Wednesday, June 23, 2004

A lot has been said about strategic voting both, North and South of the border. Strategic voting is one where you don't vote for your favoured candidate or party but for one that is the lesser of several evils. Does that really make a whole lot of sense ? One example I often like to cite is the growth of the Green Party in Germany from a fringe party about 25 years to go being half the government now. The same could be possible today for the Conservative party. So my take on the matter is that it is important to vote idealistically because it is important to provide support to the party and ideas that one most believes in.

If the population sees a new party or candidate getting more attention and votes, they will be naturally inquisitve about it and the added exposure will snowball over time if the ideas or parties are sound. So when voting it is important not to think of just this election but about the direction of the state or country as a whole over the next several elections.

posted by Nashib @ 11:16 PM

So once again the blogging madness sets in. I have been thinking about writing for a while but I am not sure how time flies by. I have been following the electoral campaigns quite closely and I am not sure if I should laugh or if I should cry. Lots of interesting writing on both sides of the border.

North of the border, the dilemma is whether to maintain the status quo or to vote for an alternative. Lets look at the alternatives. On the one hand, we have the Conservatives, whose opportunism and utter lack of decorum clearly indicates just how far to the right they are and how low far right parties are really willing to go to try to get votes. The conservative party's release which stated that Paul Martin "supports" child pornography was a clear mistake because it is quite obvious to even the most simplistic mind that such a career politician would not commit political suicide for the pedophile vote. Stephen Harper's refusal to retract was an even bigger mistake because he could have easily come out looking very good if he stated that the language was "unfortunate", "inappropriate" etc. but that they maintain that the Liberals are not taking the issue as seriously as the conservatives. Also, the leak about the AirCanada french service issue will not be taken lightly since it was revealed in such a under handed manner.

The NDP are a party who I agree with in many ways philosophically yet I think they lack the discipline of the Liberals. In Ontario, the provincial Liberals had had a stranglehold on power for way too long and the people elected the NDP in a protest vote of sorts. Unfortunately, the NDP squandered this mandate by over spending and that sort of behaviour is hard to condone in personal affairs and just as difficult to condone in governmental affairs. Besides, the leader as photogenic as he may be, has a medicated perma-smile which really grates on one after a while.

I am not going to spend any time talking about the Bloc Quebecois other than they are very interesting in their socially progressive outlook. If only they weren't separatist I would have respect for their philosophy. I find divisive politics to be the cheapest and ugliest manifestation of politics.

So the Liberals are at least fiscal conservatives, social progressives needing a serious kick in the arse since they have been in power for too long. An unstable conservative minority government which then falls apart in a year or two could be good for the country because it would be a kick in the proverbial rear to all parties involved. (Credit to several friends who mentioned this independently of each other a while back).

posted by Nashib @ 10:47 PM