Why I Won't Vote NDP

[ToadBrother]

I just think if there's anywhere between 750,000 and 1,250,000 Nazis in the country who would be willing to vote for a Nazi Party, we've got a lot bigger problem on our hands than the electoral system.

If we have that many Nazis, I imagine a Beer Hall Putsch is right around the corner.

[The_Squid]

I just think if there's anywhere between 750,000 and 1,250,000 Nazis in the country who would be willing to vote for a Nazi Party, we've got a lot bigger problem on our hands than the electoral system.

Maybe Argus thinks the Nazi Party will bleed a lot of support from the Conservative Party if there is a PR system?

[eyeball]

It implies its completely unrealistic, yes. Just to start with, human nature is such that competitors for a position, ie, in government, will always seek to put the best possible spin on themselves and their policies, while the other side will seek to put the worst.

Except it's obviously not in our nature to meekly accept this state of affairs otherwise we'd stop trying to reinvent the institution every couple of hundred years, often violently.

Expecting honesty from both sides is ridiculous. Likewise, again, for fairly obvious reasons, those in power have no desire to see their errors, or the errors of the public servants beneath them, highly publicized, for it is seen as a reflection on them, even when it's not.

Of course it's obvious what people in power desire, so what? What's ridiculous is sitting around expecting honesty is occurring without a secure effective means to monitor, record, validate and audit for it. It's nowhere near as unrealistic as you imply - technology changes everything. I'm still convinced you think transparency is undesirable and a threat to our system - your oft repeated sense that the vast majority of voters are too stupid to rub two choices together let alone weigh a number of options come election time comes to mind for example.

You can rail against human nature all you want, but you can't fight it.

Humans have been changing their nature since day one, it's the greatest of all our traits despite everything our institutions do to resist it. In the meantime I guess we'll continue railing against them and blow them away on occasion when they finally become too much to bear, and they all do.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe Argus thinks the Nazi Party will bleed a lot of support from the Conservative Party if there is a PR system?

Heh... maybe!

Actually, PR might hold the very best hope for hard right social conservative reactionaries. Under the current FPTP, as Reform so ably demonstrated, a split on the Right pretty much means being kept out of power in perpetuity. Under a PR system, you could in fact have a mainstream fiscal conservative party with more libertarian views on social issues (ie. your classic Red Tory) as the primary conservative party, and you could have the more social conservative elements of the current CPC split off into their own party. The two parties would obviously campaign against each other, and yet could reform as a stable coalition in between elections giving conservatives just as much ability to form a government as they do now.

The same formula would probably work in an instant runoff ranked system, as in many cases conservative voters would put the two conservative parties as their first and second choices.

[Argus]

I agree with CC... Argus' suggestion that the Nazi Party will win enough support to have seats in Parliament is a ridiculous and fanciful notion.

Fear mongering? Or just an inability to perform simple math? I'm not sure which one.

Oh please. Half of you lefties consider Harper practically a Nazi. The reason extremist parties are non-existent in Canada is because they have no hope of getting elected in our current system. So even those who might be inclined to support them for one reason or another won't bother. Do I think something calling itself the Nazi party will rise? Nope. Doesn't mean some other far right wing party won't be started up with some pretty harsh positions on a variety of issues. We've seen it happen in almost every European country. Extremist leftist parties, too. I guarantee you that there will be a break within the NDP if Mulcair stays middle of the road, for the left wing of the party know they'll be able to get a certain percentage of the votes, and get represented in parliament.

[ToadBrother]

Oh please. Half of you lefties consider Harper practically a Nazi. The reason extremist parties are non-existent in Canada is because they have no hope of getting elected in our current system. So even those who might be inclined to support them for one reason or another won't bother. Do I think something calling itself the Nazi party will rise? Nope. Doesn't mean some other far right wing party won't be started up with some pretty harsh positions on a variety of issues. We've seen it happen in almost every European country. Extremist leftist parties, too. I guarantee you that there will be a break within the NDP if Mulcair stays middle of the road, for the left wing of the party know they'll be able to get a certain percentage of the votes, and get represented in parliament.

So let such parties start. For them to even have a hope in h-ll of having any seats in Parliament, let alone a significant block of seats would require a rather unbelievable level of popular support.

Let's face it. Your primary worry is simply that the CPC, as it is currently formulated, will be deprived of power. But the CPC, like all the currently existing parties, will simply realign to create stable coalitions.

The point at the end of the day is more democracy, not protecting of current party structures, and if the NDP and Liberals don't see how electoral reform will realign there support, then that's their problem.

[Argus]

Heh... maybe!

Actually, PR might hold the very best hope for hard right social conservative reactionaries. Under the current FPTP, as Reform so ably demonstrated, a split on the Right pretty much means being kept out of power in perpetuity.

I expect under PR there will likely be four right wing and four left wing parties, plus at least two ethnic parties, including the quebec separatists.

[Argus]

So let such parties start. For them to even have a hope in h-ll of having any seats in Parliament, let alone a significant block of seats would require a rather unbelievable level of popular support.The point at the end of the day is more democracy, not protecting of current party structures, and if the NDP and Liberals don't see how electoral reform will realign there support, then that's their problem.

You think 3% is an unbelievable level of public support? What percentage of people do you think would say they think the Jews blew up the world Trade Centre, or Bush, or the Illuminati? You think it's hard to get 3% of the people to believe in something, especially if you have an attractive, articulate and charismatic proponent?

Let's face it. Your primary worry is simply that the CPC, as it is currently formulated, will be deprived of power.

I don't even LIKE the CPC as it is currently formulated! But they have provided reasonably competent, reasonably honest (in terms of not stealing my money) government. My biggest fear is that we'll have a pack of parties making back room deals which grant small parties a lot more influence than their numbers would otherwise warrant in close votes, and that the non-stop electioneering would result in everyone making big, expensive promises, while never mentioning unpopular but necessary solutions to existing problems.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

I expect under PR there will likely be four right wing and four left wing parties, plus at least two ethnic parties, including the quebec separatists.

I love how you pull numbers out of the air and then just automatically accept them as true.

[ToadBrother]

You think 3% is an unbelievable level of public support? What percentage of people do you think would say they think the Jews blew up the world Trade Centre, or Bush, or the Illuminati? You think it's hard to get 3% of the people to believe in something, especially if you have an attractive, articulate and charismatic proponent?

I don't even LIKE the CPC as it is currently formulated! But they have provided reasonably competent, reasonably honest (in terms of not stealing my money) government. My biggest fear is that we'll have a pack of parties making back room deals which grant small parties a lot more influence than their numbers would otherwise warrant in close votes, and that the non-stop electioneering would result in everyone making nig, expensive promises, while never mentioning unpopular but necessary solutions to existing problems.

I would expect the number of 9-11 Truthers, anti-Semites and David Icke supporters to make up an exceedingly small part of the population.

As to CPC competence, I question the competence of any government that appears to be be largely run out of the office of a small number of hyperpartisans. Apparently, so do many in the Tory caucus, as they rallied behind Michael Chong's bill to reduce the powers of party leaders.

[ReeferMadness]

What I find a little troubling about Mulcair's shifting to some kind of centrism is that it's exactly the same stupid strategy that Andrea Horvath tried here in Ontario in the last provincial election. She took the NDP to the right of the governing Liberals, and many people on the left had no where to go except put the Liberals back in for another term.

True dat. On many fronts, the federal NDP are now to the right of the federal Libs. It you too NDPers from the 70's and showed them what their party has become, they'd be horrified.

Idealism has morphed into crowding the centre.

[ReeferMadness]

As to CPC competence, I question the competence of any government that appears to be be largely run out of the office of a small number of hyperpartisans. Apparently, so do many in the Tory caucus, as they rallied behind Michael Chong's bill to reduce the powers of party leaders.

That's because they see the rampant hypocrisy of a movement that started out to clean up Ottawa morph into the most centralized and corrupt administration in living memory.

[ToadBrother]

That's because they see the rampant hypocrisy of a movement that started out to clean up Ottawa morph into the most centralized and corrupt administration in living memory.

I'm going to have question the claims of being most corrupt. The Mulroney government had significant problems with corruption that could be traced right to Mulroney himself; although in typical fashion, the leaders of democratic countries rarely end up on the wrong side of a judge's gavel even where the gun isn't only smoking, but you can see whose finger is one the trigger.

That being said, the kind of centralization that we see in the Harper PMO invites corruption. Essentially granting not only the PM's personal executive powers, but indeed much of Cabinet's executive powers to a small band of hyperpartisans whose sole concern is the fortunes of the leader is, if not outright corrupt itself, then an invitation to a kind myopic and fundamentally autocratic governing style which simply is incompatible with cabinet style government.

[ReeferMadness]

I'm going to have question the claims of being most corrupt. The Mulroney government had significant problems with corruption that could be traced right to Mulroney himself; although in typical fashion, the leaders of democratic countries rarely end up on the wrong side of a judge's gavel even where the gun isn't only smoking, but you can see whose finger is one the trigger.

Certainly, the image of Mulroney taking bags of cash for services of dubious value makes you wonder what might have transpired while he was in office.

But I think the Harper brand of corruption is much more insidious and, in the end, much more damaging. He's developed a consistent pattern of dishonesty and underhandedness that has permeated his entire governance - from the practice of omnibus bills loaded with unrelated clauses to the tilting of election rules in his favor to the blatant dishonesty in his PMO during the Duffy affair to the unprecedented use of government advertising for partisan purposes. This is a government that has lacked any pretense of honesty or integrity and bent every rule for political advantage.

Mulroney and, to a lesser extent, Chretien, were corrupt in a monetary sense. But Harper's regime has been corrupting democracy itself.

The definition of corrupt from dictionary.com

guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked:

Tell me that is a perfect description of Harper.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ToadBrother]

Tell me that isn't a perfect description of Harper.

I hate getting into dictionary definition debates. I don't think centralization of power itself is corrupt, within the definitions you would find in, say, the Criminal Code or the Parliament Act. And I certainly agree that in some ways extreme centralization of power is far more insidious, in that it retains the trappings of our system of government, while completely undermining and marginalizing them. It almost strikes me as the chief reason that the Tories so hate the Supreme Court; it is one body that, even with no lack of Harper appointees sitting on it, is a body that the Government is largely incapable of undermining. Harper has found out what many US Presidents over the years have discovered; that Supreme Court justices, once enrobed, don't actually look upon defying the man who put them there as some sort of betrayal.

But the Tories have managed to undermine other democratic structures. Elections Canada has been castrated, and the Tory caucus gleefully bought into that because they have bought into the conspiracy theory that that department is out to get them. It's the typical paranoia that so often leads the Tories into ethical issues; they always feel they have some sort of inherent disadvantage, so they don't see a problem with gaming the system. I'm hoping once Harper is gone, the party will grow up a little bit.

But all that being as it may, my big problem is I see little coming from either the Liberals or the NDP that suggests they aren't going to run the government in a similar fashion. The problem with the steady erosion of the House of Commons, Cabinet and the caucus, which in many ways began long before the Tories, is that it all begins to look like the death of a thousand cuts.

One can well imagine, for instance, that Mulcair, faced with a caucus that may be very oddly weighted; lots of British Columbians and Quebecers, might be as fractious in its own way as the Tory caucus threatened to be in 2004 and 2006. Mulcair might look more favorably on the centralized autocracy of a Harper-style PMO as a means of keeping a lid on a raucous group of backbenchers. With a minority government, he may also have to appoint Cabinet Ministers of lesser or at least unknown ability, and may be tempted to create a sort of "mini cabinet" in his PMO, with trusted lieutenants who can "shepherd" cabinet ministers, and reign them in when necessary. Unlike cabinet ministers, who must often be chosen for reasons other than merit (ie. gender balance, regional balance, urban vs. rural, visible minorities, etc.), a Prime Minister can pick his PMO based purely on abilities and loyalty.

I would really like to see the other leaders commit to shrinking their own offices' influence and size; whether they form a government or remain in opposition. I'm seeing a lot of attacking Harper on his staffers' issues, but I'm seeing little indication that either Trudeau or Mulcair would play the game any differently.

[Argus]

I love how you pull numbers out of the air and then just automatically accept them as true.

What numbers did I pull out of the air? The 3% figure has been spoken of fairly often.

[Argus]

I'm going to have question the claims of being most corrupt. The Mulroney government had significant problems with corruption that could be traced right to Mulroney himself; although in typical fashion, the leaders of democratic countries rarely end up on the wrong side of a judge's gavel even where the gun isn't only smoking, but you can see whose finger is one the trigger.

I find it interesting you go back to Mulroney, who I agree, had a corruption problem, while blithely passing over Martin and Chretien, who also, without question, had corrupt governments.

[Argus]

I would expect the number of 9-11 Truthers, anti-Semites and David Icke supporters to make up an exceedingly small part of the population.

From Wiki

In September 2006, an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans."[23]

A September 2008 Angus Reid poll showed that 39 percent of respondents either disagree or are unsure that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks. About a third of those surveyed believed the U.S. government allowed the attacks to happen and 16 percent believe the U.S. government made the attacks happen.[24]

As to CPC competence, I question the competence of any government that appears to be be largely run out of the office of a small number of hyperpartisans. Apparently, so do many in the Tory caucus, as they rallied behind Michael Chong's bill to reduce the powers of party leaders.

Competence is not a measure of style but substance. I don't like how the Conservatives run things, either, but their government has been quite competent in most respects.

[ToadBrother]

What numbers did I pull out of the air? The 3% figure has been spoken of fairly often.

Can you show me where 3% of the population are David Icke fanatics?

[Argus]

Can you show me where 3% of the population are David Icke fanatics?

Why should I even bother given I've never suggested such a thing.

[ToadBrother]

From Wiki

In September 2006, an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans."[23]

A September 2008 Angus Reid poll showed that 39 percent of respondents either disagree or are unsure that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks. About a third of those surveyed believed the U.S. government allowed the attacks to happen and 16 percent believe the U.S. government made the attacks happen.[24]

Competence is not a measure of style but substance. I don't like how the Conservatives run things, either, but their government has been quite competent in most respects.

That hardly means there is a Truther Party just waiting to be formed.

And yes, competence is very much a measure not only of results, but of how those results are obtained. There have been plenty of rather productive autocratic regimes; Meiji Japan comes to mind as probably being one of the most productive governments in the history of our species, but I'm not sure I would want to live in a regime where the head of state is a deified and democratic institutions were little more than a sham.

And that's rather the point here. Whether the Tories are all that accomplished or not (and I'd argue that this majority term has been rather unremarkable, with very little to show for four whole years), if the means of whatever that accomplishment is ends up being heavy centralization of executive authority, caucus and cabinet, and indeed Parliament as a whole essentially turned into little more than a rubber stamp for what the PM, his advisers, strategists and policy wonks think is best, then I don't think that accomplishment was worth it.

And I'm not letting Mulcair or Trudeau off the hook. At this point I'm just as concerned that we'll end up in a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation. Managing bodies like cabinet and caucus are darned difficult, and what leader wouldn't want an inner group of advisers who were utterly and solely loyal to him, and giving them the power to enforce his will on the often more divided and miserable members of the more democratic institutions in our government?

It's funny how everyone makes noises about the undemocratic nature of an unelected Senate, and yet the real democratic deficit, the deficit that damages our democracy and hands huge amounts of power to the likes of Nigel Wright and Ray Novak, sits in the elected house in Parliament. And when I see partisans handwave away egregious violations of our system of government because, you know, there's all these accomplishments, it makes me think that the bases of all three parties have this rather troubling tendency to view politics in the context of the ends justifying the means.

And that is the source of political corruption.

[ToadBrother]

Why should I even bother given I've never suggested such a thing.

If we assume 3% or 6% as the numbers required before a party could get seats under some sort of PR system, it strikes me as pretty much impossible that we will see an anti-Illuminati or Nazi party in Parliament.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

That hardly means there is a Truther Party just waiting to be formed.

Did I say there was?

And yes, competence is very much a measure not only of results, but of how those results are obtained. There have been plenty of rather productive autocratic regimes; Meiji Japan comes to mind as probably being one of the most productive governments in the history of our species, but I'm not sure I would want to live in a regime where the head of state is a deified and democratic institutions were little more than a sham.

Me neither, but I can judge a regime or government to be competent at managing the job of, say, making the trains run on time, without admiring it for its methods.

Whether the Tories are all that accomplished or not (and I'd argue that this majority term has been rather unremarkable, with very little to show for four whole years),

Here's where we differ on philosophy. I would argue the Tories have been competent because they haven't done much in four years. In fact, I'd argue that Harper's entire term of office has resulted in virtually no accomplishments whatsoever. He's been a timid, 'don't' rock the boat' kind of manager who takes no chances on anything, and certainly hasn't been responsible for any kind of innovations.

On the other hand, they haven't caused a lot of damage. That passes for competence in my eyes given the other governments at federal, provincial, and municipal levels I've seen, including their predecessors.

if the means of whatever that accomplishment is ends up being heavy centralization of executive authority, caucus and cabinet, and indeed Parliament as a whole essentially turned into little more than a rubber stamp for what the PM, his advisers, strategists and policy wonks think is best, then I don't think that accomplishment was worth it.

Parliament has been a rubber stamp since Trudeau's day, you know, the guy who described MPs as nobodies? It's odd so few cared about that when there were left of centre governments in power. I see nothing in Trudeau or Mulcair's behaviour which seems likely to change that, however.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

If we assume 3% or 6% as the numbers required before a party could get seats under some sort of PR system, it strikes me as pretty much impossible that we will see an anti-Illuminati or Nazi party in Parliament.

Why? European societies are generally well to the Left of Canada, politically speaking, but many of them, including France, the Netherlands and the UK, have far right parties in parliament.

[ToadBrother]

Why? European societies are generally well to the Left of Canada, politically speaking, but many of them, including France, the Netherlands and the UK, have far right parties in parliament.

They also have long traditions of far right and far left parties. Such parties have never had much of an impact in North America. Even the NDP, at the height of their socialist fervor, would have seemed in most ways closer to the political center than, say, the UK Labour party of Michael Foot.

That there are fringe groups within the mainstream parties is without a doubt true, but that a PR or ranked voting system would suddenly see them gain any significant number of seats just doesn't seem a rational prediction. It really is just fearmongering.