And they're off...the election thread

[Lastpointe]

I would be very against proportional representation. It was voted down in Ontario and also another province though which ine skips mymind.

Sure it will always be a greater percentage whovotes for someone else. It always has been. Putthe ndp and libs together and then it will be right against left. But that isnt going to happen because libs really want to be center. Not loony left

 

[Mendalla]

The turnout for advance polls seems like good news. Up 26% over 2011. If that keeps up and election day votes follow the trend, we could get a decent turnout for once. Then again, maybe it just means a lot more people are voting in advance and election day turnout will be lighter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-advance-poll-numbers-1.3266556

And the trend continued with yesterday's advance polls. Story at the link above has been updated with the 2 day numbers.

 

[GordW]

The turnout for advance polls seems like good news. Up 26% over 2011. If that keeps up and election day votes follow the trend, we could get a decent turnout for once. Then again, maybe it just means a lot more people are voting in advance and election day turnout will be lighter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-advance-poll-numbers-1.3266556

If memory serves, advance poll numbers were high in 2011 but that did not translate to an increased number of votes actually cast...

 

[GordW]

I would be very against proportional representation. It was voted down in Ontario and also another province though which ine skips mymind.

Sure it will always be a greater percentage whovotes for someone else. It always has been. Putthe ndp and libs together and then it will be right against left. But that isnt going to happen because libs really want to be center. Not loony left

I believe it was BC. Can't remember if their proposal was a true PR or something similar to the Mixed Member PR ike the Ontarion proposal (which was alos hurt because almost nobody could describe what it would look like)

 

[Mendalla]

If memory serves, advance poll numbers were high in 2011 but that did not translate to an increased number of votes actually cast...

As mentioned in my first post, there is the possibility that a high advance turnout means more people voting ahead, and could signal a lighter turnout on election day. But I think we should remain hopeful given how much higher this is than 2011. For the final vote to remain at 2011 levels now would mean a very, very light turnout going forward and on the 19th.

 

[revsdd]

Watching the Blue Jays game and noticed that the Conservatives with all their money are running an inexplicably weak ad that tries to get back to the "Justin's just not ready" theme. The original one was much better and was nevertheless still ineffective, so I'm not sure why they've gone back to the same concept. I thought they'd come out with something a lot stronger for the last week of the campaign.

 

[Jaebius]

 

[Luce NDs]

High voter turnout means that these are Canadians that can hardly wait to go to snow bird land ... out of this country when their votes spoil it ...

It is the rich implication ... they don't wish to be here for the consequences ...

 

[Seeler]

My early vote should indicate that I was worried about long line-ups and perhaps screw-ups on election day. I got the opportunity to vote yesterday, I realized that I was not likely to change my mind in the final week about who to vote for, so I VOTED.
Other considerations were: what if I got sick, was in an accident, was caught up in traffic, busy, or otherwise unable to make it to the poles on election day.
Snow-bird had nothing to do with my early vote. Making sure I got a chance to vote was my main concern.

 

[Jaebius]

High voter turnout means that these are Canadians that can hardly wait to go to snow bird land ... out of this country when their votes spoil it ...

It is the rich implication ... they don't wish to be here for the consequences ...

You actually might have olefin dare Luce - deck old vote-an-run, eh.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It's about more than who is your "favorite", though, @Kimmio . Saying it that way trivializes the whole voting process. It is about having a philosophy and a set of principles that you live by. Voting with conscience, for me, means voting for a party without compromising my principles, not just voting out the party I don't like.

The Liberals may well be that party but I am not sure (I actually am currently unsure who I will vote for). I won't vote for them just because they are the alternative to Harper. I will vote for them if they are the RIGHT alternative to Harper; if I find their platform comes close enough to satisfying my principles that I can do so in good conscience.

I understand that, Mendalla. The favourite would be favourite for good reasons. As we've seen with the NDP, though, they do shift positions on things. I have a friend who is die hard NDP - like a fav sports team - doesn't seem to notice that they are not a socialist-democratic party anymore, they are more neo-liberal like the Liberals have been (and the Liberals have changed on other things that the NDP used to favour - like deficits) However, we can't have everything and in my opinion voting strategically this time is the only tool we have to vote out the current government. That's the main objective on people's consciences who are doing so. To have a government that is at least reasonable, if not perfect. If the Greens have your fav platform, unfortunately a vote for them is a vote for the PCs.

My conscience says opening the way for improvement is the way to go then maybe next time or the election after, the Greens have a chance. If the PCs get in this time they'll stay in until the bitter end.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I would be very against proportional representation. It was voted down in Ontario and also another province though which ine skips mymind.

Sure it will always be a greater percentage whovotes for someone else. It always has been. Putthe ndp and libs together and then it will be right against left. But that isnt going to happen because libs really want to be center. Not loony left

Loony left? Loony for wanting to give the marginalized better opportunites and help the environment for future generations? For not wanting to divide the country with ethnic xenophobia? Yeah, sure, that's pretty nutty.
Heartless right isn't the way to go either.
Sociopathy is a whole different kind of loony on the far right. More harmful than being "loony" for caring. So, I'd rather we lean to the loony left. The proverbial pendulum never stays in the centre anyway.

 

[Jaebius]

Loony left? Loony for wanting to give the marginalized better opportunites and help the environment for future generations? For not wanting to divide the country with ethnic xenophobia? Yeah, sure, that's pretty nutty.
Heartless right isn't the way to go either.
Sociopathy is a whole different kind of loony on the far right. More harmful than being "loony" for caring. So, I'd rather we lean to the loony left. The proverbial pendulum never stays in the centre anyway.

If you go too far left or too far right, you'll find yourself in loonyland. Best to be somewhere in the middle.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Yes, well far left would be something like Che Guevara. Not into that type of government as a political reality despite the surge in hipster fashion items with his face on them. So, you're correct. I'd still rather we 'lean' to the left. And I'd like people to have the right to wear such fashion items. I have a feeling the further 'right' we go the less that right will exist.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'm a centrist; fiscally a bit conservative (hence my reservations about the Liberals' deficit plans) but socially very liberal. I believe in things like medicare and social support systems, though I do not necessarily believe in public monopolies on these things. Sometimes, the government is simply not the best organization to be doing a particular task, even if it is ultimately funding and overseeing it. I am also libertarian to the extent that I think the government should be regulating our lives as little as possible beyond what is necessary to keep a civil society (e.g. basic criminal law).

Often it's not because the government gets things done at a snail's pace compared to the private sector - it's true. However, the private sector being all about competition and, more importantly, profit (or surplus, with government funded non-profits, which can look just the same) - often cuts corners and doesn't run social programs very well - cheaper isn't better in the long run.

 

[Jaebius]

One of the saddest things about the way we run our nation of Canada is that we only allow we humans the right to vote. This is shameful and unfair. We are not the only creatures who reside in this great land. It's time we reformed things so that Canadian animals too have the right to cast their ballot.

 

[Luce NDs]

My early vote should indicate that I was worried about long line-ups and perhaps screw-ups on election day. I got the opportunity to vote yesterday, I realized that I was not likely to change my mind in the final week about who to vote for, so I VOTED.
Other considerations were: what if I got sick, was in an accident, was caught up in traffic, busy, or otherwise unable to make it to the poles on election day.
Snow-bird had nothing to do with my early vote. Making sure I got a chance to vote was my main concern.

Maybe just a cool choice?

 

[ChemGal]

I would have liked to used the advanced polls, but I was too busy on the weekend and today I am too exhausted. Allergies are also bad. Maybe I should have looked into the early voting info more - for the provincial election you needed a reason (although honour system, no proof required) to use special ballots. Even when I mentioned surgery they had asked me why I couldn't just use the advance polls and I explained that my surgery was on the same day they opened and I didn't expect to be up to be at the regular polls before that.

It sounds like federally they don't expect you to have a reason?

 

[ChemGal]

Reading about more issues at the polls. People go to station A, told they should be a B (this after trying a few times to get the correct info online, they were told to go to a nearby town at first). At B they were told to go back to A.
Maybe voting on the regular day is a better idea. I have flexibility with my schedule, hopefully I can catch a time where it's not too busy.

 

[Graeme Decarie]

I'm with revjohn. election debates are just showbiz. In fact, all the party positions in an election are show biz. That's how the niqab became so important in this election. No party has made a statement of what its fundamental principles are. What do they think a society is? What do they think are the social priorities of the party?
I know what Harper's priorities are. He's the servant of big money. That's what the trans-pacific deal is about. It's a revolutionary bid by capitalists in China, the U.S., Canada, etc. to place themselves above both law and government. I really don't care what Harper's budget promises are. Nor is there one Canadian in a several hundred capable of judging any budget.
Trudeau stands for nothing except getting elected. The NDP and Mulcair have moved so far into the centre, they wouldn't have a mandate to do what has to be done. As for the Greens, it's not of any use to be one-issue party - much as I agree with their positions.
Watch for massive cheating in this election - like the last one. We've already seen it - if ignored it - in the government's repeat of it's trick last time - sending voters to the wrong polling stations. Nor have we paid attention to its new voting law which is designed to make it difficult to vote.
Democracy is history in the U.S. And we're getting close to the same.