Chris, great points. I'm still not voting for Bergeron
…
I kind of hope Bergeron does win, just to see what would happen. I fear the worst but who knows?

Well, if you “kinda”HOPE he wins, why don't you do your little bit and vote for him?
What would happen? Well, a big shake-up on the order of when Jean Doré came to power 25 years ago. And what would be worse? Wall-to-wall streetcars or wall-to-wall cars (if O’Sullivan would win)???

I DO think the high advance polling is an indication that something's in the offing. Kate in her always excellent mtlweblog wondered what these figures could portent. Anyone care to hazard a guess? Perhaps it was just that we had nice weather yesterday...

Actually, if you're not at least a bit crazy, you wouldn't be running for mayor of Montreal.

There we go. Something we agree on. :)

1. Believing a conspiracy theory doesn't automatically make someone a nutjob. Conspiracy theories aren't always cooked up by tin-foil hat wearing nerds in their parent's basements. Sometimes conspiracy theories, even outlandish ones, actually end up being proven true or at least partially true many years later (usually after secret documents have been declassified) making what once seemed impossible or crazy at one time true. Many of the claims made by the "9/11 truthers" aren't so ridiculous if you look at what other government administrations and organisations have done in the past (MKULTRA for a local example).

2. Marc says that Bergeron's beliefs concerning 9/11 and the moon landing reveal a lack of critical thinking. I might be inclined to believe that it would suggest MORE critical thinking. At the very least, he's willing to look beyond the official story and question what we're told is true by those in authority (media, government, etc.). If he believes that these conspiracy theories are absolutely true, that would put him pretty much down to the level of those who believe that the official story is always absolutely true.

3. Elected officials have believed much crazier things, for example, that some sort of omnipotent power created the universe in 7 days, flooded the earth in 40, and had one man and his family collect every animal on earth and put them on a boat for the duration of the flood. People who believe this also believe that this god's son was born to a virgin and went around turning water into wine, stones into bread, and could heal the blind and handicapped by simply touching their foreheads. Indeed Shawn admitted earlier that he plans on voting for someone who not only believes this, but for someone who built a church where these beliefs can be further propagated in St-Hyppolite 13 years ago (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tremblay+mission+serve/2053034/story.html). If you don't think believing that is crazier than the conspiracy theories, keep in mind that the Bergeron's conspiracy theories are based on at least a bit of scientific research (however dubious it may be), whereas Tremblay's beliefs are based on a single book, written 2000 years ago.

Perhaps they're all nutjobs. Actually, if you're not at least a bit crazy, you wouldn't be running for mayor of Montreal.

Not one leader, journalist or other pundit has had to backtrack or apologise for insinuating that there was some link between Saddam and Osama, or that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction", thereby supporting the slaughter of far more innocent people than those murdered in NYC. I do hope you don't think the lives of New Yorkers are worth more than the lives of Baghdadis.

I dunno. I think there is some hubris involved. But I voted Projet Montréal despite that, as there are far more important issues such as bringing in more public and active transport and reducing the place of the car. We really have to stop destroying the world, eh?

If some nutter would land the job, this would seriously jeoparize the stability of our civilization, and endanger the equilibrium of the spatio-temporal continuum.

Yeah, better vote for the better man, and George W. Bush is the man for the job.

Harel has snow-white hair now which she no longer colours, but also has beautiful skin. I'm not voting for her party, though it has nothing to do with her age or her poor command of spoken English.

Fagstein, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, agreed , not the best example of critical reasoning (Robert Fisk, no worshipper of any established order, did a great number on them) but neither were all the leaders who fell in with the line about Saddam Hussein having "weapons of mass destruction". And unlike the truther conspiracy theories, which didn't really hurt anyone, those lies were the pretext for unleashing war that has killed countless thousands of people, whether Iraqis or US and British troops.

None of the leaders or pundits who fell for that pile of bullshit have had to retract it as of yet.

Shouldn't the PQ have been eager, willing and, with a majority government, able to make all these changes so that, when the Liberals did back in in '85 and '03, these corruptions scandals would never happen again?

But they did. The PQ passed the political financing law that prohibits croporate donations; the law applies to municipal elections as well.

But how does this all work with the party system? Can, for example, the city mayor be elected from party A, but all other elected positions be from party B? (ie, since we vote directly for the mayor, he/she doesn't need a majority of council seats or borough mayors or something like that?)

Yes. Think of it like the U.S. government, where the president and Congress are elected separately. They can be from the same party or from different ones. It doesn't usually happen in municipal elections (people tend to vote for the same party for mayor and for council), but it could, particularly in an environment such as this one.

But how does this all work with the party system? Can, for example, the city mayor be elected from party A, but all other elected positions be from party B? (ie, since we vote directly for the mayor, he/she doesn't need a majority of council seats or borough mayors or something like that?)

Why do we have both borough and city councillor's for every district? Shouldn't we have borough councillors for more local issues, who are under the borough mayor, and all the borough mayors from across Montreal represent their boroughs in the context of the city mayor?

Thanks!

I'll concede that Quebec doesn't have the ability to change the criminal code, but one could easily make the argument that, with sufficient and proper regulation of municipal affairs (which, apparently, have been neglected by both the PQ and the Liberals), changes to the criminal code would be unnecessary, because no one could commit any crimes.

Shouldn't the PQ have been eager, willing and, with a majority government, able to make all these changes so that, when the Liberals did back in in '85 and '03, these corruptions scandals would never happen again?