Compulsory Voting

“ Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.”

~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

            The paradoxical nature of humans is to counteract what is set in motion. Especially at a heavily populated area such as in Vancouver, British Columbia, we frequently hear people complain the basis of our society such as taxes or how bad the healthcare or transportation are. Through further examining our society, it is evident that the root of these comments is due to a lack of participation in in politics. Over the years, the overall participation factor in voting has declined at alarming rates. Fewer and fewer citizens take notice of politics, let alone, casting their votes. For this reason, the proposal of incorporating the notion of compulsory voting is an impacting topic discussed by many people. Since the Western civilization has a foundation of democracy, the government is maintained and stabilized only through the votes of the citizens. Therefore, the issue that is brought upon us today is whether compulsory voting should be enforced or not.

            In order to ensure that the country remains stabilized and truly democratic, compulsory voting must be enforced from the most rational point so that the needs of the general citizens are met. Rather than jeopardizing our government, compulsory voting can heighten the level of transparency between the government and the citizens. The necessity of voting would encourage every capable voter to research candidates’ political positions more thoroughly and understand the motives behind each party. By enforcing the citizen’s participation, candidates can appeal to the general audience rather than a small section of the community at a time; hence, it will allow candidates to concentrate on their own business rather than consuming time in appealing to people. Also, this setup will make it more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to vote themselves into power. In other words, compulsory voting also acts as a safeguard that protects our government. Since citizens apply other civic duties such as paying taxes, attending school, jury duties, all of these obligations require far more time and effort than voting; thus, compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than many other obligations.

            On the other hand, this act of requiring citizens to vote can deteriorate the definition of a free country. Since Canada is a country composed of many different people with different backgrounds, not all views are the same. There are a decent percentage of people who have interest in politics, and others simply do not. There is a lack of interest in parties as well as candidates; hence, it may alter the voting as demonstrated in a “donkey vote” or informal vote. Thus, by implying compulsory voting, no improvements may be reached, but rather, deteriorate the current system. In Canada, voting is a privilege is it not? If so, then the notion of compulsory voting can be viewed as a violation of Human Rights and Freedoms. Under article 19, it is clearly stated that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes “freedom to hold opinions without interference.” To a certain degree, compulsory voting implies a forceful obligation and threatens the citizens to do something against their will. Not only is this contradictory to Canada’s foundation of “freedoms,” but it also demonstrates a lack of Canadian identity; therefore, threatens Canada’s sovereignty.

            In conclusion, compulsory voting clearly has equal pros and cons and makes a difficult decision for Canadians to make. The most pressing benefit of required voting that I find is that it achieves transparency in a sense that it connects the overall population to their governments more. However, I also feel violated if it goes against my freedom not to vote. I think that the reason of lack of participation is due to a high rate of immigrants to Canada. These immigrants come to this country without respecting our culture of voting, hence it also alters our voting procedures. For this reason, I think only through voting can we improve voting. However, with this said, personally, I would not like to see compulsory voting set in place, but rather, encourage everyone to vote, and providing a “none of the above” check box. I believe this would be fair because it voices every citizen’s opinion, as well as touch up on the notion of compulsory voting. Similar to what Roosevelt once said, I believe the solution I proposed is the best solution; a solution that is already being promoted.

Notes and Links:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/compulsoryvote.htm

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2012/08/17/mandatory_voting_turning_canadians_democratic_choice_into_duty.html

http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1a5wi5/compulsory_voting_in_canada_thoughts/

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/08/21/don-lenihan-why-compulsory-voting-wont-fix-falling-voter-turnout/

-     http://www.canada.com/life/Statistics+Canada+survey+highlights+immigration+religion+shift/8354086/

story.html

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/

-          http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/23/unemployment-dangerously-low/

-          http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/unemployment-stats/

Who I Am Voting For Re-Do

The 2013 British Columbia provincial election is one that is full of controversial issues across the board.  I for one will be voting for the B.C. Liberal Party for a number of reasons, these reasons will be covered in the remainder of my blog entry. 

The Liberal party has shown a rather large interest in well-being, be that the well-being of us as citizens, our environment, or their policies on liquor and marijuana.  The health care policies of the Liberals are very specific and appeal greatly to me, they have shown their interest in investment in a stated intention to invest 2.3 billion dollars into new equipment and facilities in the lower mainland medical community over the next 3 years.  I believe that this will be very beneficial in order to improve the health care system in the lower mainland.  The environment plan is very simple, the Liberals plan to introduce a provincial round table in order to provide balance and protect the environment.  Their plans for liquor is simply to reduce the outdated regulations, because as we all know, some old outdated policies just do not work in our current day and age.  The Liberal plan for marijuana is unstated in an attempt to say that they will not be changing a thing regarding our current policies on the drug. 

The Liberals have the ultimate goal to take the B.C. economy and find a way to create a debt free B.C. for my generation and our children.  They plan to continue a well balanced budget and keep spending controlled.    They also plan to create 75,000 new jobs as a part of their plans with the Liquefied Natural Gas project.  This increase in jobs will then increase money being spent, and therefore put back into our economy, therefore the economy will be improved by the new jobs that would be created, were the liberals in power.  Another large issue that the Liberals thought was important to touch on was the topic of education.  A part of the liberal plan was to prevent university tuition from increasing by more than 2%, and also to provide the university students of Canada free textbooks to allow them to save some money in their university education.  They also plan to intensify skills training.

The Liberal party is most definitely the best option of the possible parties to vote for.  These are the reasons that I believe that the Liberals are the best choice, there are many more issues that the Liberals have addressed, but these are the ones that have influenced my decision the most.  A Liberal government would make a strong government and I believe that they want to make the right changes in order to allow our province to succeed in the Canadian spectrum of politics.

Here is the site that I used to look over issues for this particular blog post:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/interactive-compare-bc-party-platforms-on-32-election-issues/article11569057/

Should healthcare be restricted based on weight, smoking, or other high-risk behaviours?

With access to healthcare becoming increasingly limited, the question is raised as to whether or not existing resources should be selectively allocated. While many argue that a person’s health is a direct manifestation of the choices they make, others acknowledge the difficulty and the inherent wrongness in judging the lifestyles of citizens, especially for something as essential as healthcare.

First and foremost, those in favour of imposing the aforementioned restrictions on healthcare substantiate their argument on the grounds that there is presently an insufficiency of healthcare and therefore it must be rationally distributed. Smokers, drug addicts, the clinically obese, etc., those who “do not take care” of their bodies should not take priority over people who have had led healthy lives and need the same resources for illnesses or injuries that were out of their control. They also suggest that the restrictions would send a message to future generations as well, incentivizing a healthy lifestyle while deterring unhealthy activities.

Upon initial consideration this argument seems logical, however, further examination reveals that the subject is not as black and white. To begin with, there are a number of activities that can contribute to poor health, many of which are hard to diagnose and often outside of the person’s control as well. Poor emotional health, medical history, demanding jobs, stress, and peer pressure are all examples of factors that can contribute to a poor physical state although they are not a result of apathy or lack of concern. Even professionals such as firefighters, who work for the benefit of society, knowingly put themselves in danger and end up with broken bones, burns, cuts, etc. It would also be difficult to decisively conclude what causes a person’s decline in health, as a lack of concern or dangerousness of lifestyle cannot be quantified, and are nearly impossible to verify. Take for example an obese person who suffers from diabetes sustains a bodily injury that would normally be caused by being overweight; it would be difficult to determine whether or not such conditions were a result of obesity. Such a person could be denied healthcare merely because they are overweight, even if it did not cause any of their physical problems. There is also no one to make the decision of who to grant healthcare to. Such a procedure could not be carried out by a doctor, as it would be too time consuming and a waste of resources.

Even if practicality issues could be solved, there is something inherently wrong in restricting healthcare based on lifestyle. Healthcare is essential, and therefore by giving it to one person over another, it is valuing said person more. Human worth cannot be determined in such a way. It is similar to determining which person is more of a contribution to society, something that is equally wrong, only it is based on lifestyle choices. To connect this issue legally, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the right to liberty, which protects an individual's freedom to act without physical restraint and the power to make important personal choices. By determining who will have access to healthcare by lifestyle choices, this fundamental right would be infringed upon. A restriction on essential service based on the way a person acts then becomes a restriction on the way that person acts. Finally, this is problem causing as it condemns activities such as overeating, smoking, and drinking, which are no illegal, but could lead to the denial of healthcare.

* Upon looking for images, I felt that none would enhance the meaning of this response.

Articles:

http://debatewise.org/debates/1574-healthcare-should-be-restricted-for-those-whose-actions-or-lifestyle-have-provoked-their-condition/

http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/health/house-would-deny-smokers-access-state-healthcare

Election Reflection

With the upcoming provincial elections just around the corner, the issue of nonvoters once again resurfaces. Given the general decline in voter turnout over the past few decades and a growing lack of interest among young adults, the issue is becoming increasingly important. The proposed solution to this problem is making voting compulsory (punishable by fines), but with such a solution begs many questions, such as whether or not Canadian citizens have an obligation to vote, and the validity of the votes collected from the previously undecided.

To begin with, Canada has a democracy, and the strength of a democracy is largely dependent on its citizens’ exercising their right to vote. Since the 1960’s there has been a steady decline in voter turnout, reaching an all time low in 2004 at 60.9 percent. If a democracy is meant to representative of all its citizens and only the better half of 60.9 percent vote for a particular party, it is possible that the majority is not even being represented. With this percentage decreasing still, this scenario is becoming all the more likely. Historically speaking, many feel that the struggles our ancestors endured in order to make Canada a democracy is reason enough to have to vote. Legally speaking, each citizen has the right to vote, but only the obligation to go to a polling location because what a person does with their ballot is up to them; there is always the option to “spoil” a vote if one is uninformed, unhappy with their options, or simply if they want to protest.

The question arises now, if the remaining 39 percent provide a vote that accurately reflects their beliefs. With such a large percentage of the population not voting for a number of different reasons ranging from apathy to sheer lack of convenience, it is not easy to tell how meaningful their votes will be. The main reason that this system is believed to be effective is not because it blatantly forces people to vote with a severe consequence should they not, but because it urges people to vote with a slight penalty.

Studies have shown that in other systems with compulsory voting, such as that in Australia, there has been much success, despite initial speculation for reasons such as those Canadians face. Currently 70 to 80 percent of Australian citizens support mandatory voting. Of course, should there be legitimate reasons for not voting (such as travel, illness, or religion), then such people would not be forced to vote. Furthermore, the fine that exists in Australia is relatively low – it’s $20 – which only 5 percent of the population ends up paying, which can go back to repay election costs. The point is that many of the previous nonvoters embrace the system and reasonably so, as only those that are able to vote are being asked to, with the option to “spoil” still available.

Moving on, such a movement is key because it compels its citizens to want to be informed. If a person is put in a position where they have to vote, they will want to make sure that they make the most out of it. This mentality is what ensures that the democracy lives up to its intent, and that it most accurately reflects the views of the many. As far as young adults go, such a motion would help to send a message, that every vote is important, and the earlier a person gets involved with politics the better. 

http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=168&art=1140
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/time-mandatory-voting-canada-193733213.html

Election Preparation and Reflection: CBC Vote Compass

    The CBC vote compass was a very interesting and fun tool to see what side of the political scale I was leaning on. I thought it was a great idea to show others which topics were similar to the thoughts of each political parties. The website split the categories into five different parts, questions, importance, parties, leaders, and demographics. These categories would show me a better understanding of which side I was on the political scale.
    The questions were very simple, but yet it was very hard to decide what I thought for each one. For example, one question asked how much should the BC government invest in renewable energy resources? First of all, I had no idea how much the BC government invested in this enery renewable resource in the beginning, so it was difficult for me to pick an answer for it. Another question that threw me off were the question relating to the First Nations people. I did not have any deep knowledge on what the regulations on the natural resources were for them. Many of the questions that I did not know how to answer, I either answered as neutral or I don't know. The only questions that really caught my attention were about education, budget and taxes, and labor relations. I guessed this is due to the fact that I am a student at the moment.
    They had a page about the different political parties that made up this election. I really had no clue who these people were and what they did. I basically skipped all the question relating to this topic because I had no idea, who I they were and I still do not know. I thought it would have been better if the website gave a little synopsis on who and what these political parties were and how they differ from each other. They had a category of the leaders of the political parties, but still there was no information to decide which order I should have placed them.
    In the end, the website showed me a result that I leaned on the second quadrant, a little bit to the left of the middle of the graph. I learned that I leaned more onto the NDP side by 20%. The vote compass did not actually help me be able to decide which party to choose. Without outside research, I do not think with this information I am ready to decide and favor a party. I was satisfied with the questions, but the whole who-the-leaders-are was a totally blank out. Overall the website was very fun, yet it would have been nice if they actually talked about the different parties instead of knowing which side I leaned towards more.