Should party names be removed from election ballots?

[Machjo]

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

Agreed.

[Machjo]

I've noticed one serious problem in debates about not just electoral reform, but any reform really, how people fall so quickly to circular reasoning.

Problem X is as it is so we need to maintain condition Y, even though condition Y is the reason for problem X.

How do we break voters out of this simplistic thinking?

[Machjo]

I can see why so many want to keep party names on the ballots. It saves much brainwork on their part.

[Machjo]

Or if it is true that promoting more thought in elections is a lost cause, then let's be honest about it and remove candidates' names and just have party names on the ballot instead of pretending that candidates really matter anyway.

[Machjo]

In fact if that's the case we could save much money on MP salaries by simply having party leaders show up to Parliament with each leader's vote worth the percentage of votes he got in the election. Why even pretend that candidates are worth anything if they've really just become party slaves.

[capricorn]

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

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Character, however, which is uniquely a personal and not collective trait, is something we'd expect a candidate to learn before getting the job.

IMO character is not learned but is inherent in individuals. However, some public officials do a good job of hiding their flaws and either get away with it or are eventually unmasked.

[AcuteAngst]

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.

Absolutely correct..MPs serve the party and the party leadership ....they live in fear of loosing their "jobs" because most of them could not get a decent job. They say all the "right" things but anyone who has observed their actual voting records will see that they serve the party thereby securing their future

[Machjo]

Absolutely correct..MPs serve the party and the party leadership ....they live in fear of loosing their "jobs" because most of them could not get a decent job. They say all the "right" things but anyone who has observed their actual voting records will see that they serve the party thereby securing their future

So do we remove the party names from the ballot to try to improve the situation, or do we just remove candidate names from the ballot to reflect actual reality?

[Machjo]

Or here's another idea:

You could choose whether you want a candidate ballot or a party ballot. This way a candidate would know how many voted for his party and how many for him personally if he wins a seat. If most voted for his party, then he knows his constituents don't really want him to think for himself but to just flail his arms in yeas and nays as per party request.That way he knows that if we wants to keep his seat for the next election, he'd better just shut up and flail his arms about as required.

On the other hand, if he gets way more personal votes than party votes, then he knows that his constituents want a thinker and not an arm-flailer. As such, he would have no more fear of refusing to bend over forward with his pants down for his party and would actually have the courage to vote his conscience or even resign from his party if needs be to stand on principle.

[ToadBrother]

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.

Again, the only way it works is if voters are easily confused morons. If they're not, then they're going to know the party affiliation. This is just the sort of silly non-solution I rail against. Not only does it impinge on the rights of a candidate to associate as he will, or at least to make that association known, but it could only work if everyone was an easily confused idiot.

[Machjo]

Again, the only way it works is if voters are easily confused morons. If they're not, then they're going to know the party affiliation. This is just the sort of silly non-solution I rail against. Not only does it impinge on the rights of a candidate to associate as he will, or at least to make that association known, but it could only work if everyone was an easily confused idiot.

You bring up a very valid point here. As for 'the right of a candidate to associate as he will', putting his party name on the ballot essentially removes that right from him to a degree by giving the impression that he is bound to that party. By removing party affiliation from the ballot, we recognize that party affiliation is his business. We are voting for the candidate and he's certainly free to join any party he wants. Our only concern is that he represent his constituents well. Beyond that, he could join the Rhino Party for all we care.

[AcuteAngst]

Or here's another idea:

You could choose whether you want a candidate ballot or a party ballot. This way a candidate would know how many voted for his party and how many for him personally if he wins a seat. If most voted for his party, then he knows his constituents don't really want him to think for himself but to just flail his arms in yeas and nays as per party request.That way he knows that if we wants to keep his seat for the next election, he'd better just shut up and flail his arms about as required.

On the other hand, if he gets way more personal votes than party votes, then he knows that his constituents want a thinker and not an arm-flailer. As such, he would have no more fear of refusing to bend over forward with his pants down for his party and would actually have the courage to vote his conscience or even resign from his party if needs be to stand on principle.

First: Every candidate should maintain a website to record how they voted/were absent..on every vote in our House of Commons

Secondly : Candidates selected by local constituents associations could not be denied an opportunity to run in a campaign by party leader or party insiders

Third: Someone has to start insisting politicians serve their constituents first

[Machjo]

First: Every candidate should maintain a website to record how they voted/were absent..on every vote in our House of Commons

Secondly : Candidates selected by local constituents associations could not be denied an opportunity to run in a campaign by party leader or party insiders

Third: Someone has to start insisting politicians serve their constituents first

You have some good ideas there, but I think a prerequisite is to remove the party hack mentality. As long as that mentality remains, few will even bother to look at their candidate's website. They'll only care bout looking at the party website. And I think the most important symbolic move to help fight the party hack mentality is to remove party names from ballots. Once that's done. more people might actually start looking at candidate websites so as to learn more about individual candidates. Then and only then would your ideas be fruitful, though I agree they are good ideas.

[Machjo]

First: Every candidate should maintain a website to record how they voted/were absent..on every vote in our House of Commons

Secondly : Candidates selected by local constituents associations could not be denied an opportunity to run in a campaign by party leader or party insiders

Third: Someone has to start insisting politicians serve their constituents first

Besides, why would a candidate be bothered going though all this effort if all his constituents care about is his party affiliation?

[Handsome Rob]

First: Every candidate should maintain a website to record how they voted/were absent..on every vote in our House of Commons

http://howdtheyvote.ca/

Secondly : Candidates selected by local constituents associations could not be denied an opportunity to run in a campaign by party leader or party insiders

If the electorate supports the individual, then it isn't a problem, they'll elect the individual. The problem, I think, is the autocratic voting process that makes the electorate support the party and to hell with the individual.

[ToadBrother]

You bring up a very valid point here. As for 'the right of a candidate to associate as he will', putting his party name on the ballot essentially removes that right from him to a degree by giving the impression that he is bound to that party. By removing party affiliation from the ballot, we recognize that party affiliation is his business. We are voting for the candidate and he's certainly free to join any party he wants. Our only concern is that he represent his constituents well. Beyond that, he could join the Rhino Party for all we care.

So you're imagining that by repainting the walls, the collapsing structure will be magically be held up? It's an absurd solution that would solve nothing.

Want to reduce party influence, alter fundraising to allow it to be more centralized in the ridings themselves. Make it easier for people to know how they're MPs vote. Most importantly, get more voters talking to MPs directly via mail and email. Both are essentially free (you don't pay postage for snail mail to your MP). Believe me, if your MP got six or seven thousand angry letters over proposed legislation or a policy change, as opposed to twenty by the same mix of malcontents and whack-jobs who write the bizarre Letters to the Editor in your local paper, he'd feel it keenly.

You seem to be falling into the same trap that so many do, that the only time political involvement counts is at the ballot box, and after that, other than the slim chance that one of the polling firms might call you as part of a random sample, you just bitch and moan on Internet forum or to your friends and relations.

[ToadBrother]

http://howdtheyvote.ca/

If the electorate supports the individual, then it isn't a problem, they'll elect the individual. The problem, I think, is the autocratic voting process that makes the electorate support the party and to hell with the individual.

Nothing stopping you from voting for an independent or a smaller party.

[Handsome Rob]

You have some good ideas there, but I think a prerequisite is to remove the party hack mentality. As long as that mentality remains, few will even bother to look at their candidate's website. They'll only care bout looking at the party website. And I think the most important symbolic move to help fight the party hack mentality is to remove party names from ballots. Once that's done. more people might actually start looking at candidate websites so as to learn more about individual candidates. Then and only then would your ideas be fruitful, though I agree they are good ideas.

I think the problem is the ever growing 'me first' mentality of the populace.

Problem:

MP is faced with a vote that is good for the nation but bad for the local population.

MP votes yes, local population unhappy, nation better off.

MP votes no, local population happy, nation doesn't gain.

An MP backed by the party stands a far better chance of weathering the next election than an independent.

[Molly]

"Secondly : Candidates selected by local constituents associations could not be denied an opportunity to run in a campaign by party leader or party insiders"

Parties are private clubs that make their own rules. If you don't like the way they choose who to endorse, take it up with that party.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Molly

[Machjo]

So you're imagining that by repainting the walls, the collapsing structure will be magically be held up? It's an absurd solution that would solve nothing.

Want to reduce party influence, alter fundraising to allow it to be more centralized in the ridings themselves. Make it easier for people to know how they're MPs vote. Most importantly, get more voters talking to MPs directly via mail and email. Both are essentially free (you don't pay postage for snail mail to your MP). Believe me, if your MP got six or seven thousand angry letters over proposed legislation or a policy change, as opposed to twenty by the same mix of malcontents and whack-jobs who write the bizarre Letters to the Editor in your local paper, he'd feel it keenly.

You seem to be falling into the same trap that so many do, that the only time political involvement counts is at the ballot box, and after that, other than the slim chance that one of the polling firms might call you as part of a random sample, you just bitch and moan on Internet forum or to your friends and relations.

I agree with all your points,and have written to my MP and MPP, and on occasion have had to write a few times to get a response, with the MP or MPP or the appropriate government administrator calling me with some platitudes. Needless to say, I gave up. After all, if after all that effort they still don't get it, the only solution then is to get them out of office. The problem though is that as long as the general public keep voting in such dimwits, our leaders will be too illiterate to understand anyway. I'm sick and tired of writing letters to dimwits.

Now I recognize that removing party names from the ballots would be but a small step, and many of the points your bring up are valid.

That said, when the allies had to fight Nazi Germany, they started off on a simple beach. Had they not started there, they would never have moved further inland. The same applies here. Removing party names from ballots would be that first step on the beach so as to allow for deeper reforms later. If you're not willing to make small victories, the big ones will never occur.

[Machjo]

"Secondly : Candidates selected by local constituents associations could not be denied an opportunity to run in a campaign by party leader or party insiders"

Parties are private clubs that make their own rules. If you don't like the way they choose who to endorse, take it up with that party.

That I agree with. Internal party policy is its business, and no party has any obligation to endorse this or that candidate. That said, no person should be held back from running as an independent, and if party names do not appear on the ballot, then that helps to put them on a more equal footing with party members.

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

Yes, I think the reality of todays politics is that the party is all-powerful. Leaders are vetted by the party executive. Somewhat like a corporation chooses its CEO, decision made by the board of governors. It's a power problem. Not saying that I like it, but I don't think that merely removing the party name from the ballot would solve this problem.

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.

Not really shooting down my first statement, if you read the clarification of what I just wrote. If we are talking about Federal then the election of a particular MP in my riding is somewhat abstract. In a certain sense yes, the individual doesn't matter. Some people vote for a candidate in their riding because they want that federal party to win, knowing the person who is in their riding will do their part according to party policies and decision. I admit, when I think federal, I think "party" because of the nature of the way that game is run. Quite often, crucial votes in the house are dictated by the party leaders. The MP's are told how to vote on an important bill.

If they don't like it they risk being ousted by the party and forced to go independent.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[kimmy]

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.

The party is all-powerful in our system, and removing party names from ballots will not change that one iota.

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.

If those voters want Harper to be prime minister, then voting for the CPC candidate is the right vote whether he's a moron or not. At the end of the day, choosing the party and party leader that fits your ideological outlook is more important than supporting the most capable back-bencher.

There are exceptions, of course. If your local candidate is particularly notable, it might be worthwhile to support them anyway. Anne McLellan was able to get elected a number of times largely on the strength of the idea that having an MP in cabinet would be more valuable to the constituents than having a back-bencher in opposition. And there are many examples of people voting for the MP rather than the party. Elsie Wayne or David Kilgour, for example, MPs whose personal popularity in their home ridings was more important to their electoral success than their party affiliation.

-k

[kimmy]

Secondly : Candidates selected by local constituents associations could not be denied an opportunity to run in a campaign by party leader or party insiders

If someone is unwilling to abide their party's wishes, they shouldn't run under the banner of that party at all. They can run as an independent.

-k

[Argus]

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.

That is true. Unfortunately I see no workaround. In today's politics, politicians reveal as little as possible about themselves. Every word and position goes through the spin cylce before it leaves their lips. They might be cretins but you wouldn't know that without a personal consversation, and how many people are going to be able to personally question their candidates? All candidates meetings are carefully rehearsed by each of the major candidates, so that they give the party's line on everything. So again, you learn very little, if anything, about them. We don't know their hobbies. We don't know what kind of parent they are. We don't know what kind of worker they were, assuming they hold a job. We don't really know anything about their personal opinions on ANYTHING or what they personally would like to change and how they'd propose changing it. All we get is the party line. So since we know nothing about the candidates, all we can do is vote for the party.