NDP clarifies Mulcair stance on marijuana
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Which one?
Mulcair's pandering?
You condoning the subversion of the democratic process?
Or...
Petros' silly rhetoric about the gov't scaring people into supporting new prisons?
Last edited:
Yep, I agree it is that funny. I can't stop laughing at you and Fuzzy either.
It's good that you can laugh at yourself.
Part of his control stems from the willingness of his caucus to submit to his leadership. This applies to each party of course.
part of his control is symbolic. Since party names do appear under candidate names in elections, the party leader can always argue that the people voted for the party and not the individual candidate, even if that's not necessarily the case, as a way of intimidating the Caucus members to submit.
Both of these sources of power are somewhat limited, granted, but still significant enough.
As a temporary, symbolic, and partial short-term solution, I'd propose removing party names from ballots so as to remove any ambiguity as to whom we are really voting for.
As a long-term solution, I'd propose moving closer to Nunavut's non-partisan system whereby all MPs run as independent MPs.
I'm not familiar of how that works in Nunavut, but I'm intrigued.
Is each MP it's own party then?
No, there is no party. Each candidate runs as an independent, and the Premier is elected by the legislature.
As for caucuses, they have a caucus of the house sinse no party exists anyway. Naturally, the premier chooses from among members of the house to form the cabinet or the house could elect them too if they wish. And each member votes his own conscience.
A totally non-partisan system:
Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sorry, the North-West Territories have a non-partisan system too.
It turns out the reason is cultural since the Innuit value consensus government as opposed to the Western-style confruntational system.
Huh. That sounds interesting, but does the caucus tend to actually agree, collectively on matters that affect Nunavut as a whole?
Consensus government in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the end laws require a majority to pass, but since there is no party in place to whip votes, the onus therefore is on the government to present bills that the majority of MPs actually do support in principle and not because they've been whipped into it, thus raising the standard of democracy a notch.
Another advantage is that it's not so easy to shoot your opponent down by saying "party A is is like this" or "party B is like that" and other such childishness. They actually have to deal with the issues presented in a more rational manner than we do in a childish partisan system.
In the end laws require a majority to pass, but since there is no party in place to whip votes, the onus therefore is on the government to present bills that the majority of MPs actually do support in principle and not because they've been whipped into it, thus raising the standard of democracy a notch.
Another advantage is that it's not so easy to shoot your opponent down by saying "party A is is like this" or "party B is like that" and other such childishness. They actually have to deal with the issues presented in a more rational manner than we do in a childish partisan system.
Huh.
I like this.
I only really find one possible issue. When someone elects their local MP, is it clear that that MP will be making decisions for the entirety of the territory (Nunavut), or do people believe that the MP will only work on behalf of their own region?
And one added advantage is that since it agrees more with Innuit culture, the Innuit are likely to be more involved in such a cunsensus based system. After all, if a confrontational system of government is foreign to your culture, it won't make much sense to you anyway.
Heck, I'm of European descent myself, and it doesn't make sense even to me to encourage the Parliament to divide itself into warring camps and then expect it to somehow promote national unity. Now if that ain't a paradox...
Honestly, any MP that propsoed moving us closer to non-partisan democracy would definitely be one I'd consider voting for, whether he's a Conservative, a New Democrat, Green, Liberal or independent. Again, I just vote for quality candidates, and not pretty party colours or photogenic leaders.
Heck, I'm of European descent myself, and it doesn't make sense even to me to encourage the Parliament to divide itself into warring camps and then expect it to somehow promote national unity. Now if that ain't a paradox...
Honestly, any MP that propsoed moving us closer to non-partisan democracy would definitely be one I'd consider voting for, whether he's a Conservative, a New Democrat, Green, Liberal or independent. Again, I just vote for quality candidates, and not pretty party colours or photogenic leaders.
Actually you are right, they all have three things in common, Greed, Deception and Corruption. The rest of the sh*t is interchangable depending on their whims and the whims of the electorate at the time! :lol:
Off topic slightly but the Dippers in Chilliwack - Hope are gloating over a victory supported by 41% of the electorate, whereas according to them the Liberals have no business being in Gov't because the majority of the electorate doesn't support them. Even as a group they can't seem to figure that out. :smile: