Canadian Political Polls

[jdobbin]

Really? And where would the "nuancing" go, once you get your rep elected in the House? I'll tell you. In the basket, under the table of the party whip. She/he would do as the leader/exec committee/whip commands, or be expelled from the caucus. There you go, for all the nuancing.

Then elect an independent. A few were elected last time. The incessant whining about the system allows for this.

The party politics is here to stay. The only question is, would there be exactly two preappointed for us parties, or any party of our choosing? The most efficient way to achieve the change is to stop playing the game. This is not a "disengagement", Dobbin, but another concious peaceful and democratic strategy, except is falls outside the lines you (i.e. your mainstream parties) set for us 150 years back, if so, sorry, but can't be helped.

It is a disengagement policy. It won't affect the major parties. There is about 25% of the population that has no interest in voting. Never have.

Blame the system if you like but the only way to change it is to actually vote. Not voting is simply not voting and it has no political power at all.

[myata]

I have been pointing out the childish behaviour of withdrawing and disengaging elsewhere to this poster.

Because somebody here cannot muster logical arguments to defend their position here, they have no choice but to resort to personal insinuations, perhaps in the desperate hope that it'd somehow, anyhow prop up their position.

I don't mind discussing your disputing tactics at length, but I would strongly suggest to not pollute multiple topics with that and therefore either refrain from these pointless comments, or at least keep them limited to the thread in which they were originally brought up.

[myata]

Like I told someone last time, I had 6 choices on my ballot last time, and 5 of them were party affiliated. It seems that the Canadian people don't want to vote for the other parties.

I commented awhile back that the present system does not allow any new party to raise up to prominence because it sends them off as marginal and irrelevant from the start. Barring some extraordinary event, it is illogical to expect any movement to come with 30-40% voter support off the start, and any emerging movement would receive either completely irrelevant representation, or no representaiton at all under the current system.

[jdobbin]

Because somebody here cannot muster logical arguments to defend their position here, they have no choice but to resort to personal insinuations, perhaps in the desperate hope that it'd somehow, anyhow prop up their position.

I have yet to see logical arguments from you.

I don't mind discussing your disputing tactics at length, but I would strongly suggest to not pollute multiple topics with that and therefore either refrain from these pointless comments, or at least keep them limited to the thread in which they were originally brought up.

You are using the same mindset in Canadian voting that you want to apply to world-wide. Somehow you think not voting is a powerful statement. It isn't.

Can you point to me where not voting has made a difference?

Disengaging is simply disengaging.

[myata]

OK I have no comments. I simply do not wish to pollute this topic with the same style of disputing we've seen previously. Amen.

[jdobbin]

I commented awhile back that the present system does not allow any new party to raise up to prominence because it sends them off as marginal and irrelevant from the start. Barring some extraordinary event, it is illogical to expect any movement to come with 30-40% voter support off the start, and any emerging movement would receive either completely irrelevant representation, or no representaiton at all under the current system.

Not voting at all isn't going to change that make-up within the system.

Lower voter turn-out can happen in even the systems that allow for multiple parties. In those systems, 20% to 30% of the population still won't vote.

[Molly]

It's illogical to the point of rediculous to expect that a political movement would gain 30 -40% of popular support 'off the top', since even well- established, centrist, big-tent ones have difficulty accomplishing that.

Fact is, the Canadian system is highly volatile, and extremely welcoming to new styles of thought, as indicated by the very existence of the Conservative party, the Bloc, the Greens, and even the NDP.

You might want to revisit your expectations.

[jdobbin]

OK I have no comments. I simply do not wish to pollute this topic with the same style of disputing we've seen previously. Amen.

I am all ears about what the perfect system would be and how to achieve that end in Canada.

Getting a higher voter turn-out is not easy for any system. The polls in most industrial countries indicate at least 20% of eligible voters not voting consistently. In a lot of countries that number is getting up there to 30 to 35%.

Not voting never changes a system. Or at least I have never seen it change a system.

Heck, in civic politics where in some cities there are no parties, voter turn-out is dismally low. Even with multiple candidates, there is little interest.

[Molly]

Apathy is one word, and disgust and disengagement can accurately describe some folks' failure to vote, but as a rule votes are cast to change things that are wrong, not to support things that are right.

Failure to vote is usually attributable to general satisfaction with the status quo.

[myata]

It's illogical to the point of rediculous to expect that a political movement would gain 30 -40% of popular support 'off the top', since even well- established, centrist, big-tent ones have difficulty accomplishing that.

It certainly is. Yet only in that range of popular support would a party receive a meaningful representation in the current system. A party or movement with perhaps 10-15% of active voter's support, a significant proportion of active population, would have no meaningful representation (maybe a score of representative, if any at all). This is unfair and has to be changed. And most of the developed world already made it. We'll get there too, sooner or later. The quickest and most efficient way to get there is not by convincing the two main parties which have most to lose in the reform to do it, but simply to stop playing their game. This is an active, conscious position that has nothing to do with "apathy". I suggest everybody who's interested to see the change to come sooner, to consider it, and pass the idea along.

[jdobbin]

It certainly is. Yet only in that range of popular support would a party receive a meaningful representation in the current system. A party or movement with perhaps 10-15% of active voter's support, a significant proportion of active population, would have no meaningful representation (maybe a score of representative, if any at all).

And this change comes from you not voting? Why would the present parties change when they have no idea why people don't vote?

This is unfair and has to be changed. And most of the developed world already made it. We'll get there too, sooner or later. The quickest and most efficient way to get there is not by convincing the two main parties which have most to lose in the reform to do it, but simply to stop playing their game. This is an active, conscious position that has nothing to do with "apathy". I suggest everybody who's interested to see the change to come sooner, to consider it, and pass the idea along.

And why would the main parties or any party consider those that don't vote a cohesive political movement for changing to PR?

How will it increase voter turn-out where we see countries with some form of PR having similar voter turn-outs?

Edited July 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Apathy is one word, and disgust and disengagement can accurately describe some folks' failure to vote, but as a rule votes are cast to change things that are wrong, not to support things that are right.

You have that right. How is anyone to determine if the people not voting is a movement for an improved system?

Failure to vote is usually attributable to general satisfaction with the status quo.

Some of the people I have spoken to who don't vote are just not interested. I can't even describe their feelings as apathetic.

It would be hard for anyone to describe the largest group of non-voters as a movement for change. Nor is the non-voter situation going to drive the political parties to change the system just to get people to vote when there is no evidence that this is what they want in the first place.

[madmax]

Some of the people I have spoken to who don't vote are just not interested. I can't even describe their feelings as apathetic.

I understand what you are trying to say. I would point out that the definition of Apathetic includes a lack of interest.

However, having spoke to many people and gone door to door over various campaigns of the past, I recognise how you would come to make the statement you did. And you would be correct in not being able to describe those feelings.

apathetic: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.comapathetic also apathetical adj. Feeling or showing a lack of interest or concern; indifferent. Feeling or showing little or no emotion;

[myata]

Refusing to play by imposed rules does not necessarily have to be apathy. I propose to make it a statement.

Edited July 11, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

Refusing to play by imposed rules does not necessarily have to be apathy. I propose to make it a statement.

How? You're anonymous. I don't know any way of determing apathetic voters from ones making a statement unless they go public.

[jdobbin]

I understand what you are trying to say. I would point out that the definition of Apathetic includes a lack of interest.

However, having spoke to many people and gone door to door over various campaigns of the past, I recognise how you would come to make the statement you did. And you would be correct in not being able to describe those feelings.

apathetic: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.comapathetic also apathetical adj. Feeling or showing a lack of interest or concern; indifferent. Feeling or showing little or no emotion;

Lack of interest would at least show that a decision had been made to make politics a low priority. What I found in a lot of people was blissful unwareness which didn't feel like apathy.

I've always believed apathy was awareness of something but a decison on the part of a person not to be concerned for, care about, show interest in or get emotional about it.

[Molly]

I propose that the deeply disinterested would become VERY interested in a hurry, if they began to run into things that dissatisfy and discomfort them. So long as they have no great problems.... they will remain 'apathetic'. they feel no need to know the mechanics of how their needs were met.

I am, for instance, deeply disinterested in the foundation of my house... but should it fail- not perform to my satisfaction- I'd be obsessing about it in a hurry. I care not a whit about vehicle repairs, until my vehicle ceases to function; snow removal, until my snow isn't removed; taxation, until it becomes more than I'm getting back in services; constitutional matters, until I feel hard done by. Non-voters are signalling.... satisfaction.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Molly

[August1991]

I thought this thread was about polls.

The Conservative party is once again ahead in Canada’s political scene, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 36 per cent of respondents would vote for the governing Tories in the next federal election, up four points since mid-June.

The Liberal party is second with 30 per cent, followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 16 per cent, the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent, and the Green party with seven per cent.

...

Methodology: Online interviews with 1,005 Canadian adults, conducted on Jun. 17 and Jun. 18, 2009. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

Angus-Reid

Am I missing something? (Late again?)

[punked]

I thought this thread was about polls.

Angus-Reid

Am I missing something? (Late again?)

I posted this poll 3 pages back.

[August1991]

I posted this poll 3 pages back.

Sorry, punked. True enough, you did.

The AR poll has the Cons with a real lead this time.

Cons 36% (32%)

Libs 30% (31%)

NDP 16% (18%)

Greens 7% (7%)

Iggy is really slipping and I expect with the IMF predicting Canada's economy to grow twice as fast as America's in the next year with 1.6% growth that the Cons will extend their lead through the summer as Iggy loses hold of the Center he has no moved for the Left vote like Dion did and that might be a good call. He is clearly eating some of the moderate NDP vote but not enough to cost a lot of seats.

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads....09_PoliEco.pdf

And all things considered, I reckon Harper is on the right track.

Edited July 11, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

And all things considered, I reckon Harper is on the right track.

Except on photo shoots and how is staff gets information. And the deficit. But other than that, on the right track.

[August1991]

Except on photo shoots and how is staff gets information. And the deficit. But other than that, on the right track.

IOW, except in the English Canada Toronto media, no one cares about Harper.

Who cares what Harper put in his mouth or pocket?

---

Dobbin, I'd suggest rather watching the polls. This is a tough battle. We should appreciate our civilized democracy. (I say that without irony, in a western society sadly submerged in irony, and sarcasm.)

Edited July 11, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

IOW, except in the English Canada Toronto media, no one cares about Harper.

Who cares what Harper put in his mouth or pocket?

Apparently 500,000 or more people who viewed Youtube.

Dobbin, I'd suggest rather watching the polls. This is a tough battle.

As I said, I suspect Tory numbers to go up through the summer and a possible snap election prior to the House sitting in the fall.

[August1991]

As I said, I suspect Tory numbers to go up through the summer and a possible snap election prior to the House sitting in the fall.

I suspect that the federal Liberals and Tories, Ignatieff and Harper, are in a holding pattern in English Canada. (I'm curious about the Bloc in Quebec.)

My call.

[jdobbin]

I suspect that the federal Liberals and Tories, Ignatieff and Harper, are in a holding pattern in English Canada. (I'm curious about the Bloc in Quebec.)

My call.

The EKOS pollster says the most danger seems to be with the NDP.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/upl...rt-_july-9_.pdf

For the New Democratic Party, however, the Ontario numbers must be worrisome. The party’s

lead over the fourth place Green Party has dropped to just a few percentage points. (The Greens

are actually marginally ahead of the NDP in Quebec, though both are at extremely low levels: in

the single digits.)

“We don’t yet know whether the Green Party will be capable of mobilizing this kind of popular

support in an election,” said EKOS President Frank Graves. “Certainly they failed in the last

election to reproduce their success in the polls at the ballot box. However, if they were more

successful this time, it is conceivable that the Greens would seriously challenge to win some seats

in Ontario where there was a four-way race.”

Ontario goes back and forth between Liberals and Tories.

The Bloc remains strong although the large sample Leger and CROP polls showed the Liberals have come up quite a bit. The Tories face problems if they can't get their numbers up there.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-different.aspx

Here is the seat call based on the polls:

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

Edited July 11, 2009 by jdobbin