I'm running for Mayor of Osoyoos 15Oct2014
The public should know everything that happens at town office. None of the "labor land and legal" May be in camera stuff for me. I'll recluse myself from such discussions.
The town is by far the largest business in our area.
Top management must be terminated for transparency to flourish.
The secret ballot makes election theft easy.
To guarantee transparency, there must be consultation with some kind of Assembly of residents process, to guarantee direct democratic process...this is the only way out of our totally corrupt and fascist system we have in this country where politicians have to be open to the highest bidder...
Good luck to you but the wine merchants have taken over and the era of fine fruit orchards and vegetable farms is almost over. Too bad but people in the Okanagan have sold out, with the cooperation of the BC government. Buy local is quickly becoming a farce. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voters.
Democracy is found between the extremes of party loyalty and independent thinking. Both extremes are unreasonable.
Loyal to a party while ignoring constituents is wrong. You raise in the party what your constituents say and raise your conscience. And you work within your party to a democratic internal position (as you would within a union). You can be a strong advocate within that process. On some rare things you may stand apart from your party especially on issues where the party has not had a long or firmly held position or if you are trying to remind your party of its principles, members' policy resolutions etc. But that is different than going it alone on issues that define the party you associated yourself with when you stood as a representative. Yes you represent the people but you also represent the values and policies of a party. It is that representation that provides accountability to the people who elected you.
Being fully independent is unreasonable. MPs are elected only partly based on what they say. That party affiliation is what they have advertised they believe in. MPs are elected to represent those party principles and policies and statements. You are trusted to bring the sense and sensibility of your party as well as your own to the table. At times that can mean accepting that your elected mandate was to stand as a member of a party and that has to mean something. When you declare that you are of a party, you do not have to express an individual opinion on everything because your association is a statement of support of those principles and main policies. To do something else once elected is a bait and switch.
I don't accept the principle that an MP must follow the direction of the constituents on individual matters. I don't believe in direct democracy. I believe in representative democracy because it involves coherence across a range of policies, principles and accountability over time. We choose people in a representative democracy to represent what they stood for including their party and we expect them to support policies that will make sense over time as a part of an electoral record. We ought not to turn equate support as a single issue or group of issues that may vary in importance from one to another. That undermines political accountability.
Stoffer's opinion on this was at odds with the party he represented as his association. There is a lot to like about him but opposing a key principle and policy would not be one of them. Bruce Heyer's decision to leave the party while also a switch from what he ran on is better than to claim to represent a party while opposing such a central principle of it.
Democracy is found between the extremes of party loyalty and independent thinking. Both extremes are unreasonable.
You have stated this tension or balance well, Sean. As one who has had experience in the Parliamentary system and also had more than passing exposure to the American republican form of government, our parliamentary system has some significant merits ranging from clearer choices for voters to greater ability for a party to deliver on a mandate.
In Canada I have the advantage of having a reasonable sense of what direction a party might take my country or province. In the case of the Liberals, I even have a sense of what they will likely do in contrast to what they say they will do.
In the US Congress or state legislatures, there is no particular assurance that a Democratic (or Republican) majority will move in a particular direction. It's very much issue by issue and deal by deal. You may remember the "Bridge to Nowhere" from the Sarah Paiin campaign... one memorable example of a make-work project carried out in exchange for a vote on someone else's bill.
Furthermore, the fact that big money is used to sway the referenda that are held in many states in the name of direct democracy is an aberation of the public will. Voters are often faced with 2 superpage ballots voting for judges, voting on social issues, and voting on state budgets that, in California's case rival our federal budget and are so complex that you need to be a public policy expert to understand the implications of. I'm not convinced that referenda, except on the most fundamental and straightforward questions, are appropriate.
At least here in Canada, I have a sense of what policies or actions I'm voting for when I cast my ballot.
I agree with the problems you state with direct democracy-- there is no accountibility for a program to work as a whole or of policies to work over time. Representative democracy provides this as well as people whose job it is to examine more than would most people.
Sorry the election date is 15Nov2014
My opening speech (for Mayor of Osoyoos) was interrupted by some Bully Hecklers that called me outside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHSAhQ_Fqjg
Rob Rausch husband of Osoyoos Cop wife Jody were with the group of perps.
http://www.wakepilot.com/crew
