'Canadian DMCA' Copyright Bill Dead Again

An anonymous reader writes "Like some kind of B-movie horror series, the latest attempt to revise Canada's copyright law and introduce DMCA-like provisions, Bill C-32, has again died on the order table as Canada's minority government has fallen after a non-confidence vote. This makes it the third copyright revision bill since 2005 to have died. Although this version was regarded as better than previous ones, it still contained awkward anti-circumvention provisions. We can be confident that some kind of DMCA-style copyright bill will be resurrected, but it will have to wait for the next government sequel."

Comments

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

When did choosing politicians become just about their bad qualities?

Credit

[Joe Jordan]

Gotta credit Canadian politicians for not selling out wholesale like they do in the US.

Re:Credit

[MightyMartian]

Any of the parties would, but there have been minority governments for the last seven years, so this bill, which perpetually gets stalled before third reading, keeps dying on the order paper. Get a majority government, regardless of which party forms it, and the legislation will pass.

Re:Credit

[v1]

we were just discussing how the USA could benefit from some of the design of canadian law, and it was decided that canada has safeties built into the system so that in the event that the government does something "batshit insane", that it can be dissolved almost instantly. And that's what has happened in Canada. Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here. Their parliament is a bit like our congress, but our congress neither has the balls nor the power to pull it off.

Re:Credit

[c6gunner]

And that's what has happened in Canada. Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here.

Not really, no. The financial figures were a red herring - you don't dissolve a government over something so minor. I started receiving election fliers and phone-calls about two weeks earlier, so that tells you how big a surprise this was. All the parties wanted an election; the claims about the financial figures are a convenient excuse.

Re:Credit

[alexandre]

Though that only worked because of the minority status of the current "government".

Re:Credit

[fishermen7777]

Any of the parties would, but there have been minority governments for the last seven years, so this bill, which perpetually gets stalled before third reading, keeps dying on the order paper. Get a majority government, regardless of which party forms it, and the legislation will pass.

Credits and avto

Re:Credit

[camperdave]

Get a majority government, regardless of which party forms it, and the legislation will pass.

Not necessarily. There's no requirement for MPs to follow party lines. They could vote against it.

Re:Credit

[ksrage]

So lying to parliament to get legislation passed is minor in your opinion? Why bother having parliament if they don't need to know the full costs and details of the legislation they are supposed to support. Should they just say "Yes sir we'll rubber stamp that legislation right quick for you sir!" I thought the previous Liberal governments were scum but Harper has taken every dirty trick they came up with and gone one step farther. He has complete and utter contempt for the system and everyone that refuses to tow his line. Anyone gets caught doing his dirty work they get thrown under the bus with a scream of "its really the Liberal's fault."

And yes every party, with the exception of maybe the Bloc, were itching for an election. It was all a matter of how they could do so while being able to blame their primary target.

Oh and Harper has been running election ads since 2008. Well its really a smear campaign but that's really semantics.

Re:Credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here.

No, "BAM" and then we spend a few million dollars to rubber-stamp them back into power, plus or minus a few seats. Hopefully not enough to give them a majority this time.

Re:Credit

[m.ducharme]

That's not strictly true. If the PM decides a bill is a confidence bill, then government side will have to vote the party line, at least. Most bills are confidence bills.

Re:Credit

[dryeo]

Usually only money bills are confidence bills, but you're right, the PM can declare any bill a confidence bill.

Re:Credit

[dryeo]

The conservatives have been running ads around here for months telling us about all the free money available to us. I hate to think of how much money has been wasted on the ad campaign by these assholes who claim to be financially conservative yet pissed away a surplus by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Taxes should have been slowly cut as the national debt was decreased without massive spending increases.

Re:Credit

[mevets]

Its a bit trickier than that. In a majority government, there is little to be gained by lying and being miscreants. Shy of a mutiny within your majority party, your legislation won't be defeated, so why risk your neck lying or abusing your privilege.

In a minority, it is really the same situation, only more-so. It is difficult to make one-sided legislation into law; so in theory your legislation should be better balanced, with more facts and figures.

That is where the last government fell down so badly. They had cabinet ministers (representatives with super powers) fraudulently altering official documents to make partisan hackery look like business as usual. They were hiding the costs of legislation, and bullshitting (correct term here: promoting something you know not to be the truth; as opposed to lying: misrepresenting something you know not to be true as true) about it both in a sweeping crime legislation and a bunch of war toys.

Lest you think it some sort of paradise - it took over a year to get the fraud out in front, and 8-9 months over the financial shenanigans. An election was inevitable, as there are five or six other abuses ready to enter the same pipe.

Also, this is the first time any commonwealth government has ever been found in contempt (we are number 1 - woo hoo)! So, yes, the safe guards against blatant abuse are there, but they are seldom used, and very slow to deploy.

Re:Credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Most bills are confidence bills.

Actually, that determination is largely up to the Prime Minister. As I understood it, Stephen Harper said that for his government only budget votes (and non-confidence votes, of course) would be considered to be confidence votes. Realistically, it's the only workable approach in a minority government. The reason that budget-related votes must be matters of confidence, of course, is that a government without money to spend on anything is dead in the water.

Re:Credit

[plalonde2]

At least 63 million. Harper has turned the government of Canada into the largest advertising buyer in Canada. Sick.

Re:Credit

[realityimpaired]

The public financing laws in Canada are responsible for this, not the politicians. Any donation over $20 is a matter of public record (and can't be anonymous), politicians are not allowed to accept more than the personal contribution limit ($1184 last time I checked), and it's illegal for a corporate entity to make a campaign contribution.

The US could really benefit from rules like that.

Re:Credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here.

These claims are factually incorrect. In the first case, if the "lie" canard refers to Bev Oda, the issue turned out to be a miscommunication. (It can even be argued that the document that precipitated all of this should not have been made public because it was an internal communication.) For those not versed in this Canadian Donnybrook: in typical WTF fashion, the document in question did not have a place for the Minister to indicate approval or disapproval of a recommendation from ministry analysts. The Minister, exercising her right and responsibility, chose not to approve the recommendation, and told her aides to "make it so". One of them inserted "not" into the recommendation, making it appear that ministry officials had signed on to the "not" recommendation, when they had not. A proper form would have prevented all this in the first place.

Next, about the "refusal to disclose information" smear: the Liberal MPs in particular have no excuse for their obtuseness, having been in government and knowing how cost estimates are made. As was explained before the committee by various officials, when a bill is to be considered by the Privy Council whether it should go to First Reading, it gets circulated to affected departments for their take on what it would cost. The departments return a "high level" estimate aka an educated guess. Assuming the bill proceeds and goes to Second Reading and into committee, it inevitably gets changed and refined. As this takes place, the estimates narrow. After Third Reading the estimates narrow again, as implementation minutiae are examined, finally arriving at something reasonably solid.

The Liberal lie -- because they know better -- is that they insisted the detailed estimates were being withheld from them. The fact, though, is simply that there are no detailed estimates until later on in the process. In the entire history of Liberal governments in Canada, there has been *no* release of detailed spending estimates. Why would they expect any from the Conservative government, then?

Re:Credit

[m.ducharme]

Also, just about everything is a money bill. The definitions of what constitutes a money bill are loose, and the government (any government) exploits this to the fullest.

Re:Credit

[c6gunner]

So lying to parliament to get legislation passed is minor in your opinion?

Careful now. You don't want to be making libelous claims without evidence.

I thought the previous Liberal governments were scum but Harper has taken every dirty trick they came up with and gone one step farther.

That's pretty funny :)

Re:Credit

[zippthorne]

I think Martian is trying to say that the only thing preventing them from passing it is partisanship: right now, the "leading party" doesn't have enough votes to pass it and the other parties are voting it down out of spite. But if any of them gets an actual majority, it's going to go through faster than you can say, "wait.. what just happened?"

Re:Credit

[multipartmixed]

> Most bills are confidence bills.

This was not true before Stephen Hitler was elected.

Re:Credit

[MightyMartian]

It doesn't have to be a confidence vote. All the leaders of any of the parties have to do is make it a whipped vote, and anyone who votes against party lines is tossed from caucus.

Re:Credit

[MightyMartian]

There is no complete definition of what kinds of bills entail tests of confidence. The Prime Minister is free to call any bill a confidence bill. Money bills are always confidence motions, because they entail the raising of funds, the fundamental exercise of the Government and Parliament.

Re:Credit

[mind.the.oranges]

The public financing laws in Canada are responsible for this, not the politicians. Any donation over $20 is a matter of public record (and can't be anonymous), politicians are not allowed to accept more than the personal contribution limit ($1184 last time I checked), and it's illegal for a corporate entity to make a campaign contribution.

And these laws are what tripped up Mulroney when he saw the end was near and looked around the table at how much his friends in America had raked in, and realized he would be going back to a meager lawyer's salary because really, who in their right mind would want to pay that man for a speaking engaement?, that dear old Brian he he took that $100,000, oops I mean $300,000, from the creepy German. Without the declaration of financing laws in our country Lying Brian would have taken the payoff straight in as campaign financing and washed it out the party's doors in consultation fees.

Re:Credit

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't voting this particular bill down out of spite. They're voting the budget down out of spite.

If *any* government bill gets voted down then parliament is dissolved, which means that the process starts all over again.

Re:Credit

[Anonymous Coward]

The opposition parties didn't vote the budget down out of spite. They didn't vote on the budget at all, yet (and now there won't be a vote on the budget at all). I suspect that the budget didn't contain so little good or so much bad that Canadians would have put up with the opposition parties voting the budget down. Many Canadians would have voted against the opposition parties in the upcoming election for having forced an election over a budget which wasn't worth defeating the government on.

What the opposition parties did do was to find the Harper government in contempt of parliament. On the one hand, that is almost precedent-setting. On the other hand, it really does seem that the opposition moved the motion of contempt of parliament out of spite. The Harper government has done multiple things since the previous election for which the opposition parties, if they had any backbones and if they really cared about the legitimacy of parliament, should have voted non-confidence. The opposition parties didn't then, not because they didn't think the government shouldn't have been found in contempt of parliament then, but because the opposition parties didn't think they could win an election then.

Now, every party, including the Harper's Conservatives, thinks the time is right for an election. Harper didn't want to have to be the one to call an early election, because as above, many Canadians would then have been peeved with him for wasting time and money on an election when he should be governing. Harper has been trying for a while goad the opposition into defeating the government, even though he really wants an election so that he can say "I didn't call an early election, because I know Canadians don't want one. I was just trying to do my job governing the country, but they wouldn't let me."

Re:Credit

[lonecrow]

And I don't buy the crap that gets spewed about "doesn't matter which party wins they all suck" garbage. That's a lie that the parties of fear and apathy spread who don't want you to vote. Any party that gains advantage by reducing the number or voters (eg. Republicans and Conservatives) is not a party of the people.

Re:Credit

[Strider-]

Not necessarily. There's no requirement for MPs to follow party lines. They could vote against it.

Well, if an MP wants to stay a member of a political party and get elected in the next election, they'll toe the party line. If they vote against their party, except when explicitly permitted to do so, they tend to get kicked out of caucus immediately, and lose all the rights and privileges that gives them.

Re:Credit

[boxwood]

Yeah they are free to vote against it, and then be confined to the back benches for the rest of their political careers.

Re:Credit

[tbannist]

All the politicians expected the government to fall, but that's because they knew Harper wanted an election and therefore wouldn't work with them. He refused to meet with two of the parties and then deliberately shortchanged the final party. For the conservatives it was a win-win situation. If the NDP had taken the bait they ruled for another year with no effective opposition, having the current scandals smothered for political expediency. If they get voted down, they can continue to publically claim they don't want an election (even though it's obvious to everyone that they do) and blame the opposition parties for forcing one. Interestingly, it's also obvious that neither the Liberals nor the NDP actually wanted an election.

So, against all probabilities, the election was called for exactly the reason the opposition parties claim. Harper has governed in such a way that they can't continue to support him. He lost the confidence of Parliament and he did so by instructing his ministers to lie and conceal information from Parliament. In a very large sense this election is about Canadian democracy.

The central question that most Canadians will never understand is whether the members of Parliament are the government, or whether the Prime Minister's Office (staffed by unelected political appointees) is the government. Harper had run a government which displays unmitigated contempt for the representatives of the majority of Canadians and not just the opposition parties either. Harper's government has no respect for the rank and file of his own party and very little for the ministers. Effectively the government is run by 3 elected men (Harper, Baird, and Kenney) and the political hacks in the PMO. No one else matters except as seat fillers.

Its time to move to canada?

[slushslash5]

So I could hack PS3, jalbreak iphone, download pirate files All of above is legal in canada. Yay!

Re:Its time to move to canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking DRM is illegal, but it should be making DRM that is.

Re:Its time to move to canada?

[alexandre]

None are illegal right now, but I'd agree for the 2nd part :-)

Re:Its time to move to canada?

[Creepy]

Also copyright law is only 50 years, so IMSLP has numerous scores that are only legally download-able in Canada.

The best thing RMS ever did (IMO) was help them not get shut down by big publishers of scores - in fact, rental prices are significantly down in the past few years, and I believe mostly because of them.

Re:Ugh..

[multipartmixed]

Actually, I think the Bloq are probably the best of the bunch. Except for that part about wanting to tear the country apart. I live in Ontario and would vote for the Bloq if they ran a candidate in my riding.

The conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of freedom-loathing ass hats. Remember, this is NOT the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's the Reform Party, with a new name specifically designed to confuse voters.

What's with minority governments recently?

[Cimexus]

Seriously. Canada, Australia and the UK all currently have minority governments/hung parliaments. In Australia and the UK particularly, this is a very rare occurrence (at the national/Federal level). From what I've heard, it's a bit more common in Canada though.

Anyway I totally agree with the 'all as bad as each other' sentiment. In the Federal election last year here (Australia) I honestly found myself completely disliking EVERY candidate for one reason or another ... first election I've ever felt that way. Apparently many in the UK and Canada feel the same.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[MightyMartian]

Maybe there have been one or two more minorities in Canada than in the UK over the last hundred odd years, but in general, because both countries have FPTP electoral systems and both have similar parties covering similar areas of the party spectrum, you usually get similar results.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one was greatly offended when a British MP (Member of Parliament) when asked about forming a coalition government in the UK, was worried that it could become a 'Bear Pit' much like the Canadian House of Commons had become. Like I said, I was greatly offended by this 'Bear Pit' comment.... I've been in the woods. When I was a kid, I went on a school trip for a week, (canoe trip), and was with one other kid in a canoe, when a bear came into the lake not far from where we were paddling. We turned around and paddled away (fast) from the bear, so I have seen bears up close in the wild, and I can tell you, no self respecting bear would dare set a paw in the Canadian House of Commons. If they did, in short order he would go down like Knute (a very sad and terrible thing), from shock and disgust! And the politicians wouldn't help the poor creature, they would just continue bickering. I remember a reporter asked an elementary school teacher what she thought of parliament, having visited on a field trip. The teacher was shocked and embarrassed by what she saw, and told the kids not to behave like that, and told the reporter that she would not tolerate that kind of behavior in the classroom. Petty partisan politicking, attack ads on tv, unsolicited phone calls with political science understudies trying to solicit votes, another federal election, the fourth in seven years. yay!

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Ciggy]

Having PR is not guaranteed to be much better - see, for example, the Alabama paradox - than FPTP. There are further problems with some PR methods (for example STV) whereby if a candidate had won a seat, if their popularity had been larger they would not have won the seat! (A couple of chapters in "Archimedes' Revenge" by Paul Hoffman explain the paradoxes).

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has a unique situation. It's hard to form a majority here because the second most populous province tends to vote for their provincial separatist party. Truly federal parties need to win more of the rest of the seats to get over 50%. (One can also analyze an urban/rural/suburban divide on issues, coupled with unequal riding sizes.)

Voter apathy is a growing problem in Canada too.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Canadian PM was just found to be in contempt, and consequently his Conservative (or corrupt as we say in Canada) government was overthrown. So we're heading into our 4th federal election in 6 years or something.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[sunderland56]

In the USA, the house is held by one party, the senate by the other. Isn't that essentially a minority government? It certainly functions like one - a single party cannot force a bill to pass, all legislation needs approval by at least some members of two or more different parties.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[kent_eh]

Probably because none of the parties seem to be able to come up with a platform, or slate of candidates that appeals to the majority of voters.
That said, I still want to see continued minority governments, until someone demonstrates that they can co-operate with the other parties for the common good of the nation.
Perhaps a more narrow minority, though. One where any opposition party can hold the balance on any day.

Coalition isn't a dirty word, It implies being able to put aside your differences and play nice with others in a mature pragmatic way.
That's not something I have seen in Canadian politics for a long time. Certainly not in anything that involves Harper. He doesn't seem to even be able to be anything less than dictatorial within his own caucus.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[dryeo]

One difference is that in a parliamentary system, if the budget (or any money bill) doesn't pass the government falls and the people usually get to vote.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Alabama paradox refers to oddities in apportioning electoral seats among states/provinces/territories. It is inherent in any electoral system, FPTP or PR or whatever, where representatives/MPs are elected based on separate electoral ridings/districts rather than being elected at large. The Alabama paradox is a problem orthogonal to the question of whether any particular variation of PR is better than FPTP or not.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Federal election last year here (Australia) I honestly found myself completely disliking EVERY candidate for one reason or another ... first election I've ever felt that way. Apparently many in the UK and Canada feel the same.

Oh really? What's there to dislike about these guys?

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, the house is held by one party, the senate by the other. Isn't that essentially a minority government? It certainly functions like one - a single party cannot force a bill to pass, all legislation needs approval by at least some members of two or more different parties.

Yes, very similar. The critical distinction, however, is that in a real minority government, as known in Canada and Commonwealth countries in general, is that the opposition parties can gang up on the governing party and force an election. In the US, Congress and the President are separate and equal branches of government, so Congress cannot "fire" the President (except for impeachment, but even that does not force a new Presidential election.) In Canada, however, the government is formed from the Lower House and serves at its pleasure.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[0123456]

Probably because none of the parties seem to be able to come up with a platform, or slate of candidates that appeals to the majority of voters.

Not a problem in the UK: they've consistently had majority governments with around 20-25% of the votes for years. This time the choices were universally so bad that no party could even get that few people to vote for them.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's going on in Belgium? I get the impression they don't have _any_ government right now.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of. But unlike the American system, in the Westminster Parliamentary system, if the governing party can't get support for certain bills (mostly budgets), there's the possibility of a non-confidence vote, which is what just happened, and leads to the dissolution of Parliament. Rather than actually working together to come up with a solution no one is happy with (a 'compromise' if you will), we just have an election. In the US, when you're House and Senate can't agree, you're stuck with each other til the next election.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look who doesn't understand voting methods! The Schulze method takes care of that problem with STV, and highest averages methods take care of the Alabama paradox. Besides, are you honestly saying that an entrenched two party system is preferrable to those minor problems?

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[Cimexus]

Nothing, except they fact that they didn't have a candidate running for office in my area :P Or in most areas, for that matter.

Re:What's with minority governments recently?

[tbannist]

Personally, I'd rather implement preferential balloting* first, let that sink in for a while and then see if we still need proportional representation. In theory preferential balloting should lead to more generally acceptable candidates because it becomes much harder to abuse minority support.

* Where you rank candidates in order of preference.

The bad thing about bad bills

[Anonymous Coward]

They can fail a thousand times, they only need to pass once. They will probably try again in a year and keep trying till people get tired of hearing it or they are distracted by something else until it gets passed and then the government will just refuse to repeal it or drag it out till people forget about the old ways.

What they need to hurry up and pass is a bill that makes it a law that ALL bills made past that point must have an expiration date where it must come up for review at least once every 10 years and if they miss the review or deny it, it is automatically taken off the books and will put a 10 year time table for all the current laws on the books so they must review each and every law passed and renew/revoke them as needed and check them again every 10 years and make sure they votes are on public record on every issue.

It would really cut down on the bad, useless and redundant laws already there and force politicians to reevaluate their laws every 10 years under the public scrutiny and their vote will be public knowledge.

Re:The bad thing about bad bills

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately a law like that would be killed quickly by people dragging it out in the media crying how much money the law auditing is costing YOU, the tax payer and how the next income tax increase will be entirely to cover for the auditing process. And you'll see people immediately want that silly safeguard removed.

Re:The bad thing about bad bills

[margeman2k3]

That's not what happened though.
The bill was never voted on. It was on the table, but because parliament is being dissolved this week, they need to wait until after the election before they can vote on it.
Not only that though, because it's a new session of parliament, they would need to introduce the bill again and start the whole process again.
An article was published a while ago here about this problem.

Re:The bad thing about bad bills

[zippthorne]

Maybe. But the gp's proposed solution is still a good one. Laws shouldn't stay on the books for longer than the generation that passed them without the consent the future generations constrained by them.

Re:The bad thing about bad bills

[eugene ts wong]

I suggest waiting 20 years so that a new generation can come in with a fresh perspective.

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

True, I don't think much of them all either but I really, really want to see Harper and his flunkies (not the whole Conservative party) GONE!

He was the one who started the last election early (and I recall him promising NOT to do that) just to get a majority so should we really be surprised that the opposition will be reluctant to do the same thing he did first?! Then there's the whole CRTC and UBB mess that they pretty much ensured would happen by sheer inactivity alone until the public, fed up with the overpriced internet and cell phone charges of which this was the straw that broke many camel's backs, shouted loud enough that they got scared of their positions. And then there is C-32 and ACTA which mostly bowed to corporations, mostly American media (that is also screwing America).

Basically, I think they've mishandled the entire Internet industry in Canada very, very badly and it's rapidly becoming a very important necessity in the global economy. There are obviously other important issues but that's the best example of how inept the government has been acting. At the very least, the change in government parties might wake up the parties, shake out the political interia, actually LISTEN to the public in GENERAL and not special interest groups, and get some freakin' leaders in power not people like Harper's goons. Right now almost anything would be better than keeping them in but my vote's in for the NDP. Of the bunch, I think their attitude, NOT promises, is the best atm.

I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[The Archon V2.0]

Their stance on copyright and open government is universes better than what Harper shoves down our throats every few years. So as long as they're the same or better than him on the other issues (I fail to see how they could be worse at this point) they're an improvement.

http://www.pirateparty.ca/

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[Rinnon]

I plan to do the same. I think I'm even fortunate enough to have someone running in my riding, so they'll definitely get my vote. They'll never get elected, but I don't know if that's the point. If they can get enough votes that the other parties look at them and say "Hey, what are they doing to get all those votes? Maybe if we did what they do, we could take those votes back." And naturally, if suddenly the Liberal Party had the same policies as Pirate Party regarding Copyright, they'd have won my vote.

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[alexandre]

As a member, I wish they'd show up in my riding too, I guess at some point we'll have to do it ourself :P

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[The Archon V2.0]

I plan to do the same. I think I'm even fortunate enough to have someone running in my riding, so they'll definitely get my vote.

Yeah, turns out the party leader's in my riding (Edmonton Centre) and they're having some sort of everyone-welcome planning meeting this weekend. I think I'll go and see how it is.

Anyway, their candidates: https://www.pirateparty.ca/about/candidates
Which has a link to a handy check-what-riding-I'm-in tool: http://www.elections.ca/scripts/pss/FindED.aspx?L=e

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[Anonymous Coward]

The non-democratic "first past the poll" system used in Canada virtually guarantees no representation for you.

For non-North Americans: federal elections are basically summations of a large number of localized elections (you vote not for a national list but a guy-around-the-corner); the first one to win that local election ("riding") takes with him/her 100% of the votes there. You only have to win, not get a majority. If this person has 40% of the votes, the other 60% is thrown out as if they were never there.

This means that smaller parties like the Pirate Party that raise valid issues will be silenced in parliament.

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[The Archon V2.0]

As a member, I wish they'd show up in my riding too, I guess at some point we'll have to do it ourself :P

True enough. I'm glad to have someone else in my riding to do it for me, though! I have no head for public stuff.

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Members of the Pirate Party are more then welcome to become candidates :)

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't think children were allowed to run for office. Mikkel looks about 13 years old haha. Nice that someone has stepped up to be a placeholder on the ballot, but I would rather hear one of the "real" parties clearly state their citizen-focused, democratic bias for the information age, in their proposed approach of leadership.

Although I have leaned right in the past, I have not seen any real right-wing practice in a good long while, am to the point where the left or the right seem equally acceptable, so my vote is up for grabs, and I am not the least bitl apprehensive about giving some new blood a crack at the helm, this time, either.

Near as I can tell, the Big 3 have all pretty much stated that they're good with passing some form of internet control on to private interests, C-32 would have been workable, had it made its way to vote. The hard left , IMO, while willing debate the issue, seem to regard information systems as a frivolous luxury of un-oppressed, a secondary thing which has little bearing on the social and environmental issues undermining the fundamental bases of Canadian society. I really don't see a ray of light in any of the five "real" parties.

During the campaign, I suspect every party will dance the Uncommitted Jig around any question pertaining to bill C-32, because they all know another version is already being drafted, by the industry, for them to present during their term, should they win. I'd bet they aren't even putting any effort into writing their own version, because they know they will have one dispatched to them, anyway.

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[The Archon V2.0]

I'd bet they aren't even putting any effort into writing their own version, because they know they will have one dispatched to them, anyway.

Hell, there quite the circumstantial case that the CRIA has been using Dan McTeague as a puppet: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5655/125/ Relevant bits:

The Toronto Star letter to the editor includes quotes from two old posts on my blog.... The visitor log for my site reveals that only one party accessed both posts in the period between February 14th (when the column first appeared) and February 21st (when the letter to the editor appeared). That party was CRIA, suggesting that the McTeague letter may largely be a cut and paste of materials supplied by CRIA lobbyists.

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirate? I'm voting Rhino!

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[Nuitari The Wiz]

I've started the canvassing to be the candidate in Laval - Les Îles
I figured that I can't just wait for someone else to do it for me.

I've just opened a twitter account if anyone cares to follow me.
http://twitter.com/stephanebakhos

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[tlhIngan]

I plan to do the same. I think I'm even fortunate enough to have someone running in my riding, so they'll definitely get my vote. They'll never get elected, but I don't know if that's the point. If they can get enough votes that the other parties look at them and say "Hey, what are they doing to get all those votes? Maybe if we did what they do, we could take those votes back." And naturally, if suddenly the Liberal Party had the same policies as Pirate Party regarding Copyright, they'd have won my vote.

They get some money if they get enough votes - $1.25 per vote.

It's one of the few things that Harper wants to get rid that riles me - he wants to go to an all-bribery^W campaign contribution system (because he can raise the most money that way), when in fact, we should go the other way and have all the parties paid for by votes in the election.

That way they're more honest to the voters - perhaps make it in their tax returns or something as "political contributions" where that money goes straight to the government and divvied up based on the actual vote count - if no one contributed a cent, no party gets anything, etc. And because it's divvied up equally, if you donate $100, it goes to all parties.

The only problem is we need to hae a checks and balances system to prevent the lucky party that ends up getting 80% of the vote eventually to simply outspend everyone or voting out the law.

And companies will find they can't buy via campaign contributions anymore, either - the best they can do is influence their employees to vote a certain way. But secret ballots keep them from finding out who voted for whom.

Re:I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about their position on the thousands of other things that matter beyond just copyright and ability to run a country? Seriously.

Re:Ugh..

[margeman2k3]

When did choosing politicians become just about their bad qualities?

When they stopped having any good qualities.

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Democracy is so expensive and inconvenient we shouldn't bother with elections. Maybe we need a Canadian dictator, then we don't have to worry about that stuff anymore.

Or perhaps we can just continue voting in minority governments until the politicians learn to work with each other like most Canadians would want and like we teach our children.

Use your brain.

[neiras]

While I think it's good the bill died.. as a canadian I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election.

Expensive election? Give me a break. I'm hearing numbers like 200 million dollars to run an election for the whole country.

In 2008 there were 23,677,639 registered voters in Canada. If the number of registered voters remained the same (hint: it has likely increased!), that puts the cost per registered voter at about $8.50.

I don't know about you, but I would pay $8.50 to have a say in my democracy any day.

The media in Canada has gone into "nobody wants an election, waaaah waaah" mode for each of the past four elections. I'm a Canadian, and just about everyone I know wants an election. Everywhere I turn online though, someone is bitching about how nobody wants one.

I know that the media is largely run by conservative businesspeople, but this broad-based attempt at reducing the duties of citizenship to an inconvenience is sickening.

Stop complaining and vote responsibly. It's all we have. We've had lots of elections in the past 7 years, and that's because the government is weak and Canadians are divided. It's a good thing we keep getting to weigh in.

Re:Use your brain.

[teknifix]

I've voted in every election since I've been old enough to vote. I'll vote in every election until I die. That's not the problem. The last two elections had the same result.. a conservative minority government. But as it always is, the parties can't work together because they all want to be the ones on top. I'd put money on this coming election having the same result. Especially if we see another low voter turn out. Even if the liberals or the NDP win, it'll still likely be a minority and nothing will get done. The parties have such a disparity in their goals that they just can't agree on what's best for Canada.

Re:Use your brain.

[JonySuede]

Stop complaining and vote

Right on, the about 55% participation rate is pathetic !

Re:Use your brain.

[vux984]

I agree. As I said else where, the current governement can't work together. So collapsing the government and putting in a new one is entirely appropriate.

The problem is we are going to elect the same government we have now. There ought to be some laws in place that prevent the people who failed to work together from being the people who have to work together again.

Harper shouldn't be allowed to run for PM. Period. We need new blood.

Re:Use your brain.

[smokeyJames]

If everyone who whined thought hard about the choices in front of us and voted... Nah, nevermind, that's my dream world I'm thinking of...

Re:Use your brain.

[adonoman]

Yup - Given that we were willing to spend $1.3 billion on that boondoggle of a G8/G20 mess, I don't think spending 1/6th of that on an election is that much of a hardship.

Re:Use your brain.

[Nemyst]

I don't know for others, but personally I loathe federal elections because I don't know who to vote for. THEY ALL SUCK.

I'd rather shoot myself in the face with a shotgun than vote Conservatives, they embody the very thing I want to run away from. Harper scares me shitless and if he goes full in this time, it's going to be the new dark age for Canada.

Liberals are weak, Ignatieff has no spine just like Dion previously. He's unlikeable, I still can't understand where the hell he wants to go and he's managing to get disliked by everyone even more than Dion, which I didn't think was possible. I wouldn't be surprised to see Liberals lose even more seats with him at the top.

NDP, as much as I'd like for them to be worthwhile, are really just too small. Many of their politics seem hazy and not fledged out properly. They go left and right and most of the time appear to be hugging whichever party is most aligned with them at the time. I would vote for them, but it feels like a throwaway vote. I know that people constantly say "if everybody like you voted for them, they'd get elected". Well yeah, IF. I'm well aware that won't be the case, so I'd rather support a party with more chances to stop the Conservatives.

This leaves me with the Bloc. I'll probably be leaning this way, since I'm in Quebec, but honestly it's in good part because I don't see NDP making much gains here and I don't find Liberals attractive in the slightest. Plus, I'm pretty sure the Bloc will steamroll the opposition here as it has always done. This guarantees one more seat against the Conservatives, which is better than nothing.

In an ideal world, the Liberals and Bloc (and maybe NDP) would form an alliance and get enough seats for at least a minority government this way. Of course, I'm most likely dreaming there.

But yeah, in short, this is why a lot of people are moaning about elections, at least from my point of view. If the political landscape was dynamic and interesting, there might be more reasons to be eager about elections, but right now I think it'll either be the status quo or (please no!) a Conservative majority. Neither are all that pleasing.

Re:Use your brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should vote for the party you'd like to see succeed. Every vote helps them, at least through funding and other rights that come with surpassing certain thresholds in voter support.

That's why I'm voting Green. Their environmental platform is a given, but they're also in favour of a more civilised government and representation by population.

Re:Use your brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

"but right now I think it'll either be the status quo or (please no!) a Conservative majority. Neither are all that pleasing."

Are you kidding? Please, no. The LAST thing we want to give either the Conservatives or any of the other parties in opposition is a majority government. This bunch of reprobates hasn't demonstrated either while in power or while in opposition that they're ready for the power that they'll have as a majority government. They should be sent back to Ottawa with the clear message to do their jobs: talk over their differences and work it out.

I'll take any kind of minority government (yes, again) over a majority where the government can ram through whatever they want. This is definitely a choice between a greater and lesser evil.

Re:Use your brain.

[Scrameustache]

I would vote for them, but it feels like a throwaway vote.

I will vote for them because the only way to throw away my vote would be to vote for someone I don't want to win.

I want the NDP to have more seats because they seem focused on citizens, not on money.

Re:Use your brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want the NDP to have more seats because they seem focused on citizens, not on money.

Unfortunately, they're focused on citizens to the exclusion of any consideration of money. They have no credible plan to pay for all of the programs they'd like to enact.

Re:Use your brain.

[RobertLTux]

about the only thing that would work is

1 after you vote you get a 2 part chit with
A some sort of machine readable code block that records your vote
B a serial number (which is generated semi randomly to prevent it from being reversed to the votes)
2 you then separate the 2 parts and then dispose of the votes part
3 come tax time somewhere in the deductions section of the form you then write your serial number(s) in and you get an extra deduction for each valid serial
(a single person gets 1 serial for each election and a married couple gets 2 for each election)

Or simply throw out the results if a quorum of votes has not been reached (since not voting is in effect voting for none of the above)

Re:Use your brain.

[BergZ]

I'm looking forward to the up coming election because I have a grudge against Harper for hypocritically using the Senate (an institution which he has frequently ridiculed as 'undemocratic') to kill the Climate Change bill (C-311) which had already passed the House.

Re:Use your brain.

[mrbcs]

With any luck, we will get the exact same result as the previous three elections and all the leaders will be replaced. Then we can hopefully start over in a couple years.

I've always been conservative (because we don't have a libertarian party here) but this bunch of assholes has to stop trying to make us in the US image. A Canadian DMCA will never fly and the only way that would pass is if asshole Harper got his majority. Thankfully, most people in the east know what kind of megalomanic he is and are scared shitless of giving him that majority.

Re:Use your brain.

[BergZ]

For the last seven years we haven't seen any party with a clear majority. I'm thinking, as a country, we're headed into the realm of, by necessity, forming multi-party coalition governments.

Re:Use your brain.

[innocent_white_lamb]

Your tax rebate idea still wouldn't work. Instead of a reasoned vote you would simply get a "lemme check the box and I'll get out of here" vote, which would quite likely be worse.
 
The quorum idea, on the other hand, would be workable if you had an interested voters list. If everyone who "cares" signed up for that list, and a minority of those on the list voted, that would signal that the choices offered were unsatisfactory and a do-over would be required.

Re:Use your brain.

[RobertLTux]

easy way to sort that one out

prior to each election everybody that is planning on voting confirms
1 their registration
2 the method of voting (early and or absentee voting for those that can't vote in person on that day)

then those folks plus 1/2 of the folks that just "showed up"
form the base of the quorum (you then require ~60% of that number as the quorum)

Re:Use your brain.

[Lucky75]

Well, Ignatieff USED TO have a spine. The true Ignatieff is someone who calls bullshit and is sharp and funny. Unfortunately, I think that he's trying to please too many people and it ends up making him look wishy-washy.

Ideologically, I agree with the fiscal conservative mantra of the Liberals/Green Party/Progressive Conservatives. The NDP, while I agree with their social liberalism, simply don't seem to have as much of a fundamental grasp on economics. NOTE: PC is NOT the same as the Conservative party, which is now a mix of the PC and the right wing nutjob "Reform" Party.

That really leaves me with just the Greens or the Libs. In all honesty, if the Bloc didn't pander to just quebec, I'd probably vote for them as well. Duceppe is a great leader IMO. My vote will, in the end, go to whoever I think has the best chance of defeating the Conservatives in my riding.

Re:Use your brain.

[Lucky75]

I'd rather vote for the party who is most likely to defeat the Conservatives and then just send the Greens the $2 they would get by having my vote.

Re:Use your brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if the party you'd like to see succeed locally isn't the party you'd like to see succeed federally? I'm *very* pleased with my local representative. But I definitely do not want the leader of his party as prime minister.

This will be the first time since I was 18 that I won't be voting. I just don't know what to do.

Re:Use your brain.

[tomhudson]

What if you don't like any of the candidates, and you don't want any of them to get funding based on the number of votes they got?

The last election, I did something I've never done before - I spoiled my ballot by voting for all of them. I am sick and tired of attack ads, politicians trying to tell me that I should vote for them because the other man/woman eats babies for breakfast, tries for sound bites instead of addressing the issues, and thinks our collective memory span is so short that we must all be suffering from Alzheimers.

You want my vote - earn it.

Re:Use your brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as he takes Flaherty with him.

Re:Use your brain.

[green1]

I've always been conservative (because we don't have a libertarian party here)

http://www.libertarian.ca/

Quit voting exclusively for the big parties, nothing will change if you keep voting for them. Even if your preferred party doesn't get a single seat, keep voting for them, our campaign finance laws allocate funding based on popular vote, so every vote increases their chance at the next election. Over time great things can happen.

Re:Use your brain.

[mind.the.oranges]

Harper shouldn't be allowed to run for PM. Period. We need new blood.

No one runs for Prime Minister in Canada. Harper is running as a Member of Parliament, and as the head of his party if he wins his own seat and his party garners the majority of seats and is given permission by the Governor General to form the Government then he (Harper) will be granted the title of Prime Minister. No one runs for PM in Canada.

If you're going to speak about Canadian federal politics have the self-respect to learn how the system functions first. Your opinion would have more merit and sound less like adolescent bawwww hatery too.

Re:Use your brain.

[mind.the.oranges]

I too spoiled my ballot recently, although it was a Municipal election. Not one of them deserved the job. I've long supported the idea that we should be able to vote for None of the Above (thank you Richard Pryor, Brewster's Millions (1986)) and if None of the Above wins not a single one of those bastards should be allowed to run for that seat again. No thank you, don't come again.

Re:Use your brain.

[neiras]

No one runs for Prime Minister in Canada. Harper is running as a Member of Parliament, and as the head of his party if he wins his own seat and his party garners the majority of seats and is given permission by the Governor General to form the Government then he (Harper) will be granted the title of Prime Minister. No one runs for PM in Canada.

A thousand times this. It seems that most folks have forgotten that we only vote for local representation here.

The system really was designed for an era when the media and cross-country communications had a long lag time. Now the media portrays a leader-vs-leader personality battle, and people are dumb enough to be swept along with it. If I hear one more man-on-the-street interview with some knob in Vancouver spouting about how he thinks "Ignatieff looks WEAK", I'm going to go volunteer to work cleanup at Fukushima Daiichi.

The only people who should care who Harper, Ignatief or Layton are are those who live in their ridings.

Re:Use your brain.

[mind.the.oranges]

The only people who should care who Harper {..etc is..} are those who live in their ridings.

I wish he would come ring my bell with a tv camera behind him. I would likely be the first to ask him on camera how he can explain the transformation from a party platform of transparency and accountability (archived here) to becoming the first Government in Canada's history defeated for being in contempt of Parliament for refusal to disclose information to the House. Please, just explain it to me Steve. I'm your constituent you self-serving d-bag. Mr In and Out. /one can dream

Re:Use your brain.

[mind.the.oranges]

Your tired 1980s propaganda ignores the 1990s Roy Romanow government of Saskatchewan that ran a tight budget repaying down a crippling debt caused by 9 years of corrupt Conservatives (12 charged in all) feeding like hogs at the trough (not to mention force-privatizing PCS, a crippling loss to the provincial coffers when comparing the one-time payout versus the company's global strategic importance and stock price today). The NDP are the party that would follow the Dutch lead on compassionate governance, and I'm proud to back that.

Re:Use your brain.

[ppanon]

You could vote for your second-favourite local candidate and send a letter to your favourite candidate explaining that, while you liked him personally, you couldn't countenance the person his party has selected as leader. You had to take into consideration the limited power your representative would have had with that leader while your representative would have been a back-bencher (or even with him as a minister).

At least you have a local representative you can support. The Liberal candidate in Vancouver Centre is Hedy Fry. She's a shoo-in no matter how I vote, and I would much rather a Liberal government than one with Harper as PM, but she's said too many bone-headed things over the years for me to have any respect for her.

Re:Use your brain.

[ppanon]

Duceppe is a great leader IMO

Yes, in the debates of the last election, he was one of the most cogent of the party leaders.

The majority of voting Canadians have not voted for Harper. If they're anything like me, they don't want to see Harper as PM any longer, and are getting annoyed that the other three party leaders can't get together to find enough common ground to demote Harper to Stornoway, but instead leave him at Sussex Drive to implement an agenda that is much more harmful to their professed goals than anything on which they would compromise together.

Re:Use your brain.

[vux984]

Quit voting exclusively for the big parties, nothing will change if you keep voting for them. Even if your preferred party doesn't get a single seat, keep voting for them, our campaign finance laws allocate funding based on popular vote, so every vote increases their chance at the next election. Over time great things can happen.

I disagree.

Throw the Libertarian party a tax deductable $20 donation. A party gets $1.75 in funding for your vote per year. A $20 donation will make more difference than your vote will, and frees up your vote to cast strategically.

Re:Use your brain.

[green1]

if nobody votes for the small parties "because they can't win" then they WON'T win.

If you really believe in them, do both, donate AND vote for them.

The $1.75 isn't actually anywhere near as important as the message it sends to the other parties. If you vote for a party, and they get in, they see it as reinforcement that you think they are doing everything right. If you vote for a party, and a different one gets in, they see that many people voted for that other party, and therefore they shift their policies more towards that party's platform to try to capture more voters next time.

If you keep telling the big parties that you like what they are doing (by voting for them) you both deny the small parties any chance they have, AND you send the message to the big parties that you like everything they are doing.

Re:Ugh..

[teknifix]

Every time I think of the NDP I think of what Bob Rae did to Ontario all those years back. Sure, we had great health care, but we couldn't afford it. It put Mike Harris in an awful place.. he had to cut a lot of the stuff the NDP had done, to negative reviews from the public of course, to get us out of our huge debt. An example, my grandfather knows Mike Harris, and he found out that the NDP had a secretary pool of 125 secretaries making around $60,000 a year, and their job was to sit in a building for 8 hours a day, doing nothing but waiting for a call if a secretary somewhere didn't show up for work or quit. That's $7.5 million tax dollars a year and it was one of the first things to go when Mike got in. I do keep an eye on what the parties say.. and to be honest I just don't like any of our parties. There isn't a single party with more advantages than disadvantages. Canada suffered some during the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin liberal years. It suffered during the Brian Mulroney(sp) years.. it's suffering now and it will in the future. I don't agree with a lot of what Harper has done.. but I don't like Ignatieff or Layton, and I really didn't like the whole coalition thing. What Canada needs is an election where more than 52% of the eligible voters actually vote and we can see what the majority says.

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

When we started electing them?

When corporations were born?

Re:Ugh..

[teknifix]

All of the parties have more bad qualities than good ones. So, there's more to base your voting decision on.

Re:Ugh..

[JonySuede]

The conservative were proven to lie in Parliament and you consider them to be the best choice. WTF !!!???
You have the choice between a corrupt party lead by a failed economist and a corrupt party lead by a successful academics. As an academic (both as faculty and as student) I think that I should vote for the corrupt party lead by the academic.

Re:Ugh..

[armer]

Funny thing is, 2 of the 3 parties who forced this election still haven't paid off the last one. The only party who can afford an election is the Conservatives. I am unsure of the Block's money situation though. Even funnier is that only the Block will remain about the same as for seats one. According to polls (if you actually believe them) the NDP and Liberals are going to have their collective asses handed to them after they have been severely kicked first. As for the UBB and CRTC, isn't it great that a government actually listened to the people it is supposed to take care of? I think Industry Minister Clement actually told the CRTC to change its ruling on UBB or it would be changed for them. Most of the federal bodies and their "leaders" are leftovers from the Martin/Chretien days, who were not exactly the cleanest leaders ever. But alas, it matters not, for they all follow the politicians mantra: I'll lie to get in power, I'll lie to stay in power, they will lie to get me out of power.

Superfluous

[HalAtWork]

This law would be superfluous anyway, it's already illegal to distribute and sell anything copyrighted without consent. Trying to pass this bill is wasting taxpayers' money.

Re:Superfluous

[green1]

But this law would also make it illegal to copy many things for personal use without consent.
I'd much rather they waste my money than use it to actively make me a criminal.

Re:Superfluous

[Anonymous Coward]

But this law would also make it illegal to copy many things for personal use without consent.

You say that as if it's a counter-argument, but I'm not arguing against that. Personal use is already covered under the law and it's legal. But passing a law that says it's illegal when there's a law that says it's already legal calls into question these politicians' ethics, common sense, and would confuse the legal process. We don't need that at all.

Re:Superfluous

[green1]

No, passing a law outlawing it would outlaw it. plain and simple.

As for politicians' ethics and common sense.... I hope you didn't type that with a straight face.

It doesn't "confuse the legal process" it changes the law, the courts then enforce the laws as they exist, meaning you can't do what you used to be able to.

And you're right. We don't need that at all. But our politicians likely WILL pass this law, it's just a matter of when...

Re:Superfluous

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't change the law, it makes it so there are two laws that say the opposite. It's not like they're going to repeal the other law. And yes, we should expect politicians to have ethics and common sense, and if you're making an argument against it then you're not exactly part of the solution...

Re:Superfluous

[green1]

I don't think you have any clue how the legal system works.

The old rules would say you can do what you like with your recordings, the new rules would "clarify" that to say that you can only do so under such limited circumstances that you will never actually encounter them.

The laws don't cause a giant conflict, the new law simply removes the rights you had before.

More to the point, our legal system works on a principle where you are allowed to do anything, unless a law says otherwise. As a result, laws aren't written to allow things, only to deny them. previously the law didn't deny you these abilities, but neither did it spell out that you had them, because under our system of law it isn't necessary to do so. This also means that adding a new law ALWAYS removes some of your freedom. The more laws, the less freedom. Adding this specific law would take away freedoms you already have.

As for ethics, honesty, integrity. I'm not defending the idea of politicians not having them, but I am realistic, and know that assuming they'll actually act in the best interest of the people and not questioning every move they make is a sure fire way to loose a lot of liberties.

And the bill came back

[mysidia]

And the bill came back... the very next day.
We thought it was a goner,
but the bill came back...
It just wouldn't stay away. ....

Re:And the bill came back

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome reference. NFB had a great take on that one...

http://www.nfb.ca/film/the-cat-came-back

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

While I think it's good the bill died.. as a canadian I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election. All of the parties suck. The conservatives (currently in power) are probably the best of the bunch, and that's not saying a lot.

Then vote for the conservatives. I'm certain they will get the copyright bill passed as they wanted it (ie. DMCA-super) next time!!

voting again

[roman_mir]

Not in Canada now, but will nevertheless be voting for Libertarians once again. If there is no Libertarian candidate in the riding, will vote Conservative.

Re:voting again

[selven]

There's always the Libertarian-like Freedom Party.

Re:voting again

[dryeo]

Do you always vote for the most fiscally irresponsible party? Or do you just like a party that reduces individual rights and wants to enlarge the prison population because the crime rate isn't dropping fast enough?
This is what always gets me about libertarians, they preach freedom and vote the opposite.

Re:voting again

[roman_mir]

I won't vote for any party that promotes anti-business agenda in any way ever.

Individual rights only make sense when they include right to make your own living and when the fruits of own labor are not stolen 'for the common good'.

Common good depends on ability of people to do business freely.

Re:voting again

[dryeo]

As someone who owns a small business, things have just got worse for me in the last few years. The conservatives just seem to be big business friendly and big business seems to want to take my rights away.

Re:voting again

[roman_mir]

I agree with the sentiment.

That's why my first vote goes for libertarians.

However I will never in my life vote for anything NDP, that's impossible, absolutely unthinkable.

The Bloc is useless, they are also French, so they can go to hell, they have socialist agenda.

I cannot stand the Liberals, they are dead to me.

The only sensible choice is libertarian. In absence of that choice I would rather go with Conservatives.

Re:voting again

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada does need to become more conservative but if it's too radical like the freedom party, they will want to stay far-left for the remainder of their years even if it hurts them.

Re:voting again

[green1]

The libertarians are a little too scary for me, I really want a smaller government, but not quite that extreme... I'd like to vote Pirate, but I don't think they'll likely run anyone in my riding... So I'm not yet sure who I'll vote for.

That said, with the options in my riding, I may well vote libertarian, It would at least help to send the right signals. (and honestly, I know for a fact the conservatives will get in in my riding, the only time they didn't was when reform still existed)

Re:voting again

[fiendy]

This has turned into more of a political than an IT debate, so I'll add my $0.02.

I don't particularly like Michael Ignatieff, nor the various scandals the Liberals have gotten themselves into since the 90's but the Conservative party has made them look like angels the last 3-4 years. Not just misappropriation of funds, but complete at utter contempt for the Canadian people, Parliament and the laws of the country.

At this point, I'd probably vote NDP on principle, but because I don't want to vote split and hand the Conservatives a majority, I will be voting Liberal and trying to convince anyone considering otherwise (NDP/Green/Libertarian/Pirate/Marijuana/Hippopotamus/etc.) to vote Liberal because if there is anything this country desperately needs, it is to be rid of Stephen Harper for good.

Re:voting again

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends upon what you mean by conservative, but in the US meaning of the word usually used here on Slashdot, NO we do not need to become more conservative.

Re:voting again

[roju]

I won't vote for any party that promotes anti-business agenda in any way ever.

I read that a large number of businesses were upset by the Conservatives' removal of the long-form census. Businesses used the results for things like determining new store locations. Does that rule out the CPC?

Re:voting again

[Strider-]

Do you always vote for the most fiscally irresponsible party? Or do you just like a party that reduces individual rights and wants to enlarge the prison population because the crime rate isn't dropping fast enough?
This is what always gets me about libertarians, they preach freedom and vote the opposite.

I vote for whomever will defeat Harper and his cronies. ABC. Anything But Conservative.

Re:Ugh..

[Bahamut_Omega]

I hate to say it; but it's bad enough when you find a thirty year old piece of British punk that happens to set the tone for the election quite well. Kick Out the Tories by the Newtown Neurotics.

Re:Ugh..

[vux984]

I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election.

Meh, that's Harpers fault. When you have such a precarious minority you have to work with the other parties to get things done. Harper doesn't. The other parties have no recourse but to either do what he wants, or collapse the government, and Harper keeps counting on them to do what he wants because no one wants an election. Its complete bullshit, but I don't blame the other parties for getting sick of him and calling his bluff.

Sad thing is we're going to likely elect virtually exactly the same government we have now. Perhaps when a government falls to a vote of non-confidence there should be a law to prevent the same leader from running for the defeated party, term limits would help too. Canada has got a government that simply won't work together, and our only recourse is to have an election to get a new government. That part of the system works. The problem is we keep electing the same people into government. We need new blood. But there is no way to get it, because we elect the party not the person. And as long as Harper runs, there are enough conservatives to give the conservatives another minority and put him back into power.

Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

I'm one of the very large group -- one might say the majority, by the way -- who refuses to vote. This is another great example of why that's the case.

Certainly each party promisses something different, and has differing priorities and differing desires. But in the end, the actuall end-result difference between one party and another is totally and complete insignificant. A few more dollars in this direction, a few less in that direction.

In the end, at the end of the year, my taxes sumto roughly the same amount plus or minus 5%, the roads have roughly the same number of holes, there's about the same amount of construction, public transit still begs for money that I don't think it should have, the same number of hookers are on the same corners, and the same rocket-powered homeless person manages to get from the theatre performance to the stadium faster than I can.

With no difference of any substance, I care, but don't see any value in voting.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting is the price you pay for being misfortunate enough to be born (or naturalized) into a relatively stable Western nation. Like it or not, being moderately informed and taking a half hour to vote every once in a while is your civic duty.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Not when it is ineffective. In the current situation, it's my duty to express the futility of the voting process. That too is a duty to be served. How many minority governments in sequence will in take? We're going to find out.

But seriously, when I skipped a class in high school they suspended me -- telling me to skip an entire day. I spent an amazing amount of time in pool halls. When an election creates a minority government that is ineffective, calling yet another vote among the same parties doesn't make any more sense. Do it enough times and you're certain to get nothing more than a random result.

Democracy's a joke in a world of expert marketing, and a misinformed public. Why would you have an uneducated vote counted equal to an educated vote? This isn't about electing a leader of a village. The world's gotten bigger, as have the issues. "majority" is meaningless -- the majority smoked, the majority did drugs, the majority can't manage a personal budget, the majority can't use their own computers that they use every day.

The majority need to be told "slippery when wet". You name for me ten things that aren't slippery when wet, that people encounter in a year. I've even seen signs that say "may be slippery when wet". Thanks for nothing.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[flyonthewall]

Then sir, you do not deserve the right to whine and cry should hell cometh...

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

You have very, very few duties to society but voting is one of them. You don't like what your choices are? Then join a party and take part in the choice of candidate and party platform. You don't want to do that? Then vote for who you consider to be the best alternative candidate. You only take the cowardly approach if you want a totalitarian government to step in. When voter apathy becomes too great, that's what happens next. Elections become pro forma for appearance only. If you honestly think there is no difference at all between parties then you are a fool. We currently have a Science Minister who is a Creationist. If that doesn't upset you then why not kill yourself now, you're already dead between the ears so no one will notice any difference.

People like you make me sick. You're a Quisling turncoat traitor to the Canadians who've gone before. People have died to preserve our democracy but ho hum, they must have just been fools for sacrificing their lives for some no account hipster who's too cool for school. When you see the rifle butt coming down on your face, remember you could have stopped it.

Melodramatic? Maybe, but if you think an election is only about what government can do for your self-centered ass then you're so totally missing the point it's tragic. But hey, with a little luck on your part, maybe the tragedy will descend on someone else, right?

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people dying in the world right now for the sake of having a choice in their countries. And yet you throw your own choice away and let other people make the decisions.

Yes, it's hard to decide between similar options, but why let other people choose for you? Why not try to change things? Heck, run for office or something. Do you really not care at all about the future of your country and community?

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Perhaps you've misunderstood my point entirely. No matter for whom I vote, it's the same good or the same bad or the same hell.

My point is that hell will or will not come independent of my vote.

It's an advanced concept, but it's reality.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

"should hell cometh"

That's not right. When you use 'should', the verb that you use it with is supposed to be a plain infinitive.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[dryeo]

Do what I usually do, vote for the Rhino's or the marijuana party or the pirate party. Just actually vote to make it clear that you don't support any of the main parties.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Let's take those one at a time shall we?

There are many things that I need to do in order to contribute to my community, society, and country. I can't do the others and join a party as well. So I've chose the others which I see as more important tasks today.

I don't see there being a best alternative candidate. So I've no one to vote for.

It's not cowardly when it's an active choice. I'm not shying away from responsibility, I'm taking it.

Yes a totalitarian government is one such option which can result. And even those have some advantages. For one, they get things done. It may be one person's idea of what should be done, but it's still something done. It's progress in someone's mind. Maybe it'll be mine.

It's not that I don't think there's any difference. It's that those differences are of no ultimate consequence. And you've made my point with regard to the science minister. Evolution is still taught in schools. There's no more religion now than before. Science hasn't stagnated. If anything religion is on the decline. Even a creationist as a science minister can't get rid of evolution or turn everyone into a deity-loving or deity-fearing society. See? Totally useless. The same totally ineffictive which would result from an atheist as the science minister. Not everyone would become an atheist. So right now, with a creationist as a science minister, stem cell research is still going strong -- almost stronger because there are now new ways of getting them, and nothing's changed.

And just how many Canadians have died for our country? It's no where near zero, but you make it sound like that's how we earned our freedom. You know how Canada become an independent nation from England? We waited 100 years, and then we asked politely. Pretty well the only war we've ever faught was with the USA, and not for very long -- we won by the way.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[creativeHavoc]

Here is the value:

Since in power, here is a small list of Harper Government actions...
Shut down parliament to stay in power (more than once)
Obscured access to information, removed media access rights to politicians
Puts out favorable press releases saying "Harper Government" instead of "Government of Canada"
Forged documents to cancel funding
Withheld information about F35 and prison program costs from parliament
Trying to copy America in ways that even Americans are learning were huge mistakes
Fired Veteran affairs ombudsman for sticking up for veterans
Non-stop attack ads. Media manipulation.
G20 failures
Scrapped long form census
Tried to remove a law which would prevent news organizations from lying to us
Cut funding to the court challenges program. This program gave various groups and individuals the financial ability to challenge federal legislation, including cases related to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


The list can go on. The secrecy, lies, and anti-democratic actions stemming from this Harper government needs to come to an end. Don't waste tax-payer money electing another conservative minority. End this now.

There are always secrets and lies, but the number of things Harper has done or tried to do to change Canada from what I have grown up in to some other monster is unprecedented. Your vote can help make sure he does not get the chance to keep it up.

If nothing else, vote to make sure there is a minority government. Or, if you find a candidate or party you actually like, vote for them... at the very least you are giving them $2 and saying "keep trying."

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

I care about the future of my life-time, sure. Do you think that in the 50 - 80 years that I have remaining that I can actually change the country enough to prefer it, and not have lost too much in the process? I have no significant problems with the way it is. For me to spend 20 years fighting to change it would have me too old to benefit from those changes.

People die in their own countries because they forget how to fight. They shouldn't see their country as theirs to defend. They should see the country in which they live as one to leave. Just get up and leave. If the government doesn't let you leave, then you get to ask for help from other countries -- and I'm all for that. It's an international incident when citizens aren't allowed to leave their own country. 100%. International conflicts should be relegated to international borders. Hold the door open.

I'm not throwing away my choice. That's the point. I'm telling you that my choice is insignificant, and hence has no value.

Coke and Pepsi are moving to recycled, environmentally friendly and safe packaging and bottles. Do you know how rediculous that is? Has everyone forgetten that cola isn't a healthy product in the first place? Great, it's environmentally friendly, but still not good for you. What's next? Environmentally friendly cocaine packaging? Would that improve the world?

Just because you're given a choice between two things, doesn't mean that the choice is worth making from the start. That's covered in psychology 101 with respect to mug shots -- the guy who attacked you may not be in the list. Choosing "none of these guys" is a valid option. Not choosing isn't. Choosing none is.

See the difference?

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Spoiling my ballot is the way to do that. Not voting for one. And you're correct. We should all go and spoil our ballots.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[thechink]

With no difference of any substance, I care, but don't see any value in voting.

That's copout to not get involved.

If Diefenbaker was never elected the Avro Arrow might never have been cancelled
If Pearson was never elected we might not have Universal Health Care
If Trudeau was never elected we might not have the Just Society and re-patriated constitution
If Mulroney was never elected we might not have Free Trade

Are you saying that these elected men had no substance? Their policies (good or bad) shaped what Canada is today and their influence on everyday life was huge.

It's easy to get cynical with today's politics but I'd rather have a say in what goes on (not matter how small) than no say at all.

Some day one of those elected leaders is going to do something that will greatly affect you, what are you going to say then?

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

I was here for the G20, it went perfectly. In a city of over 7 million persons, and hundreds of cultures, nothing actually went wrong. That's awesome.
But that ultimately highlights my scenario. You can list hundreds of things that this government has done. You can't tell me how the other government would have done in the same years. More importantly, you can't tell me how your list actually affected me in the last few years or in the next few years -- before it changes again. But I can try.

Shutting down a govrenment that I think isn't doing anything significant doesn't matter to me. I don't care if politicians and media do or don't converge, I don't listen to either. I don't care what the government's name is. I don't care if funding is cancelled because documents were forged or because six people legally said it should be -- money goes from one place to another, and as long as it winds up with someone who should have it, the places that got passed up before it are no worse off than the places which gat passed up after it. The costs of one program or another doesn't change the fact that billions go to public transit that I don't use. Copying the usa in things that don't work for them doens't mean they won't work for us, we're different. Veterans shouldn't be a drain on society, it's a toss-up either way. still don't care about ads. I didn't die in the g20, I don't think anyone did, but that big of an event can't ever go perfectly. census shmensus, doesn't change what I do for a living. let news agencies lie, again, I don't listen to them. I know nothing about court challenges.

In the last 15 years, I've run the same businesses, and done the same work. And at no time have laws, one way or another, changed what happened to me. One year I charged my clients 7% tax, and handed it to the government. Another year I charged 15% and handed it to the government. It's been five values in between, and it's been nothing more than a number of a page that I get from clients and submit to the government. Doesn't affect me in the least. Changing DST was about the same. Patches, a day of annoying, and I don't care if I change my clocks two weeks early or three weeks late. Again, I shouldn't be changing them at all -- but that's not an option that was presented to me.

We live in Canada. No government is going to triple taxes, and no government is going to remove taxes. If my taxes go up by 5%, it sounds really bad. But in actuality, everyone else's taxes go up the same 5%. In this country, that 5% doesn't go into the minister's pocket. It goes somewhere where it does something at least sort of good for someone. In thd end, the difference to me is virtually nill.

Now, if you'd ask me what I want, I'd say that I want public transit to die. I don't use it, and all they do is say that they need more money, every year, right after they've been given 1.1 billion dollars. So I'd scrap it. Let people learn to work closer to where they live, and learn to live closer to where they work. But I'd also say people should run their own businesses, instead of complaining that there aren't enough jobs -- as if jobs are just handed out of the sky. But no matter how much you encourage people to start their own business, way over 90% are just too scared and stupid to be able to do so in the first place. So the correct solution is to educate them from grade school. Which means that I'd have to wait 20 years before we get a generation of business owners that suit my objective. I'll be retired by then and I won't care anymore.

So I'll deal with things the way they are today. Plus GST, minus PST, plus HST, minus GST, plus environment disposal tax, plus green bin, minus brown bin, plus a subway line, minus a highway, plus a carpool lane, with longer lines, requiring a passport, with security at the airport, without security at the theatre, with red-light cameras, with speed traps, without speed traps, with speed traps again. My adult life has had automated speeding cameras come and go m

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate you. You're the very reason people are complacent with whatever they are given. Get off your lazy ass and vote in the election otherwise don't complain about what you get handed. Feel free to mod me down but maybe consider visiting a polling station instead of clicking a mouse during the election.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

And if the avro arrow never had been cancelled, we'd be the strongest military might on earth, and all would bow before us. Or, we'd be a substantial military might, and the usa wouldn't be comfortable next to us, and we wouldn't have the largest open unpatrolled free border in the world. Flip a coin.

and if we didn't have health care, we'd be like so many other countries in the world, and we'd have less tax and buy our own anyway. or we'd have 10% more health-related problems and we'd have ads for hospitals on billboards. I happen to like health care, I don't use it though. So I could go either way.

I don't even know what the just society is, and really I don't care.

and if we didn't have free trade then, we'd have free trade the next time. and look at that free trade, there are an awful lot of taxes involved with free trade. maybe there'd be more, maybe there'd be fewer.

My point is that you used maybe/might in each and every one of your example. So you haven't listed a single voting mistake that was made, nor a single voting success that was made. Keep flipping the coin.

I'm saying that of course they shaped what Canada is today. And had someone else done something else, it would be a slightly different shape. But that either way, my position within that shape wouldn't be much different. Big changes are met with other big changes that average out to very little.

You'd be correct if the president of the united states could get up one day, declare war on argentina, and blow them away. But he can't. You'd be correct if the prime minister could just eliminate public transit, or triple it. But he can't. By the time each person does the most that they can do, there isn't much difference from what the other guy would do.

You honestly think that free trade could have been avoided? That mulroney was the only one who could have made it happen? Or do you think it happened when it happened because it was ready to happen? Or do you think that if not mulroney, it would have taken a few additional years to happen? Maybe it should have happened earlier, but the previous guy missed, so mulroney did it instead.

Some day, IF one of those elected leaders does something that greatly affects me, THEN you'll be correct. But for the last 32 years, you've been wrong. And my point is that WHEN it does happen, three years later it can be undone by the next guy, THEN you'll be wrong again.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

How does not voting help?

It shows that you do not give a shit about what happens, why because you choose to do nothing!!!

You may not like the choices but sitting back and doing nothing is not fixing the problem.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[thechink]

So you've managed to convince yourself that doing nothing is actually doing something? That's an amazing world you live in.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I used to vote diligently, but I've given up. It makes no difference which party is in power, or not as the case has been for the last few years.

My options? If I vote, and whoever I vote for wins, then I'm equally responsible for the result. I refuse to accept that, because I cannot in good conscience support any current local candidates. My vote for them would be a statement of support of them, and there is no current option that I'd support.

My refusing to vote is the only statement, then, that I can make. I understand that it will be viewed as laziness or plain apathy, but that is the lesser of evils. I'd sooner they think I just don't care than that I agree with whatthey stand for.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[fritsd]

With such a list, I wonder what your previous government's stance was on the ACTA treaty (Or was Canada not a party in that).

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Preface: I am one of the growing number of Canadian Anarchists - disgusted with the current non-democratic, first past the post system of non-representation.

Voting is even more of a waste when you look at the numbers as follows (2008 data):
Elegable Voters: 75%
Voter Turnout: 58%
Current Minority Governement: 37.6%

So in reality, to "run" the government of Canada you need just over 16% (.75 * .58 * .37) of people to like you...

What is even worse is to get a "super majority" (lol) the number only goes up to about 18% - Fun.

Voting fail. As opposed to not voting though, I go to the polls and simply spoil my ballot which is by the way a crime in Canada [http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20060121/eating_ballot_060122/] - in my opinion that sends a slightly stronger message to our fearless leaders...

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

I think you've missed the point. I'm not lazy, I'm actively not voting -- I'm voting for nothing. There's a difference.

I'm not complacent, I'm saying that you are complacent. You're following a system that isn't good. You're supporting the system is it is, and I'm saying that it doesn't work.

And I've never, not once, complained about our government -- because I don't think there've been any chances to make it better. I think it's the best that it could be, given the type of people living here. There are many aspects that don't suit me, but changing them wouldn't improve things over-all.

For example, I would vote against public schools, public transit, and the many aspects of society that I don't use. With the exception of health care, which I also don't use, but there shouldn't be people dying in the streets around me.

But the city wouldn't be better without public schools and public transit. It would just be better for me.

Aside from things like that, I have no complaints. I don't know why you'd think that I did.

My complaint is that people think there is a significant difference from one government to the next. The most significant thing I've ever seen is in the usa where sometimes they are a democracy, and sometimes they are a republic -- that affects teaching children in school. But that's it.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Join me. See what not voting for ten years will do. We'll all do it (or not do it). See what happens.

Yes, I think things will change for the better if everyone stops voting. No I don't think it'll happen instantaneously. I figure it'll take ten years of random governments first. And that's basically what we've had for the last few elections anyway.

I mean come on. Was it ten years ago that the conservatives had 2 (TWO!) seats only?! How crazy different did things become? They were so bad that they lost horribly. And the country didn't really change for me at all. Did it change that drastically for you? And a few years later, now, they're back with a minority majority. So had it changed drastically, those changes were mitigated and balanced a few years later anyway.

Random public opinion. Geocities, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter; Liberals, Conservatives, NDF, Conservatives; Pepsi, Coke.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Yes, that's what it shows when I don't vote. But when none of us vote -- when millions of us don't vote -- it's no longer an anomaly, it's public opinion. That's when things change.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

I'm going to use that line of yours, regarding being equally responsible for the result of my support. I like that. Thank you.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

That is, indeed much better. And well done with the numbers!

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Trade failed in 1911. It passed the next time in 1988, only 77 years later. So you're right - only a few additional years to happen. Without free trade, my business would be in the US right now. I'm glad I didn't have to wait another 77 years.

Government matters, whether you like to minimize it or not. Net tax rates are up more than 10 points over my lifetime, and 5 points lower than the peak in the late 90's. That 15% range may not sound like a lot to you, but it's nearly the whole ballgame.

The Government ran OVER half the economy in the 70s. Not so much now. It matters.

The Government running structural deficits crowds out investment, and uncorrected, eventually threatens to crash your currency and/or economy. Think that doesn't affect you? It matters.

The Government passes laws that discriminate, or not. Even if I'm English, male, white, straight, and 18-65, it matters.

History is made by those who show up.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[spammeister]

But it's the quality of the potholes that really matter.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[tomhudson]

Not voting means that no party gets the money his vote would have earned them.

Not voting means that they might realize that there's money being "left on the table" if they're willing to do something to earn the voters trust rather than just show dueling attack ads.

Enough people not voting means that someone is going to see an opportunity among the disaffected. Everyone "voting for the least bad" hides that, and legitimizes the "least bad" as "good enough".

Why can't we have a "none of the above", and if "none of the above" gets the majority in a riding, there's a do-over, with (hopefully) new candidates and new ideas.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're a moron. Please leave Canada.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[tomhudson]

They claim that spoiling a ballot is illegal, but the Constitution makes such actions protected speech.

I made it VERY clear I had spoiled my ballot in the last election. I voted for everyone, and then said, VERY loudly, that this election was a waste of time, and that I spoiled my ballot by voting for everyone. They weren't too happy, but what are they going to do, make a federal case out of it? That could start a dangerous trend.

Voting for everyone, and then saying you voted for everyone, is non-partisan (nice loophole against displays of partisanship at the voting center, thank you very much). And it doesn't meet the standard of "disrupting", whereas if the people running the show make an issue of it, they are actually causing the disruption.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[tius]

What makes you think an educated vote is a wise vote? I've known many people who are not overly educated, but are wise, while I've also known many highly educated people who are far from wise.

Though I agree that voting is rather ineffective, but for different reasons. Namely that what a candidate campaigns on is not necessarily what they will actually do in office. These days, it would be a highly entropic event if they did follow through.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

You're really not getting it. Everything single thing that you've listed matters. They matter a heck of a lot too. But your votes didn't change a thing.

The same net tax rates would have happened either way. The 10 points up and 5 points down could have been 9 and 6, or 11 and 4, but that's about the whole of it. All your votes did was choose 10 and 5 instead of 11 and 4 or 9 and 6. And you don't even know which way they went.

Your votes, anyone votes, and in this country ALL votes don't actually make a lick of any significant difference.

Hey, did you realize that a huge percentage of the votes don't count at all? If you vote for the losing leader in your riding, your vote goes absolutely no where. Not even a little bit. The other guy won. It doesn't matter by how little or by how much.

Voting is a terrible way to control democracy. It's the wrong way. And it doesn't work.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Why should I leave? I like it here. I like what it is, and I accept what it isn't. I just don't see voting as a successful way of controling a democracy. It just doesn't work. But I'll tell you what. You start a petition, and become a candidate. You stand up to the podium, and say that you promise that when elected, you'll force me to leave. You'll probably get elected, because a lot of people would ask me to leave.

Then you'll be prime minister, you'll ask me to leave. I'll say no. You'll tell me to leave. I'll say no. You'll try to force me to leave. And some law somewhere will say that you can't. And you'll lose.

Now you'll be in power, fully elected, by popular vote, and your one campaign promise, indeed your entire platform, you won't be able to accomplish.

That's voting. Even if everyone agrees, you still can't do something that's of significant difference. You can't force me to leave.

That makes no sense.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[multipartmixed]

Spoiled ballots do not get counted. Instead, in provicial elections, go to your voting station, register, and refuse your ballot. They will write that down, and you WILL be counted.

You're kinda screwed for federal elections, though. I suppose you could eat it.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Actually, you're correct. I cohse the wrong word, for brevity. I meant educated with respect to the candidate, the politics, and what would actually happen. I'm highly educated, and no absolutely nothing about the candidates -- simply because I ignore all of it. My vote is the one that should never count.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[multipartmixed]

Went perfectly?

Dude, the cops were going "Dien Papiers, bitte" (yes, in German, wearing nazi uniforms!" for just walking down the street around York and fucking Wellington.

The arrested a guy who prunes trees driving downtown and showed off his "terrorist weapons" -- a chainsaw and some gas.

Lord Jesus, they'd better not look in my garden shed. I've got a lawn tractor!

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

This link was posted by another in this thread.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20060121/eating_ballot_060122

It's interesting.

But I'm sure that if a large number of voters spoiled their ballots, the numbers would speak.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[thechink]

Some day, IF one of those elected leaders does something that greatly affects me, THEN you'll be correct. But for the last 32 years, you've been wrong.

Have I?

In the last 32 years we've seen the re-patriation of our constitution and the implementation of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's had a huge impact on Canadian law and rules that govern us. That affects you.

In 1988 an entire election was fought over the Free Trade Agreement with the USA. John Turner's Liberals opposed it. So the FTA was not a given. Our economy would be much different today if it wasn't implemented. Yes that would affect you too.

Then there's NAFTA with Chretien, Paul Martin's choices for reducing our deficit, or the implementation of Same Sex Marriage (may not affect you but it did for some) Harper opposed it if the vote had been delayed by a few months it never would have happened.

There's so many things that government does that affects us and voting is the average citizen's say in it.

You've chosen a cynical view to excuse your lack of interest in the things around you.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

That's perfectly acceptable. In a time of such an event, with protests and international everything, the following is perfectly acceptable in order to maintain order:
    1. asking to see ID
    2. being skeptical of convenient weapons like large blades and explosive gas
    3. getting arrested by mistake, for a day, with no long-term consequences, as the occasional false-positive in a system that can't afford any false negatives.

What the hell? Look what you said! You said a gardener got arrested temporarily for having large weapons in the G20 area. You didn't say he got arrested 20 kilometres north of the G20, and you didn't say that anyone got killed at all!

Most importantly, you didn't say: a terrorist posing as a gardner with a chainsaw and gas later blew up city hall.

You don't even know that he wasn't a terrorist. You heard the public part of the story. You think they didn't catch any terrorists in the whole event?

That's called perfectly. In a world where anyone can be a terrorist, in a week-long event, in a city of 7 million persons, that's called perfectly. You couldn't have hoped for anything better.

And what kind of moron takes improv weapons to a G20 area? I'll tell you what kind -- the terrorist kind. So he's either an idiot, or a terrorist. I hope it was the former. I'm happy that police considered it may have been the latter.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

none of those SIGNIFICANTLY affected me. they changed small numbers n my life, nothing more. The ones that did have substantive effect would have done so independent of which government was elected.

government is ver important. WHICH government is not. the only reason we ELECT a government is to ensure that we can oust a corrupt one. when the current one isn't corrupt, electing a new one is inconsequetial.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[thechink]

Was it ten years ago that the conservatives had 2 (TWO!) seats only?! How crazy different did things become? They were so bad that they lost horribly. And the country didn't really change for me at all. Did it change that drastically for you?

BTW that was 19 years ago and things most certainly did change for me. I lost my job because Chretien was elected. I was in the military then and savage cuts to the armed forces by the new Chretien government meant I was out of a job. It wouldn't have happened if the PCs had won that election. So yeah governments do matter and NO I will not join you.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Internalist]

In the end, at the end of the year, my taxes sumto roughly the same amount plus or minus 5%, the roads have roughly the same number of holes, there's about the same amount of construction, public transit still begs for money that I don't think it should have, the same number of hookers are on the same corners, and the same rocket-powered homeless person manages to get from the theatre performance to the stadium faster than I can.

Hm. Non-voter; significant complainer...Somebody call the WAH-mbulance.

(would you vote if a party came along that promised something significantly worse?)

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Internalist]

I composed a lengthy reply and then decided that it wasn't worth my while. So I'll settle for pointing this out:

I was here for the G20, it went perfectly.
[...]
I didn't die in the g20, I don't think anyone did, but that big of an event can't ever go perfectly.

and saying that your post makes clear that you're a fairly egocentric person who doesn't care for the welfare of his or her fellow Canadian.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[thechink]

none of those SIGNIFICANTLY affected me. they changed small numbers n my life, nothing more. The ones that did have substantive effect would have done so independent of which government was elected.

Those events have changed life in this country significantly, including your life. You're refusing to acknowledge their significance to prop up your silly theory.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[fiendy]

Do you need the sitting government to try and expropriate the land under your house for the political arena to affect you?
You seem to be very shortsighted. Hell the country narrowly the potential of being being broken up in the 1995 referendum, would that have affected you?

You seem to take a narrow view of whether the goings on of government affect you. Do you care about the levels you are taxed at? What about the amount of social programs you have access to. All of these can be significantly changed by any sitting government. I understand ignorance and stupidity, but I don't understand apathy in this case. It is your country, you get to (help) decide who runs it and who makes the decisions. To piss that away, you might as well go live in Libya or Iran, as long as you fly under the radar of the sitting despots, you can go about your merry existence, unaffected by all that other stuff.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

I don't know why you'd think I'm complaining. I'm not. I'm quite happy with the way things are. I'm just unhappy with people thinking that voting is a successful way to organize a democracy.

And yes, I'd vote against bad just like I'd vote for better. My observation is that at present, there is no significant difference between the options presented.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

That is what voting is all about. People tend to vote for what would improve their lives, not for what would be better for society. No one votes for more taxes over a party which offers lower taxes -- no matter how those taxes are to be distributed. That's just one of the many ways that voting is unsuccessful at creating any good.

Voting was designed to serve a single purpose -- to ensure that corrupt governments can be brought to an end by the public. Given a government that isn't corrupt, voting does nothing to that effect. It simply shakes things up in the hopes that the new entropy will be better than the last entropy. But entropy necessarily tends towards random, which is exactly what we tend to get.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

I own my own businesses. So nothing that changed jobs, employment, or hours or wages touched me in any way.
Each of my businesses has me worknig from home. So commutes, public transit, and gas taxes don't affect me at all.
I don't have children, don't want children, and didn't go to public school my entire life. So public education doesn't affect me directly at all.
I haven't had any real illness requiring more than $500 of health care costs annually. Which means that I don't get my fair share of public health insurrance -- although I am a proponent of it anyway.

My car is a small efficient sportscar, and I enjoy it both for work and for pleasure, so gas taxes don't apply.
I'm a small business, all of my taxes are passed through to my clients, so small changes in taxes don't affect me.

Without free trade, trade wouldn't be free. It would cost a small amount of money. I can easily either pay it or pay more for it here.

Everything's like that. Between expensing half of my life for work, or simply paying a little more for some things, or paying a little more tax or a little less tax, none of those things change my life. They may affect my life, but again, SIGNIFICANTLY is the key word here.

Gay marriage is an excellent example. Perhaps the best one. No it doesn't affect me, I'm not gay. Yes I'm a proponent because I really couldn't care less and there's just no logically reason to not have gay marriage. But if you told me tomorrow that I can meet the woman of my dreams, live with her, sleep with her, I just am not allowed to officially marry her, then sure I'd be pissed off, but aside from a line on a tax form, and shared benefits, it doesn't change anything. And if we each work, and we each have benefits already, sharing them doesn't do anything.

That's my point. Sure, if we didn't each work, not being able to share benefits would be a problem. Except it wouldn't be a problem at all -- because my employer would happily let me share my benefits with my unofficial spouse. Remember, I own my own business. So I can do that.

It's all like that. I have enough control over my own life that I can zig left and zag right and get what I want anyway. Within reason of course, but that's my point. In all cases, these governments are always within reason.

But I certainly appreciate your passion. I have real opinions about irrelevant things too. Like I have strong opinions about what kind of computer my mother should have in her kitchen. We all know it doesn't matter, and that $100 either way, now or later, will solve any of her problems, but I still insist on a right machine for the job. Funny that.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Great example. I love the Quebec separation example. We'll come back to it.

No I don't care abotu the levels of tax. I own my own business, so 90% of the taxes just flow through to my clients. I do very little that isn't somehow tied to a business expense. The remainder is my personal life, and certainly I care if I'm taxed at 50% or at 20%. And if you told me that the new government would drop my taxes from 43.5% that it is now, to 20%, I'd vote for them in a heart-beat. But you're not telling me that. You're telling me that the new government could maybe might lower some of that tax from 43.5 to 41.5, and they probably won't raise that other tax to compensate. That's my point. It's a maybe -2% for a possibly +?%.

I don't use social programs. Sorry. Aside from emergency services, social programs have nothing to do with me.

I don't get to decide who runs it and who makes the decisions. That's where you're wrong. I can't decide that YOU should do that. I can only select between a VERY small number of candidates. I'm saying that's just not acceptable, because none of them would do what I would want done.

And why should I go live in Libya or Iran -- I'm the one in this conversation who's happy here. I'm happy with how things are. I just recognize that voting is a waste of effort -- it's not a successful way to organize a democracy. That's all.

Now back to Quebec. The idea of Quebec separating is a scary one. Because that's what's been presented. But in truth, people forget all of the side-bets. They don't get to just be-another-country. They don't get to use the canadian dollar. They don't get to keep canadian allies, resources, trade agreements. And good luck to them convincing their northern first-nations populations to leave with them. And Montreal would stay too. They can leave if they want to. But in reality, it would suck for them to do so, and in more reality, they just won't.

FUD.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

You and I have a very fundamental difference of world view.

1. asking to see ID

I must identify myself (truthfully) to a peace officer when I am asked. I do not have to show any ID. I do not even have to carry ID. That, despite various governments, both provincial and federal, both conservative and liberal, trying to convince us otherwise is the current state of the law. And that is the way I like it.

2. being skeptical of convenient weapons like large blades and explosive gas

Agreed, under some, limited circumstances, police should be skeptical of some things. That is a reason for police to politely question someone, and depending upon the circumstances, to watch someone. It is not grounds to arrest someone.

3. getting arrested by mistake, for a day, with no long-term consequences, as the occasional false-positive in a system that can't afford any false negatives

This meme that society can’t afford any false negatives is wrong and has got to stop. Taken to its logical conclusion, the result is a society in which every citizen is watched all the time and anyone can be detained for any reason or none, at any time, for as long as authorities want.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” has been a cornerstone of English-descended law for almost as long as Europeans have been in North America.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Anonymous Coward]

He's going to say "It's not my fault -- I didn't vote for him."

Chances are he's not going to recognize how ironic that is.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Don't do that! Don't take what I said completely out of context! That's arguing to win on syntax alone.

I couldn't care less about false positives in general. Certainly, any society worth having is going to have its fair share of crimes that simply cannot be reasonably avoided. No one here is talking about watching everyone always.

We're talking here about the G20, and that's it. We're talking about a megalopolis of 7 million persons, an international city, hosting the leaders of the top 20 nations, a week after hosting the leaders of the top 8 nations. We're talking about the best place to protest, the best place to cause mayhem. The whole thing is the wrong place and the wrong time.

In wartime, with an invading army in the streets, marshall law is the only option. At the G20, arresting instead of watching, and asking ID instead of asking your name, and not accepting any false positives is the correct thing to do. And that's why it went so well -- with no long-term damage of any kind. What, did it cost the city a whopping 6 million dollars? 60 million dollars? even 600 million dollars. That's awesome perfect.

Toronto's likely the safest place you could live. How many places do you know of that have the health care, the emergency services, and the hospitals that we have, that can host the G8, followed by the G20, or host the rolling stones at a military research base during a SARS scare attract 600 million people, three weeks after the Pope address 400'000 in the same place, and have effectively zero damage, zero hurt, and zero problems. the rolling stones event had 6 persons taken to hospital for not drinking on a hot day, and flooded one store with sewage. The G20 had some cruisers and store-fronts broken. We even had a freak plane crash, where the only people hurt at all were those that scaled the fence at the highway to go and help the passengers -- they were treated for cuts and bruises.

Welcome to Toronto. It's perfect -- except that it has a few broken store windows, a flooded store, and this really evil fence.

Oh yeah, and 7 million people with something like 85 murders per year. Discount the intra-gang murders, unless you're in a gang, discount the domestic murders, unless you're worried about your own spouse, and you're looking at something like 15 random murders annually -- out of 7 million people. That's some good math right there.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[dupeisdead]

Voting is a terrible way to control democracy. It's the wrong way. And it doesn't work.

What does work? If you want to complain and point out why you're right..... can you contribute some working ideas on how to make things better?

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Digital Vomit]

What pisses me off about voting in "democracies" dominated by political parties is that you're not given the choice to vote on individual issues. Instead, you can only vote on groups of stances on issues in the form of political parties.

e.g. Choose One:

Party #1

• * Lower Taxes
• * Daily ass-rapings for everyone

Party #2

• * More Accessible Education
• * Daily mouth-rapings for everyone

Party #3

• * More open government
• * Daily genital mutilation for everyone

Gee. Great options. :-\

Minority governments in Canada end up being a godsend.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[roju]

I'm one of the very large group -- one might say the majority, by the way -- who refuses to vote.

One might say "the majority," but one would be wrong. 59% of the electorate voted in the last election.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[roju]

I was here for the G20, it went perfectly.

Did you watch the Fifth Estate G20 follow-up episode?

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[geoffaus]

And people get the governments they deserve

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

What you've said makes no sense. First, I'm not complaining. I'm observing. That's the first step. And it's an important one -- because most people can't do it. It also has no start and no end, which is what makes it innovative.

The task of selecting alternatives is a long one; each must be tested, and combined, and thoroughly discussed. This is not the forum for that sort of thing.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Ah, but see, you're wrong. 59% voted for different things. According to your numbers, 41% didn't vote. That means I'm a part of a group of 41%. No party received 41% of the vote -- your 59% was split. So if the conservatives received 25% (I'm choosing numbers arbitrarily here), and the liberals received 15% and the NDP received 10%, and the Bloc received 9%, the 41% is bigger than that conservatives 25%. Hence 41% is the majority. I guess it's not a "super-majority".

So there. See? That's how voting works. That's why it's not a successful way of organizing a democracy.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[roju]

What you're describing is a "plurality."

Majority: More than half (50%) of some group

Plurality: A number of votes for a single candidate or position which is greater than the number of votes gained by any other single candidate or position voted for, but which is less than a majority of valid votes cast.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Watched it now. Quite interesting. And every one of those protesters didn't realize what they were doing. They weren't peacefully protesting. The police weren't there in the first place to stop them. They were obstructing the original objectives of the police -- to keep things safe from the G20 events.

What the hell is wrong with these people? What the hell were they protesting? 1 week of events they didn't like? That's sure not to happen again for a long while if ever? You gang together to protest something that needs to be changed -- not to protest something temporary like that! That's just stupid.

They are the reason that more police became necessary. What the hell did they expect to happen? They walked into a region already filled with police who were tasked with keeping things clear.

Again, this was not to be the new world order. This was to be one week.

You want to talk about something that's necessary in a good society, it's having 20 leaders come together to talk.

But again, 1 week, nobody died, nobody badly injured.

Each of those people in the video intentionally chose to go out instead of staying home.

Look at those officers. They're armed way above any sort of public management. They're armed for terrorism. They had real tasks todo, and all of these stupid protesters were in the way -- intentionally.

They scream all sorts of arguments at the officers, as though the officers could respond in any way. These people are just stupid. They went out to get in the way. Every one of them was a "trouble-maker" as they say in the video.

Had it been and earthquake, or really cold, or a summer air-quality warning, most of these people would have happily stayed home.

Instead, it was a very important, very good event, that required the same thing. And instead, they went out to get in the way.

They forget the other half of democracy. They forget that if 10'000 people want to shut down yonge street for a parade, it happens. No one protests that. We do it almost every month, sometimes weekly.

Well, this time, 20 leaders representing millions of people chose to shut down half of downtown for talks. There's nothing wrong with that. It was a whopping 48 hours. And none of those protesters were willing to give up a day of their freedom to do it. What's more, just about every business in the city gladly gave their employees the days off -- were encouraged to do so. So most of these protesters protested in the streets on days when they should have gone to work, and were given the day off.

Talk about abusive of your society. They had no valid reason to protest.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Ok, so you're saying that there hasn't been a majority vote in how many years?

Again, great system you've got there.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[tbannist]

Interestingly enough the conservatives are taking a stand against the Canadian corrections system. They say a 3% recidivism rate isn't high enough, and it should be more like the American one... 66%. After all, if we don't get some more hardened criminals, how's their tough on crime that doesn't exist stand supposed to work long term?

The Harperites (as opposed to the conservatives) are responsible for many new firsts in Canada. The first minority parliament to hide the cost of the programs it's trying to implement from Parliament and Canadians. The first minority government to consistently blame all of it's terrible political ideas on civil servants, the first minority government to have a minister found to be in contempt of parliament (a world first, by the way for parliamentary countries) and the first government to be found in contempt of parliament (another world first).

It takes a long time for the effects of good or bad management to trickle down to the average person, but by the time it happens the guys responsible are rarely still in power. The Liberals set Canada up to do extremely well through the 2008 recession and the Conservatives have taken credit for the policies they opposed and were, in fact, planning to dismantle. Just look at the U.S. and realize that's what would have happened if Harper had had a majority government ten years ago. So, it does, in fact matter who you put at the helm.

I'm writing this as someone who has never voted for the Liberals. I used to vote for the conservatives, but Harper is a danger to the prosperity of Canada because he doesn't let the facts get in the way of his policies. And in my book that's the very opposite of a conservative.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[Heian-794]

I want public transit to die. I don't use it, and all they do is say that they need more money, every year, right after they've been given 1.1 billion dollars. So I'd scrap it. Let people learn to work closer to where they live, and learn to live closer to where they work.

Living near where you work is admirable, but plenty of those newfangled office "parks" built near highways literally have no residences within walking distance of them.

You might want public transit to die because you choose not to use it. But we visually impaired people are not allowed to drive automobiles. Any employer with no public transportation or residential districts within walking distance is a place where we can never work.

And the billions spent on public transportation (which, again, you choose not to use) are dwarfed by the billions spent on maintaining highways and other automobile-related infrastructure (which your non-driving counterparts are forbidden from using). We could stop funding both -- but something tells me you wouldn't enjoy all those potholes.

I'm supposed to pay $0.05 per plastic bag at the grocery store -- the dumbest law in the world. So instead, I tell them I've brought my own -- and I steal them from the next cash register that's closed.

Forgive the bluntness (and the fact that we're straying far afield from copyright laws), but based on the above two attitudes, I'm glad I don't do business with you.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[tbannist]

Do you ever wonder if maybe going to that little bit of effort to educate yourself on the candidates and the issues might make a difference? I have to agree that if you willfully choose to remain ignorant you probably shouldn't vote. The majority of people who don't bother to inform themselves actually do more damage to their own interests by voting for the wrong people.

However, your idea that eventually very few people will vote and that will change politics is highly unrealistic. It's part of the strategy of the Conservative Party of Canada to attempt to reduce the general election turn out. With their highly motivated base, lower turnouts translate to a larger relative share of the vote and one that is more easily controlled.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[tbannist]

That's true about the money.

I agree with you about the official none-of-the-above option. It should essentially be treated a by-election in six weeks time with all current candidates barred from running again. If you can't beat none-of-the-above you can't run again until the next official election. Also I'd like to see preferential balloting so that if you have the opposite problem of the GP and you want to vote for multiple different parties then you should be allowed to. For instance there's a lot of Canadians who I'd bet would like to simple vote "Not the Conservatives", and let any of the other parties win. Getting rid of strategic voting would be a net boon to democracy.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[tbannist]

People tend to vote for what would improve their lives, not for what would be better for society. No one votes for more taxes over a party which offers lower taxes -- no matter how those taxes are to be distributed

Actually, that's the opposite of true. The vast majority of votes actually vote altruistically. They vote for what they think will make the country a better place to live for everyone, not just themselves. The problem is that more than half of the people voting are either uninformed or misinformed. They are unable to determine which people and which policies will achieve the ends they desire because they know very little about economics, politics and society.

People are much less likely to vote for higher taxes now (we used to accept that taxes were a price we paid for policies we wanted) because we are constantly told be conservative groups that taxes are evil and, of course, the people who believe that will never vote for higher taxes because they think taxes are evil.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[alexo]

I'm one of the very large group -- one might say the majority, by the way -- who refuses to vote

Which is a mistake on your part.

If you simply refuse to vote you are not sending a loud and clear message as to why you are doing it. Maybe you're just lazy.

Now, what you should do, IMHO, is vote for a candidate with no affiliation to the 4 parties currently in parliament. That way, you're saying: "I don't trust any of you assholes, my vote is not in anyone's pocket, work for it." Enough people do that and things will change.

Personally, I suggest you vote Green, almost 7% did in 2008 and more are expected to this time, but if you prefer an independent or are particular to Pirate, Marijuana, Libertarian, Rhino, etc. be my guest.

Note: I find it a travesty that the Greens had almost 7% of the popular vote and zero seats while the Bloc got a bit less than 10% of the popular vote giving them 49 seats (16%).

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

I don't think my knowledge would make a difference. It's not so much speculation as it is discussion. Whether it's my father, or people here, whether it's pro-conservative or pro-liberal, people tend to tell me why one is better than the other. They list attributes that I simply don't see reflected in the reality of past and existing circumstance.

HST is a good example. As a small-business owner, the move to HST saves me a lot of money. That's good. But I could have saved the save money before HST had I put in more work. I always wrote-off the GST, but never the PST, because it was annoying. But I didn't charge PST, so really I was only losing about $1'500 annually. Now with HST, I'm writing off all of the tax, so I save more. But more things have HST than had PST, so there's more to save. On my personal life, there's more HST than before, so I'm paying a little more than I did before. About $1'500 annually.

It's a well-orchestrated giant wash that has me personally paying a little more, and professionally paying a little less. Quite frankly, it's nice to have only one tax to account for instead of two.

But people sit and complain about taxes one way or another. they describe the horrors of HST like taxes are a new concept. But by the end of the year, how much has really changed to your entire final bottom line? And it's not like HST is a total loss. The money goes somewhere for something.

It all seems to be like that. It's just another sport. It causes traffic on game-days, and riots during play-offs, and brings business to the bars, and tourists to the city, and sometimes the home team sucks. But really, it doesn't change my work-day.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

You and I must hang about in very different crowds. My family members and friends take great care in walking through their lives and counting exactly how a given political direction would change their worlds. My grandmother speakers of senior services, and investments savings. My father speakers of corporate inspirations and class taxations. They both speak of supporting other countries in both directions. And they violently disagree with each other -- about past events too.

But in the end, what bothers me is that they know exactly how much/little something is going to affect them in the end, and they just seem to care way too much about something that I consider to be so very small.

Re:Voting is a waste of effort

[holophrastic]

Maybe I'm just lazy, sure. That's why I need many others to join me. No one will conclude that a large number are lazy.

I'm against green -- in general. Capitalism works by magnifying problems to the point where they are profitable to solve; not by minimizing problems in the hopes that they can ever be eliminated.

I run a business, I create things that I own. I'm not voting for pirates.

Marijuana just doesn't have any impulse attached to it for me. I'm stunned that it's an issue to anyone in either direction. I could care less what foods people eat.

I don't even know what Libertarian is anymore. And I've never heard of Rhino.

But most importantly, I'm not going to vote for someone who shouldn't win. Then I'm responsible for that support.

As I like to say

[roman_mir]

be a bigger, better citizen, vote more than once.

Re:Ugh..

[adonoman]

If Harper gets another minority, I'd make the bet that the next election will have 4 new party leaders in place (maybe 3 if Duceppe decides he's up for it). Harper's had enough chances that his party is going to be looking for someone less divisive to take his place. Ignatieff is on thin ice, and if he doesn't do something amazing this election you can be the liberals will be dumping him to the curb. Layton just doesn't have the health to keep fighting losing elections.

Now if there's a Conservative majority, or any kind of Liberal government, we'll be stuck with one of the two for a while longer.

Re:Ugh..

[camperdave]

You have the choice between a corrupt party lead by a failed economist and a corrupt party lead by a successful academics.

Wrong. This is Canada. We do not have a two party system here. We have a wide variety of corrupt party leaders to choose from.

duress

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the musicians/artists that sign to these labels do so under duress, being compelled and or coerced to sign soley because of their need for money. So, as we all know, its not about the musicians'/artists' rights, but how these companies first illegally obtain these rights and then continuously exploit them to their end, regarding very little about the musician/artist. Its Tom Foolery by a select few over the masses. Someone should have the balls and 'lawful' wherewithall to step up and stop this for good.

Re:Ugh..

[vintagepc]

I suspect that if the new Pirate party had enough people to have a chance federally, they'd get quite a few votes from all the people sick of the same old crap from each of the current parties. I'll echo what's been said below - WE NEED FRESH BLOOD!

Re:Ugh..

[Redlazer]

I'm a Canadian, but I don't keep up on Canadian politics much.

All I know about the Conservatives in Canada so far is:

They don't support Net Neutrality
They don't support Abortion rights. They don't want to ban it, but they want to defund it.
They oppose same-sex marriage, but not same-sex unions. Bullshit political posturing.

So I submit to you that they are not the best.

They may be second best though: although the NDP is less crazy lately, they make even the Liberals seem trustworthy.

Also, Harper seems to be a huge douche, and I don't think represents our country well at all. If only I had known, I would have moved back home sooner!

Re:Ugh..

[Redlazer]

Ah yes, and I meant to say:

You're totally right that they all suck. At least the Americans get interesting, representative people.

I want someone from the West to do it.

Re:Ugh..

[MachDelta]

Yeah, Hitler had some great ideas on how to run a country too. Except for that whole "kill the jews" bit.

The day the Bloq forms a federal government is the day I either leave the country for good, or die trying to take parliament hill by force.

Contempt of parliament

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, that's Harpers fault. When you have such a precarious minority you have to work with the other parties to get things done. Harper doesn't.

Harper's government has been found in contempt of parliament because he would not disclose certain information about decisions that were made.

I have no problem with conservative governments, if they are indeed conservative. But Harper's government is the antithesis of everything he has ever said he stood for. It's not a conservative party anymore - it's a King Harper party, where MPs can't even stand up for their own constituents. And I'm even ignoring the criminals that have plagued his caucus...

Remember when Liberals were hounded by the conservatives because of some ads for Quebec referendum to keep the country together? That was few million. The G8/G20 was well over a thousand million - the party (Harper, the King) is as conservative as Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic.

Sadly, the last fiscal conservative we've had in Ottawa was named Paul Martin - a Liberal. The one that balanced the books, but was awful politician (the guy wanted to be too honest and people got confused!). But in the last 20 years, all the conservatives have been racking up Canada's debt at record pace and Harper beat records once more with 56 billion deficit ..... *sigh*

Re:Contempt of parliament

[dryeo]

Sadly, the last fiscal conservative we've had in Ottawa was named Paul Martin - a Liberal. The one that balanced the books, but was awful politician (the guy wanted to be too honest and people got confused!). But in the last 20 years, all the conservatives have been racking up Canada's debt at record pace and Harper beat records once more with 56 billion deficit ..... *sigh*

This is the problem. People vote conservative because they claim to be fiscally responsible whereas they have a long record of boosting the debt. This government has squandered a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit, spending money irresponsibly. Unluckily people do not look at their actions, just listen to their lies.

Re:Contempt of parliament

[ppanon]

But in the last 20 years, all the conservatives have been racking up Canada's debt at record pace

You're forgetting Joe Clark, who tried to balance the books and lost an election and got shown the door for it. He had terrible communications skills, but I respected his integrity and principles. Since then, I can't think of another high-profile federal "conservative" I can say that about.

Re:Ugh..

[JonySuede]

I excluded the ndp since the candidate in my riding is kinda delusional. I excluded the green since they still a fringe party and I don't like their social conservativeness. The bloc want to separate from the rest of the Canada so I excluded them to. I also excluded the communist party of Canada since they are composed of lunatics that plan for a revolution. I can't vote for the pirate party since they have no candidate in my riding so to me it feels like a two party system

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that the bloc is always jockeying to get the best for Quebec at all times and nothing else. Some people just vote for the bloc that aren't seperatist just to have there province interest put first in front of the whole of Canada since they're self-centered. In my opinion the best party is NDP.

I'm happy the bill died on the table once again.

Re:Ugh..

[PopeRatzo]

The conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of freedom-loathing ass hats.

Hard to argue with that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Bloq is the "best of the bunch" but it does seem like it's time to put the brakes on this conservative "resurgence" up there before you end up in the soup like the people of the US.

Re:Ugh..

[Scrameustache]

Actually, I think the Bloq are probably the best of the bunch.

I think you should be aware that the Bloc says that the "3 copyright infringement claims and you're off the internet" is too lenient, they think 2 complaints should be enough to have someone cut off. They think that schools shouldn't get a rebate when using copyrighted work for educational purposes, and they think that money should be taken from all sales of devices capable of storing music and given to the industry.

The bloc's position on copyright is: Whatever the industry want, we give.

Re:Ugh..

[TheRealGrogan]

Fuck that... Harper needs to go. I don't care if I have to vote for Bozo The Clown and we have to fix it later.

Harper is a danger to our way of life and freedom. His answer is more unfriendly laws and more jails to put all the unhappy, destitute, disaffected people in while his corporatocracy walks all over us.

But yes, the timing is bad.

Trading crap for crap

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that we don't want it... it's just that we spend millions on replacing one turd with another turd, and in the end are no better off, just short a few million. *sigh*

Re:Trading crap for crap

[tomhudson]

It's not that we don't want it... it's just that we spend millions on replacing one turd with another turd, and in the end are no better off, just short a few million. *sigh*

That's because politics is like a septic tank - the really big chunks just naturally float to the top.

Re:Ugh..

[flyonthewall]

Remember, this is NOT the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's the Reform Party, with a new name specifically designed to confuse voters.

AKA Tea party north for those unsure what the reform party stood for before it's coalition with the progressive conservative.

Re:Ugh..

[Mashiki]

The only reason why the bloc holds the power that it does is because Quebec is hyper nationalistic and xenophobic. Besides that, if Quebec actually signed the charter we wouldn't have this problem(Alberta and BC would have picked up the seats). But we can thank Trudeau and the knight of long knives for that one.

Sadly despite you being a partisan hack with the 'freedom loathing ass hats' bit, you've gained more freedoms in Canada in the last 5 years, than you lost in the 13yrs the liberals were in power. And it's both parties, we voted for the merger. That's why there aren't two conservative bloc's. Unlike the 4 left wing ones(liberals, NDP, Green, and bloc).

Re:Ugh..

[Mashiki]

What? And you'd rather have the liberals back in power? You remember how ol Jean tromped over public rights, freedoms, and how he and his party used the country for their own personal play pen, while siphoning money off? Talk about systemic corruption. Still looking for that $1-2B that they 'loaned' to businesses, while shoveling someone off into a diplomatic post so they couldn't be called to account?

Re:Ugh..

[belmolis]

You may not like the NDP's policies or chances of forming a government, but I've never seen any serious allegations that Jack Layton is corrupt.

Re:Ugh..

[dryeo]

For most ridings it is a 2 party system. Just the two parties varies from riding to riding.

Re:Ugh..

[yanos]

Ever heard of Godwin's law? :) Dude, chill out. The Bloq has no intention of running the canadian goverment. They're just there to defend Quebec's opinions at the federal level. You might disagree with their separatist view, but that's just the reality of living in a free country.

Speak for yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself... I wasn't willing to flush billions down the toilet over the G-mess.

Re:Ugh..

[realityimpaired]

So... you think that the party which has a record for lying in parliament and falsifying public records is the best option?
You think that the party that's run by an autocrat with a penchant for firing anybody that speaks out against him is the best option?
You think that the party which fired a top scientist at the AECL for having the gall to say that the Chalk River plant needed to be shut down for repairs... 3 months before an emergency shutdown forced it offline for over 6 months causing a global medical isotope shortage that we're just now recovering from... would be the best option?
You think that the party which brought in a lawyer who had previously been disbarred for fraud to write their "transparency" and "accountability" legislation would be the best choice? (said lawyer is now under investigation by the RCMP for influence peddling and illegal lobbying... that's illegal under the terms of the accountability legislation that he wrote)
You think that the party which told the country a project that would actually cost close to $100 billion would come in with a price tag of about 1/5 that when trying to get it passed would be the best option?
You think that the party which twice suspended parliament to avoid prior non-confidence votes would be the best option?
You think the party that's taking credit for our economic situation is the best choice, even though the first thing they tried doing after taking office was to remove the laws that had been established by the previous government, and which are actually responsible for our banking sector not collapsing (and thus, our continued economic stability)? (in other words, had they gotten their way when they took office, our economy *would* have planted just as badly as the US economy did)

What the hell rock have you been living under?

Try the alternative

[johncandale]

The more people lax on it, the more the elected won't Listen. if you keep voting people out, it's bound to get better. Problem is you get voting the same people in. But giving up is just childish. For someone who doesn't like the candidates, how many good alt candidates have you actually gone out of your house and supported? I don't mean to your friends who think like you, I mean actually trying to convince the other sides. But keep complaining because I'm sure if a voted in group is corrupt, a Non-voted in group is going to be sooooo much better. /sarcasm

Re:Try the alternative

[holophrastic]

If ten years go by, and six elections go by, and voter turn-out is below 10%, you won't get what you've described. In this country, you'll get something totally different. You'll get a new form of government that isn't based on majority, seats, opposition, and ridings. There will be the understanding that the system doesn't work.

You know why? Because there's something in the current laws that say that you can't hold a seat with zero votes -- I'm guessing. If no one votes, things can't continue at all.

By not voting, and by convincing others to not vote, I'm presenting the opportunity for someone to step up to the podium with something radical. By playing along with the current system, you're allowing the system to work as intended, so you'll get the system. That's great if you like the system. It sucks if you don't.

Here's the example. If the election weren't for government, but were instead for religion. We'll all vote between Catholic, Muslim, and Hindu. And the majority will determine which deity you pray to, and how you run your daily life, and which morals you'll follow. Again, there's very little difference from one religion to the next. 2.5 gods, 1 god, or 6 gods, doesn't change anything. happy god, sad god, vengeful god, angry god, doesn't change much. pray once, pray six times, treat your neighbour, treat your friend.

You're choosing between three flavours of ice cream. One's is so much better than the other, for you, and so much worse for the other guy. Because it's just a preference. Vanilla is refreshing, chocolate is endearing, mint is revitalizing. Way different. And sherbet comes with sprinkles. Once in a while, there's an independent milkshake -- it's still ice cream, but you don't need a spoon.

I'm an atheist, and I eat steak. But those weren't options on the ballots. So I'm not going to vote for my religion nor for my ice cream. Because that's not the way I want to live my life, and that's not the nutrition I need today.

Re:Try the alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

You know why? Because there's something in the current laws that say that you can't hold a seat with zero votes -- I'm guessing. If no one votes, things can't continue at all.

...and if just one person realizes that they can play kingmaker at this point, what happens then? These "drop out" style approaches aren't workable for this very reason. "Wow, everyone else is trying to force change by refusing to participate. If I vote, I get to choose who is elected."

I am not saying the system isn't corrupt or doesn't need to be changed, but what you just described is classical game theory: prisoner's dilemma with a very high payoff for defection. Hell, I would probably defect just on principle alone...

Re:Try the alternative

[holophrastic]

(Well done with the dilemma attribution. )

Oh come on. I'm sure the theshold isn't that low. But even if it were, that doens't make a kingmaker. First off, odds are that the first time happens too quickly to be noticed. Second, with that sort of a minority, sure you could be leader, but you still can't get anything done. And third, we do still have the power to force another election. So we can keep that cycle going.

Re:Ugh..

[Mashiki]

So that would make democrats the hound holders of the KKK? Makes about as much sense, if you're a partisan hack.

Re:Ugh..

[plalonde2]

Ask any oh the G20 protesters which government was tromping on rights. Ask Harper about his inability to balance a budget, or even put all the expenses down in it! Ask harper about his 6billion dollar gift to corporations (those are "businesses", no?). The liberal misdemeanors are now 7 years past, and the team has changed. Unless you're the kind of person who is guilty for your parents' sims, you need to let go and see who is corrupt today, not most of a decade ago.

Re:Ugh..

[h4rr4r]

No we do not. Our last election had a totalitarian grandpa and his hick dimwit female sidekick vs a corporate sellout and his dimwit male sidekick.

Re:Ugh..

[Mashiki]

You mean before or after they decided to riot? You mean the inability to balance a budget because you're in a minority and therefor to stop yet another election you're conceeding things for the opposition which break the budget? A few billion dollars is only a misdemeanor? Well shit. I'll remember that when I go steal a few billion myself, and use that in court. Obviously I am, because I'm not only paying for the screwups of the liberals in the 70's, and the people who voted them in. My kids, kids will be paying for the NDP here in Ontario nearly 2 decades ago.

The liberal party was the most corrupt government we've ever seen in those 13years. And that's saying something, considering we were run by the privy council for a long, long time.

Re:Ugh..

[Lucky75]

I'm curious as to why you believe the Liberals are so bad? Is it just that people bought into the "He didn't come back for you" nonsense character assasination? I honestly don't understand why people think the Conservaties are the "best of the worst" what with their ongoing list of advertising scandals, misspoken MPs, forging documents and lack of openness. Isn't that worse than what caused people to dislike the Liberals 5 years ago? It blows my mind.

Re:Ugh..

[Lucky75]

Of course, people forget that the NDP went into debt due to the recession and not just because of their ideoligy too. And isn't it always the case that the "other guy" is making too much money for not doing any work, but when it comes down to your own salary, you're always underpaid? Curious statement about Canada suffering during the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin years. Really? Those were very prosperous years for us as a country, and Martin built up a large surplus that the Conservatives have now more than squandered (even before the recession). I also don't understand why people are so terrified of the Bloc. They are NOT separtists. If the Bloc were in power, do you really think that they would want to lose that power by separating from Canada? The simply try to get what's best for the people they represent, which is waht any good MP should do. As long as the Bloc represent a fair percentage of the population, I see nothing wrong with negotiating with them. But, of course, people fall for the separtist propaganda, spread by all of the other parties when the Bloc are allying themselves with their opponent. Curious that in 2004 Harper had no problems forming a "Coalition" with the Bloc.

Re:Ugh..

[Lucky75]

Actually, the Conservatives were the LAST party to respond regarding UBB. Both the NDP and the Liberals had already called for the ruling to be reversed. The Conservatives had little choice but to follow suit. And the reason why the Liberals and NDP don't have as much election money is because they don't get as much Lobby money like the Conservatives do. The rationale for public funding for political parties is so that they don't sell out to corporate interests, and it's there in the hopes that it encourages more trustworthy politicians who represent their constituents instead of their financial backers. Why do you think the Conservatives wanted to do away with public funding? It wasn't because of wasted spending, it was because they wanted to cripple the competition who aren't as funded by lobbyists. Seems to be that you should be asking where the Conservative money is coming from. Btw, it's spelled "Bloc"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Ugh..

[snkiz]

Seeing as I'm Canadian as well I'll give up modding in this thread to say this. We have fresh blood in the green party. (witch happens to agree with a lot of what pirate parties have traditional stood for.) Win or lose, voting the party you truly have the most ideals in common with is more important than ever. In Canada each party now receives funding based on what percentage of the vote they receive. As opposed to the way it was a few years ago, where they only got funding based on the number seats they won. No vote is a throw away vote any more.

Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[dogsbreath]

The upside to minority governments is that they get so busy fighting and posturing that they have little left to go about interfering with their countrymen. Anything that gets passed has to be done with some consensus from the other parties. Eh, can't get along well with others then down you come.

We get a regular chance to vote the b*stards out, which of course is the main purpose of any election: vote out the incumbent before they get too ensconced in their positions of power. Even if they get back in as a minority, they still have to mind themselves or they have to go back and roll the dice again.

The only downside is the cost of each election. That is an issue... but a lot of out of work folks make some money working temp for Elections Canada. Better than other money hand-out programs.

Canadian campaigns tend to be limited in length, from min 36 days to the record of 74 days. Usually about six or seven weeks. No year long brain damaging onslaught of political party dogma and drivel.

And we mark paper ballots with pencil. No voting machines. Close results have meaningful and accurate recounts.

Here's hoping for another minority government! Cheers!

Re:Ugh..

[snkiz]

Gilles Duceppe Has done some great things for Quebec, and surprisingly the rest of Canada. By virtue of taking a stand on provincial rights in Canadian government, he have improved federal dealing for all the provinces. He's a smart well spoken man, your not the only non Quebecois would vote for him. As of late he's even relented on separatism, because his people arn't really interested at the moment. Isn't that what a good politician is supposed to do? Follow the will of the people that elected them.

Re:Ugh..

[whisper_jeff]

To quote a tweet by George Stroumboulopoulos (and, as a Canadian, I know you know who that is):

"Why complain about election costs? We all know that $$ wasn't going to our pockets, creating jobs or paying down the deficit"

The expense really is irrelevant. The money wasn't ear-marked to help pay teachers or nurses or firefighters more money. It wasn't going to improve the conditions of roads and bridges. That money being spent on the election pretty much as zero effect on the country other than providing us with the opportunity to get the conservatives out of power and change how money is being spent that way.

Re:Ugh..

[tomhudson]

I'm curious as to why you believe the Liberals are so bad? Is it just that people bought into the "He didn't come back for you" nonsense character assasination? I honestly don't understand why people think the Conservaties are the "best of the worst" what with their ongoing list of advertising scandals, misspoken MPs, forging documents and lack of openness. Isn't that worse than what caused people to dislike the Liberals 5 years ago? It blows my mind.

#define LIPSTICK_ON_A_PIG Different leader, same politicians, same party
#define NOT_THIS_YEARS_SHADE_OF_PINK Michael Ignatieff
#define REMEMBER_WHY_LIBERALS_ARE_JUST_AS_BAD Sponsorship Scandal

The program ran from 1996 until 2004, when broad corruption was discovered in its operations and the program was discontinued. Illicit and even illegal activities within the administration of the program were revealed, involving misuse and misdirection of public funds intended for government advertising in Quebec. Such misdirections included sponsorship money awarded to ad firms in return for little or no work, which firms maintained Liberal organizers or fundraisers on their payrolls or donated back part of the money to the Liberal Party. The resulting investigations and scandal affected the Liberal Party of Canada and the then-government of Prime Minister Paul Martin. It was an ongoing affair for years, but rose to national prominence in early 2004 after the program was examined by Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general.

I predict a record number of spoiled ballots.

Re:Ugh..

[Redlazer]

Sounds like they're from Alberta.

You're a fool.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't like what your nation's politicians do but you don't even take the simplest step to have a say in it. Do you ever write to or meet your elected representatives to talk to them about what's important to you? Have you ever tried to organise people in a campaign to bring attention to the things you care about?

Re:You're a fool.

[holophrastic]

I don't believe that my doing so would effect a change soon enough for me to enjoy it. I'm not unhappy with the way things are, so I'm not interested in effortfully changing them. To do so would be to dedicate my time and effort to improving things for future generations. I'm not interested in helping future generations, they can help themselves.

I play my role, a very good role, in improving society for all involved. But it's not at the political level. If I switched my focus, another topic in another thread on another forum would tell me to abandon my political focus and instead put effort into solving the other problem. I can't improve everything. But I can encourage others to do so for their industries.

Get the name right

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the "Digital Milennium Canada" bill. Or as they abbreviate it, "DMC, eh?"

I'll be here all night, folks. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

Re:Ugh..

[dakohli]

Seeing as I'm Canadian as well I'll give up modding in this thread to say this. We have fresh blood in the green party. (witch happens to agree with a lot of what pirate parties have traditional stood for.) Win or lose, voting the party you truly have the most ideals in common with is more important than ever. In Canada each party now receives funding based on what percentage of the vote they receive. As opposed to the way it was a few years ago, where they only got funding based on the number seats they won. No vote is a throw away vote any more.

I find your spelling mistake interesting. Was is intentional? Not that I'm accusing Elizabeth May of being one, or anything ;-)

Re:Ugh..

[snkiz]

nope I'm just not tat good at smellng. ;)

Re:Ugh..

[Yaztromo]

While I think it's good the bill died.. as a canadian I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election.

I have to take exception to this attitude that more and more of my fellow Canadians have been sporting this past decade.

I'm sorry that you find democracy too expensive for your liking. Just remember there are people right now in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iran, and Tunisia who are paying with their lives just for the chance of being able to vote in the kind of fair elections we here in Canada have been fortunate to participate in for the past 144 years.

Personally, I find the minor cost of an election to live in a liberal democracy like ours to be well worth it. Our forefathers fought and died to ensure we had this right, and all some people can do is bitch about the cost. Get over it, and take some pride that our system gives you the chance to register your political will, and have a say in the direction our country should take.

Yaz.

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

-Alberta

Re:Ugh..

[green1]

The green party has a lot of energy, and a lot of fresh ideas... unfortunately those ideas are way too socialist for my likings, they make the NDP look like an ultra-right wing party! (Perspective for Non-Canadians, from left to right in Canada between the major parties NDP - (Bloq?) - Liberal - Conservative (and if you were to put this whole thing in to perspective internationally, much of europe is on the left end of our spectrum (probably somewhere between Liberal and NDP), and all of the USA is WAY to the right of of the Conservatives)

I think I could really like the Greens as an official opposition, but I'd be pretty frightened of them as a government. You do however bring up a good point, with funding based on percentage of votes, vote for whoever you really like. Even if they don't get any seats this election, you will have helped them in the next election, and who knows where it could lead. So be it Green, Communist, Libertarian, or Pirate party, Vote for who you truly believe represents you, not just who you think will win.

Personally I know in my riding who will win, and likely who will win in my riding for the foreseeable future. But I'm not going to vote for them, and I'm not even going to vote for their largest rival, I'm going to vote for the party that represents me the best. The only way to generate effective change is to stop voting exclusively for the big 2-4.

Re:Ugh..

[green1]

I still want to know how people who either a) refuse to swear the oath of office, or b) blatently lie while doing so, are allowed to sit in our parliament. They are traitors by definition, and should not be allowed to participate in the house of commons.

Re:Ugh..

[MachDelta]

Why should I chill out? The fact that a giant separatist parasite exists as a national party disgusts me. I don't care how many other redeeming qualities they have, or who they're representing. The people of Quebec can have their grievances heard, in turn, just like every other province.

Or at least that's how a democracy is supposed to work. I'm not sure what the fuck we're running now.

Re:Ugh..

[green1]

I'd say the Liberals are closer to the conservatives than they are to the NDP. Though honestly, none of the major parties are particularly conservative, they are all way to the left of anything in the USA for example.

Re:Ugh..

[Redlazer]

Alberta, you should smoke this.

"Man, I was really taking things too seriously back there!"

Re:Ugh..

[green1]

The party system in Canada is a problem. Here are a couple ways we could elect people more fairly:
1) elect people who represent your riding, eliminate parties all together. In this situation the people you elected would represent their own riding, or wouldn't get re-elected, We'd actually get the representation we supposedly vote for.

2) elect the party to represent us, eliminate ridings all together. In this situation the percentage of people nationwide who support a party would cause that party to have the appropriate number of seats. This would eliminate situations like we have right now where the Greens and the Bloq have roughly equal support, but the Bloq has about 1/3 of the seats in the house of commons while the greens have zero.

  The problem is that our whole system is set up so that we get the worst of both worlds. The parties once elected vote on any important issue strictly along party lines, denying us representation for our riding, If a bill is put forward with major disadvantages for your riding, your own MP won't stand up for you because the party chooses how they vote. But at the same time we don't elect parties nationally, so theoretically you can have a situation where one party has a majority government, but they could easily have less than 30% of the popular vote.

Our entire electoral system is badly broken.

Maybe Canada will do it better this time...

[jonwil]

Maybe this time the Canadians will elect politicians who are going to do whats best for Canada and not whats good for the United States or whats good for large US companies.

Re:Ugh..

[green1]

Unfortunately the other parties are all just as bad.... THAT's what he means.

I don't know anyone at this point who thinks the conservatives area a good choice. But I also don't know very many people who think any of the other major parties are likely to be even the slightest bit better.

I think it's time people started voting for the small parties. Vote pirate, or green, or communist, or libertarian, or ANYONE but the liberals, ndp, conservative, or bloq. Maybe we can send a message, even if none of these parties get a single seat, they'll still get portions of campaign funding for the next election, and we know there is one thing that all the big parties pay attention too... and that's money flowing in to their own accounts.

Re:Ugh..

[Midnight Thunder]

Why should I chill out? The fact that a giant separatist parasite exists as a national party disgusts me. I don't care how many other redeeming qualities they have, or who they're representing. The people of Quebec can have their grievances heard, in turn, just like every other province.

Or at least that's how a democracy is supposed to work. I'm not sure what the fuck we're running now.

People in Quebec get to vote for a party they feel represents their interests, just like people in every other province. If the people voting for them thought that the other parties were worth anything, then maybe they would vote for them. As it is most people I speak to just seem to want to vote for the party that is the least terrible, and that is with a bar set dishearteningly low. Remember, nothing is stopping any other province from have their own Bloc, and indeed the western provinces do, though they don't seem to get any votes that seem to register - then again the conservative government seems to represent more of Alberta's interests than anyone else's.

Here is a list of registered political parties in Canada:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e

Re:Ugh..

[Midnight Thunder]

The only reason why the bloc holds the power that it does is because Quebec is hyper nationalistic and xenophobic.

If that is an example of the attitude the rest of Canada takes towards Quebec, then maybe it is self-confirming? Just think of you were the kid in the class trying to be taken seriously and not succeeding, wouldn't you become defensive it your attitude? I am not excusing Quebec's behaviour, rather the work to fixing relationships goes both ways.

BTW Don't get me started on how unions, corrupt politicians and orders of this and that seem to be such a huge brake on everything.

Re:Ugh..

[shutdown -p now]

The people of Quebec can have their grievances heard, in turn, just like every other province.

Indeed - and every other province is similarly free to create their own Bloq - if they have a broad enough consensus over their grievances that enough people would vote for such a party. This is precisely how democracy works.

Oh, and what, exactly, is wrong with secession, provided that it's done right and proper (with referendum etc)? That is democracy also.

Re:Ugh..

[snkiz]

Well said, I tend to base my decisions on the platforms, not so much left or right ideals. I only brought up the greens, because they are radically different then any of the mainline parties. (and similar to the pirate party.) I think having too many parties in the race muddies the waters, and makes it difficult to form effective government. I mean this is what, three in seven years? Here's hoping no matter the outcome, they figure out a way to make it work for a full term.

Re:Ugh..

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

The freedom of corporations from contributing to our tax money?
The freedom to be forced to pay for more useless prisions? (and the anti freedom laws that come with them)
The freedom to go to war with iraq as harper wanted in 2003?
The freedom to be held in contempt due to fixing elections?
The freedom to put arbritrary spending timelimits on stimulus money to encourage waste through overtime and poor planning?
The freedom to pay 5x the amount fighter jets should cost just to have a bigger e peen?

Oh and also these things (only up till 2009):
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/canadian-politics-f17/thread-for-compilation-of-conservative-scandals-and-misdeeds-t63234-630.html

But yeah I guess they are doing a heckuva job! amiright?

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only downside is the cost of each election. That is an issue...

You're the same kind of person who would give up sovereign currency because "the cost of currency conversion is too high". An election, like a currency, is a keystone of a sovereign democracy. The cost has no bearing; without it, we're not a nation.

Re:Ugh..

[Midnight Thunder]

Gilles Duceppe Has done some great things for Quebec, and surprisingly the rest of Canada. By virtue of taking a stand on provincial rights in Canadian government, he have improved federal dealing for all the provinces. He's a smart well spoken man, your not the only non Quebecois would vote for him. As of late he's even relented on separatism, because his people arn't really interested at the moment. Isn't that what a good politician is supposed to do? Follow the will of the people that elected them.

Any educated person in Quebec will probably be sick and tired of the whole separation movement, partly because of the cost of a referendum and partly because there is no evidence that it will actually improve things. At the provincial level the Partie Quebecois on the other seems to want to bring separation back to the table, but the truth is no one really wants to deal with it. It is another party caught in the 60s time loop. At the same time people are sick and tired of the liberals, so they are really wanting a party that will offer alternative governance without the the threat of separation.

The sort of people wanting a separate Quebec seem to be people who are passionate about the idea, without really understanding what it will mean if they succeed - for people in the USA think of this in the same way as people in the deep south who want to separate from the USA. Of course, when Quebec feels it is getting treated as the province that other Canadians don't want, then it is hard not to feel that maybe its better to go their own way. History runs deep and with political parties unable to focus on building a better future, then people end up turning to a past that has left them with bitter feelings.

Re:Ugh..

[Midnight Thunder]

Look on the bright side, at least you got Bloc Alberta in the form of Harper's conservative government ;)

Re:Ugh..

[green1]

If it's another minority government (regardless of party) it won't last the full term. The parties are all far too greedy for that, they all think they can wrest power from the one in charge. If it's a majority government, they'll force all sorts of garbage we don't like (like this bill) down our throats (again, regardless of which party, both of the ones likely to form any form of government are almost exact copies of each other anyway)

I honestly think minority governments are the way to go, they are the only way to keep power hungry politicians in check. I just wish there was a way to force them to spend more time working together, and less time trying to create another election to try to get a majority.

Re:Ugh..

[S.O.B.]

The sort of people wanting a separate Quebec seem to be people who are passionate about the idea, without really understanding what it will mean if they succeed...

I believe it was Mordecai Richler who noted that if Quebec were to separate they would be the first third world nation to get snow.

Re:Ugh..

[Ainu]

Frankly, I think the Conservatives are the worst of the bunch. Secretive and arrogant. They also have a bad habit of leaving Canadians in trouble outside the country out to dry... There is very little I find appealing about the Conservatives. This has to be the hardest hearted bunch of politicians I have seen in government in the last 20 years... and this is from someone who has voted Liberal, NDP and Progress Conservative.

Which party really represents YOUR views?

[eclectechie]

Find out here: http://federal.votecompass.ca/

Seriously, go answer the questions, and see where the various parties agree/disagree with you. You may be surprised.

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[dogsbreath]

The only downside is the cost of each election. That is an issue...

You're the same kind of person who would give up sovereign currency because "the cost of currency conversion is too high".

Don't be saying I'm that "kind of person". I never said the cost was too high; I just said the cost was a downside... and it is. Elections aren't cheap and when you have a bunch in a few years the question has to come up about value. That is all part of the democratic dialogue.

I thought I was pretty clear that I support elections and I don't mind greatly if the minority government in power has to go back to the electorate to check to see if they still have confidence in them. I think its a great way to put a check on the excesses that are inevitable with anyone who stays in power for too long.

OTOH, a federal election in Canada costs the public about $250 to $300 million apiece. This will be our fifth election in eleven years. It is valid to question the expenditure and talk about it.

Take this election for example: both the conservatives and the opposition parties have acted in a manner that the non-confidence vote was almost a sure thing. It is like they were all playing political chicken. There are no burning public issues driving this election (May 2, BTW... so a 36 or 37 day campaign depending on how you count the days). I'm happy that the DMCA died on the table but there is a bunch of other legislation which is important that died as well. Some of it seems to have been deliberately delayed knowing it would die so that fingers could be pointed during the election campaign. Politically astute but not good management of our country.

It would be nice if they would all work at co-operating a bit more and put that money to better use. Pie-in-the-sky but a valid wish. After all, we (Canadians) are constitutionally entitled to POGG (peace, order, and good government), with my emphasis on GG. ;->

Re:Ugh..

[Mashiki]

No, Quebec actually is. It's illegal to use english on most signs, language police exist to protect them from the 'anglophones' there's stringent laws on protecting french at all costs. If anything the rest of the country has the right to look at quebec with disdain, considering the majority of it's income is the money from the rest of the country.

Quebec is like your least favorite brother in law, always wanting money, and willing to stab you in the back with the rest of your family so it can get more.

Re:Ugh..

[Mashiki]

Wait I didn't know you didn't need to have compeitive tax rates to keep businesses in the country. Who knew? I guess we're all doomed or something. Just look at Europe.
You mean those useless prisons used to toss people into jail for things like running criminal organizations, and all that? Yeah very anti-freedom. I like biker gangs murdering people in the streets too. Can we go back to the days of bombings in Quebec city and Montreal now?
You mean the same war the liberals setup and walked into in the first place, and harper agreed to? Not to mention that we were part of the security council?
Held in contempt of fixing what elections? If you have no idea how a parliamentary democracy works in Canada, it's time to use that wonderful thing called a search engine and start.
I see. Much better to do it the liberals way? A billion here, a billion there, a few billion to friends because the money's always there and if it's not used, you'll get less of it!
You mean the fighter jets that we use to protect and project our national sovereignty? I'm sure you'll start complaining about all the money we're spending in the high arctic so we can claim our national borders.

They're sure doing a better job than the liberals did. But that's a pretty good list from a partisan hack, who was happy to let the liberals drive the country into the ground.

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[rdnetto]

The bad thing about minority governments *when there are 2 large parties* is that some tiny party ends up with all the power. Look at the current Australian government - Labor is in power, but the Greens have them by the balls on anything that the Liberals don't agree with. End result is that we're going to get a carbon tax because the Greens (who hold only 9 of the 76 seats in the senate) want one, regardless of what everyone else thinks. If you want a decent government, you need to have lots of small, roughly equally sized parties (like Canada). If there's at least 4 parties vying for power, then one party can't hold the others hostage.

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

How are the Greens socialist? They are for a regulated market and, by their own account, they use conservative style fiscal management. (Check their website.)

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[dogsbreath]

Yes, true enough. There are various kinds of dynamics that can develop depending on sizes and numbers of factions. Some times less desirable than others. Still, a small swing party has to be careful as well: if they force something too unpopular they may just find themselves locked out completely.

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but it's been a long time since politicians practiced long term thinking. As it stands, no-one wants to call for another election - the minority parties will lose their hold on the govt if that happens, and whoever calls it will be at a disadvantage since the public don't really like voting (it's mandatory here in Aus). The Greens will likely remain in power until the next election, regardless of the damage they do to the economy (esp. since Labor will bear the rap for it).

Don't be so quick to attribute common sense to politics - the myopia and self-interest that dominate it are incredible.

Re:Ugh..

[green1]

"regulated market" is government speak for more regulations, and more laws. That alone is more "left" than "right"
"conservative style fiscal management" is a buzz phrase meaning nothing. EVERY party pretends they are fiscal conservatives in a recession... none of the major parties actually are. and in fact of all the platforms, the green party advocates the most expensive programs, the most increase in spending, and the most new taxes.

Look where they stand on actual issues. (which I'll admit is difficult as in the time since the last election they have removed most of the easy to find policy points from their website)

What you can find right now indicates they stand for:
- limiting marketing of, and place a tax on, "junk" foods and soft drinks
- reduce poverty (no mention of how, but I'm betting it's through an increase in social programs)
- increase regulation of food labelling and packaging
- increase funding of healthy living programs, health education, and health care professionals
- implement environmental and health related taxes (sorry, they call it "tax shifting"... same deal)
- increase regulation around farms and farm land
- enforce minimum nutritional standards for all food programs
- increase regulations surrounding community design
- more money for low income housing, and to help with homelessness

I don't know what your definition of "conservative" is... but increased regulation isn't "conservative" and increased social programs tends to be the very definition of a socialist party. (Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with socialism. As a country Canada *IS* socialist when compared to places like the USA, and I think that's a good thing. I'm just saying though that the Green party is too socialist for me. They may in fact be your ideal party, that's fine too. They just aren't likely to get my vote.)

Re:Ugh..

[countertrolling]

"Good" qualities don't win elections. Except maybe good salesmanship. Beyond that, what else is there? The people are buying they are selling. They need to shop at the smaller stores.. Big box stores only provide very generic products, and usually low quality.

Re:Ugh..

[ppanon]

You're confusing Iraq and Afghanistan. Chretien kept us out of Iraq despite Harper's USA-fawning grandstanding. That probably saved way more Canadian taxpayer dollars than were ever wasted on the sponsorship scandal. Doesn't make the sponsorship scandal right or forgivable, but it is a reminder that incompetence can wind up being much more expensive than some low-level greed and nepotism when you're talking about running a country. For all their flaws, the Liberals continued what Joe Clark started, getting Canada's fiscal house in order, and the "Conservatives" have placed that at risk. Every time I hear Harper crow about how the Conservatives' sound fiscal management made Canada weather the Great Recession well, I feel nauseous.

Harper and the Conservatives were the ones who argued in favour of big bank mergers and weaker banking regulation while in opposition. They allowed 30 and 40 year mortgages, feeding a housing bubble, only to backtrack when they saw the housing disaster south of the border. History will probably rate Harper as a better prime minister than Mulroney, but that's a pretty low bar.

Re:Ugh..

[ppanon]

P.S. Stéphane Dion was probably the Liberal equivalent of the Progressive Conservatives' Joe Clark. Both were principled visionaries with speech impediments who lacked the charisma and communication skills to sell their vision to a wilfully ignorant Canadian populace.

Re:Ugh..

[Strider-]

Better than Harper and his cronies. It's time we kicked him to the curb.

Re:Ugh..

[ppanon]

I think, Nepal, Mongolia, and some nations in the Caucasus have a substantive prior claim. Still, I got a chuckle out of your post.

Re:Ugh..

[ppanon]

B.S. The Conservatives' inability to balance the budget is because they handed out tax cuts left, right, and center to buy votes and keep their corporate donors happy. When the global economy tanked and they had to increase public spending to balance the private sector shrinkage, there was nothing left in the kitty to pay for it. Keynesian economics work when you remember to set aside money in the good times to balance out what you have to pay out in the bad times so that you don't run up massive debts. Whatever institution handed Harper his economic degree should be asking for it back. Also, just as with Reagan in the US, Mulroney's PCs ran up a good chunk of the debt in Canada. Joe Clark had the guts to try to turn that situation around and everybody gave him the bum's rush for it.

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost has no bearing; without it, we're not a nation.

Strawman. What if you had elections every week at the $250 million a pop rate? Is $13 billion a year is reasonable? What about the inconvenience of weekly voting? Yes, this is reductio ad absurdum, but it is a legitimate line of inquiry. Don't just think inside the box here. If elections are coming too frequently, then perhaps some other system might serve you better.

This isn't an anti-democracy diatribe here, but rather a commentary. If the system is dysfunctional, are there better ways of going about it while still adhering to democratic principles?

Selling out

[Livius]

The Bloc Quebecois stands for selling out to the Quebec separatists.
The NDP stands for selling out to special interest groups.
The Conservatives stand for selling out to the Americans.
The Liberals stand for selling out to the Liberal Party.

It's really not a wholesale versus retail issue.

Re:Selling out

[adonoman]

The Pirate Party stands for selling out to consumers.

Re:Ugh..

[AchilleTalon]

So, why don't you let Quebec go, since it seems it is responsible for lowering you life level provided it is the third world type component in the otherwise successful Canada? I cannot explain why Canadians outside Quebec insist so much to keep it a part of this country if they believe it is so harmful to its economy and good wealth.

After all, may be Canadians are just stupids guys with a condescendent attitude?

Re:Ugh..

[AchilleTalon]

And reminds me what Alberta and Saskatchewan were good for, before the oil barrel prices skyrocketted rendering tar sands exploitation profitable, beside a bunch of cowboys and farmers growing wheat and waiting for federal subsidaries to tie budget ends at the end of the month? And what was Newfoundland before Hibernia? Can you really believe the respectives citizens of these provinces are for something in the oil in their subsoil? Well, maybe they think so, provided there is many creationism adepts in these provinces.

Re:Ugh..

[teknifix]

I'm fine with elections where it actually changes something. Right now we've been having elections just for the sake of having them. Nothing changes. We get minority governments where nothing gets done. A majority government from any party is probably going to make some happy (corporations) and others not so happy (everyone else). I said before that the parties' goals are too different for them to work together. This coming election is merely an unnecessary expense. Re-purpose the money for something we need.. like fixing our highways or funding another sponsorship scandal. I'm aware of what our forefathers have done for us, and I'm happy with my right to vote (which I always exercise). I'm also sure that our forefathers wouldn't want us to waste taxpayer money when there are better things that could be done with it. In Harper's speech when he won the last election he said that canadians have spoken and want the government to work together. Very true. It'll never happen. Another major problem with the elections in our country is the low turn out of voters. How can we know what the majority wants if the majority doesn't vote? What does it show? It shows that the majority doesn't like any party so they abstain.

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

Got that right! even if they are all fucked up, they still get a chance to moderate one another! At least Layton wants some improvements

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[dogsbreath]

hee.. hee... Canada has a statutory minimum campaign length of 36 days.

So... a max of 11 elections per year, but more likely about 5 given other procedural issues. Could we afford $1.5 billion per year on federal elections if it kept Ottawa busy and out of our hair?

Damn straight we could! We'll just take it out of the Quebec / Ottawa split from the "Old Harry" oilfield in the St. Lawrence.

Re:Ugh..

[theshowmecanuck]

I must say that was the funniest insightful comment I have read in a while. Then I stopped and thought. Then I started to cry because it was the saddest insightful comment I heard in a while.

Re:Ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this is one of the problems with voters. They don't like a party because their ideas are too much of this or too much of that instead of going by whether or not the ideas are good or not. No offense meant to anyone.

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[tbannist]

To be fair, we can 4 elections for the same price as we paid for the G20. And the Conservatives plan to waste at least 20 elections worth of spending on the fighter jets they decided not to tender.

The burning issue is simple: Does the government have the right to hide important information from Parliament. You may notice the fighter jets, corporate tax cuts, and prison expenses were not included in the budget. There's a reason for that, the Conservatives are hiding the cost of each and have refused for months to provide any information on that. In the end the information they only provided some of the costs and continued hiding the largest parts of the cost. You can't expect the representatives of the majority of Canada to vote on policies when the cost is listed as "It'll be low, low, low - Trust me, Harper".

This minority parliament is so dysfunctional because the Conservatives refuse to work with any of the other parties. It's pure arrogance and it's why they need to be kicked out of power. If they're this bad with a minority government how insufferable would they be with a majority?

Re:Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

These are all important issues all worthy of debate but I would bet money that if you asked people on the street if an election was required to settle these matters, the answer would be an emphatic no.

So I will stand by the statement that there are no burning issues in the public eye that are demanding a return to the polls this early.

BTW: the G20 security costs were outrageous.