Would you vote for an unsuccessful candidate?

[Machjo]

Don't get me wrong. I do believe that principled voting benefits us in the end in that it makes candidates aware that not all voters will vote for him just to keep the other candidate out. This certainly raises the standards of candidates. I guess it depends on how one thinks of it. But for me personally, I just see it as voting on principle, with no intention of winning necessarily, and on that ground I would not consider my voting habits strategic.

 

[taxslave]

Let's say a candidate running in your riding had no degree and worked a menial job and was was divorced, but proved himself an intellectual with a heart and unique solutions to difficult social problems, perhaps many of which he himself had experienced (though then again, he might not admit to it if somewhat ashamed of his lack of success in life owing to these obstacles). Would you consider voting for such a person?

I see most of this as positive. For one he(she) is a fighter. A degree does not equate intelligence. It simply means the holder has been to school longer than most of us. As we see it at work to err is human, to really f**k up requires an engineer with a computer.
Far too many of our politicians are lawyers and intellectuals which means they have never really done anything just thought about it. And the results show. This is why Ignatief will not make a good PM. All he has done is been to school and then into politics, no work experience.

 

[Colpy]

Define "unsuccessful in life".

If you mean unsuccessful in building a treasurechest of cash for himself, I'd vote for a poor man quicker than for a rich man........

 

[Machjo]

Sounds like joe public to me. Are you saying joe is bad for the public cuz he's not in the other clubs.

No at all. But I do get the impression that most voters will vote only for a candidate who is rich or has some kind of exciting academic life or has been in politics for awhile, etc. That's not me, but that the impression I get of most voters, though I may be wrong.

 

[Machjo]

I see most of this as positive. For one he(she) is a fighter. A degree does not equate intelligence. It simply means the holder has been to school longer than most of us. As we see it at work to err is human, to really f**k up requires an engineer with a computer.
Far too many of our politicians are lawyers and intellectuals which means they have never really done anything just thought about it. And the results show. This is why Ignatief will not make a good PM. All he has done is been to school and then into politics, no work experience.

I think you're gone too far here. On the one hand, I don't see why even an poor unemployed person who's really struggled in life couldn't be an effective leader if he's intelligent and has a heart. I would not go to the other extreme though and argue that a university professor is necessarily the worst kind of politician. If that professor is at least humble enough to be willing to consult with the poor man and not dismiss his ideas off-hand just because he's poor or unemployed, then even that professor might be a good candidate too of course, and having a few professors in parliament could be a good thing tooa s long as they're intellelligent (not all professors are).

But to say that a professor is automatically a poor candidate goes too far in my opinion. Ideally, I think our parliament should reflect the diversity of Canada. Imagine if we had a few academics as MPs, along with a few former teachers, professors, farmers, unemployed divorced moms, engineers, physicians, artists, ex-military, etc., they could bounce ideas off of each other and come up with much more effective solutions for our country. But if they're all either ex-layers or businessmen, then that limits their range of knowledge considerably. How can they know how to fight poverty for example if they're never been there?

 

[Colpy]

I'm thinking of the two MPs I most admired recently....Chuck Cadman, and Chuck Strahl.......neither one a great success in the business world......and neither one either an academic nor a Pu*&^^cking lawyer.

 

[Machjo]

Define "unsuccessful in life".

If you mean unsuccessful in building a treasurechest of cash for himself, I'd vote for a poor man quicker than for a rich man........

I won't define it too strictly, but what you typed there is among the ideas I had in mind. Again, I wouldn't dismiss the rich man too fast; there are some caring and honest rich men around just as there are swindling poor men.

But let's say a man who may have failed owing to just plain bad luck all his life, worked hard either earning money or finding a job, maybe got into a bad marriage with another who just wanted his citizenship, maybe underwent all kinds of other setbacks in life, decides to run in an election, poor and maybe even having just lost his job, but comes up with truly unique ideas to problems.

Or to take it farther, let's say he's a reformed ex-con, but has proven himself cahnged, caring, contributor to the community and has damn good ideas?

I'm just worried that our prejudices might in fact be blocking alot of really good ideas from getting heard in government.

 

[L Gilbert]

Not all members of the Triple 9 Society are successful, not all altruistic people are either. It makes no sense that a politician should be successful for a job in politics. Extremely few are successful as politicians and no-one is successful in everything.

 

[ironsides]

Read this somewhere. "I know we all would like to see the return of the greatest PM Canada has ever had, he got you thru the recession of 1990 and finally opened Canada up to the world. I am speaking of that man who is solely responsible for the Meech Lake Accord Brian Mulroney. He was the greatest, to think we blamed him for the decline of the Atlantic cod, thus putting an end to some of the Newfoundland fishing industry. His failure was because of the greed of the people, not him."

 

[JLM]

Let's say a candidate running in your riding had no degree and worked a menial job and was was divorced, but proved himself an intellectual with a heart and unique solutions to difficult social problems, perhaps many of which he himself had experienced (though then again, he might not admit to it if somewhat ashamed of his lack of success in life owing to these obstacles). Would you consider voting for such a person?

A lot depends on what is regarded as unsuccessful. As far as I'm concerned his job doesn't have much to do with it. Is he able to support himself and his family? Does he have a good reputation as far as paying his debts and keeping his word? I would vote for such a guy as long as I agreed with his political philosophy and felt he could handle himself amongst all the big (slippery) fish.

 

[YukonJack]

The only way to ensure that the country does not get screwed up any more than it already is, vote fore a candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning.

SAD, but true!

 

[JLM]

The only way to ensure that the country does not get screwed up any more than it already is, vote fore a candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning.

SAD, but true!

You're starting to catch on Y.J. , now you just have to get that party B.S. out of your head, same goes for S.J. :lol::lol:

 

[YukonJack]

"You're starting to catch on Y.J. , now you just have to get that party B.S. out of your head, same goes for S.J. :lol::lol:"

JLM, my party affiliation at this particular time is that the Conservative Party is more in line with my conservative values than any of the other parties.

So, while I am a conservative, that does not mean that I am a Conservative.

I wish liberals would havre the same sense to distinguish between small and capital "L".

 

[strange]

i have the ability to vote for anyone i want. if this persons views fell in line with mine i would vote for them.

 

[Colpy]

Hey!

I was a Reform Party member in Saint John, New Brunswick when Elsie Wayne was MP>

Does that answer your question???

 

[JLM]

i have the ability to vote for anyone i want. if this persons views fell in line with mine i would vote for them.

The problem is it's a huge leap from "views" to execution.

 

[strange]

Indeed it is huge leap but if i have a non-partisan pragmatic approach and vote accordingly i think the person i vote for will be able to follow through on some campaign promises. Party based politics have run there course in this country we should move beyond it to policy based politics

 

[damngrumpy]

Who is determining what success is? I ran for public office once for a political party. I didn't go to university, I finished school and eventually got a broadcast degree, but I was working in the business for years before I got it. I know a lot of
people who have degrees and they are dumber than a bag of hammers. Just
because you have a degree doesn't mean you know anything about people or the
world. It doesn't give you licence to solve complex problems either. Education is
the ability to learn how to learn and there are any number of people who are a
lot smarter than the people we have in office. The answer is yes I would vote for
an ordinary Joe, likely before I would vote for a lawyer I tell ya.

 

[missile]

Unsuccessful in life and working at a menial job? I have no intention of casting a vote for the NDP[that's the typical candidate here]

 

[AnnaG]

Most of the people I voted for were unsuccessful in politics, but successful elsewhere.
hehe I usually vote for the underdog just because and that usually coincides with whoever Les votes for .... Indies.