"This is a country that is electioned out."

[Taliesin]

"I don't think Canadians want an election. This is a country that is electioned out."

Now, granted, an election costs a few dozen million dollars, and citizens do have to make the onerous sacrifice of as much as two hours in order to vote. Democracy is really hard work for everybody in the country, and I know we all get tired of having it around. Residents of Ontario, Newfoundland, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba all suffered through provincial elections in 2007, as they surprisingly tend to do every three or four years, and no doubt they would bitterly resent being called on to once more exercise their franchise.

But at a certain point, i.e. when it enables a minority government to act with the belligerence of a majority government while the Official Opposition gingerly kowtows, isn't it time to take a look at whether the "we hate elections" commonplace has any merit to it? I mean, it's pretty much taken for granted by our political institutions (elected officials, news media, the Royal Canadian Air Farce) that Canadians want to see as little of the ballot box as possible. Voters even exact swift vengeance on a party that is too eager to force an election. For this reason the Liberal party is basically contorting itself to support or abstain from voting on Conservative policy planks that contradict its own positions. Apparently it's more politically tenable to desperately avoid an election than it is to represent Liberal voters and the policies they thought they were supporting in Jan '06. Isn't this, um, kind of stupid?

And Harper wants the Senate to be elected, too? Maybe somebody should be pushing for an appointed Commons instead, apparently that's what Canadians would prefer.

 

[Stylesjl]

Electioned out, eh? Well we can see how Canada likes it when they get a dictator to run the country, then we'll see how much democracy sucks!

 

[sysyphus]

I don't think it's a reflection on the general attitude towards elections, but rather a reflection fo the fact that we've been through so many so recently, and the polls show that if an election were held today that there wouldn't be much change to Parliament as it stands now, saving any real hit that could result in a Tory majority.

The political mood in this country is very sour. The rhetoric these days is so transparent that the public generally sees that there is very little relevant to policy and good governance of the country comign from any direction and that it all revolves around power and the petite politque.

My gauging of the the mood among the electorate right now is "We've given a mandate for a Tory minority, and we have no desire to change that at the moment. That means you all have to compromise, but that's what we've asked for and it is your job to deliver it, so suck it up and do your job like the restof us have to."

 

[downtown]

Electile Dysfunction is nothing to be ashamed about. happens to all modern liberal democracies.

 

[Taliesin]

I considered also that it might be Liberal code for "we are not ready to run an election campaign".

All the parties are being intolerably scuzzy about this-- the Bloc and NDP for dishing the duty to compromise onto the Liberals; the Liberals for knuckling under for the sake of optics; and the Conservatives for ruthlessly exploiting the situation to refuse compromise. Nobody is doing his job. We're going to get policies that an elected majority oppose, simply because we're too lazy to vote? If the Liberals had any fortitude, they'd challenge Harper and force either compromise or non-confidence. Maybe it would be necessary for the G-G to invite Dion to form a government?

Or is it time to think about revisiting the idea of coalition government?

 

[Damnyankee]

Well, the US could just annex you guys, only major elections every two years ;-)

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Well, the US could just annex you guys, only major elections every two years ;-)

At least Canada has better voter turnouts then the crap we pull. This issue with "electioned out" is something not just contained to Canada. I think it's safe to say that, in many western countries, political efficacy has declined in the past 40 years or so.

 

[Ecofarm]

At least Canada has better voter turnouts then the crap we pull. This issue with "electioned out" is something not just contained to Canada. I think it's safe to say that, in many western countries, political efficacy has declined in the past 40 years or so.

The year [2004] just past was nothing short of historic for the Native American community, with the opening of a national museum dedicated to Indians and a national election that saw record numbers of Indian voters.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-129892112.html

In the most recent presidential election, at least a dozen states set all time voter turn out records.

Overall, 2004 was likely the highest voter turn out in US history.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-03-voter-turnout_x.htm

Is that "electioned out"?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-129892112.html

In the most recent presidential election, at least a dozen states set all time voter turn out records.

Overall, 2004 was the highest voter turn out in US history.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-03-voter-turnout_x.htm

Is that "electioned out"?

Absolutely. We can't even get a 60% turnout.

 

[Ecofarm]

Context. Context. Context.

It was the highest voter turn out in US history.

It marks a PEAK in voter participation for the US.

It was our most recent presidential election.

If that is an indication of being "electioned out", well, then... all I can say is "what are you talking about?!".

How can you say, while voters flock to the polls in all-time record numbers, that we are "electioned out"? Does that make any sense to you? How can you say that efficacy is in decline while voters turn out in record numbers?

You are going to have to find examples other than the US to save your argument, because you are flat-out wrong about the US.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Context. Context. Context.

It was the highest voter turn out in history.

It marks a PEAK in voter participation.

It was our most recent presidential election.

If that is an indication of being "electioned out", well, then... all I can say is "what are you talking about?!".

It wasn't the highest percentage of eligible voters though.

Nor was I simply referring to the US, you'll note I said "western countries."

THis decline in political efficacy and turnout over the last 40 years or so has been well documented.

"Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies. This trend has been most strongly felt in the United States, and has been significant in Western Europe, Japan and Latin America".

Link

 

[Che Guava]

Ecofarm: not to get picky, but the article you quoted said that the 2004 election had the highest turnout since 1968, not in all of US history. Participation in US presidential elections stoof above 60% until 1968, then bobbed up and down between about 50 and 55% until 2004, when 56% made it out. A good acheivement, no doubt, but 56% participation still seems darn low in a country founded on representation and democracy (not that us canucks do that much better....)

 

[Stewbert 08]

Overall, 2004 was likely the highest voter turn out in US history.

Absolutely false. 2004 was 55.3% turnout, roughly the same as the similar situation of 1992 (55.1%) and far below the REAL postwar high of Kennedy v. Nixon (63%).

Voter turnout on average has been dropping every presidential election since 1960. 2004 was a data point above the trend line but one point doesn't change a trend. If we have 57-59% turnout in 08 then we're talking. And even then, of course, we lag far behind similar first-world democracies.

What you mean is "more people voted." No shiz, Sherlock, it's a bigger country every year. That's like saying "Bush received the most votes of any presidential candidate in history." Wow, even more than Lincoln, back when we only had 33 states? AMAZING, BUSH > LINCOLN.

 

[Ecofarm]

I assumed (probably incorrectly) that when all was totaled, it would surpass even 1968.

Anyway, the point is:

The US is on the upswing in recent elections. There is an obvious trend towards higher votor turnout in the past decade. This is not an indication of a reduction in efficacy. This is not an indication of being "electioned out".

The 10 year trend indicates the opposite of those things. Why don't we go back to the civil war, and see what turnout was like back then? Well, because we are talking about now. And all indications are, now (and the past decade), that efficacy is on the rise.

Highest turnout in 40 years... and we are currently on a decline?

 

[Ecofarm]

What you mean is "more people voted." No shiz, Sherlock, it's a bigger country every year. That's like saying "Bush received the most votes of any presidential candidate in history." Wow, even more than Lincoln, back when we only had 33 states? AMAZING, BUSH > LINCOLN.

I'm not looking at total numbers. I'm looking at % of registered voters and/or % of voting age voters. That's elementary, Watson.


Don't play dumb.

Here is a site with graphs for total, % of registered voters, and % of voting age voters. It has results for many countries, but unfortunatly only goes to 2000. Quite a nice source, actually:

http://www.idea.int/vt/graph_view.cfm?CountryCode=US

Enjoy


ps. There is an argument that goes something like this: "Lower voter turnout indicates satisfaction with previous votes and a sense that one's goals are being accomplished". I don't know if that argument holds water, but... well, there it is.

 

[Irish Caesar]

The US is on the upswing in recent elections. There is an obvious trend towards higher votor turnout in the past decade. This is not an indication of a reduction in efficacy. This is not an indication of being "electioned out".

Well, the 1996 election wasn't really in doubt; the 2004 election was much more heated than many in recent memory.

Regardless, less than 60% is still a big, fat "F."

 

[Ecofarm]

Well, the 1996 election wasn't really in doubt; the 2004 election was much more heated than many in recent memory.

Regardless, less than 60% is still a big, fat "F."

And thus we come to the only point upon which I agree with Hillary. Election day should be a national holiday. Untill then, I do not expect a change as people are more concerned with their own day-to-day lives and are relatively satisfied that the government is accomplishing "stuff".


Sorry for veering off topic.

In Canada, is election day a national holiday?

 

[Che Guava]

In Canada, is election day a national holiday?

Nope....in some provinces, you can't buy liquor on election day though...apparently a law passed decades ago to stop election day bribery...

 

[Ecofarm]

Do Canadians think it should be (is there a poll?), and do you think it would improve voter turnout?

 

[Che Guava]

Do Canadians think it should be (is there a poll?), and do you think it would improve voter turnout?

It might, but I don't think that that is the real root of the problem. Apathy is. As our choices for candidates seem to be getting narrower and the chance of any real change in the balance of power grows dim, I think a great number of canadians just don't care as much.