absolutely pathetic. people risk their lives and safety all over the world to excercise their franchise, and here in Ontario, we can't get off our collective lazy asses to even vote.

I'm embarrassed to be surrounded by such apathy.

[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]

but i have absolute contempt for general voter apathy. people complain every day about this and that and bums for politicians and my taxes are too high and blah,blah,blah, but they want services and programs and infrastructure as if it magically appears out of thin air (i think in another thread the phrase "made of pixie dust" was used.)

whether you like it or not, the government governs. that means whoever is elected gets to pass the laws and rules and regulations that directly decide how you get to run your own life. this could be a great thing. but it's not. because of the apathy, few people step up to be nominated, fewer still go to the nominations, and then even fewer turn up to vote. the result? if someone has a particular agenda or ideology, the system is ripe for exploitation, and we get Harpers, and Harrises, Campbells, and Kliens, not to mention the stupid landslide McGuinty just got with only 40% of the vote. Now he's free, just like the others are and were, to ram his agenda, whatever it may be, through with impunity and boo hoo if you don't like it. sick.

if voter turnout was higher, and people were engaged, the results even with FPTP would be far more balanced. I think at this point though, the anger and resentment people usually heap on "politicians" should be heaped on the electorate for being such sad, hypocritical and lazy joke.

eta: yes, i'm NDP, but i'm not talking partisan here.I don't care who you vote for, just bloody well vote! i don't respect anymore the "why bother" argument (michelle and other engaged volunteers and workers exempted, who are just displaying fully justified disgruntlement).

[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by thorin_bane:
I knew a lot of people unaware an election was even on...

---

exactly what i'm talking about. the problem is clearly not elections or being able to vote. it's the voters themselves. how fucking hard is it to notice there's a freakin' election on. i just don't buy that people are that tuned out. they see it, they just ignore it. then they complain they don't like how things are run. well, at this point, fuck right off. (not you thorin! )

[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]

quote:

---

Let's restore door-to-door enumeration.

---

And guess who is most impacted by the PVL? Young voters, renters, immigrants - all groups less likely to vote for the conservatives.

Enumeration also establishes a personal connection between the voter and the election which is now missing. So "voting" is competing with corn flakes and Paris Hilton in getting the voters attention.

[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polunatic2:
So "voting" is competing with corn flakes and Paris Hilton in getting the voters attention.

---

In that case, I vote for corn flakes.

Usually i think of all the people that don't vote an indictment of the system. I fully understand the argument towards not voting and i understand why people don't see the point. It often seems like we have no access to real choices in this political system.

But today, after dealing with rude people yesterday while GOTVing, and seeing Ruprecht win again in Davenport, i'm seeing things differently. More voted turnout wouldn't mean better government. Look at what people are voting for here every day. People vote for McDonalds, people vote for Starbucks. People love their SUVs and Walmart. People love going shopping and spending most of their free time watching tv.

People seem to want to be owned and controlled, and they vote for that to happen every day. Why would they bother with the hassle of casting a meaningless ballot?

Election costs too much taxpayer’s money anyways. Imagine how cost efficient it would be if we get rid of elections, we could inject the money back into the economy and promote economic growth for all Ontarians.

This election result is so disappointing, I feel so bummed out by it as well. I don’t know how any NDP supporter, volunteers can be happy about the result. After all the work that we’ve done and we got NOTHING to show for.

The election is a big statement of the kind of society in which we live in and the kind of people we are and none of it is particularly hopeful or inspiring.

Frankly, Ontario sucks and she deserves everything she gets.

FPTP, Dalton and Ontario belong to each other.

[ 11 October 2007: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

The long term development of voter alienation is the backdrop. But it doesn't explain the extra
decline in turnout.

I suspect it's the fixed election date, and here's my bootstrap theory of how/why.

Along with voter alientation from the whole process, we've developed this whole bread and circuses election routine that encompasses the parties and the media. This is by no means unique to Canada, but we do have our own
institutionalised form of that circus.... and a lot of that institutionalisation has congealed around the Westminster parliamentary
system and all the melodrama that revolves around the grand arrangements and feints and counterfeints.... which in the end builds toward an inevitability... bringing on the bread and circuses.

Now this is not the only kind of hooplah possible for drumming up the circsu. The Americans have their permanent campaigning- and Harper has the Cons machine humming to that. In
fact, my worry was that the fixed election dates would import long and longer campaigns into our civil society.

I think the lack of circuses in this campaign is going to turn out to be a temporary adjustment. [1] Its a new thing. And [2] the governing party is always the main the circus driver, but this government had every reason to be as quiet as
possible. If this is the why/how, it looks relatively obvious with hindsight. But it didn't occur to me till it happened.

I suspect this contributed to the blinsiding of the NDP: planning for a type of election that with the benefit of that hindsight can see just was not going to happen.

Not to say that voter alienation is not continuing cause for concern. But I don't see any spike in it. Unfortunately, I think it may just be that we depend more on the bread and circuses than we realized for the half-grudging
motivation of citizens to pay attention.

Fidel you are correct, an uprising is needed in Ontario and Canada. There needs to be a compelling and charismatic leader to get the people voting and to promote interest in the political system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Citizens of Ontario are too lazy and careless to vote, it is that simple. If everyone was to vote yesterday the chances are that the new MMP system would be installed for the next election, thus giving fairer representation to all political parties and to the people.

---

A Liberal MPP wins six elections in a row in Manitoulin, each time by a large margin of support, and you vote NDP or conservative as a resident of Manitoulin. Do you honestly believe your vote will make a difference? This is what they are saying, that people lose interest at the local level and then eventually stop paying attention to the regional and then provincial issues. They learn not to bother, because their votes will be wasted efforts anyway.

quote:

---

Fidel you are correct, an uprising is needed in Ontario and Canada. There needs to be a compelling and charismatic leader to get the people voting and to promote interest in the political system.

---

I think more information for proportional voting in general is what's needed for the reform movement. And a charismatic leader wouldn't hurt. Personally, I think Howard Hampton is very passionate about his political convictions. I read his book, Public Power. Hampton believes in what he's saying. Conservatives once believed in public ownership and control of what has been the backbone of our prosperous cold war economy.

Today, our two old line party leaders have dollar signs lighting their beady little eyes aglow at prospects for commissions on privatizations and pawning off the public good to wealthy friends of the party. Ontarians have given the Liberals a blank cheque to swing deals with nuclear power contractors worth tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. The shit won't hit the fan until Dalton's gang are long gone, high and dry, made in the shade.

quote:

---

I have been looking at voter turn outs across the province tonight; I believe that more people in rural areas voted than in urban areas. Is this a correct assumption?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudman:
Here is my theory on low turnout: polls
If polls suggest your party/candidate will win your vote is not needed.
If they suggest your party/candidate will lose your vote will not count.

In both scenarios you have a reason for not voting.

---

Even in the closest Liberal/NDP race in the province -- Thunder Bay - Atikokan -- the turnout was only 52.7%. A lot of Tories stayed home? Actually it was Liberals who stayed home.

Now, why was there a lower turnout in the election that included a referendum that would have solved the above problem? It's not that they didn't like MMP: in that case there would have been a higher turnout of voters saying No. So they simply didn't know what it was, what it was for, or even that it was happening.

They were aware something was happening: TV ads and full-page ads saying "make sure you understand the question." (What was the question again?)

Referendum awareness is NOT public education. If it was, the turnout wouldn't have dropped.

Let's all write to the auditor-general complaining about $6.8 million wasted on an education campaign that didn't.

[ 12 October 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Let's all write to the auditor-general complaining about $6.8 million wasted on an education campaign that didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Let's all write to the auditor-general complaining about $6.8 million wasted on an education campaign that didn't.

---

Why was there so little education or debate about the question?

Why was it held during an election campaign (especially one that will be remembered for John Tory's stupid faith-based school funding proposal)?

Was the process intentionally and/or perhaps criminally undermined by the Conservative and the Liberal parties?

I don't want to let this issue go because democracy is more than just the ability to vote. I want my vote to count.

That's it. And every effort has been made to make voting even more convenient. I heard on CBC radio one young idiot from UWO complaining she can't vote on-line.

Now think about that one overwhelming responsibility and what is not inherent in fulfilling that responsibility: educating yourself on the issues; knowing the party platforms; knowing your candidates; knowing the riding in which you reside; knowing how to place an 'X' on a ballot.

I suggest that we cut out the lazy, uneducated and stupid by having a mandatory 'test' of your knowledge of the Electoral and political system, some simple questions about how it works, and if you fail, you don't get to vote.

That way we cut out a bunch of people who don't know what they're voting for but vote because they like the guy, their parents did, or someone told them to.

quote:

---

The answer may be more complicated than just the voters' intuition that their vote doesn't matter under FPTP

---

Precisely.

quote:

---

I'm sort of sick of this whole democracy as is system anyway.
I suggest that we cut out the lazy, uneducated and stupid by having a mandatory 'test' of your knowledge of the Electoral and political system, some simple questions about how it works, and if you fail, you don't get to vote.

---

You can't be serious? Apart from being an appalling undemocratic idea, this would be a clear-cut violation of Section 3 of the Charter.

quote:

---

I think that ignorance must be the reason why most people rejected MMP as an improvement to the electoral system.

---

Clinging to the notion that it was ignorance (or the media's fault)that most voters rejected PR does nothing to further the cause of fair voting in Canada.

There are some valid reasons why most voters rejected PR. Unless they are addressed by those of us who support fair voting, future referenda seem similarly doomed.

These include a preference for majority governments over minority ones. After seeing the endless posturing at the federal level threatening Canadians with a third election in less than two and a half years, it's pretty easy to see why voters are getting turned off and might prefer a voting system that tends to deliver majority governments.

quote:

---

Moreover, what were members of the CA smoking when they recommended an significant increase in the size of the Ontario Legislature? Just what Ontario needs, more politicians per square mile.

---

Those who weren't whining about there being more politicians per capita were whining that there would be LESS local politicians per capita.

We do need more politicians and they need to be distributed intelligently and fairly. MMP would have given us that.

[ 12 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Those who weren't whining about there being more politicians per capita were whining that there would be LESS local politicians per capita.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:
I think that ignorance must be the reason why most people rejected MMP as an improvement to the electoral system. There is no sense at all when a party forms a majority government with 40% of the vote. Ideally, FPTP should be completely eliminated and replaced with proportional representation.

---

Almost everyone in this thread has dumped on the voters for being "ignorant" and "apathetic".

It's a wonder we let them decide anything at all.

Let me make an unpopular suggestion:

Maybe all the following terrible things happen for the same reason:

1. Low turnout.
2. Giving the Liberals more than 40% of the vote - again.
3. Rejecting MMP.

And maybe the reason is:

People don't trust political parties. None of them can be relied on to do what they say they believe in.

People are more inclined to trust individuals that they have some knowledge of and experience with.

I think this explains #1-#3. But I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise. I just don't particularly like explanations like this:

Those that don't do as I do are ignorant and apathetic - particular when you're whining about the majority of Ontarians/Canadians.

A perfect example is Harper's new committee!!! Why should I send an intelligent person to Ottawa to deal with international matters when the PM in a MINORITY government can just ignore them and appoint other non-politicians to make the most crucial of decisions. Why bother voting its not like MP's are even going to get to debate the real issues.

quote:

---

Those who weren't whining about there being more politicians per capita were whining that there would be LESS local politicians per capita.

---

You're undoubtedly correct Michelle. But this critique would have resonated less well with the public.

What if the OCA had recommended a 74 ridings/33 party list proposal instead? Instead of having to defend a larger legislature, pro-MMP campaigners could have focussed their arguments on the alleged more democratic nature of single riding nominations as opposed to being nominated to a party list.

I'd also like to comment on some of the "outreach" that's happening with younger voters. This problem is approached from a marketing perspective. They take the question of how to get people to like Brittney Spears or buy a certain brand of clothes, and apply that to convincing people to vote. That's a fundamental flaw. Elections and politics deals with fundamental questions. My choice in music, for instance, doesn't impact me near as much as policies on tuition or physcian recruitment. Politics ends up being lumped into the other b*******, and if that's all it is, people are going to spend more time with the b******* that's fun.

[ 12 October 2007: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

No one seems to have considered what it must be like to be a voter in Caledonia. They rejected the Liberal candidate by a 3:1 margin!

It doesn't matter. They still have old men beaten and put in hospitals and police arresting only townsfolk.

No one outside their riding seems to care. I guess that's the Canadian way. Look down your nose all you want at Americans but at least if a bus driver in New York reads in the paper that a Californian had his rights abused he'll say "That shouldn't happen in America!"

1 John K, I like how you summarise and cut to the chase: "Clinging to the notion that it was ignorance (or the media's fault)that most voters rejected PR does nothing to further the cause of fair voting in Canada. There are some valid reasons why most voters rejected PR. Unless they are addressed by those of us who support fair voting, future referenda seem similarly doomed."

You then added "These include a preference for majority governments over minority ones."

You did not define what you meant with "majority government". If you meant government without "overruns*" I would fully agree. I you still find those that even FairVote defined as "phony majorities" as acceptable "majorities" I would disagree.

What type of majority did you have in mind?

KenS, when you say "The most PR might do is slow the force of the tide. The expectations people express about 'if we had it', you'd think it was a panacea" is on the money.

In my view, the only time this would happen with 'certainty' is when none of the fptp elections had any phony majorities at the local level. Any other time that PR would moderate the tide would be fluke. In other words, fptp is a good system when the candidates elected are elected by a majority (more than half). The other times when it's good is only by fluke. What do you say?

3 "kropotkin1951", right on when you say: "I think a large part of it is that our MP's and MLA's or MPP's have been neutered by our system that has become a Presidential system in all but name with no checks and balances on the PMO."

This is a picture of an outcome, but not the cause. Any sense what the tools of power are by which the party elite are able to exert this top-down power where most of the backbenchers will act as flunkies of the party and toe the line, rather than be representatives of their constituents who elected them?

I find there is good reason to believe that John K and Ken S are kicking in the right direction as to where the hole is in fptp that allows the party bosses to act like autocrats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
What if the OCA had recommended a 74 ridings/33 party list proposal instead?

---

The other choice was to keep the 107 ridings and have 153 MPPs, 70% local. The Assembly very nearly chose that. Ontario should, by poli sci standards, have 200 MPPs.

quote:

---

Ontario has a very small parliament, for its population size. By the cube-root law, it “should have” around 200, or double the current size. . . I would guess that a doubling of the size of the parliament would be an even tougher sell than MMP – which was to include a 20% increase in the size of parliament (or to about where it was as recently as 1995).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

In Canada we say "Oh, there must be more to the story. He probably did something to deserve it anyway."

---

In America, an estimated 30 million of them are free to be 'food insecure' and the other half of the country doesn't give a damn.

In America, over a million children are homeless, and millions of them don't bat an eyelash over it.

I'd have to agree. There is no more "Fifth Estate" in Canada. They are just members of the Family Compact. Very active members.

And to have the media bleating about how the Liberals were cruising to a majority government a week ahead of election day was their effective attempt to keep people away from the polls.

Lord Elgin's electoral system that has ensured against democracy now for about 150 years doesn't help much, either. Call it "First Past the Post" if you will, when you render it down, it's to ensure that the interests of a privileged few are never threatened.

And, the referendum should not have been done at the same time as an election. And, the fact that the requirement for passage was 60% popular vote, with a majority in 64 riddings, when the barometric pressure was under 99.5 Kpa, and only MMP votes counted if the ballot castor hopped on his or her left leg while voting, well, it can hardly be said that "the people have spoken".

All this conspires to keep people at home. And yes, we could call that excuses, and in the main they are.

quote:

---

Some wanted to. Not many. That would have meant every three present ridings become two, each 50% larger. Few in Northern Ontario would support any increase in the size of their already overly-large ridings, as the referendum results show.

---

But would voters really care if there only 28 rather than 40 ridings in the GTA (or other densely populated parts of southern Ontario)? I suspect they would welcome having fewer politicians per square mile.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
In reply to Eduard. Preferential voting systems are fine for presidential or leadership elections, but not for electing legislatures or parliaments. That's because they do not improve electoral fairness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
Posted by Wilf Day:

In reply to Eduard. Preferential voting systems are fine for presidential or leadership elections, but not for electing legislatures or parliaments. That's because they do not improve electoral fairness.

---

In Canada we say "Oh, there must be more to the story. He probably did something to deserve it anyway."

quote riginally posted by Fidel:
"In America, an estimated 30 million of them are free to be 'food insecure' and the other half of the country doesn't give a damn.

In America, over a million children are homeless, and millions of them don't bat an eyelash over it.

In America, blacks are incarcerated at six times the rate of the most openly racist nation of the last century, South Africa. And millions of other American citizens couldn't care less."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

And, the referendum should not have been done at the same time as an election. And, the fact that the requirement for passage was 60% popular vote, with a majority in 64 riddings, when the barometric pressure was under 99.5 Kpa, and only MMP votes counted if the ballot castor hopped on his or her left leg while voting, well, it can hardly be said that "the people have spoken".

All this conspires to keep people at home. And yes, we could call that excuses, and in the main they are.

But none of it is accidental.

---

Perhaps not. Still, it would be wrong to conclude that the MMP proposal failed merely because it wasn't advertised enough. There are many voters who understood it perfectly and just didn't like it!

It was interesting watching the TVO debate on MMP and also other talk shows to see how often even those against MMP agreed on the need for reform. It always seemed to hang up on the list of alternate MPP's. If that had been different it might have commanded more votes.

I listened to Marilyn Churley during the debate and I began to see a clear philosophical difference between each side. Either you trusted parties to have a fair method of choosing candidates for their list or you didn't. Marilyn seemed to advocate simple faith - that citizens should just trust parties to play fair.

To me she showed a clear disconnect to the views of many citizens, including myself. She and others made the claim that parties had to play fair for fear of losing votes at the next election out of protest. This seemed naive in the extreme! It would be much more likely that ALL parties would do the same thing with their lists! Similar to when all of them vote for a pay raise. How can you switch your vote in protest when there's no different choice?

More than that, who would seriously expect an NDP voter to abandon all the principles he shared with the NDP and vote Tory in protest over the NDP list? Or vice versa?

No, the MMP process was flawed from the very beginning. Very few folks knew anything about the Citizens Assembly and their work on MMP. They simply were given a fait accompli at the last minute. Too much was expected at one swallow. Citizens were being asked to first agree that we needed reform and then instantly told that they then had to choose THIS SPECIFIC MMP PROPOSAL!

Shades of the Charlottetown Accord!

It seems obvious that the Assembly should go back to the drawing board. First get their fellow citizens to agree about the need for reform. Then get concensus on what citizens actually would like to see in a new system. Step 3 would then be to draft up another system and put that out in some kind of polling process. Only when they are confident that they have an MMP system that the citizens feel would be more under popular control and not that of the parties should it be posted for another referendum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:
Posted by marzo:
There are some valid reasons why most voters rejected PR. Unless they are addressed by those of us who support fair voting, future referenda seem similarly doomed.

These include a preference for majority governments over minority ones. After seeing the endless posturing at the federal level threatening Canadians with a third election in less than two and a half years, it's pretty easy to see why voters are getting turned off and might prefer a voting system that tends to deliver majority governments.

---

FPTP bad! MMP worse!...

My apologies for the inconvenience!

quote:

---

And, the referendum should not have been done at the same time as an election. And, the fact that the requirement for passage was 60% popular vote, with a majority in 64 riddings, when the barometric pressure was under 99.5 Kpa, and only MMP votes counted if the ballot castor hopped on his or her left leg while voting, well, it can hardly be said that "the people have spoken".

---

I'm still really pissed-off and angry at what happened. How fucking ironic that MMP needed 60%, with a majority in 64 ridings to win when the Liberals (or any "winning" party) can have 100% of the power to govern with the support of 20% of the population. Unbelievable and undemocratic!

I feel politically violated!

[ 13 October 2007: Message edited by: ocsi ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eduard Hiebert:
I intended on placing a post here but in advertently put it in the wrong thread. Instead of entering it twice please see the second of two posts, the one that begins with "I make reply to Albireo and ask one question of Tommy_Paine." as found in

FPTP bad! MMP worse!...

My apologies for the inconvenience!

---