Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Post)   Canadian political parties gasping for life-giving loonies like goldfish out of the bowl. Not surprising, considering that there are no corporate or union donations, no per-vote subsidy, and a $1,200 individual annual limit   (fullcomment.nationalpost.com) divider line 51
    More: Interesting, Canadians, political parties in Canada, speed limits, subsidies, New Democrats, Jean Chretien, just society, gun registry  
•       •       •

960 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jan 2014 at 6:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 07:10:52 AM  
Ok, raise the limit but have all the money go to a common pool that gets divided evenly between the parties.
 
2014-01-06 07:13:00 AM  
Hey Michael, here in America we have those same problems - but worse and more - in our cash flush system. Maybe more money isn't the answer.
 
2014-01-06 07:17:58 AM  
Funding system making politics meaner and dumber as cash-starved parties beg for money

Yeah, that's the reason politics and "meaner and dumber". fark you, National Post.
 
2014-01-06 07:18:54 AM  

Massa Damnata: Ok, raise the limit but have all the money go to a common pool that gets divided evenly between the parties.


That would be ingenious except for the part where people don't donate any money anymore.

/ then you can argue a tax is necessary.
 
2014-01-06 07:19:16 AM  

Massa Damnata: Ok, raise the limit but have all the money go to a common pool that gets divided evenly between the parties.


That system will all but eliminate donations. Who wants to donate $100 knowing their polar opposites get half?
 
2014-01-06 07:28:54 AM  
The Tories did this for the simple reason that their fundraising machine for small donors leaves the other parties in the dust. The Liberals are being slowly strangled (along with the NDP), and hopefully it will be a death-blow to the Bloc, who's single-province campaigns were heavily financed by federalist per-vote subsidies.
 
2014-01-06 07:28:59 AM  
Funding system making politics meaner and dumber as cash-starved parties beg for money


Well why are American politics getting meaner and dumber then? We're awash in bucks.
 
2014-01-06 07:30:38 AM  

Massa Damnata: Ok, raise the limit but have all the money go to a common pool that gets divided evenly between the parties.


Your heart is in the right place but then everyone would run for office to get a chance to tap into the campaign funds pool.
 
2014-01-06 07:43:16 AM  
Let's just face it: elections aren't the answer.  People are stupid and easily manipulated by malevolent organizations with assloads of cash, and there is no correlation between the skills it takes to win a national popularity contest/beauty pageant and the skills it takes to be a competent leader.

Either:

1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.
 
2014-01-06 07:56:31 AM  

vygramul: Massa Damnata: Ok, raise the limit but have all the money go to a common pool that gets divided evenly between the parties.

That system will all but eliminate donations. Who wants to donate $100 knowing their polar opposites get half?


This is a bad thing?

dookdookdook: Let's just face it: elections aren't the answer.  People are stupid and easily manipulated by malevolent organizations with assloads of cash, and there is no correlation between the skills it takes to win a national popularity contest/beauty pageant and the skills it takes to be a competent leader.

Either:

1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.


Your jib is particularly well-cut.  Is there a newsletter to which I can subscribe?  The draft idea appeals, but no volunteers - double the current terms and offer early release for excellence.  House them in dorms with school-lunch grade food, and make lobbying a capital offense.
 
2014-01-06 08:00:01 AM  
The meaner coincided with the rise of Harper and his ilk.  Though that may be a coincidence.

The dumber encompasses National Post and their commenters.
 
2014-01-06 08:22:08 AM  

vygramul: Massa Damnata: Ok, raise the limit but have all the money go to a common pool that gets divided evenly between the parties.

That system will all but eliminate donations. Who wants to donate $100 knowing their polar opposites get half?


I'm OK with this.
 
2014-01-06 08:26:25 AM  
How has the campaign to serve the public has become a fight for corporate revenue? Could it be strategy firms and campaign staff hired to elect a candidate have to be paid? Be interesting to see how much consulting fees and salaries eat away at gross donor revenue.
 
2014-01-06 08:32:54 AM  
I have no faith that those who seek to restrict campaign support through arbitrary restrictions will see the error of their ways. They never do.
 
2014-01-06 08:33:23 AM  

dookdookdook: Let's just face it: elections aren't the answer.  People are stupid and easily manipulated by malevolent organizations with assloads of cash, and there is no correlation between the skills it takes to win a national popularity contest/beauty pageant and the skills it takes to be a competent leader.

Either:

1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.


Not #1. To paraphrase from "Life, the Universe, and Everything": Those that want power are the least qualified for the position
 
2014-01-06 08:49:37 AM  

vygramul: Massa Damnata: Ok, raise the limit but have all the money go to a common pool that gets divided evenly between the parties.

That system will all but eliminate donations. Who wants to donate $100 knowing their polar opposites get half?


You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
2014-01-06 08:51:22 AM  
there are no corporate or union donations, no per-vote subsidy, and a $1,200 individual annual limit

What a comunist hell-hole.
 
2014-01-06 08:53:44 AM  

dookdookdook: 1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.


Who would do the drafting and/or the choosing?
 
2014-01-06 08:59:10 AM  

qorkfiend: dookdookdook: 1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.

Who would do the drafting and/or the choosing?


A Council of Experts?
It's worked pretty well for Iran. Heck, the guys they choose always win the elections.
 
2014-01-06 09:02:10 AM  
And that's why you get Rob Ford.
 
2014-01-06 09:03:48 AM  
Clearly, Canada hates speech.
 
2014-01-06 09:09:32 AM  

give me doughnuts: A Council of Experts?
It's worked pretty well for Iran. Heck, the guys they choose always win the elections.


It worked pretty well for Dick Cheney, certainly.
 
2014-01-06 09:37:11 AM  
We legalized the wholesale bribery of Congress here in the US.  Look how that's worked out.
 
2014-01-06 09:44:19 AM  

dookdookdook: Let's just face it: elections aren't the answer.  People are stupid and easily manipulated by malevolent organizations with assloads of cash, and there is no correlation between the skills it takes to win a national popularity contest/beauty pageant and the skills it takes to be a competent leader.

Either:

1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.


Better yet, keep the elections, but do #2 before anyone is allowed to run. So the head of each party is cleared as able to do the job effectively. Then people could vote on what direction they wish the country to go, and not worry about the qualifications of the candidate.
 
2014-01-06 09:48:20 AM  

Professor Duck: dookdookdook: Let's just face it: elections aren't the answer.  People are stupid and easily manipulated by malevolent organizations with assloads of cash, and there is no correlation between the skills it takes to win a national popularity contest/beauty pageant and the skills it takes to be a competent leader.

Either:

1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.

Not #1. To paraphrase from "Life, the Universe, and Everything": Those that want power are the least qualified for the position


I have long held belief that serving on the house of representatives should be a civic duty (like jury duty).  Its a 2 year gig, you only have to serve once, and you get your job back when you are done.
 
2014-01-06 09:55:18 AM  

Jormungandr: do #2 before anyone is allowed to run.


images.starpulse.com
 
2014-01-06 09:55:57 AM  

BMulligan: Jormungandr: do #2 before anyone is allowed to run.

[images.starpulse.com image 445x559]


Don't make it weird, human.

/Kinda shiatty...
 
2014-01-06 10:22:27 AM  

dookdookdook: 1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.


Ive supported doing it this way.

Anyone can enter their name to run for any office they qualify for.

There is a lottery of candidates drawn at random from that pool.

We will draw several names for a primary vote.  Maybe 8 names for congress, 12 for Senate and Governor.


There is a an election 2 weeks later to narrow it down to 2 candidates

and two weeks later there is the general election.

There are publicly funded debates before each election.
 
2014-01-06 10:28:18 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: Funding system making politics meaner and dumber as cash-starved parties beg for money

Yeah, that's the reason politics and "meaner and dumber". fark you, National Post.


In other shocking news, a Conservative rag wants unlimited corporate donations for some reason, I wonder why...
 
2014-01-06 10:45:11 AM  
The National Post completely missing the point of public funded elections? Colour me shocked.
 
2014-01-06 10:52:58 AM  

doglover: Funding system making politics meaner and dumber as cash-starved parties beg for money


Well why are American politics getting meaner and dumber then? We're awash in bucks.


The parties want more money. Just because they aren't cash-strapped doesn't mean that they aren't going to beg for money.
 
2014-01-06 11:14:41 AM  
dookdookdook:

Either:

1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.


What, no union of electors? :)

/obscure, trust me
 
2014-01-06 11:26:31 AM  

Mrbogey: I have no faith that those who seek to restrict campaign support through arbitrary restrictions will see the error of their ways. They never do.


I sometimes have faith that we'll eventually switch to a system of campaign finance that doesn't involve enormous sums of money being thrown around by anonymous billionaires seeking to change the political and business climates to suit their own selfish needs, but then I hear from the sort of uninformed dipsh#ts who aren't billionaires but are too stupid to understand how they're being played. So much for faith.
 
2014-01-06 11:42:29 AM  
It's a veritable coalition of dinguses up there.
 
2014-01-06 11:47:51 AM  

KWess: The Tories did this for the simple reason that their fundraising machine for small donors leaves the other parties in the dust. The Liberals are being slowly strangled (along with the NDP), and hopefully it will be a death-blow to the Bloc, who's single-province campaigns were heavily financed by federalist per-vote subsidies.


And yet, the Liberals are back in the lead in the polls everywhere but Alberta. It ain't all Trudeaumania 2.0 (Justin's been as much a liability as an asset to his father's party). Money isn't everything in politics, and a well-funded ad campaign can't sell a crappy product forever.

If Stephen Harper was counting on restricting fundraising for his opponents to transform Canada into a one-and-a-half party state like Alberta (where small, poorly funded left-wing parties oppose the government ineffectually, while Social Credit or the PCs win super-majorities every time with the support of everyone serious about influence in government or a career in public service), he's not as canny an operator as he's often made out to be.

Harper's been in office seven years. By the time Peter Lougheed was seven years in office he had the Alberta Socreds down to four seats and in obvious irreversible decline. In BC, seven years after defeat by the BC Liberals, the BC Social Credit Party had effectively ceased to exist. If Harper hasn't buried the federal Grits by now, he's not going to.

Harper can't even count on being remembered as the man who buried the Bloc. That was Jack Layton.
 
2014-01-06 12:09:26 PM  
The only problem is the subsidy. Getting rid of that was nothing more than an attempt to prevent the smaller parties from effective campaigns. By all means, ban corp donations, limit individual ones. Don't let big money hijack a campaign. Still, public funding should be available to credible fledgling parties. We are NOT a two party system. Don't let us devolve into one. It's a trap.
 
2014-01-06 12:28:06 PM  

Mike_1962: The only problem is the subsidy. Getting rid of that was nothing more than an attempt to prevent the smaller parties from effective campaigns. By all means, ban corp donations, limit individual ones. Don't let big money hijack a campaign. Still, public funding should be available to credible fledgling parties. We are NOT a two party system. Don't let us devolve into one. It's a trap.


It would help if we changed the Election Act to allow proportional representation or single transferrable votes rather than (first)-past-the-post. There would be more, and better, representation of the electorate, but that is a whole other discussion.

Public funding for campaigns has to be for everyone, not just the big three. I would love to see CPP or Pirate Party campaign signs out there.
 
2014-01-06 12:50:42 PM  
Imagine all that the Koch bros can do to Canada with being able to pump unlimited money into Harpers pockets mouth.

/Canada is on the tipping point where Rightwing policy keeps eroding good shiat.
//Now back to Suntv news(foxnews north) and the hourly 'commentary' from some rightwing farktard spewing about some shiat that he doesn't like and the 99% should just shut up and take it up the ass, so help his Republican Jebus.

///'Commentary' does not violate Canada's truth in newscasting laws, even though it does when its a regularly scheduled program 23 hours a day by the same farktards.
 
2014-01-06 01:36:02 PM  
Introduce the old Greek system of drawing names out of a hat for position. The only way to get out is to buy the country a new trireme. If you can't afford a trireme, gotta lead the country.
 
2014-01-06 01:50:35 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: Mrbogey: I have no faith that those who seek to restrict campaign support through arbitrary restrictions will see the error of their ways. They never do.

I sometimes have faith that we'll eventually switch to a system of campaign finance that doesn't involve enormous sums of money being thrown around by anonymous billionaires seeking to change the political and business climates to suit their own selfish needs, but then I hear from the sort of uninformed dipsh#ts who aren't billionaires but are too stupid to understand how they're being played. So much for faith.


You have a child like understanding oh how the world works and we'd all be better off if you voluntarily stopped taking part in the political process.

I have no faith you'll take my advice as you've made it clear you make bad decisions.
 
2014-01-06 02:09:30 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Mike_1962: The only problem is the subsidy. Getting rid of that was nothing more than an attempt to prevent the smaller parties from effective campaigns. By all means, ban corp donations, limit individual ones. Don't let big money hijack a campaign. Still, public funding should be available to credible fledgling parties. We are NOT a two party system. Don't let us devolve into one. It's a trap.

It would help if we changed the Election Act to allow proportional representation or single transferrable votes rather than (first)-past-the-post. There would be more, and better, representation of the electorate, but that is a whole other discussion.

Public funding for campaigns has to be for everyone, not just the big three. I would love to see CPP or Pirate Party campaign signs out there.


I think the best solution would be to half the number of ridings represented in the House of Commons.  So half the MPs are elected by first-passed-the-post like it is now.  The other half are elected by proportional representation.  So if a province has 30 MPs in the House, it would elect 15 by ridings and 15 by proportional rep.

This would allow smaller parties to gain a foothold on the national stage, but would avoid the chaos of strict proportional representation, like in Italy and Israel.
 
2014-01-06 02:35:28 PM  

dookdookdook: Let's just face it: elections aren't the answer.  People are stupid and easily manipulated by malevolent organizations with assloads of cash, and there is no correlation between the skills it takes to win a national popularity contest/beauty pageant and the skills it takes to be a competent leader.

Either:

1) Draft government leaders via a random drawing from a pool of highly qualified and willing candidates which any (qualified) citizen can enter free of charge.

or

2) Choose leaders through a series of tests of leadership skill culminating in a Kobiyashi Maru-style test that will be broadcast live on television on what was formerly election night.


Better Idea:

justindrawingdead.com
 
2014-01-06 04:12:09 PM  

doglover: Funding system making politics meaner and dumber as cash-starved parties beg for money


Well why are American politics getting meaner and dumber then? We're awash in bucks.


Well, one possibility is that the very high cost of getting elected in the US (millions for a Representative, tens of millions for a Senator, a billion for a President) makes the politics meaner and dumber as much as the relatively cheap and fast Canadian elections.

US politics have to beg also, but there are plenty of corporations to fill their hats if the politicians also sing and dance to their pipers.
 
2014-01-06 04:22:38 PM  
I should make my annual donation to my favourite party soon.

I usually distribute a bit of money to some of the runners-up as well.

During an election I look for vulnerable ridings where a New Democrat, a Liberal or some other party candidate has a chance to beat a Neo-ConTorytionist, and donate a little to shore up the strongest of the weak. So far I have actually stopped short of supporting the Bloc Quebecois, but that is only because there are plenty of other parties to support. If it ever came down to somebody winning Quebec other than the Conservatives, you don't want to know how far I would go. Marxist-Leninist? No problem. Heritage Party? Maybe. Marijuana Party? Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side. Green? Yes, please. Natural Law Party? Way to save the world by bouncing on your fat bottoms, guyz!

Basically my money votes anybody but the Conservatives. I regard the Conservatives as an evil junta of Petroleum Club members and reactionary Big Blue Machine Knobs from Rosedale. They're supported by limitless US cash funneled through branch-plants of the think tanks owned by the Kochs and worse. They are not supported by the Canadian majority, which remains split between the myriad parties I have voted for whenever one fields a winning candidate.
 
2014-01-06 06:49:31 PM  
Canadian campaign finance restrictions are one of the best things this country has ever done... That combined with the non-partisan manner that it uses to manage elections.

Compared to the US, which is a corrupt mess of plutocrat and corporate financing, Canada has it great.
- far lower overall levels of spending on political campaigns.
- reduced influence by big donors (you don't spend Millions on election campaigns without wanting something in return).
- no gerrymandering
- shorter election cycles
- restrictions on political advertising

I would never in a 1000 years want anything approaching the US system, which seems to be purpose built to be corrupt.
 
2014-01-06 09:51:42 PM  

blastoh: We will draw several names for a primary vote.  Maybe 8 names for congress, 12 for Senate and Governor.

There is a an election 2 weeks later to narrow it down to 2 candidates

and two weeks later there is the general election.

There are publicly funded debates before each election.



I don't think you can do the random drawing thing in conjunction with an election.  If people are asked to vote on a list of 8 people they've never heard of, you just get people voting for whoever has the funniest sounding name or the guy with the same skin color as them or the guy who didn't drool on himself during the three sentences he got to say during the debate.  Try to fix that by letting them campaign again and you're back at square one.

Just go straight random IMO.  To counter the risk of accidentally picking a freak, enlarge and restructure government so no one person has the last word on anything.  If for whatever reason there simply must be a "President" or "Prime Minister", make him an almost complete figurehead.
 
2014-01-07 12:04:58 AM  

Mrbogey: Barricaded Gunman: Mrbogey: I have no faith that those who seek to restrict campaign support through arbitrary restrictions will see the error of their ways. They never do.

I sometimes have faith that we'll eventually switch to a system of campaign finance that doesn't involve enormous sums of money being thrown around by anonymous billionaires seeking to change the political and business climates to suit their own selfish needs, but then I hear from the sort of uninformed dipsh#ts who aren't billionaires but are too stupid to understand how they're being played. So much for faith.

You have a child like understanding oh how the world works and we'd all be better off if you voluntarily stopped taking part in the political process.

I have no faith you'll take my advice as you've made it clear you make bad decisions.



"Childlike" is one word, genius.
 
2014-01-07 01:03:43 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: "Childlike" is one word, genius.


Sick burn bro. I erred in my spelling. That means the US dollar is to be replaced by the Loonie and Two Buck Chuck is back on.

Man, now that you say it that way, I think about the only way to keep corporations from corrupting our pure and noble political class is by giving them more power and control over the funding process. Once we keep the funding mechanism for their campaigns entirely public we'll see an end to corruption. If only folks had thought of this sooner we'd not have had Meg Whitman win the California governor's race, that's for sure!
 
2014-01-07 06:46:30 AM  

vygramul: Massa Damnata: Ok, raise the limit but have all the money go to a common pool that gets divided evenly between the parties.

That system will all but eliminate donations. Who wants to donate $100 knowing their polar opposites get half?



I guess I'd rather people vote to get their party in, than pay to get their party in.
 
2014-01-07 11:56:27 AM  

Mrbogey: Barricaded Gunman: "Childlike" is one word, genius.

Sick burn bro. I erred in my spelling. That means the US dollar is to be replaced by the Loonie and Two Buck Chuck is back on.

Man, now that you say it that way, I think about the only way to keep corporations from corrupting our pure and noble political class is by giving them more power and control over the funding process. Once we keep the funding mechanism for their campaigns entirely public we'll see an end to corruption. If only folks had thought of this sooner we'd not have had Meg Whitman win the California governor's race, that's for sure!



I said that financed elections allow the wealthy to skew our laws and government to their own benefit, and they do so by manipulating stupid people into voting against their own interests.

You responded with an ad hominem criticism of me suggesting that you're smarter than I am, so I (somewhat childishly, I admit) pointed out your spelling error which seems to indicate that you're not quite as clever as you seem to think.

You responded to that with more hand-waving and hysteria, yet another vitriol-soaked post devoid of actual content. Like most people eager to portray themselves as "too smart for the room," you tend to not really say very much of substance, but focus on snide remarks you've cribbed from others.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report