News roundup, 20 Feb 2025

- Winnipeg Transit has taken delivery of its first fuel cell powered bus. The city will be testing a number of fuel cell and battery electric buses, with some financing coming from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program. A total of 16 such buses are expected to be deployed this year, and another 24 next year. The original plan was to buy 100 but supply chain issues as well as costs threw a wrench into those plans.

- Justin Trudeau has announced more details about the plans to build high speed rail between Toront and Quebec City. There will apparently be stops in Peterborough, Ottawa, Laval, Montreal, and Trois-Rivieres, with top speeds of up to 300 km/h. Unless the Cons win the election, of course, or unless the Liberals squeak a majority and don't need the support of the NDP anymore, or unless the Americans invade us before it can be built...

- Speaking of the Liberals, some recent polling suggests that if Mark Carney wins the party's leadership as expected, they might actually have a shot at a majority. New polling from Mainstreet Research as well as Leger project this very result; on the other hand, the latest poll from Angus Reid puts the Cons ahead. Worryingly, in all three polls the NDP as well as the Bloc do very poorly, meaning that whoever wins will probably do so with a majority. This also illustrates that much of the increased Liberal support likely comes from tactical voters. Just in case anyone was still wondering why they broke their promise about electoral reform, you know.

- The Trump administration has cancelled all funding for the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center. And the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to suspend "all election security activities" pending the results of an "internal investigation". It's often been said of the MAGA crowd that "every accusation is a confession". Given how many accusations they've made about electoral fraud, and given what they're doing to agencies that oversee elections, one does have to wonder.

- Tom Homan, the acting head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is calling for the Department of Justice to investigate whether "know your rights" seminars run by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez constitute impeding the agency's operations. No doubt they'll be far more likely to arrest AOC than they are to arrest, say, Elon Musk, whose department appears to have just posted classified information on its website.

- New York City mayor Eric Adams, who was elected as a Democrat, suddenly seems all too keen to work with Donald Trump. Maybe because that's because Trump seems to have made corruption investigations against him go away.

- Trump and Putin, having already decided what to do with Ukraine without the inconvenience of actually having the Ukrainians' input on the matter, are now looking at joint oil and gas projects in the Arctic. Of course, a lot of sea ice will have to melt before they can proceed, but they're doing their darnedest to address that matter too.

- JD Vance gave a speech at the Munich Security Conference last week that terrified Europe's leaders. If nothing else, maybe it will ram home the idea that Europe and the US are no longer friends. The conventional wisdom up until now has been that Europe needs the US to protect them from Russia, but George Allison of the Telegraph argues that this is not the case. I'm inclined to agree with him; in fact I think it would have been a lot better if Europeans had realized this long before (say, around 2002) and gone their separate ways from the Americans back then rather than continuing to enable them until now.

And they're off...

As you will doubtless be aware by now, the Harper government has been defeated in a confidence vote, which means an election is coming. The situation is unfortunate, because at best we're looking at another Conservative minority government... but the latest poll looks much, much worse:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives begin an election campaign this weekend far ahead of their political rivals in public favour and would be poised to win a "comfortable" majority if Canadians cast their votes now, a new poll has found.

The national survey, conducted exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National, reveals voter support is declining for the opposition Liberals who have put forward a non-confidence motion that will lead to the defeat of the Conservative government in the House of Commons this afternoon.

The March 22-23 poll by Ipsos Reid found public support remains solid for the Tories despite recent opposition attempts to draw attention to such controversies as the government's treatment of Parliament and revelations that an ex-senior aide to Harper lobbied a department to get funds for his fiancée, a former escort.

The Conservatives are now supported by 43 per cent of decided voters -- up by three points from two weeks ago.

Just as important, the Tories now have a widening 19-point lead over the Liberals led by Michael Ignatieff.

The Grits, who have been trying to incite public fury over the government's ethical record and improve the public's negative impression of Ignatieff, now have the support of just 24 per cent of voters, down by three points.

Jack Layton's NDP, which put the country on the path to a spring election by announcing earlier this week it would not support the Conservative budget, are backed by 16 per cent of voters -- no change from the previous poll.

What's confusing, though, is the fact that another poll found that voters are increasingly skeptical of the government:

A poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV by Nanos Research shows that 41 per cent of Canadians trust the Conservative government less than they did a year ago. Only 6 per cent trust it more. Forty-eight per cent feel about the same, and 5 per cent just don’t know.

What is going on here? One interpretation is simple - one (or both) of those polls is just plain wrong. But there's another possibility, and a disturbing one at that. It could well be that corruption and dishonesty in government tends to favour the political right, even when it's a right wing party that's being corrupt and dishonest. After all, people who have made up their minds that all politicians are crooks are going to be more inclined to give their (grudging) support to a party they believe will reduce the role of government... which is precisely how right wing parties like to market themselves. Notably, prominent Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella thinks the Ipsos poll is accurate, and that a Conservative sweep is coming.

I'm not 100% certain of this, of course, and I really hope it's not the case. If it is, our democracy is even more broken than previously thought.

Of course, one of the biggest problems in our democracy is first-past-the-post. Given this, some people are bound to advocate tactical voting (or, as it's become trendy to call it in this country, "strategic voting"). Now I'm a "never say never" kind of person, and I recognize that in extremis this might be necessary. However, most of the time it doesn't do any good, and you're simply wasting a vote on a party you don't even really like in the mistaken view that you're helping stop the Cons. That said, tactical voting might help if, and only if:

1) The national situation is such that the Cons are either on the verge of a majority (as they may well be now) or on the verge of being pushed into second place. The key, though, is on the verge. If things are such that a majority is inevitable - or impossible for that matter - there's no benefit for tactical voting (though there may be a benefit to the party that advocates tactical voting, which usually means the Liberals). Now this is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for this approach to help. The other is:

2) The situation in your own riding must be such that the Conservative candidate could credibly either win or lose. This rules out a riding like Winnipeg Centre or Elmwood-Transcona (where the Cons are a non-entity) as well as ridings like Provencher or Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette (where most of the population thinks they'll go to Hell if they vote for anyone else).

It's worth noting too that even in such a case, the best tactical vote might actually be for the NDP (especially in parts of BC or Saskatchewan) or even the Greens (in Saanich-Gulf Islands, for instance) but I doubt too many Liberals are going to point out subtleties like this. Myself, I'm kind of hoping a Liberal canvasser comes to my door and tries to sell me on the subject of tactical voting so that I can rub his or her face in this fact.

Tactical voting redux

In a previous post I linked to a site that some recommend for tactical voters. Well, a bit of browsing of babble reveals that folks more diligent than I have noticed some interesting things about that site. In particular, the site tends to recommend voting Liberal in a lot of cases where it's far from clear that this is the best option. Another site, recommended by Wilf Day in that thread, is much more cautious:

DemocraticSPACE does not endorse strategic voting (i.e. where voters cast their ballot for their second choice party to prevent a less favourable party from winning). We believe that Canada should explore options of adding an element of proportionality into our electoral system to ensure fair and accurate representation in parliament. However, strategic voting happens in Canada. DemocraticSPACE believes that it is better to make informed choices than misinformed choices. Therefore, this guide is meant to help voters who are thinking of voting strategically.

In order for a riding to qualify for strategic voting, we feel 3 conditions must be met:
1. It must be a close 2-way race (i.e. the two other parties must be within 5%)
2. The chances of third/fourth/fifth party winning riding are remote (i.e. support < ~20%) 3. Small number of votes of third/fourth/fifth party can make a difference (i.e. <>Interesting. The list of ridings is at the site, and to be even handed it also includes the ridings where Tory supporters can vote to stop Liberals. Noteworthy to my friends in Waterloo Region is the fact that while Kitchener Centre is listed, neither in Kitchener-Waterloo, Kitchener-Conestoga, nor Cambridge is it worth changing your vote in the hope of stopping a Conservative (not that I did when I lived there, but I know many people who are considering it). More surprising to me is the fact that only in Central Nova is anyone advised to vote Green, and there it's only the Liberals (who don't have a candidate anyway).

In any case, as previously discussed, the merits of voting for someone you don't really like are dubious at best. DemocraticSPACE's own attitude towards this is more one of harm reduction than anything. And the Pundits' Guide isn't keen on the practice either:

The Pundits' Guide is a non-partisan site and does not endorse any political party, and tries by the selection and application of quantifiable criteria to treat all major parties the same. I've even tried to redress the situation faced by smaller parties by starting to add in their party affiliations on riding and candidate profile pages.

However there is one issue I'm going to weigh in on during this election, and that's the advocacy of so-called "strategic voting". It's based on faulty assumptions, is frequently clumsily calculated and executed, often by people with hidden but vested interests, and most seriously: it can lead to quite perverse outcomes.

For me, the best thing about this has been that it has introduced me to the DemocraticSPACE site. The main page for this election is here, but they've covered others in the past, including the 2006 US midterm elections, and they may well cover the present US campaign as well. Stay tuned.

Tactical voting

You probably have heard the term "strategic voting" tossed around a lot. Well, the first point I have to make is that the rest of the English-speaking world calls it "tactical voting", and this is a much more appropriate term for it. Tactics are about achieving a short term, clearcut goal (such as defeating the Conservatives); strategy is about achieving a long term, perhaps more nebulous goal (such as creating a just society). Voting for the candidate most likely to defeat the Conservatives is an example of this.

So is tactical voting worthwhile? I'm not sure. Fortunately, for me it doesn't matter, since I live in a pretty safe NDP riding, but what if I lived in a riding where the best chance of defeating the Conservatives was to vote Liberal or Green? I'm inclined to think I'd still vote NDP, because even if the Conservatives are held to a minority, they will likely govern as if they had a majority anyway, thanks to the virtually nonexistent Liberal opposition. After all, they've had a de facto majority for the last two years. And when you vote for the party you most believe in, you're helping to provide them with funds, thanks to the proportional funding rules that federal elections run under.

However, if you do decide to vote tactically, it's important to make sure you do it properly. Don't blindly vote Liberal; check out this website (in fact, it's worth a look even if you've already decided who you're voting for; it's quite an interesting site). You can select your riding (or enter your postal code if you don't know your riding) and it will tell you who to vote for. In non-swing ridings, it will tell you to vote for whoever you like, whereas in ridings where the Tories have a chance of winning it will tell you who has the best chance of stopping them.