Would a non-partisan Parliament break ideological monopoly?

[Machjo]

I've found that under a party system, a party can often monopololize a particular field along the political spectrum. An example of this is the Conservative Party of Canada. If you're a conservative, but not a Conservative, you don't have much choice but to not vote, cast a blank ballot, vote for a left-leaning party, or plug your nose and vote CPC.

If all candidates had to run as independents, all MPs were independents, and they all simply joined in a caucus of the House, I believe this would help to break the backbone of such monopolization of politics by parties like the CPC.

We have anti-competition regulations in the marketplace to protect against monopolization, so why not in the political system?

 

[Liberalman]

It's more like an association which monopoly rules would not apply.

All MPs are independents but they belong to a group of like minded politicians.

If you could vote party politics in a city government more would get done.

As independants you end up going over the same stuff

 

[Machjo]

It's more like an association which monopoly rules would not apply.

All MPs are independents but they belong to a group of like minded politicians.

According to this:

Members of Parliament

There is only one independent MP at the moment.

If you could vote party politics in a city government more would get done.

As independants you end up going over the same stuff

What
do you mean? IN a partisan system, as soon as we have a minority, we have gridlock with no one willing to budge. And as soon as we have a majority, we have a near dictatorship owing to party loyalty.

In a non-partisan system, the concepts of minority and majority become more flueid, whereby Mps form alliances for each new bill presented to the House, meaning that gridlock may last only for this bill, after which a new co-alition would form for the next bill. This way, minority gridlock is never long-lasting, yet at the same time, majority powr is never long-lasting either, since it coudl only last for the duration of the debate on a particular bill. The best of both worlds that way.

Also, unlike now where we have Conservatives, Lierals, Dippers, Blocists, etc., we'd then just have Canadians. Sure some ot htem might not really want to be Canadian and may be sovereigntist, but at least we'd not longer re-infore the natural division by compounding it to party divisions. Our country is divided enough as it is without dividing it over partisan squabbles. Look at the mess that Harper did when he prorogued Parliament and went on TV babbling about 'separatists', which had nothing to do with the issue to begin with. Granted the other Parties weren't too bright there either, but the party divisions are what essentially drew the dividing lines to make this so possible. Why not let the MPs themselves elect their PM and ministers?

 

[pegger]

I guess it comes down to how you expect an MP to act.

IMHO, an MP is NOT voted in to represent their constituents - that is a crock of bull, and can never be done as each riding is made up of 100,000+ (or so) people - who ALL have different views. The MP is elected to represent their views in parliament. Period.

Our job as the electorate is to vote for the candidate whose views most closely aligns to our own.

I don't have a problem with any particular party. I have a bigger issue when they don't follow through on commitments or promises - especially ones made during an election campaign. The campaign is to define who and what you stand for - when you don't follow through on those commitments, you lie about yourself. (This is also why I believe in recalls...)

 

[AnnaG]

It's more like an association which monopoly rules would not apply.

All MPs are independents but they belong to a group of like minded politicians.

If you could vote party politics in a city government more would get done.

As independants you end up going over the same stuff

Sorry, but they are partisan, not independent.

 

[Machjo]

Sorry, but they are partisan, not independent.

... with one exception:

André Arthur

 

[AnnaG]

Well, it's a start. lol

 

[Machjo]

Well, it's a start. lol

Hmmm. well, there is a Chinese proverb:

A journey of a thousand miles begins with one single step.

So next election, get out there and vote in a few more independents.

 

[AnnaG]

I wish I could. lol Unfortunately, the feds in their abject stupidity will only allow me one vote.
And even then it's only in this riding. They have no sense of fair play or humor.

 

[Machjo]

I wish I could. lol Unfortunately, the feds in their abject stupidity will only allow me one vote.
And even then it's only in this riding. They have no sense of fair play or humor.

No worries AnnaG. My vote is your vote...

... Oh, sorry, that's another song:

YouTube - This Land Is Your Land (Springsteen)

Oh, and it's American too. Oh, the horror:smile: Just kidding.

 

[taxslave]

i think that even if all government members were independent their would still be just as much tradesies as there is now except it would be under the table instead of out in the open. I'll support your bill if you support mine. nudge nudge wink wink.
It would be nice if politicians were not forced to vote along party lines though.

 

[DichotoMe]

MPs aren't forced to tow party lines. They have the free will to vote however they feel. The downer is that it is indicative of who is in it for the themselves and who is in it for the betterment of Canada. Unfortunately, most of these partisan wanks have no backbone and are cowards when it comes to standing up for ALL Canadians. They are too afraid of loosing their club membership, it is really pathetic.

I say abolish the party system and have everyone run as indies and outlaw political factions completely.

 

[strange]

We should get beyond party based politics. For instance on social issues i'm a social democrat, but on energy issues i fall more in line with a centralist. in regards to nuclear i think its a viable solution to Co2 emissions. Yet for the new left, pragmatism isn't on the agenda when it comes to our energy mix.

 

[darkbeaver]

Would a non-partisan Parliament break ideological monopoly?

Parliament must always be partisan. It is sworn to be so with respect to the wishes of the citizen. At the present it is clearly partisan to the special interests of finance and capital. So your question is misleading as you point intentionally or otherwise to party ideological monopoly when in fact and practice party ideological difference barely exists and then only for the appearance of fuller democracy. So I maintain that the only ideological monopoly at play in Canada is capitalism, all else is demonstratably charade purely for the maintenance of form at the cost of substance.