Package Deals

[August1991]

If I'm a federalist it's because in a federal state, the package deals are smaller.

Section 17 (1) of the Senate Conflict of Interest code states: "Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall accept ... any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be considered to relate to the Senator's position."

Section 16 (1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states that "no member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered ... in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House." Moreover, Section 16 (3) makes "every person who gives, offers or promises to any member of the Senate" such compensation liable to imprisonment for up to one year.

Section 121 (1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who "gives, offers or agrees to give or offer" to an official or "being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept" any "loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind" in return for "cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission" in connection with "any matter of business relating to the government," is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years in jail.

Translation: paying a Senator under the table, for any reason, under any circumstances, is serious business. But when the recipient is under investigation by a Senate committee, when the purpose of the payment is to relieve him of responsibility for the expenses for which he is at that moment being audited, and when his benefactor is the most senior unelected official in the government, "serious" does not begin to describe it.

Coyne

Coyne's error is to believe that he (or anyone) can design a system to have honest politicians. That's not the problem.

What's the real problem? When a voter chooses a politician/political party, it's a package deal. Like a shared pizza, you get the anchovies too.

Edited May 21, 2013 by August1991

[jacee]

If I'm a federalist it's because in a federal state, the package deals are smaller.

Coyne

Coyne's error is to believe that he (or anyone) can design a system to have honest politicians. That's not the problem.

What's the real problem? When a voter chooses a politician/political party, it's a package deal. Like a shared pizza, you get the anchovies too.

You pick the anchovies off and throw them away.

Bye bye Mike! Pamela! Nigel!

When they step over the line of the law, they're out.

We don't pay them to rob us blind.

[August1991]

You pick the anchovies off and throw them away.

Jacee, you've described federalism well.

[eyeball]

Coyne's error is to believe that he (or anyone) can design a system to have honest politicians.

Actually the error is in believing it can't be done. I think some people who profess to hold such a belief are trying to hide the fact that deep down they really don't want an honest system. Why after all would we want to change something that's served us so well for centuries?

[Topaz]

I have a question, the conflict of interest, how can a minister NOT be in conflict when, he/she does some thing that helps other but also help themselves?? ie. lowering business taxes, most MP's have some kind of businesses and they all gain from this. The only way I think this could be fair is that the minister not have any association to his job, like as rancher /farmer can't be the minister of agriculture.

[Moonbox]

Actually the error is in believing it can't be done. I think some people who profess to hold such a belief are trying to hide the fact that deep down they really don't want an honest system. Why after all would we want to change something that's served us so well for centuries?

eyeball it has nothing to do with what they desire. It has more to do with cynicism and the knowledge that the vast vast vast majority of voters are uninterested in politics, ignorant about what's going on and often too dumb to know either way. An electorate full of suckers is doomed to get screwed over and over, and this will never change until people realize that spending 30-45 minutes a week fostering even a small amount of awareness of the goings-on in their country is time better spent than watching American Idol/Dancing with the Stars or reruns of the Big Bang Theory.

[TimG]

I have a question, the conflict of interest, how can a minister NOT be in conflict when, he/she does some thing that helps other but also help themselves?? ie. lowering business taxes, most MP's have some kind of businesses and they all gain from this.

Crony capitalism has long been championed by left of center parties in the country (i.e. subsidies for various pet industries (read: green) or regulations that tilt the market in favour of certain companies). If you want to define conflict of interest so broadly it will be impossible for a left of center government to pass any laws (which would be a good thing).

[eyeball]

eyeball it has nothing to do with what they desire. It has more to do with cynicism and the knowledge that the vast vast vast majority of voters are uninterested in politics, ignorant about what's going on and often too dumb to know either way.

What does vast vast vast actually mean? If there is actual knowledge that stupidity is as extent as you say there should be some statistics or study that quantifies just how stupid 'we' are.

I've heard this claim of widespread stupidity before when discussing the ongoing breakdown and erosion of our democratic system in Canada and have often wondered whether anyone should be given the responsibility to vote without passing some sort of issues comprehension test. What do you think?

[Moonbox]

What does vast vast vast actually mean? If there is actual knowledge that stupidity is as extent as you say there should be some statistics or study that quantifies just how stupid 'we' are.

What do you think it means eyeball? Do you think, MAYBE, it was for rhetorical effect? What does "as extent as you say" mean though? Could that be poor command of the language? It looks like it, but that's not what we're here to argue, is it?

I've heard this claim of widespread stupidity before when discussing the ongoing breakdown and erosion of our democratic system in Canada

There's no erosion. It's always been that way. If you were a student of history (painfully clear you're not) you'd have over 2000 years of historical examples confirming the dumb and the ignorant voting for all sorts of outrageously and obviously stupid ideas and the people proposing them.

and have often wondered whether anyone should be given the responsibility to vote without passing some sort of issues comprehension test. What do you think?

Voter turnout is already pathetically low. The 40% of REALLY stupid/ignorant/apathetic people who don't vote would be joined probably by another 15-20% who couldn't be bothered with learning anything about the issues.

[eyeball]

What do you think it means eyeball? Do you think, MAYBE, it was for rhetorical effect? What does "as extent as you say" mean though? Could that be poor command of the language? It looks like it, but that's not what we're here to argue, is it?

Now I think it just means you're trying to be a dickhead - no argument there.

There's no erosion. It's always been that way. If you were a student of history (painfully clear you're not) you'd have over 2000 years of historical examples confirming the dumb and the ignorant voting for all sorts of outrageously and obviously stupid ideas and the people proposing them.

You mean like an accountable transparent government, and an honest Prime Minister? I hear you.

Voter turnout is already pathetically low.

So what? Our elections would be based on the decision of a still sizable block of creditable voters who are actually qualified to vote. Culling out the crap is exactly what we need, especially in a FPTP system. Garbage in garbage out as they say.

The 40% of REALLY stupid/ignorant/apathetic people who don't vote would be joined probably by another 15-20% who couldn't be bothered with learning anything about the issues.

I say again, so what, who cares what they think?

[Moonbox]

Now I think it just means you're trying to be a dickhead - no argument there.

Hey don't get upset when you get a smart-assed answer to a stupid question.

You mean like an accountable transparent government, and an honest Prime Minister? I hear you.

That's your example of something dumb voters vote for?

So what? Our elections would be based on the decision of a still sizable block of creditable [/size]voters who are actually qualified to vote. Culling out the crap is exactly what we need, especially in a FPTP system. Garbage in garbage out as they say.

Except there'd be virtually no way to fairly 'qualify' voters in such a system that wouldn't introduce various demographic biases, not to mention the constitutional and legal debacle it would entail.

I say again, so what, who cares what they think?

Not me, but that wasn't my point. The 40% of the population that doesn't vote was merely meant as an illustration of the furthest end of the dumb and the lazy on the spectrum of eligible voters. The difference between some of those that do and don't vote is sometimes as simple as the weather, or whether the poll was really close to home or on the way back from work, or whether there was a lineup when they showed up.

[eyeball]

That's your example of something dumb voters vote for?

It's an example of something they fall for.

Except there'd be virtually no way to fairly 'qualify' voters in such a system that wouldn't introduce various demographic biases, not to mention the constitutional and legal debacle it would entail.

You've written it off before you've even tried. We qualify jurists without the process becoming a debacle.

Not me, but that wasn't my point. The 40% of the population that doesn't vote was merely meant as an illustration of the furthest end of the dumb and the lazy on the spectrum of eligible voters. The difference between some of those that do and don't vote is sometimes as simple as the weather, or whether the poll was really close to home or on the way back from work, or whether there was a lineup when they showed up.

No, your stupid point was that 40% was a vast vast vast majority - more hyperbole than rhetoric. As for getting your triple V majority out to vote, making it compulsory would do that but I suppose you'll think that's a dumb idea too. It seems that anything at all that seeks to improve democracy is a dumb idea.

[g_bambino]

You've written it off before you've even tried.

Tried what? As usual, you make the most superficial proposal and denigrate anyone who doesn't immediately jump on board with you. Give some details, man. (And be prepared to have them challenged.)

[Moonbox]

It's an example of something they fall for.

That's better.

You've written it off before you've even tried. We qualify jurists without the process becoming a debacle.

We qualify jurors for a completely different purpose and for a completely different reason, and the fact that you even used this as a counterpoint is a pretty good indication of how poorly you thought it through before writing it.

No, your stupid point was that 40% was a vast vast vast majority - more hyperbole than rhetoric.

Hyperbole is a rhetorical device, genius. That's embarrassing.

Regardless, I never said that 40% was the vast vast vast majority. I said that the vast vast vast majority of voters are uninterested and ignorant about politics, and often too dumb to know either way. 40% of eligible voters not showing up to the polls is a pretty good illustration of how uninterested the average Canadian is in general, and if we assume a full spectrum of varying degrees of smart/interested voters all the way down to the people who are too dumb and lazy even to show up to the polls, it's really not much of a stretch to guess how informed most votes are....

As for getting your triple V majority out to vote, making it compulsory would do that but I suppose you'll think that's a dumb idea too. It seems that anything at all that seeks to improve democracy is a dumb idea.

The only thing that will make democracy work better is a better educated and more engaged electorate. Most of your suggestions are just plain dumb and won't work for a host of reasons. Your problem with the system is that the elections don't turn out the way you like, so you complain loudly to anyone willing to listen. Edited May 23, 2013 by Moonbox

[g_bambino]

If I'm a federalist it's because in a federal state, the package deals are smaller..

How so?

[eyeball]

Tried what? As usual, you make the most superficial proposal and denigrate anyone who doesn't immediately jump on board with you. Give some details, man. (And be prepared to have them challenged.)

You can't grasp what issues comprehension test means in a superficial discussion? As usual you make mountains out of molehills.

Details...hmmm. Okay lets walk you through this one step at a time.

Voting is an important responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly, yes or no?

[eyeball]

We qualify jurors for a completely different purpose and for a completely different reason, and the fact that you even used this as a counterpoint is a pretty good indication of how poorly you thought it through before writing it.

It's not that different and the reason is certainly the same, unless you actually do want stupid people involved in the process of deciding important issues. Your dismissal of trying to qualify voters indicates that might be the case. It's often been said that an intelligent electorate would be even more biased against stupidity.

[g_bambino]

You can't grasp what issues comprehension test means in a superficial discussion?

And you can't grasp that such a proposal without detail on what would be on the comprehension test; who would write, administer, and grade the test (and how much all that would cost); would voting, and therefore taking the test, be mandatory, or would it remain voluntary and, if so, how many more voters would be deterred from voting because they had to sit a test first; how often the test would have to be taken; how subjecting people to a test before they could vote would hold up against a Charter challenge; how the introduction of such stratification could be upheld in a democracy; and so on, is a superficial one.

People say all the time voters should be subject to an intelligence test before they're allowed to cast their votes. But, mostly it's in jest; I know it was when I've said it, since the implementation of the idea (even if legally possible) would cause more problems than solutions.

[Moonbox]

It's not that different and the reason is certainly the same, unless you actually do want stupid people involved in the process of deciding important issues. Your dismissal of trying to qualify voters indicates that might be the case. It's often been said that an intelligent electorate would be even more biased against stupidity.

It couldn't be more different. Voting in an election is nothing more than you choosing your personal preference for who should lead. It's also a constitutional right. Being selected for jury duty is a burden and the screening process is meant to ensure that personal preference and bias has no bearing (or as little as possible) in the final decision and that someone doesn't have their freedom taken away because someone didn't understand what was going on or didn't like that person's race or religion.

An intelligent electorate would absolutely be more biased against stupidity, but it would also probably be biased against the stupid as well, and that's why it's not going to work.

To even suggest that system works the way it does because the 'powers that be' want to keep the status quo is just childish whining. Again, if you were a student of history (which you're obviously not) you'd know that a system implementing requirements for voter eligibility would be inherently abused to the disadvantage of the poorer and working class. Well-off, educated urbanites would run the show and the working class would largely be shut out. Edited May 23, 2013 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

Fine. Make voting compulsory then and include everyone.

Waaaa, but but but...sing me a song and make it a sad one.

[Moonbox]

Everyone's already included. Making voting compulsory doesn't help anything. If you're suggesting one opposite extreme instead other other opposite extreme, you're basically just saying that you want things to change because you haven't like the results! Boo hoo....

[eyeball]

Making voting compulsory would help cultivate a better sense of civic responsibility. What's so extreme about that?

You're saying you want things to stay the way they are because you're afraid of the results.

There is no high road available for you to defend the status quo however, just a low one that's paved with ridicule and disdain, for the vast majority of voters, the left and the usual vast vast vast number of suspects that populate your universe.

Edited May 24, 2013 by eyeball

[eyeball]

People say all the time voters should be subject to an intelligence test before they're allowed to cast their votes. But, mostly it's in jest; I know it was when I've said it, since the implementation of the idea (even if legally possible) would cause more problems than solutions.

If I'd wanted to incorporate eugenics into democracy I might have said intelligence test, but I'm not talking in jest. That's why I'm talking about it in terms of civic responsibility and deciding issues that are important to everyone.

Problems for who? Are you going to elaborate or are we supposed to read your mind?

...who would write, administer, and grade the test (and how much all that would cost); would voting, and therefore taking the test, be mandatory, or would it remain voluntary and, if so, how many more voters would be deterred from voting because they had to sit a test first; how often the test would have to be taken; how subjecting people to a test before they could vote would hold up against a Charter challenge; how the introduction of such stratification could be upheld in a democracy; and so on

These are damned good questions. You claim you've thought about this mostly in jest so what were you thinking when you gave it some more serious thought?

I'd put the questions to a citizen's assembly and a referendum to follow.

Edited May 24, 2013 by eyeball

[August1991]

How so?

In a federal State, there are several sovereign governments. As a result, a single government can cause less harm.

Bambino, imagine a single world government, a centralized State (based on a constitutional monarchy, since you like such a society). For example, imagine if such a UN had such concentrated power. (Based on democracy! One person, one vote - a single world government decided by the majority vote of several billion.)

And in Bambino world, our only protection against such potential insanity would be one guy/girl who was born into some family.

I guess that I'm a federalist, a republican and a democrat. Returning to my OP, I'm a democrat because in an election, or public affairs, I prefer random choices. Like a box of chocolates, it's a package deal.

Edited May 24, 2013 by August1991

[Moonbox]

eyeball, on 24 May 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

Making voting compulsory would help cultivate a better sense of civic responsibility. What's so extreme about that?

No. Forcing people who don't care to vote would do little more than force uninformed and lazy idiots to show up at the polls and mark a box.

eyeball, on 24 May 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

You're saying you want things to stay the way they are because you're afraid of the results.

Afraid of what, exactly? Am I afraid that intelligence requirement tests would be skewed towards the wealthier and more educated elements of the population, thus moving Canadian politics to the right, or that compulsory voting would make Canadian politics even stupider than they are today? Yes to both.

eyeball, on 24 May 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

There is no high road available for you to defend the status quo however, just a low one that's paved with ridicule and disdain, for the vast majority of voters, the left and the usual vast vast vast number of suspects that populate your universe.

The majority of voters deserve ridicule and disdain. Believe it or not, I don't include you with them. The fact that you're here discussing issues with us puts you in a rare category many levels above the average voter in terms of how informed you are. I may rarely agree with you and I may mock the conclusions you draw, but I respect you for at least caring and putting some thought into the issues themselves. Your vote, at least, is based on something, rather than vague/farty perceptions of 'liking' or 'disliking' the candidate and his/her commercials.