babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Why Canadians Refuse to Vote

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why Canadians Refuse to Vote
shamus111
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6184

posted 23 June 2004 12:08 AM      Profile for shamus111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Why Many Canadians Refuse to Vote

By

James Bredin


Why only a few Canadians bother to vote?
Is it because Ottawa is distant and remote?
And those we elect have absolutely no power,
They’re told about party discipline by the hour.

They don’t represent you – only the prime minister,
Told by the pundits that this is not sinister,
We have to stick to the system and the status quo,
We can vote but it’s no more than a TV game show.

So why vote for someone if it means nothing at all?
Can’t see your MP on TV against the far wall,
Can’t influence their wild tax and spend agenda,
Helpless but elated by CBC propaganda.

Will Stephen change the game or will it stay the same?
God forbid another Mulroney of GST fame,
Are we forever stuck in status quo traditions?
Would binding referendums tame these politicians?

Every four or five years we get an election,
Never know exactly when – it’s their selection,
Would recall of rogue politicians stop overstay?
Maybe vote and fix Canada along the way.

Tuesday, June 22, 2004


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 11 June 2005 10:14 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The post is somewhat dated, but I feel it is relevant considering the upcoming election to be held no later than February.

Anyways, John Jacobs of the Nova Scotia branch of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wrote a good editorial about that problem:
It seems reasonable for a citizen to conclude: if governments and political institutions are unwilling, or claim to be unable, to address the issues that are important to me, why should I bother voting?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 June 2005 05:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
At another level the low voter turnout should not come as a big surprise. Parliamentary democracy was not designed to empower and engage the majority of citizens. Historically it developed as rear guard action by political and economic elites to maintain their position of privilege while appeasing the demands of the sometimes unruly masses.

Most of us know where the real concentration of power lies - and it's not in the hands of your average citizen or even with the governments that we elect. The real influence and power rests with the few citizens and large corporations that dominate the economy.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 12 June 2005 09:15 AM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Random thoughts about my voting and non-voting friends....

as for my contemporarites who don't vote, I conclude that the things that matter to them are...whether they can afford a new car, whether its possible to get satellite reception without a subscription, whether it is better to go with a Plasma or LCD television, and how good or ban the new Coldplay album is.

My friends who do vote care deeply about a variety of things, including social welfare, equality, international relations, and so forth. The few conservatives who I know seem to vote out of a general dissatisfaction with the "direction the country's headed" that I don't understand in the least. Their voting preferences are resistent to any facts about the real tax situation in Canada, the state of government spending, or Comparisons between Canada and other countries.

Among those who don't vote, the typical response to my inquiry as to why is the lame-o "it doesn't matter anyway- they're all the same". The truth is that most of them couldn't name their MP or MPP, or the party to which he or she belongs. Or differentiate between any levels of government.

To some of them, as my wife explained to me, politics is like a professional sport. You're either into it or you're not. I don't follow hockey, you don't follow politics. No problem- to each her own.

^#^@%# high school civics is what's needed.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 12 June 2005 12:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mush is absolutley right! Its not that people "refuse" to vote. They just don't care. They are not interested in politics. Just like I'm not interested in skeet shooting or heavy metal music.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 12 June 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Among those who don't vote, the typical response to my inquiry as to why is the lame-o "it doesn't matter anyway- they're all the same".

Well, should that surprise anyone? Remember the promises the Liberals made and then broke during and after the 1993 election? How many cases are there of politicians who promise the world to be elected and then renege? Is it any wonder that people are so turned off? I know people who can name politicians from the past whom they respect, but now think that they're all a bunch of liars. Well over 80% of the public believe politicians lie to get elected.

Politicians also have a problem of making grand promises to fix a complicated problem where such promises are not appropriate. An example is that in Manitoba during the 1999 election, NDP leader Gary Doer promised to "end hallway medicine." Those who have knowledge of the system know that you can't reasonably make those types of promises. Or, how about the fact that that same leader promised to fix the problems in the health system, and yet certain problems have persisted under the watch of this NDP government for the last 6 years. Oh, but they turn around and blame the Tories for all the province's ills. The Tories say that the NDP should be doing more to fix the problems. As for the Manitoba Liberals, oh wait, never mind. Or, take the federal riding of Brandon-Souris, for instance. When Rick Borotsik ran, people voted for him not because they liked him, but to stop the Alliance. In the last election, many people voted Liberal, not because they like Liberals, but to stop the Conservatives. The history of Brandon-Souris is Conservative anyways, so voting against them is futile because they are likely to win the riding anyways.

Now, given the constant bickering I mentioned, plus what people hear on their television and radio about how politicians blame each other for all evils in society, and the fact that people are voting not for who they like most but who they dislike the least, is it any wonder that people are losing faith in politics?

[ 12 June 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 13 June 2005 08:40 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone know how successful Australia's mandatory voting is? Anyone know how large the penalty is?
From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 13 June 2005 08:44 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know about Australia, but Greece and Luxembourg have mandatory voting, and (not surprisingly) they boast the highest voter turnout rates in the EU for both EP and national elections.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
trevor j.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7852

posted 13 June 2005 09:10 AM      Profile for trevor j.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RP.:
Anyone know how successful Australia's mandatory voting is? Anyone know how large the penalty is?

If by successful, you mean by percentage of population, the turnout in Australian elections usually hovers around 90-95% of those eligible (i.e. 18 and over, and holding Australian citizenship). And the penalty for not voting is AUD$20 at the first stage (i.e. when the Electoral Commission first catches up with you, as they will, and asks you why you didn't vote); if you choose to take the matter to court, and lose, the penalty is a fine of up to AUD$50, plus costs.


From: No Fixed Address | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rod Manchee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 290

posted 13 June 2005 10:46 AM      Profile for Rod Manchee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Voting is supposed to be an expression of aggregate public interest, which in a democracy is supposed to be the ruling principle. Making it mandatory is just as likely to force people to vote who really don’t want to, with the result that their vote will, at best, be not particularly well thought out and at worst could be more of a vindictive act. It is a fairly irresponsible requirement, more interested in the form than in the substance of democracy..
An approach with much more potential to increase voter turn-out in a healthy way would be to motivate politicians to make their actions more responsive. For example, Parliamentary pay could be tied to turn-out(not vote for the winner, but interest of the total electorate). There could be a total potential MP salary, and the actual salary could the same proportion of this potential as the actual turn-out was in proportion to the potential vote. This could also apply to things like research and communication allowances. The actual vote proportion could be calculated on a riding-by-riding basis or nationally(there are arguments for and against both), but it would provide some incentive for MP’s to try to actively involve all their constituents(right now their only real motivation is to appeal to their supporters).

From: ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 June 2005 11:01 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Make campaign promises into contracts.

Right now, politicians can mouth any nonsense they want, and if elected can say "Oh, well, uh, um..." for the next four years. I think this makes a lot of campaigning a little, well, uninteresting.

On the other hand, if politicians and their parties were bound by law to keep their promises, that might make for some slightly more interesting civics, and might prompt a few more people to bother voting for someone whose promises they like.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
trevor j.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7852

posted 13 June 2005 11:26 AM      Profile for trevor j.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rod Manchee:
Voting is supposed to be an expression of aggregate public interest, which in a democracy is supposed to be the ruling principle. Making it mandatory is just as likely to force people to vote who really don’t want to, with the result that their vote will, at best, be not particularly well thought out and at worst could be more of a vindictive act. It is a fairly irresponsible requirement, more interested in the form than in the substance of democracy...

Well, I agree with this in principle. But in Australia at least, problems of this kind tend to be mitigated by the fact that preferential voting is the system used (at Federal & provincial levels, at least); as I understand it, they're more a hallmark of first-past-the-post voting - and that, of course, is a whole other kettle of fish. For more on this, go here or here.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: trevor j. ]


From: No Fixed Address | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 13 June 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rod Manchee:
Making it mandatory is just as likely to force people to vote who really don’t want to, with the result that their vote will, at best, be not particularly well thought out and at worst could be more of a vindictive act.

How would you feel if there were mandatory voting that involved one or both of:
(a) a none of the above option; and/or
(b) a "no vote" option.


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972

posted 13 June 2005 12:08 PM      Profile for fossilnut        Edit/Delete Post
I was once watching a panel discussion on this topic. What level of governmnet effects us the most and we relate to most. It was local. The local government determines if the street is paved, a school is built, noise bylaws, what are the library hours, etc. Real 'stuff' in our real daily lives.

But. what level of governmnet had the lowest voter turnout...by far? It was town, city elections. In the 20's% range in some cities.

The point being that it's more than just the remoteness of the federal governmnet that discourages voting. It's not just not understanding the issues. Oherwise local elections would have much higher turnouts.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: fossilnut ]


From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 13 June 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
[QB]

Well, should that surprise anyone? .... Well over 80% of the public believe politicians lie to get elected.

I think this is mainly crapola, and yo've reproduced part of the problem here. For the most part, people who choose public life (yes, on all sides, in all parties) do so because they think they are helping, at least in some general way (of course for many, their idea of how to improve things is pretty pathetic, but that's a question aside from their motivations).

Yes, there are liars and scoundrels. Not nearly as many as we're CONSTANTLY TOLD THERE ARE, though. I think that we've offered people the "easy out" from voting...we've told them that it doesn't matter anyway.

And, of course it does matter. I betcha everyone on this board thinks so. If we all decided to vote Tory or Green or NDP in the next election, this would have real effects on people's lives.

We need to stop excusing ignorance and laziness like this. My dad used to say that if you don't vote, you don't have anything to complain about.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 13 June 2005 03:36 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oddly, I personally have, I think, rather less understanding of my local issues than I do of national ones.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 13 June 2005 03:40 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmmm...me too. I don't listen to local radio, don't watch local tv, nor do I read the local paper. They're all dreadful. But as a result, I couldn;t tell you what's going on in the city council.

Better get on this....


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 13 June 2005 04:19 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In regards to the last couple posts
"Think globally Act Locally."

In regards to the reason why people don't vote I will only paraphrase one elected leader of the last century, who used this to his advantage

"It is fortunate for governments that people don't think."

However, I've started telling people NOT to vote. The more I talk to people, the more I realise that no one knows what the hell their talking about and my vote should mean more, so the more people stay away, the more my vote means.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rod Manchee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 290

posted 13 June 2005 04:24 PM      Profile for Rod Manchee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To answer RP, the only legitimate point of making voting compulsory is for people to show that they are responsible, involved citizens. This has to include the option of not being restricted to options offered. I’ve not seen the Australian option first hand, but their legislation does not seem to require actual voting - just showing up at the polling place at the appropriate time. If this is a correct interpretation(and I stress that I’m not at all sure that it is), then that could be added as (c) although it is a variant of the no vote option, and a (d) option could be a write-in option on the ballot(ever wonder why ballots were black). There are very few politicians who would countenance any of those approaches, covering their satisfaction with what got them elected with some mindless blather about responsibility or somesuch. But compulsory voting would have another serious drawback in that if there was fairly widespread rejection of the system it would obscure that fact (by making it look like most people were happy voters). Hence my suggestion that it be seen as part of any elected politician’s job to convince people of the legitimacy of the system(even if they don’t support that particular politician), and the automatic mechanism of basing their pay on turn-out(or some similar mechanism) might be a way of doing this.
But I’ve long been a supporter of NOTA.

From: ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 June 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, should that surprise anyone? .... Well over 80% of the public believe politicians lie to get elected.

I too disagree with this. One, it allows for an easy cop out. "I'm not voting because they are al liars," provides an easy excuse to abdicate your own responsibilty for your own government. Second, there is some truth to it. But only because too many of us can't be bothered to become educated on the issues, the parties and their platforms with respect to the issues. Consequently, politics is marketed like any other type of snake oil with lots of hype but little of substance. And then we buy something we really didn't want, we can revert back to the cheap cynicism of "none of them can be trusted."

Responsible government begins with you.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 13 June 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Responsible government begins with you.
you mean rebellion?

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
enki42
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9606

posted 13 June 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for enki42     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I too disagree with this. One, it allows for an easy cop out. "I'm not voting because they are al liars," provides an easy excuse to abdicate your own responsibilty for your own government.

The irony, of course, is that the corruption and deceit in politics would stop if people paid attention and cared about what their representatives did.


From: Toronto, ON | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 June 2005 10:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is not at all provable, after all the present corruption et, al comes firectly from a society where most people voted. The evidence seems contrary to your assertion. People have learned over the years that voting counts for less than it was originally assumed.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brandon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9213

posted 13 June 2005 11:23 PM      Profile for Brandon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don’t know if this has been said yet but we in Canada can not have mandatory voting system because our political system is far to American. Not only do political parties try to get the vote out they work just as hard as suppressing the vote. Turn out is low in areas that are poor and the poor (working class) will never as enthusiastic about voting as the middle or rich class. We can not keep a system of disenfranchising the poor while making the vote mandatory.
From: Delta North BC Canada | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 14 June 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First of all, I acknowledge that some people are lazy and don't care. But I believe those who responded to my post by attributing people not voting to that have missed a few points.

We're responsible for educating oursleves about the politicians? Last time I checked, the government was supposed to work for us. Personally, I like the idea of paying our elected representatives in proportion to the amount of voter turn-out. That would reward politicians who get people to vote as opposed to rewarding who receives the most votes as it does now. Keep in mind that politicians are not concerned about how many people vote, just that they end up with more votes.

The behaviour of politicians, as I mentioned, is quite atrocious. They stick with their talking points and quite often refuse to answer tough questions. When you have several politicans from different parties together, they often talk over each other, call each other names, etc. They also expend a great deal of effort on presenting a perfectly polished image and substitute that for substance. People who try to influence people's perception of things (this includes politicians) also go to the point of flat out lying. They do not spin, they do not embellish, they flat out lie. So, what happens is people watch that take place, and after having watched, they think, "gee, all of these politicians are bad, politics is pointless." As for that line indicating a cop-out, the fact that over 80% of the public has a negative perception of politicians means that people generally hate them. Politicians are often ridiculed in our society. So, when there is widespread opinion that politicians are bad, is it any wonder that people are turned off?

People should educate themselves about party platforms? Party platforms are huge documents that people have no time to read, they are extremely complicated, not user friendly, and few people have the expertise required to properly critique them anyways.

And what about people who live in "safe" ridings? If you take a look at the history of Brandon-Souris, my constituency, it is a safe conservative riding. You tell me my vote counts? The Conservatives are likely to win that riding in any election, so why should I waste my time and energy casting a vote when it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. (So I'm not misunderstood, I have voted in every federal election for which I've been eligible to do so. In both cases, I voted for the party I liked, the NDP and not for the candidate likely to defeat the Alliance and later Conservative candidates.)


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 14 June 2005 02:39 AM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Although I developed on this theme in the thread on Stephen Harper's demise, I think there is a basic disconnect between all the political parties and the electorate.

The issue is Trust.

Trust comes through Knowing.

How is this going to be fixed in a democracy like ours? One person at a time. All of us on here are politically motivated individuals. Our turnout rate would probably be close to 100%. We are critically interested in the outcomes not only in our regions and constituencies but in disparate areas across the country.

How can we translate that enthusiasm to the electorate as a whole? We are committed politically because we are involved. Whether we win or lose, we keep on going. Why can't we communicate our passion?

"All politicians are criminals".

"Oh that's great. I am a volunteer and I have not ever made a cent from being involved in politics. Are you calling me a criminal?"

"Yes."

(I tried this once. As you can see, it doesn't work.)

"You are pretty pissed off at politics right now aren't you?"

"Yes."

"Are you concerned about how this country is being governed?"

"Yes. I am downright angry about it."

"What do you think we could do to make it better?"

.....

I think we have to treat people with kid gloves. The political machine tactics are just a big turnoff.

To make change in this country which is going to benefit the most people, we need to know what those people need and want to reach their aspirations and dreams.

We can only do this by listening to what they have to say, and taking it to heart, and coming out with things to say which reflect their concerns.

There is no magic bullet to reconnect the Canadian people with their democracy. It has been withered and worn sometimes deliberately through the efforts of business interests controlled by the Right and sometimes through Apathy.

The "Our Book Solves All Problems" approach is not going to work for the Liberals or any other party.

There really has to be a new kind of consultative democracy for people to get involved again. For many, modern life is futile, offering false prosperity and short term gain for long term pain. We are in bad economic cycles which generate cash for some and pollution for all. This is becoming increasingly evident.

The smog should be a national crisis. This is killing thousands of people a year. In Toronto, 60 are murdered, and 1,000 die from smog. Each murder is national news. Each death from smog is not even mentioned. There should be orders from the State to limit unnecessary travel during these times.

If people were involved in politics and we were all not so busy pushing our own version of the National Agenda, we might already have had fewer smog days this year.

Even in the States they are doing something about this. The NDP should be screaming blue bloody murder over this. Instead they want to help the Liberals shape the National Agenda.

The silence is deafening, and we are wondering why people refuse to vote?


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 15 June 2005 07:44 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Even in the States they are doing something about this. The NDP should be screaming blue bloody murder over this. Instead they want to help the Liberals shape the National Agenda.

You're referring to pollution. Layton has been vocal about the need to clean up our air, and he says the new budget deal has points to address this problem. Layton said the budget still has shortfalls but it's an improvement. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives agrees.

As for helping the Liberals shape the "National Agenda," the NDP is using its seat count plus the fact that Canadians don't want an election as leverage to get NDP priorities on the radar.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 15 June 2005 08:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The behaviour of politicians, as I mentioned, is quite atrocious. They stick with their talking points and quite often refuse to answer tough questions.

Its also the voters fault about that. When politicians veer away from "talking points" and try to actually answer tough questions, they tend to get crushed at the polls. The voters don't REALLY want to be told the truth.

There is a reason why politicians stick to talking points and avoid tough questions - BECAUSE IT WORKS!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 16 June 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Its also the voters fault about that. When politicians veer away from "talking points" and try to actually answer tough questions, they tend to get crushed at the polls. The voters don't REALLY want to be told the truth.

There is a reason why politicians stick to talking points and avoid tough questions - BECAUSE IT WORKS!


Agreed.

The first time Layton gets in front of a microphone and says "We're going to raise taxes, take away your cars and make you eat local foods", he's done, finished...goodbye.

But we all know that's exactly what we need to do.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 17 June 2005 01:24 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, I have a specific question for you:

Many people, after watching leadership debates, candidate forums, etc (ie performing their citizenly duties) walk away from the event feeling, "man, none of those people care about me, they just care about getting the most votes." What is the voter supposed to do in that situation?

(And another question: I live in Brandon-Soruis, a constituency that consistently votes Conservative, and based on that pattern is not likely to send a candidate of a different party to Ottawa. Why should I waste energy worrying about voting in Brandon-Souris when the result is a foregone conclusion?)


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rod Manchee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 290

posted 17 June 2005 09:43 AM      Profile for Rod Manchee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re Aristotleded24's questions: the problem is that the system is a bit of a straight-jacket, denying the voter freedoms available with things like NOTA. The answer is to vote, but for politician who have the sense of responsibility to include things like NOTA on the ballot rather than trying to suppress any evidence of dissatisfaction with the system by giving it no way to express itself.

Your Brandon-Souris problem is a good reason why some diversity in selection mechanisms is a good idea. Having a locally elected rep is useful for many, but not all, things. But we have two Houses of Parliament, so why not make the Senate elected on the basis of PR, so that your support for a party(or perhaps non-local candidate) whose approach you support can be reflected in Ottawa?


From: ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 17 June 2005 03:03 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

(And another question: I live in Brandon-Soruis, a constituency that consistently votes Conservative, and based on that pattern is not likely to send a candidate of a different party to Ottawa. Why should I waste energy worrying about voting in Brandon-Souris when the result is a foregone conclusion?)

If nothing else, the party you vote for will get $1.75 a year until next election.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 June 2005 07:17 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Winning money without seats doesn't gain a party much influence. Just ask the Greens about that.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca