The 2025 Canadian Election

The Canadian election is on April 28th and like all the others is the most important to date.  Elections are great opportunities to make improvements, but I am skeptical.  There are always emotional elements that seem to overwhelm important issues.  Those with big money have a way to appealing to our baser needs.  To top it off, the reality afterwards never matches the will of the people, including those who elected not to vote.

Would you like your vote to really count?  After you take time from something you enjoy or have to do and get in a line.  The candidate who gets the most votes in your riding is the only one that gets to vote in the legislature.  Every other vote doesn't advance a candidate even if they all add up to more than the winner.  Another wasted vote is the extra ones that put the winner on top.  That is why some people indulge in strategic voting.

I line up with the Greens and sympathize with the progressive parties.  It seems that the conservatives are mostly against climate change and in general seem to have less respect for civil rights.  I do respect their concern for financing as the government paying avoidable interest hurts us.  But not all government programs are bad for the budget   Health care is a prime example.  An ounce (gram) of prevention is worth a pound (kilogram) of cure.  

How about you?  Do you favor the NDP or the Liberals (against the Conservatives).  Depending on your riding you could vote for your preferred party or choose a second or even third choice for your best chance to stop the Conservatives.  Maybe you prefer the Conservatives, but you could also find yourself trying to stop the dreaded opposition depending on your riding.

Climate change is guaranteed to get worse even if government policies change as it will take time to readjust from more than a century of abuse.  Wealthy investors want to protect their investments and have more convincing resources than the rest of us.  Alberta relies a lot on fossil fuels and has the legislature to support them.

Most people think that somehow the Covid 19 pandemic is behind us.  Unfortunately the impact is still with us.  Inflation has been very definitely aggravated by it.  Consumers tend to look at current prices and get upset when they are up.  Certainly there might have been different choices made, but supplies were cut and consumer and work patterns changed.  Compared to other nations Canada wasn't so far behind.  More of us survived than in many more reckless nations.  Someone who supported the Freedom Convoy protest, like Poilievre love to point out inflation as though there was no connection to forces outside government forces.

 The fear against Conservatives leaves the progressives split.  In many elections the progressive parties (Liberals, NDP, Green) do collect more votes, but are often losers.  Bloc Quebecois are unique in that they want to be free of English Canada, but are now concerned about American influence.  I believe they could be a coalition partner with a progressive party

Don Trump is a critical election issue all by himself.  As soon as he was officially president he started making offensive statements.  He referred to Governor Justin Trudeau and Canada as the 51st state.  Since then he has become even more aggressive.   On the economic front he is promising heavy tariffs against Canada and other countries claiming to want businesses to relocate to America.  Our two economies are very integrated that optimizes both nations, although Trump insists America has been subsidizing Canada. He has shown favors to Putin from whom he has probably picked up a plan to expand America.  He feels that the Panama Canal should belong to America even suggesting military action may be necessary.   Greenland needs to be turned over as a security tool.  Mexico is also being treated very roughly.  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/03/why-isnt-trump-in-prison.html

Scary for me is Trump plans to dismantle the Department of Education and turn it over to the states, some of whom have racist tendencies.  Canada also has our provinces responsible for education. 

Taxation is always an issue.  The poorer citizens need more money to survive.  The wealthy resent sharing their wealth with ordinary people.  Governments (those that get elected) try to spread the wealth around with a variety of programs, but they have to get the money from somewhere.  Unfortunately as there is much resistance to taxes they end up borrowing money and in turn paying interest.  A progressive tax system should help, but the top end is the most resistant and has developed all sorts of wrinkles that cut their contribution.  Somehow they have to figure out a fair system benefits everyone, even themselves.

The dilemma of many voters is that their riding has a history and maybe even current polling suggesting a party they want to avoid.  The closest they can get to that is to vote for an opposition party that has the best chance to upsetting the hated one.  This works against all parties in particular ridings.  Sometimes their vote does make a difference, but not always. and not their preferred candidate.

There is a better system adopted by much of the world.  Proportional representation allows your preferred vote to make a difference.  It encourages all politicians to be politer to their opponents because there is a good chance they will have to work with them.  More people are willing to make the effort to vote and even to study the issues.  More views are considered before policies locked in.

To understand how unjustly voting is distorted under our First Past the Post system check out the recent Ontario provincial election...http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/03/ontario-voters-were-cheated-again.html

Don't be fooled by ranked balloting.  Only one candidate is elected per riding and although you may have contributed to the winner it is not necessarily your first choice that would better reflect your preferences.. 

Should you get a chance to talk to a candidate ask them what they think of proportional representation.  Tell your friends and neighbors.  Candidates want to know how they can get more votes.

An impact of electoral systems on Canada and America

One difference between American and Canadian elections is that Americans can vote directly for the President.  The catch is that often that vote is wasted.  Their electoral system uses an electoral college which means each state's vote is decided by plurality and all the electors are credited to the one party that won the state.  Al Gore and Hilary Clinton got more votes, but lost because their votes weren't in the right states.

 In all states, provinces and nationally with two exceptions, elections are decided on a plurality basis meaning that a winning candidate is the one who receives more votes than anyone else.  Canada accepts more than two parties and although so does America, the difference is that Americans disdain third parties as infringing on the two main parties.  Many Canadians feel the same way, but enough detect policy issues and character traits best addressed by a third party.  

Political thinking has been there are two choices only--our party and those of the opposition.  Is that true?  At one point the conservative movement had split into two segments.  Both were conservative on the economy, but one faction was more socially concerned.  It did in fact split the vote, allowing liberal parties to gain strength.  The two factions amalgamated and improved their election standing.  That move was effective, but was it fair?

Both American and Canadian politicians use polls.  They can be useful and beneficial to find out what the voters want.  However they are also used to determine political party strength.  In effect, some ridings or districts are very likely going to elect one party.  Others are more open and need to be contested.  Politicians have limited time and money and so decide where best to apply their resources.

An example of putting too much attention on one area is provided by Kamala Harris who realizes in practical terms in order to be elected president she needs to win Pennsylvania with 19 electoral votes.  In her case she has been tagged with her vow to banish fracking, a touchy issue in that state.  I suspect also for practical reasons she disavowed that more than 4 years ago.  With this handicap and the polling outlook elsewhere she will be concentrating her efforts on Pennsylvania and a few other key states.  Donald Trump in the meantime is also concentrating his efforts on states that are competitive.  Between the two of them over half the American states will receive at best cursory attention because they presumably have established sufficient loyalty to one of the two parties.

Important choices such as the vice president decision are discussed with regard to electoral votes  in key American states.

Unfortunately Canadian politicians concentrate their limited resources on ridings that offer a fighting chance.  This could lead to a lot of hopping around for a party's Prime Minister candidates as any one of 343 ridings could offer a promise of success. 

For many people the voting decision is not for who they want to win but who they don't want to win.  To prevent an undesired party from getting elected they switch their vote to their second choice.  If their first choice could be joined with those in other ridings another viewpoint might be elected and better represent the will of the people.  This is known as strategic voting.  The will of the people is not fairly represented.

Under the First Past the Post the winners only require to get one extra vote, while all the other votes count for nothing.  Essentially both countries use that principle and in both cases it distorts what the voters really want.

Justin Trudeau has recently cast a few remarks against real proportional representation.  He recognizes his Liberal Party is the second choice for both Conservatives and the N.D.P. so he likes ranked ballots and is dead set against proportional representation.  Like many politicians he knows how he got to power and doesn't want to risk changing the electoral system.

Do Elections Guarantee Mandates?

Many politicians have claimed to have a mandate to execute various policies.  What does a "mandate" mean?  My opinion is that a true mandate means they have been enabled by the will of the people to execute particular acts. 

Elections do determine the candidate winners who get to take decisions on your behalf.  If you actually voted for the winner you can be happy your vote helped.  If you didn't you could have stayed home.  At least that is what our current First Past The Post system offers.

In practice many politicians are claiming mandates with less than 50% of actual voters (and even lower among all eligible voters).  In practice many do not vote, not only because of apathy, but with the feeling that their vote would not make a difference.  It would not give anyone power or would not be needed.

 It is true that one powerful person can get more done than any collective, but question whether it is in the best interest of everyone.  No one person really understands the concerns of everyone and many of them seem and are very unreasonable.

Strategic voting in effect means not voting for a candidate or policies, but against.  In effect the voter chooses their second or third preference.  In a small way that is also a distortion of the will of the people. 

Candidates usually lay out their priorities during the election campaign.  If nobody gets a mandate, what next?  Compromise and persuasion.  The will of the people:   One could also say that non voters have failed to give their blessing or not?    In reality there are more than one option for most issues, but if one possibility cannot gain a plurality it is easily ignored by those set on a different path.

Voters seem to accept a candidate with less than 50% making laws that are not desired by over 50% of the voters and nobody is sure about the non voters.  At some point this could cause a rebellion.

The idea behind Proportional Representation is that every vote counts for something.  If no candidate reaches 50% of the vote there is apt to be an overlap of interests and a willingness to make compromises.  In these negotiations the elected official demonstrate their respect for the voters.

There are many variations of proportional representation, but the basic idea is that every vote counts towards a a set of party policies.  The voter chooses the candidate or party that best reflects what they believe is in their best interests (including beyond their local concerns).  No need for strategic voting.

Why isn't Canada  trying to implement a proportional representation system?  One big reason is that politicians with power are satisfied with the current system that gave them their power.  Many of them did not require a majority, only a plurality.  They could concentrate their efforts with specific voters who form enough support to win a plurality.  On a national scale large segments can be ignored or at least receive less attention.  With a proportional system a candidate can build many groups and avoid neglecting many who might be persuaded.  When the election is decided in order to get anything done it is necessary to negotiate with others and usually considering many different viewpoints.  The necessity to negotiate encourages civilized discourse.

I would be the first to agree that the majority is not always right.  The goal of anyone who wants to advocate an unpopular idea is to build up support.  Examples include seat belts, smoking, climate change, anti racial and homosexual restrictions, etc..  In some cases we have reached majority support amongst voters, but the First Past the Post system still slows down the will of the people.

Two Round Elections offer 50%+1 solution

We are often hearing about two round elections, in Europe and elsewhere.  It would seem they must be more expensive and certainly more time consuming.  There must be some advantage to the notion.  Perhaps the idea is worth looking into.

A good example of the merits might be the recent American election.  No candidate received 50% of the vote.  Many voters wanted to register their preference for third party candidates, some actually in protest.  It is hard to believe that many Green party voters really wanted Donald Trump to win, but at the same time it seems likely that few Libertarian voters would have preferred Hillary Clinton to win.  Each side cannot accept the other.

In other systems such as Canada and the United Kingdom the most powerful official is decided by locally elected members, often to the party that won only a plurality of voters.  At least in the US. it is possible for one party to locally elect members of Congress while the president is of a different party which in itself is check on power abuse.

Many political parties adopt a system that assures only a candidate that obtains 50% +1 is declared the leader of that party.  After the first round there is almost always some soul searching and attempts to build a coalition among like minded voters.  In the end everyone can acknowledge that the winner is at least acceptable to the true majority and the minorities for the most part accept the decision.  The same parties are often happy with the first past the post system and plan their strategies around that.

Not sure what happens when in a national election there are 4 or more candidates and they all receive similar results.  From the party elections we know it is not always one from the top 2 of the first round that prevails, but if there are more than 2 rounds the expense and time consumption go up.

When the stark reality of only two candidates left with neither being totally satisfactory it becomes evident people are forced to give the matter more thought.

I still believe local issues need representation, but that when power is concentrated at the national level it is preferable to give voters a chance to focus on different concerns.

One pitfall is that some people vote strategically--by that I mean will vote for a third party that will have the impact of denying another party a final round or they forego the third party and vote for their second choice.  It might even out and in any case you do get to choose between the two survivors.

An educated voter is crucial to a democracy.  The system needs to support them as much as practical. Perhaps we in North America can take a closer look at how other jurisdictions handle elections.  Elections are a vital part of democracy.

Iowa, the process begins

As a Canadian I have no say in the American Presidential campaign, but the whole world has a stake in the final result.  The final result is more than just who becomes president, and includes the makeup of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Together they will set the laws and even determine who interprets the law.  They can all have a huge impact on the rest of the world.  I don't pretend to understand all the details of the process, and I suspect few Americans do either.  As with anything similar, a lot of preparation has gone on for this contest and will continue with adjustments.

Iowa seems a strange place to begin the formal process.  It is more rural, less diverse and apparently has a higher percentage of evangelicals than most states.  All these factors colour the result, but more importantly help set the wheels in motion.  Farm subsidies are a bigger issue than elsewhere and candidates have to address this concern.  Interestingly the big Republican winner, Ted Cruz is against subsidies to the ethanol growers, but tempers it a bit by refusing subsidies to other energy providers to even the playing field.  Less diverse people and more evangelicals puts greater emphasis on the issue of abortion and same sex marriage.  Candidates often find themselves locked into positions that might not carry as much weight in subsequent elections.

Being the first chance to gain attention the Iowa caucuses can be critical to many politicians.  The outstanding example is Jimmy Carter who was basically an unknown former governor of Georgia.  He identified Iowa as critical to gain public awareness and build momentum.  Far ahead of the Iowa caucuses he devoted a great deal of time to understand what Iowans were concerned about and cultivated contacts.  He also was able to boast about his zero based accountng that was demonstrated early in his campaign.  Although he didn't win Iowa he got national attention and was able to build on it.  It hasn't always worked out that way for everyone as many have been able to overcome losing in Iowa (even badly) to win the final prize, but it is now seen as a necessary credibility step.

This all gives Iowa greater power than their small size would normally give.  Many citizens take the responsibility seriously and candidates are forced into  explaining themselves to large numbers of small groups.  They offer what many consider an archaic process that differs for Republicans and Democrats.  I don't totally understand it, but was struck by what I know about the Democrat caucus system.

Each candidate is given a space that others can go to register their support.  There is even a spot for the uncommitted.  After each candidate has a representative speak on their behalf the assembled voters get to make a choice.  Any group that has less than 15% overall is broken up and forced to go to another group.  Sometimes the uncommitted are able to dominate, but they also are split up if they fail to reach 15%.  Many of us in multi party systems end up voting strategically, but in reality we are guessing with skimpy information.  In Iowa it is pretty clear amongst the Democrats which candidate is dominating and which might benefit from some support.  After some jockeying a decision is made and I think in some instances it must be more satisfying than attempts to strategize votes in other jurisdictions.

With the results in, the dynamics are changing already.  Although the rest of the race to the White House has different rules it is normal for some losers to give up.  Behind the scenes some financial donators are making decisions as well.

There were a few surprises, but not totally out of line with predictions.  In many ways I am very unimpressed with the voters response, but then they probably don't think much of my reasoning.
Donald Trump to a great extent coasted on his tv reality show and some bombastic declarations.  He was defeated by a narrow minded focused, Ted Cruz who understood the importance of hard work and organizing.  As a Canadian I would like to interject that Trump's assertion that Cruz might be disqualified for his Canadian birth was very unfair.  That little bit of doubt probably encouraged some marginal Cruz supporters to look elsewhere.  I think originally the Constitutional requirement of natural American birth was to protect the new democracy against foreign born aristocrats. Nonetheless it is a stupid law that hurts everybody.  All voters deserve to get the best person available.  Also don't forget the Constitution left out women and slaves as voters.

The establishment was relieved to learn one of their favoured candidates, Marco Rubio finished third.  This will allow voters and financiers to consolidate their efforts and resources against the outsiders Trump and Cruz.  A year ago it was assumed by many that Jeb Bush would be able to represent establishment Republicans, but I think the Iowa results make that much more difficult.  Others will soon be weighing whether it is worth the effort.  Becoming president isn't the only motive as national attention can result in a political appointment, a tv contract a lobbying position or selection as the Vice President nominee.

The Republicans were able to tap into a well of fear and ignorance.  That is compounded by the size of the field meaning that each candidate tends to try to outdo their opponents in sensational claims.  It is true that the American economy is a big letdown for many voters and that international conflicts are scary, but they overlook who is responsible for that and who has been mopping up the mess much better than his predecessor.  In eight years a lot is forgotten, but the origins of much that is wrong in America was brought about by policies, decisions and people that associated with Republicans and which they wish to continue.  Obamacare, a big step in the right direction is denigrated (I think that is the right word) and too many people accept the Republican view.  A decision to go to war with Iraq was one of the most stupid and deceitful decisions ever with very long lasting consequences.  Giving rich bankers and investors less regulations resulted in a major disaster for which others paid the price.

There is more to the economy than just regulations or the lack thereof.  The global economy  works best for rich investors who can shift money and manufacturing facilities easily to co-operating jurisdictions for more profit.  We are also at a point where machines can produce more goods than people can.  For some investors they are able to take advantage of this and for the most part seem unconcerned about who they are displacing.  There have been small attempts to adjust, but they are resisted by those at the top of the food chain.

Over on the Democrat side it became obvious they have a two way race, casting aside Martin O'Malley, an intelligent individual but without a national profile  He never really had much of a chance to make himself and his ideas known on a national scale, but at least he made it to the debating platform.  Others dropped out and others decided not worth the effort.  Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden are out of the running, but may get a significant appointment if their party wins.

There is not as much difference between the two remaining Democrat candidates as there are between either one of them and the Republicans, but there is a difference.  Bernie Sanders is characterized as an idealist and it is unusual for an idealist to make it this far.  Usually they have to compromise more than Sanders has so far.  Like Trump he is also tapping into a great discontent in the American population, but I think he has identified the causes better than anyone.  He may not be able to implement his ideas, but likely would bring us closer to a fairer society.  Clinton positions herself as practical.  She knows that Congress will be difficult to work with and promises she will get results incrementally.

Perhaps as the fields narrow down the important issues will be discussed in a more reasonable manner.  Republicans reflexively deny climate change, a stance that still carries a lot of weight, but is slowly fading.  Obamacare needs to be improved not abolished.  Immigration (including refugees) needs to be reformed.   Inequality will inevitably get worse until there is either a violent revolution or a collapse of society.

Campaign finance over rides everything.  No prospective politician will get very far without large amounts of money.  They will have to spend a great deal of time and effort to get the money and perhaps even more critical, compromise.  One example is Marco Rubio getting money from a casino owner who is demanding favourable treatment for Israel which may not be in America's best interest.  Energy companies are huge donators who want to maintain their status quo.  Investors donate to give themselves favourable treatment.  It seems most of those willing to contribute to a campaign want something that is not in the best interest of the rest of us.

The media sees the whole process as an opportunity.  The news creates interest and they tend to treat it as a horse race or a platform for sensationalism.  Most importantly they can get a lot of advertising revenue.  They certainly can and do often distort things.  CNN highlighted a weak moment of Howard Dean that helped undo his campaign, but had little to do with what he offered the country.   If they would just highlight candidate distortions and falsifications they would be rendering a public service, but they tend to just skim over the issues.

Will the Americans end up with the best result under their system?   We may never know what dedicated servant who is knowledgeable and exercises good judgment under stress would have come forward if it had been easier.  We can get only those who muster the resources to put on a good show.

The idea of starting with Iowa is not all bad as it forces candidates to talk to more actual voters.  That gives hard workers a chance to create awareness.  Part of the problem is the length of the voting, starting with the primaries and also including the national campaign.  It is a huge country and it takes time to cover it all, but there is another dynamic that cuts that down.  Many states already give the appearance of giving their voting delegates to one party or the other which means both parties feel little need to cater to them instead putting their resources where the outcome (as determined by history and polls) is undecided.  There is a trade-off between the expensive time required to make a case and the scope of the voters concerns.  There is no perfect system, but it is due for a study.

the Canadian election of October 19, 2015

As a deputy returning officer I agreed to be neutral in political expressions in the lead up to October 22nd.  Elections involve decisions by millions of people and although we sometimes act like a herd of sheep there certainly are millions of thought processes involved.

Working at a poll station is only one perspective, but as a starting point for this election I noticed more people telling me it was their first time voting.  This included some young people.  One young man said his girl friend talked him into it.  A few others were immigrants who seemed very pleased to be able to do this.  I noted that Hamilton had attracted a good share of Vietnamese refugees and they and their offspring valued voting in Canada.  The results bucked the national trend a little, but exhibited some commonalities.  The incumbent NDP won fairly easily, but the Liberals came closer than previously.  I noted that the Green Party did worse than previously as did the Conservatives.

My underlying theory is this was more a vote against Stephen Harper than an endorsement of any particular party.  Furthermore more than in previous elections more people voted strategically.  This was to the detriment of the Green Party and the NDP.  This was complicated, but for many voters it was a question of what is the most effective way to get rid of Harper.  There were organizations devoted to strategic voting in ridings where it could make a difference.

At the beginning of the election campaign it appeared likely that the NDP would benefit the most from the anti-Harper sentiment, but in the end they suffered crucially.  Undoubtedly there were many factors involved, but two got my attention.  One was Thomas Mulcair's policy that even on a question of separation 50% +1 is enough.  This helped the other parties stir up fears.  Another emotional issue was the niqab controversy where Thomas championed the right of women to wear it at citizenship ceremonies.  Only two women challenged the government courts and their cases were not presented fairly.  But this stirred up enough racist feelings that it probably switched a lot of votes by itself, but it also made many fence sitters re-think the best way to get rid of Harper. 

Harper's party used a lot of negative ads.  I had been offended by his attack ads against Michael Ignatieff, but he was persistent in their campaign that Justin Trudeau is "just not ready."  I think a lot of people agreed, but in the end voter's expectations were greatly surpassed by Trudeau's debate performance and his campaign.  After awhile the Conservative insistence on the "not ready" campaign (which intruded on the Blue Jay playoffs) made people resent it and wonder why there was not more emphasis on their own messages.

For me there are a lot of reasons to oust Harper.  Like conservatives around the globe his real agenda was economic and his campaign was financed by big money interests intent on increasing their share of the profits.  This was most evident perhaps with the oil industry.  It could be argued that at the time looking at Canadian resources, the tar sands was the best bet to boost the Canadian economy.  As time went on more people realized the many problems.  The tar sands were in an awkward location, they were relatively expensive to work and of course they were environmentally one of the worst offenders.

The anti-science stance taken by the government kept people uninformed not only about climate change, but other scientific concerns.  Libraries closed while scientists were discouraged from publicly presenting their findings.  Scientists should be providing counsel so we and the politicians can make better decisions.  Canada fell behind even other reluctant nations in the battle against climate change.

At the same time the economies of the oil business hurt other businesses by inflating our currency. Manufacturers found it much more difficult to compete with other nations.  Farmers found it difficult to get freight transportation against a tremendous increase in oil train freight.

Conservatives in the United States found the best way to attain power was to align themselves with social conservatives.  Take advantage of fears.  The Niqab issue was only one example. Stephen Harper stood against an investigation into the deaths of aboriginal women.  They resisted the national urge to help the Syrian refugees again using fear of Muslim terrorists as their excuse.  Near the end they set up a telephone line to report barbarian cultural practices.  Many people saw this as Harper trying to create a wedge item that really had very little importance on the real priorities.

To satisfy their base voters the Conservative government threw out the long form census despite complaints from many business and social agencies.  They were against marijuana and drug injection clinics in an almost puritanical stubbornness.  Trudeau undoubtedly increased the youth vote with his policies in these regards.

Canada for decades had been accepted as a peacemaker, but Harper wanted a more militant image.  In the Middle East we used to be considered neutral, but Harper became a steadfast supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu no matter what injustices were suffered by the Palestinians.  Other experts feel that the solution to Mid East problems was a two state solution, but Harper stood by those who worked against that idea.

The Conservatives understood our political system far better than most voters.  With only 39% of the votes they gained over 50% of the seats and the power to impose their views on the rest of us.  They had gotten very sophisticated and knew they could have success by ignoring the masses and pleasing their base instead.  Only a few years ago Conservatives actually had two variations--a softer kind like Joe Clark and the harsher kind like Stephen Harper.  Obviously they had much in common and were tired of losing because of splitting the vote.  Our first past the post system gave a union of the two factions a big step up.

One promised policy would be to get serious about proportional voting.  It is very hard to get the winners to radically change the system that helped them attain power.  As it turns out only 39.5% of votes cast were for the Liberals.  Fair Vote Canada reported that 51.8% of votes went to candidates that lost.  Harper had been promising legislation to make it more difficult to get proportional voting.

In the end there is a pendulum of opinions.  We are happy as long as our private plans unfold as expected, but get upset if things do not.  Too much freedom can be as bad as too little.  I don't know how the Liberal majority will work out, but I am sure there will be some improvements that will benefit more people.

ANOTHER ELECTION--ANOTHER IMPERFECT RESULT

We just passed an election that in many people's mind resolved the dilemma of a minority government. The bottom line is that 60% of those who took the trouble to vote against the eventual winner will now live under the direction of the party who gained only 40% of the vote for the next four years. Is that really what we wanted when we went to the polls?

I think it might be fair to say that most voted against something. The four parties that lost have more in common with each other (well maybe one exception) than any of them do with the winner. Many people found themselves trying to guess who was the most likely to prevent one party from winning. Others tried to figure out which of the five main parties (and a few less successful parties) best matched their personal philosophy and vision of the future.

The results were not unusual in the sense that under our system one group by concentrating its efforts can gain disproportionate results. Those who win (or even almost win) under this system resist any changes, even ridiculing any suggestions to change. Most people just accept it, even though decisions are made against their preferences.

In a practical sense one way of dealing with the rules is for parties to join other parties with similar philosophies so that they can avoid "splitting" the vote. The Progressive Conservatives and Reform party took that route and it has worked out well for them. For the voter there were subtle, but significant differences which now are blended together and lost to the voter. There is talk that the Liberals should seek a union with the NDP and maybe the Green Party should join with one or the other. Under the present rules there is some logic to that idea.

The voter is often overwhelmed trying to decide who to vote for. In some ways it is easier if there are fewer parties, but in other ways that is not true. There are differences and voters have a wider range of choices when there are more parties.

A big concern is the large number of Canadians who didn't bother to vote. Are they all lazy? or stupid? Others found themselves not voting for their preferred choice, but rather strategically against a party they dislike. It is not always articulated, but most of us feel our vote is a waste of time.  In some cases we know our first choice is an overwhelming favorite. In other cases we realize our candidate really is very unlikely to win. You can argue that every vote counts for something (encouragement for the future, some added moral authority, maybe even the $2.50 given to the party), however that can seem not worth the effort  of rearranging our schedule.

Proportionate voting in its many variations has been ridiculed, but generally by those whose candidate won by being the first past the gate post. Some critics point out that if you have too many political points of view nothing important will get accomplished. Well under our present system it is very possible for a winning strategy resulting in one party ignoring the wishes of the majority of citizens and do so in a very self righteous way.

I feel more people would vote in the first place and more people would vote their first choice under a reasonable proportional system. At one end of the scale the Green Party finished last with only 3.9% of the votes, but got even less power, 0.32% of the Parliamentary seats. That means that they can be ignored by all the other parties who do not need to consider their concerns. Often a small party's power resides in raising issues of conscience that do force the other parties to adapt their policies. Still the results mean that many voters feel they are not being heard and it really wasn't worth the effort.

If I have hit a chord I would suggest you can explore this further at http://www.fairvote.ca You will find that people of all political persuasions see merit in proportional voting. Don't let those satisfied with the present system dominate the discussion.

I feel that more people would vote if they knew their vote could really make a difference and help put someone who shares their general feeling a voice where it really counts.