KalNet Message Board

Would you be in favour of defeating the govt' because of the Gomery Inquiry's recent testimony...

To keep with the theme of the polls forum the goat option had to be there

can i get a hell ya?
i'm always in favor of ousting those damn liberals
give the green party a shot i say

but seriously i think just about anyone (except the marxist lennonist party) could do a better job then the liberals

In 05?

No.

Solely for the reason that it would cost too much. That, and I like minority governments. Well, at least with who's in charge now, I do.

It's possible. Though I think the Green Party doesn't stand a chance against the Conservatives. And to everyone who doesn't vote... Don't blame me, I voted Kodos!

Hate to say it but when the only choice you have is loser a b or c, why bother?

you always say that, you nonvoter. It's people like you that make sure we have losers to vote for.

Paragon wrote:you always say that, you nonvoter. It's people like you that make sure we have losers to vote for.

Until you can provide proof of that, Mike can excercise his right to not vote.

Not voting is as much a right as voting.

Paragon wrote:you always say that, you nonvoter. It's people like you that make sure we have losers to vote for.

I just don't follow the logic of this statement. Why would not voting affect the quality of the candidate.

If you want good people in office you have to change the paradigm. Instead of paying them 100,000 plus, make them pay that for the job.

Voting goes beyond a right.


It's a duty within a democratic society.

[PX]Kal Bob wrote:

Paragon wrote:you always say that, you nonvoter. It's people like you that make sure we have losers to vote for.

I just don't follow the logic of this statement. Why would not voting affect the quality of the candidate.

Maybe the best candidates don't run because they feel that the majority of the population doesn't care since they don't vote.

[PX]Kal Bob wrote:If you want good people in office you have to change the paradigm. Instead of paying them 100,000 plus, make them pay that for the job.

I think that this would ensure that only the very wealthy ran for office, making our gov't more of an oligarchy than it already is.

THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:Voting goes beyond a right.


It's a duty within a democratic society.

Here Here!

THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:Voting goes beyond a right.


It's a duty within a democratic society.

I thought that the whole point of a free society is the "free" part. Do people not have the freedom to not vote and to not be pestered by people about it?

This whole campaign to get people out to vote that don't want to seams rather hypercritical don't you think.

THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:Voting goes beyond a right.


It's a duty within a democratic society.

I disagree entirely. If dont feel that the government or any of the candidates dont reflect my views than it is my right not to vote. To suggest that its a duty to vote removes the point of democracy, if voting isnt voluntary then you arent getting an accurate representation of the public and therefore democracy has failed.

Not voting because you're too lazy, I cant condone. Not voting because you dont want to scratch your ballot because thats a waste of time and thats all you intended to do anyways is your right as a citizen.

Dempsey wrote:Hate to say it but when the only choice you have is loser a b or c, why bother?

You are completely right, all of the parties are base on the same Principal, Screw the Taxpayers. The only reason to vote in this scenario is to attempt to elect the dictator that will screw you the least.

[PX]IronFist wrote:Maybe the best candidates don't run because they feel that the majority of the population doesn't care since they don't vote.

That does not sound likely, the best people to do the job will be those that do it out of a sense of pride and love for there country. The demographics would not be a factor in this case.

[PX]IronFist wrote:I think that this would ensure that only the very wealthy ran for office, making our gov't more of an oligarchy than it already is.

What is wrong with an Oligarchy? The first democracy was an Oligarchy and it is remembered as a shining example of the ancient world. Hell most people would tell you it is the kernel of all modern democracy.

THE JEW (RaVeN) wrote:Voting goes beyond a right.


It's a duty within a democratic society.

Related to this piece of mass media drivel, why should everyone have the right to vote? I still think that universal suffrage was a bad idea. It is quite simple, uniformed people should not be allowed to vote. Now before every gets on the whole "and you are informed bob?" bit, let me answer, No.

I think that only people who spend there whole lives studying non-partisan politics should be able to vote. the closes thing that we have today are PhD holders in Political Science. Also these people are far from what should be required!

Also, while I am on a Rant:
Where the hell do people get the idea that if you don't vote you can't complain? That whole line of thought is bullsh*t. Be that reasoning only people who voted for the loser should complain at all!

The truth is, the people who have a right to complain are the people who paid for it! Anyone who pays taxes has a right to complain about how their money is being spent!