Posted on 05/01/2005 7:18:12 AM PDT by fanfan
WHAT IF they held an election and nobody came?
As reluctant Canadians are dragged kicking and screaming towards a probable spring campaign, the likelihood looms large that voters will stay home in droves.
Call it electile dysfunction on a national scale -- Canadians so angry and disillusioned with the shambles in federal politics that they can't bring themselves to vote for anyone.
It was bad enough that last year's election set a 100-year record for voter absenteeism, Paul Martin and his Liberal government having been handed power by barely 20% of the registered electorate.
But by the time the muck settles this time around, the coming election could well establish yet another low-water mark.
Last year's poor showing on election day was driven primarily by voters turned off by their lack of choices -- angry with Liberal corruption, but unimpressed with Stephen Harper and fearful of his new party's agenda.
Unfortunately, it looks like the coming election could be more of the same. Polls indicate voters are even angrier at Liberal corruption, but only marginally more comfortable with the Conservatives and their leader.
O Canada: Mad as hell and not going to vote anymore.
The Liberals, for one, are counting on it.
Not content to turn Canadians off politics by the millions, the Grits are plotting a stonewall-and-stall strategy in Parliament aimed at delaying election day until -- wait for it -- sometime in the lazy, hazy days of July.
Alternatively, if forced to go earlier, the Liberals are looking at June 27, a rerun of last year's voting on the first day of school holidays. Conventional political wisdom is that a low voter turnout favours the incumbent -- in this case, the Liberals.
By the same thinking, Quebecers disgusted with Grit corruption -- and apparently that's a majority of them -- are less likely to forgo beer and a barbecue to vote than are federalists worried about a sweep by the separatist Bloc Quebecois.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Conservatives have pencilled dates to defeat the government as early as this week, sending the country to the ballot box sometime in early June.
Harper has summoned Conservative MPs to a special caucus meeting tomorrow night in Ottawa, and the general sense is the fuse has already been lit to blow up the minority government, preferably May 18.
But the problem for all parties is that in the current explosive political climate, most of the usual tenets of election planning are out the window. "It's just too crazy, too volatile, to call anything right now," says one of the most clear-headed pols I know.
THE TIPPING POINT
Despite Harper's pledge this past week to bring down the Liberal government "as soon as possible," his strategists are still studying the polls for what they call the tipping point -- the point at which the numbers are not likely to get any better. If they get a lot worse in the coming weeks, all bets are off.
More than anything, the Conservatives know they currently have the perfect storm for a campaign against Liberal corruption.
If they can bring down the government by mid-month, they will get weeks of campaigning on the back of the Gomery inquiry with its deadly daily media feed of Grit greed.
As a bonus, Jean Chretien will be in court in the second week of June, fighting to get Gomery expelled from the inquiry, a spectacle certain to crank up the electoral blood pressure about the same time as the televised leaders' debates.
The same week, three of the stars of the sponsorship scandal head into court to begin their criminal fraud trials.
Of course, the Liberals will be using every trick in the book to try to thwart the Conservatives' plans.
Now for the really bad news: Whether the election comes sooner or later, it is probably going to be longer than usual, possibly up to six weeks.
A Liberal strategist confides: "The thinking is the more people see of Harper, the less they will like him, and we will probably want a longer campaign to get our message out."
Another election, another Liberal smear campaign from the prime minister who promised to cure the democratic deficit.
No wonder voters are giving up in disgust.
Sure, add me to your list-- email on the way^
Oh, the hominy!
;-D
Not voting is going to change government, how?
This is an interesting conundrum. If the voters don't vote, nothing changes in Canada and the situation continues to deteriorate.
By the same token, if the voters come out and vote and the liberals still win, nothing changes. IF, however, the mood changes and the votes come to the conservatives, will they be able to turn the Canadian supertanker around overnight (figuratively speaking)?
My guess is they won't.
A lot of Canadian FReepers tell us that the majority of the country is conservative. If true, who keeps electing the liberals - blue staters?
Someone once said that the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Well, Canadian conservatives, it would seem that you have your work cut out for you.
I'd vote for Celine Dione. :)
I'll put you on the list.
:-)
I talk to apathetic people every day, and there are just so many I can't get through to at all.
"Ah, they're all the same" or "Change one set of theives for another" are common comments I hear.
I think everything would be different if our Right had not united. I don't know if one could compare the two situations.
If we had not joined I don't think we could have gotten the Liberals down to a minority in 2004, which would have resulted in a Liberal majority, and as Paul Martin said, sweeping the whole Adscam/Gomery/Commons Committee thing under the rug.
What do you think?
Ping to #28. :-)
Most celebrities in Canada are culture welfare whores. Nickelback though love 'em or not are Conservatives. The actually raise money and everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.