Machjo

Law schmaw; justice schmustice; signing contracts in good faith is highly overrated nowadays. What do you think we are? Principled?

Apparently the issue is not with the passports per se, but rather that they don't meet the new security requirements. They meet the old security requirements that Canadian passports used to have to meet, but now the Canadian passports have been upgraded but not the Iroquois ones.

BS. My MP sends out brochures every few months bragging about what the COnservaive Party, that's right, not the government, not him, but what the conservative Party has done. This would irk me whatever his party affiliation, but clearly he intends to represent his party, not his constituents, and his propaganda pamphlets paid for by our taxes proves that. I can agree with you here to a degree, but when parties pull stunts like what I've just described above, that certainly does not help the tide of support for PR. You can't have it both ways. We can't have FPTP and then have so much partisanship. Something will have to give sooner or later. That's fine if he's acting as an independent non-partisan person, but if he's acting like a party clone, then it's a different story. Overall I agree with your leanings, but unless you support toning down the parstisanship, it's unsustainable in the long run. We can't play both sides of the fence.

If the Us ever adopted proportional representation, the folowing would not even be possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8CpXd4i74 Imagine, a conservative Republican (even as far as Republicans go) and a left-leaning Democrat (even among Democrats) teaming up for a common cause. We need to learn from our northern neighbours here. Even the US is too partisan for my taste, yet quite honestly if we had the same level of partisanship they do, that would already be an improvement. Could you imagine such a coalition between a Dipper and a CPC member in Canada?

Then you keep things as is except: Remove the tax exemptions and write-offs for donations, and get them off the ballot. That alone would already be a positive start.

"Well, in the real world we pull our pants down and bend over for the buggering of a lifetime from the ignorant masses?" And Toadbrother, you may very well be right about voters being able to do nothing about the encroaching power of political parties. And as my statement quoted above indicates, maybe this is why voter turnout is so low? Maybe precisely because, sadly enough, you're right. The people have lost their democratic power ad now we live in a 'party-cracy', or should I say 'party-ship'.

I'm not suggesting having any specific law disestablishing them, but rather simply removing all laws that acknowledge their existence. Some may continue voting as voting blocks, or continue following party discipline. But with no trace of parties on the ballot, and no legal recognition of parties (which would include giving parties money for each vote, etc.) there is no doubt that the party system woudl be weakened at least somewhat. Now are you going to tell me that parties have a constitutional right to all these legally recognized privileges?

Giving an ignorant voter the false impression that he is voting for a party on a candidate-based ballot is hardly providing him with 'good' information leading to 'informed' choices. Good luck with that. Most if not all party ads are nothing more than mudslinging matches. That I can agree with, but by defending the listing of political parties on a candidate-based ballot, are you not promoting a more moderate version of this very thing? What, can't a voter be bothered to find out for himself what party a candidate belongs to?

We would not need to ban political parties, but merely remove all legal recognition of them. As such, parties would exist like any other club, but would have no special privilege of any kind.In this way, while they may still influence politics to a degree, and while informal party alliances might form in Parliament, their power would be severely weakened, thus maybe promoting a healthier balance between party discipline and the MPs' independence.

That could be a solution too. But what happens if the company goes bankrupt?And even if it doesn't go bankrupt, don't you think it will just pass the costs onto the consumer too? One solution to the bankruptcy question could be for the company to have to pay a certain fee to the government for each product sold, with the government giving the money back for each product taken back by the company. Perhaps it could be kept in a fund. That way, if the company does go bankrupt, then any other business or organization willing to take responsibility for the product could get the money back too. I could support such an idea if well implemented, so long as we're not fooled into thinking that it won't push prices up.

I actually support this idea in principle as it makes it more user pay. However, I hope this means the provincial debt can be paid off more quickly so that our income taxes can start dropping to compensate.

It couldn't It's just an idea. I don't think much could be done about caucus meetings without first weakening the partisan system we have at least somewhat.

As for caucuses, just scrap party caucuses, and have a caucus of the House.

And the absolute best solution to this dilemma? Strategic votin'. Yup, guaranteed to keep the worst one out. And if you vote for the least bad party leader, you're guaranteed to keep the party sheep in line too. Brilliant.

Right on, we get to choose the least worst among them. Yippee for democracy. Or how about this: I ignore them and hope thre will be a worthwhile candidate to vote for in my riding come next election. But then that might be too optimistic for democracy I suppose.

I never studied politics in school, so I got most of my ideas for this from experience, brainstorming, exchanging ideas with others, and some Wikipedia, and possibly some other influences subconsciously. Honestly though, I wouldn't mind seeing some combination of plurality-at-large and non-partisan democracy, at least to some degree, even if only symbolically in terms of removing party names from my ballot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality-at-large_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy Mind you, of course my ideas are always evolving and so I could have different ideas next week.

It would seem the government thinks so if it feels the need to point out on the ballot to what party each candidate belongs. It's a bit of an insult to voters' intelligence, don't you think? Then again, what does it say about the voters who defend such a crutch?

And this I can see as a major problem for a PR system. Last election, I'd almost voted for the Green candidate (I'd handed in a blank ballot, but looking back on it I was a little too hard on the candidates), not because of his party affiliation, but rather because he really was a good candidate with his head screwed on right. In a PR system, I would not have the option of voting for that candidate personally. Then I'd have to vote for a party and then there is no saying whom the party could end up choosing. Just because I happen to support a particular candidate does not mean I support his party. Let's be careful in the polls too. When the polster asks what party one will vote for, he may answer party x but more as a short form to say the local candidate who happens to be a member of party x, but more as a point of reference only. That same voter in another riding may have answered party y if let's say he normally straddles the left of party x but the right of party y, and the party x candidate in the one riding represents the left of the party, and candidate y in the other riding represents the right of his party. Looking at it that way, party polls in Canada are likely extremely skewed to say the least. After all, had I been polled last election, I might have answered Green Party, and that could have been misinterpreted to mean that I actually supported his party. In another riding, I could support the Conservative Party for instance. In fact, I'd say the Green Party candidate in my riding last election was definitely a 'blue green' if you know what I mean, whereas the CPC candidate in my riding was, well, not particularly ideological but more of a blind CPC partisan with no real ideas of his own. Overall, I'd say the Green Party candidate in that particular riding was a better fiscally conservative choice, ironically enough, but that should not be construed to mean that I support the Green Party as such. And this is where I think simply removing party names from the current FPTP ballot would be a positive step forward.

But if people vote party already, then that bond is essentially broken already anyway except in appearance, is it not? What I'm simply proposing is honesty. If a person supports FPTP but then defends party names on the ballots, he's trying to play both sides of the fence, telling the ignorant masses to vote party while in reality the plurality party will then be able to get more representation than it's really earned owing to the skewed numbers FPTP brings in a party system. If a person genuinely supports FPTP on principle and not owing to some unfair advantage it gives his party, then he'll certainly support removing names from the ballot. Otherwise he's just being manipulative. And just to clairfy again, I dislike the party list. All I'm saying is that it's still more honest than a partisan FPTP system trying to play both sides of the fence. At least with a party list, you know what you're voting for (though admittedly I personally would not know how to vote in such a system, I'd still applaud its honesty in at least not playing both sides of the fence and making it clear to me that I am voting party). We do have to be honest about that at least.

Personally, I'd love for the government to have a referendum on this making clear that we will not tolerate misleading ballots anymore, with let's say the following two options: -To adopt a plurality-at-large voting system with party names removed from the ballots and possibly even allowing for an open space on the ballot to write in a name of one's choosing, or - a party list of some kind. Sure both of these options are somewhat vague as there are various forms of plurality-at-large systems, such a question would not commit the government to any open space on a ballot but merely give it the freedom to consider the option, and party lists of of many kinds too. However, while such a referendum would not settle the specific question of what kind of system we want, it would at least clarify whether we'd rather a candidate-based system or a party-based system, forcing us to make a choice between the two and put an end to manipulative ballots such as the ones we have now. It would finally force us to make set a clear path either way.

Then if that's the case, FPTP is among the worst systems, and a party list would in fact be the ideal since we would in fact be voting for the party. Unless of course we intended to weaken the party system itself and make individual candidates more independent from their parties. Then the decision has to be made: Do we try to weaken the party grip at least somewhat and remove party names from the ballots, or do we remove candidates from the ballots and go to a party list? My preference would be to remove party names from ballots, but again, a decision has to be made either way. To straddle the issue is just plain dishonest, misleading, and quite honestly, manipulative of public ignorance.

Another one you've missed is: - If party names are added to the FPTP ballot, then it becomes misleading to the voters, giving them the impression they are voting for a party when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. Granted, that is not a failure of FPTP itself, but rather of the design under which it is currently functioning, but still a potential flaw when the design is flawed as it is in Canada. And naturally such a design flaw causes even those who'd normally have no issue with FPTP to demand some kind of change to the system.

Just reread the bolded part. This is the current problem. FPTP is not bad in its own right, but when the government creates a ballot that misleads people into thinking they're voting for a party when in fact they're voting for a candidate, the result is that they might vote for a complete incompetent they don't even lke and would not normally vote for just because they happen to like the party leader. Looking at it that way, while I do prefer FPTP over any kind of PR system, that is conditional on FPTP being honest and not misleading. Otherwise, PR is preferable. Now if I had the choice between simply removing party names from an FPTP ballot or going to a party list let's say, I'd choose the former. But if I had to choose between the current misleading system and a party list, then I'd choose the latter since at least it's honest about what we're voting for.

I agree to an extent, but unless you intend to make political scholars out of the population or simply take their voting rights away from them, then you clearly want as simple and straightforward a system as possible.

And while we're on the topic of incrementalism, going from FPTP to plurality-at-large is not such a radical step considering that FPTP is in fact a form of plurality at large already, except with only one candidate to vote for. In some urban areas, plurality at large could easily be extended to more than one candidate on the ballot without any radical change to the system. Since plurality at large would encourage landslide victories, this would likely make the population ever more wary of political parties and so likely turn people more against parties. Inversely, a more PR system such as preferential ballots would likely lead to a wider variety of ideas and so more support for political parties so as to promote more cohesion in Parliament. So strangely enough, if the goal is in fact ot weaken party loyalty, then we would want a more plurality-based rather than PR-based system.