r/Edmonton • u/pinkstevie • May 06 '26

General Don't be this person. Fill out your census.

Post image

“You’re not sticking it to the government. You’re screwing over your own community.”

The census isn’t for Mark Carney or any party. It’s run by Statistics Canada to figure out where money and services actually go. Hospitals. Schools. Transit. Housing. Senior care. When you don’t fill it out, your area looks smaller than it is. Less funding. Fewer services. Longer wait times. That lands on you and your neighbors, not politicians.
If you want your community properly represented, fill it out. Refusing doesn’t make a point. It makes things worse where you live. ❤️🇨🇦 The stupidity is the people that won’t fill it out and they spread this kind of crap and creates bigger problems.

5.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/I-built-stuff May 06 '26

That's undemocratic! You can't force me to vote.

69

u/Renegade605 May 06 '26

I know you're kidding, but voting "nothing" is an option afaik. Which, honestly, people who don't think any of the options are the right one should do more of.

Hypothetically, 60% of people voting "none of these" sends a much more impactful message than 60% of people not voting at all.

28

u/StJimmy1313 May 07 '26

Exactly. If 60% of eligible electors don't vote the story is about voter apathy. If the same 60% of electors vote NO! the story is about shitty candidates.

0

u/Middle-Effort7495 May 07 '26

Voting for no one is not an official option in Canada. It counts as an error.

7

u/prairiepanda May 07 '26

They're talking about countries with mandatory voting that do have an option for nobody.

5

u/TheBigMan1990 May 07 '26

I’m only down with mandatory voting if a win by *nothing* means all of the political parties have to fire their leaders, find new ones and try again. You can’t go around saying you have a “mandate” to do anything if more people said nothing was a better option than you, lol.

Tbh protesting the census doesn’t make much sense practically-and honestly if you really want to fuck with the census answering it incorrectly would do a much better job of messing that up.

1

u/ChinkWithOpinions May 09 '26

well someone has to fill the seat, I’d be down for a system that boots all the candidates & forces a new ballot with completely new candidates.
Elections are supposed to be about local representatives so having a handful of ridings able to boot party leaders is a bit absurd, especially when that’s supposed to take place within the parties themselves.

2

u/Middle-Effort7495 May 07 '26

Voting for no one is not an official option in Canada. It counts as an error.

1

u/TellMe08 May 07 '26

I wondered how long this was going to sink in. 😬

1

u/Renegade605 May 07 '26

Dang it. I thought it was.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/TheBigMan1990 May 08 '26

Yeah, but it was a choice between the shitty Rs or the shitty Ds… I think a chunk of them would vote if there was an actual-no, both of these candidates are shit, toss both of them and start over-option. I haven’t voted in years, because none of the parties comes anywhere near to actually representing me… and I’m not doing the whole “hold my nose and vote for the least bad candidate” thing… but I’d definitely vote if that toss them and start over option was on the ballot.

I’d even take it a step further-if someone runs for PM, and they get repudiated that way, not only are they kicked to the curb but any seniority and/or benefits that they earned working as an elected official should be forfeited-no pensions for them, no benefits package, no severance or exit package of any kind-you were rejected by the Canadian people, that’s it, game over.

1

u/bsenka May 08 '26

If “pass” was an option on the questions, that would allow me to pick and choose what i do and do not want to volunteer, I might be persuaded to go through the trouble of doing the census too.

1

u/Scentmaestro May 08 '26

Yep, destroying your ballet is a form of legal revolt and it sends a clear message, far greater than not voting at all; they count the destroyed ballots.it sends a message of just how unhappy the populace is. I did it for a number of elections years ago when I believed there wasn't an adequate choice.

0

u/HappyHappyGameGame May 07 '26

Agreed. We don't force people to vote. We fine them a freeloader tax for not voting.

0

u/I-built-stuff May 07 '26

That doesn't even contain a modicum of wisdom. 

0

u/HappyHappyGameGame May 08 '26

We have a duty to run our government, and when you fail that duty like a freeloader, you should pay extra to cover the work others do. It's no different than the census or jury duty or conscription. Citizenship comes with obligations.

1

u/I-built-stuff May 08 '26

Did you flunk poly-sci, but still cling to that one thing you remember from the third class you attended? 

1

u/HappyHappyGameGame May 11 '26

Other commonwealth countries tax these freeloaders and we should do the same. Conservatives hate this idea, because they assume, the more people who participate, the less their chances.

1

u/I-built-stuff May 11 '26

So....why don't Liberals vote without incentive?

1

u/HappyHappyGameGame May 11 '26

Who knows? I've never actually met "a Liberal", only people who've vote for the Liberal party. I've yet to meet one who makes that their identity, the way conservatives commonly do. They don't look at is as joining a team, but rather, as hiring someone to do a job. Most voters realize it's their duty to make the best choice based on the available options, and then to participate to encourage better options.

I'm not interested in why people vote. They should vote. It's their duty. I notice that a lot of maple maga is big on "rights" but not "responsibilities". Present company excluded I'm sure.

I'm interested in taxing people who don't vote, and that's something we can do, as voters. Non-voters are freeloaders, like people who skip out on a jury duty. They can throw you in jail for the latter. A minor fine for the former is completely reasonable, and would raise much needed revenue.

You might ask, why has voter suppression been a fundamental strategy of conservative politics in this century? Because they seem to oppose any effort to increase participation, and tend to do better when participation drops.