2 days to vote in election, Tories propose

[RedHot25]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/...n.html?ref=rss
In an effort to bolster voter turnout, Stephen Harper's Tory government tabled a bill on Wednesday to extend the amount of time Canadians have to vote in a federal election.

The bill proposes to stretch voting day to two days, meaning all polls would be open the Sunday before the usual Monday election day.
.....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ional/National

All regular polls would be open from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday. That would effectively allow two days of voting in neighbourhoods across the country.
...
But New Democratic MP Paul Dewar scoffed as he watched the proceedings, noting that the two days of voting have never been discussed as parliamentary committees sought ways to encourage better turnout. He argued the Tories are now peddling minor gimmicks rather than proposing real democratic reform.
...

The government's new bill would add two additional advance polling days to the three that already exist - although the biggest change is on the Sunday immediately before the traditional Monday voting day, when all polls will be open.
As well, the Sunday eight days before the regular voting day will be added for more limited advance polling, so that there would be four straight days of advance polling a week before the true "voting day."Current rules allow anyone to vote at advance polls, without any special reason.

[ken0042]

Having the Sunday to vote would be good. I'm often finding myself having to force myself to leave the house after getting home from work to vote.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Having the Sunday to vote would be good. I'm often finding myself having to force myself to leave the house after getting home from work to vote.

I think you are becoming more and more in the majority ken (its good to me that you are still voting), but I think people have a lot more demands and other things on their time. But I am one of those nerds....I like* voting. Not sure why, just do.

(* - relatively speaking)

[nfotiu]

Just make it an internet poll.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Just make it an internet poll.

Yah, actually that has received some merit apparently (Can't remember where I read that).

[redforever]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I think you are becoming more and more in the majority ken (its good to me that you are still voting), but I think people have a lot more demands and other things on their time. But I am one of those nerds....I like* voting. Not sure why, just do.

(* - relatively speaking)

If people can not take the time, once every 4 years, to get off their arse and go vote after they have come home from work, it is a sad day in fact for the future of our country.

People never understand how good they have it until it is all gone. And if you dont take care of the good you have, even if it is sprinkled with some bad, then you just have to look in the mirror for the answer, what happened, where did it all go?

[Slava]

I don't really have a problem with this...but how much will this cost? Also, will this actually improve turnout, or will it just mean that the 60% turnout is split 30-30?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by redforever

If people can not take the time, once every 4 years, to get off their arse and go vote after they have come home from work, it is a sad day in fact for the future of our country.

Yup, but I believe that is one of the reasons cited by people - other demands on their time - for whether or not they vote or become involved in different political activities.

I think you have to also be cognizant that some people may fall into the following categories:

A) They are honestly too lazy to go and vote;
B) They don't feel it will really make a difference, or that anyone will actually listen to them, etc. I.e. the 'why bother' type of thing; and
C) Many people (a lot of youth may fit in here) are actually "voting", or being political, but not doing it the traditional way. They would rather engage in things in different ways than the traditional.

Anyways, just my 2 cents. Its a complex thing.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by fotze

Why can't they have the results while voting takes place? I've never understood that. It might influence the vote? Good, a result should influence the vote. If people see the conservatives/liberals are winning and it gets more people off their arse to vote then it is a positive. I say have it for a week, then people can't say, If only I voted.

But what if it has the opposite effect? People see the side they would vote for already well ahead or far behind so they don't bother to vote since they think it won't matter.

Personally, I like to see the results as they happen, I'm going to vote regardless. But I can see how knowing the will affect a portion of the populous. Whether that effect would be positive or negative, I have no idea.

[Slava]

The best way to encourage voter turnout is to make people feel as thought their vote actually matters. So, I dust off the old PR system as a prime alternative.

When you have a PR system people understand that their votes are actually tallied up for something rather than voting for the losing party and getting no representation.

Either that, or in Australia they have a law wheere you must vote. Turn out is around 99% as a result.

[IntenseFan]

Originally Posted by fotze

Why can't they have the results while voting takes place? I've never understood that.

Because a few years ago the Liberals passed a law to prevent that from ever happening and the Supreme Court backed them up on it.

I happen to think we should be seeing the results as they come in and it should influence the vote.

[iggypop]

There is no way Harper actually wants this bill to pass. This is a perfect time for the conservatives to finally gain a majority government, they just need to find some way to get an election. He can't just ask the GG to dissolve government, that wouldnt look good on his part. But if he could make it look as though the other parties sent us to the polls he'd be golden. If they could lose on this bill and go into an election saying "the other parties didnt want canadians to have more chance to vote", it would be a perfect platform.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by iggypop

There is no way Harper actually wants this bill to pass. This is a perfect time for the conservatives to finally gain a majority government, they just need to find some way to get an election. He can't just ask the GG to dissolve government, that wouldnt look good on his part. But if he could make it look as though the other parties sent us to the polls he'd be golden. If they could lose on this bill and go into an election saying "the other parties didnt want canadians to have more chance to vote", it would be a perfect platform.

If I understand correctly, under the recently-passed law, he CAN'T call an election before Oct. of 2009 now, unless losing a confidence vote. It's out of the PM's hands now.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggypop

There is no way Harper actually wants this bill to pass. This is a perfect time for the conservatives to finally gain a majority government, they just need to find some way to get an election. He can't just ask the GG to dissolve government, that wouldnt look good on his part. But if he could make it look as though the other parties sent us to the polls he'd be golden. If they could lose on this bill and go into an election saying "the other parties didnt want canadians to have more chance to vote", it would be a perfect platform.

Do you actually believe this or just want a PC majority? I don't think that any polls support this and they are getting hammered daily on everything from the environment to prisoners being tortured in Afghanistan...I don't think that an extra day to vote will counter-balance this.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Yup, but I believe that is one of the reasons cited by people - other demands on their time - for whether or not they vote or become involved in different political activities.

I think you have to also be cognizant that some people may fall into the following categories:

A) They are honestly too lazy to go and vote;
B) They don't feel it will really make a difference, or that anyone will actually listen to them, etc. I.e. the 'why bother' type of thing; and
C) Many people (a lot of youth may fit in here) are actually "voting", or being political, but not doing it the traditional way. They would rather engage in things in different ways than the traditional.

Anyways, just my 2 cents. Its a complex thing.

I am fully aware of all of your points. My point was, if they are that lazy or that unmotivated, then there will come a time when they wish they were otherwise and at that point in time, likely will be too late.

Extending to 2 days will make very little difference in my opinion. You certainly will not attract any of those in your category A, those too lazy to go and vote.

And I fail to see how that will attract any of those in category B, those who feel their vote will not make a difference. But I have found that most in this category are doing most of the complaining, shame on them, that irks me to no end. No vote, no complain, wallow in your bed crying if you wish, just dont be complaining to me.

And, if those in category C dont do some in the traditional way, most of their efforts go for naught. Sad as it may be, you usually have to work within in the system to make a difference. Like, how much energy do you have to expend to vote and then still try and make your difference in the non-traditional way?

It is not the way we vote that has to change, it is the attitude towards voting that has to change. If you want to live here, it is your obligation to make some choices as to how Canada will be run. I dont care if your choice agrees with my choice, for God's sake, get off your duff and make a choice.

And I dont buy the weak excuse that my one little vote wont matter. If we all thought that way, then nothing would ever change, nothing. It does not matter if it is potitics, education, medicine, you name it, you can make a difference. But you have to take the first step. Same thing with the homeless, the working poor, if all of us just keep saying, it is a tragedy, and that is all we do, talk about it, then it will not change. But if you as an individual do just one little thing, I dont care if all you do is donate one package of Kraft dinner, do one thing, just one little thing.

Be someone who actually cared enough to do one little thing to make a difference and one thing is get the heck out there and vote.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Slava

The best way to encourage voter turnout is to make people feel as thought their vote actually matters. So, I dust off the old PR system as a prime alternative.

When you have a PR system people understand that their votes are actually tallied up for something rather than voting for the losing party and getting no representation.

Either that, or in Australia they have a law wheere you must vote. Turn out is around 99% as a result.

Listen, since when do we only have to vote for the winner in order to feel that our one little vote counted? I dont buy that lame excuse at all. You wont always agree with the party who won, you still should get out there and vote.

[redforever]

[quote=IntenseFan;884711]Because a few years ago the Liberals passed a law to prevent that from ever happening and the Supreme Court backed them up on it.

I happen to think we should be seeing the results as they come in and it should influence the vote.[/quote]


If it influences people to at least get out there an vote, fine, but keep in mind, sometimes you will live in an area of this country, where no matter how you vote, your party is not going to be the winning party.

So, dont equate making a difference with voting for your party.

[IntenseFan]

Originally Posted by redforever

but keep in mind, sometimes you will live in an area of this country, where no matter how you vote, your party is not going to be the winning party.

Isn't that everywhere but Ontario?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by redforever

Listen, since when do we only have to vote for the winner in order to feel that our one little vote counted? I dont buy that lame excuse at all. You wont always agree with the party who won, you still should get out there and vote.

I don't follow this line of thinking; but the fact is that many people do. For example in Alberta it is a foregone conclusion that one party is going to win the seat. If you were the supporter of another party with no chance of winning it lessens the likelihood of actually turning out to vote. This is specifically true if the weather is bad, or you simply have a lot to do that day and run out of time.

For the record, I vote every time, in every election. Does your vote really mean anything if you vote for the losing candidate though?

[redforever]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

Isn't that everywhere but Ontario?

So what happens if you live in Ontario and you believe in the principles that the Green Party espouses? You dont go out and vote?