National Post: NDP making huge gains as Canada tilts leftward

[Machjo]

In a "first to the post" system we have a dearth of votes that do not count, as such we should revisit teh mantra "we got this here democracy don't you know." When votes don't count, do we have a democracy? So no, we don't get the gov't we deserve. You penchant for using the cliches of other people does not serve you well.

those of us who vote for the best candidate based on principle would be at a loss as to how to vote for that sbstraction called a political party; on that front I actually like the non-partisan democracy of Nunavut.

Now I will agree that including party names on ballots is misleading when you are in fact technically voting for the candidate, and on that front party leaders are wrong when they go on TV and say they have the support of X% of the population. Those of us who vote for a candidate are not necessarily voting for his party.

So if you're suggesting we ought to remove party names from ballots to stop misleading people, then I'm with you.

 

[taxslave]

those of us who vote for the best candidate based on principle would be at a loss as to how to vote for that sbstraction called a political party; on that front I actually like the non-partisan democracy of Nunavut.

Now I will agree that including party names on ballots is misleading when you are in fact technically voting for the candidate, and on that front party leaders are wrong when they go on TV and say they have the support of X% of the population. Those of us who vote for a candidate are not necessarily voting for his party.

So if you're suggesting we ought to remove party names from ballots to stop misleading people, then I'm with you.

Better to remove the party system. By removing the party name only those of us that follow politics would know what party we are voting in to power. This way we know up front which bunch of crooks our guy is representing. About the only thing politicians can't lie about now is which party they represent.

 

[Machjo]

Better to remove the party system. By removing the party name only those of us that follow politics would know what party we are voting in to power. This way we know up front which bunch of crooks our guy is representing. About the only thing politicians can't lie about now is which party they represent.

Well, I was thinking of removing party names from ballots merely as a frist step. What you propose would be the next step. But if we could do it all in one step, so much the better.

I'm not saying ban parties, but just remove any legislative recognition they may have so as to reduce their power considerably.

 

[taxslave]

Well, I was thinking of removing party names from ballots merely as a frist step. What you propose would be the next step. But if we could do it all in one step, so much the better.

I'm not saying ban parties, but just remove any legislative recognition they may have so as to reduce their power considerably.

I think to do that we would have to revamp our whole parliamentary system.

 

[Machjo]

I think to do that we would have to revamp our whole parliamentary system.

Actually, the real changes would be small, though the impact would be significant, making the changes look more significant than they'd actually be:

1. party names removed from ballots,

2. Cabinet elected by parliament.

3. Party Caucuses replaced by a Caucus of the House,

4. Free votes in Parliament, with no more vote wipping.

In elections, people would really have to get to know the candidate since they can't just blindly vote according to party colour anymore, thus forcing each candidate to present a good argument on why to vote for him besides the fact that you like some party leader in some other riding.

In reality, the actual changes would be small, but granted the impact would be significant.

 

[MapleDog]

Things i find funny,as soon as the NDP became the official opposition,people here in quebec started regretting voting for them,they did not even give the party a chance to show what it can/could do,and they always forget that the bloc didn't do crap for canadians/quebecers,all the bloc did for 20 years was say no to everything.

the only thing that get me down with politics is,whatever you vote for,its just a game of tennis between the conservatives and the liberals,the other parties are just ballboys.

 

[Machjo]

Things i find funny,as soon as the NDP became the official opposition,people here in quebec started regretting voting for them,they did not even give the party a chance to show what it can/could do,and they always forget that the bloc didn't do crap for canadians/quebecers,all the bloc did for 20 years was say no to everything.

the only thing that get me down with politics is,whatever you vote for,its just a game of tennis between the conservatives and the liberals,the other parties are just ballboys.

Some people probably think of politics as like a hockey game so they just want to vote for the winning team. Remove party names, and there is no more team to vote for, thus essentially forcing them to actually get to know the candidate they're planning to vote for.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

It is not so simple. Parliamentary democracy could not exist without a Party system. It would be the same kind of anarchy that was there before Parties. Or the informal and unstable coalitions that governed ineffectively while catering to all the separate intersts - an impossible task if efficient governance is the aim. The Party system is actually the protector of democracy.

I would like to agree that one should vote for the candidate and not the Party but that would bring the same misrepresentation. Every local interest would be championed above the good of the whole and it would lead to an even greater corruption than the American system that operates in that way to a more limited extent.

Put simply, as Edmund Burke said: "First my Party; next my country; last my constituents."

The rationale for that is that Parties have a philosophy and a platform that is achieved by the consensus of its members. Compromise between hundreds of competing interests is obtained with what is acceptable to all. As the saying goes, "Politics is the art of the possible," and the possible is what is achieved through a Party system.

This applies also to "whips." If a particular piece of legislation is vital to the p;atform amd agenda of the Party, then all the members should get behind it. Any who don't are betraying the expressed consensus of the whole support for the Party.

Sometime, of course, that is not necessary and then there should be free votes. Occasionally, a matter of principle arises where the Party diverges from its philosophy.

In both those cases principle should trump Party.

 

[L Gilbert]

If it's leaning.....shim it!

lol With what? Add more water underneath one side? Either empty the water out that is making it lean or shift the cargo.

Those of us who vote for a candidate are not necessarily voting for his party.

.. but still end up supporting the party anyway, so it amounts to the same thing, partisan politics being what it is

I think to do that we would have to revamp our whole parliamentary system.

Now THAT would be a plan. Less centralized power and more regional power. Better yet, get rid of representational "democracy" and go towards something more like a direct democracy. After all, the problem appears to be that we have FEDERAL reps that do not please us even as a majority of voters partially because of partisan politics.

 

[lone wolf]

I think our elected representatives should represent the people in their constituency. If they can't dump the colours, at least dump the whipped votes.

 

[Machjo]

It is not so simple. Parliamentary democracy could not exist without a Party system. It would be the same kind of anarchy that was there before Parties. Or the informal and unstable coalitions that governed ineffectively while catering to all the separate intersts - an impossible task if efficient governance is the aim. The Party system is actually the protector of democracy.

I would like to agree that one should vote for the candidate and not the Party but that would bring the same misrepresentation. Every local interest would be championed above the good of the whole and it would lead to an even greater corruption than the American system that operates in that way to a more limited extent.

Put simply, as Edmund Burke said: "First my Party; next my country; last my constituents."

The rationale for that is that Parties have a philosophy and a platform that is achieved by the consensus of its members. Compromise between hundreds of competing interests is obtained with what is acceptable to all. As the saying goes, "Politics is the art of the possible," and the possible is what is achieved through a Party system.

This applies also to "whips." If a particular piece of legislation is vital to the p;atform amd agenda of the Party, then all the members should get behind it. Any who don't are betraying the expressed consensus of the whole support for the Party.

Sometime, of course, that is not necessary and then there should be free votes. Occasionally, a matter of principle arises where the Party diverges from its philosophy.

In both those cases principle should trump Party.

Then you totally misunderstand those of us who vote candidate. I would never vote for a candidate who simply promissed a NIMBY policy of trying to get whatever is good for the community at the expense of the country. Instead, I vote for a canddiate who presents the local value of how the world ought to operate.

And Nunavut is hardly anarchy.

 

[L Gilbert]

I think our elected representatives should represent the people in their constituency.

"Should" being the key word there.

If they can't dump the colours, at least dump the whipped votes.

6 of one ....

 

[CDNBear]

I think our elected representatives should represent the people in their constituency. If they can't dump the colours, at least dump the whipped votes.

That would be more representative wouldn't it.

 

[L Gilbert]

That would be more representative wouldn't it.

Perhaps, but I would rather represent myself than have some well-to-do, pinheaded lawyer or accountant do it for me.

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps, but I would rather represent myself than have some well-to-do, pinheaded lawyer or accountant do it for me.

Perhaps, but what kind of direct democracy are we talking about? I would not have the time to go to the public square on a daily basis to vote myself.

 

[L Gilbert]

Perhaps, but what kind of direct democracy are we talking about? I would not have the time to go to the public square on a daily basis to vote myself.

Well, in CC, I've only mentioned Switzerland about 40 or 50 times. We can keep a parliament, but the real gov't could be modeled after a democratic republic like the Swiss have.

 

[Machjo]

Well, in CC, I've only mentioned Switzerland about 40 or 50 times. We can keep a parliament, but the real gov't could be modeled after a democratic republic like the Swiss have.

I'm assuming you're referring to referenda. How frequently do they have them?

And how do they determine what laws go to referendum and which don't?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I see the points I made: points that are the true driver of Political systems everywhere have not registered. I don't think that the Swiss system has been thought through or what Direct Democracy entails in a large society.

There are many arguments against the Swiss system. They may work in that country; a small country that has needed to guard against the influence and domination of the countries around it from which Swiss nationals come. Whether it could work in more centalised nations is questionable. Or countries that are equally decentralised as Canada is.

In Switzerland, Constitutional amendments can be brought to referendum that are like using a bazooka to kill a gnat; and sometimes are. They are open to all the manipulation that wealth and power can bring. Parliament will also shirk its duty to lead the country by putting difficult decisions to referendum and, sometimes, getting entirely inappropriate results.In Switzerland there are Parties in the sense that they operate by large coalitions. Without that, government would collapse.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm assuming you're referring to referenda. How frequently do they have them?

And how do they determine what laws go to referendum and which don't?

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

I see the points I made: points that are the true driver of Political systems everywhere have not registered. I don't think that the Swiss system has been thought through or what Direct Democracy entails in a large society.

There are many arguments against the Swiss system. They may work in that country; a small country that has needed to guard against the influence and domination of the countries around it from which Swiss nationals come. Whether it could work in more centalised nations is questionable. Or countries that are equally decentralised as Canada is.

Canada is decentralised? lol Yeah, Ottawa doesn't have much power at all.

In Switzerland, Constitutional amendments can be brought to referendum that are like using a bazooka to kill a gnat; and sometimes are. They are open to all the manipulation that wealth and power can bring.

How many times has that happened there?

Parliament will also shirk its duty to lead the country by putting difficult decisions to referendum

And we all know how wise and federally conscious politicians are as well as how quickly they can decide on issues..

and, sometimes, getting entirely inappropriate results.

How many times has that happened and who has decided which decisions are inappropriate?

In Switzerland there are Parties in the sense that they operate by large coalitions.

Politicians can't do dick there without the public's say so.

Without that, government would collapse.

As opposed to the plutarchic and oligarchic corporatocracy we have now? And yes, what we have now is vastly better; where the parties have more say over Canadian issues than the people do.
I'll take my chances on the wisdom of the general public over that any day.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

Canada is decentralised? lol Yeah, Ottawa doesn't have much power at all.

Canada is the most decentralized nation on Earth. Even the Swiss federal government has powers that Ottawa does not shared educational jurisdiction is one.

The most important power that Ottawa does have is the power to raise and spend money. When it does not exercise that, as harper wants, then it is a "Paper Tiger." Canada almost fell apart in the a930s and, if it had not been for Keynesianism and the development of that power, it might not exist today.

How many times has that happened there? And we all know how wise and federally conscious politicians are as well as how quickly they can decide on issues.. How many times has that happened and who has decided which decisions are inappropriate?Politicians can't do dick there without the public's say so. As opposed to the plutarchic and oligarchic corporatocracy we have now? And yes, what we have now is vastly better; where the parties have more say over Canadian issues than the people do.
I'll take my chances on the wisdom of the general public over that any day.

It has happened many times in Switzerland. I don't recall instances since I do not try to remember them but they could be looked up. And, politicians can do anything Constitutional in Switzerland without the public's "say-so." To hold a referendum not initiated by government there must be at least 100,000 signatories to the request. It is a very expensive and inefficient way to ri=un a country.

It is one reason that the Swiss healthcare system is neck and neck with the American as the most expensive in the world (though it is a far better one than the USA. To bring in public paid as most Western countries have would require a referendum that would face the sane massive manipulation of public opinion tht happens in America. over that question.