|
Chicken posted:Just out of interest, has anybody actually tried doing this? I don't think it's especially well known and while HR in a large company would get it, I'm not sure your average small business (the drivers of our economy and backbone of Canadian culture) would know about it. Also, is it paid or unpaid ($30 could be a lot to a minimum wage employee) and does it apply to municipal and provincial elections as well? It's paid. Municipal and provincial elections are under provincial jurisdiction, so obviously it varies from province to province. In Québec, it's four hours.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
I was working a lovely job and I asked to leave to vote and the dumb manager laughed, said we were too busy and refused to let me go. So I would have been one of those part timers who didn't vote had I not secretly voted earlier in the morning and was just looking for a way to skip out on work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I wasn't saying that social issues didn't factor into voting. Of course they do. I just don't like when someone throws out the tired cliche of the poor struggling minimum wage earner who just is working too hard to make ends meet and can't find time to vote. The biggest issue with these minimum wage jobs isn't the salary, it's the fact that the employer is trying to keep people part time and thus doesn't give them enough hours. The problem is that they can't earn enough money, not that they don't have any free time. Some people for sure work two jobs, but most people don't. They struggle. As far as voting, they don't vote for the same reason half the country doesn't vote - because they don't think their vote makes a difference, and thus they don't prioritize it. I agree that underemployment is a bigger issue for minimum wage workers right now than overwork but compensation is also a pretty big deal. People wouldn't need to work as much if the minimum wage (or wages in general) still had the purchasing power it used to have in the 1970s. Here in Toronto you'd need a minimum of 16 or 17 dollars an hour full time if you intended to raise any kind of family (and even then you'd need your partner to also be working). Unless you propose telling poor people that they should either get better paying jobs that don't exist right now or else that they should cancel their cell phone and internet, live in one bedroom apartments and live off rice and beans for the rest of their lives, then frankly we need some reliable mechanism for topping off working people's incomes. Minimum wage isn't the perfect instrument for that purpose but it's better than either doing nothing or throwing yet more tax cuts, credits and forgiveable loans to businesses. quote:Your point about the general economic situation is interesting though. I'm not sure it explains the current level of political apathy - voter turnout took the steepest drop in Canada during a relatively good economic period (late 90s). The steep drop actually begins in the late 1980s, which roughly coincides with what was then the worst recession since the 1930s. I would agree, though, that the economy cannot fully explain the drop in voter participation. There are clearly other factors at play here as well. That having been said I think that for a lot of people the general economic malaise facing this generation plays directly into the sense that there's no point in voting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
ARACHTION posted:I was working a lovely job and I asked to leave to vote and the dumb manager laughed, said we were too busy and refused to let me go. Technically if you had 3 consecutive hours in the day where you could vote then he didn't do anything wrong. If you didn't have that time though, then you coulda dinged him for up to $5k.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/philippe-couillard-tells-stephen-harper-he-wants-quebec-to-sign-constitution-1.2758043quote:Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard took advantage of a public appearance with Prime Minister Stephen Harper Saturday to reiterate his wish for the province to sign the Constitution. Leverage on Harper in the lead-up to the election campaign?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
I don't really see how that provides any leverage over Harper but it is kinda funny given that I'm sure Harper abhors the constitution and would give almost anything to change or abolish it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
I'm sure it's not the case, but it would be hysterical if spite was what got Quebec to sign the Constitution. Good that they're formally getting on board though, the Constitution is pretty solid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 23:32
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Since this thread seems to increasingly be reading the NDP's rightward drift as some kind of reason to vote Liberal, I think stories like this one are worth paying attention to. You would never ever see the Liberal party acting this way toward a leader who has increased their seat count since first taking power:quote:Andrea Horwath faces backlash from fellow New Democrats: Cohn This really needs to be emphasized folks. The leader is not the party. The NDP is still a party of activists and unions and if social justice or economic redistribution are values you support then you'd be insane to think the Liberals are a better choice federally. If you end up in a close riding and the Liberals have a better choice of unseating Harper then I'd say vote Liberal, because God knows we need to get rid of the Tories, but please don't fool yourself into thinking that there's no difference between the "not Conservative" options on your ballot. As lovely as the NDP currently is, it's history and demographics make it a different sort of party than the Liberals, Tories or even the Greens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Jim Prentice is the new premier of Alberta. Total votes cast by PC party members: Jim Prentice 17,963 Ric McIver 2,742 Thomas Lukaszuk 2,681 meh
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:To be honest, I'd lump "Not interested" in with "Did not like candidates/issues," as they're nearly identical when you think about it, and I'd add that there's probably quite a bit of "Not interested/did not like candidates" mixed in with every other response. A massive number of people who don't vote are effectively casting a "None of the above" vote. That's not true at all, there's a big difference between "not interested" and "did not like the candidates/issues" There are tons of people who don't even know the candidates names, much less their platforms and stances on any issues. I've met people who didn't know who the Prime Minister was and didn't care at all. They definitely don't fall under "did not like the candidates/issues".
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
atastypie posted:Jim Prentice is the new premier of Alberta. Total votes cast by PC party members: Hahaha.. gently caress you McIver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:That's not true at all, there's a big difference between "not interested" and "did not like the candidates/issues" There can be lots of overlap. At some point you can become jaded enough to know that the candidates aren't going to bother offering anything you have any interest in so there is no point in checking. Candidate A wants lower taxes for small business and more free trade agreement? Hmm candidate B wants even more lower taxes for small business and to build a pipeline though some land I don't own and will never see? Wow what a choice! People would vote if they knew it would make a substantive impact on their actual lives. Most realize that the window of acceptable political platforms is so narrow that it makes no difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Whiteycar posted:Hahaha.. gently caress you McIver. As for Prentice... here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:There are tons of people who don't even know the candidates names, much less their platforms and stances on any issues. I've met people who didn't know who the Prime Minister was and didn't care at all. They definitely don't fall under "did not like the candidates/issues". These people are disengaged from politics not as a fundamental law of the universe; they're disengaged and disinterested because of the circumstances of politics. For a large slice of the population -- especially low income earners -- politics offers very little in the form of representation of their views, their interests and their attitudes. It's just a hunch, but I'd wager that if Canadian politics included choices that meaningfully represent the needs and interest of those disinterested voters (who are, historically, segments of the population who are disenfranchised and left out of governance -- the poor, the young, the socially marginalized), they'd show up to the polls. That's why I said that "Not interested" is a not perfectly conscious way to say "None of the candidates interest me, and the issues that do interest me are settled (and not in my favor)."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
You could argue that's the whole point of the system. I mean, I'm just hating how politics now isn't about what our government can accomplish, but how it'll please the wealthy so we can have more jobs. I mean, that's saying that the elected body we all chose is less powerful than wealthy people. Rule by the People my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
lonelywurm posted:I'd emptyquote this if I could. I've never seen someone with as much money and as little charisma as Ric McIver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I've never seen someone with as much money and as little charisma as Ric McIver. Yeah, when he knocked on my parents' door, they told him, "I prefer you to any of the other guys, but cut it out with all the loving religious bullshit" (a direct quote because my parents are awesome) and he started stumbling all over himself like a retard and defending the fact that he marched alongside a guy that claimed the 2013 floods were God's wrath because we don't hate homosexuals enough. And this is in front of people who already support him for the most part...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Good luck to Prentice not getting steamrolled next election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:You could argue that's the whole point of the system. I mean, I'm just hating how politics now isn't about what our government can accomplish, but how it'll please the wealthy so we can have more jobs. I mean, that's saying that the elected body we all chose is less powerful than wealthy people. Rule by the People my rear end. http://communist-party.ca/ It's real and you're allowed to vote for it. I will. Enough of this bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Throwdini posted:http://communist-party.ca/ It would stop being real if they had any chance of getting into power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
From the Communist Manifesto:The Communist Manifesto posted:In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? As lovely as it currently is, Canada already has a labour party with a mass base of support. If you actually care about political power rather than just wanting to feel the satisfaction of knowing you're on the ideologically correct side then you really should be working within the NDP. You know what Lenin's advice was to the communists in England? That they should join the Labour Party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It would stop being real if they had any chance of getting into power. Bullshit. We get to vote for whoever we want to in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:From the Communist Manifesto: I'll vote for the party platform that best represents how the government ought to be run in my view and that's the end of it. I'm not betting on a sports team to win. I don't give a poo poo about Lenin's advice from a hundred years ago. The loving Labour Party? That's exactly what I don't want, and exactly what the NDP looks like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Ok, but then you're basically treating your vote in the same way that other people treat jeans or cell phones or jewellery. It's an item of personal consumption that you use to express yourself or to signal your personal tastes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Throwdini posted:The loving Labour Party? That's exactly what I don't want, and exactly what the NDP looks like. The counterargument is that the current Labour Party is as it is precisely because the more radical elements of the left disavowed themselves of the Party and splintered off, thus leaving it to the career politicians and centrists. I'm reminded of Jane Jacobs' argument about crime in public parks in cities: the less traffic there is in the park from well-meaning, concerned citizens, the easier it is for crime to move in and take over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Ok, but then you're basically treating your vote in the same way that other people treat jeans or cell phones or jewellery. It's an item of personal consumption that you use to express yourself or to signal your personal tastes. Nope. Just voting for the policies I agree with. You're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Here are my thoughts: the NDP does not have the level of radical, transformative politics that I would like, and has tended to veer close to the center. I would, however, vastly, vastly prefer that the NDP maintain a strong level of power in national politics than for it to be sidelined by either the Liberals or the Conservatives, both of whom are much further to the right. The disastrous national policies of the Conservatives (and, possibly, the Liberals; we'll see how Trudeau shakes up once he's PM) must be fought tooth-and-nail, and the NDP provides the best strategic platform for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Also, they've been doing the heavy lifting for years while the Liberals have been a pile of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Like, I think every second or third post I make on these forums is some starry-eyed bullshit about the Communist Idea, but you absolutely cannot ignore overall strategy when it comes to the transformation of society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/most-university-undergrads-now-taught-by-poorly-paid-part-timers-1.2756024quote:According to figures provided by the Laurier Faculty Association, 52 per cent of Laurier students were taught by CAS in 2012, up from 38 per cent in 2008. But of all the money the university spends during the year, less than four cents out of every dollar goes towards CAS salaries. So the university spends less than 4 per cent of its budget to teach more than 50 per cent of its students. The lovely state of our post-secondary education system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/most-university-undergrads-now-taught-by-poorly-paid-part-timers-1.2756024 It's definitely one of the darker sides of the university system that rarely gets talked about publicly, especially at the universities themselves. I had no clue what "sessional instructor" meant until I neared the end of my degree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Throwdini posted:Bullshit. We get to vote for whoever we want to in Canada. So did Chile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Throwdini posted:Nope. Just voting for the policies I agree with. You're wrong. Yeah exactly, you're prioritizing your self expression as an individual over any kind of strategic or practical consideration, i.e. you're reducing your vote to an act of personal consumption. You're doing with politics what other people do with organic food or tight jeans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:strategic or practical consideration What does this even mean?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
It doesn't mean anything. He's making up weird bullshit to try to ostracize leftists who don't vote NDP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:and he started stumbling all over himself like a retard Yeah you sure sound like you're way more intelligent and understanding than him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:What does this even mean? It means trying to see beyond which party caters the most to your own personal tastes and biases and voting for what would truly be best for the country even if it means swallowing your pride on a few pet issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Harry Joe posted:It means trying to see beyond which party caters the most to your own personal tastes and biases and voting for what would truly be best for the country even if it means swallowing your pride on a few pet issues. Define 'truly be best for the country' - what's stopping the personal tastes and biases from being that (since it's a subjective idea so there's no real objective measure to go by, hence it being a worthless concept to begin with)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Harry Joe posted:It means trying to see beyond which party caters the most to your own personal tastes and biases and voting for what would truly be best for the country even if it means swallowing your pride on a few pet issues. But my personal tastes and bias are what would be best for the country 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Yeah you sure sound like you're way more intelligent and understanding than him. Okay, substitute moron, idiot, imbecile, or whatever. Most of our words for stupid people come from terms formerly used to refer to the mentally handicapped, and since the euphemism treadmill has already moved on from "the r-word" I don't see why it should be treated any differently. In conclusion: blow me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 20:26
|
|