Election Day

[Ustauk]

Today is election day in Canada.  Whatever your political stripes, please take the time to vote.  If you can't find your voter card, all you need is two pieces of picture ID.

[Lazybones]

Also if you "Don't have Time" because of work thats not an excuse. As long as you have a valid reason for not being able to vote after work you employer MUST give you up up to 3 hrs to go vote.

[Shayne]

Well, after weighing all the issues, and reading all the platforms...m voting for the Green party.  If it wasnt for the damn seperatist aspect of the Bloc, i find i align well with their platform.



My vote for Green is because im never voting PC, Liberal have a rather fluffy platform, NDP is an instant bankruptcy sentance for Canada, and the Bloc are seperatists.  So when i eliminate all the otehrs im left with Green, and heck im sure they could benifit from my vote (still provide them with $1.25?)



I dont understand why anyone would vote PC.



Let the political flamewar begin!

[Darren Dirt]

Well, after weighing all the issues, and reading all the platforms...m voting for the Green party.  If it wasnt for the damn seperatist aspect of the Bloc, i find i align well with their platform.



My vote for Green is because im never voting PC, Liberal have a rather fluffy platform, NDP is an instant bankruptcy sentance for Canada, and the Bloc are seperatists.  So when i eliminate all the otehrs im left with Green, and heck im sure they could benifit from my vote (still provide them with $1.25?)



I dont understand why anyone would vote PC.



Let the political flamewar begin!

I read something in Sunday's Edmonton Sun. Since there is no danger in being flamed for offering up my "political" views in any form, I am gonna just paste in below the response I'm going to send in to the Sun later today.



Ignore at will...



- - -



Original "letter"...

"There are people in this country who have stated publicly that they wouldn't be voting in the federal election.

They have been given a right to a democratic election by our ancestors who fought and died to maintain their freedoms.

I can't understand why they feel that there is no one to vote for.

Those who chose not to participate have no right to speak out afterwards.

I urge everyone who hears complaining about the outcome of the election from people who have not voted to tell them to shut up."

-Ed Kozinski (letter to the editor of Edmonton Sun, 22Jan2006)





"(Get out and vote.)"

-Editor's mercifully brief but typically useless response





MY RESPONSE -- emailing it tomorrow morning, should appear in Tuesday or Wednesday if they have the b*lls to publish it



- - -



re. Ed Kozinski's Jan. 22 letter.



It is illogical to dismiss those who "have stated publicly that they wouldn't be voting" by concluding they therefore somehow "have no right to speak out afterwards". Many non-voters (myself included) choose to do so, not based on laziness or apathy or ignorance, but due to well-reasoned principles.



I believe Kozinski (and others of similar reasoning) would benefit from even a quick glance through the brief articles found at http://www.non-voters.org , or especially http://www.voluntaryist.com/nonvoting including the one entitled "Is Voting an Act of Violence?"



And for anyone interested, I would be willing to engage in further, serious discussion of this issue through email -- DarrenDirt[at]gmail[dot]com.

[Tonnica]

I already voted early - just as a warning to anyone voting: make sure your area number and other information is correct! When I went to the polling station it was a breadtangle of misdirected information and the first pair of volunteers didn't have the right area number for me (at all, they were guessing it was one of three numbers and all were wrong). Luckily the second pair of volunteers who were handing out the ballots had the proper number/name assosciations in the binder they had.



Even with your voting card in hand (which helps expidite things) there's still a chance that you could be sent to the wrong polling station. Stay aware, read carefully, double check, and make a clean, clear X!

[Thorin]

the one entitled "Is Voting an Act of Violence?"

I read this article front to back.  I would say it's a bad example, because it makes a grandiose sweeping statement

Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime.

Now, I can think of all kinds of acts that would be considered more violent that a person can commit.  But later in the article, this important distinction is made

Let this question be answered by assuming that one is not a serial murderer or does not engage in any type of overt criminal activity. In other words, let us assume that most people who vote in electoral elections otherwise lead peaceful, innocent lives. Is voting the most violent act that they will commit in their lifetimes?

That's a *huge* assumption, and should have been listed right after the first grandiose statement.  Or perhaps the original statement should have been changed to "Voting indirectly links you to violent acts your representatives may commit", which is really what the article is saying.  But that has less shock factor, and it seems apparent to me that this article was written precisely for shock factor.



The question I always come back to when people suggest that we shouldn't have a government or appointed officials or armed forces that can commit violent acts upon us is how then do we protect ourselves from harm (given that there will always be people willing to do us harm to get our possessions)?.  How would you keep the world from becoming anarchic, if not for instituting *some* kind of structure?  If the world became anarchic, how would you protect yourself (true anarchy would require us to turn our children out on the street as soon as they're born; after all, we should all be responsible only for ourselves)?.



I believe that no matter what solution to keeping ourselves from harm is suggested, at some level there will be a requirement to work with another (whether your spouse, your neighbours, your children, people living a hundred kilometers away), and at that level there will need to be either a single decision-maker or a vote (the larger the group you have to work with to protect yourself from harm the more likely this vote would become a majority rather than unanimous agreement).



Now, our current government structure and its method for attempting to gain legitimacy can easily end up in a group of decision-makers that grossly misrepresents those people they're supposed to make decisions for.  And the corruption and scandal that has been rampant in Canadian politics since Confederation was first enacted in 1867 shows us that we should be doing our damnedest to limit the power our decision makers have.  I do not understand how abstaining from voting will cause this to change; abstention would only work if *no one* voted and *everyone* refused to obey agents of the state.  Given that there will continue to be people who think the government is legitimate, there will continue to be decision-makers and agents of the state, and the abstaining voter will have lost out on the opportunity to try and change this fact (after all, if you voted you could have tried to elect a decision-maker who would push for less or no government power instead of more).



The Canadian Charter of Human Rights guarantees us the right to speak out whenever we feel like, and on that point Ed Kozinski is wrong.  However, in the current structure of Canada's society voting does provide you with a means to change government structure to something you would prefer, and those who abstain have missed out on this opportunity.  I agree with Ed Kozinski's general sentiment that people who did not use their opportunity to change things should not complain that things are not changing.

[Darren Dirt]

Upfront: well-articulated post.

the one entitled "Is Voting an Act of Violence?"

I read this article front to back.  I would say it's a bad example, because it makes a grandiose sweeping statement

Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime.

Now, I can think of all kinds of acts that would be considered more violent that a person can commit.  But later in the article, this important distinction is made

Let this question be answered by assuming that one is not a serial murderer or does not engage in any type of overt criminal activity. In other words, let us assume that most people who vote in electoral elections otherwise lead peaceful, innocent lives. Is voting the most violent act that they will commit in their lifetimes?

That's a *huge* assumption, and should have been listed right after the first grandiose statement.  Or perhaps the original statement should have been changed to "Voting indirectly links you to violent acts your representatives may commit", which is really what the article is saying.  But that has less shock factor, and it seems apparent to me that this article was written precisely for shock factor.

I'm not going to presume what was in the mind of the author of the aforementioned article, however I believe that the "violence" that is being discussed as a result of "voting" a "representative" is not just the obviously-extreme violent things like murder. It also includes any act of aggression (which is, by definition, the initiation of violence) that the "representative" does and will do. (Keep in mind that article says voting is endorsing "a system of governance which ultimately results in people being bullied or forced into obedience" -- and yes that includes being prevented from doing a peaceful action, to being forced to do an action that goes against your conscience... I'm sure many examples come to mind, although Canada is certainly better than more totalitarian societies, to the degree of how often and how irrational these instances of control are.)





Remember, a political representative will be acting upon those who did *and did not* vote for them. And usually they will be doing things that would be wrong if done by any of those individuals who did indeed vote for them.



So by voting you are declaring you are okay, morally, with your "representative" controlling or damaging or taking away the property, liberty, or even life of peaceful individuals (those who have not aggressed against you) -- people who are not interested in having that person "represent" them. Put labels on it all you want, but by voting you are imposing your values and beliefs on other people through your (alleged, see below) "agent", aggression that you would not partake in on your own, if you were face to face with the recipients of these actions.





"None Of The Above" would be a choice on every ballot in a truly "free" society; and in that free society, those who wanted their name associated with that "NOTA" selection -- who wanted to be publicly known as "not interested, sorry", who didn't want to hide behind the "secret ballot" -- would thus be left alone to govern themselves (barring any of their actions causing objective and direct physical or economic harm upon another).





That is the root point, the core tenet of democracy, "elected representatives".



Look what the Elections Act (I glanced at it yesterday) :

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=faq&document=faqvoting&lang=e&textonly=false#voting3

Why should I vote?

Your vote is the way you choose someone to represent you in Canada's Parliament. By expressing your choice, you are exercising a democratic right that is key to the democratic process of government that generations of Canadians have fought to build. For more information, see A History of the Vote in Canada.

It says you are "[choosing] someone to represent you" but what if you do not desire anyone to represent you? The word "representative" means "one that serves as a delegate or agent for another", i.e. to "stand in the place of", and by definition that must mean that the "agent" is exercising delegated powers, powers that were in possession of the giver at the time they were given to the recipient. But what if no giving actually took place (or no evidence exists proving it took place)? What if the recipient claims to possess powers that the original giver never had in the first place?





Remember, due to the secret ballot, the political "agents" can not prove who, exactly, they represent (unlike, for example, a real estate agent). But do you think anything would happen to them if you objected to their claim to be your "representative" -- if you asked for factual evidence proving their claim? Wouldn't a real estate "agent" be committing fraud if they acting "in place of" you without proof of your consent?



In pretty much any legal reference book, you'll see an "agent-principal" relationship means that it's as if the principal is doing the actions of the agent, and is actually responsible for the agent's actions. Is that the case with a political "representative agent"?



PS: I have found that by posing the kind of questions above, I will often receive personal attacks, or people bringing up those who have died in wars, etc. By posing these types of questions, I mean no disrespect to those who are "exercising their right to vote", nor to those who have fought in wars to defend those type of rights. I am merely questioning the premises upon which those actions are taken, and asking if they are factually valid, logically consistent... Or have most of us been conditioned to do our "civic duty" without realizing what we were actually doing.





---update---

PS: You offered some objections along the lines of "what is the alternative" and I am sorry that I did not respond in detail to those questions. I presume what you are saying is basically "no man is an island, so how do we relate to other men and women?" If you search for the words "voluntary society" or "voluntaryism" "mutual consent/agreement" on Google you'll find there are many solutions being offered that do not involve coercive violence. One example is a free online book called "Healing Our World".



But remember, just because one identifies an action, or a system of actions, as something dangerous that should be stopped, does not mean they will have (or even should have) all the answers as to what to do "instead". As an analogy, consider that when an "anti-abortion" advocate challenges a "pro-abortion" advocate, often they will hear a response along the lines of "then what about the unwanted babies, would you adopt them?" -- completely overlooking the possibility that abortion is the murder of an unborn human being and thus should be stopped, period. In other words, to proclaim something as wrong does not obligate the proclaimer to offer an alternative to replace it. In some cases nothing *should* replace it.



- - -



*steps down from soapbox*  :-|

[Shayne]

Having spent a great many minutes discussing politics in the office, im basically to the point that i might vote for whoever is gonna get the second most votes in my riding.   Is that so wrong?



Majority is a nice way of saying "bully"

[Thorin]

Upfront: well-articulated post.

Thanks  We clearly see things in a different light, you and me, so I tried as best I could to make my point without denigrating your point.

Remember, a political representative will be acting upon those who did *and did not* vote for them. And usually they will be doing things that would be wrong if done by any of those individuals who did indeed vote for them.

I agree that the way we currently pick representatives causes the majority of citizens to be misrepresented - that is, it's not the person they voted for or desired.

So by voting you are declaring you are okay, morally, with your "representative" controlling or damaging or taking away the property, liberty, or even life of peaceful individuals (those who have not aggressed against you)

Lets say a man kills another man.  The first man is guilty of murder under our present system.  For murder, he is punished by losing his liberty for twenty five years.  I am okay with this even though he did not aggress directly against me, because it lessens the chance that I or others I hold dear will be murdered.  I am okay with my representative passing laws that can be struck down if found to be too strongly worded to help enforce the punishment of loss of liberty for killing another person.

At the same time, lets say a representative uses his position of power to order the pepper spraying of peaceful demonstrators.  I am not okay with this even though he did not aggress directly against me, because it increases the chance that I or others that I hold dear will be hurt using pepper spray.  I am not okay with my representative passing laws that can be struck down if found to be too strongly worded to help the representative gain power.

Basically, I am okay with handing some control of my life, liberty, and property to someone else who represents me, so long as they hold my and my dear ones' best interests at heart.  Of course, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so I say that one of the values I hold dear in the representative I choose is to pass laws that limit the representatives' power as much as possible.

"None Of The Above" would be a choice on every ballot in a truly "free" society; and in that free society, those who wanted their name associated with that "NOTA" selection -- who wanted to be publicly known as "not interested, sorry", who didn't want to hide behind the "secret ballot" -- would thus be left alone to govern themselves (barring any of their actions causing objective and direct physical or economic harm upon another).

Governing oneself is a great concept, but it would be very hard to put into practice.  What if someone transgresses against you?  Well, you have to deal with it yourself.  And if they murder you and steal your property?  Well, you're governing yourself, so why would I help you?  You don't want to be part of my group when no one's trying to hurt you, why should I risk my life, liberty, or property for you?  ("You" referring to the generic NOTA person, not you Darren Dirt)

Remember, due to the secret ballot, the political "agents" can not prove who, exactly, they represent (unlike, for example, a real estate agent).

This is a balance between public knowledge and individual safety.  If I knew everyone who was going to vote against me, why wouldn't I just intimidate them until they don't vote?  Maybe get a few machine-gunned, get a few others thrown in jail or deported.  I know this doesn't occur in Canada today, but it did occur in Germany decades ago, and it was occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq during their elections.

PS: I have found that by posing the kind of questions above, I will often receive personal attacks

Hopefully you don't receive my questioning of your views as a personal attack.  I find this kind of discourse much more useful than, for example, Ed Kozinski's letter.  It allows for point and counter-point, and there's certainly the possibility that I learn something new from it.

PS: You offered some objections along the lines of "what is the alternative" and I am sorry that I did not respond in detail to those questions. I presume what you are saying is basically "no man is an island, so how do we relate to other men and women?" If you search for the words "voluntary society" or "voluntaryism" "mutual consent/agreement" on Google you'll find there are many solutions being offered that do not involve coercive violence. One example is a free online book called "Healing Our World".



But remember, just because one identifies an action, or a system of actions, as something dangerous that should be stopped, does not mean they will have (or even should have) all the answers as to what to do "instead". As an analogy, consider that when an "anti-abortion" advocate challenges a "pro-abortion" advocate, often they will hear a response along the lines of "then what about the unwanted babies, would you adopt them?" -- completely overlooking the possibility that abortion is the murder of an unborn human being and thus should be stopped, period. In other words, to proclaim something as wrong does not obligate the proclaimer to offer an alternative to replace it. In some cases nothing *should* replace it.

If nothing *should* replace it, then the proclaimer should suggest that as the solution.  I don't like people who state lofty ideals but then don't want to consider or discuss how those would be implemented.  After all, it's the details of the implementation that usually take lofty ideals and break them into little pieces.  Note I say "discuss", though, and not "have all the answers".  If you have a lofty ideal you might not know all the answers to how to get it implemented.  I might be able to figure out some of those answers.  As long as we discuss it, those answers can come out.

[Cova]

The guy that wrote that "Is Voting an Act of Violence?" article is an idiot.  I'll refrain from taking any kind of political advice from random bloggers that can't even get their grammar correct.



But ignoring the fact that said author doesn't know how how to put his idea into proper english - lets address it real quick - that voting somehow causes violence, and therefore not voting is bad.  A quick example is to look down south at Bush.  I think we all knew he was going to do something dumb if he won his last election, and we all had a pretty good idea that he was going to win.  To do the least amount of violence in that situation, you would have to vote against him - to not vote at all would be to say "I don't care what he does", while voting for him would be to agree with what he does.



Whether you like it or not, Canada is a democracy - by definition all members of society have the right to put in their vote to who leads the country, makes laws, etc.  If you disagree with one of the parties views (eg. believe they will inflict violence upon .. whatever), then you should vote for a different party.  If you don't like any of the parties, start your own.  If you think the system itself sucks, move to a non-democratic country.

[Brendan]

So. Its going to be a conservative minority. Rant it up now

[Shayne]

Well, in all honesty, im glad with the results.  Its a very minor minority, and any party can really push the envelope.  I like what i see.  A++

[Thorin]

Darren, this extremely long article does an excellent job describing the reasons and mindset behind abstaining from voting.  Having read it all the way through, I certainly understand the point the author is trying to make; basically, stop wasting one's time voting as it will not change one's livelihood.  I found this to be a well-written and well-reasoned article.  However, I disagree with the author's assertion that humans have a natural tendency to help one another; on the contrary, I believe that humans have a natural tendency to try and rule one another through force.



Thanks for posting the link, though, it was a very interesting read.

[Thorin]

Interesting.  According to www.elections.ca, in the Toronto area the following happened:



Conservatives gained 23.6% of the popular vote, equalling 0 seats out of 23.

Liberals gained 51% of the popular vote, equalling 20 seats out of 23.

The NDP gained 20.6% of the popular vote, equalling 3 seats out of 23.



51% of the popular vote, but 87% of the representation.  Something's not right in our system.



Even worse off is the Halifax region:



Conservatives gained 30.3% of the popular vote, equalling 3 seats out of 7.

Liberals gained 31.9% of the popular vote, equalling 2 seats out of 7.

The NDP gained 34.4% of the popular vote, equalling 2 seats out of 7.



So of the three, the party with the least support got the most seats.

[Shayne]

Other 5.6%, 0 seats.  If it was done through proportional it would be 17 seats.