Why are fewer Canadians voting?

[Resolute 14]

More simply, I'd just as soon people who cant be bothered to make a choice - no matter what their rationalization - actually didn't vote. If you are going to spoil your ballot or demand a "none of the above" option, you aren't only wasting your own time, you are wasting everyone else's. You are causing longer waits for the people behind you and making the election workers throw your wasted ballot out. All you are doing is unecessaraly complicating things for everyone else.

Make a choice, or stay away.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Ripping up their ballot, or saying "all these people suck" by voting none of the above add zero to the political process. 42% of registered voters didn't vote. That alone shows there is an electoral issue.

But do we really know why voters aren't voting? You seem to have your assumptions and beliefs (they could be right or they could not be right).

Someone going to vote and checking a "n/a" or spoil my ballot option tells me that they are engaged and definitely want the system to change somehow. Why waste your time to do otherwise. But right now, that 40% could have not voted for a wide variety of reasons - we don't really know. We can have our guesses, but who really knows.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

More simply, I'd just as soon people who cant be bothered to make a choice - no matter what their rationalization - actually didn't vote. If you are going to spoil your ballot or demand a "none of the above" option, you aren't only wasting your own time, you are wasting everyone else's. You are causing longer waits for the people behind you and making the election workers throw your wasted ballot out. All you are doing is unecessaraly complicating things for everyone else.

Make a choice, or stay away.

I hear you, REsolute, but for me, the more people "participate" the better; I think that checking a n/a or spoiling your ballot is a means of participating.

At the very least, I think with the current system in place they should release those numbers (I don't think they do now?).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

So if we know the system already needs help, why has nothing been done yet then? It's not like this is some new phenomenon; the voting rate has been steadily declining I believe.

Because it doesn't help the ruling parties. The Liberals and Conservatives benefit most from FPTP. The Bloq wins in Quebec as well. The NDP campaigns on electoral reform, but their position would change in a damn hurry if they were in the Liberals or Conservatives place.

The fringe parties, naturally, would prefer it. Its the only way they will ever gain election.

Ideally, I'd like to see a mixed member system, where the PR votes are focussed by province, and a minimum support requirement.

i.e.: Of Alberta's 28 seats, make 18 constituency based, 10 as members at large, and if you didn't get 10% of the popular vote within the province, you are SOL.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because it doesn't help the ruling parties.

Sure. Which is why anything more to highlight things, in the public eye, to me helps.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

I hear you, REsolute, but for me, the more people "participate" the better; I think that checking a n/a or spoiling your ballot is a means of participating.

At the very least, I think with the current system in place they should release those numbers (I don't think they do now?).

But does it actually mean anything?

Speaking as a resident of suburbia, I learned in the provincial election that my neighborhood of 50,000 can't vote during the work day, so everyone does it after work in the 3 hours everyone has left at the end of the day. That created exceptionally long lineups at my station - and that was at 41% turnout. Frankly, the only thing clowns wanting to spoil their ballots would accomplish in this situation is to frustrate the people who want to participate legitimately. I would say that there is a high probability that people would just turn away and not vote. This *did* happen at the civic election, with a 20-some % turnout.

Speaking of the inconvienence factor, one thing I might suggest is that election day be declared a national holiday. It would certainly help the suburban vote.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

But does it actually mean anything?

Speaking as a resident of suburbia, I learned in the provincial election that my neighborhood of 50,000 can't vote during the work day, so everyone does it after work in the 3 hours everyone has left at the end of the day. That created exceptionally long lineups at my station - and that was at 41% turnout. Frankly, the only thing clowns wanting to spoil their ballots would accomplish in this situation is to frustrate the people who want to participate legitimately. I would say that there is a high probability that people would just turn away and not vote. This *did* happen at the civic election, with a 20-some % turnout.

Speaking of the inconvienence factor, one thing I might suggest is that election day be declared a national holiday. It would certainly help the suburban vote.

I think it could help combined with a lot of things. The holiday idea is interesting; I also liked someone's earlier suggestion of polling stations at work. Any bit to help and make it more convenient. Where I am at now, people are going to be able to vote in the municipal election via the internet for the first time. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[driveway]

I didn't vote because no party represents my political beliefs.

I'm on the far-left of the social spectrum, but sit center-right fiscally. The closest party would be the Liberals, but I didn't feel they earned my vote this time around.

Plus, I knew they'd loose in my riding, and I didn't want to cast a throw-away vote - no one earned my dollar twenty-five or whatever it is.

This country needs a system of proportional-representation. I know that there are arguments that it would result in the disenfranchisement of less-populated regions, but those regions are already disenfranchised. In the modern era of party-politics and instant communication, there is no need for locally-based members of the national government. We have municipal and provincial governments to deal with local issues.

I would vote, volunteer and campaign for any party that ran on a platform of changing the electoral system to proportional representation - even if the were the Nazi-Commie Puppy-Kicking Party of Canadian Cannibals.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

But do we really know why voters aren't voting? You seem to have your assumptions and beliefs (they could be right or they could not be right).

Someone going to vote and checking a "n/a" or spoil my ballot option tells me that they are engaged and definitely want the system to change somehow. Why waste your time to do otherwise. But right now, that 40% could have not voted for a wide variety of reasons - we don't really know. We can have our guesses, but who really knows.

Do we know why all voters don't vote? Nope. But we have a pretty good idea with the majority. The majority of non-voters are apathetic. When we delve into the specifics, that's when it gets more unknown. Is it disinterest due to laziness? is it like in my riding, where Harper was gonna win by 20,000 votes regardless? is it a general lack of political interest? or is it people becoming disenchanted with the electoral system and staying home?

Are people who spoil their ballot, rip it up, or desire to check "n/a" really engaged in the process though? It can be argued that engaging is having a voice in the system... even one in an ocean of millions counts at the very least, as a ~$2.00 donation to the party of choice. Refusing to vote is essentially that, refusing to participate. That one voice doesn't exist anymore. Even if we tallied all the N/As and ballot spoilers, would we find them in large numbers? doubtful, except in mandatory voting, or extreme hypotheticals.

As much as I deride some ideas for electoral reform, I'm actually in favor of an MMP system, if implemented correctly, but like I said, we'd end up with very similar looking results, with maybe a few seats more to the NDP and Greens, and a few less to the Bloc.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by driveway

I didn't vote because no party represents my political beliefs.

I'm on the far-left of the social spectrum, but sit center-right fiscally. The closest party would be the Liberals, but I didn't feel they earned my vote this time around.

Plus, I knew they'd loose in my riding, and I didn't want to cast a throw-away vote - no one earned my dollar twenty-five or whatever it is.

This country needs a system of proportional-representation. I know that there are arguments that it would result in the disenfranchisement of less-populated regions, but those regions are already disenfranchised. In the modern era of party-politics and instant communication, there is no need for locally-based members of the national government. We have municipal and provincial governments to deal with local issues.

I would vote, volunteer and campaign for any party that ran on a platform of changing the electoral system to proportional representation - even if the were the Nazi-Commie Puppy-Kicking Party of Canadian Cannibals.

Did you have a Libertarian Party candidate in your riding? They are pretty close to your political views, and could use that paltry donation from your vote.

[driveway]

In a system where % of votes = % of seats, the House of Commons would look like this after this election:

Conservatives: 116 seats
Liberals: 81 seats
NDP: 56 seats
Bloc: 31 seats
Green: 21 seats
Independent/Other: 3 seats

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Did you have a Libertarian Party candidate in your riding? They are pretty close to your political views, and could use that paltry donation from your vote.

The Libertarians I like, but they don't really fit either my social or fiscal views. I believe in things like welfare, health care, safe injection sites, - the social safety net in other words. And, while I favour lower taxes and free-trade, the complete laissez-fair beliefs of Libertarians is too far right for me.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by driveway

The Libertarians I like, but they don't really fit either my social or fiscal views. I believe in things like welfare, health care, safe injection sites, - the social safety net in other words. And, while I favour lower taxes and free-trade, the complete laissez-fair beliefs of Libertarians is too far right for me.

Those two beliefs are almost entirely incompatible if you accept that government should take care of the first one.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by peter12

Those two beliefs are almost entirely incompatible if you accept that government should take care of the first one.

Not really, so long as you're not an extremist.

The Libertarians almost uniformly want the tax rate to be as close to 0% as possible, while realists think you can still provide a government-funded social safety net while having tax rates that most consider reasonable. It's all a matter of perspective -- to an American citizen, Canadians must appear like we're taxed to death, but compared to much of Western Europe, we hardly pay any taxes at all.

Personally, I don't feel like I pay too much tax now (my wife and I have a combined gross annual household income of just over $100k, which I guess puts us in the top 15-20% of Canadian earners). Would I like to take home more of the money I earn? Of course I would -- who wouldn't? But I never complain about my tax "burden", and I'd rather live in a society like Canada's with slightly higher taxes but a much stronger social safety net than one like the US where taxes are lower but the safety net is almost non-existant.

In terms of corporate taxes and their affect on the economy, Canada consistently ranks as one of the top countries in which to do business.

[jolinar of malkshor]

What if we kept our general election the same as we do now BUT use that election and the proportional results to fill the senate? So we still vote for our consitutute Candidate but use the overall party support nationally to fill the senate seats. If the CPC recieved 35% popular support the PM would be required to appoint 35% of the seats in the senate CPC and so on.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think a better solution to the first past the post system is the Preferential Ballet. A candidate would need 50% plus one of the votes in a riding to win and you would mark you Ballet 1 to 5 and if someone doesn't get a majority the bottom place person is bumped off the ballet and the number 2 choices on those ballets would be counted. It is more work for the counters but this would eliminate the vote splitting that takes place in a Multiparty system and make non-competive ridings less prevalant. It would likely encourage more minority governments but much less so than any kind of PR system.

Hey!! You stole my idea for a system!!

I think it makes perfect sense. And I don't think it would lead to more minority governments, which is the weakness of proportional representation. If your first ranking doesn't get in, but the guy you can live with does, you feel like you made more of a contribution to democracy than if you voted for the guy that finished 5th and that's it.... Of course, it may piss off those have trouble enough finding *ONE* guy that they can live with voting for.

I think it would have to be computerized because the counters would be there forever.

[OzSome]

I voted but not to that guy from Quebec. You know the one that says he won't raise taxes but he will introduce Carbon Tax. Can't remember his name..

[mikey_the_redneck]

I do not vote for several reasons;
1. No political party repesents my beliefs. I am kind of an "old school" thinker.
2. I am starting to realize that politicians really don't have the power to change things. All the "systems" are in place.
3. There is NO continuity to our politics, and the terms that a party is in place is not long enough. How much significant change can occur in 4 or 8 years? We as a society are not thinking long term, and it reflects in our politics. Its like you can start a bunch of new projects to make change, but you get voted out by an impatient society, and you cant finish what you started. Over the years, this causes clutter. I'm speaking in metaphor if you can't tell.
5. All our politics can accomplish is to bicker back and forth about everything, and write new laws to fix problems in the short term. The important things (health, education) get bickered over all the time, and knowone can agree on something and no change occurs.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I do not vote for several reasons;
1. No political party repesents my beliefs. I am kind of an "old school" thinker.
2. I am starting to realize that politicians really don't have the power to change things. All the "systems" are in place.
3. There is NO continuity to our politics, and the terms that a party is in place is not long enough. How much significant change can occur in 4 or 8 years? We as a society are not thinking long term, and it reflects in our politics. Its like you can start a bunch of new projects to make change, but you get voted out by an impatient society, and you cant finish what you started. Over the years, this causes clutter. I'm speaking in metaphor if you can't tell.
5. All our politics can accomplish is to bicker back and forth about everything, and write new laws to fix problems in the short term. The important things (health, education) get bickered over all the time, and knowone can agree on something and no change occurs.

What about 4.?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by HOOT

What about 4.?

Whoops...........time to put the vodka away.