Ban the parties?

[Machjo]

I'm sick of political parties! What do they really do to the political process? I've actually met people who'd told me that they'll vote party X because their parents voted party X! I've read accusations of candidates being labelled turncoats for changing political parties! Parties have degenerated into quasi-religious icons before which we must prostrate!

How do we get rid of this demagoguery?

Should we ban the parties and just have them all run as independents?

 

[darkbeaver]

Yes. And they all have to prove honesty and intelligence and disinterest. And the first one that fails to meet these necessary criteria gets the droping blade right on the lawn of parliament hill and it's televised during hockey night in Canada during the second intermission. Then we could maybe trust politicians.

 

[Machjo]

Or maybe we can treat them like religions. We could just say that a candidate's party affiliation is his business, and if he attends worship services at his party office every week, that's his business. But wipe party names off ballots, and let us vote independents. Then we won't need to vote stratefically anymore, because there won't be any party.

 

[scratch]

I'm sick of political parties! What do they really do to the political process? I've actually met people who'd told me that they'll vote party X because their parents voted party X! I've read accusations of candidates being labelled turncoats for changing political parties! Parties have degenerated into quasi-religious icons before which we must prostrate!

How do we get rid of this demagoguery?

Should we ban the parties and just have them all run as independents?

Okay, for the sake of argument, no parties, just individuals.
One votes and the one with the most votes wins?
What happens then?

.....one man in power...and that is known as?

How would that work here?

Could it ever work?

The questions and clammering would be endless.

.....yet the man with the most votes would solve all of this?

Not really keen on the idea.

Why? Because it has been proven not to work.

Answers would work though.....

Back to you.

 

[Machjo]

One man in power? I never said reduce the number of MP's to one. I said get rid of the parties. We'd still have just as many seats in parliament. It's just that without any official party, alliances would be more fluid, thus forcing them to stay on their toes.

Where are you comming up with this 'one man' stuff?

 

[Colpy]

Good Lord! Do you people have the slightest clue how Parliamentary democracy works?

It is simple.....the leader (he must have a seat) of the PARTY that controls the most seats is offered the opportunity to form a gov't with himself as Prime Minister.

Partyies are an integral part of the political process in the British system.....

Now, if you want to be a Republic, and adopt the American system, you can dump parties.......

Think, people.

 

[scratch]

One man in power? I never said reduce the number of MP's to one. I said get rid of the parties. We'd still have just as many seats in parliament. It's just that without any official party, alliances would be more fluid, thus forcing them to stay on their toes.

Where are you comming up with this 'one man' stuff?

Someone would have to lead, no?
So really what you want is no labels , just alliances?
Some difference.

 

[Stretch]

Here's something for you to think about mate......
the westminster system of government was designed for individual representation...never for political parties............political parties came about when the corrupt joined forces..... find a good Independent and back him to the hilt.

I'm sick of political parties! What do they really do to the political process? I've actually met people who'd told me that they'll vote party X because their parents voted party X! I've read accusations of candidates being labelled turncoats for changing political parties! Parties have degenerated into quasi-religious icons before which we must prostrate!

How do we get rid of this demagoguery?

Should we ban the parties and just have them all run as independents?

 

[scratch]

Here's something for you to think about mate......
the westminster system of government was designed for individual representation...never for political parties............political parties came about when the corrupt joined forces..... find a good Independent and back him to the hilt.

So we are looking at government by consensus?

 

[Machjo]

I'm well aware of the political process, but in case you aren't aware independent candidates can run already. What would happen if, in theory, parliament was suddenly filled with independents? Would the Governer General refuse to accept and disband parliament?

Well, I suppose that could happen, but let's say it happenned again and again> Would we then ban independent candidates?

Sooner or later, if people did that, there'd be no choice but to have a vote in parliament for PM and cabinet. After that, we'd have no more party caucus. We'd have but one caucus, and that would be parliament. They could be free to agree or disagree with each other as they wish. And as for political parties, well, I guess they could still sponsor the independent candidate of their choice, but no candidate would be bound by any party rule. Full stop.

 

[Risus]

This whole idea is pretty rediculous. It would result in total chaos and accomplish nothing.

 

[Machjo]

As for backing an independent,sorry, but none in my riding I'm afraid.

 

[Machjo]

This whole idea is pretty rediculous. It would result in total chaos and accomplish nothing.

In the beginning, maybe. But as they get to know each other, they'd gradually get a feel for who's who and who will support what. The system would be more fluid and so allow MPs to serve humanity rather than their parties.

 

[Machjo]

I'd like to know, who here believes that parties have really improved government when so many (and I've met enough) adopt their parent's party like they adopt their parent's religion as if they were born with it? Who here really believes that parties have made such a great contribution when voting itself has degenerated into strategic voting where so many are no longer voting FOR anyone, but rather AGAINST somebody who's not even in their riding.

Let's get serious here.

 

[Stretch]

who here makes thier mark with a pencil?

 

[Machjo]

who here makes thier mark with a pencil?

What?

 

[Stretch]

This whole idea is pretty rediculous. It would result in total chaos and accomplish nothing.

BULL****! as an Independent, I would expect my representative to assess everything with one thing in mind......will it benefit my constituents...if not, I vote no.

would you not agree with that?......

 

[Stretch]

What?

when youthey vote... I meant

 

[Machjo]

BULL****! as an Independent, I would expect my representative to assess everything with one thing in mind......will it benefit my constituents...if not, I vote no.

would you not agree with that?......

How it will benefit the constituents? We're not voting for the local city council here, but for the federal government. I'd gone to a local debate recently, and half the questions were about where we should lay local traintracks: to this street or that street? and other things of the sort. For crying out loud, I was starting to wonder if we were voting for a new mayor!

No, I fundamentally disagree with you, Stretch. I vote for a candidate based on who I believe can best represent the best interests of mankind.

Otherwise, everthing degenerates again into what little cookie each candidate can suck out of the government for the local riding. In the end, everybody loses with that mindset.

 

[Machjo]

I've always used pencil.