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

As the 40^th provincial election in British Columbia is fast approaching it is hard to miss any stories on the news, internet or newspaper. As any election approaches it is expected that there will be at least one or more stories on the news or in the newspaper each day. For this particular election I have personally learnt the most through news stories for which parties are running to become the new provincial government. In the 2013 provincial election there are four parties in the running which include the Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the BC Vision Party. Each media story presented about this year’s election has played a large role in influencing my perspective on the parties.

Media stories can either cover positive or negative aspects on an electoral party or their candidates. They also can cover simple facts about the candidates that are running just as Squire Barnes from Global News has done for this current election. For the four electoral parties in the 2013 BC election Squire has interviewed all four party leaders simply about their life and briefly about the election. (http://globalnews.ca/news/537511/political-playoffs-squire-and-the-four-party-leaders/.) There are also many news stories that cover the events that lead up to the elections as well as the few candidate debates that go on. These news stories can provide information to the public about these candidates and greatly influence their perspective on the parties.

Along with there being stories on the news, in the newspaper and on the internet, recently there has also been a lot about the elections, parties and candidates on social media websites. This is one way that party leaders can campaign in a non-traditional way. This type of media is a great way to allow party leaders to get in touch with the public and maybe even get their vote. As parties put out Facebook and twitter pages or sometimes even collect e-mails to send out newsletters, the amount of people that sign-up or like a page may be deceiving. “All [of this information is] traceable, measurable and useful [to each party but] it's not directly linked to actual votes.” CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/05/03/f-vp-misener-social-media-canadian-election.html) Even though this type of media doesn’t have confirmation on playing a large role in the election, I believe it does because of my personal experiences of using social media over the past weeks. Global News presented an excellent story earlier in April of this year that demonstrated how social media can be used in a way to reach out to the public, grab their attention and votes. (http://globalnews.ca/news/467855/how-will-social-media-affect-b-c-elections/)

As media can help promote parties and candidates it can also report on the negative aspects and events of these parties and candidates. I believe that these negative news stories are stronger influences on the public than the positive. These negative news stories on the news, in the newspaper or online are more eye-opening and appealing to the public which therefore have a greater influence on them. For example, for this year’s election Global News had reported about the Liberal video released against the NDP leader Adrian Dix. (http://globalnews.ca/news/545570/b-c-liberals-launch-new-youtube-ad-attacking-ndps-adrian-dix-with-video/). If this video wouldn’t have been reported on there would had been a less amount of people knowing about it. Then with this particular incident there was a follow up story about the NDP asking to take the video down. (http://globalnews.ca/news/546730/b-c-liberals-refuse-to-remove-youtube-video-attacking-ndps-adrian-dix/). With both of these news stories on Global there were negative aspects for both of the parties. This could have been a large influence on the public and their views about each of these parties.

            In conclusion it doesn’t matter what the media reports about the candidate, party leader or actually party itself it will always have a large influence on the public. Either positive or negative the media will be informing the public with their news coverage and most likely put a new perspective into some of the public’s minds. As I have mentioned previously I believe that the media in the present day does have a big influence in determining the outcome in an election because of the fact that it is present everywhere in our communities. Media coverage about the elections around this time of the year is certainly something you can’t avoid.

Election Preparation and Reflection

Election Preparation and Reflection

1. There are many different strategies that people use when voting during election time. Most do it honestly and pick the party they want because they are considering all of the things they have to offer and what would be most beneficial to themselves and the economy. Many parties have very strong campaigns and very powerful leaders but they lack something that turns people the other way. Everything has to be perfect for someone to vote for them because everyone has their own preferences which is why there are so many parties offering a wide variety of promises in order to appeal to as many people as they possibly can. Some parties gain the vote of people by either by emphasizing on the characteristics of the person running, or by actually providing relative and important services that the public might be interested in. They do this and use these schemes and tactics because they know how people vote, which leads me to the topic of strategic voting.

People vote for many reasons. Whether its to get their input in and try and make a difference, or the complete opposite where the only reason they vote is to mess around with the polls and cause an inconvenience. There are many ways and reasons that people can vote which are all apart of their strategy, and some of them include:  voting for a party platform, voting for a candidate, voting against a party platform, voting against a candidate, and voting just to spoil a ballot. I  believe that voting for the party platform is the most respectable and reasonable thing to do. I feel that when voting, people shouldn't care about the looks, or anything else that isn't that relevant about the candidate and that they should base their vote on something more important like what they have to offer. If the candidate is a nice, hardworking, and enthusiastic person, then sure, it's reasonable to lean towards them because they show promise unlike a candidate that gives people the impression that they aren't going to be cared for. Though it is reasonable for a person to vote for a candidate based on their personality and the type of person that people would want in power, people shouldn't vote for candidates due to their looks. Many young girls have found Justin Trudeau to be an attractive person and if they were old enough to vote, they would do so just because of his appearance. This can also be said about Christy Clark and the fact that some people find her to be attractive which is why they choose to vote for Liberals. This strategy to voting can also cause people to take her work and dedication for granted, and put a shame to all of the time she has put into her campaign when all she needed to do was show some skin. It is not a good way to look at a person that is going to try and help build a stronger economy and is not a good way to vote for the people that will have a say on a part of your future and our children's futures. Some people have made derogatory remarks about Christy Clark and then have chosen to vote for her due to those stupid and irrelevant reason but that has also made some of her voters change their minds because it has tarnished her reputation and made people unable to take her seriously due to her looks.http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/04/12/christy-clark-why-women-hate-her-and-why-she-cant-win-the-next-election/

One strategy to voting that I don't believe in is spoiling the ballot. People that don't believe in anything that the parties have to offer should just stay home and not vote. They should waste their time as well as others, to walk in and cast a vote that won;t even be considered valid. These votes are then put into another bin because they are faulty and arent even thrown into the garbage initially. Some people leave messages, some people put in their own party names, and some people just don't put anything on them at all. It's a message that does not need to be sent and the whole thing is a waste of time as well as a foolish thing to do. People should feel honored to be able to vote and have their voice heard, but instead, people take that privilege and for granted in order to commit immature acts that can be punished if they are caught. Although the people that spoil ballots might not get caught because it is private and there isn't really a way to tell who wrote it, they can be charged $500 and put in jail for up to two months. Here is the link to a page where someone tells people that they will be spoiling a ballot and asks for opinions on how he should do so. I think that it is entirely unnecessary and that this person should not vote at all instead of causing trouble for the people that have to count the votes after.

http://thecommons-ccd.com/2011/04/spoil-your-ballot-contest/

Voting in canada should not become a law

Voting in canada should not become legal. Voting in canada is a privilege and one of the most important privileges is, if you don't feel as if you dont believe in any of the parties beliefs then you should have the choice to skip the vote.

Voting in australia for example is mandatory. At times they get the  odd ballot that has a random person or another box that they create themselves because they don't believe in any of the parties theories. For this reason i think voting should not be mandatory because if people don't agree and if people don't like any of the parties they should have the choice to not waste their tame and vote.

All in all, voting should not become mandatory. Not all people are always going to agree with the choices or ideas of the parties. But at the same time I do believe it is important to get an accurate vote. Usually BC gets around 60 percent of their population voting. This is a problem but i feel as if it can be fixed in other ways. I feel as if in socials 11 the curriculum should include a large section on all the different parties to promote the parties and to teach the new and young people, ("the future") what each party believes in.

Elections, question #3, should voting be mandatory in Canada (punishable by fines)

Voting in Canada is not only a right that we have, but it is also a privilege. It is as if some Canadians have chosen to forfeit that right, causing the possibility that we may end up with a government that we do not deserve. Over the past few years the idea of mandatory voting within Canada has been looked at, and now needs to be examined even closer. With another election right around the corner, the issue of whether voting in Canada should be mandatory or not is a hot topic. Currently, voting itself is considered a civic responsibility rather than an obligation, but that may change soon.

On one hand there is the opinion that votes against this new law being put in place. If a law were to be made that voting is mandatory, you could be charged with a fine for it. Those who oppose this idea think that by trying to force people to vote, the turnout could produce an even deeper issue of democratic conflict than we are already dealing with. It is possible for government to be put in place simply because of a large number of uninformed voters, voting because they are told they have to. In the long run forcing Canadian citizens by law to vote could be seen as counter- productive in the long run, in the eyes of some individuals.

“The words mandatory and voting should not be in the same sentence”

http://www.sagennext.com/2010/03/10/

On the other hand, there is the argument that laws should be put in place to make voting mandatory for all Canadian citizens. This opinion is also where my vote lies. I feel as though a vote towards our government is a duty we have as Canadian citizens, and it is the way we express how we feel. With this being said, those whom wish not to vote should be able to express how they feel in a new way. As suggested in the article posted below, it is proposed that a new option be added to each ballot, “none of the above”. With this new option, it would be unnecessary for any ballots to be spoiled, but rather know who does not agree with any of the options provided. With this is would be clear who does not like the governments running, rather than leaving those unidentified individuals votes in limbo. Also, with mandatory voting some individuals may take it to heart and do a little bit of research. For example, if you had an option of taking a quiz in school most kids would opt out so they didn’t have to study. But, if that quiz was mandatory, they would probably study rather than receive a bad mark. Relating this to the election, if voting was mandatory, more people would step up and take responsibility for their vote.

 http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=405

In conclusion there are many arguments supporting both the mandatory vote and opposing it. This is a topic that needs to be further explored and discussed in order to find a solution to the problem. Sure the spoiling of ballots would not be as common with the option of “none of the above”, yet with mandatory voting could come a major outrage. Overall this controversial argument needs a lot of looking into. 

The right to die

The right to die is a very serious area to talk about. This is involving being killed on purpose due to physical pain, depression, feelings of lonesomeness, loss of hope, and just people giving up. The right to die has two very convincing sides but i think the right to die needs to stop, and nobody should ever be allowed to take their own life. 

People should never be killed on purpose. The right to die is a very serious thing and i think people just don't enjoy their lives but what they don't realize is that they need to be thankful for being in this world even though something has changed immensely. By doctors giving options that involve people taking their own life should be banned. Their should be no such thing as people taking their own life because something is wrong with them or they don't want to be here because by people dying, it can not only change you but it may also change the people around you.

The right to die gives people a way out if the patient feels as if her life doesn't mean as much as it once did. By people being allowed to take their own life may be the best choice, in moderation. By giving people the power to take their own life it can give people that sense of relief. Their would be no need to suffer and no need to be depressed anymore.

The right to live in my opinion is a gift. A gift that is a one and a million chance. I don't believe in someone being allowed to take their own life. The reason for that is because life is something that should never be taken for granted. People need to start living their life without depression, and always hating on their life eve if their in their deathbed because once your gone your gone, and nobody likes to hear that someone has passed away.

In conclusion, their should be no reason whatsoever to allow a person to take their own life. It may cause instability in the family, depression for other people, and maybe even another reason for another person to do the same thing. The right to live on the other hand is much more grateful. The right to live means so much and everybody is so lucky to have a life which is why nobody should ever give up and take the easy way out by taking their own life. The option to take your own life needs to be stopped and never thought about again. 

Alex Petra

  

The Right To Die

The topic of whether or not people have the right to die goes back over 2000 years ago. This issue is highly controversial and definitely has more of an individual level that has yet to be understood by many. Each and every scenario  is different and given certain situations and conditions, opinions can vary. This issue is talking about physician assisted suicide where a doctor is the one that provides the euthanasia and the patient is killed quietly and peacefully. There is another way to look at this topic as a whole and that is suicide of another nature, where the individual takes their own life without the help of anyone and most of the time it isn’t peaceful at all. 

On a television show named “Dr.Oz”, they hosted a “Right to Die Debate” where people were invited to share their stories and opinions on the topic. Many seemed to be in the middle, where they considered certain circumstances and how the individual that wanted to end their life was feeling. This seems to be the most reasonable approach to a topic like this because it considers all the other variables before coming to a conclusion. A woman by the name of Dana (last name was not given) suffered from degenerative neuromuscular disease that made her unable to move any part of her body other than her head. She could not bathe her self, brush her own teeth, she needed to be fed, and she couldn't provide her children with the proper attention and care that they required. She is bed ridden almost 99% of the day and knows that her future won't be full of dignity and prosperity because of her current condition and lifestyle. This leads her to want to end her life and stop the suffering she is currently going through, so that her children can learn to move on and live happier lives, while other believe that she should continue on with her life no matter what pain she's going through.

One side of this argument believes that our sole purpose as human beings is to help prolong life and make sure that people live as long as they can. They believe that no matter what pain one is going through, they should continue on with their life and they shouldn't be able to have the choice to end it or not. The other side believes that someone should have the choice to end their life or not because they are the only ones that truly know what they are going through and if committing suicide is the right decision for them or not. They believe that they should have the choice to do what they want and end their life when they desire to do so. The first side says that there is a lot more to consider and that someone can't end their life without taking into consideration the lives and health of the rest of their family. They also have to consider the financial aspect of it and think about how if they leave this world, their children or family members might not be able to continue on the way of the life they were used to. 

I believe that people have the right to die and should be able to end their lives when they want to by means of physician assisted suicide. Nobody other than themselves knows what they are truly going through and the amount of pain they have to endure on a daily basis. Some say that people drive themselves to assisted suicide not because of the pain they are going to through physically or mentally, but the situation they are currently in financially as well. This includes, being in poverty, not meeting the required income, or being burdened by debt. If this were the case, then I believe it is wrong to turn to suicide but it is not. One of the main reasons that people choose to end their lives is because for once, they would like to take control and choose their path. They didn't choose to be in the current condition that they are in and want a way out because their future doesn't include living a life full of dignity. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=warCR3I88X8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8wKen-dQ7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em18TbejAVI

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a6frw7CYrQA/TzclMdyN1xI/AAAAAAAABPA/-mVlHGZkwRs/s1600/euthanasia.jpeg.gif

Should prostitutes be allowed to operate brothels in Canada?

Recently in Canada the Supreme Court has made the decision to review the legal rights of sex workers to work in brothels, hire body guards and drivers. As it stands today it is legal for prostitutes to work in brothels but illegal to proceed with street prostitution. Prostitution as a whole isn’t illegal but as I have learned through many new articles that a lot of activities that involve prostitution are banned. Brothels in Canada are seen to be “the safest way to sell sex is for a prostitute to work indoors in a location under her control”. This was stated during the ruling of the legalization of brothels by the judges. For this reason some provincial governments have made prostitutes operating brothels legal. These brothels are used for the protection of these prostitutes and allow them to carry out their jobs in a legal environment. The final ruling of issue will now be Canada wide as this appeal was by the Supreme Court.

During the ruling over the legalization of brothel houses and the legal rights to allow there to be body guards and drivers for prostitutes, there were actual and former prostitutes present to argue their side. These prostitutes have felt that the government has been disrespectful towards them and their profession. Although, in Ontario with the legalization of working in brothel houses, hiring body guards and drivers there has been some relief. Valerie Scott, a former prostituted has felt relieved in a way that “[they] are now brought into society” and “almost full citizens”. The prostitutes don’t understand why their safety matters less than other individuals in the province. These prostitutes believe that brothel houses will provide a place of safety to carry on with their job, just like most Canadians have safe work areas. 

            While reading any articles about this situation I have found it very interesting to look at both sides. These articles have provided me with a lot of useful knowledge to come up with my own opinion about this topic. I must say that in the beginning I was set with my own opinion but as I was reading articles there were situations and ideas brought up that I didn’t even take in to account when I first built my own opinion. An opinion that I have come across that also finely states my opinion is one from the Prime Minister Stephen Harper. As he has stated and I firmly agree with is that “prostitution is bad for society and harmful to communities, women and vulnerable persons”.

In my opinion I believe that prostitutes shouldn’t be allowed to operate brothel houses in Canada to carry out their jobs. These brothel houses promote prostitution which I believe is very harmful to society. Prostitution demoralizes women as the idea that you can purchase a women comes along with these prostitutes and brothels. Safety of every human being in Canada is very important although in such a case I believe that the prostitutes should know the dangers of their occupation as they chose this type of work. Making brothels illegal in Canada will be to protect society and the morals of women and some men. This law is not to add extra risks in this field of work but unfortunately won’t make it any safer.

 Here is a link to a CNN article:

 http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/americas/canada-ontario-legalizes-brothels