There has got to be a smarter idea

Suppose we accept this idea, an idea accepted in 30 other countries...how do we enforce it and, at what cost? Are we going to issue "tickets" to citizens and demand they pay up a fine for not voting? Will there be rights of appeal? Secondly, I don't think it is constitutional. We have Charter rights of freedom of association and expression - which include the rights now to associate and not to express.

There has got to be a better way to "beat" the culture of disengagement. Perhaps a tax incentive, if you vote and you get a $"x" tax write-off....after all donations to political parties provide tax deductions, why not subsidize the "costs" to citizens to vote. Furthermore, after spending time volunteering inside an election location this time round, I wondered about the quaintness of it all in the Internet age. After all if we can do secure banking online, and do secure Internet transactions, why cannot Elections BC at least research the options for secure online voting as part of the "mix" whereby a citizen can vote. While I appreciate Bill's frustration at the low voter turn-out, I don't think this is the solution for BC/Canada, ethically, legally or from a cost perspective, etc...but it does get the conversation going and that is good! There just has to be a smarter, more creative solution out there....and maybe the Tyee can track that down, or perhaps Bill can do a follow-up.

great idea

I like the idea of a tax credit for voting--incentives are always better than punishments. Of course, objections will be raised to that also: "We shouldn't pay people to do what they should do out of a sense of duty." But there is no sense of duty, and that's the problem. But elites will not support any of this. Low turnout is to their advantage.

PepperGirl

I may or may not vote depending on the calibre of candidates and the type of issues that present themselves but if I don't vote don't bother to tell me I can't bitch. I pay my taxes and you bet I'll bitch if I see that money being pissed down the drain.

If enough people complain about an issue it matters not whether they voted, the government will listen if only just because everybody is a potential voter, a fact which seems to have escaped alive.

G West

I think 52% of the electorate beg to differ with you so that would make your assessment wrong, democratically. Then when you add to it the approximately 22% of the electorate who voted Liberal and that kinda makes it look like you're just blowin' smoke.

I'm pretty sure that if the sense of hopelessness that you deem to exist was really there things would have changed.

Just because democracy doesn't appear to work the way you want it to does not mean it isn't working.

All registered voters could very well have turned out and still produced the results you find so distasteful.

Consider Citizen-Initiated Referendums Like in Switzerland

BC might be wise to consider the Swiss model for citizen-initiated referendums (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland). In Switzerland, citizens can force a referendum on any law passed by the government if they collect 50,000 signatures (population of 7.5M) within 100 days after passage of the law. In addition, citizens can propose initiatives with 100,000 signatures collected over 18 months and these automatically go to referendum, often in a multiple choice ballot with a government-drafted counter-proposal.

This mechanism keeps the government from proposing anything too outrageous and allows citizens to feel that they can raise the profile of any issue they feel passionately about and can organizer broad support for. Scholars report that this approach appears to be nicely balanced and provides for a measurable increase in citizen satisfaction. Such a mechanism might provide a nice counter-balance to the centralized decision-making we have here in BC.

Force us to Vote

Another Way?- not likely!!

It is interesting that the reasons sited in this article to force us to vote closely follow some of the reasons for voting for BC STV (except for the third reason).

Oddly enough, Mr. Tielman was against BC-STV, so why is he coming up with another electoral reform, when he criticized (perhaps disparaged is a better term) a change in the voting system to one that is more proportional than first-past-the-post and is supposed to make politicians more accountable?

I agree with Dorothy, many people (now including myself after the failure to pass STV) are fed up with the backroom deals, the lobbying etc. and don’t see why their vote would change anything.

I disagree snert

And my supposition is equally valid to yours - neither of us knows for sure.

The fact is, a lot of the people I met and talked to in the weeks before the election have given up - they think nothing will ever change and are simply struggling to keep their heads above water.

You should try and get out more.

I think you're the one blowing smoke because I doubt you were out knocking on peoples' doors.

In the end, the average working family (many of the folks in that group are single mothers - as you well know) has been going backwards since 2001.

I know you couldn't care less. And I have no doubt Gordon Campbell doesn't either.

If he had, he'd have done something different with the last 8 years.

avandoc

I like the tax credit idea too. When you vote you get a chit which you can use for a $100 tax credit on that year's taxes - I have some reservations about fines and the concept of compulsory voting sounds vaguely fascist to me.

The tax credit seems to provide encouragement without a specific penalty.

Fret not, my friends...

"I don't know what the answer is - I do know Australians turn out in the 90 - 100 percent range all the time.... and we don't!"

"There has got to be a better way to "beat" the culture of disengagement."

Some places to get ideas:

http://www.idea.int/vt/

http://www.mit.ps.au.dk/elklit/Publikationer/Why%20is%20Voter%20Turnout%20Not%20Declining%20in%20Denmark%20(APSA).pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Denmark

http://electionresources.org/dk/

Sorry

One of the links did not work. Try to copy and paste this into the address line:

http://www.mit.ps.au.dk/elklit/Publikationer/Why is Voter Turnout Not Declining in Denmark (APSA).pdf

informed? or elite?

Could it be that when voter turnout is low, only the informed and the engaged come out to vote (elites?). Is that so bad? Do we want uninformed citizens charging off to vote "just cause they're told to do so"?

Just imagine: "I haven't got a clue what the issues are, but they're making me vote."

Lovely. So that's what people died for, eh?

Forcing people to vote

Forcing people to vote doesn't mean that they'll make educated or informed choices. Even many of the people who DO vote in our system can't be bothered to make informed decisions.

Democracy as currently practised isn't really democracy, it's a sham. When 46% of voters can elect a majority government, that's not democracy. When 56% of the voters categorically state that they don't want a particular party, and that party forms a majority government, that's not democracy. When a person can win a seat with less than 50%+1 of the vote, that's not democracy. When a government can use the party whip for EVERY SINGLE VOTE, that's not democracy. When the only people who get to make decisions are the party leader and a very small group of "insiders", including unelected insiders, that's not democracy. When every single non-cabinet member in a government (and even some of those) can be replaced by a pet rock and not affect the outcome of any votes in the legislature AT ALL, that's not democracy. When a few very rich corporations, usually foreign owned and controlled, have more say in government than millions of voters, that's not democracy.

We don't have a democracy here. We have a fancy, well financed theatre that pretends to be democracy. We are sheep being fleeced, and unfortunately most people don't want to be aware of that.

I disagree with G West

Excuse me, but I was out talking to groups, handing out STV Brochures, delivering them door to door, handing them out at an all candidates meeting. speaking to everyone I knew. Writing letters to the papers and standing in a roaring wind at a highway intersection with my sign.

Most people I spoke with were receptive, but then started parroting the NO-STV reasons --too complicated, only used in Ireland etc. , even though they had voted Yes last time around.

Not Voting = Surrender

I am very curious as to the reasons why more than half of the population didn't vote this election. The pollsters ought to look into this so the problem can be addressed. Of course, people like Tieleman who are only interested in maintaining a two-party system, don't want to do this.

I don't like the idea of compelling people to vote. However, not voting is a cop out. Those whose excuse is because there wasn't anyone attractive enough to vote for are simply lazy. If you don't like what you see, then stop waiting for someone else to deliver it to you. Get off your ass and do something about it! Work towards giving people another option.

For those who didn't vote because they are too busy trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head to keep track of platforms and issues, I think it is even more critical to find the means to get informed and vote. Otherwise, how can you expect to change your circumstances if you surrender control to others?

If you don't vote, I don't think you have a right to complain because you didn't make any effort to indicate what you are actually for. Go ahead and criticize the Greens, the Sex Party, the Marijuana Party, and the Work Less Party. I at least give them credit for doing something to present an alternative vision.

With STV, we had an opportunity to bring a greater diversity of representation into the Legislature. I'm skeptical that we'll ever get that chance again any time soon. Political reform with two dominant parties in a FPTP system? Dream on!

Parotting

Most people I spoke with were receptive, but then started parroting the NO-STV reasons

A friend of mine did exactly this. It was parroting the arguments verbatim. Fortunately, I was able to get him to reconsider. Not sure if he voted for in the end...

Informed/Uninformed

Do we want uninformed citizens charging off to vote "just cause they're told to do so"?

No, but neither do we want a minority deciding either. We want an informed majority.

If people pay taxes and

If people pay taxes and don't vote they still have the right to bitch, cuz they're citizens of this country.

G West

"A lot" doesn't necessarily constitute a majority. Sounds to me that you might have been doing some selective canvassing.

Nope

As usual you haven't got a clue....you need to get out more - selective canvassing is a waste of the canvasser's time.

The object is to reach the maximum number of people in the time available.

I couldn't care less what you think and I'm not interested in sharing any data (apart from the general case) with you either. In fact, like canvassing, the successful door to door operator is skilled in the art of quickly ascertaining which citizens are worth the candle.

In my opinion you're not worth the candle; furthermore, I'd just as soon you didn't vote for the party I support. Some associations are just not worth the aggravation.

Cheers.

More incentives to vote

Compulsion isn't bad. Tax credits are better. How about lottery tickets with every vote, or Starbucks coupons, or River Rock gambling chips, or Canadian Tire money? How about contests: "Guess the final vote and win a hybrid." Entertainment at the polling stations, karaoke, yo-yo competitions. . .

Just a few democratic sweeteners to oil the system.

Taxes Schmaxes

The old adage is "no taxation without representation." So if people decide not to choose their representative, then it seems to me they've given up the right to bitch.

BTW, rights are only as good as the willingness of people to fight and stand up for them. As with Bill 30, they are easily taken away, yet people are still made to pay taxes.

Sitting on one's ass, moaning, confers the right to be kicked in the teeth.

engaged and relevant...

I'm not without considerable expertise in post secondary education.

Compulsory attendance in classes is a mug's game (and and insult to adult learners). Students attend when, and if, the material presented is engaging and relevant.

Compulsory voting is a mug's game. Citizens vote willingly, en masses, when engaged and when the issues are perceived as relevant.

When only about 50% of the electorate turn out, both parties have been complicit in failing to ensure that the citizens comprehend the issues.

If the parties were instructors, I'd have them fired.

Bill Tieleman responds

Thanks for the many intelligent questions and comments - and spare me the STV whining.

Now let's get to it - first, in Australia the fine for not voting is about $20 CDN - it goes to about $45 CDN if you don't pay on first notice, sort of like a parking ticket - hardly worth going to jail for, but hey, if you are a true libertarian, pack your bags.

Second - you do NOT have to vote - you have to show up and take your ballot - you can return it unmarked, spoil it, write rude comments etc. I have no objection to a "None of the above" option being added.

Whatever current rules there are about not spoiling a ballot, they would be changed if compulsory voting were introduced.

Third - despite the STV advocates claims, voter turnout is in general decline around the world, in all countries despite their electoral system. We need a solution that mandates voting as an obligation.

Fourth - compulsory voting has nothing to do with the electoral system - even if - for the sake of argument - STV or MMP or PR List or whatever system somewhat increased turnout you would still have probably 30% or more of all voters not participating.

Fifth - for my Green Party friends who have failed to elect a single MLA in 25 years of trying - this might just help.

Renters, students, low-income earners - the folks who the right-wing counts on NOT to vote - and who just might vote Green - would be compelled to vote under mandatory voting laws. You are most welcome.

Sixth - we are obligated to do all sorts of things we might otherwise choose not to do - why is demanding that people vote in a democracy so hard to accept?

Lastly - don't insult anyone by suggesting they may not "know enough" to vote! We already elect all sorts of morons in every democracy in the world that doesn't have compulsory voting - don't patronize voters here with that sort of elitist tripe.

So we

don't get to vote for the Translink board. Does that mean we can't bitch?

Oh Goodie

[quote}In my opinion you're not worth the candle; furthermore, I'd just as soon you didn't vote for the party I support. Some associations are just not worth the aggravation.

I get to cancel out your vote then? Woo Hoo!

um, yikes.

Bill Tieleman: in response to the "You are most welcome" to those that the libs etc. count on not to vote, i must say that it sounds awfully paternalistic. then again, we are talking about forcing people to participate in democracy.

apparently over half of the population is into this whole democracy bag...so, assuming that those are the same folks that will vote in a forced voting or not referendum, if over half those ppl say "we like compelled democracy, make everybody vote" then looks like a working democracy right? hhm, makes me think of harper winning that "strengthened mandate" last fall.

and as to the poster that suggested those who don't vote do something about it, such as start their own party/run themselves: the possibility must considered (since no one can know the minds of others and therefore cannot reasonably have perfect information on what is best for them) what if those non-voters don't buy the democracy bag? what if there are a whole bunch of closet anarchists out there? isn't the entire idea of a democracy based on valuing the individual's right to protect their own interests and the right not to have others tell them what's best for them?

Billy T's faulty logic...

Our Billy really didn't think this through at all. My mind was spinning after reading his initial article, now I have a crick in the neck after considering his retort.

Voting occurs when citizens believe that voting actually makes a difference. I used to live in a district where the Liberal-NDP vote (and general socio-economic split) came in at a ratio of about 6-1. As an NDP supporter, why would I bother to vote? Under the current system, it doesn't count.

Sure, in close races, my vote might count, but in too many ridings it is a meaningless gesture.

I now live in a riding with an NDP-Lib split of about 3-2. Still, not close enough to entice me to think that my vote might actually change things (although I did vote; thankful that my guy could win for a change )

Don't Get to Vote

don't get to vote for the Translink board. Does that mean we can't bitch?

Of course not! That's entirely different than being able to vote and not doing so.

isn't the entire idea of a democracy based on valuing the individual's right to protect their own interests and the right not to have others tell them what's best for them?

No, it is not. That sounds like Libertarianism. Democracy is simply government by the people as a whole. If government is seen to be directed by the entire population, either directly or via representatives, that is a democracy.

Totally Wrong Again Bill

Our democracy is already flawed and Tielmans suggestion would just make things worse. Many people who voted in the BC election didn't know the issues, didn't make an educated choice by studying the election platforms of the various parties, they voted based on their "gut". As a political pundit, Tielman would like to increase the number of uneducated disinteresed voters because they're easier to reach. You don't have to have a compehensive program just blast away with attack ads and if you're one of the 2 main parties, sooner or later you attract more of the swing votes and win.

Personally, I think we'd be better off if voters had to pass a current events test to win the right to vote. That way if they don't know enough about world events, global warming, the economic meltdown, pine beetles, etc, they can't vote. If all the electorate knows the issues, the politicians would be held accountable and we'd see someeffort on the part of candidates to address the voters concerns. Under Bills proposal the election process would become even more shallow and the issues that affect us all would just be tossed aside.

Why Bother?

Personally, I think we'd be better off if voters had to pass a current events test to win the right to vote.

Sounds like a waste of time to me. Voters are supposed to be adults. If they can't be bothered to be politically engaged when free to do so, then they can't complain if they are subsequently oppressed.

Democracy is a use it or lose it game. There are always interests that would love to see it taken away. In case you didn't notice, it's happening already.

More Parties!

I didn't vote because I live outside BC. Unfortunately, we don't have the Marijuana party or Sex Party here.

If we did, I would definitely vote for both Marijuana and Sex parties.

If fact, I would vote for combining Sex and Marijuana into one large party.

I suspect it would drain support from the Work Less Party too.

Romeogolf says, "use it or lose it"

Fair enough Romeo... and I'll try to heed Bill T's suggestion "STVers, stop bitching"

Democracy is very much "use it or lose it", but it is a "system". Systems have rules or parameters by which they operate. If the rules are fundamentally flawed so as ensure inequitable results, then continuing to "use it" as per normal is like continuing to beat your head against a wall.

I wasn't so much pro-STV; I was anti-FPP. I agreed with much of what Bill T and Schreck put forward (there was MUCH I disliked about STV). What I couldn't comprehend was how they deemed the current system to be better.

Back to using or losing. What am I going to lose? As to using... my head hurts too much!

Bad idea

We already have enough uninformed voters. With our media monopolies in Canada it is too easy for the corporate controlled media to influence the masses. People are flooded with misinformation and little debate from our mass media. Most people leave little time in their lives to study the issues and listen to real debate, therefore their decisions are usually based on what they hear the most from the media. They think that they are hearing views from many sources, but they are usually all coming from the same source. The recent STV campaign was a good example of this. A small group of people used a fear campaign to scare the masses away from improving our electoral system. A group of our own citizens were brought together to study all the best electoral systems used throughout the world and 96% agreed on the STV system. Yet most voters were led to believe that this system was somehow going to be even worse than our current one. I guess that our own citizens were trying to fool us into accepting an inferior system.
Until we get rid of the media monopolies and have only independent media sources with real debate on the issues, then forcing uninformed citizens to vote will be a disservice to us all (except the corporate elite that control the media).

disagree again, Bill

"...and spare me the STV whining."

That's just plain contrary to democracy, I'd say. Or is it only those "intelligent questions and comments" that constitute democracy?

And whose room is it, anyway?

guess i was wrong

about the entire idea of democracy. fair enough, i guess i don't speak for everyone.

however, i still don't understand the point of having a gov't "by the people as a whole" unless there is an underlying ethic of the individual, or the community in a more classically conservative democracy, being the most appropriate authority over one's/the community's own fate.

to sum up: i think paternalism (or forcing votes, think of the language) is based on crap logic.

I really have problems with hearing this again.

"Third - despite the STV advocates claims, voter turnout is in general decline around the world, in all countries despite their electoral system. We need a solution that mandates voting as an obligation."

Er, I am sorry, but this is just plain wrong, and repeating it endlessly will not make it true!

Why are people not willing to look at an actual exception and try to find out, what is different there. Is that not how progress is made?

http://www.idea.int/vt/graph_view.cfm?CountryCode=DK

one look at this website will show you, that voter turnout is not declining in every country on Earth. I have not seen Denmark in over 30 years, so I know little more about it than anyone else might, but surely this powerful exception ought to be met with a more intelligent response than either silence or outright denial.

from the President of No-STV?

hmmm.

So we've got a situation where people are giving up on democracy. And a proposed system that makes many more views heard in the Legislature.

But the solution is to force people to vote.

I actually think it's a reasonable assertion, but it's galling that it's more important to Bill that people vote than that they care about voting.

I think it's pretty obvious which makes for a stronger democracy.

As much as I like Bill--he

As much as I like Bill--he is more a political insider--at least that is the perspective from which he sits.

If we agree that there is no such thing as altruism--then we must assume that Bill is more inclined to the role of an apologist. Although he "did not receive a salary" for his partipation in the STV--he nonetheless headed up the "No" side--which is his right--but he is not responsible for electoral reform. STV failed--because the people don't care enough to make changes.

This is because they simply don't trust insiders and government--they know its an insider game--you can march out all of the blue ribbons--ex judges---former this and that--it won't help. People don't trust anyone's word from the inside. This is the fundamental reality of this situation.

I say this based on a personal experience of speaking with over 24,000 respondents since 1998--part of over nearly one half million respondents over that same period.

Allocating a 'fine' for people for not voting--will blow up. Frankly, I don't care what Australia or Tasmania, Thailand or any other country does with their voting system. Our democratic shortcomings deserve more than token excuses--and they are germaine to our experience.

BC is currently a captive--cooked 'democracy'--I don't expect insiders to admit to this--they would be accepting blame for this present debacle (48% voter turnout)--and it goes against most human nature to take responsibility easily.

Sooner than later something will have to come of the raid on the BC legislature. Either it goes away by convenient judicial Order or it is dealt with--and politicians will take the hit. Either way--the people--particularly those who did not vote will have an acceptable rationale- and underlying evidence--fully and completely for not voting.

This political scam called democracy in British Columbia has reached its 'boil' point and needs to be lanced--,
exploring these distractions from the problem--such as Mr. Tieleman is advancing -may have an audience with friends and insiders---it means nothing to the overall true and proper advancement of democracy in this province, and constitutes more of the same 'talking heads' dogma in my opinion--and I expect--in most British Columbians opinion--there is surely evidence enough of this now.

Caring to Vote

I actually think it's a reasonable assertion, but it's galling that it's more important to Bill that people vote than that they care about voting.

I think that's a more fruitful avenue of questioning -- survey why people aren't voting and then act on the results.

Caring to Vote

I actually think it's a reasonable assertion, but it's galling that it's more important to Bill that people vote than that they care about voting.

I think that's a more fruitful avenue of questioning -- survey why people aren't voting and then act on the results.

When Will People Wake up

Has it ever occurred that many people don’t vote because they know that the politicians are just puppets and that they don’t run anything at all? Politicians don’t make the agendas they just follow the orders of the global banks (the real “Crown”) and corporations who they serve. Whether you get NDP, Liberal, Conservative they are all vetted to create the illusion of choice when there is really ONE ruling power: the “Crown”.

And when you consider their oath of office where they swear allegiance to the Queen and take an oath of secrecy, well let’s just say their allegiance is not to the people of BC or Canada. So why should I be forced against my will to vote for a bunch of puppets that keep secrets?

Example of Federal Ministerial Oath similar to Provincial ministers:
http://www.gg.ca/media/fs-fd/p3_e.asp

I do not vote for moral reasons. Voting for fraudsters is against my moral principles and when they want to force me to give them some sort of legitimacy under the threat of stealing my money (property) well that further proves the case that they are corrupt.

rockbysea: they are all vetted to create the illusion of choice

rockbysea... I was reading your post and going "naw, that's waaaay too cynical...."

But then I recalled the re-birth of the provincial Liberal party under Gordon Wilson. Wilson (OK, plenty of flaws himself) and an idealistic band centrists finally provided many British Columbians with an alternative to vote FOR. But that didn't last long. Why not? Look no further than the culprits identified by rockbysea.

I think you're right, rockbysea, the citizens have very little control.

thanks grub

And the same is true south of the border. Obama is doing exactly the same as Bush. He has reneged on all of his promises and just recently did a 180 and is going to keep the Bush administration military tribunals even though he pledged during his campaign to rely on America’s conventional criminal court system. He also changed his mind about transparency and decided to block the court-ordered release of damning photographs showing US soldiers abusing prisoners.

View Obama Deception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=related

They’re all the same. They run nothing. They all do what they are told to do and once they’re elected after lying and making all these promises they continue right on the same course implementing the agenda of their puppet masters. And the agenda is not about making things easier for us but about incrementally dismantling the sovereign nations of the world towards a one-world order under private ownership and control.

Romeogolf writes: The old

Romeogolf writes: The old adage is "no taxation without representation."

If only that were true. Just ask any "permanent resident" of Canada who aren't citizens. They don't GET to vote, but they sure as hell get to pay taxes. In other countries I've lived in, RESIDENTS get to vote in local elections at least, not just citizens. Not so here. Then there's the argument that in a multi-party FPTP system that allows candidates with less than 50% of the vote to get elected, there is ALSO no possibility of representation for those who don't wish to vote for the leading party. This last election, 54% of the population isn't represented, and has no HOPE of being represented because of the abuse of the party whip by the government.

Romeogolf continues:
"So if people decide not to choose their representative, then it seems to me they've given up the right to bitch."

That's the problem. I don't GET to choose MY representative, whether or not I vote. If there was a CHANCE, I'd be ok with that. But there is NO chance. I've voted in every election I've been eligible to vote for, and not once in BC have I been able to vote for the candidate I wanted to vote for? Why? Because we have a parliamentary system and you don't vote for the representative, you vote for the PARTY. And if you aren't voting for one of the top two parties in a FPTP system, YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT. EVER. So I'll reserve the right to bitch so long as my vote isn't counted, because whether or not I vote, it won't be.

Romeogolf continues:
"Sitting on one's ass, moaning, confers the right to be kicked in the teeth."

Do you have a suggestion that might work then? I'm out of ideas. The only thing I can come up with is armed revolution, putting the bastards who usurped democracy up against the wall. But revolution only comes from anger, and there isn't enough anger, just despair. Or worse, a sense of comfort usually reserved for sheep just before they get processed.

The parasites will devour you

People may wish to call people who don't vote, "parasites." However, if people wish to decline services to those parasites, the latter may seek to make things extremely difficult for all British Columbians specifically and Canadians in general.

Suggestions

The only thing I can come up with is armed revolution, putting the bastards who usurped democracy up against the wall. But revolution only comes from anger, and there isn't enough anger, just despair. Or worse, a sense of comfort usually reserved for sheep just before they get processed.

Given what rockbysea wrote above, I think this is an option that will only become more attractive.

What you write is also true driftwolf. Seems like people need a leader to inspire them. It sure ain't Campbell.

Where were the NDP MLAs...

This comes a bit late, I guess, but at http://erefrom.blogspot.com/ the list of people supporting election reform includes several NDP MPs, several former NDP MLAs, but NOT ONE current NDP MLA...

What gives? What are we to read into that?

Surely the MLAs were just the architects of their own party`s ultimate demise.

symptom not the disease

Forcing people to vote is treating the symptom not the disease.

There is No Democracy

I think a major reason why voter turnout is tanking is because the public is becoming more aware that we live in a phony democracy.

Forcing us to vote will do nothing to address the deep and profound problems with democracy at the provincial and federal level. Once elected, MLAs and MPs are totally under control of their party leaders and caucus whips. I suspect that caucus discussios are even more superficial than the discussions on policy in party conventions.

As we all know, representation under first past the post is extremely anti-democratic but that is just fine with the hacks and insiders who financially benefit from continuation of the current system.

I hear that things are so bad in Otttawa under Harper, that MPs need Harper's premission to speak in caucus and Ministers need Harper's permission to answer questions in Question Period.

I wonder if part of the reason for the steep drop in this election was the after-effects of the meltdown in Ottawa, where Harper successfully convinced a majority of Canadians, that parliament has no role in selecting the Prime Minister and any challenge to his leadership as Prime Minister must be crushed by any means necessary - including the suspension of parliament.