Does our political system keep great minds out of politics?

[ToadBrother]

This is actually starting to push me even further away from PR as a solution. I can't see perpetual coalitions being good for money accountability, or medium-term planning.

Ah, well, I still support a modified PR proposal to guarantee at least 1 seat for national parties earning 10%+ - in order to give a voice to significant, but unpopular political minorities such as the Greens.

As far as I can tell Myata agreed to my suggestion too.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16724&st=90&p=558549entry558549

I'm keen to see how AV works in the UK (and there's a good chance, despite the Tories' and Labour's objections that it will). I always enjoy other people experimenting. It won't overly sacrifice the potential for stable majorities, but will open the way for smaller parties to gain a few more seats, balancing two often divergent notions of democracy. AV, and its cousin STV, are both weak forms of PR. I'm pretty much against more radical forms, myself.

[Argus]

The system doesn't do that...the voters do. The voters refuse to elect independents in any real numbers, thereby creating the party control.

The voters don't refuse to elect independents. They don't KNOW anything about the independents. The only media they're likely to get is a one-time brief mention on the local newscast, and perhaps, a few paragraphs in the local paper - that's if they're lucky. Hell, people don't even know the party candidates, despite their better - though still poor - media exposure.

[Argus]

I certainly wouldn't run for office.

And the stuff I've written here is enough to guarantee I'd never get elected even if I did.

-k

I'd vote for you in a second.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm keen to see how AV works in the UK (and there's a good chance, despite the Tories' and Labour's objections that it will). I always enjoy other people experimenting. It won't overly sacrifice the potential for stable majorities, but will open the way for smaller parties to gain a few more seats, balancing two often divergent notions of democracy. AV, and its cousin STV, are both weak forms of PR. I'm pretty much against more radical forms, myself.

One thing I don't understand is why the UK hasn't had as many minority government as us. They did seem to make a big deal of it this time around, meanwhile we've had, what 5 since 1970 and 3 in succession now.

[Topaz]

Your question is a good one and so is why do people want to be in politicians? Who wouldn't if they could afford it? Just look at the perks of being a politician, especially in Ottawa. Very good wage, good allowances, get to travel across this country 13X with family for free, best pension in Canada. You get on TV and try to make a fool of the person you are talking to,play time. Just try to your to keep your seat in five elections and you home free with that pension!

[ToadBrother]

One thing I don't understand is why the UK hasn't had as many minority government as us. They did seem to make a big deal of it this time around, meanwhile we've had, what 5 since 1970 and 3 in succession now.

The last phase of minority governments in the UK during the mid-70s in some ways resemble ours, the third party being unable to achieve sufficient numbers to give either of the other parties the necessary coalition for stability. The chief difference this time around was that the Lib-Dems did achieve the necessary number of seats to play king-maker. Though hung parliaments are slightly more common in the UK, coalitions are rare just like here. So, certainly for an unmodified Westminster Parliament not in the midst of war (the usual rational behind a national government), to have a governing coalition is a pretty interesting thing. What's more interesting, particular as far as the upcoming referendum on altering the voting system, is that the Lib-Dems and the Tories have agreed to disagree.

[ToadBrother]

Your question is a good one and so is why do people want to be in politicians? Who wouldn't if they could afford it? Just look at the perks of being a politician, especially in Ottawa. Very good wage, good allowances, get to travel across this country 13X with family for free, best pension in Canada. You get on TV and try to make a fool of the person you are talking to,play time. Just try to your to keep your seat in five elections and you home free with that pension!

Particularly for Federal politicians, it can be extremely difficult on families. MPs spend considerable amounts of time away from home, and even when in their ridings are often very busy. Professional careers are put on hold, families, friends, hobbies and interests. We often have this jaded view of politicians, but a lot of these guys work pretty damned hard. I'm not so sure that, even with the perks, I'd want the job.

[Bonam]

Your question is a good one and so is why do people want to be in politicians? Who wouldn't if they could afford it? Just look at the perks of being a politician, especially in Ottawa. Very good wage, good allowances, get to travel across this country 13X with family for free, best pension in Canada. You get on TV and try to make a fool of the person you are talking to,play time. Just try to your to keep your seat in five elections and you home free with that pension!

How about the complete lack of privacy, constant media spotlight, having every aspect of your personal life be a potential liability and fiasco?

The population at large seems to get more outraged about minor indiscretions in politician's personal lives than it does over huge mistakes when it comes to policy, wasting billions of dollars, etc. Evidently, people want their leaders to be emotionless robots, incapable of original thought, but capable only of automatically conducting themselves so as not to contravene any societal norms, rules of politeness.

I'd much rather be a high ranking officer in a corporation than a member of parliament. You still get power and influence, more money, more privacy. Oh and also you can get there just by being good at what you do and getting to know a few key people, rather than spending your whole life living a fake image just so you don't put off voters with ridiculous and frivolous expectations and sensibilities.

The only people who I could see wanting to go into politics in our country are those who are so desperately covetous of political power that they are willing to suffer living a complete lie almost constantly. They must be skilled actors who can keep up their act almost every waking hour, never breaking character lest they generate a scandal. In other words, the very worst kinds of people to lead us are the only ones who could possibly want to endure the life of a politician.

[Smallc]

The voters don't refuse to elect independents. They don't KNOW anything about the independents.

That's their own faults. The people also indirectly control what the media reports. If people would elect independents, then the media would report more about them....but the people don't care.

[bjre]

That's their own faults. The people also indirectly control what the media reports. If people would elect independents, then the media would report more about them....but the people don't care.

It is not people don't care, people have no money to let their voice be heard when they care.

There are 10 thousand people protest during G20 summit, media spend most time on several thugs burning cars.

I have never seen the 10 thousand people with flags and their claims on TV.

The media spend most time report party candidates is because they use a lot of money in their running activities.

Where cames those money?

No big business behind them?

Did Harper ever explained that?

I never heard of it.

Edited July 13, 2010 by bjre

[Smallc]

It is not people don't care, people have no money to let their voice be heard when they care.

There are 10 thousand people protest during G20 summit, media spend most time on several thugs burning cars.

Because that's what people want to see.

I have never seen the 10 thousand people with flags and their claims on TV.

Because that's not what people want to see.

[bjre]

Because that's what people want to see.

Because that's what interest groups want people see.

Because that's not what people want to see.

Because that's what not interest groups want people see.

[Moonbox]

It's because the VAST majority of Canadians don't share the views of the tiny minority that makes a career of complaining and protesting. Most protests are regarded with about as much respect as the drunks downtown in whatever city you live in. They're the unsuccessful and indignant part of society who blames everyone else for their failures.

We don't listen to them because of who they are: Generally speaking...big losers.

[bjre]

It's because the VAST majority of Canadians don't share the views of the tiny minority that makes a career of complaining and protesting. Most protests are regarded with about as much respect as the drunks downtown in whatever city you live in. They're the unsuccessful and indignant part of society who blames everyone else for their failures.

So you mean the VAST majority of Canadians do share the views of the even tiny minority group that burn cars so that their image is more important to show on TV?

We don't listen to them because of who they are: Generally speaking...big losers.

There are so many losers in your country. You failed in make change to let your country with less losers. You have to be punished by paying tax for that. So you are the loser too.

Edited July 13, 2010 by bjre

[Argus]

That's their own faults. The people also indirectly control what the media reports. If people would elect independents, then the media would report more about them....but the people don't care.

That's a chicken and egg argument. They can't get elected until the media report more on them.

The problem is that even a reasonably responsible electorate has no easy means of getting a handle on who these people are. That's one of the reasons they vote for a party candidate. Because even while knowing little about the candidate they at least know something about the party, and the candidate is the party's tool. They can also be somewhat assured the candidate is a responsible person and not a wack job.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe an information booklet printed up by Election Canada. Two full pages on each candidate in your riding giving their history, their positions on issues, and a statement by them on why they are running, distributed to every home in the riding?

[Moonlight Graham]

Entitled canuckleheads keep the good guys out of the system

They could not standsomeone who actually ran with principal mand with honour - there fore willing to stand up and actually say what they believe to be right, rather than what will get them re-elected

I think you hit the nail on the head Borg. This is true, Canadians vote in politicians who lie to them with promises, and they don't vote for guys who tell it straight and tell the truth. They'll re-elect people like Chretien (i'll get rid of the GST!) and McGuinty even though they are lying sacks of crap. Seems Canadian voters have a short-term memory.

[Jack Weber]

That's a chicken and egg argument. They can't get elected until the media report more on them.

The problem is that even a reasonably responsible electorate has no easy means of getting a handle on who these people are. That's one of the reasons they vote for a party candidate. Because even while knowing little about the candidate they at least know something about the party, and the candidate is the party's tool. They can also be somewhat assured the candidate is a responsible person and not a wack job.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe an information booklet printed up by Election Canada. Two full pages on each candidate in your riding giving their history, their positions on issues, and a statement by them on why they are running, distributed to every home in the riding?

Argus...Information booklets on candidates are already available...You can meet candidates at all candidates debates...I guess it's the same old story...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

If people simply don't care enough to be bothered to take a little bit of their time to learn about what's going on in their community,it does'nt matter how much material is available..

Edited July 14, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Moonlight Graham]

The system doesn't do that...the voters do. The voters refuse to elect independents in any real numbers, thereby creating the party control.

Sure the voters could elect more independents, but no matter how many they voted in the system would still be controlled by the parties. "Responsible government" is one of the major reasons for the rigid party discipline in Canada's system. It's unrealistic to think an independent would be chosen by a PM to sit in cabinet and be a part of the ruling government, or even be PM (HA!) unless they swore their soul and all their votes to that party (effectively not making them an independent).

And what if a lot of independents were elected, enough to form a government? That government wouldn't last very long because during a confidence vote such as the budget or throne speech, the government filled with independents would be at great risk to lose the confidence of the House if the independent MP's voted on their own and not as a group, leading to frequent elections and a feeble grasp on power vs more organized/disciplined parties. Only a government made up of a group of MP's that votes together with tight discipline can maintain the confidence of the House during repeated confidence votes, thus the importance of parties in our system.

If people did vote more independents in, they would have to be ok with the fact that they likely would never be a part of a ruling government, and more often than not have little effect on the balance of power in the House.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

And whose fault is that? There is nothing stopping Canadians from electing 308 independents. It is the voter that supports the parties. They'd cease to be if the majority turned their backs on them.

See my response above. Because of responsible government in the Canadian system, our government simply could not function with any stability without political parties. How does a government keep the confidence of the House with 308 independently voting MP's? Minority governments mean frequent enough elections in Canada as it is!

Edited July 14, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[bjre]

Seems Canadian voters have a short-term memory.

It is the main-stream media editors hard work keep on make people focus on meaningless subjects such as thugs, lyrics for national anthem, they carefully filter out things that interest groups don't want you know and don't want you to remember, so that even there are people don't forget, others can not heard of it. They control the topics. That is how they control the votes.

[dre]

Politics is the last place you want to waste great minds.

Putting a guy with 160 IQ into the political system would be like giving a Einstein a job at Macdonalds.

Whats needed in politics is skilled beaurocrats. People with good organizational skills, people with good communication skills... competent executives.

[TimG]

See my response above. Because of responsible government in the Canadian system, our government simply could not function with any stability without political parties. How does a government keep the confidence of the House with 308 independently voting MP's? Minority governments mean frequent enough elections in Canada as it is!

Even if we changed the rules to all independent MPs we would simply create a system like the US where MPs trade votes in return for pork that benefits their riding.

[TimG]

Politics is the last place you want to waste great minds.

A great mind is more than an IQ score.

[dre]

A great mind is more than an IQ score.

Maybe but most great minds are intelligent.

For whatever reason intelligent people dont usually do well in politics. Its because the retard voters want someone they can "have a beer with" I think.

[capricorn]

For whatever reason intelligent people dont usually do well in politics.

Although intelligence is a fine quality, it does not guarantee success in politics.

Its because the retard voters want someone they can "have a beer with" I think.

The "have a beer with" question in polls has to do with how well voters think candidates or leaders would communicate and connect with them in their company. Most voters know who they would prefer to have a beer with. IMO most of those voters are certainly not retarded and they've got both feet firmly planted on the ground.