Canadian Federal Election Boasts Lowest Voter Turnout Ever

Email Print posted by SnowTiger 10/15/2008 09:52:12 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

Sorry folks, but I'm in a really pissy mood this morning.

The 2008 Federal Election in Canada, shows lowest voter turnout in Canadian Election History with only 59% of eligible voters turning out.

 

It's an outrage, especially considering all that our nation and this world faces during this time in history i.e. War, Global Warming, Economic Failures, etc etc.

Even the election in 2004, when Paul Martin (Liberal) was in office (and ousted as a result of the election), only had a voter turnout of 60.9% of eligible voters.

It makes me sick that Canadian politics have gotten to such a point that voters are discouraged to the point of staying home rather than voting, due to a complete lack of faith in our system (for good reasons). 

I have spoken with tons of people during this last month, trying to convince them to vote. I was successful in a few cases, but overall I failed. Many I have spoken to, lack interest in politics because they fail to comprehend how much their daily lives are affected by governmental decisions and policies. Or they simply know that the present democratic political system simply does not work at least for the little guy. More and more are saying that there needs to be more local representation that is not politically motivated by the federal government. It has been a long time since our politicians have represented "us" rather than just themselves and their buddies with the cash.

Rather than us dictating what politicians do (i.e. politicians representing our wishes), they tell us what "their" plans are  whether those plans are lies or otherwise. Ultimately, we either vote for it and suck it up, or we don't. But it seems high time Canadians consider an Entirely New Democratic System. One which relies entirely on all people voting on all issues in a referendum format.

But before this can be considered, people have to be aware in all the issues, and that requires some interest as well as hope that IF they do get involved, that they "can" make a difference. Until then ... well, you figure it out. It's the same old path, same old arguments, same OLD SYSTEM, same results.

BTW- Considering all the humungous profits each of Canada's major banks have boasted for each quarter of the last 15 years or so, which range in the hundreds of millions in profit, why is it that these banks need ANY assistance from the Government (which by the way is spending OUR Tax Dollars) ?

< Maddow: Palin Lies About Troopergate Findings | Affirmative Action Change: Already in Barack's Plan >
 Display:
Canadian Federal Election Boasts Lowest Voter Turnout Ever | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden)
I'm sorry for your loss (none / 0)

59% can indicate lots of things:

-- A general feeling of hopelessness or powerlessness
-- Satisfaction with the way things are going
-- Cheating at the polls
-- Profound general ignorance
-- Really bad weather

But I really thought that more Canadians were paying attention to the damage that our pseudo-conservatives have done and would not tolerate them 'way up north where survival is much more dependent upon brains.

Unfortunately, the only way to make your plan work is to require a minimum knowledgebase and IQ.  But I'm not ashamed to admit that I've never been particularly opposed to that idea.  Since a lot of people turn their brains over to religions, I figure that all bets are off.

Besides, then we can be the elite!

by EveningStarNM on 10/15/2008 10:39:32 AM EST

a minimum IQ plan... (none / 0)
Might weed out maybe 10 percent of the Redneck Conservativesyou aim to disenfranchise, but imagine what it would do to the minority and non English speaking populations!!! Democrats would never win another ACORN rigged election! Cities like Detroit and Washington would have like 10 voters each! Canadians - Be happy that 59 percent came out - it could be a lot worse under an IQ standard!! :)

by bobo1 on 10/15/2008 12:02:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are a noble soul, bobo (none / 0)

Knowing that you are willing to relinquish your own right to vote in order to help your country has moved me.

You are a scholar and a gentleman.  

Ok, not so much a scholar.

And now that I think about it you are really more of a racist prick.

Kudos, nonetheless!!!

by ProfRich on 10/15/2008 12:22:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Even though... (none / 0)
I know you know better than to think that I would not have sufficient IQ to qualify, I WOULD sacrifice my singular vote if they didn't let clueless liberals, unqualified minorities or ANY illegals vote here! It was Juarez, not I, who recommended a test to weed out potential voters - We used to call those Jim Crow laws - Why do Liberals like you and Juarez want to go back to that? :)

by bobo1 on 10/15/2008 12:37:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Straw man alert! (none / 0)

In Conservoworld everyone who is not a conservative is answerable for all the actions and opinions of everyone else who is not a conservative.

So if a Mexican Revolutionary from almost a century ago said something once and Bobo sees this guy as not like Bobo, I must now answer for his transgressions.

Even in a case, like this one, where the rightie is agreeing with the evil leebural.

What bobo just said went like this:

"I believe in an odious idea to limit democracy"

I said, "Me, not so much."

Bobo: "Some guy who is not a right wing nut said something similar to what I believe so now you have to defend what I said and what you disagree with."

You may think this is just bobo's idiocy, but this is actually the intellectual foundation for about 95% of all right wing news and talk.

I respond by asking how bobo defends fellow conservative Adolf Hitler's well-known policy of genocide towards the Jews.

by ProfRich on 10/15/2008 12:55:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dude... (none / 0)
Juarez is our friend Evening StarNM (David), not some Mexican Revolutionary from 100 yearts ago. Must you always be so dense, professor? I'm not the one who suggested limiting democracy to those who are incompetent and uninformed - I was merely asking why Liberals would want to do get rid of the majority of their voters by doing so! Dumbass :)

by bobo1 on 10/15/2008 01:10:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok then (none / 0)

Why am I responsible for what EveningStar NM says?

You agree with him, you defend it.

by ProfRich on 10/15/2008 01:21:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I recommend more research. (none / 0)

You will find that the Republican charges against ACORN have absolutely no basis in fact.  Republicans are lying about ACORN.  (I use the word "lie" only when someone knows what the truth is but says something false anyway.)

As to your other point, I have no doubt that ignorance and stupidity are distributed equally among all races and income levels, except that Republicans seem to suffer those maladies more than others.



by EveningStarNM on 10/15/2008 01:30:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Doesnt matter if they are lying... (none / 0)
The story is metastisizing like a cancer across the airwaves... Linking the Dems to a radical "community organizers" only furthers the image of Obama as corrupt. It doesn't matter at this point if its TRUE or not - most voters especially undecideds are JUST NOW paying attention... Obama better run from these guys, QUICK... On the second point, if Jim Crow/Intelligence tests were issued in order to vote, the Democratic party would cease to exist in any state of power. Period. :)

by bobo1 on 10/15/2008 01:59:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But those voters ARE paying attention now (none / 0)

Would I prefer that people are always accurately informed about the issues?  To borrow a phrase from Sarah Palin, "you betcha!"  But it ain't gonna happen.  In order to avoid getting ulcers, I have to accept that.

Still, those voters are paying attention now, on their own schedule, and they're making good decisions.  Just look at Obama's huge lead in the polls.  McCain will not be our next President, and Obama may be in landslide territory.

It is certainly true that Republicans are trying to paint an image of community organizers as being black terrorists, but it isn't working.  The American people have been seeing this kind of deceptive marketing by Republicans for a long time, and they aren't falling for it anymore.  In fact, people are so fed up with it that they will show up at the polls in greater numbers than ever before.

I will even concede that some of those voters will not be voting so much for Obama as they will be voting against Republicans.  But I'll go further than that: some prognosticators are saying Obama may get 52% of the popular vote.  I think they're 'way off because of the way they determine who will actually vote.  I think Obama will get no less than 57%, and probably closer to 60%.  At any rate, there will be no question this year about who is the winner.

The nature of dishonesty is that you can't keep it up forever because you will be found out.  Republicans are about to learn a well-deserved and very painful lesson.

by EveningStarNM on 10/15/2008 03:51:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Luckily, its benign (none / 0)

This story that is destroying Obama has dropped his support in my average of tracking polls from 50.3% om Oct 3rd to 50.3% here on Oct 15th.

It is pretty devastating.

The joke about bobo is that for all his talk of Kool-Aid drinkin', no one is more locked into an alternate reality than he is.  He really thinks the ACORN story is blowing up into something big that will change the election?

Just like he said about the Reverend Wright story.

And the Lew Ayers story.

And the Madrasa story.

And the Rezko story.

I guess if you believe bobo, if none of thos scandals existed, Barak would be attracting 143% of the vote. (Which would be made possible by the ACORN terrorist vote registering tactics).

What's unbelievable is how often the con trolls can be wrong in a row and still be so convinced they are right.

They are like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.

by ProfRich on 10/15/2008 04:11:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Other than in meaningless polls... (none / 0)
Professor, where are you guys seeing this swelling of excitement for Obama other than in phone polls or left wing websites? Have you actually gone out and talked to living breathing people about Obama? Has there been some burst of excitement out in the country that is not pure media drivel and outright lies? You and I work in a pretty liberal field, and at least for me I have noticed little to no excitement about the prospects of an Obama Presidency among other teachers... When you say Obama, the room gets very uncomfortable and someone might say "yeahn he seems OK" and then they scurry away not wanting to engage in conversation on the topic. I think you grossly underestinate FEAR and RACISM in this country - and you have always relied WAY TOO MUCH on meaningless polling. The only poll that counts are the ones on November 4th. We'll know then... :)

by bobo1 on 10/15/2008 04:35:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As a matter of fact, I have seen it first hand (none / 0)

McCain HQ in this town is a pretty quiet place, but Obama's HQ hums 24 hours a day.  I've had to work until after midnight a couple of times and driven by the place.  I stopped in for coffee and saw a bunch of faces I'd never seen before -- the graveyard shift, I guess.

Las Cruces is hopping.  In a district that Bush carried handily in 2004, all by ourselves our cit y might be able to put Obama over the top in the 2nd Congressional District, despite the large Republican vote in the rest of the area.  But even if we don't Obama will win New Mexico, because we are out in force!

"Democrats have added 40,000 voters since last year, compared with 12,000 Republicans."

Now we're doing a "Get Out The Vote" drive.  While we helped a lot of people get their mail-in ballots, which they should have received yesterday and today, starting this Saturday we're going to start encouraging people to go down to the early voting locations to drop off their ballots.  We don't want people to mail them in, but our early voters are +23% for Obama.

Fear and racism may still play a part in our country, but they are being drowned out by the cheers of optimism and cheers for change.

Our country is better than it was before, and it will continue to get better.  We might have to do it with less money, since the Republicans have wasted or stolen so much of it, but we will be better citizens and better people.

All you have to worry about is your part of the job.

by EveningStarNM on 10/15/2008 05:15:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you just don't get it do you? (none / 0)

You asked me:

Have you actually gone out and talked to living breathing people about Obama? Has there been some burst of excitement out in the country that is not pure media drivel and outright lies?

No, I haven't.  

BUT there are people who have.  Let me introduce you to some of them.

Gallup

Rasmussen

Research 2000

Hotline

You still don't get it do you?  When we talk about polling, your response is, "How do you know who people will vote for?  Have you asked them?"

Let me make this as simple as possible.  Yes.  I didn't ask them, but people are asking them.

by ProfRich on 10/16/2008 09:33:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And you believe them??? (none / 0)
Now I know why you are disillusioned!

Poll companies like Gallup and Rasmussenare there to boost news ratings. Poll companies are funded by media magnates to genrate news. How can they be believed or trusted?

Who are they calling? What are they saying? Talk about a total setup!!!!

Hello!!! McFly!!!! Is anyone here actually living breathing and thinking for themselves???

Go out and talk to living breathing people, Rich - go down to your local Walmart or supermarket and stand outside the door and openly question people - you will see a better sampling, a real poll of how Americans view these candidates. I have done it - it will shock the Hell out of you, especially if you still believe the polling companies!!!

Dude - Get a Clue! Stop drinking the Media Kool Aid!!!

:)



by bobo1 on 10/16/2008 11:27:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0)

You've questioned people outside of Wal-Mart?  No, really?  Not buying it.

I imagine your experience with "actual people" is just like mine.  You have a job, and you talk to people in it.  You have a family, and you talk to people in it.  YOu hear things when you're at the store.  Whoopdy doo!  Quit acting like we're all so out of touch.  I hate to crush your frail ideology, but we all live in the real world (except for Ken and twba, obviously).

by Spencer on 10/16/2008 02:30:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't forget, he lives in McCains home state (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 10/16/2008 03:38:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Some of us promote not voting (none / 0)

Do not assume that the lack of voter turnout is necessairly a bad thing, as I encourage people not to vote in the contemporary environtment that is a celebrity-obsessed, cult of personality, anti-gaffe political landscape.

 Refusing to give a clear madate speaks to the extent to which the current systems of represetnation needs to be challenged - and perhaps the most important political issue - who speaks on our behalf,  is the most fundamentally flawed.

 These continued pro-voting proponents fail to see the doublethink in slogans like 'if you don't vote you let someone else speak for you' when in fact that is excatly what we are doing. Spoiling your ballot is a reassurance that the system is fundamentally ok, just that a clear candidate does not exist.

 For freedom to be meaningful we need have a politics that represents the possibility for influence and change - with the ongoing concentration of ideas in the media and the lack of a spectrum of voices, there is litlle possibility of meaningful poltiics that taking place in western liberal democracies.

 I promote political action, not systems of representation that validate the tiny elite that wield undemocratic and autocratic power and act in the interest of the few - under the guise of the legimitacy of the many (i.e the global bailouts which represent the ability to double the income for a billion of the world's poorest people for the next 5 years, spent instead validting the corrupt and the greedy). 

 As a society I would rather people vote with their feet, develop a community space, challenge an unjust decison or policy or contest the claims to act on our behalf before they waste the time energy and action defending a system that is disinterested in poltiical practices and obsessed with the right to rule.

 

 

 

by dreddly on 10/15/2008 12:28:51 PM EST

Political action without voting... (none / 0)

...is like getting married without having sex.  Not only does nothing change, but you can't produce offspring.  Besides, is it really worth the effort?

Unless you vote for people who will listen to you, you could find that your "political action" is either ignored or criminalized.  I recommend that you watch our country, the United States, very closely over the next few weeks.  You're about to witness the power of voting.  Our votes are going to change the world.

However, the world might be better off if you never vote.  You sound like some kind of crackpot.

by EveningStarNM on 10/15/2008 01:13:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Invalidation of issues, topics and ideas (none / 0)

This is exactly why I encourage others not to vote. The entire political spectrum is consumed with this blind faith in the idea that voting once every 4-5 years is going to change everything. Calls for change ring hollow when they do nothing to substantiatlly alter, challenge or disrupt the very processes that bring them to power.

 Substantive local political action 'as ignored or criminilaized' is the perspective of those who see themselves (embodied in their represetnative) in the position of power and authority. Effecting change within the narrow confines of acceptable political discourse (or even 'radical' discourse - liberal or conservative) in the US is a tiny spectrum of the complexity of political lives. My suggestion not to legitimate the sideshow that elections have become, is based in in the desire for a better quality of political participation.

 Blindly accepting the idea that a centruries old system will bring about radical change is a myth perpetuated by those with no historical, realistic or political alternatives. 

 

by dreddly on 10/15/2008 02:05:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Same Opinions and Attidudes are the Problem (none / 0)

Encouraging people to Not Vote, simply because the past (or at least the Recent Past) hasn't shown any significant or positive changes, is exactly why more and more people need to vote with each election. But then too, if people aren't paying any attention, they won't recognize any changes either. Once in a while, cavemen (and yes, cavewomen) must come out of their caves to see and remember there is more to the world than just their cave walls. CM

Furthermore, rather than everyone taking their bi-annual 5 minute opportunity (or whatever the election frequency) to make a change and thinking that is sufficient in this day and age, is simply nuts.

However, I agree that "Blindly accepting the idea that a centuries old system will bring about radical change is a myth perpetuated by those with no historical, realistic or political alternatives". But then this is exactly why more people need to get out and do more. The attitudes of the "defeated" offers no room for change.

If no one does anything different (speaking of citizens) then for sure Nothing Will Change. But when people get sick of it enough, AND start to voice their opinions publicly, THEN things "might change" but not until then. No argument suggesting sitting idle is the answer, will ever convince me or anyone else.

It's time for people to Rise Up and Revolt against the status quo. Only then will any radical change be noticed, whether it is done utilizing the present (old) system, or a new one.

But then, providing the opportunity (if given), and Obama's promises are kept, I trust that at least the American Public will see that change can happen within an old system. With any luck, that will encourage people on both sides of the border to get out to vote more the next time around (providing there are people who are equally worth the votes).

by SnowTiger on 10/15/2008 03:52:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You have marginalized yourself... (none / 0)
...and no one had to oppress, suppress, or arrest you in order to make your voice meaningless.

Other than by running for office yourself, there is only one direct action you can take to effect a change in government, and that is to vote.  Everything else is hot air that safely can be ignored.  And unless you vote for people who want to listen to you and who might agree with you, you will be ignored...

...unless, of course, you choose violence, in which case you will never be listened to -- or, possibly, heard from -- again.  William Ayers and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are proof of that.  Ayers is permitted to help people learn how to read, and that's all.  Zarqawi, of course, is dead.  We killed him.

by EveningStarNM on 10/15/2008 04:17:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Voting = Legitimacy (none / 0)

I appreciate both of your comments, but they fail to address the more substantive issue. Today (the media is discussing it) in Canada there is a recognition that there is something wrong with the representative system, and perhaps changes will be necessary to fix it.

 By voting you give both mandate and authority of action. That is not the case in Canada today. This is where increasingly the far-left and the lar-right are begining to agree. The federal/national system works so long as it has a claim to act in the public interest (the nation at large). When i participate in local efforts to reduce poverty, to argue for a change in local policy, or to challenge the legitimicy of a state/local policy, I have a clear set of people to which I can direct my action.

 At the national level there is a fundamental problem of representation - the more partisan and more populist the politics becomes, the less importance are the general interest of the public as a whole - the very reason for its creation. Partisanship holds the potential to undermine the very basis for a national government, as it increasingly represents the interests of those who are the lousdest and well funded (i.e. the new ACTA legislation).

 If you believe that Obama represents fundamental change, then you also omit the ways in which Clinton bombed Iraq, promoted liberal policies across the world with the WTO, IMF and the WB, and acted in ways that mirror the adminstiations before and after them. The call to vote legitimizes the practices of the past and the future without challenging the basis of their function. 

 Without a clear discussion about political change and difference - which must include the system itself - you will also be ignored, but with the additonal expense of  legitmiting the very process that deprives you of those rights, making you culpable in the problems that you face. 

 

by dreddly on 10/15/2008 07:04:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You missed the point of the discussion (none / 0)

It was not about the representative system, as you so vaguely put it.  Are you  implying that an authoritarian system is better?

The discussion was about the parts of the structure and regulation of the representative system.  No one wants to scrap it, but everyone knows that it has problems that must be fixed.

But it can only be fixed if you participate, and you can participate most by voting at the polls and, if you can get elected, in government.  But if a representative knows that he risks nothing -- such as losing your vote -- by ignoring you, then, I ask you, why shouldn't he ignore you?

by EveningStarNM on 10/15/2008 10:33:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not much change (none / 0)
Most likely reason why so many decided not to vote other than the fact there's too many parties to choose from and people aren't sure what the platforms are...regardless of who the winner is, it doesn't feel like anything's changed from yesterday to today. It's sad that our government makes no huge shattering impact for us. I don't mean we need to have all the hype, hoopla, and smearing the US election has...we just need more time to get to know who's running and who they are and what they stand for. A surprise election just doesn't get anything accomplished.
When Nov.4th comes, that will be heard all over the world!
I personally think the Canadian election was a waste of money and time.

by MintieFresh on 10/15/2008 03:55:22 PM EST

I thought that Canadians were different (none / 0)

I thought that Canadians, in general, paid more attention to what was going on in your government than most of us in the U.S.  Didn't they just see the clearest demonstration ever of the failure of pseudo-conservatism?  But Canada voted for it just the same.

It sounds like you folks need to change your constitution to allow for either sufficient public debate or stronger requirements for public service so that people are forced to pay attention.

by EveningStarNM on 10/15/2008 04:32:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Minty, EveningStar You are both correct. (none / 0)

I agree Minty, nothing has changed and the "surprise" election was a total waste of money and people's time. I personally think that while this election almost or basically did backfire on Harper, the other side of the coin is that now even fewer people are going to pay attention or consider voting in the next election.

This country needs more than a revised constitution. It needs a proverbial kick in the ass. Politics should be learned in high schools (not who believes what but rather how it works). This country needs an uprising of all those who are fed up with the direction we are going with this ancient system that just doesn't work any more.

Anyway, it's over now, at least for now. They won, I lost, and I will continue to move forward. I don't fear them, but I do worry. I'd like to know that my daughter, your kids, all their friends and everyone that is to come, will have a better place to grow up, than what they presently have to live in.

by SnowTiger on 10/18/2008 10:42:48 AM EST

Canadian Federal Election Boasts Lowest Voter Turnout Ever | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: