The Written Word: Rafe Mair April 17th

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 03:45 AM

Well, now, so Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has made a deal that he won’t run a candidate in Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s chosen riding in Central Nova in Nova Scotia if the Greens won’t run one in his,

On the surface this seems like not a bad deal for either side. But Ms May is going to run in Peter McKay’s riding where, if past numbers count, she hasn’t a prayer.

Why would she give up the opportunity to throw Green at Dion and perhaps give the Greens another source for news releases?

But on closer inspection it’s a lousy deal for Dion as well.

While he no doubt hopes that by getting Ms May in the leadership debate she will pull votes away from the NDP, especially on the West Coast ,he has just jammed it to his own party and made a mockery of anything he’s said or will say about the “democracy deficit” in this land.

This is essentially saying to the Liberal Constituency in Central Nova that if they were to properly select a Liberal under the Liberal banner to fight Mr. McKay that Mr. Dion would refuse to sign his papers which, under the Canada Election Act means he cannot run under the Liberal name. That’s democracy!

What is especially puzzling is that here’s Mr. Dion, straight from a squeaker in winning the leadership, at a time when he must bind the party together, out Chretiening Chretien!

Elections in this country require strong leaders. That’s why people voted against Paul Martin. Yet the Liberals have a leader who turns out to be either weak or unable to grasp the principles of Canadian elections, or both. And he’ll be running against, as his main opponent, a very savvy pol in Stephen Harper.

Too bad it isn’t like “Ground Dog Day” where the Liberals can keep visiting the Leadership Conference until they get it right.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 03:45 AM in Views by Rafe Mair

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Gofaster on April 17 2007 7:59 AM

I wonder what it would be like if there were no political parties?
Would we get better representation if our representative was there for us and not their party?
If we voted for the person, not the party ot its influences?
Maybe........

Posted by: Andyfreeze on April 17 2007 8:12 AM

One does have to wonder about the party system here in Canada.A bit of a joke and designed to benefit the the politicians only.Canadians really need to look at that.
The Liberal Party of Canada is going to be the opposition for a long time to come.Obviously they don't care or they would be dumping Dion the wonderboy just as fast as he arrived.This guy just doesn't get it, and when he starts screwing around with democracy in general,it's time to get rid of him.
what is it the liberals don't get about THAT?

Posted by: ammonra on April 17 2007 8:13 AM

I suspect that not having political parties, only individual representatives, would make some problems worse. Political parties have not always existed, but arose in response to an unsatisfactory system of electing individuals who were out for their own advantage and damn the electors. An advantage is that people getting together enables laws to be passed based on some kind of principle rather than personal gain.

The problem is that winner take all elections do not represent the makeup of opinion among the voting public. A proportional representation system would go a long way to resolving that.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on April 17 2007 8:29 AM

I agree with ammonra.Seems STV (single transferable vote)may,and I say may, be a better system.
Regardless,it seems the party system DOES make it easier to get elected with little consideration to ability or dedication to the voters.
I also notice that many politicians don't like it.(gee,wonder why?)It would put more emphasis on voting for the person than the the party.Guess that's why the wannabe politicians don't like it?If the voters don't like you,your toast.
As it should be.

Posted by: diplomat on April 17 2007 9:56 AM

"...but arose in response to an unsatisfactory system of electing individuals who were out for their own advantage and damn the electors."

Not much has changed. The elected individuals usually (except for the odd one who crosses the floor) practice the fine art of self preservation by faithfully following the party line as enforced by the leader.

No matter how much the elected party's actions are contrary to what was promised during the preceding election - the elected individuals toe the line and bleat along with the latest spin put on by the boss.

Step out of line and you are toast.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on April 17 2007 11:05 AM

Can't argue with THAT logic diplomat!It just about says it all!

Posted by: Chadermando on April 17 2007 11:27 AM

I do not support the party system in our parliamentary system.

I do not support the idea of a proportional representation system either, as it empowers the party to select our candidates and representatives through party insiders and not the voters. The party insiders are made up of union hacks, special interest groups, and multinational corporations and not the average citizen.

I do however support the STV process of a preferential ballot that allows the voter a choice of preference rather than a winner take all so as to elect the best candidates based on their personal record and not that of their party. That is democracy IMO.

Posted by: Chadermando on April 17 2007 11:30 AM

Dion is going back to his old school roots. No surprise for a Chretien hold out.