This is entirely true. This is why we have elected known gays and people of other faiths, or of no faith. It’s not about the person; it’s about the issues and the party stances. The way it should be, IMHO.
We do not need more people at the public trough. In the FAQ’s on the website, the cost will not be known until the gov’t is formed. Mmmmmm, me thinks this is going to be a money maker for someone!
I vote no.
As a slight aside, I did find out last time how to do decline a vote which would indicate I am unhappy with all. When I checked Elections Canada website, apparently the declined votes are counted in with spoiled or invalid.
Great, now there’s not even a way for the public to indicate they are not happy with anyone!
So you are simply voting no based on the fact that this will cost more? What if I could say that this would cost one penny more than the current system than how would you vote?* Are you happy with FPTP? How many MPs should there be? Do you feel that your vote counts?
I’m curious about your opinion on electoral reform.
*This is a hypothetical and is no way realistic.
Make no mistake, the change will take place. Simply because I believe there are not enough people doing not enough research to make an educated vote. And since most people feel change is good, they will vote yes. (These predicted results are based solely on my opinions and observations).
Realistically, having more people in government, regardless of who they are, is not going to cost a penny more, when you factor in pensions, benefits, expense allowances, etc.
I believed in Mike Harris’ “justify the epenses before throwing more money at an issue”. Sorry about the spelling, the letter which is missing fell off my laptop yesterday and I have to take it to get fied. And Mike didn’t last long. I believe there should be justification for spending before throwing money at an issue. And, without a cost attached to this new idea, I am looking with trepidation at the possible costs. Additional costs lead to additional ta es. And we already pay enough, being one of the highest ta_ed provinces.
I believe that declined votes should count for an interest in the system however no interest in current parties. They don’t. So, I’m back to my original inquiry. How does one e_press dissatisfaction with current selections?
That doesn’t make any sense.
Geez, he won two majorities and served two terms. That’s pretty good for a premier, isn’t it?
Write letters to the editor. Publish articles. Speak to your MPP. It’s a free country. You have a right to vote for who will represent you; you don’t have a right to get a special kind of vote where you vote but don’t vote.
It’s called a declined vote. It exists and we are able to do it. What I’m interested in is why do they include it in the spoiled ballots?
I’m not sold on MMP, but I firmly believe that the current system is broken beyond repair. With FPTP, it often becomes more of an issue of voting against someone than voting for someone else. That is wrong, and it results in a government that does accurately represent the people. Systems exist that result in the best representation. Instant Runoff Voting makes some much sense to me. Why don’t we have the choice of that?
British Columbia had a plebiscite on multi-member ridings with STV (IRV, but with multiple winners). It failed, yet a majority voted in favour somehow.
I’m not a fan of FPTP, but I don’t much like MMP either. It seems a solution geared to improving the parties’ interests rather than the voters’ interests. I would rather see something like Single Transferable Vote or some other system which guarantees a majority support of the winning MPP.
Does anyone know how the study committee came to pick MMP over any other possibilities? Did they look at alternatives or was this the only possible choice in their mandate?
I would guess that they don’t count it separately because it’s kind of pointless to do so. “Hi, here’s my registration card. I don’t want to vote.” They need to count spoiled ballots to be open about the results; why should Elections Canada waste time and effort figuring out WHY the ballot is spoiled?
Like I said, if you want to vote, vote. If you want to speak out in some other way, why don’t you do so? It’s a free country; write letters, start rallies, get involved. Challenge candidates and their campaign flunkies with hard questions.
And I’m still curious as to how Mike Harris “didn’t last long.”
As to MMP, I’m with Bookkeeper. Two things concern me about this:
-
It’s clearly a way for the major parties to guarantee comfortable sinecures for old party hacks, and further entrenches the PARTY as the agent of political power. Since there’s a fairly thick floor of support for the big 3 parties, this essentially guarantees each of the big 3 parties that they’ll get six to 12 people of their choice elected. It won’t take them long to realize that you can guarantee the party leader won’t lose his or her seat by putting them on the MMP list, rather than having them fight for a riding. You watch and see; if this passes, the top of the MMP list will be old party hacks through and through, many of whom will have been the ones who got their aasses kicked out of Queen’s Park the election before.
-
It bothers me that the provinces has done such an awful, awful job of getting the message out on this. We’re talking about changing the way democracy works in Ontario and they only started half-heartedly marketing this about a month ago. I think they’ve done this on purpose so as to ensure it’ll pass.
There’s drawbacks to every system, of course, and I don’t mean to say this is the worst possible idea.
Sorry, been away for a while.
Rickjay: The common sense revolution didn’t last. Mike may have been around for two. I suppose it depends on your definition of “long”. But, based on the “common sense and justify your expenses” part, he didn’t last longer than that.
Really, to make significant changes, you simply cannot do that in a couple of years. Can you imagine trying to truly change a major corporation in just that time?
You’re right - it’s a free country. And I didn’t say I didn’t want to vote, I said I declined my vote which should be the way to indicate that no one running is capable or trustworthy. And it’s time for a change. It should be a way to express dissatisfaction. Should I be voting for the other guy just so the worst guy won’t win? The devil you know versus the devil you don’t? Gee, that sounds reasonable! :dubious: