next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Hi Doug & All, Apr 15, 2011
I will have to jump in here also.
I think your approach is unsound for three reasons.
1) Free votes, in which a local MP can vote against party policy, are as
scarce as hen's teeth. The elected MP is just a vote token, his opinion has
no clout so why should it count during an election ?
2) And if your local candidate is loyal to party lines why should one
suppose that the party platform is not written on water ? Remember Halloween
2006 ? As in-- Conservative federal election platform Jan 31, 2006 "A
Conservative government will....Stop the Liberal attack on retirement
savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them."
By Oct 31, 2006 Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had realized that not
imposing new taxes on income trusts would be "...a very bad thing for
Canada." And speaking of trust, that is the key to chosing between parties;
who can you trust more than the rest ?
3) We have a vote-counting process well suited for two and only two
parties. With 4.5 parties in the field, the elected party is almost certain
to not have a clear majority and therefore not be well enabled to reflect
majority opinion. This limitation can, in theory, be offset to some degree
if two or more opposition parties vote against something but, in practice,
the party with the largest war chest can ignore the vote and proceed as
though it never happened.
Someday, somehow; proportion representation may come into being and,
failing that, the truth may eventually emerge that coalitions are legal,
sensible and desirable.
Meanwhile, when something is as simple as ABC, why make it complicated ?
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Linzey" <doug@fundymud.com>
To: "NatureNS" <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 1:47 AM
Subject: [NatureNS] Dealing with politicians
> Warning: This is not strictly natural history-related, but it does apply
> to most of us in an election period.
>
> Candidates will always ask you about your concerns. Don't tell them.
> Whatever you say, they'll feed right back to you.
>
> Rather, tell them that in order to decide whom to vote for you have to
> know what their concerns and interests are. Your own opinions are
> irrelevant when it comes to judging the candidates until you know what
> they really stand for.
>
> I have two standard questions for candidates: What are the three (or four
> or five) issues ofmost concern to you in this riding? and What are the
> three issues of most concern to you facing the country? Once they've
> answered these questions, you can feel free to get into a discussion about
> anything.
>
> If you want to know if a candidate is interested in the environment, for
> example, you won't really know unless you ask these sorts of questions
> first. If the candidate knows right off the bat that this is your primary
> concern, guess what? You have an instant friend.
>
> One other point is that if the candidate starts to offer the party
> platform or complain about the other parties, my response is, "No, I'm
> familiar with your party's stand on things. What I want to know is your
> own position." Likewise, if a handler tries to answer my questions, I just
> say I'd prefer to hear directly from the candidate, thank you.
>
> Doug Linzey
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3574 - Release Date: 04/14/11
>
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects