Do you vote for the party, the leader, your MP, or a mix?

[westmanguy]

This is why are system is so darn messed up! We can vote in so many ways.

I could vote based on:

The national party at hand.
The leaders
Your local MP representing
Or a mix.

I honestly don't care about my local MP's, I have had dingdong Conservative MPs that represented my riding that I have voted for.

For me I base my vote on the leader and the party at hand.

This is why the USA is better.. you get to vote for your leader and then separately vote for your rep...

 

[sanctus]

This is why are system is so darn messed up! We can vote in so many ways.

I could vote based on:

The national party at hand.
The leaders
Your local MP representing
Or a mix.

I honestly don't care about my local MP's, I have had dingdong Conservative MPs that represented my riding that I have voted for.

For me I base my vote on the leader and the party at hand.

This is why the USA is better.. you get to vote for your leader and then separately vote for your rep...

Nothing wrong with our system. The error is in the voters. We are a party system, and that is who we should be voting for..the party. If the electors choose to vote for the man, that is contrary to the point. Be that what it may, it does not invalidate the system.

 

[folcar]

I vote primarily based on what the platforrm is in terms of party politics, and the attitudes and ideals of the Camdidate locally. I also take into consideration the history of those running, as it is ussually a good indicator of what they will do if elected. The leader i have to agree is another strong point, a weak leader will make a weak governement. So strength i that area is deffinately needed.

 

[TenPenny]

I vote for the local candidate, UNLESS I truly dislike the party leader or the party platform.

I look at the local candidates, decide which one I prefer, then look at the party leader for that party, to see if he/she/it is objectionable to me or not, and do the same with the platforms. Mind you, knowing how cast in stone (NOT) the platforms are, you have to take that with a grain of salt, that's why I put the party leader before the platform.

It works for me. Others may differ.

 

[Niflmir]

Nothing wrong with our system. The error is in the voters. We are a party system, and that is who we should be voting for..the party. If the electors choose to vote for the man, that is contrary to the point. Be that what it may, it does not invalidate the system.

I would disagree with you on that point. I think the fact that a candidate is not required to face a by-election when they change parties or are kicked out by their party shows that we are not a party system. The fact that some constituents may call for an election shows that some people believe it to be.

It is a good thing that this is the case. Otherwise, parties could kick out members who don't toe the line, the constituents would not re-elect someone without any power and we would essentially have a few abstract entities running the country. The "Liberal" entity would choose how it wanted to vote in debates, the "Conservative" entity would do the same and so on. Individual expertise would mean nothing and there would be less room for dissent. Who would be the person making the decisions.

[For the grammar nazi in all of us: I much prefer the colloquially accepted they as a gender neutral pronoun then the obscure "ou", and the clumsy "he or she".]

 

[tamarin]

The party system suppresses dissent and lionizes and crowns leaders. Though it's admirable to vote the person (as I try to do) I also recognize policy is the prerogative of the party leader and in most cases is not to be compromised by a party member. It's absurd to witness such realities in a democratic country, given that your only representation in the legislative process is through your local MP. He, of course, listens first to his leader. You're just background noise.