Well that was a complete waste of time. Another Canadian Election has come and gone and I'm not sure I can tell the difference. With historically low voter turnout we're returning to another minority government where the Tories have the most seats in parliament, and the NDP and Liberal party combined do not have enough to stop them. So once again expect dysfunction as the Bloc hold the balance of power.

Was anything at all accomplished by that election? I suppose on the one hand it might mean we won't have another for a little while. Otherwise I think the main loser will be the environment, since the spin will be that the Liberal Green Shift didn't fly so therefore Canadians don't care if their planet goes to shit. This is of course not the case, but expect some spin to go this way.

I think the reality is that everyone lost this election. Harper failed to get his majority, Dion failed to make any gains, Layton failed at his new and more aggressive election strategy, and May failed to get a seat, although I doubt that was ever her intention. I myself also failed in my meager attempt to make two predictions, both of which were wrong. Perhaps only Duceppe won as he had the lowest performance expectations going in.

Last time I saw Peggy Nash I told her to kick ass, and with enthusiasm and wit she kicked her boot high in the air, demonstrating her strength and grace.

In Parkdale - High Park, I predict NDP candidate Peggy Nash will be victorious. It will be a tight race against her Liberal opponent, Gerrard Kennedy, but as the incumbent she has an advantage, and friends of mine still in the riding say that as a local representative she has done a great job.

So the Canadian election is coming to a close and I've been having a lot of conversations with friends and colleagues analyzing what has transpired and how social media has played a role.

We've all been witness to the Obama campaign and their innovative use of social media and the internet. Explicitly what was different about their internet campaign was the way they asked people to give more than money or support but their labour. This labour might be getting them to come into to campaign offices, but it was more likely to solicit their help in doing work online. Whether that be raising funds or reaching out to friends in key swing states.

All the Canadian political parties are using social media platforms like Facebook, and YouTube, and similarly all political parties have elements of social media on their own site. However without exception, their use is primitive, and generally of a symbolic nature, rather than an explicit social nature.

During a number of the talks and workshops I've run around social media, the subject of politicians and their use of the internet often comes up. The discussion tends to focus on how candidates and elected officials use technology to foster a stronger relationship with their constituents and supporters.

Unfortunately a lot of people approach this topic with a lot of baggage and assumptions, associating tools like Twitter or Facebook with procrastination and wasting time. In my consulting work and in my media appearances I often promote the use of social media by politicians, however I make an effort to emphasize the need for authenticity and understanding how to use the tools properly, rather than symbolic appropriation as a token attempt to reach young voters.

Yet I still get feedback from people who say they don't want their elected officials wasting their time on Facebook, although one assumes they do expect these same pols to answer letters that they receive. The reality however is that modest use is what we can all manage, and it is exactly the weak ties that politicians tend to have with their constituents that can be strengthened by use of interactive platforms.

Today the consortium (monopoly) that controls the televised leaders debates for the Canadian federal election decided that they would exclude the leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May. In doing so they have discredited their own debates, and will alienate a great many of Canadians who will rightly see a political class as being terrified of environmental issues.

I am not a member of the Green Party, and I will not be voting for them this election. However I am an environmentalist, and I do think it is a crucial issue in this election. I am also smart enough to recognize that the Green Party is *not* a one issue party, and that they have just as many policy positions, and just as many candidates as any other party in the country. It is clear to me that the reason they are being excluded is not because they do not qualify, but rather because the fear, from an optics perspective, is that by including them, the environment will become a more dominant issue. With Green leader Elizabeth May in the debates at least two leaders (May and Dion) if not four (May, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe) will raise the environment as an example of the Tories being totally asleep at the wheel.