the niqab debate is inherently racist, although I am sure some people doing some of the talking are just plain, simple racists. I think that what we are hearing and reading is an inchoate response to fear, some reasoned, some unreasoned, of the global situation, especially in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia; Islam, and the cultures associated with it are all tied together in that fear. Most people cannot even understand, much less explain what frightens them so they focus on one, simple, visible symptom: the niqab.

:goodpost:

I don't consider myself racist and take offence to being called one because I oppose face coverings, whether they are the niqab, burka, or any mask of any sort except as protective clothing in a work environment (such as a Welder's Mask or a dust mask), Halloween or a Masked Ball. 

We are proud to have a Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, but at the same time it has been used against us, in my opinion, to allow foreign influences to change our cultural values, not necessarily in all cases for the good.  I would hate to see these legalities used to make our culture and society subservient to foreign cultures.  So, yes, fear is a concrete point in the discussion of the matter of face coverings.  I believe this may be why Quebec legislaters, and now the Conservatives, want to create laws or policies that will address these fears. 

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I still think it is a toss-up and there might be a Conservative bump as old people are more likely to actually vote.

The latest poll I can find Angus Reid of October 9 shows:

Conservative 33
Liberal          31
NDP            25
Bloc              6
Green            3
??                2
                ----
                100
                ===
A lot of the polls other than Nanos have the Conservatives ahead.  Nanos, because it is sponsored by CTV seems to be widely reported.  It ain't over yet.

Then there's EKOS of the same day - Liberal 33.8; Conservative 33.7; NDP 20.4; Green 7.2; Bloc 3.5

Without NANOS it seems to be a draw.

 

[Altair]

That predictionator just made my stomach turn. Justin Trudeau as PM spells minor disaster.

But maybe he'll make it, fail at his budget, people will see him for the daft airhead that he is and in the subsequent election the adults will step back in.

don't worry about your stomach,  you get used to it. I had to do 9 years of Stephen Harper,  I didn't die.

 

[RocketRichard]

don't worry about your stomach,  you get used to it. I had to do 9 years of Stephen Harper,  I didn't die.

Hear hear.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The debate about garments always has to include an accusation of racism or fear, doesn't it?

Human communication and assessment of others relies primarily on three things: what is said (content and tone), body language, and facial expression.

If Butt genuinely felt fear near age 50 upon encountering a veiled woman, his issues are deep and he will just have to deal with them.  There are plenty of people nowadays dressed more unusually than women (or men) in traditional cultural garb, and aside from thinking people shouldn't wear pajamas in public and kids should pull up their pants and some people really shouldn't wear tight clothes, I doubt there is much fear or antipathy except among those who claim to find it in themselves so that they can rationalize leveling the accusation against others..

When dealing with other people, most people want to be able to read faces.  This is doubly important in a commercial or government service context.  And that is both a necessary and sufficient condition warranting a bright line in law.

 

[AgentSmith]

I still think it is a toss-up and there might be a Conservative bump as old people are more likely to actually vote.

The latest poll I can find Angus Reid of October 9 shows:

Conservative 33
Liberal          31
NDP            25
Bloc              6
Green            3
??                2
                ----
                100
                ===
A lot of the polls other than Nanos have the Conservatives ahead.  Nanos, because it is sponsored by CTV seems to be widely reported.  It ain't over yet.

Then there's EKOS of the same day - Liberal 33.8; Conservative 33.7; NDP 20.4; Green 7.2; Bloc 3.5

Without NANOS it seems to be a draw.

That's an old poll. From what I saw of NANOS today it has the Liberals in the lead by 5% with CPC in second place. Which in my books is very good. If it keeps going we're all set for a strong minority. A majority may be possible but I think it's unlikely.

The whole niqab debate...that's just dirty politics to me and trying to divide Canadians on something that's really a non-issue.

 

[ModlrMike]

A few points:

First: I am one of those who doesn't know anyone who wears a niqab; I don't think I've ever met someone who wears it, much less spoken to them.

Second: I firmly support any person's right to wear whatever she wants, in most circumstances, including a face mask, if it satisfies a deeply held belief. In fact, I'll go further and say that I support anyones right to wear whatever they want, in most circumstances, just to satisfy a whim. BUT: I oppose forcing any woman to wear a veil or a face covering or a body covering just to satisfy some men's medieval notion of modesty.

Third: I do not believe the niqab debate is inherently racist, although I am sure some people doing some of the talking are just plain, simple racists. I think that what we are hearing and reading is an inchoate response to fear, some reasoned, some unreasoned, of the global situation, especially in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia; Islam, and the cultures associated with it are all tied together in that fear. Most people cannot even understand, much less explain what frightens them so they focus on one, simple, visible symptom: the niqab.

One of the real challenges in discussing the issue is the declaration that those opposed to the niquab are labeled racist in order to shut down the discussion. The word itself has far more power than it deserves, and has become the de facto answer to any opposing viewpoint. There are many well reasoned opinions rendered on why we should not allow face coverings at citizenship events, but as I read through the opposing viewpoints, they all boil down to "you're a racist", followed by "you're an islamiphobe". Personally, I think that there have been sufficient judgements by Islamic scholars to establish that this is not a racially based argument - it is one of culture. Perhaps Canadians, new and old, fear that their culture is about to be subsumed by something they see as foreign. On the other hand, perhaps it's no more than the pendulum swinging back after being held away from the middle for so long.

The whole niqab debate...that's just dirty politics to me and trying to divide Canadians on something that's really a non-issue.

Not much division when those opposed are frequently counted in the high 80s to low 90s.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Third: I do not believe the niqab debate is inherently racist, although I am sure some people doing some of the talking are just plain, simple racists. I think that what we are hearing and reading is an inchoate response to fear, some reasoned, some unreasoned, of the global situation, especially in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia; Islam, and the cultures associated with it are all tied together in that fear. Most people cannot even understand, much less explain what frightens them so they focus on one, simple, visible symptom: the niqab.

I agree that fear is the driver in this issue.  I also believe that the root emotion of racism is not hate, it is fear.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I agree that fear is the driver in this issue.  I also believe that the root emotion of racism is not hate, it is fear.

Fear as opposed to a rational belief that photo ID should actually ID something?  I presume we are going to now have untold thousands of people voting, in costume, without any meaningful photo ID.  I have an innate ability to spot when something is purely stupid and I neither fear nor hate anyone.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree that fear is the driver ...

Agree entirely. Fear of Harper. 

The long war against Harper has been promotion of fear - of his "hidden agenda", of his "reform roots", of his "icy eyes", of his lack of public displays of affection or other emotions. 

Those that vote with the heart.  Those that vote with the head.  Separate logic.

 

[George Wallace]

The whole niqab debate...that's just dirty politics to me and trying to divide Canadians on something that's really a non-issue.

Actually, no more dirty than anything else that has been said and posted on the Election.  Probably the dirtiest election I have seen.  All parties have been telling and posting lies about each other.  What I find most offensive though, is the third party groups, the PSAC and Veteran's who are running the "Hate Harper" ads and slogans.  We have very little choice with what we have running as candidates without organizations not affiliated with any of the Parties, using smear tactics.  This sort of trash politics seems to be escalating since the last Ontario Provincial election, where I first really noticed it in action. 

I really don't trust the polls.  The last Federal Election saw many flaws in what the polls predicted.  This will indeed be an interesting election.  I think, statistically, that we have already had many more voters show up at Advance Polling Stations than in any of the previous elections.  Hopefully it is an indication that a larger percentage of Canadians will turn out to vote, rather than the voter apathy we have seen in previous years.

 

[George Wallace]

Fear as opposed to a rational belief that photo ID should actually ID something?  I presume we are going to now have untold thousands of people voting, in costume, without any meaningful photo ID.  I have an innate ability to spot when something is purely stupid and I neither fear nor hate anyone.

Actually, there have already been untold numbers of Canadians who have voted in the Advance Polls wearing face coverings of all types:

https://www.facebook.com/itsjustgail/videos/10156030500060417/

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/mummers-potato-sacks-and-clown-masks-why-people-are-voting-in-silly-face-coverings/ar-AAfjc7l?ocid=sf

Voters are protesting what they believe to be a judgement that is wrong.  Judges are not infallible.  It is not unusual for Laws and Statutes to be amended or changed as the culture and society of a nation evolve.  In this case, many feel that the Judges who came to this decision were outright outside of their lanes in coming to the conclusion that they did. 

I am sure that these actions will result in some sort of reaction by the Government to ensure that proper identity checks are performed in future elections.  Bio-metrics come to mind, but I FEAR certain sects will use the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to claim that they infringe on their privacy.

 

[thehare]

I think, statistically, that we have already had many more voters show up at Advance Polling Stations than in any of the previous elections.  Hopefully it is an indication that a larger percentage of Canadians will turn out to vote, rather than the voter apathy we have seen in previous years.

Personally I hope so as well, even if it does mean that the party I support ends up losing this election. I am personally tired of hearing the typical excuses of "my vote doesn't matter" or "none of the major parties represent my interests" for not actually going out and voting. You always have the option of going out and spoiling your ballot, and in my opinion that sends more of a message to the governing powers than not voting at all.

In the end though, I think one of the largest ways we as a country can kill voter apathy is to get rid of our FPTP (first past the post) system. A system based on proportional representation doesn't come without it's own set of flaws, but at least it gives voters more of a sense that their vote is actually counting towards something. Which in turn may help reduce voter apathy and may help increase the interest in politics that this nation so desperately needs.

*As a Conservative voter in a very strong Conservative riding, I cannot help but feel that my vote is being wasted as anything more than the required number of votes to win my riding is just non consequential. It doesn't matter if my chosen MP wins by 1 vote or by 500 votes, in the end the result is the same, 1 riding for my party. Likewise, a Liberal voter in my riding would likely feel the same way. Our votes may play a role in helping our party win our local ridings, but they often do little to assist our parties on the federal scale.

 

[AgentSmith]

Personally I hope so as well, even if it does mean that the party I support ends up losing this election. I am personally tired of hearing the typical excuses of "my vote doesn't matter" or "none of the major parties represent my interests" for not actually going out and voting. You always have the option of going out and spoiling your ballot, and in my opinion that sends more of a message to the governing powers than not voting at all.

In the end though, I think one of the largest ways we as a country can kill voter apathy is to get rid of our FPTP (first past the post) system. A system based on proportional representation doesn't come without it's own set of flaws, but at least it gives voters more of a sense that their vote is actually counting towards something. Which in turn may help reduce voter apathy and may help increase the interest in politics that this nation so desperately needs.

*As a Conservative voter in a very strong Conservative riding, I cannot help but feel that my vote is being wasted as anything more than the required number of votes to win my riding is just non consequential. It doesn't matter if my chosen MP wins by 1 vote or by 500 votes, in the end the result is the same, 1 riding for my party. Likewise, a Liberal voter in my riding would likely feel the same way. Our votes may play a role in helping our party win our local ridings, but they often do little to assist our parties on the federal scale.

Well if the Liberals get in they will look into election reform. I'm in the same boat as you, CPC dominated riding and I felt my vote was wasted. They need to get a better system the FPTP

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I really don't trust the polls.

For myself, I distrust the ones that don't tell me what I want to hear.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I suspect getting rid of first past the post would require a Constitutional amendment considering so many constituency related definitions are tied into the Constitution.  To get Quebec to ever agree to a Constitutional amendment entails give-aways unpalatable to the rest of Canada.  It has about as little chance of succeeding as Senate reform.