It seems to me that there's really no reason why those voting for parties other than the Libs and Cons couldn't hope for a majority government. The past couple of decades have definitely shown us a time where voting for the Cons was only marginally better than voting for the Natural Law Party (think post-Mulroney/Campbell).

[citation needed]

If that's how you feel about profs, then I'm truly sorry for the terrible post-secondary experience you must have had. You may, however, want to remember that Andrew Potter himself was once a prof, and as such reevaluate your statement.

I think that's the value in Andrew's argument here: he wants us to throw out the silly arguments--those that are obviously wrong (i.e. the notion that the coalition was illegal or a coup)--and focus on the valuable arguments--is the populace merely undereducated, or does Canada's current system fail to adequately serve the population? The former arguments can be easily proven to be objectively wrong, whereas the latter are obviously subjective, and also happen to be much more valuable in terms of discussing the politics of the coalition. There's nothing wrong with ignoring bad arguments--if you are, however, interested in pursuing them for the sake of debate, it might help to work with your opposition to build a stronger argument, one that can be properly debated. And indeed, this is what I imagine Andrew is hoping a book on the Parliamentary Crisis would accomplish.

Come now, surely we can agree that it's possible to be objectively wrong in certain debates. If you were to argue that the speed limit of a road actually is 30 km/h lower than the legal limit, you are objectively wrong. Likewise, if you were to argue that the potential coalition was illegal, you would be objectively wrong.