When a vote will be wasted

MightyAC · December 14, 2006

Our first past the post system on average provides actual representation for only about 40% of people in Canada. Many people know that their party of choice has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a riding prior to casting their ballot so they have to decide what to do with their single vote.

In my riding the NDP and Green party have no chance of winning. For a Green or orange supporter options 1, 3 and 5 yield essentially the same results in my riding. The alternative is voting for a party they don't support hoping it is the lesser of two evils.

IMO, our first past the post system has a lot to do with political apathy and low voter turnout.

mikedavid00 · December 14, 2006

Our first past the post system on average provides actual representation for only about 40% of people in Canada. Many people know that their party of choice has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a riding prior to casting their ballot so they have to decide what to do with their single vote.
In my riding the NDP and Green party have no chance of winning. For a Green or orange supporter options 1, 3 and 5 yield essentially the same results in my riding. The alternative is voting for a party they don't support hoping it is the lesser of two evils.

IMO, our first past the post system has a lot to do with political apathy and low voter turnout.

I agree.

I live an Islmic area and my MP is Omar. The Conservative runner is a Sikh which does not represnt the ethnic or religious backgroud of our area so he had no chance.

Thus I didn't even bother voting. Same thing happened with other people at work.

The only way to bring democrocy is to force voting as a civic responsibility like paying taxes.

Saturn · December 14, 2006

In many cases, voting for your party of choice is a wasted vote (aside from giving $1.75 to that party but you can donate the $1.75 to the party if you really wanted to anyway).

The only reasonable thing for a voter to do is to look at who has a good chance of winning in his/her riding and choosing between those 2 or 3 candidates. For example, an NDP voter in a riding where the race is between the Liberals and the Conservatives, would be a fool to vote NDP because that vote means nothing. S/he should choose between the Liberal and the Conservative. In a riding with a 3-way race (say Green, NDP and Conservative), a Liberal vote would mean nothing - so a smart Liberal voter would vote for one of the 3 candidates who have a chance of being elected. In first past the post voting blindly for your party of choice makes no sense indeed.

guyser · December 14, 2006

Thus I didn't even bother voting. Same thing happened with other people at work.
The only way to bring democrocy is to force voting as a civic responsibility like paying taxes.

And you didn't even vote ?

How can you have a comment on any political issues when you could not even see to it to do your civic duty?I bet many immigrants voted since they are happy to be here and able to have a voice.

Meh...I didnt feel like voting , but I will tell you what is wrong with this country.

You dont see a conundrum here?

jdobbin · December 14, 2006

IMO, our first past the post system has a lot to do with political apathy and low voter turnout.

What's the voter turnout in Israel?

Saturn · December 14, 2006

I agree.
I live an Islmic area and my MP is Omar. The Conservative runner is a Sikh which does not represnt the ethnic or religious backgroud of our area so he had no chance.

Thus I didn't even bother voting. Same thing happened with other people at work.

The only way to bring democrocy is to force voting as a civic responsibility like paying taxes.

The only way to bring democracy is to give people more choice. In first past the post, the voter really gets to choose one of two possible candidates and that's just not a lot of choice.

Saturn · December 14, 2006

IMO, our first past the post system has a lot to do with political apathy and low voter turnout.

What's the voter turnout in Israel?

It was 80% a couple of elections ago but I imagine it varies from election to election. It's certainly higher than it is in Canada though.

mikedavid00 · December 14, 2006

Thus I didn't even bother voting. Same thing happened with other people at work.

The only way to bring democrocy is to force voting as a civic responsibility like paying taxes.

And you didn't even vote ?

How can you have a comment on any political issues when you could not even see to it to do your civic duty?I bet many immigrants voted since they are happy to be here and able to have a voice.

Meh...I didnt feel like voting , but I will tell you what is wrong with this country.

You dont see a conundrum here?

Dude, I live in Omars riding. I live in an Islamic/Pakistani area. Even the house I bought were from Palistinians (with 10 children collected social service.. no joke). So there was NO point in me voting.

But to be active I put the Conservative sign on my lawn. And my finace voted Conservative. But me and my brother didn't even bother because it knew it wouldn't make a difference.

Now if I was FORCED to vote like in Australia, then I would have chose CPC.

The immigrants here mostly are from countries that have elections. They vote becuase it's in their personal interest to see Omar as leader, not for the greater good of Canada.

"On December 2, the Liberal candidate for Mississauga-Erindale, Omar Alghabra, made his victory speech after winning the nomination. In that speech, he reportedly exhorted his audience, "This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam Won! ... Islamic power is extending into Canadian politics"."

mikedavid00 · December 14, 2006

The only way to bring democracy is to give people more choice. In first past the post, the voter really gets to choose one of two possible candidates and that's just not a lot of choice.

Are you out of your mind? Our problem is we have TOO MUCH choice! lol.. unreal....

LOL!! heheh I just can't beleive you said that.

You don't know what democracy is.

Democracy only holds true if 100% of the poeple vote. That is factual. It's like saying 1 + 1 = 2.

jdobbin · December 14, 2006

It was 80% a couple of elections ago but I imagine it varies from election to election. It's certainly higher than it is in Canada though.

I was curious myself and found this neat website:

http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=IL

It was 63.5% in the last election in Israel.

It was 64.9% in the last election in Canada.

http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=CA

Remiel · December 14, 2006

Not true. If 40% of the people vote in the exact same proportion as 100% would, the the result is the same and the will of the people is upheld. Your statement is not factual.

blueblood · December 14, 2006

I don't think they should conduct polls during elections, it skews things and it sort of predetermines the outcome of the election. I think it would give the other guys a fighting chance.

mikedavid00 · December 14, 2006

Not true. If 40% of the people vote in the exact same proportion as 100% would, the the result is the same and the will of the people is upheld. Your statement is not factual.

Sorry your wrong.

Your giving idealism and not facts.

Factually, we really don't know the outcome unless 100% of the people vote.

For instance, in the city elections here in Toronto, only 30% of poeple voted. However, a large group of those people were city union worker and family of city workers in unions because the have a direct interest in which mayor is in power.

Now what if EVERYONE voted?

That election was not democratic.

Neither was the Liberal leadership convention.

We'll never know unless everyone votes.

mikedavid00 · December 15, 2006

I don't think they should conduct polls during elections, it skews things and it sort of predetermines the outcome of the election. I think it would give the other guys a fighting chance.

There could be truth to thtis.

In the US it's always so close that the outcome is usually within the margin of error. Polls almost always contradict each other.

But in our voting climate and people being so disenfrancised with politics, If polls start to say that CPC is doing well, then epople will jump on board. Look at the last election.

Martin was ahead of the polls, then after the GST anouncement, amazing harper started to clime up in polls and then people started to jump on board.

What would have happened if everyone just blindely went to the polls?

We have so much political choice that a lot of people are going to vote for who 'is likely to win' or the 'next contended'. We know this by polling.

I feel we just need to reform our practices and let Canadians take back gov't. We can all vote on propositions and have a say. Thus, politicians are working for us the poeple.

If we had an electoral college system, then it would force the small parties out and the Bloc would be history.

Saturn · December 15, 2006

I was curious myself and found this neat website:
http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=IL

It was 63.5% in the last election in Israel.

It was 64.9% in the last election in Canada.

http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=CA

Wow, participation dropped like a rock after 1999. Interesting.

Saturn · December 15, 2006

The only way to bring democracy is to give people more choice. In first past the post, the voter really gets to choose one of two possible candidates and that's just not a lot of choice.

Are you out of your mind? Our problem is we have TOO MUCH choice! lol.. unreal....

LOL!! heheh I just can't beleive you said that.

You don't know what democracy is.

Democracy only holds true if 100% of the poeple vote. That is factual. It's like saying 1 + 1 = 2.

I guess you'll just have to force everyone to vote then. But you also have to make sure the immigrants don't vote. That would be pretty tough.

blueblood · December 15, 2006

I don't think they should conduct polls during elections, it skews things and it sort of predetermines the outcome of the election. I think it would give the other guys a fighting chance.

There could be truth to thtis.

In the US it's always so close that the outcome is usually within the margin of error. Polls almost always contradict each other.

But in our voting climate and people being so disenfrancised with politics, If polls start to say that CPC is doing well, then epople will jump on board. Look at the last election.

Martin was ahead of the polls, then after the GST anouncement, amazing harper started to clime up in polls and then people started to jump on board.

What would have happened if everyone just blindely went to the polls?

We have so much political choice that a lot of people are going to vote for who 'is likely to win' or the 'next contended'. We know this by polling.

I feel we just need to reform our practices and let Canadians take back gov't. We can all vote on propositions and have a say. Thus, politicians are working for us the poeple.

If we had an electoral college system, then it would force the small parties out and the Bloc would be history.

It shouldn't take a poll to get people to jump on board, it should be whether or not you agree with the candidate or not.

August1991 · December 15, 2006

Our first past the post system on average provides actual representation for only about 40% of people in Canada. Many people know that their party of choice has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a riding prior to casting their ballot so they have to decide what to do with their single vote.
...

IMO, our first past the post system has a lot to do with political apathy and low voter turnout.

For the life of me, I've never understood this mentality of "winning" your vote or "wasting" your vote. Does it make any difference if you happened to choose the winning side or losing side? Your ballot in either case will change absolutely nothing.

What's the voter turnout in Israel?

One person's single ballot makes no difference in Knesset representation either. A strict proportional system will not raise participation rates, as your data shows.

The best evidence overall is municipal elections where turnout is typically between 20% and 30%.

Also, I'm inclined to believe that best evidence of government legitimacy is tax compliance. When people view the government as legitimate, they tend to pay their taxes. This says far more about a society than voter turn out percentages.

Saturn · December 15, 2006

For the life of me, I've never understood this mentality of "winning" your vote or "wasting" your vote. Does it make any difference if you happened to choose the winning side or losing side? Your ballot in either case will change absolutely nothing.

Well, if your ballot will change nothing, then you shouldn't vote in the first place.

blueblood · December 15, 2006

For the life of me, I've never understood this mentality of "winning" your vote or "wasting" your vote. Does it make any difference if you happened to choose the winning side or losing side? Your ballot in either case will change absolutely nothing.

Well, if your ballot will change nothing, then you shouldn't vote in the first place.

Hence the reason why less than half of Canadians vote in elections. Just vote your conscience and if a lot of people agree with you then your guy will win. which is why polling should be banned, nothing should be able to influence your vote.

Saturn · December 15, 2006

Our first past the post system on One person's single ballot makes no difference in Knesset representation either. A strict proportional system will not raise participation rates, as your data shows.
The best evidence overall is municipal elections where turnout is typically between 20% and 30%.

Also, I'm inclined to believe that best evidence of government legitimacy is tax compliance. When people view the government as legitimate, they tend to pay their taxes. This says far more about a society than voter turn out percentages.

You mean the massive amounts of data from one Israeli and one Canadian election?

I'm inclined to believe that tax compliance is the result of penalties for non-compliance. I'm inclined to believe that hardly any of us would be paying taxes if not paying them would not get us in trouble.

mikedavid00 · December 15, 2006

The only way to bring democracy is to give people more choice. In first past the post, the voter really gets to choose one of two possible candidates and that's just not a lot of choice.

Are you out of your mind? Our problem is we have TOO MUCH choice! lol.. unreal....

LOL!! heheh I just can't beleive you said that.

You don't know what democracy is.

Democracy only holds true if 100% of the poeple vote. That is factual. It's like saying 1 + 1 = 2.

I guess you'll just have to force everyone to vote then. But you also have to make sure the immigrants don't vote. That would be pretty tough.

They already do vote at over 90%.

Saturn · December 15, 2006

Hence the reason why less than half of Canadians vote in elections. Just vote your conscience and if a lot of people agree with you then your guy will win. which is why polling should be banned, nothing should be able to influence your vote.

Polling will not be banned. Even without polling people will have perceptions (lawn signs, gut feeling, etc.) on who is going to win.

In reality, Canadians simply don't care about politics because most of us don't have a clue what politicians do and we don't think it matters (until we end up in a Syrian jail or on a long waiting list for surgery in which case some of us realize that politicians do have some influence on our lives). Canadians care about Britney Spears, cool cars, sports, etc. and voting comes last on our list of priorities. If you ask people who don't vote why they don't vote, they will tell you that they don't have the time. But they have time to watch the hockey game or reality TV shows and they all know about the latest celebrity gossip.

guyser · December 15, 2006

For the life of me, I've never understood this mentality of "winning" your vote or "wasting" your vote. Does it make any difference if you happened to choose the winning side or losing side? Your ballot in either case will change absolutely nothing.

Well, if your ballot will change nothing, then you shouldn't vote in the first place.

We need only to look at the US elections in 2000 to see the results of "not voting". That was very close, and whatever the number was that differentiated that election, you can bet there are that many people who were mad they didnt exercise that vote.

We have the same thing here, vote and vote often (ok a lil joke) but one must vote if they have any interest in how the country is run.

Plenty of people do not care how things are run, and for them, stay home I guess. But for those on this board, win or lose, place your damn vote or shut up !

mikedavid00 · December 15, 2006

It shouldn't take a poll to get people to jump on board, it should be whether or not you agree with the candidate or not.

I agree. But people do want representation in Parliment. And people shouldn't vote based off religious lines but non-the-less it's still happening.

I don't know about the poll thing.. maybe we should allow the citizens to vote on this? Poeple are goign to vote like sheeps as long as there's 5 parties to choose from. No one wants to waste their vote on a candidate that wont win.

The US is much different. There are two main partieis and anything is possible.