Wonderfully depressing poll this morning. 63% have noticed that Harper is responsible for "the current situation", but 45% would vote for him and outside of Quebec a full 64% are opposed to the Coalition.
The problem is that like all polls it isn't explanatory, so for insight you're still stuck with vox pops and guesswork by pundits. What's wanted is a follow-up question to those 64% asking why, with a suitable range of options:
(1) Because President Harper won that majority fair and square
(2) Because Stephane Dion is a geek
(3) Because as an Albertan who personally invented oil, my vote should count for triple
(4) Because them thar Frenchies!
Still, another day of pretty good coverage, balanced and thorough. Given how well (1) and (4) are represented on the letters page, a lot of Globe 'readers' must not read anything in the paper at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Having spent two solid years reading this exact kind of crap for the US election, I am not sure I have the capacity to endure the Canadian version.
I'm a bit alarmed that 45% of the poll respondents think they actually can vote for Harper - unless there was some dramatic oversampling in the Calgary region, this appears to be more evidence that many Canadians think our version of democracy is identical to the American one, where you do vote directly for the head of the government. I've lost track of the number of people I've heard/read saying that Harper surrendering the PMship is a slap in the face to all the millions of Canadians who voted for him and is therefore undemocratic. These may be the same people who think you can exercise your Miranda rights if you get arrested in Canada. Or perhaps I'm being too crabby and pedantic.
There is something strangely Periclean about parliamentary democracy. We the electorate choose those who approve or disapprove Governmental action, but we do not choose those who propose and execute policy.
It's true that we didn't vote for Harper, or at least most of us didn't, but that's because we don't get to vote for anybody as an occupant of that role. They have indirect democracy in the US and France too -- but somehow our system sounds one degree less direct than theirs.
Am I just up a tree?
I don't mind people thinking they voted for Harper so long as they don't think he actually won, in the sense that an American president (other than Bush 2000) wins. He does not have the right to govern for four years. He just has first crack at persuading the House to support his legislative agenda. That's all.
Post a Comment