Did you change your vote?
Canadians, did you change your vote after the last set of debates? If so, why? If not, why not? And if you remain undecided - why weren't you convinced?
If no one changes their minds, and debates only firm up support that is already there, is it worth it to even bother with the leaders' debates?
Heavenly Sex
19-12-2005, 21:15
I'd still wote Liberals (if I were Canadian, that is).
http://www.liberal.ca/images/logo.gif
Doh! I think I should probably have put "Canada", or "Canadians:" in the title.
pffft forget it
Tories all the way!
I'd put up the logo...but i'm lazy.
pffft forget it
Tories all the way!So you didn't change your vote. Why not?
Should we even bother having leadership debates if all it does is solidify existant support?
Allthenamesarereserved
19-12-2005, 22:18
Well, the Greens weren't allowed to participate, so I have no idea if I'd change my vote or not. I'd vote Bloc if I could, but obviously that isn't possible.
So you didn't change your vote. Why not?
Should we even bother having leadership debates if all it does is solidify existant support?
It changed my opinion of the Bloc, and made the Harper seem less evil. Is that a good reason for having the debate?
Neo Kervoskia
19-12-2005, 22:25
http://www.rightpoint.org/indeximages/cpoc_broadcast.jpg
w00t, not canadian wins!
As usual.
Spartiala
19-12-2005, 22:30
If there was a major party that was more libertarian, or at least more conservative, than the Conservatives, the debate might have had some bearing on my vote. As it is, all four major parties are far too statist for my liking, so I'm still voting Conservative.
The Chinese Republics
19-12-2005, 23:23
http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/NDP_eng_4-col.jpg
I'm really beginning to think the debates are useless.
Or is it just the current format? Have you been swayed in previous leaders' debates?
Waterkeep
20-12-2005, 00:17
These debates were useless.
But as I said in the other thread, these really weren't debates.
These were just a 2 hour platform exposition. I don't think any one of the leaders actually engaged in critical thinking during the entire thing. They had been provided the themes ahead of time, and none of them spoke except in response to a question from the media's pre-chosen few. Thus we see none of the hard questions come up (such as "What do you feel about the trend of increasing media conglomeration and the suppression of independant media voices through the CRTC, and what do you think is the best response to it for Canadians?") and none of the candidates having the time or requirement to address criticisms of their point of view.
A better format (though longer) would be to not give the candidates the themes ahead of time, then allow each candidate 45 seconds to outline their position, followed by a 15 second critique and 10 second rebuttal of that critique for each other candidate. (So, A speaks, B critiques, A rebuts. C critiques, A rebuts, D critiques, A rebuts, then B speaks, A critiques, B rebuts, etc.)
With 4 candidates, each question would then take about 2 and a half minutes per candidate, and might actually be informative.