Should party names be removed from election ballots?

[Argus]

Agreed.

THe problem is that a given constituency is simply too large for more than a small percentage of the residents to have any personal acquaintance with the candidate. That means all they really have to go on is the media, and generally speaking, the media do a piss-poor job of telling us what kind of men and women these candidates are.

[Machjo]

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.

BS. Last election, I'd visited the Liberal candidate's office and asked a few questions. The candidate literally went to the party policy manual, looked up the subject at hand, skimmed through it, and then answered based on that. I was personally insulted, since i could have gotten the same information from the party website. I had not gone out of my way to go to his campaign office just to get what I could have read on my own off the party website.

The CPC office was not far from there (walking distance in fact) and so I'd gone there to talk to the CPC member. He wasn't there, so I'd written him a note and got a call the next day from Dr. so and so who answered me on his behalf. Now I can understand that the candidate was busy an could not answer me personally. I have no issue with that. But certainly an organized candidate would gather questions he gets and answer them in an organized manner on his website for others to look up so as to not have to take up his precious time with the same question. But this candidate did nothing of the sort and got Dr. so and so to express his own opinions to me. Well, sorry, but Dr. so and so was not going to be on my ballot.

Out of respect for each candidate, I'd looked up their websites first precisely to not waste their time if I could have found the answers online. The reason I'd gone to them was precisely because I could not find the answer online. I'd also managed to visit the Green candidate at his home, and he actually showed to be a more independent thinker than the rest of them (though I won't credit his party for that and took that as a reflection of him only).

As for the NDP candidate, well, I couldn't reach her for comment. So, which candidate do you think I'd be more likely to vote for?

It's just a matter of doing your homework if you really care about it.

[Machjo]

THe problem is that a given constituency is simply too large for more than a small percentage of the residents to have any personal acquaintance with the candidate. That means all they really have to go on is the media, and generally speaking, the media do a piss-poor job of telling us what kind of men and women these candidates are.

Give me a break. Would it really be that hard for a candidate to set up his own website, create a few webpages on a few broad topics, and answer any new question that comes to him on that site in the appropriate category so that anyone who wants to know more can look it up on his logically planned and indexed site?

This way he wouldn't need to answer the same questions repeatedly since whenever they should be asked once he'd put them on his site for all to see while respecting the anonymity of the original questioner of course. He could also request that all questions be mailed or emailed to him first so as to use up his time more efficiently, with arranging meetings in poorer parts of the community for those who don't have access to the internet or postal resources.

This would show him to be organized too. No, I don't expect my candidate to give me any of his personal time necessarily. But I do expect him to show an ability to communicate his ideas to me in an efficient and planned manner. This also indicates his ability to think in a planned and efficient manner, which would certainly be a valuable trait for a national leader, no?

[Machjo]

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.

Personally, I will willingly vote for a candidate who does not look out for my own personal best interests if they are for the greater good. Give us some credit at least. However, I do not want my candidate voting blindly on ideology, which is what parties do.

[Argus]

It's just a matter of doing your homework if you really care about it.

And from doing all that homework, which you surely must realize only a minute fraction of Canadians are going to be willing and have the time to do, you basically learned nothing.

[Argus]

Give me a break. Would it really be that hard for a candidate to set up his own website, create a few webpages on a few broad topics, and answer any new question that comes to him on that site in the appropriate category so that anyone who wants to know more can look it up on his logically planned and indexed site?

How is this going to really tell you anything about the candidate? You must surely realize that no matter how informative a candidate's web site is it wasn't set up by them, the positions on it are the party's, not theirs, and any questions you pose through it will be answered by party workers.

[ToadBrother]

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.

Not only is this historically wrong, it's a terrible analogy anyways.

[Machjo]

And from doing all that homework, which you surely must realize only a minute fraction of Canadians are going to be willing and have the time to do, you basically learned nothing.

On the contrary. I learnt that:

A Liberal MP would follow the party manual like the Bible,

A CPC MP (which is what we got) would let others do his thinking for him,

An NDP MP would be unreachable for comment, and

A Green MP would at least be willing to entertain new ideas and not be quite as attached to his party.

Of course this could vary from riding to riding, but that was what I'd learnt from the last election for my riding.

So I did learn something.

[ToadBrother]

Personally, I will willingly vote for a candidate who does not look out for my own personal best interests if they are for the greater good. Give us some credit at least. However, I do not want my candidate voting blindly on ideology, which is what parties do.

Most votes in the House are essentially free votes. Only certain kinds of legislation, usually supply bills and the like, invoke caucus solidarity. I'm not necessarily defending this, and certainly the whips and party leaders wield far more influence over MPs than we see in the UK, but still, this idea that every vote in the House is whipped is grossly inaccurate.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

They don`t sound like dimwits to me. They`re doing what they`re supposed to do to keep their jobs. If you have a problem with national or provincial policy, your local rep can`t do much about that. Write to the the party leaders.

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.

It would be the first step on turning the House of Commons into congress, with the complications that arise from that. Understand that politics is a machine for making decisions, so constant free votes would make the HofC a constant game of coalition building and money.

I like our system as it is, but I`d like to see more intelligent discussion of issues.

[Michael Hardner]

On the contrary. I learnt that:

A Liberal MP would follow the party manual like the Bible,

A CPC MP (which is what we got) would let others do his thinking for him,

An NDP MP would be unreachable for comment, and

A Green MP would at least be willing to entertain new ideas and not be quite as attached to his party.

Of course this could vary from riding to riding, but that was what I'd learnt from the last election for my riding.

So I did learn something.

The Liberal seems like the one who got back to you. Of course, the Green candidate would probably have spent the whole day at the mall with you for your vote.

Now that you`ve learned that local MPs have basically zero importance, what`s your next thought ?

Edited May 9, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Machjo]

They don`t sound like dimwits to me. They`re doing what they`re supposed to do to keep their jobs.

OK, you're right. I was confounding character with intelligence. Certainly an intelligent cretin who intends to run for a cushy salary would probably do exactly what the Liberal candidate had done So as far as intelligence goes in the sense of looking out for his personal interests, he ranks right up there. but that's not the kind of intelligence I was looking for.

If you have a problem with national or provincial policy, your local rep can`t do much about that. Write to the the party leaders.

In that case, would it not make more sense and save a hell of a lot of money to just have the party leaders go to parliament with each one's vote worth the percentage of the national vote for their party. After all, if that's how they're going to vote anyway, aren't their salaries a little high for them to just spew out a few thoughtless yeas and nays.

[Machjo]

The Liberal seems like the one who got back to you. Of course, the Green candidate would probably have spent the whole day at the mall with you for your vote.

Now that you`ve learned that local MPs have basically zero importance, what`s your next thought ?

It's not the amount of time he spends with me that matters, but the efficiency with which he can communicate his ideas to me. I figure the way he'll communicate with me is how he'll communicate to the House.

[ToadBrother]

The Liberal seems like the one who got back to you. Of course, the Green candidate would probably have spent the whole day at the mall with you for your vote.

Now that you`ve learned that local MPs have basically zero importance, what`s your next thought ?

I wouldn't say that. The problem, as I see it, is that the real debates over whipped votes happen behind closed doors. From what I've heard about caucus meetings when controversial legislation is on the table is that they can get very heated. A leader who invokes his powers to force caucus solidarity too much might ultimately undermine his leadership. For instance, in Chretien's last years and during Martin's minority, there was considerable "leakage" of caucus disputes and discussions, and a few MPs who were more than willing to make their opinions known. We saw it again during the erstwhile Coalition, where a number of Liberal MPs made their views on any formalized agreement with the NDP or the Bloc very well known.

As I said in my other post, a lot of Canadians have a view of how the House functions that's largely based on Question Period, the scrum and on the few times we see votes on legislation or motions which involve confidence or at least are viewed by journalists as being of some import, and these kinds of votes are almost always along party lines. For the most part, we don't get a view of the committees or of debates on legislation which isn't pivotal or controversial. These kinds of debates, where individual MPs tend to have a lot more voice and a lot more say, and where party solidarity often isn't the major factor, just don't get the coverage, mainly because they are tedious and boring, without the fireworks reserved for Question Period.

[Michael Hardner]

OK, you're right. I was confounding character with intelligence. Certainly an intelligent cretin who intends to run for a cushy salary would probably do exactly what the Liberal candidate had done So as far as intelligence goes in the sense of looking out for his personal interests, he ranks right up there. but that's not the kind of intelligence I was looking for.

Character... maybe but these people run because they`re on board with the team and Canadians vote for national brands not independents.

In that case, would it not make more sense and save a hell of a lot of money to just have the party leaders go to parliament with each one's vote worth the percentage of the national vote for their party. After all, if that's how they're going to vote anyway, aren't their salaries a little high for them to just spew out a few thoughtless yeas and nays.

Yes, that`s a high salary for a backbencher. But they do represent the local community in Ottawa in that they give feedback and try to influence policy. They`re the eyes and ears of the party in the local area.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not the amount of time he spends with me that matters, but the efficiency with which he can communicate his ideas to me. I figure the way he'll communicate with me is how he'll communicate to the House.

Again, not sure if he or she will communicate that much especially if a backbencher. If he`s in the government, he will likely sit there and say nothing, unless called upon in question period.

[Michael Hardner]

I wouldn't say that. The problem, as I see it, is that the real debates over whipped votes happen behind closed doors. From what I've heard about caucus meetings when controversial legislation is on the table is that they can get very heated. A leader who invokes his powers to force caucus solidarity too much might ultimately undermine his leadership. For instance, in Chretien's last years and during Martin's minority, there was considerable "leakage" of caucus disputes and discussions, and a few MPs who were more than willing to make their opinions known. We saw it again during the erstwhile Coalition, where a number of Liberal MPs made their views on any formalized agreement with the NDP or the Bloc very well known.

Good point - zero importance is not accurate.

As I said in my other post, a lot of Canadians have a view of how the House functions that's largely based on Question Period, the scrum and on the few times we see votes on legislation or motions which involve confidence or at least are viewed by journalists as being of some import, and these kinds of votes are almost always along party lines. For the most part, we don't get a view of the committees or of debates on legislation which isn't pivotal or controversial. These kinds of debates, where individual MPs tend to have a lot more voice and a lot more say, and where party solidarity often isn't the major factor, just don't get the coverage, mainly because they are tedious and boring, without the fireworks reserved for Question Period.

The committees are on CPAC aren`t they ? As much of a politics nerd as I am, I never watch these. Perhaps I will tape one (PVR) and report back.

[Wilber]

I suggest we should remove candidates names from the ballot to avoid people getting tricked. Just put the party names on the ballot. Why have candidates at all? Just vote 305 regional proxies to be used by parties to form a government and opposition. In fact, that's what we do anyway. MP's have no power, in reality they are just mediators between their constituents and the federal bureaucracy. Pretty damn expensive mediators when you throw in their pension plan. If we must have them, why go to the expense of sending all these people to Ottawa and picking up their expenses? If their votes are needed to rubber stamp party policy, let them phone them in. If there happens to be an occasional need for them to actually go to Ottawa, just put them in a hotel for a few days. We could save lots of money.

Finally lets stop calling our system a parliamentary democracy. It may have been one at some time but we have turned it into an elected autocracy.

[Smallc]

[ToadBrother]

The committees are on CPAC aren`t they ? As much of a politics nerd as I am, I never watch these. Perhaps I will tape one (PVR) and report back.

I've watched a few committees. I've been to seminars that were about as interesting. I suppose if you're a participant it can be exciting, but committee work and even debates in the House on most legislation is just gawdawful boring, as the minutia of legislation is poured over. There can be some ideological debates, obviously, but for the most part, it's probably about as exciting as an insurance seminar. It's here that a lot of MPs do their real work, and where their contributions are often more than just as voting machines. It would be nice if someone would day a day in the life of a backbencher. Our attention is always focused on senior ministers and, infrequently, on committee hearings that involve something controversial (like the Afghan prisoner abuse investigations), but we don't really get to see what MP Joe Average does, so we just sort of assume that they don't do anything and serve basically as puppets.

The other thing we have to realize is that we're in minority government turf here, and that means that the government spends an inordinate amount of time worrying about staying in power. Because the electoral numbers during this cycle have not favored any kind of formalized coalition between the Tories and anyone, and because Harper and his Cabinet still want to put forward policies as if they did have a majority, it means basically means being in confidence mode all the time, which heavily politicizes both normal House and normal Committee proceedings. In short, every motion, every bill on the order paper, hell, every bloody utterance from anyone suddenly takes on political hues that normally wouldn't exist. If the Tories could guarantee some sort of stable coalition, then a lot of the horsetrading would, if not disappear, at least go underground a little bit. But until we have a majority government, we better get used to everything be whipped and MPs from every party largely aping the line like some sort of Stepford Wives.

[Smallc]

It would be nice if someone would day a day in the life of a backbencher.

Probably not quite what you're looking for, but:

http://www.cbc.ca/backbencher/

[Handsome Rob]

Most votes in the House are essentially free votes. Only certain kinds of legislation, usually supply bills and the like, invoke caucus solidarity. I'm not necessarily defending this, and certainly the whips and party leaders wield far more influence over MPs than we see in the UK, but still, this idea that every vote in the House is whipped is grossly inaccurate.

But check the records. Look at the most meaningless private members bill and you will rarely (never?) see more than 5% voting against party positions.

[AcuteAngst]

But check the records. Look at the most meaningless private members bill and you will rarely (never?) see more than 5% voting against party positions.

An MP's life

MPs live in fear of the words " the leader doesn't think you're a team player"

Translation "the leader may not sign your papers come next election "

Actual meaning: " you are out of a job if you don't tow the party line"

Results: Gut wrenching fear sometimes resulting in staining of underwear.

Usually results in immedeate correction of errors.

...

[Topaz]

Speaking of voting, technology will worm its way into voting polls and I hope here in Canada that when doing so I want to get a receipt from the computer showing who I voted for. I don`t think Canadians will want to go through what the US did under Bush elections. Also, the Commons are going to be going to computer voting in the future when they reno the House of Commons. I would hope that the software for those computers will not be hacked in any way. Just something to think about.

[Handsome Rob]

Speaking of voting, technology will worm its way into voting polls and I hope here in Canada that when doing so I want to get a receipt from the computer showing who I voted for. I don`t think Canadians will want to go through what the US did under Bush elections. Also, the Commons are going to be going to computer voting in the future when they reno the House of Commons. I would hope that the software for those computers will not be hacked in any way. Just something to think about.

You really think that is the case? I don't really think it will cut cost that much, well that I've seen. I've participated in a couple elections at the party level, helping out friends that volunteer, scrutineers, that type thing.

I think the big difference between us and our neighbors is that they do a lot of voting. Do you want this bridge? Do you want proposition 8? Etc.

What we be the point in investing all of that money for it to sit un-used 99% of the time?