Being a voter who cares very little about the local flavours and a lot about the party in charge, I look for the local polls so that I can have the option of the strategic vote if needed. But where are they? There are none. Our local media have really dropped the ball on this I think. I will cast my vote today without a hint of where my local place will be tending toward. Too bad.

There is always the option of voting against one or more candidates.

P.S. My brother is predicting a Lib-NDP coalition based on the (accurate) idea that both Jack and Stephane are toast otherwise. Compromising to get part of your hands on government is better than the alternative of walking the political plank.

I am all over a vote against a speech fro the throne followed by an election with a Lib-NDP-Green coalition against the Tories. We may be surprised that the Tories could still win such a vote but at least we would be past this quagmire of unending blaah.

That's true. 90 + 30 only equals 120.

I too am watching that NDP + Liberal vs. Conservative + 2 Independents ratio.

I think that if Dion and Layton can cobble together the votes to take down Harper on the Throne Speech (if Duceppe can be kept on the sidelines), they'll take a hard look at doing it...

History suggests a coalition government is unlikely:

1. There has not been an official coalition government in Canada at the Federal level since the First World War.
2. There has never been an effective collaboration within a minority government of the second and third place parties.

As I have noted on these pages earlier (can't find the link) the Liberals and NDP diverge on too many issues to effectively govern together. What would their mandate or plan be? That they are not Harper? That will not get them far.

Finally, and generally, the unity and strategic brilliance that would be necessary to pull this off, I believe, is beyond the Liberals and NDP at the moment, especially when Harper the tactician holds all the cards of Parliamentary scheduling.

I would love to see it happen, if only because it has never happened before, but I think the chances of it are zero.

Here it is. I and other coalition boosters, however, cannot be dissuaded by the facts.

<i>2. There has never been an effective collaboration within a minority government of the second and third place parties.</i>

Not really true, given Mackenzie King's cooperation (or co-option) of the Progressives in the 20s.

I have looked into Josh's comment above and he is technically correct.

In the 15 general election (25 Oct. 1925) Arthur Meighen's Conservatives were returned with 116 members with the King's Liberals at 99 (or 101, EC provides confliting numbers) as well as 24 Progressives, 2 Labour, and 2 independents. King and the other oppostition parties briefly formed a government.

The caveat is this:

Mackenzie-King was the incumbent PM and, it seems, he managed to retain the confidence of the House until June 1926.

So, while I was wrong, the current potential situation is still un-like any other, in that neither of the parties attempting to form the coalition would have been in power from the previous parliament. Very interesting all around.

Sources:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/ResultsParty.aspx?Language=E
(scroll to 15th GE)

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch02&Seq=4&Lang=E
(scroll down to around note #33)

A further note:

IF the Liberals and NDP managed to pull off their coalition, much like King and the Progressives of '25-'26, history still does not bode well for them.

King's coaltion is the 4th shortest parliament ever at six months 25 days.

Surely the last Parliament was a coalition in all but name.

A coalition of the unwilling? har har har!

While history doesn't support the chances of a coalition government, surely our inexpert speculation carries some weight!

Coalition would be attractive to Dion (if not all the Libs) because becoming PM (no matter how he does it) would silence his critics. Coalition should be attractive to the Dippers as it would give them a raison d'etre beyond Canada's social conscience and Jack's ego vehicle.

There is a possiblity I won't even make it.

This would truly be the best of all options, imo. Holding your nose and pulling the lever is worse than not pulling a lever at all.

"The lesser of the four 'bads' is still bad", and all that.

I'm really ticked that there is no local polling being broadcast because of the reasons noted about potential strategic voting, also because I honestly hate the way our local media wears its bias on its sleeve every single day..by both saying and not saying things.

And Temujin, I wholeheartedly disagree. Voting for the lesser of evils or at least voting against someone who is the MORE evil of the bunch at least shows a bit of courage. The easy way out of any situation is to turn a blind eye to it.

Better to spoil a ballot than stay at home.

I can see a liberal-green shag as they both espouse centrist views; but not NDP. They are too far left and would do a centrist coalition no favours at the polls.

The idea of voting AGAINST someone is silly and less principled than not voting if an elector truly despises all of the candidates:

1. It is not possible to vote against anyone on an Elections Canada ballot.

All votes are cast FOR a candidate. If a Liberal candidate wins because some people voted for him in an attempt "not to elect" the Conservative the vote equally did "not elect" the NDP, Green, Bloc and anyone else on the ballot. To argue that the Liberal only won because people voted "against" the Conservative is undemocratic because it is a misinterpretation of what the ballots actually indicate.

Perhaps we could have a ballot with a "vote for" and "vote against" column and you would be allowed to mark only one. If you really hate the Liberals, you could "vote against" the Liberals, and your ballot would have the effect, not of adding to any party's column, but removing one vote from the Liberal column. Until then, talk of voting against a candidate holds no weight.

2. Voting is the means by which our specific will becomes general; it is the form through which we legitimize being governed. This process should always be cast in the positive, never in the negative, even if only in the mind of the voter. If people really thought about how they wanted to consent to being governed rather than how they wanted to grudgingly oppose being governed our democracy might be a lot healthier.

Voting against a government is routinely done both individually and on a collective basis. Any vote not counted "for" the government is a vote against it. I may be voting "for" some other party but by so doing, I am expressing an action against a government at the same time. I don't think it is anti-democratic and can be very satisfying, especially since we are doomed to be governed. In voting against numerous candidates and governments over the years, I have never been limited by the literality of the ballot. In my heart I know what I have done with my "x".

Just in: my confidential and very reliable CPC informant says "It's going to be a very long night for the conservatives".

Matthew, with all due respect, are you 12?

If I dislike candidate A and if A looks like he or she may win, and I dislike everyone else running (most likely to a lesser degree than I like "A") and therefore decide to strategically vote, I will pick candidate X, that candidate being the one that most likely poses a threat to candidate A being elected.

If you think that is undemocratic, you also probably think that running down the clock at the end of a football game to ensure a win is a terrible thing or that taking a wingman to a pub on a saturday night is unfair to other looking to score.

In war, you do what you can to inclict suffering upon the enemy. If you cannot attack them directly, you do so indirectly, for example, by stifling their lines of support or through propaganda.

David: are you suggesting there might be a big giggle in the outcome, that the pollsters and populace have been setting Stephen up with one big practical joke?

The easy way out of any situation is to turn a blind eye to it.

Far from turning a blind eye, I am seeing this for exactly what it is. And I want no part of it.

In war, you do what you can to inclict suffering upon the enemy. If you cannot attack them directly, you do so indirectly, for example, by stifling their lines of support or through propaganda.

Err, so democracy is like a war, or a football game? Taking that analogy further then, what if all the candidates are my "enemy"? Casting a ballot for any of them is not in my best interests.

Better to spoil a ballot than stay at home.

Why? Who is it better for? Certainly not for me, as I'd have to stand in line waiting for my turn to mark none of the above. I'd rather eat my ballot, as the Flea suggests! Alan, you've been tossing and turning for five weeks (actually, a lot longer) about who you're going to vote for, since all of them leave a foul taste in your mouth (correct me if I am wrong about that). You've got four or more flavors of crap to choose from, but the blueberry-flavoured crap is still crap. Just because it has subtle hints of blueberry doesn't make it anymore palatable.

Yergh, now who is making wild analogies?

I'm 30 years old and have voted in every election I have been eligible for. No longer.

For the record I'm with Temujin. Voted in every eligible election since I turned 18, but this is my first non-vote. Have better things to do than decide whether it's Julius Nepos or Romulus Augustus who will ultimately surrender the Empire to Odoacer.

Anytime two or more opposing sides are battling, be it a boardroom, an election or a pub, the rules of war apply as do the tactics. You can be a conscientious objector if you decide to, feel free to abstain if you will, just don't expect a warm welcome if you scurry back into view after the smoke clears to offer advice on how to divide the spoils.

Wow! If Chris is not voting, then David's foreshadowing might be very foreshadowy!

And excellent Lord of the Rings references...though I never got to book four.

It really boils down to this:

It was an entirely purposeless election. Resolves nothing, achieves nothing. No candidate has put forth a platform which I find persuasive enough to support or objectionable enough to protest. Well, I object to Jack's airy-fairy foreign policy, but in this riding, the NDP is sacrosanct and can not lose.

And more than anything, I resent the fact any of the parties gets a buck seventy-five for my turnout. They have it exactly backwards. They should be bribing *me* to vote for *them*. Where is my buck seventy-five handout? Politicians should not get rewards for promising moons they cannot hope to deliver.

"Where is the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"

Well played. Well played, indeed.

No jokes here Al, alas. It may be worth staying up to watch (as you know I'm an early bed type). I've bought a flask of rum & some pepsi just in case.

J$^# H@#$& (#&*) almost declared in Newfoundland.

Another #&* in the lead.

F*#&$ M*&#$& (#*#) in lead, but not by much.

3 #*& declared.

[Ed.: obfuscated to avoid the Election Canada jackboots crashing through the back door.]

Disgraceful!!!

I have but one 500 ml can of a cheap unmentioned IPA that I bought for the neighbor who was cutting down one of my dead trees to consume after I go for run in the full moonlight in a bit.. By then the SDA folks will be all frothy bitter and cold, like said beer.

[Ed.: Errr...14th century overlord?] wipeout in Newfoundland. Possible two [Ed.: ummm...children of the revolution?] seats. A certain party [Ed.: favorite!] has lost in NS.

Someone who I'm not is having a good night in NB.

A certain party that was strongly opposed by Danny Millions got only 16% of the vote in NL.

When was the last time NB could get a hint?

My prediction was 20-9-3-0.

Sorry, "David Janes"'s prediction was 20-9-3-0.

Oh my, I am tired and oddly pleased!

A Harper majority would be disasterous.

A Dion Majority would be annoying.

A Dion Minority would be embarassing.

A Hamstrung Harper minority means bye bye M. Dion, possibly bye bye Steve H before next election and introducing the next leader of the Liberal party... ( Deleted ) :)

Excellent...