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.
Is this your straight faced response?
"If you participate, you endorse the outcome."
You are going to have to explain that.
If you do not participate in the system- deliberately- you are challenging its legitimacy. If I partipate, I am affirming its legitimacy, regardless of how flawed I may think it is.
But when I participate, I only agree to accept the outcomes.
So like I said, explain your aphorism... or modify it if you like.
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.
The results of the election don't bother me one way or the other. What does bother me is the general endorsement of Parliament, which includes but is not limited to the distribution of seats among parties, because progressives continue to support neo-liberalism in the hopes (against all historical evidence) that in the long run an eventual NDP government will enact progressive policies.
Is this your straight faced response?
I mean exactly what I said. Do I think it would be more accurate with a proportional system and other reforms? Of course. But until those changes are made this is what we have to deal with and I recognize the outcome as valid.
But you can't deny that 39 percent of the people voted for Harper, and no matter what you do with the electoral system you will have to deal with that political reality.
It's the rank and file that have to make the steadfast demands, more than ever now. If the project of gaining opposition status turns into just another exercise involving lackey work and compromise further and further to the right as might be anticipated, then they are no better than liberal supporters whose turncoats were found to be blue on the inside.
Somewhere between 0 and 59%. Obviously if not a single person voted there could be no legitimacy. The problem I have with the theory is that to be successful it depends on a mass movement forming to oppose the current system. If you have a mass movement then I think you need a parliamentary arm to get constitutional change. It is not working now for us that much I know. But I read enough history to know that many bitter tears were shed in every struggle as good people got crushed.
Are you from Bevan? I said from Bevan? Cause I'm from Bevan too.
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.
Hey, I find Geoge Carlin hilarious. He's a brilliant social commentator, but as a philosophy "The public sucks, fuck hope" is too bleak for my tastes. If I believed that, I wouldn't spend my time mocking others for their efforts, I'd just put a bullet in my head.
Not that I'm recommending it.
If you have a mass movement then I think you need a parliamentary arm to get constitutional change.
I don't know if constitutional change is necessary (though perhaps desirable). Most progressive gains came before 1982. And it doesn't really matter which party is in power, as Canadian history demonstrates, so long as you have the movement. Canada has one of the more robust social democracies in the world yet it has never had a social democratic party form government at the federal level.
LTJ like all threads if you don't like the topic you don't have to participate. I found your post above to be rude and uncalled for. He opened a new thread to discuss an issue of concern to him. I think we are all equal on this board and thus deserve respect.
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.
Hey, I find Geoge Carlin hilarious. He's a brilliant social commentator, but as a philosophy "The public sucks, fuck hope" is too bleak for my tastes. If I believed that, I wouldn't spend my time mocking others for their efforts, I'd just put a bullet in my head.
Not that I'm recommending it.
Unlike Carlin (though I think the over-blown pessimism was part of the bit), I have a lot of hope.
Is this your straight faced response?
I mean exactly what I said. Do I think it would be more accurate with a proportional system and other reforms? Of course. But until those changes are made this is what we have to deal with and I recognize the outcome as valid.
But you can't deny that 39 percent of the people voted for Harper, and no matter what you do with the electoral system you will have to deal with that political reality.
The political reality that matters most is that 60% of Canadians voted for 5 more years of neoliberalism (and from an indigenous perspective, colonialism) because, having been convinced that not-voting is apathetic, useless, meaningless, etc, they can see no other way to be political.
The political reality that matters most is that 60% of Canadians voted for 5 more years of neoliberalism (and from an indigenous perspective, colonialism) because, haveing been convinced that not-voting is apathetic, useless, meaningless, etc, they can see no other way to be political.
That's quite the generalization. How do you figure that people who vote don't understand any other way to be political? I'd say you are completely off base there, and I think anyone here who takes political action ofher than voting would be inclined to agree with me.
I won't even bother to flip that argument around and ask you how people who don't vote are so much more effective in their political tactics, whatever they are.
LTJ like all threads if you don't like the topic you don't have to participate. I found your post above to be rude and uncalled for. He opened a new thread to discuss an issue of concern to him. I think we are all equal on this board and thus deserve respect.
How odd that you're entitled to reprimand me for rudeness, yet I'm not allowed to mention his.
BTW, I certainly don't agree that we are all automatic "equals" here. Respect is something that is earned, and as Tobold prefers to lecture us and never deigns to debate, he earns none in my eyes.
That's quite the generalization. How do you figure that people who vote don't understand any other way to be political?
Because everytime I challenge the merits of voting in the present context I am invariably met with breathless complaints that not voting is "doing nothiing" and that there is no other way to authorize the politicians to act on our behalf than by voting for them. "What would you have us do?! Sit at home?!" That's the false dichotomy that conservatives have convinced lefties to accept.
Funny the truth of this is, if you do not vote you tacitly approve of the status quo, thus you do endorse the current parliament, full stop.
That's strange, because I don't see very many babblers viewing these election results in nearly the same way as T. Rollo. In fact, it can be claimed that only about 23.4% of voting age Canadians(39.6% of voters) have voted for more neoliberal ideology dictated to them and their provincial and territorial governments from the halls of federal power in Ottawa. And I didn't knpw that herr Harper even mentioned neoliberalism in his platform. There were a few other big lies about fixing the economy and shying away from right wing ideologues Harper was once associated with. But there were few mentions of deregulation and privatization of health care etc. Nope, few promises in that regard. Maybe some large percentage of Harper voters might not have voted for neoliberalism if they knew what it is and Harpers up-front about it.;
BTW, I certainly don't agree that we are all automatic "equals" here. Respect is something that is earned, and as Tobold prefers to lecture us and never deigns to debate, he earns none in my eyes.
Is Animal Farm your favourite book? Respect on a fuckling chat forum has to be earned? Oh master of etiquette how may I earn this. Does babble have tokens or what. How will one know when theve earned enough of this respect commodity to be able to insult people for their opinons?
@ Tobold
Hmmm.... Not sure where you pulled that idea out of. It's certainly not anything I have ever said.
I think I have mentioned numerous times that voting and other political activities are not mutually exclusive. I assure you, voting has never stopped me from organizing, writing, lobbying, petitioning, protesting, volunteering, lending financial support and other activities.
I think most of us are quite aware that voting is not the only option left for us.
And Fidel, I think he means that voting is de facto support for Harper's right-wing agenda, colonialism, and all the other great evils that go along with supporting the system.
(edit)
But only if he doesn't like the results. If he approves of them then voting is okay (if I understand correctly)
And Fidel, I think he means that voting is de facto support for Harper's right-wing agenda, colonialism, and all the other great evils that go along with supporting the system.
In another example, it follows that some percentage of people who go to hospitals are never seen again alive. Same with dentist offices. Some people are missing teeth after a visit to those torturous places of business. Therefore, why not ban hospitals and dentistry? We could save a lot of money and needless suffering by closing them down for all time. Or at least close them down until medical science figures out how to permanently cure or prevent cancer and gum disease without a hitch. Otherwise why bother? We're only kidding ourselves with striving to extend life spans in the mean time.
That's strange, because I don't see very many babblers viewing these election results in nearly the same way as T. Rollo. In fact, it can be claimed that only about 23.4% of voting age Canadians(39.6% of voters) have voted for more neoliberal ideology dictated to them and their provincial and territorial governments from the halls of federal power in Ottawa. And I didn't knpw that herr Harper even mentioned neoliberalism in his platform. There were a few other big lies about fixing the economy and shying away from right wing ideologues Harper was once associated with. But there were few mentions of deregulation and privatization of health care etc. Nope, few promises in that regard. Maybe some large percentage of Harper voters might not have voted for neoliberalism if they knew what it is and Harpers up-front about it.;
Parliament has been responsible, regardless of its party composition, for neo-liberal policies for five decades. They are the new norm, regardless of NDP strength. HArper doesn't have to describe them as such. A vote for Parliament is a vote for neoliberalism.
BTW, I certainly don't agree that we are all automatic "equals" here. Respect is something that is earned, and as Tobold prefers to lecture us and never deigns to debate, he earns none in my eyes.
The only people who aren't equals here are the moderators and admins - beyond that we all have the same powers to comment, post links and private message one another, as well as flag posts as offensive. Beyond that it is all personal and when things are personal equality is less important than perception.
One of if not the most important things I've come to learn more about from babble discussions has been provided by a handful of generous posters on the issue. Wilf Day's blog and the numerous babble threads discussing electoral reform are a wealth of information on the most crucial subject to fixing Canada's democracy, our dysfunctional electoral system. I think every babbler should take the time to inform themselves of this gold issue. Wilf and a number of other posters are well versed in the subject and have taken the time to reply to us countless times answering our various questions. And they have pursued the subject tirelessly. I think if there is one issue babblers should inform themselves of, electoral reform toward advanced proportional representation is it.
Not everyone wants to dedicate their entire lives to fixing what's wrong with the country or immerse themselves in the pro democracy movement. But I think this is one issue that should command all of our attention on the democratic left and centre and even the political right. Canadians think of themselves as democratically minded, and most all democratically minded Canadians agree that fixing our broken electoral system will contribute greatly to making this country a great bastion of democracy and widespread prosperity some day. If you believe in free markets, social democracy and modern democratic ways in general, then you should consider becoming an advocate for electoral reform toward a proportional system as recommended by the Canadian Law Society, some Canadian senators and politicians as well as academics from across the country.
Political power in the modern sense is to be shared by a variety of democratic voices representing as many Canadians as possible and not monopolized by a handful few decision makers over four years at a time. Those are the old ways, and decision-making left to a few is good for neither society nor the all important economic outcomes. Power is for sharing democratically and not hoarding among a few. It's far too risky entrusting a few with the golden ring of democracy and mocks any modern sense of the word.
I can see tobolds point..It's like the Chomski view on terror ..."If you don't like terrorism, don't participate in it"... makes sense if you don't like the result of a twisted sham of an electoral system or process don' t participate in it. Taking it furthur..the Harper government cheated to win there first one ..that government should be nullified as they broke a law to win it..hence an illegal. Government.
Of course I participated and I feel lousy today....I know the NDP will get lots of attention and probably form the next government with the newfound exposure ....I can't wait for the next election. I feel sorry for the people that are going to get eaten alive by Harper tho in the next 4-5 years.
Perhaps a movement should be born to rid ourselves of this political mess...cause when you look at the numbers 40% of 61% = 24%...that's the amount of people that decided to give absolute power to less than .0001% that will be exercising that right over the other 76%.
This is not a democracy this is a Dictocracy and at least one book was written about it. It is flawed and it is wrong....and the conservatives whinned like banshees when the liberals had this power.
BTW, I certainly don't agree that we are all automatic "equals" here. Respect is something that is earned, and as Tobold prefers to lecture us and never deigns to debate, he earns none in my eyes.
Is Animal Farm your favourite book? Respect on a fuckling chat forum has to be earned? Oh master of etiquette how may I earn this. Does babble have tokens or what. How will one know when theve earned enough of this respect commodity to be able to insult people for their opinons?
Apparently one sign is when you start to take personal offense to the term 'old guard'.
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.
That's really inaccurate, pal.
I didn't vote for "this parliament." It wasn't on the ballot. All I saw was 5 names from 5 parties. I voted for one of those candidates. Since you didn't, you clearly stated that it didn't matter to you which one of those candidates won.
End of story.
That's really inaccurate, pal.
I didn't vote for "this parliament." It wasn't on the ballot. All I saw was 5 names from 5 parties. I voted for one of those candidates. Since you didn't, you clearly stated that it didn't matter to you which one of those candidates won.
End of story.
Parliament is always on the ballot because Parliment is the ballot. By marking the ballot you endorse a party as well as the structures within which it will be operating, structures that constrain and enable it. When you buy a ticket to a hockey game you are supporting the team as well as the sport. If you don't like the direction the sport has taken (not simply the play of a particular team) then you can boycott it by not buying a ticket. You buy a ticket you have no reason to complain about the sport because you just endorsed it.
The "politics as sport" analogy is a false one, and a favorite of the right-wing infotainment industry.
The "politics as sport" analogy is a false one, and a favorite of the right-wing infotainment industry.
Is this supposed to be an argument?
That's really inaccurate, pal.
I didn't vote for "this parliament." It wasn't on the ballot. All I saw was 5 names from 5 parties. I voted for one of those candidates. Since you didn't, you clearly stated that it didn't matter to you which one of those candidates won.
End of story.
Parliament is always on the ballot because Parliment is the ballot. By marking the ballot you endorse a party as well as the structures within which it will be operating, structures that constrain and enable it. When you buy a ticket to a hockey game you are supporting the team as well as the sport. If you don't like the direction the sport has taken (not simply the play of a particular team) then you can boycott it by not buying a ticket. You buy a ticket you have no reason to complain about the sport because you just endorsed it.
Yes, but you don't oppose voting in principle - you were quite insistent with me that you didn't want to get rid of it or replace it with anything else. You only oppose it when you feel the results don't go your way.
It kind of begs the question of when the system is so broken that you want nothing to do with it, and when it is worth fighting for. I can't imagine that is a quantum shift that happens overnight in a democratic system. Because it seems you are happy to use this system when it benefits you , but when it doesn't you are blaming the people who are doing the work trying to fix things.
And it sounds like in any given election you can declare retroactively that people did the right thing or the wrong thing by voting, depending on whether you like the outcome.
Like much of your arguments, This is both contradictory and full of holes, IMO,
Is this supposed to be an argument?
More of an observation, actually. You've pretty much ignored arguments anyway.
Yes, but you don't oppose voting in principle - you were quite insistent with me that you didn't want to get rid of it or replace it with anything else. You only oppose it when you feel the results don't go your way.
It kind of begs the question of when the system is so broken that you want nothing to do with it, and when it is worth fighting for. I can't imagine that is a quantum shift that happens overnight in a democratic system. Because it seems you are happy to use this system when it benefits you , but when it doesn't you are blaming the people who are doing the work trying to fix things.
Like much of your arguments, This is both contradictory and full of holes, IMO,
I should have nipped this "you only support voting when it suits you" silliness in the bud right away. It implies that other citizens who vote do so for some reason other than to advance some goal; as if my hope that not-voting will lend itself to more social democratic outcomes is categorically different from your hope that voting will generate those same outcomes; as if a voter shifting their vote from the Liberals to the NDP when the NDP look to be the more social democratic party somehow exposes that voter as an anti-democratic fraud. Politics is about strategies for attaining goals. Our goals happen to be the same, so how is it that I am the self-interested one? It's a weak and self-defeating argument. Time to drop it.
Is this supposed to be an argument?
More of an observation, actually. You've pretty much ignored arguments anyway.
Really. I haven't been engaging arguements? I think you just don't have a good rebuttle to the analogy so your using very poor rhetorical moves to avoid it. You assert rather than argue that the analogy is false. Then, in a kind of genetic fallacy, you write off the comparison by asserting (again, rather than arguing) that it comes from spurious sources. That's just wasting people's time.
That's really inaccurate, pal.
I didn't vote for "this parliament." It wasn't on the ballot. All I saw was 5 names from 5 parties. I voted for one of those candidates. Since you didn't, you clearly stated that it didn't matter to you which one of those candidates won.
End of story.
Parliament is always on the ballot because Parliment is the ballot. By marking the ballot you endorse a party as well as the structures within which it will be operating, structures that constrain and enable it. When you buy a ticket to a hockey game you are supporting the team as well as the sport. If you don't like the direction the sport has taken (not simply the play of a particular team) then you can boycott it by not buying a ticket. You buy a ticket you have no reason to complain about the sport because you just endorsed it.
Keep in mind that the far right also suffers phobia for political change in general. They also don't believe in democracy and tend to denigrate any and all ideas of true democracy. They fear change and real democracy similar to the way fish cope when out of water.
That's really inaccurate, pal.
I didn't vote for "this parliament." It wasn't on the ballot. All I saw was 5 names from 5 parties. I voted for one of those candidates. Since you didn't, you clearly stated that it didn't matter to you which one of those candidates won.
End of story.
Parliament is always on the ballot because Parliment is the ballot. By marking the ballot you endorse a party as well as the structures within which it will be operating, structures that constrain and enable it. When you buy a ticket to a hockey game you are supporting the team as well as the sport. If you don't like the direction the sport has taken (not simply the play of a particular team) then you can boycott it by not buying a ticket. You buy a ticket you have no reason to complain about the sport because you just endorsed it.
Keep in mind that the far right also suffers phobia for political change in general. They also don't believe in democracy and tend to denigrate any and all ideas of true democracy. They fear change and real democracy similar to the way fish cope when out of water.
Yes, and the far right designed this system so many years ago so that parties entering it would be beholden, not to voters or votes, but to preferences, specifically the preferences of the far right.
I think you just don't have a good rebuttle to the analogy so your using very poor rhetorical moves to avoid it.
You're right, of course. Your simple denial is ever-so-much-more clever, isn't it?
The function of sport in society might be equivalent to the function of politics, if public politics merely functions as a "bread and circuses" distraction. However, many of us (and by far the vast majority of Canadians) believe that an effective democracy can engage the citizenry and create a dialogue that creates results for the common good. That our democracy is rather disfunctional right now is not in dispute. That the disengagement of an array of the citizenry is a probable contributing cause might be more disputable to some, but I would say not.
I think you just don't have a good rebuttle to the analogy so your using very poor rhetorical moves to avoid it.
You're right, of course. Your simple denial is ever-so-much-more clever, isn't it?
The function of sport in society might be equivalent to the function of politics, if public politics merely functions as a "bread and circuses" distraction. However, many of us (and by far the vast majority of Canadians) believe that an effective democracy can engage the citizenry and create a dialogue that creates results for the common good. That our democracy is rather disfunctional right now is not in dispute. That the disengagement of an array of the citizenry is a probable contributing cause might be more disputable to some, but I would say not.
I agree with everything you said. But I think it's because you are equating democracy with elections.
And I disagree with nearly everything you've ever said. But I think it's because of the circular arguments and arrogant dismissals.
Hey TR, back for another marathon workout with the electoral fixed-game losers I see. They voted once again for cats to run mouseland. So now the no difference party can leverage the people's pain into victory when the same ndp cuckolds submit themselves to the same game again 4 years hence. Sorry, not I. There's a sucker born every minute I guess. What a joke. Have fun!
I see that the single issue myopia, bereft of any "unnecessary" ideas or policy, is still generating threads AFTER the election. lol.
This is reminding me of the school boy argument in which some religious zealots noisily claim the "original" idea that the existence of their monotheistic deity can't be disproved.
zzzzzz
Yes, but you don't oppose voting in principle - you were quite insistent with me that you didn't want to get rid of it or replace it with anything else. You only oppose it when you feel the results don't go your way.
It kind of begs the question of when the system is so broken that you want nothing to do with it, and when it is worth fighting for. I can't imagine that is a quantum shift that happens overnight in a democratic system. Because it seems you are happy to use this system when it benefits you , but when it doesn't you are blaming the people who are doing the work trying to fix things.
Like much of your arguments, This is both contradictory and full of holes, IMO,
I should have nipped this "you only support voting when it suits you" silliness in the bud right away. It implies that other citizens who vote do so for some reason other than to advance some goal; as if my hope that not-voting will lend itself to more social democratic outcomes is categorically different from your hope that voting will generate those same outcomes; as if a voter shifting their vote from the Liberals to the NDP when the NDP look to be the more social democratic party somehow exposes that voter as an anti-democratic fraud. Politics is about strategies for attaining goals. Our goals happen to be the same, so how is it that I am the self-interested one? It's a weak and self-defeating argument. Time to drop it.
No, I don't think it's quite time to drop it yet.
You were quite ticked with me when I accused you of wanting to get rid of voting, and you said I was mistaken. Then you said quite clearly that you think voting sometimes serves democracy, and that sometimes it does not.
So if you are going to accuse people of supporting colonialism and other things you don't like by voting, I think it is fair to look at what you are basing those claims on, because I don't think you are being consistent here. And furthermore, I don't think your argument is fair to a lot of people who are trying to effect change in our political system.
(edit)
And sorry, not that I think there's a huge crowd paying attention to this, but here's the source, around post 111:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/boycott-les-elections-boycott-...
Wait, I don't even have any hope for Canada getting proportional representation any time in the forseeable future but we should forget all the baby steps and jump straight to trying to get people to opt out of the system entirely? I'd rather work on making everyone vegetarian, that would have more chance of happening.
You have to admit it's almost Seinfeld-like; a political debate about doing nothing electorally speaking bereft of any unnecessary discussion of policy and other distractions. lol.
maybe next time things will finally work out - just keep shuffling those deck-chairs...
'no better, no worse, no change..'
Sam Beckett
maybe next time things will finally work out - just keep shuffling those deck-chairs...
'no better, no worse, no change..'
Sam Beckett
"I can't go on. I must go on." Sam Beckett
You have to admit it's almost Seinfeld-like; a political debate about doing nothing electorally speaking bereft of any unnecessary discussion of policy and other distractions. lol.
Doing nothing electorally, but not necessarily about doing nothing. Every act or inaction can expose a political undercurrent, even the forming of acquaintences and friendships, going door to door, or having a discussion that others might chance upon.
Suer thing, lefties. Because isn't that what Marx said to do - takeover the offshored mills and factories? Did Marx advise us to protest like hell to our absentee corporate landlords with head offices increasingly located in the USA since the 1980s? Who was the Marx genie who said it matters not if the owners of the means are Canadian or American, Indian or Brazilian? What did he say to do when the banksters overthrow industrial capitalists for control of the country? What did he say about marauding international capital and neoliberal ideology? What? Did he suggest that we deride the NDP for daring to challenge a stoogeaucracy, a bunch of political marionettes whose strings extend all the way to marble clad banks on Bay Street, Wall Street and imperial head office in Warshington?
In case anyone is wondering why I'm "picking on the newbie", it's because I saw this trainwreck coming a month ago. All I could do was hope that the Liberals weren't going to collapse completely - but they did - and try to warn people of the possibility and swing the vote - but I couldn't.
There's more than one reason I failed, but one reason is the lazy, stupid arrogant assholes who justify their apathy as activism. Fuck them for electing Harper. Fuck them for 'winning', Charlie Sheen-style.
OK. Tobold...since turnout barely increased at all, it looks like you sort of got your way. Any brilliant ideas now? If you want direct action, you might consider being, well, direct with us about what you'd like to see people do now. Canada's gonna need a culture of resistance big time, so why don't you lay some big ideas on us?
This is your big break in show business, kiddo.
You have to admit it's almost Seinfeld-like; a political debate about doing nothing electorally speaking bereft of any unnecessary discussion of policy and other distractions. lol.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that..."
ironic, the more progressives boycott voting, the more power Harperites gain, to make our fake democracy even worse.
voting takes 5 minutes, if a progressive can't be bothered to do that, there is nothing left to say.
of course voting is the least one can do, but it takes 5 minutes.
but this is why we are screwed, no one on the right boycotts voting.
