Should party names be removed from election ballots?

[Machjo]

Your thoughts on this?

[Machjo]

Interesting that someone should defend keeping party names on ballots.

In my opinion, this is what allows some right idiots to get to power. People voting for them based strictly on party affiliation, either because it has a pretty logo or pretty colours or because grandpapa voted that party or because the party leader is sexy, etc.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Machjo

[kimmy]

In my opinion, this is what allows some right idiots to get to power. People voting for them based strictly on party affiliation, either because it has a pretty logo or pretty colours or because grandpapa voted that party or because the party leader is sexy, etc.

Whereas if party names were hidden on the ballots, people would vote with meritudinous intentions, such as "she sounds hot" or "he sounds Irish like me!" or "my 3rd grade teacher was named McGuff too!"

My thoughts are that in our system the party's position is far more significant than an individual candidate's relative merits. Hiding party affiliation from someone in the ballot box could serve no good purpose.

Imagine Dr Greenthumb's reaction when he leaves the polling station after doing his civic duty and discovers that he accidentally voted for the candidate from the party that opposes legalizing pot.

Actually, that would be pretty funny. Maybe you're onto something.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Whereas if party names were hidden on the ballots, people would vote with meritudinous intentions, such as "she sounds hot" or "he sounds Irish like me!" or "my 3rd grade teacher was named McGuff too!"

Sounds good to me....instead of party affiliation, candidate avatars are the modern way to go!

[Machjo]

Whereas if party names were hidden on the ballots, people would vote with meritudinous intentions, such as "she sounds hot" or "he sounds Irish like me!" or "my 3rd grade teacher was named McGuff too!"

My thoughts are that in our system the party's position is far more significant than an individual candidate's relative merits. Hiding party affiliation from someone in the ballot box could serve no good purpose.

Imagine Dr Greenthumb's reaction when he leaves the polling station after doing his civic duty and discovers that he accidentally voted for the candidate from the party that opposes legalizing pot.

Actually, that would be pretty funny. Maybe you're onto something.

-k

Seriously now. Would it be that difficult for a polling station to put up a poster describing each candidate's views including his party affiliation? If voters can't even be bothered to read a poster on the wall, then they deserve Dr. Greenthumb.

[Machjo]

What is the use of democracy anyway if people are oting eenie meenie minie moe andcan't even bother to do a little background research on their candidate. In that case, elections are totally random anyway and we might as well just have a dictatorship. At least it would provide stability.

[bloodyminded]

Seriously now. Would it be that difficult for a polling station to put up a poster describing each candidate's views including his party affiliation? If voters can't even be bothered to read a poster on the wall, then they deserve Dr. Greenthumb.

But what would you expect these posters to tell us?

"Fiscally responsible," each would certainly claim.

And a few other conventional pieties.

[Machjo]

But what would you expect these posters to tell us?

"Fiscally responsible," each would certainly claim.

And a few other conventional pieties.

Of course. But without the same emphasis on party, candidates would be expected to deliver or else they'd be voted out come next election, rather than just counting on their pretty party logo to win again and again. Also, these petty remarks would likely not hold as firmly as a bunch of party propaganda owing to the lack of party loyalty.

[wyly]

can picture the panic among some candidates if they had to stand on their own two feet and actually had to meet opponents in a debate, present an intelligent platform, or take on voters in a question and answer session... ...

Edited May 8, 2010 by wyly

[Wilber]

I take this as meaning that their party affiliation would not be on the ballot, not kept secret. Perhaps it might motivate people to find out who they are actually voting for instead of just looking for the party on the ballot without even reading the names. Dr. Greenthumb (and others) might have to do a little research before going to the polls to avoid screwing it up. What's so bad about that?

[Bonam]

Individual MPs are basically powerless, due to the practice of "party discipline" in Canada. When you vote for a candidate, what you are really voting for is an extra vote on that party's policies, nothing more. In the US, it would perhaps make some sense, since individual congressman are allowed to have an opinion and can vote based on their own principles and the benefit of their constituents. But in Canada this doesn't really happen.

[Wilber]

Individual MPs are basically powerless, due to the practice of "party discipline" in Canada. When you vote for a candidate, what you are really voting for is an extra vote on that party's policies, nothing more. In the US, it would perhaps make some sense, since individual congressman are allowed to have an opinion and can vote based on their own principles and the benefit of their constituents. But in Canada this doesn't really happen.

This is true but our electorate is part of the reason why. If they blindly just vote for parties, why should they expect anything else. Problem is, our expectations of our representatives are so low, they are easily met.

Lets face it, a political party could care less whether you know individuals or their policies, all it wants is your vote and the power that comes with it. The party's own leadership has the power of political life and death over your representatives, why should it care what you want?

[capricorn]

It's true that some dud candidates get elected. But even duds can learn on the job and as a result can do an OK job. One of the major tasks of an MP is to represent his constituents. I would look to my MP for help whenever I needed it. My MP, like the majority of MPs, will do the right thing by his constituents regardless of whether they voted for the MP or not. In terms of national policies, it does seem that most voters look to the platforms of the various parties and vote accordingly. And of course, election campaigns go a long way to swaying voters one way or another.

I don't see any benefit to removing the names of the parties and I think a lot of people would object to it.

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't see any benefit to removing the names of the parties and I think a lot of people would object to it.

I don't see how its helpful to take the party names off. A big part of the decision to vote is knowing what the party represents, what policies they have in their agenda, what laws they will introduce. Just because a person like Harper has some charisma, and leadership skills doesn't make him the right one to vote for, if the party's politics is not in line with what you believe in.

[Smallc]

This is true but our electorate is part of the reason why.

Not just part of the reason. The electorate is to blame for everything.

[ToadBrother]

Interesting that someone should defend keeping party names on ballots.

In my opinion, this is what allows some right idiots to get to power. People voting for them based strictly on party affiliation, either because it has a pretty logo or pretty colours or because grandpapa voted that party or because the party leader is sexy, etc.

I'm curious as to why you think voters are simpering morons and anyone should pursue a policy of trying to trick them into breaking their voting patterns?

[maple_leafs182]

Aren't MP's just suppose to be the administrators of the people, they are suppose to represent their area. With the party system it seems like they represent the party as appose to the people.

We should just get rid of elections.

We should just choose random people to be a MP and serve a year or so term. If they don't wish to serve they can pass it on to the next person.

I think it would get rid of a lot of the corruption, it would get rid of those career politicians that will sell their soul to get elected again.

Just throwing the idea out there.

[Sir Bandelot]

Aren't MP's just suppose to be the administrators of the people, they are suppose to represent their area. With the party system it seems like they represent the party as appose to the people.

We should just get rid of elections.

We should just choose random people to be a MP and serve a year or so term. If they don't wish to serve they can pass it on to the next person.

I think it would get rid of a lot of the corruption, it would get rid of those career politicians that will sell their soul to get elected again.

Just throwing the idea out there.

Sounds like the original Athenian model.

[Wilber]

I'm curious as to why you think voters are simpering morons and anyone should pursue a policy of trying to trick them into breaking their voting patterns?

Trick them? If they aren't simpering morons they shouldn't need the party affiliation on the ballot.

[Machjo]

can picture the panic among some candidates if they had to stand on their own two feet and actually had to meet opponents in a debate, present an intelligent platform, or take on voters in a question and answer session... ...

No kidding. Could you imagine them having to emphasize their name and saying:

"if you want to vote party X, I'm it's candidate, and you spell it M-A-C-H-J-O. Would you like me to spell that for you?...

No? Well, don't forget now, OK, because Manjo's on the ballot too, and you don't want to vote for her. Remember now it's C-H not N, Ok... don't forget now."

Or...

"You wanna know what I stand for? Good question. Let me just see if I can find it here in the party platform manual... Official Bilingualism you said? Hmmm... ah, here it is, page 35. Just read page 35 of the manual and you'll know what I stand for on that subject, but don't ask me 'cause I haven't read it myself."

[Machjo]

I take this as meaning that their party affiliation would not be on the ballot, not kept secret. Perhaps it might motivate people to find out who they are actually voting for instead of just looking for the party on the ballot without even reading the names. Dr. Greenthumb (and others) might have to do a little research before going to the polls to avoid screwing it up. What's so bad about that?

What's so bad about that?It would require them to actually think. For those who aren't used to that, it could give them a headache. Could you imagine?With all the trouble they'd have to go through to learn about their candidate, they might decide to just not vote anymore. Good riddance.

[Machjo]

Individual MPs are basically powerless, due to the practice of "party discipline" in Canada. When you vote for a candidate, what you are really voting for is an extra vote on that party's policies, nothing more. In the US, it would perhaps make some sense, since individual congressman are allowed to have an opinion and can vote based on their own principles and the benefit of their constituents. But in Canada this doesn't really happen.

Exactly. That's precisely why I'd want the party names off of the ballots, so as to not encourage such excessive party discipline. Your argument runs along the lines of:

"Problem X exists already, so why try to remedy it."

Pretty defeatist if you ask me.

[Machjo]

This is true but our electorate is part of the reason why. If they blindly just vote for parties, why should they expect anything else. Problem is, our expectations of our representatives are so low, they are easily met.

Lets face it, a political party could care less whether you know individuals or their policies, all it wants is your vote and the power that comes with it. The party's own leadership has the power of political life and death over your representatives, why should it care what you want?

^

|

Ditto that.

[Machjo]

It's true that some dud candidates get elected. But even duds can learn on the job and as a result can do an OK job. One of the major tasks of an MP is to represent his constituents. I would look to my MP for help whenever I needed it. My MP, like the majority of MPs, will do the right thing by his constituents regardless of whether they voted for the MP or not. In terms of national policies, it does seem that most voters look to the platforms of the various parties and vote accordingly. And of course, election campaigns go a long way to swaying voters one way or another.

I don't see any benefit to removing the names of the parties and I think a lot of people would object to it.

So you're quite happy with dolts running voting on national policy!?

I agree there are certain things a candidate can learn on the job. Character, however, which is uniquely a personal and not collective trait, is something we'd expect a candidate to learn before getting the job. As for anything else, yes, he could learn on the job. But character, no way.

[Machjo]

I don't see how its helpful to take the party names off. A big part of the decision to vote is knowing what the party represents, what policies they have in their agenda, what laws they will introduce.

And that's inpart because party names appear on the ballot. You seem to be promoting a self-fulfilling prophecy, which generally involves circular reasoning. The party is all-powerful, and so we need to entrench that on the ballot, and entrenching it on the ballot ensures the party remains all-powerful.

We need to avoid such circular reasoning.

Just because a person like Harper has some charisma, and leadership skills doesn't make him the right one to vote for, if the party's politics is not in line with what you believe in.

Now you seem to be defending taking party names off of the ballot. Let's say Harper was a worthwhile candidate to vote for but was not in my riding. And let's say (which is in fact the case in my riding) the CPC MP in my riding was a complete idiot. In my riding I'd actually met people who agreed that the guy was an idiot but voted him in anyway because they liked Harper. By emphasizing party, are you not encouraging people to vote for idiots because the party leader would actually be worth voting for if he were in that riding? By removing party names from the ballot, would you not give that local candidate more of a run for votes?

You seem to be shooting down your own proposal with the example you just presented.