Canada Votes 2006

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
trevster2k said:
Paul Martin is stepping down as leader of the Liberals. Let the leadership debate begin.:ohmy:

Definitely Frank McKenna.

Michael Ignatieff did not step down from an ultra prestigious Harvard Chair in Human Rights to come be a dinky MP for Etobicoke Lakeshore. Be sure of it.

Belinda $tronach is a potential wildcard.
 
I'm surprised by my reaction but I actually started sobbing when Martin made his way to the podium. He had so much potential! Doesn't anyone remember 2 short years ago when he was the most popular politician in Canada?!

It's ironic how the pundits are throwing around names like Brian Tobin (whom I personally really like), John Manley, etc as possible Liberal leadership contenders yet these were the Chretienites of the Liberal party and therefore more closely associated with the "corrupt" few in the Party!
 
It doesnt really matter about Alberta, we only vote conservative. Ignatieff would do wonders for the thinking Canadians, dont get me wrong conservatives are thinkers, but people who arent reactionary and can look at a problem and solve it in out of the box ways.

Harper must be on the phone with Bush having a little chuckle right now.
 
Why is everyone so glum?


Time to crack out the bottle of champagne.

The "we agree with everything" liberals are out.

Now hopefully Harper doesn't botch this up by letting too many of his alliance henchmen to play a role.


Progressive Conservative for life...
 
Sorry djfeelgood, the Progressive Conservatives died a few years ago.:wink:

The Progressive Conservatives had my support from time to time.
 
The turnout for this election was poor, CBC reported only 64% of the voters participated. It's sad that so many people either feel excluded from the process or are totally ambivalent to the outcome. I would like to see the politicians address this problem too. Although, that would mean actually doing an effective job in Parliament which with a minority government appears to be unlikely.
 
not voting is a waste of one of the rights/freedoms you have in this country, even if you don't agree with either of the 2 main candidates. then find a minor candidate you like but for goodness sake at least vote.
 
Freedom would include the right to not cast a vote. Simply voting for the sake of voting doesn't accomplish anything.


High turnouts in free voting (as opposed to the mandatory system in some countries) would signal a widespread belief that life will change significantly depending on the outcome.
 
nbcrusader said:
Freedom would include the right to not cast a vote. Simply voting for the sake of voting doesn't accomplish anything.

point taken.


nbcrusader said:

High turnouts in free voting (as opposed to the mandatory system in some countries) would signal a widespread belief that life will change significantly depending on the outcome.

maybe, and maybe it would signal that people weren't too lazy to go to the polls.
 
Not voting is a means of expression, but I think the statement it makes is a little sad. Like you pointed out, low turnout can mean the people don't think the outcome of the election will cause any real change to their situation...and at a time when we have all these polls saying that the majority feels the country is "going in the wrong direction" or whatever, it sucks that as a country we don't feel like we have any hopeful or promising options.
 
If it was to be the Conservatives, I was hoping for at least a minority government...it'll be good for Harper to have his name and "minority" side by side. He may learn somethin'.

A very humbling win for Harper...some would say he's a lame-duck PM. If you can't win a majority after one of the biggest scandals by a governming party, which also ran one of the worst-run election campaigns ever, then you have a lot to prove. Hopefully, Harper will govern from the middle.
 
Well, can't say I'm happy about the result.. but at least the minority will keep the Conservatives from doing anything too extreme. Who knows, we could be voting again in the not to distant future.

I would love to see Frank McKenna take over the head Liberal spot.

Has a minority government ever gone four years? Just out of curiosity.

Air Farce, 22 minutes and Rick Mercer should have fun with this.
 
RavenBlue said:
Has a minority government ever gone four years? Just out of curiosity.

Not quite.

Mackenzie King's minority government stayed in power the longest, for 3 years, 7 months, and 21 days back in the early 1920s.

There is a chart listing the length of Canadian minority governments at the bottom of this page if you're interested.
 
In the 80's, Canada's voters turn out was at 75%. The previous two elections was at 60%, while yesterday was estimated around 64%. In 1958, turnout was 79.4%
 
Interesting point I just heard, no Conservatives elected in the 3 largest cities of Canada, Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. City mouse vs country mouse divide in Canada.
 
VertigoGal said:
Not voting is a means of expression, but I think the statement it makes is a little sad.

Not voting merely implies a distaste with the electoral process, but that action does not necessarily convey a response to the candidates themselves. A stronger means of voicing your opinion (with respect to the options or lackthereof) would be found in actually voting for none of the choices, which some folks would consider a spoiling of the ballot.
 
Last edited:
trevster2k said:
Interesting point I just heard, no Conservatives elected in the 3 largest cities of Canada, Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. City mouse vs country mouse divide in Canada.

City's such as Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City, Winnipeg had strong Conservative support so that ruins that theory.
 
the rockin edge said:
The US is lower, 55.3% in 2004 & that was the highest turnout since 1968

it's sad really

here's a link to past US turnouts
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html


Sadly, voter turnout is declining throughout the Western world. People are obviously unimpressed with the process, and this feeling has especially intensified with youth. Maybe it’s a result of big business wandering into the corridors of government. From the process of candidate nomination, straight through to funding a campaign, money increasingly matters. I think it’s displaced much of our idealism and sense of purpose. Look, for example, at the corruption here in Canada...or the war in Iraq--which many say was connected with interests of oil companies instead of a grand quest for fostering democracy. Looking around, it’s easy to see how, and why, people tune out.

On an optimistic note, turnout last night was up. If there is an upside to such a vicious campaign and close race, it’s that it stirs the status quo and kickstarts debate. Debate is a good thing.
 
boosterjuice said:


City's such as Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City, Winnipeg had strong Conservative support so that ruins that theory.

Don't even remind me... my city elected Conservatives ! *knocks her head on the wall till it bleeds* Can't... believe... it.... Also Ottawa... Arg.
 
Back
Top Bottom