[RD] Do you feel your vote matters?

[Synobun]

I voted recently for the first time after having opted out of the past couple elections. My opting out was both due to distaste over the Anti-Harper rhetoric employed by the competing parties and due to a general lack of satisfaction over how politics are conducted in Canada.

With a local election, I decided to finally do it if only to not be dismissed when I complain about politics IRL. People are very big on saying your opinion means nothing if you do not actively participate in the process. I don't agree with this, but I can understand the viewpoint.

It has led me to wondering how satisfied people are with their vote. People are eager to claim the virtue of participating in a democracy but very rarely do I hear people say that they are personally satisfied with their vote. Lesser evil voting, voting for a party blindly, and simply doing your duty as a citizen are all commonly cited... but rarely is an actual sense of satisfaction pointed out as a reason for voting. Rarely (from what I see) are people happy or at least content with having voted.

Personally, I'm not satisfied with voting at all. It's not an experience that I enjoy and I don't enjoy the results of having voted.

So I turn to you, CFC. It does not matter if you live in America, or in Canada, or in Germany, or any other nation that holds elections.

Do you feel your vote matters? Are you satisfied with your vote? Why? Why not?

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Right now, outside of local elections, it doesn't much. It does count when it comes to civil matters, I guess, but that's really where the main difference between neo-Cons and neo-Libs ends. For the most part politicians on either side of the aisle are suckling off of too many donors to actually work for their constituents which has made democrats basically republicans that are cool with abortion and gay people. They both make very corporate and wealthy friendly policies and they both warmonger in excess which leads to decreased funds for infrastructure, education and healthcare. You know, the stuff that primarily helps the middle class and poor who control the vast majority of votes.

This is primarily the result of Citizen's United which basically legalizes bribery. Is it like that in Canada? I've watched more than one Canadian show with a dystopian future controlled by corporations, made me wonder. It's just so weird to be American and suddenly realize that not only are we not the greatest democracy anymore, we're not even top ten. Not only that but we're quickly moving towards being an oligarchy and not really a democracy at all anymore.

Anybody who'd like that to change should sign up for www.wolf-pac.com. They're pushing for an Article V convention that would allow the States to amend the constitution without needing congress. It's probably the only way we get much needed campaign finance reform.

 

[Synobun]

This is primarily the result of Citizen's United which basically legalizes bribery. Is it like that in Canada? I've watched more than one Canadian show with a dystopian future controlled by corporations, made me wonder. It's just so weird to be American and suddenly realize that not only are we not the greatest democracy anymore, we're not even top ten. Not only that but we're quickly moving towards being an oligarchy and not really a democracy at all anymore.

It is a "big" issue in the local election I just participated in. Both the Liberals and NDP receive significant funding from corporations and foreign interests. The Green party (the one I voted for) do not accept donations of that type and promise to reform how elections are done to prevent any party from 'enjoying' that benefit in the future.

I'm not sure it's as drastic as in the US, however. Someone more well-versed than me in the workings of Canadian politics would have better insight; I often tune out political data for my country due to my general belief of the futility of it all. Perhaps a bad decision in hindsight but it helps in avoiding burnout over wringing my wrists over things I cannot change.

 

[Zelig]

No, but I vote to shut people up with the boring line of "you don't get to complain if you haven't vote."

My direct relationships with politicians are orders of magnitude more important than my votes.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I voted recently for the first time after having opted out of the past couple elections. My opting out was both due to distaste over the Anti-Harper rhetoric employed by the competing parties and due to a general lack of satisfaction over how politics are conducted in Canada.

Exactly what "anti-Harper rhetoric" did you find distasteful? There's a reason Harper inspired several dozen protest songs (50, the last time I counted them on YouTube). Did you consider my "Keep Calm and Heave Steve" avatar distasteful?

I found those anti-Trudeau "nice hair" ads distasteful and really spiteful. I find the "part-time drama teacher who never held a real job/did a day's work in his life" comments that infest the CBC.ca comment boards to be beyond childish, and indicative of a pathological hatred of teachers, or possibly indicative of the asinine notion that teachers are just glorified babysitters. It's utterly mindboggling how insanely jealous some of those pro-Harper posters come across. It's not Trudeau's fault who his parents were, or that he inherited genes that give him a youthful appearance at age 45. He gets blamed for stuff that happened when he was a child!

I'm not a Trudeau supporter or Liberal supporter, but how can you not be disgusted by all the vicious attacks on Margaret Trudeau, knowing what we do now about her mental health issues (she has bipolar disorder, which is partly why she acted out as she did back in the 1970s and '80s; she hadn't been diagnosed then)?

I suggest you take a browse through some of the political articles on CBC.ca and as a thought experiment, apply CFC moderating standards (Viafoura is a joke, with unaccountable moderators who are wildly inconsistent with what they allow and what they pink). I wonder if you and I would agree on which ones to infract for trolling, spam, flaming, etc. Seeing one particular individual post "Liberals remain low-information electorate" at least 20 times on the same page would result in a spam infraction on most forums.

With a local election, I decided to finally do it if only to not be dismissed when I complain about politics IRL. People are very big on saying your opinion means nothing if you do not actively participate in the process. I don't agree with this, but I can understand the viewpoint.

It has led me to wondering how satisfied people are with their vote. People are eager to claim the virtue of participating in a democracy but very rarely do I hear people say that they are personally satisfied with their vote. Lesser evil voting, voting for a party blindly, and simply doing your duty as a citizen are all commonly cited... but rarely is an actual sense of satisfaction pointed out as a reason for voting. Rarely (from what I see) are people happy or at least content with having voted.

Personally, I'm not satisfied with voting at all. It's not an experience that I enjoy and I don't enjoy the results of having voted.

So I turn to you, CFC. It does not matter if you live in America, or in Canada, or in Germany, or any other nation that holds elections.

Do you feel your vote matters? Are you satisfied with your vote? Why? Why not?

In municipal elections, my vote matters occasionally. There's been the odd time when an aldermanic candidate I favored just barely squeaked by to win a seat. Sometimes it really does matter if one family stays home or if they go to the polling station.

Provincially, 2015 is the only time in my life when my vote was cast for the winning side. It was an amazing feeling to finally experience a real change in government.

Federally, the only way my vote ever mattered was when the parties received $ for each vote. Of course none of the candidates I voted for ever won or even had a chance. You could run a West Nile-infested mosquito in this riding under the Conservative banner (whether Progressive Conservative, Reform, Canadian Alliance, or CPC) and it would be elected over a human Liberal, NDP, Green, or independent.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Provincially, 2015 is the only time in my life when my vote was cast for the winning side. It was an amazing feeling to finally experience a real change in government.

Not that I'm a Conservative supporter by any means, but the Alberta economy is still reeling from that little exercise in democracy.

You could run a West Nile-infested mosquito in this riding under the Conservative banner (whether Progressive Conservative, Reform, Canadian Alliance, or CPC) and it would be elected over a human Liberal, NDP, Green, or independent.

Oh, so true. You could run a child molesting leper in a Red Deer riding and he would win if he was Conservative. Or maybe one of those Aryan nuts out in Caroline could come into town and run for the Cons. He'd win too. I've never understood why the good people of central Alberta are so blindly conservative. I guess they didn't get enough abuse at the hands of Harper to stop supporting fascism. Or maybe they are secret fascists themselves, I don't know. All I know is that politically, they make about as much sense as some of the patients in the mental hospital that I used to work at. I just enjoy living away from there now. I can have a political conversation and not fear of having my teeth knocked in. (And of course, I can hold my girlfriend's hand in public without having my teeth knocked in. But that's a subject for another thread entirely. )

 

[Commodore]

No, but I vote to shut people up with the boring line of "you don't get to complain if you haven't vote."

I hate it when people say that. Especially since it is quite the opposite. Those who don't vote are the only ones who have any legitimate right to complain.

 

[Synobun]

Exactly what "anti-Harper rhetoric" did you find distasteful? There's a reason Harper inspired several dozen protest songs (50, the last time I counted them on YouTube). Did you consider my "Keep Calm and Heave Steve" avatar distasteful?

I should have clarified, I guess. On an individual level, I'm fine with anti-Harper sentiment. My problem came with how the competing parties built their campaigns on "we're not Harper". Over the course of the campaign season it was difficult to pinpoint what each party's platform really was as everyone kept flip-flopping based on what the competitor was saying. Then, after all the finicky musical chairs, it essentially boiled down to "hey, at least we're not Harper!" which while true I found distasteful. It made it difficult to vote for a platform instead of a sentiment.

I'm not a fan of Harper but I'm also not a staunch resister to him either. I don't have a compelling reason to defend him in this argument, it's really just the principle that I'm opposed to. Any time when a campaign devolves to pointing at one's character instead of their policies it tends to rub me the wrong way, especially when you can point to the policies and be confident that it'll showcase how awful the person is for you. Beyond that, I prefer voting for a party based on what they are instead of what they aren't and the previous federal election made that close to impossible. There wasn't a moment, not even at the very end, where I felt I knew what I was voting for if I picked Liberals or NDP.

When Trudeau was elected I was somewhat content with that as he promised electoral reform but have since been disappointed by the Liberals' eagerness to simply drop that quietly while slipping out the back door. I'm happy about legalization of marijuana as that route is seemingly going to be the only one available for pain management and nausea for me and I'm operating in a medical system that frowns heavily on any sort of marijuana intake, even just CBD (which is really all I want). Besides those two points I don't have much of an investment in the current federal politics situation... I expect that to change dramatically when the next election comes around and it's less "Heave Steve" and more platform-oriented (I hope).

The character attacks against Trudeau and his family, as you mention, are unacceptable. But I feel the same way about those insulting Trump as well (he has tiny hands and bad hair!). I find the whole "insulting their appearance or character" schpiel in politics to be rather inane. I opt out whenever possible when I'm involved in a conversation that goes down that path. Most of it is woefully disrespectful or at the very least completely irrelevant to what's actually important.

Federally, the only way my vote ever mattered was when the parties received $ for each vote. Of course none of the candidates I voted for ever won or even had a chance. You could run a West Nile-infested mosquito in this riding under the Conservative banner (whether Progressive Conservative, Reform, Canadian Alliance, or CPC) and it would be elected over a human Liberal, NDP, Green, or independent.

The conservatives are a dead party here in BC, with the vote split between the Liberals, NDP, and Greens. It is an odd scenario in the upcoming election where the Green party is projected to have over 20% of the vote yet will only be afforded 3 seats. To compare, the Liberals are expected to have 38% of the vote (38 seats) and the NDP with 39.7% of the vote (46 seats) [source].

I voted for the Green party as they have the least involvement in character assassination right now (the NDP is running on a strong "hey, at least we're not Christy Clark!" campaign) and the best platform. They only received 7% of the vote in my ridership during the last election so I don't expect my vote to mean much.

 

[Arwon]

Voting here is, as is good and proper, compulsory.

This is really a mathematical question, not a feelings based one. I'll answer accordingly.

At a Territory level we have five member Single Transferrable Vote electorates so my vote absolutely counts at the margins and in preferences.

This time around, it wasn't quite enough to get the Greens candidate up over the third Labor candidates but it did therefore get the Labor Party over the Liberals for that seat.

At a federal level I live in the most underfranchised part of the country. As a territory and not a State, we only get two senators and two House of Representatives members (Tasmania has 12 and 5 like the bigger states but barely has more people than us).

Both House seats are safe Labor seats, so all my Greens vote does is contribute to their public funding and my preference contributes to Labor's two-party-preferred margin against the Liberals.

The House of Representatives is single member districts, so most of the time most people's votes don't matter unless they're in a swing seat. However in the ACT live in electorates that are massively oversubscribed compared to the rest of the country (130k vs 90k) so Canberra voters are extra underrepresented in that sense. If we instead had 3 seats of 85k each, and our votere weren't underrepresented, Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't have a majority government right now.

In the Senate, anywhere else in the country my vote would matter like it does in Territory elections. The system is, again, Single Transferable Vote. States elect six Senators at a time so the quota is 14%. This means every vote counts as the last couple of seats depend on preferences.

However in the ACT with two Senators the quota is 33%. Both major parties get a third of the vote (the Liberals only just). Even if the Liberals dropped below quota, preferences would get them home. So in practice our two Senators are completely safe and my Senate vote doesn't matter much.

 

[Evie]

Not that I'm a Conservative supporter by any means, but the Alberta economy is still reeling from that little exercise in democracy.

More like it's reeling from Saudi Arabia deliberately crashing the oil market, in large parts to drive the tar sands out of business. Only so much a provincial govt can do when that is going on.

I used to feel like my vote didn't matter. The last few elections across the board have reminded me that just because it's possible my vote doesn't matter, doesn,t mean it won't. In a system like Canada, even the US, all it takes is one supposedly safe province/state flipping to change the game - and the margin between flipping and not flipping is often not so great as people think.

 

[Hygro]

Not that I'm a Conservative supporter by any means, but the Alberta economy is still reeling from that little exercise in democracy.

What does this mean? Oda's response makes it seem like this issue wouldn't be explained by local politics.

 

[civver_764]

In the previous years I would have said "no, voting is a waste of time", but I did actually vote in the 2016 election. I didn't vote for president, but there were some referendums in the state of California that I enjoyed voting for (namely the legalization of marijuana). I don't know how I feel about elections at the Federal level, but as I get older I see participation in local referendums at least as something valuable.

 

[Synobun]

Voting here is, as is good and proper, compulsory.

This is really a mathematical question, not a feelings based one. I'll answer accordingly.

At a Territory level we have five member Single Transferrable Vote electorates so my vote absolutely counts at the margins and in preferences.

This time around, it wasn't quite enough to get the Greens candidate up over the third Labor candidates but it did therefore get the Labor Party over the Liberals for that seat.

At a federal level I live in the most underfranchised part of the country. As a territory and not a State, we only get two senators and two House of Representatives members (Tasmania has 12 and 5 like the bigger states but barely has more people than us).

Both House seats are safe Labor seats, so all my Greens vote does is contribute to their public funding and my preference contributes to Labor's two-party-preferred margin against the Liberals.

The House of Representatives is single member districts, so most of the time most people's votes don't matter unless they're in a swing seat. However in the ACT live in electorates that are massively oversubscribed compared to the rest of the country (130k vs 90k) so Canberra voters are extra underrepresented in that sense. If we instead had 3 seats of 85k each, and our votere weren't underrepresented, Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't have a majority government right now.

In the Senate, anywhere else in the country my vote would matter like it does in Territory elections. The system is, again, Single Transferable Vote. States elect six Senators at a time so the quota is 14%. This means every vote counts as the last couple of seats depend on preferences.

However in the ACT with two Senators the quota is 33%. Both major parties get a third of the vote (the Liberals only just). Even if the Liberals dropped below quota, preferences would get them home. So in practice our two Senators are completely safe and my Senate vote doesn't matter much.

With how you describe it, it sounds like an individual's vote is fairly important in Australia. Why are people so incensed with the government's environmental and infrastructure policies? Is that a "vocal minority" situation with the majority of Australians supporting the government's decisions?

 

[Arwon]

With how you describe it, it sounds like an individual's vote is fairly important in Australia. Why are people so incensed with the government's environmental and infrastructure policies? Is that a "vocal minority" situation with the majority of Australians supporting the government's decisions?

Don't mistake the good quality of the electoral system for people being happy with the two major parties. Dissatisfaction with them is pretty much at record highs. On the environment specifically, both are largely captured by fossil fuel and other resource interests.

STV in the Senate is quite sensitive to voter input and seldom returns a government majority (the Senate is strong and equal to the House of Reps). It's the same in the ACT, where minority Labor government or a Labor-Green coalition is the norm. Federally, people are able vote for who they want in the House of Reps without worrying about tactical voting or vote splitting. These are all good things.

However there's very little ability to fully punish the major parties in the Commonwealth House of Reps except by electing the other guys, due to the continued existence of single member electorates. Even with full preferencing, it still entreches the two major parties to a large degree because they remain predominant in each individual area.

 

[Zkribbler]

It depends upon what you mean by "matters."

My voting residence is in the bluest part of the bluest city of the bluest state. My vote will never tip an election.

However, my vote matters very much to me. I trace my lineage back to the Founding Fathers. One of my great-whatever-grandfathers was a prisoner in Andersonville. My father picked up the pieces of his best friend and brought him back to American lines in a basket. Their sacrifices were, in part, to ensure my right to vote. How can I say no?

 

[Synobun]

It depends upon what you mean by "matters."

As though your vote directly influences the direction of politics in your local or federal system. Where you don't feel as though your vote is simply disappearing into the aether somewhere.

You can think your vote doesn't matter but still be deeply satisfied with the vote you made, although the poll itself doesn't delve into that distinction.

 

[AdrienIer]

One vote doesn't change the outcome of an election. The question is rather if you want all the people who think like you to stay at home or do you want them to vote for what you think is the best choice ? If you want your point of view to be represented, the first thing to do is vote, the second thing to do is convince others that you're right (and to vote for it too).

The question of whether your vote counts the way you want it to count, and whether you're satisfied with your vote, depends on the voting method. I was happy to vote 8 days ago, I won't be happy next sunday.

 

[Synobun]

If you want your point of view to be represented, the first thing to do is vote, the second thing to do is convince others that you're right (and to vote for it too).

In theory, I agree with this. I would advocate for this approach in America, for example.

It doesn't quite work that way in Canada unfortunately. Candidates are secondary to the party and the parties themselves tend to be identical in their ability to be a net negative to society. You don't get to choose out of a long list of candidates. You get to choose a party and the candidate that the party selected to represent your ridership. There is no "voting for your point of view" unless your point of view happens to align with one of the available choices. Unless the party holds an open election, you get no say on their internal allocation of candidacy if you're not a card-carrying member of their ideology.

My ridership only had 4 choices: The Liberals, the NDP, the Greens, and the YPP (a party that only operates in Vancouver and Surrey with less than 1% of the vote).

 

[AdrienIer]

A small number of rigid parties is the death of a democracy

 

[Perfection]

It increases the tally of the person i choose by 1. It's like a facebook like.