# Get out and vote!



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

Tomorrow, take a few minutes and do your duty, get out and vote.

Don't make me come over there.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

I could not agree with you more. I was taught at an early age that it is your duty to vote. There are so many people in the world that do not have the freedom to do so.


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

I second that. Regardless of your colours, go and vote. If you don't want to vote for any of them, write "they all suck" on your ballot or whatever.

We are privileged in this country to vote in free and democratic elections, do not waste that right because you're apathetic or lazy.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I agree...if you do not intend to vote, please do not complain about how you are being governed.

So, if you want the right to complain....VOTE :food-smiley-004:

Cheers

Dave


----------



## drak10687 (May 24, 2007)

I'm not a citizen, so I can't vote... but I was wondering, is there an abstain/none of the above option on Canadian ballots?

IIRC, in Australia, you're required by law to vote once you register, so I think they have an abstain option.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

drak10687 said:


> I'm not a citizen, so I can't vote... but I was wondering, is there an abstain/none of the above option on Canadian ballots?
> 
> IIRC, in Australia, you're required by law to vote once you register, so I think they have an abstain option.


Me too. It sucks to be disenfranchised and to see other people with that right who can't be bothered.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Campaign organizers and party officials predicate their whole approach to advertising and pitching campaigns based on the proportion of vote that turns out, as well as the per cent of that vote they get. If you are displeased with the quality of communication and advertising from parties these days, then you need to convey that someone is actually listening to that stuff and fed up with it. I hope there is someone in your riding you find worth voting for, but if not, then I would think that an 80% turnout with 15% spoiled ballots would speak volumes louder than giving any single party 40 or 45% of a 65% voter turnout.

Democracy is not merely a question of installing the person/s you want. It is also a question of insisting on the *level* and *depth* of debate you want. If party organizers and campaign managers think you don't care, you can expect the level to stay pretty low for the forseeable future.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Campaign organizers and party officials predicate their whole approach to advertising and pitching campaigns based on the proportion of vote that turns out, as well as the per cent of that vote they get. If you are displeased with the quality of communication and advertising from parties these days, then you need to convey that someone is actually listening to that stuff and fed up with it. I hope there is someone in your riding you find worth voting for, but if not, then I would think that an 80% turnout with 15% spoiled ballots would speak volumes louder than giving any single party 40 or 45% of the vote.
> 
> Democracy is not merely a question of installing the person/s you want. It is also a question of insisting on the *level* and *depth* of debate you want. If party organizers and campaign managers think you don't care, you can expect the level to stay pretty low for the forseeable future.


Again, I am in so much agreement! Like mhammer and a previous poster mentioned...if you are so displeased with any of your candiates, spoil your vote...write "they all suck", do whatever...but please don't be lazy or apathetic and not give a crap. A lot of people have died in the past for your right to do this.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I would most happily vote for: NO ONE. Last honest politician I saw was in a movie made by Disney. Of course no politician would want that to have a place on the ballot or to carry official weight, I mean the horror for a party to realise all its members don't rate.

I like the Australian law to vote, would be good here. But only if one of the choices was for me to say (and have it carry weight too) *NOT ONE OF THESE BOZOS!

*Sure be interesting if 100% of the vote turns out and 51% of voters reject all candidates.

 I became eligible right in the middle of the Tory Tuna Scandal, when they sold tainted tuna to the masses and lied about it (that memory of Mulroney on CBC saying he lied, he knew he lied, and he did so because he had the right to do so when he felt it in the best interest of Canadians to lie to them). That sure was not any kind of confidence boost in my belief in government I can tell you! Shot natives, drunken leaders, Airbuses, e.coli and now listeria and my confidence has not grown with the years. Provincial/Federal does it matter, small scale and large they are all just as bad as the others.

Ultimately when the choice is Robber A vs Robber B vs Robber C whats the real point, you still end up mugged


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> I would most happily vote for: NO ONE. Last honest politician I saw was in a movie made by Disney. Of course no politician would want that to have a place on the ballot or to carry official weight, I mean the horror for a party to realise all its members don't rate.
> 
> I like the Australian law to vote, would be good here. But only if one of the choices was for me to say (and have it carry weight too) *NOT ONE OF THESE BOZOS!
> 
> ...



Then go out and vote for "NO ONE". Just do it! Wow...I sound like a Nike ad!


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

Get out and VOTE!! And vote often.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

You could always put a stroke across your ballet. That is considered a destroyed ballet. Destroyed ballets are tallied. This is an option if you are so inclined.


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

Be going right after work :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Paul said:


> I'll blame the Mulroney Conservatives, the Mike Harris Conservatives, and the Harper Conservatives for lots of things. The McCain Foods Listeria contamination isn't one of them. ...
> 
> FWIW, I think that McCain has been far more above board with the Listeria crisis than any American ready-to-eat deli meat processor has ever been. This is terrible that close to 20 people have died do to listeria contamination. A century ago that many died daily from the milk supply. We are improving.


_I've been more ill than not ill this past month, so I may have missed crucial information, and if so, then what follows (and what came before) would be in error, but the emotional feeling is there regaurdless of the final situation._

Fully agree with you there about McCain. McCain has done what a company should do too and been as forward with information as possible. 

I am more commenting the listeria with regards to last weeks newspaper headlines that preceding this outbreak the Harper government changed the reporting rules to make food safty a corporate self controled thing rather than a 'reported to the government, overseen and verified' thing. If there was more than 4 months between those events my natural paranoia about things like this would be far less :__) but as one does appear to follow the other I have to wonder at the wisdom of the government that changed the rules.

Yes we are improving, by inspections that are overseen and verified with paper trails and accountability and in this the current government has fallen short. Sure, McCain may be able to wash their own equipment, but they also are not specifically in the buisness of virology nor do they have labs to run those tests, that's the job of government and what we should expect of government; McCains job is to provide food in as clean and safe a manner as possible while earning a profit and sharing that profit by buisness expantion and wage increases.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Campaign organizers and party officials predicate their whole approach to advertising and pitching campaigns based on the proportion of vote that turns out, as well as the per cent of that vote they get. If you are displeased with the quality of communication and advertising from parties these days, then you need to convey that someone is actually listening to that stuff and fed up with it. I hope there is someone in your riding you find worth voting for, but if not, then I would think that an 80% turnout with 15% spoiled ballots would speak volumes louder than giving any single party 40 or 45% of a 65% voter turnout.
> 
> Democracy is not merely a question of installing the person/s you want. It is also a question of insisting on the *level* and *depth* of debate you want. If party organizers and campaign managers think you don't care, you can expect the level to stay pretty low for the forseeable future.


You've encapsulated very nicely what I've been trying to say to anyone who would listen but much better. I may have be quoting your statement to others. My cynical side used to think that not voting was a "protest" but I came to realize that it's just what the current political establishment wants. A lot of voter apathy will make their jobs easy and lucrative. They only then have to answer to their base which will consist of their particular brand of special interests which almost never speak for the majority of the country. 
Everyone is affected by the government they have so if you are fortunate enough to have a voice like we are in Canada then you owe it to yourself and everyone to use it! Vote your conscience, even if it's for nobody!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks.

Yep, voting is a matter of saying, in some way, what you want for your country, or your province, or region, or section of town, not just a matter of saying you like this candidate better than that one. Sometimes these days, it is a matter of saying what you would like for the world, too. That could be a matter of fiscal policy or foreign relations, or environmental or First Nation issues, or human migration, or simply the quality and tenor of debate around policy.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I got out


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Did you have to show them your *whole* face to get a ballot? :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I took my daugther to vote this morning. The missus and I will do so within an hour or so.:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

I'm tempted not to bother voting as our riding is always a landslide victory for the Conservatives (Gordon O'Conners riding). Last election, they had 39000 votes verses 8500 for NDP and 16000 for the Liberals. However its ingrained too deeply in me to vote - I'll vote anyway .. theres always hope!


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

Done voting.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Did you have to show them your *whole* face to get a ballot? :smilie_flagge17:


:rofl: omg man made me laugh!


;D the 40 pound bag of premarked ballots all for the Gummy Worm Party were easy to slip in, so no matter what happens today the results will be sure to gum up the works


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

bagpipe said:


> I'm tempted not to bother voting as our riding is always a landslide victory for the Conservatives (Gordon O'Conners riding). Last election, they had 39000 votes verses 8500 for NDP and 16000 for the Liberals. However its ingrained too deeply in me to vote - I'll vote anyway .. theres always hope!


If your leanings are towards the NDP or Greenies, keep in mind that it is the national percentage of the popular vote that has kept their spirits afloat, lo these many years.

Also, keep in mind that while electoral boundaries and their potential redrawing are the perogative of Elections Canada, it is partly the actioning by parties who feel that boundaries are screwing them out of a seat that results in such boundaries being looked at again.

So, even if Gordo has the same margin of victory, every vote is informative and useful at some level.


----------



## faracaster (Mar 9, 2006)

I voted first thing this morning. Frickin' poll didn't open till 9:30  I was there at 8:20.

Until there is proportional representation, where people can feel that their vote makes a difference, will we continue to have voter apathy. We will also continue to have "strategeic" voting. Which is the biggest crock I've ever heard.

cheers
Pete


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

:| what got me is. Ok, there are:

*Registered Political Parties*



Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada
Bloc Québécois
 Canadian Action Party
Christian Heritage Party of Canada
 Communist Party of Canada
Conservative Party of Canada
First Peoples National Party of Canada 
Green Party of Canada
Liberal Party of Canada
Libertarian Party of Canada
 


Marijuana Party
Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada
neorhino.ca
New Democratic Party
Newfoundland and Labrador First Party
People's Political Power Party of Canada
Progressive Canadian Party
Western Block Party
Work Less Party
On the registered list, but I only get a choice of 4 of these here in Burlington? Sure, ok, I have a say for my community specifically, but why do I not have a say for the nation as a whole as well? I have to say, reading on the idea of WORK LESS I actually like the idea life could be simpler than being ground to an early death by working over long hours and never seeing your family (daycare is no replacement for a mom and or dad and or other).


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

faracaster said:


> I voted first thing this morning. Frickin' poll didn't open till 9:30  I was there at 8:20.
> 
> Until there is proportional representation, where people can feel that their vote makes a difference, will we continue to have voter apathy. We will also continue to have "strategeic" voting. Which is the biggest crock I've ever heard.
> 
> ...


I understand the passion people have for proportional representation. I also understand that it has never been successfully used in any nation larger than New Brunswick, and that Israel has been paralyzed for decades because proportional representation has made every single government a coalition that has to compromise to nutbars just to keep the coalition together. Not my idea of getting on with the business of running the country effectively. And in the case of that particular country, a huge historical impediment to doing the right thing at the right time. (But we'll leave that debate aside)

I also have a strong suspicion that proportional representation will actually *increase* voter apathy rather than the opposite. Why? Well, contemporary theories of perceived justice indicate that people compare the fairness of some organizational or institutional action against what alternative they think *could* have been followed. When you create the impression that you're listening to people and giving them a voice, and nothing happens in followup, they feel betrayed. Paradoxically, bit by bit, the internet access to government has made people feel more isolated from it. I sent an e-mail to a cabinet minister some 18 months ago. All I was expecting was a polite "Yes, we're looking into it. Thanks for taking the time." note. It took 12 months to hear back from the office (during which time the minister had changed), which was accompanied by a press-release. I wrote to raise a cogent consideration which I felt would make the policy in question more workable and defensible in the Supreme Court. What I got back was a form letter and promotional campaign material. Thanks, I really feel like I have a voice now.

What IF you send 2 or 3, or even 7 MPs from the various marginal parties that keeperofthegood notes to Ottawa, based on proportional representation, and they just SIT THERE for 4 years, doing nothing and being overruled every time they try and introduce something. How engaged will you feel then?

Me, I think proportional representation might work at the provincial level in smaller provinces. But for a country this big? Fuggedaboudit.


----------



## Perkinsfan (Oct 17, 2007)

Voted!
And BTW for those people who don't want to vote for anyone or want to spoil their ballot you should instead show up at the polling station and declare that you want to "Officially decline to vote". This shows your displeasure with all the candidates and your opinion is recorded.
FWIW
Eric


----------



## faracaster (Mar 9, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I understand the passion people have for proportional representation. I also understand that it has never been successfully used in any nation larger than New Brunswick, and that Israel has been paralyzed for decades because proportional representation has made every single government a coalition that has to compromise to nutbars just to keep the coalition together.
> 
> Me, I think proportional representation might work at the provincial level in smaller provinces. But for a country this big? Fuggedaboudit.



Hey mhammer

Not to get into a pissing match here. But here is a list of countries using proportional representation. Quite of few of these counties are much larger than Canada (in population not square kilometerage of course). They seem to get things done.

I'm not saying, that it might be perfect way of governing. But it gives power to the people and makes their vote count. 
No matter who wins tonight, barring a miracle, the majority of Canadians will have supported a losing party. That breeds apathy. 
Just my thoughts.
cheers
Pete


Country	
Algeria	
Angola	
Australia (Senate)
Austria	
Argentina	
Belgium	
Bolivia	
Brazil	
Bulgaria	
Burkina Faso	
Burundi	
Cambodia	
Cape Verde	
Colombia	
Costa Rica	
Croatia	
Cypress
Czech Republic	
Denmark	
Dominican Republic	
Equatorial Guinea	
Estonia	
Finland	
Germany	Mixed member proportional
Greece	
Guinea-Bissau	
Guyana	
Hungary	Mixed Member Proportional
Iceland	
Indonesia	
Ireland	Preference voting 
Israel	
Italy	Mixed Member Proportional
Japan	
Latvia	
Lesotho	
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg	
Malta	Preference voting (Single Transferable Vote)
Mexico	Mixed Member Proportional
Moldova
New Zealand	Mixed Member Proportional
Namibia	
Netherlands	
Netherlands Antilles	
New Caledonia
Nicaragua	
Norway	
Northern Cyprus	
Paraguay	
Peru	Party list
Poland	
Portugal	
Romania	
San Marino	
Sao Tome and Principe	
Scotland	Mixed Member Proportional
Slovakia	
Slovenia	
South Africa	
South Korea	
Spain	
Sri Lanka	
Suriname	
Sweden	
Switzerland	
Taiwan	
Turkey	
Uruguay	
Venezuela	Mixed Member Proportional
Wallis and Futuna


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I decided not to vote, so there. No candidate or party put forth a platform of bringing our political system into the 21 st century, and none of the parties really give a shit about research and development. I ended up with the same belief as before, all just the next pig at the trough. As long as they stay out of the way of reasearch and technology, Im not sure I really care who is the winner. I wont buy into the scare tactics of the Liberals, and I wont buy into the stoopidity of Flahaconomics.......


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Did you have to show them your *whole* face to get a ballot? :smilie_flagge17:


That's funny. Funny too that I had to show picture ID to my neighbour of 25 yrs.


----------



## lyric girl (Sep 4, 2008)

Voted. Doubt it will make any difference, but I voted.:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## martyb1 (Aug 5, 2007)

Better get a western vote in here :smile::smilie_flagge17:
Ya that ID thing is something.Really makes me wonder.I asked my 18year old step son(heavy on the STEP) if he was going to vote and he did not even know there was an election today


----------



## Jaggery (Mar 12, 2006)

3 of us from this house just voted.
:smile:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Just came back from the polling station, and did my democratic thing.

There was a guy at the poll who was clearly a recent addition to the Canadian population from somewhere on the east coast of Asia, and he was lost. He was supposed to be at a different polling station but he didn't know where. To help identify where it might possibly be, one of the electoral officers started running some candidate names by him trying to find out whether any of them were familiar in order to identify where the guy needed to go vote (the poll was about 400yds from the boundary of two ridings). None of the names rang a bell. He said he only knew the parties but not the candidates. But he REALLY wanted to vote.

Weird, huh? Some folks take this really seriously.

faracaster,

I stand corrected, although I have to say that the majority of countries listed are pretty dang small. One of the things that is fairly distinctive about Canada is that we have some regions where the population is very dense, and other parts where it is ridiculously sparse. The current electoral boundaries are set partly on the basis of what is reasonable to attempt to represent, in addition to population slice. They aren't perfect, but the riding system assures that local regional voices have a chance at being heard amidst the din of the populated eras. Based on popular vote, any single riding in the GTA has more population that the entire NWT and Nunavut. Could a proportional vote really represent the north? Not so sure about that. Some other model that first-past-the-post might be interesting, but pure proportional representation would effectively shut out the north, and a number of other areas like PEI and New Brunswick.

I just think that it is not going to be the panacea in our context that many of its advocates claim it will be.

How do the folks in the more far-flung regions of Indonesia and Brazil feel about the quality of representation they get in their legislature?


----------



## Perkinsfan (Oct 17, 2007)

Paul said:


> Declining a ballot is not an option for federal elections in Canada. Yet.


Interesting, they said you could on CHCH news yesterday?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Voted as soon as the polls opened this morning. NDP again. I like Jack Layton and Tony McQuail. 

I wish we were required to vote. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2008)

faracaster said:


> Scotland	Mixed Member Proportional


Scotland? We're calling that a "country" now are we, eh? :wink:


----------



## Perkinsfan (Oct 17, 2007)

Paul said:


> CH doesn't get the weather right either....


LOL! true, very true.
Eric


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

lyric girl said:


> Voted. Doubt it will make any difference, but I voted.:smilie_flagge17:


Same here, but you never know.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx

:rockon2: watch em as they show folks


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2008)

oops! my bad


----------



## Gilliangirl (Feb 26, 2006)

Well, I voted. Interesting that no one asked me for ID.

Now, I just sit around watching the results pour in and get good and depressed.


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

lyric girl said:


> Voted. Doubt it will make any difference, but I voted.:smilie_flagge17:


I voted. It didn't make a difference to the outcome of the election but I'm still glad I did it.

Recently I joined a provincial party just to see how easy or hard it is to get more involved. So far they've billed my credit card for the membership fee but haven't acknowledged me otherwise. I had expected at least an email by now. There needs to be a change to make it easier for individuals to participate in our government.


----------



## martyb1 (Aug 5, 2007)

Here is a interesting fact
This has to do with popular vote

Conservative-37.4%-145 seats=3.9seats/percent
Liberal-26.6%-74 seats=2.8seats/percent
B.Q.-10.2%-49 seats=4.8seats/percent
NDP-18%-38 seats=2.1 seats/percent
Ind-7.8%-2 seats=0.26 seats/percent

Hmmm,now if this was figured purely by popular vote it would look a bit different

Conservative-115
Liberal-81
B.Q-31
NDP-55
Ind-24

This was just the stats at the moment.
Interesting.I know that there is no way an election could be run on purley popular vote but thought it was interesting

Still a minority,but the opposition looks a bit different


----------



## Gilliangirl (Feb 26, 2006)

Lowest voter turnout in Canadian history..... 58%!


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2008)

Personally, I am getting quite the perverse chuckle out of the minority government we voted into power today. The Tories made up a law to keep the Liberals from using the Tory's own minority status as a reason to push for an election. Then they decided they didn't like being a minority government and so they broke their own law and called an election which resulted in them winning another minority government.

Ummm .. beg your pardon? S'cuse me?

Anyone care to guess just how much money the Tories have completely wasted by focussing so much attention on being a minority rather than making do with what they've got? And by calling a pointless election that got them and us .... nothing, nada, zip. This is where our taxes go. Somebody please remind me again about how the left wastes money and how the right is so frugal and business minded cuz I'm a little cunfoozed at the moment.


----------



## Perkinsfan (Oct 17, 2007)

Yoda said:


> Personally, I am getting quite the perverse chuckle out of the minority government we voted into power today. The Tories made up a law to keep the Liberals from using the Tory's own minority status as a reason to push for an election. Then they decided they didn't like being a minority government and so they broke their own law and called an election which resulted in them winning another minority government.
> 
> Ummm .. beg your pardon? S'cuse me?
> 
> Anyone care to guess just how much money the Tories have completely wasted by focussing so much attention on being a minority rather than making do with what they've got? And by calling a pointless election that got them and us .... nothing, nada, zip. This is where our taxes go. Somebody please remind me again about how the left wastes money and how the right is so frugal and business minded cuz I'm a little cunfoozed at the moment.


If you wanted to talk about wasted tax dollars all you have to do is check the politicians pay cheques.


----------



## 1PUTTS (Sep 8, 2007)

Yoda said:


> Anyone care to guess just how much money the Tories have completely wasted by focussing so much attention on being a minority rather than making do with what they've got?


Somewhere in the 300 Million range is what I'm reading.

In my local riding, the PC candidate beat the Liberal incumbent by 73 votes - or 0.1%. I'm sure there will be a recount. And the Libertarians finally had a candidate running.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The "real" cost of having an election is complex to calculate. 

First off, many of the folks at Elections Canada have an annual salary, and a steady job there, whether there is an election or not, so don't factor in their salary costs. There ARE the costs of the polling officers hired for the event, though. All the signage blotting out your landscape this morning is paid for by contributions, however some of that is rebated to the parties from what I understand.

Probably the biggest cost is in the waste of time imposed on the public service. There are a big chunk of public servants whose work remains constant, regardless of what is happening at the political level. Folks still get their pension cheques, their pogey cheques, their requests for audit from CRA. Border guards and prison guards are still on duty as always. But there are plenty of folks working in policy development or poised to initiate new projects and undertakings that simply get frozen until they know who their new cabinet minister will be and what they want. What happens at that point is that you have thousands of folks drawing good salaries and essentially circling the airport and doing nothing for the 8-10 weeks that it takes to have the election and sort out who is leading what. It's like paying a plumber to take an extra-long cigarette break from 9-5 every day. And that costs millions too.

Just as bad as sitting around waiting for the green light from the new government (whoever they happen to be) is the prospect of the "new guy in charge", at which point everything you've dedicated yourself to for the past 3 years (and which you and the rest of the team have been well paid to dedicate themselves to) can suddenly become yesterday's news, as the new person in charge decides they want to redecorate the department in their own image. So, there is the cost of doing nothing, and the cost of working hard, only to abandon the project. That can happen even if the very same party is elected. All it takes is a cabinet shuffle. And even though the same cast of characters was elected, several cabinet ministers decided not to run this time (e.g., David Emerson), so the cabinet shuffle is inevitable.

The discouraging aspect of this election is not the outcome. It is the fact that the outcome will not change, of its own accord, the conduct and productivity of parliament. With the exception of Garth Turner (colourful but ultimately of no greater service than a newspaper columnist), all the same trouble-makers are there. The precarious balance remains, too. The election did not *need* to be called, and the only thing that seemed to emerge during the campaign as an issue/topic/direction for deeper consideration (the prospect of the "green shift", which was invented/developed for the election) will now be set aside, or rather brushed aside.

The Conservatives don't, in my opinion, have a whole lot of ideas. They pretty much used them up last year. Perhaps now they can finally stop running for election (and it seems like they have been campaigning for 7 years straight) and just manage things effectively instead. I think, as well, that the shoe may well be on the other foot now. The dismal performance by the Liberals in the recent past was a function of them not being ready for an election, and not wanting to risk the possibility of a Conservative majority as the outcome of parliament collapsing. It seems clear now that a Conservative majority is unlikely, so the person/s saying "So, do ya feel lucky, punk?" are now the opposition leaders, rather than the Conservatives. It is clear that the appetite for needless elections is VERY low, and that precipitating one, by not co-operating, can very easily be seen as the Conservatives' fault, rather than the Opposition's.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

*Voter Turnout Hits All Time Low*

It appears most of us chose to stay at home and watch TV

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/15/voter-turnout.html


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

My apologies. Clearly, that would explain it. I should have been watching that as well.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Probably the biggest cost is in the waste of time imposed on the public service. There are a big chunk of public servants whose work remains constant, regardless of what is happening at the political level. Folks still get their pension cheques, their pogey cheques, their requests for audit from CRA. Border guards and prison guards are still on duty as always. But there are plenty of folks working in policy development or poised to initiate new projects and undertakings that simply get frozen until they know who their new cabinet minister will be and what they want.
> 
> Just as bad as sitting around waiting for the green light from the new government (whoever they happen to be) is the prospect of the "new guy in charge", at which point everything you've dedicated yourself to for the past 3 years (and which you and the rest of the team have been well paid to dedicate themselves to) can suddenly become yesterday's news, as the new person in charge decides they want to redecorate the department in their own image. So, there is the cost of doing nothing, and the cost of working hard, only to abandon the project. That can happen even if the very same party is elected. All it takes is a cabinet shuffle. And even though the same cast of characters was elected, several cabinet ministers decided not to run this time (e.g., David Emerson), so the cabinet shuffle is inevitable.


My kid sister is one of those people; she's general support staff at a minister's office. So when there's a change of guard, she's usually kept around and not replaced with a new minister's cousin's daughter or something like that. Any how, the shocking behind-the-scenes glimpse I got because of her place of employment came when the Conservatives beat the Liberals last time -- WOW! You want to talk waste? They throw out and shred EVERYTHING. The shredding I can understand to some degree, but she was bringing home BOXES of coffee because, well, it was "liberal" coffee and they didn't want the conservatives to have it. It's just stupid.

Really, when there's a change in ruling party it's like smacking a big old reset button. One that goes as far as dumping all the paper supplies and replacing them with freshly scented "New Party Paper".

It is shocking the degree to which the purge and replenish. Pens -- FREAKING PENS -- are thrown out 'cause the new guy might like Uniball instead of Bic.



> The discouraging aspect of this election is not the outcome. It is the fact that the outcome will not change, of its own accord, the conduct and productivity of parliament. With the exception of Garth Turner (colourful but ultimately of no greater service than a newspaper columnist), all the same trouble-makers are there. The precarious balance remains, too. The election did not *need* to be called, and the only thing that seemed to emerge during the campaign as an issue/topic/direction for deeper consideration (the prospect of the "green shift", which was invented/developed for the election) will now be set aside, or rather brushed aside.


I think this sums up the voter apathy in Canada -- vote? But for who? Between the 4 or 5 majors they all look eerily similar. And ultimately what they do once their in power is never what they promise and rarely runs in line with their party philosophies because, well, philosophy breaks down when the rubber meets the road.



> It is clear that the appetite for needless elections is VERY low, and that precipitating one, by not co-operating, can very easily be seen as the Conservatives' fault, rather than the Opposition's.


Without a doubt this goes down as the most useless election in Canadian history.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

keeperofthegood said:


> Ultimately when the choice is Robber A vs Robber B vs Robber C whats the real point, you still end up mugged


Seems to me I may have mentioned something along those lines already.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2008)

The true cost is much higher than just the pricetag of the election.

Check it out. They were a minority government. I'm sure we all can sympathize with how difficult it is to get anything done with a minority government. Yet somehow in the middle of this situation at a time when the opposition was doubting the will of Canadians and was pushing for a re-do on the election, the Tories introduced and were able to get enough votes to pass a law designed to thwart the efforts of the opposition. A very difficult task to say the least. A LOT of time and effort was spent in government to come up with this law and get it passed. In government, time and effort equals money spent. In this case wasted. Then they break their own law to the objection of .... nobody(?) .... further proving that it was all just a collossal waste of time and money passing the law in the first place.

To say that the true waste is difficult to calculate is a massive understatement and trust me, the true cost is a hellova lot more than a paltry 300 million.

I repeat, somebody please remind me how the left is so wastefull and the right is so frugal.


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

Well, the Bloc won the election. 

The Conservatives needed a majority and failed, somewhat miserably. They made too many blunders and people in Quebec and Ontario still can't see themselves voting in either a Conservative or Stephen Harper government, depends who you ask. The Conservatives walked away better off than before the election, but when you look at the competition Harper should have hit this one out of the park and he couldn't. Some Conservatives are now questioning if Harper is the right man to lead the Conservatives. He's a helluva smart guy and a fantastic economist, but even when faced with one of the weakest Liberal parties in decades and a declining Bloc, at least at the start of the campaign, he just couldn't do it. On the bright side, many incumbents are now more stable in their own seats and we picked up a few good candidates. We'll see how the government works now, but I suspect we'll see a repeat of last time where the Liberals start abstaining from voting, or the government is only supported by the BQ.

The Liberals failed miserably. Their green shift and carbon tax ideas were one of those concepts that might, and I say might, translate into positive change but Dion learned that you cannot win an election while promoting new taxes because no matter what you say the average voter thinks you're full of shit when you say it's 'revenue neutral'. The party is flat out broke and has a serious leadership problem. This translates into a theoretical and philosophical problem in that the new green shift didn't turn out to be so popular. The Liberals changed their platform and it hurt them, badly. They need a couple years to reorganize, refresh, and start over. On the plus side daddy's little legacy finally made it into office. I'm disappointed because I hate 'start' candidates, I even hate it when our side does it, and I'm confident that guy is going to be leader one day, much the my nervousness as a Conservative.

The NDP also failed miserably. Jack put on a helluva campaign that was well-financed and seemed to have a good slate of candidates. NDP advertising was well done at the national level, but I'm not sure that this was trickled down locally as many campaigns seemed short-staffed and short of money. They picked up a few seats, picking up the pieces where the Liberals are drowning, but failed to achieve their goal of becoming official opposition. They were thwarted in Quebec and had piecemeal success elsewhere. I suspect that like the Conservatives, NDP members are going to be questioning if Layton should remain as leader when, as polls indicated, the party should have grown substantially.

The Greens didn't succeed but didn't fail either. They're totally broke and in the grand scheme of things no better of statistically speaking, save for a slight increase in popular vote. As far as I'm aware, they weren't even close in any ridings and the one seat the thought they might win, May's own seat, stayed Conservative despite the lack of a vote-splitting Liberal but keeping in mind her competition was stiff. I heard that May will now run elsewhere and I suspect that if she finds the right riding at the right time, she just might do it and we may see some Green seats. Again, I suspect Green success will only come at Liberal demise and if they can't break their way into politics in the next 5 years, they will remain on the scene but will become the running joke of political parties and will serve no other purpose other than as a lobby group masquerading as a party. We shall see what happens, and I also suspect that the success of the Green Party will depend on what happens in the world environmentally and economically speaking.

The Bloc won the election. Somehow 50 million in arts cuts and a few other blunders cost the Conservatives success in Quebec. The arts cuts weren't even supposed to be directed at programming. Instead of selling it as a realignment of funds to support artists, it was sold as a cut. People don't like taxes but they don't like cuts either. The success of the BQ depends on Quebecers maintaining a sense of uniqueness, of difference from the rest of Canada. Arts and culture are fundamental to that. Threaten to take away from that and suddenly the CPC sparked a resurgence in BQ support and at the end of the day, Quebecers like what the BQ can offer them and despite what some of the pundits said going into this campaign, the BQ is going to stick around for awhile. The BQ has morphed from sovereignty as the main issue to supporting random and generic Quebec interests. Duceppe did well in the debates and seemed very honest and forthright with all Canadians. Due to the balance of power in the HOC, suddenly the BQ has become rather powerful in that they will decide whether or not to prop up the Conservatives. There is and inherent danger in this, but they've done it before and in the interests of Quebec, and to maintain their popularity by not prompting another damn election, they will do so but the CPC must acknowledge their interests.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

My sense is that the Bloc had the success they did because there were no real pressing issues that prompted the election. So, when there is nothing else to say yay or nay about, you vote for "our guys". And that was basically the ace they have up their sleeve. The BQ may well have sovereigntist leanings (and I realize that is putting it mildly), but a lot of Quebec voters think of them simply as "their" party; I imagine the same way that Albertan voters think of the Conservatives as "their" party. Indeed, in past a great many voters have indicated that they would vote BQ to have a strong Quebec voice in Parliament, but would never vote for sovereignty itself. Duceppe's softened approach to sovereignty during this election allowed that to happen.

Liz May's decision to run in Nova central was...um ...*principled*..., and brave, but ultimately dumb. Not only is Peter Mackay well-loved, one of the last holdovers from the "real" traditional Progressive Conservative party (though perhaps not everyone has forgiven him for selling out to Reform/Alliance) of Robert Stanfield from nearby Truro, *and* the son of a former Conservative cabinet minister, but he is the freaking Minister of Defense. How on God's green earth could Nova Scotians (the source of a great many members of the military) bring themselves to unseat the freaking defense minister? She may as well have had better luck running in Calgary against Harper.

The Green Shift is actually smart and good. Trouble was that, when taxes are involved, you need a real pitch-man to sell it, and as smart as Dion is, he has a hard time selling snowmobiles to Inuit, let alone snow. I saw a few bright spots on TV and on radio, but they were too few and far between. He's definitely a guy you want on your team, but ultimately, he's not that electable. I think the trouble is that the focus was too much on the leader, and not enough on the team that comes with the leader. The Liberals have a much stronger bench than the Conservatives do in many respects. But for some reason, voters ignore the lack of bench strength and when forced to choose between sweater guy and guy with the funny accent, they choose sweater guy. If you line up the Liberal team against the Conservative team and ask yourself which party is likely to field a more thoughtful cabinet, it's an easy call. But the election was twisted into a clone of the US Presidential election: i.e., which *leader* do you want?

Layton was just plain irritating. And this coming from a guy who has been an NDP-er for several decades. I've just plain given up on them. They have no sense of identity these days other than "we're not the bad guys". Or at least that's what it feels like.

I understand how folks like Cheryl Gallant and Pierre Poilievre get elected. But I have no idea how they manage to get the margins of victory that they do. Some of those overwhelming victories make you scratch your head and ask "What exactly did those voters *get* during this past government that they place so much confidence in these MPs?".

Ian,
On Dec 13, 2003, when I visited the Privy Council Office website to get something, all traces of Jean Chretien had been removed. You would have never known he was ever PM. The "political genocide" that takes place is not just a product of transfers of power across parties. It happens within parties too.

What a lot of folks don't realize is just how much time will be spent over the next few months preparing what are called "briefing books" to bring the new cabinet ministers up to speed on what goes on within the departments and agencies in their portfolio. When you read transcripts of parliamentary committees, you just shake your head in disbelief at how little MPs know about the very governments they are supposed to steer. Our deputy head appeared before a Commons committee early last year, and a Conservative member from Edmonton asked her if our department had a web-site. Now THERE'S someone you want influencing federal policy. I'm just glad I work in an independent agency that doesn't report to a cabinet minister.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I have to admit one of my early predictions turned out very wrong. I had, much earlier in this thread, predicted that Jack Layton was poised to take official opposition.

I still think they could have if he'd kept on message v the Liberals, rather that going off into some never never land of becoming the PM.

I didn't think the Green Shift was going to work for the Ls. Canadians aren't stupid. If they think by telling us we're going to get a $100 a month tax credit that's supposed to somehow offset billions of $ of extra spending, that ain't gonna fly. Don't tell me that somehow 'big oil' is gonna pay for it. I know it's going to come back at me at the pump. Give me a break.

Bob Rae did try to get Dion off that message, but he got pushed aside. 

Besides, environmental issues aren't new. Wasn't it Burton Cummings that sang something like _"God save Mother Nature, we never really wanted to say goodbye"_ back in the 60s?

But Dion wanted to be Al Gore, and thought that'd work.

Did Harper really want a majority? Very likely. But, one of the journalists I saw interviewed put it pretty clearly, the Conservatives don't have the 'strength on the benches'. They made 2 critical errors. And maybe, in retrospect, that was a good thing.

I think we got exactly the government we wanted. A strong conservative government to deal with the economic crisis, but one that is going to have to deal with the other parties to keep them aware of social issues that may slip out of the picture.

And the Conservatives should, I hope, grow into a real national party that should win a majority in the next election. If they don't grow into it, then they don't deserve it.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Frankly, I don't know how the Bloc will ever lose Quebec as long as they remain the province's "voice" in parliament. They got exactly what they had the last time.

And with a few exceptions, Ontario remained Liberal.

As a matter of fact, aside from the PC's getting 20 more seats, nothing really changed. In spite of all the miscues, policy blunders, and suicidal soundbites.

And I suppose that the message our poiticians should take home with them is "Our opinions haven't changed in the past 18 months. Stop with the games and get to work".

And I do believe that they got it ..... and will play nice together for the next 24 - 36 months........ or about how long it will take for the Liberals to get a new leader and some money in their coffers.


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

mhammer said:


> I imagine the same way that Albertan voters think of the Conservatives as "their" party.


That sentence really stood out to me, even though it was just a side note to your main points. I'm Albertan and I don't think of the Tories as our party and I don't know anyone else who does. I know many people here who would never, ever vote Liberal so the Conservatives win by being 'the other guy' but they're not our party. Reform was our party. Tories are still an old Central Canadian party, and Harper doesn't change that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Ian,
> On Dec 13, 2003, when I visited the Privy Council Office website to get something, all traces of Jean Chretien had been removed. You would have never known he was ever PM. The "political genocide" that takes place is not just a product of transfers of power across parties. It happens within parties too.
> 
> What a lot of folks don't realize is just how much time will be spent over the next few months preparing what are called "briefing books" to bring the new cabinet ministers up to speed on what goes on within the departments and agencies in their portfolio. When you read transcripts of parliamentary committees, you just shake your head in disbelief at how little MPs know about the very governments they are supposed to steer. Our deputy head appeared before a Commons committee early last year, and a Conservative member from Edmonton asked her if our department had a web-site. Now THERE'S someone you want influencing federal policy. I'm just glad I work in an independent agency that doesn't report to a cabinet minister.


"political genocide" -- that's awesome. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

kat_ said:


> That sentence really stood out to me, even though it was just a side note to your main points. I'm Albertan and I don't think of the Tories as our party and I don't know anyone else who does. I know many people here who would never, ever vote Liberal so the Conservatives win by being 'the other guy' but they're not our party. Reform was our party. Tories are still an old Central Canadian party, and Harper doesn't change that.


Well, you're right I suppose. I lived in Edmonton during the Peter Lougheed days, and while Alberta has remained steadfastly "conservative" at the provincial level, I should not confuse that with what is* called* "Conservative" at the federal level.

Still, you have to admit that there is a certain sentiment which views the Liberals as the*"voice" of central Canada, and the current party that calls themselves Conservative as sticking up for western Canada. Certainly I can't think of any other party that pitches themselves as sticking up for Alberta.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Still, you have to admit that there is a certain sentiment which views the Liberals as the*"voice" of central Canada, and the current party that calls themselves Conservative as sticking up for western Canada. Certainly I can't think of any other party that pitches themselves as sticking up for Alberta.


sentiment yes, but in reality, not any more. This election proved the Liberals are the voice of downtown Toronto. There's going to be a lot of navel gazing being done in their war rooms now I think. The Cs won 51 seats in Ontario, the Ls won 38. So, in fact, the Conservatives are now the voice of central Canada.

also a reality check, I seriously doubt the Federal Conservatives have ever said they are sticking up for Western Canada.

We are small 'c' conservatives out west, and, speaking only for Alberta, we've had Lougheed, (please, please forget about Getty, we do), King Ralph and now Fast Eddie to stick up for us thanks very much.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> ....I suppose that the message our poiticians should take home with them is "Our opinions haven't changed in the past 18 months. Stop with the games and get to work".
> 
> And I do believe that they got it ..... and will play nice together for the next 24 - 36 months........ or about how long it will take for the Liberals to get a new leader and some money in their coffers.


We can hope. The game of chicken that has been played out for the last year and a half was that the Liberals would back away from non-confidence motions because they couldn't afford an election, and the Conservative machine knew it. Hopefully, now that it is clear that no one wants an election, and no one is likely to benefit from it if there were one, the parties can get along and come up with reasonable compromises that stand a chance of passing.

The "dysfunctionality" that existed in parliament prior to the election, that allegedly prompted the election call, was a very multi-lateral affair. Yes, the opposition was belligerent, but the ruling party didn't seem to recognize that they were actually a minority. 

I'm reminded of those movies or cartoons you see where some small person or animal has a monster standing behind them without their knowledge, and they are posturing and gaining confidence in front of a bully because they think the bully is afraid of *them* in particular. In this case, the "little animal" is the Conservative party, the "bully" is the opposition, and the "monster" is the prospect of an election.


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

dwagar said:


> We are small 'c' conservatives out west, and, speaking only for Alberta, we've had Lougheed, (please, please forget about Getty, we do), King Ralph and now Fast Eddie to stick up for us thanks very much.


I'm not from Alberta and I don't live there but even I miss old Ralph. Damn that man was entertaining and from what I've heard he wasn't half bad at his job either.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

dwagar said:


> sentiment yes, but in reality, not any more. This election proved the Liberals are the voice of downtown Toronto. There's going to be a lot of navel gazing being done in their war rooms now I think. The Cs won 51 seats in Ontario, the Ls won 38. So, in fact, the Conservatives are now the voice of central Canada.
> 
> also a reality check, I seriously doubt the Federal Conservatives have ever said they are sticking up for Western Canada.
> 
> We are small 'c' conservatives out west, and, speaking only for Alberta, we've had Lougheed, (please, please forget about Getty, we do), King Ralph and now Fast Eddie to stick up for us thanks very much.


A lot of the areas in Ontario where the Conservatives took seats probably share more in common with Vegreville or Hinton than they share in common with Ottawa, Toronto or Hamilton. So, the divide is more one of rural Canada vs urban Canada than one of west vs east/centre. Certainly the old gun registry debacle was divided along those lines. On the other hand, one would be hard-pressed to describe much of the Maritimes as "big city", and the big blue machine did not exactly steamroll over the Maritimes. So, obviously it can not be boiled down to just rural/small-town vs big city. Happily, Canada is more complex than that.:smile:

Rightly or wrongly, though, there is a strong perception among many out east (or out central) that the Harper government gives preference to the western economy over the central Canadian economy. They haven't really been as helpful with respect to the manufacturing sector around here (which you won't find in the more rural areas) as they seem to have been to the petroleum sector out west. Or at least that is the perception.

Having lived for some 25 years in Ottawa, 12 years in Montreal, 5 years in Edmonton, 5 years in Victoria, 4 years in Hamilton, 3 years in Fredericton and Sackville, and 4 months in St. John's, I have to say that there are a LOT of assumptions that the populace of different regions have about other regions which are not always accurate.

As an aside, a friend of mine has mingling with King Ralph and Fast Eddie as part of his job. The way he conveys it to me, he says you could never really tell how Ralph *got* to a decision, but you knew that once he made it, he would stick to it. In the case of Ed Stelmach, he described him as being transparent in his reasoning, but trying to be everything to everybody; which left you kind of wondering whether decisions would be stuck to.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I agree.

A lot of that attitude of regionalization I think is fanned by the opposition parties (not just this opposition, but when the Cs were there too), I mean seriously, what do they expect the Government to do about global conditions? But it makes for a good rant.

When oil prices spiked, and the $ followed, the West is evil (forgetting about the Maritimes it seems). However, it may change now with the US economy tanking, demand for oil sinking, dropping oil prices and the $ with it. A low $ will hurt the oil producing provinces but might help the manufacturing provinces.

However, just a low $ isn't going to fix manufacturing. If Americans aren't buying cars and trucks, there isn't anything the Government can do about it. Same goes with softwood. The sub-prime nonsense that fuelled the US run on housing isn't going to happen again, ever. No American housing market dumps on our softwood, no trades building those houses dumps on our making Chevy trucks, etc.

I sincerely hope the new minority can get rid of most of the partisan bullshit, at least for awhile, can concentrate on balancing out the country, keeping jobs in all areas with whatever it takes. I agree with the Conservative intent on trying to keep taxes as low as possible to stimulate the economy, but I think we need to do something serious in the manufacturing sectors, investment, R&D, etc. to keep them active when our largest trading partner is tanking.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

mhammer said:


> .... the Liberals would back away from non-confidence motions because they couldn't afford an election, and the Conservative machine knew it. _Hopefully, now that it is clear that no one wants an election, and no one is likely to benefit from it if there were one, the parties can get along and come up with reasonable compromises that stand a chance of passing._
> 
> Yes, the opposition was belligerent, but the ruling party didn't seem to recognize that they were actually a minority.
> .


That's the Gospel truth. I think that the Liberals knew that Dion wasn't a star. But as you said ... everybody want's him on their team. 

Maybe Harper's announcement today about an economic meeting ( a liberal plan) will be a start. I at least feel better that Harper doesn't have complete control. 

My sister told me a story ( she's near the top of Old Age pension) about having to go to Privy Council three times to get a pamphlet printed for a long running Seniors grant. Talk about a power tripper. 

What really astonishes me is how quickly people forget how and where some of these politicians come from. I was talking to our Postmaster today and she totally had forgotten a lot of things that happened only two years ago.


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Having lived for some 25 years in Ottawa, 12 years in Montreal, 5 years in Edmonton, 5 years in Victoria, 4 years in Hamilton, 3 years in Fredericton and Sackville, and 4 months in St. John's, I have to say that there are a LOT of assumptions that the populace of different regions have about other regions which are not always accurate.


Good point. Living in other places is good. This world would be a different place if more people could spend more time in more places, and actually living there not just holidaying. 

I hope that the government settles down and gets to work quickly. Some of the most effective governments this country had were minorities, such as back in the Laurier years (yes, it's a distant example), since they had to actually do good things instead of just push stuff through like majority governments can.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think I'm gonna refer to this government as "Canada's New Government V1.1 Service Pack 2". Same general gist, but hopefully they will fix the bugginess of V1.0.:smilie_flagge17:


----------

