Voting

[Shraytus]

Opposed

The government must do what's necessary to further the progression of their country, but not if that results in a lack of individual freedom, or worse, a lack of respect for the vote itself and its possible consequences.

[Machjo]

Opposed

The government must do what's necessary to further the progression of their country, but not if that results in a lack of individual freedom, or worse, a lack of respect for the vote itself and its possible consequences.

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe,

Catch a tiger by the toe.

If he hollers let him go,

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe

Hmmm... Nationalist Party of Canada. Wonder what that is? Hmmm... sounds good. I think I'll go with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_Party_of_Canada

[Fortunata]

Hmmm... 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.

The uninformed voter is what is a threat to democracy, not the non-voter.

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.

There are many reasons why people don't vote and, I think, laziness is the least of them.

[Michael Hardner]

Fortunata,

There are many reasons why people don't vote and, I think, laziness is the least of them.

Why do you think so ?

I can't think of any other reason.

[lily]

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.

Very nice quote.

[Fortunata]

Fortunata,

Why do you think so ?

I can't think of any other reason.

An uninformed voter or a "just because" voter can tilt the outcome of an election that may be run on very serious issues. If they have no understanding of those issues, why should they be the potential deciders?

People don't vote because they don't see where the differences are between parties, between leaders. People don't vote because they are disgusted by political opportunism. People don't vote because they don't feel their vote will count. Lots of reasons.

[Michael Hardner]

Fortunata,

People don't vote because they don't see where the differences are between parties, between leaders. People don't vote because they are disgusted by political opportunism. People don't vote because they don't feel their vote will count. Lots of reasons.

1. If they don't see the differences, then they need to research them.

2. If they're disgusted, or dont' like the system there are other options besides staying home that still allow them to engage the system.

[lily]

True. THere are people that will intentionally spoil their ballots.

[Alta4ever]

Fortunata,

1. If they don't see the differences, then they need to research them.

2. If they're disgusted, or dont' like the system there are other options besides staying home that still allow them to engage the system.

What about those who just do care, you would be surprised how many fall under that category, and forcing them to vote won't make them research or find out, some will close their eyes and pick for other it might just be who looks the nicest, maybe who seems the least threatening in stature or appearance. I would rather have 10% of the engaged voting, rather then 100% of the twits who really are only voting because they have to and not making informed decisions.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What you folks don't seem to pick up on is that we have a declining participation in the democratic process. That in itself serves to detract from our freedom because the governments of the day become more able to do as they please with less fear of public backlash come election times. What really happens is that partisan blocks use the apathetic citizens to leverage their own vote totals and secure greater power with decreased participation. WE are actually empowering political parties and detracting from our own democratic freedom by doing this.

[Michael Hardner]

Alta,

What about those who just do care, you would be surprised how many fall under that category, and forcing them to vote won't make them research or find out, some will close their eyes and pick for other it might just be who looks the nicest, maybe who seems the least threatening in stature or appearance. I would rather have 10% of the engaged voting, rather then 100% of the twits who really are only voting because they have to and not making informed decisions.

I agree.

[Machjo]

So, would we include a blank space on that ballot so that I could write the name I want on it if I don't like any of the other names on that ballot?

[Machjo]

True. THere are people that will intentionally spoil their ballots.

I'd handed in a blank ballot last election. I was so sick of the partisanship that I was trying to find a more independent-minded candidate. There was no independent candidate in my riding, so I had to go with a party member. I'd spoken to each of the party members but two already, and had e-mailed all but one (I couldn't find her e-mail address or phone number).

On the day I had to vote though, I was still undecided between one particular candidate and none of the above. It was a tough choice, and I still wasn't fully decided yet until the last minute, and finally handed a blank ballot. Who knows, maybe I was wrong and should have checked that one candidate. But if you can't choose, you cant' choose.

Now, here was the quality of the candidates in my riding:

1. When I'd gone to his campaign office to ask some questions, he'd taken out the party platform book and read the answer out to me! As if I could not have found that online. I had gone to the office to find out about him, not his party. So obviously, he was nothing but a mindless party hack, and to think he was a teacher!

2. He wasn't at his campaing office, but I'd written the questions on paper for someone else to respond. The next day, some professor calls on his behalf! Sorry, but the professor wasn't going to be on the ballot, and I can't imagine that that professor woudl be holding the candidate's hand all day in the Ontario Parliament.

3. I couldn't reach her. So I won't vote for whom I don't know.

4. He seemed reasonable enough, and had some ideas of his own. Sometimes he didn't know the answer to my questions, but was willing to admit to it and state that he'd look further into it. In the end, though, I think I was too harsh on him and should have voted for him anyway.

But this gives an idea of the kinds of candidates we are coming up across.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

4. He seemed reasonable enough, and had some ideas of his own. Sometimes he didn't know the answer to my questions, but was willing to admit to it and state that he'd look further into it. In the end, though, I think I was too harsh on him and should have voted for him anyway.

But this gives an idea of the kinds of candidates we are coming up across.

Yeah, I'd have gone with #4. These types are hungry.

Congratulations to you on putting out such a solid effort to dig through the clutter, though.

[Michael Hardner]

Machjo,

I find it odd that you expect the candidate to personally return your calls.

The ridings around Toronto typically have over 100,000 people so I don't think they return phone calls.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Shraytus]

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe,

Catch a tiger by the toe.

If he hollers let him go,

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe

Hmmm... Nationalist Party of Canada. Wonder what that is? Hmmm... sounds good. I think I'll go with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_Party_of_Canada

If you're implying this, no I'm not a member of the nationalist white supremacist party of Canada, I'm not a member of any political party. I'm saying, however, that if people are forced to vote that it's A) a breach of freedom and if they aren't voting in the first place when they don't have to, they certainly wont vote with respect when they're *forced* to. If they wish to vote, let them educate themselves so they can make an informed decision, not jeopardize the country's freedom and its political well being.

[Machjo]

If you're implying this, no I'm not a member of the nationalist white supremacist party of Canada, I'm not a member of any political party. I'm saying, however, that if people are forced to vote that it's A) a breach of freedom and if they aren't voting in the first place when they don't have to, they certainly wont vote with respect when they're *forced* to. If they wish to vote, let them educate themselves so they can make an informed decision, not jeopardize the country's freedom and its political well being.

Thats not at all what I was implying. What I was implying is that if we made voting compulsory, we'd get the eeny meeny miny moe types who would not be nazis but who could just as easily vote for one unwittingly. or inversely, Bolsheviks.

[Bryan]

I don't like the idea of mandatory voting at all. I think it's anti-democratic. Freedom to participate in the process also includes the freedom not to.

Machjo,

I find it odd that you expect the candidate to personally return your calls.

The ridings around Toronto typically have over 100,000 people so I don't think they return phone calls.

I most definitely expect my candidates to speak to me personally, face to face or on the phone. I had a 45 minute phone conversation with one candidate last election. She won by a huge margin in a riding that has been held by the incumbent's party seemingly forever. Most people I talked to said the same thing: she either came by or called, the other guy was nowhere to be found.

[Machjo]

Machjo,

I find it odd that you expect the candidate to personally return your calls.

The ridings around Toronto typically have over 100,000 people so I don't think they return phone calls.

Had he provided a website with a detailed list of his views on various issues, I woudln't have needed to ask him now would I have. And seeing that he was running for RE-ELECTIOn, he'd had awhile to collect comon questions to place on his website so as to focus on the more unusual quesitons by now, so he shouldn't have been getting too many questions to begin with.

[Machjo]

I don't like the idea of mandatory voting at all. I think it's anti-democratic. Freedom to participate in the process also includes the freedom not to.

I most definitely expect my candidates to speak to me personally, face to face or on the phone. I had a 45 minute phone conversation with one candidate last election. She won by a huge margin in a riding that has been held by the incumbent's party seemingly forever. Most people I talked to said the same thing: she either came by or called, the other guy was nowhere to be found.

I fully agree. if the candidate is genuinely busy, then he could have foreseen this and pre-planned for it by including a detailed list of his ideas on various issues on-line so that we wouldn't need to ask. Pre-planning is also a reflection of a candidate's character.

[Machjo]

Machjo,

I find it odd that you expect the candidate to personally return your calls.

The ridings around Toronto typically have over 100,000 people so I don't think they return phone calls.

And another point. I recognize that candidates are indeed busy and do show them the appropriate respect as such. Last eleciton, I'd e-mailed each of my candidates (except for one since I could not find her e-mail addres) with the quesitons I was likely to ask them at the all-candidates meeting a few days later, so as to make the event more constructive so that instead of fumbling or saying they don't know the answer, they could have an answer prepared. As it turned out, because of the overflowing crowd, I never had the chance to ask my question, but I'm just pointing out that I do understand that even candidates need a break, and I did show a willingness to reach out half way at least by not tripping them with some surprise question. I do try to treat all candidates equally and with dignity.