1) Are you voting in Ontario’s provincial election on October 10th?
2) If so, who are you voting for?
3) How are you voting on the referendum question?
4) Hypothetical bonus question: If the new electoral system (Mixed Member Proportional) were in effect for this election, which of course it isn’t, would both your votes go to the same party?
5) Why is it considered rude to ask people who they’re voting for?
Here are my answers:
1) Yes
2) Probably Green or NDP – I’ll decide at the All-Candidates Debate in Carlington on Wednesday night.
3) I’m voting FOR the proposed change (ie Mixed Member Proportional).
4) I don’t know yet.
5) I have always been mystified by this particular bit of etiquette. (Also, why is it considered rude to put your elbows on the table?)
I’m first!
1. Yes.
2. Liberal: our riding is close, and I’d kick myself if the conservatives won it.
3. For: seen it in action in NZ, and although it isn’t really PR, it’s better than FPP.
4. No: I’d vote Liberal in my riding, and Green for the list.
5. Not sure about the politics question, but the elbows on the table taboo comes from the days when food was served onto the table, not on plates.
1. Yup
2. Green party
3. For it
4. Probably 1.NDP, 2.Greens
5. It’s considered rude to ask people just about anything. Thanks for asking zoom
Oh good, people are answering!
Jr, they used to just throw the food on the table?? And people didn’t want to get their elbows dirty?
Robin, I’ve been seeing the NDP sign on your lawn for the last week, and this morning I saw a Green sign had sprung up beside it.
I hope more people answer my rude questions.
1. Yes
2. Green or NDP, haven’t decided yet.
3. For
4. NDP/Green
5. Because the assumption of the privacy/secrecy is part of a democracy in which cannot be made afraid to vote however they wish. I don’t think it’s rude to ask in a private interaction, unless you ask without showing appropriate manners; make it clear that you understand that you are asking for a confidence.
1st sentence of #5 should read: Because the assumption of the privacy/secrecy is part of a democracy in which *voters* cannot be made afraid to vote however they wish.
1. Yes
2. NDP
3. For
4. NDP/Green
5. I don’t know but the secrecy runs deep. As kids, my parents wouldn’t tell us who they were voting for in case we went to school and told the other kids. They were voting PC all along, so I now understand why they were/are so ashamed.
1. Yes
2. PC or Lib. There are disadvantages to both. All the parties come with baggage.
3. For
4. Not sure
5. I don’t want to be asked because I don’t want to get into a discussion about it.
1. Yes!
2. Green – Incidentally, my dad is the CFO for our local candidate.
3. For, sadly there’s no checkbox for “Very Very Much In Favour”
4. Not in my current riding, elsewhere who knows?
5. I guess it’s a symptom of having secret ballots: maybe there’s some general sense that disclosing one’s vote defeats the purpose?
1) Yes
2) NDP
3) For
4) Yes, both to NDP
5) I’ll generalize that alot of people see any kind of disagreeing (like not voting for the same party) as an argument, instead of as a plain discussion or debate. So asking the question is viewed as possibly picking a fight.
1) No. (advanced polls since I’ll be poll clerk on the day)
2) undecided.
3) For the new system and want to write up a post about that.
4) not likely.
5) cuz some people get so excited that they lecture even after the other glaze-over point? My parents too would never reveal to each other who they voted for. Makes discussion of issues rather out of the question.
Great stuff! Thank you.
I can’t imagine growing up in a family that didn’t talk about politics. I remember my step-father being furious with my mother about something completely unrelated to politics and he started ranting he was going to vote PC to cancel out her NDP vote. Ha ha! (Pearl, I think that’s amazing your parents wouldn’t even tell each other who they voted for!)
I had forgotten about that argument ending with a threat to cancel my vote.
The reason you shouldn’t put your elbows on the table is easier … you look as if you are about to fall into your food … much more reminiscent of pigs in a trough than humans bringing food to their mouths.
I disagree about looking like pigs at the trough…If you lean on your elbows you look like you have balance…while keeping your elbows at your sides, always seems slightly off balance. Sooze, I don’t think any children had a more political upbringing than we did…how many got to attend Waffle meetings, NDP meetings, march on Dare cookies, march for Henry M? Thanks Mom…I am so politically apathetic now, but at least I learned something in my youth
1) Yes I always vote and probably will in the advance poll – don’t like to leave it to the last minute and then have something happen that prevents my voting. On the other hand, I have a friend who always says, “Don’t vote! It only encourages them!”
2) I often vote for the candidate because that is the person who will represent me. I have even voted NDP once! In this case, I will vote Liberal because the candidate is the incumbent Jim Watson and I think he is the best of the bunch. I would vote for a fringe party candidate but only if they were really outstanding as a person.
3) I am voting against MMP and here’s why (something I wrote in an email to a friend):
One thing about MMP I don’t like is the idea that voting for a party can help your representation. We have to realize what democratic representation is about to begin with, in order to see where we’re going with this.   As I understand it, we vote for an MP so that person will represent us and our interests to the provincial government. An MP represents ALL his constituents, regardless of whether they voted for him or what party anyone represents.
The beef with first-past-the-post is that your MP may not represent your interests because he’s a man, a Catholic, he belongs to the Liberal party, etc.. I think that’s a red herring, a MacGuffin if you will. I get that the party in power will try to pass laws according to its philosophy (tax-and-spend, environment first, small government (like that’s ever going to happen) etc.). But I am not convinced that having more philosophies hanging around, unelected, in parliament will make things any better. Even majority mainstream governments respond to an effective campaign by the people. If something is that important, then the people will have their way. The rest tends to be so much window dressing.
Yet another reason to vote against MMP:
“The “Vote for MMP” team has an impressive campaign committee – chaired by Rick Anderson, a former senior adviser to Preston Manning.”
4) If MMP were in effect for this election, would both your votes go to the same party? Not necessarily, because I vote for the candidate I like (see 2 above) and he/she isn’t always the party that I prefer. But (and I reference an earlier discussion we had) I think we need a better party system with a whole new but mainstream (i.e not fringe) party.
5) Why is it considered rude to ask people who they’re voting for? I don’t mind but people like the secrecy of the polls so that’s one reason. Your earlier responses are pretty thorough. And I know people who won’t tell ANYone who they voted for.
1) Yes
2) Will Murray (NDP)
3) Yes
4) Probably
5) As for the elbows, I found this: “The great houses and castles of England during the middle ages did not have dining tables in the great halls, so tables were made from trestles and covered with a cloth. The diners sat along one side only; if they put their elbows on the table and leant too heavily, the table could collapse.” That, and it could invade other diners’ personal space.
@Julia:
“The beef with first-past-the-post is that your MP may not represent your interests because he’s a man, a Catholic, he belongs to the Liberal party, etc.”
I don’t think that’s the fault that many people find in FPP. Where did you get that idea?
The beef, as far as I know, is that while FPP may be a fine way to establish a local representative, it falls down when a parliament is assembled using the same results, particularly in a viably multi-party politics, wherein it is possible to win ridings with quite small pluralities.
Imagine a province of riding results that resemble:
AAAAAAA|BBBBBB|CC|DDDDD|EEEE .
When that is extrapolated to proportions in a parliament, we have an ‘A’ government despite the fact that 2/3 to 3/4 or more of the electorate voted for candidates of other parties. Where does the word “representative” even fit into this?
“But I am not convinced that having more philosophies hanging around, unelected, in parliament will make things any better.”
In what way(s) could they be said to be unelected?
‘Yet another reason to vote against MMP:
“The “Vote for MMP†team has an impressive campaign committee – chaired by Rick Anderson, a former senior adviser to Preston Manning.‒
I’m no fan of Mr. Manning’s myself, but that argument — guilt by association — is the cheapest one of all, as any student in 1st-year logic (and *any* thinking person) can tell.
“Even majority mainstream governments respond to an effective campaign by the people.”
But I thought we wanted, in the first place, good, effective representation; not after-the-fact campaigns, run effectively or otherwise?
Anne, it was Rick Anderson I objected to, not Manning.
It is my understanding that 39 of the new reps in MMP would be chosen by their parties and therefore, in that sense, not elected. Also, we do not need more MPPs. We need fewer and less government too.
Julia:
“[It] was Rick Anderson I objected to, not Manning.”
Alright, I admit ignorance. I don’t know anything about Mr. Anderson. What about him taints this process and the committee? (I assume it would still be tainted if its outcome had been in favour of the status quo?)
“We need fewer and less government too.”
Oh, *that* old saw. Contempt for government seems to backfire, producing only contemptible governments.
Rick is an opportunist among many other things and if he is in support of something, it makes me wonder why and it makes me suspicious of the thing he is promoting.
I don’t have contempt for government. I just don’t think we need to be governed as much as most governments think we do. I think there are entire Ministries that could be, if not eliminated, then reduced dramatically. A trite example is the LCBO – do we really need the government involved in what booze we can buy?
Julia:
“A trite example is the LCBO – do we really need the government involved in what booze we can buy?”
That’s a good point. Liberalization of alcohol distribution has been a *long* *time* coming to Ontario. Allowing the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores was a prominent plank in the (victorious) election campaign of David Peterson. That was in 1985.
Come on, already!