Thursday, July 08, 2004
The best thing to do about the whole Speaker debacle would be to make Independent MP Chuck Cadman speaker of the house, and give him the right to vote freely. As a normal MP his vote would only be useful in case of a tie, so this is a way to appoint a speaker without putting anyone at an actual or perceived disadvantage. I suppose the only problem would occur when he wants to present a private member's bill, but perhaps they could have someone else as acting speaker while he presents the bill, and then put them all back in their normal places when they vote?
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
A Game to Play on the Tracks by Lorna Jackson was unanimously well-reviewed,
but I didn't enjoy it. The author deliberately under-informs the reader in
a way that doesn't contribute to the overall novel and leaves the reader
paging backwards to see whose viewpoint we're reading now. The recurring
imagery seems deliberate and there for its own sake (Look ma, recurring
imagery!), and the characters aren't deep enough to make me care about them.
The overall impression I get is that of an amateur writer using devices that
she's seen other authors use, without actually knowing when and why to use
them. It seems that she had some great epic saga in her head, but she
couldn't get it through to me.
but I didn't enjoy it. The author deliberately under-informs the reader in
a way that doesn't contribute to the overall novel and leaves the reader
paging backwards to see whose viewpoint we're reading now. The recurring
imagery seems deliberate and there for its own sake (Look ma, recurring
imagery!), and the characters aren't deep enough to make me care about them.
The overall impression I get is that of an amateur writer using devices that
she's seen other authors use, without actually knowing when and why to use
them. It seems that she had some great epic saga in her head, but she
couldn't get it through to me.
Monday, July 05, 2004
I don't think the Globe and Mail and its editors and letter-writers are being very fair to Chandler Powell.
Shortly after the federal election was called, G&M started running a series called "Will Chandler Vote?", where they profiled Mr. Powell, a 23-year-old who wasn't sure if he was going to vote, and followed him from the election call to election day, writing a weekly column about his decision-making process.
All throughout this process, people were sending letters to the editor accusing Mr. Powell, and sometimes his whole demographic (full disclosure: I am part of this demographic) of being selfish, self-absorbed, lazy, navel-gazing, and overly introspective. Many of these letter-writers seemed extremely angry that Mr. Powell had not decided whether to vote and was going through such a complex decision-making process, some implied that this introspection and over-analysis was some shameful crime for which he should be punished by being senteced to poverty or war or oppression or hard labour. The Globe and Mail itself even wrote a scathing, scornful editorial, just after the first Chandler column appeared, slamming the fact that he had not yet decided whether to vote.
The problem is that all these people are condemning Chandler Powell for being exactly the kind of person the Globe and Mail needed to do this feature.
Each Chandler column was between 1/3 and 1/2 of a newspaper page. I word-counted a couple, and they came in just under 900 words. The election was about five weeks long. That comes to a total of almost a full two-page spread, or between 4000 and 5000 words, about Mr. Powell deciding whether to vote. Imagine if you were making a simple personal decision and a reporter was following you around, asking questions, making you expound and explain and justify and rationalize and reflect upon your decision making process until they had enough material for a two-page spread. Could you do this and not come across as self-centred, self-absorbed, navel-gazing and overly introspective?
It was particularly inappropriate for the Globe and Mail's editorial of May 27th to attack Mr. Powell for possibly choosing not to vote. On May 27th, the campaign was less than a week old, and there was still a month left. The Globe and Mail still had four or five columns to do about his decision-making process. They NEEDED him to be undecided. What would they have written 900 words a week about if he had already decided that yes, he was going to vote? If the newspaper wanted to write an editorial about how important it is that young people vote that would have been fine, but it was awfully rude of them to condemn Mr. Powell personally for essentially being a cooperative subject for their feature.
As for the readers and letter-writers who, for reasons I don't quite understand, seemed so very outraged that Mr. Powell might not vote and was thinking so much about it, taking so much into consideration, I would have expected better than for them to take it out on Mr. Powell personally. The self-centredness, self-absorption, introspection, navel-gazing and possibly-not-voting for which they condemn Mr. Powell are all necessary characteristics of this sort of feature. If the readers find that disagreeable, they should be taking issue with the newspaper itself for choosing to run such a feature, rather than with its subject for being an ideal subject.
Shortly after the federal election was called, G&M started running a series called "Will Chandler Vote?", where they profiled Mr. Powell, a 23-year-old who wasn't sure if he was going to vote, and followed him from the election call to election day, writing a weekly column about his decision-making process.
All throughout this process, people were sending letters to the editor accusing Mr. Powell, and sometimes his whole demographic (full disclosure: I am part of this demographic) of being selfish, self-absorbed, lazy, navel-gazing, and overly introspective. Many of these letter-writers seemed extremely angry that Mr. Powell had not decided whether to vote and was going through such a complex decision-making process, some implied that this introspection and over-analysis was some shameful crime for which he should be punished by being senteced to poverty or war or oppression or hard labour. The Globe and Mail itself even wrote a scathing, scornful editorial, just after the first Chandler column appeared, slamming the fact that he had not yet decided whether to vote.
The problem is that all these people are condemning Chandler Powell for being exactly the kind of person the Globe and Mail needed to do this feature.
Each Chandler column was between 1/3 and 1/2 of a newspaper page. I word-counted a couple, and they came in just under 900 words. The election was about five weeks long. That comes to a total of almost a full two-page spread, or between 4000 and 5000 words, about Mr. Powell deciding whether to vote. Imagine if you were making a simple personal decision and a reporter was following you around, asking questions, making you expound and explain and justify and rationalize and reflect upon your decision making process until they had enough material for a two-page spread. Could you do this and not come across as self-centred, self-absorbed, navel-gazing and overly introspective?
It was particularly inappropriate for the Globe and Mail's editorial of May 27th to attack Mr. Powell for possibly choosing not to vote. On May 27th, the campaign was less than a week old, and there was still a month left. The Globe and Mail still had four or five columns to do about his decision-making process. They NEEDED him to be undecided. What would they have written 900 words a week about if he had already decided that yes, he was going to vote? If the newspaper wanted to write an editorial about how important it is that young people vote that would have been fine, but it was awfully rude of them to condemn Mr. Powell personally for essentially being a cooperative subject for their feature.
As for the readers and letter-writers who, for reasons I don't quite understand, seemed so very outraged that Mr. Powell might not vote and was thinking so much about it, taking so much into consideration, I would have expected better than for them to take it out on Mr. Powell personally. The self-centredness, self-absorption, introspection, navel-gazing and possibly-not-voting for which they condemn Mr. Powell are all necessary characteristics of this sort of feature. If the readers find that disagreeable, they should be taking issue with the newspaper itself for choosing to run such a feature, rather than with its subject for being an ideal subject.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
I had a dream where I was at my grandmother's. Her dog (not her current dog, her previous dog) kept tugging at the leg of my pants. (I was wearing giant bell-bottoms, probably as a plot device). I figured out that the dog wanted me to follow her, so I come along in the direction she was pulling me in. She takes me up to the attic, where there's a leak in the roof. So I start looking around for a bucket to put under the leak, but I can't find one. Then the dog wanders into the room with a giant bucket over her head. (Which is even funnier since this dog is tiny - she always weighed under 10 pounds).
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Fountain at the Center [sic] of the World by Robert Newman is essentially an anti-globalization treatise disguised as a novel. The problem is that the people who are going to read this novel are already anti-globalization, or at least not pro-globalization, so it's unlikely to change any opinions. It starts out slow - I had no enthusiasm for reading more than my allotted chapter per day - but picks up as to goes on. The approach to the "villain" is very interesting, because he is introduced as the protagonist and is never explicitly made out to be "evil" - he is treated with the same neutrality as the "good guys". If it weren't for the anti-globalization rhetoric (and I use this word without its connotations) smattered throughout the novel, the treatment of the protagonist/villain could even result in it being read as a pro-globalization novel by those who are already pro-globalization.
I do have an issue with the editors, however. I, with my two half-hearted years of Spanish, could find two errors in the incidental Spanish in this book: they wrote the Italian "Signor" instead of the Spanish "Senor", and they spelled "maquiladora" with two L's, which would change the pronunciation. There were also a few uncaught typoes: "some placeelse" instead of "someplace else", for example. I caught about half a dozen editing problems in total, and when the editing is not as thorough as it should be I'm inclined to think that perhaps the fact-checking wasn't as thorough as it should be, which is an unfortunate impression for such a political book to give.
I do have an issue with the editors, however. I, with my two half-hearted years of Spanish, could find two errors in the incidental Spanish in this book: they wrote the Italian "Signor" instead of the Spanish "Senor", and they spelled "maquiladora" with two L's, which would change the pronunciation. There were also a few uncaught typoes: "some placeelse" instead of "someplace else", for example. I caught about half a dozen editing problems in total, and when the editing is not as thorough as it should be I'm inclined to think that perhaps the fact-checking wasn't as thorough as it should be, which is an unfortunate impression for such a political book to give.
Bellingham Shiraz is a fickle fickle little wine. The first glass was very nice, creamy, berryish, spicy, everything a shiraz should be. Then I sealed it and stored it in the usual manner. When I opened it again for another glass, it was slightly tannic and a bit too sharp. Perhaps this isn't a normal standard by which one judges wine, but I like my wines to stand up even when I don't finish the whole bottle in one sitting.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Attention all Western Canadians, attention all Conservatives:
I am Torontonian.
I did not vote Conservative.
The fact that the Conservative Party's leader and origins are from the West had absolutely ZERO effect on my choice of whom to vote for.
Let me explain how I decided to vote for a party other than the Conservatives:
I went to the websites of all four parties running candidates in my riding, and I read each party's platform. I compared each party's policy on each issue to all the other parties' policies. For every issue, I decided which party had the best policy, that is the closest to my vision of how Canada should be addressing the issue.
There was not a single issue for which the Conservative Party had the best policy. My reaction when reading the platform ranged from "This is a reasonable policy, but all the other parties have better policies" to "This policy, if implemented, would result in a Canada that I would be ashamed to live in." Even if I did not disagree with a particular Conservative policy, one of the other parties always had a better policy on that particular issue.
As you can see, regionalism had NOTHING to do with my decision not to vote for the Conservatives. It was all about policy. In fact, until these letters started pouring into the nation's op-ed pages, I didn't realize that the Conservatives were considered purveyors of the Western Weltanschauung. I took the Conservative Party to be just that, a conservative party, purveyors of the conservative Weltanschauung. Regionalism was never even a factor.
It isn't about anti-Western sentiment.
It my vote was not intended to slight or spite the West.
It is about policy.
My vote was intended to go to the party whose policies are closest to my vision rather than the party whose policies are furthest from my vision.
My decision about whether to vote Conservative would have been the same if those policies had originated from Jonquiere or Iqualuit or Bonavista or my next door neighbour.
It's all about policies. It is not about regions at all.
PS: If you're going to consider every pronouncement about your party to be a pronouncement about the West, you might want to think about following the lead of your Quebec counterparts and restyling yourselves as the Western Block.
I am Torontonian.
I did not vote Conservative.
The fact that the Conservative Party's leader and origins are from the West had absolutely ZERO effect on my choice of whom to vote for.
Let me explain how I decided to vote for a party other than the Conservatives:
I went to the websites of all four parties running candidates in my riding, and I read each party's platform. I compared each party's policy on each issue to all the other parties' policies. For every issue, I decided which party had the best policy, that is the closest to my vision of how Canada should be addressing the issue.
There was not a single issue for which the Conservative Party had the best policy. My reaction when reading the platform ranged from "This is a reasonable policy, but all the other parties have better policies" to "This policy, if implemented, would result in a Canada that I would be ashamed to live in." Even if I did not disagree with a particular Conservative policy, one of the other parties always had a better policy on that particular issue.
As you can see, regionalism had NOTHING to do with my decision not to vote for the Conservatives. It was all about policy. In fact, until these letters started pouring into the nation's op-ed pages, I didn't realize that the Conservatives were considered purveyors of the Western Weltanschauung. I took the Conservative Party to be just that, a conservative party, purveyors of the conservative Weltanschauung. Regionalism was never even a factor.
It isn't about anti-Western sentiment.
It my vote was not intended to slight or spite the West.
It is about policy.
My vote was intended to go to the party whose policies are closest to my vision rather than the party whose policies are furthest from my vision.
My decision about whether to vote Conservative would have been the same if those policies had originated from Jonquiere or Iqualuit or Bonavista or my next door neighbour.
It's all about policies. It is not about regions at all.
PS: If you're going to consider every pronouncement about your party to be a pronouncement about the West, you might want to think about following the lead of your Quebec counterparts and restyling yourselves as the Western Block.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
When I went to bed, all was right with the world. Liberals had won a
sizeable minority, NDP held the balance of power. The country was safe, my
job was safe, best possible outcome. When I woke up, it was a bit more
uncertain. NDP was one seat away from balance of power! GAH! I honestly
thought it was all over, that's why I went to bed! At least I got to fall
asleep feeling the most content and satisfied I've ever felt when falling
asleep alone.
I'm still satisfied with the outcome. I think it accurately represents the
sentiments of Canada as a whole, I think the current voting system gave us
an appropriate balance of power this time (with the exception of the
over-represented Bloc), and I think this government will be able to govern
as long as they make a modicum of effort to build consensus and don't let
egos get in the way. I don't know if we can trust Martin to do that, but if
he does he'll be able to govern.
Campaign analysis:
- The Liberals did not run a good campaign at all. If this were a "make a
good election campaign" contest, they would not deserve to win. Because of
Martin's hubris and need to separate himself from Chretien, he did not run
on his record, and when a governing party does not run on their record, it
gives a bad impression. They could have won the swingable right by
emphasizing their economic record, but they didn't. Instead they decided to
run on "fix healthcare". But since they've been in power for the last 10
years, the fact that healthcare needs fixing implies that they broke it.
They could have damaged-controlled the sponsorship scandal by emphasizing it
as a paperwork problem, akin to someone losing a receipt, and promptly
pushed through new, more transparent policies to ensure that every dollar
ever spent is accounted for. But instead they just pinned it on Chretien
and let the public believe that the cost of an entire program landed in
someone's pocket.
- The Conservatives should have started from a more centrist position and
moved further right once they gained the trust of the public. (I hope no
Conservatives are reading this!) I think a Purple Tory (a phrase that badly
needs to be coined!) position that doesn't take much of a stance on social
issues would have won more Red Tory/centrist support without risking much of
the neocon support (who are neocons going to vote for anyway, the NDP?).
They also lost a lot of the "Not The Liberals" support by having candidates
publicly blurt out snippets of their underlying neocon agenda on a weekly
basis.
- The NDP had an excellent platform, but they should have written off Quebec
to the Bloc and kept their mouth shut about the Clarity Act. Many of their
supporters, for example those in areas like Hamilton, are a lot less likely
to dispassionately analyze the intricacies of Quebec politics, instead
thinking "Those guys want to break up Canada! And now the NDP wants to help
them!" I don't think the inheritance tax bought them any friends (and there
were several problems with that plan, but that's for another rant), but
mostly they should have better addressed the issue of strategic voting.
Telling people not to vote strategically would be fruitless, but they could
have pointed out that voting strategically if your riding is already safe is
truly throwing away your vote. If they really wanted to invest in this,
they could have commissioned a riding-by-riding poll, so people would know
if their riding was safe. This would have won them at least two more seats
in Toronto alone.
- The Green Party is not nearly as left-wing as people think. They actually
have some very conservative (note my choice of capitalization) economic
policies. If people actually knew that, they might have gotten more votes.
- Just for fun, the Bloc should pick up some extra cash by running
candidates outside of Quebec. They wouldn't have to campaign or anything
outside of Quebec, just get a name on a ballot. You know it will pick up a
couple of joke/protest votes, and hey, it's $1.75 per vote!
Peeves:
- The timing of the poll closures, leaving us with 10% of the ridings
declared and an hour and a half until more results come in. They should
close Newfoundland at 9:30, Maritimes at 9:00, and the rest of the country
at 8:00 local time. Then everything up to Ontario would come in at once,
and we'd have lots of numbers to keep us amused while the rest of the
country finishes. Alternatively, close everything at, say, 8:00 local time.
It seems to take about half an hour to count enough of the Maritime votes,
then they'd have half an hour for speculation and punditry before the big
numbers come in.
- The side-effects of no media blackouts. I have no problem with lack of
media blackouts, but it does get problematic when Maritime winners use their
"You won and you have name recognition" interview to try to get out the vote
in BC.
- The idea that people didn't vote Conservative because of "fear of the
unknown". I'm sure that many people didn't vote Conservative because of
fear of what they DID know about them. Similarly, any sort of "Wassa
matter, you chicken?" rhetoric surrounding the decision of whom to vote for.
This isn't the appropriate outlet for senseless acts of recklessness, and
there's nothing shameful about voting for what's safest for the country.
- Pundits who equate not being right-wing with anti-West sentiment. Where
does that come from? Do they really think someone hates Alberta just because
they think a national daycare program is a good idea? Would you say a person
is anti-Toronto just because they aren't left-wing? It just comes across as
rhetoric intended to make the West hate the rest of the country.
- The omnipresent idea that the most important thing is that a party does
what they say they're going to do, no matter what it is they say they're
going to do. If someone says they're going to outlaw shoes and they go and
outlaw shoes, that doesn't mean it's a good thing that shoes have been
outlawed, and it doesn't mean that you should vote for them again when they
say they're going to outlaw pants.
- The fact that the English media has not managed to properly communicate to
anglo Canadians that people might vote Bloc for reasons other than being
separatist.
- The seemingly random order in which CBC showed riding results. That must
have been very annoying for those who weren't simultaneously tracking their
favourite ridings online! They should have just cycled through every riding
alphabetically!
Best moments:
- Being congratulated on my l33t ballot-folding skills, and playing with a
cool black and white doggie while its owner went to vote. I always seem to
meet cool doggies whenever I vote.
- Rick Mercer! "Hockey night in Canada for nerds" "It's very important that
the greatest evil DOES NOT win!" "I've never seen a rhinoceros, I think it
would be neat."
- That brief, shining moment when the Marxist-Leninist Party led Mississauga
East-Cooksville.
sizeable minority, NDP held the balance of power. The country was safe, my
job was safe, best possible outcome. When I woke up, it was a bit more
uncertain. NDP was one seat away from balance of power! GAH! I honestly
thought it was all over, that's why I went to bed! At least I got to fall
asleep feeling the most content and satisfied I've ever felt when falling
asleep alone.
I'm still satisfied with the outcome. I think it accurately represents the
sentiments of Canada as a whole, I think the current voting system gave us
an appropriate balance of power this time (with the exception of the
over-represented Bloc), and I think this government will be able to govern
as long as they make a modicum of effort to build consensus and don't let
egos get in the way. I don't know if we can trust Martin to do that, but if
he does he'll be able to govern.
Campaign analysis:
- The Liberals did not run a good campaign at all. If this were a "make a
good election campaign" contest, they would not deserve to win. Because of
Martin's hubris and need to separate himself from Chretien, he did not run
on his record, and when a governing party does not run on their record, it
gives a bad impression. They could have won the swingable right by
emphasizing their economic record, but they didn't. Instead they decided to
run on "fix healthcare". But since they've been in power for the last 10
years, the fact that healthcare needs fixing implies that they broke it.
They could have damaged-controlled the sponsorship scandal by emphasizing it
as a paperwork problem, akin to someone losing a receipt, and promptly
pushed through new, more transparent policies to ensure that every dollar
ever spent is accounted for. But instead they just pinned it on Chretien
and let the public believe that the cost of an entire program landed in
someone's pocket.
- The Conservatives should have started from a more centrist position and
moved further right once they gained the trust of the public. (I hope no
Conservatives are reading this!) I think a Purple Tory (a phrase that badly
needs to be coined!) position that doesn't take much of a stance on social
issues would have won more Red Tory/centrist support without risking much of
the neocon support (who are neocons going to vote for anyway, the NDP?).
They also lost a lot of the "Not The Liberals" support by having candidates
publicly blurt out snippets of their underlying neocon agenda on a weekly
basis.
- The NDP had an excellent platform, but they should have written off Quebec
to the Bloc and kept their mouth shut about the Clarity Act. Many of their
supporters, for example those in areas like Hamilton, are a lot less likely
to dispassionately analyze the intricacies of Quebec politics, instead
thinking "Those guys want to break up Canada! And now the NDP wants to help
them!" I don't think the inheritance tax bought them any friends (and there
were several problems with that plan, but that's for another rant), but
mostly they should have better addressed the issue of strategic voting.
Telling people not to vote strategically would be fruitless, but they could
have pointed out that voting strategically if your riding is already safe is
truly throwing away your vote. If they really wanted to invest in this,
they could have commissioned a riding-by-riding poll, so people would know
if their riding was safe. This would have won them at least two more seats
in Toronto alone.
- The Green Party is not nearly as left-wing as people think. They actually
have some very conservative (note my choice of capitalization) economic
policies. If people actually knew that, they might have gotten more votes.
- Just for fun, the Bloc should pick up some extra cash by running
candidates outside of Quebec. They wouldn't have to campaign or anything
outside of Quebec, just get a name on a ballot. You know it will pick up a
couple of joke/protest votes, and hey, it's $1.75 per vote!
Peeves:
- The timing of the poll closures, leaving us with 10% of the ridings
declared and an hour and a half until more results come in. They should
close Newfoundland at 9:30, Maritimes at 9:00, and the rest of the country
at 8:00 local time. Then everything up to Ontario would come in at once,
and we'd have lots of numbers to keep us amused while the rest of the
country finishes. Alternatively, close everything at, say, 8:00 local time.
It seems to take about half an hour to count enough of the Maritime votes,
then they'd have half an hour for speculation and punditry before the big
numbers come in.
- The side-effects of no media blackouts. I have no problem with lack of
media blackouts, but it does get problematic when Maritime winners use their
"You won and you have name recognition" interview to try to get out the vote
in BC.
- The idea that people didn't vote Conservative because of "fear of the
unknown". I'm sure that many people didn't vote Conservative because of
fear of what they DID know about them. Similarly, any sort of "Wassa
matter, you chicken?" rhetoric surrounding the decision of whom to vote for.
This isn't the appropriate outlet for senseless acts of recklessness, and
there's nothing shameful about voting for what's safest for the country.
- Pundits who equate not being right-wing with anti-West sentiment. Where
does that come from? Do they really think someone hates Alberta just because
they think a national daycare program is a good idea? Would you say a person
is anti-Toronto just because they aren't left-wing? It just comes across as
rhetoric intended to make the West hate the rest of the country.
- The omnipresent idea that the most important thing is that a party does
what they say they're going to do, no matter what it is they say they're
going to do. If someone says they're going to outlaw shoes and they go and
outlaw shoes, that doesn't mean it's a good thing that shoes have been
outlawed, and it doesn't mean that you should vote for them again when they
say they're going to outlaw pants.
- The fact that the English media has not managed to properly communicate to
anglo Canadians that people might vote Bloc for reasons other than being
separatist.
- The seemingly random order in which CBC showed riding results. That must
have been very annoying for those who weren't simultaneously tracking their
favourite ridings online! They should have just cycled through every riding
alphabetically!
Best moments:
- Being congratulated on my l33t ballot-folding skills, and playing with a
cool black and white doggie while its owner went to vote. I always seem to
meet cool doggies whenever I vote.
- Rick Mercer! "Hockey night in Canada for nerds" "It's very important that
the greatest evil DOES NOT win!" "I've never seen a rhinoceros, I think it
would be neat."
- That brief, shining moment when the Marxist-Leninist Party led Mississauga
East-Cooksville.
Monday, June 28, 2004
I did it. I read the platforms, pored over seat projections, analyzed my riding, and went and voted for the party whose vision is closest to mine. I just hope everyone else did the same. I did consider a strategic vote, but every seat projection has my riding safe, so I decided to send a message and $1.75 instead.
Incidently, I did receive a reply from my Liberal candidate, but it came too late. She sent the email at half past midnight last night (bonus points for staying up so late to answer voter emails!) but I was already in bed by then. I didn't get a chance to look at my email before work this morning, and I voted on my way home from work. Delaying answering the email so you have time to give a good answer is totally cool, she's not getting docked any points for that, but it just arrived a couple of hours too late. Luckily, by this point, nothing she could have said would have changed my vote.
Now go vote if you haven't already!
Incidently, I did receive a reply from my Liberal candidate, but it came too late. She sent the email at half past midnight last night (bonus points for staying up so late to answer voter emails!) but I was already in bed by then. I didn't get a chance to look at my email before work this morning, and I voted on my way home from work. Delaying answering the email so you have time to give a good answer is totally cool, she's not getting docked any points for that, but it just arrived a couple of hours too late. Luckily, by this point, nothing she could have said would have changed my vote.
Now go vote if you haven't already!
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Since election day is tomorrow, a quick reprise of How to Vote (the more detailed version can be found in my May archives):
1. Determine which party you would most like to win in the nation as a whole (The Best Party) and which party you would least like to win in the nation as a whole (The Worst Party).
2. Decide whether it's more important to you that The Best Party win, or that The Worst Party not win.
3. If it's more important that The Best Party win, go vote for The Best Party. If it's more important that The Worst Party not win, read on.
4. Assess voter sentiment in your riding and determine how much of a chance The Worst Party has of taking your riding.
5. If you are comfortable that The Worst Party's chance of taking your riding is sufficiently slim, go vote for The Best Party. If you feel that the risk of The Worst Party taking your riding is too high, read on.
6. Determine which party is most likely to defeat The Worst Party in your riding. Reread their platform, and ask yourself if you can, in good conscience, support them. If you can, in good conscience, support the party most likely to defeat The Worst Party in your riding, go vote for them. If you cannot in good conscience support this party's platform, go vote for the best party.
1. Determine which party you would most like to win in the nation as a whole (The Best Party) and which party you would least like to win in the nation as a whole (The Worst Party).
2. Decide whether it's more important to you that The Best Party win, or that The Worst Party not win.
3. If it's more important that The Best Party win, go vote for The Best Party. If it's more important that The Worst Party not win, read on.
4. Assess voter sentiment in your riding and determine how much of a chance The Worst Party has of taking your riding.
5. If you are comfortable that The Worst Party's chance of taking your riding is sufficiently slim, go vote for The Best Party. If you feel that the risk of The Worst Party taking your riding is too high, read on.
6. Determine which party is most likely to defeat The Worst Party in your riding. Reread their platform, and ask yourself if you can, in good conscience, support them. If you can, in good conscience, support the party most likely to defeat The Worst Party in your riding, go vote for them. If you cannot in good conscience support this party's platform, go vote for the best party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)