OTTAWA—One phrase keeps popping up in the complaints about fraudulent calls in the 2011 election, when hapless voters were reportedly told their polling locations had changed.
It’s this: “due to higher-than-expected turnout.” Presumably, the callers wanted to plant the suggestion that voting was a nuisance to be avoided — what with the changed location and all those crowds at the ballot boxes. “It’s a stampede, Martha, like we saw when the new iPhones came out. Let’s just wait it out.”
That scenario, however, would not work as well if voting was legally compulsory in Canada.
The idea of mandatory voting floated up again in a column last week by Mia Rabson in the Winnipeg Free Press. Her concerns revolved mainly around the falling turnout — barely at 60 per cent in the past decade and considerably less than that among young people.
That’s one good reason. But cleaning up politics might be another side benefit.
[More]
Ah yes, compulsary voting – the mark of a true free state.
Compelling citizens, on threat of monitary fine and/or imprisonment, to engage in behaviour they would not otherwise ordinarily or willingly engage in.
Also defined as how authoritarian governments seek to legitimize themselves.
Seems a bit late in the day to be complaining about authoritarianism. We’ve been bullied by Progressives since the days of Trudeau and all we do is whimper on talk radio and whine on blogs. Besides, two-thirds of voting Canadians vote for Progressive parties so they are quite happy installing authoritarian governments. I would wager that most of those who don’t vote Progressive have no idea why “might makes right” is not a legitimate form of government. In a country that actually understands its right to be free from coercion, speculating about forcing people to vote would be a figment of some extremist’s imagination.
Voting can not be perceived a ‘Duty’. It is clearly a Choice and at the same time a Priveledge. It is a freedom, and in so being remains a choice, which one may participate in or not participate in. End of story. If someone chooses to not vote they are thus voicing an opinion based on many things (‘they are all the same, – nothing every changes, – I’m to busy, – yada, yada, yada…’) Its their choice!
These same non-voters through their decision to not participate in the process must also be content to let others rule their lives. And that is good with me and those that work to influence the people that do intend to vote.
One other small thing – if a voter cannot produce a tax form indicating that they pay taxes, they should not be able to participate/vote in any municipal, provincial or federal election. After all, it is tax paying public that foots the bill for societies slugs. There is no way that any individual should be able to enter the bank accounts of the producers through legislation passed be their elected representatives so that their lives can be enhanced without any effort to do so on their own.
As usual, Delacourt you are mistaken at the very least or just plain wrong.
Actually, no CRB. If you voted you bought into the process and, win or lose, the outcome – having done your duty, and having agreed to be bound by the outcome, you get to sit down and be quiet until the next cycle of the process.
What’s next? A requirement to own real property?
If you voted you bought into the process and, win or lose, the outcome – having done your duty, and having agreed to be bound by the outcome, you get to sit down and be quiet until the next cycle of the process.
Indeed. And if the only ones you have to vote for are Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot then isn’t it your duty to not vote ?
The only argument I have is that so much of what government does these days is beyond the mandate upon which they have campaigned. Voting for their mandate is not necessarily voting for most of the crap they foist upon us.
I rarely point out a column in the “Star” but today I did because Susan has raised a good argument. She notes that Australia uses this system (they also use proportional voting) and she sees value in that.
I do not.
It seems to me that if Canada were to adopt compulsory voting “many” (some 40% who don’t vote now) would have no clue what they were voting for. Worse, they could be co-opted by people like Justin Trudeau (our local “movie star”) and we could be into one hell of a mess very fast.
“Nope” — not going there. I like things just as they are.
It’s bad enough that only 60% in Canada vote, especially when you stop to consider that only 40% of that 60% actually know what they are voting for. No need to turn a system that works “after a fashion” into one that would likely be a disaster.
Susan is wrong but I thank her for raising the matter.
My point: “If it isn’t broke don’t fix it” — and it isn’t.
Goodnight.
SL – At the very least those that took the time to vote generally did some minimal research. They maybe only voted for their one issue, for their family or for some economic concern, but they cared enough to voice an opinion. Those that did not voice an opinion should be content to follow orders. Quietly.
As far as property ownership, no. But they should have to prove that they are ‘players’ in the system. That they pay some taxes – not GST, or PST or some other sales tax that they may pay while spending money that the got from some redistibution check from the government. Even if they pay only enough to get it all back sometime in May after income tax season. At least they realize that ‘the Man’ must be paid before he can redistribute!
By the way SL, what process have you bought into? What do you advocate to improve our lot over what is in use at prsent?
Minimal government, direct democracy, local control over local issues.
In the immediate term I am a long standing participant in that (growing) group of Canadians who advocate non-participation in an electoral system that is less than democratic, and which places people in power who govern from within less than democratic structures and institutions that allow them to wield less than democratic power.
Eventually participation levels will, we hope, drop to levels that will force government to address its undemocratic short comings with real democratic reform.
– of course there also exists the possibility that government will decide to take the authoritarian route and attempt to compell citizens to engage in activity that they normally would not otherwise engage in…. but ya gotta try don’t ‘cha
You should look at the countries with mandatory voting rules. Almost all are economic backwaters. Mandatory voting is idiotic….and another sign of state power over individuals.