How to combat non voters...

[Chrissy1979]

Encouraging more people to vote just mobilizes the apathetic to vote for whoever entertainment tonight said was the hottest leader or what not.

Jack Layton is definitely the hottest leader. Even better than all the liberal leadership candidates.

CPC should definately go with Peter Mackay tho. I's vote for that.

[Topaz]

I have a feeling if the voters don't see what they think they should see with Harper's govt, you may see when election time comes, Liberals and the true Conservative may just vote NDP , just to put country out of its misery! Why?? Well, why not! They can't do any worse or anymore damage to the country than the Libs or the Alliance/Cons! they seem to be for more for the people and the environment and not rush to war.

[Law and Order Forever]

It wouldn't really be paying people to vote, it would be returning their money, where do you think the government gets the money in the first place? Sounds like bottle return payments, maybe people who don't want to vote could just leave voter cards laying on the street and then I could walk around and collect other people's right to vote.

You might be on to something there

[geoffrey]

I have a feeling if the voters don't see what they think they should see with Harper's govt, you may see when election time comes, Liberals and the true Conservative may just vote NDP , just to put country out of its misery! Why?? Well, why not! They can't do any worse or anymore damage to the country than the Libs or the Alliance/Cons! they seem to be for more for the people and the environment and not rush to war.

I'd never vote NDP, I'd rather leave the country then live under an NDP government.

[bradco]

I have a feeling if the voters don't see what they think they should see with Harper's govt, you may see when election time comes, Liberals and the true Conservative may just vote NDP , just to put country out of its misery! Why?? Well, why not! They can't do any worse or anymore damage to the country than the Libs or the Alliance/Cons! they seem to be for more for the people and the environment and not rush to war.

don't fool yourself....The NDP could do ridiculous damage to our country if in the position of power, and I say this as someone who voted NDP in the past two federal elections. They are a good voice to have in parliament but I would hate to see them in power.

[jbg]

don't fool yourself....The NDP could do ridiculous damage to our country if in the position of power, and I say this as someone who voted NDP in the past two federal elections. They are a good voice to have in parliament but I would hate to see them in power.

Certainly, good for comic relief.

[bradco]

don't fool yourself....The NDP could do ridiculous damage to our country if in the position of power, and I say this as someone who voted NDP in the past two federal elections. They are a good voice to have in parliament but I would hate to see them in power.

Certainly, good for comic relief.

I was thinking more along the lines of having a party that fights for the environment, downtrodden etc.... but ya good for a laugh as well. I get a few chuckles from the blatant hypocracies of the conservatives, and the liberals are such a mess it might just be mean to laugh...but I will anyways

[yam]

don't fool yourself....The NDP could do ridiculous damage to our country if in the position of power, and I say this as someone who voted NDP in the past two federal elections. They are a good voice to have in parliament but I would hate to see them in power.

Certainly, good for comic relief.

I was thinking more along the lines of having a party that fights for the environment, downtrodden etc.... but ya good for a laugh as well. I get a few chuckles from the blatant hypocracies of the conservatives, and the liberals are such a mess it might just be mean to laugh...but I will anyways

Yes im sure they are laughing too . . . .all the way to the bank. . . .they just love your sense of humour!

[jbg]

don't fool yourself....The NDP could do ridiculous damage to our country if in the position of power, and I say this as someone who voted NDP in the past two federal elections. They are a good voice to have in parliament but I would hate to see them in power.

Certainly, good for comic relief.

I was thinking more along the lines of having a party that fights for the environment, downtrodden etc.... but ya good for a laugh as well. I get a few chuckles from the blatant hypocracies of the conservatives, and the liberals are such a mess it might just be mean to laugh...but I will anyways

Yes im sure they are laughing too . . . .all the way to the bank. . . .they just love your sense of humour!

And yours too, but I doubt you're a very funny person.

[Durgan]

Australia:

What happens if I do not vote?

Initially the Australian Electoral Commission will write to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a reason for their failure to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

I suggest compulsary voting would be good for Canada, but the Candian method seemd to be don't force people to participate. In other word the stick is not socially or politically acceptable; so how about the carrot. A cheap inducement might be to give everone who votes a lottery ticket after the ballot is put in the box.

Every voter is not aware of the issues, and this is not a requirement for participating. I suggest if every citizen who voted was aware of the issues, the percentage of votes would be in the low 10%.

Durgan

[Charles Anthony]

This Australian Electoral Commission sounds like a group of public servants paid to shuffle papers from one side of their desk to the other and back again and back again and back again until they run out of paper. I wonder if they would accept "I did not want to waste tax-payer's money." as a valid reason for not voting.

If, within 21 days, the apparent non-voter fails to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or declines to pay the penalty, then prosecution proceedings may be instigated. If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.

I can not think of greater proof of a failing democracy than having to force people to vote. Is it not bad enough that people have to pay for elections through their taxes???

We do not force people to use public health care.

We do not force people to call the police and report missing property.

Why would we care to force people to vote? Are we threatened? Are we ashamed to admit that not everybody cares about democracy?

I guess it makes it difficult to invade foreign countries under the chimeric excuse of "Bringing democracy to the world!" or some other illusion. It also makes it difficult to claim that our past wars were honorably fought to defend our democracy.

I suggest compulsary voting would be good for Canada,

I suggest compulsary voting is bad because it violates the free-will of 40% of the Canadian population: non-voters.

[Durgan]

There is some suprising results when the 40%, who normally do not vote, decide to exercise their franchise.

Recert events in Boliva, Venezula, and in the past Chile caused a complete upheavel to the status quo. There is another ongoing event in Mexico.

Encouraging people to vote, I suggest is probably a prudent democratic move. Australia from day one slightly forced people to vote by imposing fines. I suggest their elected government's probably reflect public opinion to a greater degree, than when the 40% do not vote. Australia is remarkably similiar to Canada and their voting procedures don't seem to overly upset the citizens.

My suggestion was/is some minor reward to encourage the practice of voting, since it might upset the freewill of a few citizens. I might add free will is a bit of an illusion in practice.

Durgan.

[Durgan]

There is some suprising results when the 40%, who normally do not vote, decide to exercise their franchise.

Recert events in Boliva, Venezula, and in the past Chile caused a complete upheavel to the status quo. There is another ongoing event in Mexico.

Encouraging people to vote, I suggest is probably a prudent democratic move. Australia from day one slightly forced people to vote by imposing fines. I suggest their elected government's probably reflect public opinion to a greater degree, than when the 40% do not vote. Australia is remarkably similiar to Canada and their voting procedures don't seem to overly upset the citizens.

My suggestion was/is some minor reward to encourage the practice of voting, since it might upset the freewill of a few citizens. I might add free will is a bit of an illusion in practice.

Durgan.

[GostHacked]

Got a solution to the E-voting problem.

Have a receipt printed off showing what you voted for. That would also help out with discrepancies in the results. Created a digital and paper trail, and both should match to make it valid. If you have a receipt saying you voted for a certain party, and the e-vote does not match, your receipt should be considered the correct vote. Tampering with e-voting machines is easy, no matter what people say.

Voting should be encouraged greatly. I encourage everyone I talk to, to vote. If you don't vote, you have NO say in what your government does. If more people voted, things might be allot different within our government. It is true alot of poeple don't know the issues and how to vote on them, and that is a problem with the Polititians and their platform. Alot of it is generalization and more often than not it is confusing and conflicting. Cut the fluff out of the language as well. Give it to me in simple terms of what you are going to do. That discourages people from voting because they are unclear on what the issue is. That is not a problem with just the voters, but who is giving them the information. Hence alot of people restraining from voting.

[geoffrey]

Unlike you Gost... I discourage most people I know from voting. 95% of people are too ignorant in my view to be charged with the responsibility of electing people with control over my life. I don't know how you can be ok with some of those people in the streets you see everyday electing people that have the ultimate power over your life.

Elections are questionable in their own right, but democracy seems to be the only reasonable option. An improvement on this neccessary evil would be to institute some reforms to prevent the ignorant from ruling our lives.

[Hicksey]

What about those who obstain because they see nobody worthy of their vote?

Freedom of choice includes the right not to choose. Often we say as much by saying nothing as other do when they open their mouths.

[jbg]

My view is that the people who vote are those with a stake in society. Aside from taking steps that Canada has commendably taken (and the US not), such as advance voting, I think the best results obtain when the people who are motivated, involved and informed vote. I do not see the need to force people who have little interest in going to the polls, and doing little more than going "eenie, meenie, minie, moe".

[Hicksey]

My view is that the people who vote are those with a stake in society. Aside from taking steps that Canada has commendably taken (and the US not), such as advance voting, I think the best results obtain when the people who are motivated, involved and informed vote. I do not see the need to force people who have little interest in going to the polls, and doing little more than going "eenie, meenie, minie, moe".

Because of what they stand for, I can't cast a vote for the Liberals or NDP. And if the CPC doesn't impress me I obstain rather than cast a vote for people that don't deserve it.

[GostHacked]

Unlike you Gost... I discourage most people I know from voting. 95% of people are too ignorant in my view to be charged with the responsibility of electing people with control over my life. I don't know how you can be ok with some of those people in the streets you see everyday electing people that have the ultimate power over your life.

Elections are questionable in their own right, but democracy seems to be the only reasonable option. An improvement on this neccessary evil would be to institute some reforms to prevent the ignorant from ruling our lives.

So you are discouraging people to get involved in their government? Would not that be a good way to educate people? Giving them the tools to make the choice they beleive is right? The less people vote, the less people it will take to influcence government to make the policies.

What about those who obstain because they see nobody worthy of their vote? Freedom of choice includes the right not to choose. Often we say as much by saying nothing as other do when they open their mouths.

This is true as well. Often you should vote for 'none of the above' for none of them are worthy of the position. If less than half the voting population votes (due to lets say no one is good choice) then we should tell those guys to get lost and start over. Get better people in power. But that can get dragged on and our government can come to a screaching halt.

Encourage people to vote, and encourage people to get educated. It starts with you. I did not vote in the last election for I was working and simply forgot. I feel like a heel for that. I would have voted NDP, but in retrospect now, I might have voted Green. Libs/Cons are just not an option for me

[Hicksey]

What about those who obstain because they see nobody worthy of their vote? Freedom of choice includes the right not to choose. Often we say as much by saying nothing as other do when they open their mouths.

This is true as well. Often you should vote for 'none of the above' for none of them are worthy of the position. If less than half the voting population votes (due to lets say no one is good choice) then we should tell those guys to get lost and start over. Get better people in power. But that can get dragged on and our government can come to a screaching halt.

Encourage people to vote, and encourage people to get educated. It starts with you. I did not vote in the last election for I was working and simply forgot. I feel like a heel for that. I would have voted NDP, but in retrospect now, I might have voted Green. Libs/Cons are just not an option for me

I wish we could choose who leads our party as they do in the states. That would be a good start.

[na85]

I think the key to getting more voters is to capture the admittedly low interest of young people, preferrably at or just before they hit the voting age. One idea I've been toying around with is a compulsory political science course to be taken during secondary school, grade eleven or twelve. I feel that at this age most students are adequately prepared both socially and developmentally to fathom the often complex issues that face society. Part of this course's grade could be derived from the student's performance in debates about current issues (requiring preparation, and thereby requiring the student to read the news and stay current), and a small portion of the student's mark should come from registering as a voter (perhaps a photocopy of the student's voter card or similar).

Personally, I think that one develops an almost unwilling interest in something one is subjected to on a regular basis.

This course wouldn't (or shouldn't, anyways ) bother people who think that being forced to vote infringes upon their freedoms. I also think that if the teacher selected interesting and controversial topics for debating, then we might see a spark of genuine interest in many students, which might carry on into later life.

I personally do my best to make anyone who doesn't vote out of apathy feel like a jerk

[Charles Anthony]

If you don't vote, you have NO say in what your government does.

Explain. I am tired of people repeating this but nobody ever honestly explain it.

I could equally say that if you DO vote, you forfeit your right to have any say in what your rulers do because you sold out.

What about those who obstain because they see nobody worthy of their vote?

Freedom of choice includes the right not to choose. Often we say as much by saying nothing as other do when they open their mouths.

This is true as well. Often you should vote for 'none of the above' for none of them are worthy of the position. If less than half the voting population votes (due to lets say no one is good choice) then we should tell those guys to get lost and start over. Get better people in power. But that can get dragged on and our government can come to a screaching halt.

Hey! Now there is a democratic reform that I would support!

Part of this course's grade could be derived from the student's performance in debates about current issues (requiring preparation, and thereby requiring the student to read the news and stay current), and a small portion of the student's mark should come from registering as a voter (perhaps a photocopy of the student's voter card or similar).

Bad idea. Nobody should be forced to do anything except for maybe leaving eachother alone.

This course wouldn't (or shouldn't, anyways ) bother people who think that being forced to vote infringes upon their freedoms. I also think that if the teacher selected interesting and controversial topics for debating, then we might see a spark of genuine interest in many students, which might carry on into later life.

I doubt you could get a public school teacher to truly discuss freedom. You overlook the fact that when you vote, you are doing two things:

1) you are saying "This is what I want."

but also,

2) you are saying "This is what I want imposed on everybody else." regardless of whether they agree with you or not.

[jbg]

I wish we could choose who leads our party as they do in the states. That would be a good start.

We choose our Presidential candidates in a series of "primaries" and a few "caucuses". We do not choose party leaders. It winds up being similar to the combination of your EDA or riding conventions and the leadership vote among party members. The result is, in both cases, party activists "choose" the candidate. In our country, the "primary system" in the Democratic Party favors non-entities such as Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton (albeit with different ultimate results for the country) coming out of nowhere and capturing the nomination. Think the way Mulroney captured party leadershuip by jetting in a bunch of riding reps from Quebec ridings that probably didn't know what a "Tory" was back in the early 1980's.

[na85]

Bad idea. Nobody should be forced to do anything except for maybe leaving eachother alone.

So we shouldn't force people to learn personal hygiene and mathematics either? The curriculum in Ontario already forces students to do things like community service, and biology classes already have regular debates over things like abortion, medical ethics, et cetera.

I doubt you could get a public school teacher to truly discuss freedom. You overlook the fact that when you vote, you are doing two things:

1) you are saying "This is what I want."

but also,

2) you are saying "This is what I want imposed on everybody else." regardless of whether they agree with you or not.

That's what's known as exercising my right as a citizen. Yes, I am technically saying that I want something imposed on everybody else, but the great thing about democracy is that everyone else gets to try to "impose" themselves on me, too.

[Charles Anthony]

So we shouldn't force people to learn personal hygiene and mathematics either?

Why would you? ? ?

Nobody needs to be forced to learn personal hygiene or mathematics. If they wanted to learn personal hygiene or mathematics, they could do it.

[by the way, I remember being spoon-fed a lot of stupid courses in school, but are they REALLY teaching kids personal hygiene??? If so, that alone is enough proof of how stupid our schools can be!]

Yes, I am technically saying that I want something imposed on everybody else, but the great thing about democracy is that everyone else gets to try to "impose" themselves on me, too.

That does not sound great. It sounds horrible.

Consider the opposite: if NOBODY had the right to "impose" anything on you, would you still want to impose something on your neighbors?