Poltical Party Welfare

[Smallc]

Wonder what the Americans are thinking as we destroy our selves...

Because Washington is always so effective. Our system is simply different than there's. We rule by very old tradition, one that works very well most of the time.

[Oleg Bach]

Perhaps the world has changed and our traditions are now destructive rather than sustaining. The set up is kind of wierd - I never knew that a coalition could be formed and the standing government could be couped in such a manner...call me a big dumb kid but I always thought you had to vote people in and out - To simply conspire and trample over an elected government sounds a bit dated. It's like something from the dark ages...maybe they should just get their swords out and fight it out the old fashioned way.

[Alta4ever]

Perhaps the world has changed and our traditions are now destructive rather than sustaining. The set up is kind of wierd - I never knew that a coalition could be formed and the standing government could be couped in such a manner...call me a big dumb kid but I always thought you had to vote people in and out - To simply conspire and trample over an elected government sounds a bit dated. It's like something from the dark ages...maybe they should just get their swords out and fight it out the old fashioned way.

Usually it is done because of a War, but I need to read up on my history (can't remeber everything off the top of my head) just to see when it has most often been done in Canadian politics. I know it was done in WW I.

[jdobbin]

Usually it is done because of a War

Harper has said Canada is in a war. I guess you're right. It happens during wars.

[Alta4ever]

Harper has said Canada is in a war. I guess you're right. It happens during wars.

Nothing like what we were in WW I.

[jdobbin]

Nothing like what we were in WW I.

Doesn't matter anyways. The right of the Governor General to ask the Opposition to form a government can happen anytime there is a minority. Might has well deal with it. Harper certainly wasn't looking at a war when he tried the same thing in 2004.

[Alta4ever]

Doesn't matter anyways. The right of the Governor General to ask the Opposition to form a government can happen anytime there is a minority. Might has well deal with it. Harper certainly wasn't looking at a war when he tried the same thing in 2004.

Hopefully this journalist will do the right thing and go to the people like was done in 2004.

[Smallc]

Hopefully this journalist will do the right thing and go to the people like was done in 2004.

Oh, so now we're going to start talking about the GG to make her look like a joke. Got it.

[Alta4ever]

Oh, so now we're going to start talking about the GG to make her look like a joke. Got it.

What you don't like the fact that she was CBC Journalist?

[Smallc]

What you don't like the fact that she was CBC Journalist?

I find it irrelevant, but you were obviously trying to make a point by including it.

[Alta4ever]

I find it irrelevant, but you were obviously trying to make a point by including it.

I was, that it is not her say as symbolic position, she must defer to the will of the citizens of the country not ex pm's.

Do you remeber what happened to the GG of Australia? It would be shame to lose another Canadian tradition.

[Smallc]

I was, that it is not her say as symbolic position, she must defer to the will of the citizens of the country not ex pm's.

Yes, it is her say.

[Smallc]

Do you remeber what happened to the GG of Australia? It would be shame to lose another Canadian tradition.

Australia still has a GG.

[Alta4ever]

Australia still has a GG.

Sorry my mistake its New Zealand that is tring to move away from the govenor general and to a republic.

[Smallc]

Sorry my mistake its New Zealand that is tring to move away from the govenor general and to a republic.

So, instead of a figure head GG, they'll have a figure head President....OK.

Our system works. Its working right now. We have to let it carry out its function.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

I was, that it is not her say as symbolic position, she must defer to the will of the citizens of the country not ex pm's.

Seems to me the will of the people was no majority for Harper. By rules and traditions, she is to chose between and election and asking the Opposition to form a government. The will of the people has been no election according to polls.

[Topaz]

Well no, I believe the whole argument was despite what Harper was saying, Flaherty was doin the opposite. In fact, Flaherty was announcing just about the same 'stimulus' program as he did when he was Harris' golden child, and look how that worked.

Remember now, Harper has Harris's advisor working for him too so Harper has no where to go but down!

[madmax]

No the real war has just begun, ...... The battle for Canada has just begun, and the outcome maybe several new nations in the world.

Certainly. Those opposed to political party funding in this poll have been trailing shortly after the first day, when they had a huge lead. Since that day, those supporting party funding have held the lead by one vote at the end of each day.

Last night, the poll had a reversal and those against party funding have now taken the lead by one vote.

Who'd a thought that this sleepy poll would be the source that drove a nation into constitutional crises.

In the meantime, my glorious poll, has surpassed this poll in sheer number of votes....Get your votes in here, if you are voting on the coalition thread....there is plenty of food for thought here.

$1.95 surcharge is removed

[August1991]

I have given more thought to this $1.95 subsidy/welfare/charity scheme. At first, I was in favour of it but now I can see its drawbacks.

Consider for example what is happening in the Liberal Party. A small elite has chosen a leader, arguing that going to the membership for a decision would be costly and unnecessary. Since the Liberal Party is funded by this $1.95 subsidy, the party elite does not care what ordinary party members think. The elite does not rely on the membership for donations. (In the case of the Bloc, this reasoning reaches an extreme since 85% of the party's budget comes from this $1.95 subsidy.)

One could argue that the $1.95 subsidy is truly democratic because now the party elite has only to answer to a party's voters and to its "grassroot" members.

In essence, the question is whether a modern political party can function without members and volunteers willing to take an active part in a campaign. Both the Bloc and the Green Party are evidence that this is possible. Their popular vote totals are well-beyond their active party membership.

OTOH, Barack Obama's Democrats and Harper's Conservatives have an extensive membership base that both supports the party financially and by donating time to organize.

----

Here's a radical suggestion. We should charge people to vote (say $10 per ballot) and this money should be divided up among the political parties according to their popular vote totals. In this way, people would at least realize that the $1.95 subsidy is coming from their pocket.

Of course, I also believe that we should abolish income tax deductions at source and the government should send us a tax bill payable on the election date. (In the US, it is no accident that the tax filing date is in April and elections are held in November.)

In the meantime, my glorious poll, has surpassed this poll in sheer number of votes....Get your votes in here, if you are voting on the coalition thread....there is plenty of food for thought here.

The poll doesn't belong to you. It belongs to Maple Leaf Forum.

[DrGreenthumb]

The 1.95 vote subsidy is important for democracy and should stay. This insures that parties who represent voters who are on the lower end of the financial ladder still get proper representation. Political parties that advocate for low income and poor Canadians of course are not going to be able to raise funds in the same way that parties representing the rich, and the business class can. The Conservatives want to kill the subsidy because the Conservative base are the wealthiest Canadians, and therefore can afford to donate money. The Conservative supporters have money to donate, and feel that doing so will pay them back with policies designed to benefit the rich.

I think if anything we should make political donations non-tax deductible. I'm sure the rich conservative types would not like this though, as they go out of their way to avoid paying taxes. If Harper wants to cut back on Political Party welfare I suggest he save money by disallowing the political donation tax deduction. Doing so would insure that people donating to political parties were donating all their OWN money. Allowing a tax refund for a Conservative party member that donates in essence means that people who hate the Conservative ideology are FORCED to donate a party they do not support. At least the 1.95 vote subsidy insures that only the party that the voter supports gets the money.

[madmax]

I have given more thought to this $1.95 subsidy/welfare/charity scheme. At first, I was in favour of it but now I can see its drawbacks.

Good to see you have joined us... I have seen other polls that have a mechanism to change your vote. I don't think MLW has that feature. If it does let me know. That said, you would swing the results in favour of ending the political welfare to parties.....

Interesting logic. I didn't realize it would be the way the LPC choose its dictator that could influence this choice.

That $10 fee is biting.... interesting and controversial.

The poll doesn't belong to you. It belongs to Maple Leaf Forum.

Maple Leaf Forum is publicly funded... but... its not mine.... the polls not mine? I need your $1.95

This is another poll which may get some more exposure in the new year....

[Michael Hardner]

Here's a radical suggestion. We should charge people to vote (say $10 per ballot) and this money should be divided up among the political parties according to their popular vote totals. In this way, people would at least realize that the $1.95 subsidy is coming from their pocket.

Auguste, you are definitely thinking outside the box with this.

Charging to vote will have the effect of eliminating the unconsidered vote (a good thing, in my opinion) and reducing the voter participation rate (also a good thing, in my opinion) but will hit the poor harder than the rich.

But keep these suggestions coming.

I'm pretty sure one of the ideas I see on MLW will one day 'mysteriously' end up on some party's website !

[August1991]

Political parties that advocate for low income and poor Canadians of course are not going to be able to raise funds in the same way that parties representing the rich, and the business class can. The Conservatives want to kill the subsidy because the Conservative base are the wealthiest Canadians, and therefore can afford to donate money.

That reasoning is false and Barack Obama is proof of why you're wrong, Greenthumb.

Obama, arguably a candidate of the ordinary and "downtrodden", relied on many small contributions to raise over a billion dollars. The NDP is another example of a party that can raise funds through donations from ordinary people.

It is parties like the Bloc, the Liberals and the Greens which lack large membership lists and an active grassroots base that cannot raise small donations and want to keep this $1.95 subsidy.

This is not a left/right or a rich/poor thing.

At present, Canada's law forbids donations of greater than $1000 so a political party is forced to rely on many small donors (other than the $1.95 subsidy). I question whether this $1000 restriction is even necessary however since Obama and the Internet have shown that the way to raise substantial sums is not from several wealthy donors but from innumerable small ones.

Charging to vote will have the effect of eliminating the unconsidered vote (a good thing, in my opinion) and reducing the voter participation rate (also a good thing, in my opinion) but will hit the poor harder than the rich.

$10 is hardly a large sum of money. We could reduce it to $7.80 or $1.95 x 4 years, the average life of a parliament.

Everyone is expected to put their own money in the collection plate at church.

Edited December 10, 2008 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

The 1.95 vote subsidy is important for democracy and should stay. This insures that parties who represent voters who are on the lower end of the financial ladder still get proper representation.

Wouldn't it be better to simply reform the electoral system so that these parties could have a chance at seeing the inside of the House of Commons, rather than giving them money with the full understanding that there are only at best four major parties who will ever get elected. I see little point to giving the Green Party money under the current system.

Political parties that advocate for low income and poor Canadians of course are not going to be able to raise funds in the same way that parties representing the rich, and the business class can.

Why not? If they've got a compelling platform, why can't they go out and raise funds? It strikes me that a lot of these small-line parties aren't nearly as interested in down-n-dirty fund raising as the larger parties.

The CCF started out with peanuts and evolved into Canada's third party, through a helluva lot of grassroots work, through a populist platform and through solid ideas (I may not always agree with those ideas, but they were there never the less). They sure the hell didn't have a taxpayer subsidy.

The Conservatives want to kill the subsidy because the Conservative base are the wealthiest Canadians, and therefore can afford to donate money. The Conservative supporters have money to donate, and feel that doing so will pay them back with policies designed to benefit the rich.

They wanted to kill the subsidy to poke the Liberals in the eye. They just didn't expect the lashback they got.

I think if anything we should make political donations non-tax deductible.

Which, ironically, would probably hurt smaller parties much more than bigger ones.

I'm sure the rich conservative types would not like this though, as they go out of their way to avoid paying taxes.

It's a long tradition that donating money to political parties is considered a sufficiently important democratic activity to justify it as a tax credit. I've toyed with the idea myself, but if the point of the tax credit is to encourage involvement in the political process by the average citizen, then all you're doing is slamming the door on them.

If Harper wants to cut back on Political Party welfare I suggest he save money by disallowing the political donation tax deduction. Doing so would insure that people donating to political parties were donating all their OWN money. Allowing a tax refund for a Conservative party member that donates in essence means that people who hate the Conservative ideology are FORCED to donate a party they do not support. At least the 1.95 vote subsidy insures that only the party that the voter supports gets the money.

What voter? This is a pool of money, not little $1.95 packets that say "John Q Taxpayer" and "William T Voter" on them.

[Keepitsimple]

I'd like to see it continue but at a far, far reduced level in the area of $1.00 per vote to a maximum of $500,000. A minimum of 50,000 votes would be required to receive ANY funding. Something like this would offer some help to newer or fringe parties while larger parties would have to continually build and nurture their grass-roots supporters....and when all is said and done - that's the way should be - it's about us, the citizens - not the back-room boys, unions and corporations.