Is your MP an independent thinker or a party hack?

[Machjo]

Is your MP an independent thinker or a party hack? Does he just vote blindly along with his party thinking it'll look cool kind of like flailing your arms about creating a human wave of arms ripping across the floor in unison? Or does he actually vote his own conscience without fear of what his party might think of him?

[Molly]

Ha! First question should be, "Does your MP have a concience?"

Edited May 9, 2010 by Molly

[Handsome Rob]

Just look at the voting records, (emphasis on) pretty much, all of them vote with the party the majority of the time.

[bjre]

Canada doesn't like the states, independent politician is impossible to run for president even in theory.

[Smallc]

Canada doesn't like the states, independent politician is impossible to run for president even in theory.

[Shady]

Our system doesn't allow for independent thinking MPs.

[Smallc]

Our system doesn't allow for independent thinking MPs.

It most certainly does.

[Sir Bandelot]

It most certainly does.

Voting records generally show otherwise. They still can but history shows what happens to those who decide to go rogue on the party.

[Smallc]

Voting records generally show otherwise. They still can but history shows what happens to those who decide to go rogue on the party.

That has nothing to do with our system.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That has nothing to do with our system.

Really? I think it has everything to do with our system. It is after all based on the same system as the UK. You know the one, it created politicians for life in the House of Lords. On the tax payers dime no less.

The system needs much work to bring it into the current age. Party hacks are the bane of our existence, they scream against the reality of democracy.

[Sir Bandelot]

That has nothing to do with our system.

Ok, fine. But likewise the system does allow leaders to dictate their will upon the MP's, to vote along party lines. Or else there will be punishment.

So if that was no longer allowed (being ousted for voting against the party), then I would agree that the system protects independent thinking MP's. But fact is, they ultimately have to become independent to really do that. And that means, bye bye big money...

As usual economics trumps etc.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Smallc]

Really? I think it has everything to do with our system. It is after all based on the same system as the UK. You know the one, it created politicians for life in the House of Lords. On the tax payers dime no less.

Jerry, that's completely irrelevant. Anything that happens has to do with the voters. we can vote for people that believe anything within our system. We simply choose to elect people from a few parties in large numbers.

[Smallc]

Ok, fine. But likewise the system does allow leaders to dictate their will upon the MP's, to vote along party lines. Or else there will be punishment.

Again, that isn't our system. That has to do with the workings of the parties themselves.

So if that was no longer allowed (being ousted for voting against the party), then I would agree that the system protects independent thinking MP's. But fact is, they ultimately have to become independent to really do that. And that means, bye bye big money...

You're right, we need independents. You can't have a party with people going every which way in terms of policy. You can have a House of Commons like that.

[Shady]

It most certainly does.

It most certainly doesn't. In our system, political parties control the funding of campaigns. If you vote against your party, you will be de-funded. How does that promote independent thinking?

[Muddy]

It is especially stringent on cabinet ministers,unlike ordinary caucus members who have some flexibility.

My MP ,Michael Chong was a cabinet member. Even if you disagree with him you must admire the stance he took as a member of the Harper government. He was a cabinet minister and he resigned his cabinet post on a point of principal . That to me was courageous and one of the finest moments in democracy and self esteem.He still sits in caucus and as I told him ,he will always be able to face his mirror and see the reflection of an noble,honest and honhourable man. .

[ToadBrother]

Really? I think it has everything to do with our system. It is after all based on the same system as the UK. You know the one, it created politicians for life in the House of Lords. On the tax payers dime no less.

Even a few paragraph-long article on the history of the British Parliament would indicate how ludicrous the above statement was. The House of Lords was initially formulated as the aristocracy's voice in Parliament, which made a good deal of sense when the aristocracy represented the bulk of landholding and wealth. It has certainly been reinvented particularly since the creation of life peers.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Even a few paragraph-long article on the history of the British Parliament would indicate how ludicrous the above statement was. The House of Lords was initially formulated as the aristocracy's voice in Parliament, which made a good deal of sense when the aristocracy represented the bulk of landholding and wealth. It has certainly been reinvented particularly since the creation of life peers.

You are in error, most likely from attempting to take my comment and placing it in a different context. I was merely suggesting our system is based on theirs, flaws and all. What I am stating is that our system is flawed as well. Party politics dominate our system. We do not vote for our leaders, the parties do. We do not vote for political parties but instead candidates, even though those elected are numbered together to form a government. It is a senseless system. It all revolves around an insulated entity, the political party. You can't touch them. You can't vote them out, yet they dominate our system. What kind of false democracy is this anyway.

Take the party names off the ballots and force the voters to inform themselves of their choices and what they really mean.

[Wilber]

Independent thinking means nothing if you aren't prepared to stand benind it.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Wilber

[Sir Bandelot]

He was a cabinet minister and he resigned his cabinet post on a point of principal . That to me was courageous and one of the finest moments in democracy and self esteem.He still sits in caucus and as I told him ,he will always be able to face his mirror and see the reflection of an noble,honest and honhourable man. .

Courageous, ethical perhaps, but he also resigned his post. So in other words, such a position cannot be politically effective.

[ToadBrother]

You are in error, most likely from attempting to take my comment and placing it in a different context. I was merely suggesting our system is based on theirs, flaws and all. What I am stating is that our system is flawed as well. Party politics dominate our system. We do not vote for our leaders, the parties do. We do not vote for political parties but instead candidates, even though those elected are numbered together to form a government. It is a senseless system. It all revolves around an insulated entity, the political party. You can't touch them. You can't vote them out, yet they dominate our system. What kind of false democracy is this anyway.

You have a vote every five years or less. If you don't like the parties, then vote independent.

Take the party names off the ballots and force the voters to inform themselves of their choices and what they really mean.

In other words, you think voters are morons.

[Muddy]

Courageous, ethical perhaps, but he also resigned his post. So in other words, such a position cannot be politically effective.

But I do believe he deserves my vote as an independent thinker. He is not a party hack thats for sure. Although I no longer a party member for several reasons I will continue to support my M.P. Michael Chong.

[Machjo]

Courageous, ethical perhaps, but he also resigned his post. So in other words, such a position cannot be politically effective.

I'd disagree. He could win his local seat independently of what locals think of his party. He still gets a vote in the House. He can still question the government. And because he comes across as less partisan than others, others in the House, even from other parties, are likely to be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt even when they don't give others the same benefit.

[Machjo]

But I do believe he deserves my vote as an independent thinker. He is not a party hack thats for sure. Although I no longer a party member for several reasons I will continue to support my M.P. Michael Chong.

That's my kind of guy. I'm proud to say that not one of the candidates I've ever voted for has ever won a seat. I just won't vote strategically for the lesser of two evils. I vote for the best candidate even if it's as plain as day that he'll lose.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'd disagree. He could win his local seat independently of what locals think of his party. He still gets a vote in the House. He can still question the government. And because he comes across as less partisan than others, others in the House, even from other parties, are likely to be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt even when they don't give others the same benefit.

Theres no saying he couldn't do that. But he won't have the big party funding in his favour. That's the only point I want to make, the system encourages conformity by use of money.

[Machjo]

Theres no saying he couldn't do that. But he won't have the big party funding in his favour. That's the only point I want to make, the system encourages conformity by use of money.

I agree government funding for parties needs to be cut. At most, I could see the government funding a candidate's website during his campaign, but that's about it.

Removing party names from ballot is certainly not a be all and end all, but it would be a step forward. If we could achieve that small feat, it wouldn't be a big step later from that to cutting government funding for parties.

But personally, a candidate's finances won't affect me much, unless of course his finances are so limited he can't even access an e-mail account.