Re: RE: Name the October Surprise?
No, not really. If, by some "unlikely chance", in the Canadian voting system, "none of the above" wins in a riding, then all it would mean is a by-election for that seat. Unless the Federal or Provincial election sways on a single seat vote, it would not have a significant impact ... BUT ... if there were many ridings voting that way, it would delay a "new" government until all the by-elections were resolved by another election in each riding - but the present government would remain in power, until resolved by the electorate, if the vote was so indecisive. This is the "wake-up call" I talk about. A "slap in the face", if you will, saying " We don't like what is being offered, convince us which way to vote, without the bull ! ".
Our Canadian system is Parliamentary - in other words, not a full democracy - we do not elect our Prime Minister, we do not elect our Senators. We are caught in a "Catch 22" situation of do we vote for the best "representative" for our riding, or do we vote "party" based on who we want in power Federally/Provincially?
The US system is different - they vote for their President. But, if "none of the above" swayed it enough so that no candidate obtained the minimum vote required, then the present government would stay in power long enough to run another election to convince the voters who to vote for, or put up another person to run. The first time around would be the hardest, but from there on in, elections would be different. Change is not easy.
Jillyvn said:... I like the idea of including the option of "none of the above", but it has a certain anarchist feel to it. What happens if the majority of people chose "none of the above"? Who stays in power until we can find someone that a majority will agree on? Given our current political climate of "the lesser of two evils", this idea has the potential to destabilize our current system of government.
No, not really. If, by some "unlikely chance", in the Canadian voting system, "none of the above" wins in a riding, then all it would mean is a by-election for that seat. Unless the Federal or Provincial election sways on a single seat vote, it would not have a significant impact ... BUT ... if there were many ridings voting that way, it would delay a "new" government until all the by-elections were resolved by another election in each riding - but the present government would remain in power, until resolved by the electorate, if the vote was so indecisive. This is the "wake-up call" I talk about. A "slap in the face", if you will, saying " We don't like what is being offered, convince us which way to vote, without the bull ! ".
Our Canadian system is Parliamentary - in other words, not a full democracy - we do not elect our Prime Minister, we do not elect our Senators. We are caught in a "Catch 22" situation of do we vote for the best "representative" for our riding, or do we vote "party" based on who we want in power Federally/Provincially?
The US system is different - they vote for their President. But, if "none of the above" swayed it enough so that no candidate obtained the minimum vote required, then the present government would stay in power long enough to run another election to convince the voters who to vote for, or put up another person to run. The first time around would be the hardest, but from there on in, elections would be different. Change is not easy.