I have voted (NDP) all my life. But no more. Or at least not until we have proportional representation.
Trudeau's about face on electoral reform was the last straw.
I'm not interested in preferential or mixed member nonsense. I want it simple. If a party gets 42% of the vote they should get 42% of the seats.
Does that mean boycott an imperfect democracy in the hope that it will improve? Surely the best way to bring in PR would be to elect an imperfect NDP government.
and it starts already
Does that mean boycott an imperfect democracy in the hope that it will improve? Surely the best way to bring in PR would be to elect an imperfect NDP government.
Others will have to do it then. I gave up my NDP membership because no provincial NDP government moved on PR. I'm sick and tired of my vote not counting.
It started with the pipelines, and keeping the Saudi arms deal.
But on this issue, having a choice to vote also means having a choice to not vote. I don't try to invalidate that, and the flip side is I don't buy arguments that voting is inherently invalid.
It started with the pipelines, and keeping the Saudi arms deal.
But on this issue, having a choice to vote also means having a choice to not vote. I don't try to invalidate that, and the flip side is I don't buy arguments that voting is inherently invalid.
That's not my argument.
I know (despite the thread title). I got that from your last sentence. I was answering montrealer.
Does that mean boycott an imperfect democracy in the hope that it will improve? Surely the best way to bring in PR would be to elect an imperfect NDP government.Others will have to do it then. I gave up my NDP membership because no provincial NDP government moved on PR. I'm sick and tired of my vote not counting.
huh find your position strange. Trudeau won't bring in PR so you gave up your NDP membership.
is this a new development for you? your feverent support of PR i mean?
i've not seen you post before so i went back through your entire posting history. it's interesting on lot's of levels.
in this case you've not mentioned a word on PR here.
I have voted (NDP) all my life. But no more. Or at least not until we have proportional representation.
Trudeau's about face on electoral reform was the last straw.
I'm not interested in preferential or mixed member nonsense. I want it simple. If a party gets 42% of the vote they should get 42% of the seats.
No sense. Nonsense.
i knew there was somethin going on all of sudden pookie is here bashing Mulcair and this osci being weird about punishing NDP cause the Liberals won't go PR.....lmao
Yes, I do beleive that had the NDP won we would have electoral reform.
With or without a referendum?
If you run on a platform you don't need a referendum.
Let me just say that I will never vote for a party that does not stand for electoral reform. I will not vote for one I do not believe means it when they make the promise.
Yes, I do believe that had the NDP won we would have electoral reform.
I see no point punishing the NDP for the broken promise of the Liberals.
I certainly would not vote for an NDP provincial party that promised electoral reform and got elected only to ignore the promise. That has not yet happened in my province.
Yes, I do beleive that had the NDP won we would have electoral reform.
With or without a referendum?
Impossible to say. A referendum could have been made necessary due to political pressure. They would not have necessarily needed one given the NDP ran on this and it has been long term policy. They could have decided to have one anyway though. They might have brought it in with a promise to have a referendum after trying it for a term.
If you don't vote or take part in the democratic process, you shouldn't complain when things go to hell in a hand-basket.
Just look in the USA when people didn't vote, and wound up with Trump as President.
If you don't vote or take part in the democratic process, you shouldn't complain when things go to hell in a hand-basket.
Just look in the USA when people didn't vote, and wound up with Trump as President.
Politics has been called the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.
If you don't vote or take part in the democratic process, you shouldn't complain when things go to hell in a hand-basket.
Just look in the USA when people didn't vote, and wound up with Trump as President.
Politics has been called the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal.
Please explain how you think that applies to the conversation -- could apply in a couple ways and I want to understand you.
I am disappointed that, yet another, promise is broken, but not surprised.
Does that mean boycott an imperfect democracy in the hope that it will improve? Surely the best way to bring in PR would be to elect an imperfect NDP government.Others will have to do it then. I gave up my NDP membership because no provincial NDP government moved on PR. I'm sick and tired of my vote not counting.
huh find your position strange. Trudeau won't bring in PR so you gave up your NDP membership.
is this a new development for you? your feverent support of PR i mean?
i've not seen you post before so i went back through your entire posting history. it's interesting on lot's of levels.
in this case you've not mentioned a word on PR here.
I have always favoured PR but now it's top priority for me.
i knew there was somethin going on all of sudden pookie is here bashing Mulcair and this osci being weird about punishing NDP cause the Liberals won't go PR.....lmao
I'm not punishing the NDP. It's just that I won't vote or make donations to any party until we have PR.
If you don't vote or take part in the democratic process, you shouldn't complain when things go to hell in a hand-basket.
Just look in the USA when people didn't vote, and wound up with Trump as President.
I used to believe that too. But the system is NOT democratic. I will no longer be bullied into thinking that it is.
There is a problem of logic in your statements I think.
I can follow, although not agree with, the idea that you might not participate in voting given the distortion. I disagree with the facile statement that you cannot complain if you don't vote. Of course you can.
But why you would not donate money to the organizations who want to change the thing you don't like does not add up. Why punish the NDP, Greens, or BQ by refusing support when they promise to changing the thing you don't like? Why punish them for the broken promise of another party?
How do you expect an organization trying to change somethign to succeed if you deny they support becuase you want the same change that they want? You then, sorry to say, by making a decision to withold support becuase of this reason, you become an enabler to the system you do not like and part of the problem. My point is if you do not support for any other reason then you are not invovled but if you deny support exactly for this reason then you are part of the problem.
If you don't vote or take part in the democratic process, you shouldn't complain when things go to hell in a hand-basket.
Just look in the USA when people didn't vote, and wound up with Trump as President.
I used to believe that too. But the system is NOT democratic. I will no longer be bullied into thinking that it is.
As former NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin always said "You must first become what you seek to change"
There is a problem of logic in your statements I think.
I can follow, although not agree with, the idea that you might not participate in voting given the distortion. I disagree with the facile statement that you cannot complain if you don't vote. Of course you can.
But why you would not donate money to the organizations who want to change the thing you don't like does not add up. Why punish the NDP, Greens, or BQ by refusing support when they promise to changing the thing you don't like? Why punish them for the broken promise of another party?
How do you expect an organization trying to change somethign to succeed if you deny they support becuase you want the same change that they want? You then, sorry to say, by making a decision to withold support becuase of this reason, you become an enabler to the system you do not like and part of the problem. My point is if you do not support for any other reason then you are not invovled but if you deny support exactly for this reason then you are part of the problem.
Yeah, you could say I'm part of the problem. But I'll contend that political parties taking part in an undemocratic process are a bigger part of the problem. They give legitimacy to the process. And so did I for most of my life. No more.
Take away their legitimacy by not running candidates in the next election. I know that's political anathema for operatives but show me a better way.
There is a problem of logic in your statements I think.
I can follow, although not agree with, the idea that you might not participate in voting given the distortion. I disagree with the facile statement that you cannot complain if you don't vote. Of course you can.
But why you would not donate money to the organizations who want to change the thing you don't like does not add up. Why punish the NDP, Greens, or BQ by refusing support when they promise to changing the thing you don't like? Why punish them for the broken promise of another party?
How do you expect an organization trying to change somethign to succeed if you deny they support becuase you want the same change that they want? You then, sorry to say, by making a decision to withold support becuase of this reason, you become an enabler to the system you do not like and part of the problem. My point is if you do not support for any other reason then you are not invovled but if you deny support exactly for this reason then you are part of the problem.
Yeah, you could say I'm part of the problem. But I'll contend that political parties taking part in an undemocratic process are a bigger part of the problem. They give legitimacy to the process. And so did I for most of my life. No more.
Take away their legitimacy by not running candidates in the next election. I know that's political anathema for operatives but show me a better way.
Taking away the support for the people trying to make a change and them blaming them is hardly a plan. It is hard to make change. Dealing with the effect of those who give up and walk away makes those who want a change not to want to bother. By withdrawing you don't send any message other than you don't care.
I don't agree with the reasoning, but the bottom line is that it is no one else's vote.
I'll speak against campaigns to convince people to not vote, but when it comes to a person's individual decision on something like this, and how someone reaches that decision, it is not really our business, and I wouldn't dismiss it as not caring.
There is a logic in being fed up to the point that you don't want to support any party at all, even the party that promises real reform.
I don't agree with the reasoning, but the bottom line is that it is no one's vote but his.
I'll speak against campaigns to convince people to not vote, but when it comes to a person's individual decision on something like this, and how someone reaches that decision, it is not really our business, and I wouldn't dismiss it as not caring.
There is a logic in being fed up to the point that you don't want to support any party at all, even the party that promises real reform.
A couple things-- Accuracy of words is important.
First, there is a huge distinction between what you think and the message you send. I am not saying he is not caring-- I am saying that is the message sent, how it is interpreted and the effect it has. His personal thinking? Well he decides if this is the message he wants to send and of course that is his right.
Second, I absolutely could not object forcefully enough to your statement becuase it is ridiculous to say this is none of our business. What is an ocsi? OCSI is a persona on a web site advocating a point of view. Of course it is our business. He came here to share -- to promote, presumably to discuss. If he wanted this idea to be private all he had to do was not post it publicly for discussion. Now you criticize me for taking him up on it and commenting about the effectiveness and message it sends.
To say this is his individual decision that he alone has a right to is simply laughable. I am not debating the opinion of whoever OCSI is, I am responding on a political website to what a person is advocating and has specifically started a thread to discuss.
Finally the logoc to being fed up is not logic at all. Being fed up is an emotional response. And it can be understandable without needing to be logical. Now I do not engage with people personally who feel this way as they have a right to their emotions and decisions, unless they invite me to consider it as an effective strategy for political action. I will respond to a person who presents this, not as an understandable emotional response, but as a plan that is being promoted to others.
Get real. Please.
Sean, there are others on this site who reject the institution of voting. I disagree, but they have every right to share their views.
ocsi's position seems very personal, and borne out of frustration over a decision which I think most of us also find frustrating. Again, I disagree with the decision, and I said so. But it isn't your vote, or mine. And I don't see "not caring" here at all.I see a difficult decision.
I think the obsession with PR is a distraction and there are better ways to improve our democracy that do not involve our voting system. I still moderately support Dion's P3 model of PR but most posters here were against it or disinterested. That means Trudeau is right. There is no consensus. Even supporters of PR are particular about which PR model they support. At one point the NDP was against a referendum. There is no groundswell of desire amongst Canadians for PR. This will have little to no impact on Trudeau's electability in 2019. Obviously this issue has not grabbed the attention of Canadians.
The NDP has to find the issue(s) that matter most to Canadians, or that Canadians can be persuaded to care passionately about, and focus on those. PR is not one of them. Speaking of which, the NDP had lots of time to focus on educating the public on electoral reform in the year before the election. They didn't do it then and they haven't done it since. They promoted PR a bit, but that isn't the same thing. Promoters claim that if someone answers "yes" to the question "should the number of seats a party gets reflect the number of votes they got" means someone supports PR. That's not the case. That's like the PQ's "sovereignty association" question.
Furthermore if the NDP had won a majority I believe that federally they would have forced a PR system on us in a heartbeat if they thought it would give them the most power going forward. They would have ditched it equally quickly if they decided they could win elections without it or they thought it would benefit their opponents more than themselves. Notley doesn't want PR in Alberta because the Conservatives and Wildrose would easily have the power to block her every move.
Voting to me matters because it kept Harper out. A few more people staying home and we could have been looking at another four years of him. Hate Trudeau as much as you like, he is still better than Harper. That might be damning with faint praise but it is still true.
Many people here think Mulcair would have been a better PM but that is just a matter of opinion. I think the NDP would have been a disaster and would have been destroyed in 2019. We will never know because they didn't win.
Not voting doesn't delegitimize the system. The conclusion is that those people are not interested in politics. Many conclude we are better off if they don't vote because they are ill-informed. I'm betting that would hold true even if only 20% of people were voting.
The problem isn't the electoral system. The problem is getting enough Canadians to oppose the excesses of neoliberalism and getting a political party to oppose neoliberalism. Under those circumstances FPTP benefits progressives just as FPTP benefits Notley in Alberta.
What people seem to agree on is that each vote should count. Constitutionally, we only need an alteration to the Elections Act to invoke a new system. We do not need a referendum if a Party campaigns on changing the voting system. If the changes are found to be imperfect, they could change them again after a subsequent election.
If I were in the NDP brains trust I would advocate that the Party campaigns on electoral reform which will be passed via Act of Parliament. The Party should just decide on what system they want to move to, and take some leadership on that and live or die by it.
Furthermore if the NDP had won a majority I believe that federally they would have forced a PR system on us in a heartbeat if they thought it would give them the most power going forward.
If they had campaigned on that promise they would have had a mandate to do just that. There is nothing forced about it. And unlike Trudeau's latest decision, it is not a question of "the most power". As Nathan Cullen pointed out, under PR the NDP would not have had such major gains in Quebec as they did. It is a matter of what is best for the country.
Trudeau most certainly got votes based on that promise. Despite the fancy footwork, he lied and seems intent on reneging on that promise.
We do not need a referendum if a Party campaigns on changing the voting systemWish it were so, but that's what just happened, with zero result.
On Justin, I say that his dropping of the PR initiative shows him to be either incompetent or a liar. He's incompetent if he made a promise without having done enough research to know whether he had any way of keeping it; or else he had no intention of keeping it in which case he lied. Or maybe he lied AND he's incompetent?
Sean, there are others on this site who reject the institution of voting. ...
I don't reject the 'institution' of voting. I just don't want to prop up an undemocratic system any more.
I think the obsession with PR is a distraction and there are better ways to improve our democracy that do not involve our voting system.
I couldn't disagree more. Insisting that my vote count is not a distraction. But I'll let you get away with characterizing it as an obsession--for now.
Many people I talk to have no idea what system we have, what it is called or why it should be changed. But when I ask them if a party that gets 40% of the vote should get 40% of the seats they totally agree. They get it. In fact, some are surprised it's not that way already because it makes sense. Everyone inherently understands that. Politicos offer up different systems that only convolute things. Not helpful at all.
We do not need a referendum if a Party campaigns on changing the voting systemWish it were so, but that's what just happened, with zero result.
I take it you believed Trudeau during the campaign. You forgot they always campaign left and trun right once in power.
I think the calculation by the Liberals is that the threat of a Conservative government will be seen by progressive voters as a more important concern than the voting system. Especially by 2019.
I think the calculation by the Liberals is that the threat of a Conservative government will be seen by progressive voters as a more important concern than the voting system. Especially by 2019.
Progressive voters keep losing. The longer we put off PR (for this or that reason) the longer we'll lose.
We do not need a referendum if a Party campaigns on changing the voting systemWish it were so, but that's what just happened, with zero result.On Justin, I say that his dropping of the PR initiative shows him to be either incompetent or a liar. He's incompetent if he made a promise without having done enough research to know whether he had any way of keeping it; or else he had no intention of keeping it in which case he lied. Or maybe he lied AND he's incompetent?
The answer is (c), he lied and he is incompetent, as should have been obvious to anyone with any sense long before the election. The Liberals always lie, and never keep their promises. In contrast, I feel quite confident that we would have an MMP system in place for the next election if the NDP had won a majority government.
I think the calculation by the Liberals is that the threat of a Conservative government will be seen by progressive voters as a more important concern than the voting system. Especially by 2019.
Progressive voters keep losing. The longer we put off PR (for this or that reason) the longer we'll lose.
In the meantime handing ever more power to those who will make it worse is not something I can agree will help.
Sean, there are others on this site who reject the institution of voting. I disagree, but they have every right to share their views.
ocsi's position seems very personal, and borne out of frustration over a decision which I think most of us also find frustrating. Again, I disagree with the decision, and I said so. But it isn't your vote, or mine. And I don't see "not caring" here at all.I see a difficult decision.
Holy crap Smith -- you posted a reply ignoring the content of my message. Do I really have to highlight the relevant parts?
Let me put it in all caps for you:
I DID NOT SAY HE DID NOT CARE
I SAID THAT THIS IS THE MESSAGE THAT IS RECEIVED.
WHAT HE SAID WAS ON A SITE FOR DISCUSSION AND THIS IS ALSO A RELEVANT OPINION.
Thank you for your awesome help.
ETA: I think many people's opnions about democracy and voting are deeply personal and I resent your suggestion that a person who starts a conversation is immune to a response based on what sounds like a presumption that their opinions are more personal or immune from discussion. I assume opinions brought here are up for discussion especially when they come out sounding like advocating for a particular action.
I take it you believed Trudeau during the campaign. You forgot they always campaign left and trun right once in power.
It's a secret ballot.
No one is justified in "taking" anything - unless I reveal it - about what I believe, how I vote, or what I may have forgotten.
I uphold anyone's right to withhold their vote. The alternative - for whom to cast one's vote - is seldom an easy decision (for me, that is.) I often think I'd like the number of spoiled ballots to be published with the other results. I think Australia has some sort of law that everyone must return a ballot paper but spoiling it is acceptable.
I think Australia has some sort of law that everyone must return a ballot paper but spoiling it is acceptable.
That is why I support mandatory voting; that is, having to show up. We would actually know how many people reject ballots (which should be legal, since spoiling is).
More importantly, it would go a long way toward ending the problem of voter disenfranchisement, which is what those in power really seem to be pushing more than the status quo.
I take it you believed Trudeau during the campaign. You forgot they always campaign left and trun right once in power.It's a secret ballot.
No one is justified in "taking" anything - unless I reveal it - about what I believe, how I vote, or what I may have forgotten.
I uphold anyone's right to withhold their vote. The alternative - for whom to cast one's vote - is seldom an easy decision (for me, that is.) I often think I'd like the number of spoiled ballots to be published with the other results. I think Australia has some sort of law that everyone must return a ballot paper but spoiling it is acceptable.
If we really want to know what people think why not ask?
How about adding these two options to every ballot?
1) I reject all these candidates. None of the above. This way a person if they want can be counted as supporting none of them and it is a deliberate clear statement.
2) I reject the electoral system as it stands. This way we do not confuse between a rejection of the system and a rejection of the candidates.
I do not agree that damaging a ballot, looking incompetent, is a reasonable way to ask someone to record an opinion. I also do not agree that staying home sends a message other than not caring. It may not be the one you want to send but it is the one sent.
So to clarify things we should get these two choices added to all ballots and publish the results.
Further, if a majority wins the rejection of candidates or system -- a byelection should be called with new candidates.
I do not think boycotting the vote is effective but I also do not think a ballot that does not allow for these two options is either.
I would wholly endorse someone voting to reject the the candidates or the system and they would be counted as the winner in votes could not take a seat without the process and at least one candidate being accepted by a majority.
Those that think PR is not desired can deal with this. If they keep getting the process rejected then they will have to bring in a new one. People who want PR could either support a party that believes in it or vote to reject the system. Either way the vote is meaningfully recorded.
That is already in the law to a degree. In any election I have worked spoiled ballots were not counted as part of the final count. Rejected ballots were.
I wasn't aware that you could write on them, but you can, and still have them count as rejected. So there is no danger of looking incompetent, or having your intent misunderstood if you do it according to the rules.
And one can decline a ballot in some provinces. That really should be in federal rules too.
http://fpyn.ca/resource/do-you-know-difference-between-spoiled-ballot-an...
Further, if a majority wins the rejection of candidates or system -- a byelection should be called with new candidates.
A true majority, or a false majority? Can "rejected candidates" and "rejected system" form a coalition? ;)
Apologies if I confused spoiled ballots with rejected ballots. I was unaware of the distinction; thought they referred to the same thing.
I liked Sean's suggestions (with reservations on the consequence of the "Reject system" option) but I doubt they'll ever be adopted.
ETA: my very first priority would be proportional representation. Next would be some way (??) of encouraging and empowering independent candidates.
I think the rejected system and rejected candidates can be a majority in rejecting an election process in a riding.
Look at it the other way: I am saying that a majority should accept both the process and at least one candidate choice. How xould you be legitimate if you cannot get that?
I know about declined ballots -- I did it one time in a provincial by-election in Hull, Québec when there were only two candidates and I did not want to choose between them (one was PQ the other Liberal). In all other elections I have, in the end, voted NDP although I have at times considered not doing so. I never failed to vote in a provincial or federal election. My record is less perfect with municipal elections although I have not missed one in many years now.
I think a rejection of both the system and the candidates is a legitimate choice and should be counted.
What I disagreed with here is the idea that there was anything to gain by not voiting for a party BECAUSE you are upset with a position that party opposes. It may be a legitimate choice but it is also a legitimate opinion to oppose and argue against that choice.
I think a rejection of both the system and the candidates is a legitimate choice and should be counted.
Perhaps in some riding where this happens, a new byelection should be called. But the constituents of that riding would need to understand and accept that there would be no representation for them until some candidate can satisfy them in that byelection. Or the next byelection. Or the next.
The electoral system can only put those citizens who wish to serve on the ballot for the approval of the electorate. It can't grant wishes.
I think a rejection of both the system and the candidates is a legitimate choice and should be counted.Perhaps in some riding where this happens, a new byelection should be called. But the constituents of that riding would need to understand and accept that there would be no representation for them until some candidate can satisfy them in that byelection. Or the next byelection. Or the next.
The electoral system can only put those citizens who wish to serve on the ballot for the approval of the electorate. It can't grant wishes.
Ceratinyl that weights the interest towards finding a candidate to support. In the light of that if you still want to reject a candidate forcing a new vote that should be legitimate.
Despite the anger regarding PR it would be rare for that to cause a majority alone as many who support PR would still in the meantime pick a candidate. I think it would take an angry expression about the system as well as a poor lineup of canddiates. The re-vote would likely be among new candidates and have a winner. If we had this happen more often becuase of a steady stream of vote-system rejectors then that would be legitimate. It would also keep those people meaningfully able to express their views in a vote, which I consider important. They could be part of pressing for change. For a voter to express the opinion of the line-up, the overall choice of candidates, opposition or support for a particular candidate would be a significant improvment. Building on this having a PR system on top of this would make for a pretty reflective system. But without a PR system on top at least you allow PR advocates to be heard and issues about the legitimacy of either the choices or system to be recorded.
And the opening poster which I said would only send send a message of uncaring would be able to deliver a very specific message. If we expect people to vote we ought to be willing to allow them to express their vote in this way so it is heard.
So, while I will not endorse non-voting as a viable option, I think that the motivation for it should be reflected. I still understand some may still not vote, and I would still argue with them about it but at least this would allow other options.
I think a rejection of both the system and the candidates is a legitimate choice and should be counted.Perhaps in some riding where this happens, a new byelection should be called. But the constituents of that riding would need to understand and accept that there would be no representation for them until some candidate can satisfy them in that byelection. Or the next byelection. Or the next.
The electoral system can only put those citizens who wish to serve on the ballot for the approval of the electorate. It can't grant wishes.
Rejection votes wouldn't have to result in no one being elected. There could still be a "winner" but that person could not claim to have as broad a mandate. That there are people who believe there is no one to vote for could encourage the rise of a new politician.
Furthermore if the NDP had won a majority I believe that federally they would have forced a PR system on us in a heartbeat if they thought it would give them the most power going forward.
If they had campaigned on that promise they would have had a mandate to do just that. There is nothing forced about it. And unlike Trudeau's latest decision, it is not a question of "the most power". As Nathan Cullen pointed out, under PR the NDP would not have had such major gains in Quebec as they did. It is a matter of what is best for the country.
Trudeau most certainly got votes based on that promise. Despite the fancy footwork, he lied and seems intent on reneging on that promise.
If Trudeau got a significant number of votes based on that platform commitment he will lose them in 2019 to the benefit of the NDP. I think he got more votes based on marijuana legalization than proportional representation. Time will tell. The danger is that if I am right and the NDP is wrong about this being an important issue to Canadians the NDP will pay a hefty price for it.
