Are Democrats flaky?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
About being 100% proactive and dedicated to one concept of political persuasion is fine for those people who agree with the work of their party of choice....
....but for some there are cross-over issues depending upon the person's variations in what government should promote or create or defend....and while it is a tough
and confusing position to be in when deciding what to vote for and how to vote....
....I think many of the people who are hunkered at the middle of the road are willing to get the right job done at the time rather than perpetuating party line which does not necessarily remain the same in positive ways.....all parties have
their Waterloo moments when rather than being stubborn might take the time to
wield a little consideration to building a better mousetrap no matter which party suggested it.
Many here are members of large nations and it is difficult to corral everyone in the same boat.... but as long as we feel we are doing our best....that's ok with me...
The people who "give it a pass" and "aren't interested" are the ones who give nothing to the nation or its people.
At least we have the advantage of information gathering in an instant - even from "both sides" which gives us the ideas we need to come to decision about issues. I have no idea how many people voted in our historical times who had no information re the consequence of their vote nor would see it enacted and carried out for years after.
I guess it is because we are all more learned in the 'ways of government-speak and action/non-action' we are more educated and yes, more critical.
I think that is a good thing - almost like being "included".
....but for some there are cross-over issues depending upon the person's variations in what government should promote or create or defend....and while it is a tough
and confusing position to be in when deciding what to vote for and how to vote....
....I think many of the people who are hunkered at the middle of the road are willing to get the right job done at the time rather than perpetuating party line which does not necessarily remain the same in positive ways.....all parties have
their Waterloo moments when rather than being stubborn might take the time to
wield a little consideration to building a better mousetrap no matter which party suggested it.
Many here are members of large nations and it is difficult to corral everyone in the same boat.... but as long as we feel we are doing our best....that's ok with me...
The people who "give it a pass" and "aren't interested" are the ones who give nothing to the nation or its people.
At least we have the advantage of information gathering in an instant - even from "both sides" which gives us the ideas we need to come to decision about issues. I have no idea how many people voted in our historical times who had no information re the consequence of their vote nor would see it enacted and carried out for years after.
I guess it is because we are all more learned in the 'ways of government-speak and action/non-action' we are more educated and yes, more critical.
I think that is a good thing - almost like being "included".
Which raises another thought. In some countries you are required by law to vote, while in others you are just admonished for not voting as it's a right many in the past hard in the past to achieve. My thinking is that an uninformed vote does nobody any good. A lot of times uninformed voters are just putting in "another vote" for someone they follow or admire.
JLM
I agree - I was surprised at all the study I put in for the last election down here (my first so I had newbie-itis).... but it takes work to sift through all the rhetoric...and
I realized why so many people just do the party thing....
"I've been a Democrat/Republican all my life, my dad was, my mother was...blah blah "......that may work to appease oneself but it does little for the nation which is changing in so many ways here in the USA.
Besides the huge influx of people from other nations have started bringing new ideas to stodgy old ones which are outworn and dated..... at least this last time
the people were so divided by the major candidates they took interest for a change and it never really was a "ho hum" vote.... not even by the die-hard one-party for life gang.... My main disappointment was the media behavior - totally biased on both sides and cheating the public out of valid information regardless of party.
I almost bought a dart board to put up all the stuff and let one fly to see what my vote would be haha...
I agree - I was surprised at all the study I put in for the last election down here (my first so I had newbie-itis).... but it takes work to sift through all the rhetoric...and
I realized why so many people just do the party thing....
"I've been a Democrat/Republican all my life, my dad was, my mother was...blah blah "......that may work to appease oneself but it does little for the nation which is changing in so many ways here in the USA.
Besides the huge influx of people from other nations have started bringing new ideas to stodgy old ones which are outworn and dated..... at least this last time
the people were so divided by the major candidates they took interest for a change and it never really was a "ho hum" vote.... not even by the die-hard one-party for life gang.... My main disappointment was the media behavior - totally biased on both sides and cheating the public out of valid information regardless of party.
I almost bought a dart board to put up all the stuff and let one fly to see what my vote would be haha...
I think that being flakey or at least self centered is a prerequisite for running for office. There seem to be an equal number of nutbars at both ends of the political spectrum. I am not sure that right and left are proper terms for political parties anymore either.
In the last federal election I actually flipped a quarter to decide which party to vote for since I have no use for either leader.
In the last federal election I actually flipped a quarter to decide which party to vote for since I have no use for either leader.
I'm beginning to think that that is the point of only presenting mediocre candidates. There is no one to vote for because none of them stand for anything but keeping the status quo. What we need is real change and none is being offered.
Yep, more so as time goes on. In the past couple of elections I haven't even known who I was voting for until election day. I find the local candidate is much more important in deciding than the party itself.
I don’t see why it would take a lot of work. I simply consider my positions on various issues (sound economic management, balanced budget, pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro environment, pro gun control, pro universal health care, pro minority rights, civil rights etc.).
Then I see which of the candidates and which of the parties comes closest to my views. Usually it is the Liberal candidate. Sometimes it may be the NDP candidate, but since NDP doesn’t have a hope in Hell of forming the government, NDP is out. That leaves only Liberals. So by process of elimination, it is easy to arrive at my vote at every election.
And I have never missed an election so far, I vote every time. When I was out of the country (for 15 years), I voted absentee. I even voted in UK elections. As a Commonwealth citizen, I was entitled to vote there, my name was on the voting register.
My process of elimination used to lead me to Liberal or Social Democratic Party in UK. But again, since they didn’t have a hope of forming the government (they are like the NDP here), I used to end up voting Labour. The difference is that while Liberals here is usually my first choice, Labour there was usually my second choice.
It is simple, at least in my opinion.
All the while missing out (ignoring) the most important dynamic of all......... the philosophy and abilities of the local candidate.
Quoting JLM:
"Yep, more so as time goes on. In the past couple of elections I haven't even known who I was voting for until election day. I find the local candidate is much more important in deciding than the party itself."
I can see that point of view as valid in the United States, where any elected member of either Houses can vote according to his/her conscience or the will of the constituents.
Alas, that is not the case in Canada. Any MP who dares to represent the people, rather than the Party is booted out, viciously maligned and ostracized.
Just for curiousity, how did you get to vote for the person if you did not even know who you wrere voting for?
"Yep, more so as time goes on. In the past couple of elections I haven't even known who I was voting for until election day. I find the local candidate is much more important in deciding than the party itself."
I can see that point of view as valid in the United States, where any elected member of either Houses can vote according to his/her conscience or the will of the constituents.
Alas, that is not the case in Canada. Any MP who dares to represent the people, rather than the Party is booted out, viciously maligned and ostracized.
Just for curiousity, how did you get to vote for the person if you did not even know who you wrere voting for?
Of course I knew who all the candidates were, it was just a matter of sorting out the lesser of the evils. :lol:
Quite so. Like it or not, party discipline is all important in Canada. That is why I would have no problem voting for a pro life (or anti-gay marriage) Liberal rather than a pro choice (or pro gay marriage) Conservative.
If Liberals form the government, they won’t touch issues such as abortion or gay marriage, and the views of my local Liberal MP won’t matter, since the issue doesn’t even come up for a vote.
But if I vote for the pro choice, pro gay marriage Conservative candidate and as a result Conservatives form the government, they may well dig up the issues like abortion and gay marriage.
So, many times I would vote for a pro life, anti-gay marriage Liberal over pro choice, pro gay marriage Conservative. Now, if it looked like a sure thing that Conservatives will form the government, then I may decide to vote for a Conservative. If Conservatives form the government, these issues will come up before the Parliament anyway, and then I would much rather have a pro choice, pro gay marriage conservative there, rather than a pro life, anti-gay marriage Liberal.
"Quite so. Like it or not, party discipline is all important in Canada. That is why I would have no problem voting for a pro life (or anti-gay marriage) Liberal rather than a pro choice (or pro gay marriage) Conservative."
As if Pro life or Pro gay marriage is anywhere near the top of the list of 1% of voters. A gov't's main duty is to enact legislation with a bit of watch dogging thrown in.
As if Pro life or Pro gay marriage is anywhere near the top of the list of 1% of voters. A gov't's main duty is to enact legislation with a bit of watch dogging thrown in.
But SJP, how do we deal with the self-fulfilling prophecy? You say we must vote for party and not candidate because the party reins supreme. But have you not considered that maybe the party reins supreme because we always voter for party and not candidate. I find a lot of self-fulfilling prophecies occur in politics. Antonio Gramsci's notions of 'common sense' come to mind.
You're doing neither us not future generations a favour by contributing yourself to this partisanification of Parliament.
You're doing neither us not future generations a favour by contributing yourself to this partisanification of Parliament.
In a Parliamentary democracy, the party always reins supreme. Show me even one example of Parliamentary democracy where party discipline is lax.
We have first past the post system. In a proportional reorientation system, party discipline is even more important, since the party puts up a slate of candidates, rather than individual candidates. Out of that slate of candidates, the party gets representation proportional to the vote it obtained. So here party discipline is even more important.
I don’t know if one could build a workable model of Parliamentary democracy, where party discipline is not important.
And suppose you voted for the candidate, and not for the party. How is that going to loosen the party discipline? The candidate you elected will simply stay loyal to his party.
If you want MPs to vote their conscious each and every time, it will need a fundamental overhaul of the constitution, of the political structure in Canada (or Britain, Netherlands, anywhere). Many questions will have to be worked out. E.g. suppose the government loses a vote. Is it then out of power? If not, what is the mechanism to remove government from the office?
What kind of loyalty may a party reasonably expect for helping the candidate get elected? In a safe Liberal or a safe Conservative seat, just belonging to that party is sufficient to guarantee election. Does the candidate owe the party anything?
US system is totally different; the party loyalty is much weaker over there. But that flows out of the nature of that polity. Thus president cannot be removed from office before his term is up, so senators and Congressmen have no problem voting against the president, if they choose.
I think party loyalty is just a feature of Parliamentary democracy.
Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A non-partisan democratic system is possible, and I'm sure we could modify the system if the will was there. But again, self-fulfilling prophecy prevents it from happening.
One reason I'm opposed to a proportional system. That said, if we're going to have a partisan system, then we might as well make it official and go pro-rep. But ideally I'd like to go in the opposite direction by simply removing the party. Right now we have the worse of both worlds: a first-past-the-post partisan system!
Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where there's a will...
If an MP knows you voted for him and not his party, then he'll also know that he needn't fear voting for a bill even if his party is against it. But if everyone votes for party, then yes except for the party leaders, the other MP are just a waste of salaries.
Wikipedia lists some of the following advantages of a non-partisan democratic system:
Citizens can not engage in vote pairing, straight-ticket voting, or other tactical voting methods (and need not engage in ticket splitting), resulting in an election outcome that is more likely to reflect the intent of the citizens.
Elected officials are not beholden to a party apparatus that got them elected, and are not subjected to party restrictions on how they may vote, nor must they posture for the sake of an opposition party (e.g., to show they are "tough" enough, etc.). Non-partisan officials can therefore more readily represent the actual needs of their constituents. The lack of such requirements may also bring more principled individuals up the ranks, as they do not have to make assertions against their beliefs in order to demonstrate "party unity" or adhere to a platform against their principles.
All in the community (or at least perhaps those of a certain age, without a criminal record, etc.) are made eligible to vote and can be voted for. Thus, it is believed that a non-partisan system also expands choice in elections beyond the limited range of choices as are otherwise presented to the public, who will at best have a limited role in partisan systems.
It is argued that the simple opportunity of being enabled to privately witness and assess the character and initiative of individuals within one's own community (especially where regular town meetings occur at the local level or, in indirect election systems, where non-partisan delegates meet at a national level) provides a better picture of how capable a given individual is of providing future leadership and service.
Advocates argue that self-aggrandizement and promise-making inherent within partisan democracies would be minimized in such non-partisan systems (and possibly eliminated entirely in at least the public level for non-electioneering systems).
Appeals to limited loyalties and divisiveness surrounding partisan elections (and their social consequences beyond the elections) may be averted, especially in no-electioneering systems. This was one of the rationales advanced in favor of Uganda's previous no-party system.
In nonpartisan systems without electioneering, financial dependence on third parties may be averted by those elected, who are unencumbered with such alliances and can make decisions according to their own conscience rather than the party or lobbies that supported them.
Such a system is considered by some to be also compatible with technocracy, whereby the solemn atmosphere may tend to elect candidates who may have great abilities and knowledge yet would not otherwise be inclined to participate in a media frenzy or take part in behind-the-scenes power-grabs.
Such systems are seen to invite a greater possibility of selection of traditionally-overlooked candidates from less self-promotional or less confrontation-accustomed populations, such as women or certain ethnic minorities.
Such systems are seen to avoid divisiveness within the population as a whole, as constituents are not provided an easy outlet for ascribing negative qualities in wholesale to members of another party or parties (e.g., for rejecting their own policy goals). This includes avoidance of indirect appeals by politicians or others to racism or nationalism (such as when one party tends to appeal disproportionately to one group) in order to garner votes or vent antagonisms. The public, whether at the level of society at large, or of neighborhoods and families, are saved from acrimony and constant debates based on party identity rather than discussing the merit of individual ideas (or engaging in other non-political activities).
Constituents are not pigeon-holed into thinking of issues according to one "party view". They may also be more willing to implement the policies decided upon democratically in their region, when they are not tempted to resist doing so were they to disfavor an incumbent's party.
A non-party system places more responsibility, and therefore opportunity, on voters. The quality and integrity of the vote therefore improves.
Citizens can not engage in vote pairing, straight-ticket voting, or other tactical voting methods (and need not engage in ticket splitting), resulting in an election outcome that is more likely to reflect the intent of the citizens.
Elected officials are not beholden to a party apparatus that got them elected, and are not subjected to party restrictions on how they may vote, nor must they posture for the sake of an opposition party (e.g., to show they are "tough" enough, etc.). Non-partisan officials can therefore more readily represent the actual needs of their constituents. The lack of such requirements may also bring more principled individuals up the ranks, as they do not have to make assertions against their beliefs in order to demonstrate "party unity" or adhere to a platform against their principles.
All in the community (or at least perhaps those of a certain age, without a criminal record, etc.) are made eligible to vote and can be voted for. Thus, it is believed that a non-partisan system also expands choice in elections beyond the limited range of choices as are otherwise presented to the public, who will at best have a limited role in partisan systems.
It is argued that the simple opportunity of being enabled to privately witness and assess the character and initiative of individuals within one's own community (especially where regular town meetings occur at the local level or, in indirect election systems, where non-partisan delegates meet at a national level) provides a better picture of how capable a given individual is of providing future leadership and service.
Advocates argue that self-aggrandizement and promise-making inherent within partisan democracies would be minimized in such non-partisan systems (and possibly eliminated entirely in at least the public level for non-electioneering systems).
Appeals to limited loyalties and divisiveness surrounding partisan elections (and their social consequences beyond the elections) may be averted, especially in no-electioneering systems. This was one of the rationales advanced in favor of Uganda's previous no-party system.
In nonpartisan systems without electioneering, financial dependence on third parties may be averted by those elected, who are unencumbered with such alliances and can make decisions according to their own conscience rather than the party or lobbies that supported them.
Such a system is considered by some to be also compatible with technocracy, whereby the solemn atmosphere may tend to elect candidates who may have great abilities and knowledge yet would not otherwise be inclined to participate in a media frenzy or take part in behind-the-scenes power-grabs.
Such systems are seen to invite a greater possibility of selection of traditionally-overlooked candidates from less self-promotional or less confrontation-accustomed populations, such as women or certain ethnic minorities.
Such systems are seen to avoid divisiveness within the population as a whole, as constituents are not provided an easy outlet for ascribing negative qualities in wholesale to members of another party or parties (e.g., for rejecting their own policy goals). This includes avoidance of indirect appeals by politicians or others to racism or nationalism (such as when one party tends to appeal disproportionately to one group) in order to garner votes or vent antagonisms. The public, whether at the level of society at large, or of neighborhoods and families, are saved from acrimony and constant debates based on party identity rather than discussing the merit of individual ideas (or engaging in other non-political activities).
Constituents are not pigeon-holed into thinking of issues according to one "party view". They may also be more willing to implement the policies decided upon democratically in their region, when they are not tempted to resist doing so were they to disfavor an incumbent's party.
A non-party system places more responsibility, and therefore opportunity, on voters. The quality and integrity of the vote therefore improves.
It's funny how as I read each one of the advantage above, I can't help but to think of what's going on in Parliament as we speak.