How important is your vote to you?

[c9]

40% of Canadians don't vote. That really bugs me. I don't understand how someone can not care enough to vote. Especially since there are so many options other than voting for the major parties, who are -- let's be honest -- awfully similar in many ways.

There are 14 different registered political parties, and 1604 different people running for office. Considering the fact that Liberal, Tory and NDP candidates make up only 924 of those, there's gotta be somebody you agree with. Additionally, you can spoil your ballot, or formally decline your ballot at the polling station. Both of these are actually counted. Imagine what would happen if more people spolled their ballot than voted for Stephen Harper? It could happen, if those 40% got off their asses.

Some people really think voting is important, and I like that. Check this out:

Thousands of dollars later, new Canadians can now vote
CBC News

A Nigerian-born man who spent thousands of dollars to rush his citizenship process so he could vote in the election says all Canadians should take their democratic role as seriously as he does.

"Make it meaningful," said Fola Soboyejo after his citizenship ceremony in Edmonton. "Contribute to nation building, contribute to civil society, because the alternative is brutal."

Soboyejo and his wife Titilope spent thousands of dollars to travel from Yellowknife to Edmonton so they and their children could become citizens.

The Nigerian-born family lives in Yellowknife, but its citizenship court is only held once a year, on July 1.

$886+taxes+fees right now to fly from Yellowknife to Edmonton. How many of you would still vote if it cost you $4.99?

In Australia voting is mandatory. A coworker of mine thinks we should pay people to vote in order to improve turnout. Both strike me as a way to get people who don't care to simply not care inside the polling station too. But I don't know what could be done to make voting more popular.

Comments

[cap-hill-latte.livejournal.com]

[dusts off argument made against P. Diddy’s campaign to increase voter turn out in the 2004 US elections]

I disagree with the “more people should vote” argument. I’d rather see the people who do vote spend more time thinking critically about their vote. I’ve declined to vote in elections when I’ve felt that I don’t know enough about any party to vote for them.* I suppose that I could have spoiled my ballot instead.** But I see a spoiled ballot as a vote against a party or system – it’s not the fault of the parties or the system that I didn’t bother learning about my options. I’d much, much rather see the turnout rate at the polls stay at 60% than add millions of votes for whichever party’s latest television campaign resonated most with non-critical thinkers.

*Ironically, only when I lived in Canada, I’ve been much better informed about politics since I emigrated.

**I wonder if the green sparkly pen I used to address the envelope will spoil this year’s ballot. :-).

[c9.livejournal.com]

I do agree that the votes that happen should be informed and not just "Diddy told me to!"

But it bothers me that Paul Martin got into power last time based on just 22.2% of the electorate's opinion (37% of the votes). I wish there was a way to increase turn out (and thereby make the system more representative) and still keep it intelligent.

[cap-hill-latte.livejournal.com]

500 word essays in place of ballots?

[c9.livejournal.com]

How to make voter turnout shrink to 4.3% overnight!

[lifein2x3.livejournal.com]

This runs into an argument I've had with myself lately. Going over early American history, when they were still trying to figure out the franchise, the Federalist party had the platform that only an educated few should have the franchise, unlike the Democratic-Republicans, who thought everyone should have it.

The D-R view won out, of course, but I have to wonder what our history (at least in the US, I gather Canadians are at least a little more educated about their politicians) would look like if there was a literacy requirement or test you had to pass in order to vote.

Some would argue that such an unherently inequal system was tried and didn't work (Jim Crow, etc.), but if there were a way to have the minimum standards set by an impartial body and applied evenly to everyone... eh. I don't know. Wishful thinking on my part, I guess. :-)

Carry on.

[cap-hill-latte.livejournal.com]

Oh, and by "party" I really should mean "candidate". But I'll admit that typically know embarrassingly little about the candidate I vote for and typically just go with a party. I should make it a goal to learn more about the candidates next time around. It’s hard though, I don’t really care what the MP for Prince-Edward Hastings does for Belleville, I care what the ruling party does for me. ;-).

[c9.livejournal.com]

Two ways to approach it. Having a candidate you know and agree with, despite party differences, sadly sucks, because local MPs have so little power over party policy.

On the flipside, local MPs with the ruling party get stuff. New lane on the 401! New Environment Canada weather station! New this! New that!

On the flip flip side, I have a problem with only certain ridings getting stuff. But it's the way the system works. Hmmm.