Machjo

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the relatives of the following are funding this mosque: And who are we to dictate how they are to spend their money and, more importantly, how they are to honour and commemorate the lives of the loved ones they'd lost in 911? Just as other victims of 911, they also have an equal right to be remembered without bigotry.

That's precisely what I dislike. I want my MP to vote his conscience, not as a puppet of Harper's. As it happens, my MP is a CPC backbencher and he's really nothing more than a bobbing head for harper. With my Mp in the House, Harper's riding has one extra vote, and mine has none. I'd rather have an MP that represents my riding. Sure the Liberal and NDP are not much better, but Harper really does seem to be dictatorial in his approach. It's not the PM's job to 'keep his party in line', or at least ought not to be. Let the police handle it if an MP steps out of line legally, or his constituents deal with it next election if it's nothing illegal. I want my MP to be responsive to his local constituents, not a bobbing head offering a second hand to Harper's riding for votes in Parliament.

Another thing I like about the suggestion in the OP is that by having Cabinet elected by Parliament once a year and having a Caucus of the House replace Party caucuses, it reduces the chances of drastic changes in Parliament as had almost occurred last year. Most likely we'd just have ended up with a Cabinet comprising a better representation of Parliament, thus making it more representative of democracy.

Remember the party-hacks thread? Now we know why we have so many bobbing heads among the backbenchers. We get the government we deserve.

Bingo.

You do realize don't you that an MP can resign from his party at any time of his choosing, and that that freedom is guaranteed by law as part of his freedom of association? So effectively, if you think you are voting for a party, and your MP leaves the party he was a member of during the election, then you've just flushed your vote down the gutter. In my case, I vote for the best candidate, and so that way should he leave his party for any reason, my vote is still not wasted because the candidate I voted for is still my representative.

If political parties were no longer legally recognized, then all we could have in Parliament would be Caucuses of the House. Separate party caucuses would have to be done on their own time and their own dime, and of course it would be their business but would have no legal standing.

I guess this would be a step forward. Don't ban parties, but just remove all official recognition of them in the law. Essentially, they would not exist in the law and so have no official legal backing, even though they may exist in reality. They'd still exist and serve a function, but would be much weaker than they are today owing to no legal recognition of them. This of course would include removing party names from ballots.

Is it necessarily a bad thing that it would be more difficult for a bill to be passed? At least then we'd be sure that each bill that is passed would have been thoroughly examined before finally becoming law.

Don't feel so alone. I'm an independent too. I guess forming an Independents Party would be a bit of an oxymoron, but I guess that's what we are. We may be left or right or anywhere in between, but we're all sick of partisanship.

Even if some were affiliated behind the scenes, it would still increase the likelihood of more independent candidates getting voted in... precisely because any partisanship would be behind the scenes. And even party members are likely to find themselves representing a wider range of parties. So behind-the-scenes partisanship would likely be of limited success. Overall, a Cabinet elected once a year by Parliament with let's say a blank ballot on which each candidate must write X number of names, and with the the X number of names appearing most frequently forming the Parliamentary Assembly which in turn would likely form the Cabinet, would certainly remove power from parties to a considerable degree and promote much, much more collaboration across the House. Right now we have a House divided not only in Parliament but in general society too.

You're probably right. We'd need to declare that the party's over before we could establish even remotely as democratic as this.

Well, I've read that for reaons of national security it can keep some things secret, though I might be wrong. If Cabinet doesn't have the power to keep anything secret from Parliament, then this is simply a non-issue and Cabinet ought to stop playing political games. If it does have that power though, and if we argue that it ought to maintain that power for valid reasons such as national security, then most certainly some kind of checks and balances must be introduced to ensure that Parliament can trust the people who are withholding information from it. But now I guess the real question is whether Cabinet has the authority to withhold information from Parliament.

Considering that Cabinet has the power of secrecy, is it not reasonable to expect that a clear majority of Parliamentarians can trust that it will abide within the confines of the law and ethics? One solution I could see would be: Parliament elect 9 or 10 members of a 'Parliamentary Assembly' once a year, and that Assembly would choose the PM and Cabinet Ministers from among themselves. Your thoughts on this?

Of course. They thought they were sharing the land, not giving it. We taught them well indeed.

Isn't that another example of circular reasoning? Because parties are so powerful, we need to legislate them more power. Isn't that just like a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I agree government funding for parties needs to be cut. At most, I could see the government funding a candidate's website during his campaign, but that's about it. Removing party names from ballot is certainly not a be all and end all, but it would be a step forward. If we could achieve that small feat, it wouldn't be a big step later from that to cutting government funding for parties. But personally, a candidate's finances won't affect me much, unless of course his finances are so limited he can't even access an e-mail account.

That's my kind of guy. I'm proud to say that not one of the candidates I've ever voted for has ever won a seat. I just won't vote strategically for the lesser of two evils. I vote for the best candidate even if it's as plain as day that he'll lose.

I'd disagree. He could win his local seat independently of what locals think of his party. He still gets a vote in the House. He can still question the government. And because he comes across as less partisan than others, others in the House, even from other parties, are likely to be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt even when they don't give others the same benefit.

My meaning was there is no point in complaining about the Tor Star being left leaning. If one doesn't like it, instead of complaining about it, just don't buy it and try to buy something more objective. besides, right-biased papers abound too.

It's not the amount of time he spends with me that matters, but the efficiency with which he can communicate his ideas to me. I figure the way he'll communicate with me is how he'll communicate to the House.

OK, you're right. I was confounding character with intelligence. Certainly an intelligent cretin who intends to run for a cushy salary would probably do exactly what the Liberal candidate had done So as far as intelligence goes in the sense of looking out for his personal interests, he ranks right up there. but that's not the kind of intelligence I was looking for. In that case, would it not make more sense and save a hell of a lot of money to just have the party leaders go to parliament with each one's vote worth the percentage of the national vote for their party. After all, if that's how they're going to vote anyway, aren't their salaries a little high for them to just spew out a few thoughtless yeas and nays.

You're going a little too far with that. Though I did find uni to be a little too superficial and status quo and not critical enough. Just look at what happened when Coulter showed up at Ottawa U. Yes, she is an idiot, yet the students dropped to her level and below in a flash. They could have shown some class at least by just ignoring her. Instead, they started acting like baboons, making even Coulter come across as civilized in comparison.

If you don't like the Tor Star, don't read it.

I'm sure it's a winning gamble too. My hope is that by removing party names from the ballot, it would force voters to become wiser by actually learning something of their candidate. Even just going through the moves of learning the name of the local candidate for Grandpapa's party might bring some otherwise overlooked point about that candidate, causing the voter to reconsider and re-examine his position. Would it not be beneficial to promote more thought among voters?