Emotion or reason?

[dre]

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.

I wish you were right about the taxes, but I pay more in income tax alone than the average Canadian grosses.

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.

Horrible ideological decisions dont get made either. I thought Harper ran a pretty good administrative government as a minority. The trains ran on time, and stuff seemed to get done. Once he had a majority we started seeing a slew of really bad legislation drafted... some of it unconstitutional... some of it just down-right wacky and some of it just plainly unnecessary. Red meat for the 35% of Canadians that even WANT this government.

Legislative grid-lock is better than horrible legislation, or ideological legislation.

You want a government thats going to gain ground in the moronic left/right culture war youve allowed yourself to become enamoured with. I just want a government that doesnt blatantly damage my own interests, waste my money cracking down on things that are already being dealt with, spend billions combatting threats that are not statistically significant, or try to pass gigantic omnibus bills packed full of out of context garbage without MP's even reading them.

Edited April 27, 2015 by dre

[Moonbox]

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.

You don't have to be a hack for any particular party. You can just be a hack dissenter/complainer.

I wish you were right about the taxes, but I pay more in income tax alone than the average Canadian grosses.

Everyone's a millionaire on the internet. I'm glad you are too!

[Big Guy]

I agree with Keepitsimple that the schools are not placing enough emphasis on our political system and the encouragement to get involved - either through voting or participating in campaigns.

Personally, I believe that voting is mandatory for those who are taking advantage of our democratic system. Our increasing lack of participation is allowing fewer and fewer people to hold or shift power. Nationalism is not a dirty word. It should be promoted to instill more pride into all Canadians of all political views. Nationalism is not the promotion of any particular political party philosophies.

Canada is a wonderful place to live. Too many Canadians are taking our democratic system for granted and consequently put it into danger.

[dre]

I agree with Keepitsimple that the schools are not placing enough emphasis on our political system and the encouragement to get involved - either through voting or participating in campaigns.

Personally, I believe that voting is mandatory for those who are taking advantage of our democratic system. Our increasing lack of participation is allowing fewer and fewer people to hold or shift power. Nationalism is not a dirty word. It should be promoted to instill more pride into all Canadians of all political views. Nationalism is not the promotion of any particular political party philosophies.

Canada is a wonderful place to live. Too many Canadians are taking our democratic system for granted and consequently put it into danger.

I think voter apathy and reduced turnout are a symptom, and not the problem. People in general feel like other things influence the system more than votes and figure why bother.

[Mighty AC]

Canada is a wonderful place to live. Too many Canadians are taking our democratic system for granted and consequently put it into danger.

There are politicians actively creating apathy and making harder for certain classes of voters to show up and vote. Those on the right tend to be happy with low turnouts.

[Hydraboss]

Any incumbent normally is very happy with low turnouts. The losers say the result is "lack of democracy" and the winners say it's "a sign that they are doing what the electorate want".

Both are full of crap. It's simply apathy. Or a hockey game is on.

[Michael Hardner]

I think voter apathy and reduced turnout are a symptom, and not the problem. People in general feel like other things influence the system more than votes and figure why bother.

I agree. Does watching an advertisement make you feel special ? This is akin to what our participation in the civic system is, for the most part.

[Keepitsimple]

Any incumbent normally is very happy with low turnouts. The losers say the result is "lack of democracy" and the winners say it's "a sign that they are doing what the electorate want".

Both are full of crap. It's simply apathy. Or a hockey game is on.

I'm afraid you are right - it's as simple as that. Back in the 60's and 70's - and even the 80's to some degree - there wasn't much information on politics except for the newspaper and local news on TV/Radio......yet 75% of eligible voters cast a ballot - even though they realistically only had two choices. Now - there is a plethora of information available through all sorts of media and there are now three viable choices and two effective "protest" votes in the Bloq and Greens......yet here we are, mired in the low 60's for voter turn-out. Apathy - sheer apathy.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[dre]

I'm afraid you are right - it's as simple as that. Back in the 60's and 70's - and even the 80's to some degree - there wasn't much information on politics except for the newspaper and local news on TV/Radio......yet 75% of eligible voters cast a ballot - even though they realistically only had two choices. Now - there is a plethora of information available through all sorts of media and there are now three viable choices and two effective "protest" votes in the Bloq and Greens......yet here we are, mired in the low 60's for voter turn-out. Apathy - sheer apathy.

Back in the 60's and 70's there was very little money in the system, and there was no large scale special interest lobby, and way less of this intentionally engineered political polarization.

Im sympathetic to your 60's and 70's nostalgia though! Lets roll things back, so that we have the same ammount of money in the system, the same ammount of lobbiests, and the same ammount of cheap stupid political attack ads tailored to appeal to morons. Be a good start!

[GostHacked]

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

Dre is no partisan hack. That much I am sure of. We have plenty of blatant examples of partisan hackery around here.

[Michael Hardner]

Now - there is a plethora of information available through all sorts of media and there are now three viable choices and two effective "protest" votes in the Bloq and Greens......yet here we are, mired in the low 60's for voter turn-out. Apathy - sheer apathy.

Interesting exploration, KiS. The thing is that today there are so many more problems, of a lot more complexity than in the past (I would argue), and people are so much more interested in other things.

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting exploration, KiS. The thing is that today there are so many more problems, of a lot more complexity than in the past (I would argue), and people are so much more interested in other things.

I agree. People are more consumed by day-to-day life......I'll lump that in with "apathy"....but the real point is that lower voter turnout is not necessarily an indication that people are turned off by politics or are intentionally staying home because they don't like their choices. As mentioned peviously, the apathy that we see has to be countered through a robust and continuous civic education (as a start) to get every generation to understand the importance of getting up off their asses for one day every couple of years to cast their vote.

[Argus]

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.

Your partisanship is based on ideology not party. Ie, you wouldn't hold your nose and vote Conservative no matter what their policies were.

[dre]

Your partisanship is based on ideology not party. Ie, you wouldn't hold your nose and vote Conservative no matter what their policies were.

I already have. Dont assume that everyone else is mired in your way of simplistic binary thinking. I voted against Martin because of the registry, afghanistan, scandals, and because I thought the Liberals had been in power for too long.

BTW... are you aware of the difference between the word "partisan" and "idealog"?

Edited April 28, 2015 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

As mentioned peviously, the apathy that we see has to be countered through a robust and continuous civic education (as a start) to get every generation to understand the importance of getting up off their asses for one day every couple of years to cast their vote.

I like to think of apathy as a gift, actually. If things are that good, why *would* people vote ? I would rather that they defer to those who have taken the time to research things.

Also, if our country wants to make civic involvement a thing then they should *design* the system for more than putting an 'x' on a box every few years by creating programs that distribute real power, and that distribute real information. The system is clunky and unresponsive. Is this not obvious ?

[eyeball]

The system is corrupt and filthy, voting in it is the same as voting for it.

[Keepitsimple]

I like to think of apathy as a gift, actually. If things are that good, why *would* people vote ? I would rather that they defer to those who have taken the time to research things.

Also, if our country wants to make civic involvement a thing then they should *design* the system for more than putting an 'x' on a box every few years by creating programs that distribute real power, and that distribute real information. The system is clunky and unresponsive. Is this not obvious ?

Not really. The more I think about it, the more I understand the apathy (not voting). People too busy - people more or less satisfied with the status quo......but also - we've made such strides in social programs - pensions, healthcare, savings vehicles, services at the municipal and provincial level, rights and equality - we have it great and there's not a bunch of really compelling battles to engage people. Overall, we're satisfied. For example, if people were genuinely dis-satisfied with the Harper government, we should expect to see a lot of that 40% of non-voters rushing to the polls.....but I wouldn't hold your breath.

[jacee]

I like to think of apathy as a gift, actually. If things are that good, why *would* people vote ? I would rather that they defer to those who have taken the time to research things.

Also, if our country wants to make civic involvement a thing then they should *design* the system for more than putting an 'x' on a box every few years by creating programs that distribute real power, and that distribute real information. The system is clunky and unresponsive. Is this not obvious ?

You really expect them to give up any power?

That kind of power will be ripped from their hands by revolutionary visionists and ordinary people.

.

[jacee]

Not really. The more I think about it, the more I understand the apathy (not voting). People too busy - people more or less satisfied with the status quo......but also - we've made such strides in social programs - pensions, healthcare, savings vehicles, services at the municipal and provincial level, rights and equality - we have it great and there's not a bunch of really compelling battles to engage people. Overall, we're satisfied. For example, if people were genuinely dis-satisfied with the Harper government, we should expect to see a lot of that 40% of non-voters rushing to the polls.....but I wouldn't hold your breath.

C_51 is a battle worth fighting. We're so satisfied we're accepting destruction of democracy.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Not really.

Not sure why you said 'not really' then seemed to agree with me in the rest of your post. What's the difference ?

[Michael Hardner]

You really expect them to give up any power?

That kind of power will be ripped from their hands by revolutionary visionists and ordinary people.

.

Democracy does provide a slow and clunky means to change without revolution. Making policies that help people, taking care of the middle class, lowering taxes, getting rid of corruption... are campaign slogans for the most part, but if people actually started to demand that these things happen imagine what could happen.

[Keepitsimple]

Not sure why you said 'not really' then seemed to agree with me in the rest of your post. What's the difference ?

Not really - in that you said "Is that not obvious?". Clearly it's not - based on some posters running around with their hair on fire and calling it the death of democracy as evidenced by people not voting.

[jacee]

Democracy does provide a slow and clunky means to change without revolution. Making policies that help people, taking care of the middle class, lowering taxes, getting rid of corruption... are campaign slogans for the most part, but if people actually started to demand that these things happen imagine what could happen.

That would be a revolution.

How do we "demand" effectively?

.

[eyeball]

That would be a revolution.

How do we "demand" effectively?

.

In a manner similar to the one Toya Graham demanded better behaviour from her son in Baltimore.

Edited April 30, 2015 by eyeball

[dre]

I like to think of apathy as a gift, actually. If things are that good, why *would* people vote ? I would rather that they defer to those who have taken the time to research things.

Also, if our country wants to make civic involvement a thing then they should *design* the system for more than putting an 'x' on a box every few years by creating programs that distribute real power, and that distribute real information. The system is clunky and unresponsive. Is this not obvious ?

Theres more than apathy in play here. A study by Elections Canada on our rapidly declining voter turnout found that lots of people didnt like any of the Candidates, or saw no reason to pick one over the other, and and 23% of those that didnt vote said they were too busy.

And the system is antiquated and retarded. You sit in a long line of people to make a mark on a piece of paper with a pen. People dont do that kind of thing anymore. They shop online, they bank online, they send mail online, they do their taxes online. Introducing a modern online system might improve turnout especially amoung younger voters.

Apathy is definately part of it... But are people apathetic because they really just arent interested? I dont think so... I think people increasingly feel like our government - no matter which party is in power - doesnt not serve us very well (or even serves someone else), and cannot be trusted. So they are turned off.

Only 24% of Canadians trust the government to do whats right for them. Those numbers stayed low during both recent liberal and conservative governments. And it makes sense. The Canadian government has brought us 30 years of more or less stagnant wages, they have flogged valuable public assets so they could lie to us about balancing budgets, they have attacked labor on behalf of corporations, busted unions, run up massive debts, and generally just gone in a bad direction.

Seems to me that a lot of people just dont think picking one party over another really makes any difference.

I would not call this kind of apathy a gift.

Edited April 30, 2015 by dre