I know it is often decried that our voter turnout is as low as it is, and often such comments are accompanied by various proposals to increase the turnout, such as offering tax credit incentives right up to punitive measures to be taken against non-voters. But I have always felt that low voter turnout is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, fewer voters in my riding means that my vote is that much more likely to affect the outcome. Also, the public at large appears to be quite ignorant of most of the issues of the day and frankly are not qualified to be making judgements on complex economic, legal and foreign policy matters. Therefore, it is probably for the best that these people are not influencing election results.
And another sad election coming, probably May 2
- Thread starter HankQuinlan
- Start date
I've become cynical of politics, as is to be expected as we age, I guess. How can we watch the repetition of the greatest Reality Show on earth and not get tired of the endless promises that come to naught and the back pedaling that sometimes begins as early as the end of the election?
The attack campaigns say it all: our politicians have no real interest in the business of running the country; when they address us personally through the media they have nothing to offer, so, they choose instead to focus on these ridiculous and childish ads.
I work and move in close quarters with some very fundamentalist Christians. They are disappointed in Harper because they believed him to be 'the one' who would liberate Canada from all the great evils: prostitution being very high on the list,
the threat of Gay Marriage running a close second, (these being the two greatest subjects they gravitate around),
Muslims in Canada being the third.
He is receiving a lot of pressure from Christian groups and no doubt having a majority government would bring about all sorts of new Bills. I personally don't think Harper has any values, but, would do what it took to get what he needs, like each of the others.
Concerning the purchase of those new jets: I wonder why? We are pwned by the US on a commercial and industrial level. Who would we attack that they wouldn't be there ahead of us? The navy is a good investment. More flexibility of purpose. A fighter jet will only ever be a fighter jet. It's like buying a corvet when you really need a pickup. They are sexy, no doubt, but, will only be used on weak tiny little countries. Seriously, do you think US and China will pull out their junk and actually go to war?
China already owns the lower mainland, and, I wonder how the US feels about that? In fact China owns a lot of realestate in Canada. I sometimes wonder if it makes the US feel a little uneasy that their largest adversary is moving in next door, in so many bits and pieces. The fact that China's manufacturing output is now greater than the US, and, there is that little bit of currency manipulation that was going on this last year, sort of puts us in the middle of a very touchy place between those two.
And there isn't a fighter jet on the planet that could bail us out.
Some wars, (and perhaps the biggest war right now), are not fought in the battlefield, but rather, in the boardroom.
Election day in Canada is like a volley ball tournament. The victor is decided by who loses the least.
I will exercise my right to vote.
The attack campaigns say it all: our politicians have no real interest in the business of running the country; when they address us personally through the media they have nothing to offer, so, they choose instead to focus on these ridiculous and childish ads.
I work and move in close quarters with some very fundamentalist Christians. They are disappointed in Harper because they believed him to be 'the one' who would liberate Canada from all the great evils: prostitution being very high on the list,
the threat of Gay Marriage running a close second, (these being the two greatest subjects they gravitate around),
Muslims in Canada being the third.
He is receiving a lot of pressure from Christian groups and no doubt having a majority government would bring about all sorts of new Bills. I personally don't think Harper has any values, but, would do what it took to get what he needs, like each of the others.
Concerning the purchase of those new jets: I wonder why? We are pwned by the US on a commercial and industrial level. Who would we attack that they wouldn't be there ahead of us? The navy is a good investment. More flexibility of purpose. A fighter jet will only ever be a fighter jet. It's like buying a corvet when you really need a pickup. They are sexy, no doubt, but, will only be used on weak tiny little countries. Seriously, do you think US and China will pull out their junk and actually go to war?
China already owns the lower mainland, and, I wonder how the US feels about that? In fact China owns a lot of realestate in Canada. I sometimes wonder if it makes the US feel a little uneasy that their largest adversary is moving in next door, in so many bits and pieces. The fact that China's manufacturing output is now greater than the US, and, there is that little bit of currency manipulation that was going on this last year, sort of puts us in the middle of a very touchy place between those two.
And there isn't a fighter jet on the planet that could bail us out.
Some wars, (and perhaps the biggest war right now), are not fought in the battlefield, but rather, in the boardroom.
Election day in Canada is like a volley ball tournament. The victor is decided by who loses the least.
I will exercise my right to vote.
I am still curious as to what sources of factual information exist on this "social media" of which you speak that are being denied the rest of us.
I actually agree with much of what you say about our pitiful election choices. I merely disagree with your conclusions.
I think whatever happens -- A Harper majority or minority, a "reckless coalition" -- the basic economic priorities of the government will not vary much. Both the CPC and the Liberals bow to the same corporate interests; the corporate tax rate won't change that much (a few billion more or less in government coffers, and correspondingly more or less in pockets of shareholders). The burden of costs will continue shifting more and more to regular people, mostly through consumption taxes. Deficits will continue. Corporate welfare will continue. The rich will keep getting richer.
The worst case scenario to me has to do with my fears of a Harper majority and how that could affect Canada in other ways. I don't want to lose things I treasure like CBC radio. I would like to see a return to having some respect in the international community, and at least a modicum of lip service to environmental issues. I would like to see education given a much higher priority than "crime." I would trade some jet fighters for some "entitlements." I would like to see a reduction in poverty, and free cake for everyone. I am not going to get all my wishes no matter who wins, but I will get a bit closer if we don't give Harper a majority.
So, now the auditor-general says the CPC (Tories) misspent the funds from the G20 allocation. The AG suspects it may have been illegal. Shades of the sponsorship scandal?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-ag-report.html#
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-ag-report.html#
Referendum May 5th
The big news will be the electoral reform referendum in England on May 5th.
If it passes they will move on to an Alternative Voten(AV) system. That means the absolute end of any talk about strategic voting and the only poll that matters will be the final vote at the ballot box.
It will also mean an end to ignorantly slagging the other parties because most candidates will need second and third preference support to win their seat.
That will leave just us and the US with First Past the Post, and the US is moving on as well with Instant Runoff Voting, AV by another name, being adopted in many local elections.
The reason this is such a lousy election is we have such a lousy system.
The big news will be the electoral reform referendum in England on May 5th.
If it passes they will move on to an Alternative Voten(AV) system. That means the absolute end of any talk about strategic voting and the only poll that matters will be the final vote at the ballot box.
It will also mean an end to ignorantly slagging the other parties because most candidates will need second and third preference support to win their seat.
That will leave just us and the US with First Past the Post, and the US is moving on as well with Instant Runoff Voting, AV by another name, being adopted in many local elections.
The reason this is such a lousy election is we have such a lousy system.
I think it's more correct to say that different systems require politicians to employ different strategies. AV certainly encourages a better standard of behaviour than our system.
Last edited:
I get frustrated having to vote for someone in my riding who I don't like in order to get the Prime Minister I want.
Local politics are more important to me.
I haven't been attached to a political party in years.
Local politics are more important to me.
I haven't been attached to a political party in years.
Yes please. The reason I am so frustrated with federal elections is that I have to vote cynically. I would love to vote for the candidate and party that I actually believed in (assuming such a thing existed in my riding). Even better would be a proportional vote system of some kind, forcing the major parties to cooperate in order to represent the majority of voters.
We are facing an election where the CPC could win a majority, after receiving the votes of around 20% of eligible voters. Surely this proves that our system must be changed....both to engage potential voters turned off by the choices, and to produce results that actually reflect our choices.
Hank, even though I rarely agree with you on policy matters, I must say that your comments are always thoughtful and well reasoned, and I completely agree with your analysis of the deficiencies of our system.
Defenders of the FPP system often argue that majority governments are good because they "get things done" whereas minorities result in gridlock. But artificially creating a majority and handing 100% of the power to a party that in most cases has no more than 40% of the vote is ludicrous. What ends up happening is that the party of the day whether left or right tries to advance its most extreme agenda knowing that it has no real opposition and a limited time to act until the next election. Then when the voters have had enough, they throw out the scoundrels and replace them with the other scoundrels and the process repeats. Minority governments force the parties to compromise and work together, resulting in less extreme policy shifts.
Unfortunately because of the nature of our system and the ability of the opposition to bring down the government at any time on a non-confidence motion, they tend to be unstable and short-lived. I think this could be remedied if we brought in some aspects of the American system, namely if we had separate elections for the executive branch and for parliament. This way individual members could vote against party lines where they saw fit without causing the government to fall. This would empower MPs, lessen the need for strict party discipline and perhaps reduce the power of the PM.
I really don't have many problems at all with the system you describe. It would concentrate a good deal of power in the hands of the President, but a proportional legislature would help alleviate that. I would still have a problem with a President who did not have a majority of the votes -- perhaps some kind of run-off system, or AV setup that forced voters to give a second preference. Definitely not the nightmare system the US uses for presidential elections.
Another problem in the US system is that spending is drafted to hand out goodies to legislators in return for positive votes on unrelated legislation. Also need to some way to avoid that if the Canadian President has to seek out support from non-cooperative legislators -- maybe all legislation would have to be voted on one item at a time.
i also agree on getting rid of a senate. In the US, it gives equal representation to wildly unequal states. Too bad; Rhode Island doesn't get its two votes. In Canada, it is just a way to give generous pensions to party hacks. I used to suspect Pamela Wallin had some personal values, but to hear her on the radio today as a complete apologist for the party line was a disappointment.
We would also need some serious penalties for lobbyists offering sweet deals to politicians -- lucrative board memberships after their term is up, and everything else that allows votes to be bought.
I am not holding my breath for any kind of electoral reform though; there are just too many vested interests. Maybe after another good many years of minority governments squabbling and refusing to work together, Canadians will demand such a thing.
The problem is that first-past-the-post works in the politicians best interests. So I don't see much hope for reform when the people needed to reform the system are the very people who benefit from maintaining the status quo. You basically have a situation where the inmates are running the asylum and determining the rules of the game.
Agreed. And, what's more, that's exactly when people will complain about the government not being accountable enough (eg, HST in BC). Well, what the hell do you expect when you hand a party, with only 40% of the vote, 100% of the parliamentary power?
Also agree with this. The problem is people just don't know enough about voting systems (I mean, really, who does except for political nerds?) to realize that first-past-the-post actually encourages instability in parliamentary systems.
AV would be fine and yonks better that first-past-the-post.
With the failed referendums of BC, Ont etc. a really bottom up approach is likely the only way that reform will ever occur, allowing voters to see that there are (much better) alternatives and ways of holding elections and that change can actually be a good thing.
The most effective way to get people to vote is the promise of a free weeks vacation in one of the many shiny new jails Harper is promising to build for us.
I mean, they have to put someone in them once they build them right? Or will that be the next thing.....Harper getting voices from God in the cornfield saying "If you build it they will come".
The right wing Christian conservatives out here think Sheila Fraser is a prime example of why a woman should not have power: too much snooping into things they would rather not know.
Um....you misunderstood her post. I read it as a nice (and believable) dig at the type of people who are agin' a woman having a powerful position, and who would be Harper's support base -- not a comment about the selection process of auditors-general. Interesting info, though...
Get off your high podium for a moment. It has nothing to do with my "standing in the community". The fact remains that good government requires difficult and unpopular decisions and trade-offs that the majority of the public don't understand. And if people are too lazy to spend 15 minutes once every few years to vote then I think we are all better off by them staying home on election day.
For some younger people with jobs, commuting and children to care for those 15 minutes on one particular day, ... and I think in most cases it's more like half an hour to 45 minutes, really, ... could be a major problem. Parties that are well organized in an area will offer rides to the polls for the elderly or people without vehicles, but would you want some party worker baby sitting your kids for an hour? How much do you trust the parties?
