Get out and Vote on May 2nd II

@ theatlanticaparty

No, I think he is missing a few things. For one, a Green vote does provide cash to that party, and secondly it is interesting that he expects party leaders go beyond calling for May's inclusion and actually boycott the debate when Rikardo has no intention of doing anything at all. Pretty handy standing on a moral high ground when it means not actually doing anything. Let me know when either of you chain yourselves to the doors of a polling station in protest, or even bother to look people in the eye and hand out flyers

And why should he care about the debate? He's not going to vote, and the vote the whole purpose behind the debate. Seems to me the people who are rightly pissed off about it are those who intend to actually VOTE.  If we want to start bringing in tangential issues I might ask him when he intends to stop paying his taxes to protest this system he opposes.

But thank you for at least being honest this time and not continuing the lie that you think voters should actuallly check out the candidates to see if they can find someone to vote for before spoiling their ballots.

You have no interest in people trying to work with the current system.

Really? I think you are just dancing around and shifting your position to try and not get pinned down on any subdstantial point That is if you are in fact clear on why you hold the position you do - and I am suspicious because you pay lip service to trying to work with the system but always come back to your only real position - that you want people to not vote.

If you think people should try and find a party they support then clearly you support electoral politics in principle. 

If you support it but you think there should be reform then why don't you vote for any number of parties which are calling for electoral reform? And if you can't find a party but you support the principle then why don't you start your own party once you figure out what you actually stand for?

A few points need to be made here:

(1) Parties aren't the problem. The strictures of governance to which all parties in Parliment must abide are the problem, for the most part because they cannot be reformed by parties themselves in the absence of social pressures on markets.

The democratic gains we now enjoy were made in the early twentieth century when perceived threats to markets (eg, depressions, labour activists, communists, etc), forced business to make consessions. Sometimes more progressive parties were voted in as well, but not always. The parties weren't responsible for the change. The gains culminated in the 1960s (eg, healthcare) but by the time things calmed down in the 1970s these gains were already being clawed back. Again, it hasn't mattered which party has been in power. Sometimes things have been worse under the more "progressive" parties. Parties aren't the problem.

Today there is no real source of social pressure on markets, so voting for any party is a vote for the further retraction of democratic gains. A fixation on ousting Harper and the Conservatives is the surest way to entrench the continuation of conservative governance.

(2) Abstention does not communicate a motive to government, so there is no way to tell if people abstain out of habit or principle. Problem is, the same is true of voting. There is nothing about marking a ballot that communicates that a voter has risen above habit - the habit of voting - or disinformation.

Voting has two main functions: determining which party gets seats in Parliament, and indicating the level of legitimacy upon which Parliment stands.

The political classes are very sensitive to voter turnout for this reason. But if, as they often protest, abstention is meaningless because governments (progressive or conservative) respond to low voter turnout with business as usual then it shows that Parliament was never interested in nor deserving of our votes in the first place. 

(3) Voting is cynical and apathetic. The most cynical thing we as citizens can do is resign ourselves to voting for the lesser evil because we see top-down policy decisions as our only realistic and effective recourse to democracy. Likewise, what could be more apathetic than hoping impotently that despite unchanging conditions this next round of electoral endorsements is somehow going to present a different outcome. We honour those who struggle for democracy by rejecting the cynicism and apathy of voting.

In the context of the ongoing erosion of democracy, and in the absence of social pressures on markets, revoking one's edorsement of legitimacy - abstention - is a responsible choice.

Tobold Rollo

The system needs to be changed, change must be pushed BOTH from the inside and from outside the system.

Not voting can only help change the system if its proposed to or embraced by people who dont want to change the system and want to conserve the status quo or to people who want to go backwards to a medieval creationist feudal monarchy. Though people in various offices can make change easier they cant be relied on to do so on their own, institutions grounded in an established status quo seldom change or commit suicide for the good of the community so we need to develop a plan of action with 2 parts, one part detailling what can be done by people in office, the other part detailing what can be done outside of office/gov/traditional institutions.

I do appreciate the two or three reactions to my post.

Its true that a vote for the Green Party does increase its finances.  But I already contribute $30 a month to them.  I once was a candidate for the Quebec Greens.  But I don't give either party a chance in our antiquated FPTP system.  True the Quebec Soldaire's Khadir got in and is a voice we need in Quebec.  Were I in May's riding in BC I'd be working and voting for her.  I doubt though that her riding will elect her.  B.C. voters threw out Kim Campbell, a British Columbian, for one of Chrétien's Liberals.  My riding is one of the strong Conservative ridings around Quebec City so my vote wouldn't change anything.

I've supported Electoral System reform for so long that I've become cynical. I hope you youngsters will go out and vote. Maybe I will too.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Really? I think you are just dancing around and shifting your position to try and not get pinned down on any subdstantial point That is if you are in fact clear on why you hold the position you do - and I am suspicious because you pay lip service to trying to work with the system but always come back to your only real position - that you want people to not vote.

Ok let me try it another way, everyone go out and vote for the parties that offer real substantive political reform. If you can't find any then submit a protest blank ballot.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If you support it but you think there should be reform then why don't you vote for any number of parties which are calling for electoral reform? And if you can't find a party but you support the principle then why don't you start your own party once you figure out what you actually stand for?

PR is not sufficient.

And we have started a party with very clear principles.

"This mistakenly assumes that there is an 'inside' that is accessible to us. Such access points were never built in because the institutions we have inhereted in Canada were not originally intended to include the participation of the mob."

Hes my point of view, Kim Jon Ill, Pinochet or dictator joe doesnt walk around with an AK47 forcing his goons to enforce his orders, as chauchesku found out the people dont acheive a revolution by themselves, but the people on the inside can if and when they realize that they are part of the people, that the mob are their parents, kids, brothers, sisters, friends, neibors, and when ideas make their way, theres a question of perspective, no one of 'us' is on the inside as long as we label those on the inside as 'them' and they do the same. So from one perspective we do have people on the inside, people who can edge the situation on the right ride, who can make small progress, who can push the envelope, and on occasion that can put their career on the line to do the right thing, it is essential that we collectively protect and support whistleblowers, if institutions do not adequately support whistleblowers that call out their miss deeds nothing prevents the public from forming a NGO for that purpose, and its a very strategic independant parallel function to have. If someone blows the whistle on a toxic leak that is killing citizens each year and that person gets fired from a governmental/institution/corporate position with zero organized support from the population other potential whistleblowers may hesitate to go against the institution that can make or break them with impunity.

Also, by voting we dont choose specific policies and thats a problem, but meanwhile we can still make things either that much worst or less worst, if voting makes no difference then lets vote conservative(or not vote) and put creationists in charge of science and have pro-gestapo police state people on the inside.

imo every inch that can be gained must be gained, anyone with integrity must be supported.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

In the context of the ongoing erosion of democracy, and in the absence of social pressures on markets, revoking one's edorsement of legitimacy - abstention - is a responsible choice.

If the idea is to revoke one's endorsement of legitimacy, then not voting strikes me as possibly the laziest possible way to do that.  Since there are many other ways to do that that are arguably much more effective, it's hard to see abstention as a responsible choice.

[/quote]

If the idea is to revoke one's endorsement of legitimacy, then not voting strikes me as possibly the laziest possible way to do that.  Since there are many other ways to do that that are arguably much more effective, it's hard to see abstention as a responsible choice.

[/quote]

There may be others, but abstaining form the vote is the only way of revoking an endorsement of legitimacy that Parliament takes seriously. And the fact that abstention doesn't take much effort is hardly an argument against it. Voting takes very little effort as well. It's not the amount of effort that matters to government.

LMAO, "The Blank Ballot Project", but yet you a have a political party.

remind wrote:

LMAO, "The Blank Ballot Project", but yet you a have a political party.

We are a provincial party that sponsors a number of non-partisan campaigns. We support Free Vote Nova Scotia, Taxed Enough Nova Scotians, the Know How THey Vote campaign, Elect NS Senators as well as the Blank Ballot project.

Love it! I haven't played 20 questions in a long time. 

Elected senate? Anti-tax? You should be pretty comfortable talking to conservatives. THough do you talk to them about reform of the voting system too?  (still not sure what you actually think those reforms should be, seeing as PR isn't good enough for you).

I'd still like to see those links of you spreading the good word to them telling THEM to not vote. Surely you haven't been devoting all your attention to us.

And @ acramer

I agree with you, except that there seem to be a few people willing to buy it as a "revolutionary" idea, rather than a way to get them to waste their votes,

@ Freedom55

Nice.... thanks. Refreshing to see that Tories aren't blind in all things.

I also went to their website and see they aren't actually opposed to elections or PR at all. THey want an American-style separation of executive and legislative branches, and have some suspiciously vague statements about striking balances on crime legislation, "dependency" on the social safety net, reducing government spending and taxes

http://www.atlanticaparty.ca/The Party.html

And they have had some radio coverage. There's supposedly a link to the interview, but it's not there:

http://www.cbc.ca/islandmorning/episodes/2011/03/31/the-blank-ballot-mov...

One question.... do they also want people to spoil their ballots in provincial elections, or is it just the federal system they want to undermine?

acramer wrote:

Taxed Enough Nova Scotians = Right wing extremists. You are either Libetarians, hence Tories, or Tories; you could be "Blue Libs", but I doubt it.

Sorry folks, no reason to take these guys serioulsy. Hey "theatlanticparty", you realize this is a left leaning website right? I'm just saying.

Fiscally we are to the right of the Conservatives. Socially we are to the left of the NDP. Small 'l' libertarian is probably the best fit for us. We are certainly not Conservatives. In fact we find neither the 'right' leaning forums and 'left' leaning forums good fits since they are all pretty much the same;

Pro-status quo, pro-establishment, hyper-partisan, reactionary, non-activist, consumed with the minutae of domestic politics but lacking in vision. Our support is from the majority who have moved on from the old left/right model. There will always be a minority of people who will cling to the tradional parties (perhaps a quarter to a third of electors) who will aways reject us because we represent reform that endangers 'their' party's re-election prosepects, our target base is the remaining majority who are ready for real change.

beside the poor formatting, do we really need to tolerate all these trolls at once???

Man,you're really pushing this idiocy,aren't you?

Give it up.

I know it's bullshit, but I still want to know if they also support not voting in provincial elecitons, or if they just want to fuck it up for the rest of us.

theatlanticaparty wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

the nomination deadline has not passed

 

Fair enough. I stand corrected, said the APbot.

 

If there is a candidate somewhere that stands for substantive political reform then vote for them. Having examined the Big Four none stand for reform. Yes, the Greens and the NDP make statements about some form of PR, that's progress even though it could be argued that it is self serving since their seat counts would increase. The real test would be a party that wants to bring in electoral reform knowing its seat counts would drop. But having a stand on PR is not principled substantive reform. I would be impressed if a party advocated Recall and/or CI legislation, since that is obviously not in their interests.

So a party should propose things that will hurt them just to be seen as sincere even if doing the right thing would also be in their self interest.

What unbelivably bizarre logic.

You keep dancing around two fictions:

1) that all the parties are the same-- not only are they not the same but they take opposing positions on almost every issue. Libya may be an exception but on political reform, economics, spending, ideology, priorities the parties are loaded with opposites. Now there may be some things in common but there is actually quite little between the NDP and the Cons in particular.

2) that all people want the same things are need the same things-- each person ahs their own list of priorities-- once they stop being cynical they will see that on virtually every area of public policy you have opposite positions available in Canada.

Now granted it takes a little effort to look past the attack ads and actually consider what is being proposed but if we put that effort out then we are rewarded -- not with perfection you can argue -- but with a stunning array of options to suit every ideology.

It seems it is fashionable to look at the surface for a few seconds and conclude that it si all noise and not be bothered but frankly given the stuff you are saying -- you need to back that up.

Show us on some specific social and economic priorities where you think all the parties are in agreement. Quite the rhetoric because it is getting annoying. Start backing things up. You say you looked at the platforms -- compare and contrast. Say what you found was the same and what you found different. Tell us exactly what you think is missing that ought to be there -- specifically where it relates to policy. At least you might have a hope of convincing me that you actually have made any examination at all. Sorry but that is what it looks like.

The Atlantic Party -- also consider this -- voting is not looking for the perfect political partner. It is about looking at the options and choosing the best one or trying to block the worst one.

To suggest there is none that is either better or worse than the others frankly makes it look like you ave not looked hard enough.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

It's this kind of apathy that ensures our problems never get addressed.

Words of wisdom from the guy who wants us to really accomplish something by staying home and sitting on the couch.

(edit)

Maybe we should just Tobold and atlanticaparty duke it out.

Well you have to admit it is kind of absurd that you're crying "apathy" at the guy who actually gets up off the couch to not vote.

Though maybe when you crack the beer open and pick up the channel changer that counts as action. 

I dunno.... I think this topic might actually have wound down for real.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

I see a dangerous tendency to equate elections with democracy and voting with political agency. Luckily the Egyptians didn't settle for such a narrow and emptied vision of politics.

Yeah they have it really good now that they won their revolution.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&I...

Tobold Rollo-- I see you are new here-- coming in and re-framing what other people say in order to make a point against something nobody is arguing is not a way to win friends.

Please take the time to read what is being said.

The people here know there is more to democracy than elections and more to being involved in politics than voting. The lecture from someone who just arrived is unwelcome.

I hope you will stick around -- but engage people with a little less hostility at least for a little while-- build some understandings and read carefully before you go on the attack and things will be a lot nicer.

I have argued against the tendency for people to say all the politicians are the same and tune out -- you call that apathy? It isn't.

Democracy is not about each person getting perfection. Voting for an imperfect cause from the individual's point of view is not apathy either -- it is part of the democratic process -- we don't all agree but we form groups big enough to make a difference and that means each of our participants have to compromise a little to expand their units. This is true in a political party as well as in any group that wants to do something.

You choose what you are passionate about and compromise on the things you are not in order to increase the weight of what you do care about most through greater numbers. This is not a defeat this is finding common ground and advancing it. I am fed up with the people who say no compromise and then find something wrong with every party, refuse to rank them and then say -- oh well, nobody to vote for. If you truly have nobody to vote for run yourself or help someone who shares your vision or try to convince others in politics to adopt our ideas. There is no excuse with the choices we have for anyone to say they can't find a best option.

Well Freedom 55, you have to admit, the person staying home and doing nothing calling someone else apathetic for going down to a polling booth to.... do nothing....  is taking hair-splitting to an absurd length. 

And as I said (a few times) I grudgingly respect someone who claims to not be able to find someone to vote for, and abstains. And even rejecting the system on principle personally, fine. 

But to start a campaign to fool people into thinking that by doing so they might actually accomplish something, and pretending that those of us who engage politically are apathetic, fooling ourselves, or supporting "the best of the worst" or  a bad system is just a lie. And it is even more of a lie to pretend that by doing nothing you have no responsibility for the final outcome. 

Sorry, but the stakes are a bit high for pretending that you are above the issue. You want to not vote? Fine. but at least be decent enough to keep it to yourself like the other 40 percent of Canadians and 65 percent of youth who can't be bothered to vote. There is too much at stake to have any more gullible people thinking that you are offering a positive and productive choice. You are accomplishing nothing by your decision, and if you think are avoiding responsibility you are sorely mistaken. Not engaging in political decision-making is absolute failure and nothing else.

And if you claim to be politically aware it is even worse than for those who are truly apathetic because you should know better.