Are two conservative parties better than one?

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

believe that human life begins at conception

Do you believe that cow life begins at conception?

 

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

So, what party would best represent my views?

So then why don't you support moving to a proportional representation system where there will be more viable parties to better represent your views?

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Do you believe that cow life begins at conception?

 

So then why don't you support moving to a proportional representation system where there will be more viable parties to better represent your views?

Weakening the party system could allow each of the over 300 MPs to share new ideas. Pro-rep might give, what, maybe a dozen parties at most, each so powerful that they won't allow much wavering from the party platform. So, which will promote the most diversity of ideas in Parliament?

[Queenmandy85]

19 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

And why must everything be local? It is a national election for national issues. Perhaps if the political system weren't so focused on local issues we would have better governance and less caving into special interest groups.

Most of an MP's work load is looking after constituents' problems such as problems with pension cheques etc.

Our system is responsible government, not representative government. As Lord North said, each Member of Parliament represents all (Canadians). PR denies the opportunity to vote for an independent. It also means that if a member quits the caucus, they lose their seat. It means being stuck with minority governments leading to frequent elections. It means disasters like BC has where a caucus of 3 members holds the government hostage. Rather that a temporary situation, PR makes it permanent. 

[-1=e^ipi]

6 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Weakening the party system could allow each of the over 300 MPs to share new ideas. Pro-rep might give, what, maybe a dozen parties at most, each so powerful that they won't allow much wavering from the party platform. So, which will promote the most diversity of ideas in Parliament?

 

12 parties is better than 300 'independent' MPs that all share the same opinion due to the first past the post system.

 

And how do you propose to 'weaken' the party system beyond removing names from the ballot? Get rid of freedom of association?

Edited August 25, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[Machjo]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

 

12 parties is better than 300 MPs that all share the same opinion due to the first past the post system.

 

And how do you propose to 'weaken' the party system beyond removing names from the ballot? Get rid of freedom of association?

Just eliminate all official recognition for political parties like in Nunavut.

[Queenmandy85]

3 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

And how do you propose to 'weaken' the party system beyond removing names from the ballot

Remove the requirement for a party leader to endorse a candidates nomination papers. We need parties to increase the likelihood of majority governments, but they should not have precedence over MP's. If the Liberal backbenchers want to remove their leader, all they should need to do is vote no confidence. 

[Bonam]

27 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Rather, basing an ideology around conserving things for the sake of conserving things is rather silly. Conservatism is a relative political ideology rather than an absolute political ideology. Conservatism only has policies once you take into account the society you are in, where has something like Classical Liberalism has policies that apply everywhere regardless of society (freedom of speech, equality between men and women, etc.). That's why conservatism means beheading women who go shopping without a male escort and killing gay people in Saudi Arabia. Why people would want to associate themselves with the gay-killing Saudis is crazy to me, but it makes a bit more sense once you take into account Andrew Scheer's dislike of gay marriage.

Conservatism has nothing to do with free trade. That's revisionist history. Traditionally, conservatism in most societies has been about conserving traditions and not wanting to trade with foreigners. The conservative parties in Canada were opposed to free trade until the 1980s. It was conservatives that opposed free trade with the Americans during the time of Wilfred Laurier.

Trade liberalization is a Classical Liberal idea, not a conservative one (see Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill). If you look at the origins or the terms right and left with respect to politics (i.e. late 18th century France), the right consisted of monarchists, catholic theocrats, and protectionists wanting to restrict economic freedom & trade.

Bernier is not a conservative, he is a libertarian. It is too bad that he has bought into this revisionist history rather than correctly identify himself as not conservative.

You may be right about the historical origins of the terms left and right and conservatism, but what is important is the reality of today not the origins of words back in the 18th century. Today, in most Western countries, "conservative" parties are coalitions of fiscal conservatives (who favor low taxes and free trade), social conservatives (who favor legislated morality), libertarians (who favor small government and individual liberty), and lately populists (who favor nationalism). Many of these positions are internally inconsistent, for example libertarian values are in direct opposition to social conservatism.

Today's conservative parties are not about just "conserving things" regardless of context. In fact, conservative parties want change just as much (or just as little, depending on your perspective) as liberal parties do, just towards different ends. When it comes to human rights in Islamic dictatorships/theocracies/monarchies, you are much more likely to see (Western) conservatives criticize the situation these days rather than (Western) liberals, who nowadays fear to be seen as anti-Muslim in any way. 

[Queenmandy85]

Aside from putting forward a decent platform and good candidates, getting out the vote is vital. Some elections are won or lost with the ground game. 

1. Canvass - identify the vote.

2. Election day- ensure EVERY supporter gets to the polls. 

1972. A Conservative supporter was working in a cafe. It was 45 minutes until the polls closed. She called the campaign office and asked if every one on the list had voted. Yes.

What about the guys out on the construction site? Well, no. 

Who's on the list?

She jumped into a van and drove out to the site, picked up only the conservative voters (identified by the canvassers) and got them to the polls with five minutes to spare. There were ten of them. The Tory won by 8 votes.

[Bonam]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What draws a major party to the left or the right is not a fringe party. It is the electorate. The centre is defined by the voters. It is where the bulk of the electorate resides. The first rule in politics is (as in sales) the voter is always right. The Trudeau government and Sheer's CPC are reacting to what the voters want. That is not only good politics, it is democracy.

That is the idealist view of democracy, sure. But the reality is that, to varying extents in different countries, the parties/government drive the discourse or the opinion. Government has enormous power to shape public opinion. These powers include explicit control of permissible discourse (i.e. laws about what is permissible speech and what is not), the power to propose or pass bills that shape the context and content of political discussion for years to come, and of course endless free media coverage of their views and positions. Governments also have immense power of aiding or hindering various organizations through tax policy, trade policy, and regulation. Governments can also criminalize or decriminalize things, which can powerfully shift public perception and discourse around certain issues. Governments also control the content and nature of the education system, which shapes the minds of future generations, and is perhaps the most powerful tool of changing/controlling what future voters will want. 

I would say that "what voters want" is influenced just as much by their government, as the government is influenced by what voters want, if not more. 

[Bonam]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Aside from putting forward a decent platform and good candidates, getting out the vote is vital. Some elections are won or lost with the ground game. 

1. Canvass - identify the vote.

2. Election day- ensure EVERY supporter gets to the polls. 

1972. A Conservative supporter was working in a cafe. It was 45 minutes until the polls closed. She called the campaign office and asked if every one on the list had voted. Yes.

What about the guys out on the construction site? Well, no. 

Who's on the list?

She jumped into a van and drove out to the site, picked up only the conservative voters (identified by the canvassers) and got them to the polls with five minutes to spare. There were ten of them. The Tory won by 8 votes.

This whole idea is absurd in the year 2018. People should be able to securely and conveniently vote from their computer or mobile phone. People always bring up issues of security/verification when this is mentioned but the reality is that those are mere simple technical issues to solve. Allowing online voting would significantly boost voter participation rates, I would guess up to 90% or more of eligible voters, and reduce the under-representation of all kinds of groups in voting (the young, the poor, etc). 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

This presumes all ideas are stupid and none should be preserved.

Argus is correct to point out the mistaken presumption that every conservative idea is stupid when it would have been more far more accurate to say most...as evidenced by the ongoing success of progressivism in human social evolution.  An even better indicator of that success is that its been achieved against so much conservatism - like prevailing against a relentless rust that never sleeps.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

I'm a constitutional monarchist, believe that human life begins at conception, and favour strict laws pertaining to addictive products and services.

Yet I favour open borders, a mostly capitalistic economy but with social services to give those in need a hand up, school vouchers but public funding for those vouchers.

So, what party would best represent my views? None! That's why I favour weakening the power of the party whip so as to allow individual candidates the freedom to share new ideas from outside the box.

The thing that would need to happen so your views could be realized is a strengthening of the state's powers and voting would soon be pretty moot.

Face it, you're an authoritarian.

 

Quote

So, what party would best represent my views? None!

Good thing too.

Edited August 25, 2018 by eyeball

[Machjo]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The thing that would need to happen so your views could be realized is a strengthening of the state's powers and voting would soon be pretty moot.

Face it, you're an authoritarian.

 

Good thing too.

Singapore's per capita GDP surpasses Canada's too and in fact the Singaporean pasport allows visa-free access to more countries than the Canadian one does too. So Singapore must be doing something right.

Yes, I'm an authoritarian because certain forms of authoritarianism work.

 

I'm an Esperantist too. Esperanto is from five to ten times easier to learn than English. That means that students could actually learn their second language well and so save the state and businesses great sums of money in translation and interpretation. I could say that I'm a technocrat in some respects I guess.

[Queenmandy85]

20 minutes ago, Bonam said:

This whole idea is absurd in the year 2018. People should be able to securely and conveniently vote from their computer or mobile phone. People always bring up issues of security/verification when this is mentioned but the reality is that those are mere simple technical issues to solve. Allowing online voting would significantly boost voter participation rates, I would guess up to 90% or more of eligible voters, and reduce the under-representation of all kinds of groups in voting (the young, the poor, etc). 

If someone is too go*****med lazy to get off their a*s to go to a polling station, even getting a ride from a campaign organization, they don't deserve a vote. Voting is THE most important part of democracy. You get time off from work, the campaign will provide child care, rides to the polls, etc. There is no excuse for not showing up at the polls.

 Voting is not enough. If you don't get out and campaign for your candidate, both in the nomination process and the election, you have no right to complain about the result.

[Machjo]

How do you campaign for your candidate until you know whom to vote for? In many cases, I made my final decision on polling day.

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If someone is too go*****med lazy to get off their a*s to go to a polling station, even getting a ride from a campaign organization, they don't deserve a vote. Voting is THE most important part of democracy. You get time off from work, the campaign will provide child care, rides to the polls, etc.

The campaign will provide child care and rides? Where and when? Doesn't sound like a universally available service. Moreover who would want to leave their children in the hands of fanatical political operators? 

Quote

There is no excuse for not showing up at the polls.

It's not a matter of excuse, it's a matter of convenience. Here in WA state we switched to voting by mail and it works a heck of a lot better from what I've seen. Online is the obvious next step. The idea that voting should be some archaic procedure where you have to physically go somewhere to prove your dedication is not productive. Voting is a matter of recording citizen's preferences for government, and should be achieved just like any government service, in the most cost effective, timely, and accessible way possible. And that means online. 

Quote

 If you don't get out and campaign for your candidate, both in the nomination process and the election, you have no right to complain about the result.

Campaigning for a candidate is an exercise that's only for political fanatics. Most normal people want nothing to do with politics and just vote for the lesser of the evils presented to them by the system. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Rather, basing an ideology around conserving things for the sake of conserving things is rather silly.

I suppose so, and if you can find an ideology like that, do let me know.

Conservativism is about going with what is known and proven to work and work well, and not moving on until we know for sure something new will work better. If you want to look at conserving things for the sake of conserving things look at those who slap 'heritage' designations on any building more than 50 years old, those who insist we preserve native reserves as a shrine to the 'quaint' and noble red man, those who insist on massive government subsidies and protections for outmoded industries. Few of these people are conservative, btw.

Conservatism is about serious, thoughtful, responsible government, paying the bills, taking care of infrastructure, and prioritizing what NEEDS to be done over what would merely be nice to get done. I'll take that over the airheaded identity politics of the Left any day.

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Conservatism has nothing to do with free trade.

It was a PC government here and a Republican government in the US who brought in free trade. The Liberals and NDP, meanwhile, were violently opposed. In the US, the more leftward politicians were also dead set against it.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Remove the requirement for a party leader to endorse a candidates nomination papers. We need parties to increase the likelihood of majority governments, but they should not have precedence over MP's. If the Liberal backbenchers want to remove their leader, all they should need to do is vote no confidence. 

If you look at things in the UK, backbench MPs have considerable more freedom to speak their minds, including publicly opposing government policy and speaking against ministers and the prime minister. Both the Conservatives and Labour party have ongoing issues with backbenchers publicly criticizing the party leaders, and I think that openness is good for democracy.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Bonam said:

 It's not a matter of excuse, it's a matter of convenience. Here in WA state we switched to voting by mail and it works a heck of a lot better from what I've seen.

And does it result in better politicians? I've seen no evidence of that.

[Bonam]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

And does it result in better politicians? I've seen no evidence of that.

I don't think anything can really result in better politicians. Except maybe if we do selection by lottery instead of voting. Modern representative democracy is specifically set up to encourage only the most power hungry and unethical individuals to get into office. 

[Machjo]

4 minutes ago, Bonam said:

I don't think anything can really result in better politicians. Except maybe if we do selection by lottery instead of voting. Modern representative democracy is specifically set up to encourage only the most power hungry and unethical individuals to get into office. 

Democracy is only as good as the electorate.

[Queenmandy85]

11 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Campaigning for a candidate is an exercise that's only for political fanatics. Most normal people want nothing to do with politics and just vote for the lesser of the evils presented to them by the system. 

That is why you need to get involved in the nomination. Unless the party leader axes your candidate, you have some say. To avoid the evils, make sure you get behind a good candidate. Maybe one that will work to eliminate the leader's power to block a nomination.

[Bonam]

6 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Democracy is only as good as the electorate.

I would revise that to say that Democracy is only as good as the worst among the electorate. 

 

[Bonam]

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is why you need to get involved in the nomination. Unless the party leader axes your candidate, you have some say. To avoid the evils, make sure you get behind a good candidate. Maybe one that will work to eliminate the leader's power to block a nomination.

I have better things to do than mingle with a bunch of political hacks. As do most other reasonable people. 

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, Bonam said:

I would revise that to say that Democracy is only as good as the worst among the electorate. 

 

Thanks. More precisely, it's only as good as the plurality of the electorate since they really decide on the candidate.