abolishing political parties

[Hates politicians]

I think political parties should be abolished. every person who claims to represent their constituancy should be doing exactly that. not what their leader tells them to vote for. When someone has a good idea it should be supported. Not oh, thats an ndp idea so you have to vote against it etc. All the persons who are elected can then vote for a leader. Everybody has a say in the budget as it affects everybody. That way no party whips exist. The right of the people to fire for cause no severence. When your term is up thats it no big fat payouts.

[scribblet]

Doncha think it would get a bit like a free for all with no structure or guidelines ?

[Anthony]

20 minutes ago, Hates politicians said:

I think political parties should be abolished. every person who claims to represent their constituancy should be doing exactly that. not what their leader tells them to vote for. When someone has a good idea it should be supported. Not oh, thats an ndp idea so you have to vote against it etc. All the persons who are elected can then vote for a leader. Everybody has a say in the budget as it affects everybody. That way no party whips exist. The right of the people to fire for cause no severence. When your term is up thats it no big fat payouts.

Since we have the technology, why have representatives at all? Create a system of direct democracy, something  less extreme but along the lines of a Geomocracy.

I agree, political parties have the ability to force an ideology onto a voting collective even though they may have not agreed entirely with ideology.

[taxme]

24 minutes ago, Hates politicians said:

I think political parties should be abolished. every person who claims to represent their constituancy should be doing exactly that. not what their leader tells them to vote for. When someone has a good idea it should be supported. Not oh, thats an ndp idea so you have to vote against it etc. All the persons who are elected can then vote for a leader. Everybody has a say in the budget as it affects everybody. That way no party whips exist. The right of the people to fire for cause no severence. When your term is up thats it no big fat payouts.

 

25 minutes ago, Hates politicians said:

I think political parties should be abolished. every person who claims to represent their constituancy should be doing exactly that. not what their leader tells them to vote for. When someone has a good idea it should be supported. Not oh, thats an ndp idea so you have to vote against it etc. All the persons who are elected can then vote for a leader. Everybody has a say in the budget as it affects everybody. That way no party whips exist. The right of the people to fire for cause no severence. When your term is up thats it no big fat payouts.

There should be free votes for all politicians in every party. What is really needed is to get rid of political correctness which is destroying freedom of speech, opinion, and points of view. We need citizen initiated referendums, the right to recall so that we the people will have our say and not the politicians. Politicians would not be able to force programs and agendas that we the people may not like or want or need at all. Canadians really need to start to give more of a dam about Canada and not just at election time. 

[scribblet]

Citizen referenda would be great, not for everything of course, just major issue such as a carbon tax.  Also agree that there should be more free votes and more input from the back benchers.  Doubt it will ever happen.

[paxamericana]

I think this issue is a non starter because it doesn't solve one fundamental fact. How to reconcile with those you disagree.

How can you turn something that is potentially a zero sum game into a win win game.

So you have to have leaders willing to do the right thing with feedback and hold them accountable. But that feedback has to be tempered. We all know too well of public hysteria and knee jerk reaction, mob rule essentially. 

The process for reconciliation start with your core fundamental values, to respect one another (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc...).  

Technology can solve many problems but It can't solve what is essentially a human problem. 

It's quite obvious to me that a lot of us who debate on this forum seem to have lost a fundamental friendliness to one another. 

Politicians are subject to the same problem. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by paxrom

[Anthony]

26 minutes ago, paxrom said:

I think this issue is a non starter because it doesn't solve one fundamental fact. How to reconcile with those you disagree.

How can you turn something that is potentially a zero sum game into a win win game.

By making a trade agreement, those you disagree with may want to have X but you want Y maybe there is a middle ground. Would those that disagree so strongly desire to die for their belief? If so then those who are on the opposing side have to decide if it is also worth the sacrifice of life. I mean this is an extreme case and most likely would never happen, yet it is the end result of an extreme disagreement over resources for example. Thus, making a trade arrangement would benefit the collective of the two parties.  

Quote

So you have to have leaders willing to do the right thing with feedback and hold them accountable. But that feedback has to be tempered. We all know too well of public hysteria and knee jerk reaction, mob rule essentially. 

 

Great, I like this idea, what happens to these leaders at the time where we hold them accountable for their action or inaction?

 

40 minutes ago, paxrom said:

The process for reconciliation start with your core fundamental values, to respect one another (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc...).  

Technology can solve many problems but It can't solve what is essentially a human problem. 

 

I agree, unless I misunderstood you the problem is that people inherently lack morals or at least core fundamental values. How do you address this? At one point people were able to murder, but through a system either law or religious morality people have not been able to legally or morally murder one another.

Unless there is some type of universal core fundamentals that can be introduced into people from a young age we will never be able to create universal people which follow these core fundamental values. Thus, it is through a system that one can encourage people to make the right choices. ( “right” meaning for the benefit of the collective) Hence a system of governance that is directed either by the people or representatives for the people.

 

[eyeball]

54 minutes ago, paxrom said:

I think this issue is a non starter because it doesn't solve one fundamental fact. How to reconcile with those you disagree.

How can you turn something that is potentially a zero sum game into a win win game.

So you have to have leaders willing to do the right thing with feedback and hold them accountable. But that feedback has to be tempered. We all know too well of public hysteria and knee jerk reaction, mob rule essentially. 

The process for reconciliation start with your core fundamental values, to respect one another (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc...).  

Technology can solve many problems but It can't solve what is essentially a human problem. 

It's quite obvious to me that a lot of us who debate on this forum seem to have lost a fundamental friendliness to one another. 

Politicians are subject to the same problem. 

The more fundamental problem is the eroded ability to trust anything or anyone. What politicians are not subject to is the surveillance they subject us to.

I would suggest outlawing in-camera lobbying might be enough to shock our system back to some semblance of normalcy. I doubt any existing political party would ever be willing to do this until a new party emerges that dedicates itself to total public awareness of virtually everything in the public's domain.

To put a finer point on where I'm coming from; Instead of constituents seeking information thru a Freedom of Information Act politicians and bureaucrats should require a Privilege to Secrecy Act in which they apply to have something kept secret.

Edited June 21, 2018 by eyeball

[paxamericana]

I'm what you call a constitutionalists. I do not believe that any of the problems we are facing now has not already been solved by previous generations. A lot of those problems were addressed in the constitution. You just have to read in between the lines and interpret them.  It is a good source for your moral imperative/back bone. 

From examples in history we can derive a guiding light to our solution. 

But it all start from a fundamental core value that is shared. 

The subject of trust and lack of fundamental friendliness is due to the erosion of these core values. 

 

[cannuck]

I am another who believes that partisanship is a huge disservice to democracy.  I believe we should make parties, and party affiliation of ANY kind a complete disqualifier to hold political office.   Every vote a free vote.   And again, as has been mentioned, citizen referendae and recall.  Once a parliament has been elected, they can campaign from within to run as cabinet members and PM.   Above all else, make lobbying a criminal act.  

We have come to a place where the business of politics has become the dispensing of privilege.  That has to stop.

[Machjo]

20 hours ago, scribblet said:

Doncha think it would get a bit like a free for all with no structure or guidelines ?

It works in Nunavut.

[Machjo]

20 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

I think political parties should be abolished. every person who claims to represent their constituancy should be doing exactly that. not what their leader tells them to vote for. When someone has a good idea it should be supported. Not oh, thats an ndp idea so you have to vote against it etc. All the persons who are elected can then vote for a leader. Everybody has a say in the budget as it affects everybody. That way no party whips exist. The right of the people to fire for cause no severence. When your term is up thats it no big fat payouts.

I'd start slowly. As a first step, I'd remove party names from ballots. Once people are used to that, I'd remove any official recognition of political parties in Parliament. This would not mean that parties could not exist, but the law would simply not grant that existence any recognition. That would lead to a caucus of the whole replacing any party caucus in Parliament and it would greatly reduce the value of the political party.  Only after that could we finally put political parties aside.

 

I would bet that campaigning just to remove political parties from ballots would be an uphill battle given the special interests involved in that.

[turningrite]

On 6/21/2018 at 3:22 PM, Anthony said:

Since we have the technology, why have representatives at all? Create a system of direct democracy, something  less extreme but along the lines of a Geomocracy.

I agree, political parties have the ability to force an ideology onto a voting collective even though they may have not agreed entirely with ideology.

I agree for the most part with the sentiments expressed in your post, however I believe we'd still need politicians to deal with the legal minutiae associated with drafting and implementing legislation. Also, constituents often require representatives who can intercede on their behalf with often mind-numbingly obtuse bureaucracies. But I agree with the basic concept of direct democracy, whereby voters would provide direct input on policy direction, in a similar fashion to the way we now file taxes and submit census forms online. We'd all be provided a voter I.D. number (similar to a SIN) and would vote at regular intervals on matters of general importance based on public petition and/or on significant support in parliament (perhaps 1/3 of members) for obtaining such input. But I think these electronic plebiscites would have to be consultative rather than binding.

To further democratize the electoral and parliamentary systems, I favor proportional representation, which would serve to break down the ideological stranglehold  now held by the traditional parties. I agree with those who argue the current system is much too restrictive and offers voters far too little choice. Most support parties at election time on the basis of a couple major issues or promises but in so doing end up endorsing a party's entire agenda, which seems to me to be anything but democratic. Imagine the poor suckers who voted for the federal Libs because they thought they'd actually see electoral reform implemented. (I know a couple people in this category.) And look what we're stuck with!

Edited July 19, 2018 by turningrite

[Anthony]

17 hours ago, turningrite said:

I agree for the most part with the sentiments expressed in your post, however I believe we'd still need politicians to deal with the legal minutiae associated with drafting and implementing legislation. Also, constituents often require representatives who can intercede on their behalf with often mind-numbingly obtuse bureaucracies. But I agree with the basic concept of direct democracy, whereby voters would provide direct input on policy direction, in a similar fashion to the way we now file taxes and submit census forms online. We'd all be provided a voter I.D. number (similar to a SIN) and would vote at regular intervals on matters of general importance based on public petition and/or on significant support in parliament (perhaps 1/3 of members) for obtaining such input. But I think these electronic plebiscites would have to be consultative rather than binding.

To further democratize the electoral and parliamentary systems, I favor proportional representation, which would serve to break down the ideological stranglehold  now held by the traditional parties. I agree with those who argue the current system is much too restrictive and offers voters far too little choice. Most support parties at election time on the basis of a couple major issues or promises but in so doing end up endorsing a party's entire agenda, which seems to me to be anything but democratic. Imagine the poor suckers who voted for the federal Libs because they thought they'd actually see electoral reform implemented. (I know a couple people in this category.) And look what we're stuck with!

 

Thank you Turnigrite, I am curious what you mean by consultative rather than binding, can you elaborate?

There appears to be a few major problems within some representative democratic government, for the elected to be held accountable for action/inaction and conflict of interest for personal gain resulting in corruption. One could hope with the implementation of direct democracy the citizens could prevent concentration of power and hold those in power accountable for complacency.

Again a lot of direct democracy is a bit of a fantasy as most citizens will not partake in the voting or educate themselves on the topics at hand. 

 

[turningrite]

18 hours ago, Anthony said:

 

Thank you Turnigrite, I am curious what you mean by consultative rather than binding, can you elaborate?

Again a lot of direct democracy is a bit of a fantasy as most citizens will not partake in the voting or educate themselves on the topics at hand. 

 

To me, consultative plebiscites would ask general questions about policy, the response(s) to which politicians would have to respect. The details of policy and legislation would be left up to politicians to figure out. For instance, a question on immigration wouldn't have to ask about specific intake numbers (about which many are largely unaware according to studies) but might ask whether voters prefer to maintain the currently unfocused large-scale program or, instead, tailor intake levels to address and respond to specific economic factors and conditions like unemployment/underemployment and poverty among newcomers and/or housing availability, and/or generally match per capita intake levels to those in similar countries like the U.S. or Britain. The specifics would be left to politicians to address.

I agree with you that most voters likely won't pay enough attention to educate themselves or perhaps even vote on policy matters. As such, online plebiscites would likely have to be rather infrequent. It might be best to include several issues, provide the option to not respond on matters that don't interest individual voters, and conduct these online plebiscites once a year. But even if only 30 or 35 percent of the population participates, there would be a much broader range of input than now exists within the traditional and often self-serving political party coterie that sets public policy in this country.

Edited July 20, 2018 by turningrite

[cannuck]

The way to make consultative plebiscites work is to constantly publish the results and display when anything regarding specific legislation or election time was at hand.

BTW: Legislators do NOT draft legislation.  There are lawyers employed for that specific purpose (part of the problem with why the law is so obtuse).