[lit-ideas] Re: Vote!

  • From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:25:01 -0400

At 02:39 PM 10/27/2004, you wrote:
>Paul Stone wrote:
>"Wouldn't it be neat to have an election that DOESN'T have 4 years of leadup
>to it?"
>Not really.  Think of Jean Chretien (former Prime Minister of Canada) and
>the manner in which he ruled with virtual impunity since he had no real
>concern regarding being re-elected.

The reason that Chretien stayed in power so long is because Mulroney 
managed to completely disenfranchise a lot of conservatives, destroying the 
national conservative party -- and because the existence of Quebec 
completely screws up every Canadian federal election. It wasn't really 
because he had impunity. Voters continually voted against anything else but 
the little guy from Shawinigan.

Until the time that Martin took over the LIberal helm, in the minds of most 
Canadians, there was NO viable alternative to Chretien -- a lot of people 
would still say there isn't. No amount of publicity could change that. No 
amount of treachery and lying by the PM could do any damage. No one in 
Canada watches the Canadian news. Even when a legitimate alternative party 
WAS re-convened, their leader had some questionable views that made some 
lifelong Conservatives vote for their local Liberal.

So... I don't think it was a media problem, it was a Canadian apathy 
problem. Even if it WAS on the news (which IT IS) nobody would see it. I'm 
not saying that Canada's politicians are any better, but 6-8 weeks of 
leadup is unbearable enough. I can't imagine 4 years of caring that much 
about an election. Perhaps we could meet somewhere in the middle.

>I would prefer that politicians always be mindful of the fact that their 
>positions need re-approval every few years.

I would too, but a non-stop mudslinging fest is not the answer. Also, when 
you campaign for 80% of the time you are in power, it hardly leaves much 
time to get any work done now does it?

>Regarding the character of that electioneering, it seems to me that people 
>get the politicians they deserve.

That's an interesting sentence. People who voted against that someone 
surely don't deserve him when he completely cocks it up do they?
Just last week, some people were saying that ONE life wasted demeans life. 
Well, extended to voting, one vote wasted demeans "the vote". This is why 
voting for 'the winner' is such a dumb thing to do. If you are truly 
undecided then don't vote. You're just fucking it up for anyone who IS 

I only once voted for someone who won and he ROCKED!!! Too bad he quit.


Paul Stone
Kingsville,ON, Canada
RC1.0 x g/n 27/2/cd/tG PoW/- ~3 d+ L 63% [29 Sept 2001]

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: