Harper Colleague says Vote Subsidy Axe is ploy to kill Liberals??
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
.. And this is ultimately where the problem lies.... The Bloc made a 20 year career from this system
Sure, but, again..
1.) Their careers are over now - and the end had nothing to do with scrapping the subsidy (it was democracy -- hooray!!)
2.) How much money does that really mean to the taxpayer? It's peanuts.
3.) The way that they are scrapping the subsidy will lead to a two party system
4.) And most importantly, is this really democratic?
June 6 budget will phase out per-vote subsidy - Politics - CBC News
Should we really be giving up our democracy for pennies worth of savings?
Democratic? Are you suggesting that we need to give tax money to political parties to be democratic?
If the only money they receive for campaign funding is directly proportional to the number of votes they get, it is more democratic than receiving large sums of money, regardless of performance.
For instance, let's say NDP got 10% of the vote and conservatives got 90% of the vote (who cares about the liberals
).If, later, by a small group of high payees, the NDP got twice as much in donations as conservatives got - that wouldn't be fair to the conservatives who earned 90% of the vote. The NDP would spend that money on bullcrap advertisements and the conservatives would have a smaller forum to voice their platform. Voters might be confused into voting NDP the next election even if the conservatives had a better platform.
This process would invariably continue unless there was a limit to the amount of funds each party could receive. And yes, that scenario is much less democratic than having vote subsidies.
Seems to me it's becoming more common for citizen coalitions to advertise their concerns - which often get support (good or bad) from the official elect-me propaganda.
Looking at the per vote subsidy as an individual line item on a balance sheet is very small, however, considering the ramifications in the bigger picture while adding all of the other related small items starts to represent tangible amounts of money.... Let's also not forget that the opportunity for a political party to create a career out of this also exists... It's in all of the parties best interests to have frequent elections in order to pump-up the coffers (@ $300 million per election). Case in point; how much have the taxpayers subsidized Lizzy May's fantasy party over the last three elections that has generated one earned seat in Parliament?
Also, scrapping the subsidy will not lead to a 2-party system. In fact, I'd argue that we would observe more dedicated political representation if in fact these groups had some real skin in the game as opposed to being so strongly funded by the gvt.
Further, I don't see how having the subsidy is any more or less democratic than not having it... Let's be honest, that subsidy opportunity is what smilin' Jack was looking for in running the low-probability candidates in the last election... That example is excellent is highlighting the opportunity that exists to abuse the system under the auspices of "democratic representation"... This specific circumstance goes directly to the proportional representation comment that you made (in a later post).
Lastly, a reference to a CBC study?.. The same group that had the online calculator that was skewed towards the Liberal Party regardless of your perspective.
If the only money they receive for campaign funding is directly proportional to the number of votes they get, it is more democratic than receiving large sums of money, regardless of performance.
For instance, let's say NDP got 10% of the vote and conservatives got 90% of the vote (who cares about the liberals
If, later, by a small group of high payees, the NDP got twice as much in donations as conservatives got - that wouldn't be fair to the conservatives who earned 90% of the vote. The NDP would spend that money on bullcrap advertisements and the conservatives would have a smaller forum to voice their platform. Voters might be confused into voting NDP the next election even if the conservatives had a better platform.
This process would invariably continue unless there was a limit to the amount of funds each party could receive. And yes, that scenario is much less democratic than having vote subsidies.
Is it not fair that people are free to give money to the party or parties they support, and not to the ones they don't support?
Is that not a democratic right? To make a donation or not to the party of your choice? What if you want to donate money to one party, and vote for a different party?
It would be fair and democratic if the amount for each donation is the same - regardless of what party you donate to. This ensures that no one voter has more authority or power than any other voter.
I don't think her party is a fantasy party, but that's besides the point. Regardless of what kind of funding she received, she got less votes this time around and now she'll receive less funding. That's more democratic than if some zealots started pimping her now.
We'll see. Without having proportional representation and letting the highest bidder win is bad for democracy.
That's just fine.
Smilin' Jack can decide to be honourable or deceitful with the money we give him, just like any other party does and will continue to do so. At the end of the day, if the media does its job and we have educated citizens, we have the power to change his destiny by voting. Vote subsidies at least give the party the opportunity to be good and have a voice for those who voted them into power.
Last edited:
Oddly enough, we have a $1100.00 limit on personal donations now, so your wish has come true.
Problem has been solved.
but let's create an exception for independant politicians, because Canada is all about double standards.
Sorry, I meant that it would have to be the same. You cannot donate any less or any more than I can.
One vote each.
One cost each.
I'm not aware of the independent etiquette so I can't comment on that right now.
That's completely silly. What if I don't want to support any candidate or party? Who do I have to give my $1,100.00 to?
Well we either decide as a country to equally finance these parties, or we decide not to finance them at all. For the cost of a cup of Tim's coffee, it's not much to ask for from the average voter.
Well it is my understanding that the green party needed 1% popular vote before they started to receive funding.
With that said, an independant MP never receives funding. Partly because the don't have a party, and partly because they don't get 1% of the popular vote. That is not fair, imo.
With that said, an independant MP never receives funding. Partly because the don't have a party, and partly because they don't get 1% of the popular vote. That is not fair, imo.
No, we as a country can decide that people who support a party can support it, and if they don't support the party, they don't have to.
We don't need to equally finance the parties. Sure, the Liberals have suffered, and at present the Conservatives have a majority. That won't last more than 5 to 10 years. The Liberals always have had broad based support, with many of their supporters the richest people in the country. They'll recover, as they always do.
This is what voting is, isn't it?
Okay.
But that is now an issue of transparency. Instead of rewarding Liberals for underhanded deals, we should know where and whom they get their money from - and any unfair practice should be duly punished.
When we become transparent enough to ensure we always know how much is in each party's piggy bank, then we can control how much they should be getting in as much of a democratic fashion as possible.