79 replies to this topic

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

Interesting to note that countries which require voting tend to provide the most extensive social services.

One more reason not to compel people to vote.

[mat]

One more reason not to compel people to vote.

? That is confusing - explanation?

If you are against Government provision of social services, or even basic provisions such as policing, health care, courts, defense etc. then your argument that not voting will help attain that goal state is circular.

It would require majority support of a party which proposes those ideals to place those policies into action, which would not occur unless society voted for a radical change.

Low voter turnout supports the status quo - incumbent parties tend to retain governance the lower the number of actual voters. Radical change requires greater participation.

It's one of the reasons 'talk' about politicians being mainly responsible for voter apathy is barking up the wrong tree - they are, point blank, and for good reason. Politicians (and/or their advisors) are generally intelligent about competitive campaigns. The goal is to win - and that is best served by calling on the base +1, over the opposition. If everyone votes - by decree or otherwise - it gets decidedly, wonderfully messy.

No politician or party wants 100% turnout - there is no way to predict any riding. They would have to work far harder at persuasion.

[phx]

I suppose a 100% voter turnout would be ideal, but I'm not sure that a low turnout is much of a problem. It's the kind of thing that people fret about, but the world goes on somehow anyways.

Besides, a low turnout makes my vote count for more.

[Caramia]

Yeah, honestly, for those people who don't bother to learn a bit about the candidates first, I would rather they didn't vote.

[Nparker]

Even if that means that governments get elected by less than 25% of the population? That's not democracy.

[Holden West]

Yeah, honestly, for those people who don't bother to learn a bit about the candidates first, I would rather they didn't vote.

Yes, compelling or forcing people uninterested in the candidates leads to voting for candidates who present the most superficial profile or have the catchiest soundbite. Democracy is not checking random or unusual names on a list like you might at a horse race. The only real solution to low voter turnout is education.

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

? That is confusing - explanation?

If you are against Government provision of social services, or even basic provisions such as policing, health care, courts, defense etc. then your argument that not voting will help attain that goal state is circular.

It would require majority support of a party which proposes those ideals to place those policies into action, which would not occur unless society voted for a radical change.

I was mostly being glib. I'm not against some degree of government social services, but if there's a connection with compelling people to vote and becoming a nanny state, I don't want any part of it.

Low voter turnout supports the status quo - incumbent parties tend to retain governance the lower the number of actual voters. Radical change requires greater participation.

It's one of the reasons 'talk' about politicians being mainly responsible for voter apathy is barking up the wrong tree - they are, point blank, and for good reason. Politicians (and/or their advisors) are generally intelligent about competitive campaigns. The goal is to win - and that is best served by calling on the base +1, over the opposition. If everyone votes - by decree or otherwise - it gets decidedly, wonderfully messy.

No politician or party wants 100% turnout - there is no way to predict any riding. They would have to work far harder at persuasion.

If people were unhappy with the status quo, maybe they would turn out to vote then. I find the idea of telling people they have to vote whether they want to or not to be somewhat presumptous. We have a lot of rules in society, but most of them are to protect us from one another. Not voting doesn't harm anyone.

In 1983, the voter turnout was 30 percent higher, but the result was the exact same, 49% Socred, 44% NDP, compared with 46% Liberal and 42% NDP in this election. The changes in participation don't seem to have changed the results a whole lot.

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

Even if that means that governments get elected by less than 25% of the population? That's not democracy.

Nobody's right to vote has been taken away, there's no secret police preventing people from getting to the polling place. If anything, having the freedom to choose not to vote is more democratic than being forced by penalty of law to go vote.

[phx]

Nobody's right to vote has been taken away, there's no secret police preventing people from getting to the polling place. If anything, having the freedom to choose not to vote is more democratic than being forced by penalty of law to go vote.

Agreed.

In any case the pro-STV lobby needs to shoulder some of the blame for low turnout. Thanks to the referendum, there was little discussion of important issues during this election.

[Bernard]

Agreed.

In any case the pro-STV lobby needs to shoulder some of the blame for low turnout. Thanks to the referendum, there was little discussion of important issues during this election.

I am not sure on how this follows. STV certainly did not dominate the news in this election, in fact it never once made it to the front page of the papers or the lead piece on the TV news.

Uninspired choices, most seats being safe seats, and a bland campaign by the Liberals and a badly run campaign by the NDP - these are the major factors I see in lower voter turn out.

In general, it is negative campaigning that depresses voter turn out - people hear enough bad stuff about their party and they stay home instead of voting.

[phx]

I thought there was a lot of referendum coverage in the media. Perhaps it just seemed that way due to the lack of coverage of other issues.

[Phil McAvity]

Thanks to the referendum, there was little discussion of important issues during this election.

Welcome to Canada.

Why do you think so many Canadians find American politics more interesting? Because in the U.S. of A they actually debate. Here we tend to shy away from real debate and stick to that which is easier and safer to discuss. In my experience Americans are much less afraid to get into discussions about politics-even contentious issues. I don't see how the failed STV vote is to blame for this though.

[sebberry]

The only useful thing the Liberals have done is the Carbon Tax. The worst thing they have done is continue our horrific logging practices and privatizing our rivers. Then again everything he has done has been a joke with one exception

A vote for the Liberals destroys our province.
A vote for the NDP bankrupts our province.
A vote for the Green saves our Province.

Carbon tax goes up tomorrow

[VicDuck]

I hope the liberals don't screw this up. Knowing Campbell he will, but i will hope.

[jklymak]

Carbon tax goes up tomorrow

Gotta pay for the communal damage of all that driving somehow.

[sebberry]

Gotta pay for the communal damage of all that driving somehow.

I consider it "feeding the trees"

And paying for the "damage" is one thing, actually seeing that money going to environmental initiatives is another. Show me some statistics that show fuel consumption decreasing in BC, adjusted for the higher cost of fuel sans carbon tax, and I will dismount from my high horse.

[jklymak]

I consider it "feeding the trees"

In case you are not kidding, I can absolutely assure you that availability of CO2 is not the limiting factor of tree growth. CO2 is no more food for trees than O2 is food for you.

And paying for the "damage" is one thing, actually seeing that money going to environmental initiatives is another. Show me some statistics that show fuel consumption decreasing in BC, adjusted for the higher cost of fuel sans carbon tax, and I will dismount from my high horse.

If consumption goes down as the price goes up, I'm not clear on why it matters if it is via taxes or not.

Whether the carbon tax goes towards anything environmentally useful is another question. Lets hope it does.

[CharlieFoxtrot]

The carbon tax goes to tax cuts - hence it's "revenue neutral" moniker.

Check it out:

http://www.fin.gov.b.../climate/A2.htm

[Lover Fighter]

The final elections BC report of the 2009 election is now out!

http://www.elections...centre/reports/

Interesting to see the breakdowns by constituency and voting area.

[Bernard]

The final elections BC report of the 2009 election is now out!

http://www.elections...centre/reports/

Interesting to see the breakdowns by constituency and voting area.

The basic trend is that in NDP areas Liberals stayed home and in Liberal areas the NDP stayed home. The 2009 election had more extreme results for either the NDP or the Liberals