I will admit that some people do get more conservative as they get older, cautious might even be a better description. I only have to look at my siblings to see that. Then again, some of us get more radical. I will also admit to telling my daughter that she is okay being a Marxist because she had plenty if time to modify her position as she got older. Obviously, platitudes don't work at getting people out to vote. Monetary incentives and legal sanctions aren't a solution either. Education, and systemic reform of the electoral system might help.

You don't vote and nothing will ever change. Posting your complaints on a forum such as this doesn't influence anyone. If you want to change things, you have to vote. If you really want to change things you have to join a political party and work for the change you want. Your position is simply laziness clothed in self-righteousness.

You guess retired life is boring!!! I am retired, and I am not bored. I made the time to vote because I have been around long enough to know that when I don't vote we will end up with a government that will cause no end of damage to my lifestyle and what I want from my society. I also note that you have stated that the younger people are the progressive demographic. Another generalization that is without substance. Young people who don't have the time or patience do deal with a long drawn out voting process may find themselves with nothing but time when the economy is mismanaged to the point of destruction and the social safety net is in tatters because right wing economic policies such as those espoused by Milton Friedman. Unemployment is much more boring than retirement.

Clearly we are in a catch-22 situation here. Because government is trying to cut its costs related to education, educational institutions then opt to solicit funding from anyone with the ability to make a donation. Unfortunately, corporations are in a position to make large donations and reap the public relations and tax benefits from these. Unions, (where this discussion began), don't have access to large pools of capital, nor do the many other organizations who do what they can because they feel it is the right thing to do. By the same token, they generally aren't able to reap a tax benefit from their generosity. We are in complete agreement that right wing politicians do not value education. One only needs to look back to Mike Harris' regeime in Ontario. If it wasn't reading writing and arithmetic, it was not needed. The educational system in this province is still paying the price for that mismanagement. We are in agreement that this problem will not be alleviated by the right, it is an issue that will only be dealt with by a progressive government.

Further to my above comments, the National offices of trade unions are also supportive of education in this country. It is also a policy of the CAW, including at the national level, to support education. (e.g. at McMaster University for one).
I would also like to clarify that I was not intending to sound like I was going off on WilliamOntario . Education funding and corporate interference is one of my hot button issues...

I have to take issue with your argument about trade unions not putting some of their money towards education on at least two levels. Firstly, when I was a member of the executive board of a larger trade union local we regularly approved donations to the university, colleges, and high schools in our area. These donations covered a wide area of support for these institutions, and included scholarships, bursaries, and generalized support for the given institutions. As a representative to the local labour council I can attest that this pattern of support was mirrored by the labour council and other member trade union locals. I will agree that our level of support could not match the dollar figures of the major multinational corporations in our area, but then our budget couldn't match theirs either. By the same token, we did not get the press for our donations, even though our support was on an ongoing, year-in year-out, basis.
Secondly, because the corporations are able to donate large sums, they will invariably insist on public recognition for their dollars in the media and on buildings and programs, (e.g. Rogers School of Business). In addition, in our area they often insisted upon an ongoing influence in the affairs of the education institution in the form of membership on boards of governors, and an influence in course content and academic direction.
Finally, your comment implies that union's have funding levels on the same level as those available to corporations. That is simply not true. Further, the constraints imposed on these donations are different. Unions get their funding from the dues of the members. It is the member's money and the leadership must insure that any funding programs are in line with the expectations and wishes of the membership, who, elect their leaders democratically, and who vote for dues increases, and depending upon the local in question may also be voting whether of not they will give their approval for larger donations.

On a personal note, I don't want to go anywhere near your notion that our educational system or its funding, should be patterned after that in the US. I feel that education is not only a right, it is an absolute necessity if Canada is to grow and prosper in the global economy as it is now structured. As such I am all in favour of fully paid tuition for institutes of higher learning. Anything less will allow us to slowly slide into an educational system that is geared to those with an economic advantage, as opposed to those who have the academic qualifications but not the economic where-with-all. I am also in favour of grants for study aids such as books, software and membership and attendance in academic societies and conferences. Low cost student loans to cover living expenses are also the sort of program that I would approve of.

Finally, before someone goes off on me for being some kind of left wing socialist, I will save you the time and plead guilty at the outset. That being said, I have stated that I think that education is a right and a necessity. I also think that those who think that they have been successful after graduation and did it all themselves are either fooling themselves or trying to delude everyone else. Anyone who achieves a major level of success in our society has either done it with the help of the society, (education, opportunity, social safety net etc.) or they have done it illegally, (drug-dealing, fraud, theft, or predatory capitalism etc.) As for your comment that 2/3 of your tuition being paid for by the state and that you had to work hard to get to where you are. I think that is a failure of our system, and a mark of your drive and ambition. Also it speaks to a good deal of luck on your part. Many are left on the wayside due to circumstances beyond their control. Our society needs to be graded on the level of help it provides to its members and not the level of self-aggrandizing corporate donations provided to the select few.

With the right wing crying foul that the BQ has fifty seats and doesn't run a national campaign, I am inclined to think that they should expand their horizons a bit. With respect to Duncan Cameron's comments, they are beginning to look like a viable home for a thinking left wing vote...

"Are they hallucinating on petroleum fumes?"
There may actually be something resulting from all of those sour gas wells...

Proportional representation is a more pressing issue than that of Senate reform. Harper has it backwards, but the voting public doesn't seem to be able to grasp more complex issues, especially if the waters are muddied by special interest groups determined to maintain the status quo, Sadly, I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

A well intentioned, misguided politician can, in our system, cause permanent damage. This is especially true of someone like Harper, who has been widely, and correctly, characterized as an idealogue. The problem with the Conservative Party is that they have found a way to become a force in Canadian politics through the use of our "first by the post" electoral system and by uniting with, (buying out) the old Progressive Conservative party. With a divided left, they are able to get control of the levers of power without actually having the support of the majority of the electorate. This they feel is good enough to change the entire direction of the country. Yes he may be well intentioned, but that doesn't mean he has the best intentions of the majority of Canadians in mind. Recently Tom Flanagan, (read Conservative Party Hack), stated that the right had found a way to "win" and were going to use it while they could, the left could do the same if they wanted.
What has to happen is that the left has to gain control of government and reform our voting system. Unfortunately, once a party is in control, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo. Perhaps a coalition government could make this a priority...