So let's set the tone with a piece about a theme you're not likely to read anywhere else!
Now that a federal election is on, get ready to be bombarded with sanctimonious entreaties by the government and the media reminding us of our civic duty to vote.
According to Elections Canada, the agency spent in excess of 90 million dollars trying to convince Canadians to vote in the 2008 federal general election.
It doesn't seem that the campaign was particularly successful as the turnout fell off rather dramatically from elections in the past with just 59% of Canadians exercising their franchise, which represented a 10% drop from the previous election.
Do we really need Elections Canada wasting money reminding us about what we already know?
How many non-voters the Elections Canada campaign convinced to cast a ballot can never be determined, but it can't possibility be that many.
Even using an overly generous estimate of 5% of the 14 million votes cast, it means that the government spent in excess of $130.00 of taxpayer money on each of those that they actually convinced to vote!
That's a lot of dough to convince someone to do something that should come naturally to anyone interested in the society that they live in.
Another great big waste of money.
In fact, it's actually a very bad idea to convince someone who is not really interested to vote, to do so through guilt or a bribe.
Does the Elections Canada ideal, where every eligible voter actually casts a ballot, serve the better interests of our nation, more than leaving the political decisions to those who are self-motivated to vote?
While I'll defend to the death everyone's right to vote, that doesn't mean I want to encourage idiots and morons to do so. I'd be happier if they stayed at home and left the decision to those more capable of making an informed decision.
Of course not voting is considered a sign of poor citizenship, something I vehemently disagree with. If someone determines that they aren't up to the task or that they don't care who is elected, why should they vote, just to satisfy some democratic fantasy of those who care?
If we truly live in a democratic society where personal choice is respected, the decision not to cast a ballot must be respected as is the decision to vote.
Lets consider this burlesque scenario;
An Elections Canada official is wandering down an Ottawa street and spots a bum propped up against the wall, one hand proffering a tin cup for spare change and the other wrapped tightly around a bottle tightly ensconced in a brown paper bag from which he partakes a sip or two every few minutes.
Arrghhhhh.!!!!!!..............."Pardon me sir, do you know that there is a federal election coming up?""Huh""Yes sir, its not only your right to vote, but you civic duty as well!""Spare any change?""I'll tell you what, if you vote, I'll give you $130.00""Wha??""That's right, 130 bucks, it won't take more than half a hour.""How do I vote?""I'll take you to the polling station, where you'll put an mark on a ballot by the name of the candidate of your choice."I can't read""Doesn't matter, go "Eeny-Meany-Miney-Moe".. It's the act of voting that is empowering!""130 Bucks you say, I'll do it!.......... By the way, can you give me an advance?"
I like to think of the voting dynamic, comparable to a group of friends going out for Chinese food.
Seated around the table you have all types. Some are adroit and well-informed in the art of Chinese food, others are not so sure and still others are clueless and some aren't even fond of Chinese food. Invariably those in the know offer to do the ordering.
This is a relief to those who are ambivalent, clueless or just don't care. "Go ahead, order whatever!"
Would you really want the idiots in the second group to take part in the ordering? Would it really be helpful?
In the United States 29% of the people can't name their vice-president. In Canada we are no better.
Should these people have the right to vote?
Absolutely!
Should they be encouraged to vote? Hmmmm.....NOT SO SURE!
I may be overly generous, given some of the nincompoopery that is written on this blog, but I like to think of the almost half who don't vote, they aren't that ignorant. Maybe I'm giving too many of our population the benefit of the doubt, but for argument's sake...
ReplyDeleteI can't help but feel bitterly disappointed that so many people who are eligible to vote, don't. I worked several federal and Ontario elections from the mid-80s until the mid-90s, including enumerating, poll clerk, deputy returning officer to finally, a poll supervisor. One experience was in a very Polish district, another Romanian. I was shocked! Considering how many people from these two countries didn't bother to be enumerated or go vote, I almost wished there was a way I could send them back from where they came!
I don't imagine these people came to Canada for the long winters and beaver tails! I figured they'd be the first ones racing to the polls at the opening. Same for many Africans and Middle Easterners, especially recent events that started in Tunisia and spread like fire into Egypt, Libya and other countries as well.
I like to think that those who come to Canada, at least in part, do so for the freedom, and as imperfect as our democracy is, part of its evolution is the right to vote in genuine, free elections. You'd think someone like myself, born and raised here and residing in Canada everyday of my life, would take that for granted. DON'T!
Sadly, the ever increasing indifference and voter apathy is leading to a Canada I don't want, but we collectively deserve for dereliction of duty. Stephen Harper and his minions have been admonished by the speaker of the house for contempt, a commonwealth first.
There should be a massive outcry for this, and with an election in play, will it affect the vote that much? At this time, based on recent polling statistics, it won't! I'll admit I don't trust Michael Ignatieff as as far as I can spit into a Texas tornado! He, in my perception, talks down to the people; furthermore, HE was not elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada by party members. Some elitists within the party, after usurping Stephane Dion from the mantle, placed him there. That's democracy? Seems the party faithful were not trusted to make a decision; then again, I think a lot of those party conventions are phony baloney. Who gets to play God and decide which delegates go to conventions? The one and only time I saw universal suffrage exercised, where every card-carrying member got a vote, was in Quebec, believe it or not! In 1985, Pierre-Marc Johnson succeeded René Lévesque as PQ leader, in this manner. Before too long, the PQ party faithful, as they do to all their leaders, ate him, in a manner of speaking.
Patrick Watson, a former CBC documentary heavyweight, hosted a ten-part documentary series in the late 1980s entitled "The Struggle for Democracy". I mostly remember hearing Watson on a local radio station promoting the series before it aired. What resonated the most, way back over 20 years ago, was Watson stating that if we as Canadians don't mind our democracy, we'll end up with the government we deserve. I think what Watson stated way back then is coming to fruition, and I have felt that way for years. I think compared to other countries, especially in Scandinavia, we lack transparency. Sweden is especially reputable for plenty of governmental disclosure over the internet for the whole world to see, let alone Swedes!
Sadly, I find as new legislatures are elected, the level of transparency lessens, and this eventually will be dangerous. What Harper's government was accused of by the Speaker is just the beginning of a very slippery slope heading in the wrong direction.
NOW GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!
"In the United States 29% of the people can't name their vice-president. In Canada we are no better."
ReplyDeleteOf course we are no better. We can never even close to be better.
We can never name our Vice President since we do not even have one!
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson
ReplyDelete"A government of gentlemen, even if they’re military gentlemen, it is better than a government of pimps" - Jorge Luis Borges
Editor: “Should these people have the right to vote?”
ReplyDeleteNobody should have an automatic right to vote. There should be a test of civics administered to anyone who would like to cast a vote. The test would prove the literacy of the voter and demonstrate his/her familiarity with the candidate as well as his/her basic knowledge of the system in which he/she lives and which he/she is about to influence by voting.
This type of system is called a republic, and is far superior to democracy. The Founding Fathers of the United States understood the distinction very well and that’s the kind of system they implemented. The United States was a republic in its nascency, but gradually regressed towards a democracy over time.
Why vote when they are all the same, tax and spend, lying scum bags?
ReplyDeleteLiberal, Tory, Bloc heads...All tax and spend, big government, high taxes, self absorbed, me, me, me...all entitled to their entitlements scum bags. They don’t give a damn about debt, deficits, the future debt they are leaving their own children and grandchildren, just sick.
Its all about greed, follow the money. We now have over 3.5 million people working for government across the country. Average salary in government is about 70 thousand (including benefits, pension, bonuses...)yearly and rising. Average salary in the private sector is around 45 thousand yearly and dropping. Over 10% of government employees now make over 100 thousand yearly. In the private sector the number is under 2%. Look to Greece and Quebec, this is where Canada is headed if we don’t stop equalization and get spending and government growth under control. This tax and spend, union scum, socialist, big government, social engineering that has been destroying this country has got to stop. Yes, it has left Quebec and has been spreading throughout the rest of the country since the 1960”s, that’s right over 5 decades of massive government growth, massive government hiring, skyrocketing government salaries and more and more debt. Check the stats for yourself. Thanks Trudeau, Tanks kebec.
The Liberals and Conservatives have spent the last few decades destroying Ontario and Canada’s economy, its English speaking history and culture, not to mention allowing the racism, bigotry, ethnic language cleansing and human rights violations going on in Quebec, a la bills 22, 178, 101... “First Quebec, then we take over the rest of the country, one step at a time…through bilingualism…” PT, “How to take over a country through bilingualism…” SD.
Higher taxes, green fees, user fees, HST, high government salaries-bonuses, pensions, benefits…, social engineering – the expensive discriminatory forced bilingual and multicultural policies (only outside Quebec of course), greedy unions controlling just about everything, new programs and more government departments yearly, more debt, more government empire building, the size and growth of government is out of control! Liberal, Tory same old story.
Solution? Well there is only one. A new party and a new leader. People from the private sector with no relationship to any of the mainstream parties...One that details before an election what they stand for. We need a party with specific, fiscally conservative policies. One that defines essential and non-essential (expensive waste) services in a platform before elections. One that will cut waste, reduce taxes, eliminate departments, downsize government...repeal bad laws (the charter, bilingualism, multiculturalism...Bill 101...)One that will tell unions to rot in hell. No more lies, propaganda, and spin, what we now get on a daily basis. Canada needs a party that stands for integrity, honesty, transparency and common sense. One that is proud of our real BNA history.
I think everyone should get one vote and we should get an additional vote for every dollar of federal income tax we pay. That way, those that pay the expenses, get a larger say in how the country is run. If the rich vote to cut their tax rate, they'd also lose a corresponding number of votes. If we have to pay the piper, why can't we call the tune? Why should my say in the way the country is run be equal to Clifford Olsen's, when my contribution is infinitely greater?
ReplyDeleteWith the current system, I never encourage anyone to vote unless I'm reasonably sure, they're going the same way I am.
In Australia the vote is compulsory. No-one questions it ... polling day is always on a Saturday ... there are BBQ's going on out the front of the polling station ... people wander over to their local primary school or scout hall or whatever at some stage on their sunny Saturday, chat to their neighbours out the front, and cast their vote.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't vote you get a fine of $20 in the mail along with a form asking you why you did not vote ... were you travelling, or sick or couldn't get there for some reason ... you fill out the form with a reason and you don't pay the fine. I don't know anyone who has ever intentionally not voted and just paid the $20 fine.
Along with being involved with the society from the day you turn 18 and voting, comes taking the responsability seriously. Popular television feature election issues ... and not just at the beginning of news either ... it is discussed and joked about and comedy sketches are run and it is discussed at the water-coolers. Top 40 radio stations and breakfast DJ's are all joking about the days campaigning. People do not feel disenfranchised from the system.
I notice a difference here in Canada, just in my social circles, in the level of engagement with the system. A big difference. It is almost taboo to talk politics. With compulsory voting comes more left-leaning politics as 18 year olds who care about the environment and internet broadband acces, welfare recipients, etc vote, and the electorate is not over-represented by retirees who own their homes and have too much time on their hands and not enough drama in their lives. The campaigns are far more amied at youth and I find it makes the campaigns far less stuffy and more vibrant. Canadian campaigns seemed to be aimed at geriatrics. Politicians never get out of their suits, and never stop talking in ways that appeal to the older demographic.
And for those that say that we should not have ill-informed people voting: we use them on juries to tackle large meaningful issues where their individual voice is statistically larger. People when given a responsability to make a decision do actually take it seriously and tune-in to the conversation even if some are voting based on proposed changes to the price of alcohol, or based on how to handle refugees coming from Asia, or voting based on the the daming of a single river, or based on a proposed change to the tax system for that effects small business. These single issue votes are valid, and form part of the voter pool that the government represents. It is a good system IMO. I have never heard an Australian call for a repeal of it ... it just does not cross our minds.
Adski,
ReplyDelete"Nobody should have an automatic right to vote. There should be a test of civics administered to anyone who would like to cast a vote. The test would prove the literacy of the voter and demonstrate his/her familiarity with the candidate as well as his/her basic knowledge of the system in which he/she lives and which he/she is about to influence by voting."
And will your test include proficiency of French language?
Be careful, my friend. You start to sound like Pauline Marois.
http://www1.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/pq-n16.shtml
"And will your test include proficiency of French language?"
ReplyDeleteIn Quebec, the official language is French, so I would have absolutely no qualms about it if the test was in French only.
A test in French only would still weed out a lot of Francophones and wouldn't affect immigrants and Anglophones as much, since most of us can read French anyways.
“In Australia the vote is compulsory.”
Instead of filtering the voting population, Australia enlarges it. Brazil has a similar system, and maybe a few other countries around the world do too. Mobile vulgus.
This, of course, favors the elite and the political class, since it’s easier to manipulate the masses than a segment of the population that could actually pass a test.
"Instead of filtering the voting population, Australia enlarges it. Brazil has a similar system, and maybe a few other countries around the world do too. Mobile vulgus.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, favors the elite and the political class, since it’s easier to manipulate the masses than a segment of the population that could actually pass a test."
No, it has the opposite affect. It means that interest groups who are politically active can not drive the agenda in a manner disproportionate to their numbers in society.
Look at America as an example of voluntary voting. The Sarah Palin Tea-Party types are "elite politcal classes"? These extreme positions are lost when all people vote. It is the moderates that do not turn up in voluntary voting systems because they are not motivated by their own interest group.
This blog likes to talk about the "vocal minority" that push a soverignist agenda. Compulsory voting drowns their voices in a sea of "everybody". Polling everybody gives a government ligitimacy since it is "the will of the people".
Any statistician will tell you that selecting poll samples is straight forward enough, but needs to be done thoughtfully to give a guenuine reflection of what "everybody thiks". A voluntary voting system means the poll has self-selecting bias meaning candidates chase the "healthcare and pension" vote and the "jewish vote" but neglect the "youth vote" that is so chased in Australia and completely cancels the other two out and more. With me?
Adski,
ReplyDeleteActually, you wrote exactly what Howard Galganov wrote in HIS blog:
http://www.galganov.com/editorials/10-11-2010/november-2010/not-everyone-should-get-out-and-vote/
AND CONTINUED WITH:
http://www.galganov.com/editorials/10-16-2010/the-government-we-deserve/proportional-representation-galganov-style/
Sorry, Adski, but NO! One person, one vote, whether you work or not, are smart or dumb, are black or white or something in between, whether an entrepreneur or a working stiff, man or woman, highly educated or not, it's one citizen, one vote. Period. If you don't want to go vote, it's your privilege.
You can vote how you want. You can read the platform literature for all the parties, or some, or one, or none; you can flip a coin, roll a die, or close your eyes and put the pencil point on the ballot and vote for whoever "gets the point".
I do wish people would spend more time getting to know party platforms, at least some if not all, and what their philosophy is, but as I wrote previously, democarcy is imperfect.
As U.S. senator-turned-actor-turned-presidential candidate Fred Dalton Thompson once stated as D.A. Arthur Branch on Law and Order: "Democracy is the worst form of politics...except for all the rest". The proof is in the pudding. Look at the goings-on in the Middle East and North Africa. Just today Syria entered the fray...after TWO generations of Assaads!
Adski,
ReplyDeleteNow that one needs to pass French language test to vote, what else? What about his support towards one particular political idea? Hey, whoever makes the test can disguise the test as a test of "(the voter) basic knowledge of the system in which he/she lives".
http://www.vigile.net/Qui-devrait-avoir-droit-de-vote
Once again, your idea is nothing new. However, it is most likely be raised by those "on the other side".
“The Sarah Palin Tea-Party types are "elite politcal classes"? These extreme positions are lost when all people vote”
ReplyDeleteMy solution takes care of the Palin/Tea Party crowd too. By administering a test, most of that constituency would probably not make the cut.
“but needs to be done thoughtfully to give a guenuine reflection of what "everybody thiks"”
Exactly the problem. Why do we care what “everybody” thinks, if 29% of Americans can’t even name their vice-president? We should care what the smartest of us think, not what “everybody” thinks.
“Sorry, Adski, but NO! One person, one vote, whether you work or not, are smart or dumb, are black or white or something in between, whether an entrepreneur or a working stiff, man or woman, highly educated or not, it's one citizen, one vote. Period”
Smart vs. dumb should be the only criterion, in fact. Since everyone would be eligible to take the test, no discrimination (other than discrimination against stupidity) would be taking place.
“Just today Syria entered the fray...after TWO generations of Assaads!”
Assads are not the solution, but neither are Duceppes, Ignatieffs, or Laytons. Even Harper, the only one of the bunch that seems willing to cut taxes, can only do so because corporations are filling up his pockets. The other 3 are out of favors with corporations, so they have to drain the citizen’s pockets.
“your idea is nothing new”
The distinction between my idea and the PQ’s idea is that they want to rig the test so that it favors Francophones and disenfranchises non-Francophones who constitute a solid 20% anti-PQ block. That could potentially be achieved by adjusting the level of nuance of the French language on the test, making it more difficult for non-Francophones to pass.
My idea is to test for the knowledge of basic facts, not linguistic sophistication.
So my test would be aimed at disenfranchising the “less informed”, regardless of their background.
But I agree with you to the extent that the powers that be would probably try to rig such a test to their advantage and in favor the establishment and the status quo. After all, they do rig electoral maps and (with the help of the establishment media) they do control the level of political participation (by excluding non-establishment parties from debates, for example).