Jump to content

Rare win-win?


Recommended Posts

Well, since Layton all precluded any cooperation today, I doubt it.

I guess I have to go with the NDP voting record and his statement today about not expecting to work with the Tories.

Perhaps the Tories have never been cooperative in return?? And perhaps the NDP know there will be no overtures or compromise from the Tories, so why even bother with saying that they will work with a party that will not work with them in return. I believe that if the Tories have been willing to truly work with the NDP and that includes compromises with what policies the NDP support , than the NDP would be more than happy to work with them.

This spin about "the NDP always saying no" is just that, spin, and tends to come primarily from Liberal supporters. Let's face it, the NDP has not seen anyhting that they like even remotely. And when their suggestions are brushed aside by an arrogant Tory govt., than they have every right to say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe that if the Tories have been willing to truly work with the NDP and that includes compromises with what policies the NDP support , than the NDP would be more than happy to work with them.

That is not what Layton said today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then, be happy with what you have. Keep those partisan dollars flowing from the tax paying citizen who now has to fund those elections based upon popular support. You do realize that the previous election dictates how much money each party gets from the government right? That is a subtle yet important point because money is the life blood of politics. Partisan governments have now decided to keep the party alive at the expense of the citizen. That is what your real beef should be, the reforms that reformed things in favour of the politicians instead of the citizens.

There was an interesting discussion of these topics (partisan politics, proportional representation) on OnTV yesterday night, with Elizabeth May. May has very much agreed with you on the root cause of the problem (blatantly partisan politics), but could not come to a better solution than some form of PR (as in most developed nations now). For better or worse, partsan (i.e. party based) politics is the superior (technically and efficency wise) way of organising political structures, and attempting to remove it from political life would be like demanding to go back in time.

PR does not solve all problems of political system, it only ensures that the structure of government more closely reflects the views of the population. She cited the example of New Zealand, where dissatisfaction with the status quo (majoritary) system eventually caused politicians to adopt a form of PR. I think we should try the same approach here, as none of the behemoths would obviously be interested in voluntarily giving up their advantages, inherent within this system.

Folks! Let's realize that we are being led by the nose by the eternal "Harper" / "Iggy" duet, and boycott all federal elections, until somebody somewhere notices and does something to bring more sense to this outdated archaic system. Unless of course, for us, here, "governability" is the top of all merits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PR is a puzzle to solve, in its current proposed form it will never be accepted by the majority of citizens. Keeping in mind that majority is based on the voting public. The non-voting public have no voice in the matter because they choose not to. Should they decide to speak, who knows what would happen? Provide a functional means of dealing with apathy if you really want to have the citizens heard. There is only one way to do that, take the Aussie way out. Voting is mandatory, thats right, it is illegal not to vote there.

Yet that is only a part of the problem, and it does not address the partisan issue you speak about. PR is actually an anti-democratic means of appointing representatives. The voting results are nullified at the end of a general election and the popular vote is dissected to provide the proportional representation that is mandated. All the formulas under the sun do not discount the reality of candidates facing the possibility of winning in their constituency, then having that result overturned in favour of evening out the vote spread. That is simply wrong, and should be prevented from happening.

Instead of concerning yourself with overturning democratic selection, consider direct democracy. The issue there of course is a public that is less than ideally informed of the issues in debate within the halls of government, or so the argument goes. I would suggest that the role of the elected representative is to inform those being represented of the matters they were elected to address. Using a means of public consultation, the expressed will of the constituents could then be represented in the House of Commons by the elected representative. Should a representative choose not to vote in a manner that is dictated by the majority of constituents, the recorded vote could then be used to hold the elected representative to account at the earliest opportunity.

I will further suggest that the only viable place for PR is in the Senate, after the results of a general election, popular votes could determine the makeup of the appointed Senate.

Edited by Jerry J. Fortin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PR is a puzzle to solve, in its current proposed form it will never be accepted by the majority of citizens.

That's just too bad (for the citizens). In this life we most often get what we deserve. If we're OK with being led around the circle always by the same bunch of people for whom it's way way more safe (and pleasant) to spend country's energy in infinite debates, discussions and consultations, than actually change something for the better, that's what we deserve, ne c'est pas? Think of one major country wide public project that was successfully accomplished in this country in the last several decades? That's about the same timeframe that the European Union has been established.

Keeping in mind that majority is based on the voting public. The non-voting public have no voice in the matter because they choose not to. Should they decide to speak, who knows what would happen? Provide a functional means of dealing with apathy if you really want to have the citizens heard. There is only one way to do that, take the Aussie way out. Voting is mandatory, thats right, it is illegal not to vote there.

In all honesty, I don't understand the obsession with "representatives" in this age of undisgised party politics. What difference would a Liberal candidate A make vs Liberal candidate B? They'll both toe party line and vote as the party leadership commands. There's no difference whatsoever, zilch, nada, between party official elected via party list, and the one in a community riding. Of course, you may want to think there is, because you can see them and even maybe shake their hand at the rare moment of election and that's a part of the snare. We either have to grow up, or keep eating what we're fed, no complains, we chose it ourselves, and like it.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are exactly right!

My point was that we can begin to fix the system from the outside as well as the inside. You are headed down the right path in political activism. That is what will make things happen. This web forum is only a beginning, write your MLA's and your MP's, make yourself be heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, this discussion helped me understand a few things, and I'm now quite certain that some form of PR is the way to go in the future. I'm not sure if writing to MPs would be the answer, I'd be much more in favour of a direct people's action, like they did in New Zealand. From now, I'm not playing this political circus anymore, and will not participate in federal elections (for starters, because that's where the outcomes of majoritary elections appear to be most grotesk) as a matter of principle, and call on anybody who shares the idea to do the same! When those MPs/MLAs/PMs etc see levels of participation in the 40% and 30%, they'll have much better incentive to do something (real) about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, this discussion helped me understand a few things, and I'm now quite certain that some form of PR is the way to go in the future. I'm not sure if writing to MPs would be the answer, I'd be much more in favour of a direct people's action, like they did in New Zealand. From now, I'm not playing this political circus anymore, and will not participate in federal elections (for starters, because that's where the outcomes of majoritary elections appear to be most grotesk) as a matter of principle, and call on anybody who shares the idea to do the same! When those MPs/MLAs/PMs etc see levels of participation in the 40% and 30%, they'll have much better incentive to do something (real) about it.

I would suggest that you vote, and further to that encourage everyone you come across to vote as well. Don't go partisan on them, go democratic on them, tell them to vote to strengthen our democracy with participation and public input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your choice is limited for you, to the extent that it loses all meaning (what would be the meaning of me casting a vote for e.g. Greens, as I did in the past? Really, only a vent to let out dissatisfaction, otherwise nada = zero = 000000000000000000000. How's that a democracy? This democracy is telling you, your choces are: 1) "Harper"; 2) "Iggy"; 3) spoil the vote in any way you like). Now I'm sure "Harper" and "Iggy" MPs would be greately interested to have another discussion, review and panel, citizenship conference, yada on the subject (they'll get paid for it), but a real change? No, only something real, what's actually going on in the country, would make them move, wanna bet? And if it's us ourselves who don't want, suspicious, afraid of any real movement, then wouldn't we deserve all what we get from this system and should stop complaining and enjoy?

No, citizens who really want to see the change should make their views clear and visible, in the most transparent and obvious way, i.e. stop participating in the circus.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your choice is limited for you, to the extent that it loses all meaning (what would be the meaning of me casting a vote for e.g. Greens, as I did in the past? Really, only a vent to let out dissatisfaction, otherwise nada = zero = 000000000000000000000. How's that a democracy? This democracy is telling you, your choces are: 1) "Harper"; 2) "Iggy"; 3) spoil the vote in any way you like). Now I'm sure "Harper" and "Iggy" MPs would be greately interested to have another discussion, review and panel, citizenship conference, yada on the subject (they'll get paid for it), but a real change? No, only something real, what's actually going on in the country, would make them move, wanna bet? And if it's us ourselves who don't want, suspicious, afraid of any real movement, then wouldn't we deserve all what we get from this system and should stop complaining and enjoy?

No, citizens who really want to see the change should make their views clear and visible, in the most transparent and obvious way, i.e. stop participating in the circus.

Apathy is the democratic disease we are dealing with here. Your solution is to join the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apathy itself is in part caused by this frigid inflexible archaic representation system created in times when people used carts and horses for transportation. The solution is to make it clear to everybody, especially in the political elites that it is desperately in the need of a major upgrade. The most efficient way to that is to demonstrate that the old system cannot function. Levels of participation is a prime indicator of "mental state" of any political system, and if they drop to ridiculously low levels, there would be no more excuses to ignore the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that in this solution, public does get to act (and more importantly, its the public, ie. us who get to act, rather than politicians, panels, commissions, justices, analysts and so on), although maybe outside the avenues prescribed by the system. Just too bad (for the system), if it can't be changed by any other means, here's a peaceful and democratic strategy that can bring a change - for a change (pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that in this solution, public does get to act (and more importantly, its the public, ie. us who get to act, rather than politicians, panels, commissions, justices, analysts and so on), although maybe outside the avenues prescribed by the system. Just too bad (for the system), if it can't be changed by any other means, here's a peaceful and democratic strategy that can bring a change - for a change (pun intended).

I don't see it that way.

I have just started a new thread. It is posted to raise attention to an international problem. The problem exists everywhere though, and I hope to raise the public attention to it through this medium of the internet. Please take a peek and notice that I make the accusation that a lot of problems stem from this one single issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, why don't we genuinly and honestly consider Jerry's community idea and start by preventing party hierarchy from imposing their will on our elected "representatives"? I.e. allowing "representatives" to be what they pretend to be, ie. our representatives, i.e express the will of the costituency (when they vote on any issue in the House) and not that of the party's hierarchy? Anybody interested? "Harper"?? "Iggy"?? Why not???

Could it be because you want it both ways? You want us to think that we're electing representatives (ours), while the moment they walk into the House they become "representatives" (yours)? I.e. not really different in any way from those scary scary "party bureacreats" elected by the party lists, as virtually everybody else in the world has already figured out by now, but not us, not yet. With handshakes and lawn appearances we're duped into thinking that representatives we elect in the House will be more than pawns of partisan politics.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have a suggestion for folks to consider.

Join the party in power in your constituency. Work toward getting more meetings and have those meetings with the elected representative present at every opportunity. Even when the representative is not there, present constituency opinions on the issues of the day and have the representative explain and defend their own and the party position.

Its not a very big deal to build a website. Its not a very big deal to get your hands on all proposed legislation in the House of Commons. There is no big deal setting up a poll on a website. There is nothing wrong and no big deal for constituents to start "campaigning" by door knocking to seek out public opinion for the constituency.

These things can be done, without to much effort. As a matter of fact I am in the process of doing just this.

I will join the party in power just to get a seat and a voice at the local table. I will work not for the party but for the constituents, by this I mean I will not promote any partisan ideology but instead seek public opinion and use that to influence to the degree possible policy at the local level. Representatives are compelled to here the voices of citizens in their constituencies, but more political weight can be found in the partisan corner of that constituency. The more members the greater the issues for the elected representative and potential candidates. Joining the party in power also provides the ability to have a say in candidate selection. These are all positive outcomes from working within the system.

If the representative gets defeated, I will bailout and go to the next guy. The idea is a little radical, but I can think of no better way to at least begin to bring some form of accountability to at least my own representative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will join the party in power just to get a seat and a voice at the local table. I will work not for the party but for the constituents, by this I mean I will not promote any partisan ideology but instead seek public opinion and use that to influence to the degree possible policy at the local level. Representatives are compelled to here the voices of citizens in their constituencies, but more political weight can be found in the partisan corner of that constituency. The more members the greater the issues for the elected representative and potential candidates. Joining the party in power also provides the ability to have a say in candidate selection. These are all positive outcomes from working within the system.

Nice dream. Yet, in all important matters (like actually passing legislation), you'd have to follow your party's whip, or risk being kicked out of the caucus in a flash. The rest, constituency work, etc, can be done by a "list" MP just as well as a "riding" one. That's how the system works. You, me, everybody must realize that the world has changed, it is now governed by partisan politics fair and square and there is no going back. The only thing that can be done, is to make the government represent better, i.e. closer the views of the population, than in an old, antiqated system that only knows two "real" parties, i.e. those that have any realistic chance to govern, because it was so x hundred years ago. Working within the system won't accomplish much of a real action (certainly everybody will love to do more studies, panels and discussions, reports, consultations, investigations, evalutions and so on, as they are bringing daily bread without necesserily any practical result, that could be actually seen and experienced), because the two key players, the only ones which can actually promote and bring the change, are also the ones that would be least interested in it, as it would remove their unfair advantage with respect to smaller and more recent players. No, the real practical way that can accomplish change, and actually has done so, in the same New Zealand, is to stop participating - not in the political process, mind you, but only in this inherently unfair election practice, until it's fixed. We either grow up and get both real choice, and the responsibility for exercising it, or keep pretending that we have it, while in fact being led by the nose by the omnipresent elite that at this time as much as looks, sounds and smells the same (name one important difference between "Harper" and "Iggy" at this time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...