Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
That's not a good parallel. Drever's past was unknown until she's got elected. My outrage at that time really was about people willing to vote for just about anyone wearing orange-green rather than for a real person that is going to represent them in Government. Would those who voted for Drever not voted for her if they knew about her still being a student, middle-fingering Canada flag and posing nude in a gross sex violence poster? I hope so, but I don't have too many illusions about it. Quite possibly, not.
|
It’s actually a great parallel. A lot of people are willing to vote for just about anyone wearing blue this time around, and it’s perfectly reasonable for people to hope that say, some preacher who has homophobic views would not garner the votes. Is that not fair?
I agree, people ought to vote for a real person that is going to represent them in government. But if we’re going to happily criticise people for voting “orange” and ignoring social misgivings, let’s be equally happy criticising people for voting “blue” and ignoring social misgivings.
If you can hope that people would not vote in someone from the NDP in light of “serious transgressions” then you should hope the same regarding the UCP.
Otherwise we just get a bunch of MLAs every election that get in not on merit, but because of their party. Which admittedly will always happen, but that doesn’t make it right.