Voting Dilemna

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Okay, here's my dilemna. I'm moving from one riding to another two days after the vote on the 23rd. I don't feel justified in voting for someone in my 'old' riding because I won't be living there. However, I don't think I'm allowed to vote in my new riding because I don't live there as at the date of the vote, and I won't have any way to prove that I will be, other than a real estate purchase agreement.


If we were actually voting for the PM, then that'd be one thing, but IMHO that's just a side effect of the vote and not the vote itself. Besides, the person in my 'old' riding who's in the same party as the PM that I'd like to see get in is NOT who I'd be voting for.


I'd certainly like to hear any opinions on the issue to help me think through what really to do. And certainly let me know if I've missed something that would allow me to vote in my 'new' riding.

"Waste" your vote on somebody you know will never win, but you have some affinity to their

platform... perhaps the Marijuana, or the Greens? (or the Conservatives, LOL, yes, I know they

stand a good chance, I'm just teasing) For those fringe candidates, every vote really does count as

a single vote ends up being a larger percentage of their total than with the front-runners.

mw By mw

And remember your vote really is worth something ($1.75 I think) to the party you vote for, as long as that party receives some threshold - I don't remember what - of the popular vote.


*sigh*


If only we had STV, "wasting" your vote would be a thing of the past. Though you'd have the

problem that your riding would be bigger and there would likely be one or two people from

the party you voted for that are now your representative.


I think it was Layton last night during the debate that said somehting like: "Yes we need a

reform, this system was developed before the telephone existed. Obviously it could be

improved."


Martin also pointed out that he was not opposed (well he didn't say he was opposed) to more

representative representation.


I don't think it's too far off now. If there'd been even the slightest ammount of competency

in the "Yes" side of the STV referendum in BC, we'd have had that extra 3 or 4 percent (over

the variety of ridings) who would have voted for it. Once a province or two has representative

representation, you'll start to see more people pushing for it Federally.

STV is a tad flawed and not the system i would choose to have. as for you vote unless you really know you canadates in your riding (most don't, my MP is a tool) you vote for the party you want in power, and that best reflects your views. even if that party doesn't have a hope in hell of winning it is still important because it means $$$ for the next election


make the choice you feel is right acorrding to your own personal views and belifes

Under our current system, I'd go so far as to say it really doesn't matter who your candidate is

in your riding (unless they're quite influential in the party). If it's going to be a back bencher,

they're going to have just about zero say in the government.


Unfortunately, under our system, I'd vote for a party stooge over somebody who I think is a

better person if they were running for a party that I was opposed to.

" If it's going to be a back bencher, they're going to have just about zero say in the government. "


Tell that to the late, lamented Chuck Cadman.


Every vote counts in a minority gov't and that gives individual MPs a lot more clout.

Uh, Chuck Cadman wasn't a back bencher, he was an independant. A back bencher can almost

never vote the way he wants to, so his personal views very rarely (and almost never for an

important issue) enter into his vote.


I happen to think that if there were a significant number of independants in the house, we'd

have a better government, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

A back-bencher can do whatever they want. Just 'cause they don't have the nads.....


We don't necessarily need independents in the house (tho I agree w/ you it would improve gov't). More free votes would suffice. Also, as I stated earlier, minority gov'ts give backbenchers a lot more clout.


Cadman started out as a Reform/Conservative party member btw IIRC. He also sat in one of the back rows in the House. So if we go by the seating plan, he was the very definition of a b.b.



Dammit - I think since we're busy banning dangerous stuff like handguns and sharp edged paper we should look at the banning of political parties. Who started this party stuff anyway - some drunkard probably - says to himself woohoo if we all hang out together and have a party then people will vote for us - since we can't hand out beer to get votes in the election we'll call it a party convention and get everybody so drunk at that that they'll vote for us......


Think about it though - no parties - no claiming of affiliation to another member - no pigeonholing of candidates into little boxes. All you expect is for your MP to do their best for your riding and Canada. The obvious weakness to this is that cabal's would form in the back rooms to ensure certain 'things' get done. But these cabal's would be much less stable and less likely to do significant damage to the countries like a certain arrogant federal party that has been in power for 14 or so years. And if you want to eliminate the cabals - ban them from talking to each other outside of parliament - if they learn sign language tape their hands up and ban them from opening their eyes - and ban tap dancing (could be morse code and it really should be banned anyway since it's so damned irritating - I hate it when they break up a good showtune with a tap dance number).....Wouldn't that be a sight - a bunch of suits shuffling around the parliament in a non rhythmic gait bandages on their hands and eyes bumping into walls until they successfully enter the parliament - sort of like rats in a maze - only the smartest get the cheese.


"- a bunch of suits shuffling around the parliament in a non rhythmic gait ............bumping into walls until they successfully enter the parliament - sort of like rats in a maze - "


Isn't this what we have now??



I think the best thing that could happen to democracy is the banning of $$$ donations to parties or candidates. Take some of our tax money, divvy up a portion for each declared candidate, and only allow individuals to donate their time to campaigns (with employers bound by law to allow some time off to this purpose). The amount would be arrived at by an independent commission based on the number of days (to a set maximum... call it 45 days) of the campaign.


This would make political parties redundant, as every candidate would have a relatively equal amount of resources for their campaign and they wouldn't have to rely on war chests. They (elected politicians) could still vote as a bloc when they have common cause. Best of all, it would remove the current inequality that let's rich folks have more influence over politicians than average working stiffs.


The stumbling block would be how we would vote for a Prime Minister, but that vote could be more like the American system, where one votes for the leader of the country as well as a local rep.


I'm sure I've overlooked something. What is it?

"I'm sure I've overlooked something. What is it?"


Dogs and cats... Living together! Mass hysteria!

OK. Here are again. Voting time. Still no voting reform, still using ancient, moth-eaten, obsolete First Past the Post voting system. But this time the priorties and important issues may have changed.

Environment, international relations, economy are all pushed forward. And now we have Elizabeth May in the TV debates. Can she push the Old Rich White Men Club(tm) to shift the focus to something other than what cardigan Steven is wearing, what bird is pooping on Dion, what party member smoked something back in '72?

Personally I think environment is the most important issue. If the economy implodes, we won't die. We might have to give up our iPhones (which might seem like death!) but we will adapt and move on. If the environment goes south, well, we or our kids will start croaking. So I will be voting green. Not because I'm left or right but because I'm both and I'm concerned.

What about y'all? Let's have dialogue, people!

Mort, if you order a utility hookup at your new address (and a bill sent to you before the election) you might be able to use ID Option 2 to vote in your new riding. Unsure if that would be truly legal, though.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ele&dir=ids&document=index

Sultan,

I have a pretty similar look at it as you do, it seems. I've been working my way through the Green and Liberal platforms to see what kind of differences there are, and what would be right for me, etc etc, but I just can't shake the feeling that were I to vote Green, I'd essentially be tossing my vote. Sure, it would get them a couple of bucks and a higher percentage in the popular vote, but with Hedy Fry not necessarily being a shoo-in, and a significant fear of a Conservative minority (or worse: majority), I'm struggling with voting for who I'd like to see in office over voting against who I'd rather not see still at the helm after October.

I've heard things about vote trading or whatever, but how many ridings will actually have a decent chance at electing a Green MP?

The problem with the electoral system is that it attracts psychopathic mercenary careerists. Sort of like the army. Politics should be like jury duty where you get involved not by volunteering but by a tap on the shoulder from a piece of mail.

Say your pet peeve is traffic and you wanna build infrastructure. Fine but the bigger the budget, the more of your colleagues you have to get to go along with it. You and your slimy neighbour have budgetary power enough to approve speed bumps. You'd need the approval of 92% of your colleagues to get a third bridge across to the North Shore. Politics would then be a process (probably lengthy and "inefficient") of consultation and negotiation. Like it should be.

Once we're rid of politicians and the people who want to be them, I'm pretty sure the whole system would work pretty well.

Hmm... Removing politicians from politics... You know, I think it might just be crazy enough to work.