Go Banana!

June 2, 2004 12:39 AM

Select your candidate the easy way, Canadians! The lazy should find this a simple way to decide. People living outside of Canada will get an insight on what topics Canadians debate! Fun for all.
posted by shepd (54 comments total)

Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to increase spending on military equipment or to providing adequate funding for the forces to maintain a peacekeeping role?

Are these not both the same thing?

Some of those questions were written in a very complex way, I had to read them two or three times!

Nice link though, I wish I could find one for American politics other than this.
posted by whoshotwho at 12:58 AM on June 2, 2004

i got Jack Layton (i live in the US)

whoshotwho: adequate for peacekeeping, or US-type military spending is what they meant ;)
posted by y0bhgu0d at 1:01 AM on June 2, 2004

# Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (score = 100)
# Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (score = 70)
# Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (score = 44)
# Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (score = 0)

Wow, that was easy. Also, that question about revoking citizenship of people who have made verbal statements was fucked up. Do the conservatives really want to go down that slippery slope?
posted by Space Coyote at 1:01 AM on June 2, 2004

I line up most closely with the NDP, as I always have since I was knee-high to a parakeet. No surprises there.

New Democratic Party of Canada (score = 100)
Bloc Quebecois (score = 79)
Liberal Party of Canada (score = 38)
Conservative Party of Canada (score = 13)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:03 AM on June 2, 2004

Jack Layton (NDP) - 100
Gilles Duceppe (Bloc) - 80
Paul Martin (Liberal) - 52
Stephen Harper (Conservative) - 10

Well that was easy. Voter turnout should be up when everyone realizes they can allow a website to do the thinking for them.
posted by futureproof at 1:04 AM on June 2, 2004

I think actually expressing an opinion rules out the liberals for most people.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:06 AM on June 2, 2004

# Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (score = 100)
# Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (score = 76)
# Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (score = 65)
# Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (score = 35)

hm, how many political parties are there in CA?
posted by ruelle at 1:13 AM on June 2, 2004

For those having a tough time getting Paul Martin, select all the "somewhats" to the left. For those wanting Harper, select all the "somewhats" to the right. For those wanting Layton, well, ask everyone else that commented. ;-) [No, I won't spoil it for all of you and tell you who got 100% for me]

ruelle, we have 3 major political parties presently running throughout Canada, and 1 running in one province. The 3 are (alphabetical order): Conservatives, Liberals, NDP. The 1 would be Bloc Quebecois, who only run in Quebec, but get enough votes to be the second largest political party in Canada at times. Quebecers are quite a force when it comes to voting.

Bloc Quebecois might be surprised to find that if they extended in to other sections of Canada they could get more seats. I know I'd vote for them in a heartbeat, if I could. No, they weren't my 100%. So there. :-)
posted by shepd at 1:20 AM on June 2, 2004

What is the support level of Quebec's succession from Canada outside of Quebec? Honest question.
posted by futureproof at 3:22 AM on June 2, 2004

Another vote for Jack Layton "Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (score = 100)"

I am American. Why do I keep getting scores congruent of democratic parties? I don't want to be pigeonholed! Person reading this: Don't assume things of me based on my political influence, while at the same time understand that I hate theocratic forms of government.
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:17 AM on June 2, 2004

futureproof: it depends entirely on where you're standing when you ask the question. In Ontario people don't want Quebec going anywhere. In Alberta they generally wish Quebec would get on with it already. Because there are more people in Ontario, I'd say the majority of Canadians want Quebec to stay.

As to the post itself, I'm disappointed that the Green party isn't represented. But Jack's good enough for me.
posted by Hildegarde at 4:18 AM on June 2, 2004

Another for Jack.
posted by Gnatcho at 4:45 AM on June 2, 2004

Yup, Jack here too.

I wonder if this is a better way to elect a party? Instead of voting for a personality, people are asked what they're position is on key policies at the voting both.
posted by disgruntled at 4:50 AM on June 2, 2004

ruelle - it's always surprising to see the numbers of parties when in the voting booth (eg. Greens, various stripes of Marxist-Leninist, amongst others). The problem for these fringe parties is that there are fairly tough rules for getting 'official party' status.

Thus the Green Party isn't recognized, or mentioned in political discourse, even though, as Hildegarde notes, they would be a possible choice.
posted by sunexplodes at 4:56 AM on June 2, 2004

Oh, and we can't forget the Green Party who are polling about 5%.

Also of note, The Marijuana Party recently kicked off their campaign with the slogan "Lets Roll." If current trends continue this could be their last campaign. Their platform seems to consist strictly of the decriminalization of the drug.

**** I began typing this post immediately after my question regarding Quebec, but became sidetracked at the Green Party website after googling it for the link above. I got caught up reading their policies and realized that they lined up fairly even with my own beliefs.

I had only been leaning towards the NDP, whose union connections put me off, because Martin, and the Liberals in general, have had eleven years worth of opportunity to make political decisions, some which have been magnificently horrible.

Horrible much in the same way as Stephen Harper and his "new" Conservatives (it was a tragic day for Canada when Tory came to mean Reform Lite).

Which brings me to the Greens. My grandfather, a WWII veteran and 81 years of age, disclosed to me that for the first time in his life he is floating the possibility of not voting, because all of the parties "make [him] sick". That the choice currently being offered among the major parties is leaving canyons to be desired is not lost on me. But choosing not to exercise one's right to vote, however square it sounds, absolutely sickens me. And I had planned on feeling sick come election day. Until I read the Green Party policies.

While far too progressive and radical for my grandfather, these feel a perfect fit for me. I look forward to being among the enormous minority of voters this June 28th who will be leaving the ballot box with a smile on their face, finger far from thier nose.
posted by futureproof at 4:57 AM on June 2, 2004

dammit... "their"
posted by futureproof at 4:58 AM on June 2, 2004

futureproof: I find myself in the same situation as you, leaning NDP although coming from a Liberal background. There are just some aspects of the NDP platform that I can't get behind.

Thanks for the links to the Green Party website, just looking at two aspects of their policies have made me interested in finding out more.

An interesting side effect of this election will be parties receiving funding based on how many people voted for them. Voting Green in this election may not elect my local candidate, but will certainly help fill the war chest for the next go around. $1.75/per vote/per year will do wonders for a party. Just look at the windfall the Bloc is getting as a result: double their budget compared to the last election.

My wife, who just became a Canadian citizen after living here for 20 years, will be voting for the first time this election. She's is leaning towards the Greens although she hasn't really started to look at the party's platform yet. She does hail from Germany though, so maybe that explains it!
posted by smcniven at 5:28 AM on June 2, 2004

Apparently I'm supposed to vote for Jack Layton. An idea which pains me greatly, because in my mind NDP = Unions, and I hate me some unions. I'm not all that fond, though, of the idea of voting for Ken Dryden. I tend to prefer my politicians to have some qualifications besides a great Goals Against Average. And though I'm originally from the west, I'd rather not vote for the Reeeee-fooooorm party. Maybe I could move to Quebec and vote Bloc. They seem surprisingly reasonable, other than that pesky break up the country thing.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:36 AM on June 2, 2004

Personally, since I can't actually vote for a leader of a party, only the candidates running in my riding, I vote for the person I think most capable of representing my riding. Since the Liberals tend to nominate only party automatons who toe the party line and don't actually represent their constituency, I usually vote for someone else, even though my political leanings probably best match up with the Liberal Party.
This election I get to choose between a backroom bagman from Martin's political machine, some inexperienced Conservative guy, and Ed Broadbent. No contest.
posted by cardboard at 5:54 AM on June 2, 2004

But jacquilynne, Dryden is not just a one-time goalie. He holds a law degree (which he took time off from playing to complete), has 4 books under his belt and recently has been running the Maple Leafs. His bio at the Liberal website is a bit scant, but I remember reading an article about him in the Ottawa Citizen and thinking that he seemed very accomplished.
posted by smcniven at 6:00 AM on June 2, 2004

The remark was a bit snide, I realize, and meant as a joke, smcniven. I understand that Dryden is a generally well-rounded individual. I'm mostly just against the way he was parachuted into my riding without any consultation with the grass roots party. I like to naively pretend that local candidates still matter, and stuff like that irritates me. They could parachute the ghost of John A MacDonald into my riding, and I'd vote for someone else, not because the candidate is dead, but because I'd rather see a candidate who was selected in the traditional manner.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:07 AM on June 2, 2004

jacquilynne: Parachuting bugs me too—especially the way Paul Martin has been using it as a crutch and totally killing the democratic process he's trumpeted so much.

futureproof: Realistically, Québec seccession has become a non-issue in the past couple of years. The provincial Parti Québecois made vague promises of another referendum during the last Québec election, and lost their majority government. Make no mistake, des séparatists still exist, but the movement doesn't have anywhere near the levels of popular support it did in the '70s through the early '90s. The majority of les québecois continue to support the Bloc because they want somebody looking out for Québec at the federal level.

Of course, the creation of a separate federal party was probably the worst thing they could have done to accomplish that. Before the Bloc, Québec was a powerful province at election time: in order to form a majority government, you essentially had to win Québec, which meant that your party had to acknowledge and support the issues of les québecois. The creation of a Québec-based party (which could never form a government) lifted much of that burden from the other federal parties.

cardboard: That's a problem for me—I have numerous problems with Martin, and thus will probably vote NDP. But my MP is Bill Graham, who I've been pretty impressed by, and who may be the last decent liberal. Plus my NDP candidate is some guy with no experience anywhere. Argh.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 7:19 AM on June 2, 2004

It would be funny if it just gave Jack Layton as the choice regardless.
posted by smackfu at 8:32 AM on June 2, 2004

in my mind NDP = Unions, and I hate me some unions

jacquilynne, it might ease your pain to know that Layton was the outsider candidate in the NDP leadership race in '02. He handily defeated the two preferred choices of the party's union-loyalist old guard by drawing thousands of new members (especially young people) into the party, people who were most concerned about environmental and urban social issues. In fact, my sense, having followed the NDP leadership race closely and attended several Layton fundraisers and debates during it, was that his main motivation for running for party leader was a sense that it was possibly the last chance the party would have to save itself from fossilized trade-unionist oblivion. (Good as he is on camera, Layton's a policy wonk at heart, and I don't think he much enjoys the world of soundbites and snarking on the campaign trail.)

Now that Layton's leader, he has to occasionally nod to the party's remaining union support, but the fact is that the rank and file in many unions stopped voting NDP years ago, and Layton knows it. Hence Layton's stump speeches about health care and homelessness and the environment.

(It probably goes without saying by now that I got "Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (score = 100)" on the quiz . . .)
posted by gompa at 8:42 AM on June 2, 2004

Huh... I live in B.C. and apparently...

Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (score = 100)
Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (score = 89)
Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (score = 72)
Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (score = 28)

You know that would be the most wonderful thing I think that could ever happen in Canadian politics. The Block Quebecois starts to run and elect candidates in the rest of Canada.

And you know now that I've said it... it could work. If instead of being a party that promotes "Autonomy for Quebec" it could become sort of a Canadian "States Rights" party. If it maintains a reasonably left/centrist approach it could probably become a serious challenger to the Alliance in the west, especially the urban west and B.C.

Huh...

I think i have some calls to make.
posted by Grimgrin at 9:09 AM on June 2, 2004

Jack Layton - Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (score = 100)
Gilles Duceppe - Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (score = 69)
Paul Martin - Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (score = 50)
Stephen Harper - Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (score = 0)

No Green Party?
posted by Melinika at 9:15 AM on June 2, 2004

Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (score = 100)
Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (score = 100)
Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (score = 100)
Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (score = 86)

Something is amiss with my score. I support everyone, but Duceppe a little less. Or I oppose everyone, but Duceppe a little more... ???
posted by jjray at 9:55 AM on June 2, 2004

Also, don't miss the Globe's Decision2004 Election Kit, especially not the History section, which has a complete year-by-year results graph. Nifty!
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:15 AM on June 2, 2004

cardboard, we're in the same riding. I'm probably going with Honest Ed, but I'm not sure I like the whole Big Union thing. Not surprisingly, the tool gave the NDP the big thumbs up for me.

What annoys me most is that only the NDP have a real platform document out (of the majors). The Conservative website, in particular, is very, very fluffy, mostly media releases with almost no policy documents (I embrace my inner wonk).
posted by bonehead at 10:58 AM on June 2, 2004

For younger voters, ask a question to the leaders.

I've submitted two questions, and while I don't imagine either of them will be picked, it was an interesting way of thinking about things. The first question was a fairly serious one about budget gotchas - a phenomena we've seen a few times in provincial elections lately. Where the party makes all kinds of election promises, then takes the books and cries that the outgoing government has been lying and hiding the truth.

The second question was a silly personality based question - if the election were to be decided by a duel or challenge, what activity would the candidate like to challenge the other leaders to.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:05 AM on June 2, 2004

another 100 for Layton-NDP : >
posted by amberglow at 11:09 AM on June 2, 2004

Another Layton. Little surprise he's coming up so much: I think most Canadians want our health care system brought back; want the military well-funded; are pro-choice as regards pot, abortion, and marriage; and don't much care about the rest of the questions.

Re: Quebec -- I don't much care what they do, just so long as they finally freakin' commit to doing it. I hate being held hostage.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:33 AM on June 2, 2004

I got Stephen Harper at 100, which is more or less what I figured. Harper is a libertarian wonk in charge of a bunch of neo-conservatives and Tories.

Frankly, people who are going into this election trying to evaluate who they should vote for based on specific policy issues are off-base. Politics in Canada isn't really about one's stance on issues (can anyone recall a principled position Jean Chretien had and kept in the face of popular resistance?) so much as which group of bureaucrats one wants to run the country. In fact, part of the reason people were so uncomfortable with Reform (as opposed to the Tories) was that Reform was an ideological party devoted to a specific set of goals (an elected senate, greater autonomy for the provinces from Ottawa, referenda on major issues). The reason the Tory site is so soft and fluffy is simply because specific policy recommendations scare off voters. Ridiculous but true.

Most of the NDP voters on this thread probably have the same problem - so long as the NDP are presented as being "More of the same, only different" they do well. But, Jack Layton is getting screwed on this inheritance tax idea not because it's a bad idea, but because it's a specific policy with an ideological or philosophical component that is different than the status quo.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 11:33 AM on June 2, 2004

Looks like I'm voting for Jack Layton, too (score = 100).

What do you mean the British can't vote in Canada? We own Canada!
posted by Blue Stone at 11:54 AM on June 2, 2004

Has anybody else noticed that Stephen Harper suffers from Richard Nixon Syndrome? It always looks like he's being operated by a bunch of tiny robots, each one in control of a different part of his body, and each one hating all the others and wrestling for control of the entire body.

Maybe it's just me.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:18 PM on June 2, 2004

According to this thing, I should apparently be voting for the BQ. However, I doubt they'll be running too many candidates in Alberta.

I suspect I'll end up spoiling my ballot again. What a bunch of idiots I have in my riding:

Rahim Jaffer, incumbent and former Reformer who couldn't be bothered to do a radio interview and had a staffer pretend to be him.
Debby Carlson, some sort of Liberal party hack.
Malcolm Azania, who calls himself "Minister Faust" on his radio program.
The Marxist-Leninists are running a candidate? In Alberta?

Yep, I think I'll be spoiling my ballot.

Harper creeps me out, too.
posted by alex_reno at 1:06 PM on June 2, 2004

Wow...never would have guessed that I'd be more likely to vote for the PQ than the Liberals, on paper at least. But no matter, I'm an NDP man all the way (100% on the test).

Has anybody else noticed that Stephen Harper suffers from Richard Nixon Syndrome?

Yes. The man has cold, dead eyes. Scary to think of him in charge of our great nation.

gompa wouldn't self-link, but here's an interesting article he wrote on the state of Canadian politics.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:36 PM on June 2, 2004

You can use that link to predict who you would vote for, and you can use this link to predict who everyone else will vote for: http://www.electionprediction.org/2004_fed/index.html
posted by yupislyr at 1:59 PM on June 2, 2004

Another Layton. Little surprise he's coming up so much. I think most Canadians want our health care system brought back; want the military well-funded; are pro-choice as regards pot, abortion, and marriage; and don't much care about the rest of the questions

Not sure why what "most Canadians" supposedly want (see the polls lately, fff? Where's Layton, exactly?) has to do with the results MetaFilter members are getting. But I agree, no surprise that the far-left Layton is the MetaFilter candidate of choice.

My results:

Stephen Harper 100
Paul Martin 61
Gilles Duceppe 28
Jack Layton 28 (must've been the marijuana and gay marriage that got him that good a score)
posted by mw at 2:51 PM on June 2, 2004

[blinks]

You're an actively-seeking gay libertarian male. I'm dead curious how you pulled up the scores you did.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:15 PM on June 2, 2004

Politics in Canada isn't really about one's stance on issues so much as which group of bureaucrats one wants to run the country.

It wasn't always so, at least to the degree it might now be. Brian Mulroney pushed things that way, the fuck.

In fact, part of the reason people were so uncomfortable with Reform [...] was that Reform was an ideological party devoted to a specific set of goals [...].

Funny, I thought it was because so many of their sub-rosa (and sometimes not so well-hidden) policies smacked of neo-naziism...

Again, I haven't been watching closely over the years I've been away, but still.

I also recall you saying quite a while back, Pseudoephedrine, that you were planning to leave Canada for America as soon as you were able to do so (no idea why I recall that, with this sponge of a brain I have). It would seem that you'd be leaving the frying pan for the fire in terms of some of the things you decry about the Canadian political system.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:51 PM on June 2, 2004

Why do people associate the NDP with unions? I thought they had a big blowout over Bob Rae (and the unions shot themselves in the foot, too, getting rid of Rae for Harris) - or maybe that was just Ontario. But provincial politics do get mixed up in people's minds with federal - I know I always associate them despite the fact that I know there is no connection between parties at the two levels (as if the BC "Liberals" weren't walking proof).

Whatever you think about unions (who are just trying to act in the best interests of their members, like any advocacy group - why don't we get the same complaints about the monopolistic College of Doctors?), the NDP may have never formed a government but they are still responsible for some of the greatest things the Canadian government has ever done. J.S. Woodsworth, the founder of the fore-runner to the NDP, the CCF, was the force behind old age pensions; the threat of Tommy Douglas forming a government pressured the Liberals into passing medicare.

I will just defer to my elders - my grandparents have supported the NDP since they were the CCF, and they are the hardest working and wisest people I know.
posted by jb at 6:26 PM on June 2, 2004

Jack Layton: 100
Gilles Duceppe: 91
Paul Martin: 91
Stephen Harper: 9

Interesting numbers. Just today I was saying how I can't decide between the BQ and the Liberals. It makes little difference to me which one wins, as one of them certainly will where I live. I dislike them about equally, though for different reasons.

How nice to have my reasoning scientifically verified by a computer. I probably will vote NDP (or NPD). Not only does Jack score 100, but whoever does their website has the good judgement to use Apache - the others are all Microsoft servers, which I take as a bad omen. That's probably just as sensible as relying on a "vote selector quiz."
posted by sfenders at 7:55 PM on June 2, 2004

Not sure why what "most Canadians" supposedly want (see the polls lately, fff? Where's Layton, exactly?) has to do with the results MetaFilter members are getting. But I agree, no surprise that the far-left Layton is the MetaFilter candidate of choice.

wHY IS IT SO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE ACTUAL STATED VALUES OF THE ndp ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT MOST PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT? nOT EVERYTHING IS A GIANT LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY, YOU KNOW.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:43 PM on June 2, 2004

Can I assume that you're not a touch-typist, Space Coyote?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:19 PM on June 2, 2004

jb, unions are famous for donating a large percentage of their income to the NDP party. That's where the association begins.
posted by shepd at 11:48 PM on June 2, 2004

Ouch .. wow, watch the caplock, there, space.. *stops multitasking*
posted by Space Coyote at 12:10 AM on June 3, 2004

shepd - They may have been historically linked, but I think that the last decade or so has strained that relationship. Also, even when receiving money from unions, NDP provincial governments have shown themselves willing to try to do what's best for the province, even if that means alienating their own supporters. And apparently the federal NDP is more closely linked to the provincial parties than in other parties.

I also thinking that we should question the assumption that the NDP are always spending and never budgetting well - Bob Rae was hurt politically because his government cut wages to try to control spending, and the reason that Tommy Douglas was able to introduce medicare into Saskachewan was that he brought the province back from debt and created a surplus. Certainly tax cuts are not on their agenda - but then, recent American history has shown that tax cuts are rarely good policy for governments looking to get out of debt, let alone tax cuts and increased spending.

As for what most Canadians want, I couldn't answer - but I did read about a recent poll showing that support for same sex marriages slipped to a slim majority. It was about 40% for, 50% against in the States, but the opposite in Canada. But it may go through anyways, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very serious document, not be disregarded lightly, even if the majority wanted it.

Sometimes I think the vast majority of issues are split like that - just about half for, half against. Which is why everyone argues so much.
posted by jb at 9:56 AM on June 3, 2004

Sorry - that should have said support for same-sex marriage had slipped up to a slim majority.
posted by jb at 9:57 AM on June 3, 2004

I'll vouch from insider knowledge: relations between the NDP and unions are not nearly as tight as they once were. Indeed, there is some amount of upset between the two groups.

The proposed new party finance laws will largely eliminate the pay-for-support link between business, unions, and political parties.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:36 AM on June 3, 2004

Not sure if anyone's still stumbling through this thread, but if you are, you might wanna see a piece from the Globe today about the Conservative Party's complete lack of policy.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:04 AM on June 4, 2004

Stavros> Pretty much. Things have been going down the shitter in America since 9/11, and until they get their act together, I'm not planning to emigrate. And that was prior to gay-marriage and the possibility of marijuana legalisation up here.

And you'd be surprised how much support Reform got overall. They weren't quite as marginalised politically, nor as extreme as people portrayed them. If they hadn't split the right-wing votes with the Tories, they might've even formed the government. Most of their policies aren't actually "Ban abortion" or "Stop same sex marriage", but "Hold a binding referendum on how to deal with issue X." They (and now the Conservative Party) are big on referenda, because they think that most Canucks are more conservative than usually presented. I disagree that they are, but I want referenda for just that reason - to show Canadians' support for abortion etc. and settle the issue
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 3:06 PM on June 6, 2004

Referenda are a stupid way to govern.

Take, f'rinstance, gay marriage. A referendum is pointless: regardless what the public feels, equality is right.

We look at countries where women have no rights and shake our heads at them and say they're backwards and need to reform. It may very well be the majority public in that country wants things that way, yet we still insist they should change.

Depending on the majority population to vote for the advancement of society is a sure way to stagnate. No initiative would ever get off the ground for want of people to seek change. Change scares people.

So give me a leader, any day. Leaders darn well lead, they don't hide behind referenda votes.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:42 PM on June 6, 2004

I'm an American married to a Canadian and I live in BC.

As far as I can tell, the husband tends toward voting Liberal. I've sent him the link. I can't wait for his results.

My results:
Jack Layton (NDP) = 100
Gilles Duceppe (Bloc) = 79
Paul Martin (Liberal) = 68
Stephen Harper (Conservative) = 58

I think I might be in trouble at home.
posted by deborah at 2:50 PM on June 8, 2004