Canadian election

[Refrigerator]

eppie's topic made me remember about the elections happening here in Canada.

Right now in school, there is a thing going on to increase youth awareness in voting. Basically the idea is this: The local representatives from the riding come and discuss their platforms etc. in an optional assembly, then some of the students get to ask questions. Later on (next week?) there will be a vote for many high schools (I don't know how far this is spread) to see what the youth think about the parties. Our votes don't actually count for anything (Well, if ALL of us voted one way, I guess SOMETHING would happen, but we're mostly powerless.)

Also, our Socials teacher has decided to cover our Canadian gov't unit now, and we've been doing a lot of talking about the election. This is the first time I've had any knowledge of politics and it's sort of interesting.

From what I've learned, I'm leaning towards either the NDP or the Green Party, although everyone says that their is no chance of the Green Party winning. We also did a class vote, and the VAST majority of our class voted NDP.

I just wanted to see if any other Canadian lurkers would like to share their opinions/preferences etc.

[yangman]

Although I am registered to vote this year, it will most likely be the case that I won't be waiting in line at the polling station of my riding when the day comes: I simply don't feel that I'm informed enough to make a responsible choice.

While I am leaning towards NDP or the Green Party from what information I've collected from reading the local newspapers, I've not followed any of the election debates or political agenda of each party closely. With the media giving adequate attention to the Green Party only when it complains about the lack of representation NDP becoming increasingly unpopular locally in recent years it's hard to decide who to vote into office. As for the two major parties, neither of their policies seem sufficiently appealing.

Of course, there's also the issue that I won't have the time to cast my vote seeing how I will occupied during the time in which the polling stations are open. And I certainly am not going to put in the effort to wake up early or vote by mail in my current state of undecision.

[--Pete]

Hi,

"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong." -- Notebook of Lazarus Long (RAH)

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

Hi

My cynical opinion is that I am going to vote for the devil I know, rather than the devil I am unsure about. What is certain is that I will vote. There is no excuse for failing to exercise your franchise.

This means that I will cast my vote for the Liberal candidate in my riding. Paul Martin was an effective Minister of Finance who managed to bring forward policies that got us on track toward the laudable goal of eliminating public debt. My personal opinion is that Jean Chretien quite deliberately left him with a lot of baggage to deal with. My opinion of our last Prime Minister has sunk to a very low level. I see him as a surprisingly petty and vindictive man. I was already frustrated by the extent to which he had diminished the importance of Parliament and concentrated power in the Prime Minister's Office. That, I hope can be changed under Mr. Martin. He has acknowledged that this has happened, and one can only hope that it will be possible to reverse the trend.

None of the parties has any reasonable platform on Health Care Reform. :(

I am deeply suspicious of both the NDP and Conservative parties at this point. The Green Party, while attractive in some respects, is even more of an unknown quantity in terms of governance.

The NDP, I fear, will spend far too much of my tax money on well-intentioned initiatives. As a high school student, you may not be quite so concerned about this aspect as I am. :) Mr. Layton has much experience in politics, but he still reminds me too much of our last Toronto Mayor Lastman in his loose cannon commentary.

The Conservatives are a party in disarray. Mr. Harper has not managed to make a cohesive marriage between Reform and the Conservative party yet, IMO.

The Conservative party has two elements to their current platform that appall me. First, they are stating that they will be removing 'corporate incentives' and 'taxing corporations more'. In the world economy, as it stands, this means that corporations will take their jobs elsewhere. Canadian auto plants, for example, employ a lot of people who would lose their jobs should this occur.

Second, and most alarming, is Mr. Harper's insistence that Parliament should interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the Judiciary. He has stated that, should Parliament pass laws that run counter to that Charter, then the courts should let it stand. He has used the 'hot-key' issue of jailed felons being able to vote as his justification for this. He has also stated that he would allow private member's bills on putting restraints on abortion rights to go through Parliament. Now, he already has the right, as part of our Charter, to use the 'notwithstanding clause' to pass such legislation. But he doesn't want to use that. He just wants to have the Courts ignore the Charter implications of any legislation he passes.

The most important thing that I would like to see addressed in this election (and it is conspicuously absent from any but the NDP at this point*) is that of electoral reform. The FPP (first past the post) method of electing a government results in hopelessly lopsided representation in Parliament. A party can and has taken a huge majority of the seats in Parliament with less than half the popular vote.

There is a summary posted here.

The highly respected Law Commission of Canada has recommended a MMP system for our next Federal Election. As I understand the recommendations, we would see ballots that have three separate slots to fill in. First, we would vote for a person running for election in our (expanded in size) riding. This person would still be subject to the FPP method of being elected. Second, we would vote for a party. A number of seats in Parliament (approximately one-third) would be set aside for parties to put in candidates based on their proportion of the popular vote. This will allow parties that manage to get a significant proportion of each riding's votes to have representation in Parliament. Third, we would have the option of selecting a name from a list of 'back-up' candidates proposed by the party we have cast our vote for. If a specific person received more votes than the 'top of the list' back-up candidate, they would move up in the list and displace the 'party favourite'.

This would allow us, as voters, to select 'the right person' for our riding, regardless of Party affiliation, and still vote for the Party we favour. There might be more impetus for diminishing the power of the Prime Minister's Office with this system too.

If your high school is having local candidates come to speak to you, I strongly urge you to ask them if they will lobby for this reform should they be elected. It would give, for example, the Green Party some real representation in Parliament, and the ability to effectively lobby for the environment.





*Mr. Layton has said that a pre-condition of voting with the Liberals in a minority government situation would be passing of electoral reform.

[gekko]

After discussing things with my parents, I'm actually leaning towards the green party, despite (or perhaps specifically because...) of the fact that they "have no chance of winning." If enough people decide to vote for the Greens, maybe they can win at least a few seats. Who knows? In a few years they could be a strong opposition party. Point is that if everyone decides not to vote green because they can't get in, they won't get in.

That being said, there's a very excellent Liberal candidate in my riding, who has served as the mayor for several terms and done a very good job. So he's also a possibility, as well.

As a final note, concerning Pete's post -- it's sad, but it's a sound policy. While it can be difficult to decide between voting IN the "lesser of two evils," sometimes a party's platform and/or proven track record just screams out "vote me out!"

gekko

[Refrigerator]

My cynical opinion is that I am going to vote for the devil I know, rather than the devil I am unsure about. What is certain is that I will vote. There is no excuse for failing to exercise your franchise.

After talking to my dad a bit, I've seen that his opinion is also cynical and sort of similar to yours. He's going to vote for the one he thinks will do the least damage. He doesn't know yet, and he doesn't like to discuss his vote, so I'll move on now...

The NDP, I fear, will spend far too much of my tax money on well-intentioned initiatives.  As a high school student, you may not be quite so concerned about this aspect as I am

Actually, in B.C. I remember the N.D.P (I think) spent a LOT of money on the 'Fast Ferries', then found out they couldn't use them because of the waves or some other reason, and sold them off at a WAY lower price, costing us a lot of money. Even though it wasn't really MY money, I still didn't care for it much.

About the different voting system, this is my first time hearing about it, and I think I really like it. When was this proposed? It would be so much better than what we have now. Thank you for that link!

I'm noticing that just about everyone I talk to sort of likes the Green Party, but won't vote for them because "nobody's going to vote for them anyways" and their vote will be wasted. But if all the people that are saying this voted for the Green... As for my reasons to vote for the Green, I think it would be interesting to see if they really could fulfill their goals and objectives. Their health care plan is the most interesting one I've seen, anyways.
For years (ever since I heard some were made) I've liked the idea of electric cars. At first I just wanted one for myself, but then learned they were expensive and impractical (power-wise, only run so far on a full "tank"). But if enough funding were put into research towards them, there would surely be a way to make them less costly and more effective. I saw that the Green Party's platform could certainly and certainly might include something to do with that, especially considering they want to cut down on pollution etc.

Ok, I think I have more to say, but it's late and I have to finish up. I didn't really understand

Second, and most alarming,

this paragraph, due to my lack of political knowledge; 'notwithstanding clause' 'Judiciary'. I will try and find out more tomorrow.

Before I go, it's too late to ask the representatives at the assembly but I think there's probably another way to ask questions of them. I'll try and check that out tomorrow too. But, for now, I'm tired and going to bed. :mellow:

[Jester]

Well, it's not terribly hard for me. I could vote for the parties I would traditionally support (NDP, possibly Green), but in my case I'd rather vote against giving the conservatives one of two scant Liberal ridings in Alberta.

I'm nowhere near as irritated as most people seem to be about the assorted corruption scandals. I think those are just the cost of doing business with certain elements in Quebec, and they were certainly more of a Chretien thing than a Martin thing. But I've never liked Paul Martin particularly much. Combine Catholic with Corporate and you don't get a mix I'm much fond of. Give me back the bumbling, loveable Iron Jean any day. ;)

I wouldn't vote Tory if it was raining unicorns, so they're out. Next time our neighbours to the south start talking up another war, I want someone who will waffle, waver and stall for time, like a good Canadian, rathen than signing up the troops to head off to god-only-knows-where. I'm also not really buying these strangely un-conservative ideas popping up in their platform despite their absence until now. Even more money for health care than the Liberals? Corporate tax cuts being dependent on cutting corporate welfare? Suddenly not against bilingualism, abortion, or homosexuals? We'll see when the time comes. All I know is that this was not the Stephen Harper we saw as opposition leader, and it certainly isn't a whole host of high-placed MPs in the Conservative party from the old Reform/Alliance. Various public slips make this abundantly clear, if it wasn't already.

So, as much as it pains me to vote for Paul Martin's squad (I swore I wouldn't, but...), I'm chipping in my vote for Anne McLellan. She's an old friend of my dad's, and her seat is in enough danger that I'm willing to swallow my socialist pride. I'd say "the devil I know", but I'm all too familiar with too many of the leading lights of the Conservatives to call them "the devil I don't".

Jester

[eppie]

Hi, yes that is also what is done here. People in high schools have a kind of election (I think a lot of schools do this) and then the results are anounced in school. Of course it is just for fun, but I think it helps younger people to get more awareness about politics.
You can see that younger people often vote more with there heart and are concerned more with things like the environment, rights for minorities etc. while instead, for older people economics become more important.
Also we have these internet pages were you can answer 30 questions and it gives you an advice what party fits you best.

(what is this NDP by the way??)

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Also we have these internet pages were you can aswer 30 questions and it gives you an advice what party fits you best.

:lol: Yeah, those are funny. Most of them are based on the written party platforms and the promises of the political parties before an election, and we all know how they tend to keep these promises once the elections are over. :lol:

No, it's much better to read the newspaper during the time between two elections IMHO, to see what the politicians actually say and do unburdened by election campaigns and the official party platforms, to get a real impression what each party is up to.

-Kylearan

[Jester]

"what is this NDP by the way??"

'Tis the acronym for the New Democratic Party, the farthest left of the mainstream parties in Canada. They used to be more or less a socialist democratic party, now they tend more towards casting themselves as the defenders of social programs and the most "permissive" on social justice issues such as gay marriage.

They used to poll as high as 30%, but these days they seem stuck at 10-14%. This election looks like they might gain ground in terms of percentages, but I'm not sure that will translate into seats.

It is a truism in Canadian politics that the Liberals steal all their good ideas from the NDP, but leave them to take all the risks in proposing new ideas.

Jester

[eppie]

Hi,

QUOTE 
Also we have these internet pages were you can aswer 30 questions and it gives you an advice what party fits you best.


Yeah, those are funny. Most of them are based on the written party platforms and the promises of the political parties before an election, and we all know how they tend to keep these promises once the elections are over.

No, it's much better to read the newspaper during the time between two elections IMHO, to see what the politicians actually say and do unburdened by election campaigns and the official party platforms, to get a real impression what each party is up to.

-Kylearan

So true. And if you are allready somebody who is interesed in politics you will find your own reasons to vote for whatever party.
A funny thing is though that a lot of people voting on one of the parties that are more to the center (both lef and right) vote out of some kind of habit for years and years already while the ideas of these parties have changed enourmously. So when they fill in these questionaires they often find that they have absloutely no connection with the party they always vote for. It would ne nice for those people to start questioning themselves a bit, and try to make a choice based on their opinions instead of just voting for the same party.

[JustAGuy]

Shadow said everything I was thinking.

Our electoral system is ridiculous, and borders on non-democratic. It's insane that a party can get a vast, VAST, majority of seats without having at least half of the vote (some cases less than 1/3rd). The system just plain doesn't work. That's why Britain, Scotland, Austraila and other commonwealth countries have already abandonded the FPtP system.

Good news is that most provinces have already set up citizen based electoral reform committees; B.C., Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick if I recall correctly.

My vote is for the NDP, simply because I'd like to see some real liberals get into office, and not these tax-loving Liberals currently in office. A friend of mine is voting Green just because he doesn't want to vote Liberal.

What cheeses me off is that in Ontario, McGinty of the Ontario Liberals broke a campaign promise, adding an extra tax to health care (health care premium), defying the Federal Liberals. Sadly, with the way things are going for the Liberals, the Ontario Liberal party's actions are more based in reality than the Federal Liberals, who seem to be in denial. McGinty did what he thought he had to do, and Paul Martin (our Prime Minister who we didn't even ELECT!) is sitting on his high horse, acting like the Ontario Liberals are just some rouge government. They need to get it together!

No more Liberal waste is what I say. Instead, I want to see some NDP waste! If our system is reformed to a majority representation system (like it should be) I would vote Green, but since they have practically no chance of getting any number of seats, I'm sticking with the NDP. Oh yeah, and the platform is nice blah blah blah. Refer to Pete's post. ;)

[Chaerophon]

Well, I'm probably ideologically somewhere around where the Liberals were under Chretien. Martin may be a bit far right for my tastes... we'll have to see, he hasn't actually managed to commit to anything of substance yet. However, this election, I will be voting NDP, for the simple reason that 1.) Randy White © is going to win by a landslide anyways, 2.) a favourite professor of mine is running for the NDP, and 3.) I'm thinking that maybe, just maybe, if this government IS a minority, the Liberal dependence on the NDP might drag them back to where I like them to be in terms of social issues/programs, etc. (I know, fat chance)

As for this:

Give me back the bumbling, loveable Iron Jean any day.

Damn rights. If this scandal had come up under his watch, it would have been over with a wink and a smile, just like all of the other ones were! ;) Really, I'm willing to see a (comparatively) paltry 100 million dollars go missing if it means that I don't have to hear from prominent separatists every five years!

*As an interesting aside*

I was discussing party strategy with the president of the BC Young Liberals, and he was saying that the Liberals are fairly confident that in the event of any doubt as to whether the Conservatives may squeak into power, they expect many current (according to the polls) Bloc ridings in Quebec to vote Liberal. Could be interesting to see if that ever comes to be.

[ShadowHM]

Paul Martin (our Prime Minister who we didn't even ELECT!)

By convention, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament. That's all there is to it. I would rather keep the Parliamentary system than have the sometimes adversarial relationship between the CEO of the country and Congress that our neighbours to the south have to deal with. Martin did call an election, when he could have sat out almost another year without doing so.



Our written constitution still contains not one syllable on prime ministerial qualifications, the method of election or removal, or (except for the calling of the constitutional conferences) the Prime Minister's powers. Nor is there anything on any of these matters in any Act of Parliament, except for provision of a salary, pension and residence for the person holding the recognized position of first minister. Everything else is a matter of established usage, of "convention." There is nothing in any law requiring the Prime Minister or any other Minister to have a seat in Parliament; there is just a custom that he or she must have a seat, or get one within a reasonable time. There is nothing in any law to say that a government that loses its majority in the House of Commons on a matter of confidence must either resign (making way for a different government in the same House) or ask for a fresh general election.

[Jester]

"The system just plain doesn't work."

Funny, I thought that was its one advantage. I doesn't represent accurately, but it does actually elect majority governments the majority of the time, a big boost compared to, say, Italian politics.

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Too lazy to look up the reference :)

Italian politics

The Italians have politics? I thought it was just the modern version of the old Roman "games" with the lions replaced by comedians and porn stars :)

--Pete

[JustAGuy]

Fair enough, but I sure didn't vote for Martin. I voted with the intention of getting Cretien into the PM position. His leadership was much different than Martin's. The two leaders are very different, Chretien being an a$$hole, and Martin being a bigger, less loveable a$$hole, pardon my "french".

One of the things I'd like to see put into effect by a new government is term limits. If there's one thing we should copy from the Americans, it's that.

[JustAGuy]

"The system just plain doesn't work."

Funny, I thought that was its one advantage. I doesn't represent accurately, but it does actually elect majority governments the majority of the time, a big boost compared to, say, Italian politics.

Jester

I should have said, "election results don't accurately reflect the the votes cast by voters."

So, the system works, just not as it should. In my view, one man gets one vote, so that should be reflected proportionately. The problem is that with FPTP, the more parties there are, the more the chance of a party winning without the majority becomes possible. For example, a party can win with 2 votes, if all other parties get only 1. If there are ten other parties, the party elected was clearly not the people's majority.

What's the solution? Damned if I know. It sure isn't a two party system. Something proportional, perhaps more Federally based, and less regionally based (give the provinces less power, be rid of the premiers?). Sure beats me, I'm no political scientist.

[Jester]

There have been all sorts of models proposed. The one I like best is where the house is divided in half. One half of the representatives will be elected in a FPTP system, then the rest of the house will be filled from party lists to balance out the numbers, so the total house comes out to a proportional ratio (or as close as possible), but each constituency is still represented by an MP. As an added bonus, parties no longer would have to parachute star players into key constituencies; if a key candidate (such as a minister or critic) lost the vote, they could simply be added on from the party "list".

Jester

[Sword_of_Doom]

Hey Pete:

I think us Canucks are trying to have a serious, polemical discusion on Canadian politics are the lack thereof. Your interruptions without reply from others (except me) point to people either volitionally ignoring you or they don't get your humor. I think you are freaking funny and you have enlivened the debate with humorous asides that i believe are a subtle ridiculization (if that is a word) of the above discussion. Keep up the good work and i appreciate your willingness to break up the monotony of the discussion.

Personally, it seems the youth of Canada always vote for the Greens or the Marijuana party, the old people the Conservatives, and the middle aged the Liberals. I think Canada uniquely has Federal parties that match up with people's phases of lives, idealism, rationalism and liberalism.