babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
I didn't endorse this Parliament. Did you?
May 3, 2011 - 3:09pm
Parliamentary endorsement was about the same as last election: 61.4% voter turnout, up from 59.1% in 2008. Certainly no incentive for Parliament to stray from the policy status quo - especially not toward electoral reform - with satisfaction numbers like that! Voting ourselves into the abyss.
By not voting, you effectively endorsed Stephen Harper. You certainly made a statement that none of the alternatives were any better.
You really don't belong here.
Nearly 60% of voters did not vote for any of the Harpers. We need to preach this truth from the roof tops over the next four years.
The emperor is stark staring naked. Pass it on.
By not participating in direct action you effectively endorsed Stephen Harper. See how silly that sounds? There are many roads to social change and the idea that electoral politics in this country is the best strategy for social justice is historically false.
You did not endorse this parliament.
I didnt either.
So what? Let alone that question wasnt pn the ballot, where else was it?
Hey, you voted for this Parliament, not me. There has to be a way of not endorsing the legislature and the only one that makes sense is boycotting the election that populates it.
Best strategy for "social justice" -- debatable.
Best strategy for ensuring that an asshole doesn't become PM -- pretty self evident, isn't it?
Sure, maybe electoral politics can't fix everything. But it can sure fix who does or doesn't govern the country for the next four years.
That's like saying that there must be some way of protesting the steering mechanism in your car, and the best way to do that is to NOT hold on to the steering wheel. Boy, that'll sure show that steering wheel!
The Brits set up a clever system. You can't change it, unless you win it.
And a small elite can control it with almost total power.
The lower the voter turnout, the more power for Harper.
To make change, why not vote progressive, and do everything else too?
That's a British thing? Are there systems where you don't need any kind of win in order to change it? How many times a day does it get changed, under that system?
I guess I'm just having trouble picturing a system where you can change the system without having to be elected first.
Do you seriously think that they would set up a system in which all the rabble had to do was have a party that wins an election and they could change everything? Wouldn't it make much more sense to make governance beholden to the eocnomy so that no matter who won they had to govern from the right?
uh, yes our entire system evolved from British colonialism control system.
Its like capitalism, making the first million is the hardest. That is why the elites rule the world.
From what I can see, many people think they can change the system from the outside, but that ain't working.
i agree with the idea social change happens from outside the system, but seeing as voting is the least amount of effort compared to other activist activity it's a no brainer. it's the easiest thing to do and if the 40% of people--or even half that--voted in some of the more progressive politicians that would have a definite impact on certain things like labour policy, environmental policy, etc.
To me, not participating is like saying you're "apolitical" it's basically a vote for the status quo.
The only time there has ever been change is from the outside.
and yes, now its to the point even winning power the hands are tied behind their back. As people who post here know.
but people out there in the world don't know that.
but that being said, the power of a majority gov't in Canada, as we know, is a dictatorship, its not democracy. We tasted that at G20, they can shred the Constitution, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. They are the power, and they enforce the power. They got away with it, and even got a boost in the polls from G20.
If you want to foment revolution, go for it - but leave me out of it, thanks anyway.
What's really silly is hanging around here needling those who've put their efforts into making social change though more socially-accepted channels - even if you think the means they've chosen is second-rate strategically.
Voting isn't second rate. In the current context it's actually counter-productive.
Wha? The only change I have ever seen was from the inside. Tommy Douglas, etc.
Dunno... Do you seriously think people who claim elections aren't relevant and don't bother to vote have any reason to complain or say anything at all about the outcome of elections? Doesn't make sense, but somehow I'm not surprised when they keep complaining anyway.
And as broken as the system is, seems to me the conservatives got the plurality of the vote under the FPTP system. So although it is clear you are trying to undermine the electoral system, you aren't making a lot of sense.
(and seeing as we have four years to wait until the next go-around, I wonder if you are actually going ot come up with something else to talk about in the interim)
I thought the needling around here about getting out to vote for the NDP was a little overdone as well, but we put up with it for the most part.
Whose complaining? Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
It's clearer than ever in today's circumstances, that any left of center parliamentary politicking conducted without the benefit of an accompanying level of pressure from the street is similar to a contender entering a prize fight with an arm missing.
No Tobold, but I do recognize that a great number of Canadians chose this, the flaws in the system notwithstanding, and whether I like the outcome or not.
And I think I have said pretty clearly already that your position - only recognizing the outcome of elections when they turn out in your favour - is ridiculous, in my opinion.
Now did you come here to gloat and act superior for having nothing to do with this process, or is there a point to all this? For someone who thinks elections are irrelevent you are pretty quick to jump in with your two cents worth.
As I said earlier, you don't belong here, and have no right to drop in to spit in our faces.
I think you're being far to dramatic LTJ. No one is spitting in anyone's face here.
Why would you think your endorsement (or any individuals) makes any difference?
This Parliament IS.
Now get over it.
It remains to be seen if the election of 102 seats worth of endorsement makes any difference. The odds out of the gate aren't anything to write home about.
@ searosia
He's a silly narcissistic bastard in love with his ego or a Conservative troll.
Never said elections were irrelevant. Their relevance comes from the fact that voters endorse the policies that flow from government. If you don't like the policies you have no real reason to complain..you voted for it. I don't like seeing the erosion of social democratic life in Canada legitimized because people couldn't think of option other than endorsement.
308 seats of endorsement. We're talking about the 41st Parliament, not a government or an opposition.
And I seem to remember you already saying that you don't have a problem with voting - specifically that you aren't looking to get rid of peoples' right to vote. It's only when you don't like the outcome that it becomes a problem. So if this election had resulted in an outcome that meets your standards there wouldn't be a problem, but since you don't like the outcome of this one everyone who voted is to blame, no matter who we chose?