The Elections

I am not going to go into the campaign or anything here. There is certainly enough of that going around. What has me writing today is the man who stopped by knocking on my apartment door (what ever happened to a secured building? Seriously.)

A gentleman canvassing for the Liberal party showed up this afternoon. Thinking the knock was the mailman with a package for me I answered without hesitation. I very much wish I'd used the peephole.

He handed me a card to Re-Elect John McKay. The local runner. Married to Carolyn Dartnell with five children (Five? Uhm.. Catholic? Or maybe just too much money and time on his hands). Running in the same riding he's lived in his whole life. Former Moderator of the Spring Garden Church. Chair of the National Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast. And contributor to the book Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s New Social Experiments. A book on the effects of Gay-Marriage on society. Now I'm going to go off on a side tangent right here just on this book.

Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s New Social Experiments:

From “the Foreword”
by Maggie Gallagher, co-author of The Case for Marriage and syndicated columnist

“Same-sex marriage will be, in effect, a public and legal declaration by governments that children do not need mothers and fathers. That alternative family forms are not only just as good, they are just the same as a husband and wife bringing kids up together.” pg vii

“Marriage is our most basic social institution for protecting children. Same-sex marriage amounts to a vast social experiment on children. Rewriting the basic rules of marriage puts all children, not just the children in unisex unions, at risk. Do not expect boys to become good family men in a society of [males] who believe, as they have been taught, that men are optional in family life.” pg viii-ix

Err.. uhm... Pardon me? Now, to be fair, the parts by John McKay are not that bad. However, just the fact that he contributed to the book makes me not want to vote for him.

From “Confusion on the Hill”
by John McKay, Parliamentary Secretary for Finance

“We can see now, however, that those who were ringing the alarm bells were not being paranoid. The central objective of ‘gay marriage’ advocates is to see a forced acceptance of their particular view of marriage established into law. They are no longer interested in, or satisfied with, a mere absence of discrimination against those who practice homosexual lifestyles. Rather, they are interested in moving society beyond tolerance to legally entrenched acceptance, if not approval.” Pg 32.

“The confusion on the Hill cannot be settled by the Supreme Court... It will be settled only when Parliament works together with the citizenry it represents to find a solution to the same-sex marriage debate that truly accommodates profound differences of opinion, while determining what best makes for the common good.” Pg 37-38.

Okay.. now ignoring the obvious flaws of this local candidate for which the person at my door would not realize I would see, the attitude of the canvasser left something to be desired. He asked if the Liberals could count on my vote. Now not wanting to be preached at because of saying no, I said I had yet to fully decide. I pointed out that I am generally a Green supporter (though, with Elizabeth May as the leader they also leave something to be desired). His response was to tell me if I wanted my vote to count (ouch) to vote Liberal if I didn't want Harper in power. Now I never said I didn't want Harper in power.

Now that "vote counting" thing had me very close to slamming the door in his face. The "vote to make sure the person you don't like isn't in power" fad of Canadian politics is one of the major flaws with our current governments. This is how we've been deciding who is in power. We do not vote because someone would make a great leader. No, no. That makes sense. We vote because the previous one pissed us off somehow and the only way to get rid of them is to vote for the second leading party. We vote purely in a manner so that we constantly have something to complain about (especially when you're voting NDP or Green).

I did not close the door in the man's face. I humoured him for a moment while he tried to explain that even Elizabeth May of the Green Party would want me to vote Liberal because, since there is no strong Green candidate in my riding, that would ensure someone she's all buddy-buddy with gets in if she can't. At this point I'm actually feeling a little nauseous at our political system. I decide to point out that I am moving at the end of October (a couple weeks after the voting period) so the candidate in my riding is not really of any concern to me. I will be voting purely on party, not local, politics. Apparently this is a foreign concept.