Christmas election

[cowman]

I think this is a problem most democracies are facing?
Maybe it is the fact that a lot of people realize nothing much changes when they vote in a new party...sort of the same old dog with a new leash?
Now personally I don't believe that! Love him or hate him, Mulrooney made some very big changes that we all live with today? Can you just imagine the massive changes we would see if a Jack Layton became the boss?
Here is a very typical problem with a low turnout? In Red Deer County, during the last election there was a question on the ballot "Do you want an elected reeve?" The result was 56% of voters said yes we do. Only 27% of eligible voters bothered to vote, so 15% of eligible voters decided we would have an elected reeve! Then the complaining started...but how can you complain when you didn't vote? Some councillors are saying 15% is not enough to change the system but in a democracy it has to work that way?
Another example would be in the early nineties when the cattle producers in Alberta were asked if they wanted to keep the checkoff mandatory for the ACC? 12% bothered voting and slightly over 6% decided the checkoff would remain!
If people don't want to be part of the decision making process, then what can you do? If the federal Liberals got 37% of the 61% vote last time then 22.7% of the population elected them! In the USA about 50% of the eligible population voted so Bush got in with about 25% of the peoples support!
Sooner or later you have to realize democracy isn't working all that well and that it is much more important to have a system that protects the rights of the individual than "democracy"? We could argue we have that with our Charter of rights and freedoms, but for one thing? They left out the only real right that matters "The right to own property"? Without that right all the rest are meaningless?

[cakadu]

There are vast differences between how the Americans vote versus how we vote. It is a very different system and I believe it goes something along the lines of having the popular - read most votes - and still not win the election because it is the electoral colleges which actually decide the outcome of the election. That is why there was such a hullabaloo last time.

It is my understanding that if they went just by the vote alone, Al Gore would have defeated Bush. It was the same this last time as well. Kerry had a lot of states behind him, but it was the electoral college vote that swayed things. Maybe someone else knows better how their system works and can help to explain it a little more clearly.

[cowman]

It is a different system but then again in Canada the popular vote doesn't reflect the number of MPs? So for example the Green party had a fairly large number of votes but no MPs? Or in Alberta during the provincial election the Alliance had about 11% of the vote but only one MP?
Consider this: In the riding both you and I live in, we are going to always get a Conservative federally and a PC provincially? Now suppose you don't like either, but always vote for someone else that you think has the right answers? After several elections you might get the attitude of why bother my guy is never going to get in and I'm wasting my time? If there was some system in place where your vote mattered(popular vote?) then you would still have an incentive to vote? Maybe we need something like that?
If you are a die hard Liberal or NDP what is the point of voting in our area? There isn't any.