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

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Muta

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'm gonna call BS on this.

We have a fundamental right to choose not to vote. It is not for you to tell somebody what they should do with that choice.

I think it would be great if every person care enough or was informed enough to make a good choice for themselves. But I have more respect for the people who decide they don't care or they are uniformed, than those who choose to remain uninformed and just pick a name out of a hat, or whoever is leading in the polls, or whoever is in second place in the polls because they don't like the look of the guy in first place.

And Dion, fortunately in Canada regardless of the decisions we make we maintain the right to complain, that is really the first step in engaging someone to participate the next time.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by mathgod

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?

fyp?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

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?

Of the 3 viable options, none of them satisfy both (or any) of those parameters.

I may vote Green. They aren't a party I want to win, but it's important that they have a voice. I may vote for a joke party like the Libertarian or the Pirate Party. I may not vote at all.

Harper, Trudeau, and Mulcair will not be getting my vote. I reserve the right to complain about any of them, as they all have clear deficiencies in their policies, which are likely to lead Canada in the wrong direction. I actually thought the last solid candidate was Paul Martin. He was stuck with a sinking ship.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

Mine is Trudeau and his stance that all his defecit infrastructure spending will balance the budget down sometime down the road.

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

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?

It's not wrong to vote for them just as it is not wrong to not vote for them.

[Mathgod]

Viable? Joke? Attitudes like that ensure that lesser known parties will never gain any traction.

While it's true that no politician is ever going to be 100% honest and 100% competent at the same time, I think the best balance right now is the Green party. The big three parties reek of dishonesty.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Viable? Joke? Attitudes like that ensure that lesser known parties will never gain any traction.

While it's true that no politician is ever going to be 100% honest and 100% competent at the same time, I think the best balance right now is the Green party. The big three parties reek of dishonesty.

The Green party is too ideological to ever lead. That being said, they have a good, yet impractical, ideology. I would like to see them as a regular minority in our parliament. I may vote for them for this reason.

[Mathgod]

If their goals are "impractical", it is because people are more concerned with getting 4-car garages and 2nd homes than protecting our air and water.

[WCW Nitro]

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.

I always vote but damn you have made some excellent points in this thread.

[You Need a Thneed]

The only ballots I reject are the school board trustees in the last couple of municipal elections. Other than that, I always vote.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Dion

If you don't vote then you lose the right to complain when the govt does something you don't like.

If you pay taxes you can complain.

[Jbo]

I preface this by saying I am getting up tomorrow and voting.

Having said that, this has been the most irritating election I can ever remember. Social Media and Facebook have led to a new kind of pathetic mud slinging match. I would wager that 50% of people on my facebook feed know ZERO about any real policy, and are just posting some factual incorrect picture or attack ad. It actually scares me how much mis-information is out there and how many people voting know next to nothing.

Honest test, next person you see post a slander ad on Facebook challenge them and ask them if they even know who the candidates in there riding are.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Drak

What are people's thoughts on mandatory voting, such as Australia - don't vote and pay a fine. Just curious.

Years ago I read a study, I probably won't be able to find a link to it, which said in Australia the first candidate on the ballot received the highest number of votes more often than they should by polling.

The idea was that to avoid the fine, voters would walk into the booth, check the first name and walk out. That's a horrible system in my opinion.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by #-3

I'm gonna call BS on this.

We have a fundamental right to choose not to vote. It is not for you to tell somebody what they should do with that choice.

I think it would be great if every person care enough or was informed enough to make a good choice for themselves. But I have more respect for the people who decide they don't care or they are uniformed, than those who choose to remain uninformed and just pick a name out of a hat, or whoever is leading in the polls, or whoever is in second place in the polls because they don't like the look of the guy in first place.

And Dion, fortunately in Canada regardless of the decisions we make we maintain the right to complain, that is really the first step in engaging someone to participate the next time.

Call BS on what? Nothing I said was wrong.

If you don't vote, someone is still getting in power regardless of what you think of them, so why not cast your vote and vote for the lesser of all evils? Not voting does absolutely nothing, so why not try and vote and see if you can influence what happens?

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Only citizens who have made at least an attempt to inform themselves should vote. I hate the idea that everyone should vote because people in other countries don't have the amazing right that we do.

An uninformed vote based on the idea that everyone should vote is worse than a non-vote.

So you study each parties position on the issues and you make your choice and you cast your ballot and then guess what - your party promised not to increase taxes, and six months after being elected they increase taxes, then what?

I was sitting on the fence about voting because in my opinion all these guys are the same, no matter who we vote for there will be some scandal, some mismanagement, some good and bad decisions - they are all shades of grey.

If it matters I will vote conservative.

[Inferno]

I don't vote. My reasoning is too many empty promises and a lack of interest in politics. People say to not complain then and I don't.

[JohnnyB]

Instead of mandatory voting, elections should just be decided by a random sampling of the population who are given paid time off for the entire election campaign to dedicate towards absorbing all of the policy and promotional materials from all the parties. They should be the only ones to vote.

[Hack&Lube]

The argument that I should vote merely because others are fighting for the right to do so in other countries is irrelevant. This country has proven to me that I don't need to vote and that I have the freedom to withhold my vote if I so desire.

My apathy is a reflection of the disillusionment I hold with the political parties/candidates in that I cannot earnestly endorse any of them AND YET it also paradoxically reflects the enduring trust I have in our Canadian system of government and way of life (until a time when I feel that is no-longer the case).

Pragmatically, voting is a signal of approval or endorsement. It's like putting three plates in front of me containing three foods that disgust me in different ways. I know that I will eventually have to eat one of them to provide adequate nutrition for my body and to serve as a bastion against starvation, but I cannot say that I actually actively chose any one of them in the same way I would choose a pack of Nissin Damae Ramen or an authentic Full English Breakfast.

[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?

[Fuzz]

I'll just leave this here....