Have we entered a new era in Canadian Politics?

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

Who is the contact guy for "Yellowhead" in Alberta?

Perhaps you are, if you want to help us!

The Political Party that Respects the Fairness, Wisdom and Generosity of Canadians

Democracy Party of Canada

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

From the Democracy web site

"This principle proclaims an elected representative’s first responsibility should be to the people of his or her riding. An MP's foremost consideration should be what is best for the country and community. "

I remember another party who thought this and had no party discipline. They were called the Progressives and after winning 60 seats they fell apart and almost all of them became Liberals.

If we ever got far enough to have 60 seats, I'd like to presume there'd be an MP Recall law in place by then, so Party-jumping wouldn't happen without severe consequences.

At the next election they'd be free to run under the other party banner. If they're looking for Party Whip and Leader-centred political parties, they have lots to of such Parties to choose from.

And as for independent-thought within the Party, we believe that a party, even one that's essentially 60 Independents looking after their own ridings, is better than anything we have now.

Also, with a measure of direct democracy available to Canadian voters, then it matters not who's sitting for what Party. If Canadians get wind of something they don't like they'd be able to stop it, redirect it, or initiate where something should be happening, but isn't.

We're aiming to give Canadians the real power; the MPs will just be our representatives for the mundane stuff. This "democracy" thing will shake up our whole perception of the "Great Leader", or political party.

The Political Party that Respects the Fairness, Wisdom and Generosity of Canadians

Democracy Party of Canada

[M.Dancer]

The Political Party that Respects the Fairness, Wisdom and Generosity of Canadians

Democracy Party of Canada

What an absolutely hideous website. You guys should try and come up with $200 to pay a 15 year year old to put together something that doesn't look like it was done by a 14 old.

[punked]

If we ever got far enough to have 60 seats, I'd like to presume there'd be an MP Recall law in place by then, so Party-jumping wouldn't happen without severe consequences.

At the next election they'd be free to run under the other party banner. If they're looking for Party Whip and Leader-centred political parties, they have lots to of such Parties to choose from.

And as for independent-thought within the Party, we believe that a party, even one that's essentially 60 Independents looking after their own ridings, is better than anything we have now.

Also, with a measure of direct democracy available to Canadian voters, then it matters not who's sitting for what Party. If Canadians get wind of something they don't like they'd be able to stop it, redirect it, or initiate where something should be happening, but isn't.

We're aiming to give Canadians the real power; the MPs will just be our representatives for the mundane stuff. This "democracy" thing will shake up our whole perception of the "Great Leader", or political party.

The Political Party that Respects the Fairness, Wisdom and Generosity of Canadians

Democracy Party of Canada

I am just telling historically it happened and with out party discipline the party fell apart so fast it wasn't even funny. Look into the Progressive party they tried what you speak of and got killed.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

re: www.democracyparty.ca

What an absolutely hideous website. You guys should try and come up with $200 to pay a 15 year year old to put together something that doesn't look like it was done by a 14 old.

Ha ha, in time, in time, my friend!

Let's see if any of the 'big parties' with the 'fancy websites' can come close to this list of democratic reforms for long-suffering Canadian voters:

Democratic Reform List

[M.Dancer]

re: www.democracyparty.ca

Ha ha, in time, in time, my friend!

Let's see if any of the 'big parties' with the 'fancy websites' can come close to this list of democratic reforms for long-suffering Canadian voters:

Democratic Reform List

Direct Democracy: Wasteful, time consumoing and prone to abuse by special interest groups. I for one don't want demagogues stumping on abortion, capital punishment etc etc....every 6 weeks--MP recall, we already have a process, it's called an election

Electoral Reform: PR....there have already been good arguments why this most undemocratic pandoras box should be avoided

MP oath..yeah, what ever

Political Party Reform: How parties govern themselves is their business.

• remove or redo the “tax on democracy”, where politicians are rewarded with $1.75 per vote based on

incumbency rather than earning on current or recent performance---This is electoral reform and has nothing to do with party governance.

Reform of Government: Blah blah blah---

The ,pdf leaves me with a feeling of underwhelmedness...

[M.Dancer]

Let's see if any of the 'big parties' with the 'fancy websites' can come close to this list of democratic reforms for long-suffering Canadian voters:

Umm...most big parties don't publish policies that contradict each other..and especially in the same paragraph.

THIS IS

• single-transferable vote, proportional representation, run-offs

is in conflict with THIS

• M.P. Oath to his/her constituents re: party affiliation; cannot switch parties without sitting as Independent or

triggering by-election

PR candidates are chosen by the party and are elected by popular vote--they don't have contituents, they represent no one except their party. Which means that THIS

The total power that political parties hold over their members, officials and MPs must be challenged.

Is unworkable in a system where parties get to select who will sit for them once the votes are cast. The party will have far greater power than it has now.

Proclaiming an elected representative’s first responsibility should be to the people of his or her riding can do

this.

PR candidates don't have ridings.

[benny]

Umm...most big parties don't publish policies that contradict each other..and especially in the same paragraph.

THIS IS

• single-transferable vote, proportional representation, run-offs

is in conflict with THIS

• M.P. Oath to his/her constituents re: party affiliation; cannot switch parties without sitting as Independent or

triggering by-election

PR candidates are chosen by the party and are elected by popular vote--they don't have contituents, they represent no one except their party. Which means that THIS

The total power that political parties hold over their members, officials and MPs must be challenged.

Is unworkable in a system where parties get to select who will sit for them once the votes are cast. The party will have far greater power than it has now.

Proclaiming an elected representative’s first responsibility should be to the people of his or her riding can do

this.

PR candidates don't have ridings.

There is no contradiction there: both MPs elected via a geographical riding or MPs elected via a national list clearly has to represent a very specific part of the electorate. Only corrupt political parties choose their candidates based more on their loyalties to their parties than on their democratic representativeness. The conflict of interests that may exist for candidates in between serving a party and serving the population would not last long because only the people, not a political party, can make national heroes out of traitors.

Edited July 23, 2009 by benny

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

Umm...most big parties don't publish policies that contradict each other..and especially in the same paragraph.

Our purpose is to present options to Canadian voters, and let them decide and "define" their democracy. Hence, the appearance of ambiguities or conflicts is natural -- it's a method of politicking that's going to be difficult to get used to, at first.

As much as the people in this Party desire democratic reform, big-time, it means different things to different people in different parts of the world, if we can't convince Canadians of it then it isn't even going to happen.

However, it should be an easy sell.

Canadians are so hynotized by political "leadership" that the old-line parties have always provided that if they were suddenly to have a little genuine power over the spending of their taxes and shaping of their country, it'll be a shock to the system.

For example, with electoral reform, should we select 1-2-3 ballots or some sort of proportional system, or the proverbial "made-in-Canada" mixed-bag. Believe me, within this Party we have our preference, but it's time to reconsider politics where leadership is simply "ramming the Party line down Canadians' throats" -- simply because 38 percent of Canadians voted for that particular Party.

So, if we're letting the voter decide, that means we're counting on their being able to think, which we trust them to do once they've been informed of all the pro's and con's.

It's that thing in the signature line: "We respect the wisdom, fairness and generosity of Canadians".

Being able to decide individual issues directly is quite unlike our present solitary opportunity at direct democracy (general elections), which are all about who gets absolute power for years at a time and isn't about individual issues at all.

Not restricted to campaigns of 45, 43, 41, 35, 29 days (getting shorter and shorter!), with all sorts of restrictions imposed on non-registered parties and individuals, in a direct democracy Canada voters can be fully engaged and informed so that they render a decision that's not rushed, haphazard or throw-up-their-hands cynical.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Our purpose is to present options to Canadian voters, and let them decide and "define" their democracy. Hence, the appearance of ambiguities or conflicts is natural -- it's a method of politicking that's going to be difficult to get used to, at first.

As much as the people in this Party desire democratic reform, big-time, it means different things to different people in different parts of the world, if we can't convince Canadians of it then it isn't even going to happen.

However, it should be an easy sell.

Canadians are so hynotized by political "leadership" that the old-line parties have always provided that if they were suddenly to have a little genuine power over the spending of their taxes and shaping of their country, it'll be a shock to the system.

For example, with electoral reform, should we select 1-2-3 ballots or some sort of proportional system, or the proverbial "made-in-Canada" mixed-bag. Believe me, within this Party we have our preference, but it's time to reconsider politics where leadership is simply "ramming the Party line down Canadians' throats" -- simply because 38 percent of Canadians voted for that particular Party.

So, if we're letting the voter decide, that means we're counting on their being able to think, which we trust them to do once they've been informed of all the pro's and con's.

It's that thing in the signature line: "We respect the wisdom, fairness and generosity of Canadians".

Being able to decide individual issues directly is quite unlike our present solitary opportunity at direct democracy (general elections), which are all about who gets absolute power for years at a time and isn't about individual issues at all.

Not restricted to campaigns of 45, 43, 41, 35, 29 days (getting shorter and shorter!), with all sorts of restrictions imposed on non-registered parties and individuals, in a direct democracy Canada voters can be fully engaged and informed so that they render a decision that's not rushed, haphazard or throw-up-their-hands cynical.

I will be damned! A political party of independents is exactly what I have been screaming into the wind about for years! You can expect to hear from me very soon, I am willing to help out in any way I can!

[madmax]

That's my point. In the OP it said it's a new era.

This isn't a new era in politics, it's a rerun.

THere is many times in our history with over 4 parties in parliment.

Quite Frankly we had more then 4 parties in parliment when the Liberals were winning back to back to back majorities.

This is not a new era.. but some want us to believe that it is...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

THere is many times in our history with over 4 parties in parliment.

Quite Frankly we had more then 4 parties in parliment when the Liberals were winning back to back to back majorities.

This is not a new era.. but some want us to believe that it is...

Dude, there is a new era coming, of that I have no doubt. The combination of economics and the relatively new globalization efforts of corporate interests are slowly changing our politics. I am convinced of this. The current public perception is that governments ought to be more involved in economies, that is supported by recent efforts at stimulus, on the other hand there is now a rift between citizens who think this is a good thing and those that think it is a bad thing. The gap widens everyday.

The entire planet waits for the day, which is soon coming that will see India become the most populous nation. Fully 42% of the world population will exist on a single continent, Asia. There is the future seat of production and consumption, and there is where all profit motivated ventures will focus. That is the emerging market that everyone is concerned with and for good reason. Transportation and commodity pipelines will form between the two nations, but unless something changes quickly then there will be an ideological rift between them. This will create two separate camps of suppliers, that will compete against each other for market shares in both nations. Times will indeed become interesting.

[madmax]

Dude, there is a new era coming, of that I have no doubt. The combination of economics and the relatively new globalization efforts of corporate interests are slowly changing our politics. I am convinced of this. The current public perception is that governments ought to be more involved in economies, that is supported by recent efforts at stimulus, on the other hand there is now a rift between citizens who think this is a good thing and those that think it is a bad thing. The gap widens everyday.

The efforts for global interests of Capital aren't new. What is relatively new in the past two decades has been the acceptance and deregulating efforts to allow greater Capital freedom in the Global economy.

Regardless, I won't dispute your above comments, although there is a similarity with the mindset of the public during the great depression. The biggest surprise being that when war broke out, the government found plenty of money and plenty of ways to fight the war. After the war, those monies, were spread around to prop up foreign governments in Japan and Germany as well as create the Welfare States of The United States, Canada and Europe.

With regards to multiple parties in the political process, this is nothing new to Canadian Politics, and it is people who have never looked back into Canadian History that somehow believe that 5 parties is alot and that it is the first time in History.

Just going back a decade....

BQ, NDP, LPC, Progressive Conservatives, Reform, .... Thats five..

Edited July 23, 2009 by madmax

[M.Dancer]

Dude, there is a new era coming, of that I have no doubt. The combination of economics and the relatively new globalization efforts of corporate interests are slowly changing our politics. I am convinced of this. The current public perception is that governments ought to be more involved in economies, that is supported by recent efforts at stimulus, on the other hand there is now a rift between citizens who think this is a good thing and those that think it is a bad thing. The gap widens everyday.

This paragraph could have been written 50 years ago for the opening of the Seaway.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This paragraph could have been written 50 years ago for the opening of the Seaway.

The same trend continues, the only constant is change.

[August1991]

Umm...most big parties don't publish policies that contradict each other..and especially in the same paragraph.

THIS IS

• single-transferable vote, proportional representation, run-offs

is in conflict with THIS

• M.P. Oath to his/her constituents re: party affiliation; cannot switch parties without sitting as Independent or

triggering by-election

Good find, Morris.

[benny]

Good find, Morris.

An obvious detail rather.

[sgarrydemocracyparty]

I will be damned! A political party of independents is exactly what I have been screaming into the wind about for years! You can expect to hear from me very soon, I am willing to help out in any way I can!

Jerry, you sound like you need to get especially involved with John Richardson at Independent Candidates.

John, I'd say, is a leader of the "Independent" assured autonomy side of Democracy Party; I and others lead the "direct democracy" side. However, over the past few months we've come to realize the two are complementary and create a condition that's a heck of a lot better than the status quo.

Read John's "what is an Independent" here.

[August1991]

An obvious detail rather.

Detail?

How can an MP answer to constituents while at the same time be chosen by a party list/proportional voting scheme?

There is no contradiction there: both MPs elected via a geographical riding or MPs elected via a national list clearly has to represent a very specific part of the electorate. Only corrupt political parties choose their candidates based more on their loyalties to their parties than on their democratic representativeness. The conflict of interests that may exist for candidates in between serving a party and serving the population would not last long because only the people, not a political party, can make national heroes out of traitors.

I have read that several times and I'm still not sure that I understand your argument. Are you creating a new definition of "constituent"?

In France, prior to the revolution, they held États généraux in which different "constituencies" in society (the church, landholders, people chosen by the monarch, etc.) were represented. Is this what you mean?

[benny]

Jerry, you sound like you need to get especially involved with John Richardson at Independent Candidates.

John, I'd say, is a leader of the "Independent" assured autonomy side of Democracy Party; I and others lead the "direct democracy" side. However, over the past few months we've come to realize the two are complementary and create a condition that's a heck of a lot better than the status quo.

Read John's "what is an Independent" here.

I think that Canadian politics should be geared towards beating the Bloc Québécois. I find that one of the strongest argument to attack the Bloc is that it will never form a government. If I was to run as an independent in my riding, I would run against the Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe and I would not really be able to use this argument because of the independent status.

[ToadBrother]

THere is many times in our history with over 4 parties in parliment.

Quite Frankly we had more then 4 parties in parliment when the Liberals were winning back to back to back majorities.

This is not a new era.. but some want us to believe that it is...

We've also had periods of political instability where no one could form a majority. This is one of those periods. I suspect, however, that we will soon be entering another period of stability, because folks are just getting tired of the incapacity of Parliament to actually do anything.

[benny]

We've also had periods of political instability where no one could form a majority. This is one of those periods. I suspect, however, that we will soon be entering another period of stability, because folks are just getting tired of the incapacity of Parliament to actually do anything.

What you deem stable may only be an infinite regress where a majority is resolute at undoing what the previous majority had itself, as resolutely, undone of the previous one.

[August1991]

We've also had periods of political instability where no one could form a majority. This is one of those periods. I suspect, however, that we will soon be entering another period of stability, because folks are just getting tired of the incapacity of Parliament to actually do anything.

The last time we had a similar instability/minority governments was in the 1960s between Pearson and Diefenbaker. At the time, the instability was due in part to the Creditistes which won around 25 seats in Quebec.

This changed in 1968 with Trudeau.

Incidentally, the old Creditiste vote tends to go to the Conservatives now. The Bloc has captured people who in the past didn't vote, or voted Liberal.

I think that Canadian politics should be geared towards beating the Bloc Québécois. I find that one of the strongest argument to attack the Bloc is that it will never form a government. If I was to run as an independent in my riding, I would run against the Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe and I would not really be able to use this argument because of the independent status.

That argument won't work. IMV, the Bloc's success is dependent in part on the success of the PQ and the nationalist option and also on the (in)ability of another federal party to incorporate Quebec politics into its agenda. Mulroney and Trudeau were good at this. Chretien was not so good but he didn't ignore it.

[madmax]

We've also had periods of political instability where no one could form a majority. This is one of those periods. I suspect, however, that we will soon be entering another period of stability, because folks are just getting tired of the incapacity of Parliament to actually do anything.

We have had majority and minority governments. Canada has not had periods of political instability in parliment.

Infact, while there has been alot of whining and complaining, and posturing, the minority government has been stable. The fact that Harper called an early election had little to do with minority parliment as he had 100% support from the Liberal Party on all bills of confidence and after his attempt for a majority has received 100% support from the Liberal Party on all bills of confidence. Something like 79 times in a row. The goal of parliment is to get the majority in the house. The CPC have been able to do that for 3.5 years.

IIRC Jean Chretian while holding a MAJORITY government called an EARLY election ......

[benny]

That argument won't work. IMV, the Bloc's success is dependent in part on the success of the PQ and the nationalist option and also on the (in)ability of another federal party to incorporate Quebec politics into its agenda. Mulroney and Trudeau were good at this. Chretien was not so good but he didn't ignore it.

That argument works because the PQ doesn't need the Bloc to form the government in Quebec and to, then, press the political party who forms the government in Ottawa to respond to its demands.

Edited July 23, 2009 by benny