Molly

Giuliano Zaccardelli ..... took my breath away. (Now, he works for Interpol, if I'm not mistaken.)

...... having to constantly answer to 'Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease!' for unreasonable crap is not a sign of good, solid parenting. Being asked for a quiet, reasoned yes or no once in a blue moon means that your influence is consistent, and extensive enough to inform decision-making long before the last of it must be brought for a verdict. The more ski8llfully and effectively a task is performed, the easier it looks.... I don't understand your hostility to the senate, Cybercoma- your determination to discount it.

Yeah! They didn't bother to hide it at all! I guess 'brazen' makes 'right'.

Bollocks. The result would be exactly the same without you because you percieve 'a vote' to be nothing more than a single randomly-placed X... and that's all the power you give it or claim. The power of the vote is that everyone has one, and we are all free to influence our fellows. The fact that you choose not to empower your vote is not a statement that votes have no power,or that you are wise and above all that, but that you are incredibly lazy, have no respect for the power you hold and seem to think squandering that power is cool. The lazier and more thoughtless and wasteful you are with your vote, the bigger and stronger mine is, so have at it. Concrete proof of the influence of my vote: for a start, I can show you law reform commission reports that use my words to justify and explain recommendations that were subsequently adopted. Without votes, no one would ever have wanted to know. That's powerful stuff. My vote is so powerful that folks that I chose 20+ years ago are still there, still influencing. You want your vote to be meaningful? Hoist your arse and put it to work. Lottery? Pfft! You don't know what you are talking about.

My point is that fundraising, polling and campaigning are very separate enterprises, and that there are many ways to approach each; that while the LPC sucks at fund-raising and obviously has done a crappy job of campaigning lately too, their polling - the grasp of what individual voters think on any given subject- is as good or better than anyones. Part of the trouble here is that you seem to be making the assumption that 'beating Harper' is a goal unto itself. If it was, then that's pretty darned doable if truth and morality,fair play and the good of the people are to be abandoned like yesterday's diaper. The real goal is to convince people to act upon some pretty complex ideas. The CPC has taken on the K-tel model and it's working for them.... meh. They are selling a K-tel product.

Okay, let's try that again. You can prove any premise if all evidence to the contrary can be dismissed out of hand with a single word: 'outliers'. Argument not accepted. But, I signed in to answer the 'single vote' question with two things: Firstly, one of my old constituencies came up with that rarest of events, a straight-up tie. A by-election was held to sort it out, and one of the two (the incumbent, no less) withdrew. Now that's great fun, but one's influence is entirely in keeping with one's effort. I know that I have made some concrete, visible, life-influencing differences. That's not just airy-fairy 'anyone can be prime minister' talk, but fact for which I can provide physical proof if necessary. If a 'single vote' consists only of a negligent eeny-meeny-miney, delivered only if it's convenent. then that one vote isn't going to sway much. What that single vote gives us, though, is the opportunity and the invitation to fully participate in our own governance. From there, It's up to us to make that vote as valuable or as valueless as we see fit.

[quote name=August1991' date='17 June 2011 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='13 Or Roch Lasalle. What do you think of André Arthur, or Vegas? These are outliers. Are they the future? No. Be honest. Has your single vote ever changed anything?

I'm not really in with your premise, August. I agree that the LPC is badly behind the 8-ball in terms of fundraising-have been for a long, long time- but I would submit that, within the confines of funding and membership limitations, they do know 'how many folks in poll 142 of CSouth are opposed to abortion', etc. And they weren't afraid to use a professional bagman 20 years ago. (Bad idea anyway, imo.) I don't suppose they've forgotten or given that idea up. I'd be more inclined to suspect they may have lost some of that intimate information-base through untying fund-raising from polling/recruitment. I'll clearly assert this, though: The LPC has targetted thoughtful membershipand rational votes- has consistently made appeals to the head- while the CPC has addressed the lowest common denominator, keeping the goal (money and votes) in mind, regardless of the morality or the rationality foundation for recieving them. The LPC may stand correctly accused of grossly overestimating the intelligence of voters.

You hardly need to ask that question when their actions speak for them. I 'had a hard chat' with one in particular who was the beneficiary of a bloody lot of my hard work, who then betrayed that trust/tried to play both sides by supporting the leader's convenience while trying to posture as defending constituency interests, on a very big deal issue... Long story, but the guy lost my respect over it, particularly because instead of taking his lumps for being a two-faced dodger (even if doing what he thought was the right thing), he tried the snow job on me, too.

I can't speak for Wall's popularity, but Lingenfelter's unpopularity is clear.

Of course! I live in that stripe of wealthy commuter 'burbs north of Toronto. Practically every MP from around here is in the cabinet, whether they are worth the powder to blow them up, or not, smack dab halfway between Fantino and Clement, just over from Oda, and Van Loan... a hippety hop away from where Belinda Stronach used to reign.... My current MP was hand-picked by Jim Flaherty (another near neighbour), nominated and elected in spite of the resignations of most of the CPC constituency executive. It used to be Helena.

Then blame yourself for bad governance. I decided years ago that I could not/would not ever again vote for someone for their party affiliation who I could not vote for based on their individual merit. It has made voting quite a lot harder, but much more satisfying. If you vote for and elect an idiot (crook, schnook or ignoramus), you don't have the right to be surprised to find that others have done the same, and that we are all then subjected to governance by idiots, criminals and jerks. (Sharp up, eh?) :angry:

How about a caucus selected by thousands?

And why would you generalize it to 'sports fans'? Vancouver managed to pull off a whole Olympics not so long ago without hooliganism like this. I attended a world figure skating championship in the same rink a few years ago, without witnessing riots. Is it not more reasonable to suggest that, if it's 'fans', then it's more particularly hockey fans than just sports fans in general?

Is that what you would do? If given a position of unassailable authourity, even one that was advantageous to you, would you endorse things that you honestly believed are rotten/stupid/ill-advised and bad for the people you are supposed to be working for, just as a thank-you suckup to whoever appointed you? I wouldn't. Those few senators I have known didn't and wouldn't either, even though they have maintained party loyalties. If they 'support the PM that appoints them' (or any subsequent PM), it is because they share a perspective and a purpose, not because they are paying back by being pylons.

Exactly. That proposal that PMs control the senate through personal indebtedness is completely specious. It's not accurate; not in keeping with human nature; not enforceable; not mathematically sensible.... It's not exhibited in action... It's not a logical nor even a supportable assertion. It is far beneath Cybercoma's generally reasonable usual.

Explain Ralph Goodale.

Oh, yes! That's brilliant!

As head cook in my household, it is my task to fulfill the culinary best interests of the folks who eat under my roof. Family member B would vote for T-bone (with lobster,usually), while family members C, D and E might opt for greasy pizza with cherry pie with ice cream as a chaser.... And I, who actually carry the responsibility for both content and cost, serve a lot of hamburger, and vegetables. We elect an individual to act as our representative, not a party platform. Parties on the whole are not bound by thos stupid platforms, so why should our representatives, who we hope are somewhat more nuanced, be bound by them?

And then, a couple of weeks or years later, that PM is replaced, while senators continue. At that point, to whom are they indebted? Senators appointed by previous administrations outnumber newbies by a very wide margin.

I'm awfully tempted to say that voters choose by party because they are too d***ed lazy and ignorant to find out what they are actually voting for-- but that would be curmudgeonly and largely false. Many DO vote straight party lines out of laziness and ignorance- tribalism, 'genetics', naivete- but many do not. Cybercoma, those circumstances co-exist, but do not necessarily have a cause/effect relationship. Parties whip MP's because they can. MP's go along with it, because it saves them acknowledging responsibility.

I think it sounds like there's a lot more wrong with this guy than can be cured with more punishment. Prison is an expensive and ineffective delivery system for psychiatric care.

Voters, not 'the system', perpetuate party discipline and cronyism/patronage. All we have to do is vote the bums out if they don't act in the interest of we who elect them. If the buggers place the party ahead of constituents and are re-elected anyway, constituents need look no further than the nearest mirror to see who is to blame. Seriously... who nominates candidates? Who chooses them? Works to get them elected? Pays the tab for their advertising? Who buys party memberships, and who marks those precious X's? If we aren't getting exactly what we want from our elected representatives, whose fault is it really?

"Move along. Move along. Nothing to see here, so move along." "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." I don't particularly care that Mr. Harper went to the hockey game, but the 'Leave Dear Leader alone!' defensiveness is enough to get the old gag reflex revved right up.

Except.... who bought into it? I'm a bit of a monarchist, but the whole breathless drooling act struck me as bizarre. I don't know a single soul who was really any more interested than me- not even the movie magazine crowd. It was... I suspect that media mucks just wildly overestimated public interest, put those wheels in motion, and were surprised and disappointed to realize (if they did realize) that their audience just wasn't along for that ride.