Voting is wrong
Firstly, I would like you to clarify is how you can genuinely support a political process that is overtly skewed too maintaining the status quo, in favour of the interests of the well-to-do? On the elections Canada web site is says that the object is to create a "level playing field". However on the very same page is explicitly excludes people who can't afford to throw $1000 at the government every 4 years for the privilege of becoming a candidate. This biases the sytem against the poorer members of society and relegates them to the status of volunteer foot soldiers, or mere voters, for the established factions who are paid handsomely for each vote they aquire.
Secondly can you also clarify for me why such a system does not progessively shift the agenda of the entire system (including the quasi-independent subsidiary state organs we like to call "political parties") away from those items that might benefit the interests of those who are relegated to the status of mere voters and foot soldies because it is economically unfeasible for them to field effective competition to the existing state funded (and therefore controlled) political organs?
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Cueball, if you were to run as an NDP candidate and won the nomination, the NDP riding association pays the 1000 dollars, and not you personally. I just wanted to clear that up for you. So yes, people within the NDP can run who are economically challenged, and yes, they do win nomination races.
Of course. And what of it? That is precisely the point. Persons, especially those from the poorer segements of our society are prevented from forwarding themselves as candidates competing with the established parties. Instead they are relegated to the role of mere voters or foot soldiers.
Of course we will be told that working your way up in the party structure is just part ot the process, but that is irrelevant. The party structure enforces a pre-established agenda, and policy outline already, which persons must, more or less conform too. Not to mention the existance of established power blocks within the party.
Changing the party from within is the bait that is thrown to those who dissent from the adopted agenda. But the fact remains that the party itself depends largely on the largesse, not only of the government, but also those well-to-do donors who keep the party functioning in all its facets in and out of elections cycles, and those persons, quite naturally have interests which influence the party. That is aside from the fact that the well healed have time to go to meetings, attend workshops, and otherwise manage the party so that it does not ever seriously undermine their interests.
So, from top-to-bottom, in the election process, the internal organizational realities of the official parties skews the agenda away from those who are the least well off in our society, slowly and inexonerably toward what we call the right.
You have merely made the agruement, which co-opts those political activists from the lower strata of the society by promising, more often than not, the lesser of two evils on the basis that the worst outcome can be prevented.
"Preventing the worst outcome" is not progressive. Progressive is changing what exists now and making it better.
If the NDP were truly interested in benefitting those who most need the support of our society, they would first and foremost take on those issues that directly affect their ability to enter the political arena as full enfranchised participants by demanding the election deposits be pro-rated for income, or dropped altogether, and making the elimination of the FPTP the central theme of its policy platform, even if this this actually was detrimental to the parties long term prospects. But no, the NDP cynically offers up progressive sounding anti-poverty statements, and worker positive platform positions, aimed at attracting votes from the underclass of our society, rather than energizing them and empowering them to stand for themselves.
Taken from here: Compulsory voting Mark III
"That is aside from the fact that the well healed have time to go to meetings,"
That's well-heeled, not healed. There, now that I've destroyed your arguments with my crushing logic, there is no need to say anything further.
Oops, sorry. I was channelling Benoit for a second there. Anyway, I agree with much of what you're saying in principle, but I don't agree about the $1000 deposits. Elections aren't about giving every crank with an axe to grind a soapbox. They should be a legitimate contest between qualified applicants. If you really have the stuff to contend for a government position, then you shouldn't have to pony up your own dough. You ought to have the organisational skills, social connections, and ability to inspire others to get a hundred people to donate ten bucks to your cause, or whatever other combination gets you going. If you can't manage this, you won't be much of a leader in any case, so why are you running?
I agree that the political arena should be far more accessible to the average person, but you should still have to show some drive and competence on your own. If you can't raise a thousand dollars, then you definitely can't run a campaign.
"That is aside from the fact that the well healed have time to go to meetings,"
That's well-heeled, not healed. There, now that I've destroyed your arguments with my crushing logic, there is no need to say anything further.
Lol
Correcting people's spelling is kind of impolite and babble policy says that we should not do that, so I cringed when it was just done. That's all I have to say on that matter. I sometimes am spelling challenged and I am suppose to be considered a very literate English language learner/educator.
I agree that the political arena should be far more accessible to the average person, but you should still have to show some drive and competence on your own. If you can't raise a thousand dollars, then you definitely can't run a campaign.
Ahh, Jacob, you were doing so well on the last thread, and you have to pull out the pejorative argument about "cranks". I have been expecting this well worn angle of defence of the system to rear its well-heeled head from the murk of the reigning ideology.
First off, what do you mean by cranks? Who are these cranks? And why are you calling them cranks? Because they are not established enough? Don't wear the right clothes? Live on the streets? Spend too much time in bars? What?
Secondly, there is already a proviso that a person must get a 100 signatures to witness their candidacy.
Do you mean 101 cranks?
Thirdly, why not simply pro-rate the deposit on the basis of income. My $200 is Jack Layton's $1000 in real terms, and if the point was merely to remove the serious from the non-serious, seriously, taking $20 out of pocket of a welfare mom, is a pretty serious business.
Issues of competence, based on financial ability are absurd in a stratified economic and social system. It would take me about a day to raise the $1000 dollars (actually I have it now), just among my own friends at $100 a pop. This is not the case for those I know whose friends are not as well off, as perhaps you or I are.
Meanwhile, some can throw $1000 at an election as an afterthought. I don't see at all how this is evidence of competence, or ability. Belinda Stronach had no financial obstacles to face when she purchased her "sand-box"... sorry I mispelled that I meant "soap-box."
Your arguement is just a rehash of "if you are so smart, why aren't you rich", in the long form.
Correcting people's spelling is kind of impolite and babble policy says that we should not do that, so I cringed when it was just done. That's all I have to say on that matter. I sometimes am spelling challenged and I am suppose to be considered a very literate English language learner/educator.
He was making a joke. Not an issue.
While I understandably don't agree with it Cueball, your critique of the electoral system makes sense.
Given that critique, the NDP as a collective group is essentially beyond redemtion. [Redemption not quite the right word. But reform didn't fit either. Effectively beyond being a political instrument that could be worth being part of. Something like that.]
That being the case, why do you spend as much time as you trying to 'educate' us?
While I understandably don't agree with it Cueball, your critique of the electoral system makes sense.
Given that critique, the NDP as a collective group is essentially beyond redemtion. [Redemption not quite the right word. But reform didn't fit either. Effectively beyond being a political instrument that could be worth being part of. Something like that.]
That being the case, why do you spend as much time as you trying to 'educate' us?
I am not trying to educate you.
Even if I wanted to, how could I. You have disagreed, and then said my critique "makes sense" in the same sentence. It's very hard to get a handle on that.
What precisely did you mean by:
"While I understandably don't agree with it Cueball, your critique of the electoral system makes sense. "
Someone mentioned something like "voting validates the system". But doesn't non voting do exactly the same thing? How do you register a protest as a non voter? You do not vote. How do you register your belief that compulsory voting is faschism? You do not vote. How do you register your wholehearted approval of the system as a non voter? You do not vote. This is like roger moore playing james bond. (He registered every emotion by raising the same eyebrow the same amount.)
So non voting can mean everything and nothing at the same time.
Just like George Bush, you are in favour of deregulation. If the NAZI party of canada becomes powerful, what is your response. "I am a practicing non voter, I will not vote even if racist brutes are likely to take over" ( After all Harper wins with 22% of registered voters).
We need to conscript people to give an hour of service to their country every few years. It is a minimal amount to have to do for your country.
Lack of will allows people like harper to govern.
Voting is how the Nazi's got into power. And it was not voting that put them out of power.
Lack of will allows people like harper to govern.
That is a short sighted comment, if there ever was one, perhaps if more people would have voted, Harper may well have gotten a majority. You do not know the will of the people. You know your will and are ascribing others with that.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Godwined. Time to move on.
Gowined by who? I wasn't the one who brought up the Nazis. That was Brian. If all you can offer for comment on content are misdirected pop culture "internet aphorism" cheap shots, when you clearly can't read more than one post into the past, then feel free to move on.
I'd call it willful CBADD: Chat Board Attention Deficit Disorder.
I think not voting is a vote against the system, and should certainly be allowed. Low voter turnout is an indication of many things-- all of them reflecting poorly on our institutions and our politics and politicians.
Accordingly, I should not be voting. But I do. But with less and less conviction each time.
Cueball, your critique makes sense at a minimum in that it is logically consistent. But more than that, its a political position I understand and see the point, even if I don't agree with it.
OK, so you are trying to 'educate us'. Given your political position would indicate that there isn't any 'space' that the NDP could be sufficiently changed to be worthy of support, what is the reason for engaging with us, on a very sustained basis?
For you, what is the point in criticising the positions the NDP takes?
I think not voting is a vote against the system, and should certainly be allowed. Low voter turnout is an indication of many things-- all of them reflecting poorly on our institutions and our politics and politicians.
Accordingly, I should not be voting. But I do. But with less and less conviction each time.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But nobody can prove that not voting means anything one way or another. Thats the whole point. You have people in poor countrys been turned away from polling booths with guns while here, they are too lazy to make the effort even with time mandated off work to vote! Well, if you do not vote, why should you get the time off?
If you want real democracy, people have to participate, whether they are anti system, or too darn lazy. I do not see a lot of attacks on state institutions in Canada so not voting is not a vote for or against anything. If there was some type of resistance movement, you might say it was a "vote" against the system but there is nothing.
I think not voting is a vote against the system, and should certainly be allowed. Low voter turnout is an indication of many things-- all of them reflecting poorly on our institutions and our politics and politicians.
Accordingly, I should not be voting. But I do. But with less and less conviction each time.
Also, favouring violent means to change the system and participating to any discussion forum is fundamentally contradictory.
No, it isn't
No, it isn't
Yes, it is.
Well, the polls and voting numbers showed that harper negative adds were most successful in making liberal voters stay at home. If they had voted, if they were legally compelled to vote, the chance of a liberal ndp government would have been greater. But imagine what it would have been like if 90% voted. All the poor people would have voted and I am pretty sure the NDP would have done much better. Barack Obama won by 8 millions votes. If about 3 million black first time voters had not come out it would have been a lot tighter. If Obama had been a white democrat, could he have won? I believe that the system is a lot safer and a lot more robust when all the people rich and poor, black and white, homeless and multi homed, vote all the time. By not voting you are leaving it up to harper to change the rules and make it impossible for the homeless to vote. Silence is taken as consent. and consent is approval.
So non voters are approving the worst stuff that harper does. By not voting against him. Shame on them. And shame on you guys for those grubby little excuses to dodge your duty to your neighbours too.
You either stand for something or agree to the worst by standing by and letting it happen.
Lack of will allows people like harper to govern.
That is a short sighted comment, if there ever was one, perhaps if more people would have voted, Harper may well have gotten a majority. You do not know the will of the people. You know your will and are ascribing others with that.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
And how come hardcore separatist Quebecers are very motivated to vote in Federal elections while some other kinds of would-be "dissenters" are not???
Cueball, your critique makes sense at a minimum in that it is logically consistent. But more than that, its a political position I understand and see the point, even if I don't agree with it.
OK, so you are trying to 'educate us'. Given your political position would indicate that there isn't any 'space' that the NDP could be sufficiently changed to be worthy of support, what is the reason for engaging with us, on a very sustained basis?
For you, what is the point in criticising the positions the NDP takes?
As I said, I have no interest in educating you. I think you are sold on the NDP. I didn't ask you to post. Nor did I send you any PM's alerting you to the educational opportunities. Let me know if you have anything to say other than to my motives.
This is a board for discussing politics. Many people other than dyed in the wool NDP fans come here. Again it seems your final point is basically I should shut up. The NDP is topical to this discussion because it poses itself as the "left" wing of Canadian politics that represent marginalized voices that are marginlized by systemic prejudice against them. I am merely pointing out that it is a sop for public discontent that safely discharges political energy from those marginalized persons, and functions as an integral part of the system in that manner, willingly accepting biases in the electoral system because it benefits the party. As such the NDP is pertinent to the analysis.
If you want real democracy, people have to participate, whether they are anti system, or too darn lazy. I do not see a lot of attacks on state institutions in Canada so not voting is not a vote for or against anything. If there was some type of resistance movement, you might say it was a "vote" against the system but there is nothing.
I am sorry Brian I have just demonstrated how the system is not designed for the full participation of marginalized people. Poor people are welcome in the ranks of the foot solidiers and voters for the official parties, but they are presented with serious economic liabilities should they actually want to be participants in the system and compete against the state funded political organs.
Even if one accepts the premise, that the NDP, or any parliamentary left movement, acts as a kind of safety valve for public discontent, I don't think you can automatically assume that not voting is an appropriate tactical response.
To Brian's point, suppose voter turnout went down to 20%. I would agree that the system would indeed lack any legitimacy. However, in the absence of popular based, self-sustaining political institutions to replace the current system, I don't see how that, in and of itself would translate into meaningful political action. It would be like people who voted for Obama because they wanted "Hope" and "Change", without any clear understanding of what kind of hope and change he was bringing.
For my part, I do vote NDP, and without any illusions that we will have the New Jerusalem tomorrow, but with the hope that they would be at least marginally better than the alternatives. That being said, that doesn't preclude organizing other movements and groups to try to improve conditions for people, outside of the NDP (assuming I had any time).
I think not voting is a vote against the system, and should certainly be allowed. Low voter turnout is an indication of many things-- all of them reflecting poorly on our institutions and our politics and politicians.
I think "None Of The Above" should be a ballot option, and that if that option wins out, then that constituency goes unrepresented.
Even if one accepts the premise, that the NDP, or any parliamentary left movement, acts as a kind of safety valve for public discontent, I don't think you can automatically assume that not voting is an appropriate tactical response.
To Brian's point, suppose voter turnout went down to 20%. I would agree that the system would indeed lack any legitimacy. However, in the absence of popular based, self-sustaining political institutions to replace the current system, I don't see how that, in and of itself would translate into meaningful political action. It would be like people who voted for Obama because they wanted "Hope" and "Change", without any clear understanding of what kind of hope and change he was bringing.
For my part, I do vote NDP, and without any illusions that we will have the New Jerusalem tomorrow, but with the hope that they would be at least marginally better than the alternatives. That being said, that doesn't preclude organizing other movements and groups to try to improve conditions for people, outside of the NDP (assuming I had any time).
In fact no. Losing legitimacy has been the fudamental event behind numerous movements world wide. For example, the Soviet Union, where compulsory voting was mated to a system similar to the one we have here where official state organs determined who could be selected as candidates, collapsed because it no longer had authority to govern. All governments need the aquiesence of a substantial part of the population in order to be able to govern.
This change did not require the existance of a formulated political revolutionary movement, with a program and a policy, beyond the general will that the system need to be more accesible and representative.
In fact, I am saying that the reform of the system is the program and policy itself.
In fact no. Losing legitimacy has been the fudamental event behind numerous movements world wide. For example, the Soviet Union, where compulsory voting was mated to a system similar to the one we have here where official state organs determined who could be selected as candidates, collapsed because it no longer had authority to govern. All governments need the aquiesence of a substantial part of the population in order to be able to govern.
This change did not require the existance of a formulated political revolutionary movement, with a program and a policy, beyond the general will that the system need to be more accesible and representative.
In fact, I am saying that the reform of the system is the program and policy itself.
Well, personally, I'm not arguing that voting should be compulsory. Even if it were, and even if people were fined or jailed for not voting, I honestly don't know that it would deligimitize the state in the eyes of the citizens. Furthermore, I'm not certain that deligitimizing the state would simply become a fundamental event that would create a movement towards reforming society.
Suppose abstaining became a criminal offense. How would you convince people to break the law and go to jail? And even if it wasn't a criminal offense, I don't see how we go from not voting to creating a mass-movement towards reforming society.
IMHO, I think that a more accurate description of electoral politics, would be to say that the state has been deligimitized, and that people simpy don't care. I can't recall the writer who coined the expression, but "inverted fascism" might accurately describe the current state of affairs, where we have non-participation, non-legitimacy, but no one revolts so no one cares.
In fact no. Losing legitimacy has been the fudamental event behind numerous movements world wide. For example, the Soviet Union, where compulsory voting was mated to a system similar to the one we have here where official state organs determined who could be selected as candidates, collapsed because it no longer had authority to govern. All governments need the aquiesence of a substantial part of the population in order to be able to govern.
This change did not require the existance of a formulated political revolutionary movement, with a program and a policy, beyond the general will that the system need to be more accesible and representative.
In fact, I am saying that the reform of the system is the program and policy itself.
Well, personally, I'm not arguing that voting should be compulsory. Even if it were, and even if people were fined or jailed for not voting, I honestly don't know that it would deligimitize the state in the eyes of the citizens. Furthermore, I'm not certain that deligitimizing the state would simply become a fundamental event that would create a movement towards reforming society.
If the ideological mantle upon which the state justifies it existance is "Democracy", and no one is voting then the state and the founding pillar of its ideological caus beli is obviously not legitimate in the eyes of the citizens, since voting in a democracy indicates their approval, regardless of who they vote for -- winning or losing.
Nor is it certain that the delegitimized state will created the necessary conditions for change. But going back to the example of the USSR, one sees that it did precipitate a collapse as Gorbachov's faction attempted to renovate it to give it legitimacy. Situations like that also precipitate all kinds of possible outcomes, including fascist repression, and this was indeed attempted by a faction within the CPSU against Gorbacheov, and it was that attempt that failed, and finally caused the sytem to implode.
But building a movement that formalizes the act of not-voting, as a clear political statement, will actually give not-voting political weight, which it does not have, since it is merely sentiment, which no one is trying to clearly articulate or voice in the form of a movement.
These non votes are lost votes as far as the powers that be are concerned, and the demands would be simple enough.
1) No 10% cut-off on deposit refunds or expenses.
2) Proportional representation.
3) No deposit on candidacy
"That being said, that doesn't preclude organizing other movements and groups to try to improve conditions for people, outside of the NDP (assuming I had any time)."
Personally I think the constraints(or illusions there of) alluded to above are far more effective at marginalizing the political voice of the nation. I don't think our current electoral process warrants the the 5 minutes it takes to fill out a ballot. While it's humbling to know people in other countries are turned away with guns I can't help but think of the whole process as being anything more than a clever charade that provides cheap heavily consumed sedative media content. The announcment that there was a low voter turn out further boots the ego of those that participate in the charade and let's them believe they have some importance because they took a minute to draw an x on a piece of paper. Once you leave the poll of course is where you see the real votes people are able to cast: will it be kraft dinner or mcdonalds for dinner? Will we fill up with 87 or 89 octane? #7 or #2 plastic? If people stopped voting and spent the energy they have been giving to elections on seeking out alternatives to the above the country would be a better place for it.
In fact no. Losing legitimacy has been the fudamental event behind numerous movements world wide. For example, the Soviet Union, where compulsory voting was mated to a system similar to the one we have here where official state organs determined who could be selected as candidates, collapsed because it no longer had authority to govern. All governments need the aquiesence of a substantial part of the population in order to be able to govern.
This change did not require the existance of a formulated political revolutionary movement, with a program and a policy, beyond the general will that the system need to be more accesible and representative.
In fact, I am saying that the reform of the system is the program and policy itself.
Well, personally, I'm not arguing that voting should be compulsory. Even if it were, and even if people were fined or jailed for not voting, I honestly don't know that it would deligimitize the state in the eyes of the citizens. Furthermore, I'm not certain that deligitimizing the state would simply become a fundamental event that would create a movement towards reforming society.
If the ideological mantle upon which the state justifies it existance is "Democracy", and no one is voting then the state and the founding pillar of its ideological caus beli is obviously not legitimate in the eyes of the citizens, since voting in a democracy indicates their approval, regardless of who they vote for -- winning or losing.
Nor is it certain that the delegitimized state will created the necessary conditions for change. But going back to the example of the USSR, one sees that it did precipitate a collapse as Gorbachov's faction attempted to renovate it to give it legitimacy. Situations like that also precipitate all kinds of possible outcomes, including fascist repression, and this was indeed attempted by a faction within the CPSU against Gorbacheov, and it was that attempt that failed, and finally caused the sytem to implode.
But building a movement that formalizes the act of not-voting, as a clear political statement, will actually give not-voting political weight, which it does not have, since it is merely sentiment, which no one is trying to clearly articulate or voice in the form of a movement.
These non votes are lost votes as far as the powers that be are concerned, and the demands would be simple enough.
1) No 10% cut-off on deposit refunds or expenses.
2) Proportional representation.
3) No deposit on candidacy
So start a movement Cueball. Nothing is stopping you. It would be a good way to put your words, thoughts into concrete action. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would be interested in joining.
They already have. More every election.
The NDP is topical to this discussion because it poses itself as the "left" wing of Canadian politics that represent marginalized voices that are marginlized by systemic prejudice against them. I am merely pointing out that it is a sop for public discontent that safely discharges political energy from those marginalized persons, and functions as an integral part of the system in that manner, willingly accepting biases in the electoral system because it benefits the party. As such the NDP is pertinent to the analysis.
The NDP as an institution, and the role it plays, is most definitely pertinent to the analysis.
But my questions were not about your analyis here. They were directed at the hundreds and hundreds of posts you have logged at criticizing the weaknesses, inconsistencies and deficiencies of particular policies of the NDP.
Given your politics, what is the point of that? Explain to me why one should see that as anything more than carping that of late, out of frustration, I have taken to calling it?
What I have written so far here is easy fodder for some smart alleck remark. Thats fair game. But please don't leave it at that. Its a serious and legitimate question.
For some examples: "I don't care how you see it" is fair game. But there is still the question.: essentially, why do you do it? Where does it fit into your politics? Etc.
In fact, I am saying that the reform of the system is the program and policy itself.
But building a movement that formalizes the act of not-voting, as a clear political statement, will actually give not-voting political weight, which it does not have, since it is merely sentiment, which no one is trying to clearly articulate or voice in the form of a movement.
These non votes are lost votes as far as the powers that be are concerned, and the demands would be simple enough.
1) No 10% cut-off on deposit refunds or expenses.
2) Proportional representation.
3) No deposit on candidacy
This I don't understand. If the system is fundamentally flawed, essentially a sham exercise to keep people distracted, then what is the point of such modest demands? PR isn't that modest a demand, it will take quite a bit to accomplish it. But those pushing it are way within the mainstream, and how in your terms would achieving it change the system one little bit?
"So start a movement Cueball. Nothing is stopping you. It would be a good way to put your words, thoughts into concrete action. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would be interested in joining."
They already have. More every election.
And in fact, I'm not saying you should shut up at all.
You should start more threads like this.
Negative critique of the politics of others is a legitimate launching point for expressing ones own politics. But in those hundreds, if not thousands of posts... with occassional points where you appear to be dogging people across multiple threads.... I don't see you ever using that as a segway into your own politics.
But I posted the quote immediately above for your your one line reply.
Are the increasing numbers of non-voters the conditions for a movement, or are they the movement itself? [in process maybe?]
Because you did also say "building a movement that formalizes the act of not-voting, as a clear political statement, will actually give not-voting political weight." And clearly we have seen no formalization yet.
Because you did also say:
Losing legitimacy has been the fudamental event behind numerous movements world wide. For example, the Soviet Union, where compulsory voting was mated to a system similar to the one we have here where official state organs determined who could be selected as candidates, collapsed because it no longer had authority to govern. All governments need the aquiesence of a substantial part of the population in order to be able to govern.
This change did not require the existance of a formulated political revolutionary movement, with a program and a policy, beyond the general will that the system need to be more accesible and representative.
Obviously it doesn't have to be revolutionary to be a movement. And it may not even have to be explicit to be a movement. But what is lacking in your explanation- both reference to electoral politics in Canada and the complete collapse of governing legitimacy in the Soviet Union- is how there is anything more than a shunning.
I think "None Of The Above" should be a ballot option, and that if that option wins out, then that constituency goes unrepresented.
It might interest you to know that in the state of Nevada - all ballots have to include "none of the above". It only ever seems to get a maximum of 4 or 5% of the vote - compared to about 45% of people who are so completely content with their lives and so indifferent to the outcome and so equally satisfied with all the choices that they decide not to both voting at all.
If the ideological mantle upon which the state justifies it existance is "Democracy", and no one is voting then the state and the founding pillar of its ideological caus beli is obviously not legitimate in the eyes of the citizens, since voting in a democracy indicates their approval, regardless of who they vote for -- winning or losing.
Don't know if I agree with that? Does lower voter participation mean that democracy is illegitimate, or that people simply find the choices that they have to vote for meaningless? I'm probably quibbling over semantics but I think there is a major difference between people saying that political parties are all the same, and saying that the system itself is flawed.
1) No 10% cut-off on deposit refunds or expenses.
2) Proportional representation.
3) No deposit on candidacy
All your proposals are interesting, however, I don't see how it legitimizes the democratic process anymore. Also, doesn't 2 contradict 1 and 3 a bit, since proportional representation, but definition, requires organized political groupings, whereas 1 and 3 favours individuals?
That's not to say that they are proposals that I would oppose, but just that making society more democratic ultimately requires more socially oriented economic institutions. That's a kind of organizing that requires both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activism.
The NDP is topical to this discussion because it poses itself as the "left" wing of Canadian politics that represent marginalized voices that are marginlized by systemic prejudice against them. I am merely pointing out that it is a sop for public discontent that safely discharges political energy from those marginalized persons, and functions as an integral part of the system in that manner, willingly accepting biases in the electoral system because it benefits the party. As such the NDP is pertinent to the analysis.
The NDP as an institution, and the role it plays, is most definitely pertinent to the analysis.
But my questions were not about your analyis here. They were directed at the hundreds and hundreds of posts you have logged at criticizing the weaknesses, inconsistencies and deficiencies of particular policies of the NDP.
Given your politics, what is the point of that? Explain to me why one should see that as anything more than carping that of late, out of frustration, I have taken to calling it?
What I have written so far here is easy fodder for some smart alleck remark. Thats fair game. But please don't leave it at that. Its a serious and legitimate question.
For some examples: "I don't care how you see it" is fair game. But there is still the question.: essentially, why do you do it? Where does it fit into your politics? Etc.
Listen, if you can't respond to me without trying to impugn my personal motives at every step of the way, all you are asking for is rude language and abuse.
I might as well ask "why do you post, post after post of pro-NDP propoganda. Why do you do it?" 99% of what I write about the NDP is in response to other peoples pro-NDP propoganda -- most of which has nothing to do with politics or policy, and everything to do with bragging, excuses, endless discussions of one two digit number, 17%, or nattering about how evil the Liberals are -- recently, thankfully, the introduction of Elizabeth May to the scene has added some nuance to this noxious mix of empty propoganda by giving many here the opportunity of engaging in vitriolic personal attacks against her.
To me it amounts to so much partisan baseball commentary, and sometimes I try and point out why.
So, I will answer your question, even though it is a stupid one. This is a political discusion board and I post what I believe to be true. What else?Lets talk about about "carping" why are NDP'rs always attacking the other parties? Jack Layton should shut up obviously. Why can't you be positive about Harper for once. Why bother if you honestly think they are not listening?
Honestly, Ken, when I logged on just now and saw a long detailed response I was delighted to think maybe you were going to forward something based in the subject topic, or about the analysis, but this contribution is trite.
There is one thing more. The NDP's position in all of this is unique. It is only the NDP that pretends that it really the voice of marginalized persons in this society, and as such it is necessary to examine the roll it plays in duping people into accepting this biased system.
If the ideological mantle upon which the state justifies it existance is "Democracy", and no one is voting then the state and the founding pillar of its ideological caus beli is obviously not legitimate in the eyes of the citizens, since voting in a democracy indicates their approval, regardless of who they vote for -- winning or losing.
Don't know if I agree with that? Does lower voter participation mean that democracy is illegitimate, or that people simply find the choices that they have to vote for meaningless? I'm probably quibbling over semantics but I think there is a major difference between people saying that political parties are all the same, and saying that the system itself is flawed.
1) No 10% cut-off on deposit refunds or expenses.
2) Proportional representation.
3) No deposit on candidacy
All your proposals are interesting, however, I don't see how it legitimizes the democratic process anymore. Also, doesn't 2 contradict 1 and 3 a bit, since proportional representation, but definition, requires organized political groupings, whereas 1 and 3 favours individuals?
That's not to say that they are proposals that I would oppose, but just that making society more democratic ultimately requires more socially oriented economic institutions. That's a kind of organizing that requires both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activism.
This is a good point. I am of two minds on this issue, really. The above forumlation assumes that one is not going to take the step of eliminating parties altogether. In a system dependent on parties, it is not necessarily the case that they have to have special advantaged status under the election law.
But ultimately a no-party state, where one votes only for representatives is preferential, in an idealized state. Also, pragmatically speaking, short term reform is more likely going to attract the support of factions within the existing system.
But you are not going to see more socially oriented economic institutions arise in a system where the decision making power is balanced in favour those forces whose interests are contrary to those who are economically disadvantaged, within the parlimentary structure as it is now. We have 30 years of backsliding on this to show for believing that.
" But ultimately a no-party state, where one votes only for representatives is preferential, in an idealized state."
I guess that makes the City of Toronto an "idealized state" since that is exactly what we have in municipal elections - a non-partisan ballot where everyone just elects their own "independent" representative who is then free to take whatever positions he or she wants to take!
I never knew that i lived in such a workers paradise! Who knew??
I think "None Of The Above" should be a ballot option, and that if that option wins out, then that constituency goes unrepresented.
It might interest you to know that in the state of Nevada - all ballots have to include "none of the above". It only ever seems to get a maximum of 4 or 5% of the vote - compared to about 45% of people who are so completely content with their lives and so indifferent to the outcome and so equally satisfied with all the choices that they decide not to both voting at all.
Can that spot actually go unfilled if NOTA wins?
Having said that, I kind of see your point. George Carlin never complained about politicians (with the exception of Raegan) because he correctly pointed out that they are drawn from the general public.
" But ultimately a no-party state, where one votes only for representatives is preferential, in an idealized state."
I guess that makes the City of Toronto an "idealized state" since that is exactly what we have in municipal elections - a non-partisan ballot where everyone just elects their own "independent" representative who is then free to take whatever positions he or she wants to take!
I never knew that i lived in such a workers paradise! Who knew??
Actually yes, Stockholm, municipal elections are generally far more fair than the Federal or provincial parliments. The problem is that these institutions have very little power. The amount of power they have is determined by the upper parliments which determine their mandate.
These are managerial bodies, and it is not suprising that they have been shaped to provide good management. Good management is a good thing, anywhere. It's only when you get to the upper echelons of power that you need to ensure that power does not get into the hands of the wrong people -- limiting the power of subsidiary representative institutions, while at the same time ensuring they function well as managerial bodies, is one way to do that.
i don't know what happens is NOTA actually wins in Nevada. maybe they need to have a new election with new candidates. i don't think it has ever happened.
But the point is that if you take the trouble to go to the polling station and vote "None of the Above" there can be no doubt that you are expressing protest against all the choices. In contrast, if you don't vote at all, MAYBE it means "none of the above" or maybe (more likely) it means ALL OF THE ABOVE. A non-vote can just as easily mean that you like everyone on the ballot and therefore you feel that nothing is at stake in the election so you won't take the time to vote.
That is not a point. That does not mean that people approve of the sytem or are content with, or anything like that. One does not follow from the other. If you are going to vote NOTA, you might as well stay home.
But I am not suprised that you like to promote the idea that it doea. Of course, you would say that.
Honestly, Ken, when I logged on just now and saw a long detailed response I was delighted to think maybe you were going to forward something based in the subject topic, or about the analysis...
I did comment also comment directly into the subject topic, and it might even possibly be connected to questioning what you are doing discussing NDP policy at the lengths you take it to.
I even commented on some of the same contributions that others have, and its pretty easy to see the dotted lines between my questions and klochs even though we don't say the same thing.
I'll readily agree that I've put in the two different discussions- and they may not be related. [I'm waiting for you to elaborate your politics to see if I think they are related.]
So far you've chosen to reply only to the one you find offensive [and I will agree is quite pointy].
This is a good point. I am of two minds on this issue, really. The above forumlation assumes that one is not going to take the step of eliminating parties altogether. In a system dependent on parties, it is not necessarily the case that they have to have special advantaged status under the election law.
But ultimately a no-party state, where one votes only for representatives is preferential, in an idealized state. Also, pragmatically speaking, short term reform is more likely going to attract the support of factions within the existing system.
No-party state is an interesting idea (the snark comments about Toronto notwithstanding). However, again, I find it hard to believe even if society evolved to the point where economic inequality were reduced, and individual liberty expanded, that like-minded people wouldn't still form political groupings to advocate for their self-interest and some mechanism of managing groupings versus individual candidates would have to be put into effect.
But you are not going to see more socially oriented economic institutions arise in a system where the decision making power is balanced in favour those forces whose interests are contrary to those who are economically disadvantaged, within the parlimentary structure as it is now. We have 30 years of backsliding on this to show for believing that.
I agree with you there. However, I don't think you can write off parliamentary systems altogether though. For my part, I'm not convinced that we've gotten all the "mileage" (for lack of a better term) out of parliamentary democracy in terms of improving working conditions for people, the 30 years of reversals not withstanding.
The US Congress is practically a non-party system. there is virtually no party discipline and members can vote however they want.
Do you think that makes the American political system superior to ours?
"That does not mean that people approve of the sytem or are content with, or anything like that. One does not follow from the other."
We don't know one way or the other. Maybe not voting implies a rejection of the system or maybe it means total contentedness with the system and indifference to the outcome. I don't buy tickets to college basketball games. Does that mean that I am expressing a need-seated rejection of the whole concept of teams from post-secondary institutions playing basketball - OR does it mean that the game simply doesn't interest me and i don't care about who wins or loses.
If you don't vote, the meaning of your "act" (or lack thereof) is open to interpretation and you have no control over how it is interpreted. If you think that by not voting you are helping pave the way for some sort of glorious violent revolution in Canada reminiscent of bread riots in St. Petersburg in 1917 - i think you better give your head a shake - it ain't gonna happen.
The NDP as an institution, and the role it plays, is most definitely pertinent to the analysis.
But my questions were not about your analyis here. They were directed at the hundreds and hundreds of posts you have logged at criticizing the weaknesses, inconsistencies and deficiencies of particular policies of the NDP.
Given your politics, what is the point of that? Explain to me why one should see that as anything more than carping that of late, out of frustration, I have taken to calling it?
I might as well ask "why do you post, post after post of pro-NDP propoganda. Why do you do it?" 99% of what I write about the NDP is in response to other peoples pro-NDP propoganda -- most of which has nothing to do with politics or policy, and everything to do with bragging, excuses, endless discussions of one two digit number, 17%, or nattering about how evil the Liberals are -- recently, thankfully, the introduction of Elizabeth May to the scene has added some nuance to this noxious mix of empty propoganda by giving many here the opportunity of engaging in vitriolic personal attacks against her.
So, I will answer your question, even though it is a stupid one. This is a political discusion board and I post what I believe to be true. What else?Lets talk about about "carping" why are NDP'rs always attacking the other parties? Jack Layton should shut up obviously. Why can't you be positive about Harper for once. Why bother if you honestly think they are not listening?
Fair question. Leave out the Harper part. We both know that there isn't a great degree of criticising Harper on this board. A certain amount of venting and people practically trying to figure out what is going on and/or ways to oppose. But no one thinks they are listening.
In practice, the vast bulk of discussion is sort of en famille. While not all of it is partisan- a great deal is such as you have pointed to.
This is in the fine old tradition of people arguing for their political position- whether that is a partisan based one or not. As is always the case, a lot of it is not very edifying. And the partisan 'point scoring' is one of those non-edifying parts. But its the stuff of politics and political discussion whether we are talking electoral politics or more broadly speaking.
So to your question of why spend so much time talking about "how evil/venal the Liberals are" or how much people do not trust EMay and find her a poser- the answer is simple and pretty transparent. Its politically motivated.
I will allow- and notably raise this myself- that because there are so many NDP partisans on this board, the aggregate result of that torrent of criticism of the Liberals and Greens amounts to carping that has the same effect as what you at times do single-handedly with topics on the NDP: effectively make it impossible for Liberals or Greens to mount an internally oriented discussion aimed at improving what their party of choice offers.
I will say in my own defence, that when Green activists have opened up on organizational issues I have engaged from a perspective of what I would be thinking if I was in their shoes. But that sort of thing is a speck on a huge wall that is more or less like you discribed it: little or nothing more than partisan point scoring.
And I'm not talking about blame, I'm answering your question about why people do it.
To me it amounts to so much partisan baseball commentary, and sometimes I try and point out why.
I've already pretty clearly agreed with the first part. But I don't see you doing the latter. When do you point out the 'why' part?
The stream of your posts as they apply to the NDP are about the particular deficiencies and misrepresentations of the particular policy in question at the moment. When is this ever connected to the limits of the NDP as an insitution?
Is it anything more than making sure the NDP gets its share of lumps on babble? Its not my place to question the legitimacy of that- and I'm not. I'm questioning where are your politics in this? Whats the 'purpose' that is equivalent to the transparent purpose of the partsan baseball commentary. IE, you ARE doing the same thing as everybody else in that commentary pit. We know why I am doing it. Why are you?
You aren't by any means the only one criticisng the NDP without another party preference. To use another as an example, I have a much better idea of MSpectors politics with a small fraction the number of posts. [Leaving out that you are totally unique not so much on the volume front, but for not dropping it when the point has been made.] As quirky as are the politics of Frustrated Mess, I have a FAR better idea of his politics than yours... again, at a fraction of the volume.
And, to practice what I preach and drop it when the point has been made- I'm not going to keep this up.
.
Good, its ad hominem and off topic.
The US Congress is practically a non-party system. there is virtually no party discipline and members can vote however they want.
Do you think that makes the American political system superior to ours?
No because the issue is economic disenfranchisement. The American system is far worse in many aspects. Moreover it is completely different in how it asserts systemic financial liabilities.
This is a good point. I am of two minds on this issue, really. The above forumlation assumes that one is not going to take the step of eliminating parties altogether. In a system dependent on parties, it is not necessarily the case that they have to have special advantaged status under the election law.
But ultimately a no-party state, where one votes only for representatives is preferential, in an idealized state. Also, pragmatically speaking, short term reform is more likely going to attract the support of factions within the existing system.
No-party state is an interesting idea (the snark comments about Toronto notwithstanding). However, again, I find it hard to believe even if society evolved to the point where economic inequality were reduced, and individual liberty expanded, that like-minded people wouldn't still form political groupings to advocate for their self-interest and some mechanism of managing groupings versus individual candidates would have to be put into effect.
But you are not going to see more socially oriented economic institutions arise in a system where the decision making power is balanced in favour those forces whose interests are contrary to those who are economically disadvantaged, within the parlimentary structure as it is now. We have 30 years of backsliding on this to show for believing that.
I agree with you there. However, I don't think you can write off parliamentary systems altogether though. For my part, I'm not convinced that we've gotten all the "mileage" (for lack of a better term) out of parliamentary democracy in terms of improving working conditions for people, the 30 years of reversals not withstanding.
No. Its a drain on political energy. We should abandon it entirely. Actively work to reform the basic system. Furthermore, the basic outline of the election act should be embedded in the constitution directly.
Actually yes, Stockholm, municipal elections are generally far more fair than the Federal or provincial parliments. The problem is that these institutions have very little power. The amount of power they have is determined by the upper parliments which determine their mandate.
This is a classic illustration of the distance between this theory of voting and reality.
Toronto politics are utterly dominated by the power of incumbancy. My recollection is that in the last 2 elections, there has been exactly 1 incumbent defeated. The incumbents elected included one who was on the front pages of the local newspapers as having his office rent subsidized improperly. Not to mention all of Tom Jakobek's capers.
When voters got annoyed at the Mulroney government they knocked it from a majority to 2 seats.
You want to replace a system that at least sometimes makes changes to one that is incredibly change resistant and susceptible to corruption.
This helps marginal communities how?
People are not interested in civic politics because the institution is a management institution that is hamstrung by it mandate, with it purse strings in the hands of superior governments. Thus voter turnout is often at the 30% level. What people want to see at city hall is good managers, not idealogues.
Of coures incumbency is high, no one cares and no one votes. As long as the managers are not doing anything obscenely stupid, one is as good as another.
I have pointed out very clear economic restraints that hamper full participation in the system by anyone who is not bringing in at least 40,000 a year. And even at that level the burden of campaigning costs is fairly prohibative, without a supporting state funded political organ backing you up.
In a very limited sense, these inequities seem relatively simple to change, yet no one seems to be able to come up with a reason that they are not.
No because the issue is economic disenfranchisement. The American system is far worse in many aspects. Moreover it is completely different in how it asserts systemic financial liabilities.
So you don't like the role that money plays in American politics, but you also oppose any public funding of parties or candidates in Canada and you oppose any rebate of expenses to candidates that get over 10% of the vote.
So in the end you seem to want a system where NO ONE has any money to spend getting out their message and there is no campaign and no information. In a country of 30 million people the average candidate can only ever personally meet about 0.000000000000000000001% of the voters.
We might as well go back to some feudal monarchy from the Middle Ages.
"What people want to see at city hall is good managers, not idealogues."
I guess that means that "Cueball" better not have any designs on running for municipal office.
No because the issue is economic disenfranchisement. The American system is far worse in many aspects. Moreover it is completely different in how it asserts systemic financial liabilities.
So you don't like the role that money plays in American politics, but you also oppose any public funding of parties or candidates in Canada and you oppose any rebate of expenses to candidates that get over 10% of the vote.
Please read for content. I said that there should be no 10% cap on rebate of expenses, meaning that any candidate who runs should be eligible for the same treatement in terms of refunds, not just those who reach the 10% threshold.
This is a clear economic bias.
Obviously, this system is designed to prevent the evolution of independent forces, indpendents, or new groups, in the system by forcing people who are interested to participate in party organizations that are run by people like you.
People are not interested in civic politics because the institution is a management institution that is hamstrung by it mandate, with it purse strings in the hands of superior governments. Thus voter turnout is often at the 30% level. What people want to see at city hall is good managers, not idealogues.
This is a grossly inaccurate description of Toronto city politics. Debate and commentary on Toronto politics is utterly dominated by idealogagy. Residents vs developers, cars vs transit, cars vs bikes, white painters vs impoverished residents, local stores vs big boxes, these are what gets talked about.
There is nothing to stop any crackpot from running as an Independent and if people want to vote for that person - so be it.
That nut case Andre Arthur gets elected as an independent in Quebec and there are several states in the US that have elected independents as governor - remember Jesse Ventura? In the end these people never seem to represent much beyond some weird personality cult.
If you really want a system where there are no barriers to anyone being in power - maybe we should just have an annual lottery and randomly select 100 Canadians to be lawmakers for a year and then after one year, they are gone and we have a new lottery and pick another 10 people to run the show.
Of course whether that process would lead to more progressive policies is an open question - I highly doubt it.
No. Its a drain on political energy. We should abandon it entirely. Actively work to reform the basic system. Furthermore, the basic outline of the election act should be embedded in the constitution directly.
Fair enough, but reform it how, and into what? How does reforming the basic system contrast with the NDP, or anything other left-wing parliamentary movement reforming the system through a combination of grass-roots organizing and winning elections?
I agree with you there. However, I don't think you can write off parliamentary systems altogether though. For my part, I'm not convinced that we've gotten all the "mileage" (for lack of a better term) out of parliamentary democracy in terms of improving working conditions for people, the 30 years of reversals not withstanding.
No. Its a drain on political energy. We should abandon it entirely. Actively work to reform the basic system. Furthermore, the basic outline of the election act should be embedded in the constitution directly.
So from the comfort of your city dwelling how does your analysis help a marginalized person living on Sointula run for office in Van Isl. North when they probably can't even afford to take the ferry and drive to Fanny Bay to meet voters. The problems with our system are major but the solutions are not easy and they are not the same for marginalized city folk compared to those in the less densely populated parts of the country.
Your arguments seem to me on many days to be akin to; cigarette smoking is bad. Now that is something almost all people would agree with however you then decide that smoking one brand is worse than smoking other brands and set your self up as the person who will vilify a particular brand every time smoking is raised. So to the people who smoke the brand you hate you sound like a self righteous person whose views are not only the right ones on the main issue of whether to smoke but whose views on the choice of brands is also relevant. I have heard you long an loud. You don't like electoral politics and your view of the world is the only righteous one. If you just stuck to your anti-smoking crusade you would be far less bothersome to me than your unrelenting attack on one brand because that is the brand you are most attracted too and therefore it must be the worst of all. If you want to say anything about my handle then read Mutual Aid first and come back and discuss the Prince's legacy.
There is nothing to stop any crackpot from running as an Independent and if people want to vote for that person - so be it.
Ahh yes, "back to if you are smart why aren't you rich"? Or are you just reaffirming for us, in that charitable liberal "the poor don't know what's good for them", that anyone who makes less tha 40,000 G's a year is by definition a crackpot. Never mind Belinda Stronach, who simply can't be a crackpot because she can throw away $1000 dollars on a new suits, as soon as have her maid go down to the elections office to drop of the tip for elections Canada.
As I said before, there is already a requirement that someone get 100 signatures to witness their candidacy, and as such, I guess you are really saying 101 crackpots? Even then such an economic justification is countered by instituting a sliding scale based on economic ability. But you are interested in no solutions that in anyway do anything that might undermine the NDP's roll as the representative of the marginalized of our society. You would rather they be sheeplike voters, or pounding the streets handing out your flyers.
These crackpots must be good for something, eh Stockholm?
One thing that has always struck me about you Stockholm, is how much respect you have for the people your party is supposed to represent.
Crackpots can be rich or poor, highly educated or highly uneducated. The point is that if people wanted to elect a Communist or a Marijuana Party government or a Rhino Party government - all they have to do is go out and vote for it.
Running a country is a difficult job and it requires some skill sets. I suppose that you could call it discriminatory if I say that if i need open heart surgery it should be performed by someone who is a board certifies cardiologist - not someone who once worked in a butcher shop cutting steaks for a month. I'm glad that so many Americans concluded that being mayor of a town with a population of 2,000 in Alaska and having hgalf of a community college degree from some two bit school no one has heard of in Idaho - does NOT make you qualified to be President of the US either!
Crackpots can be rich or poor, highly educated or highly uneducated. The point is that if people wanted to elect a Communist or a Marijuana Party government or a Rhino Party government - all they have to do is go out and vote for it.
Running a country is a difficult job and it requires some skill sets. I suppose that you could call it discriminatory if I say that if i need open heart surgery it should be performed by someone who is a board certifies cardiologist - not someone who once worked in a butcher shop cutting steaks for a month. I'm glad that so many Americans concluded that being mayor of a town with a population of 2,000 in Alaska and having hgalf of a community college degree from some two bit school no one has heard of in Idaho - does NOT make you qualified to be President of the US either!
The only point I see is that you don't like or respect the people your party is supposed to be representing, and really only care about what they want as far as it serves the interests of promoting the personal power of you and your friends.
You are perfectly fine with Belinda Stronach being able to buy her way into the political realm, and raise no observable objection to that, and when poor "crackpots" are involved, you are prefectly happy with the status quo.
I believe the requirements within the Charter for holding elected office, are that you be a Canadian citizen and over the age of 18. There's no special requirements or skills. It's an old enlightenment era idea, now sadly forgotten, that people, including people that earn less than $40k a year are the best judges of their own interests.
Personally, I'd still put a financial restriction on, but make it income adjustable.
I believe the requirements within the Charter for holding elected office, are that you be a Canadian citizen and over the age of 18. There's no special requirements or skills. It's an old enlightenment era idea, now sadly forgotten, that people, including people that earn less than $40k a year are the best judges of their own interests.
Personally, I'd still put a financial restriction on, but make it income adjustable.
Yes Stronach should have had to pony up 10K at least.
So how does one arrive at how much is required before a citizen is allowed to run for office? Is it arbitrary or would all potential candidates have to file income tax returns. Seems like some of your potential "marginal" candidates would have problems with the income documentation required for your new tax based system.
If my income fluctuates wildly from year to year what years income do I get to use. Is this the part of the elections act you want cemented into the constitution?
"You are perfectly fine with Belinda Stronach being able to buy her way into the political realm, and raise no observable objection to that"
Actually I made a number of very derisive posts about a totally unqualified neophyte like Belinda Stronach trying be PM on the basis of just being rich and pretty.
Conveniently, your principles only go as far as they advantage your faction, in the case where it prevents the economically marginalized, such as welfare mothers, from being able to compete directly against the elitest and sexist doctrine you stand for.
But please don't let that stop you. I wouldn't want you to stop making my case for me.
"One fundamental right each citizen has is to be motivated by participating to the democratic process. Therefore, non-voters are only showing their alienation if they are not keen to fight for this right."
"If you want real democracy, people have to participate, whether they are anti system, or too darn lazy. I do not see a lot of attacks on state institutions in Canada so not voting is not a vote for or against anything. If there was some type of resistance movement, you might say it was a "vote" against the system but there is nothing."
I'm sure there's a percentage of the non voters that are too ill or too lazy to vote. Whatever that percentage is, it's not 45% or 30% , or 20%. Are these people all lazy? All of them stupid?
I think most may not articulate these things the way I do, particularly when I reference our institutions. But talk to these people and disparage our institutions, and see if they step up to defend them.
Increasing amounts of people are not participating in democracy, because the democracy is not participating in them. They believe there is no democracy, even if it isn't articulated in the precise manner we are used to here.
So Cueball what about your proposal to have people file income tax returns before being eligible to run for office. How does that proposal help the economically marginalized gain a larger voice in our system?
I think it would be another barrier to people running for office. What about that single welfare Mom who had a good job during the last year but this year has no income. Which year's income does she use? And how about someone who is marginalized for a decade and then they get a decent stable job and decide to participate in politics. What income of theirs do you propose using. A running average, the last good year? What if I am a single mother whose father owns a parts manufacturing business, am I stuck with my father's wealth as an impediment to running for office even if I don't get along with him?
And is this part of the elections rules you want to have cemented into the constitution?
Please. The government has no problem assertaining the general income status for people, and measures the capability of the family to pay, or their failure to do so when determining eligibility for student loans. Opposition on these technicalities is spurious.
But my best option would be eliminating the fee altogether. 100 signatures should be enough.
Anything you say goes. Yup that's real good dialogue. Now you want me to believe that the student loan system in Canada is a good way of determining eligibility. Sorry I don't buy that load of claptrap. The student loan system sucks on many fronts and how they allocate incomes within families is one of the worst parts of the program.
So you admit that you are proposing using the tax system to determine eligibility to run for office. I think your Voting is Useless logic was far more persuasive and internally consistent. Compulsory voting is fascist and determining eligibility to run for office on income tax based means testing is progressive. At least it isn't someone else's talking points you are spouting this is clearly your own point of view.
So what would you do to ensure that people in large rural ridings have the resources they need to try to reach people in the other end of their riding. Seems to me that would be a major impediment to a serious candidate who is not affiliated with any party.
Actually, I think that you are just being obtuse and obstructive because you don't like me. That's just a feelling.
But ok, all kinds of adminstrative systems exist within the present structure of government. The reform I am proposing is relatively mild and determined within the existing reach of the present legal and adminstrative systems at hand. Obviously, my ideal system is far and away divorced from the present system of government, in all areas.
But give the tools at hand, and seperated from any ideal I may have and any you think you have, it is you who proposes that an Anarchist can be part of a formalized political party for pragmatic reasons, and it is precisely on pragmatic grounds, within the context of the existing state structure that I have proposed fairly mild reforms that address some of the issues that clearly and demonstratably bias the system against poor people.
In that context, your objection, based on the present circumstances surrounding how student loans are adminstrated is entirely a technicality. Surely someone who was serious about volunteering themselves as a candidate would have no problem with making their tax information available to a government registrar, or some such -- that is quite another thing from the government using forced voting as a system for data mining its subjects. There is already a substantial auditing process in place for candidacy, or perhaps you are unaware of that.
Far better you say to do nothing at all about the exclusionary electoral system?
Bottom line is that neither the NDP or anyone else is going to stop the process of the corporatization of the education process or the government loans system with the system as it is now. The only possible means that this can be achieved is through doing what is simple and feasible within the existing structure to further enfranchise the electorate.
Then maybe these marginalized voices would have a shot at making other changes as well.
That is, pragmatically speaking. What is not pragmatic is throwing away time and energy trying to get the NDP elected so that it can put its worn out brakes on run-away globalization and privatization in the education sector.
Look at Doer, and tuition fees.
Cueball I don't know you so I can't tell whether I would like you or not. I don't like your dismissive debating style that denigrates all other views but your own but that has nothing to do with whether I might like you.
This thread has nothing to do with the NDP. I never raised their policy nor relied on it in a post in this thread. So why do you keep using the same strawman OVER and over and over and over and over and over again. This thread is not about the NDP but you want to go there for some reason.
Your idea is irrelevant because the fee for candidacy is so small a part of what it costs to run a real election campaign that it is not the real barrier. Printing out the policy you are trying to get people to accept would be far more expensive let alone trying to run ads in any medium to let people know who you are and what you stand for.
Oh and by the way anarchism is not some indiviualistic libertarian ideal. It is a socialist tradition that includes such great works as Mutual Aid and syndicalism is my preferred method of owning the means of production. Real anarchists who have tried and are currently trying to set up cooperative work places of course will be subjected to the harsh realities of some parliamentary procedure otherwise it would be chaos not anarchy.
Your idea is irrelevant because the fee for candidacy is so small a part of what it costs to run a real election campaign that it is not the real barrier. Printing out the policy you are trying to get people to accept would be far more expensive let alone trying to run ads in any medium to let people know who you are and what you stand for.
Your ideas about my ideas are irrelevant, because obviously you haven't actually bothered to read them. Some day, scroll up and read what I actually wrote. The $1000 deposit is only one among a number of election expenses that are not recovered if you do not crack the 10% threshold of and become elligible for a return on your expenses. But even to start, assuming one wanted to run a bare bones grass roots campaign, as part of building an individual reputation or found a new force in the electoral sphere $1000 dollars is a lot of money, especially for those who would be most likely to use such a grass roots approach.
Elections Canada -- Reimbursments
The idea of running a more sophisticated campaign is obviously out of reach for people who might budget on a first run return at 3% of the vote share, and so afford themselves the potential of some return. The way it is now, the official state organs take all of the tax payers money, and the candidates, not to mention the people who vote for them and rips them off to pay NDP election expenses, when the established parties divvy up the proceeds.
Its hard to imagine a system that is more biased toward maintaining the status quo, and exclude anyone other than the rich and the middle class from being fully enfranchised.
One of the most disturbing pieces of partisan hypocrisy I witnessed on this board were NDP'rs crowing gleafully at the large sums of the tax-payers money that was returned to them, at a 1.85 a vote, coupled with more glea at the loses sustained by the Green Party candidates who failed to cross the magical threshold of 10% whereafter one goes from "crackpot" to worthy political force, and this then being blamed on the Green Party leader's remarks on "strategic voting", when it was in fact the fault of the dubious election financing rules that are specifically designed to quash new party formulations to the advantage the NDP and the other state funded political organs.
Cueball, you've always been nice to me, and you're probably a decent human being. But at this particular moment, you are behaving like a fucking idiot.
Do you really believe that after hours of circular arguments about the NDP, party loyalists and lurkers, will suddenly stop supporting the party? Do you think that Layton's campaign manager will suddenly say, " my God, my partie's positions on numerous foreign policy issues really DO blow!" This is a futile enterprise. For such a smart man, you are capable of being mind bogglingly stupid.
Go off-line, be with your finace, play checkers, I don't give a damn, just some massaging your huge bloody ego and learn some humility. That goes for the rest of you to. This place is bedlam. God I hate it somtimes.:(
Your two ideas have some limited merit for a small number of people who want to be involved in the political process every four years but want to do it strictly as an individual. However they are modest proposals that while worthwhile are not system changing.
But that is not what you want to make this about. Some how you think that it is okay to go from a modest proposal to this diatribe.
If the NDP were truly interested in benefitting those who most need the support of our society, they would first and foremost take on those issues that directly affect their ability to enter the political arena as full enfranchised participants by demanding the election deposits be pro-rated for income, or dropped altogether, and making the elimination of the FPTP the central theme of its policy platform
What happens for me is you come up with a reasonably good idea and then wrap it in an anti-NDP messgae when the two are not connected.
Your last post did it again. You explained your two points well but then have to go on this rant:
One of the most disturbing pieces of partisan hypocrisy
Get over yourself and discuss issues who cares if you are morally outraged every time a NDP supporter says something you disagree with if you cut the fucking pathetic moral outrage rhetoric you might even get your ideas debated respectfully.
Your two ideas have some limited merit for a small number of people who want to be involved in the political process every four years but want to do it strictly as an individual. However they are modest proposals that while worthwhile are not system changing.
But that is not what you want to make this about. Some how you think that it is okay to go from a modest proposal to this diatribe.
If the NDP were truly interested in benefitting those who most need the support of our society, they would first and foremost take on those issues that directly affect their ability to enter the political arena as full enfranchised participants by demanding the election deposits be pro-rated for income, or dropped altogether, and making the elimination of the FPTP the central theme of its policy platform
What happens for me is you come up with a reasonably good idea and then wrap it in an anti-NDP messgae when the two are not connected.
Your last post did it again. You explained your two points well but then have to go on this rant:
One of the most disturbing pieces of partisan hypocrisy
Get over yourself and discuss issues who cares if you are morally outraged every time a NDP supporter says something you disagree with if you cut the fucking pathetic moral outrage rhetoric you might even get your ideas debated respectfully.
Actually, Kloch and I and some other persons were having a perfectly civilized discussion, with a little bit of flack from KenS, until you dropped by with this immediate ad hominem dismissal:
Your arguments seem to me on many days to be akin to; cigarette smoking is bad. Now that is something almost all people would agree with however you then decide that smoking one brand is worse than smoking other brands and set your self up as the person who will vilify a particular brand every time smoking is raised. So to the people who smoke the brand you hate you sound like a self righteous person whose views are not only the right ones on the main issue of whether to smoke but whose views on the choice of brands is also relevant. I have heard you long an loud. You don't like electoral politics and your view of the world is the only righteous one. If you just stuck to your anti-smoking crusade you would be far less bothersome to me than your unrelenting attack on one brand because that is the brand you are most attracted too and therefore it must be the worst of all. If you want to say anything about my handle then read Mutual Aid first and come back and discuss the Prince's legacy.
That was the conclusion of your first entrance into this thread. Sure it has precedents, and I am certainly not going to go through the process of discussing who started what where, but your entry into this thread was hardly diplomatic, so once again, if you are going to put out, don't bellyache when people come back at you. You came in here flaming in the ad hominem, and just like Ken, decided you wanted to make this thread about me. What else is new?
But what can I really say, Brian White comes in and starts talking about the Nazis, I point out that the Nazi's were elected, and ElizQ accuses me of "Godwining" the thread, when the first person to mention the Nazi's was Brian White!
Insult to injury was merely your completely off-base arguements against things that I did not say or that were at best gross simplifications of what I said. More of the same when I discussed the NDP earlier in the thread.
The critique of the NDP contained in this thread is not the gratuitous stab in the back you percieve it to be, but an entirely logical outcome derived from the original argument, much of which it seems you agree, except that I guess you do not want the party to which you belong to be lumped in with the other official state organs. Why the NDP should be excluded from the analysis you have yet to explain.
But what can I really say, Brian White comes in and starts talking about the Nazis, I point out that the Nazi's were elected, and ElizQ accuses me of "Godwining" the thread, when the first person to mention the Nazi's was Brian White!
Did I actually quote you directly with that comment? Nope. If I had been addressing you specifically I would have quoted you, just like I'm doing now.
Must have been directing it at Remind, since your post immediatly followed hers, which came after mine. Or was it directed at no one at all, since there was no quoted respondant at all.
Anyhow, so then:
Your two ideas have some limited merit for a small number of people who want to be involved in the political process every four years but want to do it strictly as an individual. However they are modest proposals that while worthwhile are not system changing.
How does the massive financial losses caused to the Green Party by the completely aribitrary 10% threshold for reimbursements, which were theoretically the fault of Elizabeth May's oblique statements about "strategic voting" according to NDP pundits in these parts, square with your statement that my ideas have "limited merit for a small number of people"?
You know, I'm still a card-carrying New Democrat. I joined in 2000 when there was serious discussion about simply folding the party up. I've worked on campaigns all over Ontario, and have been on EPC's. I can't say I agree with everything cueball says, but there's nothing overly partisan in his attacks. This is not a NDP message board, and there is no requirement for party loyalty to post here.
Honestly, I wish I had a buck for every time some one said: "I'm not going to respond to you cueball", in a response.
To be fair, kropotkin1951 does raise a valid point. Reducing the entrance fees for candidates would be like taking $1000 off the cost of a Porsche and saying it's now affordable for everyone.
To run a serious campaign would cost at least $40,000, assuming the individual candidate had serious grass-roots support. As I said above, I have to specific opposition to cueball's suggestions, only my comment that I don't that these, in and of themselves, will assist with the enfranchisement of working class people. At the end of the day, I think, there will have to be a movement with a parliamentary arm. Whether it is the NDP or different party with a different analysis and structure is another question.
I can't say I agree with everything cueball says, but there's nothing overly partisan in his attacks. This is not a NDP message board, and there is no requirement for party loyalty to post here.
Its a straw person to pose it as a question of partisanship and party loyalty- although I don't see you as having any self interest in making the argument.
And I never said that Cueball was overly partisan. In threads where he is criticisng the NDP I have taken to questioning how exceptionally- uniquely- dogged are his criticisms. As noted, sometimes the same point carried across multiple threads.
The content of Cueball's criticism is not at all unique or over the top. Its the relentless 'delivery' that is unique.
Honestly, I wish I had a buck for every time some one said: "I'm not going to respond to you cueball", in a response.
You obviously did not have only me in mind with this comment. But I doubt that I have said that. And I didn't say it here. I said I'm going to drop it now that my point has been made. You brought it up again. Grey area there.
You are definitely right about the general point. Its no wonder people say it.
You are having a friendly discussion with Cueball here. But its around 'mechanics of how to make things better' and has not touched on issues where he gives no quarter.
That doesn't happen when he is critiquing policies of the NDP. He'll say what he agrees with or finds consistent, etc. But if it is around something he finds deficient, he doesn't drop it until everyone else does. There does not seem to be any "I made my point" switch.
Now people should have the sense to walk away from that- but I took a while to get there, and theres usually at least one person who will want to keep it up with him. So unless that is happening in a fast paced multi-faceted discussion with higher than avergae interest levels... said contrtemps will kill off anything else that might have been going on in the thread. Thats what gets my goat, not the content of what is said.
And BTW, I would still like to see a 'higher' / more general level explication from Cueball about the connection between the 'raw' [unformed] phenomena of non-voting and some kind of movement or whatever you want to call more intentional activism.
Cueball made some comments along those lines upthread. I asked some questions about those? If you don't like the questions, go for a blank slate or pick up from what you have said already.
===================
And for what its worth- I come from a very similar place as what I see in what Kloch has set out here.
1.) That working people got a lot of benefits through agitation via the existing dmocratic system. whatever its very serious deficiencies, even its unlikelihood to allow serious change, we have not played it out. So we are obliged to do so, not to mention that most working people still look to it for hope... if they look anywhere any more.
2.) Its difficult to imagine a movement without a parliamentary arm. The NDP may not be the best, and even less so in the future. But thats what is here now. Further than that, for me personally, after 25 years I exhausted my patience and morale with devoting all my time to single issue causes. The overarching universal dreams were not enough for me. I wanted to be doing applied work on all issues, and could not see the possibility of social change without mass based organizations that did that. As far as I was concerned, the NDP was the only organization with a real claim to mass based.
These are obvioulsy not absolutist arguments, and pretty easy to pick them to pieces. I doubt its a useful discussion at such generality. I just do it in the spirit that I like to hear other people identify where they are coming from.
Its difficult to imagine a movement without a parliamentary arm. The NDP may not be the best, and even less so in the future. But thats what is here now. Further than that, for me personally, after 25 years I exhausted my patience and morale with devoting all my time to single issue causes. The overarching universal dreams were not enough for me. I wanted to be doing applied work on all issues, and could not see the possibility of social change without mass based organizations that did that. As far as I was concerned, the NDP was the only organization with a real claim to mass based.
Exactly, even an organization like the IRA had a political wing.
A revolutionary effort that dosen't leave room for bourgois pencil pushers(like moi) isn't very inclusive.
Can't we compromise and say political parties and the electoral process can exist hand in hand with activist groups. I'm sorry I flamed everybody.
Theoretically of course that is the object. But historically you can see that effective political parties come from the grass roots movement. The CCF/NDP forumlation is one such example in it hey day. That is past now.
The NDP does not, for example, spend much time at working with the grass roots movements, and indeed recently decreased the inluence of the labour movement, which was on of its core constituencies, largely because certain factions desired that the party not be controlled, or be percieved to be controlled by "special interests."
The NDP only pays attention to the grass roots in as much that they serve the interests of getting elected. Discussion revolves around getting people involved with the party itself, so that they will knock on doors, and otherwise fullfill the function of salepeople.
"Ask not what you country can do for you, but what you can do for it."
Point being we do not see the NDP, except for a few isolated NDP activists, directly participating in the broader movement. The NDP does not, for example, officially appear at organizing meetings for the anti-war movement, the NDP does not regularly get contingents out to demonstrations opposing the incarceration of Omar Khadr, or other activities aimed at protecting the civil liberties of Canadian citzens, both here and abroad, nor does it use its wealth and organizational capacity to directly support these kinds of movements. Occassionally an MP or MPP will make a courtesy visit to speak at events, but this too is aimed at the overall election prospects of the party, by appealing to the constiuency, but never as concrete support.
Someone will certainly come along and flag these issues as too controversial for public consumption, but then what is not too controversial for the NDP? Walking the walk for Israeli children is not too controversial, that is what. NDP MP's and MPP's do not, for example, stand between OCAP protestors in Toronto and the police.
The NDP basically has no presence outside of the pell-mell voting getting sprees that occassionally capture the imagination of less than half of Canadians. All activity is aimed directly at the election process, and the election process, as I have outlined is clearly skewed to excluding the very constituency the NDP purports to represent, and because that constituency has no real leverage in the electoral game, they have nothing really but moral suasion as a tool to impact the NDP's policy position, whereas, those with money, have... well... money.
And so slowly but surely, over time, the impact of this dynamic has slowly shifted the agenda of the party away from its grass roots beginings, and into the liberal camp, and even right-wing camp -- I never dreamed of an NDP tough on crime policy, but there it is, in the flesh.
Now the NDP is nothing but a sop that consumes huge amounts of dissenting political energy and acts as a block to the formulation of new movements, groups and parties in the electoral sphere, willingly by tacitly supporting biased electoral mechanics that exclude the possibility that the marginalized of society might take matters into their own hands, without the "guidance" of the NDP.
Theoretically of course that is the object. But historically you can see that effective political parties come from the grass roots movement. The CCF/NDP forumlation is one such example in it hey day. That is past now.
The NDP does not, for example, spend much time at working with the grass roots movements, and indeed recently decreased the inluence of the labour movement, which was on of its core constituencies, largely because certain factions desired that the party not be controlled, or be percieved to be controlled by "special interests."
The NDP only pays attention to the grass roots in as much that they serve the interests of getting elected. Discussion revolves around getting people involved with the party itself, so that they will knock on doors, and otherwise fullfill the function of salepeople.
"Ask not what you country can do for you, but what you can do for it."
Point being we do not see the NDP, except for a few isolated NDP activists, directly participating in the broader movement. The NDP does not, for example, officially appear at organizing meetings for the anti-war movement, the NDP does not regularly get contingents out to demonstrations opposing the incarceration of Omar Khadr, or other activities aimed at protecting the civil liberties of Canadian citzens, both here and abroad, nor does it use its wealth and organizational capacity to directly support these kinds of movements. Occassionally an MP or MPP will make a courtesy visit to speak at events, but this too is aimed at the overall election prospects of the party, by appealing to the constiuency, but never as concrete support.
Someone will certainly come along and flag these issues as too controversial for public consumption, but then what is not too controversial for the NDP? Walking the walk for Israeli children is not too controversial, that is what. NDP MP's and MPP's do not, for example, stand between OCAP protestors in Toronto and the police.
The NDP basically has no presence outside of the pell-mell voting getting sprees that occassionally capture the imagination of less than half of Canadians. All activity is aimed directly at the election process, and the election process, as I have outlined is clearly skewed to excluding the very constituency the NDP purports to represent, and because that constituency has no real leverage in the electoral game, they have nothing really but moral suasion as a tool to impact the NDP's policy position, whereas, those with money, have... well... money.
And so slowly but surely, over time, the impact of this dynamic has slowly shifted the agenda of the party away from its grass roots beginings, and into the liberal camp, and even right-wing camp -- I never dreamed of an NDP tough on crime policy, but there it is, in the flesh.
Now the NDP is nothing but a sop that consumes huge amounts of dissenting political energy and acts as a block to the formulation of new movements, groups and parties in the electoral sphere, willingly by tacitly supporting biased electoral mechanics that exclude the possibility that the marginalized of society might take matters into their own hands, without the "guidance" of the NDP.
You might as well ask me to vote in a sham Soviet election. A federal election in Canada is basically a referendum on the mandate of the state. Voting is a vote for the state, and any one of the political organs it manages and funds, not voting is opposing corruption.
You might as well ask me to vote in a sham Soviet election. A federal election in Canada is basically a referendum on the mandate of the state. Voting is a vote for the state, and any one of the political organs it manages and funds, not voting is opposing corruption.
When someone goes to the poll, he is automatically voting for his freedom. No one would have ever developed a spirit a resistance without formally asking (in some kinds of poll) what others are thinking. Without our democracy, slavery would become more subtle to a point where resistance would be allowed but only to be recuperated more fully.It's EXTREMELY annoying, Benoit, when people quote an entire gigantic post by someone else, only to put a little one-line response.
If you can't edit back your quotes to something specific you're responding to, then please, don't use the quote feature at all.
He isn't responding to anything I am saying. He's just using my post as a launching pad for some "theoreticals".
You might as well ask me to vote in a sham Soviet election. A federal election in Canada is basically a referendum on the mandate of the state. Voting is a vote for the state, and any one of the political organs it manages and funds, not voting is opposing corruption.
When someone goes to the poll, he is automatically voting for his freedom. No one would have ever developed a spirit a resistance without formally asking (in some kinds of poll) what others are thinking. Without our democracy, slavery would become more subtle to a point where resistance would be allowed but only to be recuperated more fully.I am sorry, none of your commentary has any bearing on the analysis I offered in this thread, which is about how economic disinsentives skew the electoral politics in this country, so that first and foremost all of the available options represent the interests of the well off, and other vested interests. It also touches upon how these economic disinsentives act to entrench the dominance of the existing state poltical organs, and undermines the emergence of grass roots opposition.
Your post is a high school civics lesson about some theoretical democracy someone dreamed up in the late 18th century. The future is now. It is 2008, and this is a thread about how "democracy" functions to entrench the power of the elite within the voting process itself, in practice, in Canada.
So “all of the available options represent the interests of the well off”!? Last federal election, it was free and easy for most Canadians to vote Neo-Rhino.
Voting is wrong, and parties suck.
And I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. I understand the longer argument behind that.
There is still the question of what is to be done about it beyond 'outing' and shunning the posers.
.... I would still like to see a 'higher' / more general level explication from Cueball about the connection between the 'raw' [unformed] phenomena of non-voting and some kind of movement or whatever you want to call more intentional activism.
Cueball made some comments along those lines upthread. I asked some questions about those. If you don't like the questions, go for a blank slate or pick up from what you have said already.
Thanks for making my point.
Non-voters are sawing the branch where they so proudly sit. But their prejudices about democracy would become harmless if journalists would stop publishing rates of participation.
Your statement suggests that an alternative to mandatory voting is supression of the press, and the results of elections, is that what you mean? I really don't like the sound of your brave new world. But you are right non-voters harm the unjust system. As you pointed out, the alternative to supporting the status quo is a joke.
One thing that is unjust about the system is the publication of rates of participation in elections. By this, journalists are playing on a Janus-head event to sell their papers. A participation rate is open to two contradictory interpretations. From there, the people that have done their voters duty will feel an unjust burden to try changing the bad attitudes of non-voters.
I agree and uniformed electorate is a happy one.
Voting is wrong, and parties suck.
And I'm not being facetious or sarcastic. I understand the longer argument behind that.
There is still the question of what is to be done about it beyond 'outing' and shunning the posers.
.... I would still like to see a 'higher' / more general level explication from Cueball about the connection between the 'raw' [unformed] phenomena of non-voting and some kind of movement or whatever you want to call more intentional activism.
Cueball made some comments along those lines upthread. I asked some questions about those. If you don't like the questions, go for a blank slate or pick up from what you have said already.
Well from what I know of you. You could take a few simple steps. The first step is to annouce to the NDP that you refuse to vote in any upcoming elections, until the NDP make electoral reform plank in its official platform, including economic disinsentives that make it difficult for individuals and other organizations to develop electoral profilce. That said, the organization itself might be useful, so there is no need to turn in your party card. In fact, you should promote the idea that the NDP should take a direct roll in organizing and supporting extra-party activties, and start working on committees directly involved with community activism that interest you, and seeing what you can do to get the party to give concrete support to non-party progressive organizations, while observing and promoting the position of a principled non-voter.
Long threads are wrong. ;)