Joe Rogan and Pierre Poilievre interview

[GR66]

You might be on to something.

We could also have MP's run as citizens not associated to any party. They tell us their views and beliefs and we pick them based on that. Then once elected they pick the party they feel most aligns with their views.

Like a Harry Potter sorting hat of sorts.

I don't get the obsession with pushing parties to the top of the political pyramid.

Ideally political parties should just be a loose affiliation of individual members that work together toward similar political objectives, not an organization that constrains its members to voting as a single block on a whole range of issues.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You might be on to something.

We could also have MP's run as citizens not associated to any party. They tell us their views and beliefs and we pick them based on that. Then once elected they pick the party they feel most aligns with their views.

Like a Harry Potter sorting hat of sorts.

We could, but it would very difficult to prevent some sort of “nudge nudge wink wink” party but not a party from forming. Humans are humans.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

When a candidates name is on the sign with PARTY affiliation plus they are on the web site and recognized as a candidate, come on, FALSE ADVERTISING.

Your arguing semantics and going long ways to try and shape your argument.

But it is not false advertising. That concept does not exist in politics. I am not being glib or trolling you.

At the moment of the election the candidate is running under the banner of X party, which gives a voter (I suppose) a broad idea of what the candidates stand for. 10 mins after the election? All bets are off. Honestly.

There is both good and bad in that system. I lean towards de-emphasizing party control and party affiliation and focussing on a candidates ideas and character. I view the ability for an MP to cross the floor in either direction as an asset which allows Parliamentarians to react in an agile manner to changing circumstances. But, that I freely admit that is my bias and others may not share it.

 

[ArmyRick]

The party is just as important as the person. Thats the reality. The Prime Minister comes from the party with the most seats. Yes there is good and bad in the system.

Saying people vote for the person not the party is incorrect. I would say it is subjective. Every voter makes their selection based on their own criteria. David Colletto of Colletto polling made it very clear recently, in his research that their is a large number of Canadians who don't even know who their MP is, it is that they selected the name next to the party.

There is what theoretically should be, and how it is.

Bottom line, is Gladu's riding (and I am sure the same with the others), is many in her riding are furious.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The party is just as important as the person. Thats the reality. The Prime Minister comes from the party with the most seats. Yes there is good and bad in the system.

Saying people vote for the person not the party is incorrect. I would say it is subjective. Every voter makes their selection based on their own criteria. David Colletto of Colletto polling made it very clear recently, in his research that their is a large number of Canadians who don't even know who their MP is, it is that they selected the name next to the party.

There is what theoretically should be, and how it is.

Bottom line, is Gladu's riding (and I am sure the same with the others), is many in her riding are furious.

I actually find very little to disagree with you, here.

 

[ArmyRick]

I actually find very little to disagree with you, here.

At the end of the day, if any of them run again, their ridings will approve/disapprove of their actions.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

At the end of the day, if any of them run again, their ridings will approve/disapprove of their actions.

Completely agree.

 

[brihard]

The Prime Minister comes from the party with the most seats.

That’s not a given. The PM comes from the party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons. Generally that’s the party with the most seats but it doesn’t have to be.

Imagine an election that resulted in:

• 155 CPC
• 152 LPC
• 20 NDP
• 15 BQ
• 1 GPC

The CPC form a rickety minority government, survive their first budget, but the next year the budget vote fails. The CPC leader requests the GG dissolve Parliament and call an election, but immediately thereafter the leaders of the LPC and NDP tell the GG they have a supply and confidence agreement, and the LPC will have the 172 votes necessary to demonstrate confidence. The GG could (and should) absolutely let the LPC leader do so. The LPC leader would become PM and would be allowed to form a ministry and government so long as they maintain that confidence. While unlikely and rare, this would absolutely be valid and legitimate in our system.

 

[ArmyRick]

That’s not a given. The PM comes from the party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons. Generally that’s the party with the most seats but it doesn’t have to be.

Imagine an election that resulted in:

• 155 CPC
• 152 LPC
• 20 NDP
• 15 BQ
• 1 GPC

The CPC form a rickety minority government, survive their first budget, but the next year the budget vote fails. The CPC leader requests the GG dissolve Parliament and call an election, but immediately thereafter the leaders of the LPC and NDP tell the GG they have a supply and confidence agreement, and the LPC will have the 172 votes necessary to demonstrate confidence. The GG could (and should) absolutely let the LPC leader do so. The LPC leader would become PM and would be allowed to form a ministry and government so long as they maintain that confidence. While unlikely and rare, this would absolutely be valid and legitimate in our system.

in that case, the two parties essentially become one party. Rewind to 2008. This case has never gone to full test.