Parliamentary endorsement was about the same as last election: 61.4% voter turnout, up from 59.1% in 2008. Certainly no incentive for Parliament to stray from the policy status quo - especially not toward electoral reform - with satisfaction numbers like that! Voting ourselves into the abyss.
By not voting, you effectively endorsed Stephen Harper. You certainly made a statement that none of the alternatives were any better.
You really don't belong here.
Nearly 60% of voters did not vote for any of the Harpers. We need to preach this truth from the roof tops over the next four years.
The emperor is stark staring naked. Pass it on.
By not voting, you effectively endorsed Stephen Harper. You certainly made a statement that none of the alternatives were any better.You really don't belong here.
By not participating in direct action you effectively endorsed Stephen Harper. See how silly that sounds? There are many roads to social change and the idea that electoral politics in this country is the best strategy for social justice is historically false.
You did not endorse this parliament.
I didnt either.
So what? Let alone that question wasnt pn the ballot, where else was it?
By not voting, you effectively endorsed Stephen Harper. You certainly made a statement that none of the alternatives were any better.
You really don't belong here.
Hey, you voted for this Parliament, not me. There has to be a way of not endorsing the legislature and the only one that makes sense is boycotting the election that populates it.
There are many roads to social change and the idea that electoral politics in this country is the best strategy for social justice is historically false.
Best strategy for "social justice" -- debatable.
Best strategy for ensuring that an asshole doesn't become PM -- pretty self evident, isn't it?
Sure, maybe electoral politics can't fix everything. But it can sure fix who does or doesn't govern the country for the next four years.
There has to be a way of not endorsing the legislature and the only one that makes sense is boycotting the election that populates it.
That's like saying that there must be some way of protesting the steering mechanism in your car, and the best way to do that is to NOT hold on to the steering wheel. Boy, that'll sure show that steering wheel!
The Brits set up a clever system. You can't change it, unless you win it.
And a small elite can control it with almost total power.
The lower the voter turnout, the more power for Harper.
To make change, why not vote progressive, and do everything else too?
The Brits set up a clever system. You can't change it, unless you win it.
That's a British thing? Are there systems where you don't need any kind of win in order to change it? How many times a day does it get changed, under that system?
I guess I'm just having trouble picturing a system where you can change the system without having to be elected first.
Do you seriously think that they would set up a system in which all the rabble had to do was have a party that wins an election and they could change everything? Wouldn't it make much more sense to make governance beholden to the eocnomy so that no matter who won they had to govern from the right?
uh, yes our entire system evolved from British colonialism control system.
Its like capitalism, making the first million is the hardest. That is why the elites rule the world.
From what I can see, many people think they can change the system from the outside, but that ain't working.
i agree with the idea social change happens from outside the system, but seeing as voting is the least amount of effort compared to other activist activity it's a no brainer. it's the easiest thing to do and if the 40% of people--or even half that--voted in some of the more progressive politicians that would have a definite impact on certain things like labour policy, environmental policy, etc.
To me, not participating is like saying you're "apolitical" it's basically a vote for the status quo.
The only time there has ever been change is from the outside.
and yes, now its to the point even winning power the hands are tied behind their back. As people who post here know.
but people out there in the world don't know that.
but that being said, the power of a majority gov't in Canada, as we know, is a dictatorship, its not democracy. We tasted that at G20, they can shred the Constitution, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. They are the power, and they enforce the power. They got away with it, and even got a boost in the polls from G20.
By not participating in direct action you effectively endorsed Stephen Harper. See how silly that sounds? There are many roads to social change and the idea that electoral politics in this country is the best strategy for social justice is historically false.
If you want to foment revolution, go for it - but leave me out of it, thanks anyway.
What's really silly is hanging around here needling those who've put their efforts into making social change though more socially-accepted channels - even if you think the means they've chosen is second-rate strategically.
Voting isn't second rate. In the current context it's actually counter-productive.
Wha? The only change I have ever seen was from the inside. Tommy Douglas, etc.
Do you seriously think that they would set up a system in which all the rabble had to do was have a party that wins an election and they could change everything? Wouldn't it make much more sense to make governance beholden to the eocnomy so that no matter who won they had to govern from the right?
Dunno... Do you seriously think people who claim elections aren't relevant and don't bother to vote have any reason to complain or say anything at all about the outcome of elections? Doesn't make sense, but somehow I'm not surprised when they keep complaining anyway.
And as broken as the system is, seems to me the conservatives got the plurality of the vote under the FPTP system. So although it is clear you are trying to undermine the electoral system, you aren't making a lot of sense.
(and seeing as we have four years to wait until the next go-around, I wonder if you are actually going ot come up with something else to talk about in the interim)
What's really silly is hanging around here needling those who've put their efforts into making social change though more socially-accepted channels - even if you think the means they've chosen is second-rate strategically.
I thought the needling around here about getting out to vote for the NDP was a little overdone as well, but we put up with it for the most part.
Dunno... Do you seriously think people who claim elections aren't relevant and don't bother to vote have any reason to complain or say anything at all about the outcome of elections? Doesn't make sense, but somehow I'm not surprised when they keep complaining anyway.
And as broken as the system is, seems to me the conservatives got the plurality of the vote under the FPTP system. So although it is clear you are trying to undermine the electoral system, you aren't making a lot of sense.
(and seeing as we have four years to wait until the next go-around, I wonder if you are actually going ot come up with something else to talk about in the interim)
Whose complaining? Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
It's clearer than ever in today's circumstances, that any left of center parliamentary politicking conducted without the benefit of an accompanying level of pressure from the street is similar to a contender entering a prize fight with an arm missing.
No Tobold, but I do recognize that a great number of Canadians chose this, the flaws in the system notwithstanding, and whether I like the outcome or not.
And I think I have said pretty clearly already that your position - only recognizing the outcome of elections when they turn out in your favour - is ridiculous, in my opinion.
Now did you come here to gloat and act superior for having nothing to do with this process, or is there a point to all this? For someone who thinks elections are irrelevent you are pretty quick to jump in with your two cents worth.
Whose complaining? Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
As I said earlier, you don't belong here, and have no right to drop in to spit in our faces.
I think you're being far to dramatic LTJ. No one is spitting in anyone's face here.
I didn't endore this Parliment. Did you?
Why would you think your endorsement (or any individuals) makes any difference?
This Parliament IS.
Now get over it.
It remains to be seen if the election of 102 seats worth of endorsement makes any difference. The odds out of the gate aren't anything to write home about.
No Tobold, but I do recognize that a great number of Canadians chose this, the flaws in the system notwithstanding, and whether I like the outcome or not.
And I think I have said pretty clearly already that your position - only recognizing the outcome of elections when they turn out in your favour - is ridiculous, in my opinion.
Now did you come here to gloat and act superior for having nothing to do with this process, or is there a point to all this? For someone who thinks elections are irrelevent you are pretty quick to jump in with your two cents worth.
Never said elections were irrelevant. Their relevance comes from the fact that voters endorse the policies that flow from government. If you don't like the policies you have no real reason to complain..you voted for it. I don't like seeing the erosion of social democratic life in Canada legitimized because people couldn't think of option other than endorsement.
@ searosia
He's a silly narcissistic bastard in love with his ego or a Conservative troll.
Whose complaining? Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
And I seem to remember you already saying that you don't have a problem with voting - specifically that you aren't looking to get rid of peoples' right to vote. It's only when you don't like the outcome that it becomes a problem. So if this election had resulted in an outcome that meets your standards there wouldn't be a problem, but since you don't like the outcome of this one everyone who voted is to blame, no matter who we chose?
It remains to be seen if the election of 102 seats worth of endorsement makes any difference. The odds out of the gate aren't anything to write home about.
308 seats of endorsement. We're talking about the 41st Parliament, not a government or an opposition.
Whose complaining? Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
As I said earlier, you don't belong here, and have no right to drop in to spit in our faces.
LTJ
Who made you king Harper?
Whose complaining? Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
And I seem to remember you already saying that you don't have a problem with voting - specifically that you aren't looking to get rid of peoples' right to vote. It's only when you don't like the outcome that it becomes a problem. So if this election had resulted in an outcome that meets your standards there wouldn't be a problem, but since you don't like the outcome of this one everyone who voted is to blame, no matter who we chose?
Yes, I don't like it when citizens endorse the neo-liberal erosion of social democracy by voting. No apologies here.
@gv well duh ;) He seems to be promoting a "I didn't vote so my hands are cleaned of the result" attitude, I'd go with ego grasping for justification
forget it. You are up against an ego without bounds in love with self (narcissistic).
And the Harpers are still outnumbered, this time by 142 of us to 167 of them. The Harpers have a lot of airheads and people who are just plain out to lunch. No corner-cutting, private enterprising daycare could possibly handle this baby sitting job over the next four years. Reform Party retreads are going to be caught in scandals and saying dumb things which are going to cost them in four year's time. They will need a lot more than an electoral fraud machine to save them then.
forget it. You are up against an ego without bounds in love with self (narcissistic).
That's a nice way to not actually engage the argument.
Whose complaining? Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
And I seem to remember you already saying that you don't have a problem with voting - specifically that you aren't looking to get rid of peoples' right to vote. It's only when you don't like the outcome that it becomes a problem. So if this election had resulted in an outcome that meets your standards there wouldn't be a problem, but since you don't like the outcome of this one everyone who voted is to blame, no matter who we chose?
Yes, I don't like it when citizens endorse the neo-liberal erosion of social democracy by voting. No apologies here.
So you don't have a problem with voting - only when it doesn't turn out your way. And yet you blame all those voted retroactively if you don't like the result. Sorry, but your argument is completely screwed, and as far as I am concerned all you are doing here is gloating and trying to act superior.
Some of us actually worked to try to prevent this outcome, but at least I am mature enough to recognize that a large percentage (39%) of Canadians actually chose this outcome. You claim it is invalid, and that you speak for some mythical 90% of the people who are disenfranchised by the electoral system. I think that is nonsense.
And I also think that once the shock of this election has faded you won't have much more to say. Near as I can tell, you love elections because it gives you a chance to talk about the only thing you have any interest in at all.
You don't fight against neo-liberalism and for social democracy by voting in the absence of any reason for politicians to protect social democracy against neo-liberalism. You end up shooting yourself in the foot.
LTJ and George Victor, knock off your personal attacks on Tobold Rollo. His opinion is welcome here and does not deserve your abuse.
Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
Actually I voted for the NDP and the Conservatives won my riding, so no I didn't endorse this outcome.
Yes, but somehow it is okay to talk on and on with the absence of any reason or point except to act superior and blame others for something you claim you have no interest in, yet you can't stop drawing attention to.
Tobold has made his points repeatedly and exceedingly clear. It is a different issue if you do not agree with them. At any rate, the abuse of this new poster stops now.
Whose complaining? Just pointing out that if you voted you endorsed this outcome.
As I said earlier, you don't belong here, and have no right to drop in to spit in our faces.
LTJ, who does or does not belong here isn't up to you. We need diversity of opinion here, so I suggest that you either find a more respectful way to disagree, or simply stop engaging with people whose opinions you dislike.
To bring it back to the crux, Tobold, your argument makes no sense to me.
(edit)
Sorry... I am cross-posting with the mods here.
If the decision is that we should back off here, so be it.
Tobold, could you please indicate the sorts of voter turnout that you believe would provide Parliament with an incentive "to stray from the policy status quo"?
Tobold, you and George Carlin are on the same page.
I voted but I am having a harder and harder time justifying electoral politics as a method of change. Even a Layton led majority would have major constraints on it plus it would be under constant attack by the media with lies and innuendo every day. Then in the last two years of the mandate the corporate boardrooms would announce a capital strike. They actually say that the NDP policies have ruined the business climate but it is the all the same. It is a rigged game even when the left wins. I live in BC where I have heard the same lies being told by Kevin Falcon since 1996 and they are now the accepted truth. If the corporate boys would allow democracy to happen then it would be worthwhile.
I am still of the opinion that we need both a social democratic party for the pragmatic and faint of heart and a strong street movement for people who are being screwed now and don't want to wait for the New Jerusalem.
Yes, but somehow it is okay to talk on and on with the absence of any reason or point except to act superior and blame others for something you claim you have no interest in, yet you can't stop drawing attention to.
Polling threads bring out pretty much the same effect, yet no one is calling for those participants to get lost.
Elections do not equal democracy.
You dont say?
And.... ?
Yes, but somehow it is okay to talk on and on with the absence of any reason or point except to act superior and blame others for something you claim you have no interest in, yet you can't stop drawing attention to.Polling threads bring out pretty much the same effect, yet no one is calling for those participants to get lost.
For the record, I am challenging Tobold on his points, but I did not tell him to get lost.
But I suppose I have been truant regarding the title. Technically I do endorse this parliament, in that I recognize the results. I don't like them, and I think there are some parts of the system which are not fair, but I recognize that this is somewhat reflective of what Canadians want. If you want to change things, you are going to have to deal with the decision of those people one way or another. There is no imagining your way around that.
Tobold, could you please indicate the sorts of voter turnout that you believe would provide Parliament with an incentive "to stray from the policy status quo"?
I'm not sure what the threshold would be. As with all things political, the breaking point of what is called 'the crisis of legitimacy' is impossible to predict with scientific certainty.
