Monday, January 23, 2006
My Edmonton-Strathcona Endorsitorial
The bad news is that there are no great candidates in Edmonton-Strathcona. The good news is that there are an embarrassing number of good ones. This will be my third time voting in a federal election. I have also voted in two provincial elections. This election has been, by far, the most difficult in which to decide how to cast my ballot. In my attempts to do so, I have submitted a questionnaire to all candidates (the results of which can be seen here), attended two forums, and perused the websites of all candidates who had them (which was all of them except Kevan Hunter) and of their parties. I read the Gateway's excellent coverage of the riding's options. I have also had the chance to talk face-to-face with most of the candidates about some of my foremost concerns. In short, I am as qualified a voter as likely exists in this riding.
Part of the frustration is that I feel politically homeless with the current selection of political parties. Even on a segment of issues as narrow as the question of Parliamentary and electoral reform, there are problems with all parties: the Liberal Party, the Marijuana Party, and the Progressive Canadian Party are silent on the whole question, the New Democrats and Greens advocate proportional representation, and the Conservatives, who otherwise best represent my views on democratic renewal, cling to the absurd concept of an elected Senate. The Marxist-Leninists are in the midst of a commendable multilogue on the issue, but have yet to generate any substantive policy positions. None of this is the primary problem, since I vote on the basis of local candidate, but it does help illustrate what I mean when I talk about the absence of perfect candidates.
Three of my riding's seven candidates fall short of even the "good candidate" label.
First, Dave Dowling takes no positions on any issues at all but the legalization of marijuana (with which I agree), pledging to defer to his constituents on all other questions. If this ugly and unworkable faux-populism is not itself sufficient reason to eliminate Mr. Dowling from contention, his decidedly erratic behaviour during this campaign (pledging on his own website to attend the Myer Horowitz forum and subsequently claiming that he never intended to do so, for example) is.
Rahim Jaffer was the only candidate who I failed to contact, despite numerous attempts. While refusing to make himself available to a constituent during election-time is not an automatic way to lose my vote, it's not far off. On top of this, he has not impressed in the one forum that he deigned to attend or in media coverage. In his Gateway interview, he indicated that there were areas in which his own policies differed from those of his party, he indicated neither to the Gateway interviewer nor to readers of his website what these areas might be (indeed, the "platform" section of his website is simply a link to the Conservative Party's platform). His votes on key issues to come before the last Parliament are a poor fit with my own views: he voted against gay marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana, supported the tax cuts originally found in the Liberal budget, opposed the New Democrat-initiated social spending later tacked on, and opposed tougher sentences only when he felt that they did not go far enough (though I give him credit both for opposing the New Democrat-initiated floor-crossing prohibition and for bucking his party's opposition to the New Democrat-initiated easing of restrictions on declarations of bankruptcy by individuals with student loan debt). At the Horowitz forum, his defense of his opposition to same-sex marriage was weak and relied on the premise that a majority of Edmonton-Strathcona's residents share this opposition (which is certainly questionable, and ought not to be relevant in any case). On balance, Rahim Jaffer is not worthy of my support.
It is not all together inconceivable that I would vote for a Liberal in this election, but such a Liberal would have to both acknowledge the faults of the current Liberal government and advocate a reform agenda separating him/her from his/her moribund party. Andy Hladyshevsky is not that candidate. He declines to acknowledge any problems with the current government, even though no governments in recent memory have been so bereft of innovation or leadership. As for substantive policy proposals, Hladyshevsky talks a great deal without saying much at all. For example, he is opposed to neither an elected Senate nor proportional representation, but also manages to fall somewhat short of support for each. While he seems to be honest and well-intentioned, he still manages to represent many of the worst elements of capital-L Liberalism.
This leaves Linda Duncan, Michael Fedeyko, Kevan Hunter, and Cameron Wakefield. All of them are acceptable candidates, and if I believed that any one of them had a chance of defeating Jaffer, I would vote for that candidate (I'm no fan of strategic voting, but I am willing to use it where the gulf in quality between the candidate I'm trying to stop and the one on whom I'd be relying to do the stopping is large, and/or where the gulf in quality between my real first choice and my strategic first choice is small). However, I think that Jaffer is a lock for re-election.
The choice really wasn't supposed to be this difficult. I went into this campaign expecting that, after I had collected all available evidence, I would make the decision to vote for Ms. Duncan. Unfortunately, her impressive credentials aside, she has been decidedly underwhelming throughout the campaign. In a Q&A after the Knox Metropolitan Church forum, she managed to both incorrectly describe proportional representation (her description was closer to single member STV, though it was slightly-muddled) and identify the patriation of the constitution as the accomplishment of a Liberal-New Democrat coalition government (in fact, there has never been a Liberal-ND coalition in Canadian history, and the patriation took place during a majority Liberal government). In her responses to my questionnaire, she deferred in all cases to ND policy. Where the New Democrats had no policy - as in the case of the raising of the age of consent, for example - she merely provided a breakdown of how NDP MPs in the last Parliament had voted (in this case nine in favour and seven opposed). Perhaps most damningly, Ms. Duncan effectively pledged to be little more than a mouthpiece of the NDP by promising never to vote against the party line. She also appeared to commit to not moving any private member's bills, which is a very poor way of earning my vote. That she earns my "good candidate" stamp is the result only of the fact that, in a majority of cases, the policies that she is parroting from the NDP are policies with which I agree.
Mr. Fedeyko appeals to me because he's the closest thing this race has to an independent - he's running under a party label, but his answers to my questions were demonstrably his own. He earns marks for opposing tax cuts at the present time, but loses some for giving a speech at the Knox Church forum that seemed to indicate contempt for the Canadian social safety net. Besides Dowling, he was the only candidate to outright advocate the legalization of marijuana, which earns him points, and his clear commitment to reaching the 0.7% of GDP foreign aid target (in fact, he was the only candidate to mention this target in a speech without prompting - Ms. Duncan, who I expected to be strong on the foreign aid issue, responded to questions about it by opting instead to talk about child poverty in Canada) does likewise. Unfortunately, all of the private member's bills he suggested that he'd move are money bills, and therefore require a Minister of the Crown to move them. In summary, Mr. Fedeyko said a lot of things I like and a few that I really didn't like. He appeals to my instinctive support for candidates who will finish well back, but lacked a clear, focused agenda. Again, a good candidate, but not a great one.
Kevan Hunter was a revelation to me. His comments (once all references to "fascism" and "workers" are removed) were sane and generally reasonable. Over the short-term, his policy seemed similar to the New Democrats': less business-friendly tax regimes and regulation combined with increased spending for social programs. Unsurprisingly, his message was less watered-down and evasive than the New Democrats', who have made decidedly non-progressive noises about things like regulating gas prices and protecting Ford manufacturing plants in their attempts to, you know, actually win some seats. On the other hand, I am fundamentally a person who believes in the free market, and Kevan Hunter clearly is not. And while I liked that he framed the issue of foreign aid as not only being an issue of giving more, but also one of taking less, it would be nice if his foreign affairs platform extended beyond getting Canada out of Haiti.
Cameron Wakefield is the guy I'd have voted for if I lived in Edmonton-Strathcona during the 2004 election. He's clearly principled, and his principles are generally similar to my own. He did make attempts to respond to my questionnaire by phone, but we never seemed to connect. And, contrary to New Democrat attempts to convince people to the contrary, the Green Party is definitely a left-wing party. Just because Jim Harris is a corporate consultant (and let me just say that after shaking his hand a couple of weeks ago and being satisfied after that I'd retained all of my fingers, I still don't trust the guy), and just because its candidates regularly make this stupid "we're not in favour of right-wing ideas or left-wing ideas, just ideas that make sense" argument, doesn't make a party that proposes stricter regulations on industry than those proposed by any other major party "right-wing". On the environmental issue particularly, the Greens have more moral authority than the New Democrats. They also have an identical schedule for reaching the 0.7% foreign aid target (by the way, the reason that I keep bringing this up is that I decided at the beginning of the campaign that it, environmental protection, and democratic reform were my three big issues) as does the NDP. My major quarrels with Mr. Wakefield are, first of all, that after being active in party politics for at least two elections, he still doesn't convey the level of understanding about issues as does, for example, Mr. Hladyshevsky, and second that, in his Gateway interview he identifies his top three priorities as being the three things whose importance has probably been most over-stressed this campaign. Beyond that, he too supports proportional representation, though he at least doesn't peg himself down to the specific model that the New Democrats have.
So there you have it: four good candidates, but no great ones. Where does this leave me? With a hell of a dilemma.
This is the part of the endorsitorial in which I should lay out some cleverly-conceived and carefully applied criteria to allow me to select which of the four I will vote for. Unfortunately, as I just demonstrated above, any attempt to do so does nothing but lead me in circles. Instead, accept the following:
I'll eliminate Hunter - I believe that candidates transcend parties, but I unfortunately don't know enough about Hunter's viewpoints as a candidate, and his partisan affiliation suggests to me that many of his views could be too extreme for me. Since he never responded to my questionnaire, I can discard him without feeling too much guilt, though I cannot condemn anybody for voting for him.
Most of what Mike Fedeyko has said has met with my approval, but his remarks at the Knox forum in quoting the Fraser Institute's Canadian version of the Grasshopper and the Ant (in which the hard-working ant unjustly has much of his property seized to support the lazy grasshopper) is indicative of an underlying attitude that may be unpalatable to me.
I have become increasingly disillusioned with both the NDP and Linda Duncan over the course of this campaign. As I recently commented to Sean Tisdall they're right about everything except democracy. I'm not sure that that's enough to be right about.
Where does that leave me? This election, I'll be voting for Cameron Wakefield.
|
The bad news is that there are no great candidates in Edmonton-Strathcona. The good news is that there are an embarrassing number of good ones. This will be my third time voting in a federal election. I have also voted in two provincial elections. This election has been, by far, the most difficult in which to decide how to cast my ballot. In my attempts to do so, I have submitted a questionnaire to all candidates (the results of which can be seen here), attended two forums, and perused the websites of all candidates who had them (which was all of them except Kevan Hunter) and of their parties. I read the Gateway's excellent coverage of the riding's options. I have also had the chance to talk face-to-face with most of the candidates about some of my foremost concerns. In short, I am as qualified a voter as likely exists in this riding.
Part of the frustration is that I feel politically homeless with the current selection of political parties. Even on a segment of issues as narrow as the question of Parliamentary and electoral reform, there are problems with all parties: the Liberal Party, the Marijuana Party, and the Progressive Canadian Party are silent on the whole question, the New Democrats and Greens advocate proportional representation, and the Conservatives, who otherwise best represent my views on democratic renewal, cling to the absurd concept of an elected Senate. The Marxist-Leninists are in the midst of a commendable multilogue on the issue, but have yet to generate any substantive policy positions. None of this is the primary problem, since I vote on the basis of local candidate, but it does help illustrate what I mean when I talk about the absence of perfect candidates.
Three of my riding's seven candidates fall short of even the "good candidate" label.
First, Dave Dowling takes no positions on any issues at all but the legalization of marijuana (with which I agree), pledging to defer to his constituents on all other questions. If this ugly and unworkable faux-populism is not itself sufficient reason to eliminate Mr. Dowling from contention, his decidedly erratic behaviour during this campaign (pledging on his own website to attend the Myer Horowitz forum and subsequently claiming that he never intended to do so, for example) is.
Rahim Jaffer was the only candidate who I failed to contact, despite numerous attempts. While refusing to make himself available to a constituent during election-time is not an automatic way to lose my vote, it's not far off. On top of this, he has not impressed in the one forum that he deigned to attend or in media coverage. In his Gateway interview, he indicated that there were areas in which his own policies differed from those of his party, he indicated neither to the Gateway interviewer nor to readers of his website what these areas might be (indeed, the "platform" section of his website is simply a link to the Conservative Party's platform). His votes on key issues to come before the last Parliament are a poor fit with my own views: he voted against gay marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana, supported the tax cuts originally found in the Liberal budget, opposed the New Democrat-initiated social spending later tacked on, and opposed tougher sentences only when he felt that they did not go far enough (though I give him credit both for opposing the New Democrat-initiated floor-crossing prohibition and for bucking his party's opposition to the New Democrat-initiated easing of restrictions on declarations of bankruptcy by individuals with student loan debt). At the Horowitz forum, his defense of his opposition to same-sex marriage was weak and relied on the premise that a majority of Edmonton-Strathcona's residents share this opposition (which is certainly questionable, and ought not to be relevant in any case). On balance, Rahim Jaffer is not worthy of my support.
It is not all together inconceivable that I would vote for a Liberal in this election, but such a Liberal would have to both acknowledge the faults of the current Liberal government and advocate a reform agenda separating him/her from his/her moribund party. Andy Hladyshevsky is not that candidate. He declines to acknowledge any problems with the current government, even though no governments in recent memory have been so bereft of innovation or leadership. As for substantive policy proposals, Hladyshevsky talks a great deal without saying much at all. For example, he is opposed to neither an elected Senate nor proportional representation, but also manages to fall somewhat short of support for each. While he seems to be honest and well-intentioned, he still manages to represent many of the worst elements of capital-L Liberalism.
This leaves Linda Duncan, Michael Fedeyko, Kevan Hunter, and Cameron Wakefield. All of them are acceptable candidates, and if I believed that any one of them had a chance of defeating Jaffer, I would vote for that candidate (I'm no fan of strategic voting, but I am willing to use it where the gulf in quality between the candidate I'm trying to stop and the one on whom I'd be relying to do the stopping is large, and/or where the gulf in quality between my real first choice and my strategic first choice is small). However, I think that Jaffer is a lock for re-election.
The choice really wasn't supposed to be this difficult. I went into this campaign expecting that, after I had collected all available evidence, I would make the decision to vote for Ms. Duncan. Unfortunately, her impressive credentials aside, she has been decidedly underwhelming throughout the campaign. In a Q&A after the Knox Metropolitan Church forum, she managed to both incorrectly describe proportional representation (her description was closer to single member STV, though it was slightly-muddled) and identify the patriation of the constitution as the accomplishment of a Liberal-New Democrat coalition government (in fact, there has never been a Liberal-ND coalition in Canadian history, and the patriation took place during a majority Liberal government). In her responses to my questionnaire, she deferred in all cases to ND policy. Where the New Democrats had no policy - as in the case of the raising of the age of consent, for example - she merely provided a breakdown of how NDP MPs in the last Parliament had voted (in this case nine in favour and seven opposed). Perhaps most damningly, Ms. Duncan effectively pledged to be little more than a mouthpiece of the NDP by promising never to vote against the party line. She also appeared to commit to not moving any private member's bills, which is a very poor way of earning my vote. That she earns my "good candidate" stamp is the result only of the fact that, in a majority of cases, the policies that she is parroting from the NDP are policies with which I agree.
Mr. Fedeyko appeals to me because he's the closest thing this race has to an independent - he's running under a party label, but his answers to my questions were demonstrably his own. He earns marks for opposing tax cuts at the present time, but loses some for giving a speech at the Knox Church forum that seemed to indicate contempt for the Canadian social safety net. Besides Dowling, he was the only candidate to outright advocate the legalization of marijuana, which earns him points, and his clear commitment to reaching the 0.7% of GDP foreign aid target (in fact, he was the only candidate to mention this target in a speech without prompting - Ms. Duncan, who I expected to be strong on the foreign aid issue, responded to questions about it by opting instead to talk about child poverty in Canada) does likewise. Unfortunately, all of the private member's bills he suggested that he'd move are money bills, and therefore require a Minister of the Crown to move them. In summary, Mr. Fedeyko said a lot of things I like and a few that I really didn't like. He appeals to my instinctive support for candidates who will finish well back, but lacked a clear, focused agenda. Again, a good candidate, but not a great one.
Kevan Hunter was a revelation to me. His comments (once all references to "fascism" and "workers" are removed) were sane and generally reasonable. Over the short-term, his policy seemed similar to the New Democrats': less business-friendly tax regimes and regulation combined with increased spending for social programs. Unsurprisingly, his message was less watered-down and evasive than the New Democrats', who have made decidedly non-progressive noises about things like regulating gas prices and protecting Ford manufacturing plants in their attempts to, you know, actually win some seats. On the other hand, I am fundamentally a person who believes in the free market, and Kevan Hunter clearly is not. And while I liked that he framed the issue of foreign aid as not only being an issue of giving more, but also one of taking less, it would be nice if his foreign affairs platform extended beyond getting Canada out of Haiti.
Cameron Wakefield is the guy I'd have voted for if I lived in Edmonton-Strathcona during the 2004 election. He's clearly principled, and his principles are generally similar to my own. He did make attempts to respond to my questionnaire by phone, but we never seemed to connect. And, contrary to New Democrat attempts to convince people to the contrary, the Green Party is definitely a left-wing party. Just because Jim Harris is a corporate consultant (and let me just say that after shaking his hand a couple of weeks ago and being satisfied after that I'd retained all of my fingers, I still don't trust the guy), and just because its candidates regularly make this stupid "we're not in favour of right-wing ideas or left-wing ideas, just ideas that make sense" argument, doesn't make a party that proposes stricter regulations on industry than those proposed by any other major party "right-wing". On the environmental issue particularly, the Greens have more moral authority than the New Democrats. They also have an identical schedule for reaching the 0.7% foreign aid target (by the way, the reason that I keep bringing this up is that I decided at the beginning of the campaign that it, environmental protection, and democratic reform were my three big issues) as does the NDP. My major quarrels with Mr. Wakefield are, first of all, that after being active in party politics for at least two elections, he still doesn't convey the level of understanding about issues as does, for example, Mr. Hladyshevsky, and second that, in his Gateway interview he identifies his top three priorities as being the three things whose importance has probably been most over-stressed this campaign. Beyond that, he too supports proportional representation, though he at least doesn't peg himself down to the specific model that the New Democrats have.
So there you have it: four good candidates, but no great ones. Where does this leave me? With a hell of a dilemma.
This is the part of the endorsitorial in which I should lay out some cleverly-conceived and carefully applied criteria to allow me to select which of the four I will vote for. Unfortunately, as I just demonstrated above, any attempt to do so does nothing but lead me in circles. Instead, accept the following:
I'll eliminate Hunter - I believe that candidates transcend parties, but I unfortunately don't know enough about Hunter's viewpoints as a candidate, and his partisan affiliation suggests to me that many of his views could be too extreme for me. Since he never responded to my questionnaire, I can discard him without feeling too much guilt, though I cannot condemn anybody for voting for him.
Most of what Mike Fedeyko has said has met with my approval, but his remarks at the Knox forum in quoting the Fraser Institute's Canadian version of the Grasshopper and the Ant (in which the hard-working ant unjustly has much of his property seized to support the lazy grasshopper) is indicative of an underlying attitude that may be unpalatable to me.
I have become increasingly disillusioned with both the NDP and Linda Duncan over the course of this campaign. As I recently commented to Sean Tisdall they're right about everything except democracy. I'm not sure that that's enough to be right about.
Where does that leave me? This election, I'll be voting for Cameron Wakefield.
