NDP to Remove Ruth-Ellen Brosseau From Office?

[Evening Star]

Yeah, the two situations aren't at all comparable, you're right. No one is pre-judging Harper at this point: He has been PM for five years! We know what he's like in the role. Brosseau was elected to the House less than two weeks ago. Parliament has not even resumed yet. So we have no knowledge yet of how she performs in the job and no basis for judging her competence.

[Scotty]

The NDP wants appointed nobody. Seems like that is something the CPC believed in until they started appointing Senators.

Do you understand how PR works? The NDP puts up a list, and then, depending on how many votes across the country it gets, it appoints people off that list in order of precedence. You don't get to vote for your own MP.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Scotty

[punked]

Do you understand how PR works? The NDP puts up a list, and then, depending on how many votes across the country it gets, it appoints people off that list in order of precedence. You don't get to vote for your own MP.

Depends on what type of PR we are talking about. If we are talking about STV or AV which is what the NDP across the country has always talked about then you are dead wrong, misinformed and showing your ignorance. Good for you.

[kimmy]

OMG, that Kitty video is the greatest thing ever!

-k

[cybercoma]

Note to self: Write REFORM CAT on all federal ballots in the future.

[cybercoma]

I had never thought about it before, but the cat video brings up an interesting point: party leaders are elected by AV. At least in the LPC, I'm not sure about the other parties. If it's good enough for party leaders why isn't it good enough for MPs? Voters are not required to rank candidates by that system. I believe they're just given the option.

[ReeferMadness]

I agree. People are playing with fire.

It is one thing to criticize her for not being fluent in the language of most of her constituents, or to criticize her for her absentee campaign, or for being elected in a riding hundreds of kilometers from her home, that she'd never even visited.

But it's quite another thing to attack her for her age or for her occupation. That kind of thing will only win sympathy for her. It makes people want to see her succeed because she's like them.

-k

In my view, the debate around Brosseau has missed the mark. It's largely centered around her and whether she's been treated fairly.

The real issue about the Brosseau affair is what it says about our electoral system. Amidst all of the stories of candidates from other ridings, candidates who ducked debates, and candidates who ducked the media, Brosseau stands out as the candidate who couldn't communicate with her prospective constituents and the candidate who admitted she had never been to her riding. Other candidates could claim that they honestly intended to campaign and couldn't for some reason or that they were prominent enough that the voters knew them anyway. Not Brosseau.

The fact that a total unknown, a mystery figure, a phantom was elected reflects poorly on the system, the party, the candidate, the media and the voters.

The NDP has to accept the lion's share of the blame. They had to have known that Brosseau wasn't known to the voters and had no reasonable chance of making herself known the voters. The NDP got close to 6000 votes in this riding in 2008. Nobody has satisfactorily explained why they couldn't come up with a local, French-speaking candidate who could at least try to engage the voters. I think there are aspects to this story that the NDP has yet to explain.

And the media hasn't pressed the issue. I've read a lot of news stories and opinion pieces on this subject. And none of them have properly explored why the NDP chose this candidate or what this says about our electoral system.

There has been a lot of sympathy expressed about the way the candidate has been treated. I would just say that the fact that she is now scrambling to learn French indicates that she clearly hasn't put a lot of thought into this. She never intended to be an MP and I have to wonder if she really wanted the job at all. I wouldn't be too impressed if she were my MP.

I don't know what the voters were thinking. I'd feel pretty foolish if I woke up Tuesday morning to discover I'd voted for someone who couldn't even talk to me. Brosseau did nothing to campaign and wasn't known the the riding; the voters had no way of knowing who they voted for. So, I have to assume they voted for the party and hoped for the best when it came to their MP.

Which leaves me with the system. Every time there is a discussion about PR, there is a great hue and cry about the fear of losing local representation. There is discussion about how important it is for voters to be able to see and know their representative. This case puts the lie to that discussion. It highlights how little voters know about who they're voting for. We have the worst of both worlds - a disproportional system where the local candidate doesn't matter.

And of course the media completely missed that, too.

[cybercoma]

So what exactly is the problem? That someone unknown to the people in riding became MP? I haven't the slightest idea who my MP is. In fact, people that I've known who tried to get a meeting with the Hon. Keith Ashfield were denied. His own constituents were denied a meeting. I wouldn't know Mr. Ashfield if he punched me in my face and that doesn't seem all that surprising. How many people actually know their MPs or any of the others that run in their riding? I'm willing to bet not many, unless the candidate is some sort of popular figure. Even then, other than exposure or being written about in local papers, do you really KNOW the person? I think you're putting way too much stock in that. I don't see Brosseau's win an issue at all. Considering that she has gone out of her way to show that she's committed to really getting into the riding, meeting with people and becoming more comfortable speaking in French and publically at that, I commend her.

[BC_chick]

How many people actually know their MPs or any of the others that run in their riding? I'm willing to bet not many, unless the candidate is some sort of popular figure.

I think that pretty much demonstrates RM's point. I didn't read the post as a criticism against those who voted for Brosseau per se, but the system in which we live where people vote blindly down the party line without knowing who their candidates even are.

I tend to agree. Even amongst members of any party there are many differing opinions. Just because they have the right colour stripe doesn't necessarily make them a candidate who would represent you and your beliefs.

I have voted down the party line, I won't lie. But I would never vote for someone I know nothing about and I do agree that there is something wrong with the system where the majority of people do.

[cybercoma]

I don't believe it's practical to know the candidates. You could learn things about them and their position vis a vis political debates and articles in local newspapers; however, the number of people any given candidate is actually known to is likely very small compared to the number of constituents in the riding. Moreover, I don't believe it's all that much of a problem, so long as there are parties in place to give the constituents an idea of what the candidate believes, but more importantly how a candidate will vote if elected.

The only thing that would suffer without proper local representation is having a person in caucus bringing the party's attention to problems in a local constituency. It's a big point and I don't dismiss it lightly. However, I do believe with modern technology and social organization, particular issues that the federal government needs to pay attention to will be brought to their attention by the people themselves. Furthermore, a restructuring of the Senate is necessary, in my opinion, to secure equality between the regions, so the House doesn't simply funnel money into the most populated areas of the country for votes.

[Molly]

I couldn't disagree more strenuously.

Parties (and governments) are merely the sum of the folks who participate in them.

...Regardless of party affiliation, a government made up of honest and sensible individuals will function honestly and sensibly ....regardless of the offical policy or ideology of a party, honest and sensible representatives will respond to issues in an honest and responsible manner.

The flip side is that crooks and fools are crooks and fools regardless of their political affiliation... and when parties become dominated by ideology-driven crooks and fools then they form ideology-driven governments dominated by crooks and fools and despots....

If you don't care what sort of individual you elect- don't bother to look after your own interests- then you are pretty much guaranteed to end up with the most self-interested of all of the prospects. That doesn't serve you well, but it certainly serves you right.