A party divided

The Libs' effective concession in Saguenay-Lac Saint Jean would be a comical enough development on its own in light of PMPM's admonition that only he can fight the evil Cons. (And let's be clear that while it's obvious that Gilles Savard hasn't dropped out officially, his campaign manager has defected and a federal Liberal spokeswoman merely confirmed the facts rather than stating any objection from the party generally.) But in the larger picture, it only helps to highlight the biggest problem with the Libs: PMPM's party is so determined to be seen as the strongest force against perceived enemies that it can't even be bothered to agree as to which enemies are worth fighting, let alone to stand for anything itself.

Within Quebec, Savard's concession is only a symptom of the Libs' wrong-headed efforts to turn the campaign into a referendum - which has led to far bigger names than Savard's campaign manager suggesting that it doesn't matter who Quebeckers vote for, as long as it isn't the Bloc. Meanwhile, the ROC Liberals have gone all out to vilify the Cons with no regard for the number of Libs who would fit seamlessly into Harper's caucus.

What's missing from the equation, of course, is any reason why Canadians should want to vote Liberal based on the Libs themselves. A party with so many internal contradictions obviously can't claim to hold particularly strong principles. And any time the Libs claim to speak against conservatives, or separatists, or any other group, there's always someone within the party eager to undermine that message in order to demonstrate their devotion to fighting somebody else.

Mind you, this wouldn't be such a problem if the Libs had a strong core of values to which to retreat. But then, unlike each of their competitors, the Libs can't really claim to have that: the Libs' current platform is just as much an incoherent mishmash as the composition of the party, and Martin's one attempt this campaign to present something resembling a Liberal vision was panned by his own party as well as most observers.

That combination has left individual Libs undercutting their own campaign at every turn, whether they mean to or not. And with the Cons poised to win government and the Bloc still solidly ahead in Quebec, the only question now is whether progressive voters will do the same as their conservative and separatist counterparts and vote for the party which actually stands up for their beliefs.

Nice

The NDP Rapid Response is compiling a handy list of the socially conservative Liberals receiving PMPM's support as part of his supposed attempt to speak for progressives. Needless to say, voters in these ridings who want to do their best to promote progressive values have no reason to look anywhere other than the NDP - particularly keeping in mind the likelihood of these same MPs voting with the Cons when presented with a future free vote in Parliament.

Worth a look

Scott Piatkowski is right on target:

Even though many advocates of strategic voting say that they favour a continued Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power, that's not what the Liberals themselves want. If they did, they wouldn't have recruited high profile candidates to run against NDP incumbents. Likewise, they'd be telling people in ridings featuring Conservative-NDP races to support the NDP. You won't hear that from a single Liberal, because they are clearly aiming to crush the NDP. That way, they can return to their habit of campaigning from the left and governing from the right, without anyone to call them on it.

Moreover, even if it happened that we end up with another Liberal minority, I don't support the view that only the total of Liberal and NDP seats matters. I would submit that it is always better to have an NDP MP rather than a Liberal MP to represent your riding. In the last Parliament, there were votes on several key issues in which the Liberals lined up with the Conservatives, including the defeat of federal anti-scab legislation. The only sure way to get an MP who supports NDP policies is to vote NDP.

Not much to add here, other than "amen to that". Give it a read.

On consistency

So let's get this straight. According to Stephen Harper, Canadians don't need to worry about a Con majority doing anything extreme because of the counterbalance offered by the Senate. But at the same time, Harper fully expects that Senate to be as inactive as possible:

"The Liberal Senate in the past was extremely unco-operative when their party wasn't in power so it's a worry," Mr. Harper said.

"I hope that better judgment will prevail and the unelected Senate will play the role that historically it has played, which has been a useful technical role, but will not try to interfere with the democratic will of the elected House."

Needless to say, Canadians shouldn't buy the second line from Harper. If he does manage to win a majority, that will have been based in part on his promise that his actions will be kept in check by the Senate as well as the courts and the civil service. And as a result of that promise, the Senate at least (as the only partisan-based body of the bunch) should hold a solid mandate to use its better judgment as needed on the legislation before it, whether or not that judgment happens to line up with Harper's.

On poor excuses

It should be embarrassing enough for the Liberals that during their reign, Campaign 2000's name has become anachronistic rather than future-oriented, without any progress actually being made on poverty issues. But an election report card on child poverty from the anti-poverty coalition (note for PMPM: see what the term means when it's used correctly?) shows that the Libs aren't even pretending to take positive action.

The Libs receive two "Yes" rankings (both on aspects of their child-care plan) and two "Partial" rankings out of eight issues, with glaring "No" rankings on the Child Tax Benefit, on EI and on the minimum wage. Meanwhile, the NDP wins seven "Yes" rankings and one "Partial". Which indicates that when it comes to poverty issues, in contrast to the NDP's genuine commitment to getting results, the Libs can't even be bothered to put up the appearance of caring. (And that's all the more damning given that even a Liberal promise doesn't tend to lead to action until a decade later.)

So which of the NDP or the Libs is best suited to oppose the Cons' wall of "No"s? Martin may think, as usual, that the right answer is "whatever benefits the Libs". But if you're primarily interested in ensuring that meaningful action is taken to reduce poverty in Canada, the NDP is plainly the party of choice.

(Via Vote for a Change.)

(Edit: cleaned up first paragraph.)

Game over

While PMPM would like Canadians to pretend otherwise, Buzz Hargrove doesn't speak for all unions in the election campaign. And according to a poll commissioned by the SEIU, that's for the best, as Hargrove's voice has ultimately helped the Cons at the expense of both the Libs and the NDP:

While 80 per cent of respondents said Hargrove's endorsement of the Liberals has made no difference to their voting preference, 15 per cent of respondents who identify themselves as traditional Conservative voters say that they were less likely to vote Liberal as an alternative to their traditional party of choice since Hargrove supported 'voting strategically' for the Liberals.

"For some conservative voters, Hargrove's support of the Liberals has been good enough reason to discount voting Liberal all together," says Stewart.

The poll also shows the CAW's advice did not produce the hoped-for momentum of NDP voters toward the Liberals. Only seven per cent of traditional NDP voters said they were more likely to vote Liberal.

"Workers expect clear leadership and guidance from their labour unions, and that is why SEIU has supported the NDP throughout this election. The stakes are too high to play political games, and Buzz Hargrove's ill-advised announcement proved it," Stewart says.

And it looks like the poll was conducted even before Hargrove went off the deep end today. (Sorry to Dr. Dawg in response to the comment to this post, but Hargrove finds no sympathy here: nothing forced him to encourage a vote for either the Cons or the Bloc, as surely somebody with his experience in the public eye should know enough to promote his own party/parties of choice rather than biting on a trap question.) We'll see how long it takes PMPM to shed Hargrove from his entourage now that there's clear evidence to suggest that the Cons have benefited from the affiliation - or whether Martin cares little enough about his supposed progressive coalition to ignore the evidence.

A meaningful endorsement

The Libs continue to trot out Buzz Hargrove and his increasingly-incoherent semi-endorsement as reason to believe they're winning momentum on the left. Hargrove's bizarre outburst today even forced Martin into the position of defending Harper at the expense of whatever credibility he had left.

But with a lot less fanfare, the NDP has won a surprising endorsement based on principle rather than lust for power:

The leader of the Nova Scotia Green Party, Michael Oddy, is sold on the idea of switching allegiances and is urging Green Party members to vote NDP.

"We're in a situation where climate change is running amok and therefore we need to do something soon, and we're going to need some NDP MPs who are going to be holding these guys accountable," said Oddy, who ran federally for the Green Party in 2000 and 2004.

Oddy said the federal Green Party is now more right-wing than the Conservative party on many issues, and that's why he has abandoned it.

Keep in mind just how uncertain Atlantic Canada's voting outlook is at the moment. With so much still up in the air, Oddy's endorsement could provide just the push needed to win some close ridings for the NDP if even a small number of current Green voters are persuaded to shift. And unlike the Libs' star endorsement today, Oddy's message is one that Layton can wear with pride rather than embarrassment.

On best cases

One less-reported note from Layton's Town Hall appearance last night (unfortunately there's no full transcript yet): it was certainly a plus to see Layton mention both the possibility that enough votes for the party could lead to an NDP government, and the fact that the NDP is prepared in case that happens.

I'd like to see that concept (accompanied by Layton's proviso that it's Canadian voters who'll make the decision) mentioned a bit more often as the campaign winds down. After all PMPM's "only we can beat the Cons!" hysteria will look all the worse if, as appears to be the case, Canadians are opening up to the prospect of Layton as a PM-in-the-making.

On failing to attack the Cons

As a followup to PMPM's accusation that the NDP isn't doing enough to counter Harper: let's not forget which party's MPs have encouraged Quebeckers to cast a vote for the Cons.

Of the coerced and the bribed

PMPM fires what's apparently the last bullet left in the Liberal gun, trying against all available evidence to claim to be a coalition-builder on the left:

Martin is calling for a "coalition of progressive voters," to unite behind Liberal candidates in order to deny the Conservative party an electoral victory.

Let's leave aside the questions as to whether or not the Liberals can be considered to be progressive at all, and look mostly at the strategy involved. PMPM's idea of a coalition seems to closely resemble that of another prominent North American politician. Rather than such a coalition actually making room for differing viewpoints and legitimate challenges to Martin's direction, the plan is for Martin to continue to give orders, and for more people than usual to make themselves subject to them.

The problem is that it's exactly that type of attitude that's pushed the Libs into electoral purgatory already. And NDP/Lib swing voters don't have any real incentive to heed Martin's call, only to drive a few more voters into the Con camp in an effort to end the culture of entitlement for once and for all. A vote switched to the NDP, on the other hand, helps to defuse Con support - not only by shifting the balance in ridings where it's the NDP and the Cons slugging it out, but also in giving the wider public a better idea of the fact that there is a progressive choice that isn't mired in more than a decade's worth of scandal.

Mind you, if Martin really wanted to form a coalition, this Dipper for one would be more than willing to play along. (Not to speak for the party of course.) But that would involve the Libs showing some humility, backing the NDP in races where doing so would likely defeat the Cons, and focussing their own resources on the Cons rather than trying to eradicate other progressive voices.

Of course, Martin's ego (along with the number of his pet MPs running against strong NDP opponents) would never let that happen. And Canadian voters have learned their lesson after the scare-from-the-left, govern-to-Harper's-satisfaction strategy the Liberals used in 2004. Which means that while Martin continues to claim entitlement to lead a coalition of the willing-to-be-duped, Canadians know better than to think he speaks for the benefit of anybody other than himself.

On foresight

Within the campaign, this may well be an effective way for Stephen Harper to calm the fears of what he could do with a majority:

As for a Tory majority being able to do whatever it wants in Ottawa, Harper said that isn't the case because of a Liberal-dominated Senate and bureaucracy appointed by Liberal governments.

"There are checks and balances, and that is the reality."

But should somebody point out to Harper that he's effectively invited the Senate to challenge his policies if he does manage to eke out a majority?

For lack of an honest argument...

Does anybody else find it funny that while the Cons were able to mount an entire national advertising campaign against the Libs based on actual quotes and headlines, they couldn't even come up with one anti-NDP ad without making the whole thing up?

While the NDP's Rapid Response looks at the issue as one of Con hypocrisy, even that may understate the significance of the ad. After all, if even the hyper-prepared Con war room doesn't have anything approaching a genuine case against the NDP, surely that has to make voters think twice about whether there's any reason at all not to cast their ballot for the Dippers.

The full message

Kevin Brennan posts another interesting article on the NDP's direction. But while Kevin seems to see his proposal as a radical change of course for the NDP, it looks to me largely like the party's existing plan - if perhaps with a slightly different focus:

(T)he NDP has to do two things: articulate a powerful message, and do it fast. It also needs to be a message that clearly differentiates them from the other parties, and one that can pull in voters. There may be others, but one that I think might be effective is to come out swinging in defence of federalism and the role of the federal government.

Why? Well, it’s a position that is neglected in Canada today. The Conservatives are a decentralist party that wants the federal government to do the absolute minimum demanded of it by the Constitution. The Liberals aren’t a hell of a lot better; in practice, they have drifted to the point where the federal role is mostly economic–redistributing money and balancing growth among regions. Both parties are content to leave most hard decision-making to the provinces, although for differing reasons (Harper because that’s what he actually believes, Martin because it’s easier). But I don’t see any party actively making the case that Canadian federalism is a good thing, and that the federal government should be actively doing stuff–even though a very substantial number of Canadians believe it.

It’s a winning message in Atlantic Canada and in Ontario, at a minimum. I think the only provinces where it would turn off a majority of voters are Québec and Alberta–not exactly NDP strongholds. In fact, it might even improve their vote count in those provinces, since nobody else is campaigning for those voters there. It could hardly cost them seats in either province. And (i)t would give Jack Layton a much stronger message than his current one, which amounts to little more than a collection of small things he wants to do for Working Families.

I certainly won't disagree that the NDP's strongest role in this election is as the true defender of federalism. But I'll have to disagree with the view that the NDP isn't doing that already.

Kevin seems to view the party's current focus on "getting results for people" as being different from an argument in favour of a strong federal government. But even to the extent that the NDP is now able to brag about its record, the party's signature policy accomplishment (the 2005 budget) reflects the NDP's hand in reversing a policy which would have shifted influence from government to the corporate sector, and achieving a positive result for Canadians with the money freed up in the process. And it would have been an awfully empty victory merely to cut out the tax cut with no prospect of putting that money to good use.

Stronger federalism is thus the means; results for people are the end. And it certainly won't do the NDP much good to try to focus on the former to the exclusion of the latter.

So what about the NDP's policy positions within the campaign? The strongest underlying theme within the NDP's platform is again the premise that the federal government is currently failing to take action in areas, ranging from health care to the environment to housing to education, where it could be doing a lot more good if it chose to take action...and the NDP is alone in making sure that added funding in those areas is based on concrete rules and results. In other words, while the NDP promises more funding from the federal government, it's the only federal party proposing to be at least a manager rather than a headwaiter (or worse).

At the same time, though, nobody's going to vote for the party merely because it presents the image of a federal government taking power back from the provinces - particularly if the provinces themselves have time to respond. Hence the NDP also making the case that in the areas where it proposes to exercise more influence, the effect is a genuine improvement in the lives of Canadians - not merely an expansion of power for the PMO.

In sum, the NDP's platform has been based on Kevin's suggestion all along. But instead of an empty argument based on promoting federalism solely for the sake of having a stronger central government, the NDP's platform is based both on showing that federal intervention is necessary, and on showing the concrete ways in which that federalism can help Canadians. Which should be enough to win over anybody primarily concerned about federalism swinging too far toward provincial control - but also to show Canadians looking for more tangible results that the NDP will benefit them as well.

No Show Mo

It's tough to argue with the sentiment behind the Vote Out Vellacott movement, and more than a few bloggers have picked up on the effort. But while there's plenty of reason to criticize Vellacott's positions on the issues, the site's focus on Vellacott's woeful attendance record in Parliament is misguided on two levels.

First, remember the context of the current Conservative campaign, which is apparently operating on the principle that you can't make a fool of yourself if you don't show up. For those with any inclination to vote Con, Vellacott was the poster boy for this year's campaign theme since back when the party was known as the Alliance...and that makes him more likely to be seen as a visionary than a truant.

Second, consider that the Cons are likely to win at least a minority government, which in turn would inevitably lead to at least a few free votes on issues which should have been long decided. If that's the case, then the best hope for same-sex marriage and abortion rights may be for Vellacott and his ilk to sleep through a key vote...so why send the message that his constituents will punish him for doing so?

Sure, I'd love to see Vellacott voted out of Parliament. But there's no indication that either his constituents or the Conservative Party sees his sleep-based strategy as a bad one...and as long as he's all too likely to win, best to encourage him to keep up the nonexistent work.

Block the vote

When I first posted about Elections Canada's last-minute decision to cancel an advance poll at the University of Toronto, I'd optimistically assumed that it was an operational decision of Elections Canada rather than one encouraged by any political party. Sadly, that assumption turned out to be wrong:

(According to student organizer Paul Bretscher,) "(t)he Tony Ianno campaign informed us that it was Liberal legal council in Ottawa that had filed something with Elections Canada that resulted in these polling locations being removed from campus."

Ianno campaign manager Tom Allison says Elections Canada agreed that the impromptu polling sites weren't allowed.

On a quick reading of the special ballot provisions of the Canada Elections Act, it's hard to see any merit to the apparent objection. The statute doesn't distinguish between permanent and "impromptu" polling locations, and doesn't offer any specific authorization or prohibition toward the campus procedure. Section 231 implicitly provides that any elector who wishes to use the special ballot procedure may do so - which suggests that there shouldn't be any strict limitation on where the procedure is applied.

And most importantly, section 179 grants the Chief Electoral Officer discretion to adapt all existing procedures in order to execute the intent of the special balloting procedure. Surely that intent must be to facilitate voting through means other than the standard ballot, rather than to limit access to the polls.

Unfortunately, that seems to be precisely the effect for students at the U of T. Those who live close enough to the campus will still be able to vote easily enough using the standard ballot process - assuming, of course, that polls near the campus are equipped to deal with a rush of students who'd expected to vote elsewhere. Meanwhile, those who are away from their home ridings will have to track down a local returning officer before the end of tomorrow in order to go through exactly the same special ballot process which would otherwise have been available to them on campus.

Note also that similar special balloting went ahead on other campuses - and there doesn't seem to have been any lack of interest from students in making use of these polls. Which begs the question of whether all those students will now see their votes called into question if the procedure used wasn't authorized under the Canada Elections Act.

It's truly sad that on the Day of Action where groups are making an effort to get younger Canadians interested in voting, a roadblock thrown up by the Liberal Party is getting in the way of a significant number of those same voters. Hopefully the move won't dissuade too many of those who planned to vote on campus - and the voters will remember which party considers a procedural objection more important than allowing young Canadians to cast their votes as planned.

A brief reminder

In the aftermath of yesterday's attack in Afghanistan which killed a Canadian diplomat and wounded three soldiers, most of the media focus has rightly been on the efforts of the victims themselves rather than the impact back home. And most of the coverage of this tragedy has thus been completely removed from election talk. But let's not forget that only one federal party insists on public debate before any more Canadians are put in harm's way.

Making one's vote count

I've never been shy about noting that I don't generally see a strategic vote (defined as voting for a party other than the one which best reflects one's own values and priorities) as a viable means of expressing one's democratic will. While other bloggers have done their best to set criteria under which strategic voting makes sense, I tend to the view that it's only in the rarest of cases that a strategic vote can possibly do more good than harm. This post will explain the reasoning behind that view.

My argument starts from the question of what one can actually accomplish with one's vote - and I'll note initially that media coverage of the campaign bears little resemblance to the plausible impact of one's vote. The media coverage focuses largely on who will form Canada's next government, with very little consideration given to the local races that shape such a national outlook, how that government will function or how the country's political spectrum will shift as a result of the election.

I'll accept that there's a lot more to report on a daily basis about what the leading candidates have done in a given day as opposed to what may be relevant in determining Canada's future direction - after all, speculation doesn't make for easy or compelling news. But the focus of the "horse race" coverage, no matter how many parties are included or excluded, is to simultaneously miss both the smaller picture (the races in individual ridings) and the bigger picture (the long-term direction of the country). And that leads to a problem where even for a voter who wants to vote strategically, there's very little information to determine where a strategic vote would could actually have any effect.

But what of the smaller picture? If a person has reliable information that one's riding will most likely come down to parties other than one's first choice, does that justify strategic voting?

Here too, one needs to be careful; no matter how good that information during the course of the campaign, it doesn't necessarily reflect the way voters will ultimately cast their ballots on election day. But if there's a relatively large difference between two parties' marginal chance of winning and a relatively small difference in their apparent values, then in theory a strategic vote could be the most likely to produce a positive result.

The problem with this view is that a vote does more than to just decide one's local riding. Let's take a look at some of the effects of an individual vote beyond merely electing a local candidate:

Your vote helps to allocate party funding until the next election. Granted, that $1.75 per year alone won't make a huge difference - but then neither is an individual vote likely to be the deciding factor within a riding. And the effect of systematic strategic voting can be a massive transfer of money from one's first choice to one's second choice. In 2004, the NDP's share of the vote dropped 2% from most of the polls to election day based largely on strategic voting. If those votes had stuck with the Dippers, then the NDP would have had an extra half a million dollars per year in the meantime with which to make itself heard - instead of that money being in Liberal hands to try to scare voters away from the NDP.

Your vote helps to influence governments and party platforms. The more popular a given party's platform appears to be, the more likely other parties are to adopt similar measures in the next election - or even to implement them while in power in order to appeal to the greatest number of voters possible. See e.g. the Liberals moving quickly toward balancing budgets in response to pressure from the Reform opposition in the mid-'90s. If, on the other hand, your vote goes to a party with an "appealing to everybody" type of platform (which in most cases will be the party most likely to benefit from a strategic vote), then that gives parties no real information as to your policy preferences - and helps to ensure that those preferences are ignored when political parties choose their future direction.

Your vote helps to influence the way your preferred party treats your riding in the next election. Frustrated with the fact that your first-choice party doesn't seem to be running a winnable campaign in your riding? There are probably many people similarly frustrated - but if the party doesn't see potential for growth in the riding, it's not likely to do anything other than write off the riding all the more in future elections. On the other hand, if a relatively weak campaign manages to win more votes than expected, then the party will see the riding as more fertile ground that it may have before. And that may mean a more "electable" candidate and a better campaign next time out.

Your vote helps to shape the media narrative surrounding the election. While all parties do their best to spin election results, it's ultimately the media which makes the final call - and however a party's results compare to the initial expectations becomes part of the conventional wisdom surrounding the election. Regardless of how many seats a party wins, it's likely to win credit for its campaign strategy if it can pull out more votes than expected...and that only makes it easier for that party create momentum for itself in the next election. In contrast, the late 2004 losses for the NDP have put the party on the defensive this time out, as the party has had to spend far too much time and resources trying to prove that an election-day switch to the Libs isn't inevitable.

Ultimately, in deciding whether or not to vote strategically, a voter gets to choose between the following priorities:
(1) the chance that, if the presumption of a strategic voting situation is accurate, one's vote may help to elect one's second choice ahead of a lesser choice; or,
(2) the certainty that one's vote will benefit one's first-choice party in terms of finance and public perception, along with the chance that the vote will affect the riding result due to the preexisting assumption being wrong.

Given that balancing of factors, it seems to me highly unlikely that strategic voting can lead to the best outcome in any but an exceptional case. And that's true regardless of which party stands to gain or lose from a strategic vote.

I leave for another time the question of how to determine which party best shares one's values: I certainly wouldn't suggest taking any political party's platform at face value and ignoring a track record which casts reasonable suspicion on the sincerity of a party's claims. But where a voter can identify a party which best fits that voter's vision for Canada, it's never a wasted vote to cast one's ballot accordingly - and all too likely to be a wasted vote to vote otherwise.

Independently unverified

The Conference Board of Canada has qualified its conclusion that the Cons' platform can be sustained within a balanced budget, as some of the elements within the Cons' platform were never included in the plan submitted for evaluation:

Paul Darby, deputy chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, originally concluded that Stephen Harper's Conservative platform "is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011."

The Conservative party promoted that conclusion last week as evidence its election platform had been "independently verified" by the Conference Board, an Ottawa-based think-tank.

But Darby says the version of the platform he was given to vet didn't include a Conservative party health-care guarantee which states patients will be transported to another jurisdiction if they can't get timely care at home.

It also omitted a Tory platform promise to redress the so-called "fiscal imbalance" between Ottawa and the provinces.

The Conference Board's representative noted that since those platform planks weren't costed, he assumed that they weren't serious commitments from the Cons. But the Cons themselves have claimed otherwise, justifying the lack of any current numbers for these commitments based solely on the fact that their amount would remain to be negotiated.

It may be fair to say that it's tough to know the amount of those commitments in advance. But a budget predicated on a zero cost for those items is bound to look a lot different when any real numbers are put in place. And that means that the Cons' "independent verification" has really only confirmed that the Cons can't keep their promises without going into deficit or passing along the cost to Canadians in other ways.

Higher political education

The Canadian Federation of Students claims that Elections Canada decided to eliminate special ballot voting for University of Toronto students with next to no warning, leaving students wondering how to cast their vote:

The Students' Administrative Council, the central undergraduate students' union at the University of Toronto, had been working with Elections Canada to ensure that students living in campus residences could vote by "special ballot" in the Federal Election from Sunday, January 15 to Tuesday, January 17. This voting accommodation for was meant to ease the confusion among students living away from home during the election and improve voter turn-out amongst youth.

Elections Canada had officially notified the students' union, as well as candidates in the riding, that special ballot student voting would occur over three days, at seven locations in campus residences. The students' union had widely publicized these arrangements, in an effort to encourage students to participate in the Federal Election. On Saturday, January 14, at 9:45 pm, the evening before voting was set to begin, Elections Canada informed the students' union that these voting arrangements were being cancelled. No explanation was provided.

I'd certainly hope there's either a very good explanation or an alternative means of voting in the works. But for those students who may feel that their input through voting isn't valued, Elections Canada has done nothing but to reinforce that impression.

That said, it isn't yet too late for students to take initiative for themselves - though it will be soon. According to the Elections Canada website, any student wanting to vote through the special ballot process (which they'll have to if they're outside their home riding) will need to:
- register for the process through any Elections Canada returning officer by 6:00 PM Tuesday; and,
- ensure that the ballot reaches either the Ottawa office of Elections Canada, or the returning officer for the student's own riding, by 6:00 PM on the 23rd.

In sum, if students wait until the end of the period when Elections Canada was supposed to be on campus, it'll be too late to register for the special ballot process . Hopefully word will get out soon enough for students to find another way to register - and Elections Canada's sudden reversal won't affect the results in Trinity-Spadina or elsewhere.

On knowing one's power

The CP answers the question of whether writing a letter to the PM's office can make a difference with an all-too-definitive "no":

Altogether, Prime Minister Paul Martin received more than two million missives from Canadians in the year leading up to the Nov. 29 election call.

And their complaints and concerns bear little resemblance to the issues popping up in the headlines and newscasts of the last seven weeks.

Internal monthly analyses of this tsunami of correspondence, obtained under the Access to Information Act, show that water exports, an Arctic national wildlife refuge and debt relief for developing countries have been uppermost on the minds of correspondents.

Gun control, income trusts and taxes -- favourites of the campaign trail -- are far, far down the list of issues prompting Canadians to sound off directly with the prime minister.

The article doesn't draw the connection directly. But it seems fairly obvious that the issues which were subject to a great deal of letter-writing compared to little media exposure (particularly that of water exports) weren't the subject of meaningful action, while the ones which received media attention (e.g. income trusts) were subject to immediate action even if there was no particular groundswell of letter-writing.

Which means that for Canadians wanting to send a message to their government, a pen and paper won't do much to make a dent in the status quo. Instead, the main tools which may actually make a difference are the media, to the extent that an individual has access to such a platform; and the ballot box, in its ability to register the voters' desire for a government which responds in a different way. And Canadian voters, particularly those who have seen their concerns build up in a pile in Paul Martin's mail room, get their chance next week to send a message that no future Lib government would dare to ignore.