A person walks by an Elections Canada sign at a polling station in Toronto, on Sept. 20, 2021.MARK BLINCH/Reuters
Debate it
Re Harris, Trump spar in heated, personal presidential debate (Sept. 11): “Debate” is a misnomer for an exercise in mutual insults and mudslinging. Harris still made a much better impression than the eye-rolling ramblings of Trump.
But the promises for action by either candidate are largely meaningless without the support of Congress to enact them. The results of the Senate and House elections thus assume huge importance, perhaps insufficiently appreciated.
Ian McCallum Vancouver
Hey, America! Who do you want to be your next president? The grumpy old rich guy across the street who’s always complaining, ranting about weird stuff and giving everyone dirty looks, or that cool lady next door with the nice family who seems to really have it together and actually cares about the neighbourhood?
Jamie Alley Saanich, B.C.
I began following politics in 1987 at age 20, voted for the first time the following year and have never failed to cast a ballot in an election or referendum. I’ve never watched or listened to a leaders’ debate, including those between U.S. presidential candidates.
I could never relate to people deciding which candidate to vote for based on debate performance. For debates tell me little or nothing of practical use as to how the “winner” and “loser” would govern while in power.
Party ideology and policy are what matter most to me. The only thing debates reveal is oral communication ability (or inability) and, by extension, who’s the best or worst politician, a profession generally not thought of as being scrupulous.
Perhaps “Calamity” Jane Bodine’s memorable line in the 2015 film Our Brand Is Crisis is true: “If voting changed anything, they’d have made it illegal.”
Frank Sterle Jr. White Rock, B.C.
Ideal outcome?
Re “Love him or hate him, an economy under Trump should fare better than under Harris” (Report on Business, Sept. 10): Contributor David Rosenberg says we should all be praying for a split U.S. government. Seriously? That would mean either a Trump administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress or a Harris administration and a Republican-controlled Congress.
A Trump administration would mean abandoning Ukraine, weakening NATO and a Project 2025 autocracy unchecked by the U.S. courts. Would Mr. Rosenberg really want these outcomes as long as he gets a good return on his investments?
A Harris administration would mean no prospect of changing right-wing political bias on the U.S. Supreme Court and no legislation on climate change, reproductive freedom, gun control or other social measures – basically a failure of the first female U.S. presidency. Would these outcomes all be acceptable to Mr. Rosenberg as long as his investments do well?
Mr. Rosenberg should reconsider his values.
David Cottle Oakville, Ont.
NDP pivot
Re “Jagmeet Singh takes the fight to Pierre Poilievre” (Sept. 10): I admire contributor Tom Parkin’s optimism in believing that the NDP will benefit after tearing up the supply-and-confidence deal with the Trudeau government.
I’m old enough to remember the 1972 election, when the NDP held the balance of power with Pierre Trudeau’s government. They won concessions.
But in the 1974 election, then-NDP leader David Lewis lost his seat and the caucus was reduced to 16 seats. The same could happen again. No guarantees.
Marianne Freeman Vancouver
Contributor Tom Parkin claims that voters are disenchanted with the Liberal Party. Rather, I think it is Justin Trudeau who is the cause of Liberal voters’ extreme dissatisfaction.
In the United States, now that Joe Biden has handed the torch to Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party is experiencing a supportive revival. This could happen in Canada if, or one might say when, Mr. Trudeau steps down, as this seems more and more likely given the erosion of support for him within his own party.
Furthermore Mr. Parkin’s perspective, that Jagmeet Singh’s strategy for gaining NDP votes should depend on successful attacks against Pierre Poilievre, would offer more of the same negativity that comprises Mr. Poilievre’s strategy. Fighting fire with fire will likely not win votes for the NDP.
What could win votes are realistic, positive strategies that clearly present improvements for all Canadians.
C.J. Paterson Victoria
Going green
Re “Pick your poison in the B.C. election” (Editorial, Sept. 9): It is so much fun to live in British Columbia.
Last week, BC United Leader Kevin Falcon announced that his party would no longer contest the upcoming provincial election. Now, due to the perverse first-past-the-post electoral system, many voters seem too afraid of the other major contenders to possibly consider any third party that could actually offer a preferable set of policies to British Columbians.
B.C. voters are confronted by one party seeming to lead us to bankruptcy or another that seems content to let the world burn up in the long term. Is this what we want?
Voters should take a serious look at the BC Green Party. If we truly care about our children and grandchildren and the planet they will inherit, they look like the only sane option.
David Pearce Victoria
Made in Canada
Re “How Globe coverage of the West has changed with the times” (A Nation’s Paper, Sept. 9): I get that oil-producing Alberta wasn’t thrilled with the 1980 National Energy Program. But Pierre Trudeau wasn’t specifically going out of his way to attack Albertans.
The NEP was motivated by a well-founded concern about energy security and the growing foreign (mostly U.S.) presence in the oil patch. What’s wrong with keeping a strategic sector of the Canadian economy in the hands of Canadians?
Furthermore, changing energy policy had more to do with the anticipated rise in world oil prices and Ottawa’s desire to benefit from that revenue. How else was the Canadian government going to balance the books?
Besides, polls at the time showed that the NEP was wildly popular outside of Alberta. How many seats are there in Ontario and Quebec?
Peter McKenna, professor, department of political science, University of Prince Edward Island Charlottetown
Epilogue
Re “Former Quebec judge Jacques Delisle pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his wife” (Obituary, Sept. 9): This obituary describes an unhappy and unnecessary end to an esteemed life.
The moralists in charge of medical assistance in dying should take note and make adjustments to the strictures attached, to avoid similar fates in the future.
Stephen Gross Toronto
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com