NDP ad stoops to Conservative lows.

Machjo

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Of course CPC ads are just as bad. As far as I'm concerned, while an attack ad might cost the targeted party votes, they don't necessarily win the attacking party votes and can sometimes backfire on the attacking party itself in costing it votes. I think the strategy with attack ads is something like "if we can't get them to vote for us, then let's at least turn them off voting altogether".
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,219
14,251
113
Low Earth Orbit
Machjo said:
Of course CPC ads are just as bad. As far as I'm concerned, while an attack ad might cost the targeted party votes, they don't necessarily win the attacking party votes and can sometimes backfire on the attacking party itself in costing it votes. I think the strategy with attack ads is something like "if we can't get them to vote for us, then let's at least turn them off voting altogether".
Click to expand...
Implying some is a goof is different than calling someone criminal when they haven't been convicted.
 
Machjo

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
CDNBear said:
LOL...

They're all bad.

The only ones that can't see that, are usually just morons or partisan hacks.
Click to expand...

But I guess if you're so shallow that you can't give them a good reason to vote for you, your next best bet is to get them to not vote for your opponent.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
The lesser of evils strategy is a repercussion of our antiquated first past the post voting system.

This would not be such an issue if we had proportional representation.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
A U.S. based example but the principle is still the same.

In the U.S., voters are often stuck with choosing between the "lesser of two evils," instead of voting for who they truly like. Voters have to vote "against" their fears, instead of "for" their hopes. This dynamic, of always voting "against" something instead of "for" something, has a very debilitating effect on the voter's enthusiasm.

Every 10 years, the incumbent politicians and their parties gerrymander the districts to ensure "safe" seats. Eighty percent of U.S. and California congressional seats in 1996 were "safe." Over one third of state legislative races weren't even contested by one of the major parties. This reduces competition and increases the sense that voting doesn't count; quite literally, in redistricting politicians pick the voters before the voters pick them.

With PR there are no districts to gerrymander, voters have more choices at the polls, and more voters will cast a vote for a winner. voters can listen to a range of political perspectives and policy options, and vote for the candidate or party that best represents how they feel. Voters can vote for their hopes, instead of their fears.

Proportional Representation
 
grumpydigger

grumpydigger

Electoral Member
Mar 4, 2009
566
1
18
Kelowna BC
Like another renowned Canadian organization rCMP
they get extremely defensive when all their dirty laundry is put in one spot so the Canadian citizens can inspect it.

And all harpo can do his comment on someone's hair and youth.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
mentalfloss said:
A U.S. based example but the principle is still the same.

In the U.S., voters are often stuck with choosing between the "lesser of two evils," instead of voting for who they truly like. Voters have to vote "against" their fears, instead of "for" their hopes. This dynamic, of always voting "against" something instead of "for" something, has a very debilitating effect on the voter's enthusiasm.

Every 10 years, the incumbent politicians and their parties gerrymander the districts to ensure "safe" seats. Eighty percent of U.S. and California congressional seats in 1996 were "safe." Over one third of state legislative races weren't even contested by one of the major parties. This reduces competition and increases the sense that voting doesn't count; quite literally, in redistricting politicians pick the voters before the voters pick them.

With PR there are no districts to gerrymander, voters have more choices at the polls, and more voters will cast a vote for a winner. voters can listen to a range of political perspectives and policy options, and vote for the candidate or party that best represents how they feel. Voters can vote for their hopes, instead of their fears.

Proportional Representation
Click to expand...

Unfortunately with PR you also have no one representing your area. In cities this probably doesn't much matter but it does with rural areas as we have different wants and needs than city folk.
 
WLDB

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
Indeed, disappointing. At least they havent used ISIS footage - yet.

CDNBear said:
The only ones that can't see that, are usually just morons or partisan hacks.
Click to expand...

Who often times seem to make up the majority. Hopefully just because they are the loudest.

taxslave said:
In cities this probably doesn't much matter but it does with rural areas as we have different wants and needs than city folk.
Click to expand...

There are different levels of government for that. Federal is about as far away from local as you can get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom