Canada desperately needs to brake—before it breaks
Strategic voting, “wasted” votes, and general political musings
I waded into an interesting discussion on social media regarding just what constitutes a “wasted vote,” from a Christian perspective. The principles here would apply to any Western democracy, but the specific context is the lead-up to the Canadian federal election.
Here’s a paraphrase of the post that kicked it off, from a Christian who would support the Christian Heritage Party if it were represented in his riding, but says he’ll vote for the People’s Party of Canada:
“Aren’t you wasting your vote?”
This question, commonly raised by mainstream conservatives, misunderstands the purpose of voting. Voting ensures the people’s will is represented, and casting a ballot for a party you don’t believe in undermines this foundation.
A vote is actually wasted when it supports a system or party misaligned with one’s convictions, because this silences the voter’s voice and allows parties like the Conservative Party to stray from their principles, becoming indistinguishable from opponents except on issues like lower taxes.
For the Christian citizen, voting should reflect fear and admiration of God, not fear of political outcomes. Choosing a “lesser evil” compromises the voter’s integrity and fails to uphold true representation. Matthew 10:28—which in part says “Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul.”—should heavily influence Christian voters to support candidates they genuinely believe are (more) aligned with the Biblical worldview, prioritizing accountability to God over temporary political gains.
I appreciate the conviction here, but wasn’t convinced by the argumentation. Several things occurred to me as I read that post, which in turn led to a quick-and-dirty sketch of my political principles.
Preference vs. priority. Though I actually prefer the PPC’s platform, voting for Pierre Poilievre nonetheless falls within my Bible-based convictions—because those convictions include the sense that I ought to vote for the best viable candidate. I don’t consider Maxime Bernier a viable candidate in this election. Therefore a vote for the PPC only helps the Liberals’ Mark Carney—and it’s my conviction that the greatest priority right here and now is to stop Carney.
Policy distinctions. Contrary to the poster’s claim, the CPC and Liberal platforms are appreciably different—especially when it comes to the issues of freedom and fiscal responsibility. In a free society, Christians—as well as those influenced by the Christian ethic—are free to publicly advance the good things of their worldview, including values like pro-life and the traditional family unit. Under a fair-minded government, policies like DEI—literally “diversity, equity and inclusion,” but in reality “Didn’t earn it”—go out the window, and more decision-making power is left in the hands of individual citizens and business-owners.
Secondarily, but still crucial, another 4 or 5 years of Liberal rule will likely spell the end of Canada as we know it. Eastern-entrenched Liberals have been treating western Canada like colonies for generations now, and have been generally wasting tax dollars, driving down business investment while driving up inflation, and putting more and more Canadians into poverty or on the cusp of it.
The harm that comes from another Liberal term will be great—especially when Alberta, Saskatchewan and likely Quebec separate from the country because they’re fed up with Ottawa. As another Christian said just today on social media:
If Liberal-leaning Quebec and southern Ontario give us yet another Liberal government, that will spell the end of Canada as we know it. The nation will fall apart without its sugar-daddy Alberta pumping all those oil-based billions to the east in the form of transfer payments to prop up useless provincial governments in Quebec and the Maritimes. Without Alberta, Ontario will have to support all those dead beat provinces and that will only make Ontario poor.
And there’s a larger issue on the horizon. The following is a little more murky and less concrete; nonetheless I believe very strongly that a vote for the PPC only helps advance the Liberal/World Economic Forum goal of collapsing the country in order to fold (what remains of) it into an ocean-spanning, WEF-ruled Marxist superstate.1
It’s part of my Christian conviction to vote in a way that will bring good to my fellow citizens. So, to me a “wasted vote” is any vote that will only help make bad things happen to our fellow citizens.
I’ll never vote for a Christian party. That may sound strange, coming from a Christian, but ironically I don’t believe a Christian party is actually Biblical. The Christian Heritage Party poses this question on their “About” page: “Is the CHP trying to impose Christianity on those of other faiths?” To which they answer:
Absolutely not! We’re politicians, not evangelists. Our purpose is to place ourselves under the authority and guidance of the principles of the Gospel—principles like justice, honesty, compassion, diligence, thrift and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
However, in order to be a CHP candidate one must “[s]ubscribe to the Party Beliefs and Principles outlined in the Constitution”2; in other words, a candidate must identify as a Christian.
Though I like much (not all) of the CHP policy platform—and while the CHP doesn’t have a hope in you-know-where of ever forming the government of Canada—that single requirement logically implies that the CHP believes Christians ought to be in control of society. And an argument can easily be made that this is not only unscriptural but also dangerous to both society and the Church.3
(More on this in a moment……)
At this time, there are only two possible realities in Canada: a Marxist government (the Liberals) or a non-Marxist government (the CPC). Neither the PPC nor the CHP (especially not them) will make any kind of dent in this election. So, which of the two possible realities would be better for Canada, even if the non-Marxist option isn’t ideal? And what vote will realistically help Canada avoid Marxism at this juncture in its history?
There’s only one correct answer to the latter question: Pierre Poilievre.
The Christian poster continued:
To me the CPC is barely an improvement on the liberal party. To save this country, drastic change is needed, change the CPC is unwilling to make. If the CPC wins I see this as winning a battle while still losing the war. To me this country is doomed unless radical change takes place.
The Conservative Party’s policies, overall, would raise our current level of freedom, and safeguard it. In a free(r) society, God's people—and unbelievers who've absorbed at least some Biblical values—have greater opportunity to (a) increase that freedom even further, (b) enhance the good of our neighbors by promoting the aforementioned Biblical values and via productivity unshackled by socialistic and DEI regulations, and (c) worship God openly and spread the Gospel.
In other words, a free society is a more conducive context for citizens to give consideration to what God has to say.
A prime example of this was the covid freedom protests: I heard Jesus proclaimed loud and clear a number of times, before a conservative/libertarian audience that was more open to that message precisely because they were united with Christians in the cause of freedom.
Such people are more encouraged and inclined to suss out the link between Bible and freedom.
Though I certainly agree with this Christian poster that the mainstream “Conservative” Party in Canada isn’t as genuinely conservative as it should be, it’s at least a step in the right direction. The CPC isn’t officially pro-life—but it’s not pro-abortion, either. Open pro-lifers are welcomed in the party, whereas the Libs and NDP actually bar them from membership. The CPC also favors climate debate rather than censorship and the imposition of draconian measures like the “carbon tax.” The CPC also favors deregulation in economics, in order to give industrious Canadians more control over their own day-to-day lives and to make the nation as a whole more materially successful—instead of having an increasing number of citizens mired in or on the periphery of poverty.
The Christian poster is right that to “save” Canada, yes, “drastic change is needed”—but “saving” it isn’t on the ballot in 2025. No vote on this occasion is going to “save” Canada—but the Liberal agenda that would destroy it can be halted. I and countless others are persuaded that another Liberal term will put Canada beyond saving; even beyond turning it around—without years of tyranny, poverty, and the secession of provinces. A full Mark Carney term will likely oversee the breakup of the country as we know it, and the ruin of the provinces that remain.
All because Canada didn't simply vote to stop him.
I want to cast a vote that stands the best chance of nudging Canada in the right direction. If on a road trip you’re going in the wrong direction, the very first thing you need to do is simply . . . apply the brakes. Obviously you aren’t going to complete your journey merely by hitting the brakes—but you most certainly do have to hit the brakes.
The PPC represents a juncture much further down the road after Canada has braked, turned a corner, and started going in the right direction.
The CPC, on the other hand, is the political equivalent of hitting the brakes: halting the ruinous Liberal agenda. Canada’s immediate need is simply to brake—before it breaks.
Canada’s out of time
Funding, awareness and relevance are three huge contributors to a party’s viability in the eyes of the voter. The more aware people are of the PPC the more relevant they will view it and consider casting them a vote. I see the PPC as the necessary change Canada needs yet if we’re always settling for mediocrity then the PPC will never get the awareness they need to make real change.
This is a fair point, and it’s the one point in the Christian poster’s argument that I find persuasive. It’s true that there just isn’t enough general awareness—not to mention fair-minded media representation—of the People’s Party of Canada to generate a significant number of votes.
But while that’s a fair point, and though I do want the PPC (or its ideas) to gain traction over time—it’s in fact the issue of time that, for me, renders this argument unconvincing. In the view of myself and many others, Canada just doesn’t have time for an alternative party to gain traction. If we end up in a ruined—and literally deconstructed—country because the Liberals extend their power for another term, alternative parties will become entirely irrelevant.
I believe that if a conservative wants PPC-type policies to take hold in Canada (as I do), the path to that end requires a detour. This is counterintuitive, but ironically the best way to advance the PPC long-term is to not vote PPC this time around.
This is simply because of the timing: a Carney victory in this election will mean further entrenchment of Canadian Marxism. In a Marxist country the prospect of a PPC-type agenda will be even further out of reach than it is now. And a Carney administration will cause far more suffering to Canadians, especially since provinces will almost certainly start separating, which will severely damage the national economy, if not crash it altogether.
That dystopian scenario can be avoided just by blocking the Libs from another term.
So, do we want to avoid it or not? If so, what's the best way to avoid it at this point in time?
Basic Christian political principles
Realistically, in Canada an entity like the Christian Heritage Party might only garner one or two seats, if that. Given that, as my interlocutor pointed out to me, the “Christian totalitarian regime” to which I alluded earlier will never manifest. Why, then, should I oppose them?
He might have a fair point; and I could see that perhaps voting CHP could be strategic: giving the Christian worldview a seat at the legislative table. In that scenario the expectation wouldn’t be that they’ll one day “take over,” but simply that they might be able to influence governmental policies in a more Godward direction.
Perhaps.
On the other hand, there've been similar federal parties in Europe.4 Unlike the CHP in Canada, explicitly Christian parties in a number of European countries have actually won parliamentary seats; they’ve had the proverbial “seat at the table.” According to Grok, “Christian democracy was particularly influential post-World War II, especially in Western Europe, as a counter to socialism and liberalism.”
And yet not only has the European Union gravitated inexorably toward socialism and liberalism, it’s actually become deeply corrupt, anti-Christian, and culturally suicidal. The “CHP”-types in Europe don’t appear to have done the Union much good.
What’s more, as far as the CHP goes, it seems to me that just by being a Christian group seeking political power, they’re inadvertently sending the message to unbelievers that “Christians want to control your lives.”
While such control is a virtual impossibility in Canada, at least for the foreseeable future, there are nonetheless a handful of historical examples of “Christian” institutions (note the quotation marks) taking over whole societies:
Western Europe run by Roman Catholicism;
The Anglican church over the UK, tied to the throne;
The Lutheran church over Germany;
The Calvinist experiment in Geneva.
All of these were bad for both society and the promotion of Christ. All of them to varying degrees perverted the Gospel and what it means to be a follower of Jesus in an anti-God world.
A Bible-based political philosophy. I’m convinced the Bible teaches a form of minarchism, also known as the “night-watchman state”: minimal government restricted to the role of law-and-order.
And that’s it. Not education, welfare, healthcare, or a host of other things that the State, as we're accustomed to it, regularly claims to “provide.” Even something eminently practical, such as road-building or garbage collection—two things on which I'm willing to compromise—cannot be shown to be things that governments (at any level) “must” do.
Some introductory sources:
There are very few areas of life where it's either moral or efficient for Party A to seize the goods of Party B in order to meet the needs of Party C. All taxation, regardless of the stated purpose, follows this pattern: the State coerces money from wage-earners in order to pay for stuff.
I have no problem with that structure; I have a problem when it goes beyond law-and-order. The reality is that most taxation is State-perpetrated theft.
[G]overnment is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. . . . And for this reason you pay taxes [Romans 13:4, 6].
CHP Constitution, p. 10.
When I capitalize “Church,” I’m referring to the worldwide Body of Christ—all whom God Himself would recognize as His people, regardless of denomination. By lower-case “church” I mean a local congregation.