That should have been the headline on today's Moncton Times and Transcript because that's really what happened. Even in the low the turnout, he still got only 40%. It was the low turnout that gave him a victory with just 24% of all eligible voters casting their ballot for him.
That's not only a bad sign in a democracy. It's a danger signal. Bush won with 23%, and look what he did.
If you check back about a week, you will find me mentioning that I suspected The Moncton Times and Tribune was giving the election terrible coverage - and Norbert Cunningham writing an inane comment on the boredom of it all - and was doing it deliberately. They wanted a low turnout, figuring that would help the Conservatives. I suspect now that was the Conservative strategy across Canada.
So only 61% of Canadian voted in what may well prove to be the most crucial election in Canada's history. And we shall all be led by an ideologue with supreme power who has the support of only 24% of all the voters of Canada. But the headline of the editorial?
"Canadians have spoken decisively.
In further assininity, it says "A return to majority government is welcome and judged to be best by Canadian voters." In fact, it was not welcome or judged to be best by 76% of eligible voters.
The writer also says it's a polarization of right and left. Oh? It looks more like a polarization between those who vote and those who no longer give a damn.
"PM Stephen Harper's election win is convincing and the pettiness should now stop." Really. What pettiness are you referring to? The pettiness of contempt of parliament? The pettiness of undiclosed billions for a fighter plane?
I wonder whether Norbert is aware that the purpose of an opposition in a democracy is to criticize the government. And, surely, an opposition that got more votes than the government has both a reponsibility and a right to do that.
We voted in an election in which 24% was enough to put in a government. I'm ashamed to be a Canadian.
Of those in Moncton who did vote, it's a safe bet that most had no idea what the various party platforms were. How could they? Their newspaper never reported them. Now that newspaper gloats over its lack of ethics and professionalism with an editorial that amounts to either ignorance or lies. I put my money on lies.
Collectors of lies will also be interested in a comment below the editorial. It's about shale gas, and it was written by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.