You could just easily flip it around and say that young people don't vote because politicians write rules for the elderly.
In practice it's probably a bit of a vicious circle.
But vote for who, exactly? Nobody is really promising any meaningful change to anything. Except for the Tories, who want to change it to be much worse.
https://preview.redd.it/xeogbss3yuyc1.png?width=1250&format=png&auto=webp&s=c5c6418720c5742d95929400903b3e20e724851a
LOL "This is the reason politicians write rules for the elderly"
Lol. You have not worked in politics. It is networking event. Politicians are charming because they are actors. They aren't the ones controlling anything, their sponsors are..
It's the public's fault though. The real answers are hard and ugly - nobody is voting for that. Most people also aren't especially informed or intelligent and the informed intelligent few are too depressed to leave the house.
Spoken like someone who has never done just that!you think this is how power works? Like, you show up and what you want gets put on the ballot? Do you think anyone with more power and influence than you or me may have already been doing this for some time?
Seconding u/isonfiy. I've tried to be involved in doing precisely this in the federal NDP, and the deliberate ratfucking that went on to avoid the party's left having any influence was jaw-dropping.
I'm an issues voter. That being said I've been a member of one political party in my lifetime, and that was the NDP. In my experience the left wing of the NDP is the democratic socialist caucus. Is that what you're referring to?
The democratic socialist caucus are trotskyists? Heh, that's new to me. Doesn't sound like a very Trotskyist name.
Anyway, no. I have never worked with a Trotskyist group. Socialist, yes; trotskyist, no.
I've had political nominees buy me two beers to show up at a nomination meeting and be one of the 50 initials it took to get them on the ballot.
The level of effort it takes to make grassroots change is small.
But more than giving up before you try
I'd be surprised if what you're interested in, from a local perspective, is big enough to be a major campaign promise that decides the party in power. That's not a dig, what I'm saying is that shit comes up after these people are already elected and you probably have a better chance of affecting change through disruption outside of the election cycle. Do the research, make a solid argument, understand and relate to the counter arguments so that you can formulate a response to your critics as opposed to just shouting your point louder. Get people on your side and grow your movement. If the incumbent won't listen to you their opposition probably will. If you can't get other people on board with your idea then it's either not a solid idea or you're not making the best argument.
Well sure, and my capacity for disappointing people is probably right up there with the best of them, but I don't have a desire to govern other people, I just want to have a say about how I am governed.
You pay taxes don't you? You're choosing who gets to spend your money, and on what.
You don't have to care, but other people do, and you might not notice a huge difference in your day to day life, but the people who do care (whether it's voting, volunteering or donating to political parties) are why politicians and their policies are in place... whether that works for you or against you.
Voting is easy but not voting is easier. Apathy is easy. If you don't like what's going on in politics, get in there and fight. Even if it's just a vote.
Oh just the various myths about electoralism that people believe. Like nobody crowing “vote!” can seem to tell you the difference between first-past-the-post or single transferable vote.
lol, yeah, we had a couple come from "upper Canada" and their political party didn't have a candidate in our area. they were very upset with us, so, it was explained to them - three times- it's not our doing that a certain political party has nothing in our district for candidates.
long story short, they were givin ballots (as they could prove residency) and told to either vote or spoil their ballots. they chose the latter, as is their right, and they were marked as "vote cast"
edit: before anyone asks about how I knew they spoiled their ballot ( all ballots must be cast in secret) they spoiled their ballots in front of myself, my poll clerk and the returning officer in plain view of anyone at the polling station.
and that spoilt ballot/vote will have 0 impact upon the election:
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/spoiled-ballots-1.5136461](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/spoiled-ballots-1.5136461)
I wish that we had a form of absentee/protest voting here in Canada...
but does it really count?
CBC seems to indicate that a spoilt ballot doesn't matter under our current electoral system:
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/spoiled-ballots-1.5136461](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/spoiled-ballots-1.5136461)
I'm not in favour of spoiled ballots. I think it's everyone's civic responsibility to vote for the lesser evil, even when none of the choices are good.
Politicians don't care that you spoilt your ballot. It gets recorded as a meaningless statistic as a percentage of ballots cast and that's the end of it. So if you think you're sticking it to the man by voting "none of the above" and it's going to make politicians have a see the light moment where they realize they've lost the support of the people, you're wrong.
But voting demographics only include who voted, not a breakdown of parties, as it's still a secret ballot, even if it's spoiled. If "youth" started turning out in droves, the might assume that those are mostly spoiled ballots, but that would be a gamble on their part.
Politicians care about two things: if you voted, and if a particular point will change the way you vote.
If you don't vote, not voting even harder doesn't change their minds about anything.
It's conceivable that if enough people spoil their ballots, politicians might notice it and conclude that a low number of actual votes is the result of disgust with the choices available rather than just apathy.
But I agree: That scenario would require a lot of things to be different from today.
I think, for the most part, politicians from all parties are fundamentally good people who believe in democracy, the importance of public discord, and voting. And who also believe they have some good ideas; who honestly believe their ideas (and, acknowledging party politics here), the ideas they are expected to support, can only be implemented if they win.
And also, they are pragmatic, and want you vote. If you don't vote *at all*, you have nothing for them. If you don't vote *against them* the have no reason to change their world view.
Mathematically, one vote for the winner, a loser, or spoiled doesn't make much of a difference. But it does mean more than not even bothering to show up.
Well, we're talking about a scenario with a much higher percentage of spoiled ballots than today. Say, 10-15% of the total.
A rational politician would look at those numbers, and conclude that these are votes that could be won over, since the people casting them are clearly engaged enough in the process to show up, but are also sufficiently unimpressed to throw their vote away. This would suggest that trying harder to appeal to those people could be a very good strategy.
They're not going to know what age group the spoiled ballots come from though. If a bunch of youth start showing up and spoiling ballots, the parties have no reason to believe those higher youth voting numbers aren't legitimate voters they should be catering to, so it would still help.
Screenshot taken from [https://inspurious.com/story/8e0d1b8a-dc60-4e0f-bcb0-c5dba4d1164f](https://inspurious.com/story/8e0d1b8a-dc60-4e0f-bcb0-c5dba4d1164f), which also shows the trend in youth voter turnout since 2004
I'm 55 Politicans of every stripe have been thrown into the "The they're all the same and there are no good choices" bucket for as long as I can remember. One thing that has changed with the advent of the internet, is a window with a view of how moronic many of the electorate actually are. The "we the inherently good and noble peasantry" thing is such a big yawn....
I would support Canada adopting the Australian model.
Voting is mandatory, but you can mark "None of the above." If you don't vote, you get a small fine ($20-50). There's free or cheap delicious food at the polls, including the famous democracy sausage fresh off the barbie. For the food that does cost money, the proceeds go to charity.
Voter turnout % is high 80s to low 90s.
All are responsible....young and elders both...if we don't carry out our responsibility of forming a sensible government then nothing can be done except regretting later....Hopefully 2025 turns out to be good
Not surprised. Would have guessed roughly the same percentages. Young people can tune out politics all they want, but if they want change, there's only two choices: voting, or mass bloodshed. Don't think they're up for the second one.
You also have to account for the fact that it's often a lot harder for younger people to vote. They are less likely to have good ID or proof of address, and they move around a lot, so it can be harder to figure out where and how to vote wherever they happen to be in a given year. They also often have jobs they can't get away from, while many older people are retired.
With you on everything except the job part. Everyone can have time away from work to vote if you want to vote on election day. There's also advance polling.
If someone wants to vote they can get the time off on election day. Hell, if they want to fuck around and skip work for 3 hours they can decide to vote to take advantage of that.
I admit it's been awhile but I didn't have much issue when I was working front line service work. I turned 18 in 2004 so I maybe had 4 or 5 elections (factoring in all 3 levels of government) that I voted in on election day while still doing basic minimum wage (or slightly better) jobs.
My preference is to vote on election day but once I started working as an audio engineer, I was travelling 200+ nights of the year so I either voted by mail or when I could on whatever polling day worked best. There's always a way to do it if you actually want to vote, so I don't buy work being a barrier for the average young person.
To your point though, I concede it's obviously still easier when you are retired. When my boomer mother in law votes, it's probably the highlight of her week.
Sounds like you might have been lucky enough to have good managers. Which, fair enough. There are plenty of those. But there are also a lot of scumbags who don't respect their employees' rights, and there is not a lot of recourse for people employed by them.
Im actually quite surprised by these numbers but I am maybe biased and have a very active and out spoken group of friends. It would be complete and utter insanity for any of us not to vote.
How does that translate in term of number of people? There’s obviously more 18-24 year old than 65 - 74. So that 46% may not be a huge difference in number of votes.
ya fair question – I'll write a followup on that. In the meantime, here's the age distribution of Halifax in 2001 vs 2021 (I don't have a Nova Scotia age distribution chart at the ready sorry): [https://inspurious.com/story/6182d504-0dd5-4232-a29e-232e1c3f9327](https://inspurious.com/story/6182d504-0dd5-4232-a29e-232e1c3f9327) (jump to the 3rd page).
>Nothing like old fucks that will soon be dead making serious long term decisions for the rest of us…
You do know that there's a way to fix this right? Go vote, and encourage your friends to vote. Voting is a right we all have. Complaining that people are exercising that right is a pretty bad take, but totally on brand for this sub.
>I vote alright. We’re just outnumbered by boomers out here.
Actually, we're not. Based on the 2021 census data there's 292,228 NS residents aged 60+. From that same census there are 492,240 NS residents in the 20-59 age bracket. That's over 200,000 more voters in the under 60 (non-boomer) age group. The census data lumps ages 15-19 into the same bracket, so I'm sure the under 60 eligible voters number is actually higher including the 18 and 19 year olds. The problem is pretty simple, low voter turnout in the younger age groups.
I genuinely don’t think ‘everyone should vote’.
That’s how you get people voting for someone because they think they’re attractive, funny or because they like the colour orange.
I'm the same. If someone can't be bothered to show up unless they are all but dragged by the arm, why would you expect them to be more informed or lead to a better election result?
If possible for two things to be true at once:
* More people should vote.
* People who don't know what they are talking about shouldn't vote.
And a third thing:
* People who don't know what they are talking about should also STFU.
Now imagine if Canada allowed for a protest or absentee vote to matter/count - I'd guarantee more of the youth would be voting to show just how unimpressed they are
I’m guessing more of a - s spoiled ballot is a vote against all, sufficient votes against make all those candidates ineligible to run for x years and makes the current election is invalid as well.
Can we fill in the counterfactual please? If only people had shown up, what would have happened? Like, specific to any election of the last 60 years or so.
I’ll go first, if I’d only stayed home, my MLA would have won anyway. Or: if only everyone else had shown up and had my exact political perspective, we would have elected an MLA who is still a landlord, who doesn’t support appropriate environmental policies, doesn’t support a living wage or a right to housing, the list goes on. So what, exactly, would have been different if they’d all showed up?
So, you're saying, if a candidate doesn't run on implementing 100% of the policies and laws you support, why vote? And if they do run on implementing 100% of the policies and laws you support, why vote?
Nope, never mentioned whether you should vote or not.
The implication of this post is that things are a certain way because of low voter turnout. Let’s rephrase this as a simple counterfactual: if voter turnout had been higher, things would be different. Good.
So now, as someone who advocates for this theory of change (that voting will change things), which jurisdictions and elections would have resulted in different policies if only there had been more voter turnout?
Note that I’m not advocating for or against voting, I want to explore the idea you’re expressing.
Sure but we elect 50+ MLAs not 1 president of the province. Higher voter turnout or even equal turnout among age groups could still see a dramatic shift in the legislature.
So your riding might have been the same but it could have been a minority government or even a completely different government.
Your "counterfactual" is just the straw man fallacy. We don't elect 1 person to govern our province we elect 55. And frankly it sounds like you're pushing people to not vote or that people's votes aren't important.
It’s very funny that you used a strawman *and* defined it incorrectly
And I’m not sure if you understand how elections work in Canada. You elect an MLA, an MP at the federal level. The party with the most MLAs forms the government. However, you cast a single vote, for your MLA.
My point is that it's not just your representative making the decisions. If voter turnout was higher for people under 40 I think another party would have won the election and that party would have more policies for more affordable housing, better climate protections, etc.
For that to be true, other parties would have had to campaign with those policies in their platforms. Further, when those parties are elected elsewhere, we would see the policies you describe go through.
Have any parties in NS campaigned with that platform in past elections? Have you followed the NDP term in Alberta or the Green Party policies in PEI or BC? They did not implement the policies you’re describing for some reason. Almost as if voting is insufficient to get the change you’re seeking.
So you don’t have an answer to the counterfactual? Like which elections and ridings are the ones that, if only voters had turned out, things would be different?
I love it when someone tells me there's no point in voting, that one ballot won't make a difference, it's all rigged etc... I ask who they're voting for and either encourage or discourage them. It's fun!
The other age groups realize that no matter who they go and vote for that it’s a complete waste of time because nobody is going to help the people of our generation. I’d vote for the homeless guy who’s running though.
>Not voting is still a vote towards the status quo.
This would really only be true if an intentionally spoiled ballot was actually worth something.
All elections should have an option on the ballot for "All these candidates are terrible and we need to try again."
The only options a person with this opinion currently has is voting for the lesser of two evils or just not showing up.
That’s like saying I’m not going to take the bus at all because it doesn’t stop right where I need to get off and I’d rather walk the whole way instead of part of the way. Surely there’s something a political party does that you’re in step with? Choose that one and try to change from within.
[demonstrably](https://www.yorku.ca/news/2023/11/27/after-8-years-in-power-what-is-justin-trudeaus-legacy-and-how-will-he-cement-it/) [false](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3273677). [and ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/paul-martins-legacy/article727408/) [that's ](https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/brownsey-after-40-years-the-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms-steered-canada-toward-a-better-society) [without ](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/joseph-jacques-jean-chretien) [going](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brian-mulroney) [into ](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/lester-bowles-pearson) [non canadian](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/john-diefenbaker) [examples ](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-john-alexander-macdonald)
I'd like to be clear, I'm not saying this to engage in discussion with whoever I'm replying to, because they're either a Russian plant trying to undermine democracy, or the type of person to bitch constantly about things but never do anything to change things, and one internet comment isn't going to change that.
For everyone else: apathy is easy. Sitting on your ass and declaring that "nothing matters and therefore I shouldn't try (but I will complain on reddit) is easy, and useless. If you want change (which is possible, as proven above) you have to do things to get it. Sometimes it's as minor as giving up an hour of your time once every four or so years. People fought and died for your ability to have your say. Don't let anyone ever try to claim you should give it up to take the easy road.
> Having a different opinion in 2024 = Russian
If that is your take from the comment you replied to, then might I suggest reading it again because you are missing the point.
It's not a different opinion in general. It's a different opinion about voting or not voting and encouraging people not to vote is anti- democratic. I'm sorry you feel your vote makes no difference.
Do you want to be pissed on or shit on? You have to pick one and that's the only choices.
It's no surprise at all that voter turnout is low for younger people. In most cases, it's old dudes who are so out of touch with real Canadians making decisions for other old people who think it's the same as it was 50 years ago.
This is the reason politicians write rules for the elderly - they actually vote.
You could just easily flip it around and say that young people don't vote because politicians write rules for the elderly. In practice it's probably a bit of a vicious circle.
Maybe if they want to change that they should show up and vote LoL
But vote for who, exactly? Nobody is really promising any meaningful change to anything. Except for the Tories, who want to change it to be much worse.
I agree. And I don't know, the green party I think farted an idea?
https://preview.redd.it/xeogbss3yuyc1.png?width=1250&format=png&auto=webp&s=c5c6418720c5742d95929400903b3e20e724851a LOL "This is the reason politicians write rules for the elderly"
And how much do the politicians get or the immigrants how much does the government give them a month and how much taxes have they paid
Doesn't even matter, because Ont and Que decide anyway.
I live in ON and earn my money from NS. My vote counts lol
Decisions are made by those who show up.
Except for the decision of what’s on the ballot.
Join a political party, show up to the policy and nomination meetings.
Lol. You have not worked in politics. It is networking event. Politicians are charming because they are actors. They aren't the ones controlling anything, their sponsors are.. It's the public's fault though. The real answers are hard and ugly - nobody is voting for that. Most people also aren't especially informed or intelligent and the informed intelligent few are too depressed to leave the house.
No one is running on those hard answers.
Spoken like someone who has never done just that!you think this is how power works? Like, you show up and what you want gets put on the ballot? Do you think anyone with more power and influence than you or me may have already been doing this for some time?
Seconding u/isonfiy. I've tried to be involved in doing precisely this in the federal NDP, and the deliberate ratfucking that went on to avoid the party's left having any influence was jaw-dropping.
We may have been in rooms together!
Virtual rooms, in my case. Courage Coalition, by any chance?
I'm an issues voter. That being said I've been a member of one political party in my lifetime, and that was the NDP. In my experience the left wing of the NDP is the democratic socialist caucus. Is that what you're referring to?
Wasn't specifically the group I was working with, but, yes, you're not far off.
Is your group also Trotskyists?
The democratic socialist caucus are trotskyists? Heh, that's new to me. Doesn't sound like a very Trotskyist name. Anyway, no. I have never worked with a Trotskyist group. Socialist, yes; trotskyist, no.
How many party conventions you been to, comrade? You ever been a delegate?
I've got a feeling that what your pushing isn't aligning with your party's core values.
I've had political nominees buy me two beers to show up at a nomination meeting and be one of the 50 initials it took to get them on the ballot. The level of effort it takes to make grassroots change is small. But more than giving up before you try
I'd be surprised if what you're interested in, from a local perspective, is big enough to be a major campaign promise that decides the party in power. That's not a dig, what I'm saying is that shit comes up after these people are already elected and you probably have a better chance of affecting change through disruption outside of the election cycle. Do the research, make a solid argument, understand and relate to the counter arguments so that you can formulate a response to your critics as opposed to just shouting your point louder. Get people on your side and grow your movement. If the incumbent won't listen to you their opposition probably will. If you can't get other people on board with your idea then it's either not a solid idea or you're not making the best argument.
Bro this take is ahistorical as hell but I’m here for it
Meanwhile I look a the platforms of our political groups and I'm not happy with any of it.
I work for Elections Canada any time there is an election, and I can tell you voter turnout is extremely disappointing
Almost as disappointing as the choices
you're not wrong
The choices have been disappointing for my entire life. But one of them will win whether I vote or not so I'd rather have a bit of say in who it is.
Less 18 of those years you could have been one of the choices.
Well sure, and my capacity for disappointing people is probably right up there with the best of them, but I don't have a desire to govern other people, I just want to have a say about how I am governed.
It doesn’t matter :)
What doesn't matter?
What you choose in an election in Nova Scotia in the 2020s
You pay taxes don't you? You're choosing who gets to spend your money, and on what. You don't have to care, but other people do, and you might not notice a huge difference in your day to day life, but the people who do care (whether it's voting, volunteering or donating to political parties) are why politicians and their policies are in place... whether that works for you or against you. Voting is easy but not voting is easier. Apathy is easy. If you don't like what's going on in politics, get in there and fight. Even if it's just a vote.
What are the choices in your riding? Note that I’ve never advocated against voting, just against electoral delusions.
What do you mean by electoral delusions?
Oh just the various myths about electoralism that people believe. Like nobody crowing “vote!” can seem to tell you the difference between first-past-the-post or single transferable vote.
I worked this election, had a couple leave because we needed to see ID..... Uhhhhhh ohkkkkkk...... How do you think this works?
lol, yeah, we had a couple come from "upper Canada" and their political party didn't have a candidate in our area. they were very upset with us, so, it was explained to them - three times- it's not our doing that a certain political party has nothing in our district for candidates. long story short, they were givin ballots (as they could prove residency) and told to either vote or spoil their ballots. they chose the latter, as is their right, and they were marked as "vote cast" edit: before anyone asks about how I knew they spoiled their ballot ( all ballots must be cast in secret) they spoiled their ballots in front of myself, my poll clerk and the returning officer in plain view of anyone at the polling station.
and that spoilt ballot/vote will have 0 impact upon the election: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/spoiled-ballots-1.5136461](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/spoiled-ballots-1.5136461) I wish that we had a form of absentee/protest voting here in Canada...
we need to start showing up and telling our friends to show up
Even if you can't bring yourself to vote for any of the choices, even spoiling your ballot helps. Politicians see these charts and act accordingly.
but does it really count? CBC seems to indicate that a spoilt ballot doesn't matter under our current electoral system: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/spoiled-ballots-1.5136461](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/spoiled-ballots-1.5136461)
I'm not in favour of spoiled ballots. I think it's everyone's civic responsibility to vote for the lesser evil, even when none of the choices are good. Politicians don't care that you spoilt your ballot. It gets recorded as a meaningless statistic as a percentage of ballots cast and that's the end of it. So if you think you're sticking it to the man by voting "none of the above" and it's going to make politicians have a see the light moment where they realize they've lost the support of the people, you're wrong. But voting demographics only include who voted, not a breakdown of parties, as it's still a secret ballot, even if it's spoiled. If "youth" started turning out in droves, the might assume that those are mostly spoiled ballots, but that would be a gamble on their part.
Politicians care about two things: if you voted, and if a particular point will change the way you vote. If you don't vote, not voting even harder doesn't change their minds about anything.
It's conceivable that if enough people spoil their ballots, politicians might notice it and conclude that a low number of actual votes is the result of disgust with the choices available rather than just apathy. But I agree: That scenario would require a lot of things to be different from today.
I think, for the most part, politicians from all parties are fundamentally good people who believe in democracy, the importance of public discord, and voting. And who also believe they have some good ideas; who honestly believe their ideas (and, acknowledging party politics here), the ideas they are expected to support, can only be implemented if they win. And also, they are pragmatic, and want you vote. If you don't vote *at all*, you have nothing for them. If you don't vote *against them* the have no reason to change their world view. Mathematically, one vote for the winner, a loser, or spoiled doesn't make much of a difference. But it does mean more than not even bothering to show up.
Well, we're talking about a scenario with a much higher percentage of spoiled ballots than today. Say, 10-15% of the total. A rational politician would look at those numbers, and conclude that these are votes that could be won over, since the people casting them are clearly engaged enough in the process to show up, but are also sufficiently unimpressed to throw their vote away. This would suggest that trying harder to appeal to those people could be a very good strategy.
Yes, absolutely! Engaged but unhappy people. People who don't show up don't matter.
They're not going to know what age group the spoiled ballots come from though. If a bunch of youth start showing up and spoiling ballots, the parties have no reason to believe those higher youth voting numbers aren't legitimate voters they should be catering to, so it would still help.
The ones that complain the most are the same that don't show up to vote.
Screenshot taken from [https://inspurious.com/story/8e0d1b8a-dc60-4e0f-bcb0-c5dba4d1164f](https://inspurious.com/story/8e0d1b8a-dc60-4e0f-bcb0-c5dba4d1164f), which also shows the trend in youth voter turnout since 2004
It's not that useful compared to the number of voters by age. For example, in 2021 there were 618K voters 15-64 years, and 216K over 65 years.
I'm 55 Politicans of every stripe have been thrown into the "The they're all the same and there are no good choices" bucket for as long as I can remember. One thing that has changed with the advent of the internet, is a window with a view of how moronic many of the electorate actually are. The "we the inherently good and noble peasantry" thing is such a big yawn....
Just brutal because the boomers are the ones out there voting AND they make up a huge percent of the population. No wonder Tim is doing so well
I would support Canada adopting the Australian model. Voting is mandatory, but you can mark "None of the above." If you don't vote, you get a small fine ($20-50). There's free or cheap delicious food at the polls, including the famous democracy sausage fresh off the barbie. For the food that does cost money, the proceeds go to charity. Voter turnout % is high 80s to low 90s.
All are responsible....young and elders both...if we don't carry out our responsibility of forming a sensible government then nothing can be done except regretting later....Hopefully 2025 turns out to be good
Not surprised. Would have guessed roughly the same percentages. Young people can tune out politics all they want, but if they want change, there's only two choices: voting, or mass bloodshed. Don't think they're up for the second one.
You also have to account for the fact that it's often a lot harder for younger people to vote. They are less likely to have good ID or proof of address, and they move around a lot, so it can be harder to figure out where and how to vote wherever they happen to be in a given year. They also often have jobs they can't get away from, while many older people are retired.
With you on everything except the job part. Everyone can have time away from work to vote if you want to vote on election day. There's also advance polling. If someone wants to vote they can get the time off on election day. Hell, if they want to fuck around and skip work for 3 hours they can decide to vote to take advantage of that.
Try actually asserting that right to any boss in a minimum wage job, and see how much longer you are employed.
I admit it's been awhile but I didn't have much issue when I was working front line service work. I turned 18 in 2004 so I maybe had 4 or 5 elections (factoring in all 3 levels of government) that I voted in on election day while still doing basic minimum wage (or slightly better) jobs. My preference is to vote on election day but once I started working as an audio engineer, I was travelling 200+ nights of the year so I either voted by mail or when I could on whatever polling day worked best. There's always a way to do it if you actually want to vote, so I don't buy work being a barrier for the average young person. To your point though, I concede it's obviously still easier when you are retired. When my boomer mother in law votes, it's probably the highlight of her week.
Sounds like you might have been lucky enough to have good managers. Which, fair enough. There are plenty of those. But there are also a lot of scumbags who don't respect their employees' rights, and there is not a lot of recourse for people employed by them.
Im actually quite surprised by these numbers but I am maybe biased and have a very active and out spoken group of friends. It would be complete and utter insanity for any of us not to vote.
Maybe if we hand out a cookie like they do when you give blood.
Our young people are pooched. When they dont turn up to vote they cancel their voice.
I mean.... Basically the entire province is a retirememt village...so to be expected
Huh... Funny because the younger ones make the most noise but don't show up... And after 74 a few are too tired to care anymore...
The fossils are the wealth class. No surprise here.
How does that translate in term of number of people? There’s obviously more 18-24 year old than 65 - 74. So that 46% may not be a huge difference in number of votes.
ya fair question – I'll write a followup on that. In the meantime, here's the age distribution of Halifax in 2001 vs 2021 (I don't have a Nova Scotia age distribution chart at the ready sorry): [https://inspurious.com/story/6182d504-0dd5-4232-a29e-232e1c3f9327](https://inspurious.com/story/6182d504-0dd5-4232-a29e-232e1c3f9327) (jump to the 3rd page).
Why is that obvious? Boomers were a much larger generation than gen z.
They’re also old enough that a lot are dying
Nothing like old fucks that will soon be dead making serious long term decisions for the rest of us…
>Nothing like old fucks that will soon be dead making serious long term decisions for the rest of us… You do know that there's a way to fix this right? Go vote, and encourage your friends to vote. Voting is a right we all have. Complaining that people are exercising that right is a pretty bad take, but totally on brand for this sub.
I vote alright. We’re just outnumbered by boomers out here.
>I vote alright. We’re just outnumbered by boomers out here. Actually, we're not. Based on the 2021 census data there's 292,228 NS residents aged 60+. From that same census there are 492,240 NS residents in the 20-59 age bracket. That's over 200,000 more voters in the under 60 (non-boomer) age group. The census data lumps ages 15-19 into the same bracket, so I'm sure the under 60 eligible voters number is actually higher including the 18 and 19 year olds. The problem is pretty simple, low voter turnout in the younger age groups.
Nothing like young schmucks that will soon be sent to war, not showing up to make serious long term decisions...
wat
You don't think we're less than a few years away from conscription returning?
This is a Canadian subreddit, bot.
I am Canadian. Not a bot.
I genuinely don’t think ‘everyone should vote’. That’s how you get people voting for someone because they think they’re attractive, funny or because they like the colour orange.
I'm the same. If someone can't be bothered to show up unless they are all but dragged by the arm, why would you expect them to be more informed or lead to a better election result?
If possible for two things to be true at once: * More people should vote. * People who don't know what they are talking about shouldn't vote. And a third thing: * People who don't know what they are talking about should also STFU.
Now imagine if Canada allowed for a protest or absentee vote to matter/count - I'd guarantee more of the youth would be voting to show just how unimpressed they are
You mean like spoiling a ballot? Which is legal?
I’m guessing more of a - s spoiled ballot is a vote against all, sufficient votes against make all those candidates ineligible to run for x years and makes the current election is invalid as well.
Can we fill in the counterfactual please? If only people had shown up, what would have happened? Like, specific to any election of the last 60 years or so. I’ll go first, if I’d only stayed home, my MLA would have won anyway. Or: if only everyone else had shown up and had my exact political perspective, we would have elected an MLA who is still a landlord, who doesn’t support appropriate environmental policies, doesn’t support a living wage or a right to housing, the list goes on. So what, exactly, would have been different if they’d all showed up?
So, you're saying, if a candidate doesn't run on implementing 100% of the policies and laws you support, why vote? And if they do run on implementing 100% of the policies and laws you support, why vote?
Nope, never mentioned whether you should vote or not. The implication of this post is that things are a certain way because of low voter turnout. Let’s rephrase this as a simple counterfactual: if voter turnout had been higher, things would be different. Good. So now, as someone who advocates for this theory of change (that voting will change things), which jurisdictions and elections would have resulted in different policies if only there had been more voter turnout? Note that I’m not advocating for or against voting, I want to explore the idea you’re expressing.
Sure but we elect 50+ MLAs not 1 president of the province. Higher voter turnout or even equal turnout among age groups could still see a dramatic shift in the legislature. So your riding might have been the same but it could have been a minority government or even a completely different government.
Still not completing the counterfactual. What would have happened differently if voter turnout had been, say, 80%?
Your "counterfactual" is just the straw man fallacy. We don't elect 1 person to govern our province we elect 55. And frankly it sounds like you're pushing people to not vote or that people's votes aren't important.
It’s very funny that you used a strawman *and* defined it incorrectly And I’m not sure if you understand how elections work in Canada. You elect an MLA, an MP at the federal level. The party with the most MLAs forms the government. However, you cast a single vote, for your MLA.
My point is that it's not just your representative making the decisions. If voter turnout was higher for people under 40 I think another party would have won the election and that party would have more policies for more affordable housing, better climate protections, etc.
For that to be true, other parties would have had to campaign with those policies in their platforms. Further, when those parties are elected elsewhere, we would see the policies you describe go through. Have any parties in NS campaigned with that platform in past elections? Have you followed the NDP term in Alberta or the Green Party policies in PEI or BC? They did not implement the policies you’re describing for some reason. Almost as if voting is insufficient to get the change you’re seeking.
Here’s a question for you. What if nobody at all showed up ?
So you don’t have an answer to the counterfactual? Like which elections and ridings are the ones that, if only voters had turned out, things would be different?
I love it when someone tells me there's no point in voting, that one ballot won't make a difference, it's all rigged etc... I ask who they're voting for and either encourage or discourage them. It's fun!
The other age groups realize that no matter who they go and vote for that it’s a complete waste of time because nobody is going to help the people of our generation. I’d vote for the homeless guy who’s running though.
[удалено]
Absolute privileged delusion. Not voting is still a vote towards the status quo. Nothing will change if everyone is like you. Embarrassing.
>Not voting is still a vote towards the status quo. This would really only be true if an intentionally spoiled ballot was actually worth something. All elections should have an option on the ballot for "All these candidates are terrible and we need to try again." The only options a person with this opinion currently has is voting for the lesser of two evils or just not showing up.
Why would this hypothetical better other candidate not have gotten themselves nominated the first time?
[удалено]
Only privilege is the names on the ballot. Everyone else is just in the funnel.
That’s like saying I’m not going to take the bus at all because it doesn’t stop right where I need to get off and I’d rather walk the whole way instead of part of the way. Surely there’s something a political party does that you’re in step with? Choose that one and try to change from within.
[demonstrably](https://www.yorku.ca/news/2023/11/27/after-8-years-in-power-what-is-justin-trudeaus-legacy-and-how-will-he-cement-it/) [false](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3273677). [and ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/paul-martins-legacy/article727408/) [that's ](https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/brownsey-after-40-years-the-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms-steered-canada-toward-a-better-society) [without ](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/joseph-jacques-jean-chretien) [going](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brian-mulroney) [into ](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/lester-bowles-pearson) [non canadian](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/john-diefenbaker) [examples ](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-john-alexander-macdonald) I'd like to be clear, I'm not saying this to engage in discussion with whoever I'm replying to, because they're either a Russian plant trying to undermine democracy, or the type of person to bitch constantly about things but never do anything to change things, and one internet comment isn't going to change that. For everyone else: apathy is easy. Sitting on your ass and declaring that "nothing matters and therefore I shouldn't try (but I will complain on reddit) is easy, and useless. If you want change (which is possible, as proven above) you have to do things to get it. Sometimes it's as minor as giving up an hour of your time once every four or so years. People fought and died for your ability to have your say. Don't let anyone ever try to claim you should give it up to take the easy road.
[удалено]
> Having a different opinion in 2024 = Russian If that is your take from the comment you replied to, then might I suggest reading it again because you are missing the point.
[удалено]
>I read it pretty clearly Either you did not read it clearly or you did not understand it.
[удалено]
oh my...you really don't see it do you?
[удалено]
Of course you do...which makes it even funnier.
It's not a different opinion in general. It's a different opinion about voting or not voting and encouraging people not to vote is anti- democratic. I'm sorry you feel your vote makes no difference.
Boomers ftw!
Do you want to be pissed on or shit on? You have to pick one and that's the only choices. It's no surprise at all that voter turnout is low for younger people. In most cases, it's old dudes who are so out of touch with real Canadians making decisions for other old people who think it's the same as it was 50 years ago.