strategic voting

[Courtney]

i think its stupid!

[ebbomega]

okay, that's twice you've criticised something for being dumb while fucking up on the grammar. Are you doing this on purpose?

[Courtney]

I think it is stupid.

[Courtney]

I know how to spell, I'm just lazy....sorry guys!

[Courtney]

I do suck at grammar though

[Courtney]

But anyway......
Shouldn't you vote with your heart because "if everyone did what they believed......."
you know the story, but seriously I know I "should" vote for liberal, but I "want" to vote for NDP......so I don't know I understand why people are doing the strategic thing but I think it defeats the purpose of freedom to vote sort of

[shift]

If we had proportional representation strategic voting wouldn't be necessary, and we could all vote with our hearts. The problem is that the number of seats a party gets isn't correspondent with the number of votes that party recieved, due to our current system. Basically if "everyone did what they believed" the left wing vote would be split in many ridings, which would result in a resounding conservative victory. (which is exactly what they want, why do you think Harper called an early election?)

If the most imporant thing to you is the NDP getting in in your riding then by all means vote NDP (that may be the party with the best chance of beating the conservatives in your riding anyway). Many of us, however, feel that the most important thing is that Harper either isn't elected (though by all accounts he pretty much definitely will be) or doesn't get a majority government. The only way to effectively accomplish this is to vote for the left party that has the best chance of beating him in that particular riding. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by shift

If we had proportional representation strategic voting wouldn't be necessary, and we could all vote with our hearts. The problem is that the number of seats a party gets isn't correspondent with the number of votes that party recieved, due to our current system. Basically if "everyone did what they believed" the left wing vote would be split in many ridings, which would result in a resounding conservative victory. (which is exactly what they want, why do you think Harper called an early election?)

If the most imporant thing to you is the NDP getting in in your riding then by all means vote NDP (that may be the party with the best chance of beating the conservatives in your riding anyway). Many of us, however, feel that the most important thing is that Harper either isn't elected (though by all accounts he pretty much definitely will be) or doesn't get a majority government. The only way to effectively accomplish this is to vote for the left party that has the best chance of beating him in that particular riding. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

more or less, I agree with this.

[-evil-duerr-]

im all about cock blocking harper with my heart

[ebbomega]

I don't like the idea of proportional representation. It completely undermines the purpose of having a representative. If you leave it proportional then it basically becomes PM and whichever lackeys (aka partisan hacks) they want to have near them.

At least in the current system, if a particular MP fucks over their constituents they don't get back into parliament.

All the people who recommend this format are looking at the American system and wishing that we could be more like that. I'm happy with the way we are. I think our electoral system doesn't need changing.

And I really wish people would stop putting the PM on a pedestal, because our system doesn't give them as much power as everybody thinks it does.

You are not voting for a president people, stop treating it like you are.

[prozac]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

And I really wish people would stop putting the PM on a pedestal, because our system doesn't give them as much power as everybody thinks it does.

You are not voting for a president people, stop treating it like you are.

+++++


Seriously, if everyone understood the electoral/government system and took the time to do a little research then voted for the person they thought would best represent their community....our government and therefore our society would look a lot different.

Election time disappoints me because it reminds me how disturbingly uneducated and American-influenced my fellow Canadians are.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

And I really wish people would stop putting the PM on a pedestal, because our system doesn't give them as much power as everybody thinks it does.

You are not voting for a president people, stop treating it like you are.

Agreed.

Seriously people, look at how the parliament system works! The prime minister doesn't have much more power then an MP. He just generally speaks for his party.

[dave mcnasty]

[miss.myra]

omg why doesn't the bloc quebecois have someone running in my riding?!?!?!?!?!?!

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

omg why doesn't the bloc quebecois have someone running in my riding?!?!?!?!?!?!

I was equally disappointed to learn nobody from the Newfoundland Liberation Front running in Vancouver East.

Forreals though all these secessionists should just join up to fight a common enemy.

That's right. I'm talking about the People's Front of Judea.

[decypher]

I was always under the impression that the PMO had quite a bit of power with appointed Senate and Supreme Court, Crown corporations, Cabinet etc.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by decypher

I was always under the impression that the PMO had quite a bit of power with appointed Senate and Supreme Court, Crown corporations, Cabinet etc.

compared to a president, a PM has a shitload more power directly at their control.

[ebbomega]

Appointments, yes. But a lot of people forget that the PM will lose a lot of political ground if they keep on re-appointing people, meaning that they still require the support of the people that they appoint. And in the major cases (cabinet) they still need to choose from elected members of Parliament. Which gets us right back to the representatives.

Finally, a PM WILL NOT bring forward bills without the full support of his caucus. And this is what everybody forgets. They always see that the party is united with whatever the PM is doing, but they quickly forget that the PM is merely acting as a representative of the caucus. If his caucus is made up of a large number of people who don't support his initiatives, those proposals won't even see the light of legislative day.

So if you vote based on who the stronger voice is that aligns themselves with your beliefs, even if they're part of a party that you disagree with you can still affect how the government works.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by wishbone

compared to a president, a PM has a shitload more power directly at their control.

I think the power to Veto any bill over steps the PM's Power... Anything brought forth by the PM has to have full support of his party, and enough votes to pass.

And keep in mind with appointments to the senate, they are lifetime appointments, an entire term can go by without any new members being appointed the the senate. While they are powerful (supposedly, but when have you heard the senate do anything) they aren't common.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

I think the power to Veto any bill over steps the PM's Power... Anything brought forth by the PM has to have full support of his party, and enough votes to pass.

And keep in mind with appointments to the senate, they are lifetime appointments, an entire term can go by without any new members being appointed the the senate. While they are powerful (supposedly, but when have you heard the senate do anything) they aren't common.

I still go with the PM for ultimate power. Make a cabinet any size, decide who's in it, restructure as necessary, call elections to be timed to coincide with the best possible opportunity to be re-elected.

Furthermore, whatever the PM says in cabinet, even if it gets directly opposed by the cabinet, becomes the official statement of the party and thus gets recorded in the minutes as so. It'd be stupid for the PM to go power tripping like this, however I think the potential power he or she has trumps the pres.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by wishbone

I still go with the PM for ultimate power. Make a cabinet any size, decide who's in it, restructure as necessary, call elections to be timed to coincide with the best possible opportunity to be re-elected.

So does the US president. He decides the heads of all federal branches, and could technically appoint to any position anyone he wants.

Furthermore, whatever the PM says in cabinet, even if it gets directly opposed by the cabinet, becomes the official statement of the party and thus gets recorded in the minutes as so. It'd be stupid for the PM to go power tripping like this, however I think the potential power he or she has trumps the pres.

The president of the united states has the power to:

Executive orders - Considered laws by federal agencies even without congressional approval

Direct Control over the National Guard

Drafting the National Budget

Directly recognize diplomatic recognition of other countries

Direct and sole authorization of nuclear weapons

Veto any bill as he sees fit

appointing six thousand federal Positions.

Directly alter punishment for crimes, or offer amniesty (PM's have to seek approval I believe)

Can technically appoint any person to any federal job anywhere.

And a whole hell of a lot of emergency powers.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

So does the US president. He decides the heads of all federal branches, and could technically appoint to any position anyone he wants.



The president of the united states has the power to:

Executive orders - Considered laws by federal agencies even without congressional approval

Direct Control over the National Guard

Drafting the National Budget

Directly recognize diplomatic recognition of other countries

Direct and sole authorization of nuclear weapons

Veto any bill as he sees fit

appointing six thousand federal Positions.

Directly alter punishment for crimes, or offer amniesty (PM's have to seek approval I believe)

Can technically appoint any person to any federal job anywhere.

And a whole hell of a lot of emergency powers.

wikibeatia :(

[miss.myra]

regardless of how much power our prime minister does or does not have, who is representing our country is very important in the world's eyes. look what it did for the USA and their president.

[rawb]

if you're cool with an american-style two party system or if you are mildly retarded or if you have a life-ending disease that confirms that you will never see the next election after this one, by all means vote strategically.

[Grapes]

ALL VOTING IS STRATEGIC

YOU ARE MAKING A SELECTION FROM A RANGE OF OPTIONS IN ORDER TO INFLUENCE AN OUTCOME (IN HOWEVER MINUSCULE A FASHION) TOWARDS A DESIRED RESULT.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NON STRATEGIC VOTING

ARRRRRRRR!$@@#%$
l