Oh Canada
Mark this up as an epic win for Canadian freedom lovers. Canada recently had an election with the lowest voter turnout in the country's history!
TORONTO (Reuters) - Canadians shunned the polls during their general election with the lowest voter turnout on record, even as a global financial crisis threatened to plunge the nation's economy into recession.
Some 59.1 percent of eligible Canadian voters went to the polls Tuesday, breaking the previous record low turnout of just under 61 percent in 2004, according to preliminary results from Elections Canada released on Wednesday.
"There was either general apathy toward the candidates or a degree of voter fatigue as this was the third Canadian election since 2004," said Antonia Maioni, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.
That means that essentially, 40.9% of the people voted for the electable seats to be vacant. 40.9% of Canadians voted to not have a government.
Government officials are understandably frightened...
An official from the New Democratic Party said the low voter turnout was a big worry for the country.
"It should concern all of us, no matter which party we're in," NDP Member of Parliament Libby Davies told CBC Radio.
Correction: the low turnout is a big worry for Canadian politicians, not for "the country." And yes, it should concern all the politicians, no matter what party they belong to.
I find it extremely amusing that while the average pro-voting citizen insists that casting a vote is the only way to change the status quo, the politicians quoted here have admitted that the record high non-vote is the real danger. The politicians have let the truth slip out that no matter what party they belong to, they are the status quo, and the real threat to their status quo, and the possibility of actual "change," can only be the non-vote.
4 comments:
Why do you think the politicians and bureaucrats are "frightened" by the non-turnout?
Heck, they're tickled plumb to death.
When the people just sit back and allow them to do whatever they want to do, "frightened" is the last emotion they feel.
They, instead, sit back and chortle up their sleeves, being careful not to tarnish the silver they've stashed up there from our cabinets.
Not voting merely allows the collectivists freer rein -- or freer reign.
Sure, voting might not accomplish much, but not voting makes the slave-masters and would-be slave-masters deliriously happy.
Re: Michael Morrison,
Why do you think the politicians and bureaucrats are "frightened" by the non-turnout?
Because they admit it themselves. Because politicians only ever implore citizens to do two things: pay taxes, and vote. Because in Australia, it's illegal to not vote. Because in some countries, there are laws that say if the voter turnout is less than 50% of eligible voters, then that election is invalid. Because when politicians win a majority vote, they champoin it as a "mandate" from the people. Because when turnout is low, it means that, to use a figure of speech, "the voters aren't buying what the politicians are selling."
Heck, they're tickled plumb to death.
Au contraire, Micheal.
When the people just sit back and allow them to do whatever they want to do, "frightened" is the last emotion they feel.
True, and only when there is a high turnout of voters do politicians feel like they are allowed to do whatever they want. A low turnout in an election means that the politicians know that they are not well liked, and not supported by Joe the Plumber.
They, instead, sit back and chortle up their sleeves, being careful not to tarnish the silver they've stashed up there from our cabinets.
Not voting merely allows the collectivists freer rein -- or freer reign.
Sure, voting might not accomplish much, but not voting makes the slave-masters and would-be slave-masters deliriously happy.
With all due respect, I find your argument to be a bit light. And don't you think its obvious that if politicians wanted low turnouts, they would say so? Why do politicians spend so much money and time trying to get high voter turnouts if they would be "tickled plumb to death" if the turnout were low? And if a high voter turnout was not desired by politicians, then Australia would fine people who do vote, not those who don't, and various other democracies would not have so many laws in place to encourage a high turnout and punish non-voters.
Thank you for your comment Michael. While I am not convinced of the merits of your argument, I enjoyed hearing your perspective nonetheless and it gave me some interesting food for thought. I will end this response with a link to an article from LewRockwell.com. The name of the article is "Be Patriotic: Don't Vote," and it was written by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who I feel can express better than I can the importance of not voting.
What greater political statement could there be than a nationwide election with <10% turnout? It would essentially mean that the government was viewed as unnecessary as it actually is.
Thank you Nicky, very well said :)
Post a Comment