Endorse THE N.O.T.A. OPTION
“None of The Above”
On All Voting Ballets
The People’s Veto
Statement of Principle: All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; “None of the Above” gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a “No” vote on a ballot question. In Canada we have options of returning a ballot, or spoiling it and though the numbers of spoiled ballots are counted there is no recourse to the lack of support of our elected prime ministers, Mayors and Premiers.
If “None of the Above; For a New Election” receives the most votes, no candidate is elected to that office and a follow-up by-election, with new candidates, is held. Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.
“N.O.T.A.” Would end the “must hire” elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar “lesser evil.” The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote.
N.O.T.A. should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent’s candidacy. Additionally this will mean a return to issue based politics, with a strong power in place to punish those who do not fulfill election promises. Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote.
Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure “access” would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise.
Office holders, knowing they face “N.O.T.A.” in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate or gaining contributions from those who have a vested interest in controlling the political system.
When pre-election polls include “N.O.T.A.”, the feedback from voters should help guide candidates and parties. Even when “N.O.T.A.” does not win or is a non-binding N.O.T.A. the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner’s mandate.
Lastly, opportunities for election fraud should be reduced because fewer blank votes for an office would be cast.
Rock The Vote is dedicated to enacting Voter Consent laws.
Vancouver, Canada—The widely-popular Canadian political comedy community SHD.ca has crowdfunded enough money to air a 30-second ad more than 100 times on national TV, including coveted spots during two playoff hockey games. The comedic ad takes Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government to task for recent economic failures. The country is experiencing a historic hunger problem resulting in criticism from the United Nations about “the growing gap between Canada’s international human rights commitments and their implementation domestically.”
The people-powered television commercial attacks the Harper goverment’s controversial taxpayer-funded playoff hockey ad campaign for Canada’s “Economic Action Plan.” The Conservative’s PR blitz has cost taxpayers an unprecedented $113 million while being widely denounced as propaganda. The slick advertisements make misleading claims of “jobs,” “growth” and “prosperity”. The government has purchased some of the world’s most expensive airtime, including the Super Bowl and the Oscars while refusing to disclose the details of their advertising costs to the public.
“The Harper Conservatives are spending millions of our tax dollars telling us how great they are for the economy. Meanwhile their policies are leaving a record number of Canadians hungry,” says Sean Devlin, executive director at SHD.ca.
The SHD ad highlights the fact that the average household debt is at a record high and the number of Canadians relying on food banks is at an unprecedented level. Both the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund have echoed these economic trends. The group originally set a goal of $6,000, to buy one prime time TV spot for a national audience of 150,000 people. SHD.ca blasted past the first goal in just four hours, reaching $76,412 in three weeks. 15 percent of funds raised go to the Canadian Food Bank, totaling more than $11,000.
“Our community suggested we run our own ad focusing on the truth. We did and the response has been incredible,” added Brigette DePape, lead community organizer for SHD.ca. “Canadians across the country and across partisan lines are declaring this ad spending in midst of economic suffering unacceptable.”
DePape is a former Senate page who disrupted the speech from the throne in Canada’s House of Commons after the Harper Conservatives were elected to a majority government with only 39% of the popular vote. She has since become anactivist icon and spokesperson for populist dissent in an era where two-thirds of Canadians believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is too secretive and has failed to govern with high ethical standards, The SHD advertisements will be airing during a week when the Harper government is facing its largest corruption scandal to date.
This is not what Canadians expect from their government — or the Prime Minister. Canadians deserve better.
Why Mr. Harper’s top advisor gave a Senator $90,000 to repay inappropriate expenses isn’t the only question Canadians want Mr. Harper to answer.
Over 2,000 Canadians sent us questions to ask the Prime Minister in Question Period — questions like why is it getting harder for young families to afford housing, groceries and utilities.
I’ll start asking those questions next week when Mr. Harper comes back from South America.
In the meantime, let’s get the answers Canadians deserve on the PMO ethics scandal.
The NDP looks a little less socialist than it used to.
New Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favour of changing their constitution at the party’s policy convention Sunday, a move that effectively removed much of the socialist rhetoric that helped define the party’s raison d’etre for decades.
After a fiery debate and numerous procedural delays, 960 delegates voted in favour of the resolution to amend the preamble to the constitution – essentially the NDP’s mission statement – while 188 voted against. The changes required a two-thirds majority to pass.
“I’m a social democrat and it’s a social democratic party, but you’ll notice that both of those words are still in the preamble,” Mulcair told reporters shortly after the vote.
“A lot of Canadians share our vision and our goals in the NDP. We just gotta make sure that by modernizing, by using the language that resonates with a wider public in Canada, that we’ll be able to do what we have to do, which is to defeat Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in 2015.”
Social democracy, he said, is about “removing inequalities in our society.” While many of those battles — such as those related to improving working conditions — have been won, he said today’s fight is about the inequalities between generations and the need for sustainable development.
Mulcair argued the purpose of the change is to “connect and reach out beyond our traditional base,” while still acknowledging the party’s traditions. He added it’s not so much about “bringing the party to the centre” as some critics, including party stalwart Ed Broadbent, have charged, but rather about “bringing the centre to the party.”
The new preamble was drafted by notable party members, including former national leader Alexa McDonough, former Manitoba MP Bill Blaikie and past party president and leadership contender Brian Topp, upon instruction from the late Jack Layton after the party failed to agree on an earlier revision at the last policy convention in 2011. It’s considerably longer than the original and focuses on the principles of “sustainable prosperity,” “freedom and democracy” and a “rules based economy.”
It also references the party’s “social democratic and democratic socialist traditions,” and affirms pride in its “political and activist heritage.”
It was amended slightly by delegates to also include a commitment to “First Nations, Metis and Inuit,” as well as support for “intercultural integration.”
Speaking Sunday in support of the change, Blaikie said he opposed the amendment the last time the party tried to alter the preamble because it went to too far in trying to water down references to socialism.
“This doesn’t sound like a party that’s in any danger of losing its identity,” he told fellow delegates. “What this preamble does is maintain our uniqueness, maintain the essentials and maintain the momentum so that some day we might (not) just have a unique left-wing party in Canada, we can have a unique left-wing Canada.”
The original preamble indicated the party believed “social, economic and political progress” could only be “assured” by applying “democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs,” and went on to define the term “democratic socialist.”
A small but vocal group of far left party members interrupted proceedings on numerous occasions over the weekend to protest the direction the party was headed and the plan to change the preamble.
“The NDP cannot advance by attempting to become a replica of the Liberal Party or to take its political space in the electoral spectrum,” said Barry Weisleder, the chairman of the party’s unofficial socialist caucus.
Meanwhile, 38 resolutions passed at the weekend convention are expected to inform the party’s next election platform. The resolutions ranged from combating tax havens, supporting trade unions and developing a national mining strategy, to reversing employment insurance cuts, supporting veterans and reinstating supplementary health care benefits for refugees.
OSLO—Britain is cool, Denmark is heavenly and Norway is next.
Two down and one to go in my three-nation quest to find out why Stephen Harper in 1997 sneered in a speech to Americans that “Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
I can hold a grudge for 15 years, easy, but that isn’t the point. I assumed the innocent Harper simply hadn’t visited these northern nations or he’d have seen how badly we needed to nudge closer to their style, their way of thinking.
Britain and Scandinavia are full of good ideas for a Canada at the crossroads, with a Conservative government trying to take us back to the 1950s while provinces like Alberta and Quebec stare at the future with a wild surmise. We should study the northern nations. We are one of them.
On the other hand, Norway fills me with apprehension. Norwegians are famously rational and courteous, almost as good-looking as the Danes and rich as Croesus.
Teen poet Adrian Mole once saluted the nation in a 1984 novel by Sue Townsend:
Land of difficult spelling.
Hiding your beauty behind strange vowels.
Land of long days, short nights and dots over ‘O’s.
One day I will sjourn to your shores.
I live in the middle of England
Norway! My soul resides in your watery fiords fyords fiiords
Good Idea: Get rich, properly
Norway has become stupefyingly rich, something I am accustomed to in totalitarian women-hating countries like Saudi Arabia but not in sophisticated generous nations with photogenic industries like logging and fishing.
The great B.C. online magazine The Tyee ran a long — and brilliant — series by Mitchell Anderson this year on the economic glory of Norway. I urge you to read it. It shocked me to my greedy Canadian core.
The Norwegians discovered offshore oil in the 1960s but, unlike Canada, learned to manage it well and now, well, they’re loaded. Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, is worth $650 billion (U.S) and will hit $1 trillion in this decade. (Alberta’s Heritage Fund, set up in 1976, is at a banana republic level of $15.9 billion Cdn.).
As Anderson says stolidly, that’s equal to “140 per cent of GDP (gross domestic product), or about $120,000 for every man, woman and child” in Norway. (They have 5 million people, we have 31 million.)
The fund owns 1 per cent of the world’s stocks. Norway has a debt surplus. It has full employment, a phrase that in my world ranks with “cure for cancer” and “climate stability.”
According to the International Monetary Fund, it has the third highest per capita GDP in the world, after Luxembourg and Qatar, where you do not want to live. We’re 10th. I am filled with retroactive shame for how Canada — most notably Alberta — messed up its stewardship of natural resources. It’s like a lottery ticket we failed to cash.
Let’s look at how Norway has dealt with rapacious multinationals, mitigated environmental damage and decided to rule its own destiny, along with feeling a certain amount of guilt at its good fortune.
“We have an abundancy problem,” says Prof. Dag Harald Claes, head of political science at the University of Oslo. “It seems like a nice problem but it’s still a problem.”
There is a startling right-left political consensus in Norway, but it may be the consequence of wealth. For instance, when the so-called right-wing wants to get difficult, I am told, it argues that not enough is being spent on welfare. No one blinks.
It wasn’t always this way. When oil extraction began, regulation was weak, Claes says. “The American companies came, did it the way they did it in Texas with no labour, health or environmental regulations.” Then in 1980 an offshore oil platform collapse killed 123 workers. “The Nordic logic kicked in.”
Now the industry is heavily regulated, taxed and structured for the future, the only debate being at what pace extraction should continue, to avoid the “Dutch disease” of an oil-dominated economy crushing manufacturing exports.
Canada faces this problem in its rush to pull money out of the tarsands at full speed. It uses low-paid foreign workers, for instance. Here, local workers are trained, so that the expertise doesn’t leave if a multinational departs.
Einar Lie, a history professor at the University of Oslo, says the Norwegian government initially had a semi-war with multinational oil firms because it wanted control of its own resources and a marginal tax rate of at least 90 per cent. (In 2010, Alberta charged only 10 per cent royalties on its all its oil revenue, Anderson reports.)
The multinationals threatened to leave the Norwegian shelf. “(Norway) didn’t want them to leave but they didn’t beg them to stay because that’s not how we do things in Norwegian politics,” Lie says.
And Norway is set to double its carbon tax on offshore oiland is setting up a 1 billion pound fund to help repair climate change damage in the developing world. That’s how they do it. That’s how Alberta didn’t, and doesn’t, do it. Even the suggestion of confronting foreign oil companies makes timid Canadians feel faint.
Norway called the multinational bluff yet kept it civilized. “We have a strong belief in negotiations without winners and losers,” Lie says. “Norway is an extremely egalitarian society.”
Despite all the lectures about equality, I go to Aker Brygge, a former shipyard turned into a nest for the rich, and see evidence of astounding wealth. Here in adjacent Tjuvholmen is the Astrup Fearnley Museum designed by Renzo Piano who describes it as “a roof with pieces under it.” Some roof. Some pieces.
“Fashionable, expensive and vacuous,” critics have called it, a case of a gallery overwhelming its art. It’s a curving glass cap over wood, containing wonderful modern Norwegian and Chinese photography that almost make up for the 1990s Damien Hirst pre-surgery genitalia et al. Oh Damien, pubic hair is so old.
The rich are everywhere, in crass New York, where their homes are rendered in glass and steel, and in London, where people build three-storey basements in a studied effort to be non-ostentatious.
But on the wharf I saw an apartment building whose beauty — yet palpable air of menace — made me gasp. Its roof was shaped like a Viking prow, and the ship’s body rolled out over the rooftop to the fjord like some kind of threatening blast from the 11th century.
The parapet proclaimed might like an aircraft carrier. For the first time in my life, I understood not the 1 per cent but the 0.01 per cent. I know that the person on the top floor thinks the way I do: “One day the grave will claim me. Also my toe hurts.” But I felt as though I had been beaten with golf clubs.
On the other hand, people describe Oslo wrongly. They tell me the university is “out in the suburbs.” No, it’s not. I say that as a Torontonian. It’s in Blindern, an area easily reachable by tram with detached houses so lovely in an understated way that I feel I’m in a kind of domestic heaven.
Really, I have another of my “turns.” I walked through Blindern in a drift of autumn leaves feeling emotionally carbonated — no, it’s an actual numinous northern moment — which does not happen to me at York University or anywhere near it. There are suburbs, and there are suburbs.
Similarly, Oslo had Toronto’s waterfront — blocked off by an expressway, ratty and ugly. It’s fixing it. It’s burying parts of its expressway. The new opera house is an impressively massive white iceberg sloping into the fjord. There’s a clutch of skyscrapers — known accurately but not fondly as “The Barcode” — but it doesn’t block the harbour. In Oslo, they’re getting it right.
Good idea: Write crime fiction
Norway frightens me because I have read its novels. Nordic Noir is huge at the moment, and rightfully so. The journalist Mark Lawson, who is hosting a BBC radio series on European detective fiction, not only says that the genre offers tourism in prose form, but that it is predictive. “It is a magnifying glass that frequently reveals the fingerprints of history before they become visible to politicians or journalists.”
He’s right. The late Stieg Larsson, whose first novel, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, was originally titled Men Who Hate Women, guided us around Stockholm’s killing grounds and reminded us that smart brave women like Lisbeth Salander can scarcely survive in this world. Jo Nesbo is the Norwegian novelist whose Harry Hole (Hoo-la) detective series introduced me to Oslo.
Just as it’s a bad idea to see the 1973 Julie Christie movie Don’t Look Now before you go to Venice — you will spend your days expecting to be stabbed by people in little red coats — it’s a bad idea to read Nesbo before you go to Oslo. His hero is an alcoholic loner who ferrets around in the most fetid areas of the city, places that would have slipped past me had I not read Nesbo. Blood stands out on the grey pavements of Oslo, which is far enough north that the sun on the Earth’s curve this time of year is all the more blinding for being short-lived and low.
There’s no stigma to writing thrillers in Scandinavia, Nesbo explained to the Guardian’s John Crace. “Many Scandinavian writers who had made their name in literary fiction felt they wanted to have a go at the crime novel to show they could compete with the best. If Salman Rushdie had been Norwegian, he would definitely have written at least one thriller.”
As for prefiguring events, Nesbo’s 2000 novel The Redbreast was about neo-Nazis in Oslo. And then came the 2011 Oslo bombing and the slaughter on Utoya island by a Muslim-hating Nazi-admiring madman.
Speaking of Nazis, Norway’s greatest literary work is a huge 2009 novel/memoir by Karl Ove Knausgaard, the Nordic Proust. Its unfortunate title of Min Kamp (My Struggle) makes it awkward to read in airports so I read it before I left, 430 pages of the unedited moments of a depressive’s rural adolescence, which is fine. But there are five more volumes, which is not.
The critic Louis Menand says Min Kamp is about “the adventure of the ordinary steadily retreating” toward meaninglessness. I enjoyed Min Kamp, especially the weirdly compelling 150-page sequence about housecleaning, but have more than 3,000 pages left to read (the full Knausgaard is not yet in English).
I don’t doubt its genius. Yet Proust loved beauty and Knausgaard doesn’t encounter it much. Min Kamp is a hard road. I cannot square this with the gentle Norway I meet. It’s a puzzle.
Good idea: Take the train
You are spoiled for choice if you want to travel around Oslo without using your legs, so untrue of Toronto. There are plenty of cyclists but it’s not the bike haven Copenhagen is, perhaps because the cold here can be cutting.
There are buses, trams, trains, domestic ferries and international ferries. I spent a lot of time hanging around stations pondering which form of transit I was in the mood for. A train, then a touch of tram? A ferry, or should I just sit at the Cafe Renzo jamming blueberry cakes into my mouth and watching teenage boys posing on two stone breasts by the sculptor Louise Bourgeois with the nipples facing inland?
Good idea: Be rational
Since Harper’s appearance in politics, Canadians have been imbibing the American idea that feelings are more important than thoughts, that “truthiness” — what you feel in your gut — wins out. The Norwegians don’t do this.
The reason is rooted in Norwegian history, says Prof. Lie. “We are a small country” — funny, the Danes phrased it this way too — “but we are quite loud about climate change, the Nobels, about our tradition of peace. We are a very open society and we travel a lot.”
Peacefully splitting from Sweden in 1905, Norway has Canadian-type industries: fish, timber, water and electricity. When European companies wanted a taste in 1910, Norway stubbornly insisted on “concession laws” stating that waterfalls dammed for electricity by corporations should be returned to the nation after 80 years.
The European Union was most unhappy with this long-retained 1907 regulation, which was not in the spirit of European sharing. But this is the Norwegian way: self-determination. Why can’t Canada do the same now?
Norwegian oil regulator Rolf Wiborgtold The Tyee’s Anderson exasperatedly, “Protecting the future of Canadian nature and human life, looking out for local residents, providing jobs and wealth to Canada. It can all be done, that’s what we are doing here. But you’ve got to stop thinking like a loser!”
Norway was populated by small farmers and businesses without no huge inherited wealth class or big business as in Germany or the U.K. Fairness was thus part of tradition, with everyone having an equal say.
“If I said to you, parroting the American slogan, ‘What’s good for business is good for Norway,’ what would people say?” I asked Lie.
He laughed. “People would say it’s obviously ridiculous.”
Norway is an extremely self-confident nation, but this is built on a base of government, unions and business sitting down at the same table as equals, and talking freely. “The quickest route to losing an election,” Lie says, “is to promote business or organized labour interests alone. It would be tasteless and illegitimate.”
I keep making comparisons with the Harperite American style that Canada is emulating. Lie shrugs. “It’s so different. Climate, abortion, Sarah Palin, and domestic issues like family values, obesity, big cars,” Lie says. “It’s not nice to make fun of people. So most Norwegians feel a great distance from the Americans.”
Good Idea: Be compassionate
The 21-year prison sentence given to mass murderer Anders Breivik struck me as distinctly undercooked. I complained (not out loud, of course) that my Oslo hotel room was smaller than Breivik’s three-room cell, and it was.
He killed 77 people in a manner of extreme hideousness, he shot the wounded in the water, he tormented those he was about to kill. But we know all that. Although I feel confident he will never be released, was 21 years enough?
Jo Nesbo has said, quite calmly: “It was a one-off natural disaster perpetrated by an individual that couldn’t have been predicted. It was not an important political event rooted in the foundations of our society.”
Prof. Claes: “We have a subculture on the right that we haven’t taken seriously enough. But on balance, there is an individual explanation.”
Prof. Lie: “We learned that we have to improve our response time.”
I take their point. Breivik was a friendless freak who was lucky enough to get a gun. Any serial killer attacking a gym, a classroom, an island, will kill more people than in an open space. That doesn’t make him more significant than any other murderer. Why should Norway change itself to bend to the Breiviks?
When I press Lie, he says Norwegians “have a lower level of aggression in public debate.” The police report pointed out deficiencies that will be repaired, he said.
He then begins to talk about a 1994 murder case in Trondheim in which a young girl was found tortured to death and naked in the snow. To an astonishing degree, the circumstances mirrored the killing of tiny Jamie Bulger by two young boys in Liverpool in 1993. A British tabloid reporter came to interview him about the case. Lie recalls that there were very few details released to the public and very little press interest.
“She became upset with me,” Lie recalls, bemused. She could not understand why Norwegians weren’t obsessed with the case. But, he explains, they simply felt that police and social services would deal with the case appropriately, so there was nothing more to say.
I wrestle with this. The murdered girl’s mother and brother have since encountered her killers in town, to their shock and revulsion. Yet the mother concludes, “The system we have in Norway is still best.”
I remain as bewildered as the British reporter, because in Canada “the system” is poor. The local police are out of control, the RCMP is a nest for scandal and social services are exhausted. “We have faith in our institutions,” Lie explains. What’s that like, I wonder.
But my anger at Breivik’s sentence is tempered by his hilarious complaints this month about the brutality meted out to him in his three-room cell. His prison pen is too bendy! It’s “an almost indescribable manifestation of sadism.” He lacks adequate moisturizer! His coffee is cold! The butter on his bread is skimpy!
I change my mind. Every aspect of Breivik’s existence is clearly a torment to him. May it long continue.
Good ideas: In summary
So my tour of the Northern European nations that Harper so despised has ended. These countries were splendid. Harper was, and is, flat-out wrong. There are dozens of good ideas here for Canadians to emulate. “I love Canada,” Rolf Wiborg has said. “I love Canadians. It’s a fantastic country. But in my opinion it’s totally mismanaged, and by design.”
To sum up: Be disrespectful like Brits. Have a bit of a laugh. Be gorgeous like Danes. Get some exercise. Be tough like Norwegians. Get rich but remain humble. These are words to live by.
1 Level trams. Like our trams coming in 2014, they’re absolutely level with the road, so you step into the tram the way you step into your bedroom. There’s a psychological level of comfort in not having to climb on.
2 Clas Ohlson. It’s a Swedish hardware store chain, the Canadian Tire of Oslo, but unlike them, clean, elegant and beautifully organized by white numbers on black borders. The font is 1970s. It has retro-appeal.
3 Black. I used to find black sinister. Now that I’ve seen black gabled pantile roofs on square houses in Bygdoy, wide black wooden picture frames and black trim, I love it. Black is the signature shade of Oslo and it works.
4 Viking shapes. The curve of the Viking longboat prow is the signature shape of Norway. Why don’t I see more canoe prows in Canadian decor and architecture? It beckons, it’s instantly recognizable.
5 Cafe Christiania. If you sit in this grand circular restaurant beside the Royal Palace above Karl Johans gate (the main drag) you can see where Jo Nesbo sets his best murders. The owner has a doll collection that is not as creepy as it sounds.
Auto insurance like any other type of insurance, is also just as important because italso deals with protection. Auto insurance mainly is for the protection of your car in case of an accident or a serious and fatal injury. Let’s further explain what
this is, what exactly is auto insurance and how can you get it? Auto insurance mainly deals with the protection of your property in case of a natural calamity, theft, vandalism, or destruction or damage to your car.
It is also useful in case that someone rams into your car either on purpose or by accident, and they leave a huge dent. The insurance will pay for the damages caused by the other person but it will be carefully evaluated first before the issuance of reimbursement can be granted.
Now, you may ask how do I get an auto insurance quote in Milton? And how hard is it to get? – Essentially this is a quick and effortless process as long as you know where to look. Acquiring auto insurance is also as easy as purchasing a car, because when you buy a brand new car for the first time, you will be issued a year of free auto insurance by your bank. Depending on the terms that you have amongst bank members, they will normally issue you with a year free of insurance and the rest you will have to purchase on your own the following year.
Here are two ways on how to ask for an auto insurance quote in Milton:
- Ask help from your bank – When you have already purchased your brand new car from an auto dealership, depending on the terms that they have for that specific car, they usually throw in a year worth of auto insurance. For the following year, you can ask your bank if they can recommend you to a good insurance broker or financial firm so that you do not have to go through the process of looking for one yourself. In some cases banks will offer you with another year of insurance that they can usually provide and you will no longer have to look for elsewhere. You will just have to renew your policy.
- Research online – Other than the bank, there are also ways through the Internet that you can find a quotation for auto insurance. Some websites offer a free auto insurance quotation along with the type of plan that you want to purchase. It usually allows you to get a glimpse of the different policies that could be best with the appropriate quotation that you choose. But make sure that when you’re planning to join these websites, that these are reputable and well known insurance firms, because some websites will offer the same service, the same quotation, and the same policies but these websites turn out to be a scam. Always make sure to check and read thoroughly the terms and conditions provided in the site before giving out personal identification, credit credentials, and bank details. Also make sure to try the website with a fake identity first before trying to join, as this usually tests if the website is legit or not. Always be discreet.