2011 Canadian Election Thread

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

One thing worth noting is that, thanks to the Liberals, refusing to cast a ballot could be considered making an educated decision. It was the Chretien Liberals that introduced the vote subsidy as part of its "fundrasing reforms" that were designed to try and cripple the Reform Party while maintaining the Liberals' own financial base.

Consequently, when you mark your X, you are also giving that political party access to your wallet. The truth is, if you don't like any of the candidates or parties, you have a greater incentive, and perhaps a duty, to not vote.

I always thought abstaining was a valid political decision. If you seriously don't like anyone, why should you vote at all...

I'm in my 30s and have only voted once in my life... and that was for mayor in the town I lived in. I was 18 and thought that it was awesome to finally be able to vote. Then I learned more about politics and it doesn't seem nearly as important anymore.

I'm not the biggest George Carlin fan, but I like his rant about voting:

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." (Watch George Carlin rant about voting)

[CaptainCrunch]

I've always thought that George Carlin was completely wrong on that. If you don't want to vote thats fine but your basically abstaining from the democratic process, so in effect you blindly allowed others to pick your leaders for you.

No leader is going to perfectly fit into what you want from a political process, if they did then one of the campaign promises would be that a big boobed airline stewardess would show up at my house every morning to give me a happy awakening.

And his second part about voting for a dishonest politician and then accepting the blame is lazy logic at the best of times. You can only vote on the candidate and the platform that is closest to what you want, the control factor is that in the next election if he doesn't live up to his promises that you can effectively work to fire him.

Carlin is basically spouting lazy 60's populist gunk, tune out man, simplify your existance dude.

If you don't like the candidates you have options to vote for the one closest, or even engage in conversation with your MP, But if you don't take part in the process, then you can't bitch about the process.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

One thing worth noting is that, thanks to the Liberals, refusing to cast a ballot could be considered making an educated decision. It was the Chretien Liberals that introduced the vote subsidy as part of its "fundrasing reforms" that were designed to try and cripple the Reform Party while maintaining the Liberals' own financial base.

Consequently, when you mark your X, you are also giving that political party access to your wallet. The truth is, if you don't like any of the candidates or parties, you have a greater incentive, and perhaps a duty, to not vote.

For every 1 person who thinks like that, I can find two that vote BECAUSE of the incentive. I jump back and forth between the Greens and the NDP, depending on who is pissing me off the least on any given week (or who has the better candidate, despite party policy). However, if I planned on voting Green in a riding where they had no shot at finishing a distant 3rd, I used to stay home. What was the point of taking a half hour out of my day to go to the polling station if my vote was going to be completely 100% waste of time. However, smaller parties like the Green party are touting the vote subsidy so that people, even in ridings where they have little hope, will get out to vote.

As for the subsidy, I don't like the idea of the people who can afford to pay big bucks to political parties controlling the political process. It's funny... in the American political threads we Canadians crap on how much money controls their political process, either through the rich financing political candidates or corporate lobbies controlling congress. I do NOT think it right that the parties that stand up for the lower class do not have as equal a financial footing as those that stand for the upper class. And for that reason I support the vote subsidies. I think the money going to parties should be based on the demographic support of the party, not based on their ability to spare money for campaigns.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As for the subsidy, I don't like the idea of the people who can afford to pay big bucks to political parties controlling the political process. It's funny... in the American political threads we Canadians crap on how much money controls their political process, either through the rich financing political candidates or corporate lobbies controlling congress. I do NOT think it right that the parties that stand up for the lower class do not have as equal a financial footing as those that stand for the upper class. And for that reason I support the vote subsidies. I think the money going to parties should be based on the demographic support of the party, not based on their ability to spare money for campaigns.

Fair enough, but you must be able to see that those who believe in personal responsibility and that a parties bank account should be tied to their ability to attract voters, instead of simply taking from those who pay the most taxes, is also a valid viewpoint.

There are personal limits on donations that are very modest (only 1000.00/year I think) so anybody who works should be able to contribute close to that amount if they really want to.

Not to mention the biggest beneficiary of vote subsidies is the Bloc; who certainly do not represent a certain income demographic.

Bottom line is: even if you dont have money you can volunteer time. Expecting taxpayers to dole out cash year after year simply for existing erodes the democratic process more than expecting parties to work hard for their money.

[Devils'Advocate]

"anybody who works should be able to contribute close to that amount".

Typical well-off Albertan thinking. I was talking to my (working) cousin back east in Halifax last week who was trying to decide whether to get his aching tooth fixed or get his car's brakes fixed. There was the article in the paper last week about a 79 year old man that retired when he was 60 out shoveling driveways because his fixed income pension didn't keep up with electricity and food prices. This thinking that everyone can afford $1,000 is crap. The people that can afford to pay $1,000 a year to a political party are those that are going to get represented in parliament.

You are right about volunteering time. However, from the knocking on doors that I have done in my day, you end up spending most of your time talking to people who have already made up their mind on who they are going to vote for and just want to shoot the breeze. There really isn't any competition for mass media. And mass media costs money.

P.S. - I don't think political parties should have "work hard for their money". I think they should work hard at meeting their mandate. I hate that politicians have to have these big fund-raising dinners with the who's-who of the business community to keep their campaign hopes going. They should be putting that time in at the office working towards solutions to our problems.

[Cscutch]

I personally believe there should be no funding from the government, corporations or business can't donate, and a max limit on personal donations.

Maybe with that we would see less attack adds, more focus on trying to get policy out, and less chance of political favours.

Chris

[Cscutch]

Also doesn't it seem strange that the Bloc/Lib/NDP are always attacking Harper on things such as the number questions he allows, the Cadman issue, the Facebook photo issue, etc....

Polls show that people are more interested in hearing about issues, and are also showing that they are not making any ground on the Cons. Shouldn't they start attacking the actual conservative policies?

Chris

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

Also doesn't it seem strange that the Bloc/Lib/NDP are always attacking Harper on things such as the number questions he allows, the Cadman issue, the Facebook photo issue, etc....

Polls show that people are more interested in hearing about issues, and are also showing that they are not making any ground on the Cons. Shouldn't they start attacking the actual conservative policies?

Chris

I don't find it strange at all...All parties, even the Conservatives seem to attack anything about the other parties.

They are just overprivilaged 3 year olds, and I don't know why it is a shock to anyone.

[Cscutch]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I don't find it strange at all...All parties, even the Conservatives seem to attack anything about the other parties.

They are just overprivilaged 3 year olds, and I don't know why it is a shock to anyone.

I understand that the conservatives do this as well, but they also attack the policies of the other parties... Maybe it is just the media.

Chris

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

I understand that the conservatives do this as well, but they also attack the policies of the other parties... Maybe it is just the media.

Chris

I have to admit, I haven't seen a single Conservative attack ad that's going after an issue and not specifically Michael Ignatieff. Maybe they'll come out with one later in the campaign, but right now it's all "A Vote for the Liberals is a Vote for Ignatieff."

[North East Goon]

The Liberals are trying to paint Harper as George W's evil twin - nothing new. Have the Liberals burned there one seat in Alberta with the cap and trade policy?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by driveway

I have to admit, I haven't seen a single Conservative attack ad that's going after an issue and not specifically Michael Ignatieff. Maybe they'll come out with one later in the campaign, but right now it's all "A Vote for the Liberals is a Vote for Ignatieff."

I was going to say the same thing. I haven't been paying that much attention, but everytime I see a Conservative ad they are all; "Michael Ignatieff... he didn't comeback for you!"; or, "A vote for Iginatieff is a vote for a reckless coalition".

I think I saw one that was more of the typical baby kissing, sweater vest wearing, kitten petting type that was heaping praise on Harper for being so awesome.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

I personally believe there should be no funding from the government, corporations or business can't donate, and a max limit on personal donations.

No matter what you set the max limit at, the well off will be better able to afford that money more than the less well off. Unless you think that my cousin should forego his dental work AND his brake problem and give it to a political party.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you don't want to vote thats fine but your basically abstaining from the democratic process, so in effect you blindly allowed others to pick your leaders for you.

There was one occasion where I purposely did not vote and it was a time I was completely buried in deadlines and I ddn't get a chance to really figure out the various platforms. Totally my fault really but I wasn't overly comfortable automagically/randomly voting in ignorance.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

Also doesn't it seem strange that the Bloc/Lib/NDP are always attacking Harper on things such as the number questions he allows, the Cadman issue, the Facebook photo issue, etc....

Polls show that people are more interested in hearing about issues, and are also showing that they are not making any ground on the Cons. Shouldn't they start attacking the actual conservative policies?

Chris

As someone who is literally on the fence and sending in an absentee ballot, these elements do affect my opinion of Mr. Harper and the Conservative government in general.

I'm living in DC at the moment where the political spectrum is magnified 1000 fold and I'm constantly bombarded by the bitterness between the Democrats and The Republicans. So far how Harper has handled this election hasn't warmed me up to him or the conservative agenda. This election was spurred on by contempt of parliament and also a stubbornness not to modify his budget to the objections of the opposition party.

As annoying as it is to have to go to the polls every couple of years, I do appreciate and value the ability of a minority governments to allow cooperation and to keep the ruling party in check. His heavily handed and guarded approach to this campaign definitely hasn't convinced me he deserves a majority government (I've been quite comfortable with a minority conservative parliament for sometime, but now I'm questioning it's ability to do anything).

Restricting questions to 5 per stop, removing of attendees who are actively trying to get informed on each political party and his about face on a one-on-one debate don't show a leader that wants to think about other people's values.

I've spent sometime look at all parties policies and there are elements that I like and dislike on both. I do appreciate the conservatives support for the military, but I'm not sold on their take on the Arts & Culture/Tech industry and I haven't been impressed with their recent actions to some of the institutes of our government (Harper's Government & The Census Form). The Liberals have good and bad, I would like to have a better understanding of their military policy, while I do think they have a stronger platform for the Arts & Culture/Tech Industry.

So when it comes down to it, how a politician acts when face with criticism from the media and the electorate does impact my vote.

Maybe because I'm having to find my information from a distance, but Harper's current campaign is eerily similar to Calgary's municipal election where Barb Higgins continued to make continuous blunders and run a reserved and shelter campaign. In my eyes, he's not doing anything to convert me to the conservative camp.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

The Liberals are trying to paint Harper as George W's evil twin - nothing new. Have the Liberals burned there one seat in Alberta with the cap and trade policy?

Probably, the NDP have probably put their Alberta gains into jeopardy as well.

I keep thinking that there should be more movement in the polls because to be honest besides his platform, I think that Ignatieff has done better on the Campaign then I thought he would do. I'm wondering how much of a non forgiveness factor we're seeing against the Libs and NDP for bringing the government down.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

The Liberals are trying to paint Harper as George W's evil twin - nothing new. Have the Liberals burned there one seat in Alberta with the cap and trade policy?

Harper is (significantly) smarter than Bush, and the structural differences between Canada's Parliamentary System and the USA's Republicanism makes it "Apples to Oranges".

Where the Liberals fall down (repeatedly) is that Harper has given them a number of valid, important, tangible things to go after. Instead of attacking his public record, they insist on trying to make some abstract comparison that doesn't really hold up.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

As someone who is literally on the fence and sending in an absentee ballot, these elements do affect my opinion of Mr. Harper and the Conservative government in general.

I'm living in DC at the moment where the political spectrum is magnified 1000 fold and I'm constantly bombarded by the bitterness between the Democrats and The Republicans. So far how Harper has handled this election hasn't warmed me up to him or the conservative agenda. This election was spurred on by contempt of parliament and also a stubbornness not to modify his budget to the objections of the opposition party.

I disagree with the highlighted, there were $300 million in changes that were a direct result of NDP requests. The major change which was the corporate taxation, was never going to be on the table.

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

RAs annoying as it is to have to go to the polls every couple of years, I do appreciate and value the ability of a minority governments to allow cooperation and to keep the ruling party in check. His heavily handed and guarded approach to this campaign definitely hasn't convinced me he deserves a majority government (I've been quite comfortable with a minority conservative parliament for sometime, but now I'm questioning it's ability to do anything).

In its puriest form you might have a point in terms of minority governments, but all parties in parliment effectively poisoned this session. As much as people like to bitch and complain about the government in standing, the Liberal's and NDP strategy in this session was to effectively paralize and poison parliment. All parties need to hang their heads in shame.

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Restricting questions to 5 per stop, removing of attendees who are actively trying to get informed on each political party and his about face on a one-on-one debate don't show a leader that wants to think about other people's values.

Or Harper is still a control freak.

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

I've spent sometime look at all parties policies and there are elements that I like and dislike on both. I do appreciate the conservatives support for the military, but I'm not sold on their take on the Arts & Culture/Tech industry and I haven't been impressed with their recent actions to some of the institutes of our government (Harper's Government & The Census Form). The Liberals have good and bad, I would like to have a better understanding of their military policy, while I do think they have a stronger platform for the Arts & Culture/Tech Industry.

On the military side, the thing thats not getting legs yet for the Liberal's in the Red book when they talk about the F-35 cancellation their wording is quite different from what they've been saying to the press. They've been saying that they don't like the single source and would re-open the bid process. In their red book they're talking about cancelling and not replacing the aging F-18's until the last possible moment. From a military standpoint I doubt that the Liberals have changed.

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

So when it comes down to it, how a politician acts when face with criticism from the media and the electorate does impact my vote.

Maybe because I'm having to find my information from a distance, but Harper's current campaign is eerily similar to Calgary's municipal election where Barb Higgins continued to make continuous blunders and run a reserved and shelter campaign. In my eyes, he's not doing anything to convert me to the conservative camp.

Its early in the campaign, and pre debate, this is the slow time. I do think that the Conservatives are waiting til the debate to try to ambush Ignatieff.

For once and without Liz involved I'm looking forward to them.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

As someone who is literally on the fence and sending in an absentee ballot, these elements do affect my opinion of Mr. Harper and the Conservative government in general.

We're in the same boat. My Conservative membership got mailed back when the automakers got a debate-free bailout. My vote is my own, once more.

This election was spurred on by contempt of parliament and also a stubbornness not to modify his budget to the objections of the opposition party.

I think the Conservatives put forth a valid and well thought out plan that they believed in, and felt that the changes being demanded weren't the right choices. I can get on board with that, and are among the (few) people who don't seem to have a problem with this election.

His heavily handed and guarded approach to this campaign definitely hasn't convinced me he deserves a majority government....

Interestingly, it's the similar approach to Government that makes me unsure about a majority. To campaign on (near) total transparency and end up where we're at leaves me wondering.

Restricting questions to 5 per stop, removing of attendees who are actively trying to get informed on each political party and his about face on a one-on-one debate don't show a leader that wants to think about other people's values.

Controlling the message and minimizing the chances of making a mistake. It's a great tactic (which I believe the P.E.T Liberals used back in the day), but horribly wrong (unethical?) while competing for a democratic spot. I hate this policy.

So when it comes down to it, how a politician acts when face with criticism from the media and the electorate does impact my vote.

Maybe because I'm having to find my information from a distance, but Harper's current campaign is eerily similar to Calgary's municipal election where Barb Higgins continued to make continuous blunders and run a reserved and shelter campaign. In my eyes, he's not doing anything to convert me to the conservative camp.

At this point, we're sitting on the same fence. I like some of the policies, I dislike others, and I REALLY dislike the childish games. That said, I have a hard time voting Liberal (the only other party that kind of interests me) when they basically won't even visit Alberta.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Restricting questions to 5 per stop, removing of attendees who are actively trying to get informed on each political party and his about face on a one-on-one debate don't show a leader that wants to think about other people's values.

Just in response to these particular comments:

1) There have been many instances where Harper has taken more than 5 questions. These, of course, have not been reported by the leftist media.

2) You do not know that the people ejected were "actively trying to get informed on each political party" and it is equally as likely that they were actively trying to disrupt a rival political party. Having said that, it was definitely not handled very well. Addtionally though, where are the news stories about people being denied access to Liberal events (they are out there if you look for them), or the case of the "Liberal thugs" elbowing a pregnant reporter to keep her away from Iffy? Again, very one sided media coverage in this election.

3) The broadcast folks have said that the 1:1 debate won't happen, and Layton raised holy h e double hockey sticks about any thought of it. Harper did not "flip flop" on any debate challenge, but again believe the one sided media report on the issue if you must.