2008 Canadian Federal Election Thread

[Sir Purrcival]

I don't understand how voter turnout keeps going lower. For the past 6 weeks newspapers, TV, and radio stations talked non-stop about the federal election. You can't get more coverage then that.

There are a few reasons

Too many elections in too short a time

Frustration with the seeming never ending status quo replete with scandals and bad government

Frustration with Ridings and other Voters. Those that constantly vote one way regardless of candidate or party platform. Has been that way in my riding my entire life Federally. (NDP who is now 4th instead of 3rd in the Broadbent days). It gets pretty discouraging when you know before the election is even called who is going to win in your neck of the woods and that the winner is going to be on the outside looking in and consequently an unheard voice in the back rooms of those who are actually making decisions. Truly makes you feel like there is little point in going through the process. I did by the way.

The ongoing attack ads and petty bickering that tends to dominate campaigning. The very media coverage you mention is part of the problem. It certainly doesn't do anything to make me want to be a part of giving power to these types. It makes them look small and lacking in credibility and good manners.

[Toppy Vann]

That may just be it: voter fatigue. This was the third federal election in a span of barely four years; it seems people are growing weary of these frequent trips to the polls.

I don't think it's voter fatigue, but just Canadians are not used to having so much democracy at their feet. We're normally only treated to one vote every four years, so now that we have a federal vote every two years, people don't know what to do with themselves.

That only 60% of the voting population make the 15 minute effort to go vote shows you just how lazy, apathetic and useless our society is.

Not true. Some of the best Parliaments and some of the best things to ever be done in Canadian history with good voting turnout percentages have come in minority parliament situations with short times between elections. This election had the feel of one that was unnecessary and polls showed nothing would change. In Alberta a donkey could run for the Tories and despite the second lowest voting turnout of any province or territory at 52%, they got elected.

I do think voters are turned off by the tone of politics these days. Polling is done to produce 30-60 second sound bites that will resonate with voters- often appealing most to their prejudices and fears, grass roots constituencies are being told too often who to put forward as candidates, smearing opponents, etc all are contributing factors as others have noted.

I ran in 1972 for Parliament. Did okay in a bad year for my party and spoke at high schools in front of auditoriums full of students. Some of the best questions came from students!!! If they could vote at 16 and the rest of the population feared them, they can get off their butts and vote their views. I think we would be surprised by the results if we trusted them to vote. At 16 they can drive cars - far more dangerous than the damage they could do at the ballot box. You can issue fines to voters like Australia and many will simply pay the small fine as a price of not voting. I'd prefer to avoid that and let youth learn about the issues and vote. If they choose not to vote so be it. I don't think we need to fear them.

[Sir Purrcival]

I tend to agree with you Toppy.

The classroom is the purrfect opportunity to discuss a Federal election and get informed with all the differing viewpoints available. I also think that today's students are a completely different animal from 30 years ago. With the abundance of media at their fingertips, they have much more exposure to things that I (an example) never did. We shouldn't sell young people short in their ability to determine who to vote for. It also serves as the purrfect chance for young people to discuss with their parents who they vote for (and maybe ask the question why they don't vote?). And for the naysayers, having the opportunity to vote, doesn't force them to vote if they are really unsure about it or opposed to it for some reason. It does however give them a chance to think about it and decide for themselves. It is that thinking and deciding that we should be nurturing in all young people who are approaching majority.

[KnowItAll]

I tend to agree with you Toppy.

I have noticed that about you

[Rammer]

I do think voters are turned off by the tone of politics these days. Polling is done to produce 30-60 second sound bites that will resonate with voters- often appealing most to their prejudices and fears, grass roots constituencies are being told too often who to put forward as candidates, smearing opponents, etc all are contributing factors as others have noted.

Apathy is the best word to describe why eligible voters don't bother. That and anyone in my riding knew that James Moore was going to be re-elected. Combine that without much cause like the Liberal scandals when the "Conservative's" took power away from the Liberals. Still tell me who in this election had a platform that was head and shoulders above any of the others, nothing was there for the populous to grab onto, IMO.

[Sir Purrcival]

I tend to agree with you Toppy.

I have noticed that about you

I can't help it if his thoughts are as brilliant as me! :lol:

[Toppy Vann]

I tend to agree with you Toppy.

The classroom is the purrfect opportunity to discuss a Federal election and get informed with all the differing viewpoints available. I also think that today's students are a completely different animal from 30 years ago. With the abundance of media at their fingertips, they have much more exposure to things that I (an example) never did. We shouldn't sell young people short in their ability to determine who to vote for. It also serves as the purrfect chance for young people to discuss with their parents who they vote for (and maybe ask the question why they don't vote?). And for the naysayers, having the opportunity to vote, doesn't force them to vote if they are really unsure about it or opposed to it for some reason. It does however give them a chance to think about it and decide for themselves. It is that thinking and deciding that we should be nurturing in all young people who are approaching majority.

From when I ran in '72 I can still vividly recall a young, smallish girl of 16 or 17 who got up very nervously in front of an auditorium so full of all grade 11 and 12s that they were on the stage behind the candidates and asked what each of us thought was the best way for the country to create jobs "and don't just say secondary industry." That was the favourite line of my opponents. There were good questions and some got into complex situations and the "trickle down effect" etc etc. I loved that bollixed description that was all confused by one of my opponents - I got in a great line that 'I can think of only one thing that is trickling down from that answer and its not economic growth! '

After events like this I had adults come up to me at evening meetings to tell me that despite their vote being cast for the other party their son or daughter had told them if they didn't get out and listen to the candidates BEFORE they voted they were being irresponsible. That occurred a number of times. A number of people switched to me and hated the government. I had lots of youth volunteer for my campaign after that.

I had a 16 or 17 year old a week or so later speak to me in MacDonalds in Coquitlam to say he'd heard me speak and was impressed and asked a few questions that didn't come up. I was impressed! Oh, this guy was no academic type either! I was shocked.

I also ran into a now prominent businessman from the Tri-Cities a few years back who came over to my table in a restaurant to tell me that he was active in politics from the time he heard the candidates speak that at Centennial. He liked me so much he joined my party. He was influenced by the events.

Also one party that came second was doing so poorly at these events, he stopped coming leaving it to the guy who won and I to duke it. I had coffee with the winner on the Friday afternoon before the Monday federal election after a Chamber of Commerce luncheon where I was clearly the winner and our campaign phones rang off the hook. We battled and criticized each others policies but did not attack each others character. No one did in those days. I was 26 at that time. Just graduated from the first time from SFU.

On election night I went (as was the custom then) to the winning candidate's HQ to congratulate him and his party on the win. They had a huge party going on. I spoke to the candidate for five or so minutes and his people. People shook my hand and many were those who I saw at candidate meetings - that was funny and then I left. His campaign manager chased me down the street and said they wanted me back to speak. I went back and received a lots of applause and laughter as I joked around with them. It gave me a nice opportunity to get in some funny lines. That was Oct 30. Six months later I was walking in the snow up to the PM's office to meet his staff to give them my take on the flawed election campaign and BC. The winner was in a Parliament hill van and had the guy stop and I bailed in and we rode the next hundred yards together. He invited that night for drinks with guys from their caucus. I went and they treated me well. I met the grand old parliamentarian Stanley Knowles. They were drinking in their offices which was a no-no and I had been instructed to hide my glass when Stanley came for a few minutes as the House was just adjourning and he'd not like alcohol there. Like I said, times were vastly different then. More respectful.

I was keen on getting behind the curtains of Parliament or the Legislature to see how good public policy was created. By the time I did, I was a bit shocked about how crass it had become and how vitriolic in tone and how uncivil so many were to each other. We need better - it is our money they spend.

So let youth vote. Don't elect donkeys even if they are in your party and make them act more civilly towards each other. Ban polling by governments. Make them tell us what they think first. Then we can tell them if they are right or not. Right now they poll us to find out our prejudices and then play to them.

[MacNews]

Don't elect donkeys even if they are in your party

That is the problem with our system TV, you have one vote for MP, Senate and PM. In the States you have three separate votes, so you can truly vote "the best man for the job".

Since we only have one vote federally, IMO you have to take more into account then just your local candidate. That is why you have people voting more for the party then the candidate.

[Toppy Vann]

Don't elect donkeys even if they are in your party

That is the problem with our system TV, you have one vote for MP, Senate and PM. In the States you have three separate votes, so you can truly vote "the best man for the job".

Since we only have one vote federally, IMO you have to take more into account then just your local candidate. That is why you have people voting more for the party then the candidate.

The US is not a purrfect system either. Their system was designed to ensure no despots had power like kings and queens of Europe. It is system where it is extremely tough to get anything done. Some like it that. States rights are supreme in many areas and the US Constitution is the only one in the free world including the new Iraq constitution that the US helped design - that does not mention health care for its citizens.

You don't get to vote directly there for President or VP in the USA. It is not a general election but a series of state elections with the Electoral College voters actually voting for the President. Granted they comply normally with the popular vote.

In the US Senate, a Senator must never stop campaigning and raising money. Congressmen less so but money talks down there and party discipline is non-existent. In Canada, if Canadians like the party leader, they will vote for the donkey. But the cost to run and win one of two seats as a US Senator means that your vote is up for grabs with lobbyists etc. It is not necessarily the cleanest system. One advantage to our system is that it does no good to bribe MPs or even anyone short of the PM as Cabinet makes the final calls on most things. We have some good advantages.

Why I like the first past the post system of voting is that I want to avoid an Italy situation where no one can ever win majority and governments seem to rise and fall as often as the buses and trains go on strike which is all the freaking time.

[sj-roc]

That may just be it: voter fatigue. This was the third federal election in a span of barely four years; it seems people are growing weary of these frequent trips to the polls.

I don't think it's voter fatigue, but just Canadians are not used to having so much democracy at their feet. We're normally only treated to one vote every four years, so now that we have a federal vote every two years, people don't know what to do with themselves.

That only 60% of the voting population make the 15 minute effort to go vote shows you just how lazy, apathetic and useless our society is.

I was disappointed in the low turnout myself, but at the same time you should realise it's not a fifteen minute vote for everybody. I was a DRO this time out so I can tell you firsthand that it isn't always that simple. The elderly, the handicapped and those requiring a language interpreter face extra challenges. Some people also have to go through the added trouble of a vouching procedure, or getting a registration certificate if they have moved since the last vote without getting their info updated on the voters' list; that was the case with over 10% of the voters I processed, and I also had several examples of the other cases I mentioned as well.

So there are a lot of factors that can prolong the process. Even if you're not in one of these categories, you can become queued up behind such people and end up taking more time than you planned. On top of all that, the election workers who mind the ballot boxes — the DRO and the poll clerk — are entitled to occasional washroom breaks, during which time voting is temporarily suspended. Normally this is done when there are no voters present but you'll have to wait for them to return if you show up when one of them is absent.

The peak hours, from 4 or 5pm onward are very busy even without voters with special circumstances, just because of the queue. I don't know about other ridings or polling stations, but in my case, the last few hours were completely nonstop, handing out one ballot just as quickly as the last one could go into the box, one right after another, right to the bitter end.

I'm sure some of those folks were waiting in line at least 10 minutes. That's on top of the time it takes if they have to drive from work through rush hour traffic in this city and find a parking spot. In my estimation, my poll had about a 65% turnout, which includes people who had already voted ahead of polling day. It would have been all the more challenging to the individual voter if everyone had showed up!

[MacNews]

It would have been all the more challenging to the individual voter if everyone had showed up!

I know voting is not always quick and easy, but I don't think the line-up is ever too long to justify not voting! When I was scrutineering the vote count on Tuesday I thought "Image how long this would take if everyone voted!".

I always vote in the advance poll, where there is no line, so I am done in under 5 minutes.

Why I like the first past the post system of voting is that I want to avoid an Italy situation where no one can ever win majority and governments seem to rise and fall as often as the buses and trains go on strike which is all the freaking time.

You're right TV, I always forget voters don't directly elect the President, but it is close enough to me to be the same. But I agree I like FPTP because otherwise you have 40 parties and no majority, so coalitions are made and broken within the hour.

I find it pretty unusual that we have had 3 straight minority governments, we will look back at this as a "wild and crazy" time I am sure.

[Toppy Vann]

I think there will not a majority government until Gilles Duceppe steps down as leader of the Bloc. That is why no one can get majority. Quebec is how the Liberals stayed in power along with enough seats elsewhere so that by the time they starting counting ballots at the Lakehead the election was decided.

Duceppe comes across to even the rest of us as sane, sensible, and looks leader like. If he goes, I think the Bloc will fade. I had hoped he'd run provincially.

For me, we'd be better off if the Bloc fell to a minor rump group like the old Creditistes were with a few seats now and again the 60s and the Tories and Liberals divided up Quebec in future elections. Three significant parties with the NDP still strong is the best for this country. In the old days...the 60s etc, Tories had trouble in Quebec getting any seats as votes went to anyone but them. Now they have some national credibility, they should be okay there if not for the Bloc which to me is more about Duceppe's capability than any desire by Quebecers to go their own way.

Also have the Green candidates go to the other parties... change from within. Hard but better than too many parties.

[Robbie]

That may just be it: voter fatigue. This was the third federal election in a span of barely four years; it seems people are growing weary of these frequent trips to the polls.

I don't think it's voter fatigue, but just Canadians are not used to having so much democracy at their feet. We're normally only treated to one vote every four years, so now that we have a federal vote every two years, people don't know what to do with themselves.

That only 60% of the voting population make the 15 minute effort to go vote shows you just how lazy, apathetic and useless our society is.

Very well said.

Do you think it's time to implement compulsory voting? Voting is compulsory in more than 30 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Turkey, Singapore, Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. The thought behind compulsory voting is that voting is not simply a civil right, but rather a responsibility. Low voter turnouts shake the most fundamental cornerstones of democratic politics. That's why even some advanced countries have instituted compulsory voting. In many countries where voting is mandatory, various regulations have been established to punish those who refuse to vote, but those regulations are rarely implemented. Meanwhile, in some nations in which voting is compulsory, the elderly are not obliged to go to the polls out of consideration of their difficulties in getting about. Brazil, for instance, stipulates that voters under 17 (the voting age in Brazil is 16) and over 70, as well as illiterate voters, should not be forced to cast their ballots. In other countries with compulsory voting, such as Australia, Belgium and Italy, the voter turnout is usually more than 85 percent.

MacNews has made a point of having so much democracy at their feet, and sj-roc mentioned the issue of turning away voters for sake of having to wait more than 15 minutes. I can sort of understand how much democracy in Canada since I don't think whichever party is chosen won't make that much of a difference and there hasn't been a case where the incumbent party became so unpopular. The recent possible exception was in 1993 when the Progressive Conservatives became so unpopular after a nine year reign that their party was limited to two seats, but the Liberals made a huge campaign to abolish the GST but the promise was never kept. For better or worse, Canada was never extremely politically sensitive.

For comparison, consider another first world democratic country that does not have compulsory voting but is extremely politically sensitive - Taiwan. I know many, many Taiwanese-Canadians who made it a point of flying back to Taiwan to participate in their 2000, 2004, and recently 2008 Taiwan Presidential Elections. Unlike Canadians who are lazy for the sake of waiting in line for one hour to vote, overseas Taiwanese are willing to spend so much time, money, and energy for the sake of going back to Taiwan to vote.

[Sir Purrcival]

I think there will not a majority government until Gilles Duceppe steps down as leader of the Bloc. That is why no one can get majority. Quebec is how the Liberals stayed in power along with enough seats elsewhere so that by the time they starting counting ballots at the Lakehead the election was decided.

Duceppe comes across to even the rest of us as sane, sensible, and looks leader like. If he goes, I think the Bloc will fade. I had hoped he'd run provincially.

For me, we'd be better off if the Bloc fell to a minor rump group like the old Creditistes were with a few seats now and again the 60s and the Tories and Liberals divided up Quebec in future elections. Three significant parties with the NDP still strong is the best for this country. In the old days...the 60s etc, Tories had trouble in Quebec getting any seats as votes went to anyone but them. Now they have some national credibility, they should be okay there if not for the Bloc which to me is more about Duceppe's capability than any desire by Quebecers to go their own way.

Also have the Green candidates go to the other parties... change from within. Hard but better than too many parties.

Unfortunately, that may be true in the short term but dissatisfaction in that province seems to work on the Merry Go Round principle where it goes away and comes back every few years. Unfortunately, they have been well conditioned to respond accordingly whenever the Federal Government does something that Quebecers don't like. And as a result, it usually ends up with some kind of Federal gimme in some vain hope of pacifying the mob. It is no different than giving into a spoiled child. This Arts and Culture cut is a prime example. A 45 million dollar cut is relatively minor one in todays kinds of dollar figures. However as soon as Quebecers wailed about it, Harper backtracked quicker than you can say "Vivre le Quebec Libre" Just once, I would like to see it turned around where political parties say "If you elect us, maybe we won't cut this". It is still buying votes but at least you don't pay until you have a result. I have seen two referendums on separation in my lifetime and fully expect a 3rd sometime within the next 15 years. As painful as the thought is, I think maybe it might be a better thing for them to go their own way. Let them deal with the rest of the world without the benefits that come from the rest of the country and the hundreds of millions of dollars in handouts they get annually from the Federal Government.

[Robbie]

Since we all know that we were not directly voting for the Prime Minister but instead, their representative in their riding, let's discuss also your riding. Was the candidate that you wanted in your riding selected? I'll include the winners for the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island.

Fraser Valley and Southern Lower Mainland
Abbotsford: Ed Fast - Conservative
Chilliwack Fraser Canyon: Chuck Strahl - Conservative
Delta-Richmond East: John Cummins - Conservative
Fleetwood-Port Kells: Nina Grewal - COnservative
Langley: Mark Warawa - Conservative
Newton-North Delta: Sukh Dhaliwal - Liberal
Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission: Randy Kamp - Conservative
Richmond: Alice Wong - Conservative
South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale: Russ Hiebert - Conservative
Surrey North: Dona Cadman - Conservative

Vancouver and Northern Lower Mainland
Burnaby-Douglas: Bill Siksay - NDP
Burnaby-New Wesminster: Peter Julian - NDP
New Westminster-Coquitlam: Dawn Black - NDP
North Vancouver: Andrew Saxton - Conservative
Port Moody-Westwood-Port Conquitlam: James Moore - Conservative
Vancouver Centre: Hedy Fry - Liberal
Vancovuer East: Libby Davies - NDP
Vancouver Kingsway: Don Davies - NDP
Vancouver Quadra: Joyce Murray - Liberal
Vancouver SOuth: Ujjal Dosanjh - Libera
West Van-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky: John Weston - COnservative

Vancouver Island
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca: Keith Martin - Liberal
Nanaimo-Alberni: James Lunney - Conservative
Nanaimo-Cowichan: Jean Crowder - NDP
Saanich-Gulf Islands: Gary Lunn - Conservative
Vancouver Island North: John Duncan - Conservative
Victoria: Denis Savoie - NDP