I like that one....
That's how I usually vote too....75% for the local candidate and only 25% consideration for the head of the party
For me it's 100%-0%
Mikey's answer to Stevie attack ads....
- Thread starter lone wolf
- Start date
For me it's 100%-0%
I might discuss party leaders in a forum like this. But once i'm in a poll booth, I couldn't care less about parties. I vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
'Best' is relative to wha'ts offered. Between cow dung, horse dung, and chicken dung, certainly one tastes the best.
I'ld rather starve...:-|
I hope to one day see a politician worth a pinch of coon shyte. I don't think it will happen anytime soon mind you, but I hold out hope.
Until then, I'll just keep voting for me...;-)
In a system that worked as it should, I would agree.....unfortunately, due to an so-far unbroken succession of power-mad PMs starting with the beloved PET......back-benchers are helpless and hopeless...."those nobodies".
Thus, to have any influence on the direction of gov't.....you have to vote the Party.
Good point. There's always the none-of-the-above option. That's the one I'd voted for last federal election, spic and span clean ballot. I don't know if I did the right thing though. The Green candidate had some good ideas. He was also the least partisan of the bunch, willing to share his own ideas and not just read out of the party manual like the others did. But whether I made the right choice or not, the past is the past, and come next election, I'll have to decide again whether to try the all-of-the-above card. First time I'd used it, mind you, and I generally try to not use it since I always fear that maybe my standards are too high. Can't expect perfection after all. But this one was a close call, and now that I think about it, maybe I should have voted for him. Come next election, we'll see.
And thus feed the lifebood of party power? Not thanks. I'd rather vote on principle and lose.At least that way I'm not feeding party power. And many say 'great idea, if enough people do it, I will too.' Problem with that is that then everybody waits for someone else to take the first step. Well, I'm that someone else.
The problem is you have to eat cow, horse and chicken dung to find out which is best and the simple fact is they all taste like sh*t.
Rex Murphy
Friday, Jun. 05, 2009 05:30PM EDT
From demanding Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's resignation the Liberals have moved on to demanding that of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt - this latter over leaving documents labelled “secret” at CTV's Ottawa bureau for more than a week.
An opposition party demanding the resignation of a cabinet minister is as uncommon as a cry of double-double at Tim Hortons, and in most cases nearly as consequential. “The minister must resign” is a near-inevitable coda to any Question Period aria - a predictable and conventional end flourish of outdated theatricality, a parliamentary cliché in the same class with rising on a spurious point of order.
The resignation calls, the increasing energy of their parliamentary performance, are but the outward signs of the Liberals' new confidence, coupled with the always heightened partisan fever that accompanies the last days of any parliamentary session. You see it from their leader too. Michael Ignatieff is rumbling about his “probation report” worrying out loud whether he will force a summer election. “We have a problem, a serious problem about this government's confidence. Next week they have their second report card, right? We're holding these guys on probation.”
He professes shock at the appalling proportions of the ever-expanding deficit, and wonders whether the horror of a government so “flagrant” in its incompetence must be remedied by the great boon of a summer election. I'm assuming that's a bit of end-of-session theatricality, too.
The grinding dynamics of the recession are still playing themselves out. Unemployment is hitting every area of the country. The multibillion-dollar auto bailout has and will inescapably bring other sectors of the economy to ask why they are not receiving the same deluxe attention as the car industry.
The forestry industry, in particular, which has been battered for years, worn itself out with various free trade disputes, and is now unfairly positioned vis-à-vis its American counterparts, has a very good case to make. It's large. Whole communities and regions depend on it. It's traditional. But it has neither the glamour nor the physical concentration of GM and Chrysler - doesn't have the vote-swaying force, in other words - and so it's been left, forgive the metaphor, swinging on the vine for years.
These are not ideal conditions for an opposition party with a new, placed not elected, leader to turn to Canadians, as they grab a few weeks of fine weather, and ask them to put off camping for a trip to the polls.
Mr. Ignatieff has shown an admirable dexterity in the transition from academic to politician. But it's only been a month and four days that he's been, officially, the Liberal Leader. Eternity for a lettuce leaf perhaps, but not quite a seasoning period for a future PM. And then there's the point, hardly incidental, that while he's rich with the details of Stephen Harper's defects, he hasn't presented much of a policy counter-case of his own.
We don't know what he thinks. What is the Liberal position on bailing out the auto sector? When he rails against the spiralling deficit does that mean that he opposes the $10-billion GM bailout? Would he, as PM, cancel it? Does he, like Mr. Harper, believe “we had no choice” but to follow the Obama administration's lead?
Where is he on the entirely justified case the forest industry is making for a parallel remedy? Can we presume, since he is appalled at the swelling deficit, he's against any assistance, equivalent to that offered auto workers, for forest workers? He flails Mr. Harper for his repeated failure to project accurately the course of the recession? What did he predict? Were his projections better? Does he disagree with the government's attempt to meet each new spike of the crisis with a new response, or would he have drawn a line last December or February and held to it?
We do not know, because on so many issues he has not told us. In other words, his critique of the government is just that - criticism. He is very good at ardently sketching the defects of the government he opposes, but equally a virtuoso at shielding us from what he would do differently.
Is the GM deal bad for Canada? Will he offer proportionate help to the forest industry? These are but two blatantly consequential questions, which can stand in for a dozen others, on which the majority of Canadian voters have no idea of how Mr. Ignatieff thinks. His attacks are sharp. His positions are a blur and a fog.
So if he is really thinking about forcing a summer election, if he is going to give that prospect the best of his “serene and clear” contemplation, maybe a little forthrightness on what he and his party stand for could be part of that exercise. Start with the auto bailout.
So far, all he's really telling us, is that he's not Stephen Harper. A comforting insight, for both men perhaps, but hardly one worth ruining anyone's summer.
Friday, Jun. 05, 2009 05:30PM EDT
From demanding Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's resignation the Liberals have moved on to demanding that of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt - this latter over leaving documents labelled “secret” at CTV's Ottawa bureau for more than a week.
An opposition party demanding the resignation of a cabinet minister is as uncommon as a cry of double-double at Tim Hortons, and in most cases nearly as consequential. “The minister must resign” is a near-inevitable coda to any Question Period aria - a predictable and conventional end flourish of outdated theatricality, a parliamentary cliché in the same class with rising on a spurious point of order.
The resignation calls, the increasing energy of their parliamentary performance, are but the outward signs of the Liberals' new confidence, coupled with the always heightened partisan fever that accompanies the last days of any parliamentary session. You see it from their leader too. Michael Ignatieff is rumbling about his “probation report” worrying out loud whether he will force a summer election. “We have a problem, a serious problem about this government's confidence. Next week they have their second report card, right? We're holding these guys on probation.”
He professes shock at the appalling proportions of the ever-expanding deficit, and wonders whether the horror of a government so “flagrant” in its incompetence must be remedied by the great boon of a summer election. I'm assuming that's a bit of end-of-session theatricality, too.
The grinding dynamics of the recession are still playing themselves out. Unemployment is hitting every area of the country. The multibillion-dollar auto bailout has and will inescapably bring other sectors of the economy to ask why they are not receiving the same deluxe attention as the car industry.
The forestry industry, in particular, which has been battered for years, worn itself out with various free trade disputes, and is now unfairly positioned vis-à-vis its American counterparts, has a very good case to make. It's large. Whole communities and regions depend on it. It's traditional. But it has neither the glamour nor the physical concentration of GM and Chrysler - doesn't have the vote-swaying force, in other words - and so it's been left, forgive the metaphor, swinging on the vine for years.
These are not ideal conditions for an opposition party with a new, placed not elected, leader to turn to Canadians, as they grab a few weeks of fine weather, and ask them to put off camping for a trip to the polls.
Mr. Ignatieff has shown an admirable dexterity in the transition from academic to politician. But it's only been a month and four days that he's been, officially, the Liberal Leader. Eternity for a lettuce leaf perhaps, but not quite a seasoning period for a future PM. And then there's the point, hardly incidental, that while he's rich with the details of Stephen Harper's defects, he hasn't presented much of a policy counter-case of his own.
We don't know what he thinks. What is the Liberal position on bailing out the auto sector? When he rails against the spiralling deficit does that mean that he opposes the $10-billion GM bailout? Would he, as PM, cancel it? Does he, like Mr. Harper, believe “we had no choice” but to follow the Obama administration's lead?
Where is he on the entirely justified case the forest industry is making for a parallel remedy? Can we presume, since he is appalled at the swelling deficit, he's against any assistance, equivalent to that offered auto workers, for forest workers? He flails Mr. Harper for his repeated failure to project accurately the course of the recession? What did he predict? Were his projections better? Does he disagree with the government's attempt to meet each new spike of the crisis with a new response, or would he have drawn a line last December or February and held to it?
We do not know, because on so many issues he has not told us. In other words, his critique of the government is just that - criticism. He is very good at ardently sketching the defects of the government he opposes, but equally a virtuoso at shielding us from what he would do differently.
Is the GM deal bad for Canada? Will he offer proportionate help to the forest industry? These are but two blatantly consequential questions, which can stand in for a dozen others, on which the majority of Canadian voters have no idea of how Mr. Ignatieff thinks. His attacks are sharp. His positions are a blur and a fog.
So if he is really thinking about forcing a summer election, if he is going to give that prospect the best of his “serene and clear” contemplation, maybe a little forthrightness on what he and his party stand for could be part of that exercise. Start with the auto bailout.
So far, all he's really telling us, is that he's not Stephen Harper. A comforting insight, for both men perhaps, but hardly one worth ruining anyone's summer.
I disagree. If the local candidate is real honest, then once elected, he's soon going to realise what the leader's like, and then has the option of chalenging him, resigning from the party and standing as an independent, cross the floor, etc. And he always keeps his vote. That's why I always vote candidate. Whatever party he may belong to, even if he switches party affiliation, he still keeps his vote as an MP or MPP.
It is a strange thing about attack ads, sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. I remember when McGuinty fought his first election as the Ontario Liberal leader; the Conservatives pummeled him with attack ads. It worked; Mike Harris was elected for a second term.
However, when they tried it for the second time, it failed miserably. Second time Conservatives got no traction, McGuinty was given an absolute majority.
Personally I don’t think Harper’s attack ads against Dion were successful, I think Dion was a weak, ineffectual leader. I don’t think his attack ads against Ignatieff will be successful either. It will largely depend upon Ignatieff how he performs.
However, when they tried it for the second time, it failed miserably. Second time Conservatives got no traction, McGuinty was given an absolute majority.
Personally I don’t think Harper’s attack ads against Dion were successful, I think Dion was a weak, ineffectual leader. I don’t think his attack ads against Ignatieff will be successful either. It will largely depend upon Ignatieff how he performs.
!Who are you and what have you done with Porter!
Not only is this out of character, but... but, it's down-right blasphemy!
Machjo, what you are saying, though an admirable sentiment, doesn’t work in Parliamentary system. In a Parliamentary system the party is supreme; a politician can rarely get anything accomplished outside a political party. When was the last time an MP in the Parliament accomplished anything without the help of a political party?
What you are saying does work in Presidential system like USA. There the senators and Congressmen are really independents supported by Democratic or Republican parties. There is no party loyalty; they are free to vote however they want.
So every legislation that is considered involves coalition building, politicians from two sides working together etc. There a politician can accomplish a lot on his own. But I don’t see that happening in a system like Canada.
Thus if I like the Liberal party platform, I will vote for the local Liberal candidate even if he is more to the right than conservative candidate. E.g. I know abortion is safe with Liberals. So even if the local Liberal candidate is prolife I would still vote for him, in preference to a prochoice conservative candidate.
That is how the system works.
SJP, this is why the party is supreme. We have chosen to give it power. We have chosen to give it legitimacy. When we stop voting for the party and start voting for candidates, then the party will lose its power. I'll vote on principle even if I know beforehand that my candidate of choice will lose. In fact, such a loss is not a loss but a victory, sinse it leads the way for others in future to vote the same. We can't just talk the talk, but must walk the walk, even at the cost of losing. An honorable loss is better than a shallow victory.
That is how your voting habit has made it work. It's a product of your making.
Quoting SirJosephPorter
Thus if I like the Liberal party platform, I will vote for the local Liberal candidate even if he is more to the right than conservative candidate. E.g. I know abortion is safe with Liberals. So even if the local Liberal candidate is prolife I would still vote for him, in preference to a prochoice conservative candidate.
That is how the system works.
That is how your voting habit has made it work. It's a product of your making.
Not my making, it all has to do with party loyalty in the Parliament. Regarding the specific issue of abortion, if I vote for the prolife Liberal candidate and Liberals get the majority, I can be sure that question of abortion will never get before the Parliament, so the prolife views of my Liberal MP won’t matter.
Hover, if I vote for the prochoice Conservative MP and Conservatives (somebody like Harper) get a majority, then Parliament may well debate the issue of abortion. What the outcome would be is anybody’s guess.
You have to accept the system as it is. If someday it changes, great, but I don’t see that happening.
So here I probably will vote for a prolife Liberal rather than a prochoice conservative. In USA it would be exactly the opposite. There is no party loyalty, members of Senate and House vote independently of their party. So in USA I wouldn’t even think of voting for a prolife candidate, I would vote for the prochoice candidate every time.
Thus if I like the Liberal party platform, I will vote for the local Liberal candidate even if he is more to the right than conservative candidate. E.g. I know abortion is safe with Liberals. So even if the local Liberal candidate is prolife I would still vote for him, in preference to a prochoice conservative candidate.
That is how the system works.
That is how your voting habit has made it work. It's a product of your making.
Not my making, it all has to do with party loyalty in the Parliament. Regarding the specific issue of abortion, if I vote for the prolife Liberal candidate and Liberals get the majority, I can be sure that question of abortion will never get before the Parliament, so the prolife views of my Liberal MP won’t matter.
Hover, if I vote for the prochoice Conservative MP and Conservatives (somebody like Harper) get a majority, then Parliament may well debate the issue of abortion. What the outcome would be is anybody’s guess.
You have to accept the system as it is. If someday it changes, great, but I don’t see that happening.
So here I probably will vote for a prolife Liberal rather than a prochoice conservative. In USA it would be exactly the opposite. There is no party loyalty, members of Senate and House vote independently of their party. So in USA I wouldn’t even think of voting for a prolife candidate, I would vote for the prochoice candidate every time.
But if we all vote for the party, then the candidate knows that to win the next election, he'd batter keep the brand name, and that promotes loyalty. Now if we all stopped voting that way and voted for the candidate himself, then no candidate would fear his party and so party loyalty would just dissipate to a reasonable degree at least.
I'm pro-ife myself, but if I had to choose between a pro-choice candidate who sincerely believed in what he was saying, and was of sound character, and a pro-choice candidate always engaging in partisan cheap shots, I'd vote for the pro-choice one, all things being equal. At least, even if I don't agree with him, I'd know what he stands for. As for the other, there'd be no knowing what he could get us into.
I'm pro-ife myself, but if I had to choose between a pro-choice candidate who sincerely believed in what he was saying, and was of sound character, and a pro-choice candidate always engaging in partisan cheap shots, I'd vote for the pro-choice one, all things being equal. At least, even if I don't agree with him, I'd know what he stands for. As for the other, there'd be no knowing what he could get us into.
