Question for non-partisan members of Rabble.ca: What can a candidate do to win your vote in an election?

102 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2009-08-04 14:49

skeiseid

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Every independent candidate I have seen over my years of being politically aware has been a right-wing crackpot spewing hate and whack job ideas that even the coffee shop crowd would think was a bit over the top.

There is nothing particularly honourable about independent candidates nor is it a given that candidates for a political party are somehow evil robots.

I find it fascinating how citizens seem to refuse to accept their responsibility in the state of affairs. In a world were no political leader has to accept responsibility for anything any more it is in large part we citizens who have failed by wasting our votes in stupid strategic voting schemes, by walking away from our democratic institutions and looking down on anyone who participates as some kind of party hack or by progressives rewarding a political party that has consitantly lied to us expecting them to somehow change by magic if we just hope hard enough.

You capture in no small measure just why some of us have pursued and contine to work for electoral reform.

By adjusting the electoral imbalance between party and candidate and implementing a system that is fair for, to and between voters whilst also enhanceing the bond of repsponsibility between constituent and representative we can go a long way towards fixing the problems we are discussing.

You're right -- it's our fault that we get the representatives we get. The politicians work for us. It's our job to grant an articulate mandate to the best people we can pick.

It's our fault -- or would be if the present electoral system wasn't so adept at filtering out our voting intent and disconnecting us from government and encouraging the view of our representatives as mindless stooges of their parties who have no facility for critical thinking and no power to act on our behalf and on their own recogniscience (sp?).

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:08

#53

Uncle John

Promise to open up a Science Park (as in Europe, Quebec, and California) in his or her riding

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:25

#54

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
Yes, slumberjack, it literally takes nothing from your life to do so, as proposing a win win for the lazy and not caring about others, is about as feeble as you can get given the reality that not voting is no statement at all. Especially for those who exist only to feather their own nest, be it by mecenary slaughter of innocents for huge cash rewards, or other. Unless of course your reason for existence is also to get people not to vote so that phoney minoritiy and majorities for corrupt and murderous governments can continue to occur.

Well yes...but in amongst all of that uncaring, murderous carnage, it seems I can always count on you for a few laughs. Thank you for briefly lightening my burdens, with emphasis on brief.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:27

#55

N.Beltov

Politicians that make false promises should lose their seat. Maybe a few lashes with a cat of nine tails as well. I'd like to see an end to our fraud of a democracy in which the most skillful, and well funded, liars win.

A candidate who raised this issue would get my vote. And a contribution. ETA: Of course, if he lied about this, then probably double lashes would do.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:29

#56

Slumberjack

remind wrote:

I agree BA, and then this type of thing is occuring too, as if it is happening in the US military it is happening here, and we need only remember Camp X ;)

Quote:
The Army says it has opened an inquiry into a claim that one of its employees spent more than two years infiltrating antiwar groups active near one of the nation’s largest military bases. The groups say the employee infiltrated their activities under an assumed name and gained access to their plans as well as names and e-mail addresses of some members.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/02army.html?_r=3&hp

Are you sure you're not already living at Camp X?

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:31

#57

Slumberjack

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
By being lazy and smarmily insulting those progressive who choose to get involved and try to make a difference as only in it for themselves you are in fact a part of the problem as much as some fat cat CEO.

Since you have no idea what I do, or am involved with, and you've outlined some of the things you do, it seems i'm in the better position to critique.

Of the 23 million registered voters in the 2006 election, 8 million did not cast a vote, which is far more than the votes received by individual parties. The cons stood at roughly 5.5 million votes, the NDP at 2.5 million. So in your estimation, 8 million people who refused to vote for one reason or another are lazy. That there isn't a discernable political message to be gleaned from a demographic so thoroughly disenfranchised from the charades speaks volumes on the latest 18% Angus Reid showing.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:37

#58

remind

Oh slumberjack are you losing the art?

Sometimes one's burdens do that. ;)

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:44

#59

Slumberjack

It's never lost entirely you know. Hence the burden.

Do you have anything of substance to add though...are 8 million people so lazy and uncaring that they can't get out of their own way? Are the aspirations these people might have inconsequential and disposable?

Tue, 2009-08-04 17:03

#60

fiidel_castro

Well, to get back on topic - the 8 million voters is a staggering number. Those 8 million represent a very clear popular movement and a democratic deficit that cannot be ignored. Obviously the NDP is not doing enough to sway those voters. I have always voted, although unintelligently according to the thought-police here on Rabble, but I don't vote with any party and their leadership. Becuase I do not believe in their leadership, pretty simple. There are no parties that are forceful enough, in terms of scaling-back and halting rapid expansion of capital, for me to actively join and feel "good" about my enabling vote. I always vote and I encourage everyone to vote but does voting make any difference? That is the question that Canadians have to ask themselves. Apparently 8 million say no and yet the economy still flourishes even without those 8 million voters, interesting isn't it. It is almost as if our capitalist economy does not care about democracy, nor is it bound by democratic deficits, in Canada - holy smokes Batman, what a revelation.

Is voting the end all of all citizenship and political activism? Of course it is not, that would be narrow-minded and ridiculous. Here is a more powerful gesture than voting - not buying products and useless things from corporations that have their flow of capital going directly into the hands of elite-power; these companies are surprisingly easy to spot. It takes no voting records and party affiliation to join in that movement.

Tue, 2009-08-04 17:41

#61

johnpauljones

here is a radical thought. when the candidate is door to door canvassing. that assumes that they come to my street. but if you do talk issues. present issues not partisan spin. talk to me and for the love of god at least know the area

It seems that too often my area does not get the literature from all candidates -- which is a waste because campaigns know who voted last time and who did not. they do not know for whom. but with the voter id number they will now that number 123sdrf voted in poll xx

Tue, 2009-08-04 17:46

#62

The Bish

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Any poli-sci students here to tell us why we have parties, what role theyre supposed to play in democracies and why they tend to form regardless of recurring libertarian fashions? Or even what the role of government is usually assumed to be in a supposedly mature democracy?

One reason political parties exist is because of class warfare (this is a very British model of parliaments and elections). Parties represent class interests, mainly. A broader explanation goes something like this:

There are 30 million Canadians (not all voters, I know). You and I both have a similar interest; for example, let's say we both want our city's water supply to be cleaner. Well, you and I probably can't do much to change that when there are 30 million other people arguing for it, right? But what if we find that there are actually 100 000 other people who want that? So now there are 100 000 of us, and there's something else that a lot of us want too, maybe it's more parks in our city so that our kids have somewhere nice to play. And wouldn't you know it, it's not just the 100 000 of us who want that, it turns out that there are a million other people who want that. But as we keep talking, it turns out that a lot of those million people want something I don't want; we'll say it's lower taxes. I could leave the group because we don't agree on taxes. But then the fight for more parks is weakened, and I really want more parks. So we compromise, because I know that I need those other people to fight with me for parks, and the people who don't want more parks know they need my support for tax breaks.

This is the same reason why grassroots organisations typically (though not always) become less radical as their membership grows.

As for the 8 million un-voters, I don't think we can draw any reasonable conclusions from that number. Some of those people are probably way left of the existing parties, some of them are probably way right, some of them probably have no interest in politics and wouldn't vote anyway, some of them don't really pay enough attention and got distracted on voting day, etc. There is no way to harness that mass of people because it is not one mass of people, it's many disconnected groups who happen to share one generally unremarkable trait.

Tue, 2009-08-04 17:58

#63

remind

Slumberjack wrote:
It's never lost entirely you know. Hence the burden.

Do you have anything of substance to add though...are 8 million people so lazy and uncaring that they can't get out of their own way? Are the aspirations these people might have inconsequential and disposable?

Awww, you back edited.

I know, and have known, 1000's of people who do not vote, and it has/had SFA to do with not voting to make a political statement. They simply cannot be bothered, and have never been bothered, for a variety of reasons. As such, I realize if I know that many, there must be millions of em, using the 1=1000 ratio.

Then we have the ex-pats, who are resistered to vote but seldom do, and what there is 1.2, or 1.8 million, of them?

Moreover, take the homeless stats out of the equation and there is even less who are not voting to make a poltiical statement, so IMV taking ownership of 8 million non-voters is pretty flippin arrogant on your and others part.

There are what like 2 or 3 people here who advocate not voting, so using the 1=1000, you have about 3000 max politically motivated non-voters. ;)

Tue, 2009-08-04 18:31

#64

Slumberjack

fiidel_castro wrote:
Here is a more powerful gesture than voting - not buying products and useless things from corporations that have their flow of capital going directly into the hands of elite-power; these companies are surprisingly easy to spot. It takes no voting records and party affiliation to join in that movement.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Tue, 2009-08-04 18:38

#65

skeiseid

The Bish wrote:

One reason political parties exist is because of class warfare (this is a very British model of parliaments and elections). Parties represent class interests, mainly. A broader explanation goes something like this:

There are 30 million Canadians (not all voters, I know). You and I both have a similar interest; for example, let's say we both want our city's water supply to be cleaner. Well, you and I probably can't do much to change that when there are 30 million other people arguing for it, right? But what if we find that there are actually 100 000 other people who want that? So now there are 100 000 of us, and there's something else that a lot of us want too, maybe it's more parks in our city so that our kids have somewhere nice to play. And wouldn't you know it, it's not just the 100 000 of us who want that, it turns out that there are a million other people who want that. But as we keep talking, it turns out that a lot of those million people want something I don't want; we'll say it's lower taxes. I could leave the group because we don't agree on taxes. But then the fight for more parks is weakened, and I really want more parks. So we compromise, because I know that I need those other people to fight with me for parks, and the people who don't want more parks know they need my support for tax breaks.

This is the same reason why grassroots organisations typically (though not always) become less radical as their membership grows.

As for the 8 million un-voters, I don't think we can draw any reasonable conclusions from that number. Some of those people are probably way left of the existing parties, some of them are probably way right, some of them probably have no interest in politics and wouldn't vote anyway, some of them don't really pay enough attention and got distracted on voting day, etc. There is no way to harness that mass of people because it is not one mass of people, it's many disconnected groups who happen to share one generally unremarkable trait.

So here we go.

Let's assume that there are lots of people who are members of parties -- and candidates too -- who have all compromised their personal posiitons (however slightly) to "fit in". These are individuals. These people don't have to subsume their beliefs indefinitely. They likely have a say in the definition of the platform and can criticize and develope it as a matter of course. These are people with whom voters can identify, perhaps, even more closely in a very positive and pragmatic way than with a party generally.

Say voters have a choice of several candidates in a party and the possibility of electing a couple of them. The successful candidates become representatives who are better matches to their constituents. In the event that during parliament a party's policies have to take a detour, the sitting representatives have a solid mandate to nudge the party (or opposition or government) in a voter-approved and mandated direction. It's responsibible, accountable functional... it's good democracy.

What it takes is an electoral system that empowrs voters to choose representatives on the basis of the candidates themselves as well as (on a par with) on the basis of party. It works best in a system where ridings have more than one representative (DM>1). We know a lot about such systems, particularly in the West.

Tue, 2009-08-04 18:56

#66

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
Awww, you back edited.

I know, and have known, 1000's of people who do not vote, and it has/had SFA to do with not voting to make a political statement. They simply cannot be bothered, and have never been bothered, for a variety of reasons. As such, I realize if I know that many, there must be millions of em, using the 1=1000 ratio.

Then we have the ex-pats, who are resistered to vote but seldom do, and what there is 1.2, or 1.8 million, of them?

Moreover, take the homeless stats out of the equation and there is even less who are not voting to make a poltiical statement, so IMV taking ownership of 8 million non-voters is pretty flippin arrogant on your and others part.

There are what like 2 or 3 people here who advocate not voting, so using the 1=1000, you have about 3000 max politically motivated non-voters. ;)

Nothing was back edited. It's yet another of your all too casual misrepresentations. Your estimations are helpful though, slight as they are on methodology, in getting at the root of the problem. Characteristic rank and file dismissives, and the alienation among millions of non-voters. Synchronized cause and effect in the scheme of things I'd wager.

Tue, 2009-08-04 19:17

#67

remind

No you are just plain fabricating, you at first had your first line and that was it. So will not bother with you at all.

Tue, 2009-08-04 19:31

#68

Slumberjack

Tue, 2009-08-04 20:53

#69

Fidel

"What can a candidate do to win your vote in an election?"

They should have a realistic campaign platform with which voters are able to nail them to should they deviate from those promises when in parliament. I've never seen one independent candidate's campaign platform detailed enough or complete enough to be worth voting for. And they tend to favour voting with the government anyway on all the big stuff, which they tend to make little mention of when electioneering. Independents are not always so independent and sometimes cross the floor. Independent candidates will not be a source of progressive political change anywhere in the next one-thousand years.

Tue, 2009-08-04 21:16

#70

skeiseid

Candidates don't have to be independent to have viewpoints worthy of consideration.

Party candidates are people too. They have -- they must have -- personal takes on the party platforms. These are worthy views; these are important too.

Furthermore, it's important to elect representatives that can think critically on their own and for their constituents' sake.

Independents and "floor crossers" aren't a big issue if representatives are elected on their own merits at least as much as their party allegiance. In fact representatives so elected would often have the blessing of their constituents if they crossed the floor on issues -- they would have been elected on those issues.

Tue, 2009-08-04 21:21

#71

Fidel

skeiseid wrote:
In fact representatives so elected would often have the blessing of their constituents if they crossed the floor on issues -- they would have been elected on those issues.

I think I can count the number on one finger who crossed the floor and were rewarded for it by their constituents in a subsequent election.

Tue, 2009-08-04 22:04

#72

The Bish

Fidel wrote:

They should have a realistic campaign platform with which voters are able to nail them to should they deviate from those promises when in parliament.

I don't view rigidity in a candidate or party as a good thing. If a candidate openly lies about their intentions then yes, voters should absolutely hold them to their word. But sometimes circumstances change, and the last thing that I want is a candidate who refuses to acknowledge that their original plan is unworkable just so they can say they stuck to their word. I think it's a major problem in today's political climate that acknowledging errors is viewed as "weak"; on the contrary, any politician who thinks they don't make mistakes is far too full of themselves for me to have any trust in their judgement. Knowing when you've been proven wrong (and correcting appropriately) is just as important as standing up for what you think is right.

Tue, 2009-08-04 22:20

#73

skeiseid

Fidel wrote:

skeiseid wrote:
In fact representatives so elected would often have the blessing of their constituents if they crossed the floor on issues -- they would have been elected on those issues.

I think I can count the number on one finger who crossed the floor and were rewarded for it by their constituents in a subsequent election.

Of course not -- because our electoral system is biased against the electorate picking the best candidates to represent them. FPTP treats candidates as little more than party puppets. We don't have at our disposal the electoral mechanism to choose people who with stand for us and who we can stand behind and support.

When we do.. well that was the predicate of my comments.

Tue, 2009-08-04 22:28

#74

skeiseid

The Bish wrote:

Fidel wrote:

They should have a realistic campaign platform with which voters are able to nail them to should they deviate from those promises when in parliament.

I don't view rigidity in a candidate or party as a good thing. If a candidate openly lies about their intentions then yes, voters should absolutely hold them to their word. But sometimes circumstances change, and the last thing that I want is a candidate who refuses to acknowledge that their original plan is unworkable just so they can say they stuck to their word. I think it's a major problem in today's political climate that acknowledging errors is viewed as "weak"; on the contrary, any politician who thinks they don't make mistakes is far too full of themselves for me to have any trust in their judgement. Knowing when you've been proven wrong (and correcting appropriately) is just as important as standing up for what you think is right.

Right. What we need are representatives who can think critically and do the right thing, people who aren't going to hang themselves and the country mindlessly on dogma.

Tue, 2009-08-04 22:34

#75

Bookish Agrarian

Better write a memo to the media then.

Tue, 2009-08-04 22:39

#76

skeiseid

I write to the media often.

Tue, 2009-08-04 22:45

#77

Fidel

FPP does tend to create political puppets. But rarely do ordinary people choose the puppets. Big business and banks finance organized political parties to represent them and their interests. And the agendas and goals of the few come at the expense of the many as a rule. Ordinary people and workers, iow's the large majority, need strong representation in the halls of power, too, otherwise what we get is anything from corrupt and incompetent leadership and even fascism. Single candidates dont have the means or the moxy to represent the vast majority of people. The people need uniting. Strength in numbers.

Tue, 2009-08-04 22:45

#78

Machjo

skeiseid wrote:
FPTP treats candidates as little more than party puppets.

What? FPTP is based solely on the candidate (except for the mention of the party name on the ballot to make it look like it's based on the party in some way).

Tue, 2009-08-04 22:55

#79

Bookish Agrarian

skeiseid wrote:

I write to the media often.

It is the media - and through them us because of our consumption- that is totally focused on gotcha politics. I can't even remember the last report of substance by the main stream media I saw it was so long ago.

Tue, 2009-08-04 23:29

#80

skeiseid

Fidel wrote:

FPP does tend to create political puppets. But rarely do ordinary people choose the puppets.

Come on. Voters choose the puppets all the time... because the electoral system has voters voting for the party more often than not. The candidates could be cardboard cutouts for all that the system facilitates choice.

Tue, 2009-08-04 23:36

#81

skeiseid

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

skeiseid wrote:

I write to the media often.

It is the media - and through them us because of our consumption- that is totally focused on gotcha politics. I can't even remember the last report of substance by the main stream media I saw it was so long ago.

You'll get no argument from me. I don't have much success with the media.

But I do have some...

Tue, 2009-08-04 23:38

#82

skeiseid

Machjo wrote:

skeiseid wrote:
FPTP treats candidates as little more than party puppets.

What? FPTP is based solely on the candidate (except for the mention of the party name on the ballot to make it look like it's based on the party in some way).

You're in the wrong ballpark dude.

Any number of posters here will tell you that people vote for parties almost exclusively. And they've argued for years on babble that that's why we don't need an electoral system that selects representative on the merits of the candidates.

Tue, 2009-08-04 23:45

#83

RosaL

I vote for people on the basis of their political beliefs. That means I vote for them based on their party affiliation. Why else would you vote for one candidate rather than another? Their nice smile? Cute kids? Website?

It would be much better for those who rule over us if we ignored ideology (or assumed that there was only really one) and voted on some other basis. And they have come pretty close to achieving that. This is partly a matter of the objective realities of the political system (the relatively minor differences between the parties and the nature of electoral contests, for example) and partly of the political ignorance and indifference the system fosters.

Every time I hear someone say, "I vote for the candidate, not the party", I shudder.

Wed, 2009-08-05 00:21

#84

skeiseid

RosaL wrote:

I vote for people on the basis of their political beliefs. That means I vote for them based on their party affiliation. Why else would you vote for one candidate rather than another? Their nice smile? Cute kids? Website?

It would be much better for those who rule over us if we ignored ideology (or assumed that there was only really one) and voted on some other basis. And they have come pretty close to achieving that. This is partly a matter of the objective realities of the political system (the relatively minor differences between the parties and the nature of electoral contests, for example) and partly of the political ignorance and indifference the system fosters.

Every time I hear someone say, "I vote for the candidate, not the party", I shudder.

I've described above (and elsewhere) why one should vote for the person at least as much as for their party. Please read. It has nothing to do smiles and kids.

We should be voting for the combination on a more equal basis and pick particular people (candidates) who best represent what we like about a party's platform and not what we don't.

People "who rule over us"?? In a representative democracy, the politicians work for us, they don't rule over us. It's our fault if they usurp power. It's our responsibility to choose the right people -- people who take their responsibilities to us seriously.

Wed, 2009-08-05 00:59

#85

Fidel

skeiseid wrote:

Fidel wrote:

FPP does tend to create political puppets. But rarely do ordinary people choose the puppets.

Come on. Voters choose the puppets all the time... because the electoral system has voters voting for the party more often than not. The candidates could be cardboard cutouts for all that the system facilitates choice.

I think that we would have to take money out of politics altogether in levelling the campaign finance end of things if we were to create a true democracy. Political power has become a marketable commodity in the dollar democracies. People in the western English speaking countries are feeling more and more disconnected from power, and therefore powerless to affect progressive change. Autocracy, plutocracy, etc We dont have idealic democracy imo. We dont vote for the head guy like Americans do, but both countries have king-makers jts

Wed, 2009-08-05 08:20

#86

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
I think that we would have to take money out of politics altogether in levelling the campaign finance end of things if we were to create a true democracy. Political power has become a marketable commodity in the dollar democracies. People in the western English speaking countries are feeling more and more disconnected from power, and therefore powerless to affect progressive change. Autocracy, plutocracy, etc We dont have idealic democracy imo.

Although we wouldn't want to curtain democratic access altogether, by groups petitioning governing representatives. Instead of backroom handshakes over cash stuffed envelopes or other incentives, lets have them state their case on the carpet in front of a committee, televised on CPAC. The committee then votes to send the case to ways and means if applicable, or to the floor as a bill for a vote. Outlaw covert lobbying.

Wed, 2009-08-05 09:55

#87

Machjo

RosaL wrote:

I vote for people on the basis of their political beliefs. That means I vote for them based on their party affiliation. Why else would you vote for one candidate rather than another? Their nice smile? Cute kids? Website?

It would be much better for those who rule over us if we ignored ideology (or assumed that there was only really one) and voted on some other basis. And they have come pretty close to achieving that. This is partly a matter of the objective realities of the political system (the relatively minor differences between the parties and the nature of electoral contests, for example) and partly of the political ignorance and indifference the system fosters.

Every time I hear someone say, "I vote for the candidate, not the party", I shudder.

OK< the original intent of my starting this thread was misunderstood. I was asking mainly what a candidate could do to get his message across. Obviously we vote on his political beliefs, that's such a non-isse I can't imagine anyone starting a thread on that. My question was, rather, how to make his beliefs more accessible. Certainly not through osmosis, I take it?

Now you say party = ideology. That's simplistic at best. Within the same party, any party, you'll have a wide range of belifs still.

Wed, 2009-08-05 09:59

#88

Machjo

skeiseid wrote:

Machjo wrote:

skeiseid wrote:
FPTP treats candidates as little more than party puppets.

What? FPTP is based solely on the candidate (except for the mention of the party name on the ballot to make it look like it's based on the party in some way).

I don't care what people say. I'm just looking at the fact. FPTP is 100% based on the candidate, except for the mention of parties on the ballot. Sure people might vote based on party, but the vote still goes to the candidate and takes no account of the party. If FPTP were based on party, party voters wouldn't be complaining about it, asking for an RP model now would they be.

You're in the wrong ballpark dude.

Any number of posters here will tell you that people vote for parties almost exclusively. And they've argued for years on babble that that's why we don't need an electoral system that selects representative on the merits of the candidates.

Wed, 2009-08-05 10:38

#89

skeiseid

Machjo wrote:

I don't care what people say. I'm just looking at the fact. FPTP is 100% based on the candidate, except for the mention of parties on the ballot. Sure people might vote based on party, but the vote still goes to the candidate and takes no account of the party. If FPTP were based on party, party voters wouldn't be complaining about it, asking for an RP model now would they be.

You misapprehend the whole electoral reform effort. And party politics.

If voting was primarily candidate-based then no one would care about floor crossing would they?

Most electoral reformers want Proportional Representation because their parties don't get seats in parliament when they attract significant percentages of the poular vote.

Wed, 2009-08-05 10:42

#90

Machjo

skeiseid wrote:

Machjo wrote:

I don't care what people say. I'm just looking at the fact. FPTP is 100% based on the candidate, except for the mention of parties on the ballot. Sure people might vote based on party, but the vote still goes to the candidate and takes no account of the party. If FPTP were based on party, party voters wouldn't be complaining about it, asking for an RP model now would they be.

You misapprehend the whole electoral reform effort. And party politics.

If voting was primarily candidate-based then no one would care about floor crossing would they?

Most electoral reformers want Proportional Representation because their parties don't get seats in parliament when they attract significant percentages of the poular vote.

Now I think I see the misunderstanding. Of course many believe they're voting for the party, but technically, the vote goes to the candidate. You yourself just acknowledged that by saying that parties don't get their proportion of the seats. Why? Simple, becasue the vote doesn't follow the party but sticks to the individual candidate. STV is the same by the way. Now Party List woudl be one where we could honestly say the vote is for the party and not the candidate.

Wed, 2009-08-05 10:44

#91

Machjo

And for the record, I prefer my vote going to the candidate, and for that reason can accept FPTP or STV, but not Party List.

Wed, 2009-08-05 10:57

#92

skeiseid

You're right and wrong.

Really, you need to go back and read the posts here about electoral reform since 2004.

Or take a look at the BC Citizens' Assembly proceedings and their rationale.

FPTP is a disaster. It's unconstitutional. It needs to go.

PR is not enough either becasue, as you seem to understand (at least), people matter.

Wed, 2009-08-05 14:04

#93

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
I think that we would have to take money out of politics altogether in levelling the campaign finance end of things if we were to create a true democracy. Political power has become a marketable commodity in the dollar democracies. People in the western English speaking countries are feeling more and more disconnected from power, and therefore powerless to affect progressive change. Autocracy, plutocracy, etc We dont have idealic democracy imo.

Although we wouldn't want to curtain democratic access altogether, by groups petitioning governing representatives. Instead of backroom handshakes over cash stuffed envelopes or other incentives, lets have them state their case on the carpet in front of a committee, televised on CPAC. The committee then votes to send the case to ways and means if applicable, or to the floor as a bill for a vote. Outlaw covert lobbying.

I'm all for that. But then there would be those who would suggest that tracking covert money transfers would be next to impossible. Money transfers happen at near speed of light, doncha know? And that we just dont have the manpower or technology to sniff out the kick-back and graft. Meanwhile the Yanks and Brits etc are pulling out all the stops to track wire txfers of money to and from terrorist groups which they themselves do not sponsor. They sometimes forget, in their hypocritical outbursts, that technology can work both ways for good as well as doing evol. And they should know. They meaning the keepers of truth and beacon of light for democracy.

Wed, 2009-08-05 16:07

#94

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
And that we just dont have the manpower or technology to sniff out the kick-back and graft. Meanwhile the Yanks and Brits etc are pulling out all the stops to track wire txfers of money to and from terrorist groups which they themselves do not sponsor. They sometimes forget, in their hypocritical outbursts, that technology can work both ways for good as well as doing evol. And they should know. They meaning the keepers of truth and beacon of light for democracy.

International transfers of money can remain untraceable. Being aware of the methods, I know only too well that it can't be stopped through any means to curtail it. Public visibility has to start somewhere though, and in this era of unmitigated corruption by the elite, expectations of personal privacy in office, in every aspect, might require a degree of sacrifice, for the common good.

Wed, 2009-08-05 18:00

#95

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

International transfers of money can remain untraceable. Being aware of the methods, I know only too well that it can't be stopped through any means to curtail it.

Oh sure they could. Dont make me laugh. They just dont want to. The NSA and US telecoms are already spying on Americans to the extent that East German Stasi could only have dreamed of doing.

In Ottawa, there was some hub-bub about hiring more people at Rev Canada, and it was because they realized they are short staffed when it came to auditing corporate and personal income tax evasion. This was in 1998 or so. I know because I was one of the final 50 of several hundred applicants for 50 entry level jobs for the feds then and they wanted to bump experienced people up to those new jobs that never materialized. They decided on a hiring freeze instead, and I was never sent a job offer after six months of badgering the people who interviewd me. They finally had to tell us what was up after not knowing themselves. Theyre more interested in rooting out "terrorists", agitators, anti-war and social activists, communists and the like. There's a colder war on.

Wed, 2009-08-05 18:18

#96

RosaL

Machjo wrote:

Now you say party = ideology. That's simplistic at best. Within the same party, any party, you'll have a wide range of belifs still.

A wide range? I don't there's a wide range between parties??! There is some overlap but I think there are definable differences between the conservatives, the liberals, and the ndp.

However, I also think our system is increasingly non-ideological - or mono-ideological - as I mentioned earlier.

Wed, 2009-08-05 18:45

#97

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
They decided on a hiring freeze instead, and I was never sent a job offer after six months of badgering the people who interviewd me.

This happened to me as well, the badgering. I finally told the guy that he flunked out on the personal suitability portion of the hiring process.

Wed, 2009-08-05 19:02

#98

melovesproles

Quote:
A wide range? I don't there's a wide range between parties??! There is some overlap but I think there are definable differences between the conservatives, the liberals, and the ndp.

However, I also think our system is increasingly non-ideological - or mono-ideological - as I mentioned earlier.

I think there is quite a wide range between the better NDP MPs like Siskay and Davies on the one hand and the worst ones like Pat Martin. While I'd like to see the NDP do better in the next election I also think it is in the Canadian left's best interests to defeat the war mongerer Martin who is representing the second poorest riding in Canada.

Wed, 2009-08-05 19:07

#99

Machjo

melovesproles wrote:

Quote:
A wide range? I don't there's a wide range between parties??! There is some overlap but I think there are definable differences between the conservatives, the liberals, and the ndp.

However, I also think our system is increasingly non-ideological - or mono-ideological - as I mentioned earlier.

I think there is quite a wide range between the better NDP MPs like Siskay and Davies on the one hand and the worst ones like Pat Martin. While I'd like to see the NDP do better in the next election I also think it is in the Canadian left's best interests to defeat the war mongerer Martin who is representing the second poorest riding in Canada.

What does the wealth of a riding got to do with anything? Maybe we should charge a buck a ballot? After all, paper costs money ya know.

Wed, 2009-08-05 19:23

#100

melovesproles

Quote:

What does the wealth of a riding got to do with anything?

These are the people benefiting the least from the war and slaughter our elites support. It shouldn't be too dificult to show that these policies are unjust and cruel and that the funds being used against people in other parts of the world could be put towards improving their own living conditions through social programs. They deserve much better representation than they get from war mongering apologists like Pat Martin.

Wed, 2009-08-05 19:34

#101

Machjo

melovesproles wrote:

Quote:

What does the wealth of a riding got to do with anything?

These are the people benefiting the least from the war and slaughter our elites support. It shouldn't be too dificult to show that these policies are unjust and cruel and that the funds being used against people in other parts of the world could be put towards improving their own living conditions through social programs. They deserve much better representation than they get from war mongering apologists like Pat Martin.

I can agree with what you said in principle about war funding. However, whether his constituency is rich or poor doesn't change his ersonal character.

Question for non-partisan members of Rabble.ca: What can a candidate do to win your vote in an election?

Pages