Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHot25
a) Well I can't speak for GGG but for me the CPC candidate gets elected (assuming you kept the current "first past the post" in your example).
Granted, its an extreme example, but it would be a great cause for alarm. Any one of the consequences I suggested could in fact be implented in a N/A win situation. The most likely is probably a byelection with no N/A box. Technically, the CPC candidate did not have the most votes.
I think a n/a or spoiled ballot, counted and vocalized publicly, is a way of giving voice to a potential public belief that the system may be flawed however which way. How do we really know, for example, that if the 40% or whatever of this election didn't vote because they were a) lazy or b) think the system somehow is the bigger problem? If 35% in your example are going to make time to go and vote n/a or spoiled ballot, I would think that suggests something major is not right - i.e. the system needs to be fixed. Especially if that level occurs across the country.
You're right, if that many people were motivated, it would be a huge call for action. However, I contend that the majority of the 42% that did not vote did not vote because they simply didn't want to. These people couldn't be bothered to go vote N/A or refuse/spoil their ballot. It is unclear whether a change in electoral system would attract them.
b) You are assuming that "all the parties are morons" is the reason why most people aren't voting. I think instead it is a variety of "system issues". It could be the aforementioned, it could be that they are lazy, it could be that first past the post doesn't work (for them), it could be that they support their party but hate the candidate running (e.g. rob anders), it could be...
Tons of reasons. The reason most people spoil their ballot though (from what I learned) is because they don't like the parties/candidates. That's who I was referring to.
The people who are lazy, don't like FPTP or hate their candidate tend to stay home. The big one around here is that they feel they don't need to join the landslide... they figure enough people will vote their way, so they can stay home.
And second, running for elected office costs a lot - time, money, risk/putting yourself out there, etc. Most people don't have a lot of that to spare; I know you aren't saying "everyone" but I think expecting people who don't vote to instead run for office is highly unlikely. They are turned off of the system for some reason.
|
Yep. I do find a lot of people find it easy to say that all the candidates are morons (which many are), but offer no suggestions to improve the system. We're all involved in the political process... if we don't like it, why not get involved in the process, join a party, join an interest group... vote.
There's pretty good reasons why "better" candidates don't come into play. Another poster suggested guys like Jim Basillie, Murray Edwards, Clay Riddell, etc. I'll add another couple, Gwyn Morgan and Clive Beddoe. I think these guys would be way too polarizing, because they shoot from the hip. They are more than qualified to helm the country, especially seeing how well they can run a business, but people would hate them and they are practically unelectable. This has nothing to do with taking a cut in pay. They'd get eaten alive (unfairly probably), and why would they bother? People tend to enjoy cheap and easy answers (despite lack of meaning, feasibility or practicality), men like those would not offer that, and people would be drawn like sheep to the conventional snake oil salesmen politician like Layton, who do offer those. Unfortunately, our politicians are a reflection of our society.