In the last Canadian federal election only 61% of the prospective voters, voted. Do people stay away from the polls because they do not care about the outcome? Are they unable to choose?
Why do you think people do not vote?actually v
1) Why bother voting when each party's candidate is a scumbag?
2) Why bother voting when the candidate you want likely won't win?
3) My time is worth money - I could be doing something else, and my vote will have little to no impact on my life.
4) Voting just means that you willfully accept the system and are giving legitimacy to the government. By NOT voting you are sending a message that you don't buy into the system and it needs to be over thrown.
There are a few of the better reasons to not bother to vote.
That being said, I'm voting for Ron Paul
I don't vote in the US, and it is becoming more and more obvious why.
In all honestly I should be voting no Dem/Rep, to reduce their power, but man it suckss.
Laziness I am sure is a top reason people didn't vote. That was my main reason what I was first eligible, but now the more I think about it the less I want to vote, and the less I want to be involved.
Personally, I agree that laziness is a huge part of why people don't vote, but I also believe that it's out of the conviction that one vote makes so little difference that there simply is no point.
Today, that is simply not a good excuse. How can anyone say that after the Bush/Gore election, The Franklin election, and several others where it took months to figure out the winner because it was so close. Believe me, in todays politics, one vote could be everything
I didn't say it was a good excuse. I simply said it is one. And, I also didn't say it was true. I just believe that there are many voters (at least in the states) who hold that conviction. And, while it may very well have held up the Bush/Gore election, you'll notice that the winner of the popular vote in that case did not become the president...so did those popular votes ultimately make the difference?
I think not.
Just the other day 9 votes stripped my freedoms from me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFL4L-L7 … r_embedded
...that's not an easy question to answer - i think there is a variety of reasons.....Quebec got out that's for sure - as you know some voted without even knowing the candidate or their platform; voted for the party and they are definitely expecting change.
I think some of the rallying months before turns folks off - phone calls etc. - it's worse than telemarketers - there has to be a better way to get folks out rather than bothering them over and over
The advertising directed at making a party look bad in the weeks leading up to an election can be a big turn off as well - I think some just get tired of reading/hearing the negativity.
I vote - always. I'd luv for once to hear long term strategies rather than what people are screaming about at the time - parties should stick with some kind of long term agenda no matter what changes take place within - but, they don't, rather, the platforms are reactive.
A friend explained the process Oregon uses - he says it has increased numbers - voting by mail - he says Oregon has it figured out. i haven't looked into that process myself to form an opinion on it - the pros and cons of it.
...my 2 cents this a.m.
I'll toss out a crazy and I'm sure wildly unpopular notion for which I'm bound to be called a racist and all sorts of other things...
First, there's the "My vote doesn't count thing." It's there, but I don't think it's the lion's share of what's holding people back.
Then, there's the taking it for granted bit. We've actually got people in this country scouring the streets for homeless people so they can scoop them up and bribe them with cigarettes for their votes.
I think we scratch the surface of the bigger issue when we hear people say things like "It doesn't matter how I vote, they're all the same."
Funny thing is, people saying that can't even name the candidates. So... they're sure there's no difference, yet they don't know anything about what differences there actually are.
I think this ties into a general ignorance about the political system. True, you don't have to look very far to see some "good old boy" themes in government, and special interests and politicians taking care of each other...
... but politicians are people with families and emotions, and dreams, and values just like you and I. They may come out of the wringer a bit damaged, but there are plenty who want to do whatever they believe is the right thing.
On the voting side, the problem is that most voters don't really understand what makes the various politicians tick beyond what they've gathered from soundbites collected from their biased news media of choice.
It's not just ignorance of the particulars, though. It's ignorance in general. In the US, most people really don't have a clue what the president's job is. They're more likely to react to gas prices or a bill in the house than anything that actually relates to his job as "top cop".
If the average citizen doesn't even understand what the executive branch IS, then how can they be expected to have an informed opinion of who should be running it?
So, here's the radical racist bit:
I believe you should have to have a high school equivalency in order to vote.
There, I said it. Now, I'll also say this: I believe it's in our best interest to do everything possible to make sure EVERYONE has more than enough opportunity to GET that high school equivalency. That means free opportunities... maybe even daycare for people working on GED.
All the things that assist in assimilation and being a PART of society rather than an outcast. I don't believe someone should be able to get that equivalency unless they can speak that country's language fluently, and have at least a basic knowledge of it's civics.
Of course, that means a BIG push for FREE education to anyone who wants it in those areas.
It's very little to ask, though. Anyone who cares enough about being a part of society to take what is given to them for free to be able to communicate with their fellow citizens so they can actually be a part of the culture rather than a perpetual outsider... and who understands at least the BASICS of what they're voting for will have EARNED their right to vote.
In the process, of course, a myriad of other problems having to do with assimilation and poor education in general are being addressed simultaneously.
Yeah. I know. I'm a racist. That's the name given these days to people who actually want to create real equality rather than perpetuating ghettos.
I always used to vote. I do not support one particular party all of the time. I look at what all of the parties are promising before the election and vote accordingly. However, so many times, after the election, the party I had voted for has gone back on its election promises. Their policies have done a complete about face, and sometimes, the MPs have even denied ever making such promises, even though they were filmed doing so and when they were part of their manifesto. So, I have developed a lack of trust, and no longer believe what politicians say, and therefore believe that voting is a waste of my time.
I'm no fan of voter apathy but I do understand it. Not voting can be interpereted as abstintion, a vote for None of the Above. When voter apathy rises to an overwhelming majority, then a 3rd party can rise up and sieze power very quickly, and that is disturbing to those in the currently dominant 2 parties.
So mostly, people who choose not to vote are saying, "None of the Above."
As a side note, I think it would be helpful if campign lies were prosecuted as fraud. That would go a long way to restoring voter confidence.
Protesting corruption by not voting is like protesting illness by not going to the doctor.
The fanatics will usually vote while the apathetic complain about who gets elected. No politician fears those who don't vote, since non-voters have no control over the pol's fate. The only thing they fear is that an awakened electorate will endanger their cushy positions.
Protest voting can be done by choosing splinter party candidates, writing in a symbolic name or voting against every incumbent.
Money, lobbying, slush funds - all can be neutralized by an informed, active electorate.
People may not vote because they are tired of being told one thing prior to the election only to get a different story after the party/person concerned gets elected.
But is this a valid reason to not participate?
Hi Bob. I think the democratic right to vote should also allow the democratic right not to vote. I understand when people get cynical and apathetic about politicians. I don't think people should be forced to vote but think though that attendance at the polling booth should be compulsory. Once there voters should be free to abstain. At least that means that they are participating instead of staying at home.
Voting for the lessor of two evil, still puts evil in office.
The election process needs to be re-vamped.
For those who make the claim that if you don't vote then you have no right to complain, then you need to re-evaluate your understanding of what rights are to begin with.
The right to vote includes the right to withhold that vote, if you cannot HONESTLY back a candidate of any party.
As a citizen, it is your duty, to use your power properly, otherwise, you support the corrupted system already in place.
Exactly. If there are no parties which I agree with, it seems pointless to vote for anyone. I may as well stick a pin in a ballot paper, or decide on the toss of a coin. It would be dishonest to vote for a party, if I honestly don't agree with any of them. It would be similar to making a choice as to whether to become a Muslim or a Christian, when I have no faith in either beliefs.
Five parties instead of two might do the trick. Don't you think voter apathy would reduce if we had the choices like Libertarian, Populist, Federalist, Green, Socialist
instead of the usual Dem/Repub storm of horsesh!t?!
I think that would be the case if those other parties could get an actual foothold. The problem is that right now, they just don't have the chance to beat out either of the two major parties. And, because voters are mostly apathetic, they may never truly get that chance, you know?
Sad, but true.
At the last election I voted in, there were 8 candidates, but still the turnout in my neighbourhood was very low.
The last Presidential election was the first time I have not voted since being eligible. To me the same agenda was going to be pursued by either choice so I honestly felt it did not matter.
I voted, just passed up the Presidential box.
I'm the same way kind of. Local elections I'm like yeah I gotta vote for this person. Clearly, the better selection for my interests. National elections I'm like yeahyeahyeah whatever.
But I still vote in both local and nat'l
I got one word for ya . . . revolution
This thread is about Canadian citizens. However, many of the people posting are Americans.
It would be nice to differentiate between the two. America's register of voters is only made up of 50% of citizens.
Of those 50% of registered voters, less than 50% actually vote. Which, tells me there is a problem?
It seems Canada has a larger turnout because there are more affiliated parties. I cant really speak of Canada's govt, but the few times I've been there I got the sense also that Canadians feel a greater sense of accountability from their elected ones.
Any Canadians have some insight on that?
I cannot speak for Canadians either, and wouldn't do so. But, as far as Americans are concerned, the election process is in severe need of re-vamping.
Thus, the power of the people, truly needs to be put back into the hands of the people, which it is not presently.
Edit: And, if government refuses reform on the election process, then it is understood that the time has come to put a buffer between citizens and government, so the power of the people is put back into place.
Canadian here, the voter turnout here appears to be going down slightly over the past 10 years, whir, about 39% of the eligible population are not so perhaps some are misrepresenting.
Which is one reason I began the thread, I have been voting for about 40 years now and have met very few people who will openly admit they do not vote. Now many people do say things, sich as "What does it matter who I vote for, they are all the same." Or "politicans promise one thing and do another after being elected." There is some truth in both.
Oh, sorry Cags. Some reason I had it in my head that you were from Quebec or something. No idea why. Just looked and noticed you are abt two hrs drive from me. No worries, I wont be knocking on your door or anything.
Oh well, maybe a Canadian will see the post and answer my question.
A two hour drive? Try a 10 hour drive.
But, hopefully, someone like the OP or another Canadian, such as Uninvited Writer, might give some insight to your question.
Ten hours??? Where in MA is Chicopee? I can get to Springfield in about 100 mins.
Where are you with regards to the American border?
It's about a 100 minute drive, just to get out of the state and Chicopee is 10 miles north of Springfield, providing you are pushing 65 miles per hour.
And then it would require to drive across the entire state of Vermont, just to get to the Canadian border.
Edit: My estimation is about getting to Quebec.
Ok. Here comes a really "fun" and "uplifting" answer:
I was always someone who voted. In my head I have all those same ideas about why it's important to vote, and why it's a privilege, etc. etc.
However... When I left my marriage the courts offered me no protection of my Constitutional rights. Worse, the courts absolutely offered my children no protection in ways I won't go into here. The day I left my house with my kids (because I had no choice), all it took was a couple of phone calls to have an ambulance show up to pick me up for a supposed psychological evaluation. My mother fended that off, but several police did show up later. This was the beginning of having years of my life raped by the court system, and my rights and my children's rights (and even my ex-husbands rights) absolutely disregarded by any number of court authorities, government agencies, etc. etc.
In the beginning I thought I could just get people to straighten things out, and I'd overlook some of the early mistakes. Mistakes and misunderstandings can happen. I know that. No. Nobody straightened anything out or owned up to anything. So then I figured I could sue. Try to get a lawyer when another lawyer says she's representing you, but there's some kind of gag order going on (or whatever). So, my life and my kids' lives (and their father's life) has been seriously impacted, and remains in limbo in a number of ways; to this day.
My kids are in this state, and I don't have a lot of choice about leaving it for now. My family remains in this country, so I'll physically remain in it for the rest of my days. If, by some freak thing, someone wants to act as if I have Constitutional Rights (and if there's a Constitution at all, which isn't particularly something Massachusetts seems to recognize), maybe I'll think about voting (even though I'll NEVER again feel about this country or state what I did when I was stupid enough to think the Constitution is more than lip-service on paper.
Yeah, the court system, and Government system doesn't have much sympathy for anyone. Total revamp is in order I agree!
A trip through the court (family) system is a real eye opener. It's a real good ole boys System for real,existing only to line each others pockets and rape the victims..
I even understand (don't like it, but understand) that courts can't always operate on truth; but in the family court system, they really ought to. Honestly, my own experience was very much like a kangaroo court; and I won't even go into all the ways the court, and people dragged in for - really - no good reason invaded our privacy, caused destruction, and even contributed to hastening my elderly, sick, mother's death (not to mention long-lasting and unfixable damage in all our lives, in any number of ways.
I pay attention to politics, and I'm a registered voter. Back when this happened I said I was "going on strike" until someone straightened out, or was held accountable for, what had gone. It wasn't even a "big, nasty, complicated" divorce for goodness sake. (What on Earth happens if people have more going on than a marriage that needs to end?) There are laws that supposed to protect against things like obstruction of justice or withholding evidence. There are laws against "reckless (sp?) disregard for the facts/truth". There are laws about ethics for lawyers. None of them applied in my own case. Honestly. It's all just a big, un-funny, joke.
I don't like admitting that I don't vote, and I don't like not voting. Still, I'm not going to participate in a system in a country that hasn't treated me as if I'm a citizen with rights. My father fought in WWII. My mother lost a young, first, husband in it. What did I get the one time I wanted/needed something from the government (the court system)? Ridiculous, bizarre, disregard for my rights and for easily provable truth; disregard for my warnings that my mother couldn't handle too much stress, no information about any of it; and no eligibility even for any kind of help (because I speak English, didn't need job training, didn't want their free food, and wasn't in any protected group).
Sometimes it like choosing the lesser of two evils.
And thats hard to do.
by Emer Kelly 8 years ago
Do you think people should have to display an understanding of politics before being allowed to voteI don't mean an in-depth understanding, just a basic one of how government works and what each party/candidate stands for.
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Do you think people who are "electors" have the right to vote against who people voted for?Christopher Suprun, a Texan and a Republican is one of the 538 people chosen to be "electors" - meaning one of those who will cast their vote in the Electoral College in a few weeks. ...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 4 years ago
Do you think people will vote for candidates who launch personal attacks against their opponents?Without commenting on specific candidates, how successful do you think that tactic is in election campaigns? Again - please don't name names.
by ga anderson 6 years ago
Listening to a couple political pundits discussing a local election result - I heard them agree that the low voter turnout for the election probably helped unseat an incumbent.Their logic was that the voters that did bother to vote were probably more-informed voters than would be the case when...
by Readmikenow 5 months ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
by Christin Sander 3 years ago
What's with the shaming of people who are choosing to vote 3rd party?Both main parties are running on "fear of the other" and it's bringing out the worst behavior in some people. I've seen many Trump and Hillary supporters both shame those who are voting third party, tell them to...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|