Voting

[Guest TrueMetis]

So few people vote it doesn't make sense that a party should get in power without having a majority of the people wanting them in.

The Pros and Cons for it seem like this

Cons

-People vote just because they have to and don't care who they vote for an ingnorent vote can be worse than no vote.

-Sort of a violation of freedom.

-Enforcing it would be hard and would probably cost alot of money.

Pros

-More people actually vote.

-Having to vote might encourage people to learn more about the political parties.

-It works fairly well in Australia it should work here.

Feel free to put out your own Pros and Cons

What does everyone think?

[Bonam]

Totally opposed.

Not only will people that vote only because they have to not be contribute anything meaningful to the democratic process, but your point about it being a violation of freedom is not to be taken lightly. Furthermore, in our system, when voting for any party means that party gets more taxpayer money, the option to not vote at all most certainly needs to remain open.

[xul]

-Having to vote might encourage people to learn more about the political parties.

I think it can only make people to learn more about how to fill out the voting forms. Most people who don't vote belong to those people who can not figure out what politicians's policies are, though those who vote may also don't understand what these politicians are saying.

For example, let's assume that Harper and his opposite politicians come here to explain their policy on how many F-35s Canadian Air Force should purchase:

Harper: "I have decided to purchase 65 F-35s to replace our old F-18s."

Opposite politicians: "When I was in office, our Air force has 138 F-18 fighters, but under his rule, the number will reduce to 65. His policy has weakened the effectiveness of our Air Force over 50%."

Harper: "But American has told us F-35 is more effective than F-18. They said a F-35 can defeat more than two F-18s, so the effectiveness of Air Force will increase in the future..."

After reading their debate, there are four posters comment on it:

poster 1: "I will support opposite. My dad is an Air Force's pilot, I don't want him losing his job."

poster 2: "I will support Harper. I don't want to pay more tax any more."

poster 3: "What are those damn F-35s? Are they some new brand taser guns used by police to shoot at us?"

poster 4: "I'm a fan of these aeronautic stuff. I think that whose policy I should support depend on what is the main threat of Canada, I mean Russia or Taliban. If we use these fighters against Russian fighters, they will be more effective than F-18 just as Harper said. If we use these fighters to bomb Taliban, more fighters have to be purchased because Taliban doesn't have any radar so the stealth F-35s will have the same effectiveness with old F-18s, or even F-104s..."

When politicans, professors, scholars...all sort of system designers have read all of these, they may say, "not too bad, at least we still have got 25% voters perfectly knowing their jobs."

Just then, the 4th poster wrote a new supplementary post: "With regard to whom I should vote to, could someone here please tell me---Russia and Taliban, which is our main enemy...."

Edited July 26, 2009 by xul

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I will suggest that mandatory participation in the democratic process is a way to enhance our democracy. It is a way to make the government hear what the people have to say. I don't think its a bad thing.

[robber88]

I think a mandatory vote would be a good thing or at least couldn't hurt. We are mandated to do many other things... so what's one more thing we have to do? Making people cast a ballot would at least make people give elections a second thought. I do think though that if we made voting mandatory on the ballot there should be an option for "no one," so those that still have no opinion or don't like any of the available politicians, still have an option. Just making people remember they have to cast a ballot could make them give it a second thought and invest some time in learning about the parties, politicians and policy.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

The Pros and Cons for it seem like this

Cons

-People vote just because they have to and don't care who they vote for an ingnorent vote can be worse than no vote.

-Sort of a violation of freedom.

-Enforcing it would be hard and would probably cost alot of money.

Pros

-More people actually vote.

-Having to vote might encourage people to learn more about the political parties.

-It works fairly well in Australia it should work here.

Great topic.

Satirically I could suggest the current political parties would "love" this since they're getting their $1.95+ from us every time we cast that ballot!

But rather than making it mandatory I believe we should strive to make it something voters should want to do. They should look forward to exercising their hard-won franchise.

I'm sure you all agree, so the issue really is why isn't voting an imperative to Canadians? Before considering a mandatory rule, we should analyze all the possible measures for encouraging people to vote.

Empowering voters is better than making voting mandatory or even giving them more opportunities to "vote", if the "opportunity" is merely more of what we get now -- where the electoral process is controlled by special interests, pollsters, big unions/business and especially the registered political parties.

So here once again is our list of democratic reform suggestions that we can kick around and offer to Canadians. These mean more power for voters:

Democratic Reform List

And as one poster said, a "neither of the above" option on any ballot is good. In our proposed referendum rules, "no vote" is considered "no", but I agree that we'd rather "know" a "no", versus "guess" at it. And (my personal preference) 1-2-3 voting is also better than the FPTP.

Lowering the voting age to, say, 16, while we have them in school and can teach compulsory civics lessons, is another idea worth floating.

And electronic voting and other ways to make voting "easier" is also a great idea. The way it is now, many of us have to get up and drive kilometers and stand in lineups to vote, whereas the Liberals (bless their hearts) gave the vote to our rapists, abducters and murderers in Club Fed such that they can play billiards while the polling stations are set up right there in the prisons.

"Your shot, Clifford!"

So easier access to voting, as well as more opportunities (with the rules empowering voters, rather than the interests and politicians) ought to help improve the turnout. Let's exhaust all those ideas before we start writing more laws dictating Canadians' behaviour.

Edited July 26, 2009 by sgarrydemocracyparty

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps.....

Yet I think that IF you had fixed election dates, July 1st would be my choice, then mandatory voting could be proceeded with a real Canada Day.

Consider that for a minute folks. You are forced to vote on the nations birthday and it would be a stat holiday to form a new government and celebrate our sovereignty all at once. The idea is to promote both the people and the nation at the same time. We should be striving for unity instead of division.

[Alta4ever]

Voting should never be manditory, I don't want to ever face charges because I didn't like any of the options and stay home or spoiled my ballot.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Voting should never be manditory, I don't want to ever face charges because I didn't like any of the options and stay home or spoiled my ballot.

Staying at home allows the governments and politicians to do as they please. Voting forces them to accept the will of the people. You could of course spoil a ballot or perhaps incorporate into a ballot a protest vote of none of the above, that would send a rather harsh message to the government don't you think?

[Machjo]

So few people vote it doesn't make sense that a party should get in power without having a majority of the people wanting them in.

The Pros and Cons for it seem like this

Cons

-People vote just because they have to and don't care who they vote for an ingnorent vote can be worse than no vote.

-Sort of a violation of freedom.

-Enforcing it would be hard and would probably cost alot of money.

Pros

-More people actually vote.

-Having to vote might encourage people to learn more about the political parties.

-It works fairly well in Australia it should work here.

Feel free to put out your own Pros and Cons

What does everyone think?

Hmmm... which candidate should I vote for...

Victor Johnson... oh, sounds like a hunk...

Birtha Flatchuk... hmmm... oh, but wait

Green Party... oh, my faaaavourite colour..

Hmmm...

Alessandra Boccelli... sounds sexy. My son would like her.

Oh, Conservative... I've always heard bad things bout them frm my grandfather decades ago.

John Smith... That's boring...

Oh, but he's a Liberal. My dad and granddad always told us to vote Libral... There ya go...

check.

Oh, who was the candidate again.

Hmmm.... I don't think so.

[Machjo]

Totally opposed.

Not only will people that vote only because they have to not be contribute anything meaningful to the democratic process, but your point about it being a violation of freedom is not to be taken lightly. Furthermore, in our system, when voting for any party means that party gets more taxpayer money, the option to not vote at all most certainly needs to remain open.

That is definitely a valid point. Everybody does vote. The question is, do they vote actively or passively, or do they conscientiously abstain or hand in a blank ballot to indicate none of the above.

A low voter turn out sends just as loud a message as a high one... It means, none of the above, thus weakening the government's mandate and sending a clear message to others that maybe they should consider running in an election if they have unique ideas since they might be waht the non-voters are looking for.

Compulsory voting would mask that message and give a false impression of voter satisfaction.

[Alta4ever]

Staying at home allows the governments and politicians to do as they please. Voting forces them to accept the will of the people. You could of course spoil a ballot or perhaps incorporate into a ballot a protest vote of none of the above, that would send a rather harsh message to the government don't you think?

Polticians do as they please anyway.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Polticians do as they please anyway.

I am willing to admit that is in fact the problem. However I think that democratic tools and constitutions can be made to solve the problems.

[Machjo]

I am willing to admit that is in fact the problem. However I think that democratic tools and constitutions can be made to solve the problems.

Really? Refer to post 10 above.

Scary thing is, many vote like that already. imagine once we have to vote. At that stage, we might as well just cast a lottery.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Really? Refer to post 10 above.

Scary thing is, many vote like that already. imagine once we have to vote. At that stage, we might as well just cast a lottery.

I prefer to be a little more optimistic about the problem I guess. I would like to think that given the chance that citizens would add their weight to the political leverage issue and actually assist in the enhancement of our democracy. It might be beneficial for our society and I am willing to take that risk in order to find out.

[Machjo]

I prefer to be a little more optimistic about the problem I guess. I would like to think that given the chance that citizens would add their weight to the political leverage issue and actually assist in the enhancement of our democracy. It might be beneficial for our society and I am willing to take that risk in order to find out.

Hmmm... you havent' spoken with people on the streets much about politics, have you. I've tried on occasion, but the conversation generally didn't go too far. You'd be surprised how many vote for a party on traditional grounds, and others who'll vote for any politician who promisses to drop the price fo gas at the pump.

Remember, in a forum we're still dealing with people who at least know how to type, are somewhat literate, can use a computer to at lest a basic level, and have enoughcare and brains to type a few sentenses online.

This already makes even the stupidest forumite a notch above many in our society.

[Machjo]

in fact, I'd likely go in the opposite direction of forcing people to vote. I'd want to make it harder for them to vote. For example, take party names off of ballots. Suddenly, those who used to check party because grandpapa told them to decades ago will either:

Find out the name of the candidate for grandpapa's party before voting and, we hope, he might have learnt one or two other things in the process. or

Give up on voting because it's just too confusing.

Either way would improve our voting system even if overall voter turnout drops. These are not the people we want showing up at the poll booth!

[eyeball]

Hmmm... you havent' spoken with people on the streets much about politics, have you. I've tried on occasion, but the conversation generally didn't go too far. You'd be surprised how many vote for a party on traditional grounds, and others who'll vote for any politician who promisses to drop the price fo gas at the pump.

Remember, in a forum we're still dealing with people who at least know how to type, are somewhat literate, can use a computer to at lest a basic level, and have enoughcare and brains to type a few sentenses online.

This already makes even the stupidest forumite a notch above many in our society.

I subscribe to the idea that order emerges from chaos and that when enough people are involved in doing something that things generally trend towards the best solution. If I were to believe otherwise, that there were too many idiots who couldn't be trusted to vote without making things worse, I'd be calling for mandatory issues comprehension tests before issuing people a licence to vote.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see that intelligence, comprehension or history tests would change the result we have now - in terms of which parties win. It would possibly improve the level of debate, but there are less exclusionary ways to do that.

I'm not sure why people think the voice of the people isn't being heard now. Those who stay home are too lazy to participate, end of story. They're not speaking, so there's nothing to be heard.

In my opinion, most of the complaints I hear about politics would be fixed by improving the level of debate, not by arresting people for not voting.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

We've already got enough ignorant voters, we don't need more. Sure, mandatory voting works in Australia, in that it gets everyone to vote because they'll go to jail if they don't. So they get morons like John Howard running their country.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think Australia issues a fine of up to 50$ plus court costs.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

in fact, I'd likely go in the opposite direction of forcing people to vote. I'd want to make it harder for them to vote. For example, take party names off of ballots. Suddenly, those who used to check party because grandpapa told them to decades ago will either:

Find out the name of the candidate for grandpapa's party before voting and, we hope, he might have learnt one or two other things in the process. or

Give up on voting because it's just too confusing.

Either way would improve our voting system even if overall voter turnout drops. These are not the people we want showing up at the poll booth!

I chuckled my way through your post but couldn't do anything but gasp at the last comment. Low voter turnout is exactly what the big political parties want... ie. "low" for the everyday person... because they already know their party activists "are" going to turn out. These parties "love" it when only they and their activists get to decide the election campaign.

No, I'm for making it easier to vote (but making sure they're informed voters) so we can begin to reverse the trend of allowing the activists and interest groups to decide our electoral fates.

[Machjo]

I chuckled my way through your post but couldn't do anything but gasp at the last comment. Low voter turnout is exactly what the big political parties want... ie. "low" for the everyday person... because they already know their party activists "are" going to turn out. These parties "love" it when only they and their activists get to decide the election campaign.

No, I'm for making it easier to vote (but making sure they're informed voters) so we can begin to reverse the trend of allowing the activists and interest groups to decide our electoral fates.

Sure, if we can raise quality voter turn out by raising education standards. Otherwise, I don't want a person checking a box because his grandpapa always told him to vote that party. Also, if I had to choose between loyal party members and that riffraff, then I'd probably prefer loyal party members. And no, I'm not a member of any party myself. Then again, if we stopped giving money to parties and forced all MPs to stand as independents, we'd likely weaken that group too.

But with no party names on the ballot, we'd be forcing people to.... THINK.

[Michael Hardner]

Machjo...

The education of the people has already begun with the web. Things are starting to change already.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

But with no party names on the ballot, we'd be forcing people to.... THINK.

That's fine, but I've read of examples in which parties deliberately ran candidates with names that conflict with other candidates, and of course it could happen coincidentally too.

People vote for all kinds of reasons, but there are those who vote for the candidate, and others who vote for the party no matter what bozo is the candidate.

I understand your sentiment, but "mandatory voting" or "name only ballots" are ideas against the symptom (voter apathy) rather than a cure for the disease (poor choices).

I don't think we can deny voters both tidbits of info (name/affiliation) on the ballot. It's not a lot of info, and until we get like some the Third World elections, with 2500 parties, we can afford the paper.