My Impressions of the Candidates

Chelsey                          My  Impression of the Candidates                         May 16^th

 

            My impressions of the Candidates that spoke at the FH all candidates debate was varied from each person in all different ways. Some people were great in my opinion and helped make my decision very clear but others were not as strong. When it comes to speaking skills is something extremely important that the leader of our province must have. The candidates with better speaking skills definitely stood out in a positive way in my opinion and I feel that part of the reason that they are successful is because they can speak well and connect with you. The candidates with weaker speaking skills will probably not be as successful because they are not communicating and getting their points across as well. Speaking and communicating can make or break your chances to vote.

 

            Staring with the NDP, I felt that he had great communication skills and was aware of his audience, knowing that we were a younger group and made sure to connect with us. He was very good at getting his points across in a way that made people want to vote for him even if I don’t believe his platform and ideas for our province is necessarily the best. Even though he would not be my first choice to vote for, his speaking skills were the strongest out of the group and made him a much stronger candidate because of it.

 

            Next, the Conservatives, he spoke somewhat well but not nearly as effective or strongly as the others. He didn’t make me believe in what he was fighting for. I also felt his platform was not as strong as the others, being that all he talked about was lowering the toll bridge price. Since his platform was so weak he need to be able to really sell what he was fighting for and I don’t think he did it as well as possible.

 

            The Liberals in my opinion had the best platform and did a good job of sharing it with us in a way that made us think they were the best choice for our province. Their speaking skills were good and answered all the questions very well along with a great closing statement. The Liberals would be the best choice in government to lead us because they had the best platform and communicated it very well.     

 

Lastly, the Vision party, I think they had the worst communication skills and platform out of everyone. They did not stay on topic or express their opinions in a way that made me want them to become the leaders of our province. They also did not have as clear voices as the others which are important when speaking to a large group of people. The vision party did not seem as experienced or prepared as the others so therefore they would be the worst choice to lead our province.    

 

            The FH All Candidates Debate was a great opportunities for all us students to get a better understanding of the government and who will be leading our province. I now have a much stronger opinion on who our leader as before I didn’t have much care. Hearing what everyone had to say really made me think about politics more and I can now discus with my parents on my view of government.  

The media plays a large role in determining the outcome of an election.

How did we find out the date of the elections? Through the media. How did we find out what the latest politician had said? Through the media. And how did we find out about the latest political scandal? Through the media, again. Forget the voter's voice - whether through TV, radio, or newspaper, it is the media's voice that is prominent. The media is especially powerful during election time, where it tends to have a habit of broadcasting political controversies, and therefore influencing voters everywhere. The impact of the media today is increased even more so by the fact that campaigns have become more focused on the leader rather than the party, making the individual, essentially, easier prey. Does the media primarily report politics, or does it actually end up shaping the event? Most of the time, I feel it is the latter.

On April 27, 2013, the Vancouver Sun published a special feature on BC Liberals' Christy Clark. The major selling point of the article was the journalist's account of Clark running a red light... while the reporter was in the car. Urged on by her 11 year old son Hamish, Clark ran the red light on the way to his hockey clinic, after which Hamish commented, "You always do that," Needless to say, the article shed a negative light on the current premier and probably succeeded in swaying a lot of undecided voters away from the Liberal party in less than a paragraph. Voters with no strong opinion in the first place are often the voters that decide the election results. This incident caused a lot of uncommitted citizens to reconsider their ballot; the effects of the media in this case were substantial.

The media is also able to affect elections by generating attention, whether through negative press, or simply through their choice in coverage of a candidate. If the politician in question knows how to "work the media", this is not necessarily bad. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt was known for his regular "Fireside Chats" in which he soothed American citizens about war and economic depression over the radio. To add, nowadays, many people believe that far too much attention is focused on how a politician looks or comes across on camera, versus how relevant and appealing their platform really is. Carefully staged media events and photo opportunities have become very important aspects in politics for a candidate - maybe too important!

Lastly, the media is inclined to influence the public's perception on the viability of a candidate. If a news report confirms that a certain politician is far ahead in an election, the public will generally accept that statement, which may change how the voters cast their ballots. Most people do not want to waste their vote on a candidate who reporters are pretty much saying does not have as great a chance at winning. However, when the media reports on the viability of a candidate, it tends to turn the political coverage into a competition centered on who is winning or who is ahead. This may cause voters to sway their focus towards a candidate's campaigning skills, instead of to who has the best platform or leadership skills. Voting like this defeats the function of democracy, which is to elect candidates that represent what the people want.

Based on the evidence shown above, I do believe that the media plays a large role in determining the outcome of a political election. Negative campaigning has become essential in politics in this day and age, and negative reporting only adds fuel to fire. Christy Clark running the red light was definitely not a smart decision, but if the journalist had not made a point to write about it in the article, it would have gone unknown and unnoticed. The media has a choice on which candidate they choose to focus on, or which issue they feel the public should believe is the most important. It plays a key role in building up or lowering a politician’s reputation and viability, as well. The media, government, and public have a cyclical, codependent relationship, but it is up to us to decide exactly how large a role each factor will play!

My Impression Of the BC All Candidates Debate.

          When I sat down in the crowded theatre, as everyone around me was preparing for the All Candidates Debate, I though of a few things. I thought about whether this would be interesting, I thought about if I would choose to vote when I was old enough, and I thought about who I would be in favor of. I saw five people sitting at tables, looking over notes, sipping at water, preparing themselves for this debate and I knew that what I heard today would determine how I felt about this entire election.
          Vicky stood at the podium and welcomed the candidates to our school and explained the layout of the debate. At this point, all candidates had a chance to introduce themselves. Now I had already been in favor of the NDP party yet I didn't know why, I also knew that I was not in favor of the Liberal party but then again I wasn't sure why. I had little opinions of the Conservative or Vision parties so I was excited to see this debate.
          I would be lying if I said that I hadn't lost track of some things at one point or another, but mostly I was able to understand the agendas of each party, and this worked in favor of some parties, yet didn't for others. It soon became evident to me why I felt the ways I did about the NDP and the Liberal parties. The NDP party wanted to invest more in the educational system which in many cases, desperately needed the help. And seeing as I attend school everyday, strive to get the best that I can in school, and would someday like to be a teacher, this really hit close for me.
          However, the Liberal party seemed to have no want to help the education system because it didn't fit into what they saw as a pressing matter. The fact that their public speaking skills were great, it seemed to blind people b the fact that they weren't saying or doing really anything to help. The Liberal party spoke about how they wanted to help fix the broken things in BC, yet when they were asked about things that truly needed help such as the education system, they said that nothing was broken at all. And something that I was speaking to Ms. Lees about, and she even tweeted it out, was that the Liberal party said that we needed to renew our faith in our leaders, yet if we have been given no reason to do so, why should we?
          Now that I knew how I truly felt about the NDP and Liberal parties, I thought I would direct my attention to the other two parties. The Conservative pary didn't say much in my opinion, yet the one thing that they did say that I agreed with, was lower bridge tolls. It is very hard for everyone to afford these high tolls. The Vision Party confused me, I was unsure what they were saying all the time, something about how if we all plant trees in our back yard, we can cure cancer, and how because I love to act, I can be in a Bollywood movie. Although not always understood, it was enjoyable.
          Now that I had seen the debate, there were five great candidates in front of me, and although they all had at least one or two good ideas, my choice was simple. They wanted to help with the things I believe in, the things I am passionate about, and although when talking to other kids in my grade, it sort of turned into an argument because nobody else I spoke to agreed with my choice, it was simple for me to vote NDP. If the NDP pary wins, I just know that things will improve, I've decided to put faith in another leader, no matter what anybody says. And although people don't agree with me, it's okay, I respect the decisions others have made when it comes to voting, and I hope others can respect me for my choices.

who you plan to vote for (party, candidate)

Last Thursday when I was told we were going to see a debate about the election parties I was quite curious. Due to the fact, I never paid too much attention to politics because from what I heard almost every election was how bad a party had done; we should vote for "this" party for whatever reason. I was interested on how the debate would be like. During the debate of the parties I observed all the candidates very carefully and took notes on each one.

In my opinion, I believe the debate was mostly focused on the NDP and Liberals. I observed how both candidates coped with directed counters and questions.  I believe all parties did a fairly good job answering and countering questions, but through my observation I noticed that Avtar Bains, NDP representative never went over time. Although he always started to get into answering the question directed at him, he always cut himself off and not finishing his statement. This showed he was still unexperianced, and didn’t mange his time wisely.

On the other hand I found that the Amrik Virk, Liberals representative always found a way to avoid answering the question, making his public speech look a lot more professional than the other parties. 

Due to the fact that the debate was so focused on the NDP and Liberals it seemed the Barry Sikora of the conservatives never really answered the questions either, he gave off the attitude that he really didn't care if he won or not. His public speaking skills were not in comparison to liberals either, therefore he just made his public appeal of himself and the conservative’s party worse to the audience.

Alternatively, Sukhi Gill of BC visions gave really good direct answers but because of her accent it made it seem that she hard poor English skills. (***) spoke for her basically the entire time. His examples like growing a garden for cancer were totally irrelevant to the questions. Although it seemed he was trying to get a message out through his examples, it wasn't represented well therefore making his public speaking skills appeal weak to other parties. I’ve also seen that the BC visions tried to counter the other parties but all parties literally made fun of them. When BC visions tried to counter the conservatives, Barry Sikora just said "I don't even know what the BC visions just said, but going back to the question just asked...." the statement just made the BC visions look like they didn't have a chance of winning. As a matter of fact this statement made the conservatives look even worse.

The debate was very interesting and I learned a lot from it. I analyzed the notes and came to a conclusion. I decided to vote for the NDP. I believe that the NDP would do a better job than the Liberals.  My main reason why I voted for the NDP was because I wasn't in favor of the pipeline. I don't want to ruin BC's beautiful landscape and especially the environment. Although this doesn’t mean I voted for the NDP just for the issue of the pipeline. I had taken the quiz on CBC vote campus, the results showed that I related to the NDP and Green party much more than any of the other parties. In fact I do agree with the many of the issues the NDP were interested to help and solve. For instance the overcrowding classrooms, the pipeline and the child poverty rate of BC.

Indeed all issues mentioned by all parties are major problems that should be solved immediately but because the pipeline issue is a much larger problem to me, I choose to focus a lot more on the pipeline. I go to places in Vancouver, such Granville Island and Stanley Park occasionally and I believe it’s just so beautiful every time I go. To think that a pipeline can destroy the beautiful environment there is very heart breaking. Newspapers such the Vancouver Sun and many blogs on the internet such Rafe Mair online discussed many problems with the pipeline. I do agree with the Liberals that BC needs much more job opportunities for the people but the pipeline is just too dangerous! By creating the pipeline, we destroy so much of the environment of BC. The oil going through the pipeline can easily leak into the Burrard inlet and wipe the ecosystem there entirely. As we all know to recover from disasters takes a tremendous amount of time. According to one of the Vancouver sun articles it takes 40 Billion dollars to clean up an oil spill. The business such as tourism and fishing all go down. The money to fix the problem won’t ever disappear into thin air but would be added to Canada’s current debt.

Overall I researched many blogs, newspapers, and took many quizzes to decide on whom exactly should I vote for.  Throughout the researching I have learned many new concepts of politics and many of the ongoing issues of BC. I observed the actions of the candidates and re-analyzed what they gave as answers. On May.10 I came to a conclusion and voted for the NDP.

Should voting be made mandatory / made law in Canada?

"Should voting be made mandatory in Canada?"

   Many people would have different opinions on this topic. In this beautiful country, we are extremely fortunate to have freedom and rights that many other countries do not. The freedom of speech, freedom of religion...these are just a few of the rights we have as Canadians. We also have the right to opinion and the right to vote.  All Canadian rights and such are listed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many Canadians feel very strongly about our rights, and believe we should always take advantage of them while we can.

  However, many Canadians don't vote for a political party during voting time in Canada. This applies to both national and provincial voting. Some people simply choose not to. This can be caused by a large variety of reasons. Some may be underage, 18 years or younger, and therefore, unable to legally vote.  Some may be indecisive about which party to vote for. Or others simply may not like what changes the party has to offer to the citizens.


  In the opinion of many people, our rights as Canadians should not be neglected. Meaning that voting for a political party should be an action that is mandatory, and everyone who is of legal voting age should do so. However, many Canadians simply do not. Canada is a country of many freedoms. Should the citizens also have the freedom to not vote?  Or should it be against the law? Punishable by fees? There could be positive and negative sides to this. Making voting law in Canada ensures everyone does vote. There will be more votes submitted and the results will be seemingly "more accurate". However, when one thinks about it, making voting mandatory by law can also anger many people who'd rather not vote, and political leaders would find themselves receiving a lot of random or illegitimate votes, from people who didn't want to vote, or didn't know who to pick and chose blindly. This would affect the results of the voting, and would leave an inaccurate reflection of what the citizens actually want out of their government.

   With all this in mind, most would agree; leaving voting optional would be the best option. This ensures that everyone is happy, that no one will feel obligated or pressured to vote, and that the citizens will get the government they deserve.

Elections Essay- Should Voting in Canada be Mandatory by Law?

Mandatory voting has been around since Aristotle’s time, yet evidence clearly demonstrates an overwhelming amount of flaws and drawbacks to this practice. To elaborate, morphing our right to vote into an obligation is simply undemocratic and it defeats the entire purpose of Canada’s governing system. Democracy is defined as a government that reflects the people’s views; however, compulsory voting destroys just that. Furthermore, even though enforced voting ultimately heightens voter turnout, the votes do not genuinely represent the country’s visions due to a high amount of uneducated votes. Finally, instead of policy campaigning, candidates are forced to attract the public who don’t actually care about politics. It soon turns into a popularity contest rather than a showing of different platforms. As evidence supports, voting should definitely not be required by law considering all of the negative factors posed on the effectiveness of Canada’s democratic system.

From a democratic standpoint, mandatory voting diminishes Canadians’ freedom and choice. Compelling citizens to vote changes their right into a stipulation. In such a free country as Canada, why should the right to vote be treated any differently than any other of our rights and freedoms? To elaborate, we have the freedom of speech in this country. On the other hand, we are not obliged to voice our opinion. Voting should be compared in the same way. To add, if one looks back at Canada’s history, past events will also prove downfalls to this concept. To explain, in 1917, the Canadian government made the mistake of invoking conscription. Basically, conscription is mandatory military service- all males, excluding some exceptions, must go to war. Unfortunately, this divided the country as the French were quite outraged. This instance is the perfect example of what may happen again if Canada was to make voting compulsory. It is true that with rights come responsibility, but forcing Canadians to vote will not solve any problems; it will only have temporary benefits.

Additionally, contrary to popular belief, commanding people to vote will not educate them anymore. We can’t assume that just because one is forced to vote, they will be discussing politics at their dinner-table. Some may argue that the government will better mirror the whole population’s views, but this cannot be deemed correct. Many citizens may find voting an annoying errand that they are obliged to do. Voters will become even more cynical than they already have proven to be. Also, many whom are uninterested in politics may just pick random candidates, also known as “donkey votes”. This disturbs the electoral process, and may lead to a misrepresented government.

Finally, requisite voting will make political parties less responsive to their constituents. To explain, candidates will no longer have to encourage citizens to vote. This will lower campaigning, and in return less people will find out about the party platforms. This will result in uneducated votes, and therefore, a government that doesn’t fully represent the country’s desires. 

As the facts prove, mandatory voting has quite a load of drawbacks. Instead of trying to fix the “symptom” of voter turnout, we should deal with the actual “disease”. In other words, the the government should try to inform young kids and adolescents about politics, and keep them aware and interested. As a number of studies show, the demographic of young people has minimal voter turnout rates. We can turn this situation around by educating youth on party platforms, political issues, and current events. As of now, we have done quite a bit already. For example, in British Columbia, the curriculum of Social Studies 11 includes a unit on Canada’s politics. To add, our school hosted an All Candidates Meeting recently, which raised awareness and answered questions for us students. Events like these are real methods that can actually better Canada’s voting system in the long run. It is quite evident that compulsory voting would have multiple negative effects on Canada’s government, and there are a variety of alternatives to consider instead.

This video also supports my opinion and gives insight on this issue:

References:

Bardeesy, Karim. "The Globe and Mail." The Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail Inc., 25 Apr.    2011.Web. 15 May 2013. <<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/mandatory-voting-cons-more-voters-doesnt-mean-increased-awareness/article577809/>>.

Power Always Corrupts the One Who Holds It REVISED

Power. It can save a thousand lives and ruin a thousand lives in the blink of an eye. In a split second, the holder of that power can be corrupted, lost to the world and all of reality, when a person becomes drunk with power; they think they are in all ways invincible, untouchable, because they are on top. There are very few leaders that I can proudly look up to because of the fact that even the slightest way, power can truly corrupt all that hold it. Even the smallest position of authority can corrupt; teacher, manager at a fast food restaurant, even the leader in a group for a school project, everyone has the potential to get out of hand.

          Although there are some situations where I haven't seen power corrupt. President Obama has done a good job to protect and run the United States without treating some unfair. I look at my own father as a role model. He's the owner of his own company; he is a kind, understanding, and just leader of his company. His abilities to be fair have given him not only a successful company, but he is also the first chairman of the Automotive Retailers Association of British Columbia. I'm proud to have someone who is such a great person when it comes to leading others as my Dad. However, not all are like this.

          Julius Caesar is a fantastic example of a corrupt leader. He became a dictator, yet with his charm, he found a way to still make Rome follow him. There have been too many leaders like this to count. Some more memorable names of corrupt leaders are people like Joseph Kony who is the leader of the Lord's Residence Army in Uganda, George W. Bush, the previous president of the United States, and of course, the one most probably know best, Kim Jong Un, the current dictating leader of South Korea. All of these people were given the opportunity to make something good, pure, and honest yet they used it to their own advantage instead.

          You can find corrupt leaders who have become drunk with power in any situation. I have a friend, lets call him Caesar, who was given a position of leadership and responsibility, at first it was great but then he started demanding more respect for the things he did. He demanded recognition and in my opinion became out of control. He treated people unfairly because he thought he could. Now I had another friend who I am going to call Brutus. Brutus despised how Caesar was acting, yet once Caesar's position was passed down to Brutus, he became just like Caesar but worse. He began to cause problems, decide on things that nobody else agreed with, but because he had the authority, he would make these things happen, but worst of all, he treated people he didn't like unfairly. This is the definition of a corrupt leader.

Now although not every leader is going to become corrupt or drunk with power, most in history have in some way or another. Like my friends Caesar and Brutus for example, although they are not the real Caesar and Brutus, seeing as their level of corruptness is not nearly as deep as Julius Caesar's, they still found themselves corrupted. It can happen to anyone around you, it can even happen to you, one day you might find yourself offered a position of power, you can say all you want that it won't corrupt you, but it most likely will in some way or another. Power always corrupts the one who holds it, a simple saying that some believe sums up everything. Corruption and power are both apart of life, yet getting past corruption is apart of it all too.

(REVISED) It is sometimes necessary to do things you know are wrong in order to achieve an important goal.

"It is sometimes necessary to do things you know are wrong in order to achieve an important goal."


  Many would agree that, at some point in our lives, we will all have to do something that is wrong, in order to succeed in the plan at hand. Doing the negative to result in a positive. It's kind of weird when you think about it. You may be thinking, 'How does that even work?!' It does seem a bit odd, but, in reality, people do it all the time.

   For an example, have you ever lied to a friend about something? Let's be honest. It's normal for people to lie to their friends about something, like when you want to surprise them for their birthday. It goes the same for anyone. Parents, siblings, relatives....just about anyone. Lying can sometimes be a good thing...but only if you're doing it to benefit others. Usually, people shouldn't lie to benefit themselves, but sometimes it is necessary.For example, you are at a bank at the ATM, and an armed robber comes in. He asks you for your card and your PIN, so he can deposit money from your account. If he asks you for your PIN, lie. Give him your PIN backwards. (i.e. if your PIN is 1234, tell him its 4321). This will still give him the money, but most of you didn't know, that the bank machines have the ability to automatically dial the police department when you enter your PIN backwards. So your robber still gets the money, but he'll have the police on his tail as well. (True fact. This actually works, if you're ever in a pickle). So, you see, sometimes when you LIE, you can end up canning a criminal and saving lots of people a whole bunch of money!

  However, more times than not, doing the wrong thing can be a BAD thing. You may still be trying to accomplish a task at hand, but it may not be necessary and/or legal or appropriate, etc. For example, telling your friend Lindsey you've never met her new boyfriend Colin, when it was you two kissing behind the school yesterday. Or maybe you lied about doing your Math homework, when you really just didn't want to do it. Another good example, is a bank robber. That bank robber may steal lots of money, but just because he wants a Mercedes, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Other people may simply have no choice. If a family is living in poverty, and cannot afford food, it may be necessary for them to steal, if they do not have access to a food bank. It may not be a legal thing to do, but sometimes, things that we do that are wrong and illegal, may really just be necessary. Some people may have to take a U-Turn if there is a real emergency. Some people may have to break into people's private properties with force, if someone inside is in danger or hurt. Some people just have to take risks, simply because they have no choice. 


Overall, it is sometimes necessary to do things that are wrong in order to achieve an important goal. Most would agree, however, only doing wrong for good. Generally, many don't believe in doing wrong things for your own personal benefit. So, in conclusion, although doing wrong things to benefit yourself or others may seem weird, it's a lot more common than you think. The best way to come by these beneficial outcomes is through lying. Although doing wrong can be a good thing (sometimes), it can also be a bad thing. Sometimes, people sometimes simply have no choice. But, it's as they say: "Desperate times call for desperate measures."