|
|
|
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Anyone can choose the join the CPC (or LPC, NDP, etc.) and vote for the party leader.
afransen
Senior Member
CPC reserves the right to revoke membership. You also have to pay to be a member (a poll tax). Both features are rather undemocratic.
DSCToronto
Superstar
For heaven's sake, a one-year membership in CPC is $15 (3 years are $35) It appears the Liberals allow one to "register" at NO cost.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Hardly a "poll tax". No money goes to the State and you can vote for free. All sorts or organizations charge membership fees.
afransen
Senior Member
Fine. But people are crazy if they think it is more democratic that our PM gets elected by 100,000 members of a private organization.
afransen
Senior Member
Northern Light
Superstar
That's an interesting take.
I have 'issues' w/the internal processes of most parties in respect of how they pick leaders, but I wouldn't have said this was one of them.
****
Here's why.
If I decide to offer people the choice of voting for the Northern Light party, in which you get to support my platform, written by me, you have a good faith reason to think I believe
in those ideas etc...
I'm not sure how it enhances democracy if AFransen can join the Northern Light party, along with a few of his friends, out vote me, and change the policies and maybe even the leader, but then run under my banner.
Does that enhance democracy?
I tend to think democracy is best served by having a clear set of ideas from which to choose; and the different teams of people whose character and competency one can judge, and then decide where to place your vote.
****
The greatest weaknesses in democracy, in this country, as I see it, would be that
a) People don't get the outcome they do vote for; because of First-Past-the-Post
b) Party campaigns can be funded disproportionately by the affluent, which can affect which policies make it from platform to enactment.
c) Internal to parties, leadership candidates and policy planks alike can be decided by anyone buying a membership of convenience in the year (sometimes only weeks) prior to a vote.
That last one to me, along with other political donations (non-campaign) and what can be spent on nominations are a hindrance to democracy.
Waiving any membership fee wouldn't hurt; but when the fees are generally nominal and usually there are policies to waive them for low-income members, I tend to think that's reasonable enough.
Its when $800 tickets to fundraisers buy 'access' to members of the cabinet or party higher-ups that democracy suffers more.
Free membership doesn't get the 'average Joe/Jane' anytime talking to the party leader or a current or prospective cabinet member.
****
I'd add to that, I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more 'direct democracy' these days. To be clear, I don't want the lets have a referendum for anything and everything one sees in some U.S. States.
I'd rather a system that imposed a relatively high barrier to entry, and vetted constitutionality etc. but allowed for voting directly on 1 or 2 key issues every few years.
Last edited:
DSCToronto
Superstar
Like most membership organisations.
afransen
Senior Member
Yes, hence why it is problematic that people think the ideal democratic form is for party membership to select leaders, and that MPs should defer to said party membership. MPs of major parties are elected by millions--why should they bend to the will of a hundred thousand party members?
Northern Light
Superstar
1) An individual MP is elected in a constituency of a bit over 100,000; I'm not meaning to be pedantic, but I think its important to get the numbers right here.
Most of the time, with less than 50% of the vote, or under 50,000 votes
2) Most MPs (or MPPs/MLAs etc.) are not elected on their own name or discrete platform, they are elected in the voters minds by which banner they are running under
and which platform they are committing to support.
To be clear, I don't think individual MPs or their Provincial counterparts should be trained seals. I think anything not central to the platform ought to be free-vote. I think even things central to the platform
should be subject to fair scrutiny and an honest consideration of whether that's what those MP's voters voted in favour of...........
Still, to suggest that any Liberal MP or Conservative or NDP for that matter can vary from their party's platform or ideology at will is hardly reasonable. It would defeat the very point of party politics.
Now one could argue for moving to post-partisan politics; but that's a vastly larger conservation, as to how government would function; and would mostly likely involve a much greater roll for direct democracy than even I envision.
afransen
Senior Member
A parliamentary system without primacy of MPs is not healthy. All democratic legitimacy flows through our elected representatives. If they have a leader imposed on them without any recourse to remove that leader that is fundamentally undemocratic. Rick Mercer is just flat wrong.
To the extent that MPs are nobodies, that is a major failing in our democracy.
An MP should fear and respect their constituents, and a party leader should in turn fear and respect their MPs. Parliament as glorified electoral college to elect a presidential executive branch is not a good idea.
To the extent that MPs are nobodies, that is a major failing in our democracy.
An MP should fear and respect their constituents, and a party leader should in turn fear and respect their MPs. Parliament as glorified electoral college to elect a presidential executive branch is not a good idea.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
My sense is that no one here will say anything to convince you otherwise. That’s okay.
afransen
Senior Member
I am reminded of how the UK Labour Party had a commie leader, Jeremy Corbyn, imposed by the membership to disastrous effect. The MPs knew it was a disaster but were stuck with him.
JasonParis
Moderator
There's also a fair bit of libertarianism sprinkled throughout the Green ranks.