2011 Canadian Election Thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

You're right. We should only fund parties that have platforms we agree with.....

I don't like Separatist ideology either, but they're a valid, recognized and democratically elected party. The system works.

Yes, we should. Parties should have to convince us to put the work into private fundraising efforts under the current legislation and allow citizens to make the choice. The voting subsidy is nothing short of theft that all the parties are committing, and it is just particularly odious that the Bloc is the biggest winner.

Just more take from a party whose primary purpose is to take.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, we should. Parties should have to convince us to put the work into private fundraising efforts under the current legislation and allow citizens to make the choice. The voting subsidy is nothing short of theft that all the parties are committing, and it is just particularly odious that the Bloc is the biggest winner.

Just more take from a party whose primary purpose is to take.

The reality is that if you replaced "Quebec" with "Canada" in almost everything that Duceppe says though he's hands down the best leader right now. I know that every time there is a debate I think to myself that I would be voting for him. Its just that pesky little "destory the country I love" part that causes me any problems.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Given that this fiasco has not negatively effected the Conservative's popularity, I'd say that most people who already support the Conservatives don't care.

People care more about who has the best ads more than they care about the issues. I don't just mean Conservative supporters, but people in general.

The Conservatives' core support is rock solid, and I doubt that there are many things that the party could do that would change that. As for the rest of the people, I don't think that they pay very much attention as the whole political system has tended to alienate voters recently rather than engage them.

That said, people do tend to pay more attention during elections so we will see if they still don't care by the time the ballots are cast.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, we should. Parties should have to convince us to put the work into private fundraising efforts under the current legislation and allow citizens to make the choice. The voting subsidy is nothing short of theft that all the parties are committing, and it is just particularly odious that the Bloc is the biggest winner.

Just more take from a party whose primary purpose is to take.

I am sure that WilsonFourTwo was speaking of the collective when making that statement, where as you are speaking more as an individual. Of course, as an individual, you should only support parties whose platforms you agree with. With the vote subsidy, you are doing precisely that in a manner that favors no group over another. This is democracy.

By making parties dependent solely on private fundraising, you are making those citizens who can donate money and are inclined to do so more powerful than others. These are the people who will be favored in political decisions. This is not democracy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by John Doe

I am sure that WilsonFourTwo was speaking of the collective when making that statement, where as you are speaking more as an individual. Of course, as an individual, you should only support parties whose platforms you agree with. With the vote subsidy, you are doing precisely that in a manner that favors no group over another. This is democracy.

By making parties dependent solely on private fundraising, you are making those citizens who can donate money and are inclined to do so more powerful than others. These are the people who will be favored in political decisions. This is not democracy.

Interesting how you think the collective should only reflect your own perspective. The voting subsidy is not democracy, it's graft.

Also, note I said "current legislation." Do you understand what that means in the context of political donations? It means that donating money to a party makes you very minimal as far as individual influence.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by peter12

Interesting how you think the collective should only reflect your own perspective. The voting subsidy is not democracy, it's graft.

Also, note I said "current legislation." Do you understand what that means in the context of political donations? It means that donating money to a party makes you very minimal as far as individual influence.

Nice try, but I said no such thing. I said that we should support parties we agree with as individuals.We should also support parties that we as a collective support as individuals. For example, I detest Harper and his platform, but I would never suggest that we as a collective shouldn't support the Conservatives as many Canadians agree with their policies. You, however, seem to think that since you as an individual do not like a certain party, then they shouldn't be supported by anyone.

Given your view on the voting subsidy, how then can you not consider political donations to be anything but graft?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Nice try, but I said no such thing. I said that we should support parties we agree with as individuals.We should also support parties that we as a collective support as individuals. For example, I detest Harper and his platform, but I would never suggest that we as a collective shouldn't support the Conservatives as many Canadians agree with their policies. You, however, seem to think that since you as an individual do not like a certain party, then they shouldn't be supported by anyone.

Given your view on the voting subsidy, how then can you not consider political donations to be anything but graft?

No... I think that if I don't like parties, I shouldn't have to shell out any cash, on principle alone, I never said that other people shouldn't be allowed to donate under the $1200/year limit.

It's ideal that the parties actually have to make an effort to create an adequate fundraising effort to support their marketing and election activities.

Why do you think we are seeing so many elections, why are we seeing so many attack ads? Because each of the major parties have enough money in their war chest from the per vote subsidy to stay in constant election readiness instead of actually working together in Parliament.

Honestly, the CPC was able to create and maintain a wide small donation fundraising base over the past 20 years. It was the other parties, Libs and NDP, who were able to raise massive amounts of money from the big banks and unions.

Now that the donation legislation is in place, these parties are massively in favour of keeping the subsidy because it's the only way they could financially survive in the current legislative milieu. They refused to adapt, and they should pay the penalty in the short run.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, we should. Parties should have to convince us to put the work into private fundraising efforts under the current legislation and allow citizens to make the choice. The voting subsidy is nothing short of theft that all the parties are committing, and it is just particularly odious that the Bloc is the biggest winner.

Just more take from a party whose primary purpose is to take.

Whether federal financing is appropriate can be argued. The premise of the subsidy was (among other things) to minimize the influence of special interest money. It's an interesting/debatable idea.

Back to the original point, OP was making the argument that we should specifically target the Bloc because he doesn't like their political stance. That is a beautifully facist idea, thus my tongue-in-cheek reply.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by peter12

No... I think that if I don't like parties, I shouldn't have to shell out any cash, on principle alone, I never said that other people shouldn't be allowed to donate under the $1200/year limit.

You do not have to shell out cash any more under the vote subsidy than you do under the political donation. For example, if you make a donation to the Conservatives, you get a tax break and I have to pay for that just as much as you have to pay for the vote subsidy to the BQ.

Originally Posted by peter12

It's ideal that the parties actually have to make an effort to create an adequate fundraising effort to support their marketing and election activities.

Really? So you think that fund raising abilities is one of the most important qualities that a political party must have to survive? Let me ask you a question: in your view, what is the purpose of government?

Originally Posted by peter12

Why do you think we are seeing so many elections, why are we seeing so many attack ads? Because each of the major parties have enough money in their war chest from the per vote subsidy to stay in constant election readiness instead of actually working together in Parliament.

We are seeing so many elections because we have elected partisan politicians who are unwilling to make a minority government work. If you are really concerned about the amount of elections, go talk to Harper. He is directly responsible for the last two. As for attack ads, they are used because they work. They work because the voters are disengaged from the political system. They are disengaged from the system because the MPs we elect represent their parties rather than their constituents.

Originally Posted by peter12

Honestly, the CPC was able to create and maintain a wide small donation fundraising base over the past 20 years. It was the other parties, Libs and NDP, who were able to raise massive amounts of money from the big banks and unions.

Not true. The old Conservative party did not have this "wide small donation fundraising base". This base came from the old Reform party. The old Conservative party depended as much on the big banks and unions as the Liberals and NDP.

Originally Posted by peter12

Now that the donation legislation is in place, these parties are massively in favour of keeping the subsidy because it's the only way they could financially survive in the current legislative milieu. They refused to adapt, and they should pay the penalty in the short run.

They should pay the penalty for what? They are using the system the way it was intended and passed in Parliament. The Conservatives are the ones who are trying to change the system so that it will cripple the other parties. Do you really feel that it is good for Canada to have only one healthy party (that at most has 40% approval)?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Around the office everyone is complaining about this election and how we have another one and it's the same old same old. To me, I'm pretty excited about this election. It's been 3 years, it's not like we're having them back-to-back and I think alot will change this election. All the leaders are at risk. If Harper doesn't get his majority he's probably gone. If Ignatieff doesn't win at least a minorty, he's gone. And it's most likely Layton's and Duceppe's last election campaign. Layton for health reasons and Duceppe is being lured by the PQ for a fight with Charest.

The election will change alot. Could be a country-defining one.

You are just happy to have an election so you can bet on it!

[Mccree]

Harper running on a platform on the economy, during a period where Canadians are all filing their taxes, gives the conservatives an advantage. When everyone is writing cheques to the Receiver General the economy will be first and foremost in the minds of Canadians.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Really? So you think that fund raising abilities is one of the most important qualities that a political party must have to survive? Let me ask you a question: in your view, what is the purpose of government?

Sure wouldn't hurt now would it?

Put it this way....if the leadership of a federal party is so inept at being able to raise enough money to stay alive and run a campaign, then why in the hell would you want them anywhere near these multi-billion dollar budgets?

The best and the brightest of any political entity that wants to make laws and run a country surely should be able to have enough support from their like-minded constituaents to able to play at the federal level. If not...nope I wouldnt want them anywhere near the kind of money and decision making required as a government.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure wouldn't hurt now would it?

Put it this way....if the leadership of a federal party is so inept at being able to raise enough money to stay alive and run a campaign, then why in the hell would you want them anywhere near these multi-billion dollar budgets?

The best and the brightest of any political entity that wants to make laws and run a country surely should be able to have enough support from their like-minded constituaents to able to play at the federal level. If not...nope I wouldnt want them anywhere near the kind of money and decision making required as a government.

If you think running the government is the same as running a business, then you are correct. The main goal of a business is to maximize profits. I just don't think this should be a critical goal of our government.

I think that fiscal responsibility is a primary consideration when choosing a government, and I wouldn't vote for anyone who I felt couldn't manage the country without running up a huge debt. However, I don't think that that equates to dedicating a huge portion of your time and energy in fund-raising.

Put it this way, how do you feel about a government using tax-payers resources to fund raise for their specific political party? Do you think this is an acceptable use of tax-payers resources or do you think that the government should concentrate on running the country? Because that is what you will get (and are currently getting) when you make fund raising such a critical part of politics.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure wouldn't hurt now would it?

Put it this way....if the leadership of a federal party is so inept at being able to raise enough money to stay alive and run a campaign, then why in the hell would you want them anywhere near these multi-billion dollar budgets?

The best and the brightest of any political entity that wants to make laws and run a country surely should be able to have enough support from their like-minded constituaents to able to play at the federal level. If not...nope I wouldnt want them anywhere near the kind of money and decision making required as a government.

Does fundraising ability correlate to capable decision making and support, or to pandering to the wealthy, special interests, and hyper-partisans?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by SebC

Does fundraising ability correlate to capable decision making and support, or to pandering to the wealthy, special interests, and hyper-partisans?

Jeezus, does anyone here know about donation limits in Canada? Wealthy and special interests already have an outlet directly linked to government. It's called lobbying.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Around the office everyone is complaining about this election and how we have another one and it's the same old same old. To me, I'm pretty excited about this election. It's been 3 years, it's not like we're having them back-to-back and I think alot will change this election. All the leaders are at risk. If Harper doesn't get his majority he's probably gone. If Ignatieff doesn't win at least a minorty, he's gone. And it's most likely Layton's and Duceppe's last election campaign. Layton for health reasons and Duceppe is being lured by the PQ for a fight with Charest.

The election will change alot. Could be a country-defining one.

Election will change nothing, one of the parties will get a minority...

Opposition will once again cause problems and force a vote before the term ends.

Thus using up millions of dollars.....

[Knut]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...ol-defeat.html

Its official.

$300 million dollar cost to get Justin Trudeau as liberal leader.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Given that this fiasco has not negatively effected the Conservative's popularity, I'd say that most people who already support the Conservatives don't care.

People care more about who has the best ads more than they care about the issues. I don't just mean Conservative supporters, but people in general.

I care, and as a Conservative supporter, I've told them so.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Hesla

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...ol-defeat.html

Its official.

$300 million dollar cost to get Justin Trudeau as liberal leader.

Minus any further money to further advertise CEAP ($26 million so far this year), minus $4 million to advertise budget, minus $631 million for the Conservatives crime bills (this is the Conservative's number, which is thought to be very...conservative), minus....

[The Goon]

Watching Ignatieff tiptoe around the coalition question was entertaining.

Obviously, as most of us are Alberta residents, our votes aren't really that important. Perhaps one or two seats in Edmonton are in play.

The decision will come from Ontario and Quebec (as usual).