How do we overcome voter apathy?

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

What I don't understand is how a government is able to form without a concensous that is drawn from a majority of the eligible population.

no doubt. whats up with that?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

no doubt. whats up with that?

Its a major flaw to our electoral system that doesn't work when there's more than two candidates. FPTP systems work great if its A vs. B... one of them has to get over 50% of the vote to win.

When there's A, B, C, D, E & F running... none of them have to get 50%, just more of the share than the other 5. When its pretty obvious that one party will have more than any of the others, people either stay home because 1. they are confident in their fellow "Party A" voters, or 2. They know that "Party B, C, D, E or F" have no hope. so they don't waste their time.

FPTP is used because its simple. Any idiot can comprehend that if A gets more votes than B, C or D... A wins. Majority systems (like the one the PCs use for their leadership) is a little more complicated, and what's worse... requires people to vote twice. Pure PR systems are the most complicated because they get tricky with percentage to seat ratios and get murky when it comes to direct constituent-MLA relations.

A MMP system is ideal because people still get their FPTP, but all the votes are tallied, and a percentage of seats are awarded by popular vote. Say Alberta had 42 seats for PR (and 45 for FPTP), a party would need over 2.4% of the popular vote for a seat. In that system, both the Greens and Alliance would be represented with at least 2 seats each.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

You show me one guy that ran a platform that was 100%:

1) relevant to Albertans
2) based on ACTUAL issues with ACTUAL solutions and not just smoke and mirrors
3) didn't ONCE try to blame someone else that was running or try to make me afraid to vote for anyone else

...and I'll show you my vote.

I see thins theme a lot in this thread by the non-voters. Not to pick on just you FI80, but it comes across like the agruements made by the conspiracy theorists; asking us to prove something in the negative. How can I prove to you that a person wasn't lying in his promises? (your smoke and mirrors.) How can I prove something like relevance; when relevance is subjective?

This election I felt very much like you- I had nobody to vote for. There wasn't a single party's platform that didn't have something that I totally hated in it. However I picked my battles, and settled on a person to vote for.

My analogy to voting is like ordering food. But let's put this into perspective. Let's say you work in a remote location; and the caffeteria is the only place to get meals. You aren't allowed to bring in your own stuff, no fridges, no microwaves. These restrictions are spot on because the gov't poses similar restrictions on us; from how we operate our vehicles to obtaining medical care, etc.

Now at the caffeteria you are allowed to vote on what you want to eat. You tell the guy working there that you don't care; you'll take whatever. So he gives you a $40 steak that tastes like shoe leather. I mean it was cooked in the microwave kind of bad. You notice the guy sitting next to you has a ham sandwich and a bowl of soup- and he only paid $6 for his meal. It looks pretty tasty. Now had you voted on your meal; you could have made a similar good choice.

How does this translate for you? Let's look at one issue- vehicle insurance. NDP wanted private; I looked at that and based on Winnipeg rates would cost me an extra $400 per year. That's with me with a clean record. PCs wanted to put the cap back on Soft Tissue Injuries. I know people who need physio for STI; that would cost my friends money. So for me that left WRA and Liberals as "getting my vote" on that issue. You might have a different view and different circumstances- let's say you own shares in some major auto insurance company. In your case you'd vote PC because you want to STI cap back in place. Whereas Jiri might be a 21 year old kid with 15 speeding tickets and looking at $5K per year for insurance; in which case he'd vote NDP.



The other thing is the "what if everybody did as I do" factor. Meaning if as a driver if I always run red lights; if everybody did that there would be choas on the streets. If everybody decided not to vote, then we would be left with a dictatorship. Or you would have an election with only the people running voting for themselves, which would pretty much be the same thing.

Now, look at the above criteria you outlined. I will ask you to tell me why each of the 4 main parties (ones with seats at the end of the last legislature) failed to meet those requirements. I would say that all of them had issues relevant to Albertans- as they all had ways of dealing with Health Care, and an idea for royalties. Smoke and mirrors, you can't say that people were lying without any proof. As for the no-smear campagns- I didn't see any smearing from the PCs or the WRA. I heard of it about the Liberals; but didn't see any ads.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

I think I'm with the majority of non voters in saying this:

1. I am not interested in politcs in the sense that it seems to be a bunch of adults bitching and moaning about eachother like they were kids. Its like they can't agree, even if its obviously a good idea or whatever. it's their job to disagree with eachother. Just too frustrating to want to be involved in such bs.

2. I'd have to do research to find out what these guys actually stand for. I already know what they don't stand for, and thats the oppositions outlook and ideas/plans.

3. Any alternative to the Liberals or PCs is basically a wasted vote. Also see #2.

4. The PC's will win in Alberta. As long as the east is Liberal the west will be PC.

5. Since my vote for the environmentally minded party is useless, then I'll settle for PC. Since PC will win, I won't bother voting.

6. Environmentally minded party doesn't have enough $$ to make a solid campaign, thus not attracting enough voters. And we're in Alberta where if the Eviro minded party were to win, we'd all be "doomed" and the economy in Alberta would "collapse". people are scared to change.

7. Politics are boring, and those who actually care will vote and make the proper chioce for our province.

8. serious lack of common sense in the government. many things are far to complicated to get anything done quickly. the system just gets more and more complicated, thus leaving me more and more uninterested.

And since you are so "pro environment" , if you had indeed researched, which at point 2 you admitted you did not, then you would have found candidates who had environmental issues as part of their platform.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

No clue in the provincial elections, but in federal elections, if a party gets a certain percentage of the popular vote, they get some funding from the government.

I think in the last federal election, it worked out that every vote was worth about $2. So, by casting your vote for the Greens, they would receive $2. Very miniscule...but hey, better than nothing, right?

That is also true provincially. Since the NDP have now lost their official party status, they will no longer receive extra funding.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by redforever

That is also true provincially. Since the NDP have now lost their official party status, they will no longer receive extra funding.

Don't they still count because they have elected MLAs? I thought the requirement was either elected members or 10% of the vote.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Byrns

People who don't vote, lose their right to bitch about the government.

That's a classic, but I don't agree.

Of course, most people who don't vote propably haven't thought about it much. But I do believe that many of them have this deep dissatisfaction with what they see, and they just don't believe that all the nice things mean anything. "All politicians are liars". Every adult has already seen several governments, local or national, that didn't want to have anything to do with the things they talked about during the elections. "Fool me once, shame on you..." If you don't spend a lot of time following politics, it's pretty impossible to know who the liars are. (Or more exactly, who are the bad liars and who just do it to achieve good things.) If you don't know who the liars are, why vote?

I don't think it makes any sense to blame people who are not voting. True democracy is not just the right to vote, it's the right to affect things by your vote. If people don't see or believe in the differences, from their point of view, voting doesn't affect anything. If you can't affect things, is it true democracy? If it's not true democracy, why should we pretend that it is by participating?

And to some extent I agree that all politicians are liars, as it has everything to do with rhetorics, and rhetorics is all about making things sound better than they are, or worse, depending on which side of the issue you are. And making things sound like they're something that they're not, well, that's lying. Calling it rhetorics is really just... rhetorics (And I like political rhetorics, I think it's a fascinating subject.)

[burn_this_city]

Laziness for the win!

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Don't they still count because they have elected MLAs? I thought the requirement was either elected members or 10% of the vote.

Well, I know they will not get extra money for the leader to promote his stuff, I think they lose extra money for special meetings etc. Perhaps they still get some basic funding, but when you lose your official party status, you lose the extra funding that is almost necessary to get out there and promote your agenda.

[Slava]

When you lose official party status you also lose the opportunity to as questions in the legislature during question period...its a big loss in that way.

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by redforever

And since you are so "pro environment" , if you had indeed researched, which at point 2 you admitted you did not, then you would have found candidates who had environmental issues as part of their platform.

and your point? Which of the major parties had any real environmental standpoint? I was basically refering to the green party. the rest were all blowing smoke up yer arse. but i didn't research so what do I know

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its a major flaw to our electoral system that doesn't work when there's more than two candidates. FPTP systems work great if its A vs. B... one of them has to get over 50% of the vote to win.

When there's A, B, C, D, E & F running... none of them have to get 50%, just more of the share than the other 5. When its pretty obvious that one party will have more than any of the others, people either stay home because 1. they are confident in their fellow "Party A" voters, or 2. They know that "Party B, C, D, E or F" have no hope. so they don't waste their time.

FPTP is used because its simple. Any idiot can comprehend that if A gets more votes than B, C or D... A wins. Majority systems (like the one the PCs use for their leadership) is a little more complicated, and what's worse... requires people to vote twice. Pure PR systems are the most complicated because they get tricky with percentage to seat ratios and get murky when it comes to direct constituent-MLA relations.

A MMP system is ideal because people still get their FPTP, but all the votes are tallied, and a percentage of seats are awarded by popular vote. Say Alberta had 42 seats for PR (and 45 for FPTP), a party would need over 2.4% of the popular vote for a seat. In that system, both the Greens and Alliance would be represented with at least 2 seats each.

We were refering to less than 50% voter turn out. not having to have 50% total votes...

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

this thread seams to have voter apathy as well. weird

[FlamesAddiction]

Even if you dislike all the major candidates, there has to be one that you dislike more than any of the others. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy to cast your vote against a particular candidate even if you don't necessarily like the party you're voting for.

For example, in 2000, I voted for the Liberals more as a vote against the Conservatives (who I simply disagreed with on too many things). It's not that I liked the Liberals per se, it's just that I didn't want a PC majority. In 2004, I couldn't bring myself to vote for either, so I gave a vote to the Green Party. Had I thought that the Green Party may actually win the whole election, then I might have voted either PC or Liberal.

The only time I abstained was during the last Alberta provincial election. Like someone else posted, I was also moving soon so it didn't seem right to cast a ballot when I wasn't going to be there after the election.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

We were refering to less than 50% voter turn out. not having to have 50% total votes...

Well, I answered both in that response. How do we have 41% turnout? The same reason why there's no need for a majority...

Because our system inherently discourages it. Why go vote when its obvious that unless you live in a swing riding, your non-PC vote means sweet beggar all. Anything above 35% support in a multi-party environment, and you're essentially assured a majority. When people saw the PCs polling between 45 and 50%, they knew what was generally going to be the outcome. 60% of Albertan voters were either apathetic, generally disenchanted, liked the PCs but hated Stelmach, or didn't like anyone.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Part of your responsibility in participating in a democracy is to take the time to research and become informed.

Why? Give me a reason. Hopefully more substance besides "if you don't vote, you should be a lab rate."

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Why? Give me a reason. Hopefully more substance besides "if you don't vote, you should be a lab rate."

Are you serious.
You don't see any reason why someone should take the time to find out what each party/candidate stands for and then cast their vote for the person that they think will do the best job of running the province and administering their tax dollars?

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Are you serious.
You don't see any reason why someone should take the time to find out what each party/candidate stands for and then cast their vote for the person that they think will do the best job of running the province and administering their tax dollars?

I see why you think you should vote. I don't see why you think I should vote.

Do I vote on platform? Promises? Their resume?
To that response, as I stated before, the majority of parties tow the center line to capture more votes. Promises are worthless since they never carry through.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

How many people don't vote out of pure laziness? Fart I'm going to add a pole.

Originally Posted by fotze

Keep your pole to yourself.

'Farting on his pole' would make a great MadTV Brokeback Mountain sketch

(edit to stay on topic ) it is this mentallity than leads to voter apathy

[FanIn80]

Look, here's my point:

If either party were to just focus on identifying relevant issues and then communicating valid solutions, I would vote for them in a second. Instead, we get Liberals focusing on what PC has done wrong and PC focusing on what Liberals would do wrong if they got in.

Why on earth am I "responsible" for supporting those types of campaigns?

It's like politics isn't even about the issues anymore, it's all about blame and popularity. It's a frickin sport now. It’s a competition. I hear things all the time on the radio about how Party B will challenge Party A's proposal because it's a smart political move that will give them a better chance of gaining power in the next election. What the heck happened to not supporting it because it's not a very good proposal? Even better, what happened to actually supporting it because it's a good proposal, even though it'll cause you to lose power in the next election?! When did everything they do start to be more about winning and losing than about the actual issues themselves? More importantly, when did it become our "responsibility" to accept this version of a "Democratic" society?

I see people pointing fingers at me for not voting and saying that if I don't like it I should run myself and change it myself. That’s the biggest cop out in this thread. Why is it my responsibility to change the system? Lots of people don't like Eklund, are they told to try to change Eklund? No. They're told not to read what he writes. I don't like what politics has become, so I choose not to be a part of it. If I had the money, the time and the charisma to change the world, I would. I don't, so I don't. Is not the very definition of Democracy the freedom to choose not to partake?

If you think me not voting out of protest is a problem, maybe someday we can discuss the effects of mindless sheep all lining up to be a part of the problem simply because it's their "responsibility" to vote. Perhaps if only 2% turned up to vote in the next election, we might see an overhaul in the political system.

Any takers?