I'll agree with the writer on one point: if presented with two similar parties, people tend to vote for the status quo. Therefore, when the only distinguishing characteristics between the Cons and the Libs is their meaningless rhetoric, the Libs are going to win. Martin is a limp noodle (linguini) and Harper is another limp noodle (lasagna). Layton's a bread stick, and Duceppe is a block of head cheese.
As long as politics is 99.9% meaningless rhetoric (as above), there's no compelling reason to vote for one party over the other. Nobody is being represented well.
I don't want a "more fundamental" conservative party. I don't give a shinguard how the Cons compare with the Libs, or what the leader's religious beliefs are. I want a party that can convincingly show me that they are directed towards improving Canada, as opposed to being directed towards simply gaining and holding power.
A party should be able to win an election without ever mentioning opposing parties. All it would take is painting the right picture of the future country. Three "major" parties should yield 3 different pictures. To date, I haven't seen a single one. All we get is a vague picture that's obscured by allegations of lies flying in every directly.
Yeah...I know this post isn't much use...but you get what you pay for.
<sigh>
|