# Yes, I "declined" my vote (picture)



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I'll give my reasons after. First, any comments?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=345473&postcount=4

To prove a point?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That's quite witty. Did you think it up on the fly, or did you figure it out before hand (knowing how many candidates there were)? 

Unfortunate that you found your choices to be that bad, but democracy doesn't mean forcing people to choose options they don't want.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I didn't know there would be 7 candidates. It just worked out. But I did plan the whole thing out (prep'ing the camera, for instance.) I had a black marker ready, but didn't need it, obviously.

Notice the riding?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Could have been worse, could have been Fry/Robinson. Although maybe the other candidates were impressive in that case.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

We had only four parties running candidates in my riding (St. John's East). I heard (urban legend?) that someone wrote in over the candidates name "Eenie, Meenie, Minee and Moe".............and then put an "X" for Moe.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Canada Elections Act said:


> 167. (2) No person shall wilfully
> 
> (a) alter, deface or destroy a ballot or the initials of the deputy returning officer signed on a ballot;





> deface:
> To impair the usefulness, value, or influence of.


Congratulations. You just admitted to committing a crime under the Canada Elections Act.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Congratulations. You just admitted to committing a crime under the Canada Elections Act.


you are misreading the act
that ballot would have been merely judged as "rejected" by poll clerk, deputy returning officer and any scrutiner that would have been present

creating a rejected ballot is not defacing it or otherwise

at my polling station we actually had 3 rejected ballots


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The I'm all for amending the act to make it unlawful to willfully cause a ballot to become spoiled.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> The I'm all for amending the act to make it unlawful to willfully cause a ballot to become spoiled.


Why?

For me, someone has put the time in to show up. Their expression, in so far as it doesn't interfere with others' expression, is valid. 

I am 100% behind a 'none of the above' option so that people wouldn't need to be creative to voice displeasure, and so parties could measure the 'willing to vote...hate you all' base. 

Right now, from what I understand (limited) it's lumped in with the 'too dumb to mark an X' base.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I would have voted for Chow. She is great!


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you are misreading the act
> that ballot would have been merely judged as "rejected" by poll clerk, deputy returning officer and any scrutiner that would have been present
> 
> creating a rejected ballot is not defacing it or otherwise
> ...


Easy *there* legal *Beagle*, that there's a spoiled ballot and yes, technically, is a violation of the Canada Elections Act.

That being said, I'm in favour of spoiling a ballot when you want to show you're not happy with the choices and not in favour of Ottawa mandarins mandating a vote.

Edit: Corrected obvious spelling mistakes to end MacSpectrum's laughter and bow to his obvious superiority...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Easy thier legal begal


www.dictionary.com - you might want to bookmark it

it's not a spoiled ballot
it's a rejected ballot
as per my elections canada handbook
i did end up wasting 2 hours out of 2.75 hour course on this
now, THAT was gov't waste BIG TIME
the people giving the course were such typical in their lack of client service attitude

i just laughed most of the almost 3 hours away


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> ...I'm in favour of spoiling a ballot when you want to show you're not happy with the choices and not in favour of Ottawa mandarins mandating a vote.


Solution: Register as an option, and get your name on the ballot. Vote for yourself.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> www.dictionary.com - you might want to bookmark it/
> 
> 
> > The perils typing fast on a machine that doesn't do automatic spell corrects like my mac does, I guess. (Also adds thier and there are one of those funny brain slips that I'm sure everyone has once and a while, but thanks)
> ...


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Solution: Register as an option, and get your name on the ballot. Vote for yourself.


Isn't there a cost to register? Also, don't you have to get a nomination list or some jazz? Sounds like a lot of work to voice one's frustration on voting day.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> I'll give my reasons after. First, any comments?


:clap: What is wrong with a strongly worded letter to the "TIMES" to voice your protest. 

To illegally destroy a ballot why...why that would be a an act of civil disobedience. 

I can respect somebody that can stick up for their beliefs in such a manner. 

If you are ready "to do the crime just be ready to do the time." I'm with you on this one.

I'll wave to you in jail from my safe place on the sidewalk.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Edit: Corrected obvious spelling mistakes to end MacSpectrum's laughter and bow to his obvious superiority...


awww, you say the nicest things....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> To illegally destroy a ballot why...why that would be a an act of civil disobedience.


the TIMES, according to who does or doesn't own them on that particluar day, may just refuse to print it
the creation of a rejected ballot is indeed a very good way to protest

i'll take civil disobedience any day over a 9 mm glock
a little disobedience is good for the soul now and then
the PTB (powers that be) would not dare allow a "i don't give a sh*t" option else people may start to really vote and see how limited their options are

viva la revolution!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

How does one properly create a "declined ballot"?

I would think just writing d-e-c-l-i-n-e where you should have put one "x" would make this a spoiled ballot.

Just so I know for the next election in a year or so.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

krs said:


> How does one properly create a "declined ballot"?
> 
> I would think just writing d-e-c-l-i-n-e where you should have put one "x" would make this a spoiled ballot.
> 
> Just so I know for the next election in a year or so.


 A protest action that was an act of civil disobedience not recommended as it will attract Election Canada's notice and there by their reaction can be but as the old saying goes "Go big or stay home"seen here.

The real answer to your question is you stay away from the polls in droves if you like and if you don't like just stay away from the polls. However this action or total lack of action or inaction if you like or if you don't like will be confused with total apathy.

Short of changing the law you can't. Long have Canadians died in wars so that we can vote but if it is too much trouble to like the people that offered for public service offer yourself up. Would it kill you to engage...make it so number one J.L. Picard.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Short of changing the law you can't. J.L. Picard.


I thought someone had posted here on ehMac prior to the election that "declining" a ballot will send the appropriate message, a "spoiled ballot" won't - of course only if a lot of people do it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

you have to make the ballot unacceptable to elections canada officials and/or scrutiners at the time of ballot counting

one could argue that the word "decline" in just one spot was actually a properly cast ballot

either don't mark anything or mark more than one 
this will make it very easy to judge your ballot as rejected

we had to keep track of those too


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Short of changing the law you can't. Long have Canadians died in wars so that we can vote but if it is too much trouble to like the people that offered for public service offer yourself up.


No one should ever be forced to vote or demeaned for not liking their options. I believe that reasonable compromise is hugely undervalued for many of today's 'with us or agin' us' people. 

However, belittling someone for not liking their options is very much a 'join us or else' attitude. Canadians didn't die to force people to hold their nose and vote, so don't abuse a very basic act of freedom to hold down someone who disagrees with the politcal options available.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

would be interesting to see if elections canada would make a change to not recognize an election in which more people didn't vote for anyone than did vote for someone
so if your local MP got 35% of the vote, but 40% didn't vote the MP would not be recognized
now THAT would certainly get the wanna be politicians and their machinery to get out the vote

that riding would then not send an MP to ottawa
there really should be an option for "none of the above"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> there really should be an option for "none of the above"


We disagree on so much, but not this. I've supported this before and will again.

That option would allow people to show their desire to vote and displeasure with the options, without being lumped in with those who couldn't figure out the very basic 'X' system of Canadian voting.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i still think it woudl be a good idea that an elected official MUST get more votes than those that didn't vote

that sounds fair
[makes note to contact elections canada]


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Nothing like spending 30 seconds with google.
There is such a thing as a "declined ballot" - different from a "spoiled ballot" and treated differently, but only for provincial elections, not federal ones.
Here is the word from election officials:


> The option of having your ballot recorded as declined in the official poll record is only available in provincial elections.
> 
> Under the Ontario Elections Act, when a voter tells a polling station worker that he or she wants to decline a ballot, that is written on the ballot and recorded in the official poll record.
> 
> ...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Beej said:


> No one should ever be forced to vote or demeaned for not liking their options. I believe that reasonable compromise is hugely undervalued for many of today's 'with us or agin' us' people.
> 
> However, belittling someone for not liking their options is very much a 'join us or else' attitude. Canadians didn't die to force people to hold their nose and vote, so don't abuse a very basic act of freedom to hold down someone who disagrees with the politcal options available.


 If I came across as "join us or else attitude" or as a "with us or agin' us" person I am sorry if my message got lost. 

My message is; DO Something constructive. 

Pi$$ing and moaning I don't like my choice of people on the ballot is, IMO, pretty lame.

I offered you can change the law. That is an action that would validate the declining of the ballot. I personally do not advocate said action but I can respect someone's effort.

I have a hard time respecting those that don't vote because of the people offering.

The only action presently, in a Federal Election, that legally declines a ballot is to stay away from the polls. However that option, which I pointed out, looks like apathy. 

IMO voting is too important and as I pointed out voting was sustained for us at great cost. IMO it is disrespectful to those who fought and to the memory of those who died protecting our democratic system, our rights and our freedoms.

Spoiling a ballot or declining to vote has accomplished what? Whether you're * with me or "agin'" me*, in reality, you ended up voting with the majority in your riding that's what!

And in this case at hand remember who the rejected ballot favoured? Could someone say "cosmic justice." hummmm


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

BigDL said:


> IMO voting is too important and as I pointed out voting was sustained for us at great cost. IMO it is disrespectful to those who fought and to the memory of those who died protecting our democratic system, our rights and our freedoms.


Well, the sacrifice of others if used to back up too much. The right to pick an option or pick no option is, in my mind, equally valid. I don't think ignoring the need for compromise is particularly mature, but that is very different from using 'they died for us' arguments against those who don't. We differ, more power to you.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Solution: Register as an option, and get your name on the ballot. Vote for yourself.





NBiBooker said:


> Isn't there a cost to register? Also, don't you have to get a nomination list or some jazz? Sounds like a lot of work to voice one's frustration on voting day.


Nobody ever said democracy was easy or cheap.

If you wait until election day to vote your frustration, you've waited too long. The campaign was 77 days long.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> The I'm all for amending the act to make it unlawful to willfully cause a ballot to become spoiled.


You're a bully. That's exactly what Canada needs: an even less responsive voting process. Perhaps you'd like to recommend armed guards at every polling station to mete out punishment on the spot?

The head of Elections Canada has recommended that the voting process allow for declined votes. I'm simply giving him more ammunition to push for the change. 

link: http://www.elections.ca/content.asp...=rep/r37&lang=e&anchor=2.2&textonly=false#2.2

*1.2.2 Option to Decline Ballot

There is a growing perception among some of Canada’s electorate that there should be a way in which an elector can register his or her dissatisfaction with the political process by declining his or her ballot. The Canada Elections Act currently does not provide any authority for that to be done.17

In order to remain vital and meaningful, the vote must remain responsive to the needs of all Canadians. The time may have come to allow an elector a formal means of expressing dissatisfaction with the political system in a manner that is not only peaceful, but is meaningful as well. Such a change at the federal level would mirror similar innovations that have taken place in a number of provinces: Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and the Yukon – all of which have provisions in their electoral statutes for ballots to be declined and of which Manitoba’s may serve as a model.18

Recommendation: The Canada Elections Act should be amended to provide for the means for a ballot to be declined, recorded and reported as such in the official ballot results and which respects the principle of the secrecy of the vote.*

Why didn't the governing Liberals change the law to meet Elections Canada's recommendation? Maybe because the current system *already* benefits them unfairly? (duh!!!)


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Solution: Register as an option, and get your name on the ballot. Vote for yourself.


Gimme a break! Not everyone can quit their job to run for office. (I am a federal employee, so I cannot do both.)

Can you imagine someone saying: "Don't like the medical system? Then become a doctor yourself!" Consider similar questions about lawyers, police officers, real estate agents, and you quickly see the absurdity of the recommendation.

The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has recommended the system be changed. I am giving him everything I can - *my only vote* - if he needs supporting evidence in a future submission to our government. 

Don't lecture me on "whining" or "pissing and moaning" when I made a tremendous peace-time sacrifice. Far from "wasting my ballot," I did the most constructive thing I could do with it.

Voting for the "least offensive" candidate is an offense against democracy itself. 

I couldn't vote Liberal: they needed to be punished for their fear-mongering campaign, for their arrogance, and for their corruption. Mr Martin, can you say "flags of convienience?" I would never vote for a man who runs his own company like that. I could never vote for a party that thinks Martin is either ethical or a patriot.

I couldn't vote Conservative: they put ZERO interest into my riding. They sent out ONE pamphlet to my door the day before the election. They didn't even have a scrutineer at my polling station. If they don't bother to campaign in my riding, how can I expect them to represent me in Ottawa?

I couldn't vote NDP or Green or anything else. I actually have political beliefs that I won't betray.

Enough's enough.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Tel me who would care if you declined your ballot.

Do you think any of the major political parties would?

Do you think they will dramatically alter their platforms to meet your agenda?



lpkmckenna said:


> I actually have political beliefs that I won't betray.


Does that mean you would never vote for a candidate unless they met your exacting criteria of an ideal representative.

Or do you even care about the local candidate? Are you more interested in the political party?



lpkmckenna said:


> I couldn't vote Liberal...I couldn't vote Conservative:...I couldn't vote NDP or Green or anything else.


It sounds like no political party can meet your expectation. 



lpkmckenna said:


> I couldn't vote Conservative: they put ZERO interest into my riding. They sent out ONE pamphlet to my door the day before the election. They didn't even have a scrutineer at my polling station. If they don't bother to campaign in my riding, how can I expect them to represent me in Ottawa?


Do you know the reasons yours local Conservative candidate didn't get to your door? Maybe he was as fed up with the system as you where. Maybe he scrounged together a few dollars to put his name on the ballot. Maybe all he could really afford was one flyer in your mailbox. Maybe it's not the politicians job to sell themselves to you. Maybe it's your job to analyze all the candidates and choose the best one for the job.

Voting isn't about what party has the flashiest slogan or the biggest signs. It's about who will do the best job. You are the job interviewer. They are the interviewees. If you didn't like any of the resumes on your desk, you needed to actively get out there and find the best person for the job.

Like it or not, somebody is getting the job. Throwing up your arms and saying all the candidates are crap is a cop-out. "None Of The Above" is a cop-out as well. It's the lazy-man's choice for not doing anything about it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i reiterate that if the none of the above got the most votes no MP should go to Ottawa
perhaps that might train politicians to think more of the people they represent

with voter turnount declining it's a symptom of disbelief in our political system and by extension somewhat our version of democracy

i am sure the political parties don't want to be "party" to this


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You want to me to believe you made an intelligent choice by declining this vote? Tell me what was wrong with every single candidate in your riding.

Thom Chapman (Green Party of Canada)
Olivia Chow (New Democratic Party)
Sam Goldstein (Conservative Party of Canada) 
Asif Hossain (Progressive Canadian Party) 
Tony Ianno (Liberal Party of Canada) 
Nick Lin (Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada) 
John Riddell (Canadian Action Party)


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i reiterate that if the none of the above got the most votes no MP should go to Ottawa


So do we run a government with no local representation?

This is absolutely absurd. We live in the MTV society, where everyone has to be spoon-fed opinions. If it isn't on special, with big golden arches, with a kiddie toy in the bag, it probably isn't good enough.

How do you expect an independent candidate, with solid ideas and ideals, and a low budget to ever get to Ottawa?

What would this country do under your system if "None Of The Above" won in every riding? Who runs the country?

Maybe we could just waste a few million more dollars hoping for a better result.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Tel me who would care if you declined your ballot.


Uh, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada does.



guytoronto said:


> Do you think any of the major political parties would?


I can't read their minds. Can you?



guytoronto said:


> Do you think they will dramatically alter their platforms to meet your agenda?


All I want is corruption-free and some local interest. Hardly "dramatic."



guytoronto said:


> Does that mean you would never vote for a candidate unless they met your exacting criteria of an ideal representative.


Not ideal. Corruption-free and local interest. That's not "ideal." That's a barely acceptable minimum.



guytoronto said:


> Or do you even care about the local candidate? Are you more interested in the political party?


I care about both. This is not an either/or circumstance.



guytoronto said:


> It sounds like no political party can meet your expectation.


Not lately, which is sad considering how little I expect.



guytoronto said:


> Do you know the reasons yours local Conservative candidate didn't get to your door? Maybe he was as fed up with the system as you where. Maybe he scrounged together a few dollars to put his name on the ballot. Maybe all he could really afford was one flyer in your mailbox. Maybe it's not the politicians job to sell themselves to you. Maybe it's your job to analyze all the candidates and choose the best one for the job.


Maybe you're really reaching. Maybe you like making excuses for the Tories. Maybe it will rain tomorrow. Maybe pink unicorns live on the third moon of Jupiter. Who can really say? 



guytoronto said:


> Voting isn't about what party has the flashiest slogan or the biggest signs.


Didn't say it was. I hate campaign signs and slogans.



guytoronto said:


> It's about who will do the best job. You are the job interviewer. They are the interviewees. If you didn't like any of the resumes on your desk, you needed to actively get out there and find the best person for the job.


Your "analogy" is high non-analogous. By the time I identified the ineptitude of the available applicants it was too late to have more sign up.



guytoronto said:


> Like it or not, somebody is getting the job. Throwing up your arms and saying all the candidates are crap is a cop-out. "None Of The Above" is a cop-out as well. It's the lazy-man's choice for not doing anything about it.


I didn't throw up my arms. I made the best possible contribution to the electoral system as a whole, as opposed to spiting in my own face. And blindly defending the system as you do is the cop-out.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> I didn't throw up my arms. I made the best possible contribution to the electoral system as a whole, as opposed to spiting in my own face. And blindly defending the system as you do is the cop-out.


I don't blindly defend our system. There where decent candidates in all the ridings.

You say you made the best possible contribution by writing "DECLINE" on a ballot.

I would like to know if you personally spoke to any of the candidates in your riding, or stepped into any of the riding offices.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i reiterate that if the none of the above got the most votes no MP should go to Ottawa
> perhaps that might train politicians to think more of the people they represent


Interesting idea.
With that approach we would have a 121 member parliament and neither Paul Martin nor Jack Layton would have made it.
24 Bloc
54 Cons
37 Lib
6 NDP
With the help of Excel, here is the list of the 121 members sorted by party - last number is the percentage of votes.
Looked good on the spreadsheet 

Asselin	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	18506	51
Bachand	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	28070	54
Bigras	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	29336	56
Bourgeois	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	30197	59.2
Cardin	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	27185	52.2
CrÍte	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	24057	52.4
Deschamps	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	28207	53.8
Duceppe	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	26773	54.7
Freeman	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	28274	51.4
Gaudet	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	34873	62.2
Guay	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	27789	59.1
Laframboise	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	27760	52
Lalonde	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	29368	60.5
LavallÈe	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	26509	50.3
Lemay	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	24637	52.3
Lessard	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	33703	54.6
Loubier	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	27838	56	
Malo	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	30250	57.4	
MÈnard	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	27638	50.9	
Paquette	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	28630	54	
Perron	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	26272	53.9	
Plamondon	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	27742	55.9	
Sauvageau	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	34960	62.4	
St-Hilaire	Bloc QuÈbÈcois	27425	55.2	
Abbott	Conservative	22171	54.3	
Ablonczy	Conservative	37815	68.5	
Ambrose	Conservative	38826	66.8	
Anders	Conservative	38120	58.8	
Anderson	Conservative	19935	66.5	
Benoit	Conservative	37934	74.2	
Bernier	Conservative	36915	67	
Blackburn	Conservative	27262	51.9	
Breitkreuz	Conservative	20736	63.5
Brown	Conservative	28462	54.6
Calkins	Conservative	35846	75.2
Casey	Conservative	22439	52
Casson	Conservative	35060	67.3
Chong	Conservative	27907	50.7
Day	Conservative	25278	50.2
Epp	Conservative	34740	64
Fast	Conservative	29830	63.3
Fitzpatrick	Conservative	17271	54.4
Gallant	Conservative	29992	57.7
Goldring	Conservative	25086	50.1
Gourde	Conservative	28236	54.3
Hanger	Conservative	27169	64.9
Harper	Conservative	41549	72.4
Hill	Conservative	22412	59.9
Jean	Conservative	20400	64.7
Kenney	Conservative	44987	75.2
Komarnicki	Conservative	19158	62.4
Lake	Conservative	27191	58.6
Lauzon	Conservative	28014	54.7
Manning	Conservative	18996	51.6
Mark	Conservative	20084	59.1
Menzies	Conservative	37534	75.5
Merrifield	Conservative	30643	71.2
Mills	Conservative	38385	75.7
Obhrai	Conservative	26766	67.1
O'Connor	Conservative	38790	56
Pallister	Conservative	25719	69.8
Poilievre	Conservative	39512	55
Prentice	Conservative	31048	55.9
Rajotte	Conservative	33764	60.5
Reid	Conservative	30367	51.1	
Richardson	Conservative	30213	55.4	
Ritz	Conservative	16491	54	
Solberg	Conservative	35844	79.7	
Sorenson	Conservative	43210	82.6	
Storseth	Conservative	29698	68.2	
Strahl	Conservative	26842	56	
Thompson	Conservative	18155	54.8	
Toews	Conservative	25198	65.7	
Tweed	Conservative	20181	54.4	
Verner	Conservative	28606	57.7	
Warawa	Conservative	28577	52.6	
Warkentin	Conservative	27785	57	
Williams	Conservative	34993	59.7	
Bains	Liberal	27409	54	
Bennett	Liberal	29295	50.3	
Bevilacqua	Liberal	36925	59.5
Byrne	Liberal	17196	52.9
Cannis	Liberal	23332	55.4
Cotler	Liberal	22457	65.3
Cullen	Liberal	22195	61.6
Cuzner	Liberal	21424	53.2
Dion	Liberal	25412	59.8
Dryden	Liberal	22468	52.7
Easter	Liberal	9679	50.2
Godfrey	Liberal	28709	53.4
Goodale	Liberal	20666	51.8
Graham	Liberal	30874	52.2
Guarnieri	Liberal	23530	51.7
Kadis	Liberal	29934	53.1
Karygiannis	Liberal	28099	62.7
Lee	Liberal	30281	65.6
MacAulay	Liberal	11542	56.2
Malhi	Liberal	25349	50.7
McCallum	Liberal	32769	61.9
McGuire	Liberal	10287	53.2
McKay	Liberal	21875	53.3
McTeague	Liberal	27720	52.5
Murphy	Liberal	9586	50.2
Pacetti	Liberal	23705	57.2
Patry	Liberal	24433	51.1
Peterson	Liberal	30713	55.3
Ratansi	Liberal	23514	54
Russell	Liberal	5737	50.2
Sgro	Liberal	21418	63.8
Silva	Liberal	20172	51.9
Simms	Liberal	19853	52
Tonks	Liberal	22871	57.1
Volpe	Liberal	26041	52	
Wilfert	Liberal	27906	53.7	
Wrzesnewskyj	Liberal	29255	52.2	
Angus	N.D.P.	19195	50.6	
Blaikie	N.D.P.	16967	50.8	
Christopherson	N.D.P.	24503	51.3	
Davies	N.D.P.	23927	56.6	
Stoffer	N.D.P.	22848	52.9	
Wasylycia-Leis	N.D.P.	15582	57.2


----------



## med8or (Jan 18, 2002)

Not to beat a dead horse....

It was interesting that you actually took a picture of your ballot. That too is a federal offense...just an fyi. Not judging intentions at all.

Although I can understand being frustrated with not having anyone that you support, I am of the belief that we need to go with the system we have, and make changes from within to reflect society's views.

Elections Canada do recognize the need for determining "declined ballots" and have given this issue to parliament to deal with. I'd suspect it will be changed...probably before the next election.

Now we know that "refused" ballots aren't tracked in federal elections (some provincial), and really only spoiled ballots are tracked. I don't totally understand what one hopes to accomplish by intentionally spoiling the ballot? (This is an honest question that I just hope to understand better). Is the hope that a whole bunch of counters are going to "unofficially" report to the chief electoral officer that they guess they had X% spoiled in protest? Is the hope that these acts eventually are mentioned to those who actually make the rules/laws? On this arguement, I'd say...Elections Canada already agrees with you...they have made the case in a report submitted.

Or, is it more psychological? Is it more to just make the person who is protesting (though I wouldn't really call it this) feel they have done something to "fight the power?" Is it to gain a sense of control or power?

As I said above, I believe in fixing the system from within....or at least trying before resorting to more desperate measures. In my opinion, all too often, many people want the quick fix or quick solution. 'I'm annoyed at my options, I'm going to spoil my ballot'-type attitude.

I'd ask those same people though, how many have:

Talked to their local representative. How often?
How many of the non-governing party candidates did you talk to?
How have you participated in changing the options on your ballot? Have you thought of running?
How long have you spent to get informed on all positions of each party?

Democracy is something that I hold very close. It is one of those things that we truly don't appreciate until we don't have it any more. I would disagree with the person that said that being forced to pick a candidate regardless of your support is not democratic. In my opinion, that's just an easy way out, looking for the quick fix and not addressing the bigger picture.

Just my rant for a Tuesday. J


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

med8or said:


> I'd ask those same people though, how many have:
> 
> Talked to their local representative. How often?
> How many of the non-governing party candidates did you talk to?
> ...


Good questions. I have a feeling that the most people do to get involved is watch the 6 o'clock news and make a decision based on what they see there.

Some people only vote for the political party their parents voted for. They don't even care about the issues. Liberals for life. NDP for life. Conservative for life.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Good questions. I have a feeling that the most people do to get involved is watch the 6 o'clock news and make a decision based on what they see there.
> 
> Some people only vote for the political party their parents voted for. They don't even care about the issues. Liberals for life. NDP for life. Conservative for life.


Maybe their priorities aren't yours. We all seem pretty political here, but that doesn't give us more say. If people aren't spending more time getting 'informed':

1) What can we do to change it.
2) Is it inherently wrong? ie. is 1 hours per election ok, or 10, or 1000? Let people set their own priorities, but do things to make more informed participation more interesting. However, nothing makes more time devoted to more politics inherently virtuous.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> You want to me to believe you made an intelligent choice by declining this vote? Tell me what was wrong with every single candidate in your riding.


Before I answer this, I want to award you with the "most likely to make unreasonable demands" trophy.

Thom Chapman (Green Party of Canada)
We don't need a "green party" anymore than we need a free speech party or an abortion-rights party or a mission-to-Mars party.

Olivia Chow (New Democratic Party)
Officially the least charismatic member of the new House of Commons. It's like listening to your grandmother complain about every ache'n'pain since the fourth grade. And I thought Manning was hard to listen to.

Sam Goldstein (Conservative Party of Canada)
Officially the most invisible candidate in T.O. I suspect he was really a Photoshop mock-up.

Asif Hossain (Progressive Canadian Party) 
I don't know who this guy is, but here is a cut'n'paste from leader Tracy Parsons' own writing: "We promised we wouldn’t give up on Education. I want to see that everyone who merit’s a university degree, gets one. Let’s make education accessible. " I'm not kidding. link: http://www.progressivecanadian.org/docs/TracyParsonsFirstDayasPMfromCBCProgramTheHouseJan7.doc 

Tony Ianno (Liberal Party of Canada) 
Tony could be the nicest guy in Toronto. Too bad he ran for the Liberals.

Nick Lin (Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada) 
Words escape me.

John Riddell (Canadian Action Party)
Here's a quote from the CAP page: "What makes CAP different from all other parties is that we would use the Bank of Canada to finance full employment. We would increase spending and cut taxes enough to achieve a growth rate between 4 % and 5 % for four or five years until there are jobs for all." Gee, that sounds responsible.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

med8or said:


> Not to beat a dead horse....


...but you will anyway.



med8or said:


> It was interesting that you actually took a picture of your ballot. That too is a federal offense...just an fyi. Not judging intentions at all.


By a literal reading of the law, it is only illegal to display your ballot in the polling station.



med8or said:


> Although I can understand being frustrated with not having anyone that you support, I am of the belief that we need to go with the system we have, and make changes from within to reflect society's views.


I agree completely. I am acting within the system. What's your complaint?



med8or said:


> Elections Canada do recognize the need for determining "declined ballots" and have given this issue to parliament to deal with. I'd suspect it will be changed...probably before the next election.


So says your magic ball. I can only hope so. We've only been waiting 12 years.



med8or said:


> I don't totally understand what one hopes to accomplish by intentionally spoiling the ballot? (This is an honest question that I just hope to understand better).


Go back and read what I wrote. I explain it thoroughly.



med8or said:


> Is the hope that a whole bunch of counters are going to "unofficially" report to the chief electoral officer that they guess they had X% spoiled in protest?


Yes, they actually count the valid ballots, the spoiled ballots (not what I did), and the rejected ballots (what I did). 



med8or said:


> Or, is it more psychological? Is it more to just make the person who is protesting (though I wouldn't really call it this) feel they have done something to "fight the power?" Is it to gain a sense of control or power?


I have given my motivation. Do not presume to psychoanalyze people you've never even met. Would you diagnose a heart murmur or a torn ligament without 1) medical training, 2) meeting the patient, or 3) listening to what he has to say before putting words in his mouth? Psycho-babble like this doesn't belong in a political discussion.



med8or said:


> As I said above, I believe in fixing the system from within....or at least trying before resorting to more desperate measures. In my opinion, all too often, many people want the quick fix or quick solution. 'I'm annoyed at my options, I'm going to spoil my ballot'-type attitude.


Did you even read what I've said? I haven't done anything "desperate" or suggested a "quick fix." And I didn't spoil my ballot. Go back and read what I actually wrote.



med8or said:


> I'd ask those same people though, how many have:
> 
> Talked to their local representative. How often?


You mean I have to met them *more than once*?



med8or said:


> How many of the non-governing party candidates did you talk to?


They gotta come to my door, first. I hope they don't sit in their campaign office waiting for me to come visit them.



med8or said:


> How have you participated in changing the options on your ballot? Have you thought of running?


I already answered that question. Go back and read it.  



med8or said:


> How long have you spent to get informed on all positions of each party?


Why is this relevent? Time is not a determinant of anything. I followed the campaign, I read the party platforms, I talked with the door-to-door volunteers.



med8or said:


> Democracy is something that I hold very close.


Gee, I thought I was the only one! 



med8or said:


> I would disagree with the person that said that being forced to pick a candidate regardless of your support is not democratic. In my opinion, that's just an easy way out, looking for the quick fix and not addressing the bigger picture.


And you would be mistaken. 

All I am asking for is the right to DECLINE my ballot, just the same as I can do in an Ontario election. If you were to actually read thru the discussion (after you diligently visited your MP, MPP, all the other candidates, and did so *several times!*) you might notice that I answered your questions long before you came into the discussion.

I'm sorry. You never came into the discussion. You just showed up and started talking.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beej said:


> Let people set their own priorities, but do things to make more informed participation more interesting. However, nothing makes more time devoted to more politics inherently virtuous.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

When I was thinking about spoiling my ballot (for a short while) I was going to write "God help Canada" across mine.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

sketch said:


> When I was thinking about spoiling my ballot (for a short while) I was going to write "God help Canada" across mine.


And now He will. Didn't you hear, the Conservatives won!


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> And now He will. Didn't you hear, the Conservatives won!


Beej, Beej, Beej 

:lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Beej, Beej, Beej
> 
> :lmao:



Sorry. 

Correction: And now It/She/He/Shim will.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Correction: And now It/She/He/Shim will.



shim Audio pronunciation of "shim" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shm)
n.
A thin, often tapered piece of material, such as wood, stone, or metal, used to fill gaps, make something level, or adjust something to fit properly.

tr.v. shimmed, shim·ming, shims
To fill in, level, or adjust by using shims or a shim.

hmmmmm, naw, it couldn't be..... could it?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Correction: And now It/She/He/Shim will.


MUCH better, thank you!


----------



## med8or (Jan 18, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> You never came into the discussion. You just showed up and started talking.


Whoa. I preceive your response to be very adverserial and I'm not entirely sure why? If mine appeared that way to you, then my apologies. I feel I was asking for clarification, which obviously I didn't not have? My intention was to provide a "perspective," which is the purpose of a "discussion board".

I have no intention of replying to your comments, because frankly, I don't think feel they were made in the spirit of discussion, but more to attack. Again, my perspective.

No hard feelings.

J


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

med8or said:


> Whoa. I preceive your response to be very adverserial and I'm not entirely sure why? If mine appeared that way to you, then my apologies. I feel I was asking for clarification, which obviously I didn't not have? My intention was to provide a "perspective," which is the purpose of a "discussion board".
> 
> I have no intention of replying to your comments, because frankly, I don't think feel they were made in the spirit of discussion, but more to attack. Again, my perspective.
> 
> ...


Are you kidding? You accused me of a federal crime, psychoanalyzed my motivates, called my actions "desperate", expected that I personally meet each candidate or run for office myself - all because you think rejecting a ballot is "just an easy way out, looking for the quick fix and not addressing the bigger picture."

And that isn't supposed to hurt my feelings? That's not an attack?

And you mediate workplace disputes? Do you pull those kind of stunts on the job, too?

The bigger picture is: the candidates of my riding stank. Don't ask me to choose between sticking a fork in my eye versus sticking it in my ear. All I expect is the right to decline my ballot, just like in Ontario elections, to register my diappointment in politics. Hardly desperate or illegal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> All I expect is the right to decline my ballot, just like in Ontario elections, to register my diappointment in politics.


I've supported this before and will again: I want to have the choice of voting 'none of the above' to signal to political parties that I'm willing to vote and interested in voting, but that they aren't appealing. If enough people do this in a riding, would-be politicians will respond. Right now the data doesn't tell this story so they don't know if it's worth responding to.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

People do have the right to decline their ballot. It's called not showing up to the polls.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> People do have the right to decline their ballot. It's called not showing up to the polls.


That does not give candidates the same information to choose how to appeal to voters. It lumps in the people who choose not to vote (and weren't able to vote for various reasons) with those who chose to vote, but weren't impressed by their options. Different political implications, different political responses when in sufficient numbers.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> People do have the right to decline their ballot. It's called not showing up to the polls.


Your "solution" means there is no way to know how many non-voters were frustrated by poor choices and how are many are just politically apathetic.

I don't know what's wrong with you, guytoronto. You make it seem like you will somehow be harmed or bothered by ballot declining. You're on record for having said that those who reject ballots should be charged with a crime. Why? Are we hurting you in some fashion?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> I don't know what's wrong with you, guytoronto. You make it seem like you will somehow be harmed or bothered by ballot declining. You're on record for having said that those who reject ballots should be charged with a crime. Why? Are we hurting you in some fashion?


Absolutely I have a problem with declining a ballot. It means you have enough time to get out to a polling station, but you don't make enough time to actually decide who is going to run this country.

Let me repeat that. Decide who is going to run this country.

Declining a ballot does not help decide who is going to run this country.

An election is held for the purpose of deciding who is going to run this country.

If you don't vote, for whatever reason, you let others decide who is going to run this country.

If you decline your ballot, you are letting others decide who is going to run this country.

Therefore, declining your ballot has the EXACT same effect on the final outcome as though if you didn't vote at all.

Quit your whining, snivelling, "none of the candidates are good enough", "this party or that party needs to be taught a lesson", "I didn't get enough flyers in my mail box" whining, and actually step up and help decide who is going to run this country.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Absolutely I have a problem with declining a ballot. It means you have enough time to get out to a polling station, but you don't make enough time to actually decide who is going to run this country.
> 
> Quit your whining, snivelling, "none of the candidates are good enough", "this party or that party needs to be taught a lesson", "I didn't get enough flyers in my mail box" whining, and actually step up and help decide who is going to run this country.


You are so short-sighted.

A public display of dissatisfaction will have a much stronger effect on the parties than showing up and voting "Marxist-Leninist" or something. And, it doesn't put tax dollars in the M-Ls pocket, either.

You say: "Declining a ballot does not help decide who is going to run this country." Neither does staying home. Neither does voting Green or M-L. So are those all illegitimate options, too? Do you want to stop me from doing those things, too?

You say: "Therefore, declining your ballot has the EXACT same effect on the final outcome as though if you didn't vote at all." Voting Green or Marxist would also have the EXACT same effect. _(Do you reflect on your words at all before you post?)_

You say: "If you don't vote, for whatever reason, you let others decide who is going to run this country." I had no intention of voting Liberal, that's for certain. I disagree with the NDP on almost every fiscal issue. But only the Libs or NDP had any chance of winning in my riding. So even voting Tory could not have had any affect on "who is going to run this country." And the Tories knew it too. So they didn't even bother to campaign.

Rejecting/declining my ballot said more than anything else could have: dissatisfaction with the parties, with their candidates, and with our undemocratic and unresponsive _first-past-the-post_ system (which I started another thread on).

And, as I said before, it gives the Chief Electoral Officer more ammunition for his next report. You might even say: _every rejected vote counts!_

You say "you don't make enough time to actually decide who is going to run this country." I spent plenty of time deciding what I wanted to do. You wouldn't know one way or the other, regardless. And I have spent plenty of time after the election telling people what I did and why. Sparking political debate among friends will have a greater effect on the future than telling them I threw my vote away on the _Canadian Action_ party, and then watching them roll their eyes.

And still, you haven't answered my question: what am I doing to you? Nothing. You just want to tell me how to vote. Sorry, not in this country.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> You say: "Declining a ballot does not help decide who is going to run this country." Neither does staying home. Neither does voting Green or M-L. So are those all illegitimate options, too? Do you want to stop me from doing those things, too?


I definitely don't want to force people to vote. If you just can't decide, let others decide for you. Just don't waste our time by showing up to accomplish nothing. Voting Green does help. Eventually the Green may get enough votes to put somebody in Ottawa. It takes time to build up a party.



lpkmckenna said:


> You say: "Therefore, declining your ballot has the EXACT same effect on the final outcome as though if you didn't vote at all." Voting Green or Marxist would also have the EXACT same effect. _(Do you reflect on your words at all before you post?)_


Green will eventually get a seat in Ottawa. Declined won't.



lpkmckenna said:


> You say: "If you don't vote, for whatever reason, you let others decide who is going to run this country." I had no intention of voting Liberal, that's for certain. I disagree with the NDP on almost every fiscal issue. But only the Libs or NDP had any chance of winning in my riding. So even voting Tory could not have had any affect on "who is going to run this country." And the Tories knew it too. So they didn't even bother to campaign.


Ok...and?



lpkmckenna said:


> Rejecting/declining my ballot said more than anything else could have: dissatisfaction with the parties, with their candidates, and with our undemocratic and unresponsive _first-past-the-post_ system (which I started another thread on).


And this helped us decide who is going to run our country how?



lpkmckenna said:


> And, as I said before, it gives the Chief Electoral Officer more ammunition for his next report. You might even say: _every rejected vote counts!_


Aahhh! Because reports help decide who is going to run our country.



lpkmckenna said:


> You say "you don't make enough time to actually decide who is going to run this country." I spent plenty of time deciding what I wanted to do. You wouldn't know one way or the other, regardless.


So, who did you vote for to run our country? Nobody?



lpkmckenna said:


> And I have spent plenty of time after the election telling people what I did and why. Sparking political debate among friends will have a greater effect on the future than telling them I threw my vote away on the _Canadian Action_ party, and then watching them roll their eyes.


Maybe one of them will step up to the plate, and run asa candidate. Start a little political campaign. Raise money. Raise awareness. Tackle the issues. Plant some signs on lawns. Stuff some mailboxes. Shake some hands. It's a lot more effective than debating the effectiveness of our government over a couple of beers.



lpkmckenna said:


> And still, you haven't answered my question: what am I doing to you? Nothing. You just want to tell me how to vote. Sorry, not in this country.


By you declining your ballot, you tell everyone who votes that none of the candidates are good enough. That's it. You don't offer alternatives. You don't offer solutions. People like that are called complainers. If you have a problem with the options, and don't offer an alternative, that is complaining. "Declined" isn't an alternative to the candidates because "Declined" can't go to Ottawa and run this country.

You are a complainer. Complainers bug me. If you had actually voted for somebody, I would have accepted that. You have a different vision of how this country should be run. Fair enough, that's democracy. But you haven't offered an alternative.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Just don't waste our time by showing up to accomplish nothing.


Nobody is "wasting your time," except you.



guytoronto said:


> Maybe one of them will step up to the plate, and run asa candidate. Start a little political campaign. Raise money. Raise awareness. Tackle the issues. Plant some signs on lawns. Stuff some mailboxes. Shake some hands. It's a lot more effective than debating the effectiveness of our government over a couple of beers.


And if my buddy does those things, I might for him. It's more than what the Tories did in Trinity-Spadina.

But right now, I can't do those things, not even on a volunteer basis. There are laws restricting the political activities of members of the Canadian Forces. Debating the effectives of our gov't over beer is about all I can do.



guytoronto said:


> By you declining your ballot, you tell everyone who votes that none of the candidates are good enough. That's it. You don't offer alternatives. You don't offer solutions. People like that are called complainers. If you have a problem with the options, and don't offer an alternative, that is complaining. "Declined" isn't an alternative to the candidates because "Declined" can't go to Ottawa and run this country.


I have already answered this "question."



guytoronto said:


> You are a complainer. Complainers bug me.


Yes, they bug you so much you think they should be jailed, just for "bugging you." Anyone else bugging you deserve jail?



gaytoronto said:


> You have a different vision of how this country should be run. Fair enough, that's democracy. But you haven't offered an alternative.


Perhaps you would have prefered I scribble my own version of the "95 Theses" on my ballot?

Far from not offering an alternative: 
http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=36900
http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=36636
http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=35332

I'm done debating with you on this. Your position is clear: "Jail the complainers! They bug me!" I doubt anyone who adopts such a brazenly irrational opinion could be open to any amount of reasoning or common sense.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> And, as I said before, it gives the Chief Electoral Officer more ammunition for his next report. You might even say: every rejected vote counts!





guytoronto said:


> Aahhh! Because reports help decide who is going to run our country.


It helps more than jailing the complainers who bug you. tptptptp


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*On Your "declining" Position, I Agree*



lpkmckenna said:


> I doubt anyone who adopts such a brazenly irrational opinion could be open to any amount of reasoning or common sense.


you said it:baby:


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> No one should ever be forced to vote or demeaned for not liking their options. I believe that reasonable compromise is hugely undervalued for many of today's 'with us or agin' us' people.
> 
> However, belittling someone for not liking their options is very much a 'join us or else' attitude. Canadians didn't die to force people to hold their nose and vote, so don't abuse a very basic act of freedom to hold down someone who disagrees with the politcal options available.


Again with the misguided idea that Canadians get "forced" to do anything here. The truth is that no one in Canada is forced to do anything... no one "forces" you to vote... no one "forces" you to work where you don't want to... and I suppose no one can really "force" you not to spoil/reject a ballot however if you publicize what you've done you do leave yourself open to criticism.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Again with the misguided idea that Canadians get "forced" to do anything here. The truth is that no one in Canada is forced to do anything... no one "forces" you to vote... no one "forces" you to work where you don't want to... and I suppose no one can really "force" you not to spoil/reject a ballot however if you publicize what you've done you do leave yourself open to criticism.


Ok, technically, humans, being of free will, cannot be forced, without severe physical intervention, to do anything, anywhere, anytime. Our options can be unnecessarily limited. And technically, interacting with others in any way opens you up to criticism. Others don't have to be reasonable people. So now that we've explored every wrinkle in our navels, back to the complexities of reality:

If you want to give official voice to, "I am ready, willing and able to vote, but do not like the choices" how do you do that? A spoiled ballot signals something else, voting for a protest party signals something else...etc. It is very important that ballots allow voters to express their stance as accurately as possible so that politicians (current and would-be) can choose what to do. Our system 'forces' you to either not vote, spoil your ballot or hold your nose. So, no one strong-arms you into it, but by design the Federal system excludes a choice that some provincial systems allow (according to what I've read in this thread). 

Call it unnecessarily limiting your choices if you have philosophical problems with using the term 'force' too casually. I completely understand. I find some use terms like fascist, police state and totalitarian regime quite sloppily, but I have no problem using 'force' sloppily. Maybe I'll change, maybe not. Back to the navel.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Talking to a friend in the US just before our election... she tells me they are apparently allowed a "write in" on their ballots if the people listed don't suit them.

I'd rather see the possibly of "write in" winning a seat than "none of the above"...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Talking to a friend in the US just before our election... she tells me they are apparently allowed a "write in" on their ballots if the people listed don't suit them.
> 
> I'd rather see the possibly of "write in" winning a seat than "none of the above"...


That's a great idea. If you can't think of anyone, just put your own name on or somebody you respect. I'd be fine with that.


----------

