Except that many who do not vote are in fact lazy.
And many who vote are also lazy. Lets face it most of us are lazy and love being told that we are.
Clearly the number one motivator for young people, if you want to get them to do anything, is to tell them they are lazy. Works every time.
And I didn't realize that 40% of the Canadian population (70% during municipal elections) are "lazy." No wonder our economy is in such dire straits!
Except that many who do not vote are in fact lazy or apathetic. ANyone hwo has done any canvassing knows that is a fact.
Those for whom this is a political issue, and want it to be recognized as such, might want to reconsider their strategy. After all, there are plenty of disaffected voters who already register that by spoiling ballots.
Or refuse the damn thing. You don't even have to touch it if it will get your fingers dirty, but at least be engaged enough to show up and let people know where you stand.
Except that many who do not vote are in fact lazy.
And many who vote are also lazy. Lets face it most of us are lazy and love being told that we are.
Clearly the number one motivator for young people, if you want to get them to do anything, is to tell them they are lazy. Works every time.
Did you read what I said? Did you understand it?
I am trying to make the distinction between those who really can't be bothered (and there ARE many) and those who feel disaffected or have a political opposition to casting a ballot.
YOu could also ask how many people don't vote because they feel intimidated, are afraid they will be challenged or turned away, feel they can't make it to their poll during the allotted time, or don't feel comfortable dealing with the paperwork.
At least if it is the law that everyone who can has to show his or her face at a polling station there are no questions or doubts about legitimacy, and the onus would also be on the state to accommodate those who feel shut out for those reasons.
And I don't care about this because I think it might benefit my side, whatever that is, and that if is benefitted someone else I'd be against it. It's not my business who other people vote for, or even if they do want to spoil that ballot..
People are too lazy to try to understand what is being said by those who say they are too lazy. Did I get that right? 
A new breeze is becoming a wind of change in this frozen Puerto Rico, and it's about time we had genuine political opposition in Ottawa.
It's a big country this semi-frozen Puerto Rico.
I assume you're trying to make a point here about Canada, but I'm not entirely sure what that point is.
How are we Puerto Rico?
Is being Puerto Rico something positive or negative?
If it's negative; is it appropriate to use Puerto Rico as an epithet?
Canada is a larger version of Puerto Rico according to a fairly well known Canadian who wrote about a number of fairly well known proponents of FTA-NAFTA. A number of those prominent Canadians have since decided against those bad trade deals and for a lot of reasons concerning everything from Canada's energy policies dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America to issues surrounding global warming, poverty, and economic soveriegnty lost since 1988-94.
We can't blame that Canadian author for describing Canada as a Puerto Rico du Nord because many proponents of Mulroney's FTA and NAFTA deals once thought that becoming a 51st state would make Canada richer. But instead of becoming a prosperous northern US state as a result of FTA and NAFTA we are in danger of becoming a larger version of the 30 some-odd bankrupt US states today with Ottawa as well as several provinces saddled with unprecedented debt and budget deficits.
I would say our stooges are running Canada a lot like a banana republic instead of another Puerto Rico. But I can certainly understand that there are many similarities between the way Puerto Rico has things dictated to them from Washington and the way our stooges in Ottawa acquiesce to similar US whims when it comes to Canada, or "the ice box" filled with natural resource wealth and guarded by chihuahuas. The Yanks view our Northern Puerto Rico as such and wide open for corporate America to raid at will as some US Militarists once referred to Canada. But in many ways Canada is not a real G8 economy and stuck in the past WRT everything from our old world hewer and drawer status to weak and ineffective politicians running the country into the ground on behalf of a corporatocracy and handful of banks, a few Bay Street bond salesmen etc.
Yeah, I get all that. I just think the underlying power dynamics of that analogy are a bit fucked.
/thread drift
I guess you missed the "laughing" smiley.
@ Boomboom
No, I think you are making that bit up, or projecting, or throwing monkey shit. I think I have been clear enough about my respect for a someone's personal option to spoil a ballot and reject the process .
The question I am posing is that if what those people are doing really means something, and they aren't just sulking, they might want to take action to see that other recognize it as such.
After all, we don't get all up in arms about our right to not file taxes, have a social insurance number, get a drivers license, fill out a census, or any number of other things which we are compelled to do, but which don't actually infringe on our personal freedom very much if at all.
Though I forgot, in #54, to mention that mandatory voting might also help those who might be compelled by others in their household to not vote. And I realize that is not a great number, but it is just one more good reason.
[url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6906/is_2_28/ai_n28281626/]The case for mandatory voting in Canada[/url] 2005
Voter turn out has been on the decline in Canada since the 1960s, reaching a record low of just 60.9 per cent in the 2004 election. Other Western democracies are also experiencing the same dramatic drop. Only 55.3 per cent of Americans voted in the 2004 presidential election, and the 2001 British general election recorded a turnout of just 57.6 per cent.
But we can be sure that Americans and Brits are happier 'n pigs in muck with their FPTP democracies. Surely they are not frustrated by federal governments less and less accountable to the public and taking voters for granted.
Research gathered by the Association for Canadian Studies also indicates that the low turnout rate effectively disenfranchises a large number of Canadians. A study done after the last election found voter turnout ranged from 62.7 per cent to 75.4 per cent in the nine ridings with the highest average income in the country. The nine ridings with the lowest average income experienced a turnout rate from 45.1 per cent to 61.5 per cent. Whose voices are being heard? Perhaps, more importantly, whose voices are not being heard?
It's about disenfranchising large numbers of Canadians who feel there is nothing to vote for and nothing to protect from 22-24 percenters seizing power or ruling by right wing coalitions feigning substantial differences in party policies in Ottawa.
No, voter turnouts in Canada are pretty much where the right wants them to be. Low voter turnouts and an electoral fraud machine known as first-past-the-ghost go hand in hand with a kind of synergism that maintains plutocracy long time. Projecting an illusion of democracy is what's important.
And Canadian voter turnout wasn't much better from 2008 to 2011 randomly scheduled elections on short term notice. Fixed election dates are another important part of fair and democratic elections according to Canada's http://www.dwatch.ca and something that Stephen Harper has avoided making law of the land for sake of his own short-term political gain.
Well layton and Ignatief seemed to think that the attack ads were supressing the left wing vote. And May did too. "You have the right to healthcare and you have the right to refuse healthcare". And the next step is rich people getting an exemption from paying their premiums for health care. I am not saying you do not have the right to refuse to vote. Non voting has a cost to society and if you don't vote, you are letting your country down. Indeed you are showing contempt to your country.
In the Australian system, you have the right to refuse to do your civic duty, it just happens to have have an immediate cost to the individual. In Canada, the immediate cost to the individual is nothing but the cost to society is a Harper Majority Government. Older people vote. They will wheel to the voting stations on oxygen if they have to to put their x beside the conservative brand. But young people! They use the same pathetic excuses as people are using here. "Voting~! For fuck sake! Hand me my bucket of sand."
Civics, your duty to society is probably not thought in School now. A couple of years ago an old woman got on a bus and I got up and let her have my seat. NOBODY ELSE DID! (young people). I have done this for poor old ladies and also for my MP. Young people are also ignorant of their duty to vote and they need the stick approach. In Fiji, they toss young people off the busses for being rude to older folk. And in many countries there are pretty serious implications if you do not vote. Anyway, the lesson is Civics, your duty to society. They young people are not voting because they can get away with it. You are young and wild and anti establishment so maybe you get a kick from not participating! But it is moronic behaviour
Meanwhile, The older conservatives are voting at risk to their lives. Thats what Harper wants. Compulsory voting will get the young people in to the routine of voting early in their lives. Democracy is worth voting for and worth fighting for, the fewer people who participate, the weaker it becomes. Canadians got handed democracy by the departing British so it seems they have no respect for the duties that it requires.
Ok, so I asked you provide proof of the claims you made in your original response to my post and you come back with a civics lesson. Maybe you don't get it from my handle but I have been quite active in politics for over 25 years and I don't need a fucking civics lesson from you. You can either answer the questions posed and provide the proof and stats requested to back up your claims or it becomes nothing but another individual opinion and just another asshole trying to tell me how to live my life and wanting to pass laws the take away my right to make choices. You can ramble on with all the rhetoric in the world about why YOU think voting should be made mandatory in hopes it will benefit you but trying to pass a law for that reason is just as bad as the cons trying to pass anti-abortion laws.
Now just to help you out in getting to know who you are talking to here is a little about me. I am a fiscally conservative social liberal with some libertarian leanings. I have a strong sense of social responsibility while maintaing individual rights and responsibilities. I have been involved with many groups of the last 2 decades ranging from the freeman movement to Canada Uncut (where I presently am a member of the leader's working group) and have been involved in the political process from campaigning and working polling stations to advisory committees to protesting. I have pride in my ability to take good ideas from across the political spectrum as good ideas no matter where they come from. I am a member of no party but usually vote leftist, and I do vote so your law wouldn't really make a difference to me other than I find it offensive to be told I have to or face penalties.
So you can have another go at providing some facts and evidence of what you claim to be true but I doubt you will. I find people like yourself like to spew various versions of what you believe to be true without ever backing up the claims to be one of the biggest detriments to our political system there is. You use this style to play on emotion, usually your own, to further your own ends and as much as you say you want an informed electorate you want them to vote for your philosophy rather than any substantial policies or ideas.
Yeah, I get all that. I just think the underlying power dynamics of that analogy are a bit fucked./thread drift
Well for a minute there I thought you were offended by references to Canada as a Northern Puerto Rico and ready to correct me on something or other. But thanks for mucho do about nought.
Another part of the problem, and excuse me for ignoring your invitation to discuss underlying power dynamics or whatever, is that a large number of the underclass in Canada are able to at least buy some of the things owned by middle and even upper class Canadians. We can't buy those baubles and toys outright like those with higher incomes can afford, so we put them on tick with credit cards and pay for the baubles and useless plastic widgets over longer periods of time. This is how class conflict is avoided and at the same time, ripping off and transferring billions of dollars from poor to rich people ever year through usury and compound interest and the bullshit neoliberal ideology for expansion of financial services. But that's just my opinion. Maybe you have something terribly important to say about 'power dynamics'?
The question I am posing is that if what those people are doing really means something, and they aren't just sulking, they might want to take action to see that other recognize it as such.
Ok, got it now. Forced voting with a slightly more comprehensive ballot:
- Conservative
- Liberal
- NDP
- Bloc
- Green
- Rhino
- Communist
- Independent
- None of the above
- Spoiled ballot
- I oppose this unfair voting system - awaiting reform and PR
- I didn't vote last time because I'm lazy.
- I didn't vote last time, but not because I'm lazy.
- I'm too lazy to figure out which of these boxes to check, so thanks for including Box #14!
- Someone paid me $25 to vote [insert name of party] - I took the money, then noticed Box #15! Joke's on him!
- I want to defeat Harper at all costs - why is there no choice that says that? Oh hey, I just noticed Box #16! Merci!!
- I'm only here because of the new fucked-up law that says I'll be put on a terror watch list or something if I don't vote.
Unionist, I don't believe the stoogeaucracy would dare insult non-voters with those ballot choices. They just don't want that many people all thinking about democracy over the course of a snap election call for short-term political gain on the right. No, those millions of Canaidans who don't bother are doing exactly what they are bred and led not to on one crucial day every four years when their actions might possibly count for something in this semi-frozen Puerto Rico where even Polar bears are homeless now.
YOu could also ask how many people don't vote because they feel intimidated, are afraid they will be challenged or turned away, feel they can't make it to their poll during the allotted time, or don't feel comfortable dealing with the paperwork.
I think the population of non-voters has a lot of people in this category. I have been trying to find a study which shows that a person voting in one election is a significant causal agent for them voting in following elections. I read it somewhere but cannot find it on the internet.
Having taken 21 young people to the polls this time, I heard some funny things. When asked which poll he was in, one said the poll where you voted NDP. Another yelled from behind the voting booth, with her ballot in her hand, "where is Jack Layton? I can't find him on this ballot." After that incident I described to the others what it was like to vote before we got to the polling station.
I believe a lot of non-voters think voting is a lot more onerous than it is because they have never done it. There are some disaffected and/or lazy voters but I think that the population is much smaller than those who just haven't done it before and are afraid of going for the first time.
Ok, got it now. Forced voting with a slightly more comprehensive ballot:
- Conservative
- Liberal
- NDP
- Bloc
- Green
- Rhino
- Communist
- Independent
- None of the above
- Spoiled ballot
- I oppose this unfair voting system - awaiting reform and PR
- I didn't vote last time because I'm lazy.
- I didn't vote last time, but not because I'm lazy.
- I'm too lazy to figure out which of these boxes to check, so thanks for including Box #14!
- Someone paid me $25 to vote [insert name of party] - I took the money, then noticed Box #15! Joke's on him!
- I want to defeat Harper at all costs - why is there no choice that says that? Oh hey, I just noticed Box #16! Merci!!
- I'm only here because of the new fucked-up law that says I'll be put on a terror watch list or something if I don't vote.
I think the NDP should push for a law requiring the broadcasting consortium to have representatives of all 17 of these positions at the debates.
You listed the reasons that you "think" people don't vote. Some are just too darn lazy. Why are you blaming Jack laton because people do not trot out the door? Blame the non voters. Why are you calling them an electorate if they don't vote? And people keep assuming they are uninformed and this is supposedly a good excuse to shirk their duty as Canadians!
How do you propose to fix the Crevice? I mean, lets get real. Compulsory voting is a proven method to increase the vote. People are using pathetic objections as cover for laziness and sloth.
Absolutely not. The voting crisis in Canada is the result of an electorate which feels marginalized by the people who represent them, which feels disinfranchised to the point that they don't see voting as a viable political act, and which hasn't been given adequate tools to become motivated or informed enough to vote. The idea that this deep crevice in our democratic system can be fixed by forcing people to vote is ludicrous. It's taxidermy. It's like stuffing the dead canary in the mineshaft.
Apparently the percentage of spoiled ballots is low in countries where voting is mandatory. So this argument that says it would only result in the uninformed rabble, the "great unwashed" in so many words making mock of our bs electoral system is baseless really.
I think the political right is afraid of creating widespread interest in democracy. Afterall, the handful of English speaking countries are the last bastions of far right political conservatism in the world. This is their last stand in the world and now resorting to military attacks and occupations of resource-rich countries as their answer to the end of a cold war. Empires in decline don't usually make significant moves toward modern democracy before finally collapsing. Corruption is rampant near the end and political stooges are obligated to help elites sack and loot before absconding with stolen booty. And it is a corrupt petro state as Monbiot described the current state of affairs in Canada.
A study done after the last election found voter turnout ranged from 62.7 per cent to 75.4 per cent in the nine ridings with the highest average income in the country. The nine ridings with the lowest average income experienced a turnout rate from 45.1 per cent to 61.5 per cent. Whose voices are being heard? Perhaps, more importantly, whose voices are not being heard?
Perhaps that relationship is as much about access as engagement. I imagine most high income earners have few material barriers to going and taking a half hour to vote.
For those talking about tax credits, I'm not sure that a $10 tax credit would be much incentive for the demographics we're trying to reach.
I think it would mostly be a bad idea.
However, I can appreciate the argument that IF voting is a civic duty, then that civic duty should be codified in the laws.
I guess you missed the "laughing" smiley.
Ooops
Well I have to admit you go tme there. Sorry. Though My eyes are a bit too old to catch those teenytiny emoticons.
*smiling, too*
and @ Unionist #62
Or at least mandatory (forced sounds a little bit too much like a death sentence) showing up at the polls to declare your intenttion, even if that means refusing a ballot.
I get that you are joking too, but I don't see any problem with that.
Well I have to admit you go tme there. Sorry. Though My eyes are a bit too old to catch those teenytiny emoticons.
I didn't mean offense, I thought one or two posts above mine were poking fun at the thread, and I joined in. My eyes aren't that great, either - I'm using new glasses, and I have to go to Blanc Sablon next week for something called a "visual field" - I have no idea what that is.
You are young and wild and anti establishment so maybe you get a kick from not participating! But it is moronic behaviour
I hear you about young people having poor mannersm adn not respecting their elders. But--do you think young people have much reason to be pro establishment?
Do you think the establishment and the generations in charge are instilling respect in young people? Or resentment? Monkey see monkey do.
A study done after the last election found voter turnout ranged from 62.7 per cent to 75.4 per cent in the nine ridings with the highest average income in the country. The nine ridings with the lowest average income experienced a turnout rate from 45.1 per cent to 61.5 per cent. Whose voices are being heard? Perhaps, more importantly, whose voices are not being heard?
Perhaps that relationship is as much about access as engagement. I imagine most high income earners have few material barriers to going and taking a half hour to vote.
Single mothers on low income. They would have to either leave the kid at home unattended in order to vote or find a baby sitter. And many live in the 200 or so ridings across Canada deemed "safe seats". The dynamics for low voter turnouts is a complicated one in Bananada. They have their grey haired support and so making it easier for retired people to vote is the extent of their interest in making things easier for people on election day.
However, I can appreciate the argument that IF voting is a civic duty, then that civic duty should be codified in the laws.
I think fines would be more incentive, like their fining us for not completing the Lockheed census. They want to separate their own suspect interests in the lives of Canadians from actually stirring us toward thoughts of democracy one day every four years or whenever snap election calls are made in order to reduce the length of time for election campaigning and having too many people thinking about election day in general. Remember, as few changes as possible are in order to maintain the absurdly non mathematical electoral system.
Question: under a different voting system (PR?) would there more incentive for the masses to vote?
And your reason for letting the non voting NDP ers stay at home (and help harper get another majority) is? A glib answer without a reason is a bit unreasonable, don't you think?
I guess I am referring to the no sayers. Are you trying to lose the next election too?
If that is your concerm, why not just make voting for the NDP compulsory and then we'll never get another Harper majority?
Question: under a different voting system (PR?) would there more incentive for the masses to vote?
I think that generally there are higher voter turnouts in countries with PR. Not by a lot on average but significant jts. Every vote is counted equally by PR systems. They can vote for whichever party or candidate they wish to and without fear that their vote will be cancelled, wasted or both.
But someone also said that there is another important correlation with higher voter turnouts and especially in Nordic social democracies. And it goes that people will vote to protect social democracy from political conservatism or neoconservative reforms as a rule. And in Sweden and Denmark, Finland Norway etc, there is more to protect than here with higher percentages of GDP allocated to social spending than in Canada or US where turnouts are lower. IOWs, Danes and Swedes etc feel they are receiving something important in return for paying higher taxes. Canada is middle of the pack among OECD countries as far as overall taxation levels are concerned, and so are our voter turnouts mediocre to abysmal.
I think one of the most important things about PR is that elections are more competitive. Neither political conservatives nor those on the left are able to take voters for granted as is the case here. Politicians in those countries are forced to appeal to a broader range of voters. The results are not perfect, but what we have here in the far west is obviously broken and in need of a range of democratic reforms in order to promote democracy.
The problem with this idea that I keep coing back to as I think about it is it seems that most of the proponents of forced voting believe that all those who don't vote will show up and vote NDP. I'm sure that is not the case and so have asked for eveidence or factual proof or statistics of the non-voter demographic which no-one sems to want to provide.
The assumptions being made that the'lazy' (nice terminoligy) are all from the left would actually lead me to say then the left is right where it deserves to be. Be real for a minute and stop living on philosophy, if half of your demographic doesn't turn out to vote, for whatever reason they may personally have, do you really desrve to be in a majority position?
I will also restate my position that having the right to choose not to vote is just as important and democratic as having the right to vote. Democracy is about making choices based upon your individual beliefs and if someone's belief is they don't care to vote then that is their choice to make.
The problem with this idea that I keep coing back to as I think about it is it seems that most of the proponents of forced voting believe that all those who don't vote will show up and vote NDP.
I don't think that is the case at all, and that is not my motivation.
Fidel: thanks for answering my question. 
no, no and fuck no!! It's an unjustifiable imposition on personal freedom.
Yeah, and moreover, opponents of the Nude Ems will say, "Look, they're just like the Russian commies, forcing us to vote!"
Speaking of which , there are only a few more hours to take part in Nude Gardening Day, Unless you are partial to Nude Gardening Night.
I give up after giving it more thought. we need to create employment. We can hire a lot of college graduates who are underemployed and get them to chase those lazy assholes who not only don't vote but probably dropped out of high school to. Imagine some of them are so lazy they think this society holds absolutely nothing for them. Now thats lazy thinking.
Lets have a special force to deal with aboriginal deviators since they are amongst the least likely in our society to vote. But not only them we need to pay attention to the Doukabours in the Kooteneays who still don't believe in voting.
Unless you have designed a "laziness" test to sort the people with.
Voting is basic component of democratic participation. It is a moral imperative. If non-voting is reaching a level that it is severely distorting the choices society makes, then making it mandatory makes sense. The important thing is not to eliminate any choices people will make.
I don't know if an election of everyone voting would be more progressive, left or whatever. That isn't the issue. Right now politicians are tailoring their politics to demographics that vote and demographics that don't vote are not receiving the attention they need (not deserve - need).
You missed this bit when you gave your unreasonable answer. "A glib answer without a reason is a bit unreasonable, don't you think?"
And your reason for letting the non voting NDP ers stay at home (and help harper get another majority) is? A glib answer without a reason is a bit unreasonable, don't you think?
I guess I am referring to the no sayers. Are you trying to lose the next election too?
If that is your concerm, why not just make voting for the NDP compulsory and then we'll never get another Harper majority?
no, no and fuck no!! It's an unjustifiable imposition on personal freedom.
If people can't get off their asses and make it down to a poll, then I don't want them to vote. They don't deserve the vote and the rest of us don't deserve their vote. Chances are they don't care about politics and aren't very well informed.
Some people seem to think that more people voting = stronger democracy. It doesn't. If democracy starts and ends with voting, it sucks. More people involved = stronger democracy. Voting does not necessarily = involvement.
This pretty much says it. If people don't want to vote of their own free will, I'm pretty sure I don't want them deciding anything for me.
I don't know who people who don't show up would vote for and I don't know who they are but the politicians (who watch the polling stations) know. They will have them catogarized to the nth degree. And that is a reason for compulsory voting. Those sectors of society who mostly populate the non voting sector will always get the shitty end of the stick. But if there is compulsory voting, the politicians cannot ever easily identify sectors of society that they can safely screw anymore.
By the way most of south america has compulsory voting. So do we just label Argentina and Brazil as anti democratic just because they have compulsory voting? Seems a little harsh.
I would think that any threatened ethnic minority anywhere would benifit from compulsory voting. Arn't they the ones who vote least?
Politicalnick has this running joke about the statistics about the non voting demographic. Anyone in a party want to tell him? After all "knowing your voters" means knowing your non voters too. It is probably sensitive info but someone might blab.
The problem with this idea that I keep coing back to as I think about it is it seems that most of the proponents of forced voting believe that all those who don't vote will show up and vote NDP. I'm sure that is not the case and so have asked for eveidence or factual proof or statistics of the non-voter demographic which no-one sems to want to provide.
The assumptions being made that the'lazy' (nice terminoligy) are all from the left would actually lead me to say then the left is right where it deserves to be. Be real for a minute and stop living on philosophy, if half of your demographic doesn't turn out to vote, for whatever reason they may personally have, do you really desrve to be in a majority position?
I will also restate my position that having the right to choose not to vote is just as important and democratic as having the right to vote. Democracy is about making choices based upon your individual beliefs and if someone's belief is they don't care to vote then that is their choice to make.
How do you know free will is involved? If hubby farmer is conservative and the missus (who doesn't drive) is ndp, what makes you think he will bring her to the polling station 20 miles away? And that goes for sons and daughters too. By law we are allowed 3 consecutive hours to vote. For 9 to 5 workers that means with polling stations open 7 to 7 you have an hour off. (Is that paid time?)
no, no and fuck no!! It's an unjustifiable imposition on personal freedom.
If people can't get off their asses and make it down to a poll, then I don't want them to vote. They don't deserve the vote and the rest of us don't deserve their vote. Chances are they don't care about politics and aren't very well informed.
Some people seem to think that more people voting = stronger democracy. It doesn't. If democracy starts and ends with voting, it sucks. More people involved = stronger democracy. Voting does not necessarily = involvement.
This pretty much says it. If people don't want to vote of their own free will, I'm pretty sure I don't want them deciding anything for me.
Question: under a different voting system (PR?) would there more incentive for the masses to vote?
I think that generally there are higher voter turnouts in countries with PR. Not by a lot on average but significant jts. Every vote is counted equally by PR systems. They can vote for whichever party or candidate they wish to and without fear that their vote will be cancelled, wasted or both.
Not entirely true, as it depends on the electoral threshhold (implicit or explicit).
What are you going to do when it only brings the vote from 55% to 70%. How are you going to enforce this? Or do you believe you can actually change the behaviour of 45% of citizens by merely degreeing it to be and waving your magic wand?
I note that it has not prevented the neo conservatives from dismantling the safety net there either. So not only is your idea cohersive it will likely not have any better outcomes than in Australia.
I note that it has not prevented the neo conservatives from dismantling the safety net there either. So not only is your idea cohersive it will likely not have any better outcomes than in Australia.
AV? Australia? WTH? We're regressing. Why not PR + mandatory voting? And a free beach pass to surf n turf barbeques for everyone who votes, too.
No!
Spoken from the gut! I don't see a lot of reasoning going on, gut feelings are probably based on hot air or your last meal. Perhaps if you drop the emotion and write down the pros and cons, the No! will lose the exclamation mark and maybe even turn positive.
I have seen hungry sheep strongly object to going into a new field of tall sweet grass. When they are finally convinced that it is not a trick, they speed through the gate. My da used to say "there is nothing as thick (stoopid) as a sheep" as we tried to contain the dumb animals near the gate.
I am not sure I agree with him.
No!
Okay, I don't feel that compulsory voting is a good idea because:
1. I don't see voting as a civic duty. If choosing which faction of the ruling class gets to administer capitalism over you isn't your cup of tea, then why should you be forced to?
2. Many people have cultural, religious or political objections to participating in elections. For example, people who feel that no party on the ballot represents their views or interests, some indigenous people who feel that settler elections don't have any legitimacy, etc.
3. If there are penalties for not voting, or rewards given for voting by the state, it would essentially be a form of discrimination based on political views.
4. There are questions about how this would be enforced. Would someone who found themselves for whatever reason unable to vote (say, some sort of emergency the morning of election day) be subject to the same penalties as someone who decided to sit on the couch and watch a Jersey Shore marathon all day? How would it be determined whether to enforce compulsory voting or not in specific cases?
5. I don't see compulsory voting as automatically leading to a more progressive outcome. For example, one of Brian White's arguments is that making voting compulsory will stop Stephen Harper from winning, therefore anyone who doesn't support compulsory voting is enabling a Harper victory. But did compulsory voting stop John Howard in Australia? Did it stop the neoliberal agenda in Australia? No and No.
6. I don't see low voter turnout rates as a problem in and of themselves. They might be a symptom of a larger problem, whether that is dissatisfaction, alienation, apathy or whatever, but it's better to target the actual problem rather than just a symptom of it.
7. Because poor people, indigenous people, and others who have reason to feel alienated from the political process (because in many ways, they are) are less likely to vote, applying penalties to not voting would disproportionately affect people who are already in a precarious position.
Summary of the 100 Undemocratic and Accountability Loopholes in Canada's Federal Government(see long list of loopholes Federal governments and corporations have driven transport trucks full of money, influence and favouritism through during elections and every other day in between elections)
It's about the democracy gap that has become a canyon in our Northern Puerto Rico.
How do you know free will is involved? If hubby farmer is conservative and the missus (who doesn't drive) is ndp, what makes you think he will bring her to the polling station 20 miles away? And that goes for sons and daughters too. By law we are allowed 3 consecutive hours to vote. For 9 to 5 workers that means with polling stations open 7 to 7 you have an hour off. (Is that paid time?)
no, no and fuck no!! It's an unjustifiable imposition on personal freedom.
If people can't get off their asses and make it down to a poll, then I don't want them to vote. They don't deserve the vote and the rest of us don't deserve their vote. Chances are they don't care about politics and aren't very well informed.
Some people seem to think that more people voting = stronger democracy. It doesn't. If democracy starts and ends with voting, it sucks. More people involved = stronger democracy. Voting does not necessarily = involvement.
This pretty much says it. If people don't want to vote of their own free will, I'm pretty sure I don't want them deciding anything for me.
There may in fact be some cases where hubby farmer is NDP and the missus (who doesn't drive) is Conservative, so I think your point is more rhetorical than anything else. You're trying to switch the topic from compulsory voting to compulsion for somebody (who?) to drive you to the polling station, which is a different subject.
If you think you're not going to be able to take time to vote on election day, you can vote in an advance poll: these are typically on weekends, so many people who can't make time Monday to Friday can vote then.
Having said that, there might be merit in allowing voting over the Internet if it could be done securely, since it would be more convenient than going to a polling station.
It's about the forcible extraction of as much false legitimacy as possible from that segment of the population which chooses to resist being used as pawns within an illegitimate process. It's not about the closing any democracy gap whatsoever, so much as it has to do with the cooking up of yet another selfish partisan scheme. It's about securing a potential share of whatever additional leverage there is to be gained from rendering illegal the act of protest against a facade of democracy. What it does demonstrate is the ease to which these supposed fans of democracy would reinforce totalitarianism under the pretext of strengthening it. It shows us that another type of doublespeak democracy awaits should their representatives ever achieve power.
SJ, I heartily agree with your whole post, except the last sentence - even though it too may be accurate.
The body politic has a serious problem given that almost 50% of adults think it is irrelevant to their lives. The cure is apparently not to engage them and make politicos more relevant but to prosecute them to prove to them that politics has at least that much relevance in their lives.
Brian you keep ignoring the central issue. What the fuck do you do to the people with no money and no interest in going to the polls. Are you going to arrest them for disobeying? It seems to me if it is an unenforced law it will have as much compliance as seat belt laws and drinking driving laws had until we started road checks and fines. Before that a large numbers of drivers didn't bother even though those problems were leading to deaths. Think cell phone use. Just because you play dictator for a day and enact degrees doesn't mean the population will obey.
So one more time Brian if you get this law I will ignore it and not vote for the first time in 40 years. I will also refuse to pay any fine. What are you proposing to do to me?
It's about the forcible extraction of as much false legitimacy as possible from that segment of the population which chooses to resist being used as pawns within an illegitimate process. It's not about the closing any democracy gap whatsoever, so much as it has to do with the cooking up of yet another selfish partisan scheme. It's about securing a potential share of whatever additional leverage there is to be gained from rendering illegal the act of protest against a facade of democracy. What it does demonstrate is the ease to which these supposed fans of democracy would reinforce totalitarianism under the pretext of strengthening it. It shows us that another type of doublespeak democracy awaits should their representatives ever achieve power.
I'm sorry... you just called me totalitarian?
That's completely laughable. I suppose somewhere in that leap I support the kicking of dogs, the poisoning of wells and the bayonetting of children, too.
Because I think it is a good idea for it to be mandatory for you to go down to the polling station so you can spoil your ballot, or make a public show of refusing it so everyone knows how you feel?
"Act of protest" seems to imply that you have something to say, and if that is true, and you aren't just pouting it seems to me this is an opportunity. As I have said in these many threads I don't have a problem with your personal decision to spoil or even REFUSE a ballot (which is a valid choice at the polling station, and seems to be the same as what you are doing right now).
My question is whether it has any effect or significance, and I am a bit confused that you wouldn't want to do something that demonstates that you aren't one of those people who just don't care and can't be bothered to vote.
And I think I have given some solid reasons why mandatory voting would help some people who are now intimidated or prevented from voting (and I don't care how many of them want to vote for Harper).
Because I fail to see the difference between your position and that of our Prime Minister, who just cut the mandatory long form census because of people who don't like the imposition on their freedoms.
And I fail to see how it is different from religious fundamentalists who call social insurance numbers the mark of the beast.
You think voting is lending legitimacy to a broken system and that enforcing the act of going to a polling station is bowing to totalitarianism? I presume you bend that rule a bit when you file your taxes every year, when you got your health card, and your SIN, and when you filled out the census this spring.
The reason most people don't vote is because the system is rigged against them, and they have no dog in the fight.
The reason most people don't vote is because the system is rigged against them, and they have no dog in the fight.
Really?
Well you could be right, though perhaps not in the way you think, and I doubt they are all pining for revolution. Maybe we'd have a rush to the polls if Justin Bieber were ever on the ballot.
and NS
I know there was one person prosecuted here in Saskatoon for not filling out the census last time (because it was contracted to a U.S. company, and subject to their laws) but somehow I don't see the great breakdown of enforcement you predict, nor do I really think it is even necessary. If you still don't want to vote I really don't care. Where it would make a difference for me is the people I mentioned who I think feel intimidated by the system (I know there are means to help those who are illiterate, but do many know what they are enough to even ask?).
Mandatory voting is a way of letting them know they can not be turned away, and if it gives a little kick in the pants to those who have never learned to vote that is not such a bad thing either, IMO.
So I'm not too worried about Harper filling his megaprisons with the anti-suffrage throngs, and neither am I too worried that there will be no opportunity for them to protest or let everyone know how much they disagree with our evil voting system,
In short, no need to buy a new fleet of Black Marias. You'd be surprised how many people pay attention and actually do something when you simply say it is mandatory - like shovelling the snow in front of your house.
