Few Polled Are Into Politicking

Good article, DD countdown to five months.

I dislike and disapprove studies like this. I don't believe they should be revealed to the public. Not that the public shouldn't know, but politicians, and lobbyist shouldn't know. It would be in the best interest of the people to leave it out. Because now this gives an advantage to more "fooling of the people" with false promises. What do you think their going to promise now? I bet the Conservatives will be the first ones to step up to the plate to start "fooling the people". They have experience there already with the Free Trade Agreement.

Someone is going to tap into this large group, by talking to talk, but not expecting to walk. I guarantee you many will fall for their promises.

Just like the people who will get fooled by the Conservative and Liberal commercials I'm seeing now. It should be banned all together. We shouldn't have political parties doing advertising of themselves through a commercial. Like think deep on how much products and services are advertised to us on TV, and people often get fooled. Like toothpaste commercials and cleaning products.

Commercials are made to manipulate us, through "researched into people's minds" type of advertising. So like the Conservative and Liberal commercials this is going to go on. Now I don't approve of any political party not just Conservatives and Liberals.

So yah, back to my point. I dislike and disapprove of these types of studies.

Kevin

---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie

I also forgot to mention. I believe we could truly help voter turnout at election, if the laws eliminated anything like Radio, TV and internet for political parties to market themselves. I believe all politicians should go back to the way it was done before all of this technology. Of course back then they had less land to cover, and it will mean a much harder task for today. But every politician should still travel all over, and actually speak and market themselves in a old fashion way.

The only parties I noticed that did this in my small riding was Liberal and NDP, however, Liberal came only after they were elected. The NDP came here twice during the campaign. But anyways that isn't the point really. The point is politicians should come and meet at a grass root level. It would also make it more interesting. Think of it, the riding can excite people about the event on different days, having each Party leader come and talk to the people in the riding. So a person can visit all three to hear what they have to say. Pick up literature and learn about each party. But I would like to expand it further and say each party should reveal a weakness of their party to the people. Let the people decide what party has a scary weakness they dont' want to try out.

This in my opinion is a cure for our voting system problems. To bad the this idea could never manifest, because politicians have gotten used to this techonological way to confuse people into believing whatever they say. Plus its sort of impossible the idea of a political party revealing a weakness. But at least it sounds good.

Kevin

---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie

Well Kevin, one of the problems I see with your plan, is that only the big parties with big money could afford to do it; when you have a riding as big as many of the rural ones, you can not possible visit all the small towns, hamlets etc, also you have to have venues for public gatherings, who pays for that? You are eliminating independants and small parties from the equation, not that they can compete with advertising now. I mean you won't see a big t.v. commercial from CAP anytime soon, because we are funded by the people, so no corporate or union bucks to get our message out on t.v. The only thing I can say in support of it, is that the people do have to talk to each other and spread the word. The other thing I find a bit strange is that this looks alot like campaigning, but I think they are calling it something else. I guess they have plenty of money to do it.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

>>>>>>The other thing I find a bit strange is that this looks alot like campaigning, but I think they are calling it something else. I guess they have plenty of money to do it.<<<<<<<<<

There you go. In your words I wonder to myself if the problem of smaller parties not being able to aford it, whether that is worse or better then what the results of these commercials or whatever kind of campaign thing they have going.

I guess in the end, what I'm saying here, is actually just a Direct Democracy sort of solution. I think that is really all else that is possible. Or is it really?

Kevin

---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie

First, 'revealing' that few people are happy with their politicians and would like to play more of a part in politics is hardly opening pandora's box. Canadian's have been saying this since, well, before 1867. The fear that politician's will attempt to prey on Canadian's wishes seems also bizarre-isn't this what politician's have always done? I'm always subtly amused by those harkening back to some golden age of politics in Canada, always a sure sign they aren't old enough to have lived during them.
As this is a DD thread I'll repeat my stance, which is what the article seems aiming at, is that Canadians don't want promises of ANY sort, they want ACCESS. Referenda, citizen's initiatives, and ballot initiatives are all well known democratic devices, especially applicable to rural areas. Rural communities are ideal since they have the main ingredient in a functioning democracy-which is a manageable population. This, of course, is why we see legislation that ensures that the most important decisions are made as far from the people as possible, in either a distant city or distant province.
We can debate cosmetic changes to electioneering, but the thrust of the argument presented seems right on:that people know democracy when they see it-and especially when they don't.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I have a bad feeling about what the Conservative strategy will be next. Not to mention what the strategies of all parties will be. But considering the money the Conservatives and Liberals will have to study the population to know how to advertise with the best possible results.

I think the Conservatives are going to be using techniques many of us may not even remember, especially like me who wasn't paying attention when I was a kid during the FTA. Their going to use some of those techniques, since they proved to work. I was told the public was released a different copy that was moderated before it was released to the public. So the public only got to read what they wanted to read. So they thought. It isn't going to be another book they have to release to the public. Their going to do it similiar, but different. Their going to maybe outsmart the Liberals this time around.

Kevin

Kevin

---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie

Firstly at the end of my post, I clearly made it clear by saying "what I said sounds good", meaning it was sort of a satire post. So you didn't have to give me a small cheap shot with .......

"""I'm always subtly amused by those harkening back to some golden age of politics in Canada, always a sure sign they aren't old enough to have lived during them."""

The only part I was serious about really, was the idea of politicians revealing their weakness. If you think about it, its probably the only idea I said which you can't say is old days way of campaigning. Now I'm not naive, I know they would lie about that as well.

With that said, your probably right about my age and whether I lived during those times. Actually, you are right. I'm 26 years old. I only started getting involved in politics when I was 20 years old. I'm still very passionate though about the idea of a system that works for the majority of people.

Try to be a little softer on me next time, you hear

Kevin

P.S.....Come to think of it. I was also serious about my dislike for that sort of study.






---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie

Kevin, don't be so defensive about your age, you woke up along time before many, and some of them are twice your age. The fact that you are questioning and learning and interested, gives me great hope for the future! I love your questions, and perspective. It is what keeps things interesting.

As for the poll, anyone who read the results from the last election could tell you that a huge portion of the population didn't bother to vote, that is how far removed they have become from the democratic process, but most people don't see those results, unless you dig for them. The fact that they are doing a poll now is just the lead up to the election, imo. The major parties are going to play whatever they want to and the media will play along, what we need is to find other ways to express differing points of view, and make sure that the message is heard by as many as possible. Do they really think that we believe that Harper and his team were just sitting around having a casual conversation with a camera rolling? I haven't seen the Liberal ad yet so can't comment.


One thing I would like to know though, is why they need a poll, any Canadian who is happy with what they are doing isn't complaining, as for the rest of us, we are practically yelling out here, and they can't hear the message! So much for private healthcare, it can't fix the deaf problem in Ottawa either!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

I thought I had sensitive skin! Sorry to offend by being subtly amused by the comments. I'll try to tone down the harsh rhetoric.

The study itself is no better or worse than most studies, 1000 people simply aren't a large enough demographic, and saying it's accurate for all canadians within 3.1%, meaning it's accurate for 97% of the population is simply so screamingly funny that I'm surprised people quote studies at all in serious debate. However, taken over time with all the other factors the idea that canadians are dissatisfied with their government is hardly radical. In fact you can compare it with worldwide statistics which also have one thing in common with Canada-the remoteness of political action from the average citizen.

Canada, however, ranks worse in most aspects. The US, which is about the second most democratic country shows this on a large scale-their voting patterns are exactly opposite to ours, meaning their highest turnouts at elections (granted, only one measure) are at the local level where many things are decided by ballots. In Canada people are well aware that there is virtually no reason to bother voting at the municipal level, even if you could affect policy it can be overridden by the province, or even the feds. So why bother?

The main reason the 'study' itself is worthwhile (at least in my opinion) is that it is only rarely that we actually see analysis of canadian's political desires. There hasn't been a direct democracy thread at this 'grassroots' website for half a year and even when posted very few took part in any debate on it. This goes to show just how much it needs to get 'out there' and so a study in the Star at least gives it some credibility.