Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[jacee]

Yes, you stated that “they” don’t vote (or revolt) because “we” give them just enough tasty table scraps…………Seems clear-cut enough for me………….I stand waiting for a reference to Oliver Twist and/or a Clash song….

People have a choice about voting. I think studies find that those who don't vote generally wouldn't have changed results as they exhibit the same voting patterns as those who did vote.

It is also the perogative of the individual to not vote as a form of protest against a system where their vote doesn't count anyway, under our first-past-the-post system. If the outcome in your particular riding is pretty predictable, then your vote for a candidate who won't win is wasted - ie, doesn't count toward anything. Proportional representation has been suggested as a way of addressing this malaise in the system, where the #seats in parliament would actually represent the percentage of the popular vote obtained by each party. Thus, your 'wasted' vote for a losing candidate in your riding would still count toward your party's seats in parliament.

wikilink

"They have become the widest form of voting system n the world, mostly in South America, Europe as well as being chosen by most nascent democracies across the world. On the other hand, countries under the Westminster system, New Zealand excepted, have resisted it."

link

" The record of 509 national elections in 20 countries provides the basis for a regression analysis that clearly identifies higher turnout rates in PR systems ..."

That said, voter turnout is related to inequity - increasing income gap between the wealthiEST and the rest of us.

link

" Income gaps translate into voting gaps

In the ten states with the smallest income gap, an average 57 percent of the voting age population turned out to vote in the 1996 presidential election, according to Federal Election Commission data. The ten states with the widest income gap had an average voter turnout of only 48 percent. the widest income gap had an average voter turnout of only 48 percent. Voter turnout has fallen dramatically and rising economic inequality is one reason why. Upper-income Americans participate in the electoral process at much higher levels than middle- and low-income Americans. "

Is falling voter turnout related to complacency/satisfaction, or to inequity/powerlessness, and how can it be improved?

The data doesn't say for sure, but a Canadian report concludes:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/Society/voter-turnout.aspx#_ftnref2

“without fundamenta changes in the way in which politics is conducted in Canada, these are goals that could well remain out of reach for some time.”

Ahhh ... there we are ... "the way politics is conducted" ... seems to be an issue. Maybe because politicians do the bidding of the wealthiEST?

Edited September 20, 2011 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

People have a choice about voting. I think studies find that those who don't vote generally wouldn't have changed results as they exhibit the same voting patterns as those who did vote.

It is also the perogative of the individual to not vote as a form of protest against a system where their vote doesn't count anyway, under our first-past-the-post system. If the outcome in your particular riding is pretty predictable, then your vote for a candidate who won't win is wasted - ie, doesn't count toward anything. Proportional representation has been suggested as a way of addressing this malaise in the system, where the #seats in parliament would actually represent the percentage of the popular vote obtained by each party. Thus, your 'wasted' vote for a losing candidate in your riding would still count toward your party's seats in parliament.

wikilink

"They have become the widest form of voting system n the world, mostly in South America, Europe as well as being chosen by most nascent democracies across the world. On the other hand, countries under the Westminster system, New Zealand excepted, have resisted it."

link

" The record of 509 national elections in 20 countries provides the basis for a regression analysis that clearly identifies higher turnout rates in PR systems ..."

That said, voter turnout is related to inequity - increasing income gap between the wealthiEST and the rest of us.

link

" Income gaps translate into voting gaps

In the ten states with the smallest income gap, an average 57 percent of the voting age population turned out to vote in the 1996 presidential election, according to Federal Election Commission data. The ten states with the widest income gap had an average voter turnout of only 48 percent. the widest income gap had an average voter turnout of only 48 percent. Voter turnout has fallen dramatically and rising economic inequality is one reason why. Upper-income Americans participate in the electoral process at much higher levels than middle- and low-income Americans. "

Is falling voter turnout related to complacency/satisfaction, or to inequity/powerlessness, and how can it be improved?

The data doesn't say for sure, but a Canadian report concludes:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/Society/voter-turnout.aspx#_ftnref2

“without fundamenta changes in the way in which politics is conducted in Canada, these are goals that could well remain out of reach for some time.”

Ahhh ... there we are ... "the way politics is conducted" ... seems to be an issue. Maybe because politicians do the bidding of the wealthiEST?

Don’t get me wrong, I support 100% the right to or not to vote…………I’d never want it forced on people. With that said, if someone decided not to vote, then complains about the results, I tend to pay little attention to them………..In BC (as I’m sure is the same across the country) we’ve had numerous elections with many ridings being decided by a small number of votes……….As for a PR system, well we’ve voted on that here in BC twice and both times it’s been turned down…………In my view, a PR system would lead to less stable coalition governments………and the consensus during the last few elections was that majority of Canadians didn’t support the idea………..

For the life of me, I don’t understand why the left leaning, progressive parties don’t merge……..The champions of a PR system seem to always be the smaller fringe parties, and even under such a system, your parties like the Greens, Christian heritage etc are still never going to lead a government, and at best, can play kingmaker for a more popular party.

If this is the case, and the Greens (for example) would have to enter into a coalition with another party (or two, or three) to form government, why not just merge? For the most part, to me as an outside observer with no dog in it, the Liberals, NDP and the Greens all seem relatively close enough, that with some hard work and negotiations, a merger to form a “Liberal-Green-Democratic party” doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Is it an ego thing on the part of some party members? Are some afraid that their voice would be silenced within a new party?

I’d think Elizabeth May (for example) would be better off being in cabinet, and could affect more change on the issues she’s champions being on the inside as part of a team, than the leader of a fringe party……Kind of like being Queen shit of turd mountain………

[CPCFTW]

People have a choice about voting. I think studies find that those who don't vote generally wouldn't have changed results as they exhibit the same voting patterns as those who did vote.

I don't believe that study for a second. We all know that everyone who didn't vote in the last election hates Harper, wishes the NDP was in power, and wants an Arab Spring in Canada. At least that's what you've all been telling us since the election.

[jacee]

Don’t get me wrong, I support 100% the right to or not to vote…………I’d never want it forced on people. With that said, if someone decided not to vote, then complains about the results, I tend to pay little attention to them…

I agree with you there, if they are complaining about the results. If they don't vote because they think there's something wrong with the system, though, that's different - a legitimate form of protest, I think.

……..InAs for a PR system, well we’ve voted on that here in BC twice and both times it’s been turned down…………In my view, a PR system would lead to less stable coalition governments………and the consensus during the last few elections was that majority of Canadians didn’t support the idea………..

I'm not sure where you got that last statement from.

The major parties know how to manipulate the current system to get more seats with a smaller percentage of the popular vote - eg Harper with 54% of the seats (and all of the power, but only 40% of the popular vote. The NDP seats are pretty consistent (S 34%. PV 31%), while the Libs with 19% of the PV got only 11% of the seats. The current system was designed way before the more accurate and targeted polling systems we have today, which makes it vulnerable to distortion. I think it's foolish to talk about a 'majority' government that doesn't have the support of the majority of the voters.

Beyond that though ... why bother voting if your riding always goes to a party you don't want? There should be some value to those wasted votes to encourage more people to vote, but there is none at present.

I don't think people have been well educated about PR, and - think it's because the major parties prefer the system they're accustomed to.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why the left leaning, progressive parties don’t merge……..The champions of a PR system seem to always be the smaller fringe parties, and even under such a system, your parties like the Greens, Christian heritage etc are still never going to lead a government, and at best, can play kingmaker for a more popular party.

If this is the case, and the Greens (for example) would have to enter into a coalition with another party (or two, or three) to form government, why not just merge? For the most part, to me as an outside observer with no dog in it, the Liberals, NDP and the Greens all seem relatively close enough, that with some hard work and negotiations, a merger to form a “Liberal-Green-Democratic party” doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Is it an ego thing on the part of some party members? Are some afraid that their voice would be silenced within a new party?

I’d think Elizabeth May (for example) would be better off being in cabinet, and could affect more change on the issues she’s champions being on the inside as part of a team, than the leader of a fringe party……Kind of like being Queen shit of turd mountain………

I'm not in favour of two party systems. I think they keep people divided and don't provide enough choice or room for new ideas. I prefer multiparty systems because they can be more dynamic in collaborating to produce better quality work. A single ideology is a frozen government with no new ideas, and just doesn't represent all Canadians, nor can it respond well to surprise situations. Government needs to be more responsive than that, and needs to demonstrate ability to work cooperatively ... like we expect students and employees to do. We're not hiring a CEO to give the orders: We're electing a democratic government to address the needs of all Canadians. Big difference, imo. Edited September 21, 2011 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

I agree with you there, if they are complaining about the results. If they don't vote because they think there's something wrong with the system, though, that's different - a legitimate form of protest, I think.

Sure, it can be said that it’s a form of protest………..about as effective as a child not eating his dinner and going to bed hungry mind you

I'm not sure where you got that last statement from.

The major parties know how to manipulate the current system to get more seats with a smaller percentage of the popular vote - eg Harper with 54% of the seats (and all of the power, but only 40% of the popular vote. The NDP seats are pretty consistent (S 34%. PV 31%), while the Libs with 19% of the PV got only 11% of the seats. The current system was designed way before the more accurate and targeted polling systems we have today, which makes it vulnerable to distortion. I think it's foolish to talk about a 'majority' government that doesn't have the support of the majority of the voters.

Beyond that though ... why bother voting if your riding always goes to a party you don't want? There should be some value to those wasted votes to encourage more people to vote, but there is none at present.

I don't think people have been well educated about PR, and - think it's because the major parties prefer the system they're accustomed to.

So it’s the “peoples lack of education (Of PR)” and the major parties keeping down a PR system within Canada that’s to blame for the fringe parties plight?

I don’t know about the rest of Canada, but as I said, here in British Columbia, we’ve rejected PR twice……Maybe we know enough about it, and it’s not to our liking…..Just saying

I guess it depends on what you think a majority should be…….The CPC got the most seats….So in of it’s self, they have the majority of seats……..as you’ve stated, the Libs/NDP/Greens/Bloc etc are different parties, and though combined would be a majority, but there not…

I'm not in favour of two party systems. I think they keep people divided and don't provide enough choice or room for new ideas. I prefer multiparty systems because they can be more dynamic in collaborating to produce better quality work. A single ideology is a frozen government with no new ideas, and just doesn't represent all Canadians, nor can it respond well to surprise situations. Government needs to be more responsive than that, and needs to demonstrate ability to work cooperatively ... like we expect students and employees to do. We're not hiring a CEO to give the orders: We're electing a democratic government to address the needs of all Canadians. Big difference, imo.

Nobody is saying you have to make a two party system……..just as it stands with current progressive vote splitting, to govern in the near future, you might have to take a better look at the idea…….IMO…

And what if most Canadians are not in favour of the PR system?……I’ve honestly never looked at it as a national issue………Is there major support for such a change? Has there been any national polls?

I thought most Canadians where opposed to the idea of minority, coalition governments……the end result of what PR would bring no?

[mentalfloss]

Income inequality is not a problem. It is a sign of a society that strives for excellence.

[jacee]

Sure, it can be said that it’s a form of protest………..about as effective as a child not eating his dinner and going to bed hungry mind you

So it’s the “peoples lack of education (Of PR)” and the major parties keeping down a PR system within Canada that’s to blame for the fringe parties plight?

I don’t know about the rest of Canada, but as I said, here in British Columbia, we’ve rejected PR twice……Maybe we know enough about it, and it’s not to our liking…..Just saying

I guess it depends on what you think a majority should be…….The CPC got the most seats….So in of it’s self, they have the majority of seats……..as you’ve stated, the Libs/NDP/Greens/Bloc etc are different parties, and though combined would be a majority, but there not…

Nobody is saying you have to make a two party system……..just as it stands with current progressive vote splitting, to govern in the near future, you might have to take a better look at the idea…….IMO…

And what if most Canadians are not in favour of the PR system?……I’ve honestly never looked at it as a national issue………Is there major support for such a change? Has there been any national polls?

I thought most Canadians where opposed to the idea of minority, coalition governments……the end result of what PR would bring no?

Taking a poll or referendum on PR without first educating people ... is a political ploy, intentional failure - Ontario for example.

Majority governments are like dictatorships - prone to corruption and suppressing dissent.

[g_bambino]

Majority governments are like dictatorships - prone to corruption and suppressing dissent.

Except they face an election in at most four years.

You know we just came out of years of minority government, right?

[Smallc]

Except they face an election in at most four years.

Well, technically, five.

[g_bambino]

Well, technically, five.

By the constitution, yes. Currently, the Canada Elections Act sets it at the first Monday in October four years following the summoning of parliament. You know, Harper's so-called "fixed election" law.

[Smallc]

By the constitution, yes. Currently, the Canada Elections Act sets it at the first Monday in October four years following the summoning of parliament. You know, Harper's so-called "fixed election" law.

Yeah, I know that, but since a majority government could always eliminate that law, I don't really count it.

[g_bambino]

[A] majority government could always eliminate that law...

True.

[Argus]

And Obama likely won't be reelected next year......I read a storey today that a prominent Democratic journalist is calling for Hillary to run next year and Obama to step aside……Is this a start of a trend? I guess we’ll have to see over the coming year.

Funny thing I noted during much of the debt default nonsense prior to the extension of the debt limits was that I rarely saw anything about Obama. The guy was practically invisible. Say what you want about Clinton or Bush, but they were never invisible. US politics revolved around them. Obama has been less visible as president than any president I remember going back to Nixon.

[Guest Derek L]

Funny thing I noted during much of the debt default nonsense prior to the extension of the debt limits was that I rarely saw anything about Obama. The guy was practically invisible. Say what you want about Clinton or Bush, but they were never invisible. US politics revolved around them. Obama has been less visible as president than any president I remember going back to Nixon.

I agree, and if the Democrats had of selected Hillary, right or wrong, I’d think politically, she wouldn’t have the same grade to climb next year………….Obama is the next Jimmy Carter.

[Rick]

I don't believe that study for a second. We all know that everyone who didn't vote in the last election hates Harper, wishes the NDP was in power, and wants an Arab Spring in Canada. At least that's what you've all been telling us since the election.

And it's coming... it's already here in North America.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned last Friday that poverty and high unemployment could lead to riots in the U.S.

[Guest Derek L]

And it's coming... it's already here in North America.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned last Friday that poverty and high unemployment could lead to riots in the U.S.

Yeah, well, there's (according to the article in the other thread) all of a few hundred of them...........The Police outnumbered the revolutionaries……..but hey……….don’t give up…….With out the spirit shown by people like you, nuclear weapons wouldn’t have been banned, baby seals would still be killed and we’d still be driving around Ice age/Global Warming/Climate Changing fossil fuel vehicles……..Keep up the good work!!

[jacee]

And they're staying.

So you might want to hedge your bets somewhat.

[Guest Derek L]

And they're staying.

So you might want to hedge your bets somewhat.

Till it gets cold out?

[jacee]

Till it gets cold out?

Till they all have a job?

This is the winter camping, climbing, survival gear generation.

Don't count them stupid because they are peaceful and persistent.

And don't count them unsupported, because they're not.

Somebody's paying for their "commercial kitchen".

But no need to panic. That's to be avoided, especially by police.

Edited September 22, 2011 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

Till they all have a job?

This is the winter camping, climbing, survival gear generation.

Don't count them stupid because they are peaceful and persistent.

And don't count them unsupported, because they're not.

Somebody's paying for their "commercial kitchen".

But no need to panic. That's to be avoided, especially by police.

Sounds kinda like the protestors at Clayoquot Sound

……..it’s being logged today

[bush_cheney2004]

...Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned last Friday that poverty and high unemployment could lead to riots in the U.S.

Wow...even the New York mayor...oh my. I would just like to point out that championship hockey games could lead to riots in the US and Canada.

[Guest Derek L]

Wow...even the New York mayor...oh my. I would just like to point out that championship hockey games could lead to riots in the US and Canada.

And did you notice how he’s touting the words of that evil elitist Bloomberg? The very same mayor that only allowed the aristocracy at the 9/11 ceremonies and not the true ,union, heroes of the NYPD & NYFD…….I smell a shill for the corporate, New World Order.

Viva la Revolucion!

[msj]

Sounds kinda like the protestors at Clayoquot Sound

……..it’s being logged today

But it's not being logged like it used to be - hence the lack of protests now.

I would know - as I was driving in and around the Sound on Saturday and it looks nothing like what I remember seeing of the logging methods used in the late 80's in and around the Alberni inlet.

Not even close to being the same thing.

Funny, at the time of the protests I was against the protesters and for the loggers.

Now, not so much - they really did win a victory for us all.

/tangent

[Guest Derek L]

But it's not being logged like it used to be - hence the lack of protests now.

I would know - as I was driving in and around the Sound on Saturday and it looks nothing like what I remember seeing of the logging methods used in the late 80's in and around the Alberni inlet.

Not even close to being the same thing.

Funny, at the time of the protests I was against the protesters and for the loggers.

Now, not so much - they really did win a victory for us all.

/tangent

What has been the trend over the last decade for British Columbia’s logging and lumber industry?

[msj]

What has been the trend over the last decade for British Columbia’s logging and lumber industry?

Look it up yourself.

I happen to like the forest for the trees so too bad, so sad, for those who don't.