We interrupt our regular programming with a dispatch from our resident Canadian reporter, Mike Bell, who gives us his thoughts on the Provincial Election in Ontario Canada…
I voted tonight.
Why tonight? Well in Canada, while many jurisdictions have fixed election date legislation in place, there are multiple parties that can win seats, and so minority governments are becoming common place. Elections end up being called when the minority government no longer has the support of the majority of votes in the house. In Ontario, this happened recently, and so we had an election today.
We had the worst election choices that I have ever experienced.
I have voted in nine Federal elections and nine provincial elections and this was the only one where I heard a number of friends talking about declining their ballot. The editorial board of my local newspaper even said there was no one worthy of endorsing. The Progressive Conservative party decided to ditch the progressive label and took a hard right turn. The scandal plagued Liberal government who have shown that they can’t be trusted with the taxpayers money, moved left (albeit they now have a new leader). The party of the far left, the New Democratic Party, moved right, but ran a horribly inept campaign.
Face with not knowing who to vote for, I made a very interesting decision, which I announced on my facebook page.
Here are my election voting thoughts. This is largely aimed at so many of my friends who say that there are no acceptable options in this election. I am a moderate, and agree that there are no acceptable moderate choices (for me) in this election. If the Conservatives get elected we will likely have the same choices next election. If the Liberals get elected, the Conservatives will be replacing their leader, and I am likely to have a better set of choices in the next election. So… I will be voting Liberal.
One friend responded…
Are you crazy! Any vote is better. You are a Christian and you are going to tell the Liberals that it is okay to LIE and BUY votes anyway they can. If you can vote Liberal with a clear conscience then by all means do so.
To give a little context to her statement. Leading up to the previous election the Liberals were facing defeat in a couple of ridings over some unpopular gas powered generating plants that were being built. They cancelled the contract on both the plants which will end up costing taxpayers in excess of one billion dollars.
The alternative was the conservatives who were planning to create one million jobs (though the math was problematic), but were going to start by firing 100,000 civil servants. I agree that fiscal restraint is needed, but the Conservative leader, Tim Hudak, was not someone I would trust to do the job.
Anyway, the election is now over and the people have spoken. The Liberals were elected with a majority government, but with only 38% of the popular vote.
As the Liberals are no longer beholden to any other party, they are likely to govern more from the political center. The Conservatives will likely dump Tim Hudak and hopefully they have learned their lesson and will replace him with a more moderate leader.
I got the election results that I wanted. Ironically it is not the government that I wanted, but I hope that it will lead to better options when the next election comes around.
On a side note check out this interesting electoral map.
The Orange represents the New Democratic Party. Their strength is in the North and in highly unionized parts of the country. They win the geographical vote. The Conservatives are blue and the Liberal red. (Yes, they are the opposite colors from the American parties.) The Conservatives won the rural vote, and the Liberals won the city vote. So, while there is almost no red on the map, the Liberals did in fact win. It will be an interesting next four years as most of the province, both geographically and numerically will have a government that they did not want.
What do you think of my decision making process here? Is my friend right? Am I crazy? What should be important to Christians as we seek to fulfill our rights and responsibilities as voters. One more thing: If you want to see how your own ideologies stack up against the various political parties in Ontario you can take this short survey. I would be interested in knowing how the Internet Monk audience would typically vote in a Canadian context. Your thoughts and comments are welcome.
The Internet Monk Archives 
And Duke was on TV claiming he’d found Jesus, and wasn’t a racist anymore, but was asking for contributions to be mailed to “P.O. Box 88”
(white-supremacist-speak for “Heil Hitler,” H being the 8th letter of the alphabet)
LikeLike
I remember that one! The slogan of the day: “Vote for the Crook–It’s important!” (And this was from Edwards’ *supporters*!)
LikeLike
As one who grew up in Louisiana, I could tell you some stories. A couple of decades back there was a gubernatorial election which featured former Klansman David Duke running against Edwin Edwards, who had only a few years earlier been acquitted of federal racketeering charges in a highly public trial and who would go on to spend several years in jail on federal racketeering charges stemming from things he would do during that term. And then there was Huey Long and a whole host of others. And then there’s the city of New Orleans, which hasn’t had an honest mayor since the guy before Moon Landrieu back in the early 70’s. As I said, I could tell you some stories.
LikeLike
See, this proves that the gospel of Judas is heretical. Everyone knows Jesus was singing Let the Good Times Roll.
LikeLike
The irony of the Christian right rallying so heavy behind capitalism is that it’s based on the idea of original sin: Men will always be greedy, let’s harness that greed for some utilitarian benefit.
It certain does foster industry and ingenuity, as demonstrated by the history of this country thus far, but the making of a vice into a virtue also has unpredictable consequences. Generally speaking, I’d say “don’t muzzle the ox,” but the evil of greed absolutely necessities governmental regulation for the sake of protecting the economically down. In our system, it seems the two ideas have to compete for balance. I’d be open to learning a new system that fosters greater national prosperity, but right now, I look around the globe and see many countries have copied our experiment.
LikeLike
The older I get the more convinced I become that the federal government should do only those things which only a federal government can do. That would be a very short list which would include running the military, defending our borders, settling disputes between states, ensuring civil rights, and perhaps a couple more. There are other agencies (e.g., police, road maintenance, etc.) which should be governed and administered at the state and local level only.
And no, not all pubic servants are inept; I have found that most are hard working ethical people. But the problem lies in the nature of the system itself, and that is that there is little accountability to ensure that goals are met, either for individual performance or agencies as a whole.
The fault for this comes from the top down almost exclusively and very little from the bottom up, for power and authority comes from above. And the worst examples, but hardly surprising, of top-down mismanagement and outright law-breaking have been experienced with the IRS and VA scandals. And I fear that’s just the tip of the iceberg, as the saying goes. Don’t mean to get too political, but President Obama shares the bulk of the responsibility for all of these problems. As President Truman said, “The buck stops here.”
FWIW, I, too, am a civil servant of sorts; I’m a professor and administrator at a public university.
LikeLike
That is because you lack faith. You see, you must have faith in the Holy Free Market (PBUI), for the Holy Free Market(PBUI) can do all things!
LikeLike
Mike, how would you explain many of the same people apparently voting for the Liberal Party and Rob Ford? I originally hale from the land of strange politics where anything is to be expected (BC), but I thought you folks from southern Ontario were more logical.
LikeLike
Not a bad assessment, but there are a couple of things I would quibble over. First, it is unusual for the winning party in any Canadian election, provincial or federal, to win more than 50% of the popular vote. So, you could say that, historically, the majority of Canadians have been governed by parties they didn’t vote for. No big deal. I bet a majority of Canadians would vote to keep the parliamentary system over the American system if they had to choose.
Second, what does geography have to do with anything? The huge ridings in the north have about the same number of people as the tiny ones in the Toronto area.
I gave a lecture on the Canadian system of government to a group of American military colleagues a few years ago and found this very helpful:
http://youtu.be/EGOfP_XvJPM
LikeLike
I would guess that Tom is not nodding to the Police’s reference, but that both he and Sting are nodding directly toward Greek mythology.
LikeLike
According to a recently discovered fragment of The Gospel of Judas, Jesus actually sang “Been Down So Long” while hanging on the cross, establishing beyond all reasonable doubt that terminal optimism is a real bummer.
LikeLike
Just like that song he sang while hanging on the cross. “Always look on the bright side of life!”
LikeLike
Jacob, are you not contradicting yourself. You said God does not support any political party yet, ” as Christians we have to vote according to our conscience and our best judgement.” Jacob, may I suggest you read the scriptures, that if you proclaim to be a Christian. Christians, that is, a true one is no part of this world.
LikeLike
I guess people are not as stupid and gullible as I originally thought they were. Hudak can now crawl back under his rock from whence he came. Now all we need to do is rid ourselves of the other liar, Harper. Only thing is Harper is a pathological liar and doesn’t know when he’s doing so. As far as Ford, well he is neither here nor there now, and is all but gone.
Then again, what politician really cares about people. All politicians have the tendency towards psychopathic qualities, in the sense they all lie and smile at the same time and are convincing.
LikeLike
yeah, but you’d just be pulling candidates from the same duck pond.
LikeLike
> vote for an unlikely to win third party can have one good effect
In which case you are voting in support of something, if this is your motivation; making it less of a ‘protest vote’. If you believe a given third-party candidate indeed represents the best choice – they by all means vote for them.
LikeLike
I see everybody else already made my arguments for me. 🙂
LikeLike
There’s always been political vitriol (Abe Lincoln cartoons, anyone?) but the more that mass media extends its reach through American culture, the more they will use scare tactics and hyperbole to draw people in and insulate them in their own views – both on the “right” and the “left.”
I think of the two party system like the Clone Was in Star Wars. There are two sides with seemingly opposite views going at each other without an end in sight. But ultimately, they’re fighting for the same thing. We ought to be concerned about the political battles that rage daily, but more concerned about the underlying statism, corruption, and lust for power that pervade both parties.
LikeLike
Here in my district, most of our races in the primaries, and many times even in the general are unopposed or face only a token small regional party opposition. Here, it is the Democrats who are the unopposed. SO it just depends on your region and the general political demographics of the region.
I was thrilled when I got redistricted out of Lipinski’s (US House, IL 3) district because while he wasn’t wildly popular, he would never be beaten. Now I am in Gutierrez (US House IL 4) district, and I’m much happier with my congress critter.
The main reason I vote, given that I am pretty much in the main in the political demographics of my area is judges. Many people cast a woefully ignorant vote on judges and we can’t shoehorn all the stinkers into small claims or probate court where they can’t cause a lot of damage.
LikeLike
Here in IL, a vote for an unlikely to win third party can have one good effect. If the third party gets enough votes, it can give them easier access to the ballot the next time. See, in IL, our ballot access requires tons of signatures, but less for someone of an established party (one that has pulled a certain percentage of the vote in the last election) than for one of an unestablished party.
LikeLike
+1 Standing on principle is never a throw away.
LikeLike
This
>That’s not possible now.
Which is not to exclude the possibility of the return of the possibility.
But the statement is too absolute – cooperation to resolve issues does happen, perhaps infrequently, at higher levels; but in many places it happens frequently at the state and municipal levels.
Being absolute about such things can preclude an alternative situation becoming manifest.
LikeLike
Long ago I started voting differently. I look into a very murky crystal ball and try and guess which person, if elected, will make things better 10 years or so from now. And at times I have voted for someone with policies I don’t like or agree with but figure out that he/she will not be allowed to implement them or will quickly tee off enough people that will will get the boot or be blocked. And I’ll pick someone who is rational and smart over a Christian Idiot (CI) any day of the week. If I look back the CI, when elected, seems to always prove to everyone they are an idiot and loose the next election to someone with politics I don’t like but will likely get re-elected as everyone is now shy of anyone with positions close to the CI.
LikeLike
I am the disciple of a rejected, betrayed and abandoned Messiah who “wasted” his life in terms of bringing either the Jewish Nation or the Roman Empire up to the standards of the Kingdom of God. I have no problem at all, anymore, in wasting a vote.
I could well continue to do so until the powers-that-be add one or two crucial options to the ballot: The option to simply vote “Present!” Or, “None of the Above.”
The latter option is particularly appealing, especially if it meant that we’d have to do the election over again if enough people voted that way–with new candidates. (I’m not holding my breath for this, by the way.)
LikeLike
I do, too! I think Jesus suffered from it as well.
LikeLike
Yes, where are the moderates? They’ll never get propped up by either major party, since it’s all about being “anti-the-other party”.
LikeLike
Oscar, I think talk about “gridlock” and “a deeply divided government” is not just “hyperbolic fuming and political maneuvering. I have voted in every election since 1972 (when I voted for McGovern as a protest against Nixon). During most of that time, there were deep differences between the parties, but they were able to meet in the center and work out a sensible, level-headed compromise. Congress “worked.” Maybe not always efficiently, but it worked.
That has changed. Now, responsible attempts to address problems and issues while honoring conflicting values and opinions has given way to throwing political tantrums in front of mouth-breathing journalists with cameras running to catch the spectacle.
Local TV news in America is governed by a “if it bleeds it leads” philosophy. Much the same thing is now true in the blogosphere and electronic media covering national politics. Being responsible and speaking wisely and intelligently has given way to cheap-shot rhetoric designed to make your opponent bleed.
Things have indeed changed.
Does anyone in the U.S. remember how much Tip O’Neil and President Reagan disagreed, but how well they got along? That’s not possible now.
LikeLike
A vote cast is never “thrown away.” It may not make any difference, but it’s not thrown away. I’ve “written-in” presidential candidates the past 2 elections since I couldn’t stand either major party’s candidate.
LikeLike
Agreed. Let’s leave those alone and go after the others. Consider how some of the necessary services are hurting for funds because of all the unnecessary or inefficient ones.
I worked summers in college on the county road maintenance crew. I don’t think many of my co-workers would have done very well in the private sector. They were paid considerably less, but I do believe the preferred the slower pace of life (and the stability).
Usually, I would say. Things that can be contracted out, should. The government doesn’t answer to a bottom line or a contract holder. Accountability makes a huge difference. Lack of accountability = the kind of power that corrupts. (This happens in churches, too.)
Agreed. This is an unfair and derogatory stereotype. I see many on both sides of it. We need to be willing to call a spade a spade and make the reforms where they are actually needed. Our conscientious and effective workers need to be taken care of, not have their funding/compensation cut short for pork barrel spending on a politically correct agenda. We need to stop oiling the squeaky wheel and actually fix the engine.
LikeLike
And it is also possible that I am victim of terminal optimism. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, at least you had a choice. That’s better than our local election in which numerous conservative candidates routinely run unopposed because there isn’t enough of an opposing party to put anyone up to run against them. And we are talking extreme conservatives here, and to boot, people that I wouldn’t trust as far as I can spit. I usually write in someone or just vote the state offices where I have a choice.
LikeLike
“How can that [firing 100,000 civil servants] possibly not be a win? Turning as much as possible over to the private sector, with appropriate regulation, can do so much more for the economy than government designed and run solutions.”
I’d like to quibble with this. In some cases it might be a “win.” I don’t see how it is automatically a win. Some functions of the government are vital public services related to the common good, such that it’s not necessarily wise to cede over to a series private companies with their own interests, every several years, depending on who has just won the bid on a contract. Of course, this depends a lot on what functions we’re talking about.
Also, while I concede readily that private companies are sometimes more efficient than government agencies, I have to say that people (particularly, it seems, in the last few years) have been very fast to assert that civil servants don’t “do anything” or don’t do it particularly well. I’ve no desire to deflect legitimate criticism (as it is frequently warranted), but that kind of blanket assumption is a bit disheartening. Yes, civil servants are often attracted to the stability and benefits, and sometimes they’re too entrenched. But people also go into public service on the idea that it is important, and are dedicated to what they do.
Full disclosure: I am a public servant.
LikeLike
Voting is simply *a* means whereby the individual citizen exerts *some* influence on how things are governed. But not all votes function in the same manner:
Sometimes you vote on an up/down ballot initiative.
Sometimes you vote for an candidate who has a mostly administrative role.
Sometimes you vote for a legislator who has to form a coalition to get things done.
How conscience plays out differs in each context. Most ballot initiatives *are* gloried opinion polls, just ones that actually matter. Vote your conscience. Voting for administrators is mostly about just finding competent, decent people.
However, when you’re voting for legislators, you have a lot of levels. You’ve got the generic issues of competence, but you’ve also got to consider how the legislator will/won’t get along with everyone else (within his/her own party as well as outside of it) to get things done. In multiparty settings as in Canada, it gets even more complicated, with coalitions being crucial. Add a long-term perspective, and one’s short-term voting pattern may be deployed strategically, as is the case with Mike.
It may be one man(woman), one vote, but not all votes are the same. In other words, it’s complicated. There’s a reason one can write PhD theses in game theory that try to come up with coherent ways to describe what’s really going on when you have coalitions. (Don’t make me come up there and use words like nucleolus, bargaining set, or the Shapley Value!)
LikeLike
hey, a cultural nod to The Police’s song, Wrapped Around Your Finger???
LikeLike
I never bought the ‘throw away your vote’ theory. At least in the US, both major political parties are very unified in the legislation they pass. Sure, they stage some fights for ‘show’ over cultural buzz-words to assure their rank and file members that they are ‘standing true to party ideals, but they are essentially the same. A recent study came out that showed that legislation that is favored by the majority in the US only passes Congress 43% of the time , and then only when the majority’s interests happen to align with with the interests of large corporations or the government.
LikeLike
in any national election, I vote in such a way as to cancel out my ex-wife’s voted, just because I like the idea of having such a choice in the matter. other than that, I pay more attention to state and local elections…
LikeLike
We’ve had numerous presidents elected on sub-majority votes. And the republic has survived.
LikeLike
> I just leave that particular slot blank.
> The same goes for any issue that I do not understand
Ditto.
> “Protest” votes are meaningless. No one looks at
> those stats as meaningful,
Of course, there is no “i voted for this guy because i hate the other guy more” box. So it isn’t even that nobody looks, it is that the message is not persisted; it is lost, the data is never transmitted. A protest vote still supports X, that is all a vote can say.
> And as for those who yearn for a true multi-party system do you
> really relish the thought of being governed by a party that wins
> only 30+% of the vote?
Ditto. And we do accomplish this variety to some degree – we have a primary system. And there are rather wide spectrums within the parties. If people are really consistently disgusted with their choices – the answer is participation, not meaningless [and functionally silent] protest gestures.
> It may work in a Parliamentarian system but it would be
> disaster in THIS Republic.
Yep.
LikeLike
I believe Bill Clinton received 43% of the vote. This either proves or disproves your disaster theory.
LikeLike
Terminal optimism., I like that!
LikeLike
In your case, then (no disrespect intended), “protest” means “throwaway vote”? Wouldn’t it be better to choose which of the two major parties you think would do less damage (depending on your own definition of damage, of course) to the nation and vote for that party? As the cotton farmer said, “the lesser of two weevils”?
LikeLike
“Ultimately we, both USians and Canadians, are electing candidates [persons!] and not parties.”
Adam, I respectfully disagree with you in respect to USA politics. We, INDEED, elect parties over individuals, at least on the national scale, and even if we do not think we are doing so. Because we are basically a two party system we have to consider party political stances when voting. Yes, the individuals DO have a role in our more local aspects, but the majority party is the one that drives the agenda, and there ARE major differences in their agendas!
All of the talk about “gridlock”, and a “deeply divided” government is just hyperbolic fuming and political maneuvering in order to acquire some advantage. Of COURSE it is deeply divided! It has ALWAYS been thus. The biggest difference is that the amount of information we, the public, are now privy to is much more than in years past giving the impression that things have degenerated. What HAS degenerated, though, is the virtue of civility in disagreement.
And, added to that, the role of the media has changed as well (which I refuse to delve into here) into the role of open partisanship rather than dispassionate reporting (if it ever really WAS dispassionate).
I know little about Canadian politics so everything said above has no bearing on them. I am just stating my observations on USA issues.
LikeLike
Rather than cast a meaningless vote for a third party that garners less than 10% of the vote, (often in the low SINGLE digits), I just leave that particular slot blank. The same goes for any issue that I do not understand,,,blank.
“Protest” votes are meaningless. No one looks at those stats as meaningful, no one even cares that they are there. And as for those who yearn for a true multi-party system do you really relish the thought of being governed by a party that wins only 30+% of the vote? It may work in a Parliamentarian system but it would be disaster in THIS Republic.
As for Mikes voting choices, unless there is some over riding MORAL issues, you only do whatever your conscience dictates.
LikeLike
I’m of the view of Brad in voting… I’m in the district in Virginia where Eric Cantor (US House Majority Leader who just stepped down due to this) just lost the Republican primary to someone pretty much NO ONE knew. It was completely clear to Republicans in DC that it was assumed Cantor of course would win … as other than doing a crapload of mailers and calls and the usual political stuff was out in full force but other than that, the incumbent (Cantor) really did assume he would just win.
I usually end up voting for almost anyone *other* than the expected winner/incumbent due to the gridlock; but even with new members (especially with such so strong views that they aren’t willing to work together in Washington) we have gridlock. Where are the moderates? Barely there…
interesting visual map of the US Congress over time visualizing center x/left/right/far x for both House and Senate: http://xkcd.com/1127/large/
LikeLike
That sounds flipping brilliant. It’s like, we can get rid of somebody whenever they make a major screw-up. Just like any ordinary job! It’s almost like political leaders actually have some sort of accountability. Imagine that!
How can that possibly not be a win? Turning as much as possible over to the private sector, with appropriate regulation, can do so much more for the economy than government designed and run solutions.
…so you voted for the party that could demonstrably not be trusted, over the candidate that you personally could not trust, on the off chance that it would enable somebody trustworthy to come up in the future? Talk about hedging your bets. I think I have a good name for this: Terminal optimism.
It may work out in your favor. But when it comes to government and politics, it’s almost as if Murphy’s law applies at an exponential rate. Even IF it does go as you hope, the damage done in the mean time could easily outweigh the future wins.
I’m no political genius, but you can depend on me to vote for the lesser of two evils every single time. I can not have on my conscience the carnage left behind by greater incompetence. Here’s hoping you are right!
LikeLike
I would agree except for the fact that the party that they were beholden to was the party of the far left. This allows them to govern more from their natural position.
LikeLike
Good for you guys, Mike.
Hope it all turns out great. Or, as best as is possible when politicians are involved.
LikeLike
“Here in the USA – I am very skeptical of protest voting. I do not believe it works.”
This. It is a way to feel good about having voted without having voted in any meaningful sense.
LikeLike
“As the Liberals are no longer beholden to any other party, they are likely to govern more from the political center. ”
It’s been my experience (in the US) that as soon as a person or group sees that restraints have been lifted, they will move in the direction they want to go. Since, as you have said, the Liberals can’t be trusted with the taxpayers’ money and have moved left, I would expect them to be less trustworthy with money and move farther left. Until election season comes around again, then they will move toward the “center”.
LikeLike
> voted for who I thought was the best local candidate
The best approach, IMO. Ultimately we, both USians and Canadians, are electing candidates [persons!] and not parties.
I have over the years sooner-or-later met nearly all of my elected representatives. Almost all of them [with a couple notable exceptions] were reasonable and decent people, I may disagreed with them on many things, but that did not make them enemies. They have the complex job of trying to go do something with ideas within the vortex of many other peoples ideas; I have to respect that. It ain’t easy. And they each individually have a lot less power over what happens then it appears a lot of people imagine they do.
LikeLike
Micheal, looks to me that you’re doing a good job of navigating Scylla and Charybdis.
I think your tack makes more sense in the parliamentary system of Canada.
LikeLike
I live in Ontario and in this election I largely ignored the leaders and the parties and voted for who I thought was the best local candidate. If nothing else I think individual representatives need more support and influence and are those who interface personally with local citizens. My strategy must have been shared as a bright, energetic, committed young woman is our new representatative here in Oshawa.
LikeLike
On the survey I was within the 50-60% range of agreeing with every party! On the grid I came out as slightly Socially Conservative and moderately Economically Left; so the same results as every other survey like this I’ve taken.
Given the open ended questions one always sees on these plot-a-grid surveys – I’d just be afraid of people who scored at the extremes. Because, “it depends” is the only reasonable answer to many of them; as the saying goes “the devil lives in the details because he is experienced enough to know that is where the power is”.
LikeLike
I do not know enough about the Canadian political landscape or electorate to provide a relevant critique of your decision. Your multi-party coalition system is different than the one to the south; I wonder if your political machinations aren’t even more internecine.
Here in the USA – I am very skeptical of protest voting. I do not believe it works. We have candidates whose entire campaigns are engineered [quite effectively] to run on protest voting; outrage is baked into the message. It is very frustrating here [the USA] for as soon as anything political comes up in conversation [*1] there will be pontification on the woes of gridlock, lack of difference between parties, and on and on… and the loudest pontification *always* comes from the people who support [often under the guise of “protest”] the loudest and most aggressive candidates. I continuously walk away thinking “Hey, the system works! You got exactly what you asked for.”
[*1] and the original topic of the conversation will be buried in the avalanche of non-specifics and sweeping generalizations.
> the XYZ were facing defeat in a couple of ridings over some unpopular gas
> powered generating plants that were being built. They cancelled the contract
> on both the plants which will end up costing taxpayers in excess of one billion
> dollars
Maybe it should be a relief to see that the USA isn’t the only nation where NIMBYs are driving rivers of money down the toilet. But it isn’t. 😦 Many days it *feels* like no matter what you want to do there is a group to oppose it – and where were they when the problem was being discussed and various solutions considered? Oh right, couldn’t be bothered to show up THEN! … Sorry, sore spot.
And somehow many many things still get done; rather frequently things get done on time and under budget. Fortunately that fact remains, gotta focus on that.
LikeLike
I used to be VERY political – a typical hyper-conservative culture warrior Dittohead, in point of fact. However, time, wise counsel, and living in the metro Babylon-on-the-Potomac area for the past quarter century, and seeing how little practical difference the changes in party power and administrations make, have thoroughly changed my mind. Now, my wife and I mostly involve ourselves in local issues, where a vote and one’s presence can actually make a difference.
As for national elections, I still vote – the straight third party ticket (WHICH third party? Depends on the election and the candidate). As a protest. Eventually, as things continue to gridlock. And slide downhill, more and more people will come around to that POV. 😉
LikeLike
Since God does not appear to endorse any political party – and isn’t telling us who it is if He does 🙂 – as Christians we have to vote according to our conscience and our best judgement. Which you seem to be doing. Your “reverse psychology” method (to use that term loosely) isn’t one I would typically use, I don’t think, but I can’t see anything wrong with it from an ethical standpoint.
I’m not sure where I would fall in the Canadian political landscape (I started to take the quiz but without knowing the situation in Ontario I couldn’t really answer many of the questions), but I’m pretty sure my hardcore libertarianism would put me pretty far off the map.
LikeLike