Election Campaigns

Posc Student · April 24, 2011

During this campaign I have been thinking about a few things that I am not fussy about and I was wondering what people thought and if they had their own issuees with our election campaigns.

First off I feel that our election campaigns should be a few weeks longer. While we've seen how quickly public opinions can change I think it would be great if the campaigns were a few weeks longer. The whole process now as is seems a bit rushed and the candidates and leaders don't seem to have the proper time to get their messages out. A quick campaign just seems to benefit the front-runners.

Another thing I've heard people take issue with is the leaders debate, there was a lot of complaints about how the French debate was only about Quebec. People have mentioned how the leaders should have more debates, or they should have one for each region, someone told me they thought that higher probfile members of each party should do televised debates in their respective regions instead of their leaders, for example in Atlantic Canada Dominic LeBlanc, Peter MacKay and Jack Harris could debate.

I would like to either see several debates where each debate focused on a certain topic or topics, ie. the economy. Or have a debate for each region of the country, having a debate for each region would mean that the Bloc would only be involved in a Quebec debate. This would allow us to really see where the parties stand on topics that relate to each region, people were saying to me that there was not one question relating to the fishery in either debate and I don't think the oil sands were mentioned.

A longer campaign would make it much easier for these such debates to happen.

Has anyone else noticed things throughout the campaign they'd like to changed or added?

Molly · April 25, 2011

I'm inclined to disagree, largely because of the Kim Campbell dictum- that election campaigns are no time to talk about the issues.

Campaigns are the silly season. Their function is not to introduce the leaders, who would be old news to anyone who thinks or cares. Their function is to introduce the individual candidates, and to allow for the administrative arrangements to be properly made.

If it was just about leaders, a mass vote taken the same day the election is called would be a better, more realistic, more reasonable, more democratic approval system.

betsy · April 25, 2011

During this campaign I have been thinking about a few things that I am not fussy about and I was wondering what people thought and if they had their own issuees with our election campaigns.

First off I feel that our election campaigns should be a few weeks longer. While we've seen how quickly public opinions can change I think it would be great if the campaigns were a few weeks longer. The whole process now as is seems a bit rushed and the candidates and leaders don't seem to have the proper time to get their messages out. A quick campaign just seems to benefit the front-runners.

Another thing I've heard people take issue with is the leaders debate, there was a lot of complaints about how the French debate was only about Quebec. People have mentioned how the leaders should have more debates, or they should have one for each region, someone told me they thought that higher probfile members of each party should do televised debates in their respective regions instead of their leaders, for example in Atlantic Canada Dominic LeBlanc, Peter MacKay and Jack Harris could debate.

I would like to either see several debates where each debate focused on a certain topic or topics, ie. the economy. Or have a debate for each region of the country, having a debate for each region would mean that the Bloc would only be involved in a Quebec debate. This would allow us to really see where the parties stand on topics that relate to each region, people were saying to me that there was not one question relating to the fishery in either debate and I don't think the oil sands were mentioned.

A longer campaign would make it much easier for these such debates to happen.

Has anyone else noticed things throughout the campaign they'd like to changed or added?

The longer the campaign....the longer there's no government in power. During that time, we're in limbo.

Furthermore, with the gruelling pace of fierce campaigning I wonder how long our campaigning leaders will last on the trail - healthwise?

Moonbox · April 25, 2011

The longer the campaign....the longer there's no government in power. During that time, we're in limbo.

Furthermore, with the gruelling pace of fierce campaigning I wonder how long our campaigning leaders will last on the trail - healthwise?

John McCain is older than any of our candidates I'm pretty sure. I don't think health is the problem. It's voter apathy.

We don't need a 3 month election campaign here in Canada. It's not a pageant and people have already mostly lost interest and made their decision with a week left. Draw it out another few weeks and people just get even more bored.

August1991 · April 25, 2011

First off I feel that our election campaigns should be a few weeks longer. While we've seen how quickly public opinions can change I think it would be great if the campaigns were a few weeks longer. The whole process now as is seems a bit rushed and the candidates and leaders don't seem to have the proper time to get their messages out. A quick campaign just seems to benefit the front-runners.

Federal campaigns used to be much longer - 10 weeks or more. With modern travel and easy communications, it was decided that this was a big waste of time and so the length was reduced to the current five weeks. If anything, I think that's too long.

In the US, the presidential campaign lasts well over one year. Do you think that time is necessary?

In Canada, our parliamentary system means that voters have ample opportunity to get to know the candidates and parties before an election. We have a regular question period where the government is forced to respond to awkward questions - particularly when there is a serious scandal.

Posc, what more do we need to know about Gilles Duceppe or gun control?

Another thing I've heard people take issue with is the leaders debate, there was a lot of complaints about how the French debate was only about Quebec. People have mentioned how the leaders should have more debates, or they should have one for each region, someone told me they thought that higher probfile members of each party should do televised debates in their respective regions instead of their leaders, for example in Atlantic Canada Dominic LeBlanc, Peter MacKay and Jack Harris could debate.

There are local riding all- candidates debates. There are even regional debates.

I would like to either see several debates where each debate focused on a certain topic or topics, ie. the economy. Or have a debate for each region of the country, having a debate for each region would mean that the Bloc would only be involved in a Quebec debate. This would allow us to really see where the parties stand on topics that relate to each region, people were saying to me that there was not one question relating to the fishery in either debate and I don't think the oil sands were mentioned.

This was tried in the past when there several debates spread over several nights. In general, more debates don't add much. One debate in English and another in French is a good formula. I particularly like the basic formula of allowing two leaders to go head-to-head without a moderator turning it into a serial press conference.

It's worth noting taht leader debates are relatively new. Trudeau always avoided them. He only accepted a debate in 1968 and 1979. Mulroney seems to have started the tradition and now it would be hard for a PM to opt out. If I had been Harper, I would not have participated in the debates this year.

-----

In short, ordinary people have lives. Three weeks of campaigning would be enough to make up your mind. Now then, why do we put up those crazy signs everywhere and why do teh leaders have to fly all around the country? What does that accomplish?

Someone in the near future is going to find a better way to attract voters and put it into practice.

Edited April 25, 2011 by August1991

capricorn · April 26, 2011

IMO the present election campaign schedule is adequate. In minority government situations, the parties always seem to be electioneering anyway, as proven by the multitude of political ads outside election campaigns.

Speaking of campaigns, here's a dandy list summarizing all the campaign promises to date, by party.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jtB4M5w4Dl7qBC_hcM54MpSNtVJg?docId=6664591

Posc Student · April 26, 2011

I think five weeks would be enough if 75% of Canadians were as in tune with politics as the people are on these forum but for those who don't follow politics it can be pretty quick.

I like the idea of a slower pace campaign that is probably 7 weeks, it would be nice to see the leaders actually spend more time in the provinces and travel to more areas to listen to more Canadians.