I din't want to vote anymore.


Machjo
#1
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/nd...-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
No Party Affiliation
#2
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
#3
But are all of the parties so out of policy ideas that all they can think of is attack ads?
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

But are all of the parties so out of policy ideas that all they can think of is attack ads?

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 .
 
EagleSmack
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

It's quickly becoming a "vote for us 'cause the alternative is even more miserable than we are" campaign.


Wow... more like the U.S every day.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Wow... more like the U.S every day.

Unfortunately.
 
Machjo
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Wow... more like the U.S every day.

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.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

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.

Would an intelligent person run for office? That is why we usually get the psychopaths.
 
mentalfloss
#9
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
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

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.

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.
 
tay
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

But are all of the parties so out of policy ideas that all they can think of is attack ads?





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
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

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.........

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
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

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.

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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

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"

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
#15
I never made the claim that outcomes would be different, only that people wouldn't have to vote based on the lesser of evils.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I never made the claim that outcomes would be different, only that people wouldn't have to vote based on the lesser of evils.

If the proposed system produces no better outcomes than the current system, what's the point in changing?
 
JamesBondo
#17
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
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
#18
don't cheat yourself out of all those campaign contribution solicitations you get by e mail so's you can feel part of it all,,,you know,,,have that sense of belonging.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

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

Look south. Don't see an elected Senate as an improvement.
 
JamesBondo
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Look south. Don't see an elected Senate as an improvement.

It is your right to see it any way that you like.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

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.........

So far that is all there have been. Unless you consider dippers & libs tax and spend plans as policy alternatives. Or more like alternatives to policy.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

It is your right to see it any way that you like.

Thank you for informing me of my rights, Constable. In return, I inform you that you too have a right to hold whatever opinion you choose.
 
JamesBondo
#23
Don't mind if I do. There are problems with the senate to the south. Being elected has never been one of them.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

Don't mind if I do. There are problems with the senate to the south. Being elected has never been one of them.

If your proposed new system produces no better outcomes than the current system, why bother changing?

Same question I asked mentalfloss with his proportional representation idea.
 
JamesBondo
#25
You are stating your case from a vacuum. Senate reform has more to it than just an elected senate.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

You are stating your case from a vacuum. Senate reform has more to it than just an elected senate.

Feel free to mention the other features any time now. Or don't. Your choice.
 
JamesBondo
#27
I am suprised that you are asking.

It is probably not the exact reform to be implemented, but look up triple E senate. Elected, equal, effective.
 
mentalfloss
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

If the proposed system produces no better outcomes than the current system, what's the point in changing?

That the votes themselves are genuine.

This can actually lead to more accountability if campaign promises are broken.
 
DaSleeper
#29
And it's a platform for extremists such as the greenies and others to slow down the process with too much discussion to a point where nothing gets done.....
And if anyone thinks there are too many committees now.......
 
Tecumsehsbones
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

That the votes themselves are genuine.

This can actually lead to more accountability if campaign promises are broken.

Again, I await your evidence.

There are countries with PR. There are plenty of countries with elected senates. A comparison is entirely feasible.
 

Similar Threads

3
nothing surprises me anymore....
by Stretch | Jul 21st, 2015
43
No One Whittles Anymore
by Spade | Apr 3rd, 2015