Argus Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 Illegitimate? It's your vote - do with it what you will. There are a number of Conservative supporters on MLW whose statements indicate that they support Harper because they are greedy and selfish; and at least one has come right out and said so. By "greedy and selfish" do you mean people who would like to hang on to something near half their money, rather than giving all of it to the freeloaders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Why, because they don't agree with you? I think all these high strung lefties who are running around in circles, anxiously trying to plot and plan a way to vote for someone, anyone, to get rid of Harper define themselves as stupid. Most of the reasons given for their fear and hatred are superficial and don't really affect anyone in real life. Or they're ignorant, and blame Harper for the recession and resulting deficit. Even the superficial reasons relating to the way Harper has governed pale into insignificance compared to the outrages Chretien undertook - which none of them cared about. Harper has governed in an absolutely middle of the road, pragmatic, centrist way, but to hear these people he's half a shady shy of Adolph Hitler. Edited October 8, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 By "greedy and selfish" do you mean people who would like to hang on to something near half their money, rather than giving all of it to the freeloaders? I do think that should be public policy: give all of Argus' money to a deserving freeloader. Or two or three. I've noticed that the freeloader element of our society seems happier with less, and more willing to share what they do have. That's something I like about freeloaders, they often exhibit generosity of spirit, empathy and compassion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 The democratic process is purely about voting. Why a voter decides to vote any particular way is the voter's business. They owe you no explanation, and do not need to justify that vote to anyone but themselves. You're just inventing some standard out of thin air. I can't even understand your opposition to strategic voting. Why shouldn't voters, if they deeply dislike a government, work to defeat it? How is that even the tiniest bit illegitimate. Sure, it may disadvantage the party you support, but frankly, why should any voter care about your partisan concerns? Two parties are committing to electoral change. There is a rather simple rule of hung parliaments, and that is that you take the parties' collective platforms and assume that at best only some portion of their commitments will happen, and even those commitments that do happen may look rather different than originally claimed. This was a common complaint during the UK's recent experiment in full coalition; that neither the Tories or the Liberal Democrats were delivering on their promises, and it was absurd criticism, because a coalition of any kind is a creature of post-election politics, not a creature that can somehow be decided prior to the election. Maybe under another electoral system where coalitions are more predictable that might change, but at the moment, with the likelihood of no one getting a majority, your observation on their relative platforms is pointless. I'm inventing some standard perhaps you can show me where it states that the democratic process is just about voting...It sounds like you and the crowd around this whole topic have found a loop hole and are inventing a new way for the country to elect a PM.... I did not say they the voters owed me anything, i said and have repeatedly said it was not the intention of the voting process.......And the people that are suggesting this hairball scheme are not inventing something.....like this nation has been doing it since the inception.....I get it you and many others don't like harper, then get your asses out of your chairs and vote for who i don't give a shit.....you want to base your vote on anyone but harper, then i shows your not interested in what is best for Canada, just "as long as Harper does not win" that is a telling strategy, so much for the theory of democracy ......but the polls show that support for harper, is not declining.....last time i checked this was a democracy, and the party with the most votes wins......And your scared that might be Harper.... Because our system was not designed for strategic voting.....it was not intended for that at all.....unless you can show me in some law or in the constitution........ Why should Harper supporters give a rats asses about why you hate him so much, that your willing to waste your vote for a party you don't support.....because platforms mean nothing , promises mean nothing.....maybe to you....not to me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 It was a Conservative supporter, Army Guy, who claimed strategic voting violated democratic principles. If voters decide they want a government to borrow and spend, that sounds like the democratic principle at work. And I thought you had abandoned making up fictions about yourself. Do you honestly think that our democratic process was designed with Strategic voting, and you don't think that this whole idea could not be used to undermine the whole process.....Psst ... hey vote for miss may, i'll cut your lawn for 4 years....for free.... And if harper decides to run his government they way he does then that sounds like the democratic process at work....he was elected by a majority..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 It should, should it? So voting for anyone but the Conservatives because of a fear of them winning again would be what? Positive affirmation? It would be an honest reflection of the sad reality we're in. A broken voting system and a morally bankrupt government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 How would you know? Ummm - because there wasn't even a PMO in Canada before the 70's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 So are you finally backing off these bizarre claims that strategic voting is somehow wrong and a violation of the democratic principle? No i'm not, "do you think the voting process and rules and regulations intended that strategic voting be part of the process....can you provide me a link....as i'm still confused...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I do think that should be public policy: give all of Argus' money to a deserving freeloader. Or two or three. I've noticed that the freeloader element of our society seems happier with less, and more willing to share what they do have. That's something I like about freeloaders, they often exhibit generosity of spirit, empathy and compassion. I'll vote for that. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I do think that should be public policy: give all of Argus' money to a deserving freeloader. Or two or three. I've noticed that the freeloader element of our society seems happier with less, and more willing to share what they do have. That's something I like about freeloaders, they often exhibit generosity of spirit, empathy and compassion. You're saying they're generous with the money I give them? I'm generous with the money I give to others, too. I'm less generous with money I'm ordered to give away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 You're saying they're generous with the money I give them? I'm generous with the money I give to others, too. I'm less generous with money I'm ordered to give away. Bang on. If the government takes money away from me, I'm far less generous with the money I donate. Under the Conservative government, I have donated far more than previously under the Liberal government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Maybe you're a one-party kind of guy so you don't understand, but for most people the candidates all fall on a spectrum as opposed to all or nothing. For example, the NDP may be my first choice but the LPC is my second choice so if my first choice doesn't have a chance in my riding, I'll vote for the second. It's actually a pretty simple concept. That is not what this is about for me, i not loyal to one party.....i vote for the party i think best suits me, and what i think is best for me, my family,my riding and for the country........in that order....not because i want second place, unless they had something to offer.....but because that was the original intention of voting....I thought you would understand, and you were talking about supporting the green party, because you liked may 's platform, and the green candidate in your riding, because she was the better choice... you've said your not a big fan of the NDP....so why would you vote that way.....because the greens are not going to get elected....again i support the idea of having a back up vote, but this whole idea of convincing someone to vote stratigically ....to ensure one canidate did not win, well in my opinion i don't think it's right..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 That is not what this is about for me, i not loyal to one party.....i vote for the party i think best suits me, and what i think is best for me, my family,my riding and for the country........in that order....not because i want second place, unless they had something to offer.....but because that was the original intention of voting....I thought you would understand, and you were talking about supporting the green party, because you liked may 's platform, and the green candidate in your riding, because she was the better choice... you've said your not a big fan of the NDP....so why would you vote that way.....because the greens are not going to get elected....again i support the idea of having a back up vote, but this whole idea of convincing someone to vote stratigically ....to ensure one canidate did not win, well in my opinion i don't think it's right..... I have said this before. I wholeheartedly agree. Pick the party that best aligns to your value and vote for that party. Yes, is it democratically ok to strategically vote, sure. Just like it's my right to not vote or to fudge on a ballot and to cast an empty ballot or whatever, but it's to me, morally wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I voted for Reform every year they ran. And I knew damn well they wouldn't win, but they were closer to my beliefs. So how is it the conservatives in this country are the ones always accused of voting like robots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Yes, is it democratically ok to strategically vote, sure. Just like it's my right to not vote or to fudge on a ballot and to cast an empty ballot or whatever, but it's to me, morally wrong. Morally wrong? You mean like changing election laws to disenfranchise people who are unlikely to vote for you? Or cheating on elections? Or sucking power away from elected representatives and giving it to unelected hangers on? Or bribing a sitting senator? You know what's really morally wrong? Supporting a guy who practises race-baiting politics because you think he puts money in your pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Morally wrong? You mean like changing election laws to disenfranchise people who are unlikely to vote for you? Or cheating on elections? Or sucking power away from elected representatives and giving it to unelected hangers on? Or bribing a sitting senator? You know what's really morally wrong? Supporting a guy who practises race-baiting politics because you think he puts money in your pockets. I know he puts money in my pocket. Full stop. The other vitriol I'm just going to shrug and go, meh. I could bring up the sponsorship scandal you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Morally wrong? You mean like changing election laws to disenfranchise people who are unlikely to vote for you? Uhm, you mean people who don't live here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I have said this before. I wholeheartedly agree. Pick the party that best aligns to your value and vote for that party. Yes, is it democratically ok to strategically vote, sure. Just like it's my right to not vote or to fudge on a ballot and to cast an empty ballot or whatever, but it's to me, morally wrong. But voting for the party that promises to put the most money in your pocket is morally right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) But voting for the party that promises to put the most money in your pocket is morally right? Money talks. If money is a dirty word for you, I don't care. The joy about money is simple. It's measurable, and it's independent of party. Edited October 9, 2015 by angrypenguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Money talks. If money is a dirty word for you, I don't care. Hey, I'm not the one who brought up the morality of voting. Frankly, I think the claim that a strategic vote to defeat an incumbent is immoral is absolutely ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Hey, I'm not the one who brought up the morality of voting. Frankly, I think the claim that a strategic vote to defeat an incumbent is immoral is absolutely ludicrous. My apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Greedy and selfish? Absolutely. I am greedy and selfish about anything that makes my kids' lives better. I feel just as strongly about curtailing anything that makes my grandkids world a more dangerous place, like greed and selfishness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I feel just as strongly about curtailing anything that makes my grandkids world a more dangerous place, like greed and selfishness. Ditto and arrogant disregard for our impact on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 ....this whole idea of convincing someone to vote stratigically ....to ensure one canidate did not win, well in my opinion i don't think it's right..... Music to my ears. You're just what the country needs, another voter who's deeply dissatisfied and disillusioned about how dysfunctional our electoral process is. Welcome to the club. You figure you're the only one who would much rather see people voting positively for something rather than negatively against something? Get in line pal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted October 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 It is a great list marcus but in MY view, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT in those ridings where there is a tight race between Liberals and NDP should be included too in the chart and your post and in those ridings I believe strongly that NDP supporters should strategically vote for the Liberals because it is the Liberals who only have a chance to defeat the conservatives now and those few seats MAY MAKE A DIFFERENCE between a Tory minority and a Liberal minority governments. In ridings where there is a tight race between the Liberals and NDP (and there are plenty) if the NDP supporters vote for NDP and refuse to strategically vote for Liberals in effect they may very likely cause the election of a conservatives by vote split and by their votes for NDP. In other words they are effectively voting for the conservatives and will help to elect a conservative government if they stick to their votes for NDP. They should vote for Liberals who appear to be a few seats short of forming the next government unlike NDP who stands no chance. There is very little chance that the NDP and Liberals will go for that. By including the above ridings alone, the NDP and Liberals will not lose anythings. They only gain and of course, the Conservatives will lose. If those 16 ridings go to either the Liberals or the NDP, then the following will occur: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.