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

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Then you're the kind of person who is hoping for some pie-in-the-sky candidate to make everything better and you know for a fact everyone on the ballot is definitely worse?

Sounds like a hopeless romantic ideal if you ask me.

Hopeless romantic? I don't think you understand me at all. I'm a realist and a cynic. Possibly with a small amount of pessimism and tiny amount of conspiracy theorist mixed in. If you'd said I had persecution complex, I would strongly disagree, but I could see how you might reach that conclusion. Definitely not a hopeless romantic though.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

No - you don't have to. It's all about getting involved. Feel too proud to vote for any of the choices out there? Feel like the options just aren't there for yourself and the rest of Canada? Then put yourself up as a candidate or start your own party. At the very least volunteer an hour or two a week to improve the quality of candidates and help what's there become better. Complaining about the quality of candidates and not participating in democracy gets you nowhere.

So you're saying the act of casting a single vote is the equivalent of changing the entire political platform of an established major political party? If you don't do one, then you must do the other. Gotcha.

[V]

I voted for CHP as a protest vote today, but I had the day off, so I could go in and out at 10:30 this morning, with no wait. If I had to vote after work with hour long line-ups, there's no way I would have voted. I'm not spending that much time for a protest vote.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

So you're saying the act of casting a single vote is the equivalent of changing the entire political platform of an established major political party? If you don't do one, then you must do the other. Gotcha.

What? How do you even derive that?

But . . . . If you mean . . . casting a vote is one or the other, then yes - you either do or you don't. That's how the right to vote works.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by blankall

Ummm...running for politics is kind of a big time commitment. It's not like blowing off somebody to go for a drink. You don't need an "excuse". Most people don't have an extra 40 hours a week to spend for the next several years.

It also takes serious sucking up to a party to get them to put you forward as a candidate. I don't want to vote for a party, yet I should spend all of my time attempting to work my way up their ranks?

The point of my original point is you have a choice: do nothing, or do something. The do something could be as little as voting for the person you dislike the least, becoming more politically active, all the way to running for office. Whether you think you have a more justified stance or not, not voting lumps in with a large number of non-voters who just couldn't be bothered. I don't see it as a political stance at all.

Statistically, one person's vote is meaningless. That doesn't provide an excuse not to vote.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The point of my original point is you have a choice: do nothing, or do something. The do something could be as little as voting for the person you dislike the least, becoming more politically active, all the way to running for office. Whether you think you have a more justified stance or not, not voting lumps in with a large number of non-voters who just couldn't be bothered. I don't see it as a political stance at all.

Statistically, one person's vote is meaningless. That doesn't provide an excuse not to vote.

I disagree.

When large segments of the population doesn't vote, it sends a message. I don't see any of the three major parties actually changing the country in a significant way for the better.

I actually argue seeing a large segment of untapped voters has historically motivated parties to make changes and appeal to those voters.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

No - you don't have to. It's all about getting involved. Feel too proud to vote for any of the choices out there? Feel like the options just aren't there for yourself and the rest of Canada? Then put yourself up as a candidate or start your own party. At the very least volunteer an hour or two a week to improve the quality of candidates and help what's there become better. Complaining about the quality of candidates and not participating in democracy gets you nowhere.

It's like someone who drops a deuce on the floor and the person who sees it spends all day complaining about how gross it is but doesn't clean it up.

No.

My members of parliament work for me. Not the other way around. The partisan party system we have based on loyalty is insulting and absurd. There is absolutely no way I would ever volunteer my time for that.

It's more like I pay my taxes to have someone clean up the deuce. There are 3 people paid to clean it up standing around. They go on vacation to Mexico instead. I'm then pressured into patting one of them on the back.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by sa226

After watching some of the exclusive interview's with party leaders on CBC, l believe that I have firmed up my choice.

I'm voting for Peter Mansbridge.

If Mansbridge ran for PM, he would definitely get my vote.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by blankall

No.

My members of parliament work for me. Not the other way around. The partisan party system we have based on loyalty is insulting and absurd. There is absolutely no way I would ever volunteer my time for that.

It's more like I pay my taxes to have someone clean up the deuce. There are 3 people paid to clean it up standing around. They go on vacation to Mexico instead. I'm then pressured into patting one of them on the back.

That first paragraph is a very pretentious statement. You are essentially justifying my statements by not helping fix or improve the state of politics because you expect them to be better. Which they are not. Which then proves my point that you are standing around complaining of the deuce and not doing anything about it. You would suffer agony every four years at a broken system and feel better complaining about it than doing anything to fix it. This is the crux of my issue.

And that is the real inaction among voters. It's so easy to point fingers at what's not working, but it's incredibly hard to find solutions that do.

Not voting does nothing but perpetuate the same-old, same-old. Especially in the system that we currently have.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by blankall

I disagree.

When large segments of the population doesn't vote, it sends a message. I don't see any of the three major parties actually changing the country in a significant way for the better.

I actually argue seeing a large segment of untapped voters has historically motivated parties to make changes and appeal to those voters.

What historical changes to platforms have you seen from instances of low voter turnout?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That first paragraph is a very pretentious statement. You are essentially justifying my statements by not helping fix or improve the state of politics because you expect them to be better. Which they are not. Which then proves my point that you are standing around complaining of the deuce and not doing anything about it. You would suffer agony every four years at a broken system and feel better complaining about it than doing anything to fix it. This is the crux of my issue.

And that is the real inaction among voters. It's so easy to point fingers at what's not working, but it's incredibly hard to find solutions that do.

Not voting does nothing but perpetuate the same-old, same-old. Especially in the system that we currently have.

What you don't seem to realize is that voting does the same.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by blankall

When large segments of the population doesn't vote, it sends a message.

That message being that large chunks of the voting populace don't care about what the government is doing, so they can keep doing it at full steam ahead, yes...

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

What you don't seem to realize is that voting does the same.

No it doesn't. It does far more to adjust the political landscape that not voting. What would you call the NDP getting official opposition status in 2011? Or the NDP winning the AB race this spring?

Please provide me a good example of where not voting produces dramatically different results for the better in a Western democracy.

[Wastedyouth]

I chose to not vote.

I won't vote Liberal or NDP or Green. But I just can't vote Conservative (which i supported for quite a while). Harper has become far too distasteful for me as a Canadian citizen. I can't vote in any way that supports his xenophobic fear mongering garbage.

[Locke]

There are only 2 'L's' in 'Eligible.'

Eligible.

The more you know!

[codynw]

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

No it doesn't. It does far more to adjust the political landscape that not voting. What would you call the NDP getting official opposition status in 2011? Or the NDP winning the AB race this spring?

Please provide me a good example of where not voting produces dramatically different results for the better in a Western democracy.

I'm not claiming that not voting changes anything. You're mixing up my point with blankall's point.

My point is no matter who you vote for, they will not do a good job. Even if they actually try, the party system ensures that they'll vote along party lines, and accomplish very little to nothing.

I hope whoever you vote for gets in and then whoever actually decides their party's policies does a competent job and they don't make things worse.

[blankall]

Well...looks like I am voting after all. However, I continue to support a person's right not to vote.

[Flash Walken]

I think making people vote is very un-Canadian.

We all have the right not to vote if we don't want to. There is nothing more or less patriotic about voting than not voting. Not voting is an expression of your rights as a Canadian.

[Bagor]

I voted.
For the person that I had the most confidence in or represented my values/beliefs the most.
My main problem is that, that individual was a parachute candidate which bothers me.

If there had been a none of the above option I would have voted that.