Another amazing article -- and yes, I'll be sharing this one with the parliamentarians that are claimed to represent where I live (but who regularly act as staff of party branded corporations).
"The third is to make voting mandatory"
As long as there is a NOTA (None Of The Above) option on the ballet, then fine. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for failure where people are forced to hold their noses and incorrectly be seen as "supporting" horrible options. Canada has thus far refused to do proper record keeping of deliberately spoiled ballots and other critical feedback about democratic institutions -- and narrowly fixate on the alleged false-binary "winner".
There is indeed but it's not an effective method. My opinion on NOTA is that if we do not support any of the available options, we have an obligation to run -- which would be possible if we also address point 1 on money.
I should add: This also relates to my support for ballot ranking as not only a better way to decide what humans gain a seat in parliament, but also for more accurate/relevant statistics about what humans were close to gaining a seat.
This feeds into parliamentary discussions and future policy work leading to a future election in a way that the current nearly-information-free plurality vote can not.
Any fixation on the colour of corporate logos on team jerseys being worn within parliament at any given moment is a dangerous distraction. Those who are currently merely sports fans need to upgrade themselves to become informed and involved citizens — further downgrading Democratic Institutions is never the right answer.
Thanks for this. As you say, we need to reverse the vote against. We have to vote for. The person I choose has to be more important than the Party and if we lose that, we lose our power as voters.
Absolutely. If I didn't grasp that truth fully before the 2016 election, I certainly had it driven home to me in my riding (Laurentides-Labelle). Proportional representation would merely augment the already excessive suppression of popular democracy by party oligarchs.
David, I am more concerned with the lack of meaningful grassroots input. I believe the first task is to insist on all parties' respect and duty to listen to their constituents' concerns. This will require a rethink in the party structure from top-down to EDA empowerment.
Thank you for expressing so clearly my views on proportional representation. Additionally it removes the ability of parliamentarians to cross the floor. PR opens the door to Israeli style politics where a single cause party can control who gets to run the country. One of the many reasons I voted Liberal in the past few elections, both federal and provincial is that they were the only ones who showed up at my door to talk about the issues, when I wasn't home, I got a door hanger, I got cards in the mail asking for my support - by name. If we switch to PR (or anything where the party appoints members) all that will go away, I will never see another candidate at my door asking for my vote. Even the last time I voted conservative (1984) was because my local candidate's wife was door knocking and I had such a good feeling from that meeting, that I voted for him. Of course, subsequent to that election, he was booted from caucus and I haven't voted federal conservative again.
Another amazing article -- and yes, I'll be sharing this one with the parliamentarians that are claimed to represent where I live (but who regularly act as staff of party branded corporations).
"The third is to make voting mandatory"
As long as there is a NOTA (None Of The Above) option on the ballet, then fine. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for failure where people are forced to hold their noses and incorrectly be seen as "supporting" horrible options. Canada has thus far refused to do proper record keeping of deliberately spoiled ballots and other critical feedback about democratic institutions -- and narrowly fixate on the alleged false-binary "winner".
There iss a "none of the above" option available for those who wish to take it. You can decline your ballot at the voting station.
There is indeed but it's not an effective method. My opinion on NOTA is that if we do not support any of the available options, we have an obligation to run -- which would be possible if we also address point 1 on money.
"Obligation to run"... Now that's a thought-provoker.
I am aware that the option exists from the perspective of the voter.
I am wanting to bring up how it is reported (or not), both by the election authorities and the media.
I should add: This also relates to my support for ballot ranking as not only a better way to decide what humans gain a seat in parliament, but also for more accurate/relevant statistics about what humans were close to gaining a seat.
This feeds into parliamentary discussions and future policy work leading to a future election in a way that the current nearly-information-free plurality vote can not.
Any fixation on the colour of corporate logos on team jerseys being worn within parliament at any given moment is a dangerous distraction. Those who are currently merely sports fans need to upgrade themselves to become informed and involved citizens — further downgrading Democratic Institutions is never the right answer.
Thanks for this. As you say, we need to reverse the vote against. We have to vote for. The person I choose has to be more important than the Party and if we lose that, we lose our power as voters.
Absolutely. If I didn't grasp that truth fully before the 2016 election, I certainly had it driven home to me in my riding (Laurentides-Labelle). Proportional representation would merely augment the already excessive suppression of popular democracy by party oligarchs.
David, I am more concerned with the lack of meaningful grassroots input. I believe the first task is to insist on all parties' respect and duty to listen to their constituents' concerns. This will require a rethink in the party structure from top-down to EDA empowerment.
Agreed. Parties are supposed to be a tool for like-minded people to work together, not an avenue for people to become like-minded.
Thank you for expressing so clearly my views on proportional representation. Additionally it removes the ability of parliamentarians to cross the floor. PR opens the door to Israeli style politics where a single cause party can control who gets to run the country. One of the many reasons I voted Liberal in the past few elections, both federal and provincial is that they were the only ones who showed up at my door to talk about the issues, when I wasn't home, I got a door hanger, I got cards in the mail asking for my support - by name. If we switch to PR (or anything where the party appoints members) all that will go away, I will never see another candidate at my door asking for my vote. Even the last time I voted conservative (1984) was because my local candidate's wife was door knocking and I had such a good feeling from that meeting, that I voted for him. Of course, subsequent to that election, he was booted from caucus and I haven't voted federal conservative again.