Emotion or reason?

[Topaz]

Bruce Anderson, wrote an article asking how will voters decide their vote, by emotion or reason. It's a very good question because we all know many voters will stick to their party no matter what, but I think more voters should really think things over before election day. Our country is involved in two separate wars and things could get worse, our unemployment isn't good, etc. Myself, I've decided to support the country and not so much any one party. Should Harper be re-elected to cleanup his own mess or should someone else be elected and if so which one? Tom has more experience than Justin but then Harper didn't have much experience as a MP. Thoughts? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-this-election-will-voters-choose-emotion-or-reason/article24003550/

[Michael Hardner]

Bruce Anderson, wrote an article asking how will voters decide their vote, by emotion or reason. It's a very good question because we all know many voters will stick to their party no matter what, but I think more voters should really think things over before election day.

Choice is an illusion. Emotion, reason, are merely the firing of brain chemicals that precede your picking the product off the shelf at the grocery store or putting an 'x' in a box on a ballot.

Our country is involved in two separate wars and things could get worse, our unemployment isn't good, etc.

Reasonably, one could argue that those wars were inevitable, are not impacting Canada that much and that our economic situation is comparatively good when you look at other countries.

My point is that reason has its limits.

My take on our situation is that our lives are good enough that we have delegated management of our affairs to a small group of individuals who are too removed from any public feedback. Most people who follow politics or government do so in pursuit of a kind of personal identity/entertainment rather than really looking at problems openly.

This is an evolution that happens in part because our problems aren't, on the surface, serious enough to most people. But there is a growing number of people who are feeling left out from the process.

I would vote for anybody who would recognize that we need to reframe our dialogues so that those who are interested can get more personally involved in discussion of problems.

[Big Guy]

For those few people that choose to vote these days, I have heard various reasons for their decision;

- Agree with party policy

- A local issue

- Like the leader of party

- Support the local candidate

- Name recognition of local candidate (family name)

- Family has always voted for that party

- Try to make sure a particular party does not get a majority

I believe all are legitimate reasons as long as they take the time to vote.

[Keepitsimple]

On the rational, pragmatic front, the Liberals would have been very competitive with Marc Garneau and given Canadians a stable, intelligent alternative to a Conservative government that has arguably reached its "best before" date. With Justin Trudeau, his leadership started on an emotional high - with great expectations that he could build on the emotion with some practical policies that so we'd been told - he could communicate effectively with his rock-star image and public speaking background. None of that has transpired and his ineffective communication skills continue to let the air out of both the emotion and the pragmatism. Tom Mulcair is a grouchy but very competent, intelligent leader - but he's saddled with NDP ideology that can never extend farther than the edges of Center-Left voters. Unless something hugely compelling happens, it would appear to me that many voters will invoke the "devil you know" philosophy on election day.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[ToadBrother]

On the rational, pragmatic front, the Liberals would have been very competitive with Marc Garneau and given Canadians a stable, intelligent alternative to a Conservative government that has arguably reached its "best before" date. With Justin Trudeau, his leadership started on an emotional high - with great expectations that he could build on the emotion with some practical policies that so we'd been told - he could communicate effectively with his rock-star image and public speaking background. None of that has transpired and his ineffective communication skills continue to let the air out of both the emotion and the pragmatism. Tom Mulcair is a grouchy but very competent, intelligent leader - but he's saddled with NDP ideology that can never extend farther than the edges of Center-Left voters. Unless something hugely compelling happens, it would appear to me that many voters will invoke the "devil you know" philosophy on election day.

Perhaps they will, but I have a feeling just as strong a force will be "Anybody But Harper". I think you're going to see a lot more strategic voting. It's purely anecdotal, but a few weeks ago one of my coworkers, a staunch NDPer very much in the Left of Left of Centre category (very pro-union, very anti-corporate and in the past has viewed Liberals as basically the Tory-lite Party), suggested that he and the wife are seriously thinking of voting Liberal if they see that a Liberal has the best chance of beating the Tory candidate (my riding has been Reform/Tory for over twenty years).

It suggests to me that the Tories' worst enemy at this point isn't Trudeau and the Liberals, or Mulcair and the NDP, but rather themselves. I'll be honest in saying that while I think the Harper government has botched many things, and most certainly it has squandered its majority term with little to show for it, I can't say with any honesty that is the worst government we've ever had. But it's the governing style, the feeling that Harper has turned the PMO into a pack of hyper-partisan mandarins who have effectively sidelined many Cabinet Ministers (one of the rumors of Baird's departure is that on key files Harper had essentially taken over the portfolio personally and sidelined his Minister). There is a brutishness to the Harper Tories which often makes even reasonably sensible decisions look harsh, partisan and inequitable.

[WWWTT]

For those few people that choose to vote these days, I have heard various reasons for their decision;

- Agree with party policy

- A local issue

- Like the leader of party

- Support the local candidate

- Name recognition of local candidate (family name)

- Family has always voted for that party

- Try to make sure a particular party does not get a majority

I believe all are legitimate reasons as long as they take the time to vote.

Actually, in my opinion, when you vote, you are agreeing to our political system.

Right now Canada is ranked #15 in world economies!

If you think going out and voting is going to reverse the slide, then go out and vote!

Come back 5 years later when Canada ranks even lower, guess who's to blame?

THE VOTERS WHO APPROVED OF OUR SYSTEM!

WWWTT

[poochy]

Perhaps they will, but I have a feeling just as strong a force will be "Anybody But Harper". I think you're going to see a lot more strategic voting.

Maybe, but that was the myth last time too, the ABC campaign, which failed, if the liberals had a real leader they would have a much better chance, i'd rather vote for Ignatief than Trudeau, he's an embarassment, our left leaning GW Bush.

Edited April 19, 2015 by poochy

[Keepitsimple]

Perhaps they will, but I have a feeling just as strong a force will be "Anybody But Harper". I think you're going to see a lot more strategic voting.

I don't mean this as a partisan comment - I think I've made it clear that I would at least consider voting Liberal if they had chosen Garneau as leader. My comment is that ABC and Strategic Voting have a very limited (but vocal) audience - the media gives it some play but the vast majority of Canadians don't hunker down talking politics - let alone being told or influenced to vote a certain way. The "Devil you Know" is an alternative for that vast majority that considers voting to be a private and personal choice.

[Civis Romanus sum]

For those few people that choose to vote these days, I have heard various reasons for their decision;

- Agree with party policy

- A local issue

- Like the leader of party

- Support the local candidate

- Name recognition of local candidate (family name)

- Family has always voted for that party

- Try to make sure a particular party does not get a majority

I believe all are legitimate reasons as long as they take the time to vote.

You believe that 'family has always voted for that party' is a legitimate reason to vote? It is a 'reason' which is exempt of reason! Or thought or judgement.

Most of the others are little better. How does one 'like' the leader of a party one has never met? Name recognition? What sort of inane reason is that to vote for someone? Voting to prevent another party you don't like from success? What is that but the bleating of the dull witted and vindictive? Local issues are likewise idiotic reasons to vote in a federal election.

For your enlightenment, the primary valid reason for voting for one candidate or the other, for one party or the other, is that the preferred candidate or party will do a better job in guiding the country over the following years than any other candidate or party. The selected party or person is more capable, has more integrity, more honor and honesty, possibly, or is less blinkered by absurd ideological views in its thinking. The only intelligent point of voting is that your selected candidate will, in your view, leave the country in better shape come the following election than the alternatives.

Of course, an equally valid if more venal reason would be that one is voting for a person or party which has a particular policy which will benefit the voter personally.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Perhaps they will, but I have a feeling just as strong a force will be "Anybody But Harper". I think you're going to see a

lot more strategic voting. It's purely anecdotal, but a few weeks ago one of my coworkers, a staunch NDPer very much in the

Left of Left of Centre category (very pro-union, very anti-corporate and in the past has viewed Liberals as basically the

Tory-lite Party), suggested that he and the wife are seriously thinking of voting Liberal if they see that a Liberal has the

best chance of beating the Tory candidate (my riding has been Reform/Tory for over twenty years).

There'll be some of that but for the most part, not enough Canadians have sufficient interest-in politics to consider strategic voting.

It suggests to me that the Tories' worst enemy at this point isn't Trudeau and the Liberals, or Mulcair and the NDP, but rather themselves. I'll be honest in saying that while I think the Harper government has botched many things, and most certainly it has squandered its majority term with little to show for it, I can't say with any honesty that is the worst government we've ever had. But it's the governing style, the feeling that Harper has turned the PMO into a pack of hyper-partisan mandarins who have effectively sidelined many Cabinet Ministers (one of the rumors of Baird's departure is that on key files Harper had essentially taken over the portfolio personally and sidelined his Minister). There is a brutishness to the Harper Tories which often makes even reasonably sensible decisions look harsh, partisan and inequitable.

The lasting image I have of Jean Chretien is his snarling face as he tried to strangle a diminutive unemployed protester. He was completely unforgiving of anyone who dared question his rule. People seem to have short memories if they forget that. Chretien was more than willing to use the powers of the Prime Minister in vindictive efforts to punish those who got in his way, and to reward those who were obedient. The real difference between his style of governance and Harper's is that the media largely did not question things done by a Liberal PM simply because he was liberal. The media portrayal of Harper falls into line with their learned narrative of the Left that conservatives are brutish and intolerant, not kindly, gentle and tolerant like liberals. There is very little to support this if you compare Harper's actions with Chretien's.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Actually, in my opinion, when you vote, you are agreeing to our political system.

And when you fail to vote your opinion and value are both null quantities.

[WWWTT]

And when you fail to vote your opinion and value are both null quantities.

Not according to the Canadian charter of rights.

The funny thing about strong supporters of democracy is that they never feel that they have to prove where western style democracies have clear advantages.

Just more of the usual "if you don't vote, then you can't complain" BS!

Real ironic that democracy supporters don't really care about what's written in the charter?

WWWTT

[Civis Romanus sum]

Not according to the Canadian charter of rights.

LOL. Have you ever read it? Do you think you actually understand it?

Never mind. I really don't care. It's never been my thought we ought to be encouraging the lumpen proletariat to participate in decisions of state anyway.

[Rue]

I totally agree with you Keep it Simple.

[WWWTT]

LOL. Have you ever read it? Do you think you actually understand it?

Never mind. I really don't care. It's never been my thought we ought to be encouraging the lumpen proletariat to participate in decisions of state anyway.

This response in no way shows how a democracy has proven itself.

That's the hard part for you so just keep spinning circles avoiding

WWWTT

[DFCaper]

Just more of the usual "if you don't vote, then you can't complain" BS!

I always thought it should be if you don't vote, then nobody cares when you complain"

If Marc Garneau was the liberal leader, he would easily get my vote. Not a Justin fan. Figure the Liberals starting from 36 seats, cannot jump into power. The NDP supporters will do what they did in Ontario, and vote for someone else as they seem to hate Cons more than love themselves. (Liberals are geniuses for convincing them to "Strategically" vote for them) Giving us a Con minority. Justin will continue to not impress and then we will have another Conservative leader and the party will be able to freshen it's image and maybe continue to lead for years.

I think a majority of people vote for the same party as last election, or based on one or two issues. I bet half the time, that one issue is from a previous election. No reason nor emotion.

[Remiel]

The ironic thing here is that only emotion can explain the repeated dismissal of all of Stephen Harper's misdeeds. The baseline reasonable response in an election is that when one guy screws up over and over and over again you change guys.

The reasonable thing to do would probably be to ignore everything the main parties say and actually try to intuit how they would govern. We already have all the evidence we need of how Stephen Harper governs: badly. Trudeau might be gaffe prone but once he is in office he can dispense to a great degree with guessing the will of the electorate, which is probably at the source of some of his mistakes, and actually focus on what needs to be done from a policy perspective.

The reasonable thing to do would be to give Trudeau and Mulcair at least a small benefit of the doubt in how they run things. They are, after all, reacting against an extremely top heavy Harper example of how Government is run. The Liberal field tends to be deeper than the other parties in terms of experience, and while that has not protected Trudeau rhetorically per se when it comes to actually crafting laws it should matter. What we really need at this point is a Government that does not reject the opinions of experts out of hand. Since we do not aspire exactly to technocracy the experts are not quite the be all and end all, but in the current Government they appear to mean nothing when they do not agree with the direction of the Government.

Personally I cannot support the NDP because of their loose terms for separation talks, but from an actual governance perspective I would easily choose them over the Conservatives from a reasonable perspective. Reasonably speaking I think we can better afford to roll the dice and see what kind of Government the NDP would actually run because with the Conservatives whenever you roll you know one of the dice is rigged to always come up a 1 (for being crap).

Whoever came up with the expression "better the Devil You Know" was probably, in fact, the Devil You Know; they were biased.

[Keepitsimple]

The ironic thing here is that only emotion can explain the repeated dismissal of all of Stephen Harper's misdeeds. The baseline reasonable response in an election is that when one guy screws up over and over and over again you change guys.

Whoever came up with the expression "better the Devil You Know" was probably, in fact, the Devil You Know; they were biased.

All of your logic has already been tossed out the window with the re-election of the Liberals in Ontario. McGuinty and Wynne's utter incompetence and corruption makes Harper look like a boy scout. Unfortunately, Tim Hudak provided no reasonable alternative so union money led the electorate to the most perverse "Devil you Know" decision in modern electoral history. Billions upon billions of wasted taxpayers' money - genuine boondoggle and corruption scandals - not the tempest-in-a-teapot versions that we see at the federal level.

You've spun some fine logic - but that's not how the electorate thinks.

[guyser]

LOL. Have you ever read it? Do you think you actually understand it?

Let me throw an emphatic NO to this Q.

He doesnt. He thginks China has more rights and democracy than Canada.

'Nuff said huh?

[Argus]

The ironic thing here is that only emotion can explain the repeated dismissal of all of Stephen Harper's misdeeds. T

The Harper Conservatives have been competent and honest, or perhaps I should say, reasonably competent and reasonably honest, given the very low bar set by their predecessors. Do I regard mere competence to be adequate? No. Do I think Trudeau, based on what I've seen of him, would do better? Not for a second. I'm fairly sure they would be far less honest and far less competent, especially in managing the economy. Mulcair's ideological views would cause his legislative changes to be detrimental to my economic interests and take the country in directions I largely think would be unwise, so he's out.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Argus

[Remiel]

Seriously, you guys make my point for me with the "tempest in a teapot" rhetoric. For one, I actually voted Green in the last Ontario election, and I kind of think I might vote that way again next time around. And do you know why? Because the Ontario Liberals have taken too many management queues from the federal Conservatives. Harper's antics give license to many of Ontario's misdeeds. That said, how many times has Ontario legislation been challenged and defeated in the courts since the Liberals came to power?

[Moonbox]

I would say +80% of voters are voting almost entirely on emotion. Let's face it, most people are nowhere near as interested in the issues as we are on this board, and even here we see a LOT of emotion and personal bias.

[dre]

I would say +80% of voters are voting almost entirely on emotion. Let's face it, most people are nowhere near as interested in the issues as we are on this board, and even here we see a LOT of emotion and personal bias.

Actually I find most people here to be very low value voters, very ideologically minded, and obsessed with the false left/right dichotomy. I dont believe theres very many people here at all that will be actually making any sort of real "choice" based on the merits.

Really probably only 20% of voters really try to make an informed decision, the rest of them just show up and voted party/ideology.

As for myself I will watch the polls, and try to vote in a way that makes a MINORITY government most likely. If the Libs have a big lead Ill vote conservative, if the Cons have a big lead Ill vote liberal.

[TimG]

I dont believe theres very many people here at all that will be actually making any sort of real "choice" based on the merits.

A pretty arrogant comment. If someone votes they make a choice based on the merits as they perceive them. The fact that some people make their decisions over a period of time longer than a typical election campaign does not make that choice something to deride.

Really probably only 20% of voters really try to make an informed decision, the rest of them just show up and voted party/ideology.

I would say the 20% of voters who don't know who they are likely to vote for by the time election is called are the LEAST informed voters and most likely make decisions for really stupid reasons.

As for myself I will watch the polls, and try to vote in a way that makes a MINORITY government most likely. If the Libs have a big lead Ill vote conservative, if the Cons have a big lead Ill vote liberal.

A textbook example of voting for really stupid reasons.

[dre]

A pretty arrogant comment. If someone votes they make a choice based on the merits as they perceive them. The fact that some people make their decisions over a period of time longer than a typical election campaign does not make that choice something to deride.

I would say the 20% of voters who don't know who they are likely to vote for by the time election is called are the LEAST informed voters and most likely make decisions for really stupid reasons.

A textbook example of voting for really stupid reasons.

No, partisan hacks add nothing. There might as well just be a box you can check on your tax form that says "Vote X For Life", so that we dont have to waste time processing their votes. Party allegiance is not "making a decision on the merits", and drinking ideological liberal or conservative coolaid does not make people informed.

Elections are decided by swing voters.

And being called stupid by a partisan hack is a compliment. Thanks!