I din't want to vote anymore.

Machjo

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/n...rget-of-new-conservative-attack-ads-1.3176663

Since when is changing from one party to another a shameful act? Are the Conservatives off their rocker? I want this campaign to be about polucy, what each party has to offer. It's quickly becoming a "vote for us 'cause the alternative is even more miserable than we are" campaign.

Why can't politicians show a modicum if class and intelligence?

If these are the ads that win votes, I give up. Maybe a dictatorship would be better.
 
damngrumpy

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I have seen a lot of campaigns come and go and the same modicum applies

"Make the Voters Hate them more than they hate YOU"

In a few years we always hate the party in power we elected to make the tough
decisions we no longer like nothing new
 
Machjo

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
But are all of the parties so out of policy ideas that all they can think of is attack ads?
 
pgs

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,653
6,993
113
B.C.
Machjo said:
But are all of the parties so out of policy ideas that all they can think of is attack ads?
Click to expand...
No one has the time inclination or ability to process reams of data that would entail a detailed election platform .The political scientists and advertising executives running elections understand this . If it works use it . And attack ads work . Sorry Macho they do not aim those ads at informed people like yourself . They are aimed at the busy people who have no time for politics .
 
C

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Machjo said:
What's the voting rate down there? The way it's going here in Canada, it won't take long before voting rates are in the 20% range with all the intelligent voters bowing out.
Click to expand...
Would an intelligent person run for office? That is why we usually get the psychopaths.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
You people are way too cynical.

Negative promotion has always been the most prominent strategy and it's a symptom of our antiquated voting system. The only difference is that the production values are better.

Until we move to proportional representation, these parties will always play the game of the lesser of evils.
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,620
7,093
113
Washington DC
mentalfloss said:
You people are way too cynical.

Negative promotion has always been the most prominent strategy and it's a symptom of our antiquated voting system. The only difference is that the production values are better.

Until we move to proportional representation, these parties will always play the game of the lesser of evils.
Click to expand...
I ask again, do you have any evidence that countries with PR have better outcomes?

To the best of my knowledge, they piss and moan about how politicians are greedy, corrupt, yadda yadda yadda just as much as anybody else.
 
T

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Machjo said:
But are all of the parties so out of policy ideas that all they can think of is attack ads?
Click to expand...





Apparently you aren't really paying attention if all you see is 'attack ads' and no policy ideas from the other parties.


And if that is all you see, I hope you don't vote.........
 
Machjo

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
tay said:
Apparently you aren't really paying attention if all you see is 'attack ads' and no policy ideas from the other parties.

And if that is all you see, I hope you don't vote.........
Click to expand...

Any policy differences I'very seen are superficial at best with few exceptions. Sure I could focus on those few exceptions, but for a four or five year mandate, we have a right to expect more meat than what is presently being dwlivered.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Tecumsehsbones said:
I ask again, do you have any evidence that countries with PR have better outcomes?

To the best of my knowledge, they piss and moan about how politicians are greedy, corrupt, yadda yadda yadda just as much as anybody else.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by outcome, but with proportional representation you can use runoff voting.

IRV is simple, but it's effects are dramatic. No more voting for the lesser of two evils-you really can vote for the best candidate. No more "spoilers"-if your first choice doesn't win, you help elect your second choice, not your last choice. By providing real choice, IRV increases voter turnout, and represents the true preference of the majority.

For example, in a recent New Mexico congressional race, Green Party candidate Carol Miller ran for a "safe" seat held by Democrats for 40 years. Miller got 17% of the vote, the Democrat got 40%, and the Republican was elected with just 43%. It's a safe guess that most of Miller's supporters would have ranked the Democrat second under an IRV system, thus electing the Democrat once Miller was eliminated.

This could happen in California. Suppose Nader gets 17%, Gore 40%, and Bush 43%-Bush wins all the state's electoral votes, even though he got far less than a majority. With IRV, if a majority of Nader supporters rank Gore second, Gore pulls ahead of Bush and wins the state.

Because IRV removes the fear of electing the worst, it encourages people to vote for the best. With IRV, it's conceivable that, if the millions of voters who really prefer Nader actually ranked him first choice, Nader could win.

Instant Runoff Voting The Solution to "The Lesser of Two Evils"
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,620
7,093
113
Washington DC
mentalfloss said:
Not sure what you mean by outcome, but with proportional representation you can use runoff voting.

IRV is simple, but it's effects are dramatic. No more voting for the lesser of two evils-you really can vote for the best candidate. No more "spoilers"-if your first choice doesn't win, you help elect your second choice, not your last choice. By providing real choice, IRV increases voter turnout, and represents the true preference of the majority.

For example, in a recent New Mexico congressional race, Green Party candidate Carol Miller ran for a "safe" seat held by Democrats for 40 years. Miller got 17% of the vote, the Democrat got 40%, and the Republican was elected with just 43%. It's a safe guess that most of Miller's supporters would have ranked the Democrat second under an IRV system, thus electing the Democrat once Miller was eliminated.

This could happen in California. Suppose Nader gets 17%, Gore 40%, and Bush 43%-Bush wins all the state's electoral votes, even though he got far less than a majority. With IRV, if a majority of Nader supporters rank Gore second, Gore pulls ahead of Bush and wins the state.

Because IRV removes the fear of electing the worst, it encourages people to vote for the best. With IRV, it's conceivable that, if the millions of voters who really prefer Nader actually ranked him first choice, Nader could win.

Instant Runoff Voting The Solution to "The Lesser of Two Evils"
Click to expand...

Outcomes. Good governance, in the opinion of the governed.

You do realize you didn't answer my question, right? Posting non-responsive bullsh*t is a sign that you can't support your argument.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I never made the claim that outcomes would be different, only that people wouldn't have to vote based on the lesser of evils.
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
An elected senate is another way we could go. But the provinces really dropped the ball on Harper's offer to appoint senators that were elected
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom