Well no, I don't think that's true. They DO determine the composition of the elected assembly and who gets to form the government, they just don't contain the information you're interested in.
If that were true, then 10% of Parliament today would comprise Green Party members. Looking at it that way, such statistics are valid only at the riding level.
What other assumption is reasonable?
That the voter at least supports the candidate. So why not give that money to the candidate rather than to the party?
A vote for a person running under the banner of a party really can't mean anything but support at least in principle for most of the party's positions.
Not necessarily. I don't know if I agree with most of the Green Party's views; it's not like I tabulated them or anything. However, I did read the entire party platform for the Greens, the Liberal, the CPC, and the NDP. I then tried to talk to each candidate personally. From what I got, though I disagreed with many Green Party policies, I was impressed by the Green Party candidate's insistence on respect for international law even when he disagrees with it. Then it's no longer a case of agreeing with him on this or that specific policy, but rather on agreeing with the basic principle that one must lead by example; if you expect the population to obey your laws, then you too must abide by the law. If you show respect for the law, then so will those under you.
Overall, I tended to agree with many CPC policies, but I also got the impression that the local CPC candidate didn't have much to say other than empty rhetoric and blind support for Harper. But if you look at Harper's support for the Iraq War irrespective of whether it's legal or not, then we can only conclude that he's a rogue politician with little respect for the law. Now granted he was not in my riding. But seeing how my local CPC member was just a party yes-man, then I must conclude he's just a mini-Harper.
As an aside, I was unsure of whether to go to war with Iraq or not, but from the start a precondition for my support was conditional on it being conformant to international law and having the support of the international community.
Overall, I may have agreed with more CPC policies than Green ones. But I'd rather support a candidate I disagree with on specific policies but agree with on fundamental principles over a politician I agree with on many points but disagree with on the most fundamental of principles. For me, I'd rather vote for a canditate I disagree with on all fronts but who I can trust to obey the law, over a politician I agree with on all fronts, but who would implement his policies even in contradiction of the law if necessary.
So looking at it that way, it is in fact possible for a person to vote for a candidate of one party even though he actually agrees more with the platform of another party, so it is quite presumptuous to assume that because a person votes for a particular candidate, that he necessarily agrees with many of that candidate's party policies. Also, I'd gotten the impression that the Green Party candidate was less blindly loyal to his party than the others, thus making it less likely that he'd blindly follow his party into the lion's den than the others.
How could you vote for someone you thought was a fabulous person running for a party you profoundly disagreed with about everything important?
I think I just explained that above. I'd rather vote for a candidate I disagree with on many points but who has respect for the law, including international law when it comes to international relation, over a candidate I agree with on many points but who would implement those policies even in defiance of the law. I guess you could say I'm more interested in how this candidate would try to implement his policies over what policies he'd implement. If I disagree with a candidate on all fronts, but know he respects international law, then there is only so much damage he could do. If I vote in a candidate who agrees with me on all fronts but has a total disregard for international law, then who knows what kind of damage he could create on the world stage. Then you essentially have a rogue politician on your hands, even if you do agree with the laws he's trying to implement, the way he's implementing them would be dangerous.
Could there even be such a candidate?
There was one in my riding.
The candidate presumably supports the party, and if you find the party odious, how could you admire the candidate?
Again, you have to make a distinction between the party platform and how the candidate intends to implement that platform. Would he try to implement it even in violation of established international laws, or would he bow to international laws even if he disagrees with them? At that stage, it's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with his platform, but how he intends to implement it. That has nothing to do with the party, but the character of the candidate himself.
I think I really don't understand what your issue is with this. There has never been a party or a candidate I agreed with on everything, but I still vote at every opportunity, federally, provincially, and municipally, and I've never considered deliberately spoiling a ballot as you have, that's purposefully disenfranchising yourself.
As for casting a blank ballot, thinking back on it, I may have been a little harsh on that candidate and perhaps should have voted for him. But again, in terms of party policy, it's not so much that I agreed with the Green Party platform but rather that I trusted his respect for the law. In other words, he would make more of an effort than other politicians to respect international laws, treaties, agreements, etc. How can you vote for a politician who intends on making laws but will disrespect the law himself, such as support for the Iraq War irrespective of what international law says about it, or ignoring international resolutions on Israel's boundaries, or other Canadian obligations at home and abroad in accordance with the law, etc. This also includes withholding information from Parliament, etc. None of this has to do with the party platform per se, but rather with how the party intends to implement that platform.
You're expecting information from the electoral system that it's not designed to provide, and proposing an order of magnitude increase in its complexity to get it. What the Hell would the system do with a ballot that votes for, for example, the Liberal candidate but wants the $1.95 to go to the NDP candidate? Who are you really voting for? The funds go to the parties, which distribute them as they see fit. That makes sense and is easy to administer, and the funds going to local riding associations would as well, but splitting it as you're suggesting does not.
In such a case, the ballot has me by the balls. If I support the candidate but not his party, my only option then is to either vote for him and plug my nose, or cast a blank ballot. In the end, my decision comes to whether I like that candidate enough to be willing to give my money to his party. If so, I'll plug my nose and vote for him. If not, I cast a blank ballot. So then not only must he be better than the other candidates to get my vote, but he must be better than them by a certain order of magnitude to make it worthwhile for me to be willing to not just vote for him but also give his party my money.
