Compulsory voting part 2 and BC's (and Canada's) missing voters, Where are they?

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brian White
Compulsory voting part 2 and BC's (and Canada's) missing voters, Where are they?

So you basically are saying it is ok that conservative husbands may be preventing their wives from voting because the NDP hubby voters are preventing their Conservative wives from voting in equal numbers to the Conservative hubby voters?    Any femanists on babble nowadays? Rhetorical question indeed!  So you are ok with potential intimidation of wives by husbands.     Interesting.
And voting over the net cannot be done securely and hubby can watch over wife's shoulder when she votes with internet voting, if indeed he does not just take her password himself.
Post  # 93 previous thread

ygtbk wrote:

"There may in fact be some cases where hubby farmer is NDP and the missus (who doesn't drive) is Conservative, so I think your point is more rhetorical than anything else. You're trying to switch the topic from compulsory voting to compulsion for somebody (who?) to drive you to the polling station, which is a different subject.

If you think you're not going to be able to take time to vote on election day, you can vote in an advance poll: these are typically on weekends, so many people who can't make time Monday to Friday can vote then. 

Having said that, there might be merit in allowing voting over the Internet if it could be done securely, since it would be more convenient than going to a polling station."

AND now to Slumberjack. The none of the above option completely prevents false legitimacy.  Indeed I argue that the current system gives MORE false legitimacy.

 I wonder if the registered voter figure is not already artificially low?  If it is, it is disguising the REAL level of voter turnout (which is even lower than it suggests). Reason I say that is that Ireland has almost the same population as BC, but even though it is a much younger country (average age wise) the number of people who vote in elections is much higher than BC.  I don't have the figures for "registered voters for BC and Ireland but here is a comparison of numbers of people who actually voted.  

BC 2001  1.582 million in BC election 55.4% of registered voters. (giving 2.85 million people of voting age)

Irish election 2002 1.858 million.  63% turnout (giving 2.93 million people of voting age)  So in a younger population you have a QUARTER MILLION more voters!  In a population of about 4 million people. So another good thing that compulsory voting might do is increase the number of people on the register.  There were a few less people in ireland at that time and at that time a lot more of those people were children UNDER THE LEGAL VOTING AGE, so that means a lot of voters were missing off the BC register. A lot more than the the 80 thousand that the initial result indicates!

Slumberjack
rabble-rouser-supreme

Member: 11108
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Send private message

May 15, 2011 - 7:58am
#94 (permalink)

"It's about the forcible extraction of as much false legitimacy as possible from that segment of the population which chooses to resist being used as pawns within an illegitimate process. "

and my answers to Norther Shoveler is that Australia has penaltys for not going to the polls and they are significant enough to get compliance.  Think symbiosis for the disconnect between politicians and the missing voters.  They don't go to the polls because they are ignored. The politicians ignore them because they dont vote.  This is one  simple chicken and egg problem. And compulsory voting is the way to hatch the egg.  If you get an extra 1.5 million people going to the polls in BC alone the politicians can ignore them at their peril.

Northern Shoveler
has the post election blues
rabble-rouser

Member: 22906
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Contact user
Send private message

May 15, 2011 - 9:26am
#96 (permalink)

The body politic has a serious problem given that almost 50% of adults think it is irrelevant to their lives.  The cure is apparently not to engage them and make politicos more relevant but to prosecute them to prove to them that politics has at least that much relevance in their lives.

Brian you keep ignoring the central issue.  What the fuck do you do to the people with no money and no interest in going to the polls. Are you going to arrest them for disobeying?

Slumberjack

Quote:
AND now to Slumberjack. The none of the above option completely prevents false legitimacy. Indeed I argue that the current system gives MORE false legitimacy.

For starters Brian, that's a rather remarkable hatchet job you've made of the OP.  And if that weren't enough, insult is added to the injury of just getting through it by your assertion that it is perfectly logical to believe that somehow, legitimacy can be salvaged from illegitimacy through the imposition of an edict which tops up a simmering crock of an election process with kicking and screaming conscientious objectors.  In this exercise we're to understand that less participation within an illegitimate structure equals more illegitimacy, but that more participation within it equals less.  It sounds like something out of Jethro Bodine's scribbler.

NDPP
Snert Snert's picture

Citizens shouldn't be forced to vote, any more than they should be forced to stand at attention for "O Canada".

Honestly, there's a huge whiff of "punitive" around the whole idea.  I always get the sense that forced voting, complete with a fine, is really intended as some kind of comeuppance for the "apathetic".  Surely we have better things to do than to punish them for not being interested.

6079_Smith_W

Erm... 

Yeah, and a chicken in every pot!

This is your brain on drugs!

Seriously, you have a problem with doing exactly the same thing by walking up to a polling station and refusing a ballot?

Let me know when you apply your moral standard to something which the government actually pays attention to, like not filing your taxes. 

Because this strikes me as no different that the attitude of fundamentalists, libertarians and right wing militia members in the U.S. that they're not going to be told what to do by their gubmint and its death panels.

Not that I am accusing you of BEING them, but the notion that it is tyrrany for you to be compelled to do something (like shovel your walk) is incredibly naive.

Anyone who thinks the entire 40 percent of eligible voters who did not cast a ballot are disaffected and pining for revolution does not know what they are talking about. 

If you actually have something to say, and you want to distinguish yourself from those who really don't care, what is the problem, and how is yor freedom being trampled on by being compelled to show up at a polling station  to refuse a ballot?

We are after all, not talking about a draughted law, but a hypothetical argument. And the approach of some here to not want to engage the idea in any way that might address their concerns makes me wonder if they actually want to find a solution.

 

ygtbk

@Brian: If you want to set up a strawman and then knock it down, feel free. What you're describing is domestic abuse, not generic voting behavior.

You are trying to change the subject from compulsory voting to compulsory transport to the polls. If you make voting compulsory, and your hypothetical terrorized wife (which situation I'm not OK with, and never said I was) doesn't get driven to your hypothetical 20-mile away polling station, won't SHE be the one that's charged with an offense? Is that your intent?

And if you didn't know that there are advance polls, and even (gasp) voting by mail, I suggest that you browse the Elections Canada website. These are both alternatives for people that can't make the time on election day. Voting over the Internet may occur someday, but I'm old-fashioned enough that I like the paper trail that physical ballots provide.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
.... how is yor freedom being trampled on by being compelled to show up at a polling station  to refuse a ballot? 

Who are these packs of liars, swindlers, and corporate mafia frontmen that they can compel anyone to show up anywhere, let alone order people to queue up to a process where 39% carries off a democratically inexplicable mandate to rule practically unhindered for four years?

6079_Smith_W

@ ygtbk

I take Brian's point, because I made it as well. 

Make voting compulsory, and any of the reasons there are for those who might WANT to go to the polls but DON'T - being prevented, intimidation, illiteracy, language problems, fear of documentation and being turned away - are countered, and it would be up to any government bringing in any such policy to try and assist them. 

We have seen that very thing in recent years with efforts to register homeless people and others who aren't so easily counted.

And to raise the spectre of fines and jail as the default response is fearmongering.

NDPP

fascism and authoritarianism has always been a tendancy supported by many Canucklheads - especially in matters of  enforcing 'democracy' .  I decide not to participate. As do many, many others.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
.... how is yor freedom being trampled on by being compelled to show up at a polling station  to refuse a ballot? 

Who are these packs of liars, swindlers, and corporate mafia frontmen that they can compel anyone to show up anywhere, let alone order people to queue up to a process where 39% carries off a democratically inexplicable mandate to rule practically unhindered for four years?

 

Got your taxes in on time, did you?

(Just a rhetorical question, of course. I'm not putting you on the spot and you don't actually have to answer that one, since I know how important privacy and personal freedom are).

And how is that response any different from that of those right-wing libertarians I mentioned? 

I know you are serious about your protest and your politics and I respect that. Why would you want to not do something which might distinguish you from those who really don't care? 

Just because "They can't tell me what to do?"

Slumberjack

I didn't actually, knowing there'd be an occasion surface to make a point.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

I didn't actually, knowing there'd be an occasion surface to make a point.

Well good luck, and make sure you keep your receipts.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Why would you want to not do something which might distinguish you from those who really don't care? 

What is there to care about, that our undemocratic, corporatist, and center to right imperial system of rule promises to address and improve upon?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
how is yor freedom being trampled on by being compelled to show up at a polling station  to refuse a ballot?

 

How would your freedom be trampled by being forced to stand up and sing "O Canada"?

 

If you object to this, just don't sing with enthusiasm.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Why would you want to not do something which might distinguish you from those who really don't care? 

What is there to care about, that our undemocratic, corporatist, and center to right imperial system of rule promises to address and improve upon?

Oh come on, don't be coy. I know this is something you care about very deeply. Are you trying to say that you are no different than someone who doesn't even think about politics at all, and just can't be bothered to get up off the sofa and vote? 

I know that is not true. 

Slumberjack

Read my response more carefully.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

Read my response more carefully.

Oh come on. I read it, and I think I got the nuance. And whether you think government is irrelevant or not, I know there is a difference between you and those who just don't care about political reality.

6079_Smith_W

Snert wrote:

Quote:
how is yor freedom being trampled on by being compelled to show up at a polling station  to refuse a ballot?

 

How would your freedom be trampled by being forced to stand up and sing "O Canada"?

 

If you object to this, just don't sing with enthusiasm.

Two things:

First off, we are not necessarily talking about anyone being forced to cast a vote. Spoiling it, and showing up to refuse it are valid choices right now, and I expect they would remain so. 

And even compulsory voting laws don't result in 100% compliance, but they are a strong reminder, and do have an effect. 

So if someone wants to take a noble stand for the cause, I am sure that option will still be there. Hey, you might even make the papers.

(edit)

Besides, historical anachronisms aside, the lyrics are much more agreeable when you sing them in French. And I do think this country is something worth respecting and preserving.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
First off, we are not necessarily talking about anyone being forced to cast a vote

 

And I'm not talking about anyone having to sing like they mean it.

 

Quote:
Spoiling it, and showing up to refuse it are valid choices right now, and I expect they would remain so.

 

Humming along, and mouthing the words, are valid choices right now, and I expect they would remain so.

 

Quote:

And even compulsory voting laws don't result in 100% compliance, but they are a strong reminder, and do have an effect.

 

I'm sure some people would remain seated during the anthem as well, but as noted upthread, they can register their disapproval for $100. And otherwise they can stand the hell up and "refuse" to sing along if they wish.

 

See how coercive this all sounds, though?

 

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

People do not obey laws that have no enforcement.  Its a dumb idea with a major cost. It is also guaranteed to piss off most of the people it is intended to force to the polls. It will be a lot more fun and a lot cooler to join the Facebook group "I'm Defying the Compulsory Voting Law."  I predict that the ones who don't just abstain as a source of pride [see no enforcement and Facebook group above] will vote for any party but the one who forced them to get off the couch. 

I think this is a great idea for Harper to support and the NDP to oppose.  That will get more new voters for the NDP than the other way around.

 

6079_Smith_W

Right Snert, or we'll send them over to the death panels, though your argument might be stronger if you compared voting to one of those meetings where you confess and denounce your comrades. It is all the same thing, after all, no?

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Red baiting is beneath you 6079.

Tongue out

Pogo Pogo's picture

No compulory voting.  While we are at it lets get rid of compulsory census.

6079_Smith_W

(I see emoticon this time, and get the light-hearted tone)

But it ain't red baiting NS.... if anything it's rightwing fundamentalist militia baiting. 

And I know Snert's not one of them. I just think the anthem comparison is silly. 

As I said, the "sword and cross" anachronism aside, I have no problem getting behind these words:

Ô Canada!
Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

And besides, you don't live in a modern society (or any society) without being compelled to do some things. The question  is if such a thing is really a breach of one's freedoms. I don't see the case here, expecially since we are talking about a hypothetical situation in which if there is a problem it can be addressed. But to simply say "no you can't make me go to the polls, even to refuse" begs the question of what the point is.

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Right Snert, or we'll send them over to the death panels, though your argument might be stronger if you compared voting to one of those meetings where you confess and denounce your comrades.

 

I'm primarily comparing compulsory voting to compulsory singing (or at least pretending to, but otherwise "spoiling" your singing) of the national anthem.

 

Given that we can elect governments without complete voter turnout, and given that those who don't vote can reasonably be considered to be equally happy with all candidates, someone tell me why (other than the punitive reasons I mentioned above) we need to force anyone to vote?

 

As long as those who abstain have the decency to not complain about the results, I really don't care. Something like the census ONLY works when everyone participates. Voting isn't the same.

Slumberjack

Ah yes, the voting = voice canard, notwithstanding the fact that sixty percent of the voting population were effectively muted recently.

6079_Smith_W

@ Snert

So your position is that if someone just can't be bothered it is a gross violation for him or her to have to go to a polling station and show a piece of ID to refuse? 

Geez, I expected the zealots, but I didn't think I'd be engaging the mallrat, bridge club, detatched aesthetic, and football fan contingents too. 

ygtbk

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ ygtbk

I take Brian's point, because I made it as well. 

Make voting compulsory, and any of the reasons there are for those who might WANT to go to the polls but DON'T - being prevented, intimidation, illiteracy, language problems, fear of documentation and being turned away - are countered, and it would be up to any government bringing in any such policy to try and assist them. 

We have seen that very thing in recent years with efforts to register homeless people and others who aren't so easily counted.

And to raise the spectre of fines and jail as the default response is fearmongering.

6079, I think I agree with some of your points, and some of your objectives, and not all of your assertions. In reverse order:

1) "Compulsory" means some kind of penalty for non-compliance - otherwise it's voluntary.

2) "Compulsory" does not mean a free pass on documentation - to vote in a riding, you have to be resident in that riding and a Canadian citizen, and it's reasonable to require some proof of that.

3) Preventing someone from voting is obviously a bad thing. If you want to create a legal offence, then perhaps "interfering with a voter" would be a better one than "failing to vote"? Elections Canada has suggested this: see:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=rec-pa...

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079

Try considering the fact that most Canadians don't like the government to add new things to the list of compulsory obligations.  You are out of step with the average person on the street who would draconian.  It doesn't matter whether that perception is correct it will be there.

Having the NDP promote this new demand would feed into the "socialists" imposing soviet style compliance on our democracy.  Again I am not saying the attacks will have any basis in fact.  You know just like the idea that a coalition in the Canadian tradition is almost treason was promoted despite it being absurd.  

Another problems you have an easy fix to that merely require our citizenry to take on new obligations?   

As for logistics of merely showing up to the polls and producing your ID that is not an easy thing for many.  I have worked on Rock the Vote campaigns in poverty afflicted neighbourhoods.  The law used to allow a statutory declaration if you didn't have the proper ID. I know that the lawyers involved got a kick out of accepting things like a parol officers appointment card as proof of identity because that was the only piece of paper that had a voters name on it.  You can't do that anymore.  It was based on the fact that if you swore an oath in front of an Officer of the Court you  would be believed despite being poor. This new law will either not apply to the poorest members of our communities or it will become another way of harassing them on the whim of an asshole bureaucrat somewhere in the system.

 

6079_Smith_W

ygtbk

Or compulsory means they nag you until you comply, which was the way it was with the long form census. And I realize that might mean leaving the ballot boxes closed for a few days and ruining all those election night specials.

And again, compulsory means it is on the government to meet you at least lhalf-way WRT documentation, literacy, and all those barriers.

 

NS...

We aren't talking about a new law that has been introduced in parliament. This is a hypothetical argument, and that means that imagining the worst case and assuming that is the default isn't really good faith. 

Clearly this is something you just don't want. Fair enough.

Guess what? the law is on your side right now.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
And besides, you don't live in a modern society (or any society) without being compelled to do some things. The question  is if such a thing is really a breach of one's freedoms.

 

So it's a breach of my freedom to be forced to stand and sing our national anthem? Yes? No?

 

I should think the other factor, in addition to the only slightly loaded "will it be a gross breach of my freedom" would be "why is it necessary".

 

You really haven't demonstrated that it's necessary for every eligible voter to vote.

 

Let me give you a quick analogy: my colleagues and I have to work late tonight, and management has agreed to order and pay for a jumbo pizza for us. All we have to do is tell them what we want on it.

 

My colleagues all vote for their favourite toppings. I don't really care, so I don't bother. The pizza arrives, with bacon and mushrooms. My colleagues are satisfied. What do they care whether or not *I* voted, so long as they got to? If this had been my day off I wouldn't have been here to vote, and presumably they'd still manage to select the pizza they want without me. And I'm obviously OK with it... if I weren't, I guess I would have voted, right?

 

So tell me, what specifically is the problem here??

 

Quote:

So your position is that if someone just can't be bothered it is a gross violation for him or her to have to go to a polling station and show a piece of ID to refuse? 

 

I believe it's unnecessary coercion, for no particular reason.

 

But what about you? What's your take on forced singing of the anthem? As noted, all you have to do is stand at attention for, like, two minutes. If you don't care to sing, just move your lips. And if you want to stay seated on principle, that principle will only cost you $100.

 

Would you be OK with this? If not, why not? As you yourself note, we're sometimes forced to do things, so why shouldn't this be one of them?

 

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Snert

Enough of this nonsense.

We're not talking about pizza, or karaoke. Wearing a tie, or a hawaiian shirt.

We're talking about a requirement to show up at a poll to declare your intention to vote or not.

Jesus..... this is as stupid as that old "We'll shoot this dog" National Lampoon cover, except it was funny.

Snert Snert's picture

Fine.  Then tell me why I should have to vote.  Don't tell me that I have to do other things, so therefore I should have to vote.  Don't tell me that if I lived in Australia, I'd have to vote.  Just tell me why I have to vote (or "show up at a poll to declare my intention").  Show me why that merits government coercion.

 

6079_Smith_W

Snert wrote:

Fine.  Then tell me why I should have to vote.  Don't tell me that I have to do other things, so therefore I should have to vote.  Don't tell me that if I lived in Australia, I'd have to vote.  Just tell me why I have to vote (or "show up at a poll to declare my intention").  Show me why that merits government coercion.

 

Sure.... As I have said already, there are two reasons for me.

Not to rain down a fascist totaltarian shitstorm on those who are resisting the oppression of our government, controlled as it is by the Bilderbergs, the Masons, the WTO and WalMart.

(Though you'd think they might actually welcome that as a good thing, since more oppression, like less voting,  will speed up the inevitable revolution, right?)

My actual reasons are to open the door for those who want to vote but feel shut out (and I explained that above, and in the last thread).

And to give a nudge to those who are in fact lazy and cannot be bothered unless someone tells them they have to show up . And like it or not, they do exist.

As for those of you who are morally opposed to voting. SHow up and turn down the ballot. Big f'ing deal. It that's too much of an imposition maybe you also want to refuse to take the health care benefits, infrastructure, and everything else that goes along with our evil, broken government.

Personally, I'd like your help in trying to fix it, but I know I can't force you.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
.

We're talking about a requirement to show up at a poll to declare your intention to vote or not.

You want to pass a law that says every citizen is required to do anything I would say the onus falls on you to show how it is necessary in our democratic society to breach people rights.  I think any time the government tells me I have to do something they have to justify it under Section 1 of the Charter.  You have made no case except for saying it is about forcing "lazy" people to do something you think is good for society.

The floor is yours. Make a case that your requirement is justified.  If you want to abridge my rights I expect no less. 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

My actual reasons are to open the door for those who want to vote but feel shut out (and I explained that above, and in the last thread).

 

I don't follow. They don't care to, and they feel shut out, but being forced to under penalty of a fine will make them feel like they're part of it all?? 

Quote:

And to give a nudge to those who are in fact lazy and cannot be bothered unless someone tells them they have to show up . And like it or not, they do exist.

 

I'm sorry, but this doesn't even begin to answer my question.

 

So what if someone is lazy? Voting isn't some kind of moral whacking stick for "the lazy". But here's that punitive whiff I was talking about, in spades.

 

Quote:
As for those of you who are morally opposed to voting. SHow up and turn down the ballot.

 

Again, this doesn't answer the question of why they should have to show up to not vote for anyone when they can stay at home to not vote for anyone. The response that "it's not too difficult" is ridiculous. That was my point with the anthem analogy: standing up isn't so hard either. That's a good enough reason now??

edited to add:  if you'd like people to vote, tell them how the NDP just won a recount -- and another seat -- by NINE votes.

6079_Smith_W

Northern Shoveler wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
.

We're talking about a requirement to show up at a poll to declare your intention to vote or not.

You want to pass a law that says every citizen is required to do anything I would say the onus falls on you to show how it is necessary in our democratic society to breach people rights.  I think any time the government tells me I have to do something they have to justify it under Section 1 of the Charter.  You have made no case except for saying it is about forcing "lazy" people to do something you think is good for society.

The floor is yours. Make a case that your requirement is justified.  If you want to abridge my rights I expect no less. 

Wow... I hadn't thought of that before. Maybe you can call the City of Saskatoon and set them straight about the snow shovelling thing, seeing as it is a breach of my rights to make me get up off my couch and pick up that shovel.

Like I said, I'm not arguing for forcing you to vote for anything, or even to vote, but rather to show up and declare your intention. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing why that is a problem, considering all the other ways in which your life is bound up in our government and its services, and its requirements.

Do you really have a problem with being required to show up in public to state what you stand for... even if it is to abstain?

But really, you shouldn't be talking to me, but to someone who has actually been denied the privilege of voting, and doesn't have the luxury of turning his or her nose up at it.

 

6079_Smith_W

And if you think this is an imposition, you should try mandatory military, service. I had one friend who hid out in the woods to resist that after being badgered about what he would do if he had a gun in front of him, and saw his partner being attacked.
And another who did the consciencious objector route, and wound up with two years of forced labour cleaning bedpans, and taking abuse.
And these were in countries (Germany and France) which aren't really that much more fascist than our own, though they don't have that curious streak that the U.S. culture has of paranoid resistance to anything that has the word "gubmint" on it.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Wow... I hadn't thought of that before. Maybe you can call the City of Saskatoon and set them straight about the snow shovelling thing, seeing as it is a breach of my rights to make me get up off my couch and pick up that shovel.

 

The idea is that the City must then provide reasons why homeowners need to clear their snow.

 

And if their best answer is "well, it gets lazy homeowners off their asses" then yes, it's time to set them straight.

 

Certainly we can be compelled, by the state, to do certain things, but that must come with reasonable justification. Jury duty, passing a driving test, even conscription are backed by reasons.

 

Quote:

Do you really have a problem with being required to show up in public to state what you stand for... even if it is to abstain?

 

Is that really the best you've got??

 

How did this end up in its second thread, when the best "reason" you seem able to give for why the state should force every citizen to the polls is that, in your opinion, it's not that inconvenient. Again, neither is standing at attention for 2 lousy minutes and moving your lips.

 

 

 

ygtbk

6079_Smith_W wrote:

ygtbk

Or compulsory means they nag you until you comply, which was the way it was with the long form census. And I realize that might mean leaving the ballot boxes closed for a few days and ruining all those election night specials.

And again, compulsory means it is on the government to meet you at least lhalf-way WRT documentation, literacy, and all those barriers.

 

NS...

We aren't talking about a new law that has been introduced in parliament. This is a hypothetical argument, and that means that imagining the worst case and assuming that is the default isn't really good faith. 

Clearly this is something you just don't want. Fair enough.

Guess what? the law is on your side right now.

If compulsory means they can nag me and I can ignore them, then I don't really have a problem with compulsory voting. That's kind of an unusual definition of "compulsory", but so be it - I'm neither a zealot nor a mallrat. I reserve the right to be a detached aesthete until I find out what it is.Laughing

6079_Smith_W

Funny.... I have to show up to do jury duty tomorrow morning. Dead serious.
And I am actually going to take a financial and a personal hit because of it.

Tell me how lending legitimacy to our broken judiciary is any different from propping up a broken state by showing up at a polling station.

Or would you rather continue to continue to make this all about karaoke?

Fidel

They should make voting in Parliament compulsory for all Liberal MPs as an incentive to show up for work.

6079_Smith_W

Fidel wrote:

They should make voting in Parliament compulsory for all Liberal MPs as an incentive to show up for work.

I agree with you, 100%
The Harperites can stay home if they want.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Wow... I hadn't thought of that before. Maybe you can call the City of Saskatoon and set them straight about the snow shovelling thing, seeing as it is a breach of my rights to make me get up off my couch and pick up that shovel.

Of course the City of Saskatoon is subject to the Charter.  They can justify telling you to get off the couch for a variety of good reasons including public safety of other citizens.  That one trumps a lot of competing rights. 

I get the impression you are having a tough time grasping how our constitutional rights are framed.  The site I linked to is a good start. The starting point is that the government doesn't have the right to tell me do do anything unless they can justify it.  I have the right not to vote and if you want to take it away our constitutional system says you get to justify infringing on my right.  Snow shovelling is a no brainer as are seat belt laws etc etc.  Voting not so much.

Quote:

Section 1 of the Charter reads as follows: “the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by laws as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” [1].

While this section guarantees certain rights, it is often better characterized as a tool to limit those rights, “in pursuit of other legislative objectives” [2]. Essentially, where there are competing interests in respect of Charter-protected rights, section 1 serves as a means of determining whether it is permissible to allow a right to be infringed in pursuit of other collective goals. Therefore, the rights protected under the Charter are not absolute.

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/issues/sectiononeofthecanadiancha...

6079_Smith_W

Thanks for insulting my intelligence, and please tell me how requiring you to show up and say you don't want to vote is infringing on your right not to vote.

Snert Snert's picture

Uh, may I suggest that it's actually infringing on my right not to to told to "show up and say I don't want to vote" for no good reason?

For the hundredth time, the state doesn't get to just order citizens to do things for the fun of it, or because they're really not all that difficult to do.  When the state requires me to do something, like renew my driver's licence, it must provide a reasonable reason for why I must.  Which you've really failed to do with regard to "showing up".

6079_Smith_W

Really Snert?
It's that much of an imposition? Or is it just that you don't like nobody telling you what to do?
Because frankly I am also in favour of them changing the default on harvesting organs so that you have to make a conscious choice to refuse consent.
My reason? There are too many people who are completely disengaged with their relationship to our society, and that if they are made aware of the fact by making it a choice which they must make (and which leaves them with autonomy to make whatever choice they want) that can only be a good thing.
It is no different with compulsory voting, in my mind - you can vote for whomever you want, or you can refuse. But you have to show up and make a decision even though it may be a secret one.

If that is a hard point for you then we just disagree and that is that.

Fidel

Northern Shoveler wrote:
The starting point is that the government doesn't have the right to tell me do do anything unless they can justify it.

And the feds are currently violating our rights WRT fining us for not completing the Lockheed Corporation's census. Apparently Canada's Constitution means nothing to our corrupt stooges in Ottawa.

Democracy should more appropriately be referred to as corporatism, because it is the merger of state and corporate power. - George Washington

Snert Snert's picture

The census is an easy one to justify, particularly to a progressive.  We want a Canada in which we have, say, some idea how many people are living in poverty, and where, and so on, yes?  Funny, but after Harper stated his intent to make the census voluntary, but before Lockheed-Martin won the tender to develop the software and hardware to automate it, it really seemed to me like progressives understood the value of good demographic data.  Now it seems that plays second fiddle to having a little tantrum. 

Oh, and for what it's worth, the money has already been spent.  Lockheed-Martin was paid for the software and hardware.  Not filling out your census won't harm them one little bit. 

Shake your fist impotently in the air now, just like that.  Now say "GRRRRRR!!!".

kathleen

I believe in Australia election day is a holiday. Everybody votes, then they go to the beach for barbeque and beer. That's the incentive. Don't know what the punishment is for not voting if there is any. Don't see any evidence that all those votes make for better government.

I still like the idea of handing out bottles of rum/nylon stockings and/or paving jobs in return for voting. If voter turnout is the issue, turnout was a lot better in the good old days, at least in NS.

 

Fidel

Snert wrote:

The census is an easy one to justify, particularly to a progressive.  We want a Canada in which we have, say, some idea how many people are living in poverty, and where, and so on, yes?  Funny, but after Harper stated his intent to make the census voluntary, but before Lockheed-Martin won the tender to develop the software and hardware to automate it, it really seemed to me like progressives understood the value of good demographic data.  Now it seems that plays second fiddle to having a little tantrum.

lol!

So in all seriousness, does anyone really believe that Reform Party retreads are remotely interested in alleviating poverty anywhere in our Northern Puerto Rico for homeless Polar bears and some pipelines running nord-sud?

Snert wrote:
Oh, and for what it's worth, the money has already been spent.  Lockheed-Martin was paid for the software and hardware.  Not filling out your census won't harm them one little bit. 

Shake your fist impotently in the air now, just like that.  Now say "GRRRRRR!!!".

Those contracts can be cancelled by any democratically elected government - even faster than NAFTA could be abrograted. Our corrupt stooges will never admit to feigning political impotence. With our stooges, powerlessness is all in their heads. Their political impotence isn't a real medical condition. It's in their colonial administrative job descriptions to merely project an aura of weak and ineffective federal  government. ie. They were bought and paid-for long time. On the take even.

Pages

Topic locked