Should party names be removed from election ballots?

Natchuck · May 9, 2010

As long as there is "party discipline and whips in parliament the views of individual members are almost irrelivant compared to party positions. So, party affiliation should be on the ballot to aid accurate voting.

Machjo · May 9, 2010

As long as there is "party discipline and whips in parliament the views of individual members are almost irrelivant compared to party positions. So, party affiliation should be on the ballot to aid accurate voting.

Isn't that another example of circular reasoning? Because parties are so powerful, we need to legislate them more power. Isn't that just like a self-fulfilling prophecy?

jbg · May 10, 2010

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.

I tend to agree but weren't party names added to ballots only in 1974?

Molly · May 10, 2010

- changed in 1970 on time for the election in '72.

Hmph. Folks are acting as though campaign platforms are somehow binding. They aren't, and never have been.

In the end, the operating policy of the party is decided by concensus of caucus, so the power folks willingly hand to a bad candidate isn't tempered by their party, but in fact changes that party. (I guess it's one of those lessons that everyone has to learn the hard way.)

Those who believe that party affiliation is more signifigant than individual merit would not be prevented from voting on that basis if affiliations were not included on ballots. 'Hiding' affiliation will certainly do no harm.

Strange choice of words, though- 'hiding'. As hyperbolic as describing it's reverse as 'spoon-feeding poisoned gruel'. It's a simple disinclusion of excess information.

Seriously, if you don't know your chosen candidate's name when you walk into the ballot box, you get bloody little sympathy from me. Play tic-tac-toe to choose if you must, since that's what you are doing anyway.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Molly

Wild Bill · May 10, 2010

- changed in 1970 on time for the election in '72.

Hmph. Folks are acting as though campaign platforms are somehow binding. They aren't, and never have been.

In the end, the operating policy of the party is decided by concensus of caucus, so the power folks willingly hand to a bad candidate isn't tempered by their party, but in fact changes that party. (I guess it's one of those lessons that everyone has to learn the hard way.)

Those who believe that party affiliation is more signifigant than individual merit would not be prevented from voting on that basis if affiliations were not included on ballots. 'Hiding' affiliation will certainly do no harm.

Strange choice of words, though- 'hiding'. As hyperbolic as describing it's reverse as 'spoon-feeding poisoned gruel'. It's a simple disinclusion of excess information.

Seriously, if you don't know your chosen candidate's name when you walk into the ballot box, you get bloody little sympathy from me. Play tic-tac-toe to choose if you must, since that's what you are doing anyway.

Molly, I think you're going to be unhappy for a LONG time! I sympathize with you over the low level of political education with most of our fellow citizens but I think you don't have a workable idea to help with that.

First off, trying to force people to have a better understanding of their individual candidate is only worthwhile if you believe that an individual candidate makes a personal great difference! If you believe that party solidarity has reduced MPs to mere trained seals then who cares about their names?

Second, let's look at the situation as if you are RIGHT! The individual candidate IS important! You want to make it more difficult for someone to just vote by party by removing the party name from the ballot. All that would happen is for the first election you would have some very grumpy people who did not share your views and after that those people would make just enough effort to remember the candidate's name for their party and after they voted they would promptly forget it!

Trying to force your fellow citizens into doing things your way is usually futile and frankly, a bit anal-retentive!

If you have to force them to march in step with you then you've already lost!

M.Dancer · May 10, 2010

Your thoughts on this?

It would make for a confusing ballot when two or more people have the same names.

John Smith

Jon Smith

Jan Smits

John Smythe

....without a party name, you can bet your bottom dollar someone would place competeing name in to dilute the vote.

M.Dancer · May 10, 2010

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.

If that is your reason against keeping names, your reason is ridiculous.

ToadBrother · May 10, 2010

Those who believe that party affiliation is more signifigant than individual merit would not be prevented from voting on that basis if affiliations were not included on ballots. 'Hiding' affiliation will certainly do no harm.

It certainly harms the candidate's constitutional right to freely associate. Beyond that, it still assumes voters are morons easily swayed by party affiliation, and that somehow obscuring that affiliation will sufficiently confuse them to weaken the hold parties have over candidates.

Wilber · May 10, 2010

It certainly harms the candidate's constitutional right to freely associate. Beyond that, it still assumes voters are morons easily swayed by party affiliation, and that somehow obscuring that affiliation will sufficiently confuse them to weaken the hold parties have over candidates.

How does it harm a persons right to freely associate? That is a ridiculous statement. If so, why not put a candidates religious affiliation on the ballot as well or what other clubs and organizations the belong to.

I see it the other way, your position assumes voters are morons because they need to be told the party affiliation on a ballot.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Wilber

ToadBrother · May 10, 2010

How does it harm a persons right to freely associate? That is a ridiculous statement. If so, why not put a candidates religious affiliation on the ballot as well or what other clubs and organizations the belong to.

Religious affiliation isn't terribly relevant. Party affiliation is.

I see it the other way, your position assumes voters are morons because they need to be told the party affiliation on a ballot.

Voters have a right and a need for clear ballots, not for obfuscation. Do you have any ideas for political reform that actually have any meaning at all?

Wilber · May 10, 2010

Religious affiliation isn't terribly relevant. Party affiliation is.

It might be depending on the voter. Who are you to say what is relevant to them?

Voters have a right and a need for clear ballots, not for obfuscation.

The the more information the better, or less. If they had to research each candidate on their party affiliation they might find out a few more things about them that they otherwise might not. I can see how that might be a problem for some candidates.

Do you have any ideas for political reform that actually have any meaning at all?

Do you?

Sir Bandelot · May 10, 2010

It might be depending on the voter. Who are you to say what is relevant to them?

The the more information the better, or less. If they had to research each candidate on their party affiliation they might find out a few more things about them that they otherwise might not. I can see how that might be a problem for some candidates.

I think most people in the public do not have a keen interest in politics. Voting is the only time they might actually think about it at all, besides skimming a newspaper headline now and then. You can demand greater expectations on the public to educate themselves, to become as interested in these issues as we all are on this forum, but it won't solve the problem.

Wilber · May 10, 2010

I think most people in the public do not have a keen interest in politics. Voting is the only time they might actually think about it at all, besides skimming a newspaper headline now and then. You can demand greater expectations on the public to educate themselves, to become as interested in these issues as we all are on this forum, but it won't solve the problem.

If the assumption is that party affiliation needs to be on the ballot because people are too lazy to find out for themselves, how will catering to that laziness improve anything? I am not advocating that this is a solution to anything and I am not demanding anything but when people feel they need information to act on something, they will go out of their way to get it. In the process they will invariably be exposed to more information than that they were originally looking for. The INTERNET's success is a testament to that.

Lets face it, the only ones who really need party affiliation on the ballot are the parties. The public doesn't, if it is important to them, the information is readily available.

wyly · May 10, 2010

If the assumption is that party affiliation needs to be on the ballot because people are too lazy to find out for themselves, how will catering to that laziness improve anything? I am not advocating that this is a solution to anything and I am not demanding anything but when people feel they need information to act on something, they will go out of their way to get it. In the process they will invariably be exposed to more information than that they were originally looking for. The INTERNET's success is a testament to that.

Lets face it, the only ones who really need party affiliation on the ballot are the parties. The public doesn't, if it is important to them, the information is readily available.

the only reason to have party names on the ballot is sway the stupid who can be manipulated by party propaganda...an intelligent responsible voter has no need for party names...

ToadBrother · May 10, 2010

the only reason to have party names on the ballot is sway the stupid who can be manipulated by party propaganda...an intelligent responsible voter has no need for party names...

This is as clear an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy as I've ever seen.

Sir Bandelot · May 10, 2010

the only reason to have party names on the ballot is sway the stupid who can be manipulated by party propaganda...an intelligent responsible voter has no need for party names...

Yo dude, what do you think democracy is all about? We're talking about the great unwashed. It's like, "I want to vote for John Cretin. What was that guys name in my riding? Frig. I want to vote Liberal!"

You would eliminate more than 50% of the votes.

Uncle 3 dogs · May 10, 2010

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.

The problem with this is that no individual member can "deliver" anything.Only a party can "deliver", or not, if it forms government.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Uncle 3 dogs

wyly · May 10, 2010

Yo dude, what do you think democracy is all about? We're talking about the great unwashed. It's like, "I want to vote for John Cretin. What was that guys name in my riding? Frig. I want to vote Liberal!"

You would eliminate more than 50% of the votes.

okay, it doesn't eliminate democracy it improves it...we'd have a government chosen by a process of intelligent informed choice and MP's of a quality that would reflect that... I'm good with that...

ToadBrother · May 10, 2010

okay, it doesn't eliminate democracy it improves it...we'd have a government chosen by a process of intelligent informed choice and MP's of a quality that would reflect that... I'm good with that...

No, we'd just have confusing ballots.

I just love how you guys come up with absurd solutions and then declare they'll solve all our problems. Between Myata's desire for coalitions to take power at any time the please without any constitutional constraint, Eyeball's desire to strap cameras to all politicians and your imagining that the simple act of pulling off party affiliations will turn Canada into a hitherto unimagined democratic oasis, it's hard to keep track of the individual trees in the forest of dumb ideas. The ideas are either so absurd or so meaningless that it's almost impossible to follow the logic that leads from the expression of concept towards the alleged benefits.

But this excising of the party name from the ballot is kind of fun in its own way, because it's kind of like turning an election into a Pepsi-Coke taste challenge.

I don't think political problems can be solved with non sequiturs. That only really works for Monty Python skits.

Edited May 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

Wilber · May 10, 2010

But this excising of the party name from the ballot is kind of fun in its own way, because it's kind of like turning an election into a Pepsi-Coke taste challenge.

Nonsense, If you want you get to take the cover off the bottle before you decide. Political hacks are scared s@&$*^#s that people might inform themselves instead of, "just put your mark beside this here party and we'll look after you".

You and Bandelot certainly have an amazingly low opinion of everyone who votes in this country other than yourselves.

ToadBrother · May 10, 2010

Nonsense, If you want you get to take the cover off the bottle before you decide. Political hacks are scared s@&$*^#s that people might inform themselves instead of, "just put your mark beside this here party and we'll look after you".

You and Bandelot certainly have an amazingly low opinion of everyone who votes in this country other than yourselves.

Read your first paragraph and then read the accusation in the second paragraph. Who is it again who thinks voters are morons?

Wilber · May 10, 2010

Read your first paragraph and then read the accusation in the second paragraph. Who is it again who thinks voters are morons?

Perhaps you should read it again. As far as parties are concerned, knowing their candidates name or anything about them is of no importance compared to putting your X next to their party. Too much knowledge might be dangerous.

All I have seen from you is that parties need to be on the ballot because a majority of voters are to stupid and/or confused to figure it out for themselves.

ToadBrother · May 10, 2010

Perhaps you should read it again. As far as parties are concerned, knowing their candidates name or anything about them is of no importance compared to putting your X next to their party. Too much knowledge might be dangerous.

Any argument that has as "too much knowledge might be dangerous", particularly as it equates to that most basic of democratic rights, strikes me as being off base. I'd say too little knowledge is dangerous in the privacy of the voting booth, not too much. Re-read what you wrote. You're basically saying "Better that a voter have some degree of ignorance of a candidate's party affiliation." I have a hard time understanding how that is a good thing.

All I have seen from you is that parties need to be on the ballot because a majority of voters are to stupid and/or confused to figure it out for themselves.

Parties need to be on the ballot because parties are part of the political process. You won't make them go away by hiding them. You may confuse the less well informed voter, but the well informed voter is going to know either way. In short, if by the time the voter is marking his ballot and still has no idea about the candidates, at least party affiliation will allow some sort of semi-intelligent choice. Maybe you don't like the fact that a lot of voters putting marks on ballots because they like the party and don't give a damn about the candidate, but who the hell are you to tell people the appropriateness of their vote?

Wilber · May 10, 2010

Any argument that has as "too much knowledge might be dangerous", particularly as it equates to that most basic of democratic rights, strikes me as being off base. I'd say too little knowledge is dangerous in the privacy of the voting booth, not too much. Re-read what you wrote. You're basically saying "Better that a voter have some degree of ignorance of a candidate's party affiliation." I have a hard time understanding how that is a good thing.

I'm saying that it is in fact too little knowledge. You are maintaining it needs to be there because people are too stupid, lazy or confused to find out before they vote.

Parties need to be on the ballot because parties are part of the political process. You won't make them go away by hiding them. You may confuse the less well informed voter, but the well informed voter is going to know either way. In short, if by the time the voter is marking his ballot and still has no idea about the candidates, at least party affiliation will allow some sort of semi-intelligent choice. Maybe you don't like the fact that a lot of voters putting marks on ballots because they like the party and don't give a damn about the candidate, but who the hell are you to tell people the appropriateness of their vote?

Again, your whole position is based on your low opinion of others.

ToadBrother · May 10, 2010

I'm saying that it is in fact too little knowledge. You are maintaining it needs to be there because people are too stupid, lazy or confused to find out before they vote.

I'm saying they should be there because that is a key part of the political process.

Again, your whole position is based on your low opinion of others.

Tell me, how can you possibly say that about my opinion when you're the one who wrote "too much knowledge might be dangerous." You're the one advocating ignorance as a good thing. You've now reduced yourself to the level of a schoolyard taunt. You truly believe that a voter with less knowledge is somehow a better voter. I mean, that's the only explanation I can derive from your belief that "too much knowledge might be dangerous."

You have confirmed one thing once again for me, too many idealists are really just wannabe-autocrats in disguise. "Too much knowledge might be dangerous" indeed...

Edited May 10, 2010 by ToadBrother