Canada Elects Bush Version 2.0

[Springheel]

You are stuck in a logical fallacy, where you believe you are voting as an individual, while everyone else is voting as a group. EVERYONE is voting as an individual. If very large numbers of people do the same thing as you, it can have a dramatic effect on the election result.

 

It's not a logically fallacy. I'm aware that everyone votes individually. However, the only argument against one individual not voting is, "If everyone did the same thing there would be problems".

 

It's similar in some ways to sick days. If one generic person takes a day off sick at a large workplace, it won't cause major problems (assuming he's not a crucial specialist of some kind). If LOTS of people take a day off sick the same day, it causes problems. Does that mean no one should be allowed to take a sick day? Of course not. What applies to lots of people does not necessarily apply to an individual.

 

As far as arresting people for not voting, what the hell kind of democracy is that? "Yes, you have the freedom to vote, and if you don't, we arrest you."

[OrbWeaver]

Have a system where you rank the candidates you want in power and they take the votes, and then it has the capacity to do an instant runoff.

 

That's exactly what Single Tranferable Vote does. The vote is "transferable" from your first candidate to your second and subsequent candidates if the first candidate is eliminated.

[Gildoran]

I'd like to suggest another voting system instead of instant runoff - approval voting.

 

It is used by:

• Mathematical Association of America (MAA), with about 32,000 members;
  
• American Mathematical Society (AMS), with about 30,000 members;
  
• Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences (INFORMS), with about 12,000 members;
  
• American Statistical Association (ASA), with about 15,000 members;
  
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), with about 377,000 members.
  

The fact that several major mathematical and statistical societies (the sorts of societies that tend to carefully analyze the benefits/drawbacks of different voting styles) use approval voting really suggests that it's one of the best systems thought up so far.

 

With approval voting, you can vote for the Green party and the Democratic party without risking allowing people such as Bush to win, perhaps allowing smaller independant parties to gain power much more quickly. Of course, I suspect Democrats/Republicans would never allow approval voting, for exactly that reason.

 

PS, has anybody noticed any similarities between the idea of Democratic vs. Republican, and the combatting nations of George Orwell's 1983?

[obscurus]

It's not a logically fallacy. I'm aware that everyone votes individually. However, the only argument against one individual not voting is, "If everyone did the same thing there would be problems".

 

It's similar in some ways to sick days. If one generic person takes a day off sick at a large workplace, it won't cause major problems (assuming he's not a crucial specialist of some kind). If LOTS of people take a day off sick the same day, it causes problems. Does that mean no one should be allowed to take a sick day? Of course not. What applies to lots of people does not necessarily apply to an individual.

 

As far as arresting people for not voting, what the hell kind of democracy is that? "Yes, you have the freedom to vote, and if you don't, we arrest you."

 

 

Freedom is a word that is bandied about far too much without considering what it means. In a modern democratic society, you are not free to do many things. You are not free to run around killing people for no reason. You are not free to walk around naked on public transport (maybe in Sweden ). You are not free to drive without a seatbelt (most Western countries at any rate). You are not free to cheat the tax system. The freedom to vote does not imply a freedom from voting.

 

Are you realy saying that it is such an onerous waste of your time to spend half an hour on a saturday morning once every 3 - 4 years to do your civic duty? Are you really that lazy? You have nothing at all to lose by voting but an insignificant amount of time. If you know you are not going to be able to make it to a polling booth on the day, you can arrrange a postal ballot. It isn't hard.

 

Comparing voting to taking a sick day is just lame - even in hospitals you can arrange to vote.

 

Again, you keep on with the "making a difference' BS. Voting is not to make a difference, though that may happen in a very small way, voting is your civic duty to contribute to society by voicing your preference as to how the country is governed. You won't necessarily get your way, but you will have made your preference heard.

 

If your preferred party/candidate wins by a huge margin, by voting for that person you have added to the legitamacy of that party/candidate's mandate. You might think the difference you make is so insignificant that it isn't important, but your voice is what is important in a democracy, not the difference you make.

 

In countries where voting is voluntary, elections can be heavily biased by events like the weather, sporting events on the day of the election.

 

For example, an electorate in a district with a heavy population of low paid, unionised workers who are likely to vote overwhelmingly for a candidate that champions worker's rights is subjected to heavy rain. A smaller than usual number of voters turn up to vote, and the most popular candidate, the one who is most representative, doesn't win. If voting was compulsory, the result would have been much different - people would have voted if not voting meant a fine or a prison sentence.

 

Another situation that commonly occurs with voluntary voting is where the most popular candidate loses the election because too many people, like you, thought it would make no difference whether they voted or not, and in so doing, another candidate recieved the higher proportion of votes cast.

 

For someone to not vote because they genuinely see no differrence between the available candidates is one thing, but if you have a preference and you don't vote, it is just stupid, antisocial and lazy.

[Springheel]

Voting is not to make a difference, though that may happen in a very small way, voting is your civic duty to contribute to society

 

Well now we're getting closer to the truth. Voting doesn't make a difference, but you *should* do it anyway, because it's polite. That's a lot different from where we started.

 

I personally don't see it as something you *should* do. I see it as something you *can* do. It is one of the benefits of living in a democracy that you have the right to vote. You also have the right NOT to vote.

 

Comparing voting to taking a sick day is just lame - even in hospitals you can arrange to vote.

 

I don't see how the second part of that sentence has any connection to the first. Why was the analogy 'lame'?

[OrbWeaver]

The freedom to vote does not imply a freedom from voting.

 

The freedom to do something implies the freedom to choose not to do it. Otherwise the concept is meaningless.

[obscurus]

"You also have the right NOT to vote."

 

In some countries, but not all, and sensible countries who want the elected government to be as representitive as possible will make voting mandatory.

 

I can see that the concept of democracy is simply beyond your comprehension - you only want to vote if you get your way. In other words you want to be either a dictator or be dictated, you aren't interested in participating in a collective process. You are focussing soley on you as an individual, but democracy is about the collective, the whole. Essentially you are taking a very selfish, short sighted view of things, and it is pretty obvious that you can't grasp the concept of putting your induvidual rights into the context of the society as a whole that you are a small part of. You are making a difference, but a very negative one. The problem is that you are not alone, and that when you spout rubbish about voting not being important, no doubt some fools will listen to their apathy and agree with you. You are contributing to the continuing decline in voter turn outs in many elections, and thereby the decline in democracy. Choosing to not vote is not part of your democratic right, it is a loophole in the electoral system. The right to vote automatically confers an obligation to vote.

 

I give up.

[Springheel]

I can see that the concept of democracy is simply beyond your comprehension

 

Yeah, that's it exactly. I'm too stupid to understand. Me go put finger in nose now.

 

You are contributing to the continuing decline in voter turn outs in many elections, and thereby the decline in democracy.

 

Wow, now I'm helping defeat democracy world-wide. There's no end to my powers!!

[obscurus]

The freedom to do something implies the freedom to choose not to do it. Otherwise the concept is meaningless.

 

 

The concept of freedom as many people use the term is meaningless. The difference between anarchy and democracy is that in a democracy, a majority of people agree on what freedoms people will and won't have, while in an anarchy, everyone looks out for themselves and does what they can get away with. You don't have the freedom to do as you wish in a democracy. Being free to choose from a range of options does not automatically imply a freedom not to make a choice at all. There are many situations where being forced to make a decision is quite appropriate (or unavoidable), and voting should be/is one of them.

 

@Springheel

 

Sarcasm doesn't constitute an argument, and I really don't think you have thought about the implications of your position, and how sereiously deleterious it is towards the erosion of democracy. And I mean your position, not you personally. I know you seem to think everything revolves around you personally, which is perhaps why you have trouble understaning a collective process like democracy

Edited January 26, 2006 by obscurus

[Springheel]

Sarcasm doesn't constitute an argument

 

Neither do ad hominem attacks. You have been quite reasonable in other debates, so I'm going to assume that the personal comments are supposed to be taken good-naturedly.

 

I'll see if I can summarize my position for you, as you seem to be reading a great deal into it.

 

In the original thread, someone (I forget who) posted that "if you don't vote, you can't complain about the results". I have been arguing that, since one vote cannot realistically change the outcome of the election, you have just as much right to complain whether you voted or not. I still haven't heard an argument that disuputes that.

 

Secondly, I have been pointing out what I perceive as a flaw in the Canadian voting system. In my personally preferred system of proportional representation (see, I actually DO like democracy), every single vote actually has some significance. The percentage of the popular vote determines the amount of power a government has. So your vote, although it may only count for a 0.0001%, still counts (and no, I'm not suggesting anyone should have more say in their vote than anyone else). In a first-past-the-post system like we have, many votes wind up doing no good at all (other than, as you say, fulfilling your 'civic duty').

 

Perhaps my 'comprehension' isn't up to the task, but I fail to see what is so personally offensive to you about those opinions.

[Napalm]

You also have the right NOT to vote."

 

In some countries, but not all, and sensible countries who want the elected government to be as representitive as possible will make voting mandatory.

 

I can see that the concept of democracy is simply beyond your comprehension - you only want to vote if you get your way.

 

 

but since there are so many people who the concept of democracy is beyond them, then why should we try to force it on them? Let them be governed it's what they want, making them vote would just make it easier to manipulate since there would be even more people voting unitelligently/randomly

[obscurus]

In Australia, there is what is known as the 'Donkey Vote', where people turn up at the polling booth and vote randomly, or invalidate their vote by doodling on the ballot etc. The occurence of the donkey vote is surprisingly low - most people actually do bother to consider their vote at least briefly, since they have to be there anyway, they might as well do it. They still don't always think about it hard enough for my liking, as imbeciles like Howard and his Liberal party (that is anything but liberal) keep getting voted in, but you don't get the situation that occurs in the US where huge sections of the population are bamboozled into not voting (eg the Black vote in Florida). It is a lote easier to manipulate the vote by getting communities or sections of the population to not vote than it is to manipulate a secret ballot.

 

The reason Australia made voting compulsory was that previous to compulsory voting, employers threatened to fire workers if they went to vote, becasue they knew the workers would vote for parties that supported unions (and hence were a threat to the power of employers to mis-treat workers). Compulsory voting meant that employers had no opportunity to pressure their employees into not voting, because they were legally obliged to. Thus, compulsory voting gives a more acurate picture of the entire electorate.

 

Analyses of elections in the US and GB for example show that large sections of the population don't vote because they don't have access to unbiased media, are ill-educated, or are pressured to not vote by various powerful interest groups, not because they didn't care or didn't think their vote mattered per se. If voting was compulsory, politicians would have to consider the interests of these groups, because failing to do so would introduce a wild card that no political party would want to deal with.

 

Making voting mandatory in the US would mean that senators, congressmen and presidential candidates would have to pitch their ideas and plans to the poor and comunities that are currently ignored, and it would mean that they would have to actually do something to improve the quality of life of all Americans, not just the wealthy campaign contributors and middle Americans, in order to attract their vote. Same for Canada and all of the other countries who don't see the value in forcing all citizens to participate in their governence.

 

Voting should not be a selfish, individual act, but a collective expression of how best to look after the welfare of all citizens, and the freedom to vote must include an obligation to vote if democracy is to function, otherwise you are better of with a pure dictatorship.

 

@Springheel: I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't agree with your position in not voting, though I do agree that proportional representation is vastly better than the current situation.

[Ishtvan]

Making voting mandatory in the US would mean that senators, congressmen and presidential candidates would have to pitch their ideas and plans to the poor and comunities that are currently ignored, and it would mean that they would have to actually do something to improve the quality of life of all Americans, not just the wealthy campaign contributors and middle Americans, in order to attract their vote.

 

It's not that simple. Politicians don't get away with doing stuff that only benefits the wealthy because the poor don't vote. They get away with it because they somehow manage to convince people that their policies will actually benefit the poor. E.g., spouting bullshit like how a tax break will have a long term positive effect on the economy (while incidentally the great majority of our public money funding that tax break is going to giving rich people a lot of money).

 

I think a mandatory economics course would go a lot further toward stifling idiotic policies than mandatory voting.

 

Also, corporations can afford to fund their lobbyists much better than non-profit orgs representing disadvantaged groups can.

[OrbWeaver]

Being free to choose from a range of options does not automatically imply a freedom not to make a choice at all. There are many situations where being forced to make a decision is quite appropriate (or unavoidable), and voting should be/is one of them.

 

Not voting is making a choice - it is expressing dissatisfaction with the system which should be rectified by politicians working to increase their appeal to the public, not through compulsion. You already mentioned that people in Australia can make a "donkey vote" if they wish, so how is this any different to having a voluntary voting system?

 

I believe that everybody has a right to non-participation. The role of the government should be to STOP people from doing things that are harmful, not to MAKE them do things which it has declared are benficial. The latter sets you on a very nasty slope towards more widespread compulsion - such as compulsory donations to charity, compulsory service in the military, compulsory expressions of support for the government and its policies - all of which may be considered beneficial by some criteria but are nevertheless gross violations of the individual's right to personal freedom of choice.

[oDDity]

There's nothing wrong with not voting if you turn up at the polls and have an option for refusing to vote, that's positive non-voting, but simply not turning up at all makes you look lethargic and uninterested.

[New Horizon]

I think it would be cool to be able to give feedback on why we voted for the person we did. No doubt politicians get a big head because they think...'oh, this many people voted for me. I must be doing something right'. Not so in many cases.

 

I would like to have two boxes next to the name I'm voting for. The would be for 'confidence' or 'strategic'. Basically, it might help send a more realistic message of why people are voting. I don't think an elected official would feel so smug knowing that 2/3 of his votes came from people who were simply voting against the other guy as a strategic move.

[Springheel]

Or that a candidate won just because the people who didn't want him elected split their vote between two other parties.

 

I heard that Harper is now prime minister when only 30% of the people voted for his party. That's ridiculous if it's true.

[sxotty]

I personally don't see it as something you *should* do. I see it as something you *can* do. It is one of the benefits of living in a democracy that you have the right to vote. You also have the right NOT to vote.

I don't see how the second part of that sentence has any connection to the first. Why was the analogy 'lame'?

 

If you do not vote you don't have the right to complain about whoever is elected. That is my opinion, and therefore I vote, though my candidates never seem to win on a national level at least on the local level some of them do.

[Northeast]

Here's an angering article. Socially conservative US fuckballs are rejoicing now, thinking that Canada might 'see the light' in the future. Their arrogance in assuming they know best for Canada's social policies. Fuck them all if they expect us to become more "survival of the fittest" social Darwinians.

 

Canadians 'liberal and hedonistic' but can change, U.S. right-winger says

 

Fortunately, social conservatism doesn't fly in the vast majority of the country. I have to say, I think Alberta is the bastion of these values. The let-me-tell-you-how-to-live-lest-the-almighty-God-smite-your-ass type.

 

I think much of the CPC (I like to call them the Conservative Reform Alliance Party) support was people voting against the Liberals, buying into the idea that the party is corrupt. So all we need is a fresh-faced Liberal leader, and a party with renewed vision.

 

Edit: also, we need electoral reform.

 

Edit 2: what's with all the reports saying that the "west is in"? Are they only in if the Cons are in? How is Alberta supposed to dominate politically in the future, as I read as the election was going, when they only have 3 million people, compared to 12 million in just Ontario? Why do journalists feel the need to be prophets? I know it's for profits, but it was a rhetorical question anyway. Western Canada has always had a vote. They were always in. I can't believe people bought into this propaganda.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Northeast

[Napalm]

Analyses of elections in the US and GB for example show that large sections of the population don't vote because they don't have access to unbiased media, are ill-educated, or are pressured to not vote by various powerful interest groups, not because they didn't care or didn't think their vote mattered per se. If voting was compulsory, politicians would have to consider the interests of these groups, because failing to do so would introduce a wild card that no political party would want to deal with.

 

Or they don't care. I'm sorry but you clearly have no clue what your talking about because the are I'mc lose to has the highest education in the nation, is in the wealthy class, have acess to continous media from all world areas, and there is still a very large percentage of the younger generation who choose not to vote, so it's cleary not just the reason thats you pulled out of your ass. I'm sorry but your whole argument is just as much false propoganda as the american system you continuously argue against gives out

 

On a completly different note...If everyone seems to fislike the new Canadian government...who elected them? I'm just curious as to the other side, but everyone here seems to be against them. Is it the same sort of thing as the current American government?

[Northeast]

On a completly different note...If everyone seems to fislike the new Canadian government...who elected them? I'm just curious as to the other side, but everyone here seems to be against them. Is it the same sort of thing as the current American government?

Regional differences, East vs. West (Quebec in their own world). An urban vs. rural rift. People just wanting change, but still wanting the status quo, so we get a minority. People punishing the Liberals, holding their noses while they vote Conservative. The NDP getting more seats, and I think people voting NDP to spite the Liberals greatly helped the Cons. Things will blow over, but Canada is a fractured country and we need proportional representation to help ease the finger pointing and regional hatred.

 

*speaking as one of those bleeding-heart commie pinko soft-handed bankerboy Torontonian morons*

Edited January 28, 2006 by Northeast

[Vadrosaul]

http://www.canada.com/national/features/de...lxn_update.html

 

Here's the seat chart. Alberta and Saskatchewan are virtually pure Conservative, and Quebec is mainly Bloc seperatists. Ontario, BC, Manitoba & the Maritime provinces are checkered, with PEI being pure Liberal.

 

The NDP and Green parties were shortchanged due to the pass the post system, and would have benefitted from a proportional voting system (NDP would have gotten 52 seats, Green 12 seats)

[sxotty]

Things will blow over, but Canada is a fractured country and we need proportional representation to help ease the finger pointing and regional hatred.

 

What? I had no idea, are you saying you don't get proportional representation? What do you get then? I thought you did in that parliment was made up of the % of whatever party it was or something.

 

Edit: Yes I am ignorant, so please inform me thx

Edited January 29, 2006 by sxotty

[Northeast]

What? I had no idea, are you saying you don't get proportional representation? What do you get then? I thought you did in that parliment was made up of the % of whatever party it was or something.

 

Edit: Yes I am ignorant, so please inform me thx

We have a parliamentary system. There are little districts by which we divide our country. We call these "ridings". In each riding, candidates register (doing whatever is required) and they run to represent that riding. The person with the most votes after all ballots are counted wins the riding. (50+1)% isn't required, just more percentage than the other people who ran in that riding.

 

[somewhat off topic]

This is done across the country. Parties run in as many ridings as they can (or wish to), and traditionally the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, whether they have over half of the seats (majority) or less than half (minority), forms the "government". However (in minority situations), any people, parties, whatever elected to the House of Commons can form a coalition after election and, if the coalition has a majority, they govern (even if the largest pre-coalition party is left out).

 

In a minority government (what Canada has now), the opposition parties (and independents) can block, pass, (create and pass), (practically) force amendments on legislation, since (50+1)% is needed in votes in the House of Commons for things to pass. Minority governments can be toppled too, and an election can be forced (if the opposition doesn't want to form a coalition and govern after toppling the government).

[/somewhat off topic]

 

Now, in any riding, all the votes that were cast for any other candidate other than the winner mean NOTHING. Even if the vast majority in the riding didn't vote for the winner, the person with the most votes wins. Every other opinion is effectively squelched. This is called a first-past-the-post voting system. It's simple, and works well in its own ways, mostly by allowing regional representation. Thus it can greatly amplify the power of regional parties. (Parties that try to or are thought to benefit one region of the country over others.) All areas of the country can get their problems heard federally, but regional parties can act against the interests of the rest of the country.

 

Take some region. 1/3 votes for a regional party, 2/3 divided by other parties. The regional party wins seats all across the region it tries to. But most of that region voted against the regional party. This can happen in a FPTP system. And even if it's a majority of a region, the votes for other parties are meaning less, people feel their voices aren't being heard. They are disenfranchised. Even without regional parties, people still feel ignored in a winner-takes-all style election. The popular vote doesn't necessarily match who sits in Parliament.

 

Canada doesn't need FPTP federally, we have HUGE provincial governments which can use FPTP to reap any benefits the system has. But federally, I think Canada needs proportional representation. It's a closer picture of what Canadians' want in government, and it allows for fresh ideas.

 

I believe I went overboard... Hope you understand a little more now.

[OrbWeaver]

Basically, regional FPTP voting is crap. If there are two parties, A and B, and in every region 49% of people vote for A and 51% for B, then B will have 100% of the seats in parliament even though only 51% of the population support them.