As of today, and pending the next group project, here are my answers:

1. Liberals, because I like Dion.
2. Yes. Always punish politicians whenever you get a chance.
3. Apparently, the only issue is Afghanistan.
4. PC 36%, Lib 36%, NDP 12%, Green 12%.
5. PC 135, Lib 100, BQ 65, NDP 8.

See I am still snookered as I believe in the Afghan mission and in fact would have more resources of all democracies focused on undoing tyrannies. I also, however, believe in a central government that shares resource revenue but also believe in cutting perpetual cyclical EI. I want the Senate abolished and consider the alternative of an undemocratically aligned but voted for Senate an abomination.

Now, let's not underestimate the excitement of Seniors Day at Shoppers Drug Mart.

1. Who? The best independent candidate, if there is one, or the most independent minded party candidate. Unless the government is clearly defeated on the basis of supporting the Afghanistan mission, then I might vote for the conservative candidate for the first time ever.

2. Punish? No. Citizens should not get into the habit of thinking elections are a hassle, or a waste of money and thereby punishing our representatives for brining them on. If it comes it comes.

3. Issues? Afghanistan by a long way. Secondly some nebulous thoughts about federalism, including the problem of the disparity of Alberta's oil wealth, and not wanting the national government to give up everything to the provinces.

4. Pop. vote? What was it last time? It will be about the same, with small gains for CPC in Ontario and Quebec balanced by losses in Maritimes.

5. Seats? Who knows, depends on how those small gains break down. Probably slightly more seats for Cons. perhaps one or two more for NDP.

Al, you are snookered. I might suggest that you check out Green Party information on the issues you mention as it might be sufficiently nuanced for you and might not be a putrid artifact of slavish conformity to old ideas and policies. I don't really know, but I am guessing they break with the familiar positions on revenue sharing vs. EI hand outs. On the Afghan mission, I was surprised by Dion's subtle yet sensible position once I bothered to listen to it in detail. I totally agree that our government should focus its foreign policy, foreign intervention and foreign aid on fighting tyranny. Moreover, if any party could parlay our current activity in Afghanistan into a policy along those lines, I think most people could understand and accept such action.

While I feel (but don't agree with) your pain on not having access to provincial resource revenues ... well, who cares? This shall be a less trite statement than it seems, as I shall back it up with a few stats

Canadian Federal Government Revenues (from various budgets and documents at gc.ca)

1997 - 123 billion
2003 - 190 billion
2007 - 234 billion

I.e. in a decade the federal government has roughly _doubled_ it's cash inflow - an extra 111 billion dollars in a decade.

Now from this diagram we can deduce that Alberta made about 10 billion dollars in resource revenue.

So, let's say the federal government was entitled to half of that - 5 billion. Well, at the current pace of federal wealth entitlment growth, they could just wait 6 months or so and get that amount of extra revenue anway.

I was examining my core beliefs. I was not saying they make sense. My complaint, as you know, is the wacky important of state's right theory into Canadian division of powers. But you are right. The nation is awash with money. Just today I deposited a USD cheque from beer blog activities and there was a subtraction in the conversion to CND. So sad it is.

Alan, for the first manifestations of that wacky import of states' rights into Canadian division of powers, blame the JCPC. (British imperialism!)

***

1. The Conservatives. Am a card-carrying member, a sometime donor, and though I'm not happy with their performance thus far on budgets, I have an irrational hope that Stephen Harper is really as evil as his enemies would say. Realistically, he isn't -- it's just another PC government, and that'll do just fine for me. (Oh, and I do like Harper.)
2. Not really. Not sure who should be punished if an election happens. This one seems rather predictable, and the only shock is that it didn't come sooner. As ever, Harper holds the whip hand. Anyway, elections are fun.
3. Afghanistan, proper role of the federal government in the federation.
4. CPC 39%, Libs 30%, NDP 20%, Bloc 7%, Green 4%.
5. CPC 143, Libs 99, NDP 35, Bloc 27, Ind. 2 (Casey, Arthur).

In other words, power balance in Parliament remains exactly the same, except that combined Lib/NDP seat total no longer beats Conservative total alone. (Not that this ever mattered in the 39th parliament.)

I think this next election shall be the first that I sit out. My riding is solidly NDP and I don't see it changing, not to mention that no one is talking about cutting my taxes (despite the country being "awash with money").

What is the point in voting for someone to take your money and do things with it you do not want them to do? :-0

* Who do you vote for and why?

If there was an actual conservative running in the People's Republic of Victoria I might vote CPC. Yeah, right. As if there are any actual conservatives who would be approved by Harper to run even in a lost cause like Victoria.

* Does punishing the party that triggers the unnecessary election play a role?
Nope, I like elections. We should have more of them. Any party with the balls to actually vote down the government gets points in my book.

* What are the issues?

Well, we'll pretend that global warming is serious and we'll try to come up with a reason to stay in/leave Afghanistan; but the issue will probably come down to how well off Canadians are feeling and how parity bites in the long subsidized lumber and auto industries. (As for wealthy regions, I can hardly wait for the ex post revenue share from AutoPact.)

* What is the popular vote?

About the same with the Bloc losing several hundred thousand votes in Quebec and the CPC losing about the same in BC/Saskatchewan.

* What is the seat count?

Having famously predicted Harper getting 50 seats in the last go round my prognostication skills are a wee bit suspect. However, CPC 148, Libs 90, NDP 35, Bloc 27, Ind. 2

If we do have another election, I will be sitting it out. And yes, I am disappointed, so much so, that I will use collective punishment and not share my $1.75 with any political party.

Just to edumafy us Lower 48 folk, why then is Mr. Brooks then, according to Hans, out on a partisan hackery limb?(http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/09/whiskey-tango-foxtrot.html)

Oh, and just general education about the implications wouldn't hurt.

That particular leader is having a very hard time enunciating his position as much as anything. He is also standing out as a bit of a cold fish academic which, in light of similar allegations against our Prime Minister, is a pretty hard thing to pull off. He is also insisting that other NATO countries must now stand up and replace Canada's mission in Afghanistan in Feb 2009. What he is not pointing out is a good many NATO nations are there already, each more or less taking a province. Plus he looks sort of like Beaker from the Muppets. I think that is the real underlying problem Damian has.

I liked Beaker. I also like Dion. But I do not like his position on Afghanistan.