Who Would You Support in the 06 Election

[Canadian Blue]

I would vote for the Democrats, especially if that democrat were to be pro-life. I find that the Bush presidency and Republican's have strayed so far off course in the past few years that its time for a change. As well hopefully the Democrats can provide a compassionate government yet at the same time be able to compromise on social issues to heal the cultural divide in America.

[Michael Hardner]

After voting major parties for my entire life, my experience on these forums has forced me to admit that none of them represent my (heterogeneous) views. I want a party that manages like the Conservatives, pleases the masses like the Liberals, and cares about people as much as the NDP.

I vote 'other' for now.

[Canadian Blue]

Same here Michael, unfortunately their aren't many options out their for those that want a different choice. I'd prefer the Democrats since they have shown they can govern. Here at home I'm content with the Conservatives, better leadership then before. However on social police while I support the government getting out of the marriage business I am pro-life so no major party besides the Conservatives are willing to allow me in and be heard. I just did a poll that showed I would be more likely to vote NDP as I share some common views as they, however could never bring myself to support them over issues of pro-life, government bureaucracy, and their views on Afganistan which are important to me since I am a member of the CF.

[theloniusfleabag]

Canadians, by and large, don't vote in US elections.

[Ladyjen]

If I were American I would vote Democrat without a doubt. Hope all Americans vote for the Dems as what the American Government does affects us all. For years I didn't see much of a difference between the Dems and Repubs but this last 6 years have proved that this brand of Republicans have a far different agenda on all fronts.

[Canadian Blue]

Canadians, by and large, don't vote in US elections.

This is all hypothetical, who would you vote for in this election if you were eligible to vote in the United States.

[Charles Anthony]

In general for a poll on voting, I would also like to see the choice of "not voting" in the poll.

I want a party that manages like the Conservatives, pleases the masses like the Liberals, and cares about people as much as the NDP.

Uh.... it sounds like you need to go back to church! I have no idea where else you will get all of your wishes!

I vote 'other' for now.

I would not even give them my vote!

This past weekend I was called by a polling/research firm for my opinion on an upcoming municipal election. The lady asked a series of city issues questions that might be addressed by city council and yadda yadda yadda. The two of us had particular trouble with one question: For which candidate I would most likely vote? (Forget about the fact that the first question she asked was what my likelihood of voting at the election will be and I said categorically that I would not vote at all. I still had to answer the question of who?!?!?)

They did not have a choice of not voting for any of the mayoral candidates.

I insisted that I would not vote for any of them and she did not know what to do. She wrote it down and had to check with her supervisor.

If anybody cares about the rest of the story, I was particularly peeved by the fact that they were only asking about the top three most popular candidates. There are a total of 9 people running for the position. I realize that the others have no chance of winning -- I actually do not think the others would do a good job. However, there is one candidate (far out in left field) for whom I would get up and vote, only for novelty's sake.

She also asked my opinion on snow removal, garbage pick up, police and ambulance response, yadda yadda yadda throughout the city. I told her that I drive back and forth to work practically every day and that I HAD NO IDEA what all of these things are like THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE CITY -- most particularly in the rural parts. Again, we were stuck -- that was not one of the choices. I could only tell her what it was like on my street -- we settled on that.

[Michael Hardner]

Charles - Are you talking about the mayoral race in Toronto ?

[Charles Anthony]

Are you talking about the mayoral race in Toronto ?

No. I am in the nation's capital. However, I would probably respond the same way if I was in Toronto!

I thought everybody in Toronto knows everything already. No need to ask any stupid questions.

This reminds me of the final part of the survey. She asked if I wanted to take part in their online polling program. It sounded like they employ/recruit/volunteer people to do online surveys. I thought: yes! that sounds like fun! (I also wondered: what is she thinking?!?!? Me?!? yeah, I would be a great candidate!) I have not heard back yet -- maybe her supervisor looked closer at my answers.

[Figleaf]

-

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[M.Dancer]

Doesn't matter which party wins, the sysytem ensures mediochre government geared towards working for special interest groups.

Canada and our election funding laws are light years ahead of the washington kleptocracy

[sharkman]

Ah yes, our election funding laws are keeping the hoards at bay!

Our system of government is much less of a democracy and now that Harper's the PM, the liberals who were so content to see Chretien's financial scandals are waking up to the fact that they can't do much else beside bitch. Welcome to Canada.

At least in the American system you have more balance of power with Congress and the Senate to counteract a rogue president.(Rogue, you lefties ought to like that, eh?) Canada has no such component.

Harper would like to change that with a makeover of the Senate, but that's another topic.

[M.Dancer]

Ah yes, our election funding laws are keeping the hoards at bay!

Our system of government is much less of a democracy and now that Harper's the PM, the liberals who were so content to see Chretien's financial scandals are waking up to the fact that they can't do much else beside bitch. Welcome to Canada.

At least in the American system you have more balance of power with Congress and the Senate to counteract a rogue president.(Rogue, you lefties ought to like that, eh?) Canada has no such component.

Harper would like to change that with a makeover of the Senate, but that's another topic.

Congress is a shame. It is nothing more that which whore can get the most bling bling from the lobbiests.

[daniel]

... I want a party that manages like the Conservatives, ....

This is confusing. Why would you want a party that runs up the deficit while giving the impression they are managing money well?

[Michael Hardner]

Ahh... the Canadian Conservatives...

I'm thinking about the 'old boys'... Bill Davis and so on...

[M.Dancer]

Speaking of congressional whores and big pimping lobbiests.........

A senior Republican congressman linked to disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bribery charges in Washington.

Bob Ney from Ohio admitted offering political favours for money and gifts from Abramoff and his clients.

Mr Ney also pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements.

Abramoff's shady business dealings continue to rock the Republican Party in the run-up to next month's mid-term polls, the BBC's Jonathan Beale says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6049274.stm

[ClearWest]

Libertarian.

They're the only party listed that would put individual freedoms over the lobbying of special interest and corporate cronies.

For Liberty. It's what America is all about.

[Charles Anthony]

Libertarian.

Ah... the door is now open.

They're the only party listed that would put individual freedoms over the lobbying of special interest and corporate cronies.

How would they do that, pray tell?

They would not use coersion to achieve such results, would they?

I am just being a devilish anarchist.

I will just give you my arguments and counter-arguments now: by the very nature of participating in the electoral process, they are stepping on people's liberties. Voting for a libertarian (or anybody for that matter) is imposing your will upon your neighbors. Not only are you saying: "This is who I want to win." but you are also saying: "This is who I want to rule over my neighbors regardless of what my neighbors want." Furthermore, if the Libertarian party accepts any tiny level of taxation, they are compromizing thieves --- even if they preach minimal taxation.

[ClearWest]

Libertarian.

Ah... the door is now open.

They're the only party listed that would put individual freedoms over the lobbying of special interest and corporate cronies.

How would they do that, pray tell?

They would not use coersion to achieve such results, would they?

I am just being a devilish anarchist.

I will just give you my arguments and counter-arguments now: by the very nature of participating in the electoral process, they are stepping on people's liberties. Voting for a libertarian (or anybody for that matter) is imposing your will upon your neighbors. Not only are you saying: "This is who I want to win." but you are also saying: "This is who I want to rule over my neighbors regardless of what my neighbors want." Furthermore, if the Libertarian party accepts any tiny level of taxation, they are compromizing thieves --- even if they preach minimal taxation.

I agree with you in principle. But in practice I think that it may be necessary to work within the system to change the system. Sometimes in communication you have to speak your opponent's language--and they speak democracy. Voting is one way to get your message across to them. Let's face it, we are a minority speaking the language of liberty while everyone around us is speaking constitutional democracy. If we speak constitutional democracy (by voting, or by participating in the election), we can send the message to them that we want to start downsizing the state--reversing the direction that it's going right now.

If a Libertarian MP were elected. He or she would vote no to every bill that involves the increase of the state and vote yes for every bill that involves increasing personal liberties. It's not much--but it would help us go towards our goal of individual liberty.

[Charles Anthony]

But in practice I think that it may be necessary to work within the system to change the system. Sometimes in communication you have to speak your opponent's language--and they speak democracy.

I understand.

If a Libertarian MP were elected. He or she would vote no to every bill that involves the increase of the state and vote yes for every bill that involves increasing personal liberties. It's not much--but it would help us go towards our goal of individual liberty.

This is where I would suggest a different strategy in practice. I would suggest that you pick a side (liberal, republican, labor, reform, conservative, democrat, whatever) and fight for less government under one of the parties. Imagine somebody like JFK living to a ripe old age, becoming a libertarian and writing in his auto-biography: "I was a hot-aired fool. If only I had said to the world: Ask not what I must do for my country but what together we can do for the freedom of man and just left it at that. It would sound equally poetic and would have won me votes just the same. However, maybe it would have bred a sense of community solidarity and not national obedience to power." One of my political stepping stones came from reading Barry Goldwater's books.

Promoting liberty while working in the system might be possible in a more efficient manner. I will boldly say that in a practical sense, Libertarian parties are just conservative parties. However, you split the conservative vote and lose.