Machjo

Sometimes a local candidate can be very different from the leader. For example, the leader might prove competent whereas the local candidate is just a bench warmer or viced versa. It's hard to say I'll vote for an abstraction like a party.

https://www.libertarian.ca/ I'm still undecided and it would depend more on who the local candidate is more than the party itself. That said, as for the party platform itself, though I don't agree with all of it, I do like it. In fact, much of it looks similar to Maxime Bernier's position. I could see the Libertarian Party capitalizing on this and maybe even collaborating with Bernier to let him run as an independent in his riding (or join the Libertarian Party, as he prefers), and the Libertarian party field a candidate Canada-wide. There are things the Libertarian Party would dismantle that i might not want to dismantle, especially when it comes to drug restrictions for example. That said, I think the Libertarian Party could clean up the house and, if it does dismantle things it shouldn't have (like legalizing drugs, etc.) we can always decriminalize them later. For now though, we could use that party to dismantle the dairy cartel and promote free trade for example. I could even see the Libertarian and Conservative Parties joining to form the Liberal-Conservative Party of Canada.

If he doesn't run in my riding, then I can't vote for him even if I wanted to.

The only numbers that matter pertaining to Bernier are in his own riding.

They were dealing with intergenerational broken families and the 1960s isn't that far back. Furthermore, many of the 60s scoop never had parental models either. Effectively, many needed to learn basic parenting skills that whites take fro granted. That has an interngenerational impact. Remember too that the last school closed its doors in 1996.

The residential school system ended in 1996 but started in 1884. By the 1960's, many indigenous children came from broken families involving widespread abuses. In fact ironically, just as the government had planned to start phasing out the system, it delayed that plan due to the number of children being taken away from abusive homes. In other words, the system created the need to perpetuate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop

No, it's not necessary. Speak to your doctor if you don't believe me. Alternatives do exist.

Living abroad can actually augment an MP's qualifications by expanding his knowledge. Would you want some hick who knows nothing about the world to sit in the White House for example?

I'm tempted to suggest a country-wide boycott of milk and milk products (not necessary for good health anyway). My concern is that that would prompt the government to then subsidize it which would be even worse.

I vote candidate, not party. That said, I've been reading the platform of the Conservative Party of Quebec lately and there is at least a possibility that I could end up voting for its candidate. The Conservative party of Quebec, in spite of its name, is more of a classical liberal party I think. Unfortunately, I have a bad track record of voting for the losing candidate (since I refuse to vote strategically and will always vote for who I believe to be the best local candidate), and it looks like this year might be no exception.

Actually, I prefer a cartel over a subsidy. At least under a cartel, I can choose whether or not to buy over-priced milk products. Under subsidies, I would be subsidizing a product I don't even buy. On that note, however much I dislike supply management, I'd still prefer that over corporate subsidies in any domain, be it steel or anything else, for the same reason I explained for the dairy cartel: at least the buyers are the ones subsidizing it.

Wasn't that the time of the sixties scoop as the government took indigenous children away from their broken families caused by the Indian residential school system?

You're obviously not old enough to remember that prior to 1900 in BC and even the 1930s in parts of Oregon and Washington State, Chinuk Wawa served as the main trade language across the Pacific Northwest. So when you say 'the good old days,' I assume you're talking about a very specific time period in Canadian history?

Thanks. More precisely, it's only as good as the plurality of the electorate since they really decide on the candidate.

Democracy is only as good as the electorate.

How do you campaign for your candidate until you know whom to vote for? In many cases, I made my final decision on polling day.

Singapore's per capita GDP surpasses Canada's too and in fact the Singaporean pasport allows visa-free access to more countries than the Canadian one does too. So Singapore must be doing something right. Yes, I'm an authoritarian because certain forms of authoritarianism work. I'm an Esperantist too. Esperanto is from five to ten times easier to learn than English. That means that students could actually learn their second language well and so save the state and businesses great sums of money in translation and interpretation. I could say that I'm a technocrat in some respects I guess.

Just eliminate all official recognition for political parties like in Nunavut.

Weakening the party system could allow each of the over 300 MPs to share new ideas. Pro-rep might give, what, maybe a dozen parties at most, each so powerful that they won't allow much wavering from the party platform. So, which will promote the most diversity of ideas in Parliament?

I'm a constitutional monarchist, believe that human life begins at conception, and favour strict laws pertaining to addictive products and services. Yet I favour open borders, a mostly capitalistic economy but with social services to give those in need a hand up, school vouchers but public funding for those vouchers. So, what party would best represent my views? None! That's why I favour weakening the power of the party whip so as to allow individual candidates the freedom to share new ideas from outside the box.

What makes you think a candidate should represent just the best interests of his riding? In my opinion, he should focus on the best interests of mankind even when it might be at the expense of his riding. He should also have the courage to trust that many of his constituents likely think the same way. Also, people don't always fit in neat little cookie cutters. for example, I don't fit so neatly into right or left and so even in pro-rep, I still would have no party to vote for. By just removing party names from ballots would encourage individual candidates to present new ideas that might not always fall so neatly along the left and right spectra.

That's why I said that at best, he'd be a backbencher, assuming he wins his seat at all. It might even be more accurate to say candidate in an election than backbencher. It can happen sometimes that a politician succeeds in changing a few minds. But again, the politician who tries to do that will certainly never sit in cabinet or at least not for very long. The reality is though that the party that best follows opinion polls stands the best chance of forming a government.

Not entirely correct. Yes, a party can govern by the polls. Alternatively, a candidate can try to persuade the electorate and may or may not succeed. A party that governs by the polls is the one that will govern the most often, whereas the candidate who strives to persuade might not even win an election or, if he wins an election, will most probably sit as a backbencher in opposition. That said, he will probably change the political landscape far more than any PM or cabinet member will because whereas he might change a few voters' minds, they will simply have adapted themselves to the popular opinion. It's the reality of politics. The party in power implements the will of the people whereas the opposition backbencher changes the minds of the people.

Remove party names from the ballot, let each candidate run as an independent, and there you'll have 300 plus diverse ideas in Parliament. step 1: remove party names from ballots.

It wouldn't surprise me if Harper agrees more with Bernier than with Scheer in principle but he's also a pragmatist who just wants to keep the Conservative Party together. Bernier has chosen to forego pragmatism on principle.