PDA

View Full Version : Ontario Election: Well, that's just sad


ShadowbaneX
10-07-2011, 11:37 AM
Granted, there's only 2 or 3 other people on the board that might care, but looks like the voter turn out for last night's provincial election was 49.2%. Less than half of voters, umm, voted.

What a sad state of affairs. At least Hudak didn't get in to office. That would have been worse.

Terez
10-07-2011, 11:49 AM
Is that unusual in Canada? Our numbers are often lower, except in presidential elections.

GonzoTheGreat
10-07-2011, 12:25 PM
Saddam regularly got 95% of the votes. Shows what good organisation can do.

ShadowbaneX
10-07-2011, 12:29 PM
it was a record setter. The previous record was set during the last election at 52.8%, so it's been in decline. I believe it used to be up in the 60% area. Seeing it tumble like that is very sad.

Khoram
10-07-2011, 12:50 PM
It appears that nobody cares anymore - at least, not nearly as many people. I don't know what it's like really in Quebec, but then again, I haven't been voting for long. :D

You'd think that, with the growing number of young politicians, you'd have a greater number of young people voting.

Was there any mention of the percentage of younger voters present?

ShadowbaneX
10-07-2011, 01:08 PM
Nope, just the overall, then again, it's not like I went looking for them. I'm sure they'll pop up at some point.

DahLliA
10-07-2011, 02:23 PM
apathy is pretty much the only sane response to the politics of today.

Davian93
10-07-2011, 07:37 PM
That would be praised as a solid vote total in the US...but then, we're lazy citizens that dont give a damn about our actual obligations when it comes to being a citizen...we just want all the benefits instead.

Brita
10-07-2011, 07:52 PM
It is disappointing. Especially when life is getting quite expensive and a little tax relief would be nice, but hey- who cares if we can't afford groceries and gas at the same time...and the hydro bill is enough to cause seizures...

ShadowbaneX
10-07-2011, 08:04 PM
Do you think Hudak would have done better?

Res_Ipsa
10-07-2011, 11:15 PM
That would be praised as a solid vote total in the US...but then, we're lazy citizens that dont give a damn about our actual obligations when it comes to being a citizen...we just want all the benefits instead.

Ummm... we owe no obligation to the government, the government owes us an obligation/duty.

I like to illustrate it thus:

You are familiar with the Copernican Revolution which was a paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic model that held the earth was the center. You are representing the Ptolemaic equivalent of liberty with the government being at the center. The tradition in the United States and one upon which our entire existence is based on is the idea that the individual's liberty is at the center.


And "all the benefits"? I thought you believed in entitlements.

Midterms btw, they have me stressed out. My only comfort is that you are no closer to an Inn N Out burger than I am.

Davian93
10-07-2011, 11:32 PM
Ummm... we owe no obligation to the government, the government owes us an obligation/duty.

I like to illustrate it thus:

You are familiar with the Copernican Revolution which was a paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic model that held the earth was the center. You are representing the Ptolemaic equivalent of liberty with the government being at the center. The tradition in the United States and one upon which our entire existence is based on is the idea that the individual's liberty is at the center.


And "all the benefits"? I thought you believed in entitlements.

Midterms btw, they have me stressed out. My only comfort is that you are no closer to an Inn N Out burger than I am.

Citizenship comes with a price...the Founding Fathers at least understood that, Res. Its really sad that you do not.

I believe in entitlements and I believe in fulfilling my obligations as a citizen whether it be military service or even just serving jury duty.

ShadowbaneX
10-08-2011, 12:28 AM
Citizenship comes with a price...the Founding Fathers at least understood that, Res. Its really sad that you do not.

I believe in entitlements and I believe in fulfilling my obligations as a citizen whether it be military service or even just serving jury duty.

Or voting on Election Day? Granted, it's much simpler up here, I just walked in and marked an X on a piece of paper with a pencil...yes, it's archaic, but it works a lot better than those electronic voting booths you guys seem to have and having to vote for half-a-hundred different things.

Davian93
10-08-2011, 01:17 AM
Or voting on Election Day? Granted, it's much simpler up here, I just walked in and marked an X on a piece of paper with a pencil...yes, it's archaic, but it works a lot better than those electronic voting booths you guys seem to have and having to vote for half-a-hundred different things.

My voting district (and most of VT) still uses paper ballots that are then scanned. Its your basic "fill in the bubble" ballot. Works fine and we get the results just as fast as the no paper trail electronic ballots that are just begging for massive voter fraud/manipulation.

GonzoTheGreat
10-08-2011, 04:21 AM
Ummm... we owe no obligation to the government, the government owes us an obligation/duty.It is not an obligation to the government, it is a moral obligation to yourself and your fellow citizens. You are responsible for what is done as a result of your vote.

If you vote for a candidate who does what you want done, then you can take your part of the credit for that.
If you vote for a candidate who then does something you don't want done, then you deserve some of the blame for your bad judgment of character.
If you vote for a candidate who isn't elected, then that lessens the credit you can claim, but it also lessens the blame you deserve for bad policies.
If you do not vote, then you can't claim credit for good things, but you do deserve the blame for bad things, as you might have helped prevent them if you had voted someone else into office.


By not voting when you could do so* you are giving your implicit assent to whatever the politicians may later decide to do.

* I approve of the "no taxation without representation" slogan, so I think that those who have had their right to vote stripped away because of a criminal record should also be exempt from paying taxes. I doubt that the "taxes are bad" right wingers would agree with me in this, though. Naturally, slogans always simplify matters, so there would be cases (minors who are already making enough to be taxed), foreigners who are earning money in the country under discussion, and so forth, which might not be covered by this slogan. Or maybe they would. Some discussion is legitimate on this, but possibly off topic here.

AbbeyRoad
10-08-2011, 05:40 AM
It is not an obligation to the government, it is a moral obligation to yourself and your fellow citizens.
I have no moral obligations whatsoever to my "fellow citizens." I vote because I have an opinion, I value and fully support my opinion, and it gives me joy to express my opinion. "Societal obligations" is not a term in my vocabulary, however.

If you vote for a candidate who does what you want done, then you can take your part of the credit for that.
How, exactly? And why on earth would I want credit for something someone else did? I just want them to do it because I know it's right.

If you vote for a candidate who then does something you don't want done, then you deserve some of the blame for your bad judgment of character.
And why is that? Are you supposing that voting someone into office automatically makes me responsible for all decisions he then makes? I don't judge their "character;" I judge their competence based on what they say they will do. If they then do something totally different, is it my fault?

If you vote for a candidate who isn't elected, then that lessens the credit you can claim, but it also lessens the blame you deserve for bad policies.
Credit and blame are the wrong adjectives here. I support policies, not people. However, I am forced to elect people, and not policies. I have no control over what they do once elected. I can only provide support when they claim they will adopt a policy that I agree with. What they do later is out of my control.

By not voting when you could do so* you are giving your implicit assent to whatever the politicians may later decide to do.
That would only be true if political candidates actually followed through with what they claimed they will do once elected.

Also, suppose I agreed with none of the proposed policies from any of the candidates. Would that mean that by abstaining from voting (and therefore supporting a policy which I do not endorse), I somehow sanction everything that the elected politician does by implication? Are you proposing I am "obligated" to vote for a candidate I do not endorse as some sort of "societal duty?"

Mort
10-08-2011, 05:45 AM
Whatever happened to the big debacle about the failing voting booths that were the rage back in some election. The booths were easily hacked/tampered with etc. The company that made them took alot of flack for it, but I can't remember if anything happened after that.

For the record, Sweden has maybe a 80% voter turnout.

At what percentage would the election be retaken? I thought the limit were around 50%.

GonzoTheGreat
10-08-2011, 06:14 AM
Whatever happened to the big debacle about the failing voting booths that were the rage back in some election. The booths were easily hacked/tampered with etc. The company that made them took alot of flack for it, but I can't remember if anything happened after that.I don't know what happened to in other countries. I do know that in the Netherlands, it was decided to cease using those things, because fraud would be too easy and undetectable.

I have no moral obligations whatsoever to my "fellow citizens." I vote because I have an opinion, I value and fully support my opinion, and it gives me joy to express my opinion. "Societal obligations" is not a term in my vocabulary, however.I am willing to believe that. I hope you will never need the services of the police, the fire department, the justice system or any other societal institutions, otherwise you might have to compromise your own principles.

How, exactly? And why on earth would I want credit for something someone else did? I just want them to do it because I know it's right.Well, the idea has been expressed as "government of the people, by the people, for the people". The idea is that the voters are the ones who are ultimately governing themselves, even though they've delegated some (most) of the work to a few elected representatives.

And why is that? Are you supposing that voting someone into office automatically makes me responsible for all decisions he then makes?Yes. That's what giving him your vote means. Don't like it? Doesn't matter much, now, does it?

I don't judge their "character;" I judge their competence based on what they say they will do.Now that explains a lot. You might consider judging their competence based on what they actually do, instead of merely on what they claim.

If they then do something totally different, is it my fault?If they'd not given any previous indication of that, then no, basically not.
However, if their previous actions had shown that you could not depend on their words, and you still decided to rely on their words only (see previous point), then I would say that it was indeed your fault.

As a former statesman said: "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, ..., you won't fool me twice". That may be a bit awkwardly formulated, but it is still a good rule of thumb with which to approach politics.


Also, suppose I agreed with none of the proposed policies from any of the candidates. Would that mean that by abstaining from voting (and therefore supporting a policy which I do not endorse), I somehow sanction everything that the elected politician does by implication? Are you proposing I am "obligated" to vote for a candidate I do not endorse as some sort of "societal duty?"You could in that case vote for a candidate who does not have a chance of being elected, thus signaling your disagreement with all others.
Or you could pick one that might get elected (if enough of your friends follow your example, for instance), but has no chance of implementing his agenda.

And, as an aside: your point is a lot stronger in the American two party system than it is in the Dutch many party system. In the USA there is a choice between two candidates, who may very well agree on a lot of important issues where you disagree with both. In the Netherlands we have a choice between a handful of candidates in local elections, up to literally dozens of parties in national elections.
So I would say that supporting a candidate who claims to be opposed to the two party system would be a good start.

AbbeyRoad
10-08-2011, 07:46 AM
I am willing to believe that. I hope you will never need the services of the police, the fire department, the justice system or any other societal institutions, otherwise you might have to compromise your own principles.
I've donated my time to societal institutions before and in no way felt obligated to do it. Additionally, policemen and lawyers, judges, and 30% of firemen are paid.

Well, the idea has been expressed as "government of the people, by the people, for the people". The idea is that the voters are the ones who are ultimately governing themselves, even though they've delegated some (most) of the work to a few elected representatives.
That's the idea. Too bad that's not how it operates in practice.

Yes. That's what giving him your vote means. Don't like it? Doesn't matter much, now, does it?
I disagree. Giving someone my vote does not mean I sanction everything he does in the future; it means I sanction what he has done or said until now and hope that will continue.

Now that explains a lot. You might consider judging their competence based on what they actually do, instead of merely on what they claim.
But that's exactly the issue, now isn't it. I can't vote on what they do, since they haven't done it yet. I vote on what they say they will do, and what they have done. I can't judge a man's "character" based on the snipets of gibberish doublespeak from a commercial or debate. I can only judge what I have the means to judge, which is his opinion on policies. That is what I vote on; following through is up to him, and is therefore his responsibility, not mine. I am responsible for what I do, not for what my fellow man, collectively, does.

However, if their previous actions had shown that you could not depend on their words, and you still decided to rely on their words only (see previous point), then I would say that it was indeed your fault.
Clearly you've never met a politician.

You could in that case vote for a candidate who does not have a chance of being elected, thus signaling your disagreement with all others.
Or you could pick one that might get elected (if enough of your friends follow your example, for instance), but has no chance of implementing his agenda.
So your solution is to undermine the entire voting system by "wasting a vote," in your opinion, even if you don't agree with the policies of the person on whom your vote is wasted? That, to you, is preferable from abstaining, all because of some perceived "societal obligation?"

Isn't the idea behind the concept of voting to elect someone you want to see in office and not to impersonally click on a video screen merely to say you did it? What's the point of voting if you don't condone or support that whom you are voting for?

GonzoTheGreat
10-08-2011, 08:17 AM
So your solution is to undermine the entire voting system by "wasting a vote," in your opinion, even if you don't agree with the policies of the person on whom your vote is wasted? That, to you, is preferable from abstaining, all because of some perceived "societal obligation?"Another part of the issue is the margin by which the eventual winner actually wins, and what that tells him about his chances for re-election if he diverges strongly from his promises.

Suppose that out of 100 people, 30 vote for A, 15 vote for B, 3 vote for some other candidate, and the rest (52) doesn't vote at all. Then A wins, and he knows that he has a pretty solid backing. He knows that even if all the opposition unites behind a competitor, he'll still win.
Alternatively, suppose that from those 100 people, 30 vote for A, 15 vote for B, 30 vote for a whole variety of minor candidates, and 25 do not vote. Then A knows that if he annoys enough actual voters, they may very well get C or D (or even B) elected next time.

By "undermining the entire voting system" as you call it, you are actually sending the message "I do care about politics, but I do not approve of any of the currently leading candidates".
On the other hand, by not voting, you send the message "I don't care what laws my masters make for me". That, to me, undermines the voting system far more.

Res_Ipsa
10-08-2011, 08:30 AM
Citizenship comes with a price...the Founding Fathers at least understood that, Res. Its really sad that you do not.

I believe in entitlements and I believe in fulfilling my obligations as a citizen whether it be military service or even just serving jury duty.
I was not talking about the price or privilege of citizenship, you have just Gonzo'd what I said.

You seem to believe our liberties operate around the government's existence and therefore we owe the government an obligation. That is quite simply not true, and it has no basis in the history of the founding of this country.

ShadowbaneX
10-08-2011, 09:15 AM
Really? I thought that you'd all switched over to "new and improved, better than ever" electronic voting system...like those oh so stellar ones down in Florida.

ShadowbaneX
10-08-2011, 09:18 AM
Whatever happened to the big debacle about the failing voting booths that were the rage back in some election. The booths were easily hacked/tampered with etc. The company that made them took alot of flack for it, but I can't remember if anything happened after that.

For the record, Sweden has maybe a 80% voter turnout.

At what percentage would the election be retaken? I thought the limit were around 50%.
as far as I know there is no point at which the government will say "not enough people voted, do it again." There might be, but to be honest, I've never studied Canadian Civics so I don't know things by clause & verse.

Davian93
10-08-2011, 11:23 AM
I'm guessing Res and Abbey are ignorant of the concept of a social contract....you know, the philosophy upon which our entire nation was built.

GonzoTheGreat
10-08-2011, 12:13 PM
I'm guessing Res and Abbey are ignorant of the concept of a social contract....you know, the philosophy upon which our entire nation was built.Maybe they just think that contracts are socialist claptrap.

Res_Ipsa
10-08-2011, 03:21 PM
I'm guessing Res and Abbey are ignorant of the concept of a social contract....you know, the philosophy upon which our entire nation was built.

You have clearly NEVER read Rousseau. By that statement you are giving a wikipedia entry worth of knowledge great weight. It is not even a gotcha moment. Rousseau wrote about the sovereign belonging to the people not the people belonging to the sovereign. The sovereign cannot exist or act without the people. Therefore the obligation is the government to the people to be representative.

Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes are not in your corner for this Dav but go on pretending they are. ALSO, you would have had to argue for Locke instead of Rousseau since it was Locke's interpretation of the Social Contract that was implied in the Dec. of Independence and was most heavily relied on by the FF of the three. Then of course there is Paine but he was also along Locke's line holding that rights are not granted.

Rousseau believed that the relationship of societies and government was an accident whereby some acts required more than one people who in presociety form on an ad-hoc basis an agreement. Then you go into societal phases... whereby you have no real choice to be a part of it since you were not there before it came into being since we accept it by virtue of being. THEREFORE, government should seek to keep its people as free as possible.

Rousseau is more naturally tied with the French Revolution. His was more of a collectivist idea of rights.



LOCKE, viewed presociety as the epitome and society as bad eggs ruining the natural rights. Locke is therefore more binding on American mentality and thought.

And just for fun, Hobbes viewed government as the necessary attraction to people who would otherwise be in a shittier existence w/out it but free.

The KEY POINT IN ALL is that government is derived from the consent of the people.

So. This is what pisses me off, you opine what you think and state it is fact. The writings do not vindicate your point, history does not vindicate your point and neither does philosophy.

Khoram
10-08-2011, 03:29 PM
as far as I know there is no point at which the government will say "not enough people voted, do it again." There might be, but to be honest, I've never studied Canadian Civics so I don't know things by clause & verse.

Okay, so I took a look at Bill C-2 (The Canada Elections Act) and as far as I could tell, there wasn't anything that had to do with too few voters participating, thus having to do a redo of the election.

Granted, I've never taken a Canadian Civics class before, either.

I did, however, find this:

Clause 301 allows a voter to apply to a judge for a recount within four days of the validation of results, upon making a deposit of $250. If, on the basis of the affidavit of a credible witness, it appears that ballots have been incorrectly counted or rejected or numbers incorrectly written or added, the judge shall fix a date for a recount, which must be within four days of the judge’s receipt of the application; the returning officer and candidates shall be notified.

So I don't know if this has anything to do with a lack of voters participating, but it seems to come as close as I can find. XD

AbbeyRoad
10-08-2011, 03:36 PM
By "undermining the entire voting system" as you call it, you are actually sending the message "I do care about politics, but I do not approve of any of the currently leading candidates".
You just explained in your previous post that a vote is that which gives sanction from the voter to the elected candidate, and responsibility to both for policy outcomes. Now you are invalidating your premise, by advising to vote for the person you think has no chance to win "to send a message," rather than vote for the person whose policies you endorse. Thus, you are advising to sanction someone whose policies you do NOT agree with in order to inform the government of your disapproval of their policies; don't you think abstaining from voting would send that message much more effectively than giving sanction to someone whom you do not agree with merely for the purpose of meeting a "societal obligation?"

Don't twist the system for your own purpose to send messages to people who don't care about your message, and will not receive it. Please, if you vote for a third party candidate, vote for him because you like his policies, not solely because you think he can never win. Vote for who you want to win, not who you think will lose. Anything else is unfair to the candidates, and most importantly unfair to yourself.

On the other hand, by not voting, you send the message "I don't care what laws my masters make for me". That, to me, undermines the voting system far more.
My elected officials have never, nor ever will be, my masters.

I'm guessing Res and Abbey are ignorant of the concept of a social contract....you know, the philosophy upon which our entire nation was built.
I've read Locke and Hobbes. What most people don't understand, and what is clearly stated by Locke, is that government only draws authority from the consent of the governed. If the government does not have the consent of its governed, it is usurping its authority. Nowhere does the Constitution speak of any obligations; that's why abstaining from voting is not illegal. Personally, I like to vote. I know people who don't. I don't care either way what they do, only what I do, since I don't feel they have a societal obligation to do anything.

Maybe they just think that contracts are socialist claptrap.
Contracts require the consent of both parties. They also require both parties continuing to meet the terms of the contract.

Davian93
10-08-2011, 07:36 PM
You have clearly NEVER read Rousseau. By that statement you are giving a wikipedia entry worth of knowledge great weight. It is not even a gotcha moment. Rousseau wrote about the sovereign belonging to the people not the people belonging to the sovereign. The sovereign cannot exist or act without the people. Therefore the obligation is the government to the people to be representative.

Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes are not in your corner for this Dav but go on pretending they are. ALSO, you would have had to argue for Locke instead of Rousseau since it was Locke's interpretation of the Social Contract that was implied in the Dec. of Independence and was most heavily relied on by the FF of the three. Then of course there is Paine but he was also along Locke's line holding that rights are not granted.

Rousseau believed that the relationship of societies and government was an accident whereby some acts required more than one people who in presociety form on an ad-hoc basis an agreement. Then you go into societal phases... whereby you have no real choice to be a part of it since you were not there before it came into being since we accept it by virtue of being. THEREFORE, government should seek to keep its people as free as possible.

Rousseau is more naturally tied with the French Revolution. His was more of a collectivist idea of rights.



LOCKE, viewed presociety as the epitome and society as bad eggs ruining the natural rights. Locke is therefore more binding on American mentality and thought.

And just for fun, Hobbes viewed government as the necessary attraction to people who would otherwise be in a shittier existence w/out it but free.

The KEY POINT IN ALL is that government is derived from the consent of the people.

So. This is what pisses me off, you opine what you think and state it is fact. The writings do not vindicate your point, history does not vindicate your point and neither does philosophy.

Thank you for philosophy 101...I took that too. You're still missing the point. Once that consent is given by the people, there are certain obligations on both parties (gov't & people).

Also, I never argued for Rousseau's interpretation of it...you brought that up all on your own. But even with Rousseau's interpretion, yes the government must be representative yet those people have an obligation to actually participate in that government instead of just reaping the benefits while doing nothing. That's a very important and often times overlooked portion of it. You dont just get the benefits because you exist. You still have to do your part, chief.

Contracts require the consent of both parties. They also require both parties continuing to meet the terms of the contract.

You gave your consent the moment you didn't renounce your citizenship. If you dont consent, renounce and move to another country.

AbbeyRoad
10-08-2011, 09:49 PM
You gave your consent the moment you didn't renounce your citizenship. If you dont consent, renounce and move to another country.
So you believe that governments have the authority to do whatever they please, because every citizen, by the very nature of being a citizen, is obligated to consent to any laws they decide to pass?

Our country was founded because of progressive intellectuals and pioneers who refused to be subjugated under their current oppressive form of government.

So, no, I do not give my consent for the government to do whatever they please. Nor do I observe any "societal obligations" that I am forced to adhere by, unless there is a military draft because of an immediate and sufficient foreign threat. That includes voting. I vote because I want to, not because I have to or feel socially obligated.

yet those people have an obligation to actually participate in that government instead of just reaping the benefits while doing nothing. That's a very important and often times overlooked portion of it. You dont just get the benefits because you exist. You still have to do your part, chief.
And how is that? What obligation do I have to "participate in government?" You get the benefits of government because you pay taxes to the government; that's what your tax dollars are for, paying money to an institution to help yourself by means of receiving benefits in return. That's why voting is optional, and taxes are not.

GonzoTheGreat
10-09-2011, 05:21 AM
Don't twist the system for your own purpose to send messages to people who don't care about your message, and will not receive it. Please, if you vote for a third party candidate, vote for him because you like his policies, not solely because you think he can never win. Vote for who you want to win, not who you think will lose. Anything else is unfair to the candidates, and most importantly unfair to yourself.If you can find a candidate you would like to win, then by all means, vote for her.
But there are definitely also cases where "voting against a candidate" is more reasonable than "not voting, and letting the clod get to rule you for a couple of years".

I don't think the USA would do very well with a hardline Communist president. But I do think it would have been better if such a one had won the 2004 election. That would have been a very clear rejection of the Gitmo concentration camp, and all the other Republican policies.

AbbeyRoad
10-09-2011, 02:58 PM
If you can find a candidate you would like to win, then by all means, vote for her.
And if I don't, you're suggesting to vote for a candidate I would not like to win?

But there are definitely also cases where "voting against a candidate" is more reasonable than "not voting, and letting the clod get to rule you for a couple of years"
But you don't vote candidates out of office with a negation vote; you vote them into office. You don't vote against candidates; you vote for them.

And besides, elected officials never rule me; they just decide national policy.

GonzoTheGreat
10-10-2011, 04:39 AM
And if I don't, you're suggesting to vote for a candidate I would not like to win?Yep. That would be a tactical vote.
In general, candidates tend to gravitate in the direction they think the voters want to go. So if, for instance, during a couple of successive elections candidates who are very religious tend to do well, then more religious candidates will show up, and the others will tend to display more signs of considering religion important too. On the other hand, if being excessively religious results in not being elected, then that would go out of vogue.

So by voting for the candidate who is most in the direction you would like, even if he is not anywhere close to what you would want, you do provide a little push in the direction you want things to go. By not voting at all, on the other hand, you leave the field to those who do vote, which, very often, are the most extreme as those are most fanatical about their views.

It is simply a matter of political (rather than natural) selection at work: the next clutch of politicians will be mostly clones with small differences of the one that won the last election.

And besides, elected officials never rule me; they just decide national policy.And write the laws and appoint non-elected officials. And, depending on how things work in your place, they may also arrest you, prosecute you, and try you.
How's that combination different from ruling you, if you have no input at all in all those decisions?

AbbeyRoad
10-10-2011, 06:17 AM
How's that combination different from ruling you, if you have no input at all in all those decisions?
But you do have input. The whole point of voting is designed to make you have input as to the policy of the country. You vote for the person whose policies you agree with. Elected officials are not a ruling class; they are designated to represent your opinion.

The entire premise of democracy disagrees with you.

GonzoTheGreat
10-10-2011, 06:58 AM
But you do have input. The whole point of voting is designed to make you have input as to the policy of the country. You vote for the person whose policies you agree with. Elected officials are not a ruling class; they are designated to represent your opinion.

The entire premise of democracy disagrees with you.And what is the relevance of this?
We are, you may remember, discussing the specific case where you do not vote, so then you do not "vote for the person whose policies you agree with", as there is no such person, and consequently, whoever gets elected is by no means guaranteed to represent your opinion at all.

I am defending (trying to, at least) the idea that in general, one should vote, even if one does not fully agree with any of the candidates. I am arguing that if you don't vote, then you will be ruled by those who do.
That is what was behind the American Revolution, you know: it was not that there was no elected parliament, but that the people in the colonies had no say in it, but were bound by the decisions of that parliament (and the king) anyways.

Note: there may be cases where not voting is a legitimate choice. So like just about all issues, this one is not quite as simple as one might hope.
A good example happened a couple of years ago, when an experiment was tried with electing mayors. As I've said before, we have dozens of parties in my country. For this experiment, the (elected) officials who organised it decided to offer a choice between two candidates. One candidate hardly anyone had ever heard of before from the PvdA (Labour Party), and the other candidate was someone hardly anyone had ever heard of from the PvdA (Labour Party). The election was won by the PvdA candidate with very few of the possible votes (his opponents got even fewer), but in this case I do not think there was any actual moral obligation for the voters to pretend that it mattered.

Brita
10-10-2011, 07:15 PM
Do you think Hudak would have done better?

Well, I voted NDP- so no ;)

ShadowbaneX
10-10-2011, 08:54 PM
ok, good, we can still be friends. ;)

Davian93
10-10-2011, 09:45 PM
ok, good, we can still be friends. ;)

You Canadians take politics way too seriously...

Brita
10-10-2011, 10:15 PM
ok, good, we can still be friends. ;)

:D

Khoram
10-11-2011, 10:12 AM
You Canadians take politics way too seriously...

It's just the nature of us Canadians, eh? :D

Ishara
10-18-2011, 12:49 PM
We knew we'd be on our honeymoon during the election, so we voted in the advance polls. I wouldn't let him look up or tell me the results till we got back though. Didn't want to be stressing out about work in Pompeii, you know? ;)

And yes, I believe that voting is a social responsibility - part of being in a democratic country is exercising your right to vote. Plus, if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch. That's the rule at home. ;)