OT: The News Thread

[JaysCyYoung]

It's sort of a chicken and egg thing. I have trouble voting for an individual as opposed to their party because I have ZERO confidence that they'll vote against party lines, or switch parties for moral and logical reasons.

One hundred percent true.

Any party whip worth his/her salt will be able to ensure that the individual members vote in lock step with the party anyways.

 

[blacksheep]

I think getting up in arms over this kind of shows the wrong focus from a political thought stand point.

You should be voting for the best individual to represent your riding, not for the team they play for. If you felt that person was the best representative for your riding when you voted for them, the colour on their riding office window shouldn't change that. If you're voting for the team instead of the person, you're a partisan muppet.

Exactly. If my local rep crossed the floor to better serve me, I'd be praising him.
I don't vote on party lines. I vote for the person whom I think will best serve my interests, regardless of the colour of their banner.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Pretty much the only two people I can think of in the last decade of Canadian politics that would fit your requirements, blacksheep, would be Chuck Cadman and Andre Arthur. Short of the rare prospect of an independent defeating multiple party candidates (in Arthur's riding the Tories did not run a candidate out of respect for him), you're unlikely to get someone who will respect and vote for your constituency's interests independent of party scrutiny.

 

[blacksheep]

It's sort of a chicken and egg thing. I have trouble voting for an individual as opposed to their party because I have ZERO confidence that they'll vote against party lines, or switch parties for moral and logical reasons.

The greater issue is that cash drives the party lines to begin with. Parties need money to run for office, and their corporate buddies expect favours in return for paying for their bids.
Leaving us to be screwed by them both.
The few who actually do vote against their party are the cream of the crop.
And now you understand why I prefer minority governments, as a better balance of governance is at least possible.

 

[johnunit]

I know they'd just have an unofficial one anyway, but I really wish that there was a way to ban parties from having a designated whip. There's just no angle you can look at it where it breeds good governance.

 

[blacksheep]

Pretty much the only two people I can think of in the last decade of Canadian politics that would fit your requirements, blacksheep, would be Chuck Cadman and Andre Arthur. Short of the rare prospect of an independent defeating multiple party candidates (in Arthur's riding the Tories did not run a candidate out of respect for him), you're unlikely to get someone who will respect and vote for your constituency's interests independent of party scrutiny.

That's the biggest reason why so few bother to vote anymore.
This system needs a major shakeup. McGuinty's referendum two elections ago set the stage for it, but nobody wanted it. Stupid people, if you ask me.

 

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

Well, onto some Canadian politics. One of the NDP MP's elected in the "orange wave" in Quebec has crossed the floor to the Liberals:

Story:


Guess the NDP caucus is already starting to crack under their new leadership. Still a bullshit move though, just like all the other floor crossings. It's generally true with others who've defected in the past, but pretty much any NDP MP elected from Quebec in the last election wasn't elected because of themselves, but because of the "NDP" beside their name. There should really be a rule that any MP who crosses the floor to another party should be subject to a by-election before doing so.

at least this person waited a few months, David Emerson did it two days after winning a seat for the Liberals.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

That's the biggest reason why so few bother to vote anymore.
This system needs a major shakeup. McGuinty's referendum two elections ago set the stage for it, but nobody wanted it. Stupid people, if you ask me.

Actually I think the biggest reason is that people are too lazy and pass their time with a lot of irrelevant activities. There's a complete apathy to the whole process of voting and of the importance it plays in everyone's daily lives and it's only going to get worse.

We are a failing, declining, morally-corrupted, self-absorbed society.

 

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

Actually I think the biggest reason is that people are too lazy and pass their time with a lot of irrelevant activities. There's a complete apathy to the whole process of voting and of the importance it plays in everyone's daily lives and it's only going to get worse.

We are a failing, declining, morally-corrupted, self-absorbed society.

so says the guy who was happy he was in better shape than Marchand and talks about the chicks he has hammered putside of marriage

 

[anne25]

I wonder when she had this epiphany. It is not as if she didn't know what the NDP policies were. She has been a NDP volunteer for 10 years and ran for the party in 2008 and since the Liberals haven't even set their ""new policy direction, how does she know they are a better match for her?

As well considering she was elected in Jean Chretien's old riding, I woud think it is pretty obvious that her constituents, those she is supposed to represent, preferred the policies of the NDP.

 

[MindzEye]

Actually I think the biggest reason is that people are too lazy and pass their time with a lot of irrelevant activities. There's a complete apathy to the whole process of voting and of the importance it plays in everyone's daily lives and it's only going to get worse.

We are a failing, declining, morally-corrupted, self-absorbed society.

Well, in fairness to the electorate, the levers of power have always been kept as far away from them as legally possible by the political elite. It's hard to feel engaged in the system, and an important part of it when you have very little power in it. Take myself for example....I'm very knowledge concerning policy...social, economic, international, etc. But not a single Federal party appeals to me at all in any meaningful way, yet those are all the choices I have and none of them represent the type of governance that I think we require going forward to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It's hard to feel engaged and connected to the system.

 

[corksens]

I'd love for her to outline the party differences on issues like jobs and the environment. As far as I can tell there are none, so why the change?

This is a classic case of buying low.

 

[LeafGm]

It's sort of a chicken and egg thing. I have trouble voting for an individual as opposed to their party because I have ZERO confidence that they'll vote against party lines, or switch parties for moral and logical reasons.

Yeah, exactly this. Even if I like an individual candidate that's running better than another, it's the national/provincial party agendas that I'm using to determine my vote, because that party agenda is exactly how each of those candidates is going to vote if they get elected. And frankly, I don't see any problem with this approach. I think it takes a more realistic view of how politics work in this country, and I've voted for multiple parties at both the provincial and federal level, so I'm not just blindly voting for one particular party all the time.

That being said, though the party on the ballot is the most important thing to me, if my preferred party runs a candidate that I either find distasteful or unqualified, I won't vote for them. So if I lived in Vaughan for example, where that piece of infectious human waste Julian Fantino was the Conservative candidate, I wouldn't have considered voting Conservative even if it was their platform I liked the best.

 

[Bleedsblue&white]

I wonder how much of a difference there is when you are voting in a city like Toronto compared to a small town area? I could imagine it's easier for your riding to get crowded out in the city, and it's not always simple for people to see where changes are are are not helping them out...but what your politician does for you stands out when there's only one road that really needs fixing lol, or only two schools.

I vote based on the best person for my area.

 

[Bleedsblue&white]

Actually, I've started voting for whoever cleans up their sign-pollution the fastest.
As ME mentioned, sometimes there is nobody who really stands out for me...so I find reasons, and living in a beautiful country setting, you really, really notice the signs.

 

[blacksheep]

There's a complete apathy to the whole process of voting and of the importance it plays in everyone's daily lives and it's only going to get worse.

... which is partly because, as mentioned, party whips will make sure you go along with the party line, rather than what's best for your electorate.
Minority governments are the only exception, and not a very large one.

 

[worm]

crossing the floor at almost any time is ratty, ratty, ratty. i hate it. you were almost certainly elected because of the banner you ran under, not for YOU personally. when you cross the floor you basically invalidate the democratic choice made. it sucks.

I agree about why people vote.

But if a party doesn't hold on to a campaign promise should there we an election? Is it ratty, ratty, ratty?

The environment of the country and the party can change in a matter of months....so I do not have a problem with it at all.

But I am a big fan of MPs voted on what they think is best not what their party tells them to vote on.

 

[worm]

I think getting up in arms over this kind of shows the wrong focus from a political thought stand point.

You should be voting for the best individual to represent your riding, not for the team they play for. If you felt that person was the best representative for your riding when you voted for them, the colour on their riding office window shouldn't change that. If you're voting for the team instead of the person, you're a partisan muppet.

I agree 100% that it SHOULD be like that. But the partisan muppet is usually the MP as well.

 

[worm]

Yeah, but this is kind of irrelevant.

A good friend of mine commonly states the above every election period and the rest of our collective has to remind him that, while his point is well-taken, it doesn't reflect reality. Whether people should vote for someone who is the best individual fit in the riding is not what is of relevance here. It's the fact that they do vote for the party brand at least eighty percent of the time (at least most normal polling numbers show four out of five people vote by party affiliation) that matters. So when you have someone who ran under the banner of the NDP and then chooses to defect to the Liberals, people are going to be pretty upset because they clearly wanted to be represented by a Dipper.

That's why the notion of an automatic by-election is so attractive. It gives the people an opportunity to exercise their democratic right in response to one of their MP's/MPP's sand-bagging them.

Or just let the NDP pick a new person for that riding. Cheaper.

But I would rather just wait for the next election. Only time it really matters anyway is when it shifts the balance of power.

 

[worm]

I wonder when she had this epiphany. It is not as if she didn't know what the NDP policies were. She has been a NDP volunteer for 10 years and ran for the party in 2008 and since the Liberals haven't even set their ""new policy direction, how does she know they are a better match for her?

As well considering she was elected in Jean Chretien's old riding, I woud think it is pretty obvious that her constituents, those she is supposed to represent, preferred the policies of the NDP.

Right around the time the sex scandal was about to break.