Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[Malaclypse the Younger]

What if one goes voting only because s/he is bored at home!?

I'd say that's just as misguided a reason to vote. You shouldn't vote because you're bored or don't want to be bored. You should vote because you've spent the time to become educated about issues that are important, and want to choose the party that will address those issues in a way that you see fit.

[benny]

You should vote because you've spent the time to become educated about issues that are important, and want to choose the party that will address those issues in a way that you see fit.

A Canadian student working on a degree in political science in California the day an election is held in Canada certainly corresponds to your characterization.

[madmax]

Why not? They don't just get money for each and every vote, they have to reach a certain percentage of the vote before they can even get the funds. In other words, you have to prove that a significant number of people take your platform seriously before you can receive matching funds.

you should follow this link to an MLW poll on party funding....

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=12604

in the meantime, when 20,000 people vote for major party A and 17,000 for major party B...

I don't consider 2,000 or 3,000 votes to be in the running or worthy of anything, especially tax payers monies. Nor should the other two parties receive 10X the amount in funding because they receive votes. This scam gives the CPC money to fund these year round campaigns, they can't spend it all, let alone deal with their donations. On top of that the CPC have a Disgracefull habit of using the Taxpayer to fund their propoganda in targeted ridings.

The monies to be used for EI, Transfer payments, etc.... needs to get to the people, not to the parties..

that said...it didn't take rocket science to figure out if you run 300 candidates the odds are not bad that 2 out of a hundred might vote for this party. Its to clever by half. and can end up giving parties MILLIONS of Dollars that could actually be used constructively.

If someone supporting their party, can't give $2 of their own money... they shouldn't be taking mine.

[benny]

when 20,000 people vote for major party A and 17,000 for major party B...

I don't consider 2,000 or 3,000 votes to be in the running or worthy of anything, especially tax payers monies. Nor should the other two parties receive 10X the amount in funding because they receive votes. This scam gives the CPC money to fund these year round campaigns, they can't spend it all, let alone deal with their donations. On top of that the CPC have a Disgracefull habit of using the Taxpayer to fund their propoganda in targeted ridings.

The monies to be used for EI, Transfer payments, etc.... needs to get to the people, not to the parties..

that said...it didn't take rocket science to figure out if you run 300 candidates the odds are not bad that 2 out of a hundred might vote for this party. Its to clever by half. and can end up giving parties MILLIONS of Dollars that could actually be used constructively.

If someone supporting their party, can't give $2 of their own money... they shouldn't be taking mine.

The Bloc Quebecois is attached to this financing method; by stopping this method, you may well end up with a Canada without Quebec in it.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

you should follow this link to an MLW poll on party funding....

I don't take web polls seriously.

in the meantime, when 20,000 people vote for major party A and 17,000 for major party B...

I don't consider 2,000 or 3,000 votes to be in the running or worthy of anything, especially tax payers monies. Nor should the other two parties receive 10X the amount in funding because they receive votes.

We're not talking about two thousand or three thousand votes, we're talking about a percentage of the vote. I think the requirement is one percent.

This scam gives the CPC money to fund these year round campaigns, they can't spend it all, let alone deal with their donations.

The Conervsatives don't use that money. Everyone else does. That's why they tried to have that funding removed, and that's what caused the idea of an NDP-Liberal coalition to happen. It would give the Conservatives an extremely unfair advantage in the next election.

On top of that the CPC have a Disgracefull habit of using the Taxpayer to fund their propoganda in targeted ridings.

The monies to be used for EI, Transfer payments, etc.... needs to get to the people, not to the parties..

I'm quite aware. Reason #87765 that I will never vote for the Conservatives.

If someone supporting their party, can't give $2 of their own money... they shouldn't be taking mine.

So the poor shouldn't be represented in the House of Commons?

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE (CAMP @ Jan 19 2009, 07:08 PM) *

And how many roomates are stealing cards wow..

My brother's room mate stole all the Columbia Music House memberships for the house, and ordered a bunch of free music.

Imagine if he could have stolen their votes and got the Green Party or Family Coalition party (or CAMP) elected.

[benny]

My brother's room mate stole all the Columbia Music House memberships for the house, and ordered a bunch of free music.

Imagine if he could have stolen their votes and got the Green Party or Family Coalition party (or CAMP) elected.

If one cannot detect robberies, one cannot know how many there are.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Detection? Is that what this is all about? No crime committed because it was not known to have happened?

[benny]

Detection? Is that what this is all about? No crime committed because it was not known to have happened?

Ridiculous!

[madmax]

I don't take web polls seriously.

Polls on MLW have are different. It is the opinions of us pundits and know it alls, that have alot of fun voting on polls. Take seriously.. hell no.. pat ourselves on the back when the real results come in and the MLW poll is similar.... hell yes. MLW punters have been surprisingly accurate in their predictions. That said, I pass the poll over to you, to even out the odds as your opinion is opposite of mine. Nice of me eh LOL....

now you have me thinking to join in on the forcing of people to vote thread... yup, force people to vote on MLW polls .... nah...there just for fun and discussion.

We're not talking about two thousand or three thousand votes, we're talking about a percentage of the vote. I think the requirement is one percent.

2,000 to 3,000 votes in a general riding is anywhere from 4% to 6% of the vote. Certainly no party should receive $6,000 for 3,000 votes. Meanwhile the other parties are raking in 20,000 votes in a riding and Getting $40,000.....

This is crazy.

The Conervsatives don't use that money. Everyone else does. That's why they tried to have that funding removed, and that's what caused the idea of an NDP-Liberal coalition to happen. It would give the Conservatives an extremely unfair advantage in the next election.

Its what brought the Liberals crawling on their knees over to the NDP for a handup. I certainly understand the Liberals interest in collecting $40,000 from the tax payer in a riding, whereas the NDP are in that 2,000 to 3,000 margin in most ridings across Canada.

The CPC have built a huge war chest. The fact that the Liberals weren't prepared to have the rug pulled out from under them, is no reason for the tax payer to prop up the Liberal Party or any other party.

I'm quite aware. Reason #87765 that I will never vote for the Conservatives.

At least we both hate those damn taxpayer funded CPC propoganda flyers. SCUMBAGS!!!

So the poor shouldn't be represented in the House of Commons?

The poor have a history of not showing up at the polls. The poorer the riding, particularly in the inner cities, the lower turnout.

As for representation in the House of Commons, the NDP and its predecessors the CCF have represented and stood up for the poor for over 70 years, regardless of whether or not the poor make it to the polls.

That representation has created the safety nets in this country. However, the NDP/CCF did not do this alone, these policies were implemented by all parties and all Provinces.

The fact is, many wealthier people vote, because if they can get their taxes lowered, or moved onto the backs of the poor through a Carbon Tax or Harmony Tax, virtually any type of tax cut for them, then they are going to lobby and vote and back, tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

In the meantime, all parties, including the NDP offer free rides to the polls during an election, and there are many stories of various candidates/helpers etc........... in many parties, baby sitting while the parent goes to vote.

Giving $2 to the political parties which in which the voting public is disproportionately middleclass homeowners and then movers and shakers in business, finance, lobbiests, doesn't help the poor one bit.

Make no mistake, political party financing isn't about helping the poor, its about helping the Party.

As anyone knows, joining a political party entitles the new card holder to never ending phonecalls and emails asking for money.

Even from parties without a single seat in the house, their first call is "GIVE" .

Considering the NDP is one of the poorer and working class parties, they do a pretty good job of fundraising.

There isn't a party more in tune to the needs of those in poverty as most of the activists in the NDP appear to come from volunteer and social services network dealing directly with those in poverty.

That said, there are some "poor" parties out there and alot of their problem is that they aren't worth giving to, and happen to have very wealthy people supporting them, and they want others to prop up there vision and that is the tax payer.

I have no reason to subsidize the wealthy or their political party of choice.

I have no reason to subsidize the NDP.

Its there job to make people care enough to give money to the party, and if they have no money... they can give their time, which in this day and age is far more valuable then money during an election.

[benny]

The poor have a history of not showing up at the polls. The poorer the riding, particularly in the inner cities, the lower turnout.

As for representation in the House of Commons, the NDP and its predecessors the CCF have represented and stood up for the poor for over 70 years, regardless of whether or not the poor make it to the polls.

That representation has created the safety nets in this country. However, the NDP/CCF did not do this alone, these policies were implemented by all parties and all Provinces.

The fact is, many wealthier people vote, because if they can get their taxes lowered, or moved onto the backs of the poor through a Carbon Tax or Harmony Tax, virtually any type of tax cut for them, then they are going to lobby and vote and back, tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

In the meantime, all parties, including the NDP offer free rides to the polls during an election, and there are many stories of various candidates/helpers etc........... in many parties, baby sitting while the parent goes to vote.

Giving $2 to the political parties which in which the voting public is disproportionately middleclass homeowners and then movers and shakers in business, finance, lobbiests, doesn't help the poor one bit.

Make no mistake, political party financing isn't about helping the poor, its about helping the Party.

As anyone knows, joining a political party entitles the new card holder to never ending phonecalls and emails asking for money.

Even from parties without a single seat in the house, their first call is "GIVE" .

Considering the NDP is one of the poorer and working class parties, they do a pretty good job of fundraising.

There isn't a party more in tune to the needs of those in poverty as most of the activists in the NDP appear to come from volunteer and social services network dealing directly with those in poverty.

That said, there are some "poor" parties out there and alot of their problem is that they aren't worth giving to, and happen to have very wealthy people supporting them, and they want others to prop up there vision and that is the tax payer.

I have no reason to subsidize the wealthy or their political party of choice.

I have no reason to subsidize the NDP.

Its there job to make people care enough to give money to the party, and if they have no money... they can give their time, which in this day and age is far more valuable then money during an election.

If you want government to be something one can buy like another marketable services, allowing the rich to donate to the parties of their choices is the way to go. If you want to respect the democratic spirit contained in the principle "one voter, one vote", a $2 per vote financed out of a public fund is the way to go.

[CAMP]

If you want government to be something one can buy like another marketable services, allowing the rich to donate to the parties of their choices is the way to go. If you want to respect the democratic spirit contained in the principle "one voter, one vote", a $2 per vote financed out of a public fund is the way to go.

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with a dollar amount per vote, as long as it is across the board and delivered evenly. This is not the case. Elections Canada sets criteria that leans to-wards the big parties, because Elections Canada is set up by the big parties and controlled. Shame on them! Just another way our democracy is eroded away in a subtle manner.

[benny]

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with a dollar amount per vote, as long as it is across the board and delivered evenly. This is not the case. Elections Canada sets criteria that leans to-wards the big parties, because Elections Canada is set up by the big parties and controlled. Shame on them! Just another way our democracy is eroded away in a subtle manner.

Confronted with such entrenched roadblocks, true democracy gears up towards a revolution.

[CAMP]

Confronted with such entrenched roadblocks, true democracy gears up toward a revolution.

I think it will be more of a paradigm shift away from parties that are full of partisan politics.

[CAMP]

My brother's room mate stole all the Columbia Music House memberships for the house, and ordered a bunch of free music.

Imagine if he could have stolen their votes and got the Green Party or Family Coalition party (or CAMP) elected.

Online voting would be as safe or safer than doing your taxes online. Which by the way is now being used more and more each year.

[M.Dancer]

Online voting would be as safe or safer than doing your taxes online. Which by the way is now being used more and more each year.

That, is merely wishful thinking. There is nothing to prove that it would be as safe as online banking, which more and more use each day, and is often subject to hacker attacks.

[CAMP]

That, is merely wishful thinking. There is nothing to prove that it would be as safe as online banking, which more and more use each day, and is often subject to hacker attacks.

Really, can you back that up with data as to how many people use online banking and get hacked. Pretty much online banking gets hacked only if the person holding the account somehow does something stupid like give out their pin number. Even the credit cards are now in the process of using on board chips inside the credit card to eliminate more fraud. Revenue Canada uses online income tax filing and it's safe. I use it all the time as many others do.

Online voting does increase voter turn out which is something needed. Last federal election I couldn't vote because I was on a business trip out of my area that came up on short notice. It would have been nice to dial in or hop on my computer and vote. Let's get our heads out of the sand and get with the 21st century technologies and implement them. There will always be an element of fraud even in the present system being employed, it's not pristine as you thing either.

Edited September 22, 2009 by CAMP

[Michael Hardner]

CAMP - This is an old thread, so remind me: Why do we have to make it easier to vote ?

The problem today is that issues aren't covered in adequate depth. We have fast-food information rather than nutritious political vitamins.

If the world was obese you wouldn't recommend putting a McDonalds on every corner would you ?

[M.Dancer]

Really, can you back that up with data as to how many people use online banking and get hacked. Pretty much online banking gets hacked only if the person holding the account somehow does something stupid like give out their pin number.

It is not the person getting hacked, but the banking sites. I would expect anyone trying to flog online voting would know this.

[eyeball]

Speaking of hacking or hijacking a system, that also describes happens when lobbyists meet in secret with politicians.

[Moonbox]

It is not the person getting hacked, but the banking sites. I would expect anyone trying to flog online voting would know this.

It really doesn't happen that often...as in barely ever. The security on the banking websites is about as good as it can get.

The problem normally is with poorly secured personal computers who managed to download keyloggers etc that end up getting hacked. That, and doing things like giving your credit card information away to everyone doesn't help.

Even so, online voting is a stupid idea. If you can't get off your ass and take an hour out of your day to vote, you don't deserve to vote. Increasing voter turnout for the stupid, apathetic, uninformed and the lazy isn't a big priority for me, nor for the rest of Canada.

[M.Dancer]

It really doesn't happen that often...as in barely ever.

http://m.zdnet.com.au/339271790.htm

http://blogs.csoonline.com/us_bank_knocked..._us_south_korea

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/...39278748,00.htm

http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/4457/shi...fall-again-ddos

Actually various types of attacks are common.

[Michael Hardner]

Moonbox,

Even so, online voting is a stupid idea. If you can't get off your ass and take an hour out of your day to vote, you don't deserve to vote. Increasing voter turnout for the stupid, apathetic, uninformed and the lazy isn't a big priority for me, nor for the rest of Canada.

Thank you.

We don't ask much to live as contributing citizens in a democracy, only to keep yourself informed and to take a bit of time to vote every 4 years. Adding a button to people's remote control will get more turnout, but how does it help us to have 100% response from lazy weasels. ( Or even industrious, diligent and ambitions weasels I suppose. )

[Topaz]

Moonbox,

Thank you.

We don't ask much to live as contributing citizens in a democracy, only to keep yourself informed and to take a bit of time to vote every 4 years. Adding a button to people's remote control will get more turnout, but how does it help us to have 100% response from lazy weasels. ( Or even industrious, diligent and ambitions weasels I suppose. )

I don't think its laziness that is having the low turn out, its the TURN-OFF to the politicans!! The corruption, the scams, the lies, and personal attacks in the House, people are fed up and turned off! Voters, also, are working and the ones with families aren't always paying attention to Ottawa. The TRUST isn't there any more.

[eyeball]

It really doesn't happen that often...as in barely ever. The security on the banking websites is about as good as it can get.

The problem normally is with poorly secured personal computers who managed to download keyloggers etc that end up getting hacked. That, and doing things like giving your credit card information away to everyone doesn't help.

Even so, online voting is a stupid idea. If you can't get off your ass and take an hour out of your day to vote, you don't deserve to vote.

So online voting is a stupid idea because it makes it too easy to vote?

Increasing voter turnout for the stupid, apathetic, uninformed and the lazy isn't a big priority for me, nor for the rest of Canada.

What about increasing opportunities for voters who are not apathetic and would relish the chance to vote directly on a range of issues on a regular basis?