Which party do you side with?

[Bonam]

None of them. They all suck.

All of these parties try to derive political positions based on a priori knowledge and fail. They approach things dogmatically and try to look for evidence that fits their desired conclusion rather than make conclusions based on empirical evidence.

Once you accept that the answers to most political questions are a priori indeterminant, and that you need empirical evidence to properly answer them, the current set of political parties does not seem very desirable.

Yes, unfortunately, rationalist/pragmatist political parties aren't really around.

[Smallc]

Wow that doesn't help me much haha.

I always wanted to be a politician. This is why I've never done it. I can never figure out who I'd actually run for.

[Smallc]

Yes, unfortunately, rationalist/pragmatist political parties aren't really around.

There's lots of pragmatists. Rationalist really depends on your opinion.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, unfortunately, rationalist/pragmatist political parties aren't really around.

I'm all for parties that are rational & pragmatic, but it still boils down to what kind of goals/ends you wish to see in society, which is ideological/philosophical. ie: Do you believe that more economic equality is desirable, or rather that economic gains should be based on survival of the fittest?

[Moonlight Graham]

I always wanted to be a politician. This is why I've never done it. I can never figure out who I'd actually run for.

I could never be much of a successful politicians because even if there were a party that closely matched by views, I would refuse to play the ass-kissing political games that every politician needs to play in this country to get to the top of a party. For instance, I would never vote for a policy I believed to be wrong just because party leadership wanted me to support it, and if I didn't vote for it they would ie: threaten to boot me from the party, or boot me from cabinet, or limit my speaking time during Question Period etc. The exception might be confidence votes.

I would be an independent candidate, and thus go nowhere.

[Bryan]

I would be an independent candidate, and thus go nowhere.

Independents do win seats from time to time. All politics is local.

[Bonam]

I'm all for parties that are rational & pragmatic, but it still boils down to what kind of goals/ends you wish to see in society, which is ideological/philosophical. ie: Do you believe that more economic equality is desirable, or rather that economic gains should be based on survival of the fittest?

I think even that is not really a matter of ideology when you get down to it. I assume people from most any ideological stripe would agree that improving standard of living as much as possible for as many people as possible is desirable. If that is agreed upon, the arguments about how to split the pie become irrelevant once you look at the numbers, because what is far far more relevant is how to make a bigger pie to begin with. A rational approach would be one that implements policies allowing for the greatest possible economic growth, which means far greater spending on infrastructure, education, scientific research, and childcare.

Consider places like China for example, inequality has soared in recent decades, and yet the majority are far far better off than they were. Growing inequality is only a significant issue in the West because economic growth has slowed. Even with a return to very modest growth in America that we see now, and a raise in minimum wages in some jurisdictions and at some large employers, the inequality issue has started to drop off the radar, even though CEOs still rake in hundreds of times more than their average workers.

If you're own income has doubled in the last 5 years, you might still be a bit jealous of someone whose income has tripled, but it won't be nearly as big an issue for you as if your income has stagnated.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited August 6, 2015 by cybercoma

[Peter F]

NDP = 66%

Green = 63%

Liberal = 61%

Communist = 57%

Conservative = 11%

[Moonlight Graham]

I think even that is not really a matter of ideology when you get down to it. I assume people from most any ideological stripe would agree that improving standard of living as much as possible for as many people as possible is desirable. If that is agreed upon, the arguments about how to split the pie become irrelevant once you look at the numbers, because what is far far more relevant is how to make a bigger pie to begin with. A rational approach would be one that implements policies allowing for the greatest possible economic growth, which means far greater spending on infrastructure, education, scientific research, and childcare.

I don't think there's a philosophical consensus there. Some people want our country to spend more on helping poorer countries develop, others don't care very much and want Canada to spend its money on helping Canadians at the expense of development of people in other countries. What you described above is like the utilitarian ethic of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is the measure of right and wrong", which not everyone agrees with either.

Also, a rising tide often lifts all boats, but it doesn't lift all boats equally, that's a statistical reality. Over last 30-35 years Canadians and Americans have seen an increase in standard of living due to reduction in costs of many goods and advances in technology, but at the same time the overwhelming majority (lowest 99%) haven't seen virtually any increase in income (inflation adjusted) while the top 1% incomes have increased 400%. Who gets what piece of the pie is relevant IMO, and it comes down to one's philosophy and morality.

Anyways, everyone wants "social justice", but a person's idea of "justice" is completely subjective, based on one's personal moral philosophy. Once a person chooses their morality and ideal social outcomes, then they can use reason to best reach those outcomes.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Independents do win seats from time to time. All politics is local.

But they don't form governments.

[cybercoma]

I'm a bit disappointed that the Rhino Party wasn't in there.

[The_Squid]

I just read the Christian Heritage Party's platform.... they sound just like Harper prior to him leading the CPC...

[PrimeNumber]

I just read the Christian Heritage Party's platform.... they sound just like Harper prior to him leading the CPC...

Yeah... scary stuff eh?

[The_Squid]

Yeah... scary stuff eh?

Praising Uganda on its AIDS policies in your political platform is quite something!

It would be a dystopian future for Canada if they were ever elected, that's for sure...

It's good that Harper's views have been moderated by political realities because they are untenable positions that the public wouldn't vote for.

[Mighty AC]

Independents do win seats from time to time. All politics is local.

Politics within our broken Westminster electoral system is far from local anymore and especially within the current CPC. Independent wins are rare because they can't give the ridiculous tax deductions for political donations that parties can. They just don't have the money to blanket the riding with BS, especially when record long campaign periods are declared by a corrupt PM who plans on simply outspending the opposition.