sgarrydemocracyparty

Absolutely. It's like the proverbial poll question that is no better than "would you rather get hit by a bus or a truck?" Canadians are sometimes rather immoderate to the Left and othertimes rather immoderate to the Right, yet when we get government, it's MOSTLY LEFT or MOSTLY RIGHT, for all issues that come up, for FOUR YEARS at a time! We at the Democracy Party are trying to build a political option that will let Canadians themselves decide the big issues -- that'll leave lots for politicians and committees to do. Elections Canada Declaration Form Incidentally, re: the proposed NDP name-change, if you're happy with a recalibrated NDP showing up on our ballots as "Democratic Party of Canada", then you don't have to do anything. But if you'd rather "Democracy" be on your ballot, referring to a party that lets you set the agenda through a host of increased democratic reforms, help us out.

The party won't draw any lines -- these are proposals. The people will draw the line.

Yeah, I'd have gone with #4. These types are hungry. Congratulations to you on putting out such a solid effort to dig through the clutter, though.

Well, as I outline in the video, restrictions such as I'm suggesting are already in place. Polls aren't held now in the day or so before the vote. So I'm not inventing the idea. I'm just suggesting moving it "back" a few days, which in a longer campaign won't make much difference to pollsters -- who say they don't influence voters intentions anyway. The pollsters will still have their way with us for 95+ percent of the campaign, not much different than it is now. But this would give some breathing space so politicians would have to deal directly with voters. Maybe I just resent the way the media outlets lean on "polls" too much as news. Just reporting the "horse race" results is just so simple! I'm thinking that media outlets might be too terrified to report serious things like "platform costs", "unreasonable promises", "unreported scams or election expenses", "campaign dirty tricks", all of which we hear about afterwards -- when it doesn't matter any more. The voting's done! We know the party activists will turn out to vote. I'm worried about even one voter not voting because they "think it's been decided, because all the polls says so". There are already so many reasons for voters to just "not bother". "Poll Day" and its consequences (ie. poll-free final lap) will be one very exciting time! One big "poll day" followed by a final push where it's just between the voter and campaigner. Imagine how hard the politicians will work to try to please voters, and the firm commitments they'll be willing to make that they might not otherwise -- because they won't have Ekos or Strategic Counsel or anybody else pumping voters' heads full of "97 times out of 100 plus or minus 4 percent". As I say in the video, Parties can have their internal polls going strong and so can the professionals, but I'm suggesting they "give us a break" regarding publication, and it's only a "stretch" of the current rules already in place that limit publication. Elsewhere on this board we're trying to come up with answers as to how to improve the election campaign situation and to reverse the trend of lower and lower participation. Some suggest mandatory voting. Others say lets count the ballots differently, eg. electoral reform. Still more talk about electronic or on-line voting. We have to try to make the campaign process about the "voter", rather than all those powerful interests out there who'd be perfectly happy if no one other than their own voted at all!

That's fine, but I've read of examples in which parties deliberately ran candidates with names that conflict with other candidates, and of course it could happen coincidentally too. People vote for all kinds of reasons, but there are those who vote for the candidate, and others who vote for the party no matter what bozo is the candidate. I understand your sentiment, but "mandatory voting" or "name only ballots" are ideas against the symptom (voter apathy) rather than a cure for the disease (poor choices). I don't think we can deny voters both tidbits of info (name/affiliation) on the ballot. It's not a lot of info, and until we get like some the Third World elections, with 2500 parties, we can afford the paper.

I chuckled my way through your post but couldn't do anything but gasp at the last comment. Low voter turnout is exactly what the big political parties want... ie. "low" for the everyday person... because they already know their party activists "are" going to turn out. These parties "love" it when only they and their activists get to decide the election campaign. No, I'm for making it easier to vote (but making sure they're informed voters) so we can begin to reverse the trend of allowing the activists and interest groups to decide our electoral fates.

I agree. Or at least we have to stop looking at entrepreneurs and wealth as an opportunity to "revenue gain" to increase said entitlements. Such a penalty-based approach is one reason the Brazilians, Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, etc. (not to mention the Yanks, once they recover) are going to wipe us out, competitive-wise. Taxes. It's how we can afford such things as our generous programs. But they have to be affordable. Since I'm not a card-carrying Liberal, everybody assumes I'm a Tory, if a disgruntled one. So when they hear that I'm "not" for tax cuts, they just about fall over. We have a half trillion dollar debt and people talk tax cuts? Okay, targetted reductions to maximize productivity or genuine employment gain, and a break for those at the bottom end of the scale, but across-the-board tax cuts with that kind of debt? Before we do that there's gotta be 10-20 percent waste we can cut, first, and then ask Canadians what they'd like to do with the savings. I'm of the thinking of 1/3 tax cuts, 1/3 deficit/debt, 1/3 to social programs "where absoutely necessary". Canadians, not politicians with an eye to the next election, should make the final decision of what to do with such a "surplus". It's our taxes, our fate, our decision. But before we can even get to that point, those in power have to seriously try to cut waste. No government's had the guts to try. Maybe Harris' Ontario government, first term. Maybe. Instead, it's always "increase taxes" or suffer the consequences of lost programs, or "cut taxes" or suffer the consequences of lost programs. Governing by fear. It's never about putting those "entitlements" programs (ie. of the "grant" variety, not the EI, Pension, Health Care variety) under the microscope. Remember the old "Waste Report" by John Williamson? I have many of them, if somebody wants a look. Most of it is still probably going on. You remember, somebody loses a boot at work at the RCMP and gets $3,500 type of stuff. Or check my Adopt-a-Grant Program for an amusing take on the "grants" industry in Canada.

Great topic. Satirically I could suggest the current political parties would "love" this since they're getting their $1.95+ from us every time we cast that ballot! But rather than making it mandatory I believe we should strive to make it something voters should want to do. They should look forward to exercising their hard-won franchise. I'm sure you all agree, so the issue really is why isn't voting an imperative to Canadians? Before considering a mandatory rule, we should analyze all the possible measures for encouraging people to vote. Empowering voters is better than making voting mandatory or even giving them more opportunities to "vote", if the "opportunity" is merely more of what we get now -- where the electoral process is controlled by special interests, pollsters, big unions/business and especially the registered political parties. So here once again is our list of democratic reform suggestions that we can kick around and offer to Canadians. These mean more power for voters: Democratic Reform List And as one poster said, a "neither of the above" option on any ballot is good. In our proposed referendum rules, "no vote" is considered "no", but I agree that we'd rather "know" a "no", versus "guess" at it. And (my personal preference) 1-2-3 voting is also better than the FPTP. Lowering the voting age to, say, 16, while we have them in school and can teach compulsory civics lessons, is another idea worth floating. And electronic voting and other ways to make voting "easier" is also a great idea. The way it is now, many of us have to get up and drive kilometers and stand in lineups to vote, whereas the Liberals (bless their hearts) gave the vote to our rapists, abducters and murderers in Club Fed such that they can play billiards while the polling stations are set up right there in the prisons. "Your shot, Clifford!" So easier access to voting, as well as more opportunities (with the rules empowering voters, rather than the interests and politicians) ought to help improve the turnout. Let's exhaust all those ideas before we start writing more laws dictating Canadians' behaviour.

Well, I've known some cheating employees who keep a slew of "side projects" going as "losses" year after year, and basically reclaim all their tax. Yet this isn't "hidden" at all. It's right there, if the government used some detective work or computer programs to find 'em. So to your point, and mine, we need more auditors and really severe penalties when we catch the cheats - any cheats. The bad guys in this country, from the tax cheats to the drug dealers to the murderers, just have no fear any more. At the very least, if you have to keep claiming it means you're in the wrong business. I mean, just how many "shoe stores" does a mall need? Mine has about a dozen, not counting the box stores at the mall. PS. Love the signature! It's what I always say, Canadians can be quite immoderate on the Left on some issues, and quite immoderate on the Right on others. Let's let them decide.

Two, actually. Started Jul-04, days after the one election in which I gave the "new" Tories one chance to try to change things. And, yeah, every election is important. The guy who threw together this got his declarations in days, and I always figure the woman who threw together this got hers in hours, standing outside an animal shelter somewhere! I guess because they have esoteric policy statements that can easily rally 250 signups, whereas those of the Democracy Party should only appeal to about 25 million.

I'd be for that. Most banks won't help, though there's always that 19% credit card! Absolutely. Or encourage them to volunteer. Anything to avoid killing the human spirit by having somebody sit around hoping the factory recall happens -- if it ever does.

To bring this back to "politics" a bit, there are three major projects in my life right now, recession or not: - work, going slowly, but I'm still managing to pay my taxes and bills - a special "creative" project that will be, hopefully, what I retire doing - the "political party" project, expensive both in terms of time (5 years now) and cash outlay Even though I wish I still had some of the good money I've spent on the latter project (check the public events pages, which don't include the flyers and adverts over the years), I think it's a small price to pay toward my responsibility as a citizen. Someday, somehow, we'll get our 250 signatures and with some smart, experienced people running as candidates (not me, I'm just the "chief envelope stuffer") we'll ROCK this place!

Oh, and I'm very familiar with ups and downs. 20+ years of it, myself. But everything you say is words of wisdom for the "employed", too. Just because one has a J.O.B. doesn't mean one is indestructible and that the pension or EI or union or government will take care of you, or keep you anywhere near the lifestyle you're used to when things get tough. No bigger proof than what's happening out there right now. Everybody should have that little "side project". Frankly, despite being told by some that they should "be happy/don't worry", all Canadians are capable of a little entrepreneurism and free-enterprise. It's probably why one of my favourite shows is "Dragons' Den"!!!

Hi, your ideas sound reasonable but they have to be affordable. Let's look into it. But I'll throw in my personal circumstances since they apply to the many, many (millions) of "workers" who aren't covered by EI: The sole proprietors or self-employed, not to mention the never-employed. We're utterly ineligible for EI, sure, and we pay no premiums for that "privilege". It doesn't make it any easier when our business disappears, for sometimes weeks at a time. And from my experience, we "contractors" or self-employed types are the first to go in a downturn or "reorganization" because we're considered luxuries. And of course no severance, vacation pay to use, banked sick days to cash in, etc., and if we cash in RRSP we're crucified by the taxman. I'm not envious about what "workers" get -- we have other advantages, including our "independence", which most self-employed treasure over almost everything else. But, as an example, optional WSIB is newly-available to the self-employed in Ontario and as soon as I heard about it, I jumped on. And I now happily pay my premium in case I ever need it. So as a self-employed person I'm not looking to get a hand-out for nothing. Give me optional EI and I'd happily pay into it. I'm sure there're some silly Rogers Cable channels I can cut off, or Internet Light vs. Internet Ultra, to cover the cost! I hope the Tories proposal to "discuss" optional EI for the self-employed doesn't get lost amidst the grief being suffered elsewhere.

I'd be interested to know what you think of "Poll Day" as a concept: Poll Day - Video Blog Essentially, it's about cutting off polls one week or at least a few days before Election Day so everybody gets a break and gets to think on their own. Note: Where possible, I post the videos both on my video blog and YouTube because not everybody has the right codec to view the video within the blog. However, the video "transcript" (if you don't want to watch the video) is only on the blog page, not YouTube. Note also that this video's 14 minutes long, too long for YouTube (max 10 minutes unless I paid extra).