Vote!
Everyone who is eligible should vote. Always.
And I have a message for anyone who says there’s no point in voting, and say that it won’t make a difference... <OBSCENITY-LADEN RANT REDACTED>
Or, to be a bit more civil, the idea that voting doesn’t matter is a strategic piece of disinformation being pushed by various groups in order to discourage those who might vote against them. Keep a sense of pragmatic optimism, and vote!
When I talk about politics, I usually give US-based examples. This is because the US situation has an enormous global impact, the US is our closest neighbour, and because the fascism is clear and unambiguous – unlike the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Just to be clear, all US citizens should VOTE!! Not only to stop Trump, but also to remove all those who enable him, either directly, or through weakness. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries come to mind...
At any rate, this does not mean that Canada is free from people trying to chew away at the foundations of our democracy or our nation.
The recent 2026 Alberta referendum is an example of this. Aside from the (to me, obvious) fact that Canada is much stronger together, my biggest problems with the recent referendum are the dishonesty and the foreign interference.
With regard to the dishonesty, one need look no further than Danielle Smith.
Is it fair to criticize her for a 2003 article that the “anti-smoking lobby does more harm than good”, and that “cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75 per cent or more”? Yes. Frankly, it astonishes me that it was written in 2003 – it reads like something from the 1970s.
What about her belief in chemtrails? Maybe it’s just a conspiracy theory she believes, but her false claim about following up on the topic makes me suspect dishonesty.
What about Smith’s claim that her great-grandfather left Ukraine after WWI, to escape the communists? Well, it appears that he listed his nation of origin as Austria and race as Ruthenian (an older term that includes Ukrainians) when he immigrated in 1913, so... maybe she was just mistaken?
Or what about her claim that her great-great-grandmother was a Cherokee victim of the Trail of Tears, even though she was born about 20 years later, and there does not appear to be any evidence of indigenous heritage in her family?
Mistaken again? Hm...
Back to the Alberta referendum, though, I am quite worried.
The key question, “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?” was defeated, with 75.3% choosing ‘Remain’.
This is good (though not as good as I think it would have been without the dishonesty and foreign interference), but it was not the only question, and the others were very carefully-worded to make them seem reasonable, while concealing what I think the real intent was. I think these questions were worded to make it appear that Albertans were voting to adjust the way the Alberta government works with the federal government, while I believe Danielle Smith will try to use them to pretend she has a ‘mandate’ to promote anti-immigrant policies and try to transfer powers from the federal government to the provincial government.
Most of these questions actually ‘won’ in the referendum, and I’m concerned about the longer-term implications of this, though the ‘Remain’ result will likely affect Smith’s ability to remain in power.
As for the foreign interference, I’ve already talked about that, but would reiterate that people should look at the petition to have Pete Hoekstra removed as US ambassador – it’s currently at over 279,000 signatures.
Closer to home, I recently voted in the advance polls for our local municipal election. These local elections may have more candidates, but have a more immediate impact, and also tend to have lower voter turnout, so your vote will tend to count for more.
Evaluating candidates for municipal elections is complicated by the fact that political parties do not currently exist at the municipal level in Canada – at least not to any significant degree. This could potentially change, but that would be a separate discussion.
At the federal and provincial level, political parties provide structure and a degree of accountability, but also tend to draw members in a particular direction. Otherwise, all you have to go on is the candidate’s words and record – this is not necessarily bad, but makes it more complicated for a voter to evaluate a candidate’s position.
In our recent election, we had twelve candidates for mayor, nine for city councillor, and three for school trustee. Researching each of these candidates, evaluating their stated positions, and comparing them with their actions in office (if any) is time-consuming, and may not be possible in some cases.
What to do?
This is the approach I took for evaluating candidates, using the mayoral race as an example. First, I took the list of certified candidates and checked their websites and social media accounts.
With a starting list of twelve, I immediately discounted four – I simply cannot take you seriously if you provide neither a website nor a social media account, not in 2026. I then discarded one more, because the only social media account listed was Facebook, which suggests to me that the candidate is simply not interested in younger voters – ie, not interested in the future.
Having very quickly reduced the list from twelve to seven, I looked at the ‘meet the candidates’ articles in the local papers – depending on the paper, you can get a bunch of useful information there, including which candidates don’t respond to the request for information.
I then began reviewing the websites and social media sites (usually Instagram) for the candidates. Sometimes, there are clear red-flags that allow you to exclude a candidate – for example, one city councillor candidate’s site started with a paragraph that focused on the religious legacy and affiliation of the candidate, which I consider a non-starter. (I don’t usually care about the religious affiliation of a candidate – unless it is problematic for some reason, or they make too big a deal about it)
Other red flags might be inherent contradictions in a platform, such as dramatically decreasing taxes while dramatically increasing services – with what money? Similarly, promises to increase the number of police in order to make places safer rarely work. On the other hand, promises about increased transparency or cutting waste might end up being empty, so judgment calls are needed.
Immediately cutting the list from twelve to seven helped quite a lot, and skimming the websites helped me trim a few more, so I only really needed to research a few candidates.
Whatever your system for evaluating candidates, though, VOTE!
It’s really important.
Cheers!
Comments