Is a Referendum the Best Way to Determine an Electoral System?

.Is a Referendum the Best Way to Determine an Electoral System?

Theoretically a referendum may seem like the most obvious and democratic way to determine whether electoral reform is desirable in Canada; but, as we have seen with referendums at the provincial level in BC, PEI, and Ontario, the results almost always render the status quo, not change, largely because of the nature of the choices: the known against the unknowns. That is, first-past-the-post, whether on the referendum ballot or not, is stacked in a binary structure almost always against both a ranked ballot system and proportional representation. There is of course a built in psychological bias for the known in such a situation, and inevitably the unknowns tend to split the alternative vote. Those who want a referendum and favour FPP would seem to be aware of this potential structural deficiency, recognizing that first-past-the-post would inevitably be triumphant either by choice or default.  In this context, then, a referendum is an illusion of democracy.

And so it’s clearly in the interests of those who enjoy a substantial degree of power through first-past-the post to maintain it. In this case, that would be the good old Conservative Party of Canada, who  - let’s be honest - don’t really want a referendum because in fact they really don’t want electoral reform.* Instead, they just don’t want Parliament to consider the issue,** for their real concern is maintaining the power they enjoy through the status quo. Their call for a referendum, in other words, is a mere political ploy, not a genuine gesture in the direction of real democracy; and, sad to say, they’ve sucked in quite a few on the left of the political spectrum.  THE CPC know that were proportional representation, for example, to be established, in many of the ridings where they have won by FPP  - particularly rural ridings - their power would be significantly eroded.***

A referendum offers a second advantage to those who don’t want electoral reform in that it provides a much more straightforward opportunity to lobby if not propagandize against whatever systems are presented as alternatives to FPP by way of various media, editorials,**** op eds, radio talk shows and advertising - a much more difficult task to execute if reform were to be considered through a consultative all-party parliamentary process that would have the sanctioned weight of the representatives Canadians have elected to govern them. It is certainly one of the reasons some want a referendum rather than parliamentary consideration: it allows for substantial direct  “partisanship” spin.

________________________

*Cf. Robin Sears: “The Conservatives are already demanding a referendum on any change to the electoral system, secure in the knowledge that that would mean certain defeat for any reform. Some gullible journalists have defended a referendum as an essential democratic test. What that naively fails to recall, of course, is that there has never been a non-partisan “democratic” referendum. The final choice will inevitably be political and require partisan approval.” 

**Why would they? First-past-the-post is not on the agenda, as the Liberal election platform clearly says: “We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.”

***Under FPP, less populated rural ridings carry as much representational weight in parliament as do densely populated urban ridings. Because of that discrepancy, they are really less democratically representational. Both a ranking ballot system and PR in particular would in fact be more representational of all voters in a given riding and thus more democratic.

****This has already begun in rural newspapers and even The Globe and Mail.

The issue is not #capitalism under new management, but the transformation of #capitalism itself. #neoliberalism #cdnecon

More and more I tend to agree with George Monbiot that it is not neoliberalism in and of itself as an ideology or economic theory that is the root cause of our economic/political/social woes, but the ruling oligarchy’s alibiing use of that model to further their own wealth no matter the harm that results from that quest. (Is it any wonder they’re called “the feral rich.”) The distinction is important because it shifts the strategic focus to the plutocratic investor class itself and in turn their banking, regulatory, and corporate institutions - their agents of destruction -  which are served of course by compliant governments everywhere and nowhere more so than right here in Canada. Our banks are now “too big too fail.” This is, sad to say,  the point to which the financialization of the Canadian economy has descended: 80% of  financial assets are held in these institutions. Be prepared for the socializing of bank debt down the road now that the framework's in place; that is, you'll pay for any bailouts.

More and more too I find myself in agreement with both Greg Albo and Leo Panitch, who have argued persuasively that progressives groups here (including the Council of Canadians) and elsewhere are very big on tactics and “micro-politics” but woefully lacking in overall strategy and considerations of  long-term consequences. I would add to their basic argument that the self-interest of the progressive groups each with its own agenda determined largely by their executives - as is the case with political parties - will no doubt continue to inhibit any collectivizing co-operative movement towards a larger, focused pragmatic goal of institutionalizing social democratic controls.

For a brief moment, there was a ray hope with the establishment of CommonCauses, but apparently all they wish to do is replicate the actions of other progressive groups and to replace the Harper Regime. The issue of course is much larger than that simplistic goal. The issue is not capitalism under new management, but the transformation of capitalism itself. Else all is lost.

Is it hopeless? Perhaps not. Perhaps all that is required is patience, As Richard Wolff has said, "As has happened often in human history, what provokes change is less any clear vision of where we go next and more the intolerability of where we are. Capitalism is no longer "delivering the goods" for most people. The circle of its beneficiaries grows smaller and richer and more out of touch with the mass of people than ever."

#HarperRegime's neoliberal immigration policy: we help only those who can help us, not those who need help. bit.ly/THkytI #cdnpoli
— Barry Cameron (@AppalledBC) January 2, 2013

Reading Economic Health into the Recent StatsCan Jobs Data is An Exercise in Fantasy

Reading Economic Health into the Recent StatsCan Jobs Data is An Exercise in Fantasy

Here’s the reality in that data:

1) As Derek Holt points out, there is no hours worked increase. That remains static. But it is hours worked that “drive incomes, not body count.” Holt speculates that the already employed are working fewer hours, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest such a situation is probable.

2) The so-called new jobs have not increased labour productivity one iota. There is, in other words, no output growth, no real economic growth resulting from job increases.

3) All the job increases were in the low paying service sector, while jobs in both manufacturing and construction decreased significantly.

The Canadian economy under the weak neoliberal stewardship of the arrogant Harper Regime continues to stagnate, and, as a result, while the 1-10% continues to live well, the middle and working class suffer. A global economic implosion is on its way, and, given the average debt load of Canadians, we will be hit hard when that happens.

StatsCan:

Job Gains too Good to be true:

A short quiz on the US, Israel, and 'rogue nation' status | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

A short quiz on the US, Israel, and 'rogue nation' status | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

"...So essentially, it's the entire planet on one side, versus the US, its new right-wing poodle to the north, Israel, and three tiny, bribed islands on the other side.

If you're a member in good standing of the Washington-based US foreign policy community, then the way you describe these matters is as follows: "the international community stands by Israel and supports its position" - because, in that warped, self-affirming world, "international community" is a synonym for "US dictates".

But for those fortunate enough to reside outside of that realm of intense imperial propaganda: who is actually opposed to the consensus of the international community here? In other words, who are the real 'rogue nations'?"

Canada as the U.S.’s new right-wing poodle, not the pit bull John Baird’s delusionally thinks it is - woof, woof - and Canada as a “rogue nation.” Anyone got Dick Cheney’s phone number?

Palestine: Harper Regime's Utter Stupidity

For Palestine it's one thing to vote against its elevation to statehood. That remains a respectable decision. It's quite another to campaign aggressively against admission to statehood as the Harper Regime has done in one of its darkest moments of utter stupidity. Baird was one of only three foreign ministers to speak on the issue before the vote and the only one to speak against the motion. With that audacious performance, Harper's personal threats, and other forms of bullying prior to the vote, the Regime has invited the emerging organized, targeted enmity of the Arab world and no doubt profound distrust in much of the Muslim world as well. 

As we all know, Canada's prestige across the Globe has been disintegrating at an extraordinary rate over the past six years. It's close to the nadir now, and, with this latest failure, we are bound to suffer in terms of not just diplomacy but trust and goodwill, political power, and most of all where it really hurts - trade and economics. 

Harper Regime is Now Disqualified

'Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that Canadian threats of reprisals and Mr. Baird’s decision to personally campaign against the Palestinian resolution at the UN have ruled Ottawa out of a future role.

“I believe this government is more Israeli than the Israelis, more settler than the settlers,” he said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “I think they have disqualified themselves from playing any role in the Middle East peace process.”

In particular, he said, Canada is no longer fit for its long-standing role as the so-called “gavel-holder” of the Refugee Working Group – a post that makes Canada the chair of international discussions on Palestinian refugee issues.'
- Harper Regime is Now Disqualified 

Given how many countries it has alienated through this ridiculous demonstration of bad judgement, Canada is really the one risking retaliation, not Palestine

"Baird’s intervention [student union schoolboy bullying] is notable. . . because only two other foreign ministers — those of Indonesia and Turkey [both supported Palestine] — spoke on the issue before the vote." (Primer on Canada's UN vote on Palestine ). Given how many countries it has alienated through this ridiculous demonstration of bad judgement, Canada is really the one risking retaliation, not Palestine.

#HarperRegime is delusional - reeking with Luciferian pride

#HarperRegime is delusional - reeking with Luciferian pride - in thinking it can practice Israeli-American style "exceptionalism." The reality is that none is exceptional, and, like children, they lack respect for the #UN because they don't get their sandbox way.  All three continue to lose power and prestige in the world, and their immoral stance on this issue is a deeply symbolic diplomatic failure.

  "Canada has fired its first warning shot as it prepares to retaliate against the upgrading of Palestinian status at the United Nations, temporarily recalling its envoys to the Middle East and the UN."

a tiny glimpse into the ways our government serves the corporate and financial world, not the people of Canada

Some Key Areas Where Neoliberal Policy Undermines both the Industrial Economy and Canadian Democracy

Under the Harper Regime, the investor class is constantly being protected at the expense of the real industrial economy, for just about all policy decisions privilege both the financial sector, with its market-driven initiatives and debt-driven growth strategies, and of course corporations - in particular resource corporations in oil, gas, and mining, all of which combined have a heavily weighted presence on the TSX and, in fact, together with financials drive the TSX index. The obsession with deficit reduction and austerity are part of this process in order to maintain socalled  “market confidence,” played off ironically, as they always are around the world, against sustainable growth. And do I need to mention successive corporate tax cuts presumably designed to attract investment, but the success of which no economist has ever measured accurately? Much if not all of the financial sector is, of course, composed of corporations.

Foreign worker policy is designed both to drive wages down with differential pay scales, and targeted immigrant recruitment is designed to enhance a neoliberal policy of economic growth in the sectors the Regime favours as being in “Canada’s national interest.”

Anti-labour, anti-union, policies and back-to-work legislation are obviously designed to suppress wages and erode workers’  benefits. Throw the newly proposed changes in EI into the mix here too, and it’s a war on  the majority of Canada’s very own citizenry.

Reducing in effect government financial participation, pension reforms clearly favour the financial class because of the profit possibilities of the  Pooled Registered Pension Plan proposal, as do the OAS changes that will force many to seek private pension arrangements if they can afford it or otherwise to stay in the workforce for longer than planned.  Add the corporate management shift to defined contribution plans, which also obviously aid corporate bottom lines and, in turn,  shareholders and the investor class, and we see another neoliberal triumph.

Gutting of a myriad of regulations and other laws and policies wherever and whenever possible to allow corporations to exploit both people and the planet at will for profit is now commonplace for the Regime. The legislative assault on long-standing environmental regulations is only the latest, but countless not-so-subtle manoeuvres in foreign policy, whereby Foreign Affair diplomats become sales people, so-called shifts in foreign aid such as the new CEDA relationship with mining companies, and the assault on charities  through the CRA also come readily to mind.

All the free trade agreements negotiated by the Regime serve a neo-liberal agenda, as they did, to be fair, under Liberal rule as well.  Even as we can’t change NAFTA through parliamentary process, we will not be able to change any of these other, more recent international trade agreements, including CETA, simply because they’re international. We lack the power nationally in law to do so, though there are costly international mechanisms we could avail ourselves of but, it would seem,  never do.

 Gutting expenditures and a host of smaller programs  for Social Services, including limited Health transfers to the provinces, wherever possible is de rigueur in such neoliberal driven government such as ours.

This is a mere but, alas, sad glimpse into some of the ways our government serves the corporate and financial world, not the people of Canada.

14 economic advisors Flaherty consults on policy and budgets are all from the financial sector: Fiscal contraction doesn't work

The 14 economic advisors Flaherty consults on policy and budgets are all from the financial sector, mostly banksters.

Here's what James K. Galbraith says about the implicit danger of such a stacked deck:

 "....economic policy should not be under the control of bankers, and any economic team which is dominated by the financial sector is going to be largely serving that sector's interest. Now, that, I think, is a very clear fact and something which everybody should be prepared to resist and to object to when it occurs and to protest until it changes. Until that happens, very little else will happen."  http://goo.gl/sMidp

 Let me reiterate by way of paraphrase that last bit:  we should be resisting, objecting to - whenever and wherever we can -  the Harper Regime's deep privileging of the financial sector through its overt neoliberal agenda. There's nothing remotely subtle going on here. As I've noted many times, it's such a classic neoliberal agenda it ought to be taught in university political economy classes. If we can't shift that ideological policy ground, none of the social and poltical transformations we seek has a chance. This should be our primary concern in our efforts to bring about system change. Everything else is a symptom.

And here's what even Larry Summers, Harvard professor, late of the White House advisory staff, has to say about misguided austerity such as that implemented by the Harper Regime:

"Fiscal contraction reduces incomes, limiting the capacity to repay debts. It achieves only limited reductions in deficits once the adverse effects of economic contraction on tax revenue and benefit payments are accounted for. And it casts a shadow over future growth prospects by reducing capital investment and raising unemployment, which inevitably takes a toll on the capacity and willingness of the unemployed to work."   http://goo.gl/GyZri

This is what protests around the world yesterday were really about.

Most Commentators and Economists Say Threshold Change for OAS is Unnecessary

Surveying recent media coverage including economists referenced or interviewed, one will discover that a substantial majority of commentators argue that the age threshold for OAS does not require changing to maintain sustainable funding for the program despite swelling seniors' ranks and a decreasing Canadian population.  Neither the argument  that seniors are living longer now nor the claim that the age threshold should be raised because other countries have done it is carrying much weight with economists or thoughtful journalists. Even Jack Mintz, frequently referenced by the Harper Regime itself, says it's unnecessary. It's clear, then, that it's not good fiscal management that's driving this agenda item, but, as I've argued,  good old neoliberalism. 

Four recent markers we have witnessed along the road to Canada's incremental destruction: 1) proposed changes to streamline environmental assessment on pipelines and other projects, 2) changing immigration policy to favour those who can contribute more directly to the neoliberal project, 3) abandoning a leadership roll in Health Care, and now 4) re-engineering our pensions. What next? 

Deconstructiing the Binary Opposition of Politics and Policy in the Harper Regime

Where good politics meets good policy :Dan Gardner's column in the citizen today. I can count on one finger "good policies" from the Harper Regime, and that finger shakes when the wind blows and twitches when I sleep. Yes, no question Harper would seem to choose politics over policy consistently, and when he would seem to choose policy at all, it's for political reasons, as in the ship building contracts through absentia. But when, on occasion, he would seemingly choose policy directly - unlike the ship building contracts - at the expense of politics, the policy is almost always not in the interest of all Canadians, but instead serves a narrow voter rich segment of the population, as is the case with the tough on crime bills, the Wheat Board abolition, and the slaying of the long-gun registry - which thus means that the policies are in reality politically motivated. And of course using surrogates, as in the gun registry business, is in itelf a political strategy to distance oneself from direct blowback should there be any. Sorry, Dan, such simple binary oppositions always fall apart. it doesn't matter whether the Harper policies are good or bad. It's politics - sometimes overt, sometimes subtle - all the time for the Harper Regime.

Jim Stanford: Out of Equilibrium: The Implications of CETA

Out of Equilibriam from Jim Sadlemyer on Vimeo.

Here's a link to the full report: Out of Equilibrium | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

The Beginning of Something: First we had the little page that would. Now we have the journalist who could

Last time I checked Kai's Nagata's blog, Why I Quit My Job, there were well over 100,000 views and 1000 responses to his coming out essay. Most of these were supportive, arguing in effect that Kai is an inspiration offering those of us living outside the walls of Harperland considerable hope for change. But there were detractors on this blog and elsewhere, most of whom, as always in the blogsphere, said silly things, trying hard to be witty of course, and several who, quite frankly, just didn't know what they were talking about - another common characteristic of the blogsphere.

These terms came up frequently in the detractors' discourse: "fiscally prudent," "efficiencies," "fiscally conservative," this last concept used accurately by Kai himself in conjunction with the concept of taxing capacity. As always, in Harperite language - the language of Harperland - these terms are euphemisms for 1) the cutting of jobs and/or further exploitation of employees with fewer if any benefits and less wages in the corporate sector in the interests of profits and 2) budget cuts to our federal insititutions and government departments - which, more often than not, also involves job cuts.

The detractors also use the terms "leftist" and"rightist," but I'm pretty sure they've never read either Hegel or Marx, though I might be willing to get up from my chair on this last point if evidence were to be discovered otherwise. These terms are seldom used with precision or historical context in a Canadian context, for they appear to be in the beholder's eye in politicians, most political commentary by journalists, many of whom should know better, and amateur political pundits who frequent the byways and dark alleys of blogland and the twitterverse. Can we, for example, really call the NDP a leftist party when they have embraced capitalist ways with such fervour in order to maintain whatever power they might have? Of course not, but many continue to do so. Supporting the odd social policy here and there does not constitute the definition of a leftist party.

It seems to me Kai's point about government spending is quite simple: if, as a government, you have accumulated a considerable amount of money that you've received by taxing your citizens, you then have a moral responsibility to use that money wisely in the interest of all Canadians, who gave you, let's not forget, the money in the first place - either through established institutions respected by Canadians in general or social or economic initiated projects that Canadians can embrace with a consensus - not just the ones you like.

This is one of the fundamental problems so many Canadians see as a issue with the Harperites. They take money away from projects they don't like and only spend money on projects they like - Kai cites airplanes and jails - not on projects, except incidentally, that might benefit all Canadians. It takes a fair bit of absurd logical twisting to argue that we need more jails and tougher sentencing given the statistics on crime and soon to be obsolete planes (unless we're planning a few more wars that I haven't heard about), but we do know why the argument is made. It serves the Harperites' base. In fact, we've known for quite some time - since the pattern is so obvious - all policy decisions made by the Harper regime are grounded in politics first and only, on occasion - perhaps by happenstance - for Canadians in general. We seldom if at all see goodwill towards all Canadians from the Harperites. When they speak of "what Canadians asked us to do," for example, that's Harperite speak for "what our base asked us to do." This is not an insignificant distinction - one that has alienated the majority of Canadians who actually care about the direction in which their country now seems to be heading under such an authoritarian regime.

Kai is not remotely alone in his perspective on this issue or on the soul-sucking power and profit motives driving Big Media news organization (I can think of only two journalists in Canada who speak truth to power, though several come to mind who think they do so because they've been critical here and there of the Harperites) and the ineffectual actions of political parties, who by nature consistently seek self-preservation as an entity first and abuse their grass roots membership all too often.

What Kai says in this essay merely expresses - but with eloquent detail, meaningful passion, and sophisticated rhetoric - what countless Canadians have been thinking all along. This is why Kai joins the little page in the slow but eventual march towards the walls of Harperland.

First we'll take Manhattan.

Our So-called Concern for Democracy

This election was driven, as so many have been, by excessive media concentration and financial resources on the leaders of the parties, not by broad reporting on constituencies, selective or otherwise, across the country or by even significant discussions, with very few exceptions, of party policies. Most stories began with “what are the leaders up to today” leads. Both the contempt issue and the environment disappeared off the radar quickly, for example, except when Iggy brought up the former, and not even Elizabeth May, focused as she was on winning her riding, brought up the latter except incidentally. And it isn't just the media who should be blamed: the parties themselves are responsible for this distortion in our public discourse, for they have all concentrated both air and ground resources on their leaders, and those leaders have incrementally over forty years or so undermined democracy both subtlely and overtly both inside Parliament, as Peter Miliken has implied, and structurally in their Party organizations by creating power hierarchies whereby you do what the leader's brain trust says or you're out. Add to that the well-established illusion that the grassroots has real input power, for most policy conventions are like carnival day for the workers in the field: give them a day of fun and games and they'll go back to work content. And, apparently, even ordinary MPs have little input. An ordinary MP, according to Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, can't just walk in and have a chat with his or her leader; an appointment has to be made, and of course backbenchers have really never had any significant power.

There is much transformational work that needs to happen for genuine parliamentary democracy to be reinstated and even more to shift the public discourse to broad-based constituency considerations across the county. How likely is change? Given Harper's majority, and the powerlessness all opposition parties in Parliament, not much, and the media, of necessity, will still concentrate coverage on the leaders with the odd side-road story now and them. Enjoy the next four years.

Do attack ads really work?

Many pundits, scribes, and scriveners alike continue to say attack ads work, and several have today suggested that Iggy went down because of the attack ads. Show me some hard evidence, please. I simply don't buy it: you have to be dumber than the proverbial door knob or Big Bobby Clobber not to see through these and any other attack ads. The Harperite base obviously enjoys them, but they're not aimed at that base. They're aimed at the undecided and opposition party voters. Who really watches these except for amusement and maybe to exclaim in mock indignation, "how naughty of them" or, from the base, how "dead on"? Or am I overestimating the average intelligence of Canadians? Perhaps.

The Day the Liberal Party Died

The day Iggy was anointed by the Liberal cabal without input from the grass roots was the day the Party died, though some in the Party might have marked Iggy's arrival from distant shores on Canadian soil as the day the music died. (Some called him the Unity Bomber: not a rough beast slouching towards Bethlehem but Ottawa.) What was both the original cabal that brought him to town and the new conclave that beatified the Count smoking? Whatever it was, it wasn't good for the health of the Liberal body. It will take a decade to rebuild this party if at all, and the first thing to do would be to let the ordinary people of the Party instead of the brain trust actually have a say instead of the illusion of input that has existed up til now. (What a waste of time policy conferences are for the grass roots!)

They would do better thinking about a merger with the NDP, but since they've moved so firmly to the centre and frequently across that line to the right, would the NDP even be interested in such a possibility? Red Tories, if any are left, have more in common with the NDP than the LPC. And, besides, such a merger would never happen because of Liberal pride. Understandably but nevertheless sadly so. There ought to be much weeping if not downright gnashing of teeth going on today.

Iggy Has to go: Kinsella 

P.S.Just a note to add that Iggy has resigned this morning and is going back to school -- my guess,somewhere in the U.S. So that's a beginning.

And some have suggested that because the LPC campaigned left of even the NDP in this election, the centrists in the party abandoned them and voted CPC. Maybe, but some certainly migrated to the NDP contributing to the orange crush.

Polling ain't what it used to be

For one thing, dwindling numbers of people, given our abhorrence of telemarketers, answer their home phones, much less agree to take the time and energy to complete an interview, says Scott Mathews, co-director of the Canadian Opinion Research Archive at Queen's University. And pollsters rarely report response rates, he says, but the reality is that the 75 and 80 per cent rates of a generation ago have slipped to as low as 15 to 20 per cent today. And it's not a random 15 or 20 per cent of that random sample; instead, " it's the people who are easily contacted and these tend to be people who are unrepresentative in various ways, maybe older, maybe unemployed, just something that makes it more likely that they'll be home to pick up the phone and complete a survey."

Add to Mathews and the Citizen reporter's observations here is the fact that cell phone users, many of whom are the 18-24 demographic, seldom get calls or pick up if they do, and we have a very suspect process in all the current polling. The votemob crowd has not been participating significantly if at all in this polling, in other words, and they appear to be a serious factor in this election. Will we be surprised on Monday night if the numbers are radically different from what the pollsters have been hyping all week? They could be higher; they could be lower. In any case, nothing will surprise me.

In the Ottawa Citizen: http://bit.ly/ixXn0f

Suburban Voters and Voter Suppression | rabble.ca

I hate to admit this but John Ivison in his piece in The Post on Saturday could have a point: “There is anger in the herbivore community about Stephen Harper’s failings — some of it is even justified. But the evidence on the doorsteps suggests it does not extend beyond the politically engaged into the suburbs, where people have to get up in the morning.” Two questions: does the apparently large turnout on Friday at the advance polls suggest a newly engaged voter constituency or was that the already committed who showed up? Will the votemob constituency have any real voting power now that the University year is coming to an end?

The answer to the first question is we simply don’t know whether these are newly engaged voters or what their voter preference might be, but if they are they could potentially  make a difference for any of the parties.  As for university students. there are 3 million elegible votes under 25, and pollling suggests that their voting preferences would probalby favour the Liberals, NDP, or Greens over the Harperites. But did they vote on Friday in their campus ridings, and if not, will they vote today?  If they do vote over this holiday weekend on campus, what percentage of support would there be for each of the three favoured parties, and how split would that vote be? And will their votes make a difference?

There does not appear to be much room for optimism.  Now that through the not so subtle voter-supression tatics of the Harperites to shut down special voting polls on university campuses has occurred, students would have had to remain on campus this holiday weekend to vote in their university riding in the advance polls, but most univerisites are in the process of wrapping up the semester, and preliminary estimates of students who did remain are that one-third of  the student body have remained on campus. How many of those plan on voting, and even if all did so, how much of a difference is there in effect between one-third and a full student body? For those who did not remain on campus and still wished to vote, their  only option is to vote in their home riding today or on May 2 where their vote,  because unconcentrated and spread as it would be across many ridings, would count for much less.

It remains to seen how all this plays out.  but one thing is certain:  the shutting down of the special voting stations on campus by elections Canada in complicity with the Harperites might turn out to be far more significan than first thought.

via Suburban Voters and Voter Suppression | rabble.ca.