Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Boges

Ontario Budget 2014 -- Election

Recommended Posts

It was still near 50% and low enough that the Liberals won a majority with only 17.5% of eligible voters casting a ballot for them. It's a sad reflection of the state of our democratic institutions.

Our democratic system has shown to work well once more. There was a challenge to the group in power. There were no riots or conflicts, each person who would be affected was given the opportunity to influence the result through a vote, a government was elected and is taking power. That is the way it should be.

As to the number of people who were qualified to have an effect by casting a vote, they all exercised their right under our constitution to vote for a particular individual or not to vote at all.

There are many views on the "validity" of the results of a vote based on the percentage of potential voters who actually cast a ballot. Some people feel that increased numbers give more credibility to the result. Others would argue that it is not the quantity of voters but the quality that is important. They feel that those who voluntarily take time out of their lives to vote, have an interest and some knowledge of the issues. They then should have a "disproportionate" influence on the makeup of our government.

Personally, the declining percentage of the numbers of qualified voters actually voting does not bother me at all. I believe that our form of democracy is based on the premise that those who are interested will participate. Those who are not - do not.

If only half the people who are eligible to vote take advantage of that opportunity then my vote doubles in influence in the final outcome.

I thank those who choose not to vote to allow me to make decisions for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our democratic system has shown to work well once more. There was a challenge to the group in power. There were no riots or conflicts, each person who would be affected was given the opportunity to influence the result through a vote, a government was elected and is taking power. That is the way it should be.

As to the number of people who were qualified to have an effect by casting a vote, they all exercised their right under our constitution to vote for a particular individual or not to vote at all.

There are many views on the "validity" of the results of a vote based on the percentage of potential voters who actually cast a ballot. Some people feel that increased numbers give more credibility to the result. Others would argue that it is not the quantity of voters but the quality that is important. They feel that those who voluntarily take time out of their lives to vote, have an interest and some knowledge of the issues. They then should have a "disproportionate" influence on the makeup of our government.

Personally, the declining percentage of the numbers of qualified voters actually voting does not bother me at all. I believe that our form of democracy is based on the premise that those who are interested will participate. Those who are not - do not.

If only half the people who are eligible to vote take advantage of that opportunity then my vote doubles in influence in the final outcome.

I thank those who choose not to vote to allow me to make decisions for them.

You completely ignore the absurdity of our first-past-the-post system, which inflates the governing party's representation even after taking into account people who do not vote, not to mention the negative effect the first-past-the-post system has on voter turnout since many people feel their vote doesn't not count or cannot vote for a party they want cause that party is not represented in their riding. Not to mention that our first-past-the-post system sustains at most 3 relevant parties per riding (better than the american system that only sustains two) based on how it affects voting decisions, which means that voters are stuck with 3 terrible parties that have an eternal triopoly on power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You completely ignore the absurdity of our first-past-the-post system, which inflates the governing party's representation even after taking into account people who do not vote, not to mention the negative effect the first-past-the-post system has on voter turnout since many people feel their vote doesn't not count or cannot vote for a party they want cause that party is not represented in their riding. Not to mention that our first-past-the-post system sustains at most 3 relevant parties per riding (better than the american system that only sustains two) based on how it affects voting decisions, which means that voters are stuck with 3 terrible parties that have an eternal triopoly on power.

If I had my way, I would support proportional representation - but - none of the parties ran on that platform.

In 2007, the people of Ontario had the opportunity to choose to switch to such a system. The result was a 64% to keep the current system and only 36% to change it to PP. The people have spoken. I accept that as the majority opinion of people in Ontario. It has been a dead issue here since that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had my way, I would support proportional representation - but - none of the parties ran on that platform.

In 2007, the people of Ontario had the opportunity to choose to switch to such a system. The result was a 64% to keep the current system and only 36% to change it to PP. The people have spoken. I accept that as the majority opinion of people in Ontario. It has been a dead issue here since that time.

The question should be: Do you want to switch our electoral system from FPTP?

Then, an alternate referendum should be done to decide which system we should switch to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question should be: Do you want to switch our electoral system from FPTP?

Then, an alternate referendum should be done to decide which system we should switch to.

But would that not give the choice only of the current one vs all others?

Let's assume that 60% vote "all others" and the current system is to be abandoned. Then the next step would be to vote for A,B,C or D.

Let's assume again that the vote is 40%, 20%, 20% and 20%.

Then system A is to be adopted. This would mean the only 40% of the original 60% or only 24% want system A.

Would that be fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had my way, I would support proportional representation - but - none of the parties ran on that platform.

In 2007, the people of Ontario had the opportunity to choose to switch to such a system. The result was a 64% to keep the current system and only 36% to change it to PP. The people have spoken. I accept that as the majority opinion of people in Ontario. It has been a dead issue here since that time.

That referendum was stupid. It only gave 2 options: FPTP or mixed member proportional. A lot of people that would prefer mixed member proportional over our current system didn't vote or voted for FPTP because they were upset that other options such as single transferable vote or pure proportional representation were not included. They should do a referendum with preference orderings + all the options to determine what should replace FPTP.

Also, there are many parties that want to move away from FPTP. Just not the major 3.

But would that not give the choice only of the current one vs all others?

Let's assume that 60% vote "all others" and the current system is to be abandoned. Then the next step would be to vote for A,B,C or D.

Let's assume again that the vote is 40%, 20%, 20% and 20%.

Then system A is to be adopted. This would mean the only 40% of the original 60% or only 24% want system A.

Would that be fair?

This is why you let people rank their preferences when picking the best system to replace FPTP, rather than let people only choose 1 option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had my way, I would support proportional representation - but - none of the parties ran on that platform.

In 2007, the people of Ontario had the opportunity to choose to switch to such a system. The result was a 64% to keep the current system and only 36% to change it to PP. The people have spoken. I accept that as the majority opinion of people in Ontario. It has been a dead issue here since that time.

That was a million dollar setup for failure: The education program to teach the public about the options was slashed and sabotaged by McGuinty.

A referendum is meaningless if people don't understand the choices.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That referendum was stupid. It only gave 2 options: FPTP or mixed member proportional. A lot of people that would prefer mixed member proportional over our current system didn't vote or voted for FPTP because they were upset that other options such as single transferable vote or pure proportional representation were not included. They should do a referendum with preference orderings + all the options to determine what should replace FPTP.

Also, there are many parties that want to move away from FPTP. Just not the major 3.

This is why you let people rank their preferences when picking the best system to replace FPTP, rather than let people only choose 1 option.

That would require a huge education campaign. Most of the electorate wouldn't understand the options. MMP was chosen by the Citizens' Council as the easiest to implement along with FPTP. Presumably, it could be tweaked and modified down the road as people become more aware of the advantages of PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer another thread on this topic - in fact we've had several in the past. Anybody else agree ?

Discussing change to our system appears to be a complete waste of time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we Nuke both threads and forget this whole ordeal ever happened? Wishful thinking?

But I'm still waiting to hear how Wynn is going to balance the budget in three years without cuts or layoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long until the size of Ontarios debt, and apparent unwillingness to act on it except by spending more money they don't have, causes the ratings agencies to cut the provinces creditworthiness down, and make the bad situation into something very serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After this year, the Liberal Budget will cut as if Wynne were Harris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Most improved' vote:

NONE OF THE ABOVE

/declined-ballots-jump-ten-fold-in-ontario-election

31,399 voters, or 0.64 per cent of all who participated, chose to formally decline their ballots, effectively declaring NOTA as their selection.

And it's interesting that all kinds of 'unvote' ballots similarly increased:

Total votes cast: 4,887,036 (2011: 4,336,817)

Declined ballots: 31,399 (2,335)

Rejected (spoiled) ballots: 22,687 (12,892)

Unmarked ballots: 12,059 (5,208)

"None of the above"

A movement? :D

.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...