Figleaf Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 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. Is that really a sound generalization though? In Canada, if you're a fisherman, if you live near a military base, if you become unemployed, if you drive on major highways, if you're on parole, if you go to university, if you measure with centimeters, if you travel abroad, if you use a bank, or even if you watch TV, you're involved with federal government activity. Quote
Figleaf 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. Why is it a problem? Quote
guyser Posted March 5, 2007 Report Posted March 5, 2007 Is that really a sound generalization though? In Canada, if you're a fisherman, if you live near a military base, if you become unemployed, if you drive on major highways, if you're on parole, if you go to university, if you measure with centimeters, if you travel abroad, if you use a bank, or even if you watch TV, you're involved with federal government activity. If I may , we are all involved with the Govt. But I think what the OP meant is that with any change in the Fed govt, and really local too, virtually little changes. Over time thinsg can , but the immediate impact is underwhelming. Having Harper has not changed anything we encounter on our daily runs. What we can percieve are nuances that can aid or hinder us. ie The US likes Harper so things should run smoother and we can see that Harper has made inroads , whereas Martin/Chretien were looking for landmines on the route to Washington for the percieved (and real) ills that flowed from the north. Quote
[email protected] Posted March 6, 2007 Author Report Posted March 6, 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. The problem is, even if what you say is true, although doubtful, the government cannot claim and appears not to have majority support. Quote
[email protected] Posted March 6, 2007 Author Report Posted March 6, 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. Why is it a problem? A Canadian government elected by only a minority which is given a majority is a problem. Because such a majority government, with near dictatorial powers, will act in the interests of its supporters which is, by definition, not with or against the wishes of the majority. Quote
[email protected] Posted March 6, 2007 Author Report Posted March 6, 2007 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 ... 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. If voters do not see any hope for their interests and concerns in the electoral process and decide their time is better spent elsewhere that does not make them lazy. That makes them frustrated. I don't believe that changing the system will change anything because the problem lies with people's attitudes - not the system itself. You don't think the system impacts people's attitude of the system? Quote
[email protected] Posted March 6, 2007 Author Report Posted March 6, 2007 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 ... 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. If voters do not see any hope for their interests and concerns in the electoral process and decide their time is better spent elsewhere that does not make them lazy. That makes them frustrated. I don't believe that changing the system will change anything because the problem lies with people's attitudes - not the system itself. You don't think the system impacts people's attitude of the system? Quote
guyser Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 A Canadian government elected by only a minority which is given a majority is a problem. Because such a majority government, with near dictatorial powers, will act in the interests of its supporters which is, by definition, not with or against the wishes of the majority. No you have it backward. The majority is valid because the others dont care about voting. They simply do not count. It cannot be any other way. Either get off your arse and vote or shut up. It is that simple. Any reason not to go and vote is laziness....ok ok you can excuse those in hospital or other emergency concerns. Quote
Wilber Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 The problem is, even if what you say is true, although doubtful, the government cannot claim and appears not to have majority support. There is no if. Why do people who don't like the result always assume that the people who didn't vote agreed with them? That's presumptuous nonsense. When it comes to forming the government, if you don't vote, you don't exist because you sat on your ass and left the decision to someone else. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Charles Anthony Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 People who believe their vote matters are complete fools. 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 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 People who believe their vote matters are complete fools.An interesting attitude for someone who believe that individuals making choices in a free market can affect the type and price of services available. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Charles Anthony Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 An interesting attitude for someone who believe that individuals making choices in a free market can affect the type and price of services available.No. I do not believe that. I believe that a free market is just -- regardless of the impact one individual has on the dynamics or the outcome. That is a major difference. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Wilber Posted March 6, 2007 Report Posted March 6, 2007 People who believe their vote matters are complete fools. You keep saying that and convince anyone else you can. The fewer people who vote, the more weight mine has. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Charles Anthony Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 You keep saying that and convince anyone else you can.That is actually one of my more recent goals in life. The fewer people who vote, the more weight mine has.Oh, do not get too comfortable with that thought. The day that YOUR vote carries ANY weight, will be the day that you are completely surrounded by people like me. There is a reason why the "government" spends advertizing money to convince people to vote. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Wilber Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 You keep saying that and convince anyone else you can.That is actually one of my more recent goals in life. The fewer people who vote, the more weight mine has.Oh, do not get too comfortable with that thought. The day that YOUR vote carries ANY weight, will be the day that you are completely surrounded by people like me. There is a reason why the "government" spends advertizing money to convince people to vote. Carry on. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
geoffrey Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 There is a reason why the "government" spends advertizing money to convince people to vote. Eh? Your sounding like PolyNewb. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
jbg Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 No you have it backward. The majority is valid because the others dont care about voting. They simply do not count. It cannot be any other way. Either get off your arse and vote or shut up. It is that simple.Any reason not to go and vote is laziness....ok ok you can excuse those in hospital or other emergency concerns. Bang on. It bears repetition. People view the Jews' influence, sometimes, as being the result of conspiracy. Their influence is based upon the fact that we participate actively and vote. Everyone has that power. 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).
Saturn Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 A Canadian government elected by only a minority which is given a majority is a problem. Because such a majority government, with near dictatorial powers, will act in the interests of its supporters which is, by definition, not with or against the wishes of the majority. No you have it backward. The majority is valid because the others dont care about voting. They simply do not count. It cannot be any other way. Either get off your arse and vote or shut up. It is that simple. Any reason not to go and vote is laziness....ok ok you can excuse those in hospital or other emergency concerns. May I point out that majority governments in Canada rarely get 50+% popular support? So, it doesn't matter whether you include the voters only or everyone in your calculations - the majority rarely elects the government in Canada. Quote
Saturn Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 An interesting attitude for someone who believe that individuals making choices in a free market can affect the type and price of services available.No. I do not believe that. I believe that a free market is just -- regardless of the impact one individual has on the dynamics or the outcome. That is a major difference. Yes, that is a major difference. Is this how you justify Enron and child prostitution though? With the presence of a market? Quote
Charles Anthony Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 Is this how you justify Enron and child prostitution though? With the presence of a market?I beg your pardon? You know what, Crony, I am getting ruddy-well fed up with you -- and with your stupefying ignorance of elementary economics. You want to make unfounded and foul personal attacks? You do not know what a free market is. Your twisted examples do NOT represent free markets. Is it your obnoxious lack of knowledge in economics that leads you to accuse me of justifying child prostitution and Enron? or is it your obnoxious personality? If you and I were discussing the history of the Titans and the discussion evolved into which one of them happened to have a huge crater that resembled the Death Star, it might make sense for me to accuse you of arguing YOURSELF round and round in circles, right? However, it would NOT make sense for me to accuse you of justifying child prostitution and Enron. Let me refer you to a particularly fitting essay: Straw Men & Ham Sandwiches Since becoming an economic libertarian and an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, I've noticed that most attacks on capitalism are forms of the Straw Man fallacy: instead of defining the opposing view in terms that its advocates would accept, you create a "straw man" – a stand-in or dummy position – to attack in its place. The straw man is easy to defeat, but irrelevant to the actual content of the original disagreement. --- Karl Marx, who invented the word capitalism, defined it as a free market and free trade based in "bourgeois property" – private ownership of the means of production. Marx's strict definition is one that proponents of laissez faire and private property would recognize and accept as their own. But the problem is that Karl Marx didn't stick to his own definition. As Thomas DiLorenzo says in his new book, How Capitalism Saved America, "Marxists [are] constitutionally unable to distinguish between free enterprise and special privilege." (p. 45) Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, is generally considered the first capitalist manifesto, though the term "capitalism" didn't exist yet. But the system Smith was arguing against – which he called "mercantilism" – is treated by Marx as a form of proto-capitalism. --- So how do we talk to the anti-capitalists when we're not even speaking the same language? --- Finally, the insistence on the distinction can serve as a useful filter for knowing which discussions to pursue and which to avoid. Next time you confront someone's anti-capitalism, whether it's the sometimes-subtle knee-jerk variety, or the ardent socialist sort, insist on the distinction between political capitalism and economic capitalism. If the other person can't follow the distinction, or refuses to use it, you can be sure the argument will be a waste of your time. B.K. Marcus Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
[email protected] Posted March 7, 2007 Author Report Posted March 7, 2007 A Canadian government elected by only a minority which is given a majority is a problem. Because such a majority government, with near dictatorial powers, will act in the interests of its supporters which is, by definition, not with or against the wishes of the majority. No you have it backward. The majority is valid because the others dont care about voting. They simply do not count. It cannot be any other way. Either get off your arse and vote or shut up. It is that simple. Any reason not to go and vote is laziness....ok ok you can excuse those in hospital or other emergency concerns. This has nothing to do with non-voters. Even if everyone votes there is still a problem; eg in a three way race, majority governments are typically formed on high 30s to low 40s support, with the other 60 to 70% opposing. Quote
[email protected] Posted March 7, 2007 Author Report Posted March 7, 2007 The problem is, even if what you say is true, although doubtful, the government cannot claim and appears not to have majority support. There is no if. Why do people who don't like the result always assume that the people who didn't vote agreed with them? That's presumptuous nonsense. When it comes to forming the government, if you don't vote, you don't exist because you sat on your ass and left the decision to someone else. Again this has nothing to do with non-voters. Quote
Wilber Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 Again this has nothing to do with non-voters. It has everything to do with you assuming that those who didn't vote don't support the government and think the same as you. A presumptuous and pompous attitude IMO. Are you in favour of compulsory voting? If not, there is no way that any government could have a majority of eligible voters and with more than two parties, even then it is unlikely. Or would you just prefer a good old fashioned dictatorship where no one gets to vote? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
[email protected] Posted March 7, 2007 Author Report Posted March 7, 2007 Again this has nothing to do with non-voters. It has everything to do with you assuming that those who didn't vote don't support the government and think the same as you. A presumptuous and pompous attitude IMO. Are you in favour of compulsory voting? If not, there is no way that any government could have a majority of eligible voters and with more than two parties, even then it is unlikely. Or would you just prefer a good old fashioned dictatorship where no one gets to vote? Lets then accept your position on non-voters. You still have a legitimacy problem. In a three way race where typically the the majority government is formed on 35 to 45% of the vote, that leaves 55 to 65% of 'people who voted' not supporting the majority government. Quote
Wilber Posted March 7, 2007 Report Posted March 7, 2007 Lets then accept your position on non-voters. You still have a legitimacy problem. In a three way race where typically the the majority government is formed on 35 to 45% of the vote, that leaves 55 to 65% of 'people who voted' not supporting the majority government. There is no other position on non voters and unless you restrict the ballot to two candidates you are never going to have a system that can guarantee a government will have a majority of the popular vote and even then you would need a country wide proportional system based on rep by pop. Given the population of Atlantic Canada compared to the rest of the country, that is something you really don't want. The Atlantic provinces have greater representation in both the Commons and the Senate than their population warrants. It is you who has the legitimacy problem. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
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.