Finally, voters are invited to complete another questionnaire, to share their attitude towards politics and politicians and to answer a few more questions - like this one:
It really bothers me that hard scientific evidence isn't shaping public policy to the degree it should be.Who wouldn't agree with that? But wait. When the CBC mentions "hard scientific evidence", what do you think they mean? Exactly! They mean Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" and the IPCC's "settled science". So what if there's more than enough evidence that global warming is a scam, that it's all about money, power and indoctrination, rather than about "hard scientific evidence". For them the science is settled, period.
So if you agree with their question - they'll take it that you agree with the climate change myth, agree with Kyoto, agree with carbon tax and all those other "green" policies which the left claims are based on "hard scientific evidence". If you answer "disagree" - then you disagree with science, you want public policy to be shaped by ideology (or religion) rather than by hard scientific evidence; then you're a denier, a reactionary, a Bible-trumper... Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Of course, one can answer "neither agree nor disagree" (and likely be told that he's "closest to the Liberal Party, and furthest from the NDP"...) but there is a better option - just close your browser. And remember that expecting an honest unbiased reporting from the CBC is the same as expecting to find a golden sovereign on the sidewalk. If the Conservatives return to Parliament with a majority and yet fail to privatize the CBC - that will be even worse a mistake than all their deficits put together.
Update: Ezra Levant weighs in on the CBC and the "Vote Compass":
Not surprisingly, the CBC has stonewalled requests to release their formula.Straight and to the point.
Why the secrecy? CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said there is no bias, "as far as we know." What does that mean? Has Keay even seen the formula? Whose word is he taking that it's fair?
Perhaps he's taking the word of Peter Loewen, the "director of analytics" for the Vote Compass. Loewen just happens to have been a policy adviser for Michael Ignatieff's 2006 Liberal leadership campaign.