Absolutely correct. Why become interested in voting when once elected local MLA's become totally oblivious to mood of the electorate on issues. The prime example is the HST. Tow the party line or else.

People will come out to vote when the parties have specific policy planks AND when we can believe the promises made. Until then it is all hot air and only a minority really care.

"There is a reason why 22% of the voters in BC were responsible for electing the Liberals in the last election..."

Is it safe to assume that less than 22% of the voters were responsible for trying to get the other party elected?

Perhaps 21%?

It really doesn't matter, Prince George, because BOTH parties have exactly the same overall POLICIES, and only their METHODS of implementing them vary.

And those 'Policies' are only ones that interest, and benefit, a decreasing number of the electorate.

Take a case in point. The Carbon Tax. The NDP wanted Cap and Trade, the Liberals, the Carbon Tax. The Liberals were government, they got their way. Now guess who's talking about having Cap and Trade as well? And would the NDP, if elected government, repeal the Carbon Tax? Or would we still get both? And just WHO, amongst all the electorate, wanted either? Hardly the 'majority', I'd say.

Is it any wonder most people are fed up? We're told that we should vote, that it's a patriotic duty, almost. Yet why should we choose anyone from a list of pre-selected people peddling exactly the same policies that WE have absolutely NO say in determining, and are going to get no matter who is annointed MLA?

The very least we should have in a situation like that is an effective "Voter's Veto". All we've got right now is the option to spoil our ballot, or express our disgust by staying home.

To me its a chicken and egg thing when it comes to voting. The politicians won't really listen to the voters until they think more of them will get involved (ie vote). Voters don't want to get involved because they don't think politicians will listen to us.

I sincerely feel that its the voters' responsiibilty to take back control. When only 50% of voters show up at election time, politicians of all stripes think they have free reign to do what they wish. On the other hand, if 80% showed up, wouldn't the caucus meetings run a little bit differently when politicians see that they really are under a microscope?

They are our representatives, but since so few people vote, our representatives feel that their alliance is to the party, since the electorate really don't give them much of a mandate to govern.

In my opinion, staying home proves nothing-if you wish to really make a statement, take the time to spoil your ballot. This sends a lot more of a messaage than grumbling in front of the TV

Remember,politics is a participation sport.

"if you wish to really make a statement, take the time to spoil your ballot".

This does no good either. Spoiled ballots, whether spoiled by accident or deliberately are all lumped together and excluded from the count. While not voting makes a statement, it is not a particularly strong one. The only way to make a strong statement is to vote or, even better, run as a candidate and shoot your mouth off so like minded people can vote for you.

It might result in someone being elected who is very young if youth decide to throw their weight behind a candidate just, “for the hell of it”.

Yes, Ben, and maybe a pro union or pro business person may be elected if the unions or chamber of commerce decide to throw their weight behind a candidate. Or may the Christian community or chip truck drivers or who ever. It's called politics for a reason. I might add that special interest groups are already doing this. Why not the kids? Convicts get to vote.

Used to be "Thank you fer yer vote. See you four years. Five, if we are unpopular". Now we have fixed dates. What's the diff?

Can someone please show me that the people elected will change substantially when there is a voter participation rate of 35%, 45%, 60%, 75%, 95% .....

"It might result in someone being elected who is very young if youth decide to throw their weight behind a candidate just, for the hell of it”

So what? Like camoose said, it already happens all the time. For example, in most rural ridings all you have to be is an old white man with right wing values and you are almost guaranteed to get elected. That's about as close to electing someone "just for the hell of it" as any other example.

I think Socredites is right. Not about the Liberals and NDP having the same policies because Christy, the liberal front runner, wants to bury the rotten corpse of BC Railgate before it buries her. The NDP want a full enquiry - just go to their front page and you to can sign the petition.
Christy wants a vote in house on the HST, meaning she doesn't want us to have a say, while the NDP wants to legislate a binding referendum and have a public vote when and if the liberals ever reopen the legislature. Other than that Socredees is right - we who live here will never get the best decisions for us until we get to vote the issues. Not only would that help us keep more jobs and resources right here at home, but it would also broaden us; both spiritually and intellectually. It would change everything. Don't ever let anyone tell you we are too stupid to make our own decisions. Because you show me someone who wants to make all your decisions and I'll show you someone who wants to profit from your ignorance.