Watch out for election day fraud

Francis Fox Piven (who has had her own experiences recently with Harper’s US mentors) and Richard Cloward wrote a very interesting book called “Why Americans Don’t Vote”, which showed how a key electoral strategy in the US has always been demobilizing opposing voters, a strategy just as important as mobilizing supporters. If you look at the way Harper has worked over the past few years, you can see that demobilizing strategies are a part of the package here too. With a solid 33% that reliably turn out (much higher in Western Canada), all Harper needs to do is ensure that the opposition doesn’t show up. Our electoral system does a lot of that for him. Ugly political rhetoric and discourse helps. Shutting down parliament at whim, using disinformation (right down to faked photos and claims that Iggy helped plan the Iraq war/slaughter that both Iggy and Harper enthusiastically supported), lying, and attack ads as part of the normal course of government is another step. And during elections, trying to get chunks of the electorate (like students at Guelph) disenfranchised is another. David Orchard’s political associate Marjaleena Repo pointed out that the way voters are registered, which was changed relatively recently, has also made voting more difficult and reduced turnout. I also don’t think that the idea that Harper might try to steal the election should be discounted. I mentioned this possibility to a few friends, who thought it was unthinkable, but it’s not. I am not sure constitutionally how it would all go down, but there are several pieces in place for it. The party in power has no principled attachment to the rules. They have spent the past few years moving their personnel into relevant positions in courts, senate, and bureaucracy. The opposition isn’t likely to fight very hard. Most of the media want Harper to win more than they want a legal framework to be followed. The US in 2000, Mexico in 2006 – why not Canada? The people advising Harper know how to do it and it would actually be surprising if such contingency plans were not prepared somewhere.

I am not sure how it would happen on election day. Perhps through making it difficult for voters to register on the day of, and then attempts to decertify certain ballot boxes in key ridings after the fact. But I do think it’s a possibility to watch out for.

Now on the NDP surge. While I am pleased to see the numbers, I have to repeat my skepticism at polls. I have been saying the polls make me suspicious, and I am not going to change my mind now that they are saying things I like to hear – if anything it should make me more suspicious. Remember the polls when the election was called that said Harper was headed for a majority? Yesterday the Toronto Star reported that Tory internal pollsters anonymously told them they weren’t going to win a majority (why would they tell the Star that, and not one of the Sun or CanWest or Bell papers that belong to them?) They can’t both be right, and the best assumption is that neither of them are.

Next problem – Even if the polls fully reflect opinion, people who follow parliamentary politics should know that the popular vote doesn’t translate into seats. 30% can’t not translate into seat gains, but the 5% that the Conservatives have on the NDP this weekend will probably result in something like twice as many seats, or more.

Sudden gains could put the NDP in a scary place. I don’t think the Liberals would accept being junior partner in any kind of coalition with the NDP. I don’t know if the Bloc would. The intensity and insanity of the anti-NDP media campaign, and the likely Tea Party-style mobilizations, that would begin immediately after any kind of minority NDP government happened, is something nobody in Canada is prepared for, including the NDP and its base. I think the Conservatives and Liberals would suddenly find a lot of common ground if the NDP were to try to do anything decent, and if you put Conservative and Liberal votes together, they have a majority. In some – though not all – ways, a Conservative-Liberal coalition is a better description of what’s been happening for the past few years in Canadian federal politics. A real NDP victory would divide the Liberals, a lot of whom would probably go Conservative rather than allow it.

Who knows though. An NDP government that focused on popular economic and social policies and on plugging the procedural holes that Harper drove several trucks through, reducing the power of the PMO, increasing transparency, restoring the census, changing the roles about proroguing parliament, perhaps even introducing proportional representation or instant runoff, might be able to survive for a little while and be politically expensive to bring down too quickly. They would have to understand that most of the media was part of the opposition, recognize that their opponents don’t play fair, and make it easy for supporters of theirs to mobilize.

But I get ahead of myself. Monday is still a long way away.

36% is apparently a majority, but not for a whole day

The daily polling is suspicious. Every day the media publishes what the electoral outcome is going to be. And every day it changes. They keep saying there’s going to be a Harper majority. Saying it won’t make it so, but it might contribute to it.

Earlier today I saw an article on through Google News headlined: “Majority of Canadians want Harper majority.” I looked at the story and it said 36% wanted a Harper majority. That’s no majority I have ever heard of.

Continue reading “36% is apparently a majority, but not for a whole day”

Canadians are annoyed – deliberation vs. engineering in elections

Pollsters now get people to press buttons about how they are feeling as they watch debates, and have discovered that Canadians are annoyed. This then feeds back to politicians, who try to, presumably, be less annoying, or, perhaps, try to blame other politicians for the annoyance.

Continue reading “Canadians are annoyed – deliberation vs. engineering in elections”

I went over my twitter limit…

So I’m just going to make a few notes:

-Ignatieff was right when he says Harper’s offering “fantasy economics”. He also answered the financial question directly. And Harper seemed to make eye contact for the first time. And then went back to the camera. Harper: “Every credible economic analyst” says taxes kill jobs – in Harper’s words, that’s “simply not true.” Ha-Joon Chang & Joseph Stiglitz come to mind, but of course if you exclude those who disagree with you as “non-credible”, then you’re in a perfectly logically valid circular argument, which is where Harper lives.

Continue reading “I went over my twitter limit…”

Cancer is sexy

I don’t have a TV, so I just checked if my livestreaming CBC is working and it seems to be, so I will be able to watch the debate tonight.

Two chapters left to go in Lawrence Martin’s “Harperland” and I also just picked up Christian Nadeau’s “Rogue in Power” yesterday and have read chapter 1. A very different kind of book, Nadeau’s book is a piece of living political philosophy. I look forward to blogging about it.

But first, Harperland before I get to tweeting the debates.

Continue reading “Cancer is sexy”

Yes, you can be too nuclear-safe

Before there was Bruce Carson, there was Maxime Bernier, who left government documents at his girlfriend’s house. To put this in context, I don’t think that these state documents should be treated with tremendous mystical secrecy – that isn’t the point. They are probably mostly banal. The point is that here’s another instance of the Harper people treating the government like it’s their personal property.

Continue reading “Yes, you can be too nuclear-safe”

Harper’s Foreign Policy

Lawrence Martin’s “Harperland” discusses Harper’s foreign policy. It isn’t really distinguishable from Liberal foreign policy, except that it is a little more paranoid and secretive.

Throughout the West, there is fairly unconditional support for Israel. Some explain this with lobbies, etc. For the Harper people, Israel is a principle, above all others – certainly above human rights, equality, or fairness, anything Israel does is correct, whether it is starting a war of aggression, massacring civilians, or torturing children.

Continue reading “Harper’s Foreign Policy”

Stephen Harper, Bruce Carson, and the Environment

The quote of the day is definitely from Stephen Harper about Bruce Carson’s fraud convictions: “I did not know about these revelations that we’re finding out today. I don’t know why I did not know.”

Anyone who doubts Carson’s importance in Harper’s team should definitely read Lawrence Martin’s “Harperland”. He’s all over the book.

In this light, I think Harper’s quote about Brian Mulroney might be of interest (pg. 73 of Harperland):

Continue reading “Stephen Harper, Bruce Carson, and the Environment”