Emotion or reason?

[TimG]

Elections are decided by swing voters.

Elections are decided by voters. The core support for a party is not a static group of people. It changes over time.

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

Actually, that comment simply re-enforces how stupid your comment is. You assume that since I currently happen to find the largest overlap between my personal outlook and the Conservatives that I must be a "partisan hack". Except I am not. I voted Liberal for most of life until 2006. Then I switched because I felt the Conservatives were a better fit for me. It is quite possible I will switch again in the future but the switch will happen between elections - it won't happen during a 6 week campaign. IMO, election campaigns are a minor event in what is a continuous process of thinking about the issues and watching parties respond to them. People who ignore the issues and only pay attention during an election campaign are the least informed and will likely make the decision based on sound bites and media spin. Edited April 26, 2015 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Actually I find most people here to be very low value voters, very ideologically minded, and obsessed with the false left/right dichotomy.

Is that so?

...Wait for it everyone...

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.

LOL!

So, to sum up:

You agree that most voters aren't voting particularly intelligently, BUT you think that the ones here are particularly dumb AND that of course doesn't apply to you. Funny.

From experience I'd say you're one of the less reasonable people on this forum. Your goofball voting strategy is a testament to that.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Moonbox

[dre]

From experience I'd say you're one of the less reasonable people on this forum. Your goofball voting strategy is a testament to that.

My voting strategy is sound. I have no connection or affiliation to either of the major parties, and no big reason to choose one over the other. But I think majority governments in our system have too much power and tend to try to pass a lot of bad ideologically driven legislation, so If I can avoid either party wielding unchecked power then thats a good thing.

Tell me about my "unreasonable positions" on this forum Moonbox? I cant wait to hear about them. Good luck with that.

You agree that most voters aren't voting particularly intelligently, BUT you think that the ones here are particularly dumb AND that of course doesn't apply to you. Funny.

Not exactly hooked on phonix are ya MB? I never said anything about anyones intelligence or that anyone here is "dumb". I just said that most of the members here are entrenched in one of the two ideological camps. Those people are low value voters because liberal and conservative partisans just cancel each other out. If they all stayed home it would have no impact on the results what-so-ever.

I has nothing to do with being dumb though anymore than a sports fan is dumb for thinking all the penalties called against their team are unfair.

You guys are hacks... like I said, why not just have a checkbox on the yearly tax form where you can check the "Vote Conservative/Liberal for Life" option, and save yourself the time and everyone else the money? Hell... you could always opt back into the system if you become un-indoctrinated.

[Big Guy]

Our democracy has evolved to accept the decisions of those who vote for what ever reason they have chosen to vote. When you decide to take the time to vote, you make a decision based on whatever criteria with which you are comfortable. I submit that those who feel that their personal criteria is somehow more "valid" than others are mistaken.

Our system survives because those who flip a coin for their vote and those who perceive themselves as political experts have the same amount of influence - one vote. Perhaps those who flip a coin have better and more enjoyable things to do in life than study politics and cheerleader for their particular political party.

I believe the major strength of our kind of democracy is that the arrogant jerk who has spent hours and hours of his/her time cheerleading for their chosen party and trying to tell everybody and anybody of how great their political leader may be has the same ultimate power of one vote - the same as the citizen who votes for the candidate they like, or the policy they like, or the leader they like, or because it gives them a "good feeling" to cast their vote for that particular individual.

The major weakness of our kind of democracy is that people start to lose confidence in their elected leaders, lose trust in those who explain their policies and ultimately chose to not bother to vote. Unfortunately, according to statistics, that is the direction in which we appear to be headed.

[On Guard for Thee]

Our democracy has evolved to accept the decisions of those who vote for what ever reason they have chosen to vote. When you decide to take the time to vote, you make a decision based on whatever criteria with which you are comfortable. I submit that those who feel that their personal criteria is somehow more "valid" than others are mistaken.

Our system survives because those who flip a coin for their vote and those who perceive themselves as political experts have the same amount of influence - one vote. Perhaps those who flip a coin have better and more enjoyable things to do in life than study politics and cheerleader for their particular political party.

I believe the major strength of our kind of democracy is that the arrogant jerk who has spent hours and hours of his/her time cheerleading for their chosen party and trying to tell everybody and anybody of how great their political leader may be has the same ultimate power of one vote - the same as the citizen who votes for the candidate they like, or the policy they like, or the leader they like, or because it gives them a "good feeling" to cast their vote for that particular individual.

The major weakness of our kind of democracy is that people start to lose confidence in their elected leaders, lose trust in those who explain their policies and ultimately chose to not bother to vote. Unfortunately, according to statistics, that is the direction in which we appear to be headed.

The fact we lose trust in the leaders is not the fault of the system.

[TimG]

The major weakness of our kind of democracy is that people start to lose confidence in their elected leaders, lose trust in those who explain their policies and ultimately chose to not bother to vote. Unfortunately, according to statistics, that is the direction in which we appear to be headed.

I am not sure why this is a weakness with the system. Not voting means one does not care who wins because they are all the same. It also means that one will accept whatever laws the winner passes (with the possible exception of the 'freemen of the land' crackpots). Changing the system is not going to change these trends. Edited April 27, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

To TimG - I would agree with you if I also believed that "one will accept laws the winner passes". I have found that they generally do not. These are the individuals who will declare that the system "sucks", that all politicians are crooked and voting is a waste of time. The fact that fewer and fewer people are choosing to bother to vote every year is not a good sign for the health of our system.

More power is being concentrated among fewer people with a subsequent temptation try to control the message to that diminishing group. Personally. I would like to see the voting age to be lowered. A competency requirement would also be nice but that is a whole different thread.

[TimG]

More power is being concentrated among fewer people with a subsequent temptation try to control the message to that diminishing group. Personally. I would like to see the voting age to be lowered. A competency requirement would also be nice but that is a whole different thread.

Forcing uninformed people to vote who don't care who wins is worse than having governments controlled by a narrow segment of the population. If these trends are to be reversed then it should be via education about one's obligations as a citizen of a democracy.

[Bryan]

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.

Ridiculous fallacy. If someone has a pre-set list of concerns (whether nutritional or political), and then seeks out the option that most closely aligns with those concerns, they have absolutely made an informed choice.

[TimG]

To TimG - I would agree with you if I also believed that "one will accept laws the winner passes". I have found that they generally do not.

I am not aware of masses of people refusing to obey the laws. Sure you get the odd protester trying to make a point or to set up a court challenge but the majority of people obey laws even if the don't agree with them (I know I do).

[Moonbox]

There is a brutishness to the Harper Tories which often makes even reasonably sensible decisions look harsh, partisan and inequitable.

Personally I see this being more out of necessity than anything. Let's face it, the CPC has some pretty marginal characters from the far right scattered amongst its more nominal ranks. Short of Justin Trudeau, you're rarely going to get the sort of gem quotes you'd see from some of those yokels. I think some MP's are more trustworthy in that regard than others. Just looks at idiots like Maxime Bernier and Eve Adams for examples of the type of people he's working with.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Michael Hardner
quoting frame did not work correctly

[GostHacked]

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.

And what are we voting on this time? Any different from the same talking points we've been hearing for a long long time?

[GostHacked]

Forcing uninformed people to vote who don't care who wins is worse than having governments controlled by a narrow segment of the population. If these trends are to be reversed then it should be via education about one's obligations as a citizen of a democracy.

I believe that is how the majority votes. Typically uninformed as they don't want to hear anything different that does not fit their world view. I have not voted in a long time, just because I cannot consciously put my vote behind any of them. I do not feel I am wasting my vote either if I believe none of the options are viable. I can't 'spite vote' or vote B simply because I do not like A.

With the Internet and technology I still feel we are still uninformed to a point, but now more of misinformed. Just as dangerous.

[Bryan]

I can't 'spite vote' or vote B simply because I do not like A.

You can, and you should if you truly believe that B is less bad than A.

I've voted this way in the last few municipal elections. I didn't like any of the options, but one of the front runners was the worst choice of the bunch, so I voted for the one most likely to beat them. That worked out alright. The guys I voted for won, they each turned out to be just as bad as I thought they'd be, but I'm still thankful that we didn't get saddled with the one that was even worse.

[Moonbox]

My voting strategy is sound.

No it's not. It's ridiculous. It's almost as arbitrary as picking the candidate who's the most attractive or whose name sounds the coolest.

I can avoid either party wielding unchecked power then thats a good thing.

Power's never unchecked in our system of government, so try again.

Tell me about my "unreasonable positions" on this forum Moonbox? I cant wait to hear about them. Good luck with that.

I don't need to go any further than your post here. You're attempting to tell us that voting purely for the purpose of achieving a minority is an intelligent way to vote, irregardless of the platforms, promises or records. All of this is based on the idea that you're preventing imaginary unchecked power and that the outcome of minority government is automatically superior. Right...

I just said that most of the members here are entrenched in one of the two ideological camps. Those people are low value voters because liberal and conservative partisans just cancel each other out.

Okay...low value voters...but not you. No, you're the diamond in the rough here.

You guys are hacks... like I said, why not just have a checkbox on the yearly tax form where you can check the "Vote Conservative/Liberal for Life"

even better...why don't we have a checkbox that says "Vote however is most likely to force a minority for life" box, so you don't feel left out!

Edited April 27, 2015 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

Ridiculous fallacy. If someone has a pre-set list of concerns (whether nutritional or political), and then seeks out the option that most closely aligns with those concerns, they have absolutely made an informed choice.

This is just the stoned, 1st year, "what is free will" question....

[PIK]

I get a kick out of the experience angle. Harper built the party to what it is, trudeau was handed the party in a coronation.

[Big Guy]

If you really want your point of view reflected by an elected politician then get involved in the campaign. If you feel strongly about one particular party then just voting for that party is the MINIMUM effect that you can have. I have yet to hear of any campaign that would reject someone interested in assisting - in many different forms. You can have far more influence than just voting. You can sway the opinions of many others.

Posting anonymously on bulletin or opinion boards has never influenced anybody to vote for somebody - it has influenced people to vote AGAINST somebody.

So why waste your time here posting the same vitriol at the same opponents who then post their own vitriol against you - both of you wasting your time in the black hole of anonymous tirades.

Get involved!

[hitops]

Here is the reality of how people's voting works, according to this thread:

- Guy who agree with me - voting on reason

- Guy who disagrees with me - voting on emotion

Glad we have the system down.

All politicians are cheats and liars to some extent. Saying 'guy in charge was not 100% mother Theresa' is a statement of no value. People vote understanding that they will be disappointed, but assuming the alternatives would leave them more disappointed. That doesn't make them illogical or emotional, in fact I would argue that is highly rational. Hoping the next guy will be far better than the first guy, I would argue, is probably more emotional than rational. There are almost unlimited examples in history of people rallying around an opposition figure due to anger at the incumbent, with a far worse result.

We have no reason to assume Trudeau would be better, or worse, than Harper. Taken in isolation, the Harper government is corrupt group or unethical scoundrels. Taken in the context of your average Canadian government and what is generally our historical experience with federal government, they are on the better side of ethical and responsible.

Many of the issue that make them look stupid, have an alternative no better. For example increasing the child tax benefit is an obvious vote buy before the election. I will get more money from this, but I disagree with it. However the alternatives will either keep it, or bring in something even more expensive to take money from my pocket and hand it to people who freely chose to have lots of kids, a decision I had no part it. So if I voted on that single issue, I have no alternative. Many issues are like that.

Edited April 27, 2015 by hitops

[Keepitsimple]

Forcing uninformed people to vote who don't care who wins is worse than having governments controlled by a narrow segment of the population. If these trends are to be reversed then it should be via education about one's obligations as a citizen of a democracy.

That's exactly right. Democracy goes far beyond having rights - there are responsibilities that dovetail with those rights and among them are civic responsibilities - understanding democracy, the levels of government that facilitate democracy, and the ability of individuals to participate and ultimately influence democratic outcomes. Our schools do a crappy job at planting and watering the seeds that nourish voter participation.

[eyeball]

...understanding the ability of individuals to participate and ultimately influence democratic outcomes.

That's easy, the more money you bring the more influence you get.

Our schools do a crappy job at planting and watering the seeds that nourish voter participation.

Parliament does an even worse job.

[dre]

Power's never unchecked in our system of government, so try again.

A majority in Canada is one of the most powerful legislative bodies in democratic world.

I don't need to go any further than your post here. You're attempting to tell us that voting purely for the purpose of achieving a minority is an intelligent way to vote, irregardless of the platforms, promises or records. All of this is based on the idea that you're preventing imaginary unchecked power and that the outcome of minority government is automatically superior. Right...

Cool story bro! I never said its automatically superior... But after some of the awful legislation the conservatives have tried to push through, I dont trust them to have a majority. And I dont know this liberal government well enough to want them to have one either. And in general yeah... we seem to get better governance out of minority governments and less ideological legislation.

Okay...low value voters...but not you. No, you're the diamond in the rough here.

Never said anything like that. At best I would give myself a c- as a voter. Im too busy to educate myself properly on all the issues, and often end up voting AGAINST parties I dont like instead of FOR the ones I do.

even better...why don't we have a checkbox that says "Vote however is most likely to force a minority for life" box, so you don't feel left out!

Thats a very special idea bro! But I never said I always would vote like that... Thats just how I feel about the current choices in this current environment. HJcks like you though just show up and vote party with all the objectivity of a Habs Fan.

[Argus]

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

Would it surprise you that others might think of YOU as a partisan hack?

[Argus]

And in general yeah... we seem to get better governance out of minority governments and less ideological legislation.

I'm guessing you don't pay much in taxes. Minority governments are always extremely expensive as the minority partner's support has to be bought off and the majority partner is always in election mode and seeking to buy votes. As to better governance, difficult and unpopular decisions rarely get made in minority governments because those in power don't feel secure enough to tick off the electorate.

[dre]

Would it surprise you that others might think of YOU as a partisan hack?

I guess it would since I have never expressed any support for any of our political parties in my entire history here, and can barely hold my nose for long enough to vote for any of them.