Do you choose not to vote even though you are elligible?

[taco.vidal]

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.

Harper's own riding of Calgary Heritage crosses over with the provincial riding of Calgary Glenmore which went NDP in this past provincial election. The initial vote count in Calgary Heritage was a tie between the NDP and Conservatives. After a recount, the NDP won by 6 votes.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/wo...re-the-recount

Every vote counts. There probably was a lot of voters of both NDP and Conservative stripes who thoughts that the riding result was predetermined and didn't get out to vote as a result.

[GGG]

I think if you are in the no party represents me camp you should join the clos St one and change from within. At the provincial level policy votes do occur and voting in a leadership campaign allows you to influence the direction.

I usually just join to vote in leadership races then quit.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by blankall

Non-voting sends a strong message to the political parties that they are doing something wrong and not offering good options.

The strong message it says is "I don't care enough to be more than a passenger in democracy."

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

Out of curiosity, what would you like to see happen with housing prices?

It's not like the government is ever going to be able to put a cap on them if that's what you mean.

It's a local issue. Each market is different and always at least slightly in flux, it would be very hard to regulate and it would also be perceived as communist and would lead to that government being eviscerated in the next election.

No one has a right to own a house. If you can't afford it, maybe set your sights a little lower with a start up home/fixer upper or just rent.

The worst thing the government could do would be to make it easier for people to get mortgages, it's stupidly easy as it is.

[peter12]

Mod edit- there is no need for insults.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

“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.

No kidding. If you vote for Harper and he somehow wins do you still have the right to complain if things continue to go south under CPC rule?

The whole right to complain debate is dumb. People who don't vote, generally don't care and won't engage in political discussions anyway. If they don't vote, but for some reason wish to discuss politics, they will lie and say they vote because they know that they won't be taken seriously.

Unless your talking about when people complain about taxes being too high or some such drivel.

"Taxes are too high!"

"Did you vote?"

"Well, no"

"You have no right to complain!"

"Oh you mean if I voted, my taxes would be lower? I'm so voting next time"

[FlamesAddiction]

I think they should use the ballots as an opportunity to collect more data. If you had questions on specific issues, I think people would be more inclined to show up and vote because it would be a good chance to get their opinions out. Just like 10 or so multiple choice questions on policy, and then what party they choose.

It wouldn't have to mean that the winner would need to implement the most popular policies, but it would at least let people be heard and a great opportunity to collect public data.

As it is right now, there is enough to dislike about most parties that there is almost a sense of guilt when you have to choose one. I think the above scenario would be a good way for letting people choose a "lesser evil", but add their own 2 cents.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

As it is right now, there is enough to dislike about most parties that there is almost a sense of guilt when you have to choose one. I think the above scenario would be a good way for letting people choose a "lesser evil", but add their own 2 cents.

I like this idea, because it's what I've been feeling for a while now. I've voted since I've been able to...and watched as pretty much every vote didn't make one iota of difference, as the party I picked either didn't do what they said they would, or the candidate I voted for didn't win (and then likely not do what they said they were going to...Yeah, I'm a bit jaded...)

I also get a chuckle out of those who post meme's showing how 40% of the people or so don't vote, and they "would have changed the course of the election if they'd only voted!" Like that 40% would have all voted for the same party or something. And it's always "my party" they would have voted for, so "my party would have won"...

[Johnny199r]

I live in a riding where:

A. The Conservative candidate has never visited and doesn't have a platform, he doesn't do media interviews. He was just parachuted in a few weeks ago to run a full slate.

B. The Liberal Candidate does not and has never, lived in my riding. This might not be a big deal if it was a city riding, but it's a vast Northern riding, that a candidate who has spent her whole life in the city, 8 hours south, can't understand.

C. I don't like the NDP candidate, nor her platform. She is the incumbent and I have no doubt she will be re-elected in a landslide.

Why the hell should I vote in this election?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Out of curiosity, what would you like to see happen with housing prices?

It's not like the government is ever going to be able to put a cap on them if that's what you mean.

It's a local issue. Each market is different and always at least slightly in flux, it would be very hard to regulate and it would also be perceived as communist and would lead to that government being eviscerated in the next election.

No one has a right to own a house. If you can't afford it, maybe set your sights a little lower with a start up home/fixer upper or just rent.

The worst thing the government could do would be to make it easier for people to get mortgages, it's stupidly easy as it is.

The federal government is in charge of the the tax act and immigration policies. It's not a local issue. Various other nations, most notably Australia, have started putting up restrictions on a national level. Britain is also doing it. I don't see why Canada can't follow the lead.

The solution is pretty simple. You tax foreign investors until the market cools off.

And setting my sights lower is absurd. I live in Vancouver. A fixer upper costs 1.5 million. And no I shouldn't be forced to move my family/career or rent for the rest of my life (I have a household income well North of 200k). It's the governments job to do something for its citizens. Having the entire population entirely priced out of the major cities is an issue. Even in Calgary, where the job market is currently abysmal, the housing prices are continuing to rise.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

The worst thing the government could do would be to make it easier for people to get mortgages, it's stupidly easy as it is.

Yeah. Basically the best thing the government could do for house prices (in this case, making them fall), is make everything harder.

Abolish CMHC - require 20% down payment. Raise interest rates. No RRSP draws, no home renovation credits, no primary residence tax-free shelters.

Anything that props up the real estate market should be abolished.

Good luck getting elected on that platform though.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

For those non-voters because of lack of choice that represents your views: why don't you run for office? Become more involved in the riding?

Let's see..I work 60 hours/week as it is. Now on top of that I have to set up a political career and undo the whole fabric of our political system just to see a palatable candidate. Even then, it's pretty futile. Just looking at my Facebook newsfeed, it's pretty obvious that people are basing their voting decisions on partisanship and image and have no F-ing clue what any the actual issues are.

[undercoverbrother]

While I will vote, I am still as of right not, struggling to decide who I want to vote for.


There are portions of all the platforms I like and portions of all the platforms I don't like.


Also, I don't really find any of the 3 leaders very good at Leading.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

No kidding. If you vote for Harper and he somehow wins do you still have the right to complain if things continue to go south under CPC rule?

The whole right to complain debate is dumb. People who don't vote, generally don't care and won't engage in political discussions anyway. If they don't vote, but for some reason wish to discuss politics, they will lie and say they vote because they know that they won't be taken seriously.

Unless your talking about when people complain about taxes being too high or some such drivel.

"Taxes are too high!"

"Did you vote?"

"Well, no"

"You have no right to complain!"

"Oh you mean if I voted, my taxes would be lower? I'm so voting next time"

Party's have a platform, some of which includes higher or lower levels of taxation. So if individually and then collectively we vote and elect a government that offers a lower level of taxation, by voting your taxes will be lower.
So yes, you made the point to be informed and vote.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by blankall

Let's see..I work 60 hours/week as it is. Now on top of that I have to set up a political career and undo the whole fabric of our political system just to see a palatable candidate. Even then, it's pretty futile. Just looking at my Facebook newsfeed, it's pretty obvious that people are basing their voting decisions on partisanship and image and have no F-ing clue what any the actual issues are.

The best argument against democracy is a 30 second conversation with the average voter. -Winston Churchill

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by troutman

If you pay taxes you can complain.

Ex Pats voting in this election.

I have a buddy that hasn't lived in Canada for at least 8 years and he is voting.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by blankall

Just looking at my Facebook newsfeed, it's pretty obvious that people are basing their voting decisions on partisanship and image and have no F-ing clue what any the actual issues are.

I see the same thing. I either get the posts from the Anybody But Conservative crowd or the Trudeau-and-Mulcair-Suck-So-You'd-Better-Vote-Conservative crowd. In the end, no one is championing a Leader/Party based on how the party platforms match their personal ideals; they are voting because they don't like the other guy(s). I think this is the wrong approach. If one wants to advocate democracy, then one should probably vote positively and not negatively.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

I see the same thing. I either get the posts from the Anybody But Conservative crowd or the Trudeau-and-Mulcair-Suck-So-You'd-Better-Vote-Conservative crowd. In the end, no one is championing a Leader/Party based on how the party platforms match their personal ideals; they are voting because they don't like the other guy(s). I think this is the wrong approach. If one wants to advocate democracy, then one should probably vote positively and not negatively.

Kind of on topic, but as I don't like any of the 3 leaders, I am going to take a micro approach and vote for the individual I think will best represent my area and my concerns.

[mikephoen]

I hate voting. The whole process is flawed. There are two kinds of people who run for election. Criminals and incompetent ideologists. I'm not sure which is worse. At least the criminals might get something positive done to obfuscate their getting rich behind the scenes.

There should be stringent restrictions on who can run. They should have to be well educated, but also have practical experience. Candidates should have to be the equivalent of professional athletes. Only the absolute best people we have should make the top tier of politics.

And voters should have to pass some test too. Every election, you have to take a test that proves you have a general understanding of the issues and at least some level of competency before you get to vote. Can't be bothered to educate yourself? No vote for you. No more voting for the same party like it's your favorite sports team and you support them no matter what.

We need a system that lets intelligent, well informed people vote in the best and the brightest to govern in a fair and responsible manner.

George Carlin had it right as usual. If you choose to vote, then everything that goes wrong is your fault.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I hate voting. The whole process is flawed. There are two kinds of people who run for election. Criminals and incompetent ideologists. I'm not sure which is worse. At least the criminals might get something positive done to obfuscate their getting rich behind the scenes.

There should be stringent restrictions on who can run. They should have to be well educated, but also have practical experience. Candidates should have to be the equivalent of professional athletes. Only the absolute best people we have should make the top tier of politics.

And voters should have to pass some test too. Every election, you have to take a test that proves you have a general understanding of the issues and at least some level of competency before you get to vote. Can't be bothered to educate yourself? No vote for you. No more voting for the same party like it's your favorite sports team and you support them no matter what.

We need a system that lets intelligent, well informed people vote in the best and the brightest to govern in a fair and responsible manner.

George Carlin had it right as usual. If you choose to vote, then everything that goes wrong is your fault.

So Edmonton just gets MLA and MP's assigned to them??