How many Green votes?

madmax · November 6, 2008

The practice should be continued. Our spending and funding rules keep our parties out of hands of big business and unions making things like the sponsorship scandal less likely in the future.
The system we have now is designed to stave of corruption and I beleive its working.

Giving $1.95 to the Political Parties from the Taxpayer has nothing to do with big business or unions. Monies should be donated from individuals only.

There is no need for this form of Political Welfare. Why should we prop up a Political Party like the CPC that can raise $12Million on its own? Why should we give money to the NDP who can outraise the LPC. Why should we give money to the LPC since, they have been government for over Most of Canadas history?

If people believe in a political party, they will cough up the cash. And People who cannot cough up cash, offer their time.

Political Welfare bums

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

This is not important, if political parties had proper fund raising sytems in place they wouldn't need a nickel of the tax payer funding. They don't need it, $2,200 per person per year is enough for any politcial organization. That does have anything to do with undue influence as the corperate donations are gone. Taxpayers do not need to fund political parties, if the party can't make it on its own, it should be doomed to the history books.
Political party welfare is not important, that money is better spent on social programs for citizens or for infrastructure, policing, or military spending. Taxes given to political parties are wasted.

I disagree. The money is a pittance, and the way political parties operate, formulate policy, etc. is of great public importance. If fundraising skill eclipses policy formulation in determining electoral success, then our society will suffer on balance. I have met a lot of policy wonks who are terrified of picking up a phone and asking a complete stranger for money. The same wonks developed effective policy in a range of areas. Should they be demoted in party ranks because they are only good at formulating policy? That's pretty twisted. That's why I said don't put on ideological blinkers. Look on the spending as a cost benefit exercise. A public benefit vs. a tiny cost.

Of course, if you were a Conservative Reform Alliance Party loyalist, then the fact that the entire party is bereft of policy, and dedicated to the proposition that fundraising is all,... but that's a topic for another thread perhaps?

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

If people believe in a political party, they will cough up the cash. And People who cannot cough up cash, offer their time.
Political Welfare bums

As someone who has made over 100,000 fundraising phone calls, managed phone banks, direct mail etc. I can categorically say that this is nonsense. People don't cough up their cash, or offer their time unless they are asked properly. It takes skill, and a lot of effort.

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

I disagree. The money is a pittance, and the way political parties operate, formulate policy, etc. is of great public importance. If fundraising skill eclipses policy formulation in determining electoral success, then our society will suffer on balance. I have met a lot of policy wonks who are terrified of picking up a phone and asking a complete stranger for money. The same wonks developed effective policy in a range of areas. Should they be demoted in party ranks because they are only good at formulating policy? That's pretty twisted. That's why I said don't put on ideological blinkers. Look on the spending as a cost benefit exercise. A public benefit vs. a tiny cost.
Of course, if you were a Conservative Reform Alliance Party loyalist, then the fact that the entire party is bereft of policy, and dedicated to the proposition that fundraising is all,... but that's a topic for another thread perhaps?

Have you ever helped formulate policy? Its doesn't cost a dime. The larger you base the more fundraising that can be done. I doubt you have ever served on an EDA board I doubt you know how any of this works. You have policy directors, and fundraising directors they are volunteers. They strike commitees to execute these duties. Political parties are about volunteering to get the work done, not paying someone to do it for you. Policy wonks are never demoted, because they should really have very little to do with the fundraising anyway.

The system would run fine without taxpayers footing part of the bill. The parties woiuld have to be a lot more accountable to their donating base. You act in a way that ticks off your base you loose you funds.

Politcal welfare needs to go. Their is no public benefit for the cost.

madmax · November 6, 2008

The reason it is publicly funded, and tied into the election spending limits is to remove undue influence of political contributors on a) policy formulation, and policy implementation.
It is really hard to say NO to people upon whom your' next election victory depends. I am no fan of government spending, but this pittance strikes at the roots of political influence peddling, and corruption. It is the singlemost important piece of legislation in the last decade.

Don't fall victim of idealogical posturing. This so called welfare is IMPORTANT.

This piece of Legislation was formulated back in the days of the National Party. Getting rid of Corporate and Union Donations hasn't proven to be a bad thing.

There is no reason, no reason to have monies publicly funded on a per vote basis.

This form of WELFARE in not important. That is total BS. Political Parties do not need a monetary safety net.

If the parties are raising monies from individuals then so be it.

How is it fair, that I have my tax monies given to the CPC, LPC, NDP , BQ or even the GP, while I may have voted for the Libertarians, Progressives, Canada Action Party, Marx Lennonists Marxists Lenninists, Neo Rhinos, or Newfoundland Liberation Party. Yes, the only pleasure one gets for voting for these lessor parties, is to deny an extra $1.95 isn't given to one of the above parties. But it is still tax payers monies which goes out. That is also my tax money. And why is it that a vote for the lessor party is treated like a non vote monetarily. I mean, who could really use a handout. The CPC or the other CPC (Communist Party Canada) :blink:

It is absolutely ridiculous that we fund the BQ with Millions of dollars to be spent within Quebec alone. Other parties have to travel across the entire nation. The BQ does not raise alot of monies from personal donations.

Why should we support separatists?

Anyone who thinks that they need to have the $1.95 has no faith in their party. People not politically engaged who vote occassionally couldn't care less whether or not the $1.95 was dished out, infact most people don't know this happens.

Welfare is for those in need. The concept of a means test for a political party to collect welfare is absurd. Those parties who have strength, shall receive a government handout.

No, I think the LPC, CPC, NDP and GP are all in good shape and can survive off their grass roots, base support and individual donations.

Clearly you agree that the GP has a strong base to support going it on their own.

You're actually approaching the fundamental question of Electoral politics, namely resources. People, and money fight the ground war, Skilled people and money fund the Air war. The GPC is building their base in both these fundamental commodities, people and $$.

No need for a handout. End Political Welfare.

madmax · November 6, 2008

This is not important, if political parties had proper fund raising sytems in place they wouldn't need a nickel of the tax payer funding. They don't need it, $2,200 per person per year is enough for any politcial organization. That does have anything to do with undue influence as the corperate donations are gone. Taxpayers do not need to fund political parties, if the party can't make it on its own, it should be doomed to the history books.
Political party welfare is not important, that money is better spent on social programs for citizens or for infrastructure, policing, or military spending. Taxes given to political parties are wasted.

Erm.. eh.,. uhhhh,.... sht. Pulling teeth out...

You can do it, just remember those two words......

I concur.

Edited November 6, 2008 by madmax

madmax · November 6, 2008

As someone who has made over 100,000 fundraising phone calls, managed phone banks, direct mail etc. I can categorically say that this is nonsense. People don't cough up their cash, or offer their time unless they are asked properly. It takes skill, and a lot of effort.

Sounds like you have a problem. I can't help you.

Nor do I think that political parties should be given tax payers cash, because the party you support and help (You are a volunteer or paid hack?) can't successfully fundraise.

I just don't have a violin big enough today and I do support the need for Welfare across Canada. Those who need it should get it. Those who don't shouldn't.

There is nothing in your statement above that tells me that the party you support should get cash, because the people are too apathetic to volunteer on behalf of the party.

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

Sounds like you have a problem. I can't help you.
Nor do I think that political parties should be given tax payers cash, because the party you support and help (You are a volunteer or paid hack?) can't successfully fundraise.

I just don't have a violin big enough today and I do support the need for Welfare across Canada. Those who need it should get it. Those who don't shouldn't.

There is nothing in your statement above that tells me that the party you support should get cash, because the people are too apathetic to volunteer on behalf of the party.

That's silly, the party I support is better at fundraising than the others, with the possible exception of the Cons. We have plenty of skilled 'operators' as well as policy types. Eliminate public funding, and we'll do very nicely, comparatively speaking. I've been volunteering for a lot of years, although I have been paid small honariums on occasion. I sure as hell don't do it for the money.

It's not a partisan point I'm making, it's a matter of good public policy. Welfare is a loaded word, as you well know when you abuse the term. We need roads, we need airports, we need courts, we need parliament, and oh yeah, we need parties to present choices about how to make it all hang together. Why the hell should parties electoral success depend upon their fundraising skills, as opposed to their ideas?

Brunopolis · November 6, 2008

That's silly, the party I support is better at fundraising than the others, with the possible exception of the Cons. We have plenty of skilled 'operators' as well as policy types. Eliminate public funding, and we'll do very nicely, comparatively speaking. I've been volunteering for a lot of years, although I have been paid small honariums on occasion. I sure as hell don't do it for the money.
It's not a partisan point I'm making, it's a matter of good public policy. Welfare is a loaded word, as you well know when you abuse the term. We need roads, we need airports, we need courts, we need parliament, and oh yeah, we need parties to present choices about how to make it all hang together. Why the hell should parties electoral success depend upon their fundraising skills, as opposed to their ideas?

I tried working part-time at a call center where I had to call to raise money and donations for the Liberal Party. Oh man did Stefan Dion make it difficult to be able to gather any donations. Nothing is worse than having every 2nd call end up being an attempt of a discussion about how poor Stefan Dion was doing. I couldn't lie to myself to actually like the Liberal party while I worked there so I quit rather quickly. 8P

Edited November 6, 2008 by Brunopolis

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

That's silly, the party I support is better at fundraising than the others, with the possible exception of the Cons. We have plenty of skilled 'operators' as well as policy types. Eliminate public funding, and we'll do very nicely, comparatively speaking. I've been volunteering for a lot of years, although I have been paid small honariums on occasion. I sure as hell don't do it for the money.
It's not a partisan point I'm making, it's a matter of good public policy. Welfare is a loaded word, as you well know when you abuse the term. We need roads, we need airports, we need courts, we need parliament, and oh yeah, we need parties to present choices about how to make it all hang together. Why the hell should parties electoral success depend upon their fundraising skills, as opposed to their ideas?

Your looking at this backwards the parties electoral success id based apon both their ideas and motivating (ie fund raising) their base through their ideas. You don't need millions of dollars to make and communicate plans at a grassroots level.

Why would you accept an honarium from a party you are tring to build? That is a waste of funding, the reward should be the fulfilment of you political aspirations not the pay check.

Ideas cost nothing. I'm sure when you are asking for a donation on the phone you aren't telling the donor the money is going to paid to someone to develop policy, you are talking about you policy to gain sympathy for your cause and thus get a donation.

All of this can be done without corperate donations, or political welfare. It is a waste of precious tax dollars.

madmax · November 6, 2008

That's silly, the party I support is better at fundraising than the others, with the possible exception of the Cons.

oh

According to quarterly financial returns posted by Elections Canada, fewer than 35,000 donors contributed a total of $3.6 million to the Liberal party from January to September this year.
Over the same period, the Conservatives vacuumed up almost $15 million from more than 125,000 individuals.

Even the NDP did better than the Liberals, raking in $3.7 million from almost 44,000 contributors.

Well the NDP has raised more then the LPC. So can you explain how the party you support is better at fund raising then mentioned above?

We have plenty of skilled 'operators' as well as policy types. Eliminate public funding, and we'll do very nicely, comparatively speaking.

No worries then. This proves it should be eliminated. You will do nicely comparatively speaking.

It's not a partisan point I'm making, it's a matter of good public policy.

I disagree. There are better uses for that money. There are people in need.

Welfare is a loaded word, as you well know when you abuse the term. We need roads, we need airports, we need courts, we need parliament, and oh yeah, we need parties to present choices about how to make it all hang together. Why the hell should parties electoral success depend upon their fundraising skills, as opposed to their ideas?

The $1.95 that goes to the CPC does not build one road, airport, court, or help parliment. It also doesn't go to EI or transfer payments to the Provinces for their Welfare programs. It goes into CPC warchest to be used as attack funds against Liberal Leaders who then get run out of town for their "ideas".

I have an idea. I am putting it out there. Others also share that idea. At this point in time, to get this idea out there, and accepted, I don't need $1.95 from the government. I also don't believe that if the government gave me $2million you would change your mind. I don't think that you need $1.95 to challenge my idea, nor would you spending $2million change my mind.

However, you may yet come up with a point I have overlooked in my haste, that could reinforce the need for giving $1.95 to political parties. But right now, it appears like a point of self interest for the larger parties with their bellies up to the trough.

madmax · November 6, 2008

I tried working part-time at a call center where I had to call to raise money and donations for the Liberal Party. Oh man did Stefan Dion make it difficult to be able to gather any donations. Nothing is worse than having every 2nd call end up being an attempt of a discussion about how poor Stefan Dion was doing. I couldn't lie to myself to actually like the Liberal party while I worked there so I quit rather quickly. 8P

Hey, I got a call centre call asking for money for Dion. I asked where they were calling from, well, it was in Canada (thats good) and I asked "are you having a good time asking people to cough up money to support a tax increase". She started laughing and said, she wasn't a Liberal, but was she not having to much success and politely ended the call.

That is more reason not to support giving a party taxmoney. Obviously they have money to spend on telemarketing firms.

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

Ideas cost nothing. I'm sure when you are asking for a donation on the phone you aren't telling the donor the money is going to paid to someone to develop policy, you are talking about you policy to gain sympathy for your cause and thus get a donation.
All of this can be done without corperate donations, or political welfare. It is a waste of precious tax dollars.

Ideas don't always cost nothing. Access to some data does cost. Have you ever tried to organise a policy convention without any money? It can be done via wiki's etc. but that really narrows down participation, to the point where policy formulation is captured by wiki nuts. Publish, and disseminate a information? Costs big $$. The fact is that facilitating the interaction of thousands of people cannot be done for free.

It certainly can be done without corporate, or public money. That doesn't mean that it cannot be done better with that money. Then, of course, there is election campaigns. Now that costs money, and frankly, that's where the bulk of the cash gets spent.

The point that I am making is that political success is more and more dependent upon raising money. You are talking as if good ideas naturally hatch $$, but that isn't true.

If you disbelieve me, go have a look at the financial statements for the Federal parties, and compare fundraising expenses to everything else they do. I just don't agree that raising funds should be the most important thing that a party does. Public funding tied to electoral support is a pretty good way of dealing with corruption in politics, and given the importance of party politics in our lives, labelling this spending welfare is inaccurate.

Irrespective, public funding is the law, and what it replaced was a real dog. Like much of our world, it aint perfect but it works. I support it, unless something better comes along, but I wouldn't be unhappy with less private, and more public funding. It wouldn't cost much money, and it would probably lead to better governance. Surely you must agree that good governance is cheap at any price?

craiger · November 6, 2008

I know last Alberta provincial election every other party had maybe 5% the funds to work with than what the tories had you could not move 5 feet with out seeing a torrie banner.

I don't like the idea of corperate donations as it influences that party to base decisions on who can bribe with money's.

What I would like to see is every party given the same ammount of money to work with, this would make things more fair, and avoid the possibility of elites holding more influence in political agenda.

If it means my tax payer money's I would be fine with it, if it creates a balanced system.

Edited November 6, 2008 by craiger

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

I know last Alberta provincial election every other party had maybe 5% the funds to work with than what the tories had you could not move 5 feet with out seeing a torrie banner.
I don't like the idea of corperate donations as it influences that party to base decisions on who can bribe with money's.

What I would like to see is every party given the same ammount of money to work with, this would make things more fair, and avoid the possibility of elites holding more influence in political agenda.

If it means my tax payer money's I would be fine with it, if it creates a balanced system.

It doesn't creat a balanced system it gives more power to those who have no base, if they can't rise out of the grassroots then their policies aren't very good.

Tax monies have never been ment for fighting elections they are ment fund government projects and getting re-elected should never be a govenment project it should be the parties.

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

Ideas don't always cost nothing. Access to some data does cost. Have you ever tried to organise a policy convention without any money?

Ideas do cost nothing unless you are hiring a think tank. Access to data can, transmission doesn't have to cost anything. If you get a proper grassroots organization working together speaking out at publiuc forms writing letters to the editor ect, good ideas will spread. Woodrow Wilson used this type of communication to get elect and get his policy ideas known. The system works and it has been proven over and over.

If you want to organize you convention work within your means and ask for donotions from those who are symapthetic. That is how you biuld a party, you are just tring to jusify a short cut.

None of the other political parties in country built themselves out of public funds, why should it be different for you?

Political Party Welfare needs to end.

craiger · November 6, 2008

I don't know...... propoganda can be a very powerful

how do you convey a platform when your not given the same opertunity's?

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

Here's a link where you can download an OAS report on political finances.

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...;textonly=false

I guess I've made my point enough.

Money is vital to politics.

Getting money is more important than what you have to say when it comes to getting elected.

That is not very good news for the populace.

The electoral finance act had a very good outcome for everybody in Canada, because it moderated the influence of parochial, but well heeled interests.

I wish that political funding was predicated exclusively on how well a party performs in the 'ideas' market, because it would then remove extraneous skills from their pernicious influence on the electoral process.

A good objective criteria for successful ideas is 'how many votes did you win?'

That, in a nutshell, is my opinion. If I've convinced you, good. If not, it's a free country. Just beware what you wish for. If public funding is removed, then your children will have to live with the results. Maybe the future would be great, but maybe the established parties will dominate, then stagnate, and our country will work less well than it could, or should.

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

Here's a link where you can download an OAS report on political finances.
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...;textonly=false

I guess I've made my point enough.

Money is vital to politics.

Getting money is more important than what you have to say when it comes to getting elected.

That is not very good news for the populace.

The electoral finance act had a very good outcome for everybody in Canada, because it moderated the influence of parochial, but well heeled interests.

I wish that political funding was predicated exclusively on how well a party performs in the 'ideas' market, because it would then remove extraneous skills from their pernicious influence on the electoral process.

A good objective criteria for successful ideas is 'how many votes did you win?'

That, in a nutshell, is my opinion. If I've convinced you, good. If not, it's a free country. Just beware what you wish for. If public funding is removed, then your children will have to live with the results. Maybe the future would be great, but maybe the established parties will dominate, then stagnate, and our country will work less well than it could, or should.

It hasn't stangnated since confederation yet upstart parties have come and gone but made their mark. Medicare came from the NDP although they have never formed a federal government.

Provincally in Alberta we have seen the United Farmers, Progressives, Social Credit, Liberals, NDP, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives. Most of these parties have formed government at some time or another. They all came into being with tax funds and have both risen and fallen. Lack of money has never stopped a good idea.

bluegreen · November 6, 2008

Lack of money has never stopped a good idea.

Sure it has, how much you wanna bet that plenty of good ides have lacked acceptance due to lack of publicity?

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

Sure it has, how much you wanna bet that plenty of good ides have lacked acceptance due to lack of publicity?

You can gain publicity without money. But you are only thinking of hiring telemarketers and running tv ads.

I'm telling you that the grassroots are more powerrful, and when political party figures out how to tap this, they will gain donations, and elect members, but until then you will cry for public financing, which is a waste of public funds. The green party has a lot to learn about running an effective electoral district assocaition.

craiger · November 6, 2008

lets say there are two company A and B , both sell Jello

Company A has $100 to work with and cannot afford advertising or the best of mangment

you got company B that has $100,000,000 to play with and they can advertise on t.v and the papers etc, they also hire the best of the best managment. they even go so far to pay people to dig up dirt on the competator and convey that propoganda.

now honestly who do you think will have record sales?

Edited November 6, 2008 by craiger

Alta4ever · November 6, 2008

lets say there are two company A and B , both sell Jello
Company A has $100 to work with and cannot afford advertising or the best of mangment

you got company B that has $100,000,000 to play with and they can advertise on t.v and the papers etc, they also hire the best of the best managment. they even go so far to pay people to dig up dirt on the competator and convey that propoganda.

now honestly who do you think will have record sales?

We are not working with companies, we are working with policitcal parties.

craiger · November 7, 2008

We are not working with companies, we are working with policitcal parties.

Ok then we have political party A and political party B

Party A has $100 dollars and does its best to door to door canvas

party B has $100,000,000 they pay for advertising, analysts and people to digg up dirt on their competator they run attack adds and offer free coffee and donuts for everyone to come listen to them speak

wich party will attract most voters?

Alta4ever · November 7, 2008

Ok then we have political party A and political party B
Party A has $100 dollars and does its best to door to door canvas

party B has $100,000,000 they pay for advertising, analysts and people to digg up dirt on their competator they run attack adds and offer free coffee and donuts for everyone to come listen to them speak

wich party will attract most voters?

the party at the door who is able to convey the better idea.

CPC spending hasn't bought them a majority has it? They have been spending and putting ads in front of people since the last liberal leadership convention and they couldn't do it.

It Edmonton Stracona, Rahiem Jaffer had way more money then the NDP candidate, but the NDP candidate went door to door and pushed her ideas, Rahiem didn't he bought ads and spent on advertising. Who won?