Don't Vote 2009

[Urbane]

I understand the concept of a protest vote but some people, election after election, just cop out by saying that no one is good enough. Those who choose not to be involved at all are simply letting other people decide for them because we do elect the people who will be governing us.



After many years, I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two are a law firm, and three or more are a legislature. (John Adams)

Great quote!

[ventured]

I think it's better to show up at the polls, and simply return one's unmarked, folded ballot. I believe that is called "voiding" the ballot and it is a vote for "none of the above." That sounds more effective than spoiling one's ballot, and it also provides a clearer indication that one is dissatisfied with the candidates/parties than simply staying home could accomplish.

I only wish THOSE stats were published. I did almost exactly that for the election Campbell first got it. I had a hard time justifying Clark again, but could NOT support Campell, so I wrote "Not him" beside both NDP and LIB candidates.

[guicho]

For the last few years I have actually entertained the fantasy of starting a new party, called the None of the Above party. I theory, any elected party member would be held to representing their constituents and voting according to the will of the people that live in their riding. No party line to tow.

I know, it's a fantasy, but I do not believe in any of the parties, or candidates, federally or provincially. They are all scum that care more about keeping their seat once elected and towing the party line, catering to special interest groups, telling the voters what they need to in order to get elected.

I bet if the option "None of the Above" was on the ballot, a lot of people would at least be tempted to vote for that option. If None of the above started taking a significant percentage of the vote, maybe the traditional parties would have to rethink things and get back to doing what they are supposed to do, which is be our voice in parliament, advocate for us and listen to what we tell them.

[steven lloyd]

I bet if the option "None of the Above" was on the ballot, a lot of people would at least be tempted to vote for that option. If None of the above started taking a significant percentage of the vote, maybe the traditional parties would have to rethink things and get back to doing what they are supposed to do, which is be our voice in parliament, advocate for us and listen to what we tell them.

I actually like that idea.

[guicho]

I bet if the option "None of the Above" was on the ballot, a lot of people would at least be tempted to vote for that option. If None of the above started taking a significant percentage of the vote, maybe the traditional parties would have to rethink things and get back to doing what they are supposed to do, which is be our voice in parliament, advocate for us and listen to what we tell them.

I actually like that idea.

As far as I can see, as long as we continue to vote for the least bad, it maintains the false assumption by the parties that we approve of the choices, which is why for the first time ever I am still undecided about whether I will even vote this time round. But deep down, I doubt I will stay away, probably will vote for a fringe party, making the statement that I don't want to vote for any of the big ones. Of the people that vote for one party or the other, the number that are true supporters is small. The rest are voting for the lesser of evils, voting against the other guy, not for anyone. The none of the above option might shake things up a bit.

[NoOne]

For the last few years I have actually entertained the fantasy of starting a new party, called the None of the Above party. I theory, any elected party member would be held to representing their constituents and voting according to the will of the people that live in their riding. No party line to tow.

I know, it's a fantasy, but I do not believe in any of the parties, or candidates, federally or provincially. They are all scum that care more about keeping their seat once elected and towing the party line, catering to special interest groups, telling the voters what they need to in order to get elected.

I bet if the option "None of the Above" was on the ballot, a lot of people would at least be tempted to vote for that option. If None of the above started taking a significant percentage of the vote, maybe the traditional parties would have to rethink things and get back to doing what they are supposed to do, which is be our voice in parliament, advocate for us and listen to what we tell them.

how about registering to vote but not voting? if you took everyone that voted for an official party and all those that could vote and don't, the don't voters would win and take control of the plane and maybe, just maybe, pull it out of the dive. at the rate the other parties are going, which would you want, a pilot drunk at the stick, a doomed waitress who has seen nothing but failure or someone willing to give it a try to save everyone?

i almost think i would vote for the person who honestly got up on the platform and said "i want to lead this province and i don't know what i'm doing". i'll take honesty any day. they can be taught to run the government but you can't teach honesty. either you are or you are not. so far the nots have control.

[guicho]

For the last few years I have actually entertained the fantasy of starting a new party, called the None of the Above party. I theory, any elected party member would be held to representing their constituents and voting according to the will of the people that live in their riding. No party line to tow.

I know, it's a fantasy, but I do not believe in any of the parties, or candidates, federally or provincially. They are all scum that care more about keeping their seat once elected and towing the party line, catering to special interest groups, telling the voters what they need to in order to get elected.

I bet if the option "None of the Above" was on the ballot, a lot of people would at least be tempted to vote for that option. If None of the above started taking a significant percentage of the vote, maybe the traditional parties would have to rethink things and get back to doing what they are supposed to do, which is be our voice in parliament, advocate for us and listen to what we tell them.

how about registering to vote but not voting? if you took everyone that voted for an official party and all those that could vote and don't, the don't voters would win and take control of the plane and maybe, just maybe, pull it out of the dive. at the rate the other parties are going, which would you want, a pilot drunk at the stick, a doomed waitress who has seen nothing but failure or someone willing to give it a try to save everyone?

i almost think i would vote for the person who honestly got up on the platform and said "i want to lead this province and i don't know what i'm doing". i'll take honesty any day. they can be taught to run the government but you can't teach honesty. either you are or you are not. so far the nots have control.

The problem with this approach is that the people that don't vote will not be included in the popular vote stats. The parties will still be going on about how they got x% of the vote, and spin it to make it look like they have a mandate. If a party such as the proposed Non of the Above party were to actually get enough votes to qualify for funding, THAT would get their attention, and it would also be reflected in the stats, showing a decline in support for the traditional parties.

[hellomynameis]

I just do not see how not voting would be very effective, granted that voting is only marginally more effective. I think 20,000 votes for, say, a Green puts way more fear(but for pretend sake lets call it incentive to change policy) into the Liberal/NDP heart than 20,000 non-votes. I don't see the incentive to pick up those non-votes turning into policy changes, just changes in semantics.

[guicho]

I just do not see how not voting would be very effective, granted that voting is only marginally more effective. I think 20,000 votes for, say, a Green puts way more fear(but for pretend sake lets call it incentive to change policy) into the Liberal/NDP heart than 20,000 non-votes. I don't see the incentive to pick up those non-votes turning into policy changes, just changes in semantics.

Which is the only good reason I can find for voting for a fringe party with no chance of getting elected rather than to just stay home.

[NoOne]

I just do not see how not voting would be very effective, granted that voting is only marginally more effective. I think 20,000 votes for, say, a Green puts way more fear(but for pretend sake lets call it incentive to change policy) into the Liberal/NDP heart than 20,000 non-votes. I don't see the incentive to pick up those non-votes turning into policy changes, just changes in semantics.

that why they would not bring in mandatory voting. they know that the 40%+ that don't vote could put a new party in office. i'm sorry for growing up in the states and becoming used to their system. i might be liberal but i won't vote for campbell, i might be ndp, but i won't vote for james. i want to vote but i want a vote i can be proud of, not a vote just in protest. i don't vote therefore i can't complain about who gets in.

so far, in 25 years of the chance to vote, i have not seen one differnce in parties that have led this province. they call themselves a party yet it's every man for them self. just look at sindi hawkins. even without the medical problems, how did she get elected in the first place?

i should also say that i have shot promos for both parties over the years and after meeting and dealing with their handlers all i can say is that their checks always cleared the bank.

who ever gets in i'll take it as it comes.

[steven lloyd]

I bet if the option "None of the Above" was on the ballot, a lot of people would at least be tempted to vote for that option. If None of the above started taking a significant percentage of the vote, maybe the traditional parties would have to rethink things and get back to doing what they are supposed to do, which is be our voice in parliament, advocate for us and listen to what we tell them.

I actually like that idea.

As far as I can see, as long as we continue to vote for the least bad, it maintains the false assumption by the parties that we approve of the choices, which is why for the first time ever I am still undecided about whether I will even vote this time round. But deep down, I doubt I will stay away, probably will vote for a fringe party, making the statement that I don't want to vote for any of the big ones. Of the people that vote for one party or the other, the number that are true supporters is small. The rest are voting for the lesser of evils, voting against the other guy, not for anyone. The none of the above option might shake things up a bit.

Unfortunately, voting for a fringe party is a wasted vote. It can't even relly be considered a protest vote because at the end of the day the politicians don't acknowledge it as such. They are in open denial. Just watch when Gordon Campbell proclaims "The people of the province have spoken" when less than 40% actually show up to vote (assuming the Canucks are not playing) and 60% vote for anyone but him. Voting fringe might make you feel better but it has no effect on the outcome of the election or politicians attitudes.

The idea of actually having a choice of "None of the above" that would actually be counted, however, would have an effect. It is (or could be if enough selected that option) a clear message to politicians that they will be unable to deny (hmm, perhaps I shouldn't underestimate them so quickly) and a meaningful number that could be reported by media. I believe it should really be a choice.

[hellomynameis]

I don't see how a 'none of the above' option would pose a threat or a worry to the major parties. I would think the political strategists are already quite away of the rough number of people who do not care to vote for any party.

Why are they going to change policy and attitude in the dark to try and collect these votes? It would seem they are quite happy to fight over whatever percentage of people do vote for a party.

If the 'none of the above' or simple lack of vote begins to encompass a democratically critical percentage what do you think the government would do? I think they would most likely institute mandatory voting whereupon we're back to fringe voting.

And the *bleep* of fringe voting enmass is then we are encouraging the other parties to adopt concepts from the fringe platform, lol what fringe party actually has a good platform?!?!

[hellomynameis]

Perhaps instead it is the election system that needs to be changed instead or what is on the ballot and/or if we vote or not?

[steven lloyd]

I don't see how a 'none of the above' option would pose a threat or a worry to the major parties.

Perhaps not an immediate effect, but certainly a more direct, in-your-face, let's not have any confusion about this story to be presented by media. With fringe parties politicians can rationalize that fringe voters made their democratic choice. I believe it will be a little more difficult for any politician to simply shrug away "So Mr. Campbell, how do you respond to 60% of the electorate explicitly voting for anyone but you?"

[hellomynameis]

lol yeah an "anyone but you" on the ballot would be great!

I'd use that one