Vote Splitting Means American Style Justice System

It is no longer useful to remind people why they shouldn't vote for Harper. I think they already know.

The only message I can give now is to not split the vote, because that is the only thing that will give Harper a victory and possibly even a majority.

Layton's only ambition now appears to be more seats, a replay of his election strategies past. According to James Laxer in 2006:

Strangely, in the 2004 election, and much more overtly in 2006, the ndp leader exhibited a penchant for short-term fixes over long-term party-building. He became a servant to the proposition that what was good for working people and for the left was more seats for the ndp—no more, no less. Playing right into Conservative hands, in the 2006 election Layton helped frame the central issue as Liberal scandals. The Canadian Election Study, published just after the election, suggests this issue was responsible for the Conservative victory.

One of his Quebec candidates is still in school and according to his Facebook page, he likes to play videos and collect comic books. He may need a note from his mom to go to Ottawa. How is this good for the country?

To cap it off, in what was billed as his last statement as an MP, Ed Broadbent declared that power “should be taken away” from the Liberals, that the party “no longer [had] the moral authority to deserve people’s votes.” He said not a word about what a Harper government would mean for the country.

Layton appears to be using the same strategy. This election is now about him, and the rest of us be damned, even if it means returning Stephen Harper to power.

And what is the NDP stand on issues of importance? Gun control advocates are warning not to vote NDP if we want to save the gun registry. In a recent interview Layton was quite evasive on the topic, knowing that many of his MPs want to scrap it.

But what about law and order?

According to Laxer, who is an NDP insider:

On crime, Layton cravenly tried to capitalize on urban anxiety, attempting to compete with the law-and-order Conservatives by proposing four-year minimum sentences for certain gun-related offences. Urban advocacy is one thing, but US-based evidence suggests that such punitive policies simply don’t work. Regardless, Harper can now conscript the ndp’s positions in support of his own proposed legislative solutions. On these fronts—government ethics and crime—the party of progressive principle has become an accessory to the Conservative agenda.

So how can Layton possibly challenge Harper's law and order agenda, when he shares the same views, even when he knows they're wrong?

All I can say people is THINK! And please, please, please, DON'T SPLIT THE VOTE!!!!

This election is now about battling egos and we could all end up being collateral damage.