Boycott the 2011 Election?

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tobold Rollo
Boycott the 2011 Election?

http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1243035/Tobold-Rollo-wrote-wage

I was asked what the best case scenario would be. I have not been attempting in any way to argue for the best case scenario so it makes little sense to point out that I have failed to so.

Freedom 55

I ran into three organizers from this campaign doing leafletting in my neighbourhood today. I invited them to pop-in here and join the discussion. Tongue out

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Boycott threads that talk about boycotting the election. Tongue out

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Huge groundswell. Can this boycott campaign be stopped? I doubt it.

Unionist

I like the boycott. I think I'll vote for it.

Elect the boycott!

 

Fidel

Can we complain to the head boycotter when we run out of conventional oil and gas reserves and end up having to burn furniture to stay warm in this frozen Puerto Rico?

What will the boycott head do for us when REform Party retreads in the Harper Gov't of Bananada Inc., and backed-up all the way by the LPC,  hack off pieces of medicare and other public services, and throw to them to salivating corporate jackals waiting in the wings? 

I'll bet the boycott head and all his little helpers disappear back behind old line party barricades after the damage is done. Wink

Doug

Freedom 55 wrote:

I ran into three organizers from this campaign doing leafletting in my neighbourhood today. I invited them to pop-in here and join the discussion. Tongue out

 I doubt we'll see them. They probably had free pizza to get back to at Conservative HQ.

Freedom 55

Doug wrote:

Freedom 55 wrote:

I ran into three organizers from this campaign doing leafletting in my neighbourhood today. I invited them to pop-in here and join the discussion. Tongue out

 I doubt we'll see them. They probably had free pizza to get back to at Conservative HQ.

 

Nah, tonight they served rotis. And John Baird told us the funniest story about his trip to Bali for the climate change conference - LOL.

I told him he should come here and tell it some time.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
I'll bet the boycott head and all his little helpers disappear back behind old line party barricades after the damage is done. Wink

We'll be too busy placing bets on how many times Layton will commit himself to tag teaming with the liberals in order to 'make Parliament work' by propping up the Conservatives.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
I like the boycott. I think I'll vote for it. Elect the boycott! 

I can't recall there ever being this many politically disenfranchised citizens on the board.  Ultimately with the steady death march of corporatism, it is inevitable that sentiments of this nature will be reflected in the streets.  Then we'll see the old line opportunists attempt to worm their way to the front.

Slumberjack

N.Beltov wrote:
Huge groundswell. Can this boycott campaign be stopped? I doubt it.

Eight million people couldn't be bothered last time around.  More than what voted for the respective parties.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Real, old-school traditional Canadian conservative voters should jump on this bandwagon. If someone has voted Conservative and nothing but their whole life, but can't stand the election cheats, embezzlers, pork-barrel politickers, evasive sneaks, and outrageous liars in the Harper Government they absolutely SHOULD boycott this election.

Conservatives with ethics have no honourable alternative.

6079_Smith_W

Hey Slumberjack, which front do you think I should worm my way towards?  The ones who want to elect a president and start screening people to see if they belong on social assistance? Or the ones who think they don't have to pay attention to others' political opinions at all, but think they represent 90 percent of them, and who think that the most significant driver in Canadian political reform has been not showing up for work and sugaring gas tanks. 

Or maybe I should worm my way to the front of the line to get into the WalMart with those who genuinely don't care.

Here's an interesting look at the supposed decline in voting. Never mind that the number of voters as a percentage of the population has been steadily RISING, and that part of the apparent drop is because we have more accurate and complete voters' lists, I guess they must have actually been having pizza over at Stephan Dion's place, because the most significant identifiable cause of decline in the 2008 election was LIBERAL voters who decided to stay home.

Sorry to burst the bubble of it being a groundswell of disaffection amongst those pining for a radical alternative. THey just didn't like Stephan Dion, or didn't make it back from their Thanksgiving weekend in time.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture
Sean in Ottawa

Speak for yourself. I'll speak for myself.

I voted. I am anything but apathetic.

You can disagree with the value, purpose, impact or direction of my vote but please don't question the depth or validity of my motivation.

I am fed up with three threads devoted to doing just that.

I accepted their point that not everyone who does not vote is apathetic and I did that in the first thread. I still believe some are but accept that not all.

Now it is time for the anarchists here to accept that my vote and millions like me is also not apathetic.

k?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I wish babble would ban these [email protected]#$!!!  'boycott the election'  threads.

Slumberjack

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am fed up with three threads devoted to doing just that.  Now it is time for the anarchists here to accept that my vote and millions like me is also not apathetic.

Most of the 'boycott' flavoured commentary has been restricted to threads with that sort of theme.  There's plenty of electioneering threads that you could make use of which aren't being clogged up, with ample space for your opinions.  What you're really fed up about is room being provided for other opinions.

Unionist

[deleted dumb joke - no one here is in the mood for humour anyway...]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Really SJ? You believe that multiple threads created by people we seldom or never see around here devoted to sabotaging the vote on the left are entirely appropriate to allow during an election?

At the very least, I think one of these threads is far more than enough.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

[deleted dumb joke - no one here is in the mood for humour anyway...]

 

I thought it was a fine joke, and lent the subject matter all the gravitas it deserves. 

And truth be told, I'm trying to enjoy myself as much as I can. Humour is generally more effective than brickbats, after all.

 

Snert Snert's picture

I have a different suggestion:  feel free to vote as usual, but let's boycott any kind of discussion of the election.  Don't talk to your friends and neighbours, don't contact your candidate, certainly don't volunteer to go door to door.... let's just vote silently and in isolation.

Does that sound stupid?  Because I don't think it's any stupider than wasting a vote.

And ya, I'm also finding it fascinating how many new babblers seem to have the answer, in the form of voluntarily allowing the Conservatives the only voice and the only choice.  What a great idea, if you're stupid as the day is long.

6079_Smith_W

Nice snipping, Freedom 55. You could get a job in politics yourself for your spindoctoring ability. However,  I would urge readers to read the article as a whole, and in particular take a look at the graph to see if - even in recent years - there is a precipitous drop there. 

So we can't compare data, but it is significant when it points in the direction of voter apathy. Frankly I think the relationship between voters and population as a whole is a bit more of a bottom-line number. 

Wondering when those canvassers are going to show up. Couldn't be bothered, maybe?

A_J

Boom Boom wrote:

I wish babble would ban these [email protected]#$!!!  'boycott the election'  threads.

New rule: "Discuss elections from a pro-election point of view"

6079_Smith_W

And after all, none of these numbers will matter at all if the conservatives get in again and get rid of the long-form. We won't have any basis on which to argue at all.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Sorry to burst the bubble of it being a groundswell of disaffection amongst those pining for a radical alternative.

 

Exactly. I love watching people make hay with this, as though the populace is active and effective and thorough in every other regard (so it's perfectly safe to assume that if people aren't getting in their car and driving to a polling station and voting then it MUST BE the lack of a socialist alternative!)

 

I wonder if they pull the same thing over at FreeDominion? "We'd have more voters turning out at the polls if they had a hard-right alternative they could believe in!!"

6079_Smith_W

ACtually, Snert, that reminds me of the 97 election, when JP Blackburn, the head of elections Canada, came to Manitoba and declared there was no problem with the election going ahead, even though the Red River was a 33-km wide lake, and communities were under water. 

Out here it is common knowledge that you don't schedule a vote for seeding or harvest time. I wonder if Harper was trying to pull a fast one in 08 because he must have known the election would fall on Thanksgiving weekend.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Snert wrote:

I wonder if they pull the same thing over at FreeDominion? "We'd have more voters turning out at the polls if they had a hard-right alternative they could believe in!!"

Why don't you head on over and check it out?

Don't bother reporting back, no one but you cares.

Doug

Snert wrote:

I wonder if they pull the same thing over at FreeDominion? "We'd have more voters turning out at the polls if they had a hard-right alternative they could believe in!!"

 

It's something that's come up from time to time in discussions on the right but with the exception of Alberta politics it really hasn't gone anywhere.

anondrogys

It's hilarious to see people clamouring for rules against discussing the boycott. And still just slander calling boycotters Torys because no one can with any degree of honesty defend the NDP Laughing

anondrogys

While rabble nearly releases its bowels at the idea of not voting for scoundrels, working people are happy to talk about the idea.

NDPP

A_J wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

I wish babble would ban these [email protected]#$!!!  'boycott the election'  threads.

New rule: "Discuss elections from a pro-election point of view"

NDPP

And discuss only from an NDP pro-election point of view. Let's vote on it eh? Now there's democracy for you!

Freedom 55

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I would urge readers to read the article as a whole, and in particular take a look at the graph to see if - even in recent years - there is a precipitous drop there.

 

Hey, we finally agree on something. In fact, here's the link again for anyone who missed it:

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So we can't compare data, but it is significant when it points in the direction of voter apathy

 

Compare away. I just think it's ridiculous to claim that "the number of voters as a percentage of the population has been steadily rising" based on comparing modern-day percentages with those from an era when women weren't allowed to vote, First Nations people were only allowed to vote if their relinquished their status, the voting age was higher, voting rights were tied to property ownership and income level, there were no advance polls, the percentage of the population who were below voting age was much higher, etc.

I think what's happened over the last 30 years is of more relevance to determining whether voter participation is currently on the decline than comparisons to a completely different era.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Wondering when those canvassers are going to show up. Couldn't be bothered, maybe?

 

I hope you haven't been holding your breath. The Tongue out was a hint that I was being facetious.

Unionist

anondrogys wrote:

While rabble nearly releases its bowels at the idea of not voting for scoundrels, working people are happy to talk about the idea.

Hi there! I'm a babble participant, a rabble reader, and a financial supporter. You apparently don't like rabble much, to the point of showing your rudeness and incivility in the way you talk - especially after having been here for only two days.

People like you (I'm generalizing here) make it impossible to have a serious discussion about what actually is a serious topic - namely, the role of voting and electoral politics, party politics, the tactics of boycotts, etc.

So, I have an idea. Why don't you go and discuss your idea with "working people"? Somewhere else? Um, not my sisters and brothers, because they don't like people who talk like you. Some other "working people".

Thanks for your time and attention.

 

6079_Smith_W

Doug wrote:

Snert wrote:

I wonder if they pull the same thing over at FreeDominion? "We'd have more voters turning out at the polls if they had a hard-right alternative they could believe in!!"

 

It's something that's come up from time to time in discussions on the right but with the exception of Alberta politics it really hasn't gone anywhere.

I don't have any hard numbers but I know if you go south of the border those on the hard right who reject the elected government are far more vocal than those on the left. And I am sure those teapartiers and militia members would have no problem if the election had gone their way, so I think the comparison is fair.

(edit)

And Freedom 55, I don't have a problem with people looking at those numbers and drawing their own conclusions, and I don't deny that voter apathy exists. I think the quesiton of what caused the drop in 2008 is the more significant immediate question. Because the notion that there has been a great drop is false, expecially relative to the whole population. In the two elections before 08 there was a slight increase.

But again, look at it and draw your own conclusions.

anondrogys

Ah, so is this a forum for left wingers in Canada to discuss politics, or is it an insulated community driven by unthinking allegience to social democracy? We've been having serious discussions, mixed with a very large amount of "real" rabble users hurling absurd insults and accusations at anyone who supports the boycott campaign or just not voting for "our team." Is this message board open to different views, or is it that only the pro-vote side is allowed to speak strongly or sharply?

wage zombie

NDPP wrote:

And discuss only from an NDP pro-election point of view. Let's vote on it eh? Now there's democracy for you!

Weren't you telling us over and over about how the cowardly, ineffective NDP was going to cave and support the Conservative budget?

6079_Smith_W

Ouch! 

I hurt my knee slapping it when I read your comment, anondrogys. And who says no one has a sense of humour in this thread?

I think there is a fair bit of common ground here, but it would be a stretch to say we are all on the same team. With respect, I think I can say there are some here who would consider me pretty far to the right of their position. YOu might want to read up a bit before making pronouncements like that.

Or not... if you have made up your mind based on one issue it doesn;t really matter, right?

Slumberjack

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:
Really SJ? You believe that multiple threads created by people we seldom or never see around here devoted to sabotaging the vote on the left are entirely appropriate to allow during an election?

At the very least, I think one of these threads is far more than enough.

We seem to have a carte blanche policy re: polling threads where everyone gets to jump up and down and clap their hands over the latest decimal point surge.  And what exactly is being sabotaged again?

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
So, I have an idea. Why don't you go and discuss your idea with "working people"? Somewhere else? 

Oh come now Unionist.  A while ago you were complaining about the absence of a sense of humour in this thread, and now we have it.  The releasing of bowels!

Sean in Ottawa

Slumberjack wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am fed up with three threads devoted to doing just that.  Now it is time for the anarchists here to accept that my vote and millions like me is also not apathetic.

Most of the 'boycott' flavoured commentary has been restricted to threads with that sort of theme.  There's plenty of electioneering threads that you could make use of which aren't being clogged up, with ample space for your opinions.  What you're really fed up about is room being provided for other opinions.

I was clear and stated I was fed up with threads devoted to claiming that voting is apathy.

That is what drew me in to this crap in the first place -- the insults to people who vote.

Want to argue that voting is pointless -- I might ignore you, becuase the proposition is silly, but come on here and say that I am apathetic because I am voting and I'll respond.

The mods don't seem to think that it is baiting to accuse people who are trying to encourage people to get out and vote of not caring. I still maintain it is intentional provocation.

I accepted their argument that not voting may not be becuase you don't care now they can lay off on accusing people who have in many cases worked hard their lifetimes to make the world a better place of being apathetic. Here apathetic is an insult worse than calling someone stupid. If the mods don't see that well... I'll just stop right there.

wage zombie

I know all the Liberal abstentions allowed Harper to pass some nasty shit, but I'm glad the Liberal MP's who stayed home vote after vote made the ethical choice and refused to grant Harper the legitimacy he so desired.

Sean in Ottawa

A_J wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

I wish babble would ban these [email protected]#$!!!  'boycott the election'  threads.

New rule: "Discuss elections from a pro-election point of view"

Or as I suggest discuss your opposition to voting without insulting people who do vote or questioning their motivations which is what calling them apathetic does.

Slumberjack

anondrogys wrote:
It's hilarious to see people clamouring for rules against discussing the boycott. And still just slander calling boycotters Torys because no one can with any degree of honesty defend the NDP Laughing 

I take the view that the NDP is supported by a range of citizens who by and large come at the issues with honestly held beliefs and values.  It's just that opinions tend to diverge somewhat, or to a large extend as the case may be, when discussing whether or not the NDP is the right platform to realize those values.

Sean in Ottawa

anondrogys wrote:

Ah, so is this a forum for left wingers in Canada to discuss politics, or is it an insulated community driven by unthinking allegience to social democracy? We've been having serious discussions, mixed with a very large amount of "real" rabble users hurling absurd insults and accusations at anyone who supports the boycott campaign or just not voting for "our team." Is this message board open to different views, or is it that only the pro-vote side is allowed to speak strongly or sharply?

So there you are again a belief in social democracy has to be an "unthinking" allegience.

So none of us are thinking people.

Snide way of saying we are stupid.

And we are putting up with this because....?

contrarianna

What is amusing here is that you have anti-strategic vote mockers that are now, in effect, insisting others should vote strategically since,
for the pro "vote with your feet" crowd, the resounding non-strategic first choice is "none of the above" and voting for any of the candidates is a betrayal of beliefs and ideology.

Regardless of such purist, or puerile, scruples, voting,at best, can never be for anything other than a lesser of evils and stopping Harper through voting is a worthwhile endeavor.

anondrogys

I don't think it's true that voting can never be for anything other than a lesser of evils. Currently, I believe it is. In the imperialist countries today there is no vote against the system, or even a real party to vote for that can go against the current. In some countries, bourgeois votes can be different, and in different historic circumstances boycotting would not be the way to go. When private ownership of production and distribution has been abolished, voting, not necessarily for representatives, but for whatever, will obviously hold a real value. Today we are simply pointing out that voting and expecting anything to come of it, or more specific expecting that it will go against the grain of the capitalist offensive, or that hoping that the NDP will lead us towards liberation is just totally quixotic.

Slumberjack

contrarianna wrote:
Regardless of such purist, or puerile, scruples, voting can never be for anything other than a lesser of evils and stopping Harper through voting is a worthwhile endeavor.

I don't see it as being purist at all.  It's about a minimum set of standards in exchange for support, as opposed to anticipating that some pie in the sky revolutionary manifesto be adopted.

anondrogys

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

anondrogys wrote:

Ah, so is this a forum for left wingers in Canada to discuss politics, or is it an insulated community driven by unthinking allegience to social democracy? We've been having serious discussions, mixed with a very large amount of "real" rabble users hurling absurd insults and accusations at anyone who supports the boycott campaign or just not voting for "our team." Is this message board open to different views, or is it that only the pro-vote side is allowed to speak strongly or sharply?

So there you are again a belief in social democracy has to be an "unthinking" allegience.

So none of us are thinking people.

Snide way of saying we are stupid.

And we are putting up with this because....?

Because it's an internet message board and you're (I assume) a grown adult? If I can be called a "Harper agent" or whatever then you can certainly take a hit for social democracy. This is a forum where most of its participants as well are privileged enough to be educated, or have the opportunity to educate themselves on left-wing politics, and also have a disproportionate amount of time to discuss these issues in an open forum where lots of people can read and stimulate their minds. Is there any better place for rather frank and sharp discussions to take place? By the way, I wouldn't claim that individuals who still have illusions about social democracy are "stupid," but social democracy itself certainly is.

Sean in Ottawa

These are not just threads arguing the merits of not voting. And I did not get involved because of that argument. My first post on this some what 5-6 threads back now-- was to react to being called apathetic myself-- because I vote.

Now if people can be called uncaring because they take the trouble to vote or encourage others then what else can we mock and make fun of here? What are the sacred cows now?

The point was made long ago that some people don't vote on principle rather than in either agreement with the government or apathy. Long ago in this discussion I accepted that. Now, I insist that the people who have been around here for years and who have been in our communities working for change get treated a little bit better on this supposedly progressive site than to be called repeatedly stupid, unthinking or uncaring for our efforts by people who are... perhaps just visiting.

Go ahead say I am wrong to vote. We can agree to disagree or I might argue respectfully. Maintain a consistent attack on my intelligence and motivations and I lose respect for you.

Do this over several threads without any attempt at correction from the mods and sorry but I lose respect for them too.

You have to know where the lines are. I make no apologies for being angry or insulting or questioning the motives of those who have already done the same with me and continue to do so. why do you think it is more insulting to be called a Conservative plant than someone who does not give a damn? Mods-- I'd like you to answer that question.

If you drive away all the people who care about the process and are involved in it and vote by having them have to defend their integrity over the issue of voting -- what kind of a place will you have left?

We can agree to tolerate the anarchists and we can agree to disagree but it should be based on mutual respect-- we don't get to call them a bunch of lazy apathetic people for not voting and they don't get to insult us for voting. Then we can have a debate over the merits of voting among those who are still interested.

I'll agree to not calling them names or apathetic etc. under the condition the same is returned otherwise I will leave open the question of the legitimacy and the credibility of moderation that is allowing this to continue.

NDPP

wage zombie wrote:

NDPP wrote:

And discuss only from an NDP pro-election point of view. Let's vote on it eh? Now there's democracy for you!

Weren't you telling us over and over about how the cowardly, ineffective NDP was going to cave and support the Conservative budget?

NDPP

I posted on it a couple of times when it was a possible scenario, shared by others including party people. Hardly 'over and over' and probably sans 'cowardly' etc. But never you mind about all this actually examining how effective this 'parliamentary democracy' really isnt - if you want to keep believing in an ndp Santa Claus and the ' supreme power of the citizen's vote,' in this crooked casino, you just go ahead. Makes no damn difference party to me or the powers that be either my friend whether you choose the coke, pepsi or ndp cool aid. As for me I choose none of the above.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

anondrogys wrote:

Today we are simply pointing out that voting and expecting anything to come of it, or more specific expecting that it will go against the grain of the capitalist offensive, or that hoping that the NDP will lead us towards liberation is just totally quixotic.

Many of us are reasonably comfortable that the NDP does not make promises of "liberation", as such words have been tainted by their use to justify colonial interference in Afghanistan and Haiti and now Libya.

In reality, the NDP is the most small-c conservative of the federal parties, defending traditional Canadian values and institutions such as our healthcare system, our peacekeeping tradition, and respect for Parliamentary democracy and the civil service. And that's a good thing, rather than bad.

Telling that you reserve all your distain for the NDP. 

Pages

Topic locked