mmmmmmmmmm
it is now after the election, and even local papers have stopped talking about it and i think i can discuss it objectively without it swaying people one way or the other, in the end this is a personal choice, one you should make on your own, and to me is a bigger question then even WHO you vote for.
this isn't an essay, this isn't a formal argument, this isn't a thesis, this isn't proof, this is kind of an explanation, but less then that, and it's reason but more then academic. but like every thing else you read here in livejournal it is IRRELEVANT.
"if voting changed anything, it would be illegal."
"no matter who you vote for the government always gets in "
first i'll discuss the elitist nature of the canadian politic as a system;
in order to run federally (provincially it's much less, 200$ per person) you must put 1000$ deposit, (and let's assume for a second you want to win, because it is possible to be elected to office and to sit and just take a paycheck, because of the nature of the party system unless your part of the ruling party or the "official opposition" it's likely you won't even get a chance to speak on subject presented to the house, so in order to have yours, and everyone elses in your party, voice, opinion or perspective tabled and passed you must have a majority government.) so if 301 (ridings distributed and separated by current government able to be changed up until nomination monday by population distribution, not by need but by number.)is the number of seats in the house of commons, then you must put up 151 000$ just to get the name of your party of the ballot, but since the introduction of C36 you must run a member of your party in all ridings in a federal election, you must have twice that, for just your name to even appear, elitist? you judge. now don't get me wrong, this is only a deposit, your are eligible to get this money back, but only if you receive 15% of the valid vote proper, in all your ridings.
the problems with the party system illustrated here by from what i can tell a british right wing libertarian outlines fundamental problems with, better then i ever could, and while foreign in it's scope can be directly related to our own system witch for the most part has been parroted.
homogeny of opinion is personally all i see when i look at parties, right/left they all discuss the same issues, and even as ruling government affect no change, for example 60% of people in ontario under Bob Rae's ontario (NDP-so-called left wing) were employed, they toiled for an average of 31 hours a week and earned about 620 dollars a week. the average worker earned about 23, 500 a year before taxes, of witch 22% was lost to income tax. Each resident received about 5000$ worth of programs and services from the provincial government witch maintained a roughly 8000$ debt per person in ontario, and eleven percent of families lived under the poverty line. Now under Mike Harris's Ontario (Conservatives- so called right wing) 60 percent of the people in ontario are employed working an average of 32 hours a week earning about 610$ a week, the average resident made 25, 000 before taxes and paid about 24% on they're income tax the also received roughly 5000$ in social programs from the province witch carried a 8000$ debt per person living in ontario while 11 % of people lived under the poverty line. I understand these are just numbers, hell i'm not even going to bother to list the source, because the date is also irrelevant, my point is that parties of differing ideologies, only argue about the color of they're banners, they still run business as usual. Who is in power doesn't matter, the same things will happen, because of the nature of checks and balances in place.
Democracy the real lie.
it's bad enough people say we live in a democracy, when we don't, we live in a representive democracy and for all intensive purposes the dictatorship of the few (151 to be exact). People extol the virtues of democracy, blind to it because of rote, democracy is the tyranny of 51%, it is a majority tool for the exploitation of others, and sometimes themselves, people fail to think that solutions can be amicable to all parties involved, consensus. democracy doesn't give everyone a voice, it gives a medium to the loudest voice to shout down all the others. Voting, is a win/lose model it force people to think about what it would take to win as oppose to the issues itself, it is the embodiment of quality vs.. quantity.With consensus people can and should work through differences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is possible for one person's insights or strongly held beliefs to sway the whole group. No ideas are lost, each member's input is valued as part of the solution. As oppose to depersonalizing issues or blanket perspectives, people have differing perspectives on ALL issues not just one. they should and must have direct control over these process and decisions.
i haven't approached this from an anarchist perspective, witch in the end i really wanted too, i wanted to discuss the problems of hierarchy, the collective objectification and consumption of lifestyle, and how they make real choice everyday to ignore, and even work against themselves and how this is in essence the root of racism, homophobia, law/crime, war, or even hate. but i didn't instead i've just commented on the existing systems, and gave a perspective that i thought was my feelings on the existing principals on witch we as a society/nation/people choose to "govern" ourselves.
readings
http://www.snappingturtle.net/electionfinance/faq.html
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/guide/guide-e.htm
right now it doesn't matter, this won't change your life,
but instead of changing your government, or changing your jobs,
maybe just try and change your life, it's easier, and in my opinion, more rewarding.