jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 e-voting would get the numbers up. Just log in from your computer, enter some info and vote. If I can check my tax return status online, then I'm sure they can have the security for a vote. I don't think e-voting would bring in many more votes. I just don't think voting is that hard or inconvenient. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Wilber Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 All systems have their drawbacks FPTP: A great way to elect individuals. One person per riding, you know who your MP is and who to go to if you have a bitch or need something. It tends to fail in Ottawa where an MP's conscience and his electors wishes often have to take a back seat to party discipline and partisan politics. It can also produce some weird results depending on voting patterns and the distribution of seats. Three elections ago in BC, the party which came second in the popular vote ended up with a slim majority in the legislature. STV: A better chance that your vote may count to actually elect someone but you have to rank your choices and your vote still may not go to elect anyone. Example: You live in Alberta and there are six MP's to be elected in your area. The CPC, Libs, and NDP all field six candidates, 18 in all. You are a diehard Liberal or NDP and rank the CPC's last or not at all. There is a good chance all your last or non choices will be elected. You now have six MP's so which one do you go to if you have a problem? PR: The worst. It ensures that many people would have representation who might not but. Say there are ten seats up for grabs in a region. There are enough raving loonies in the area to get the Raving Loony Party 10% of the vote and so it is entitled to one seat. The 90% of the population who want nothing to do with being represented by a raving loony are now stuck with one as an MP. You now have ten MP's, putting aside the raving loony, which one do you go to? In our present system party discipline and partisan politics after the fact will still apply regardless of what system was used to elect our MP's Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 PR: The worst. It ensures that many people would have representation who might not but. Say there are ten seats up for grabs in a region. There are enough raving loonies in the area to get the Raving Loony Party 10% of the vote and so it is entitled to one seat. The 90% of the population who want nothing to do with being represented by a raving loony are now stuck with one as an MP. You now have ten MP's, putting aside the raving loony, which one do you go to? In Israel, for example, the Religious parties wind up in every coalition even though they have only marginal popular support. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Charles Anthony Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 The claim was that they have a voice, not a power to impose policies.Define 'voice' if they can't impose polcies?Freedom. Define democracy -- otherwise, everybody is just talking past eachother.The technical definition one person one vote and 50%+1 rules. I prefer to describe it as a mechanism to reach social concensus amoung millions of people. Both definitions imply that some people representing certain minorities are not going to be able to get their way.I have no problem accepting that definition -- mainly because I find it to be as illegitimate as most any other definition -- but I have a lot of trouble relating it to legitimate government. Can you justify your definition as a form of legitimate government? As an aside, I find your "consensus across millions of people" to be quite odd and I question its relevence. What does it imply if a 50%+1 result does not occur in an election? However, I stand by my claim that the majority of non-voters are lazy.Why do you not see the majority of non-voters as providing proof to there is more things that influence the outcome of an individual's life than voting? Your vote makes NO difference. I have a question for the supporters of Proportional Representation: Who has the legitimate authority to dictate the size and the number and the topology of each riding??? I challenge you to justify your choice in the matter. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
madmax Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 I don't think e-voting would bring in many more votes. I just don't think voting is that hard or inconvenient. I don't know if you are speaking of Canada or the US. But it is really really easy to vote in Canada. E voting may come, but I am not a supporter of it. Quote
jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 I don't think e-voting would bring in many more votes. I just don't think voting is that hard or inconvenient. I don't know if you are speaking of Canada or the US. But it is really really easy to vote in Canada. E voting may come, but I am not a supporter of it. My experience is with the US. I drive about 200 meters out of my way to vote, and vote 3-5 times a year. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Wilber Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Canadians only vote once every one or two years but nearly 40% of them are too lazy to do that. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Canadian Blue Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 From talking to people who don't vote, they simply say that it doesn't matter who is in government, because it'll always be the same old, same old. I haven't noticed a massive change in my life since Harper got in, besides not having to pay as much on GST. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
madmax Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Canadians only vote once every one or two years but nearly 40% of them are too lazy to do that. Well, I am not certain of the % that bother to Register in the US or of those who do Register then bother to vote. I know, that if I had to go 200 meters out of my way to vote, I just wouldn't do it. Wait a minute, I drive 2 miles to vote, what's this guy doing tricking me with metric. Quote
jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Canadians only vote once every one or two years but nearly 40% of them are too lazy to do that. Well, I am not certain of the % that bother to Register in the US or of those who do Register then bother to vote. I know, that if I had to go 200 meters out of my way to vote, I just wouldn't do it. Wait a minute, I drive 2 miles to vote, what's this guy doing tricking me with metric. LOL. I write in "Trudeau Units" when on MLW whenever possible. I spell in English, not Canadian. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Canadians only vote once every one or two years but nearly 40% of them are too lazy to do that. Do you vote in school board and other local or provincial elections? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 From talking to people who don't vote, they simply say that it doesn't matter who is in government, because it'll always be the same old, same old. I haven't noticed a massive change in my life since Harper got in, besides not having to pay as much on GST. Given the way the federal governments of either of our countries operate, their impact on domestic life is generally far from immediate. Exceptions, of course, are such boondoggles as official bilingualism. In most cases, federal governments operate through provinces. What will be different, with Harper, is what doesn't happen, i.e. less moneys siphoned off to corrupt advertising agencies. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
guyser Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 Canadians only vote once every one or two years but nearly 40% of them are too lazy to do that. Do you vote in school board and other local or provincial elections? Yes, but school boards are local so the vote for them comes at the same time we vote for mayor or provincial reps. E-voting should work and bump up the numbers. Hell even mikedavid might be able to vote if that were the case. E voting would stir the numbers. especially in winter elections. A fair number of people look outside for the weather before deciding to don the coat and go vote. lbg,. I would think that in the northern climes of the US, this would also hold true. Nasty weather can befall a vote in November up there Quote
jbg Posted March 4, 2007 Report Posted March 4, 2007 E voting would stir the numbers. especially in winter elections. A fair number of people look outside for the weather before deciding to don the coat and go vote. Pathetic. Do "people look outside for the weather before deciding to don the coat and go" out for a drink, to the grocery store or to the dry cleaner? And voting is less important? lbg,. I would think that in the northern climes of the US, this would also hold true. Nasty weather can befall a vote in November up there The first week of November was chosen since the harvest is in, hurricane season and severe heat are over in the South, and only parts of Alaska, and very small chunks of Montana and North Dakota are subject to severe winter weather that early. Those states were not even part of the Union when Election Day was established. Generally, in the "I-95" megalopolis belt, as well as the Midwest, temperatures are between 10 and 20 Trudeau Units that time of the year, and in the Far West Coast, temperatures are generally between 10 and 25. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Wilber Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Canadians only vote once every one or two years but nearly 40% of them are too lazy to do that. Do you vote in school board and other local or provincial elections? Municipal elections, mayor, council, school and parks boards are every two years. Provincial and federal elections can go as much as four years in between (five years is actually the constitutional limit) so Canadians certainly don't have to exactly put themselves out to vote. Not voting is either laziness or apathy. Pathetic. Do "people look outside for the weather before deciding to don the coat and go" out for a drink, to the grocery store or to the dry cleaner? And voting is less important? It is pathetic and voting probably is less important for a lot of people. They just take what the country has to offer for granted, like it is the natural order of things. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 My mistake, municipal elections are every three years. Even less pressure to vote. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
geoffrey Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 It is pathetic and voting probably is less important for a lot of people. They just take what the country has to offer for granted, like it is the natural order of things. And we want these people voting? Sounds like we'll get more Liberals. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
[email protected] Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 Define 'voice' if they can't impose policies? ‘Voice’ as in are able to express an opinion while debating a bill before the house, convincing other members or not, and being able to cast a vote yea or nay on it. Quote
[email protected] Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 Sorry but you can't include people who didn't bother to vote. The Liberals got 40.8% of the ballots cast. Either way the majority government did not have majority support, 3 out of 4 opposed if you include non-voters, 6 out of 10 opposed if non-voters excluded. The problem remains. Quote
[email protected] Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 No corruption in PR systems? Don't make me laugh. All systems are subject to corruption. Many people lliving in PR countries find it impossible to vote venal party insiders out of office because the lists are drawn up by the parties - not the voters.The geography and population distribution in Canada requires democratic representives that are elected to represent a specific geographic area. This implies ridings. You could have PR in each riding and elect several members, however, the multi-member ridings are not going to have enough granularity to represent every possible view. Agree, that is why STV is better than pure PR, it allows voters to select their own reps. Quote
Wilber Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Sorry but you can't include people who didn't bother to vote. The Liberals got 40.8% of the ballots cast. Either way the majority government did not have majority support, 3 out of 4 opposed if you include non-voters, 6 out of 10 opposed if non-voters excluded. The problem remains. There is no way you can include non voters. If you can't be bothered to vote, you don't count. You just assume they don't support the winner. For all you know they might all have voted for the Liberals and they would have had over 80% of the vote. Your premise is nonsense. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
[email protected] Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Posted March 5, 2007 People who don't vote today fall into two categories: 1) Ideologues who for whatever reason think that not voting is some sort of protest; 2) Lazy apathetic people who talk their democratic rights for granted. And these six catagories too: 3) Are represented neither by the Liberal or Tory party 4) Who feel there vote will be wasted, that is, it contributes to no voice in the house 5) Who have given up on the political process 6) Those who do not vote or spoil their ballot as a form of protest against an entrenched political system 7) Among the limited choices presented see nothing that represents their views 8) Dislike voting for a PM and/or a party they dislike when voting for a rep. And remember more and more people are not voting. What is your solution? Quote
Charles Anthony Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 My solution is simple: do nothing. The voting population will naturally dwindle itself into oblivion and the problem will resolve itself. I think it is natural for people to look beyond government for their needs. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Riverwind Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 3) Are represented neither by the Liberal or Tory party4) Who feel there vote will be wasted, that is, it contributes to no voice in the house 5) Who have given up on the political process ... 7) Among the limited choices presented see nothing that represents their views 8) Dislike voting for a PM and/or a party they dislike when voting for a rep. All excuses for laziness.6) Those who do not vote or spoil their ballot as a form of protest against an entrenched political systemSpoiling your ballot is a legimate form of protest. The numbers of spoiled votes are not technically counted today but if they were significant then that would be noted and would be hard to ignore. If nothing else it would be a signal to parties that their are votes to be had - they simply have to figure out what these people want.Not voting at all sends no such signal. And remember more and more people are not voting.What is your solution? I don't believe that changing the system will change anything because the problem lies with people's attitudes - not the system itself. People with minority opinions will always find that they don't get their way very often because we do live in a democracy and that means the majority rules. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
gc1765 Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 This works well then you are choosing one person - like a party leader. There are 308 persons in Parliament. This proposal will do very little to ensure that the popular vote is fairly represented in the number of seats each party gets. Actually, it will give third/fourth etc. parties a better chance at getting elected, since people won't have to worry about "wasting" their vote voting for the green party for example. With the enormous power and influence party leaders exert on their caucuses, we are not voting for people but for votes in Parliament (except for those few voters in 4 ridings who vote for a party leader). It's not the case that each riding sends its own representative to HOC - we send representatives of a party leader to HOC. It doesn't matter whether you vote for the person or the party. You could just rank your favourite parties in order. Actually, the nice thing about this system is you could potentially have more than one candidate from each party running. That way, the electorate can have a say in the person running for a particular party, rather than that person being chose only by party members. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
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.