[martin14]

DerbyX wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Democracy shouldn't be bought. People died for it for crying out loud. It takes so little effort to do yet means so much. I thought this vote was going to have a very high turnout given the emotional turmoil of the run-up.

A lot of people just don't care as much as we do derby.

Sad to say isn't it?

ouch, thats not a nice diagram.

I wonder, do people not vote because they are happy with the status quo,
or because they think nothing will change if they do or dont.

I'm guessing other democracies in the world
have the same situation.. in Eastern Europe, voter turnout is rapidly
sliding to the same levels.

[EyeBrock]

I've always voted. In the UK and here. It was why I went for my citizenship right away.
When I was in the military, we were actively encouraged to vote and as soon as I was 18 ( I joined at 16 1/2) I voted.

I remember my Sgt's words; " You can't slag the government off credibly if you never voted."

I wonder how many of these partisans of all ilks who have plagued this forum actually voted?
I bet a good number of the more vocal and partisan types never voted.

[Scape]

Pseudonym wrote:

Low voter turnout is sad down here too, but what are you going to do? There is only so much you can do to make people care. Eventually it just comes down to individual responsibility.

Correct. I heard from several non-voters. One was a native and said bluntly, "I'm not on the ballot!" others were like a doe in headlights that didn't even know we had elections. Others were of the why bother it won't make a difference but every one was female. Every male I talked to did vote, they may have hated the choices but the exercised their right. I am certain many males (especially younger ones) did not vote. Perhaps we need to invoke a law that forces by-elections if the apathy vote exceeds a certain percentage or you can not file taxes without proof of voting at least once in the last 3 elections.

[martin14]

so then Eyebrock, is the wave of " me me me and only me"
cultural development the cause of this ?

I have always voted as well, same reason as yer Sarge gave,
cant give them shit if you dont vote, that smacks of hypocrisy.


Maybe we need some kind of civics and ethics teaching in the schools ?


and Scape lol, thats a great idea.. hmm avg 4 years per election,
voting age 18.. means you dont file taxes til you are 30..

woulda loved that
but i agree something needs to be done, its not funny anymore.
people sacrificed everything so we could keep our freedom,
we seem to have lost that somehow.

[Blue_Nose]

martin14 wrote:

so then Eyebrock, is the wave of " me me me and only me" cultural development the cause of this ?

How does that make sense? I vote for me, on my behalf - not for the sake of anyone else.

I'm not doing you any favours by voting in an election, and if we're in the same riding, I diminish the impact of your vote. As a voter, you're better off having fewer people go to the polls, not more.

[martin14]

Blue_Nose wrote:

martin14 wrote:

so then Eyebrock, is the wave of " me me me and only me" cultural development the cause of this ?

How does that make sense? I vote for me, on my behalf - not for the sake of anyone else.

I'm not doing you any favours by voting in an election, and if we're in the same riding, I diminish the impact of your vote. As a voter, you're better off having fewer people go to the polls, not more.

true as a voter, perhaps not so good as a society...

[Blue_Nose]

The problem isn't that people don't care - I think the problem is that people have the wrong impression of what voting actually means.

There's this weird notion that by voting you're going to change something - that's simply not the case. I will guarantee you that an election will never come down to a tie, with your vote being the deciding ballot. It's simply never going to happen, and voting with the mindset that it will is just ignorant.

Conversely, realizing the fact that you're not going to change the outcome, but still being under the impression that the only purpose of your vote is to try to change the outcome, is likely what makes people so apathetic to voting. People say, "why bother if it's not going to change anything?" and leave it at that, not realizing that your vote was never supposed to "change anything" in the first place.

The fact is, your vote is simply a message, saying who you feel would best represent you to the government. If you believe someone is the best candidate, you should vote for them, and forget about all this nonsense of voting strategically or swapping votes. If a substantial number of people vote for Candidate X that doesn't end up winning, there's still a strong message sent to the winning Candidate Y that they need to consider some other views, and a message to the party of Candidate X that that riding might deserve more attention in the next election.

When people start getting into voting for Candidate Z just to try to keep Candidate Y out of power, they mess up that whole system, and make it less likely that real messages are sent to politicians and the government.

[mtbr]

Blue_Nose wrote:

The problem isn't that people don't care - I think the problem is that people have the wrong impression of what voting actually means.

There's this weird notion that by voting you're going to change something - that's simply not the case. I will guarantee you that an election will never come down to a tie, with your vote being the deciding ballot. It's simply never going to happen, and voting with the mindset that it will is just ignorant.

Conversely, realizing the fact that you're not going to change the outcome, but still being under the impression that the only purpose of your vote is to try to change the outcome, is likely what makes people so apathetic to voting. People say, "why bother if it's not going to change anything?" and leave it at that, not realizing that your vote was never supposed to "change anything" in the first place.

The fact is, your vote is simply a message, saying who you feel would best represent you to the government. If you believe someone is the best candidate, you should vote for them, and forget about all this nonsense of voting strategically or swapping votes. If a substantial number of people vote for Candidate X that doesn't end up winning, there's still a strong message sent to the winning Candidate Y that they need to consider some other views, and a message to the party of Candidate X that that riding might deserve more attention in the next election.

When people start getting into voting for Candidate Z just to try to keep Candidate Y out of power, they mess up that whole system, and make it less likely that real messages are sent to politicians and the government.

[Saskanna]

I've been hearing all morning that there were some problems with the new voter rules about having ID. People either didn't know or didn't have the proper documentation and rather than wait in line they just didn't bother voting. This is in Saskatchewan. First person testimony as seen at some Polls last evening. It is even being reported that some of the people at the Polls were confused as to what type of ID was proper? I saw none of this firsthand.

I had a voter card but still had to produce picture ID where we voted in the advance poll. I have a driver's license so there was no problem. Wondered about people who dont' drive? I have a brother and daughter who don't drive. I'm sure they don't carry around their passports or other pieces of ID? Could account for some of the downturn in voter numbers? Perhaps?

I do think there is a great deal of voter apathy. Right across the country.

[Scape]

martin14 wrote:

and Scape lol, thats a great idea.. hmm avg 4 years per election,
voting age 18.. means you dont file taxes til you are 30..

If you can't file you can't use government programs that have income tax as a base reference and your don't get gst checks or income tax returns. You still are required to pay taxes but this way you are compelled to vote. The only people who would not be compelled are the people who could afford not to file and they make more money anyway and tend to be more responsible and vote already.

But yeah, don't file till your 30. Whatever.

[lily]

Saskanna wrote:

I've been hearing all morning that there were some problems with the new voter rules about having ID. People either didn't know or didn't have the proper documentation and rather than wait in line they just didn't bother voting. This is in Saskatchewan. First person testimony as seen at some Polls last evening. It is even being reported that some of the people at the Polls were confused as to what type of ID was proper? I saw none of this firsthand.

I had a voter card but still had to produce picture ID where we voted in the advance poll. I have a driver's license so there was no problem. Wondered about people who dont' drive? I have a brother and daughter who don't drive. I'm sure they don't carry around their passports or other pieces of ID? Could account for some of the downturn in voter numbers? Perhaps?

I do think there is a great deal of voter apathy. Right across the country.

The ID you needed was on the cards mailed out to everyone. I don't see why anyone didn't know what was needed.

By the way - you don't need photo ID, so long as you have 2 pieces of approved ID, such as a blood donor card, birth certificate, SIN card, credit/debit card, library card....

If you don't drive... your bus pass will do.

[lily]

Blue_Nose wrote:

The problem isn't that people don't care - I think the problem is that people have the wrong impression of what voting actually means.

There's this weird notion that by voting you're going to change something - that's simply not the case. I will guarantee you that an election will never come down to a tie, with your vote being the deciding ballot. It's simply never going to happen, and voting with the mindset that it will is just ignorant.

Conversely, realizing the fact that you're not going to change the outcome, but still being under the impression that the only purpose of your vote is to try to change the outcome, is likely what makes people so apathetic to voting. People say, "why bother if it's not going to change anything?" and leave it at that, not realizing that your vote was never supposed to "change anything" in the first place.

The fact is, your vote is simply a message, saying who you feel would best represent you to the government. If you believe someone is the best candidate, you should vote for them, and forget about all this nonsense of voting strategically or swapping votes. If a substantial number of people vote for Candidate X that doesn't end up winning, there's still a strong message sent to the winning Candidate Y that they need to consider some other views, and a message to the party of Candidate X that that riding might deserve more attention in the next election.

When people start getting into voting for Candidate Z just to try to keep Candidate Y out of power, they mess up that whole system, and make it less likely that real messages are sent to politicians and the government.

That's why I vote. My MP won with 56% of the vote. I knew he was going to get re-elected, but my vote was intended as a message, if not to him, then to my candidate, letting her know that running wasn't completely futile.

[EyeBrock]

Blue_Nose wrote:

martin14 wrote:

so then Eyebrock, is the wave of " me me me and only me" cultural development the cause of this ?

How does that make sense? I vote for me, on my behalf - not for the sake of anyone else.

I'm not doing you any favours by voting in an election, and if we're in the same riding, I diminish the impact of your vote. As a voter, you're better off having fewer people go to the polls, not more.

A loser speaks.

[commanderkai]

Blue_Nose wrote:

martin14 wrote:

so then Eyebrock, is the wave of " me me me and only me" cultural development the cause of this ?

How does that make sense? I vote for me, on my behalf - not for the sake of anyone else.

I'm not doing you any favours by voting in an election, and if we're in the same riding, I diminish the impact of your vote. As a voter, you're better off having fewer people go to the polls, not more.

I guess this depends on your political views and interests. Let's say you have a riding with a 50-50 split of Conservatives and Liberals. Both sides would want more of their supporting voting bloc voting, in the hope that the other side is too lazy. I truly believe lack of voters is due to voters not caring about the world around them, and too lazy to take 10 minutes out of their lives to vote.

[derfboy]

i think that the way political campaings are run is the primary reason why so many people lost interest in voting. it's like watching a couple of kids fighting about irrelevant stuff calling each oter liers and trying to make the other one look bad. Now put it to a grown up level. were not talking about irrelevant subjects anymore were talking about a country's future and the leaders would rather spend all of the campaig money trying to make someone else look worst then them instead of telling canadians how there going to amend issues of high interest.