A word association test: If handed a federal election ballot that displays a candidate's name beside the "PC Party" label - what do you make of that?

• Some may mistakenly believe the candidate represents Stephen Harper's party due to long association between the contraction "PC Party" and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
• If one lives in a province where "PC Party" (Progressive Conservative) candidates are fielded in provincial contests, a vote may well be mistakenly cast for a PC Party candidate instead of a Conservative due to confusion [1]
• An unknown but very small percentage of electors will look at the "PC Party" label with curiosity, remember the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada went the way of the dodo bird, and cast a vote for the "PC Party" anyway, believing that the party of Mulroney and Clark somehow came back to life.
• An infinitesimally small percentage of electors will correctly identify "PC Party" as the Elections Canada approved contraction for Progressive Canadian Party and choose to cast a ballot for the party's candidate.

The Progressive Canadian Party was formed in direct response to the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada with the Canadian Alliance. The founders of the party hold that the merger of their former party was either inappropriate, illegal, or represented a takeover of the true Tory party by the upstart western Reformers. A tenet the party holds dear is the claim that they, not Harper's Conservatives, represent an unbroken conservative political lineage reaching back to the days of Sir John A. MacDonald.

Thanks to a decision by Elections Canada back when the party was founded, the Progressive Canadian Party is permitted to identify itself as "PC Party" on federal ballots.

The decision by Elections Canada allowing the party to be labelled as "PC Party" on ballots was a poor decision seven years ago and represents something of an outrage today.

We aren't talking a large number of votes that may have been miscast, but as a democrat first and foremost I believe in the value of every single vote. Allowing the label "PC Party" to stand beside Progressive Canadian candidates only serves to confuse [2] some of the electorate and as a result votes are being miscast. Even one miscast vote is a shame.

Is Elections Canada not aiding and abetting a passive form of electoral fraud? At the very least, does permitting this ongoing confusion [3] contribute to demeaning the value of the vote?

I think it does and therefore urge the Progressive Canadian party to make an application with Elections Canada to be labelled as "Progressive Canadian" or "Progressive Canadian Party" for any future electoral contest. I also urge any elector in one of the ridings the Progressive Canadian party fielded a candidate to write a letter of complaint to Elections Canada requesting an investigation of this matter.

Well done Canada!

All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Canada Elections Act and are valid. Elections Canada

Statement by Elections Canada

If there ever was a story that needed to be headlined and talked up at every possible opportunity it is this one:

Conservatives ask Elections Canada to nullify votes cast at University of Guelph (April 14, 2011 - Guelph Mercury)

Elections Canada media advisor James Hale said this was the third election during which the University of Guelph held a special ballot on campus. And this is the first time it's ever been challenged, Hale said.

"Part of our mandate is making the vote as accessible as possible. So, we look at outreach programs," Hale said.

Hale said special ballot polling stations are often held for groups of people who consistently display less-than-average voter turnouts, such as students, First Nations, seniors and the disabled.

"It's never been challenged, not to my knowledge," Hale said.

However, it was Wednesday and then again Thursday by the Conservatives.

Several University of Guelph students claim Michael Sona, the communications director for Guelph Conservative candidate Marty Burke, attempted to put a stop to voting at the special ballot held Wednesday.

The students say Sona approached the Elections Canada balloting site claiming that the process unfolding at the location was illegal and at one point reached for but never took possession of a container with ballots.

"He tried to grab for the ballot box. I'm not sure he got his hand on the box, but he definitely grabbed for it", said Brenna Anstett, a student, who at the time of the reported incident was sealing her second of two envelopes containing her vote.

Student Claire Whalen was just about to receive her ballot just before 5 p.m. when the episode unfolded.

"That's when a guy came up and said it was an illegal polling station and that he was confiscating the ballots. And then he tried to take (the ballot box)," Whalen said.

Whalen also identified the man as Sona.

See also:

Ignatieff slams Tory attempt to annul votes at University of Guelph Conservatives’ attempt to disqualify votes unacceptable: NDP Press Release

Mr. Sona can be found on Twitter as @MichaelSona. Given he is self-identified as a partisan he cannot be an Elections Canada official and therefore has no right to confiscate ballots.

Those committed to restoring our democracy might want to have a word or two, or 140 characters at least, with Mr. Sona. Don't be too harsh. Sona appears to be a student himself and like all of us, has many lessons yet to learn in life. Hopefully Mr. Sona will in the future put more value on the principles of democracy than trying to play the game hard for his team. The two are not equivalent. Unfortunately for us all, political parties and notably Team Harper have as an effect of their gamesmanship turned our democratic process into something of a farce.

A lot of us just felt disrespected as voters and as young people. Yvonne Su, Vote Mob Organizer

We can and must do better. Perhaps Mr. Sona will learn a lesson from this unfolding experience and become an advocate for a truly democratic process rather than a willing and complicit destroyer of democracy.

Should anyone wonder why I care so much about this issue, I'm one of the 46,168 electors in Vancouver-Kingsway who had their votes invalidated - stolen in essence - by the undemocratic actions of David Emerson and Stephen Harper. A senior cabinet minister in the last Paul Martin Liberal government, Emerson was re-elected in Election 2006 on January 23rd. In his acceptance speech Emerson vowed to constituents to represent them well as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and exclaimed that he'd be "Stephen Harper's worst enemy" when he got back to Ottawa.

A politician has two loyalties here: a loyalty to his party and a loyalty to the democratic system. I'd like to see some loyalty to the democratic system from the prime minister. Michael Ignatieff

On January 24th, the very next day -- less than 24 hours after the votes had been counted -- Emerson was in negotiations with the Conservatives to join Stephen Harper's new, first, government. Constituents would only learn of his treachery on February 6 2006 when Emerson stepped out of a limo at Rideau Hall to the surprise of everyone.

Their vote - the cornerstone of our democratic system - was somehow devalued, if not betrayed. Bernard Shapiro, Ethics Commissioner (2006)

In 2006 Harper and Emerson conspired to steal the votes of the electors in my riding. In 2011 we must not allow Harper and his minions to steal the votes of any Canadian, but especially we must protect the votes and voices of our youth who we must encourage at every turn to become involved in the political process rather than jaded because of it.

Let's all stand with the students at University of Guelph.

I am @confute on twitter.

Count me in as one of the tens of thousands who does not approve of Stephen Harper proroguing parliament again. I just won't be signing on to Facebook to add to the count, because I have thus far managed to avoid joining that closed community and see no reason to change things.

Note to organizers: spend a little time and effort to build an open community site to champion your cause. Sure, Facebook is instant and easy, but if you want to attract the most people, use FB for promoting your open site, not for hosting it.

Via CBC's Kady O'Malley an EKOS prorogation poll summary:

According to these latest fresh from the field findings from EKOS -- full report available here -- fully 52.3 percent of respondents said that they were "clearly" aware that the prime minister had "decided to prorogue - that is, suspend - Parliament until early March."

An additional 15.2 would describe their level of awareness as "vague," and 32.5 percent who claimed to know nothing at all about it. Well, until they ended up on the phone with the EKOSbot, presumably.

Clear -- as opposed to vague -- awareness was highest amongst self-declared Conservative supporters -- 66.9 percent, compared to 59.5 percent of Liberals, 51 percent of Greens, and 45.3 percent of New Democrats, and just 33.9 percent of Bloc voters. Undecideds, not surprisingly, were more likely than partisans to be previously unaware of the PM's move -- 46.5 percent had no idea, compared to 35.3 percent of those in the clear, or on the clear, or however that should sentence should end.

So, how did they feel about it? Not all that warm and fuzzy, as it turns out. Out of those who told EKOS that they were aware that parliament had been prorogued, 68.7 percent are against it, including 40.5 percent who stand "strongly opposed." Just 31.4 percent said they supported the move, and 10 percent declined to share their feelings.

Via Susan Delacourt at The Star, The Economist slams prorogation:

Never mind what his spin doctors say: Mr Harper's move looks like naked self-interest. His officials faced grilling by parliamentary committees over whether they misled the House of Commons in denying knowledge that detainees handed over to the local authorities by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were being tortured. The government would also have come under fire for its lack of policies to curb Canada's abundant carbon emissions. Prorogation means that such committees-which carry out the essential democratic task of scrutinising government-will have to be formed anew in March. That will also allow Mr Harper to gain immediate control of committees in the appointed Senate, where his Conservatives are poised to become the biggest party.

Mr Harper has form. He prorogued Parliament last winter, too-to dodge a short-lived threat by the three opposition parties to bring his minority government down. Having gone to the polls three times since 2004 Canadians do not want another election. He might say that governing in a minority obliges him to play fast and loose with parliamentary nicety. He has nursed the economy and he has confounded those who feared that he would impose his supporters-loathing of abortion and liking for the death penalty on a generally tolerant country.

A legislature matters more than the luge

Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn't.

To the opposition parties: when you talk about Harper's disdain for democracy please do not forget that he showed Canadians on his very first day in office, way back on February 6, 2006, just how little he cares for the concept.

What happened that day? David Emerson, re-elected after having campaigned as a Liberal cabinet minister, was sworn in as a Conservative cabinet minister. Turns out Emerson was in secret negotiations with Harper and his proxies less than 24 hours after having been re-elected and promising to become Harper's worst nightmare.

The votes of sixty-four thousand Vancouver-Kingsway citizens apparently meant nothing to either Harper or Emerson.

Appointing Michael Fortier to cabinet in that same parliament, even though he was not elected, and even though Harper essentially promise on French language TV during the campaign that he would not do that, was yet another example of the Harper approach to breaking Canada's democratic traditions.

Hey Canada, you can't say you weren't warned.

This post was borne out of a comment I made in response to a revelation noted by Warren Kinsella -- a secret sole-sourced (not put out to open tender), contract, issued by the Prime Minister's Office to a U.S. political operative.

One 24K sole sourced contract is almost interesting, but what we really ought to be hammering the PMO and government about is where the millions of other dollars being spent, and hidden, are going. Accountability is an issue which transcends parties and individual governments.

Every party talks about running (I'll put the words in quotes because someone surely has said this) "the most open, transparent, and accountable government the country has ever had" yet every party in my waking life has failed to deliver on this promise.

To the Liberal's I issue a challenge: if your guy and your party were really serious about reforming Canada's governance in a positive way, ultimately even the most jaded Canadian apathetic voter might perk up and notice.

Is it too alarmist to claim that Canada's democracy is on life support? Not in my opinion. Our representatives are often no better than puppets. Rather than representing regions and their constituents, our parliamentarians at all levels of government more often than not are whipped to adhere to the party line and that is decided by a few, mostly unelected people, in the Prime Minister's Office. Parliament is side-stepped at every turn. First among equals is a concept many prime ministers, notably our current one, have trouble identifying with.

The weakening of parliament in favour of increased power in the PMO - to the point where today the U.S. system is actually more democratic than ours - is as a result of intentional design by both Conservative and Liberal government leaders dating back almost four decades.

Manning's "Reform" movement recognised some of this, to their credit; but despite being one of the architects of the Reform Party, Harper wasn't so much interested in democratic reforms, only in power that would allow him to "re-form" (quite a different notion) Canada in his own vision.

I want to see a truly open government. We have the technology available to us now that can easily permit all to see spending done by almost every department in near real-time. Open all the doors and windows, pull back all the curtains. Lets see not only who is lobbying who, in real time, but what they are talking about. Lets have more citizen involvement than a token election every year or every four years.

One of Canada's keen observers of our decaying democracy, journalist James Travers in Saturday's Toronto Star announced a new series on that very subject, building on an article penned this spring on what he termed the quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy.

Incrementally and by stealth, Canada has become a situational democracy. What matters now is what works. Precedents, procedures and even laws have given way to the political doctrine of expediency. James Travers, April 2009

There is a good deal to say on this subject, but I wonder if Canadians will bother listening. Few seem to realize exactly what we are losing year by year, government by government. The attack on Canada's democratic system is no benign tumour but a systemic disease. The symptoms are in plain sight--always have been, yet few seem alert to the disease which slowly is enveloping our society.

Travers noted the last parliamentary session saw:

• Parliament lost more of its defining control over the public purse when the Prime Minister slipped $3 billion in public spending behind closed cabinet doors.
• Oversight was blinkered again this week when the new federal budget office was denied the independence needed to probe and explain how Ottawa spends.
• Voters' control over their elected representatives was again eroded when Liberals, like Conservatives, saved obedient incumbent MPs from the discipline and inconvenience of nomination contests.
• Power is sliding farther away from the Commons and cabinet to concentrate in the Prime Minister's Office as a presidential-style spokesman increasingly becomes the administration's public voice.

Expediency, in the quest for power, is the name of the cancer which afflicts our democracy.

This spring the government's own Information Commissioner chastised the government for perpetuating a cult of secrecy, for openness is the cure-all for political expediency that recent Liberal and Conservative governments alike have avoided like vampires to garlic.

With an obviously crumbling economy looming, threatening Stephen Harper's hold on power above all else, it was expediency at work as we witnessed a Prime Minister break his own law (fixed election dates) and then during what could only be seen, morally, as an illegitimate election, Stephen Harper would lie through word play and omission to the public about the state of Canada's economy.

One doesn't have to look very hard for more symptoms of Canada's democratic decay. Once touted as a grass-roots movement led by "conservative" reformers -- one member, one vote, implying that everyone's voice mattered -- Conservative party members have long since lost any real voice, relegated to irrelevance as the only opinion in that party which matters is Stephen Harper's. Ideological Conservatives long decried what they saw as a Liberal invention - the "nanny state", but they have fostered something much worse - the "daddy state" where Harper knows best. Only because of an expedient lust for power, or lack of common sense, have those party supporters kept silent.

The grass is not greener on the red side of the fence. Liberals having elected Dion as a different kind of leader not soon after decided to expeditiously punt him without benefit of a democratic replacement. When opposition parties had the opportunity to defeat the government and form a government by coalition, key Liberals stood silent while the media more or less partnered with Harper and his minions to twist the situation in front of a Canadian public whose senses have long been dulled. It's "un-democratic" the Conservatives bleated and brayed, when in fact a coalition government is anything but, and many Liberals, and most of the press, sat back and let events unfold.

In other countries many fight to their death in the faint hope of ever seeing something resembling democracy grace their lands, while we do nothing as one of the world's truly great democracies slowly atrophies as the cancer ravaging our democratic system courses through our politics while calculating politicians on both sides of the house sit mute and idle.

Is it our fate that Canadians be engaged in nothing more but complacent servitude to a system in which we really have no voice nor control? If we do not, our children's children will one day wake up as indentured servants of some oligarch with powers not unlike the feudal lords of old. Some might argue we are all but there now.

Maintaining a vibrant democracy is hard work that we must all shoulder some of the burden of building and repairing.

Travers' last line of his April article on democracy is perhaps the most pertinent:

If war is too serious to leave to generals, then surely democracy is too important to delegate to politicians.

On this morning's Bill Good show - right wing talk-back radio here in Vancouver - Mr. Good wonders aloud where all the good folks from Vancouver-Kingsway are on the potential defeat of the Harper government by a coalition. Good implies there may be some sort of double standard in the comparing today's community response to that over David Emerson jumping from Liberal to Conservative parties less than 24 hours after the ballots were counted.

Before responding to Good's challenge, let me first turn the question around.

Where were you, Bill Good, when Emerson ignored the will of the people here?

I'll answer for Good: You were silent on the issue. Sure, the Emerson affair made for good copy on the more pedestrian CTV nightly news show you anchor, but it was clear from your ongoing commentary on talk radio that you never took the side of real democracy and indeed in later times you expressed nothing but support for Emerson.

As for where voters here are on the issue, I imagine there are a mixed range of thoughts and emotions, many of which are bound to be as ill-informed as is clearly in evidence all across this country. The parties, and fairly we can single out the Conservatives especially, are further confusing the public with overheated rhetoric and misinformation as to the nature of our parliamentary system of governance.

Speaking personally, not as a spokesperson for the Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson, I opposed what Emerson did not because he had no right to do it as an MP (he did have the right) but because he violated the trust of voters. Had he sat as a CPC back bencher and voted along the same lines as he had as a Liberal, I'd have had much less of an argument with him. However by accepting a cabinet position, Emerson was duty bound to work against the very campaign platform he was elected upon, and that is a breach of trust. I support anti-floor crossing legislation because more often than not floor-crossing results in such undemocratic flip flops.

As for the current drama, it would be helpful if the media could at least de-mystify the proceedings. What is being proposed is entirely democratic - a majority of members in the House of Commons are not Conservative Party MPs, and they represent a majority of Canadians who elected them from across the country. Thus from a democratic principles perspective, it is easy to support the right of the opposition parties to try to form a government, whether one agrees with the outcome or not.

Whether now is the time for such a move, and whether such a coalition can ultimately be successful in delivering positive results for Canada, are entirely different questions.

When the furore in Ottawa has died, and when the economic issues facing the country have been well addressed, parliamentarians and Canadians should return their attention to one of the root problems in our country: Our first past the post electoral system. In the past my traditionalist tendencies have prevented me from accepting it was time to change our antiquated electoral system based on plurality voting. I'm not so hesitant these days.

RallyForCanada.ca, a site rallying those opposed to the coalition agreement entered into by the opposition parties, is the brain child of prolific blogger Stephen Taylor, a Conservative mouthpiece who works for the (Preston) Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

I posted the following on Mr. Taylor's site in response to his announcement of the RallyForCanada.ca site:

Stephen - do you only support "democracy" when it threatens the party's position in parliament?

I don't recall you speaking up at all when Stephen Harper authorized and entered into secret negotiations with David Emerson to overturn the votes of Vancouver-Kingsway residents. Emerson was in talks with Harper's representative less than 24 hours after the ballots were counted.

And did you moan for democracy when Stephen Harper broke his own law in calling for an election, purely for partisan political advantage, more than a year in advance of what his own law set out as the lawful fixed election date? No, I don't believe you did.

Apparently being a "fellow" at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy has nothing at all to do with actually building, or respecting, democracy. Michael Watkins, December 2, 2008

I'm a former Progressive Conservative and former Conservative Party member who left the party as a result of the attack on democracy Stephen Harper made right here in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Despite starting out well with a call for Emerson to run in a by-election (which of course would never happen), Taylor goes on to make the same sort of mealy mouth ends justify the means argument most Conservatives uttered in response to l'affair Emerson. Not one of them stood up for democracy. Most were afraid to utter a word lest Stephen Harper or his goons lash out. They still are, albeit Harper's vaunted grip on the party may be cracking ever so slightly.

Sadly I've not run into very many Conservatives who take democracy as a principle seriously. You've got to fight for democracy even when it hurts your team, if the principle is to mean anything.

Perhaps they don't teach that lesson at the (Preston) Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

According to a ruling, Democracy Watch's September 26th federal court application challenging the legality of the current election will not be heard by the court prior to the election. A motion had been filed by the organization to expedite the case.

The application will proceed through the court's regular schedule, advises Democracy Watch in a news release.

To voters everywhere in the country, the case should be seen as open and shut: The Prime Minister broke his own law. The details of Bill C-16, An act to amend the Canada Elections Act (assented to on May 3rd 2007), are straightforward:

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

As I've noted previously, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is breaking his own law using the broadest interpretation of the loophole he ensured was in the legislation. A more proper view of the matter can be found in the affidavits supplied with Democracy Watch's application. I'll cite just one as an example, University of Ottawa Professor of Law Errol Mendes:

5.1 The Prime Minister undermined both the letter and the spirit of Section 56.1 of the Canada Elections Act when he advised the Governor General on September 7, 2008 to dissolve Parliament over a year before the October 19, 2009 fixed election date.

The professor continues:

As Parliament was not sitting, there was no loss of confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister can not claim that by meeting the opposition party leaders outside the House and by their refusal to commit to not opposing him in the House of Commons until a certain date he has satisfied the spirit and the letter of the fixed elections law. Affidavit of Errol P. Mendes

There can be no doubt that Stephen Joseph Harper has broken the law of the land, a law which he and his party pushed to enact. Mr. Harper's party, and each of the founding parties and their modern day predecessors have claimed to want to seek an improved democratic system, yet this very election is evidence that what they claim is not met by their actions. In other words a fraud has been committed upon the Canadian public where that which was sold - a promise - was done so on false premises.

A government which so openly—brazenly in fact—breaks the very laws it makes is a government that cannot be trusted to uphold any law. Such a government does not deserve the confidence of the people of this country.

Stephen Harper is betting that Canadians are ignorant of the facts or are otherwise pre-occupied, such that they will collectively and meaningfully muster sufficient recognition of his transgressions against the public trust, at least not in time for the vote on October 14. Lets prove him wrong.

See also: DUFF CONACHER ET AL v. THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA ET AL

Green leader allowed into debates, networks confirm (Sept. 10 2008, CBC)

Green Leader Elizabeth May will be allowed into the federal leaders' debates, Canada's main broadcast networks confirmed on Wednesday. The news came after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated earlier on Wednesday that they no longer oppose May's participation in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2.

This election just got interesting.

Winners: Canadians, your voices were heard for a change. Well done. Losers: Jack Layton and Stephen Harper. Duceppe too but he barely counts any more.