Nik: Week 1 of the campaign featured flying puffins, a Conservative staffer calling a network to discredit the father of a slain soldier and a rough start for the Liberal leader. Looking at the numbers, there were two significant take-aways from my perspective

First, support for the Bloc Québéecois is significantly dropping and all of the federalist parties are gaining at the expense of the BQ.

The latest CPAC-Nanos tracking in Quebec has a three-way statistical tie between the Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals. Likewise, NDP support is up in Quebec.

If this trend continues, the really big news in this election may be the decline of the Bloc and the resurgence of federalist parties in Quebec. A poor showing from the BQ would surely be a major setback for the sovereignty movement.

Second, in the past our political arena has been dominated by parties with strong regional bases: Liberals in Ontario, BQ in Quebec, Conservatives in the West.

I'm struck by the fact that the Conservatives and the Liberals are tied in both Ontario and Quebec at this point in the campaign. We may be entering a new phase where we have multiple federal parties that can justly claim national reach.

A world with a weakened BQ in the House of Commons and stronger national parties may actually be good news for our political system as political leaders have to lift themselves from former regional views to more of a national vision.

From my perspective, I've been discounting the "inside baseball" talk about the daily cut and thrust of the campaign and looking at the trends to understand where our final destination will be.

Regardless of who forms the government, if the parties truly become more national in scope, our political dialogue after this election may change for the better.

Sarah: I think there was a time where every province, save Ontario and Quebec, felt as though their votes did not count and that certainly is changing. At the start of this campaign all three major parties attempted to woo B.C. voters and we'll probably see more and more of this.

There are still major divisions in this country, however, especially the rural-urban split, and I think the country is far from united on national issues or how to address them.

So far, none of the leaders have come up with a national strategy to address a broad array of issues. Campaigns have been piecemeal with references to haphazard spending on projects here and there. Until a vision emerges, and one that addresses the unique circumstances of each region, you'll see Canadians voting for their own self-interests.

Pauline: Hi guys,

It's very strange to be observing the campaign this week from Durban, South Africa, where I'm attending a conference of the Sustainable Cities: PLUS Network. This is a group of 30 cities worldwide that have committed to long-term sustainability and it is led by a wonderful little Vancouver-based organization, the International Centre for Sustainable Cities.

There are Canadians here from Vancouver, rural Vancouver Island, Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. At tonight's big dinner, some of them weren't even aware that there had been an election call, but were anxious to figure out how to vote from abroad.

Such a short campaign will leave many travelling Canadians stranded unless they can reach an embassy in time.

From here, where we are discussing huge issues of planetary survival as well as intensely local issues such as garbage disposal, there is an artificial quality to the election messaging.

Some of the world's burgeoning developing countries think of Canada as a place that has solutions to offer, and a record of civilized engagement and discourse.

In recent years, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, this traditional pedestal view of Canada has been undermined.

On balance, Nik, I guess I am encouraged by your analysis, in the sense that the re-emergence of national parties would, in theory, be a good thing. But I'm afraid that for the moment, Sarah is right about the voting for self-interests.

The worst thing is that those perceived self-interests don't seem to encompass a future beyond the next few months. And In my view, that's not a good thing at all.

Nik: One interesting platform will be the leaders' debates. Will the leaders look to pander to their core vote or go for the bigger picture by speaking with more of a "national voice."

The one cautionary note is the increase in the number of undecided voters (to about 20 per cent). This may be indicative of some voters tuning-out because of the negativity of the campaigns.

Look at what is happening in the U.S. presidential election — there are two clear and competing visions for America's future. This vision battle is engaging voters because it cuts to the heart of where the U.S. should go.

I think Canadians would respond well to having all our leaders step forward and layout out a clear and concise vision for the future as opposed to focusing on the tactical details.

Pauline: Uncertainty is good. It means that voters are thinking about their choices — or that they are getting more sophisticated at playing the pollsters! Do you think that might be part of it, Nik?

Sarah: I'm also wondering what will emerge from the leaders' debate. Although I feel that families are intensely important, I want nothing less than to hear leaders talk about "helping families," or helping "working families," especially if this statement is only backed up by a commitment to an annual average tax deduction of $300 or so.

I fear that the economy is just too big an issue and that it is severely stumping the creative thinking of most Canadians.

In my work, I tend to read about what different states and municipalities in the U.S. are doing to combat climate change and I'm often impressed by the level of innovative thinking. There is something to be said about the spirit of entrepreneurship and making things happen. It's fairly clear that in Canada we feel we have too much to lose by taking chances.

We seem to think that the environment, the arts and social programs are mutually exclusive of the economy. I'd like to see a leader who can merge all of these interests.

Nik: There is a greater level of sophistication in large part due to the internet and the emergence of the political consumer. The problem, however, with the internet is that you have to be very cautious about the validity and accuracy of many things that are presented as "fact."

We also know from our research that a number of voters are like last-minute shoppers, they will wait to see how most of the campaign unfolds before making a final decision.

Pauline: The leaders' debate is often great theatre. I am really looking forward to this one. Everyone except Elizabeth May has so much to lose — and she has so much to gain. With 20 per cent of voters undecided, it's possible that the debates will take on a greater significance than usual.

Certainly, in past elections, there have been defining moments in the debates. I am hoping that this year's debate will reveal some surprises. As you say, Nik, there is a greater level of sophistication today.

But there is also a greater level of noise. A great debate has a way of cutting to the heart of the matter and Canadians deserve a real discussion of what these leaders are proposing for our future.