Over at Politics Watch, they’ve set up a vote selector quiz. Answer 19 questions, and based on your answers they match you with the federal leader that most closely fits your profile. Like web-dating, but even dorkier.
So, I plugged in my preferences, and discovered to my shock and horror that here are my match scores.
Paul Martin: 100
Jack Layton: 80
Duceppe: 70
Harper: 15
This is what philosophers call a reductio ad absurdum. If the results of your inquiry are so absurd they can’t accepted, then you must change the premisses. Hence, I conclude that the quiz is flawed.
Which it is, actually. For example, question 1 asks “Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to permit individual provinces to use private providers in the delivery of publicly funded health services?”
It’s a trick question. All provinces are already allowed to do this under the Canada Health Act. The CHA is neutral with respect to delivery. This was the point Pierre Pettigrew tried to make during the election campaign, but then Paul Martin frog-marched him out to apologise. Apologise for explaining how a piece of Canadian legislation actually operates.
Here’s question 16:
“Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to immediately make significant cuts to post-secondary tuition fees?”
And how are they supposed to do that? When was the last time a federal government raised or lowered tuition fees? Which federal education minister was responsible?
Exactly. There is no federal education minister.
PoliticsWatch: Politics for ignoramuses.