The following was written by Barry Rueger in my last post entitled, How do we get people to vote? I had asked Barry what the solution was to obtaining quality candidates. This was Barry's answer. I apologize in advance as it is 200 words over the honourary 5oo limit.
The first challenge is that in almost every province, and federally, the voter is limited to choosing between two parties. Yes there are third party candidates and independents, but realistically if you're not Liberal or NDP in BC (Or Liberal or Conservative federally) your odds of being part of the government are pretty much zero.
Because our system is winner take all, and because once in power a party is pretty much unstoppable, a candidate who has no chance of being on the winning team also has little chance of election, and minimal influence if he or she does wind up in the Legislature.
Since the days of Vanderzalm and Bennett politicians have understood that the Opposition offers much noise and fury, but really can't stop anything. As long as the party in power hands out piles of goodies in the six months preceding the election, and promises everything to anyone who would vote, they stand a better than even chance of being re-elected.
The other reason why party endorsements are the only way to get elected is that election campaigns run on money. I don't know the exact figures, but looking at the campaign budgets listed the North Shore News I'd say that the Liberals outspent the NDP by at least five to one. Time and again we've seen that those signs and ads and resources translate to votes.
That fundraising of course leaves parties beholden to contributors.
None of the above is news - it's just the reality of North American politics.
Joe Voter winds up holding his nose and choosing between the Liberals, or what ever other party is backed by Business, or the NDP, who keep creeping to the right in the vain hope that business will love them too. Or, increasingly voters toss their vote to a third party candidate who they know doesn't have a hope of winning.
Voters are cynical, candidates are cynical, and I have NO doubt that party leaders are cynical.
What is needed?
Remove the financial pressures. Give every nominated candidate from any party (or not) a lump sum to spend as they choose, and eliminate all other donations. $15,000 x 350 candidates would cost a paltry $5.2 million.
If you can't buy the election then maybe candidates will need to stand in front of their nieghbours and discuss real issues.
Make integrity and honesty a crucial part of the process. Eliminate candidates with unpardoned criminal records. Refuse nomination to candidates or even sitting members who can be shown to have lied to the public. I don't think any of us can't recall times we watched a politician flat out lie to us.
Give the media a kick in the butt and get them to do REAL reporting, not just parrot whatever the Leaders are saying in press conferences. The Tyee did some of this in the past election, but imagine if BCTV and the Sun also critically examined the claims that were being made?
Get a cattle prod and zap the first politician who refuses to answer a straight question, or who completely refuses to acknowledge hard queries.
Bring in effective recall processes so that voters can remove a politician who proves to be dishonest.
Reduce the salary for MLAs to say the 75th percentile of salaried workers. Make the job NOT lucrative. Eliminate perqs and excessive pensions. Reimburse reasonable expenses, and contribute to an RRSP about the same amount as a private sector wage earner would get.
Make it illegal for any elected politician to be employed or otherwise enriched by any company that does business with the government for at least five years after they leave office.
If you can eliminate the money, you'll attract people who run because of their principles, or their desire to help their communities, not people who crave power and money.
If a truly honest and caring person of intelligence wants to run, they can so so on the strength of their beliefs and personality, not because they are able to hit up friends or mortgage their house to finance a campaign.
Really, it's about the money isn't it? Remove that from the equation and the whole game will change.
Barry Rueger
Monday, May 25, 2009
What makes a good candidate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 opinions/comments:
It's nonsensical to expect a campaign to be run on $15,000. Forcing everyone to the lowest common denominator would do a disservice to those voters who only pay attention during an election. Providing information costs money.
The BC Libs spent more money locally because they could raise more money locally. The big corporate donations go to the central party not local candidates who are funded mostly by local citizens and small businesses.
Fundraising is a test of the ability of a candidate.
Implementing campaign finance reform like the federal government is the way to go while restricting these false "independent" lobby groups set up by the big unions.
Fundraising is not a test of the ability of a candidate any more than the ability to pay university tuition is a test of a person's intelligence.
The Tyee did what?
Why is it suddenly okay and good when the media is controlled by people who think like you?
The Tyee is an NDP mouthpiece and like it or not reports with an NDP slant.
Does this make it the voice of reason?
"Real" reporting is a lost art these days, and with the demise of traditional newspapers it is only going to get worse.
The so-called independent voices on the North Shore (the Outlook and North Shore News) are woefully understaffed to offer the depth of reporting required to be truly independent.
The North Shore News couldn't cover an election if its life depended on it. It appeared more interested getting a good cover photo than actually doing any quality reporting on the election.
While the North Shore Outlook seemed to want to do some good independent coverage during the election they seemed to run out of gas as the election heated up.
"Fundraising is not a test of the ability of a candidate any more than the ability to pay university tuition is a test of a person's intelligence."
?? This doesn't even make sense.
Fundraising is a test of a candidates abilities because it requires you to...
- Get out of your comfort zone
- Ask for help
- Convince people of a need
- Strategize
- Become a bigger tent politician
- You have to learn how to listen
- Teaches how hard it is to get money and teaches you respect for other peoples money
I've been a candidate before and I must say, fund raising was the most difficult part of the campaign for me and I learned a ton while doing it. If all I had to do was form a party and the government would give me and all my friends $15,000 as Barry suggests, then I think I would call my party the Awesome Handout Party Party.
So when will you put the cattle prod to Yamamotto for refusing to show up at the ACM sponsored by the North Vancouver Teachers Association.
In fact, just how many ACM's were there in the Lower Lonsdale riding?
Sue you appear to be content screaming from the sidelines.
Anon 1:41
So what you are telling us is that the unbiased Tyee reporting both sides of the story is BAD. But it's okay for the SUN, PROVINCE and VTC as well as CTV and Global to report slanted news for the Liberals. Cumon, give us a break.
Watcha talkin about Willis?
The Sun, Province and CTV favoured who? Really?
I suggest you read this story by Stephen Hume:
Big media helped defeat NDP -- and other urban legends
There are many fallacies in the "what makes a good candidate?" statement by Mr. Rueger.
Firstly, he claims that a bought candidate does not discuss "real issues". I personally met with two candidates, from the Liberals and Greens, and they were both open to all questions. They were both straight forward and open to discussion. The fact I did not speak with all candidates reflects my own agenda and not that of the parties. I make choices in life. I am sure that all candidates from each party would be open to discussion on any issue. This main street discussion is not costly and has always been part of the election process. It is up to us as citizen to take the opportunity to get to know the candidates. To think that by limiting elections budgets to $15,000 will some how open up the discussion of issues does not have merit.
The second fallacy is the Salary of MLA. Mr. Rueger states that by lowering the wages, "you'll attract people who run because of their principles, or their desire to help their communities, not people who crave power and money." He obviously shows his bias by painting anyone who wants to build a career to support their family seemingly have no principles and no desire to help their community. I have met both rich, middle class and poor people who care deeply about their communities. They may all have differing methods or goals for government but each has their own merits. To limit money for mla or type of employment following their duty, will further diminish the candidate pool of qualified individual. Why would a young woman commit so much with little benefit? Particularily if there is better opportunity else where in the private sector. This model suggested by Mr.Rueger may bode well for Retirees, rich oblige or low income earners who either don't need the money or see this minimum money as a cash windfall. Regardless, by lowering the financial standards of the MLA you limit the pool of good candidates who would run for government. His statement is false.
Furthermore, he claims that poor scrutiny by the newspapers leads to bad candidate selection. Although I do not deny that Newspapers have become lazy and rely on PR or newswire to populate their newspaper, it does not mean that a good candidate or bad candidate would run for election. I would argue that our local newspapers focus too much on negative aspects of candidate. "He who has not evil, cast the first stone." We expect a "good candidate" to be saintly/perfect. When ever they misstep, it becomes a front page event. To err is human. To limit candidate selections to the mythical perfect human will basically eliminate 99% of all BCers from running from office. It is the fish bowl environment facing all politicians that makes the prospects of running for government so unappealing. It is easier for major newspapers, bloggers or small time publications to sell copy based on controversy rather than boring issues. However, this is driven by the public’s desire for "blood". Until we accept that good government is about quality of life, environment, health, education, economy etc. that is created rather than about the warts and moles on the politicians that run it we will continue to get only a particular type of candidate who is willing to take this abuse.
Lastly, this who post is biased. Mr Sharpe is unhappy with the election result. I assume that low voter turn out and a liberal majority some how does not reflect the majority of BCers and that those elected are some how defective and not good candidates. This is a fallacy of a loaded question i.e. "when did you stop beating your wife?” People believe that if 100% of people voted, the results of the election would be different. The popular vote for the Liberal is similar to those in Polls leading up to the vote. As a result, if all people vote, the result may very well be the same. By improving the crop of Candidates, would the silent majority get off their asses to vote? Most likely not. History would shows that people need a reason to come out to vote. It needs to have a personal impact on their lives. My personal take on this is that people who do not vote are content on the status quo.
As for HeatherK's statement that "the ability to pay university tuition is a test of a person's intelligence." Well really smart people get scholarships. Really smart people know how to budget, invest and create funds to go to university. If you spent your youth on alcohol and fun times, like I did, then it was not a surprise that I spent years paying for my student loans for a degree that is not helping with my current career. Paying for an education may very well be a test of one's intelligence.
John, your post is way, way, way too long. No one likes a blog hog!!!
Someone once said that the worst thing that happened to politics is that it became televised. Our politicians have become Reality TV stars. Lot's of ego, and not much substance.
The present political system is archaic and doesn't work well with televised media. We get "question periods" in parliament that only turns people off of politics. Ergo, voter apathy.
Barry proposes an interesting idea - but the reality is very few people will sacrifice the financial security of their family, no matter how well-intended or principled they may be.
Parents have this strange little fixation with wanting to be able to put kids through school, etc.
9:16, the ability to fundraise requires none of the above.
I agree with Heather - fundraising is NOT a test of intelligence - it's a test of perseverence and willingness to work hard both of which I hope ALL my elected representatives will possess.
I haven't been here much as I spent last weekend at a business school reunion in Ontario and you know what? In my MBA class there are people from pretty much every walk of life. Pretty much the SINGLE thread running through that grad class was a strong work ethic and perseverence. We all had the level of intelligence you would expect of a university grad but we were NOT rocket scientists.
(For Sue and Heather I would add that 25 years ago tuition costs were MUCH lower than now particularly in areas perceived to be "money" faculties like business, law and medicine - I paid $1800 per semester way back when which is far below what these three faculties pay now - there were only one or two of my class who had any real means in those days)
My point is that dedication and capacity for work is what gets you through either in business or in politics and I am far more interested in what the candidate can raise rather than his/her party.
Hello GDNR,
Biased?
I was more interested in supporting BC-STV than anything.
Even though not particularly enamored by the election results, they were about what I expected but, it's not what motivated me to write the post. On that score I think you've missed the point. I was far more disappointed by lack of voter participation and the possible reasons why.
"My personal take on this is that people who do not vote are content on the status quo."
I doubt very much people are happy with the status quo; trust betrayal, padded expense accounts, scandals, cash payouts from lobbyists, sponsorship scandals, etc.,...it is more these sorts of things that keeps people away and apathetic to voting.
Integrity is paramount to anything and when that is lost you loose the interest of the people.
I think Mr. Rueger's answer addresses how to possibly create more integrity in candidates. His ideas could shed some new light on people running for office. Maybe the young voter might show up at the polls. This made a difference in the US with President Obama's election. Perhaps this was coupled with this "impact" you speak of.
Australia fines it's citizens if they do not vote but, reportedly the election results are really no different other than the fact that 95% vote.
Recently I have suggested a tax credit receipt be issued to the voter at the polling station.
Wow - so much sound and fury, and so little that actually reflects on anything that I suggested.
GP - $15,000 was an off the top of my head number based on recollections of what candidates were reportedly expecting to spend in North Shore ridings. Could be $20,000, could be $25,000. It would still put all candidates on an equal footing, and maybe even reduce the insane number of signs cluttering up the landscape.
The ability to fund raise does not tell me in the least that someone has the ability and wisdom needed to govern. Arguably the kind of person who excels at gladhanding donors may be the last person you want making decisions in government.
GDNR - the original discussion was actually how we can get voters engaged once again. With an all time low turnout, and Elections BC polling suggesting that most people just can't bring themselves to participate anymore, we have to believe that something is NOT working.
MLA salaries? I see NO indication that $100,000+ a year, plus perqs, plus "transition" funds is improving the quality of government or candidates.
I do though know many, many people working in charities and non-profits who are smarter, more honest, and more principled than a lot of candidates, but are paid a half or a third of what MLAs get.
Lots of jobs are hard on families, lots of jobs require sacrifice, and lots of jobs require travel. Some pay millions of dollars, some pay tens of thousands. Someone who is really dedicated to public service will find a way to make it all work. Sadly a lot of those people just find the whole system too distasteful to play a significant role.
Half of British Columbians don't vote. That tells me the system as it is does not work. The question once again is what needs to be changed to make all voters feel engaged and represented?
Doesn't it get back to the saying that the only people smart enough to govern are those who are also smart enough not to try?
And with the personal toll being an elected official, provincially or federally, takes on your personal and family life, who would want to, or could?
John,
Interesting that you bring up Obama. It can be said that Barrack won the election because he was able to out spend both Hillary and John McCain because he was so successful in raising funds. It was obscene how much money he spent. However, the reason he was so successful in his fundraising was his message wrung true to so many individuals. It was his use of the internet and reliance on millions donating small amounts rather than a few donating millions. Obama was able to tap into a eager market who now have the taste of the political system. They see that they can make a difference.
The restaints posed by Mr.Rueger would in fact hamper the work of Obama. Obama rejected the government election payout which would limit the amount he could spend.
Obama brought fresh ideas. He created excitement and enthusiasm in those previously thought to be disenfranchised and voiceless. He did this while raising hundreds of millions of dollars to support his campaign. Rather than looking for the Government to level the field, he show initative and innovation while capitalizing on new technology and untapped sources.
If you are right, and the 50% who didn't vote in the recent election are dissatisfied with the Liberals and NDP, then someone using Barrack's fundraising methods and grassroot message should easily be able to tap that market.
It is up to the Candidates to create buzz. It is up to the Candidates to cause the 50% non voters to get out to vote. Both the BC Liberals and NDP enjoy the status quo. Neither party support the STV. Both understand that their best chance of a majority is with voter apathy. NDP wins when the certain voters stay home and BC Liberals when other voters stay home.
You want the change, go do it yourself. Be the beeming light of hope. Dont whine because your message and issues do not get greater grassroot support. Dont beg the government for campaign handouts. Be like Barrack. Just be better, smarter and more appealing than every other candidate and you can create change. Yes you can.
Barry - The spending limit for a candidate is $80,000 during the four week writ and $80,000 for the pre-writ period, 3 months I think. A riding association could be raising and spending money for the four years to prepare for the election.
Of course, the Green Party "send an email" and you're a candidate types can't fund raise in the community they've parachuted into at the last minute.
Do you know what it costs to send a simple mail piece to every household? Ever looked at rate sheet for the Outlook or NSN?
Level playing field in order to compete is one thing, lowering the bar so that lesser candidates and parties have a better chance of being elected is another. Let's just give them all a gold star just for trying.
Like the STV supporters, you're looking for a way to get the failed candidates you support elected rather than getting the best candidate. Competition and the competition of ideas determines the best and it takes cash to mount a campaign capable of getting their message out.
Lyle, just to be clear, I don't take the position that fundraising is a sign of perserverence any more than it is a sign of intelligence.
A candidate's ability to fundraise is a sure sign of nothing. Think Belinda Stronach.
There are many different ways for a candidate to raise money, of which building a big tent is probably the least employed. Far more often, candidates come from either the business community or the union movement, they get big money from one of those two sources, and they are then beholden to their funders once elected.
Voters know this, and I'm sure that's part of the voter apathy problem.
It's interesting that someone here said, essentially, that great ideas raise cash and that campaign finance reform would put "lesser candidates" on an equal footing.
If the richest candidates are truly the best candidates, why would they shy away from competing on a level playing field?
Brilliant comment HeatherK
Bravo!
HeatherK,
Approximately 18,000 residents in North Vancouver Lonsdale did not vote. If an inspirational leader got each of these non voters to donate $5 to a campaingn, one could raise the $80,000 spending limit. Not only that, the candidate would have 18,000 individuals invested in the candidate success. This mean word of mouth to spread the message. This means 1000's of volunteers. A block 18,000 vote would assure a victory.
Stronach was successful at using her connection to business to raise lots of dough. She by no means had a grassroot campaign. My point is that her method is the old way, which works with low voter turn out.
To me it sounds like you want to promote laziness and poor messages. Perhaps there is a reason the ML, Sex or Workless parties can not raise $80,000 for a riding election. Not enough people care.
The ability to raise huge sums odf donations from thousands od indiviuals is a measure of the quality of the client. This grassroot popularity beats out old school big business/big union money any day. ergo the win of the independent in Delta.
Probably those 18,000 did not vote because they did know who they were voting for. Neither did they really know in detail what those candidates stood for. Nice work on the part of the Liberals for keeping their candidate under wraps for most of us.
The Sun and Province did a much better job of doing a candidate profile then the NSN (which I believe are biased towards the Liberals). Also the Outlook just lost their best reporter (Sam Cooper) to the Province.
John Sharpe has a good idea when he says it should be against the law to not vote, but on the other hand, voters should have a first hand experience of who they are voting for and what that party will do for that riding. What about a law requiring a certain number of ACM's in a riding?
Money is NOT an issue, as I proved when I just missed by 56 votes getting elected for the City. It is a matter of getting out there and standing up for something that matters to people.
Lower Lonsdale is quite a varied riding and I want someone who will represent everyone - I do not believe that is going to be the case with Yamamotto.
Wally Oppal pretty much spells out why we may not find many good candidates running for election in the future, either (in today's Vancouver Sun):
-----------------------------------
...Oppal added that there were parts of the job he never came to accept.
“The lack of civility in the legislature is something that disappointed me,” he said.
“I came from a forum where people listen to each other and discuss issues on a rational basis,” he said, adding that is not what happens in Victoria.
There were other problems. “It’s a killer of a schedule,” he said. “The hours are unbelievable...”
GDNR, I'm all over the idea of candidates raising tiny amounts of money from thousands of individuals.
I don't, however, think it's practical.
The ability to rally 18,000 people requires the kind of cult of personality that comes along once in a generation.
To put it in context, most rock concerts in Vancouver do not draw anything close to 18,000 people. I can also say with relative certainty that most bonafide rock stars have not sold 18,000 iTunes singles in North Vancouver, and THOSE only cost 99 cents.
In other words, a person who was going to inspire 18,000 North Vancouverites to fork over $5 would literally have to be bigger than a rock star – at least in our riding.
Sure, it’s doable. But the vast majority of people who would make extremely skilled leaders do not have that kind of magnetism. Most would-be candidates are all too aware of this, and that’s why they don’t try.
Moreover, the fact that elections are so easily “bought” by people with money is a further disincentive to potential grass-roots candidates. Why would anyone put in the years and years of volunteer time it takes to build that kind of following when it’s so easily snatched out from under them?
You can call it lazy. I call it realistic.
Voter turnout is low and has been in decline for a good many years. We say that we don't have 'good enough' candidates. That's probably part of it and I don't think paying elected officials less is going to bring out better prospects. Some say its because we have a lazy electorate and that's also probably true. But as important a component, is that there is a strong belief that the vote doesn't really matter that much.
Before you point to the Delta South where the election of that MLA was certainly determined by a 30 or so votes, will that really result in a geat deal of change? The answer to that doesn't really matter either because the perception is overwhelmingly that whether it's the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP...it doesn't make that much difference. For years we saw CCF in B.C. going on about nationalizing major industries,Socred's were elected and did that very thing. ICBC was designed by Socreds, brought in by NDP, criticized by Socreds and it's still around. Remember the rhetoric around GST and free trade...both still alive and well.
So maybe we should not be dismissive of the non-voters. Sure some may not 'care enough' but many have simply concluded that it doesn't make any difference.
As a small example...in the 1999 DNV election, there was a referendum regarding seawall from Cates to Deep Cove which would allow the District - over a 50 year period - take the opportunities to develop the seawall. This was a major issue in the immediate area and got a lot of people out voting that may have otherwise not bothered. The vote on the referendum was close and the seawall initiative was defeated. The voter turnout in that election was 20% higher than the previous election in 1996 and it elected a whole bunch of new (Seymour) candidates and nearly knocked off Ernie. That election mattered to some 3000 voters that came out for that issue.
People need to believe that those 20 minutes once every threee/four years will make a difference because, sadly, but truly, 97% of those around us are not political junkie wonks like us.
Vincent Santacroce
My original post implied that you can not pigeon hole the Non Voters. They are a diverse bunch. There are as many reason as to why they dont vote as the non voters themselves. I opinined that they are for the most part content with the status quo. IE there is very little movivation for them to even waste 20 minutes of their lives to cast a vote. Some say they are not motivated because they believe that their vote is futile. I believe that until things get so bad that the lives of the non voters is negatively affected that they are content to let things go on.
The really discontent cast their vote. They support the Greens, the Sex or other parties. However, in the 2009 Election, they do not make up a significant number, particualarily in North Vancouver.
I believe we live in a great city, in a wonderful province in an amazing country. I vote every chance I get, many times for a losing candidate. I choose to make the initiative to get out to vote. None of the parties have influenced my decision to actually get of the couch to vote. I am voting it is just a question of who will I support. No tax benefit, fine, or government interference will hamper my desire to vote.
I am sick and tired of hearing all the whiners wondering why we have such low voter turn out. Perhaps they are lazy. Perhaps they are discontent. Perhaps they are just too drunk or stoned to remember that it is tuesday. I can not begin to justify the inaction of those who have every opportunity to do the simpliest of things, cast a vote.
GDNR,
But the people are not getting out to vote are they?
The day after the election I was talking to a co-worker about the low turnout. The co-worker said that there should be an incentive to vote and perhaps it should be legislated that employers let employees go one hour early so they can find the time to vote in their busy lives. I replied that I make a point of voting. So I feel exactly as you do that,
"No tax benefit, fine, or government interference will hamper my desire to vote."
But this guy I might venture to say, is probably pretty representative of the 52%.
Mr., Santacrose makes a good point that, "97% of those around us are not political junkie wonks like us."
To many, politics is something they just can't be bothered with just like those who don't like hockey. Pretty unbelievable, huh Vincent?
I look at it this way; if you drive a car, you need a license, if you live in a democracy, you need to vote.
And GDNR, I hope you were not implying that I was whining. I would never do such a thing. I would just like to see more appreciation for "a great city,... a wonderful province...an amazing country."
Once again = What did any of the candidates state the would do for the Lower Lonsdale riding.
What kind of jobs will be created and in what industry?
What will happen to the growing numbers of unemployed, if they do not find jobs in time of their EI cutoff? Do we have affordable housing, any kind of hope in this riding for those people?
What about all the people trying to get help in that disgusting psychiatric ward at Lions Gate Hospital - any candidates willing to tackle that. What about those with mental health issues on the street? The Libs have done anything so far and in the Sun/Province report card Yammamotto said she thought our health care was great.
Any positive directions for a 14/7 detox center?
How are we going to attract young people with families back in this area?
I never say any directions from the Liberal candidate in those very important issue.
The reason people went crazy for Obama was because he offered them HOPE. I did not see that from the very well "cushioned from controversy" Liberal candidate.
This was a "non-issue" election because that is what the NSNews wanted, after all, unfortunately they are the only main media we have in the NS
Once again = Sue, there is more to the riding than just Lower Lonsdale! You're a broken record.
Sue, tell us the story of how the police and Council conspired against you to deny you crime stats?
I just love hearing that one, over and over again.
You know what... screw the non-voters. Why the hell should I pay higher taxes so the government can give an incentive to lazy people to get them to vote.
My incentive is that I want to effect the election. If that doesn't motivate you, then stay home.
I don't want the government catering to laziness, it is already totally convenient to vote.
Sorry - I thought the riding was called Lower Lonsdale, did I miss something here? I don't think that I did, but I certainly believe that Yamamotto did, the areas below 23rd to Esplanade and between St. Georges and Forbes perhaps?
Since the Libs have never done anything to address homelessness,
addiction issues, unemployment in this area (which is growing as we speak), affordable housing, and the conditions at Lions Gate Hospital (the pysch ward especially). Then an absentee MLA will not make much difference, except the problems will just increase.
What does she plan to do about the strike by ambulance workers or does she even know about this.
As far as the RCMP requesting that I pay $400.00 to get the crime stats for this area, it is in the minutes of the City of North Vancouver records. Perhaps you should take the time to learn how to read.
'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'
What makes a good candidate?
It is a variety of things.
The question should really be what makes a good MLA, MP, City Councillor, or Mayor.
"look at it this way; if you drive a car, you need a license, if you live in a democracy, you need to vote."
I don't think you are going to find any of us "political wonks" disaagreeing with you John and this is very much the Australian view where voting is mandated but democracy, as you know, is the right to abstain and not bother....its a crazy system but its a lot better than the alternatives.
To GDNR who I believe was tired of 'justifying' the non-voter, I don't think it's so much justifying as recognizing that there may be legitimate reasons why so many decide not to vote.
And maybe it really doesn't make a difference. I have heard many times in pre-election polls that after a certain number (which is usually very low - like 2-3,000) you are going to get a very good indication of how full election is going to turn out. So it stands to reason that a voter turn out of 18,000 (even though it may only be 30%)is as accurate a result as it would have been if you had 70%, with the exception of the South Delta and Minnesotas.
I would like to hear the collective thinking on the Australian approach?
I'll bet you would double or triple the turnout if you got a tax credit/coupon for voting...how small amount would it take to get your lazy neighbours off the couch do you think?
Vincent Santacroce
BTW John - I am not so much a hockey fan as a Montreal Canadiens fan and a Vancouver Canucks non-fan.
Vince
Again - why should people be forced to vote when they are not given the chance to find out what the candidate represents or thinks, or even what their reason for running is?
I hereby nominate Mr Santacroce for the Senate and urge everyone to vote for him so that he may be closer to the Montreal Forum and his Canadiens.
Dennis Bevington
PS I'm strongly opposed to the Australian system.
Me and the 'Big M'....that would really be something.
I, too, am not a fan of the mandatory system, Mr. Bevington so once again we agree.
Vincent Santacroce
Is it too late to suggest - as I have many times in the past - that we could some really representative government by awarding Senate seats as Lotto 6/49 prizes?
I want everybody else to do the work. If they don't do that they are useless. Why can't people do what I say, not necessarily what I do?
Sue Lakes Cook said...
"Sorry - I thought the riding was called Lower Lonsdale, did I miss something here?"
Last I heard the riding was called North Vancouver - Lonsdale. A much larger area than just Lower Lonsdale. Get over yourself.
Sue is pushing hard for improvements to the pysch ward so that her frequent stays will be more comfortable.
"More padding for her padded cell".
Heather I apologize for not responding sooner but my computer has been in the repair shop for the last 4 days.
On campaign financing I absolutely do NOT believe in unrestricted campaign spending. In fact I would restrict it further than at present. I would also require employers who allowed their staff to volunteer while on the payroll to treat that as a campaign contribution as I do feel this has been abused in the past.
At the same time I'm halfway convinced that the Aussies are on to something with compulsory voting since I very much do believe citizenship comes with both rights and obligations and too much emphasis on one without the other is unhealthy.
I confess I nearly fell off my chair tonight when browsing the DNV Library online catalog for New Fiction and under item # 127 found none other than Michael Ignatieff's True Patriot Love!
I would not have believed it if I had not seen it myself!
Post a Comment