Liberals and New Democrats together could unseat Harper

[politicslvr]

There is a way forward within the present system, and that is through coalition governments. That is the logical progression from multiple party politics and minority governments. It provides the means of enhancing democracy.

How is a government full of people who *we didn't directly vote for* supposed to enhance democracy?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How is a government full of people who *we didn't directly vote for* supposed to enhance democracy?

We don't actually vote for a government. We just vote for one representative from our own constituency anyway. We don't vote for a leader either. Those things don't have any application in our system, surely you know this.

[Argus]

What about getting rid of the concept of parties entirely.

Hideously expensive. Every time the government, whoever that was, wanted to get some legislation passed they'd have to engage in 160 versions of Let's Make A Deal. Every other MP would be trying to twist their arms for a new museum or bridge or arena or contract for a local company or whatever. We see a toned-down version of this in the US Congress, where every large bill comes with dozens of amendments on it all directing money into separate ridings in order to get the vote of that particular congressman.

[madmax]

Well said.

Private members bills are as close as one gets to free votes. Party discipline is required and I am not against it. I also believe that an MP has a right to step out of the box and vote against his party, but that will sometimes come with consequences depending on the issue. That doesn't mean the MP has done the wrong thing, it just means the member may be in the doghouse or removed from cabinet or kicked out of the caucus entirely. Party discipline is good, but that doesn't mean the MPs need to be lemmings.

That said, the article this thread is based upon, is about eliminating democratic choice.

Its possibly the simplist and stupidest argument I have read.

So much for the high intellectual discussion coming from a Poly sci prof.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well said.

Private members bills are as close as one gets to free votes. Party discipline is required and I am not against it. I also believe that an MP has a right to step out of the box and vote against his party, but that will sometimes come with consequences depending on the issue. That doesn't mean the MP has done the wrong thing, it just means the member may be in the doghouse or removed from cabinet or kicked out of the caucus entirely. Party discipline is good, but that doesn't mean the MPs need to be lemmings.

That said, the article this thread is based upon, is about eliminating democratic choice.

Its possibly the simplist and stupidest argument I have read.

So much for the high intellectual discussion coming from a Poly sci prof.

It is just another opinion nothing more and nothing less.

[OddSox]

I don't get this whole issue about coalition governments. When you think about it, every party (at least the mainstream ones) are already a coalition - they continually adjust their policies depending on the wishes of the membership, or at least they are supposed to.

For example, the Conservative party includes many from the far right, as well as the so-called 'red tories' and lots of people in between who have worked together to develop a cohesive policy that they can all accept - democracy in action. The Liberal party works much the same way, although they have interesting ways of electing their leaders. In fact, any party that wants to be successful has worked out ways to accommodate multiple points of view.

The so-called fringe parties are the ones who actually reject democracy. Many people who vote for the Green party only do so because they are unwilling to compromise or 'work with others' on their particular pet issue - making them the most undemocratic of all.