Sigh, I still don't know who I'm voting for. These links help though, thanks Dan
Computer Science Canada 2011 Federal Election |
| Author: | Dan [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | 2011 Federal Election |
Monday May 2nd is Canada's 41st general election. Traditional Canadian youth and students have had the lost turn out of any group in the country, it's time to make a difference and be noticed. If you are 18 or older (on election day) and a Canadian citizen you may still register to vote in your ridding. If you have not received a voter information card (example) simply call Elections Canada (1-800-463-6868) or register at your local polling place (find it here) on election day. All you will need is proof of identification and address (see a list of acceptable options here). But wait there's more! If you are student living in a ridding away from home you may chose to vote in your home ridding or in your school residence's ridding (more information here!). RMR: Rick's Rant - Vote: More Information:
|
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Sigh, I still don't know who I'm voting for. These links help though, thanks Dan |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I'm voting conservative. yes they had some issues, but so has every single leader ever in history. Also they are the only party to realize that raising taxes will lower the amount of tax money they recieve. (raising taxes will discourage spending, and more spending is always better than higher taxes) Many people are voting liberal just because they don't want conservative, but I would advise you to ignore the negative things parties say about each other, they are ususally taken out of context, wrong, or severely over exaggerated. If a party did truly bad, the other parties wouldn't need to say anything. |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I don't take attack ads seriously. On a purely ideological stance, I'm conservative; I'm in the "everyone earns their way in this world" camp. Some things do bug me about the party though, and enough so that I'm not so sure they'd be the best choice for myself. I really have to read up on platforms and stuff more. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Another problem is people sometimes vote for the ideaology of the party rather than the party. If I actually followed the survey things, I'd probably be liberal or something, the thing is that conservatives are much smarter (liberals want to fund healthcare by cutting the jets, which won't be purchased until like 2020 anyways, so there's not actually any money for them, so it's impossible to fund anything right now with the money saved by not buying thje jets in the future). If you watch the debate (highly encouraged), you will realize that the other parties don't actually have a plan, they just want stephen harper to not be in power, much like alot of people. |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Yeah, I did watch the debates. And I completely agree, ideology is one thing, but it really depends on what the party is going to do - this is why I'm having trouble. But yeah, from what I've seen of the liberals, I really don't like. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
So it's between NDP and conservative then. And to be completely honest how many seats will the conservatives get? So you have the option of a miniority (voting again next year probably), or a majority. |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I'm not terribly concerned with the majority/minority issue really. I'm not going to vote conservative for the sake of a majority if NDP turns out to be a better choice for me (this is very unlikely, but I'm just saying). |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I think both of you need to remember that "conservative" and "Conservative" are very, very different. Even assuming that you apply "conservative" to "economy / finances", I think you'll find that the Conservative party isn't actually very conservative. Then you have to consider whether they're conservative on human rights, social issues, or environment (they definitely aren't). A conservative government wouldn't take away money from education and healthcare to spend on prisons and fighter jets, especially not in an age of low crime rates. Doubly so because Canada can't seriously expect to fight a nation that has a serious air force, so what are we going to use those jets for? It may surprise you to learn that, for example, the Green party is fiscally conservative. Their plan for Canada doesn't include deficit spending: it includes a balanced budget. If you actually listen, you'll find that all of the parties have a plan. You may not agree that it's a good plan, but each party definitely has a plan. On the topic of majority / minority, I think I would prefer a minority government, regardless of who's got the most seats. Having a minority government forces the different parties to cooperate, which Canadian politics desperately needs. If you look at European countries, most of them are governed by minority governments that form coalitions, work with each other, and try to come to common ground. If you look at the United States, the political parties would prefer to kill each other than discuss issues rationally. Which would we rather be? As a final note, it's important to differentiate between attack ads and genuine deficiencies or faults. Of course we should ignore ads that mention how your opponent is a doo-doo head. At the same time, we should really be paying attention to media that points out that, for example, Stephen Harper is the first Canadian PM to have been found in contempt of parliament. That's not an attack ad -- that's just pointing out what he did, and it's something that every Canadian should know and understand the significance of. |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I do know they have different meanings. I don't pretend to know a thing about the economy, so I generally just think about human rights and social issues. Also, I do agree about making the distinction between attack ads and legitimately raising political issues. Pointing out flaws in an opponent/his or her campaign is not an attack that should be ignored. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Demonwasp, did you literally just say that we don't need jets. Our jets flew on a mission protecting thousands of lives not even a month ago, and it's not that we're upgrading, we're replacing. Otherwise we won't have jets at all. The jets again won't even be affected this term (unless it's a really long one for some reason), and the jails are being given things to actually help the criminals, to try and stop repeat offenders. I'd rather spend a little bit to make sure that that rapist being released next year isn't going to do it again, than I would spend on one of the million environmental issues (most of which aren't completely thought through-see organic food, bio fuel etc). The other parties are literally twisting everything, trying to stop rapists and murderers from repeating their actions is not giving bad guys a hotel. BTW it's already been decided that jets and corporate tax cuts(which happened years ago) are not concerns for this election, as they are decisions everyone agreed on more than 10 years ago. NDP is just looking for something to pick at, and the fact that that is the number 1 issue means that Conservatives did a hell of a good job. |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
@mirhagk: To put aside a political debate, I think much of this is personal opinion and is best not argued here. Maybe a new off-topic post could be made for just that purpose. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I was commenting on what each of those so called problems actually relate to, I think it's important people learn the situation instead of just listening to the slander against parties. I agree that wanting less rapists more than less pollution was my personal opinion, but this thread is about the 2011 election, so I think the discussion of issues within it is appropriate to the thread. |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I my self would also prefer a minority (conservative) government, however even if it were not a conservative I would still prefer a minority government. I find that things get balanced our much more. For me, I was perfectly fine the way things were going (based on how they affected me directly that is). |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I suppose I saw this as more of a resource thread than anything else. Political debates would be on topic I guess... |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2011 Federal Election |
Although not major issues this election, usage based billing, network neutrality, copyright (relating to downloads and unlocking devices) and privacy online will be heavily effected by who wins this election. If you care about any of theses topics you may want to check out http://openmedia.ca/survey and http://openmedia.ca/election (openmedia.ca asks each party about some of theses topics). Personally I would side with the NDP on many of theses issues. They go out of the way to mention some of them in their platform such as net neutrality, unlocking cell phones, and are against usage based billing. Also as students you may want to consider the educational polices of each party. Some have plans to lower tuition rates or at least provide money to students in other ways. I should point out that a minority government does not necessarily mean another Harper conservative government. The way the Canadian system works is that the government must have the confidence of the house. If multiple parties put their support behind a party that does not necessarily have the most seats they could still form the government. For example if there is a minority government where the conservatives get 132 seats, NDP get 94, liberals get 61 and block get 21 (seat numbers based on the latest projection from electionalmanac.com) the liberals and NDP could vote down the throne speech and then the liberals could support a NDP government making Jack Layton PM (note that this is different from coalition government where the parties would basically share a cabinet). At those numbers NDP + Lib would be 155 seats a majority with out the block. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
@Dan, if you are referring to the subsidizing of universities, well that actually won't work, that's what's called a short term solution, wasting money after the first year. Look at it this way: You are a shirt salesman, and you sell your shirts for $100. People complain that's expensive, but they need to buy them, so they deal with it. The government subsidizes $50 of each shirt. Now you know people will pay $100 for a shirt, they had no problems, and now that they are only paying $50, you have the perfect oppurtunity to raise the cost to $150. Universities tuition is NOT based off of how much it costs to house and teach you (a professors with the average amount of classes is paid off by about 5 people in each class) The tuition is based off of how much you can afford, so if everyone gets an extra $4000, tuition will raise an extra $4000. As soon as that plan goes into effect, thousands of programs tuition will be raised saying something like "Our university used to subsidize/lose money off of that program, so now that the government is paying, we can finally make the price reasonable for us" |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
The government actually sets the tuition cap. If a government wanted to they could lower it by say 10% and all Universities would have to have there tuition at the cap or lower (there are some exceptions professional schools). Providing more funding to universities or students does not change the cap. I am just trying to bring up issues that undecided voters should research. Some parties have very different plans for education and the internet that will likely effect most members of this site. As a Canadian it is there obligation to research the options and vote this May 2nd. Edit: I would also strongly recommend that users reading this topic actually do the research for them self as there is allot of misinformation being posted by some users.... |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2011 Federal Election |
It will be rather intresting to see how this election plays out compared to the polls. Nanos has the NDP only behind by 5 points in there last 3 day rolling average. 
http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110428-BallotE.pdf |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Is that chart a top two? That seems kinda silly, considering there is only 3 serious political parties. It is an interesting chart, we are definetly not having a majority, that's for sure, so whatever happens, there's gonna be another election next year (parties all wanna be in power, and if they are not, they form alliances and call elections, how it's been for the last 10 years) |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
This NDP surge came out of nowhere it seems. What fun! |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
mirhagk @ 29th April 2011, 7:40 am wrote: Is that chart a top two? That seems kinda silly, considering there is only 3 serious political parties.
Top two? The chart shows the first choice for the top 5 parties. Quote: It is an interesting chart, we are definetly not having a majority, that's for sure, so whatever happens, there's gonna be another election next year (parties all wanna be in power, and if they are not, they form alliances and call elections, how it's been for the last 10 years) Not nessarly, if it is a consertive minirotiy the NDP and libs could form some kind of adgreement to put one of their parties in power. Then the converstives would need the help of the block to vote down goverment on a confidence bill. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Nah, there's been a lot of slander to conservatives, everyone is just anti-them, so really I was only interested in whether people voted for NDP or Liberal. NDP is the good idea/good feeling party, so I expected it to get pretty high. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
For seat projections you can check out the following sites: http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/projections.php http://www.electionprediction.org/2009_fed/index.php http://cdnelectionwatch.blogspot.com/ http://www.wlu.ca/lispop/seatprojections.html http://www.democraticspace.com/canada2011/ http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/ Note that a party needs at least 155 seats for a majority. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Thank you dan, this comforts me greatly. While others have the illusion that a minority means the governments work together, it actually means the governments form alliances, and generally try to take out the big guy. Minority governments are great in theory, but so is communism |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Can we stop calling legitimate, verifiable complaints "slander"? Slander applies to statements that aren't true. For example: mirhagk wrote: ...other parties don't actually have a plan...
mirhagk wrote: ...other parties are literally twisting everything...
mirhagk wrote: (insinuation that non-Conservative parties aren't interested in preventing rape recidivism)
mirhagk wrote: ...only 3 serious political parties... |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Seconded. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
mirhagk @ 29th April 2011, 7:57 am wrote: Thank you dan, this comforts me greatly. While others have the illusion that a minority means the governments work together, it actually means the governments form alliances, and generally try to take out the big guy.
Minority governments are great in theory, but so is communism Some would call forming alliances working together. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
DemonWasp @ Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:41 am wrote: Can we stop calling legitimate, verifiable complaints "slander"? Slander applies to statements that aren't true. For example:
mirhagk wrote: ...other parties don't actually have a plan...
mirhagk wrote: ...other parties are literally twisting everything...
mirhagk wrote: (insinuation that non-Conservative parties aren't interested in preventing rape recidivism)
mirhagk wrote: ...only 3 serious political parties... Is Steven Harper spending money on jets within? Is Steven Harper trying to make jails nice places? Is Steven Harper making corporate tax cuts? Those ads aren't all true, and the first two quotes were relating to the debate (where no one at all really provided any plans, and where all these statements about tax cuts etc were stated, and were twisted). And I was implying that I personally think that crime preventation is more beneficial than healing injured from crime. And there really is only 3 political parties, yes others exist, but they weren't even allowed in the debate (except bloc where we can't vote for) |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
Sigh. I'd originally gone over these things in a PM to mirhagk in an attempt to not derail the thread. It's too late to stop that now, so I may as well share: mirhagk @ Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:26 am wrote: Is Steven Harper spending money on jets within?
Yes. The jets in question are on the budget the Conservative party submitted in late March. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110310-712486.html mirhagk @ Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:26 am wrote: Is Steven Harper trying to make jails nice places?
No. He's trying to build as many as 12 new jails, at a cost of $9B ( http://www.canadaandtheworld.com/conservativeprisonbuilding.html , http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/national/article/88681--conservatives-to-spend-9-billion-for-new-jails-implement-criminal-code-changes-targeting-gangs). These prisons are being built to support an influx of inmates due to the Conservative party's tough-on-crime stance, though the Conservative party said, less than three years ago, that they didn't have any intention of building new jails ( http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=fc34eecb-2fb6-4a3f-86bf-c1609146b423 ). Ironically, if you actually want to lower recidivism rates, making jails much nicer has been shown to have advantages: http://www.correctionsone.com/probation-and-parole/articles/1860670-Norways-eco-prison-island-Inmates-run-free-use-chainsaws/ ; http://www.metafilter.com/92287/Norways-modern-prisons . mirhagk @ Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:26 am wrote: Is Steven Harper making corporate tax cuts?
Yes. See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/01/07/politics-liberals-tories-budget.html mirhagk @ Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:26 am wrote: Those ads aren't all true, and the first two quotes were relating to the debate (where no one at all really provided any plans, and where all these statements about tax cuts etc were stated, and were twisted). And I was implying that I personally think that crime preventation is more beneficial than healing injured from crime.
1. Nobody provides a complete plan in a debate; they highlight the bits of their plan that correspond to the issue at hand. 2. Corporate tax cuts were part of the budget the Conservative party proposed in late March (see above). 3. I'm not sure what you mean by "healing injured from crime", so I'll assume you mean "rehabilitation". Studies have shown that increasing the number of prisons, the length of prison sentences (or severity of punishment in general) or incarceration rate doesn't prevent crime. In particular, studies show that the ultimate punishment -- the death penalty -- has a strong correlation with a higher rate of violent crime. It's difficult to say which causes the other, though. Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty mirhagk @ Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:26 am wrote: And there really is only 3 political parties, yes others exist, but they weren't even allowed in the debate (except bloc where we can't vote for)
Not being allowed in the debate isn't equivalent to not being serious. The three (four) parties you're talking about were invited to the debate; the Green party went to court to be included in the debates (like they did in the last election) but apparently they weren't granted an injunction in time. Last year, they got the injunction in time and were present. Saying that other parties aren't serious because media executives didn't want them included in the debates is nonsense. Since I've pretty much wandered deep into the realm of partisan politicking, I may as well link to http://shitharperdid.ca/ |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Further note on the prisons issue: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/decision-canada/Prison+spending+spree+wastes+scarce+dollars/4089927/story.html |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Back to the issue of internet topics this election, openmedia.ca has created a list of "pro-internet" candidates: http://openmedia.ca/candidates OpenMedia is a non-partisan lobby group for internet openness and issues such as UBB, net neutrality, copyright law and privacy. If you care about any of the above, you may want to check if your candidate of choice is on there list. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
K so apparently talking about the issues in the 2011 election is derailing a "2011 federal election"... Totally makes sense... Anyways I guess there's no point arguing with you guys cuz you don't seem to get that by not buying something in 30 years, you can't save money now. |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
The money for the planes is being allocated NOW, not 30 years from now. If you'd even skimmed what I said above you'd have seen that. The planes are in the (assumed) budget for 2011. |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
Dan @ Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:47 pm wrote: Back to the issue of internet topics this election, openmedia.ca has created a list of "pro-internet" candidates:
http://openmedia.ca/candidates OpenMedia is a non-partisan lobby group for internet openness and issues such as UBB, net neutrality, copyright law and privacy. If you care about any of the above, you may want to check if your candidate of choice is on there list. OpenMedia has also released party answers to UBB: http://openmedia.ca/survey |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
ProgrammingFun @ 30th April 2011, 1:33 pm wrote: OpenMedia has also released party answers to UBB: http://openmedia.ca/survey I allready posted that link in this topic, tho it's worth posting again. It's a shame the conservatives refused awnser it, but i think it is clear what there intentions are (propsing a bill to spy on the internet, DRM heavy copy right bills, etc). |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
Dan @ Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:40 pm wrote: It's a shame the conservatives refused awnser it, but i think it is clear what there intentions are (propsing a bill to spy on the internet, DRM heavy copy right bills, etc).
I'm confused, before the election, Tony Clement and Harper said that they would never let UBB pass...so then why do they refuse to comment during the campaign? Or was what they said before twisted up and basically false? |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
ProgrammingFun @ 30th April 2011, 4:17 pm wrote: Dan @ Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:40 pm wrote: It's a shame the conservatives refused awnser it, but i think it is clear what there intentions are (propsing a bill to spy on the internet, DRM heavy copy right bills, etc).
I'm confused, before the election, Tony Clement and Harper said that they would never let UBB pass...so then why do they refuse to comment during the campaign? Or was what they said before twisted up and basically false? First of all i did not acuatactly say anything about UBB in that post. The converstives are pro legeal DRM protections/copyright and are planing on introducing a bill that would require ISPs to hand over detialied logs on internet traffic to police with out a warrent. They have also been quoted in wikileaks cables to have promised to implment US style copyright laws (source). In the case of UBB, there was no bill or law being passed but a dession by the CRTC which would allow it. The convertives asked the CRTC to review there decision on UBB (not nessarly stop it) which effectivley delayed the CRTC's ruling. Shaw and others are still planing on implmenting UBB as eraly as the spring (source). Currently the only party that has anything realting to stoping UBB in there offical platfrom is the NDP. However serveral other candiates from other parties (mostly liberal and green) have also stated they are agisnted it and the Liberal's digital strategy says they will "oppose" it. As for the converstives it's hard to tell what their plans are for UBB. They did say they will be reviewing the CRTC dession and ordered a review but they have not confrimed if they would stop it entirely or at all. Since harper has cracked down on questions being ask of him and MP candiates talking to the press it's hard to get any kind of awnser out of them. You may want to read "A brief History of Usage-Based Billing". |
|
| Author: | chrisbrown [ Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2011 Federal Election |
It concerns me that the Conservatives have not yet taken a stance on net neutrality. My speculation is that they know that what people want is not beneficial to their friends within the big ISPs. This leaves them with three options: 1) Support NN to win votes, then reverse position when in office, hurting party ratings (broken promises and whatnot). 2) Reject NN, further limiting their voter base. 3) Remain silent on the issue such that they will neither gain nor lose a significant number of voters. I may be way off, but it seems that the Conservatives know they have a diminishing base and want to hold on to whatever they can. I realize my anti-Conservative bias shines brightly here but I don't care. I would hope that Canada's politicians take a lesson from the states and learn from their mistakes rather than make the same ones. So far that has not been the case. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sun May 01, 2011 4:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Latest poll from ekos: 
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_may_1_2011.pdf It's going to be a close one, so make sure you get out and vote tomrow! |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon May 02, 2011 3:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 2011 Federal Election |
Rember to vote today! The polls are open 9:30AM to 9:30PM EST. Offical results of the election will be available at http://www.elections.ca at 10:00 PM. Please note that it is illegal in Canada to post/publish election results intill all polling places in the country are closed. Any posts here with such results will be removed. For new voters, check out this video on how to vote: |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Mon May 02, 2011 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Hmm. My driver's license has my old address on it. I have no proof of residency (No landlord/tenant agreement; I pay rent in cash), and nobody to vouch for me. Guess I'm not voting. |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Mon May 02, 2011 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
You can still vote! Other potential proof of address includes any bank statements you've had sent to your new address (that's what I used), any letters from your university / college, a hospital card, any kind of bill (hydro, cell phone, internet) that features your name and new address, or if you could get your landlord to vouch for you. Alternately, the vouching procedure is very simple. Go knock on one of your neighbours' doors and have them walk to the polling station with you. There's no requirements on how long they have to know you, so as long as they live in the same poll and recognize you, you're fine. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon May 02, 2011 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
You can find a list of aproved means of identifying your self and address here: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e As DemonWasp mentioned, your old driver's license + some kinid of statement with your name and current address should work. Vouching is also a good option, any one you know from residence should work. If you realy can't find anything call Elections Canada (1-800-463-6868) and they will help you figure it out. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Mon May 02, 2011 2:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I have -No bank statements -No letters from school -No hospital card -No bills -Landlord is gone -Never met my neighbors. The only evidence that I live in Thunder Bay is that I can't be found in my hometown. Also that I live here. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Mon May 02, 2011 2:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Call the number and ask them. Don't give up your right to vote. Pay checks may also work and even a hand writen statment from your landlord in some cases. A drivers linceses alone is enough. |
|
| Author: | Zren [ Mon May 02, 2011 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Here's a live tracker of the results: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/map/fullscreen.html#/ |
|
| Author: | apython1992 [ Mon May 02, 2011 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
How about that. Conservative majority. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Mon May 02, 2011 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Not for sure yet if I understand this, just a pretty sure it's gonna happen at this point. |
|
| Author: | A.J [ Mon May 02, 2011 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I was hoping for a Conservative Minority and an NDP opposition. |
|
| Author: | RandomLetters [ Mon May 02, 2011 10:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
The difference in the etobichoke area is currently within 20 votes according to cbc. Anyone who didn't vote must be pretty regretful now. I've never followed politics before, or this time, but it's interesting how many wins the conservatives are making in the GTA on very slim margins. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Tue May 03, 2011 8:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
It would be interesting to see how the election would've gone if we had australian style voting (where you rank the candidates, and then if a riding isn't won by 50%, they knock out the bottom party, and check those voters 2nd highest, etc until someone wins with 50%) |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Tue May 03, 2011 12:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I had to make a few assumptions about where votes would run off to, but I think it would end up looking something like this: By 'Instant Run-Off Voting': NDP-New Democratic Party wins 127 seats. Green Party wins 1 seats. Conservative wins 109 seats. Liberal wins 71 seats. In other words, an NDP minority, with Conservatives forming the official opposition, and the Liberal party having the power to sway any decision yay-or-nay. Elizabeth May would retain her riding, but the Bloc would lose every single riding (all of the ridings they won were narrow races, generally with the NDP). If you'd like, I can go into more detail about the assumptions made. Or, I can try out different voting systems. You can download the data set I used from here ( http://enr.elections.ca/ ) on the left panel. If there's a lot of interest, I'll clean up the source code and post. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Wed May 04, 2011 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Also I think that people who do not vote should be counted as content with the current system, since they obviously don't have enough complaints about it. Perhaps there should be a default vote for the person in charge last (but make it only caught for like half a vote or something). The people who want the government to change are statistically more likely the people who vote, which makes a voting system that's not actually representative of what the people want. |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Wed May 04, 2011 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
There are a lot of reasons people don't vote. One of the most common is the idea that their individual vote is totally meaningless (it very nearly is, under our electoral system). Not voting doesn't indicate contentment with the existing system. Adding more weight to the party that happened to win the previous election is a surefire way to send our political system straight into two-party land. We don't want to be in two-party land (see also United States). The best change to make to our electoral system would be to adopt a new voting system. IRV is one example, but then there's proportional representation and a few others. My personal favourite is a 50/50 proportional / representative split, using IRV for the representative candidate: you vote for the party you'd like to lead, and then you rank your local candidates in preference order. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Wed May 04, 2011 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Agreed DemonWasp. I figure, based on nothing but assumptions, that a lot of people vote for their MP, not the party he represents. Perhaps the representative in your riding of the party you prefer is terrible, while the local rep of the party you dislike is excellent. Do you vote federally or locally? Voting for the party you want and the rep you want separately is a sound idea, in my opinion. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Wed May 04, 2011 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
@Insectoid -- weird, a lot of the people I know vote for the party, and don't even know who's running for an MP. In an large enough terrible/excellent difference, I would vote locally for a better MP over a party; but that seems to require more political/educational involvement than a lot of people would put in. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Wed May 04, 2011 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
I think it would be interesting to see if in ridings where the MP retired, the same party was elected in the following election. It's possible people vote for the same guy every year because they recognize the name. My hometown riding has had the same MP since it existed (ie 2004). He's a familiar name. Nobody knows the other candidates (despite plenty of signs). Perhaps he was elected for that reason. Then again, my riding is in the heart of conservative southern Ontario. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Wed May 04, 2011 6:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:2011 Federal Election |
Insectoid @ Wed May 04, 2011 3:50 pm wrote: I think it would be interesting to see if in ridings where the MP retired, the same party was elected in the following election.
How about Bev Oda? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev_Oda#Contempt_of_Parliament MP "was found to be prima facie in contempt [of the Parliament]", as was the government (conservative minority) itself. After the election, the party gets a majority and the MP gets re-elected with 54% popular vote. |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Thu May 05, 2011 1:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
Why hasn't Bev Oda been charged with fraud, or an equivalent crime? |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu May 05, 2011 7:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:2011 Federal Election |
We can't vote for parties and local MP's seperately without completely chaning our political system. We would no longer have such a thing as a Prime Minister, since the current system is merely a council, and the party with the most seats on the council gets the passing vote. Technically speaking if enough conservative seats decided to vote with NDP instead of with conservative, the NDP could have the power instead. To vote for the party instead would require voting for a President, where that person is in power no matter what happens, and would give that person special authority above and beyond what every other council member has. I like our system, where the prime minister doesn't actually have any power other than the support of all of the seats that align themselves with him, I think it is a sort of representative voting system that works well, where the people elect someone that they want to vote for them, and that person votes for them, perhaps against their parties wishes, if need be. |
|