Nor is it a coincidence that the Conservatives want to dismantle it while they are dominating fund raising.
If we are going to have tax supported election campaigns, I frankly can’t think of a better allocation system than previous election results - not to say it’s perfect.
I would not be surprised to see the Conservatives slowly (or not) raise the $1000 limit. This, combined with the fact that it is quite easy for an individual to circumvent this limit (ie give a $1000 “bonus” to your 50 employees, with the “wink wink” proviso that it be contributed to the conservatives)
Are there any rules against me giving $1000 to every single riding association across the country if I have a spare $300,000 to give away?
There were already examples in the last election in Gary Lunn’s riding, where several “independent” groups were found to be spending money on election advertising - trouble is these groups were effectively run out of the same place and were in reality one and the same group. A “tsk tsk” was all that happened to them.
I say keep the current system that gives the parties a sum of money based on the number of votes they get across the country. I expect that my wishes will not be respected by the current government, because they will do anything to get an advantage, the public’s wishes be damned.
Leaffan, calling a political party idiots has always been allowed here. Calling another poster a whiner is not. You either need to get your feelings under control or you need to open a new thread in the Pit.
One more thing:
I can’t wait to see how Harper is going to appoint future senators, and supreme court justices. No doubt he will take into consideration the 60% of the Canadian voters who chose other parties.
No doubt.
Because that’s just the kind of guy he is.
<snort>
I’m actually not opposed to a Tory majority as long as they don’t go Republican socially. That’s what I’m scared of. I’m a young, single, educated childless female. Of course I vote on social issues! 
I know people in the East aren’t as worried about it, but I’m just down the road from Brad Trost and Maurice Vellacott.
Yes. Because the Liberals never stacked the senate with Liberals.
With a majority, I think now Harper can actually get on with his task of senate reform. Because that’s the kind of guy he is.
I’d rather he just abolish the damn thing altogether. I have nothing against the idea of a chamber of sober second thought, but I’d really prefer to avoid American-style bill reconciliation and not have to deal with the pork that tags along.
I could get behind that.
Gotcha. It was the heat of the moment, and all that.
And I see now I have my first official infraction.
Actually he can’t, because reforming the Senate requires a constitutional amendment.
Well, he’s certainly talked about senate reform, but he’s also stated he wasn’t big on opening up the constitution; so I guess we’re stuck for now.
Does it? Certainly abolishing the Senate would. But since the senators are appointed by the [del]Queen on the advice of the[/del] Prime Minister, is it possible that the PM could implement some half-baked scheme where the provinces run plebiscites as to who should be a senator, and then [del]advise the Queen to[/del] appoint the winners? The result could effectively be that senators are chosen by [del]the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister as directed by the results of an[/del] election.
Is there a constitutional barrier to that? I suppose my question is, with a majority in both the House of Commons and Senate, how far can a PM go to change the Senate single-handedly?
The problems of the U.S. political system are unique, and stem from the fact that every Congressman and Senator essentially has a free vote all the time. That means they can be influenced on every single issue, and they become pawns of special interest groups which pour huge money into their campaigns. It’s like a big funding arms race.
In a parliamentary democracy with strong party discipline such as we have in Canada, there is a lot less incentive for lobbyists and special interests to pour money into the system. Politicians are somewhat protected from the consequences of making decisions that don’t bring the bacon home to their constituents. While this has good points and bad, it means we’re not likely to wind up with the kind of dysfunction the U.S. has in terms of campaign financing.
Federal funding of political parties has the large negative effect of freezing out new parties and new ideas because it’s very hard to compete until you reach the threshold where you can receive federal funds. It hurts grassroots organization.
Yes, yes they did. A happy tu quoque day to you!
Harper said he would not stack the senate. Senate reform from Harper now? It is to laugh.
As an Albertan, I agree with you 100%. In your face, ROC! Payback is a bitch!
Incidentally, I’d also like to thank the rest of Canada for helping to produce this Conservative majority – we literally could not have done it without you.
I read that we had relativelylow turnout again for this election.
I’m sure that Harper will bear in mind that less than 25% of eligible voters (60% turnout giving him under 40% of the vote) actually voted Conservative this election.
He will, of course, govern accordingly, and not push through his more right-of-center policies that even some in his own party do not like.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
I’m hilarious!
I could give up the idea of dropping public money political subsidies in favour of reforming the senate. Does the senate actually perform any useful function at this point?
I won’t be coming to the Dope as often.
Apparently, a few months ago while filling out some RRSP forms, I accidentally signed some NDP nomination papers.
Last night I was phoned and told I had been elected as an MP in Quebec.
Tomorrow I head to Ottawa as the new MP for the riding of “Plaisanterie de Mai”.
I’ll send postcards.
Good luck. Please say hello to the part time bartender who, I hope, is on her way back from Las Vegas.
Or maybe he feels he was given a strong mandate to implement his right of centre policies, and if the other 40% of eligible voters who did not vote had an issue with that, they had a pretty simple option.