Get out and Vote on May 2nd

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture
Get out and Vote on May 2nd

Talk to all of your candidates and ask about political reform. If their parties have nothing

substantive to say about reform consider voting your ballot blank on May 2 to send a

clear positive message. To those considering not voting at all, voting a blank ballot

is a more positive action than not voting at all.

For more information www.rejecttheelection.ca

 

Caissa

And precisely what sort of reform of the electoral system are you advocating?

Sean in Ottawa

The proper potest that is counted and recorded is a refused ballot-- you take it have your name ticked off and then hand it back refused. Blank ballot is a spoiled ballot which sends no message at all-- goes with those who don't know how to vote.

Still, I think this is the wrong message to send anyway. This is for when the voter cannot see a difference between the parties. Saying there is no difference between the parties in such a polarized election is to say we are not watching and is very negative. While none may be ideal surely some are better than others and some worse and a decision can be made.

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

Caissa

Not just electoral reform, Recall, Citizen's Inititiave, Senate reform/abolish, direct election of PM, fixed election dates, formal separation of Parliament and government, a written constitutionally limited government, the list goes on and on ...

 

Sean,

The Elections Act;
287. (1) The deputy returning officer shall prepare a statement of the vote, in the prescribed form, that sets out the number of votes in favour of each candidate and the number of rejected ballots ...

Caissa

Can one find that from your link?

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

To see a list of proposed parallel reforms at the provincial level check out our Democarcy Manifesto at www.atlanticaparty.ca

Maysie Maysie's picture

Hey atlantica, aside from repeating incorrect info that Sean has corrected, your thread title is misleading, as it's really a continuation of the first train wreck, I mean thread that you started on the exact same issue.

takeitslowly

if i bother to vote at all, i would use the only opportunity I can to vote against Harper.

 

 

Freedom 55

 

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The proper potest that is counted and recorded is a refused ballot-- you take it have your name ticked off and then hand it back refused.

 

As discussed in the previous thread, I'm fairly certain that refused ballots are not counted in any manner.

The "rejected" ballots cited in the Elections Act are ballots that have been deemed to have been improperly marked - not rejected outright by the voter.

People are free to try this as a symbolic protest, but if anyone thinks that their protest will be officially registered, they're mistaken.

 

ETA - A few of the provinces and territories do count refused ballots in their elections, but not in federal elections.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

As I understand it (I did research this many years ago) rejected are refused ballots and they are counted as refusals apart from spoiled ballots which are seen as incompetent voting attempts. A blank ballot is a spoiled ballot not a refused ballot. You have to hand it back to be refused.

It is a fact that spoiled ballots and refused ballots are often confused but they are very different.

My bigger point is a refused ballot sends an Extremely negative message in this campaign. We have a PM found in contempt, a government that has been crooked. If we can't find any person to vote for concluding that they are all the same we minimize this. We tell the politicians that none of this matters.

I strongly, very strongly, recommend people find a choice.

I am sorry to those who say they are all the same but I think they are simply ignorant or lazy. The differences are enough to choose one over another. Granted the options (according to some people) do not measure up but that does not mean they are all equal in value. If you think they are all equal, by all means refuse a ballot but do not spoil it. If you think the options are limited, pick the best one and run yourself next time or help find a better candidate for your riding but to come so late in the process and say nobody is good enough for you to even see them apart-- well that is laziness in my opinion.

Sorry to be harsh but voting is important and to turn it in to a cheezy, cutsie protest just does not cut it. Save the protest for those rare times when all the candidates are virtually identical.

I did this once in Quebec in a by election when there were only two candidates on the ballot: a Liberal and a PQ candidate. I was considering legal action against the Liberal party for a business issue and found the PQ candidate repugnant. When you have long lists of Candidates as most do, there is no excuse to not educate yourself and make a choice.

Freedom 55

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As I understand it (I did research this many years ago) rejected are refused ballots and they are counted as refusals apart from spoiled ballots which are seen as incompetent voting attempts. A blank ballot is a spoiled ballot not a refused ballot. You have to hand it back to be refused.

 

I've looked into this too, and my understanding is quite different.

Understanding that this isn't even the main point you're making; if your interpretation of refused ballots is correct, can you find any example of where refused ballot totals have been published after an election?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

There is no provision in the current Elections Act for voters to "refuse" a ballot. See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/FullText.html

Snert Snert's picture

Let's pretend that the government is keenly interested in the number of refused ballots, and takes the time to count them all.

Has this EVER resulted in something?  Anything?  Anything at all?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

A rejected ballot indicates a rejection of ALL parties, including the governing one. Please explain why we should believe that a government would be "keenly interested in the number of refused ballots".

 

In any case, it might be worth refraining from your mock incredulity long enough to look over here ...

Atlin Electoral District see Notable Elections

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Please explain why we should believe that a government would be "keenly interested in the number of refused ballots".

 

Exactly. People are talking as though, if enough people refused their ballot, the government would say 'Whoa... hey, look here! We have to do something!!! We need to provide better electoral choices!!!"

 

Quote:

In any case, it might be worth refraining from your mock incredulity long enough to look over here ...

 

Interesting. I think there was an episode of Andy Griffith that was the same idea, ya? When Goober abstained from voting for Mayor and Barney had to split the tie? Except in Atlin it was 22 abstentions.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Back to this rubbish,eh?

Yeah,mass apathy has been working juuust fine for the last 20 years.

Do you really believe the parties give the brass ass of an orangutan if you don't vot or spoil your ballots?

You really believe that's going to change Canadian politics?

OOPS..Yeah,it CAN change Canadian politics...Just look at what we are stuck with now...And just look at what we're going to have to live with until 2016.

If you don't use your voice,you LOSE your voice.

And you willfully empower a dictatorship....And you play a key roll in killing democracy in the Great White North.

Yeah...Give the government what they want...NO OPPOSITION!

contrarianna

There is only one purpose and result in expending time and resources in urging people to destroy their ballot:

It is designed to nullify the vote of those who are discontented and confused, but would not likely vote for the current government--thus benefiting the Harper regime.

Fidel

I wish Reformatory supporters would take up origami instead of voting. It would be more productive than supporting a bunch o' corrupt stooges.

Sean in Ottawa

My second point in post #9 is the more important -- even if we fine the ideal agreed upon protest the message sent is profoundly negative.

Slumberjack

alan smithee wrote:
Yeah,mass apathy has been working juuust fine for the last 20 years....Do you really believe the parties give the brass ass of an orangutan if you don't vot or spoil your ballots?....If you don't use your voice,you LOSE your voice.....And you willfully empower a dictatorship....And you play a key roll in killing democracy in the Great White North....

The same could be said of the loyal queuing up to a rigged lottery for the past 20 years.  No, the parties don't care, but these narcissists will still continue to seek their share of whatever shreds of validation the people are still willing to foolishly invest with them.  After bellying up to a shell game selection process that has us pegged time and time again upon arrival as suckers, the only remaining thing to lose in reapplying oneself to the task is ones dignity.  There is no voice in any of this, except for the whining that results from a pre-determined outcome where nothing should surprise or disapoint us anymore.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm not arguing this point...Just going to get mad and it ain't worth it.

Of all the protests and petitions of the past 30 years...PLEASE name ONE which changed anything...Really,name ONE.

Too many people here are deluded.

You think by spoiling your ballots,the parties and all the MP's are going to stop everything they're doing and worry and be concerned by this trend?..Seriously?

If there are indeed Tory trolls trying to infiltrate social media sites,I can guarantee you that if and when they stumble over to Rabble and give the news to the Tory strategists in the war room that there is no need to infiltrate these sites and that the people at rabble and other left leaning social media sites are going to take care of the Tory campaign themselves,there is going to be a collective roar of 'mission accomplished' from our esteemed government.

Again,this is YOUR prerogative.

But when Harper is celebrating his majority,I do not expect to see all those who decided to volunteer apathy or spoil their votes,to come back here and complain,belly ache or give so much as a whimper when the Tories are taken off their leash and take off the masks and rape this country and disfigure it beyond recognition.

By spoiling your ballot,you have spoiled your right to complain and you have stripped yourselves from legitimacy.

Point final.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
After bellying up to a shell game selection process that has us pegged time and time again upon arrival as suckers, the only remaining thing to lose in reapplying oneself to the task is ones dignity. 

 

The game isn't rigged against us; we, the electorate, rig it.

 

Each election we have choices, and each election the electorate chooses one of the same two shells that they've chosen since 1867.

 

Before we simply declare that elections cannot change anything, can we try, just the one time, electing someone else?? How would elections create change, if we won't change who we elect? It's like insisting that a restaurant is unappealing because they only offer two food options (when in fact they offer plenty, and diners can even make up their own, but we only EVER choose the same two).

Fidel

That's right, Snert. And it was Ralph Nader who told Canadians a few years ago that we do have a third option.

Snert Snert's picture

We can have as many as we want.  If we can have a political party devoted to the legalization of marijuana, I should think we can have any kind of political party we can think of.  I have to assume that if we don't have a Socialist party it's because nobody wanted one as badly as someone wanted a Marijuana Party.

Sean in Ottawa

Thanks Alan, Snert, Fidel.

All spot on.

Such a protest takes away from actual power in this case.

We protest what the politicians do once elected but the election itself is not a protest-- it is our only lever of power and not to use it is a mockery of any democratic principle we might have.

There are many other opportunities to protest without giving up the little bit of real power we have -- to just one more protest.

As well, I do not see the refusal of a ballot to be a protest but really an electoral tool only to be used when there is absolutely no candidate better than another. It is hard to imagine this could be possible when more than 2 candidates are running-- it takes a lot to have a tie between 2 (as I said above I have seen it only once). It is another thing to have real differences but to reject choice in favour of protest.

 

Fidel

Snert wrote:

We can have as many as we want.  If we can have a political party devoted to the legalization of marijuana, I should think we can have any kind of political party we can think of.  I have to assume that if we don't have a Socialist party it's because nobody wanted one as badly as someone wanted a Marijuana Party.

 

That's true. And after the results of the last federal election were counted, 22% of voting age Canadians wanted a ReformaTory government. It's all very democratic and with room for neither hook nor crook for sure.

FPTP is a most mathematically inefficient electoral system that punishes third parties. In Canada, your vote is cancelled if you live in the wrong place or vote for the wrong party. It has the effect of removing political momentum for third parties when their voters find it difficult to grow a support base outside the two old line parties. And that's just the way our corrupt stoogeaucrats prefer things to be.

Noah_Scape

I think this thread can be saved by discussing those Canadians who "just don't vote" -

 Most of the ones I talk to who say that they "just don't vote" are in two categories:

1] they seem to be unwilling to put any effort into hashing out the issues and deciding which party/candidate would best address those issues [mostly because they are overwhelmed with the daily grind, or they are mentally lazy or unequipped to do it]

2] they say that "it won't make any difference", in that the same old boys and girls will be running the show.

  Those are both valid enough as excuses, but we need to find ways to engage these non-voters. Except for Libs and Cons supporters, and a few NDP and maybe one Green riding, their vote doesn't seem to count so they don't vote.

  I don't think that spoiling a ballot will do much good...

  Canada is in the hands of Elites, and people are disengaged from the political processes because of it - like the way Egyptians were disengaged under a dictator [until they could not take it anymore].

 For that reason, I will suggest to non-voters to try voting Green Party because they have the most distance from the Elites. Personally, I vote Green because I see the environment, esp. AGW, as the big issue and the Greens have the most solid proposals to address environmental problems.

 

Snert Snert's picture

In the last election in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez and his party earned 48.3% of the popular vote and won 96 seats and the Presidency.

The opposition earned 47.2% of the popular vote -- 1.1% less -- and won a mere 64 seats (exactly 2/3 the seats for 1% less of the vote).

"Others", with a paltry 1.4% of the popular vote, managed three seats.  So getting 1.4% of the popular votes is worth three seats, but getting 1.1% more of the popular vote is worth 32 seats.

In the interest of fairness, how about using Venezuela as your example of a corrupt, undemocratic FPTP hellhole for the next four years?  Chavez is a great example of a president who claims a majority, with less than 50% of the vote.

Snert Snert's picture

You're avoiding.

Fidel

Snert wrote:

In the last election in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez and his party earned 48.3% of the popular vote and won 96 seats and the Presidency.

The opposition earned 47.2% of the popular vote -- 1.1% less -- and won a mere 64 seats (exactly 2/3 the seats for 1% less of the vote).

"Others", with a paltry 1.4% of the popular vote, managed three seats.  So getting 1.4% of the popular votes is worth three seats, but getting 1.1% more of the popular vote is worth 32 seats.

In the interest of fairness, how about using Venezuela as your example of a corrupt, undemocratic FPTP hellhole for the next four years?  Chavez is a great example of a president who claims a majority, with less than 50% of the vote.

 

And that's with US taxpayers funding the opposition party in Venezuela. Imagine if the CIA and US taxpayers did not cross the democratic line with political interference in oil-rich Venezuela? 

Meanwhile our corrupt stooges in Ottawa with election campaigns backed by Bay Street and lamestream newz media can only dream of 48% support even with our obsolete electoral system. They'd surely grow a pair and pawn off what's left of medicare with that kind of support by our mathematically absurd electoral system. Our corrupt stooges have too many seats as it is compared to the percentage of votes they received.

Democracy has always been the political right's most hated institution. The US right is notorious for rigging elections in Latin America.

And here in Canada and the USA, FPTP is tantamount to election fraud.

Fidel

Venezuela's MMP is a real electoral system. Our corrupt stooges here would never agree to it, because it would spell the end of their illegit rule here in Bananada.

And that redundant second conservative party would fade away into total obscurity, and the contest would be down to right versus left. And the right never wants a fair fight. 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Venezuela's MMP is a real electoral system.

 

So in a "real" system, getting 1% more of the popular vote should get you 50% more of the seats?

 

In a "real" system, you can have a majority government with less than 50% of the vote?

 

You're signing your name to a pretty absurd comment.

remind remind's picture

Noah_Scape wrote:
 I will suggest to non-voters to try voting Green Party because they have the most distance from the Elites.

You are kidding are you not? Because that ain't even close to being accurate about on the ground reality. Though it appears you continue on in  inaccuracies with your final comment below,  too

Quote:
 the Greens have the most solid proposals to address environmental problems.

They don't actually, but hey do not let reality get in the way of your politiking, carry on...

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

Here is the Elections Act;
Rejection of ballots
284. (1) In examining the ballots, the deputy returning officer shall reject one ...
(b) that has not been marked in a circle at the right of the candidates' names; ...
(d) that has been marked in more than one circle at the right of the candidates' names;

Are Rejected Ballots reported?
Yes. In the 2008 election there were 94,733 rejected ballots reported.
The Elections Act;
287. (1) The deputy returning officer shall prepare a statement of the vote, in the prescribed form, that sets out the number of votes in favour of each candidate and the number of rejected ballots ...

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

289.  Does the Count of Rejected Ballots Mean Jack Shit?
No.
The Elections Act;
(2) The Returning Officer shall submit a notarized count of Rejected Ballots to Elections Canada, who shall file them under "Rat's Asses, Who Gives A..."

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Snert wrote:

289.  Does the Count of Rejected Ballots Mean Jack Shit?
No.
The Elections Act;
(2) The Returning Officer shall submit a notarized count of Rejected Ballots to Elections Canada, who shall file them under "Rat's Asses, Who Gives A..."

 

Laughing

Sean in Ottawa

Snert wrote:

289.  Does the Count of Rejected Ballots Mean Jack Shit?
No.
The Elections Act;
(2) The Returning Officer shall submit a notarized count of Rejected Ballots to Elections Canada, who shall file them under "Rat's Asses, Who Gives A..."

I could try to be more original but... Laughing says it best

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

babbler Michael Moriarty (not the actor) has pointed out already that a "rejected ballot" means now "rejected by Elections Canada" and is indistinguishable from a spoiled ballot. So the option put forward by "Atlantica Party" is, in any case, a non-starter.

Why babblers would waste their time ridiculing a choice that can, in any case, no longer be made, is beyond me.

Sean in Ottawa

the answer is becasue the idea behind it is deeply damaging. It is based on the idea that all parties are the same and should be equally rejected.

More people reject voting than actually vote for any party.

that rejection has lead to a reactionary party being able to take over the government.

To ridicule the idea that all parties are the same seems quite fair and essential. It is that notion that is wrecking the country perhaps more than any other.

6079_Smith_W

For what it is worth, and however much a compromise it is, I will be voting for a candidate this eleciton.

 

trippie

I think Im just gonna vote Conservative. If I vote NDP they will just work with them anyways so why shoud I beet around the bush?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The idea that people refuse to vote because they have no faith in the political system seems to have eluded you, Sean. That these people fail to be active politically in some other way is, I think, something they can genuinely be found at fault for.But that requires more political sophistication than simply a healthy contempt for a bunch of liars.

Where is the law requiring politicians to tell the truth? Where is the law that says promises made in elections and not upheld shall result in the arrest of the offending politician? In the business world if I undertake to do something and then fail to do it then I can be taken to court. Is politics more or less important than business? Are these things important or not?

Having said all that, I, for one, will be voting if for no other reason than to insure the Conservatives and Atlantica Party et al do not get into office. But I don't pretend that that is the end of my political activity or that it amounts to Jack sh**.

 

theatlanticaparty theatlanticaparty's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

the answer is becasue the idea behind it is deeply damaging. It is based on the idea that all parties are the same and should be equally rejected.

You should vote and support parties whose mission is make Canada a more democarticly responsive country, where citizens are actually encouraged and rewarded for having a political life.

Sean in Ottawa

How much faith do you need to cast a ballot to be counted as making a choice?

Many people who want to do something in the world try things that have little hope of success.

Sorry to say most people I have met who do not vote are lazy-- they openly say they can't be bothered. They profess their lack of interest louder than any conclusion that there is no difference.

Most of those who claim to have no faith in the system and don't vote actually don't give any time to see if there is a difference or what it is.

In fact the people I know who inform themselves and actually don't have faith in the system all seem to go out and vote anyway, hoping it will change and that someone will notice.

That's just what I know.

If you know different then I apologize.

I am sick of the people who brag about not giving a shit, who claim there are no differences between the parties they can barely remember. They are the same ones who repeat lines of propaganda or make fun of a process people have died to create and others suffer because of its disuse.

Like I say, if I meet one person who does not vote who has bothered to inform themselves of what all the candidates in their area are saying then I'll review my harsh condemnation.

Canada is being ruled by a coalition of the greedy, the stupid, the nihilists and the apathetics. In this the win is always by default and it stinks.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Ok, yea, it's good to point out that whole lazy person argument. I've met plenty of them myself. But when so many people make that choice - and we ARE talking about many, many people - do you really want to generalize about millions of people like that? Are they all or most of them simply lazy? I don't think so...

Edited to add: it is our political system that is an important part of why people do not feel that voting is all that important. And, yes, there's laziness, and right wing parties that cynically manipulate this to their advantage, and so on. Those who make the important decisions during an election - those with influence in the larger political parties - can be heard saying things like "An election is no time to raise issues" and mean it.

Sean in Ottawa

You are right-- not just laziness -- there are a few principled people -- although I never met one.

There are of course those who believe it is not fashionable-- not cool to look in to this and make a choice.

I was calling them lazy as in intellectually lazy but perhaps there is a better word.

I got to read on this forum comments form a person advocating strategic voting saying that voting for other than Liberal would make us responsible for a Harper majority. I don't feel the need to be nice to people, most of whom don't bother to form an opinion or think it is uncool.

Like I say, I am open to the idea of that person who looks at all the options and finds they need to reject every one.

I am not buying the they-are-all-the-same argument because that is a sack of excrement.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The single mom who works two jobs to support her kids and barely has enough time to sleep sees nothing from the politicians that will help her in the short term with her situation. They're all the same to her.

Is it really so hard to see this?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I've been here for a while and I read much more than I comment.

Reading the threads,the columns,watching the videos and listening to the radio streams,it was always clear that most,if not all,the people here knew what they were talking about...Were in tune with the issues and were active in the political process by signing petitions and getting involved in protests and,yes,voting.

It's clear that our political system is fucked and I doubt very much that anyone will argue against that..It is what it is.

BUT I thought people here were SOPHISTICATED enough to do everything in their power to keep the conservatives on a short leash by coming out in droves to tilt the balance of power.

Petitions and protests are absolutely useless in the mist of an election campaign.

You take care of priority #1 which is stop Harper from achieving a majority by almost any means necessary.

We accomplish that and see the official opposition change to NDP ..or Bloc..And it will be the month of May,spring will be in bloom,the temperatures comfortable and THEN the protests,the organizing,the taking to the streets,the petitions etc...

But THIS time,the Opposition will be forced to make a stand..It will become clear that they MUST work with the people since Harper works exclusively for business,military,law enforcement and organizations that champion his ideology.

THIS is how we get change.

And sitting on your asses or spoiling your vote or doing something incredibly idiotic like voting for Harper will only result in the annhilation of Canada....Will only result in having YOUR values (assuming you're a progressive) knocked back 100 years and a carbon copy of some demented fusion of Reagen/Cheney/Mike Harris/Ayn Rand/Leo Strauss iron fisted rule for a MINIMUM of 5 years.

In the end,it's your choice.

But if you don't vote or spoil your vote or vote for Harper,it really doesn't matter.

YOU gave us a Harper majority....Who's going to listen to you cry about it when you chose NOT to do anything about it in the first place?

6079_Smith_W

@ N. Beltov #46

Actually the friend of mine who is the most disillusioned about our political system and sees all parties as power-hungry dogs (I listened to him rant about it last night) STILL decided he is going to cast a ballot for a party in the election to try and prevent a harpercult win.

You do what you want with ballot. Please don't tell me I am somehow missing something by making my own decision as to what to do with mine. 

JKR

N.Beltov wrote:

The single mom who works two jobs to support her kids and barely has enough time to sleep sees nothing from the politicians that will help her in the short term with her situation. They're all the same to her.

And often she's the one who ends up not voting for the party that would have raised her minimum wage salary by a few thousand dollars per year. Or who would have provided her with daycare. Or prescription glasses. Or dental care. Or union rights. etc....

JKR

theatlanticaparty wrote:

Not just electoral reform, Recall, Citizen's Inititiave, Senate reform/abolish, direct election of PM, fixed election dates, formal separation of Parliament and government, a written constitutionally limited government, the list goes on and on ...

Then you should advocate for these political reforms, NOT for vote suppression.

Telling people who believe in political reform not to vote, drastically reduces the chances of getting political reform. It's a self-defeating strategy.

The NDP and Greens have policies that favour political reform much more then the other parties.

If someone's strongest issue by far is political reform they should vote for either the NDP or Greens. To exentuate the power of the vote for political reform, people should determine which party has the best chance of winning their riding and choose that party.

Pages

Topic locked