Mandatory Voting op-eds - National Post

[dimsum]

Whoa - now I see why this, ladies and gentlemen, is why politics is one of the subjects that shouldn't be discussed in a Mess. 

I guess the fault really begins with me as I started the thread and I know I'm not a mod, but please be civil.

 

[Journeyman]

OK, I'll bring this back to civil discourse.......  [the 'voice of reason' being my strong suit  ;D  ]

If, within the time period specified on the notice, you fail to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty....

So, in your riding (if you could vote there), that's about 2 beer -- 1.2 beer in some downtown Brisbane establishments....

...or ....pretty much 3 x bottles of red wine in the Gallipoli Mess... WOOHOO!  I'd better vote!!   :cheers:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

We have gotten into the mess we are with all our levels of government, due to the fact that we have a large number of apathetic people and a large number of Lemmings who blindly follow the Party of their ancestors.  We have to educate ourselves on what the platforms are, and not be conned by the BS spewed by other Parties.  The Ontario election is so fraught with misinformation that people actually believe the PC party is out to "Fire" 100K people, as opposed to their platform to allow attrition to cut the ranks of the Provincial Civil Service.  The PCs have said nothing about laying off Teachers, Police, Fire Service or Nurses, but the Liberals, NDP and unions are serving up those statements to the public who, if they don't do any research, accept it as fact when it is not.  What you may call the "Lesser of two/three evils" may only be a misconception due to these falsehoods being spread by various Parties and media.  It is a great ploy that either gains that Party your vote, or convinces you that there is no legitimate choice.  In the end, we get stuck with the same ole, same ole status quo. 

If we are not going to do our homework as to what the different Parties stand for, then we are being apathetic or just plain stupid.

We are responsible for the government we elect.


[edit to add]
At the same time, by spoiling a ballot/declining a ballot/not voting just giving the new government our approval by those actions.

Umm George??  100,000 people attritioning in four years??  He has never used the word 'attrition'.
Where are you getting "educated"?

 

[George Wallace]

Umm George??  100,000 people attritioning in four years??  He has never used the word 'attrition'.
Where are you getting "educated"?

OK.  My interpretation of "attrition" could come from this statement:

ACTION – REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT PAYROLL

Decrease the number of positions on the government payroll by
100,000, about 10 per cent. That’s the size the government was as
recently as 2009. Vital frontline services such as those performed
by nurses, doctors and police will not be affected. The reduction
of government positions will be done by redefining the scope of
government to focus on the things it can do best. As government
gets out of businesses in which it does not belong, many of these
jobs will be transferred to Ontario companies. When employees
retire, many of these positions will not be filled. A new focus on
frontline service will mean fewer administrative jobs. Government’s
payroll will also shrink as it eliminates agencies and programs that
don’t offer good value for the taxpayer. Combined, these actions
will reduce the size of the public sector from slightly more than
1,000,000 Ontarians to a size we can all afford.

found on the PC Party website http://ontariopc.com/millionjobsplan/plan.pdf

They do have a plan, even if their math may be in question.

They also have a plan to reduce the number of Ministries from 27 to 16.  Whether or not that is feasible, will yet to be determined.

ACTION – SHRINK THE CABINET

Reduce the number of ministries, and the number of cabinet
positions at the swearing in of a PC government, from 27 to 16.
In a legislature of 107 MPPs, we don’t need 27 people responsible
for spending decisions. In addition, we will tie ministers’ salaries to
specific performance goals, like reducing the regulatory burden on
job creators and meeting budget targets. A smaller, more effective
government starts at the top.

http://ontariopc.com/

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

An ideal is not a plan............

 

[Colin Parkinson]

With all of that in mind I spent some time digging through the StatsCan website and I could find no record of spoiled ballots in any election results.  I also phoned an old friend of mine that tracks election results, by riding, all the way back to Confederation.  Odd hobby but he likes to colour maps and follow trends.  Anyway, he as well has never seen anything that tracks spoiled ballots other then the most basic of figures.  He also explained that under our various election regs over the years a ballot could be considered spoiled for any number of reasons including an X that extended outside the marking area, having used a check mark vice an X (at one time), more then one person selected or any comments added.  With that in mind it would be hard to tell a protest ballot from one filled out by a near sighted granny who forgot her glasses.  If it makes someone feel good I guess its ok but I still dont think it appoints to anything other then a waste of time. 

I've pretty much always voted one particular party and ive never agreed with their platform 100% but ive agreed with it more then any of "the other guys".

thanks very interesting, being a scrutineer for a party in the last election I found the polling stations varied greatly in how they were run. Elections Canada seemed to provide useful information to the people running them, but the training seems weak. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

With all of that in mind I spent some time digging through the StatsCan website and I could find no record of spoiled ballots in any election results.

That's because Elections Canada and provincial electoral commissions keep track of that kind of stuff.

You don't have the option to "decline" a federal ballot (page 62), but you do in Ontario - attached are the stats from provincial elections from 1975 to 2011.  The percentage of declined ballots in Ontario have ranged from .04% all the way up to 0.5% in 1990.  In almost every election (except for that 1990 jump), there have been more rejected or unmarked ballots in Ontario than declined ballots.

According to this, Alberta also seems to have an option to decline ballots.

While I agree with those saying that declining does nothing to make things happen NOW, I have to wonder what parties would read into a significant number/percentage of declined votes.

 

[Tibbson]

I really dont think they would care provided they still had enough votes to be in power or be viable.  Its not like the 2nd or 3rd place party is going to stop and think..."Gee, if we had only appealed to the .4% of persons who declined their vote then we could be in power".

 

[The Bread Guy]

I really dont think they would care provided they still had enough votes to be in power or be viable.  Its not like the 2nd or 3rd place party is going to stop and think..."Gee, if we had only appealed to the .4% of persons who declined their vote then we could be in power".

As it stands now, you're right.  However,

1)  If more people knew about being able to decline their vote, and used the option regularly, it could be more than the tiny amounts we see.
2)  If enough ridings were won (or, to draw attention, lost) by less than than the number of declined ballots, political riding bosses would take note,  If enough ridings rode this kind of slim edge, and the political bosses moved their concerns up the line, maybe some things could change.

Lotta "maybe's" there, admittedly.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It might galvanize MP to stand up to the Whips and party line, I tire of waiting for 2 months so my conservative MP can respond to me with a "approved form letter" that is the same as every other CPC MP is sending out, didn't realize I volunteered to help elect a lapdog.

 

[George Wallace]

It might galvanize MP to stand up to the Whips and party line, I tire of waiting for 2 months so my conservative MP can respond to me with a "approved form letter" that is the same as every other CPC MP is sending out, didn't realize I volunteered to help elect a lapdog.

It seems to be a trend in all the political parties in the House for the last two or three decades.  Even Elizabeth May has a firm grip on her members.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't suppose that plays a part in decreasing interest in the political process.

Plus if this story is true I would be really pissed
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/government-repeatedly-shuts-out-witnesses-citizenship-and-immigration-debate

I saw the same thing here with the Kit's base closure, Minister comes out, everyone drops everything to meet with him including very important and busy people and within in an hour of coming out of the meeting he says "nothing's changed" So why bother pretending to consult?

 

[The Bread Guy]

It seems to be a trend in all the political parties in the House for the last two or three decades. 

True - while Chretien played the "hail fellow well met" with the cameras, he kept HIS whips pretty busy, too.

I don't suppose that plays a part in decreasing interest in the political process.

So young to be so cynical 

 

[RDBZ]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/14/andrew-coyne-like-jury-duty-or-paying-your-taxes-voting-should-be-mandatory/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/26/david-moscrop-to-save-democracy-some-of-you-should-stop-voting/

When I read these this morning, Andrew Coyne's article (and especially David Moscrop's rebuttal) caught my attention.  Until I was here in Australia for the last election, I would have agreed with Andrew in principle for mandatory voting; a higher turnout would mean no one can argue that X party won due to 40% of the total voter turnout. 

However, the Australian voting system is flawed in its own way.  Because voting is mandatory and it is a preferential voting system (ie. you rank your preferences for all of the available candidates), many voters who would normally not vote at all cast what are called "donkey votes", just listing their preferences as shown in the ballot from top of page to bottom or voting for a joke party.  This is how the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party won a seat in the last federal election.

Also, despite the almost 100% turnout mostly voting for their candidate/party of choice, the current PM and the Liberal (read:  Conservative) party is trailing in popularity behind the Labor (read:  Liberal) party a year or so after beating them in a "majority" (with the Coalition parties thanks to donkey-voting, etc.)  Interestingly enough, most anti-Abbott arguments in Australia are very similar to anti-Harper lines in Canada, with the exception that no one in Australia can say that Abbott was elected with a 30-40% voting turnout. 

In the end, I believe that mandatory voting won't work after seeing it here.  Whoever has actually taken the time to research the party platform should be allowed to vote, but making it mandatory will just create more trouble than it's worth.

"Compulsory voting" in Australia is a misnomer.  In reality what's compulsory is attendance at a polling station and placement of a ballot paper in the ballot box.  When people choose not to vote for any party they typically vote "informally" - by either not marking the ballot paper, or by marking it in an "expressive" or "creative" manner.  The informal vote can be quite high in some electorates - the highest rate recorded for the House of Representatives in the 2010 election was 14%, with the national average around 5%.  Despite a vastly more complex ballot paper, there is a lower level of informal voting for the Senate.  So votes for minor parties are probably a conscious decision, and reflection of the Australian desire for a strong system of checks and balances.