The concept of strategic voting is widely used by political parties and the media since the beginning of the campaign. It is assumed that it is a widespread behaviour because Canada has a "winner-takes-all" electoral system. There are two very simple conditions for a vote to be qualified as strategic: first, a voter must not vote for her preferred party, and second, behave this way in order to block a worse option. As we shall see, this straightforward definition has enormous consequences when it comes to quantifying strategic voting.
Anti-Semitism is what many Canadian Jews experienced who faced quotas when applying for professional degrees, or who were barred from joining certain golf clubs. Anti-Semitism is what my ancestors experienced in Eastern Europe with pogroms, frequent assaults and massacres in Jewish communities. Anti-Semitism is the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. How can it be in any way appropriate to use this term to describe individuals who criticize a modern political entity -- the state of Israel -- which systematically violates the rights of Palestinians?
This year's election will probably mark a watershed when it comes to how the Muslims see themselves politically. Different narratives animate various camps within the community, but there seem to be sizeable movement on both ends of the spectrum.
Attend an all candidate's meeting in your area, and ask what his or her stance is on GMOs. If enough people ask, they'll know that this is important to Canadians, and that their chances of getting elected will depend on where they stand on this issue! Together, we can make GMO labelling an election issue.
In a Canada in which our current government has expressed undying loyalty to Netanyahu's regime, and where the opposition parties appear unwilling to publicly shame the government for its appalling disregard for the human rights of Palestinians, we cannot realistically expect the enactment of state sanctions against Israel any time soon. If the NDP wants to prove to Canadians that it is indeed the government in waiting, and that it's visibly different from the Conservatives, then we should all expect it to commit to taking action on this issue. Will the NDP, at the very least, commit to reforming CIFTA to exclude tariff-free imports of illegal Israeli settlement products
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is right to say no to any coalition talks with the NDP. It's a con game by the NDP and one that would make voters punish the Liberals. For one thing, the Liberals and the NDP are very different on issues like the Sherbrooke Declaration and the Senate. Then there's the question who'll lead and for how long. A coalition also begs the question why should you vote if the second and third status parties are going to knock out the sitting government.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations have attracted considerable attention in Canada in recent weeks as the political consequences of dismantling agricultural protections loom large with a national elections scheduled for the fall.
Elizabeth May has been at the forefront of debate ever since she was elected. There are now two elected Green Party MPs and the party is again fielding candidates from coast to coast to coast. Her exclusion from the leaders debates amounts to an outrageous affront to democracy.
All Canadians, regardless of their home province, want a principled federal Government that gets things done, not one that panders, not one that is reckless, and certainly not one that lowers the bar for the break-up of our country. Thomas Mulcair hopes to woo separatists into voting NDP and he's putting the healed wounds of our national unity at risk to do so. Our country is at a crossroads. After nearly a decade of Harper they are hungry for real change and a positive new course.
Coalitions are part of our democracy, part of many democracies. Politicians who don't believe in coalitions are like lawyers who don't believe in the law. All of our federal leader have shied away from this aspect of our democracy and shame on them for it.
Mulcair's image has been cleaned up by party strategists for the 2015 election, but we've seen enough of his behaviour and attitude over the years to make some judgement. Should Canadians judge Thomas Mulcair by his campaign image or by his character? Like any employer, Canadians need to know the man they're hiring for Canada's top job. Can Canadians trust Thomas Mulcair with being prime minister?
Canadians now realize that the most likely party that could defeat the federal Conservatives and bring real change is the NDP. As a result, we could see from the recent polls that support for the Liberals is withering whereas that for the Conservatives is stagnant, and that for the NDP is rising.
To put it in its simplest terms, this election will be like a feeding frenzy -- there is blood in the water and the sharks are circling. There is definitely a megashark in the water, he is ready to rip and tear his opponents apart to assert his role as the apex megashark. He's a shark, it's what they do.
Despite the bad press that continues to dog the oil sands, it's not a potential foreign boycott of "dirty" Canadian oil that's the biggest problem for the domestic energy industry. No, the larger challenge is simple economics.
Now that Gilles Duceppe is back and has declared his willingness to support a coalition that would offer an alternative to the Conservatives and which is in Quebec's interest, the dilemma for voters in the province changes dramatically.
In the absence of a clear-cut vision from the Liberals, the NDP has become the reasonable alternative. The party is now on record voting against Bill C-51 and voicing a strong opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. Mulcair has advocated for a national child care policy worth $8 billion and proposed targeted tax cuts for families.