My question is, can there be a happy marriage within a political entity or party with both conservative views, and socialist or left views? For example, if one's views are to the right of the spectrum in terms of fiscal policies, whereas views pertaining to abortion (say pro-choice or even pro-abortion) are to the left, what political party is this person supposed to vote for?
Political Spectrums??
- Thread starter KickingInQuebec
- Start date
KickingInQuebec said:
This is my problem as well, I like bits and pieces of all three major national parties. Why does a party have to define itself as left, right, conservative, liberal.
Logically, shouldn't a party's stance on issues be based on a case by case basis?
I wish I could vote for what they stand for. That's the problem I face as a voter. I do believe in lowering taxes, I do believe in some form of pay as you go healthcare, welfare reform etc etc, but those on the right of the spectrum scare me with their fundamentalist views...
Check out the Progressive Canadians, Kicking in Quebec...I think you may find them more to your liking than other parties.
Your opening question kind of brings us to Proportional Representation and/or Direct Democracy. Both those ideas move us closer to being able to vote on policy...PR because valid discussion and concensus-building would be necessary, and DD because we would have direct input into policy decisions.
By supporting alternative parties, it sends a message that we need different representation than we are currently being offered.
Your opening question kind of brings us to Proportional Representation and/or Direct Democracy. Both those ideas move us closer to being able to vote on policy...PR because valid discussion and concensus-building would be necessary, and DD because we would have direct input into policy decisions.
By supporting alternative parties, it sends a message that we need different representation than we are currently being offered.
I don't think there is any such thing as "voting for the individual" in our political system. The main political parties taken together form a kind of political minority that controls the whole electoral process. The main thing that guarantees that control is that they are the ones who select the candidates who run in the elections. Because of that, you end up always voting for a political party. The backbencher has no say. He or she is just part of a big rubber stamp. The power is in the hands of only a few people who form the executive -- the cabinet, the PM, the PMO, etc.
What I'd like to see is the political process removed from the political parties. People would choose the candidates directly from organizations such as workplaces, universities, cultural organizations, etc. All the candidates would be equally funded by Elections Canada and there could be no supplemental donations. The only role political parties could have would be to promote certain ideas, ideals, visions, platforms, or whatever, but they would have no role in elections whatsoever. This would take political life completely out of the hands of the political minority and put it into the hands of the majority of the people. I think it would be an evolution of democracy that would be very healthy and we are long overdue for it. Then we could vote for the individual, and the individual could stand for political position on different issues that would make sense, and that would be in the interests a much wider spectrum of society than what we have now. The options are just too limited and single-sided now.
What I'd like to see is the political process removed from the political parties. People would choose the candidates directly from organizations such as workplaces, universities, cultural organizations, etc. All the candidates would be equally funded by Elections Canada and there could be no supplemental donations. The only role political parties could have would be to promote certain ideas, ideals, visions, platforms, or whatever, but they would have no role in elections whatsoever. This would take political life completely out of the hands of the political minority and put it into the hands of the majority of the people. I think it would be an evolution of democracy that would be very healthy and we are long overdue for it. Then we could vote for the individual, and the individual could stand for political position on different issues that would make sense, and that would be in the interests a much wider spectrum of society than what we have now. The options are just too limited and single-sided now.
The good thing about a minority government is that the other parties keep the government in line. We see a bit of everything in the budget in order to please the other parties.
That's what proportional representation offers on an ongoing basis too, Gonzo.
By making it official it would force the parties to work together though. You would likely see cabinets with members from all parties too.
By making it official it would force the parties to work together though. You would likely see cabinets with members from all parties too.
Proportional representation is how a lot of European nations do it, and they don't appear to be on the verge of collapsing, so at least in principle I think the answer to the original question is clearly yes.
It'd mean a pretty much continuous state of minority government. That'd be no bad thing, in my opinion. It'd provide a much wider representation of interests both in Parliament itself and in the executive, with the added advantage that the politicians would have to work pretty hard to keep their jobs. Anything that'll make them sweat a little has to be a good thing.
Whether Canadians can do it is another matter. It's a little alien to Canadian political culture. When the NDP made a coalition with the Liberals a few years ago here in Saskatchewan and took a Liberal into the cabinet, very few people seemed to understand what was going on. That Liberal endured slander and calumny of the worst sort, he was accused of betrayal, treachery, and political opportunism, and the NDP were accused of desperately clinging to power by making deals with the devil. It was all pretty silly and narrow-minded, and thoroughly destroyed any respect I had for the major opposition party, which was Conservative under another name, the Saskatchewan Party. The Conservatives self-destructed under the weight of corruption and folly in Grant Devine's government, similar to what happened to the Progressive Conservatives nationally under Mulroney.
It'd mean a pretty much continuous state of minority government. That'd be no bad thing, in my opinion. It'd provide a much wider representation of interests both in Parliament itself and in the executive, with the added advantage that the politicians would have to work pretty hard to keep their jobs. Anything that'll make them sweat a little has to be a good thing.
Whether Canadians can do it is another matter. It's a little alien to Canadian political culture. When the NDP made a coalition with the Liberals a few years ago here in Saskatchewan and took a Liberal into the cabinet, very few people seemed to understand what was going on. That Liberal endured slander and calumny of the worst sort, he was accused of betrayal, treachery, and political opportunism, and the NDP were accused of desperately clinging to power by making deals with the devil. It was all pretty silly and narrow-minded, and thoroughly destroyed any respect I had for the major opposition party, which was Conservative under another name, the Saskatchewan Party. The Conservatives self-destructed under the weight of corruption and folly in Grant Devine's government, similar to what happened to the Progressive Conservatives nationally under Mulroney.
I don't think society allows for politician to be interactive with other parties. I think we have been trained to look at politics as black and white by the media. And the parties are forced to define themselves by going to extremes and bashing everyone else. I mean if CPAC showed an NDP and a Conservative having a discussion on affordable housing which was productive it wouldn't be as fun as them arguing and calling each other idiots.(That is, if anyone else finds CPAC fun to watch lol)
My favourite line was from The Daily Show, when they had a discussion on bipartisanship, Go to the streets and yell 'Be Reasonable!' I totally agree though, I don't think any party is truely complete unless it will incorprate all aspects of politics. And even then, the regions in this country are so different it's impossible to say this or that is the finite answer. I don't really see it changing though. All parties think they are right and once in power they have complete power, why give it up?
My favourite line was from The Daily Show, when they had a discussion on bipartisanship, Go to the streets and yell 'Be Reasonable!' I totally agree though, I don't think any party is truely complete unless it will incorprate all aspects of politics. And even then, the regions in this country are so different it's impossible to say this or that is the finite answer. I don't really see it changing though. All parties think they are right and once in power they have complete power, why give it up?