Age vote to 16

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Yeah...but what about the secret room under the Peace Tower

They keep a fat sow tethered there. It's mostly for members of the Conservative Party, but the right side of the Liberal Party has a key too.

Is the electoral majorty discussed in English Canada? Is it considered as an important issue by the media, people opinion?

The media virtually ignores it. As a result it isn't discussed much and the Liberals and Conservatives ignore the issue.

What is NPD's position in their electoral platform? Are they pushing this issue?

The NDP want proportional representation. Unfortunately, since neither the Liberals or Conservatives want it, it's become a non-issue.
 

Chake99

Nominee Member
Mar 26, 2005
94
0
6
The thing with proportional representation is that there will never be majority governments if it is used; as with first past post, you only need around %25 of the people perfectly allocated to vote for you to get a majority government.

While with proportional representation you would need more than %50

Depending on your view that could be a good or a bad thing.

I'll tend towards bad, for anything to be done the people in charge need to have power, with proportional representation for anything to be done coalitions would have to be made and the government would be responsible for policies that they do not necessarily support, but must compromise for.

With first past post the voters can then decide whether they want to continue with this course of action or not, but with proportional representation it is more confused, as they may be voting for the party that actually required the government to instate the law that the voter dislikes.

I also heard that when the NDP came to power in another province (its not ontario so I didn't really follow it) and were asked if they were going to instate proportional representation, they said something along the lines of, "its a system for the losers."

Yes to shaky for any real evidence but what the hell.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
The thing with proportional representation is that there will never be majority governments if it is used; as with first past post, you only need around %25 of the people perfectly allocated to vote for you to get a majority government.

While with proportional representation you would need more than %50

Depending on your view that could be a good or a bad thing.

I see that as a good thing. It forces the parties to have to work together, to build consensus on each issue. Using Kyoto as an example...the Liberals are doing it grudgingly because the voters want it. The NDP and the Bloc are for it, increasing pressure on the Liberals. The Conservatives are against it because they are so closely tied to the oil patch and the Republican Party in the US. So, in a minority government the Liberals had to give funding to environmental concerns. It was too little, but it was there. In a majority government it would have been less.

If we had proportional representation, the NDP and the Bloc would have been able to exert more pressure and the funding would have been even greater. It may have even been possible to force the NDP's entire plan through.
 

cub1c

Electoral Member
Mar 22, 2005
302
0
16
Québec, Montréal
People should know by know the real benefits of a minority government like it is now. And people have to admit and realize that one of the main reason it is in minority now is because of the Bloc and Québecers.

Now I know this argument can be debated for a long time, but for me it is clear.

Someone important said (can't remember his name right now): "Québec needs Canada, but Canada needs Québec a lot more."

I don't know to what he was refering to exactly, but in my humble opinion, it can be applied to politics.

Minority government is the way it should always be. But do people think it's going to stay that way? Since NPD and the Bloc has no chance whatsoever to become majority, I find the future scary.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I think it will stay that way for a while at least. The Conservatives sem very much to be trying to talk themselves into an election. It won't change things much...we'll still have a minority government, and the Conservatives will still be official opposition. The Conservatives are likely to come out of it with less seats though, giving the balance of power more to the NDP and BQ, who have similar agendas.

Here's my thinking on that:

The Conservatives aren't going to get any seats in Quebec and it's likely they'll lose some in Ontario the next time around. They could also lose a couple to the NDP in Saskatchewan next election. They will probably make some gains in the Atlantic provinces.

The NDP stand to gain some seats in Ontario, Saskatchewan and BC because those that voted Liberal out of fear of the Conservatives last time are less likely to do so this time around.

The Liberals will lose some seats to the NDP, but win about the same number back from the Liberals.

The BQ will remain fairly stable. If Gomery is still on TV they might pick up a seat or two, but the Liberals are pretty much down to ridings in Quebec that they can hold no matter what happens already, so there isn't likely to be a lot of movement.

That same scenario is likely to play out several times because of the Conservatives red-neck social policies and their insistence that we get even closer to the US at a time when the American president is despised by the majority of Canadians.

Just to get back to the topic...16 year olds being given the vote could reduce the prospects of the Conservatives further because they decided not to have a youth wing at their last convention. While most indications are that the 16-18 vote is spread across the spectrum, youth wings are a proven way of bringing young people into the parties and votes into the ridings, so the lack of a youth wing could hurt the Conservatives.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
I would think that the sooner we go back to the polls, the better for the NDP because everyone who didn't vote for them because "an NDP vote is a wasted vote" is still blushing.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
That's true Kevin. There is also not going to be the fear of the Conservatives this time around.

I know of two seats in Saskatchewan that went to the Conservatives specifically because of that fear. People who don't follow politics too closely and usually vote NDP voted Liberal because they were afraid of the Conservatives. The thing is that the Liberal candidates didn't have a hope in hell of winning, so the Conservatives took those seats.
 

cub1c

Electoral Member
Mar 22, 2005
302
0
16
Québec, Montréal
No place for youth in their party? Who can vote for that?
8O

Anyway. Simply by pointing out that lowering the electoral majority can increase youth interest in politics should be enough to make anyone change their mind.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
When you said that, Rev, I look at the individual riding results [in the Canadian General Election of 2004] and in Saskatchewan immediately these two stuck out -- Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre (Cons. over NDP by 1.2 %) and Regina-Qu'Appelle (Cons. over NDP by 3.1%) but there were still another one or two that went Conservative by 5 or 6 %. over the NDP...so I would definitely expect the NDP to pick up at least those two seats next election...maybe more in other places too.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
Here are some other findings:

Trinity-Spadina (Olivia Chow's riding) went Liberal by 1.6 %; I can only assume strategic voting swung that riding.

In Manitoba, in Winnipeg-North the Liberals beat the NDP by 3.1%...probably some swing there next time around from NDP voters who voted Liberal strategically.

Back to Saskatchewan, the Conservatives won Palliser and Saskatoon-Humboldt by 0.4% and 1.2% respectively.

In BC, Dewedney-Alouette went Conservative over the NDP by 5.8 % and Esquimalt-Juan De Fuca went Liberal over the NDP by 4.7 %...in Fleetwood-Port Kells the Conservatives won over the Liberals and NDP by 5.5 (Lib) and 7.6 (NDP)...not much can be concluded there from an NDP/Liberal perspective other than that it certainly wasn't a Conservative mandate!

So, yeah...through all that there's probably a good 10-15 seats in the country that the NDP have a decent shot at next time around.
 

Chake99

Nominee Member
Mar 26, 2005
94
0
6
Re: RE: Age vote to 16

SirKevin said:
Here are some other findings:

Trinity-Spadina (Olivia Chow's riding) went Liberal by 1.6 %; I can only assume strategic voting swung that riding.
And how far behind were the conservatives?

No one here I know of likes the Tories, so the chances of them winning were tiny and I doubt people would have voted Liberal to stop them, even walking around there were nearly no Conservative signs, all were Liberal or NDP.

But I'm just glad the Liberals won.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Those first two you mentioned in Saskatchewan are the seats I was referring to, SirKevin. There were several that were similar, but those two I'm familiar with personally.

You should see the Conservative from Saskatoon-Humboldt, btw. I saw him on CPAC sitting on the pre-budget environment committee. He was calling environmentalists luddites, and insisting not just on their resumes, but the resumes of every scientist that contributed to their report. They said they'd be happy to supply whatever they could and asked for his resume. He got angry.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
Re: RE: Age vote to 16

Chake99 said:
SirKevin said:
Here are some other findings:

Trinity-Spadina (Olivia Chow's riding) went Liberal by 1.6 %; I can only assume strategic voting swung that riding.
And how far behind were the conservatives?

No one here I know of likes the Tories, so the chances of them winning were tiny and I doubt people would have voted Liberal to stop them, even walking around there were nearly no Conservative signs, all were Liberal or NDP.

But I'm just glad the Liberals won.

In Trinity-Spadina the Conservatives had 8.6 %...there's definitely some room for that riding to swing to the NDP quite esaily.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Just to get back on topic,

If you have adult privileges, you must also have adult responsibilities. That means adult court for crimes etc. It isn't a free ride, and frankly, I don't think anyone defined as children should get adult privileges
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Re: RE: Age vote to 16

Reverend Blair said:
Voting isn't a priviledge, it's a right.

Careful...what about 6 year olds, is someone going to lobby that they have the right to vote? I agree, 16 year olds should be able to vote - a lot of them are starting to pay taxes. I think as soon as you start to pay taxes you have the right to vote.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
a lot of them are starting to pay taxes. I think as soon as you start to pay taxes you have the right to vote.

That's a good idea, if anyone was giving some of their money to a government they should have a say on who's allowed to spend that money.

I just wonder though, voter apathy is quite common among younger people, just how many 16 yr olds will vote even if they are allowed to?
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Voting isn't a priviledge, it's a right.

A right for whom? When my kids were 12 they didn't have that right. It's a right for responsible adults, and should stay that way.

Extrafire, remember that you can be prosecuted in a adult court from 16 +.

You CAN be. You are most likely to be prosecuted in youth court. I'm talking about ONLY being prosecuted in adult court. The rights and privileges of adulthood must be accompanied by the responsibilities.