I like your take on things...funny how the "socialists" dont go after or have views of the Socialist Overlords such as David Suzuki who lives a life of luxury.He OWNS his own "Foundation" which enjoys charity status and where his kids work at disgustingly high paid jobs....at the same time he dictates what his salary will be as well as his "expences".....at the same time he not only owns his POSH mansion he also owns 3 other houses and he is in a partnership with an OIL company for hiw own island.....dont look at those facts though as they are the TRUTH.....just ignore them and listen to his "Do as I say not as I do" mantra.....yup it is OK for Suzuki to be a millionaire and live the high life.....all of his brainwashed minions get to eat Kraft Dinner whilst he eats lobster stuufed with veal...and all because he is just so much smarter than the populace and also tells them they should be happy with LESS
Is Harper Destroying Democracy?
- Thread starter Probyn
- Start date
so you agree that we should be working towards more wealth equality! we're making some progress with you storm rider...
aside from singling out a particular individual, storm riders comments are perfectly valid.
why does lobster eating Suzuki not have to pay EI premiums while his Kraft dinner eating minions are taxed an extra $3B/year that they will never see if they become unemployed? why do the minions pay the same amount in MSP premiums, again that have nothing to do with the price of their health care, as the lobster eater? Why do the minions have to pay the same amount of sales tax on a carton of milk then the lobster eater?
here in BC, MSP premiums are a larger source of tax revenue then corporate tax. and sales tax is a greater revenue source than income tax. its regressive taxation. the less you make, the more tax you pay as a percentage of your income.
wealth concentration damages a society at all levels. higher crime. higher health costs. most importantly... IT DAMAGES THE ECONOMY. there is nothing like most of the population having extra change in their pockets to create a vibrant economic environment. so its the entitlement of wealthy and their poor minions who are always talking about "tax locks" that are the problem with our economy. "tax locks" imply that taxation is equitable.
why does lobster eating Suzuki not have to pay EI premiums while his Kraft dinner eating minions are taxed an extra $3B/year that they will never see if they become unemployed? why do the minions pay the same amount in MSP premiums, again that have nothing to do with the price of their health care, as the lobster eater? Why do the minions have to pay the same amount of sales tax on a carton of milk then the lobster eater?
here in BC, MSP premiums are a larger source of tax revenue then corporate tax. and sales tax is a greater revenue source than income tax. its regressive taxation. the less you make, the more tax you pay as a percentage of your income.
wealth concentration damages a society at all levels. higher crime. higher health costs. most importantly... IT DAMAGES THE ECONOMY. there is nothing like most of the population having extra change in their pockets to create a vibrant economic environment. so its the entitlement of wealthy and their poor minions who are always talking about "tax locks" that are the problem with our economy. "tax locks" imply that taxation is equitable.
Absolutely right! The redistributive effect of higher taxation for the more wealthy, and elimination of the regressive forms of taxation... such as MSP and sales tax, ultimately results in a more buoyant economy because those at the lower end spend a far greater portion of their income than those at the upper end. The arguments that those at the upper end should pay lower taxes as that then enables them to invest in the economy is hogwash. It is all about self-interest and they will invest the money where they can get the greatest return and pay the least taxes... which often ISN'T in the productive spheres of the local economy. The mantra of needing lower taxes to boost the economy is BS. Playing into this, of course, is the fear that taxing the wealthy more will end up in them leaving for some distant locale where they don't have to pay taxes, but those locale's frequently have limitations in terms of continuing to generate that wealth (sticking your wealth in a bank vault somewhere isn't going to grow it for you any appreciable amount). Taxes that are TOO high do have a dampening effect on the economy, but we are no where near that currently.
Innovative Research has an interesting poll out that was done for the Hill Times. http://www.innovativeresearch.ca/si...009_IRG29 Wave 6 Hill Times Oct 9 Release.pdf
They asked a series of questions to determine the probability of a person voting. Did you vote in 2011? Will you vote in 2015? Do you think you have a Duty to vote?
10% of registered voters are NOT going to vote in 2015.
20% of registered voters MIGHT vote in 2015
A little less than 70% of voters indicate that they are committed to voting in 2015.
On page 26 the results of being asked if voting is a Duty are in a table. Conservatives and Liberals tend to think voting is a Duty. NDP, Green and Bloc tend to think voting is a choice. This is why Conservatives don't have to work as hard to get their voter to the poll.
On page 27 the results of being asked if "All politicians are the same" are in a table. Conservatives and Liberals tend to disagree. NDP, Green and Block tend to agree. This is how the NDP, Green and Bloc voters justify thinking a rerun of Gilligan's Island is more important than voting.
On page 46 there are the voting intentions for BC
On page 100 there is a table of vote by consistency. The answers to questions have been weighted to see if the person is consistent in their belief. Conservatives are very consistent, Liberals are mostly consistent. Some NDP are consistent and a equal number are inconsistent. Bloc and Green are inconsistent.
On page 101 there is a table of potential to vote by consistency. Consistent people vote, inconsistent people are very likely not to vote.
This is an online survey, which means that the participants are self selected. Therefore voting intention by party must be taken with a bag of salt. However, the NDP, Bloc and Green participants that reported that they were inconsistent in their belief and unlikely to vote IS a very interesting result.
They asked a series of questions to determine the probability of a person voting. Did you vote in 2011? Will you vote in 2015? Do you think you have a Duty to vote?
10% of registered voters are NOT going to vote in 2015.
20% of registered voters MIGHT vote in 2015
A little less than 70% of voters indicate that they are committed to voting in 2015.
On page 26 the results of being asked if voting is a Duty are in a table. Conservatives and Liberals tend to think voting is a Duty. NDP, Green and Bloc tend to think voting is a choice. This is why Conservatives don't have to work as hard to get their voter to the poll.
On page 27 the results of being asked if "All politicians are the same" are in a table. Conservatives and Liberals tend to disagree. NDP, Green and Block tend to agree. This is how the NDP, Green and Bloc voters justify thinking a rerun of Gilligan's Island is more important than voting.
On page 46 there are the voting intentions for BC
On page 100 there is a table of vote by consistency. The answers to questions have been weighted to see if the person is consistent in their belief. Conservatives are very consistent, Liberals are mostly consistent. Some NDP are consistent and a equal number are inconsistent. Bloc and Green are inconsistent.
On page 101 there is a table of potential to vote by consistency. Consistent people vote, inconsistent people are very likely not to vote.
This is an online survey, which means that the participants are self selected. Therefore voting intention by party must be taken with a bag of salt. However, the NDP, Bloc and Green participants that reported that they were inconsistent in their belief and unlikely to vote IS a very interesting result.
i'd like to add that the blue minions that complain about high taxes are absolutely right! that they are being taxed too much. and that the blue wealthy use the votes of the blue minions to reduce their tax burden only via the the "trickle down" myth. that the blue minions are motivated additionally by red herring social issues for some icing on the cake.
I have been reading this thread and I have to throw my two cents in.
Yes Mr. Harper is destroying democracy. He is running the country like a dictator because he is a bully. The very people that where elected and helped make him PM of Canada can't vote the way they want. Granted this is nothing new. Our form of government is to elect a dictator for four years. We hope that they represent us and Canada the best they can.
So the conservatives were elected. Did you vote for them? I know I didn't.
Some how we as a nation have lost sight of how our electoral system works, and a big part of it is the party system which has been in effect from the beginning. The way the system was originally designed is that you are a party member and vote for that party, agree with the party politics and vote for that party, or (and this is one it seems everyone forgets) vote the local representative that you feel will best represent you or your riding.
For the past five elections this is the only way I can vote because all the leaders scare me. There isn't a single one I would trust with the country. Once upon a time in a different riding I did vote conservative because he represented us very well, fought for us and after eight years finally won.
All of this being said, this is the one time in four years that your voice is heard. In my opinion hear what your local representatives have to say and try to hire the one that will do the best job for you or your riding. Remember the representative you hire is the one your stuck with. As for the party leaders, or the parties them selves, I guess we're stuck with them and none of them are any good.
Yes Mr. Harper is destroying democracy. He is running the country like a dictator because he is a bully. The very people that where elected and helped make him PM of Canada can't vote the way they want. Granted this is nothing new. Our form of government is to elect a dictator for four years. We hope that they represent us and Canada the best they can.
So the conservatives were elected. Did you vote for them? I know I didn't.
Some how we as a nation have lost sight of how our electoral system works, and a big part of it is the party system which has been in effect from the beginning. The way the system was originally designed is that you are a party member and vote for that party, agree with the party politics and vote for that party, or (and this is one it seems everyone forgets) vote the local representative that you feel will best represent you or your riding.
For the past five elections this is the only way I can vote because all the leaders scare me. There isn't a single one I would trust with the country. Once upon a time in a different riding I did vote conservative because he represented us very well, fought for us and after eight years finally won.
All of this being said, this is the one time in four years that your voice is heard. In my opinion hear what your local representatives have to say and try to hire the one that will do the best job for you or your riding. Remember the representative you hire is the one your stuck with. As for the party leaders, or the parties them selves, I guess we're stuck with them and none of them are any good.
Under First Past the Post and the Party Leader system - It doesn't matter who you vote for locally as long as she/he is of the party that you support. The Party Leader chooses who will be in Cabinet, who will sit on committees and who will be appointed from the pool of party supporters to the various plum jobs.
It doesn't get any better under Proportional Representation. Most Proportional Representation systems rely on a Party List and the Party Leader is practically guaranteed a seat. The Party List (and a person's place in the order) determines if a person has a chance at Cabinet, Committees or a Plum Job.
Proportional Representation is how the Defense Minister, Lands Minister and Justice Minister of Israel are all people that think the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian. The majority of Israelis actually voted for a more peaceful government, but the coalition that was formed is biased towards war.
You are correct but the only two parties following party lines are the greens and conservative. The NDP sound like liberals and the liberals sound like NDP.
All I was saying is that if someone isn't doing the job we hired them for you fire them. The party system hasn't worked for years, so vote for the person that will represent your riding the best they can and not just be a back bencher or someone trying to line there pockets.
I am in a conservative riding and my mp has done nothing for his riding, lied to his constituents, and weaseled his way into a ministers job. He needs to be fired.
Mp's have a job to do. That's why they have an office in the riding. If they refuse to do the job because "that would be to difficult " they need replacing.
Thank you for sharing this. It is indeed some interesting and revealing data.
There is a whole bunch of other interesting stuff I see in there... one of which is that 28% percent of Conservatives would not vote at all rather than vote for another party as their second choice, and undecided/would not vote combined is 48%. If opposition advertising could be focused on getting those people to stay home, then Harper would be gone.
I wonder how many of them will sit on the sidelines this time in disgust with what Herr Adolph has been doing?
Note also the underrepresentation of Cons and NDP and overrepresentation of Libs in those who voted in the last election compared to the actual results.
I guess you are voting Justin then, right? Because one of his election platform is to reduce taxes for the middle class and paying for it by taxing the top 1%.
SR, debating them is entertaining but they are so brainwashed I am actually hoping they do get the government they so desperately want so they get it out of their systems though I do feel sorry for how much damage it will do to their prospects of employment etc. Funny how many people truly believe they can simply take more than they provide to the overall "system". The fact that all capital is fundamentally mobile, if you don't foster capital enhancement and opportunity the ability to fund anything resembling a social program is simply out of the question. However, there will always remain susceptible people who somehow believe the crap that corporations and people who are truly successful somehow are not paying their "fair share". Oh well, will be entertaining to see the bleating if they get their way and even more entertaining to see if they get another four years of Harper. Either way, entertaining!
I think that you are adding numbers that can't be added.
The poll as a whole = 100%. If you take the people that won't vote (6%) and add them to the people that might vote (12%) plus the people that are undecided but think they may vote (12%) you get 30% of the poll probably won't vote. That means that when you are looking at voting intention, that pool is 70% of the people polled, expressed as 100% of the people that declared a voting intention.
If you are taking the table on page 17, the second choice is only applicable if the first choice is not available. It doesn't surprise me that 20% of Conservatives don't know who they would vote for if the Conservative was no longer on the ballot. It also doesn't surprise me that 28% of Conservatives wouldn't be able to vote for any other party's candidate. What must be remembered is that Conservatives are very loyal to the brand. 84% of self identified Conservatives intend to vote Conservative. 76% of Conservatives that say that they voted in 2011 say that they intend to vote Conservative. I really doubt that the opposition can raise anything that has not already been raised in the last 9 days of the campaign and this poll was in the field on Friday.
In 2011 the Conservatives turned about 30% of the likely voters into 36% of the people that voted. The NDP turned about 35% of the likely voters into 30% of the people that voted and the Liberals turned their support into 18% of the people that voted. A lot of that is how good a party's e-day machine is, but conservatives are pulling older voters who are used to voting. In 2011 the Liberals spent a lot of resources trying to get the university students to vote, those resources would have been better spent on people that do actually vote.
Elections are decided by the people that vote. Not by the people that are really active on social media and media feedback pages.
That's why page 21 has to be taken with a bag of salt. Turnout in 2011 was 61% of registered voters. People in this poll that say that they voted is reported at 72%. If the person says that they are 18 (likely true), then voted in 2011 is certainly untrue. That's the problem with online polls of self selected people.
Fair comment. I skimmed through it rather than spending much time reading it in detail. I know there is a big push to get students voting at the institution of higher learning I'm at... I gave bonus marks for students voting, as have a number of other teachers. And the Conservatives had a low profile on campus leading up to the election (must have figured it was a waste of resources).
Voter consistency problems for the 3 untraditional parties is mainly linked to the low possibility of these 3 parties gaining power.
Hey. I know how hard it is to scroll through a .pdf and remember where that interesting tidbit is. I didn't print the .pdf myself. Too many colour pages and I didn't want to spend the money. However, it's a lot easier to work with paper and put stickies on the interesting tidbits that you might want to go back to.
lol, I'm still a semi Luddite and can't get OneNote to work for me.
I hate, hate, hate the American software NationBuilder. It's full of errors by design, you can't upgrade your voters list without creating errors. You get an original voter's list, the update once the revision period ends, the update once advance polling ends - that also tells you who has voted already and then you get a final update that has all the new voter registrations and corrections on election day. You are constantly playing wack a mole with all of the errors.
People think that because it does email, facebook and twitter mass mailings fairly easily - it replaces putting someone on the doorstep or even doing phone canvass.
Hell, I have nationbuilder on my auto mark as junk. Probably most people do.
Last edited:
