Non-partisan democracy poll here


Machjo
#1
Mapleleafweb.com | Would you support non-partisan democracy in your province? - Political Forums (external - login to view)
 
L Gilbert
#2
I am all for banning parties altogether. What we need is objective people without party agendas that can work together to govern. As I keep saying, chuck the crap out and keep the good from each rather than choosing both the good AND the bad from one.
 
Niflmir
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I am all for banning parties altogether. What we need is objective people without party agendas that can work together to govern. As I keep saying, chuck the crap out and keep the good from each rather than choosing both the good AND the bad from one.

I'll definitely second that.
 
Cannuck
#4
I'm not for banning anything (politically speaking). If enough people favour independents, more will get elected.
 
Cliffy
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I'm not for banning anything (politically speaking). If enough people favour independents, more will get elected.

That would be fine if people didn't rely on the media to hand feed them their opinions.
 
L Gilbert
#6
Or polls. lol
 
Cannuck
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

That would be fine if people didn't rely on the media to hand feed them their opinions.

Maybe the people that want to ban parties should ban the media. Maybe they can even ban the internet or public meetings.
 
Machjo
#8
forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...-partisan.html (external - login to view)

There, I created a poll for it here.

Cannuck, a non-partisan system does not necessarily mean that parties are banned, but simply that they are not officially acknowledged. A person could still be a member of a party, but no party name would appear on his ballot, his party membership woudl not be acknowledged in Parliament (so the PM must be elected by the house), and so caucuses are caucuses of the House rather than party caucuses, etc.

It doesn't necessarily mean that parties are banned per se.
 
Tonington
#9
It would be cheaper too. Wouldn't have to pay extra for Whips, Deputy Whips, Caucus chairs, House leaders and deputies, Party leaders, etc.
 
Cannuck
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Cannuck, a non-partisan system does not necessarily mean that parties are banned, but simply that they are not officially acknowledged.

I know what it means. I was commenting on the comments of a couple of nutters that want them banned. On a side note, I'm not surprised at L Gilbert. He does seem the type to ban that which he dislikes. Niflmir took me by surprise. I shall take note of his "nutterness"
 
Cliffy
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Maybe the people that want to ban parties should ban the media. Maybe they can even ban the internet or public meetings.

I'm not into banning anything. What I would like to see is people stop relying on others to tell them how to think.
 
JLM
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by l gilbertView Post

i am all for banning parties altogether. What we need is objective people without party agendas that can work together to govern. As i keep saying, chuck the crap out and keep the good from each rather than choosing both the good and the bad from one.


absolutely
 
L Gilbert
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...-partisan.html (external - login to view)

There, I created a poll for it here.

Cannuck, a non-partisan system does not necessarily mean that parties are banned, but simply that they are not officially acknowledged. A person could still be a member of a party, but no party name would appear on his ballot, his party membership woudl not be acknowledged in Parliament (so the PM must be elected by the house), and so caucuses are caucuses of the House rather than party caucuses, etc.

It doesn't necessarily mean that parties are banned per se.

Well, that's what I meant; that a "party" would have no official capacity. I think it would cut down on the amount of propaganda used by 3rd parties to sway our voting decisions.
 
Machjo
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Well, that's what I meant; that a "party" would have no official capacity. I think it would cut down on the amount of propaganda used by 3rd parties to sway our voting decisions.

3rd parties?! How about mainstream parties. They're the ones that people vote for because their parents and grandparents voted for them as if it's a family tradition.
 
L Gilbert
#15
Not what I meant, M. I meant the 3rd party crap that I hear on the radio these days. Where union A, which is pro-*some-left-party* doesn't like MLA Barnet Suchandsuch because they are a m,ember of the "evil" party. Basically 3rd party muckraking ads are what I don't want to hear.
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Not what I meant, M. I meant the 3rd party crap that I hear on the radio these days. Where union A, which is pro-*some-left-party* doesn't like MLA Barnet Suchandsuch because they are a m,ember of the "evil" party. Basically 3rd party muckraking ads are what I don't want to hear.

Sorry. By third party I thought you meant smaller political parties. Though they're a problem too (I'm sure some people vote for the Green party 'cause they like the colour green, or Libertarian because they think the Libertarian logo looks cool, etc.), the bigger parties are certainly even bigger problems with many voting for them as a matter of family tradition.

Now as for special interest groups, at least in a non-partisan system, they'd have alot more MPs to bribe beside just the party leader.
 
bobnoorduyn
#17
Would there be such a thing as a non partisan democracy? Churchill was right that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have come along from time to time. At least with the party system you kind of have an idea of their agenda before you vote for them whether you like it or not. Even if we voted in all independants many would soon form their own allegiances in order to push their own agendas. The quid pro quo's required for members to either push their own views or approve others would lead to democracyy run amok, much like I've seen in municipal politics at this end of the country where stupid laws are proposed and enacted at the speed of light and enforced with a heavy hand that would make Draco proud.

Part of the problem is democracy itself, legalized mob rule, and though there have been many heated debates on this and other foums about the differences of government styles I think the following link explains my views better than I can:

YouTube - Basic forms of Government

 
VanIsle
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I am all for banning parties altogether. What we need is objective people without party agendas that can work together to govern. As I keep saying, chuck the crap out and keep the good from each rather than choosing both the good AND the bad from one.

Isn't this basically what the STV is supposed to do for us? That is pretty much my understanding and I think it is both you and I who said that is about all we will probably vote for in this upcoming election.
 
VanIsle
#19
Hi Bob,
Haven't seen you around for awhile.
 
bobnoorduyn
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by IslandpacificView Post

Hi Bob,
Haven't seen you around for awhile.

HI IP; Yeah, my computer crashed and I've been a bit busy. Hey, I noticed the link I put on my last post doesn't show up on this computer at work, we have a web nanny and I don't know if that's a problem, or if it just disappeared. It worked on my home computer earlier but now its gone, hmmmm .
 
JLM
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I am all for banning parties altogether. What we need is objective people without party agendas that can work together to govern. As I keep saying, chuck the crap out and keep the good from each rather than choosing both the good AND the bad from one.

It's not the parties that are the problem, it's the politicians. In the old days the parties had a philosophy that was closely followed, but now because politicians lie so much that is all by the boards- the ones who squander money pretend to be conservatives and the cheap bastards pretend to be liberals. And they are all striving to be more rotten than the other guy to get more votes to ensure their tenure, so they can qualify for bigger pensions and other benefits from the trough.
 
L Gilbert
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by IslandpacificView Post

Isn't this basically what the STV is supposed to do for us? That is pretty much my understanding and I think it is both you and I who said that is about all we will probably vote for in this upcoming election.

Yup.
 
L Gilbert
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

It's not the parties that are the problem, it's the politicians. ...............

Politicians are always a problem. Unfortunately, parties have also become a preoblem when they started chastising their members for acting and speaking on their consciences. It's "tow the party line or else" whether the party line is disastrous or not.
 

Similar Threads

19
Harper Partisan Politics
by Jersay | May 9th, 2006
no new posts