06-11-2004, 03:28 AM
Hi
My cynical opinion is that I am going to vote for the devil I know, rather than the devil I am unsure about. What is certain is that I will vote. There is no excuse for failing to exercise your franchise.
This means that I will cast my vote for the Liberal candidate in my riding. Paul Martin was an effective Minister of Finance who managed to bring forward policies that got us on track toward the laudable goal of eliminating public debt. My personal opinion is that Jean Chretien quite deliberately left him with a lot of baggage to deal with. My opinion of our last Prime Minister has sunk to a very low level. I see him as a surprisingly petty and vindictive man. I was already frustrated by the extent to which he had diminished the importance of Parliament and concentrated power in the Prime Minister's Office. That, I hope can be changed under Mr. Martin. He has acknowledged that this has happened, and one can only hope that it will be possible to reverse the trend.
None of the parties has any reasonable platform on Health Care Reform. :(
I am deeply suspicious of both the NDP and Conservative parties at this point. The Green Party, while attractive in some respects, is even more of an unknown quantity in terms of governance.
The NDP, I fear, will spend far too much of my tax money on well-intentioned initiatives. As a high school student, you may not be quite so concerned about this aspect as I am. :) Mr. Layton has much experience in politics, but he still reminds me too much of our last Toronto Mayor Lastman in his loose cannon commentary.
The Conservatives are a party in disarray. Mr. Harper has not managed to make a cohesive marriage between Reform and the Conservative party yet, IMO.
The Conservative party has two elements to their current platform that appall me. First, they are stating that they will be removing 'corporate incentives' and 'taxing corporations more'. In the world economy, as it stands, this means that corporations will take their jobs elsewhere. Canadian auto plants, for example, employ a lot of people who would lose their jobs should this occur.
Second, and most alarming, is Mr. Harper's insistence that Parliament should interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the Judiciary. He has stated that, should Parliament pass laws that run counter to that Charter, then the courts should let it stand. He has used the 'hot-key' issue of jailed felons being able to vote as his justification for this. He has also stated that he would allow private member's bills on putting restraints on abortion rights to go through Parliament. Now, he already has the right, as part of our Charter, to use the 'notwithstanding clause' to pass such legislation. But he doesn't want to use that. He just wants to have the Courts ignore the Charter implications of any legislation he passes.
The most important thing that I would like to see addressed in this election (and it is conspicuously absent from any but the NDP at this point*) is that of electoral reform. The FPP (first past the post) method of electing a government results in hopelessly lopsided representation in Parliament. A party can and has taken a huge majority of the seats in Parliament with less than half the popular vote.
There is a summary posted here.
The highly respected Law Commission of Canada has recommended a MMP system for our next Federal Election. As I understand the recommendations, we would see ballots that have three separate slots to fill in. First, we would vote for a person running for election in our (expanded in size) riding. This person would still be subject to the FPP method of being elected. Second, we would vote for a party. A number of seats in Parliament (approximately one-third) would be set aside for parties to put in candidates based on their proportion of the popular vote. This will allow parties that manage to get a significant proportion of each riding's votes to have representation in Parliament. Third, we would have the option of selecting a name from a list of 'back-up' candidates proposed by the party we have cast our vote for. If a specific person received more votes than the 'top of the list' back-up candidate, they would move up in the list and displace the 'party favourite'.
This would allow us, as voters, to select 'the right person' for our riding, regardless of Party affiliation, and still vote for the Party we favour. There might be more impetus for diminishing the power of the Prime Minister's Office with this system too.
If your high school is having local candidates come to speak to you, I strongly urge you to ask them if they will lobby for this reform should they be elected. It would give, for example, the Green Party some real representation in Parliament, and the ability to effectively lobby for the environment.
*Mr. Layton has said that a pre-condition of voting with the Liberals in a minority government situation would be passing of electoral reform.
My cynical opinion is that I am going to vote for the devil I know, rather than the devil I am unsure about. What is certain is that I will vote. There is no excuse for failing to exercise your franchise.
This means that I will cast my vote for the Liberal candidate in my riding. Paul Martin was an effective Minister of Finance who managed to bring forward policies that got us on track toward the laudable goal of eliminating public debt. My personal opinion is that Jean Chretien quite deliberately left him with a lot of baggage to deal with. My opinion of our last Prime Minister has sunk to a very low level. I see him as a surprisingly petty and vindictive man. I was already frustrated by the extent to which he had diminished the importance of Parliament and concentrated power in the Prime Minister's Office. That, I hope can be changed under Mr. Martin. He has acknowledged that this has happened, and one can only hope that it will be possible to reverse the trend.
None of the parties has any reasonable platform on Health Care Reform. :(
I am deeply suspicious of both the NDP and Conservative parties at this point. The Green Party, while attractive in some respects, is even more of an unknown quantity in terms of governance.
The NDP, I fear, will spend far too much of my tax money on well-intentioned initiatives. As a high school student, you may not be quite so concerned about this aspect as I am. :) Mr. Layton has much experience in politics, but he still reminds me too much of our last Toronto Mayor Lastman in his loose cannon commentary.
The Conservatives are a party in disarray. Mr. Harper has not managed to make a cohesive marriage between Reform and the Conservative party yet, IMO.
The Conservative party has two elements to their current platform that appall me. First, they are stating that they will be removing 'corporate incentives' and 'taxing corporations more'. In the world economy, as it stands, this means that corporations will take their jobs elsewhere. Canadian auto plants, for example, employ a lot of people who would lose their jobs should this occur.
Second, and most alarming, is Mr. Harper's insistence that Parliament should interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the Judiciary. He has stated that, should Parliament pass laws that run counter to that Charter, then the courts should let it stand. He has used the 'hot-key' issue of jailed felons being able to vote as his justification for this. He has also stated that he would allow private member's bills on putting restraints on abortion rights to go through Parliament. Now, he already has the right, as part of our Charter, to use the 'notwithstanding clause' to pass such legislation. But he doesn't want to use that. He just wants to have the Courts ignore the Charter implications of any legislation he passes.
The most important thing that I would like to see addressed in this election (and it is conspicuously absent from any but the NDP at this point*) is that of electoral reform. The FPP (first past the post) method of electing a government results in hopelessly lopsided representation in Parliament. A party can and has taken a huge majority of the seats in Parliament with less than half the popular vote.
There is a summary posted here.
The highly respected Law Commission of Canada has recommended a MMP system for our next Federal Election. As I understand the recommendations, we would see ballots that have three separate slots to fill in. First, we would vote for a person running for election in our (expanded in size) riding. This person would still be subject to the FPP method of being elected. Second, we would vote for a party. A number of seats in Parliament (approximately one-third) would be set aside for parties to put in candidates based on their proportion of the popular vote. This will allow parties that manage to get a significant proportion of each riding's votes to have representation in Parliament. Third, we would have the option of selecting a name from a list of 'back-up' candidates proposed by the party we have cast our vote for. If a specific person received more votes than the 'top of the list' back-up candidate, they would move up in the list and displace the 'party favourite'.
This would allow us, as voters, to select 'the right person' for our riding, regardless of Party affiliation, and still vote for the Party we favour. There might be more impetus for diminishing the power of the Prime Minister's Office with this system too.
If your high school is having local candidates come to speak to you, I strongly urge you to ask them if they will lobby for this reform should they be elected. It would give, for example, the Green Party some real representation in Parliament, and the ability to effectively lobby for the environment.
*Mr. Layton has said that a pre-condition of voting with the Liberals in a minority government situation would be passing of electoral reform.
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.
From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.
From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake