UnHarperizing

It’s starting to get less and less interesting. First George Takach dropped out. Then Marc Garneau. Then David Bertschi. Six are still left (Trudeau, Murray, Cauchon, Hall Findlay, Coyne and McCrimmon), one of whom (Coyne) has freely admitted she can’t win. One is tempted to ask why so many of them dropped in to begin with, especially with the entry fee set at $75,000.

Maybe it’s just as well that Justin Trudeau is marching to victory, because he has his party over a barrel. By the end of the campaign, he will have raised almost $2.3 million— about $1 million more than his campaign is entitled to spend, which surplus he will donate to the party. Considering that donations can only be made by individuals to the extent of about $1,200 per year, that’s quite a feat. However, last year alone, the Conservatives as a party raised almost $8 million more than the Liberals—again, all from individuals. That difference pays for a lot of nasty ‘kick the new Liberal leader in the shin’ commercials, as to the effectiveness of which Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff can attest. So the Liberals just can’t afford to snub Trudeau and his ability to earn money. If only he could guarantee a Stanley Cup to Leafs fans, he could make up that deficit in a nanosecond.

So, if the outcome is not in doubt, what’s left to be interested in? To me, it’s the ‘strategic voting’ dilemma, raised in recent debate by Trudeau’s opponent Joyce Murray (the one who has received the fatal laying on of hands from Dr. David Suzuki.) Murray has proposed that in the next election, there be a runoff campaign between Liberal, NDP (and Green) candidates in all ridings where Conservatives won less than 50 per cent of the vote. After the election, there would presumably be a coalition government that would then enact proportional representation legislation.

The strategic voting dilemma requires Liberals to determine whether their primary goal is to return their own party to power—in which case, their enemies are the Conservatives and the NDP (and the Greens); or whether it is to unHarperize Canada as quickly as possible—in which case the NDP (and the Greens) are their allies. Justin Trudeau has rejected any form of cooperation among the parties, and believes he can outflank both the NDP (and the Greens) and the Conservatives. Murray has called him on it.

Mind you, Thomas Mulcair has taken Trudeau’s position. He has rejected the Green Party’s proposal that the party stand down its candidate in the forthcoming byelection in the riding held by disgraced MP Peter Penashaue. The NDP has not forgotten that it took three times as many seats as the Liberals in the last general election and had a whopping lead over the Liberals in the popular vote. The NDP have the strong bargaining position, and know it; and the Liberals have the weak one, and know it. The Liberals see their only salvation as getting over top of the NDP and becoming the credible alternative to the Conservatives, even if it takes two elections to get there.

However, many people feel that the paramount challenge is to unHarperize Canada as soon as possible, rather than for one of the Liberals or NDP (or Greens) to prevail. For them, it would be a shame if bravado or an imbalance in bargaining power led to the stillbirth of an unHarperizing initative, especially when one considers that the Conservatives did not get a majority in the popular vote. One or both of Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair has got to be wrong, and has got his bravado out of balance with his bargaining power. So if you are an unHarperizer, you have an urgent need to find a means to select consensus candidates that are acceptable to both parties (and the Greens).

Fortunately, I have given the subject a little thought. I refuse to suggest that any unHarper candidate be chosen on the basis of hairstyle, looks, body mass index or other crass popularity ranking. However, it seems rather old school to suggest that the candidate be chosen on the basis of a raw IQ test. Similarly, selecting the one who has ‘had to meet a payroll for the longest time’ is tipping the balance in favour of the entrepeneur. And choosing the one who can best remember the earned run averages of Montreal Expos pitchers is tilting the board in favour of elderly baseball afficionados. There must be some other way.

“Tilting the board.” Maybe a board might help us choose something a little more ‘whole person’ to settle the contest. A Jeopardy board game costs only $24.95 and is suitable for 3-5 players (hence, Liberals, NDP, Greens and up to two independents). Jeopardy tests general knowledge in a variety of ways, some pretty strait-laced, some off the wall. If we make the winner of a Jeopardy game be the unHarperizing candidate, we would probably be selecting the candidate best equipped to deal with a wide range of public issues. Have you got any better suggestion? Tastiest ribs recipe? Most Boy Scout or Girl Guide badges?

David Simmonds’s writing is also available at www.grubstreet.ca.