Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
me too. And the fact Harper "only cares about big corporations".
Repeat the same messenger 1,000 times and voters start to believe. That's how it works.
Nah, not how it actually works.
The Conservatives have no intention of persuading people like you or me - voters who live in urban areas with no intention of voting conservative anytime soon. Those ads are specifically intended to ignite voter turnout for center-right and right-leaning voters who are the core base of conservative electoral support. If you look at past conservative victories, they did incredibly well in ridings that they know they can win, and that's where their focus is - to achieve a high voter turnout % in the conservative voter base. In my humble opinion, it's really a beautiful and efficient strategy that achieves maximum electoral impact in light of limited popular support.
So you are partly correct - repeat a message 1000x but to your core voter base.
It depends how it goes but if the NDP and the Conservatives chip away at the Liberals i would work to keep the status quo where we have a Conservative Majority or Minority government with the NDP as the official opposition keeping the liberals as the third party and contained.
Or the Liberals and NDP could form a coalition and take minority Government with the conservatives as the official opposition that would mean both Mulcair and Trudeu would have to agree to do so and thus put the ego's and Bi-partisan politicking behind them and at this point they seem a long ways away from doing that.
The Conservatives have no intention of persuading people like you or me - voters who live in urban areas with no intention of voting conservative anytime soon. Those ads are specifically intended to ignite voter turnout for center-right and right-leaning voters who are the core base of conservative electoral support. If you look at past conservative victories, they did incredibly well in ridings that they know they can win, and that's where their focus is - to achieve a high voter turnout % in the conservative voter base. In my humble opinion, it's really a beautiful and efficient strategy that achieves maximum electoral impact in light of limited popular support.
So you are partly correct - repeat a message 1000x but to your core voter base.
This is why I think it is not real democracy. You can get only 40% votes (vs 60% for the opponent) and still win the election based on the "ridings".
This is why the gas plant scandal and the BS Scarborough subway plan happen. They don't care about areas they know they can't win (or they know they will win anyway).
I honestly don't know why the outcome should not be based on number of votes vs number of ridings. I don't know why we need "ridings" - so downtown Toronto will vote for liberals anyway, therefore conservatives simply abandon it because getting 1% votes or 30% doesn't make a difference.
This is why I think it is not real democracy. You can get only 40% votes (vs 60% for the opponent) and still win the election based on the "ridings".
This is why the gas plant scandal and the BS Scarborough subway plan happen. They don't care about areas they know they can't win (or they know they will win anyway).
I honestly don't know why the outcome should not be based on number of votes vs number of ridings. I don't know why we need "ridings" - so downtown Toronto will vote for liberals anyway, therefore conservatives simply abandon it because getting 1% votes or 30% doesn't make a difference.
The idea of Ridings is so that people who live in rural areas get a voice. It's to compensate for large areas of the country with few people.
However, I agree, it's time for a change. Not sure what or how, but I'm tired of the majority of Canadians not being heard or represented in Ottawa.
Conservatives are stupid in their foreign policy pretending Canada is a great power which disgusts me immensely. Also they don't seem to care that much about urban centres (due to the reasons I mentioned above) and always pander to suburban and rural votes. His energy power house plan doesn't seem to be work out either.
The NDP seems all about the poor who don't bother to work, the senior who didn't bother saving and end up poor, the single mothers or whatever, and companies which generate profit for the economy seem to have some sin in their eyes and should be taxed to death (so that those who are completely unproductive can get more for free and vote for them). To solve any problem, the best solution is always to tax the rich and the corporation but funnily it is usually under the name of "fairness". I think the NDP and their voters should secede and form a country, and see how that works out. It will probably be poorer than Haiti.
The Liberals, I have no idea what they stand for, but I will probably vote for Trudeau this time for the sheer reason I don't have much a reason to strongly dislike him.
Ideally I would prefer a political party which is pro-business, has a strong anti-union position (Canada's cancer), cares more about the urban areas, promotes a more balanced trade strategy, provides a low tax environment and doesn't meddle with other countries' business (not lecturing either).
The idea of Ridings is so that people who live in rural areas get a voice. It's to compensate for large areas of the country with few people.
However, I agree, it's time for a change. Not sure what or how, but I'm tired of the majority of Canadians not being heard or represented in Ottawa.
By owning one vote, don't they get a voice already?
The riding system essentially says, not only do you get a voice, you get a louder voice than one who lives in the city. Does that sound fair? Shouldn't people be equal?
For example, in Toronto or Vancouver, conservative voters simply have no voice, because the system says, unless you can form a majority in your riding, your voice doesn't matter. Your vote is meaningless, whether there are 100,000 of you or just 2.
And to be honest, those who live in sparsely populated area already get preferential treatment. Services is provided much more cheaply in densely populated areas (such as libraries, hospitals, post office) yet we pay the same price regardless of the cost of it.
The idea of Ridings is so that people who live in rural areas get a voice. It's to compensate for large areas of the country with few people.
However, I agree, it's time for a change. Not sure what or how, but I'm tired of the majority of Canadians not being heard or represented in Ottawa.
Ridings are nothing more than defined areas that elect a representative to Parliament. You could call them "wards" or "districts," but we use the term "riding." They exist in cities too. Not sure what your point is here.
The majority of Canadians will never be heard as long as we have a multiparty system, where votes can go to three or more parties. If you want a clear, over-50% majority, we could outlaw all but two parties. Or we could simply outlaw parties, period.
Ridings are nothing more than defined areas that elect a representative to Parliament. You could call them "wards" or "districts," but we use the term "riding." They exist in cities too. Not sure what your point is here.
The majority of Canadians will never be heard as long as we have a multiparty system, where votes can go to three or more parties. If you want a clear, over-50% majority, we could outlaw all but two parties. Or we could simply outlaw parties, period.
My point is about proportional representation. As you know some ridings have much smaller population than others, yet one riding sends an MP to Ottawa.
I agree about the majority never being heard, but when less than 40 percent get to elect a PM, I think it's time for a change. There are apparently alternatives.
Ridings are nothing more than defined areas that elect a representative to Parliament. You could call them "wards" or "districts," but we use the term "riding." They exist in cities too. Not sure what your point is here.
The majority of Canadians will never be heard as long as we have a multiparty system, where votes can go to three or more parties. If you want a clear, over-50% majority, we could outlaw all but two parties. Or we could simply outlaw parties, period.
You don't see the point? Some riding have 100,000 people some have 5,000, and they both are represented by one person in the parliament.
Doesn't have to be majority but each person should have more or less the same voice no matter where he lives. Sounds more fair to you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
