It all seems interesting and exciting to run, but how does one find the time, especially if you have a full time job already. Campaigning is very time consuming. Perhaps I'll start small and just volunteer with a party.
Becoming a MPP, MLA, or MP - How hard is it to run?
- Thread starter DasFX
- Start date
Never Give Up said:
Sorry, but you can't run with a party name that includes a religion and pretend to support seperation of Church and State. It's like enrolling in college but desiring a Unviersity-level education.
Never Give Up said:
Some decisions are left in the hands of unelected judges and that is to protect certain minority groups from the majority's opinion more often than not. Besides, common sense dictates that there has to be an unbiased body that will hold officials accountable to constitutional standards.
RE: Becoming a MPP, MLA,
I found it clashed with my atheism. ;-)
Where did the topic go again? Oh....there it is. I'll just grab it and tie it down here.
There, now we can get back on topic whenever we like.
I think most first-time candidates use up their vacation time and take leaves of absence form their jobs.
Volunteering is a good way to learn a little about how your party of choice works from the inside and is a good way to get to know some of the people.
I found it clashed with my atheism. ;-)
Where did the topic go again? Oh....there it is. I'll just grab it and tie it down here.
There, now we can get back on topic whenever we like.
I think most first-time candidates use up their vacation time and take leaves of absence form their jobs.
Volunteering is a good way to learn a little about how your party of choice works from the inside and is a good way to get to know some of the people.
A friend of mine had a different answer to that question. Back in 1998 he ran to be MLA for the Kitikmeot region in the NWT. He was young at the time, but he tried playing by the rules that which he knew. In the end when he lost, I asked him what he thought the main causes were. He summed it up into one sentence: "I didn't throw enough parties". He guessed if he runs next time he'll order more booze. It was a bit of a turn off for him apparently the winner was good at giving out bottles.
I've never tried anything or knew anyone down south who ran for elected positions, but I hope it's much much different.
RE: Becoming a MPP, MLA,
Things are quite different down here. They didn't used to be...that kind of campaigning was going on in rural areas as little as a generation ago. My understanding is that they are working to clean up the situation up north as well.
Things are quite different down here. They didn't used to be...that kind of campaigning was going on in rural areas as little as a generation ago. My understanding is that they are working to clean up the situation up north as well.
Scape said:
You are not allowed to go out and get the names yourself. You may be present but someone else is responsible for signing for those names. That's as of the last election. Things shouldn't have changed too much in the year since.
You get out of it what you put into it. The all candidates meetings are always in the evenings and generally it's easy enough to work and campaign at the same time, just don't expect to get elected. Only the parties who can pay for candidates to campaign full time really have a shot. You can have the best idea in the world but if no one hears it your going no where. To get your message out require teamwork, signs, slogans and air time. The only people who run are people with lots of money behind them, with a cause or both.
SirKevin said:
Your analogy doesn't fit SirKevin.
Separation of church and state is very important but is often misunderstood, I think you may have misunderstood it.
The church is involved with the moral character of people and the spiritual development. That's the area that they belong in.
The state is involved in the administration of the country. This is setting laws, policies etc.
Two totally different areas of activity!
However, a government cannot operate without some morality. When you have a government that is no longer held to a standard you end up with despots, dictators, sponsorship scandals etc. The standard that Canada has traditionally used has been the 10 commandments which are affirmed by most mainstream religions in some form.
We all agree that murder should be illegal (we struggle with the degree), in varying degrees sexual sin we can agree on (ie rape - I think most of us agree should be illegal as should paedophilia), we agree that stealing should be illegal. etc. Again, imo, it's the degree.
The CHP is not intending to force people to fill the pews on Sunday. We are a political party. However, we are Christians and we make that plain. We cannot be accused of having a hidden agenda... we put our cards on the table. IMO the only reasonable and honourable thing to do.
Scape said:
If your official agent wasn't present when you got the signatures, yet he signed as witness to them..... need I go on?
Please do. You know very well how much water that argument will hold. Do you need a member of the RCMP watching over the shoulder of every candidate in all 308 ridings? Letter of the law and spirit of the law, there is a difference and at some point you have to be both pragmatic and practical. The only reason for that rule is to cut down on less devoted candidates. You got to establish a threshold somewhere.
Scape said:
However, thinking that you can bend the law to suit your purposes is what gets many governments into trouble.
A member of the Legislature must have respect for the law and ensure that his own behaviour is within the law. Otherwise... what's the limit? How much illegal stuff can you do and not get caught? Just one step further.... and one step further... and one....
Oh ye of little faith, this coming from the poster promoting the party that will put front and center the idea of religion in to politics. I suppose if there was a Satanist party that promoted good community values it would deserve equal air time? Come on, who is to say your official agent isn't the guy driving the car. If he can see the front door isn't that a witness?
You wanna nit pick on what is a witness? Fine, but realize your only defining yourself by obsessing over such fine details while everyone else is concerned over real issues.
You wanna nit pick on what is a witness? Fine, but realize your only defining yourself by obsessing over such fine details while everyone else is concerned over real issues.
Never Give Up said:
Right; and they need to stop right there.
Never Give Up said:
Problem being the CHP wants to defend marriage as a Biblical institution of a man and a woman and so forth; I am sure they also have a prayers in public schools agenda.
Never Give Up said:
Actually, I don't think that "morality" is the right term at all. It's not morality per se, it is societal good. "Homosexuality is immoral" and "Homosexualtiy is bad for society" are two different arguments and while I acknowledge that having read the CHP's platform they do seperate the two at times; but largely I see a "return to Biblical principles" which means they don't intend to justify things with secular reasons which is unacceptable in a government where Church & State are seperate.
Never Give Up said:
It's not that they aren't held to standard; they've just hid their corruption....which kind of distracts from the CHP's platform and their theocratic ideas but alas. The electorate has its standards, to which the Liberals will be held next election.
Never Give Up said:
"Thou shall not commit adultery"; "Thou shall onour thou mother and father"...? Hardly. "Thou shall have no other Gods before me...". Nope. Doesn't work that way. Canada has used common sense, societally beneficial standards as the basis for legsialtion and has not allowed the 10 commandments or any other religions documents to interfere with that.
Never Give Up said:
Those things are bad for society and thus are illegal. It has nothing to with "morality".
Never Give Up said:
I don't claim that you have a hidden agenda; I've only ever said that the CHP has a scary agenda.
Again, my concern is that your main agenda -- "A return to Biblical principles" just begs for theocracy - the CHP feels no need to justify its laws from a secular standpoint.
RE: Becoming a MPP, MLA,
Take it to the Election section, boys and girls. Staying on topic really isn't that hard.
Take it to the Election section, boys and girls. Staying on topic really isn't that hard.
Re: RE: Becoming a MPP, MLA,
Sorry Reverend! I didn’t mean to go off topic. I think the part dealing with becoming a candidate is part of the original thread. I’ve brought Sir Kevin’s and my discussion over to a new thread. I hope that works.
Reverend Blair said:
Sorry Reverend! I didn’t mean to go off topic. I think the part dealing with becoming a candidate is part of the original thread. I’ve brought Sir Kevin’s and my discussion over to a new thread. I hope that works.
Scape said:
Hi Scape
I think you have possibly missed the point of what I’m saying about a candidate obtaining signatures in an illegal manner, by not having a person other than the candidate present for the nominating you to appear on the ballot.
Democracy is rule by the people.
The people must call for the person’s name to appear on the ballot. Potentially, the candidate could sit at home with a phone book for the area, pick names out of there, sign them him/herself as if they were that person, have their official agent witness that these people have agreed to the candidate’s name appearing on the ballot and present them to the returning officer.
In doing this they have circumvented the Canadian democratic process.
So what? You may say!
Let’s just say that, the person not properly completing the process is elected for the riding. At some point it is revealed that the electors have not consented to his candidacy. That person has brought disrepute to the party that he represents, but also has been illegally elected. Canadians become further disillusioned with the democratic process. A bi-election would need to take place, criminal charges would be placed against both the candidate and the person who signed as witness. Another scandal!
This is not something that can be lightly brushed off.
If someone is willing to circumvent the electoral process in order to get into office, where is his/her integrity? If they are without integrity then what might they get up to in office. Would that person be someone who would pay, out the taxpayers purse, employees to canvass on his behalf. Would he hide the fact by paying a business to hide it within their own books. Someone without integrity can achieve a whole lot of harm to Canadians and the democratic process.
This is not a “fine detail” as you call it. It is opening a window on someone’s character. If the person has no respect for the law, what would be the benefit of making him the person who defines what the laws will be in Canada? If we put someone without respect for the law in charge of the administration of this country then what other areas of the law will that person find too confining? Too small to have to adhere to? As that person becomes used to the fact that he is above the law, what other chicanery would he be up to as time passes?
Putting this person into our government is like leaving the fox in charge of the chicken coop!
I’m sorry, but I don’t see this is a fine point. I think our elected officials need to have absolute respect for the laws of Canada, that protect all Canadians. Then, people can have confidence that it is the needs of Canadians that are being protected, not the wants of the politician to achieve his/her goal by any means necessary.
True, that could happen but it would still be highly unlikely as a political candidate running for office would want to get out to see the voting public in the riding. Perhaps you could site an example of such a breach of protocol.Never Give Up said:
Your ignoring the party whip, party leader or the party itself. If elected the people voted on the issues presented by the candidate are you saying the will of the people is invalid?Never Give Up said:
No, that is your interpretation you have every right to it but that has little weight and almost nothing to do with the reality.As politics is fluid so to is the interpretation and practical application of said laws. At one point in time it was a crime to drink or spit on the street but we evolved. You have your judgment but it is not supported by any examples or popular support. The real weight is what the people decide and that can only be done on the ballot box not just being on the ballot.Never Give Up said:
Scape said:
That's why I said "Potentially".
Scape said:
The people were not consulted with the option to nominate the candidate. The people assume that the proper procedure was followed. If not, then they assume there will be an inquiry, as in the Gomery Inquiry, when a politician breaks the law.
Scape said:
If you are so sure that it's acceptable, I challenge you to report to Elections Canada the fact that you did not follow the required procedure. That will show whether the law is fluid in the interpretation and practical application.