• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

What do you want to see?


  • Total voters
    194
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a bit of a different topic in this grand, sweeping subject.

In my riding in central BC (being a Reg Force member, my riding is that on my SOR, not where I am posted - as many political pundits incorrectly assumed), the Green Party dumped their traditional candidate - a local farmer - in favour of someone else.

This is the problem; the candidate lives in Vancouver.  She agreed to run for the Central BC riding on the condition that she have no picture or biography published, no interviews with the press, and participate in no debates.  She was sought out by the Green Party because she is a female member of the party that would satisfy some Party goals with the "right-to-vote" principle that enables electors in all of Canada's ridings to vote Green.

Now, if you ask me, this reeks.  Are we to be content with candidates who have never even been to the area to run as candidates?  Has the party assumed that much primacy in our electoral system that representatives are merely an "electoral college" for the Prime Minister.  I'd like to think not, but this appears to indicate yes.

I consider this a true democratic deficit.  When we have prospective MP's that are nothing but numbers or parrots.  It reeks of old British ridings that aristocrats would pick up just to get a seat.  Although probably an exception rather than a norm, it sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
 
Unfortunately, it has been done many times in the past, by all Parties.  Party Leaders have been parachuted into "Safe Ridings" so that they can have a guaranteed seat in Parliament.  It is nothing new.  That, however, doesn't make it right.  I agree that this practice reeks and should not happen.

Your example of the "Anonymous Green Party Candidate" takes the cake though.
 
Infanteer said:
... This is the problem; the candidate lives in Vancouver.  She agreed to run for the Central BC riding on the condition that she have no picture or biography published, no interviews with the press, and participate in no debates.  ....

- Fresh air kills most germs.  You need to run this one up the nearest flagpoles and start by finding out her name.  She may not want to answer questions now, but after the election - in fact, for the rest of her stinking life - she should be called on to account for her anti-democratic activities.

- Seriously.  When she is 98 years old and living in an assisted care facility, a little old lady with a sparkle in her eye should lean over from the next wheelchair and say: "Tell us, ____, just WHAT the f_ck were you possibly thinking, dearie?"
 
Then again, she may go by the name of "Rover", or "Spot" or "Fluffy".  Perhaps: "Fifi".    :-\
 
George Wallace said:
Then again, she may go by the name of "Rover", or "Spot" or "Fluffy".  Perhaps: "Fifi".    :-\

- A 'ghost' candidate who does not exist?  Leave it to BC...

8)
 
Infanteer said:
Here is a bit of a different topic in this grand, sweeping subject.

In my riding in central BC (being a Reg Force member, my riding is that on my SOR, not where I am posted - as many political pundits incorrectly assumed), the Green Party dumped their traditional candidate - a local farmer - in favour of someone else.

This is the problem; the candidate lives in Vancouver.  She agreed to run for the Central BC riding on the condition that she have no picture or biography published, no interviews with the press, and participate in no debates.  She was sought out by the Green Party because she is a female member of the party that would satisfy some Party goals with the "right-to-vote" principle that enables electors in all of Canada's ridings to vote Green.

Now, if you ask me, this reeks.  Are we to be content with candidates who have never even been to the area to run as candidates?  Has the party assumed that much primacy in our electoral system that representatives are merely an "electoral college" for the Prime Minister.  I'd like to think not, but this appears to indicate yes.

I consider this a true democratic deficit.  When we have prospective MP's that are nothing but numbers or parrots.  It reeks of old British ridings that aristocrats would pick up just to get a seat.  Although probably an exception rather than a norm, it sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion.



Would this be her? She (a would-be lawyer articling in Vancouver) has the same name as the Green Party candidate in Cariboo - Prince George.
 
Yup.  Further cements my idea that this party is a joke but is still going to get a cut of the money.  However, it reminds me of something I'm paraphrasing from Heinlein - "Give the absurd and impossible the chance and it becomes reality".

Then what?
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Would this be her? She (a would-be lawyer articling in Vancouver) has the same name as the Green Party candidate in Cariboo - Prince George.


I’m guessing that’s her because I found this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the 10 Oct edition of the Prince George Free Press:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/pgfreepress/news/30809289.html
In search of Green Party candidate Amber van Drielen

Published: October 10, 2008 2:00 PM
Updated: October 10, 2008 7:50 PM

AUTUMN MacDONALD

Black Press

Footsteps reverberate from above and two necks crane in their direction.

“Are you Rob?” the reporter asks.

Reporter and videographer have driven more than 800 kilometres to meet this man, Rob Hines, the provincial co-ordinator for the Green Party of Canada — the man who gave Cariboo-Prince George voters the rumour that is Amber van Drielen.

He pauses, mouth slightly open, eyes darting from reporter to videographer.

“Uhhh, yes . . . yes I am.”

She requests an interview.

He tells them to wait and hurries into Green Party headquarters.

Minutes tick by. Finally, heels echo off concrete flooring.

“Come with me.”

He leads them up a spiral staircase as she comments on the beauty of the heritage building in downtown Vancouver.

He either doesn’t hear the compliment, or is not in the mood for small talk.

Opening a heavy wooden door, he gestures to a small table and two chairs.

She sits, opens her notebook and asks the question plaguing the Cariboo since the Greens announced her candidacy:

“Who and where is Amber van Drielen?”

Friday, Oct. 3 — 7:30 a.m.

The videographer jumps into the front seat, pulls out the compact “foolproof” camcorder and immediately begins documenting the road trip.

Plans, strategies, focus and key points are discussed, reworked, tossed and reinvented.

It’s tough for two planners to go with the flow; to simply ask the question and see where it takes them.

Will they find her? Will any Green candidates along the way know who she is?

Will they know where she is? Will they know what she looks like?

And the most delicious question of all:

Does she even exist?

The plan is simple:

• Drive to Vancouver, where Green Party press releases have stated van Drielen lives.

• Call Green candidates in various ridings between Quesnel and Vancouver, asking if they know anything about her – ANYTHING that could help locate her and, in the process, enlighten “her” electorate.

The reason for the trip?

A refresher: Since the party refused to sign former candidate Douglas Gook’s nomination papers — deciding instead to appoint van Drielen — e-mails and calls to both provincial co-ordinator Hines and media liaison Kevin McKeown have been met with a consistent party line:

“Van Drielen is a right-to-vote candidate to provide Cariboo-Prince George residents the opportunity to vote Green. She will not be giving any interviews or participating in any forums or debates.”

Seeking information on the Kootenay-born ghost candidate provides more frustration.

One short biography from her membership with the Sierra Club pops up on the Internet. In it, van Drielen states she’s into the green movement and is a lawyer (or at least an articling law student in Vancouver).

That’s it. No picture.

Nothing about the Cariboo.

Nothing about her candidacy.

Nothing about her likes or dislikes. Not even a hint as to which vegetable van Drielen would be, if she could be a vegetable.

Which brings us to the reason for the epic, three-day, 1,600-kilometre road trip — finding out who she is, where she is and, most importantly – why she is the Green Party of Canada candidate for the Cariboo-Prince George riding.

Oct. 3, 11:56 a.m.

A call to Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo Green candidate Donovan Cavers.

No answer on his cellphone.

Calls to the media liaison promise message delivery and a call back.

Oct. 3 — 2:20 p.m.

A call to Barbara Lebeau, Green candidate for Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon.

No answer. A message is left, simply stating a reporter wishes to say hi, is driving through her riding and has a quick question.

At this point, Cavers calls back, leaving a message. His cellphone is incommunicado, making it difficult to reach him, but he suggests leaving another message and he will return her call.

Oct. 3 — 3 p.m.

A call to Abbotsford candidate Karen Durant, who answers.

After a quick rundown as to who’s calling and why, the question is asked: Does she know where Amber van Drielen is?

“Who?” Durant asks.

Yes, exactly.

Durant then points her caller to provincial organizer Rob Hines, stating he’ll know where she is.

“But, wait,” Durant adds.

“Which area is she representing?

Where did you hear she is?”

“She’s the Cariboo-Prince George candidate, but apparently she’s in Vancouver,” the reporter responds.

“Well, she should be in Prince George,” Durant said.

Precisely.

Oct. 3 — 3:30 p.m.

A call to Langley Green candidate Patrick Meyer.

No answer. A message is left, requesting a call back.

Oct. 3 — 4:38 p.m.

A call to Burnaby-Douglas candidate Doug Perry.

Once again, a rundown is given on who is calling and why, followed by the question: “Do you know who or where Amber van Drielen is?”

Perry: “Ammmbbbeerrr van Driiilleeennn.”

He says it slow, mulling it over — one can almost picture his eyes narrowed, perhaps a forefinger and thumb stroking his chin.

Maybe. Maybe not.

We have no idea. Van Drielen’s “constituents” have no idea.

Hence the road trip.

Perry then suggest a call to Rob Hines at provincial headquarters.

“He’ll know,” Perry says.

“Here, let me get you the number.”

Oct. 4 – 8:30 a.m.

Hastings Street offers a wide selection of potential man-on-the street subjects.

Perhaps one of the teeming masses in western Canada’s largest city will lead us to our elusive political quarry.

Alas, blank stares, crinkled noses and shrugs fill the camcorder.

But several do offer the suggestion of hitting up Green Party of Canada provincial headquarters, less than two blocks from where they stand.

The building sits on the corner of Hastings and Cambie. Its pink/orange colouring somehow suits its splendid-in-a-rundown-way appearance.

Signs declaring VOTE CARR and GREEN frame dusty windows.

Pulling on the brass handle, the small-town reporter is thankful her purse contains hand sanitizer.

Standing in the foyer, reporter and videographer scan the list of building occupants: Green Party – Third Floor.

The elevator doors slide open.

Quick greetings confirm Hines is in the building.

They wait at the bottom of the stairs, pacing.

Footsteps are heard from above.

“Are you Rob?”

Oct. 4 — 10 a.m.

They sit across from each other as the camera rolls.

Green Party of Canada provincial co-ordinator Rob Hines answers, spins and tries to charm.

Hines: “Amber’s a right-to-vote candidate only, thus providing the riding the opportunity to vote Green. She’s a volunteer with the party, has been for years. She’s a lawyer in Vancouver."

Reporter: “Why a female?”

Hines: “The federal Green party adopted a policy of running women candidates in ridings where the party does not have an electoral district association and a local nomination process.”

Reporter: “But why? Why a female? Why not the best person for the job?”

Hines: “Affirmative action. Female participation, experience, encouragement and perspective.”

At this point, it’s pointed out van Drielen is not actually “participating, encouraging or offering perspective.”

Hines admits it’s disappointing and unfortunate.

Reporter: “Did she come to you?”

Hines: “No. We sought her out, asked if she would put her name down.

She accepted with the provisions — no picture, no bio, no interviews, no debates.”

Reporter: “Has she ever been to the Cariboo?”

Hines: “Yes, she has family there.”

Reporter: “Has she ever been to Quesnel?”

Hands lift, face grimaces.

Hines: “I don’t know. I’ll have to ask her.”

Reporter asks if she can.

Hines laughs.

Reporter takes that as a no.

Reporter: “What do you think about the other candidates calling this move an assault on democracy?”

Hines: “The assault was trying to exclude [Green Leader] Elizabeth May from the national debate.”

Reporter: “What happens if she wins?”

Hines laughs: “They really don’t see that happening.”

Reporter: “Any possible way we can talk to her, see her — two teeny, weeny minutes?”

Hines: “No. We are respecting her privacy and wishes.”

Reporter: “We’ve heard she’s a redhead. Is that true?”

Hines sighs: “Reddish blonde.”

Reporter graciously offers her notebook: “Can you draw us a picture?”

Hines laughs long, hard and loud: “No.”

Reporter: “Well, then, if she has reddish blonde hair, she must have blue eyes. Does she have blue eyes?”

Hines: “Fine. Yes, she has blue eyes.”

Oct. 4, 10:30 a.m.

Reporter and videographer leave the building, laden with “I’m Voting Green” buttons — a parting gift from headquarters in lieu of an interview with van Drielen.

Reporter stops outside the front doors and carefully unties a baby Converse shoe, inside is soil from the bottom of Quesnel’s giant gold pan.

She dumps it onto the front mat.

“It’s simple really,” she says.

“This way, should Amber visit Green headquarters, she can at least say she’s set foot in her riding.”

Wow!


 
In some ridings, they say you could run a potted plant for certain parties and they would win.  It'll be interesting to see this candidate's vote count, running what looks like ZERO campaign.

While all parties have parachuted candidates into ridings at one point or another, this is the first time I've heard of someone running for PUBLIC office seeking more anonymity than the head of most intelligence services.
 
The idea of a right-to-vote candidate has been around for quite a while. Many, many years ago it was quite all right for major parties to not bother to run a candidate in a few ridings. Very often a no-chance candidate was put up yo face e.g. the prime minister and the leader of the opposition – who were, themselves, often parachuted into ridings.

Sometime back (in the ‘70s?) the NDP were taunted (by Trudeau?) for not being a real, 'national' party because they didn’t have x candidates (x being a number around 280) (The NDP didn't, back in those ancient days, run candidates in all QC ridings). Now every party wants to make sure that it has nominated 308 candidates – even if a few are flakes and fruitcakes and have to withdraw and even if a few are just names on a piece of paper – so that they are 'real, national' parties. Some are there only to give a handful of people a ‘right-to-vote” for the N_____ Party of Canada.   



Edit: typo
 
Yup - that's the article I read in today's local paper.

Pretty sad.
 
- So, Autumn Goes Looking For Amber? Sounds like one of those videos we watched in the 9D1756 Mess Tent on REFORGER 88.

8)
 
Very odd, considering the Greens had someone in the past who actually lived and worked in the area.  More proof that the party under May has become a joke.

The Liberals in the riding also nominated a 19 year old lad to run...far different from the lawyers, engineers and other professionals who have run for them in the past in that riding.
 
Considering the end result in that riding, I can see why the other parties took a rather laissez-faire approach to their candidate choices.  I'm going to switch my SOR for the next election so my vote will be worth something more than simply adding onto a landslide.... :)
 
Electoral welfare coming to an end. Parties that do not have to work for your vote will now find their funding issues have just increased by an order of magnitude:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/11/flaherty-to-end-campaign-welfare/

Flaherty to end campaign welfare

On November 7th, I argued that we should end government-subsidized campaign welfare in this country and follow the example set by President-elect Barack Obama and amend our electoral system to eliminate our $1.95-per-vote subsidy received by political parties each year. During the US Presidential campaign, Obama did not take a single dollar of public financing and went on to win the election. On a panel for the Public Policy Forum yesterday, I suggested to my Obama-obsessed co-panelist Judy Rebick that Mr. Hope and Change had set the wheels in motion for the elimination of public money for political campaigns.

In my post earlier this month, I suggested that such a system implemented in Canada would eliminate cause parties to appeal to the electorate and work for donations rather than put their hand out for a per-vote subsidy for being the least offensive option. The theory goes that if our politics inspires (Yes We Can) rather than demonizes (No They Can’t), people will show that additional financial support that parties should depend on rather than be the public cash-receptacle of successful fear mongering campaigns. How many Quebeckers these days actually support the Bloc Quebecois on its principles (they’ve all but abandoned sovereignty these days) instead of voting for that party to “block” the Conservatives or the Liberals.

In that post, I argued that we should end party welfare to motivate parties to appeal on their own issues.

In the past couple of hours, we’ve learned that in Jim Flaherty’s economic update tomorrow, the Conservative government will move to do just that in the name of showing that even politicians can tighten their own belts.

I may have been a bit of a tongue-in-cheek cynic by using the Obama magic to suggest removing critical funding from two parties of the left. The Bloc Quebecois, as mentioned, has depended on their status as those that could block Liberal corruption in 2006 and the Conservative Party’s… er conservatism in 2008. The Liberal Party on the other hand has depended upon what they are not. Specifically, they have warned Canadians of the Harper hidden agenda and what the Conservatives would do if they had a majority. In this spot, Liberals have relied in relative comfort on their per-vote subsidy. Under the new proposed financing cuts, the strength of the Liberal brand won’t matter as it is without substance as conservatism is represented by the CPC and progressive politics is claimed by a resurgent NDP.

CTV reports that under Flaherty’s cuts, the parties could stand to lose up to:

* Conservatives: $10 million
* Liberals: $7.7 million
* NDP: $4.9 million
* Bloc Quebecois: $2.6 million
* Green Party: $1.8 million


Late this evening, I’ve learned that the per vote subsidy stands to be reduced in full.

In this, the Conservatives aim to level a strategic blow to the Liberals as Conservative fundraising efforts — rooted in the Reform tradition of passing the hat in legion halls and church basements — has remained strong. Buoyed by detailed supporter databases, the party is set to compete on an advantageous — despite it’s now mutually diminished — footing with other parties. The Liberal Party still has not mastered grassroots fundraising and with an expensive year ahead with another leadership convention, Liberals will need to determine how to appeal (and fast) if they are to survive as a viable organization.
 
I think we need a proportional representation system. It's simply not fair that when 7% of Canadians vote for the Green Party, as an example, not 1 seat is earned.
 
tamtam10 said:
I think we need a proportional representation system. It's simply not fair that when 7% of Canadians vote for the Green Party, as an example, not 1 seat is earned.

- Proportional representation is undemocratic.  Who would your MP be?  Someone you voted for, or someone a party got to pick as part of their vote percentage?  Proportional rep allows fringe parties and radicals (such as Hitler and the NSDAP) to deadlock governments.  Bad idea.
 
tamtam10 said:
I think we need a proportional representation system. It's simply not fair that when 7% of Canadians vote for the Green Party, as an example, not 1 seat is earned.

First past the Post acts as a political "filter" to find a clean "signal" of voter intent for the government to act on. PR in all its forms allows a much lower "signal to noise" ratio, so unstable minorities and coalitions become the rule rather than the exception. Imagine this circus in Ottawa going on all the time?

As well, if people like Jean Chretien and Ed Broadbent can engineer this sort of instability from the back room (along with who knows how many others) today, how will a PR Parliament work with all the "Party List" MP's under control of a shadowy, unelected and unaccountable Party establishment?

For real reform, try drastically limiting the powers and jurisdictional responsibilities of government, and institute term limits so Parliament and the Senate are not clogged up with professional politicians.
 
Baden  Guy said:
Aren't there countries where PR is working?

Let's try an analogy:

A Cadillac Escalade is a large luxury hybrid

A Buick Enclave is a large luxury SUV that gets the same gas mileage without the batteries, electric engine, control electronics etc. by being 1000 lbs lighter and using a V6 engine. It is also cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to buy, cheaper to service and even cheaper to dispose of (no toxic batteries) etc.

Both are similar large luxury SUV's and both "work". Which one is the better choice overall?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top