# Voting for the party vs. voting for the person



## brad (May 22, 2009)

As a dual citizen of the US and Canada, I have the right to vote in both countries--and I exercise that right. While there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, the thing I find most frustrating with the Canadian system is that you end up having to vote for the party you want to be in power, even if it means voting for a less-than-optimal local candidate.

Case in point this year: in my riding, only one of the candidates (the incumbent) has any experience in government, and he's been serving a long time with a strong track record. His opponents have no experience (one worked as a secretary and is now a freelance translator) and are generally very young. My preference would be to vote for the candidate who has represented my riding well and is involved in the community, but if I prefer to see a different party in power I'll have to vote for one of these unknowns.

In the US I've always been independent, often voting for a mix of candidates from various parties, because I'm used to voting for the person rather than the party. In the US the person I vote for to be President is often from a different party than the people I vote for to be my local representatives. Here in Canada I feel like I have to vote for a party even though there isn't any party whose platform I feel totally comfortable endorsing, so I end up going for the "least worst." 

The fact that I've chosen to spend the rest of my life in Canada says enough about which country I prefer, but this one aspect of the voting system bothers me every time there's an election. I'm curious to see how others view this issue and whether anyone else feels the same frustrations.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Yes, I completely understand. I have lived in a few ridings where this was the case. However, I think the party has to come first. If that means a vote for a young unknown, then I don't have a problem with that. Let's all remember we were all young once and eventually someone gave us a chance and hired us. Same thing here. Ministers come and go all the time anyway, so it's not as though we are signing our life away by taking a chance on someone new and with potential. Vote for the party.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I understand your point and agree that new blood is a good thing, but when you've got someone who has represented your riding well for many years, understands the community's needs, and is an effective negotiator, gets things done, knows how to work the sytem, are you supposed to give up all that in favour of someone with none of that knowledge and experience, who may take years to reach the same level of effectiveness? That's the issue I grapple with.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

This is a huge frustration of mine also.

We live in a Parlimentary democracy and elect members of Parliment. We don't live in a a Presidencial or Prime Ministerial democracy.

Alberta IS the case in point. Local Conservative MPs don't even bother to attend debates. It seems like they just need to make sure they don't say anything wrong and they are fine.

Our system is wrought with problems, voter apathy (both not voting AND ill-informed voting) being a major problem.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I mostly agree with Stephen Harper:

“Most MPs are bit players in today’s parliamentary system, with the average backbencher merely acting as an ombudsman for constituents on non-partisan issues and as a local sales representative for his/her political party on the big issues. That’s why we believe that before MPs demand more money, they should reform the system and give themselves a role that’s deserving of more money.” (Sept. 1, 1998)

MPs are nobodies. It doesn't matter that they are young or inexperienced, or even crazy racists for the most part. As long as they sit and stand on command. The good ones are decent at this ombudsman role, however.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

andrewf said:


> MPs are nobodies. It doesn't matter that they are young or inexperienced, or even crazy racists for the most part. As long as they sit and stand on command. The good ones are decent at this ombudsman role, however.


I guess this is another difference between the Canadian and US systems that I'm slowly coming to understand. In the States, our local reps and our state senators are there to represent their constituents, and are free to vote as they wish -- they are not required to vote along party lines (although there is of course some pressure for them to do so). These people are truly representatives -- you can talk to them, visit their offices, and they spend time in the community. The members of the House are more focused on their local constituencies while the senators are more focused on national issues, but even senators listen to their constituents and will take action on their behalf.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Sampson said:


> voter apathy (both not voting AND ill-informed voting) being a major problem.


Ditto. 

Not a perfect system, but no question for me & I already voted for the party!

I would not vote for a person that represented a party I would never ever vote for, no matter how good a local MP were to be.

There is also tactical voting, but not comfortable with that strategy either.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> I would not vote for a person that represented a party I would never ever vote for, no matter how good a local MP were to be.


When I lived in Vermont, I always voted for James Jeffords as senator; he was a Republican for most of his career but he nearly always took the side of Democrats in his votes and he was a moderating influence on his party. He was a very senior and influential member of the Senate and sat on important committees. He eventually left the Republican party when it started becoming too extreme for him, and he became an independent. I always voted for him, even though I only occasionally voted for other Republicans.

I dislike the "vote for the party" approach, because it's too sheep-like. I never registered with any party in the US, and I don't agree with everything on any Canadian party's platform. Ideally I would expect MPs to be able to vote with their conscience even if it means disagreeing with their own party. If they're just rubber stamps, why are we electing them?


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> I would not vote for a person that represented a party I would never ever vote for


I would.

I agree whole heartedly with brad on this one. MP's should be able to vote against their own party policies.

I personally have no problem with coalitions either. No party other than the big 2 will ever be elected, so essentially, no issues, ideas, or opinions from the smaller parties will ever see the light of day. Coalitions are a fantastic way for these issues to be raised and addressed.

While I'm at it...

I'm pro- proportional representation too!

How can the opinions of >35% of Canadians (those not voting Conservative or Liberal in the last election) not have any bearing on how the country is being run?


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

That seems inconsistent. As I understand a PR system, you can only vote for a party which is one reason I oppose PR. Am I missing something?


royal-mail: Note no use of the quote feature


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Let me just say that I don't like the current state of affairs, but we need to change things if we want MPs to be meaningful again in the future. For one, party leaders should be selected by the MPs, not the membership. Leaders should not be able to withhold nominations of MPs (I can see a case for repudiating a candidate, but they should not be able to run a replacement against the riding association's wishes). Committee membership should be determined by secret ballot of the House, not by party leaders.

The problem we have is all-powerful party leaders. It's no surprise that our system yields some kind of pseudo-presidential results.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

Zombie MPs who mindlessly follow the PMO's orders are a problem with the *Canadian * parliamentary system. British MPs are much more independent e.g. her own MPs forced Thatcher to resign.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't watch the propaganda media so which personality I like better has little bearing. Ill informed and/or motivated voters pretty much defeats this whole system though.

Instant gratification generation couldn't care less about a lengthly process and writing down a name they never heard of. I would rather we voted on more isolated issues instantly online

I vote because I know which party has the majority affects my life a great deal. So obviously I vote for the party, and I hate how so many people vote for the person.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

salut mode

i see you are signed on ... this is going to drive royal mail up the wall so hopefully he won't spy this message which is totally off topic ...

but would you have an opinion to share about a "cube" technology that alcatel is talking about. Something about not needing usual network of towers to transmit radio signals for mobile devices ...

... since you're over there & all.

ciao
hum

ps i have a terrific MP whom i profoundly admire.
above sentence is not a joke, i am serious.


----------



## Larry6417 (Jan 27, 2010)

Former MPs apportion blame directly to the parties and party leaders. A recent study interviewed former MPs (of all parties). See www.samaracanada.com/Report3_context


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

It's not like I ever go off topic anyways

Cell towers and mast antenneas are pretty ancient technology and Alcatel's product smells like a lot of military technology going mainstream. We've used active array antennaes for a long time as they are far more mobile and frequency agile and they can do more at once. As the end user I'm constantly whining to the techs about these antennaes, often times it's a problem with interference but some antennae designs are just plain junk. We often have new antennea designs on trial from the big defense companies. As far as this cube antennae pretty much all you can do is try them in many conditions. Just do a search for active array or phased array antenneas as that's what this "cube" array sounds like to me - they probably line up a bunch of "cubes" and they work together to form the antennae array. It's just a matter of how long it takes them to get it right for this application really

We also use microwave as our backlink - solid directional technology. There is nothing much new with the amps. The other biggest change is cloud computing - which I am a big fan and expect to be the next "game changer" now that we have the bandwidth to set it up


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

PR warps our democracy, and gives the "evil" separatists a 50% overrepresentation. Imagine that, for every 2 votes for BQ, they get 3 votes worth of representation.

This is enough reason to go with PR. BQ will be nothing more than a fringe party with PR.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I went to a bilingual uni with a minority of francos. We voted for certain awards and reps and francos almost always won if there was only 1 to vote for, just saying


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

My delima is I like the Cons but can't vote for them with the current Leader for reasons i wint get into. I don't like Iggy either, although he is slightly more palatable. I like Layton and NDP policies to a point, but not enough to support them. So I can either vote Green for the funding, or choose one of the independents I like. As you can see, my vote is weighed heavily on how I feel about the party leaders vs my constituent or the party itself.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I'm voting for the party this time because I'm unfamiliar with the candidate. My vote is a bit of a throwaway. This is Harper's riding and he'll win, despite the fact that he won't be getting my vote.


----------



## allgood (May 17, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I mostly agree with Stephen Harper:
> 
> “Most MPs are bit players in today’s parliamentary system, with the average backbencher merely acting as an ombudsman for constituents on non-partisan issues and as a local sales representative for his/her political party on the big issues. That’s why we believe that before MPs demand more money, they should reform the system and give themselves a role that’s deserving of more money.” (Sept. 1, 1998)
> 
> MPs are nobodies. It doesn't matter that they are young or inexperienced, or even crazy racists for the most part. As long as they sit and stand on command. The good ones are decent at this ombudsman role, however.


It a shame that the reforms suggested by the Reform party got lost when the parties merged. I was a big fan of some of their plans - more free votes, an elected senate, etc.

Instead Harper became anti-democratic as soon as he got a little bit of power. Predictable, but so disappointing.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

I consider both the party and the person before I cast my vote.

The biggest factor is normally the party. But then I'll consider the person the party is running and is if I think they are qualified to be elected.

If the party cannot find a serious qualified local canditates then I'm going to need to conclude that they didn't seriously want my vote in the first place. I'm not going to vote for somebody who I don't feel is qualified to govern. If this is the case then I'll consider my 2nd & 3rd choice parties.

I think that this is where the NDP may run into problems this election. They don't have the bench strength to form a cabinet and a lot of their canditates are just not qualified to govern.


----------



## calrest (Apr 13, 2011)

My choice presents a voting for the person. Why? How can define some party? It´s a group of people with the same economic interest. From my point of view this "political world" needs huge statesmen with a credible charisma. Votin´for the person is better possibility for me.


----------



## cosmica76 (Jan 31, 2011)

I like your view. 



calrest said:


> My choice presents a voting for the person. Why? How can define some party? It´s a group of people with the same economic interest. From my point of view this "political world" needs huge statesmen with a credible charisma. Votin´for the person is better possibility for me.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Did you vote for your MP, or the party leader? If you're voting for the party leader, you're voting for party over the person representing you.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

Did four University students really get elected in Quebec for the NDP?

I saw one was 19, now dropping out, first job and He's making close to $200,000, not bad.

Same news.MBA from Western returninng from overseas with $80,000 of debt, thinking of going on Welfare.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

I'd suggest that ~157K is not yet "close to $200,000".

He can always save a bit of the $157K X 4 and go back without loans. Good career plan, pad the resume. Why wouldn't an MBA student think of that?

Why would that MBA student go on welfare rather than work at Rotten Ronnie's? Entitlements? With his qualifications wouldn't he end up running the company?


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

I'm Howard said:


> I saw one was 19, now dropping out, first job and He's making close to $200,000, not bad.


Dont forget all the paid expenses and perks he get.
Better yet, if they managed to get re-elected in the next election and stay for 2 years (to the total of 6 - I read somewhere it's 6) then they will get that golden pension, all when they will be only in their late 20s ... how awesome is that?

How about that other Quebec MP who spent part of the campaign on vacation in Las Vegas and barely even speak French?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't think the pension kicks in until retirement age, so they'd still need to support themselves in the mean time.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I dont think you have to be experienced to qualify as a politician.

Ronald Reagan was a B level movie actor.

Arnold..........was the Terminator.

Jesse Ventura was a professional wrestler.

Ken Dryden was best known as a hockey goalie.

Red Kelly was an NHL forward.

Farmers, teachers, housewives, doctors, lawyers.......

Lots of inexperienced people go to Ottawa........some do well and some don't.

Young and enthusiastic can be a plus.

As long as they are honest and hard working, I can live with inexperience.

After they are there for a year, they will be experienced.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Ken Dryden also happens to be a pretty good lawyer.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

I agree sags.

And really, what is the benefit of having an experienced politician? Isn't that like saying you'd prefer an experienced criminal breaking into your place and stealing your stuff? I'm all for the noobs in parliament. Maybe they won't screw things up as badly as the pros.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

financialnoob said:


> I'm all for the noobs in parliament. Maybe they won't screw things up as badly as the pros.


All the Noobs are in opposition which is now impotent.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

financialnoob said:


> I agree sags.
> 
> And really, what is the benefit of having an experienced politician? Isn't that like saying you'd prefer an experienced criminal breaking into your place and stealing your stuff? I'm all for the noobs in parliament. Maybe they won't screw things up as badly as the pros.


It's a national pastime to rag of politicians, but they do actually serve a purpose.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

In Canada, our back benchers have been rendered largely irrelevant. They are little more than votes to be used at the whim of the party leader. A number of Liberal ex MPs have openly discussed how frustrating it was to be a bank bencher under Chretien. Things have to be just as bad under Harper. 

I have no idea about Layton but he probably keeps a tight reign on his MPs too. If not, he is going to have to start - lest they become an embarrassment with conspiracy theories about the Americans faking the Bin Laden news and so on.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

olivaw said:


> I have no idea about Layton but he probably keeps a tight reign on his MPs too. If not, he is going to have to start - lest they become an embarrassment with conspiracy theories about the Americans faking the Bin Laden news and so on.


It was his deputy leader that came out with that one so do hold out much hope for his noobies.

I remember the Liberal Ratpack back in the 90's. We may end up with Jack and the "KeyStone" MPs.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

My experiance with Americans is that most are born either a democrat or a Republican and, regardless of the candidate, they always vote for that party.

The U.S is easily identifable as either a Democratic or a Republican State, there are no in betweens.

Canada at least affords a choice of several parties for whom you may vote.


----------



## greeny (Jan 31, 2011)

Definitely I´m voting for the person. it´s much more clever.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I'm Howard said:


> The U.S is easily identifable as either a Democratic or a Republican State, there are no in betweens. Canada at least affords a choice of several parties for whom you may vote.


Actually in the US there are typically even more parties on a ticket than I've ever seen in Canada; I remember a recent presidential election where there were something like 9 or 10 parties on the ballot when I went to vote. Nobody takes the smaller parties seriously (except the Greens); I think you just need meet certain minimum criteria (number of petitions signed or something like that) to be able to create a party and run. You can also have write-in candidates, and apparently some write-in candidates have won elections even though they weren't listed on the ballot.

In the US you can also have independent candidates who are not affliated with any party. Several governors of US states are independents, and I think a few senators as well. 

While it's true that many states are solidly Republican or Democrat, it's not always across the board. For example, New Hampshire is one of the most conservative states in the US and yet they elected a Democrat for governor for several years. Vermont had a Republican governor, a Democrat senator, a Republican senator, and a Socialist representative in the House, all at the same time.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I think you have to play the odds. If the local rep is good and the race is close then vote for them. If it a runaway for another party then stay home. Otherwise you are just wasting a protest vote.


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

andrewf said:


> As long as they sit and stand on command.


Woof!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

On the subject of voting, I had to laugh when reading this article this morning; hmmm, as though most Americans know much about our politics, political system or any other issues for that matter. 

*"Harvard shocked by Canada’s rejection of Ignatieff"*

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/12/harvard-shocked-by-canadas-rejection-of-ignatieff/

Mr. Ignatieff is now on holidays; in France I believe he said.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> O
> *"Harvard shocked by Canada’s rejection of Ignatieff"*


Interesting that they didn't actually interview anyone at Harvard to find out what they thought about Ignatieff's loss, just one (Canadian) student there. It's funny when I was reading the article at first I thought it was from the Onion, because it reads like a satire.

I worked at Harvard for a few years, and I have to say I never encountered anyone who felt that Harvard was the "centre of the universe" or that teaching or studying at Harvard was an automatic entitlement to winning an election or getting ahead in life. The elitist stuff is mostly manufactured from outsiders, based on the behaviour of a small minority of arrogant professors and students who think that being connected with Harvard makes them better than anyone else. But you can find those people at any university.

I did encounter a few snobs when I worked there, but by far most of the professors and students I worked with (in 20 different schools at Harvard, I was in the central administration) were hardworking, dedicated people with no sense of entitlement and zero arrogance. I find it hard to believe that many people at Harvard cared whether Ignatieff won or not, or that they were "shocked" at his loss. Like any other school, Harvard has a long history of losers.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> On the subject of voting, I had to laugh when reading this article this morning; hmmm, as though most Americans know much about our politics, political system or any other issues for that matter.
> 
> *"Harvard shocked by Canada’s rejection of Ignatieff"*


Ya, like he was the "poster boy" and a "shoe-in" for the PM's job?

Gimme a break!..he knows about as much as running a country as ..
well... Elizabeth "Green" and.. Jack Layton too. 

None of them have ever held a Finance Ministers post in Parliament..
so a lot of it is politcal "hot air"...The Americans and Harvard have
a lot of nerve , thinking that by sending one of their "own", he would
be a shoe in, just because he happened to be a Harvard prof?
That does NOT give him carte blanche qualifications for becoming
a Prime Minister..who should live in Canada and be aware of Canadian
issues.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> I have to say I never encountered anyone who felt that Harvard was the "centre of the universe" or that teaching or studying at Harvard was an automatic entitlement to winning an election or getting ahead in life. The elitist stuff is mostly manufactured from outsiders, based on the *behaviour of a small minority of arrogant professors and students who think that being connected with Harvard makes them better than anyone else. But you can find those people at any university.*


Well stated Brad!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> *"Harvard shocked by Canada’s rejection of Ignatieff"*


Harvard seems to have a penchant for producing "tax-and-spend" politicians for Canada.
Ex-mayor David Miller comes to mind as well.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> Harvard seems to have a penchant for producing "tax-and-spend" politicians


They've also produced plenty of "spend but don't tax" politicians, who of course end up creating deficits.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I would rather have someone who has actually had to meet a payroll, manage a P&L, etc. We have too many political leaders, including our current, and a few past PM's, who have never held a job in what I would call the private sector.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

brad said:


> They've also produced plenty of "spend but don't tax" politicians, who of course end up creating deficits.


You mean Bob Rae (who was "room mates"with Michael Ignatieff in his U of T
days? Bob is now eyeing the postion as leader of the Grits after "Iggy"
decided to throw in the towel..cuz the voters just didn't buy his Harvard
style lecturing..besides he really didn't have a clue on fiscal spending and
neither do the other two that return. Watch the old deficit meter start spinning
off it's "gimbal mounts" in the next four years!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

fraser said:


> I would rather have someone who has actually had to meet a payroll, manage a P&L, etc. We have too many political leaders, including our current, and a few past PM's, who have never held a job in what I would call the private sector.


Right on ! What we need is a successful business man in there, who knows how to run a business..like Paul Martin and his Canada Steamship lines was. The as*hole lawyers in there now, just get in their to line their own pockets..like Mulroney, Chretien...to some degree, and..
Kim Campbell..well who knows what she might have done
except for the mini-porn episode hiding naked behind her new duds.
Personally, I had the hots for her back then, as she was a good looking
oldie.  hee-hee..ok time for that cold shower! 

They all seem to have their pecularities. Harper doesn't like to take advice
from anyone, so Jack will be just barking up a tree..or pis*ing on the
"Big Wheels" when they return on June 2.

Go for it Jack! The big wheels need a good wash and wax right now..
after the last couple of scandals before the election.


----------

