Electoral straitjacket
I hate strategic voting, and yet Ive been forced to do it in this federal election (and the last one). To prevent Andrew Scheer from becoming the next prime minister, I am forced to vote Liberal not that hard, as their candidate is fine here in Central Nova. But with him tagging along, so to speak, I have to accept Justin Trudeau, too.
Id like to be able to vote for the local candidate and the prime minister separately, not as a package. There are easily two other better choices for prime minister, but to prevent a Scheer government, I must vote Liberal or split the vote and give the Conservatives an advantage.
This system is a great advantage for the two old mainstream parties and almost ensures one of them always wins. Just look at any past election counts: 60 per cent of the public voted against the so-called winner.
In my younger days, this was not such an issue, as Liberals and Progressive Conservatives were so close you could hardly tell the difference. But today, with the Reform/Canadian Alliance takeover of the old PCs, there is a much bigger difference in philosophy.
The two main parties know the systems shortcomings, yet maintain it for obvious reasons. In the last election, Justin Trudeau ran on a promise to move towards more proportional representation to provide a fairer, more accurate reflection of voters wishes. He dropped that like a hot potato as soon as he was elected simply because the current system allowed him to win, and it would most likely keep him in power in the next election.
The Americans have their Electoral College, and it has its flaws, but at least they can pick a president separately from a congressman or senator. Their two parties have simply taken turns ruling. Libertarians and independents are simply dreaming they cant win by design.Even Donald Trump was smart enough to realize that to win, you must run for one to the two main parties, and he camouflaged himself as a Republican to do it.
We need electoral reforms badly, but I truly doubt the two main parties will ever do it; theyd be shooting themselves in the foot and they know it! It would be as if Canadas chartered banks supported changes to their privileged position and allowed more banking competition. It just wont happen!
Ron MacCarthy, Caribou Island
As the federal election nears, Im encountering more and more people who are troubled about which candidate or party to support. They ask, Should I vote for the one that will let more of my money stay in my wallet or the one with the broadest vision of social equity and justice or the one that ensures the bad guys wont get in?
The best answer Ive heard is from Nova Scotians whove made a different decision. Theyre voting for their children and grandchildren. Theyve glimpsed the clouded future the next generations face and are choosing the platform that will give their young ones the best chance at lives of achievement and fulfilment. Theyre doing what elders have always done: sacrificing their own priorities for the good of the ones they love.
Those elders are choosing the candidate and party that have the courage to put clear, decisive climate action first and betting that we will multiply that action to create a future thats good for all Canadians to come. Our children and grandchildren are counting on the rest of us to make that bet, too.
David Henry, Halifax
I have been a resident of Dartmouth for over 40 years and have experienced the benefits of scientific pursuits at our universities and colleges, as well as at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography and the defence research facilities on the Dartmouth side of Halifax Harbour. I have also witnessed the cutbacks at BIO and the restrictions placed on the qualified professionals employed there.
Scientists across Canada have spent the last four years enjoying the freedom to do their work and to talk about it. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, that wasnt the case. Science, it seemed, was not fact, but a myth.
As we look forward, I worry about going back to those days especially as we need more people working on taking action on climate change.
The Liberal platform ensures that more money is invested in clean technology, which means more scientists working to address a major issue in the world today. While the Conservatives and Peoples Party of Canada continue to challenge the validity of climate change, Ill be voting for the party that has a plan to take action, and to let those who are fighting the problem lead the way.
Bob MacKay, Dartmouth
Amid a nasty federal election campaign dominated by schoolyard bullying, alt facts, attack ads, divisiveness, brownfaces, and dual citizenship, both the parties and the electorate seem to have forgotten Bill Clintons famous 1992 presidential campaign slogan: "It's the economy, stupid!"
This is especially surprising from the Liberals standpoint, given that Canadas economy has been a strong performer for several years. We lead the G7 in the latest quarterly economic growth update (higher than the U.S.!). A record 1,162,000 jobs have been created since the Liberals came to power (84 per cent full-time), the unemployment rate is a tick above the 40-year low, and Canada has the most viable fiscal position in the G7, as evidenced by having the lowest federal debt compared to the size of our economy.
Its the economy, eh!
Alex Roberts,Halifax
Re: Red meat, science and buffets (Oct. 5 column by Sylvain Charlebois).
Mr. Charlebois makes much of the Annals of Internal Medicine study which claims to have evidence that red and processed meats arent as unhealthy as most doctors are now saying.There are, however, cogent criticisms of that study:
From a Sep. 30 Washington Post article, by Laura Reiley: Another critic of the study, Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said the Annals of Internal Medicine study also ignored solid science in the arena.
. Willett says the panels conclusions and recommendations do not reflect the studys findings. Their meta-analyses of large cohorts showed that dietary patterns with a moderate reduction in red and processed meat consumption were associated with lower total mortality by 13 per cent. If a drug brought down the number of deaths to that degree, he says, it would be heralded as a success.
.... Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says one of the studys chief flaws is its reliance on the Womens Health Initiative study, a huge analysis of 48,000 women that had half the participants eating their regular diet and half eating a low-fat diet, which in many cases led to a half an ounce difference in meat consumption per day in the two groups, about a fifth of a hamburger. No surprise, there wasnt much difference in outcomes. Because of its size, the womens study may have skewed the overall results of the Annals of Internal Medicine report.
In other words, the study to which Mr. Charlebois refers did in fact show a 13 per cent reduction in mortality from a moderate reduction (note:not elimination) of red and processed meat in the regular diet. But the study doesnt support the conclusion that even those eating, say, 15 servings a week of red meat (the U.S. average), or more, can safely carry on.
Neil Bell, Baddeck
More:
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE Oct. 17, 2019 - TheChronicleHerald.ca
