Does our political system keep great minds out of politics?

[bjre]

I don't remember. I don't actually care, either. I don't mind voting for partisan hacks, because, by in large, it works out.

That is because it is not often, i.e. almost impossible as a fact.

But your courage to make an assertion as post #19 makes you qualified to be a politician.

[Michael Hardner]

Some thoughts:

Why would you run ? To show how smart you are ? If that's what you want out of life, go into academia and prove yourself in an intellectual field. The system isn't looking for great ideas right now, we're still catching up with globalization, and the ideas of the past 20 years, new media and so forth.

There's no great idea that will make everybody go "aha" ! It's an era of integration and cooperation. The most revolutionary ideas I can see on the horizon are open government initiatives, but those won't be revolutionary changes - just changes to make the engine of government run better.

The bad parts about running for office: putting up with complaints, always having to dress perfectly for the occasion and to watch what you say and do, to never break the law, to never drink too much, do any drugs, make a pass at anyone or make an inappropriate comment, to have to say what your handlers tell you to, in order to capture that demographic that you're trailing in right now, to always always be raising money and campaigning.

And we wonder why they misbehave.

[Wild Bill]

Is there any candidate not a party member?

Every election we see many independent candidates in many ridings. When you look at your ballot there are often names listed that are not affiliated with any party. If they happened to receive the majority of the votes in your riding they would become the member for your riding and would take their seat in Parliament.

It is a very rare thing in Canadian politics, not because there is anything that legally stops an independent from becoming your MP or MLA. It's just that Canadians tend to vote for party members and few independents ever win the riding.

Usually we see independent MP's because after winning their seat something happened and they got kicked out of the party caucus! The party leader cannot take away their seat but he can throw them out of his party. So they continue to sit as an independent.

That's how it works.

[charter.rights]

Every election we see many independent candidates in many ridings. When you look at your ballot there are often names listed that are not affiliated with any party. If they happened to receive the majority of the votes in your riding they would become the member for your riding and would take their seat in Parliament.

It is a very rare thing in Canadian politics, not because there is anything that legally stops an independent from becoming your MP or MLA. It's just that Canadians tend to vote for party members and few independents ever win the riding.

Usually we see independent MP's because after winning their seat something happened and they got kicked out of the party caucus! The party leader cannot take away their seat but he can throw them out of his party. So they continue to sit as an independent.

That's how it works.

In most cases the independents belong to a party that is not recognized because they do not meet the criteria for a party. Then again the only real independents I have seen are after they are elected, after getting kicked out the party they were elected under.

It is a moot point however, because if a riding elects an independent or fringe party they have no power to change the status quo. And more likely than not, they will be absorbed in the same self-serving corruption they are surrounded with.

[eyeball]

Does our political system keep great minds out of politics?

I think it mostly assumes everyone is too stupid to be trusted with more than one or two votes every four or five years.

Myself, I subscribe to the idea that there is another invisible hand like the one that we trust to guide our markets, that we could be using to guide our society except it's tied behind our backs.

We should be voting way more often, twice a year perhaps, on a range of issues.

[ToadBrother]

In most cases the independents belong to a party that is not recognized because they do not meet the criteria for a party. Then again the only real independents I have seen are after they are elected, after getting kicked out the party they were elected under.

It is a moot point however, because if a riding elects an independent or fringe party they have no power to change the status quo. And more likely than not, they will be absorbed in the same self-serving corruption they are surrounded with.

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.

[myata]

I think it mostly assumes everyone is too stupid to be trusted with more than one or two votes every four or five years.

Myself, I subscribe to the idea that there is another invisible hand like the one that we trust to guide our markets, that we could be using to guide our society except it's tied behind our backs.

We should be voting way more often, twice a year perhaps, on a range of issues.

Our politics is about one hundred years behind our life. So many things are now possible: full, unlimited access to information; the way our moneys are spent; programs are managed; projects, ideas proposed by parties; citizen participation in political decision making; including critical decisions, like overseas military campaigns; and so on.. and so little if anything happening. The elites want to play the same old tune, "dum... dee....dee... dum" and nobody seem to care. Take the thing with the recent GG: I heard all about him, his full curriculum etc, what he did and what he won't do etc. One thing I haven't heard questioned once in the mainstream media is the obvious, how come an individual elected by nobody would have the power to decide our government? That's right, just as hundreds years back in good colonial times, appointee of the government decides who's going to govern. Good luck to us all in our total unshakable complacency. Maybe we do need that dictator, to remind us that democracy is only as good as people's interest and participation in it?

[bjre]

We should be voting way more often, twice a year perhaps, on a range of issues.

I think the technology nowadays is already make it possible for people to vote in each important issue as frequent as once a month.

Actually, you can declare your tax refund via internet with netfile for many years.

To make a vote for important issues and make it accountable by list each name of the voter and the city name so that anyone can check it have absolutely no technical difficulty.

Why you need so many politicians to represent you, they sell you goods with many garbage bundled together.

You can decide for yourself.

That should be your right.

[ToadBrother]

I think the technology nowadays is already make it possible for people to vote in each important issue as frequent as once a month.

Actually, you can declare your tax refund via internet with netfile for many years.

To make a vote for important issues and make it accountable by list each name of the voter and the city name so that anyone can check it have absolutely no technical difficulty.

Why you need so many politicians to represent you, they sell you goods with many garbage bundled together.

You can decide for yourself.

That should be your right.

The technology isn't there. SSL encryption, pretty much used to do all online web-based business, is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks via fraudulent certificate root servers and the like. People keep insisting that we're at that point, but for every claim of it, there is the reality that trusting our democracy to a framework as full of holes as Internet security is just not something I care to see.

As to politicians, direct democracy would not end them. It's not like the Athenian or Roman Republics didn't have politicians, quite the opposite.

[ToadBrother]

Our politics is about one hundred years behind our life. So many things are now possible: full, unlimited access to information; the way our moneys are spent; programs are managed; projects, ideas proposed by parties; citizen participation in political decision making; including critical decisions, like overseas military campaigns; and so on.. and so little if anything happening. The elites want to play the same old tune, "dum... dee....dee... dum" and nobody seem to care. Take the thing with the recent GG: I heard all about him, his full curriculum etc, what he did and what he won't do etc. One thing I haven't heard questioned once in the mainstream media is the obvious, how come an individual elected by nobody would have the power to decide our government? That's right, just as hundreds years back in good colonial times, appointee of the government decides who's going to govern. Good luck to us all in our total unshakable complacency. Maybe we do need that dictator, to remind us that democracy is only as good as people's interest and participation in it?

You keep complaining about our system, and I keep explaining to you that, save in a few very rare and limited situations, the GG is bound to follow the advice of the elected government. YOu make it sound like the GG has the same latitude of action as a Medieval king, and that's just plain false.

[myata]

The technology is certainly there to do something. If you trust "SSL" to purchise $5000 TV on your credit card, it should be good enough for a vote on Canada's participation in Afghanistan (that - such vote - should be mandatory for any democracy of this age that genuinely intends to live up to its name). Who wants to do that, is another question. Tweedledum? Tweedledee?

If anything we should do away with the illusion. This system will never effect any meaningful change because change goes entirely and absolutely counter to its very nature. The only way to effect any real political change that would take people interests into it is to get outside the system. Stop participating. It has to get to the absolute level of absurdity and obvious detachment from reality of life to even think of a possibility to reform itself.

[Bonam]

The technology isn't there. SSL encryption, pretty much used to do all online web-based business, is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks via fraudulent certificate root servers and the like. People keep insisting that we're at that point, but for every claim of it, there is the reality that trusting our democracy to a framework as full of holes as Internet security is just not something I care to see.

You don't necessarily have to use your normal computer through the normal internet channels.

You could get a special stand-alone home voting machine with a built in quantum cryptography system. Quantum encrypted data streams are inherently secure by the most fundamental laws of physics themselves, provided that some initial shared information is available to both parties (for example a security key delivered by mail). Any intrusion into the quantum data-stream can be detected, it is impossible to spy on the transmission without it being noticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography

Right now such technology is still rare and expensive (used mainly by governments and corporations with high security requirements) and requires a dedicated transmission lines, but it will quickly become more commonplace.

Anyway, one might question whether absolute security is really needed for voting. After all, we trust our bank transactions, personal information, tax returns, etc, to the internet. Why not our votes? Keep in mind that in any reasonable implementation, we would be able to view our own voting records, so we could check later whether our votes officially recorded by the government were the same as the votes we originally cast. If there was some difference, that could certainly be investigated.

One can well argue that such a system would perhaps have less problems than voting in person. Think of all the technical issues with voting machines, illegible ballots, human error in the counting of paper votes, etc.

[ToadBrother]

The technology is certainly there to do something. If you trust "SSL" to purchise $5000 TV on your credit card, it should be good enough for a vote on Canada's participation in Afghanistan (that - such vote - should be mandatory for any democracy of this age that genuinely intends to live up to its name). Who wants to do that, is another question. Tweedledum? Tweedledee?

It's a growing concern that at least in some situations SSL can be highly suspect. Considering the lack of care people take over phishing scams and the like, I'm not confident that this is a good move for our system.

If anything we should do away with the illusion. This system will never effect any meaningful change because change goes entirely and absolutely counter to its very nature. The only way to effect any real political change that would take people interests into it is to get outside the system. Stop participating. It has to get to the absolute level of absurdity and obvious detachment from reality of life to even think of a possibility to reform itself.

What the hell are you talking about? The system has gone through radical changes in my life time.

[TimG]

The technology is certainly there to do something. If you trust "SSL" to purchase $5000 TV on your credit card, it should be good enough for a vote on Canada's participation in Afghanistan.

SSL only protects the data in transit. It does not help manage the user accounts/passwords. Management of the user accounts themselves is the biggest security problem and rarely used system would mean people routinely forget their passwords and/or change the email associated with their account. I have some old accounts on places like Yahoo which I am permanently locked out of because they are linked to old emails.

It would be very expensive for the government to run an e-voting system that was used by a significant number of people and likely not worth the effort.

Edited July 13, 2010 by TimG

[myata]

It's a growing concern that at least in some situations SSL can be highly suspect. Considering the lack of care people take over phishing scams and the like, I'm not confident that this is a good move for our system.

Oh give me a break. You mean a pensioneer checking your easily fabricated ID is somehow more secure than SSL that is used for secure transactions all over the world? Just say that it would be a big scary unbearable risk because it would give us some real meaningful say in politics, something that the dees would want one last thing before the end of the world, it would be more credible.

What the hell are you talking about? The system has gone through radical changes in my life time.

You mean when (true to the golden rule, some hundred years after it should have happened) we attempted to create our own political system and ended up with something we're now afraid to touch with a stick?

[M.Dancer]

SSL only protects the data in transit. It does not help manage the user accounts/passwords. Management of the user accounts themselves is the biggest security problem and rarely used system would mean people routinely forget their passwords and/or change the email associated with their account. I have some old accounts on places like Yahoo which I am permanently locked out of because they are linked to old emails.

It would be very expensive for the government to run an e-voting system that was used by a significant number of people and likely not worth the effort.

One of my concerns about evoting is ....well....the sites would be created by the government. Anyone who has tried to find information on a federal site, or has tried to book a summer camp for their kids on a city of Toronto site...keep that in mind. If anyone can make something which should be simple and make it convoluted, complicated and unnavigable it's the Silly Service...

[TimG]

You mean a pensioneer checking your easily fabricated ID is somehow more secure than SSL that is used for secure transactions all over the world?

Never underestimate the value of a real human being. The process of harvesting credit cards numbers on the internet is extremely profitable because it can be automated and 1000s of cards can be used before a breach is discovered.

[myata]

One of my concerns about evoting is ....well....the sites would be created by the government. Anyone who has tried to find information on a federal site, or has tried to book a summer camp for their kids on a city of Toronto site...keep that in mind. If anyone can make something which should be simple and make it convoluted, complicated and unnavigable it's the Silly Service...

This is because our governments are totally unable to handle these challenges that modern day presents. Taxation, government information, gun registry, eHealth, IT, you name it. Our governments exist in the reality about 100 years back when highly important handwritten directives were carried by mounted couriers.

[Michael Hardner]

The technology isn't there. SSL encryption, pretty much used to do all online web-based business, is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks via fraudulent certificate root servers and the like. People keep insisting that we're at that point, but for every claim of it, there is the reality that trusting our democracy to a framework as full of holes as Internet security is just not something I care to see.

To say nothing of making the public responsible for allocating budgets.

That seems fraught with serious risks.

[Michael Hardner]

If anything we should do away with the illusion. This system will never effect any meaningful change because change goes entirely and absolutely counter to its very nature. The only way to effect any real political change that would take people interests into it is to get outside the system. Stop participating. It has to get to the absolute level of absurdity and obvious detachment from reality of life to even think of a possibility to reform itself.

Please stop participating, then. That would suit me.

I have the feeling that you're not satisfied with any change that doesn't turn the current system upside-down, in any case.

[ToadBrother]

Oh give me a break. You mean a pensioneer checking your easily fabricated ID is somehow more secure than SSL that is used for secure transactions all over the world? Just say that it would be a big scary unbearable risk because it would give us some real meaningful say in politics, something that the dees would want one last thing before the end of the world, it would be more credible.

I mean there are serious flaws in SSL, particularly seeing how easy it is for fraudsters, and in the case of China, likely national governments to create certificate authorities whose sole purpose to create man-in-the-middle attacks. SSL is not the security panacea many people seem to think, and interfering with national votes would be a huge potential target for just that kind of hacking.

You mean when (true to the golden rule, some hundred years after it should have happened) we attempted to create our own political system and ended up with something we're now afraid to touch with a stick?

And again, you keep demonstrating that your problem is with the people, not the system. Our constitution has reasonable amendment formulas, depending on what exactly is being amended (if it involves only one province, for instance, the Federal Parliament and that province are the only ones involved, and there have been changes in that fashion). But ultimately the keen desire of Eastern Canadian provincial politicians to maintain their leverage even as the West's population and economic dominance seems destined to eclipse the old power centers is a huge reason for the inability to go further, and let's not forget Quebec's perennial position as the odd man out.

The telling part here is that for all your complaining, you never exactly explain how you hope to overcome these changes. I've said it to others, and I'll say it to you, you don't need a new constitution, you need a brainwarping ray that will make Quebec, Ontario and the Maritime provinces bend to your will. You're problem is with the structural reality of this country, not with the constitution, which, as I keep telling you over and over and over again, has amending formulas that are no more onerous than the ones you will find in the constitutions of any other liberal democracies.

[Michael Hardner]

One of my concerns about evoting is ....well....the sites would be created by the government. Anyone who has tried to find information on a federal site, or has tried to book a summer camp for their kids on a city of Toronto site...keep that in mind. If anyone can make something which should be simple and make it convoluted, complicated and unnavigable it's the Silly Service...

Yes and no. The government is dumb, but not so dumb that they never understand the limits of their capabilities. They will quite often reach out to the galaxy of the capable, if they're in big trouble.

For example, income tax reporting software -> written & developed by private companies and works well.

[Michael Hardner]

This is because our governments are totally unable to handle these challenges that modern day presents. Taxation, government information, gun registry, eHealth, IT, you name it. Our governments exist in the reality about 100 years back when highly important handwritten directives were carried by mounted couriers.

hear hear.

Still, putting a voting button right in the face of everyone too lazy to get themselves to a voting station, or having people micro-vote on whether the dog-pound should get a new roof this year is a crazy and unnecessary change.

[ToadBrother]

hear hear.

Still, putting a voting button right in the face of everyone too lazy to get themselves to a voting station, or having people micro-vote on whether the dog-pound should get a new roof this year is a crazy and unnecessary change.

And, simply put, not one I think you could run a government on. Even Switzerland, despite its penchant for direct democracy, still has an elected legislature. The general consensus of most political scientists is that you couldn't hope to run anything much larger than a city, and not a big one, with direct democracy. Once you get any larger than that, the complexities of government would make direct democracy an impediment. People like Myata tend to forget that most of the activities of government do not happen in the legislative branch, but in the executive; in the bureaucracy, run by (hopefully) professional civil servants.

[Michael Hardner]

And, simply put, not one I think you could run a government on. Even Switzerland, despite its penchant for direct democracy, still has an elected legislature. The general consensus of most political scientists is that you couldn't hope to run anything much larger than a city, and not a big one, with direct democracy. Once you get any larger than that, the complexities of government would make direct democracy an impediment. People like Myata tend to forget that most of the activities of government do not happen in the legislative branch, but in the executive; in the bureaucracy, run by (hopefully) professional civil servants.

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