Calrissian
Active Member
Nor, any guarantee that council would pass a motion to even alter transit city's funded and under construction parts..
|
|
|
- Thread starter New_EastYork
- Start date
Nor, any guarantee that council would pass a motion to even alter transit city's funded and under construction parts..
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The novices on city council are like the the grade niners in high school. They would not know their way around, how council works, how the departments work, or how the commissions work, at first. They will be bullied by the older kids in council (IE. Rob Ford) until they learn how to either stand up to them, join their clique, or form their own clique.
Rainforest
Senior Member
There is no perfect system. When everyone gets to vote, ignorant voters can hurt their own interests. In fact, that happens periodically. But more often than not, those voters correct themselves at the next election.
On the other hand, if the right to vote was restricted to those considered "informed", they could vote to advance their interests as a group, rather than common interests. There would be no incentive for them to take into account the needs and wishes of the "uninformed". Another issue is how to select people who can vote and who makes the decision; there is a big risk that the selection process will be abused to keep opponents of the current government from voting.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I wonder if you'd be saying this if your preferred candidate won.
I'm sorry but this smacks of being bitter at the result. My guy lost so therefore democracy is flawed and we need to restrict voting to "informed" voters? I seem to recall a time when the definition of "informed" voters excluded minorities, women and if we go back far enough, anybody who wasn't a distant relative of the monarch. I bet you'd be happy in that era. The folks who voted back then were quite well-informed.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Catchy. But lines like that, taken to the extreme (the assumption that the majority of the population falls into the ignorant bin) have also been used to justify communism. You're ignorant, so how about you let me run everything for you and you do everything I say?
I prefer this one:
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. - Sir Winston Churchill
This from the same man who also said, "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."
Ultimately, people get the government they deserve. And that fate, and that decision should be in their hands. This idea that one man's opinion should be worth more than anothers simply because the first guy assumes he's smarter is flawed (unless you possess a political belief system that says a few chosen ones should have the right to rule over the rest).
When it comes to Rob Ford, I stand by my original assertion. He won because Miller utterly ignored the growing discontent in the suburbs for years. All the other candidates followed suit or basically really paid lip service to suburban considerations and voters saw right through that.
And contrary to common wisdom on UT, the suburban voter is not necessarily looking for a new freeway to built every year with tons of parking. They simply want some of their concerns address. Transit for example has been a major concern. And I would suggest that for all the talk about Transit City, at the end of the day, voters saw basically no progress and nothing built, and just another paper plan. These are the same voters who are now playing plate taxes to the city, to discourage them from driving, who perceive that the alternative is not up to snuff yet. These voters also see transit in a different light. They don't care about transit being a developmental tool. They want to get where they are going. Fast. Give them that first and they'll support a plate tax. Just give them the tax and not much else and don't expect to have an easy ride at election time.
The same viewpoint applies to other taxes. Trash bin tax. No change in pickup. But now I have to pay. Okay...so where is this money going? Doesn't look to me like my neighbourhood is cleaner. Pooch tax. I aleady pay to get my pet chipped at the vet, yet I have to pay the city? Etc.
That's how the suburban voter operates. He/she is willing to pay as long as they can see the result and perceive value for money. In the last few years, they've seen new fee after new fee, but haven't seen what they perceive to be serious returns for those charges.
All this is not to say Rob Ford will somehow be the magic cure-all. But people should understand why voters are frustrated and where those frustrations come from. And if the new council doesn't do much in 4 years, they'll find themselves similarly abused at the next election.
JWBF
Senior Member
Considering our respective governments:
Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it. -- Richard Lamm
Christmas is the time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell government what they want and their kids pay for it. -- Richard Lamm
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
What is this, a quote-off? The City of Toronto doesn't even run deficits. (Plus, the thinking that you can draw clear parallels between personal finance and government budgets is incredibly dangerous. A government that stops investing in its future dooms itself.)
JWBF
Senior Member
I did not intend to promote a "quote-off", and I'm sorry you don't understand the simile and it's nuances.
Whenever there is an election, the supporters of the new government assume that the actual election "promises" will be carved in stone instead of being pragmatic.
In Ford's/Toronto's case, if the plans of the new mayor go directly into effect then a deficit will exist unless deep cuts are produced to pay for these "Christmas Presents". You can balance a budget and still create deficits, and to some the best way is to cut or reduce social programs; hopefully you can take it from there.
I takes an even hand to support the interests of a population, but only selfishness to destroy it.
But one man's opinion IS worth more than another man's opinion if one is based on research and the other one is based on cheap talking points and ignorance. If you have done your research, know the issues, and still choose to disagree with me, I can accept that much more than if your vote is based on things like "he looks like someone I could have a beer with".
I don't assume that I'm smarter, I just get annoyed when someone who clearly hasn't taken the time to actually give a shit's vote is worth just as much as mine is. It has nothing to do with what education you have, but it has everything to do with how much you choose to educate yourself. It doesn't take a degree to know the issues, it just takes a little bit of getting off your ass and picking up a newspaper.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I'm not just talking about the election here. We have a WWF wrester, Stewart Smalley, the Terminator, George Bush, etc... there is no way that people would vote for these people based on a sound evaluation of their resume as is related to logical skills and based on their plan. People are voted against because they are too boring and not charismatic enough. The reality is that logical ability and the platform a candidate is running on isn't given enough weight.
You can recall pretty far back, you must be far older than I am. I would be happy that people who were informed were voting. I would be unhappy that women and minorities were not well informed. Which came first western civilization or democracy? Which came first, being informed or being a democracy? I don't think democracy can work without an informed electorate. We need to push people to be informed before we push them to vote. There is no excuse for the world's most powerful nation to get anywhere near voting Sarah Palin for VP. Can an informed electorate possibly tell me she is the most logical candidate? That she is the person in all of America that has the intelligence required to solve complex problems?
My argument has nothing to do with the political stripe of the winner or looser. Harper is an intelligent person and his arguments make sense even if you aren't socially on the same page as him. Ford doesn't make much sense at all and even people who identified themselves as conservative have a hard time voting for him.
SlickFranky
Active Member
I'm with Asimov on this one. My well researched vote was negated by "I ain't votin' for no faggot!". That said, I would never suggest limiting voting privileges. We just need to insist on better media. I'm tired of sensationalized, editorialized content (from both the left and the right). Is in-depth, rational, fact-based analysis too much to ask for?
Facts don't get viewers, "OMG YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT THIS CANDIDATE SAID" does. But I agree with you, the media shouldn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. If people want a sensationalized spin on 'important people', that's what ET is for.
It isn't just the media though, the candidates themselves play to the lowest common denominator, with vague sayings like "we need to make government more accountable". It's true that the media spins it and sensationalizes it, but the candidates don't really give the media much substance to work with.
nfitz
Superstar
Unless he's a complete and total liar with his promises to build the Sheppard and Danforth subway extensions by 2015.
Oh wait ...
Mapleson
Active Member
The City of Toronto doesn't run a balanced budget either. Increasing debt/decreasing interest payments and other financial gerryrigging has been going on for years. Our debt is growing around 10% a year, depending on circumstances.
As for democracy in action, it's not the media that should be increasing the public awareness, it's the public that should be doing it to each other. How many people did you convince to vote for the right candidate? How many people did you attack as homophobic, racist, small-minded, or ignorant? Ford won because more people were pissed off with the status quo than cared about the specifics.
We're coming into a hard time for small-c Conservatives, as Municipal spending is on the rise and taxes are being cut, Provincial spending is on the rise, we are in deficit, and Haduk wants to cut taxes, and Federal taxes have been cut and transfers to provinces will be cut in 2013 most likely. So we have 3 levels of government that'll be "reducing the tax burden" while "increasing the debt load" and trying to make the others pay for the shortfalls.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
The city's debt situation is pretty good, all things considered. 3 billion in debt on a 9 billion dollar budget is not worrisome, unless you're one of those 'all debt is bad' types. Ammortizing capital spending makes a ton of sense.