its a horrible system, get people throwing a vote for any random candidate just to avoid a fine rather than people who have actually followed the race and made an informed decision.
attack ads and misrepresentation would get worse as the 40% who currently don't bother would be even more likely just to vote based on lies.
What are people's thoughts on mandatory voting, such as Australia - don't vote and pay a fine. Just curious.
I don't like it. You end up with uninformed idiots voting for whoever has the catchiest slogans. Also, In a democracy you should have the right to sit on your ass and drink beers all election day if you want.
Preferential voting on the other hand is awesome and should be immediately adopted by Canada.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
If you don't vote then you lose the right to complain when the govt does something you don't like.
No.
I live in a riding where 80% of all people vote one way...My vote is literally meaningless.
I think people who are adamant that everyone should vote really just want their party of choice to win and see the non-voters as the reason for their loss.
Non-voting sends a strong message to the political parties that they are doing something wrong and not offering good options.
I will probably vote, but it'll be a throwaway vote for a joke party. The 3 current options right now are just abysmal. So when one of them wins, I'll continue to complain about all of them. Your logic is flawed in that it relies on their being a good alternative. It's like if one party was going to cut off your right hand and the other the left, and then saying you can't complain about having your right hand cut off, because you didn't choose to have your left hand cut off.
So, I may not vote. And my non-voting will send a strong message than my voting for a party I don't want to win.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
The only message non voting sends is apathy. Parties won't interpret it any other way.
If you want to get that message sent, vote Green or something other alternate party.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
Even if there were no candidates you support, you should still vote because a) one of those candidates you don't like will still end up winning, so your vote still counts, and b) people all over the world would die to have the right to vote as citizen in Canada. We should be so lucky to have the option to do it. We're one of the few.
I agree with this most of the time, but I lived in Rob Anders' riding from around 2000 on. I could not/would not vote for either the liberal or ndp candidate or their leader, and certainly wouldn't cast a vote for Anders even if I liked the party at the time, so I was stuck. I didn't vote in a few federal elections. Though I did vote in every CPC nomination vote and bought a membership every time there was a chance to oust Anders. It only worked this time after more than a decade of shame.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
My belief has always been to go with the lesser of all evils. It really doesn't take long to research a party's platform, and even though you will never agree 100% with what they SAY they will do, I would guess that everyone aligns closer to one party than another. And even if 80% of people in a riding vote one way, your vote against that party still sends a message that confidence in that MP is slipping. That alone may be enough of an influence to have them adjust their ways to better suit your views.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
No.
I live in a riding where 80% of all people vote one way...My vote is literally meaningless.
I think people who are adamant that everyone should vote really just want their party of choice to win and see the non-voters as the reason for their loss.
Non-voting sends a strong message to the political parties that they are doing something wrong and not offering good options.
I will probably vote, but it'll be a throwaway vote for a joke party. The 3 current options right now are just abysmal. So when one of them wins, I'll continue to complain about all of them. Your logic is flawed in that it relies on their being a good alternative. It's like if one party was going to cut off your right hand and the other the left, and then saying you can't complain about having your right hand cut off, because you didn't choose to have your left hand cut off.
So, I may not vote. And my non-voting will send a strong message than my voting for a party I don't want to win.
Still your not voting will show up in the percentage that shows who didn't bother. Parties will think you don't care who gets in and will do nothing to change their views.
The only message non voting sends is apathy. Parties won't interpret it any other way.
If you want to get that message sent, vote Green or something other alternate party.
Apathy sends a message. If large parts of one demographic don't vote, it encourages the parties to change their policies to woo those voters. That's what the liberals tried to do with Trudeau. They brought someone who they thought would appeal to young voters.
Unfortunately they picked a spoilt brat, who's never had a real job in his life. He also happens to be the son of the man who did more harm to Alberta than any other leader.
Still your not voting will show up in the percentage that shows who didn't bother. Parties will think you don't care who gets in and will do nothing to change their views.
If a large segment of the population chooses not to vote, it creates an incentive to win those votes. It's the reason why the Liberals are pushing so hard to pick up young votes. The young voter turnout last time around was bad.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
If a large segment of the population chooses not to vote, it creates an incentive to win those votes. It's the reason why the Liberals are pushing so hard to pick up young votes. The young voter turnout last time around was bad.
That is a good point though I disagree in general one normally not choose to not vote.
I always look at voter turnout as a crude measurement for people who were undecided, and if I am a leader of major party going into an election, I would absolutely try to find out what would make those people decide.
Voter turnout is tracked and recorded for a reason and IMO, having your number in that column is still making a valid political statement.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
If a large segment of the population chooses not to vote, it creates an incentive to win those votes. It's the reason why the Liberals are pushing so hard to pick up young votes. The young voter turnout last time around was bad.
What about the other segments? I live in a community that is largely seniors who will be affected negatively by Trudeau and his plan to eliminate income splitting. Should they not vote when they know Trudeau is most likely to win?
What about the other segments? I live in a community that is largely seniors who will be affected negatively by Trudeau and his plan to eliminate income splitting. Should they not vote when they know Trudeau is most likely to win?
Those people have a reason to vote. They have a party (the conservatives) that is actually doing something for their well being. So if they want to keep their income splitting, they should vote for that.
Personally, my biggest concern is housing prices. None of the parties will take a clear stance on this issue. The reason being they don't want to scare people who are already home owners.
What about the other segments? I live in a community that is largely seniors who will be affected negatively by Trudeau and his plan to eliminate income splitting. Should they not vote when they know Trudeau is most likely to win?
Seniors will still be able to use income splitting under the Liberal platform.
“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 what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.”
-- George Carlin
If voting ever changed anything, the powers that be wouldn't let you vote.
So, no, I typically do not participate in democratic popularity contests.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
“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 what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.”
-- George Carlin
If voting ever changed anything, the powers that be wouldn't let you vote.
So, no, I typically do not participate in democratic popularity contests.
But what if there are people on the ballot who aren't dishonest & incompetent? Does that still mean that it's wrong to vote for them?
