Sorry, I think a fellow named John Allen West, is already slated for their leader. Hawthorn would never make it last on a ballot. BTW John West was standing outside the Citizen Assembly with a sandwich board sign for the few sessions I attended and was pretty fanatical about this idea. I think he flipped out more than Carr when his idea wasn't chosen.

http://fairvote.org/pr/global/vancoversunreport.htm

it might provide a viable alternative to voting for the ndp too.

The only thing I would ever run for is the bus. Thanks to Daniel Grice for the link to John Allen West's failed effort to include what the ballot community refers to as a NOTA (None Of The Above) option. Voters in Nevada have been able to hurt the feelings of candidates since 1976.

hmmm... I wonder... in a strictly PR system, could we see a None of the Above party get a seat? what do you need, technically? .33% of the popular vote? what's 150000 votes? would that be .33% of the vote? guess it depends on voter turnout. Does this point to the absurdity of a PR system? or does it point to the absurdity of my questions?

If we hate political parties so much (that's why the CA picked STV or so we are told), why don't we just ban political parties, or atleast exclude party names on the ballot? Obviously, political parties are evil, aren't they?

Vhris H:

Nice one! Wish I'd thought of that in response to the STV-advocates who can see nothing in PR besides their preferred system.

Chris.

I think many of the STV advocates would agree with you on that. Heck many of us would rather have all decisions made by a CA/Jury style body with no politicians on board, circa Athens 4th c. Its actually humerous, but after a long battle, (which alas I graduated before I could see to fruitition, our earlier vote was narrowly defeated) UBC's Alma Mater made the same decision to ban political parties/slates.

http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/article.shtml?/20020125/newsSlates.htmlf

Although some of us (well at least me) would prefer to see STV + no parties, as to ensure that vote splitting does not hinder one candidate over another, and also allows more than the greatest common denominator candidate. However, at least removing party names would bring back the idea of constituent representation, and rid us of the all to power marketing mechanism of parties.

With regard to "wack job" Ron Grey of the Christian Heritage Party and the reference to homosexuality as a treatable mental illness, I suggest people who are genuinely open minded on this issue read Satinover's Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth for an interesting account of how homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. Prior to that time there were over 1200 articles published in respected journals relating to treatment of same sex attraction. The DSM-IV still has a category called "persistent and marked distress over one's orientation" (302.9(3).

dangrice, "no political parties" may be an ideal (I'm not sure), but can hardly ever be more than a concept in theory only.

Political parties do exist. When my friend(s) and I gather to promote a set of values we all agree on, we have the essence of a political party. Certainly, once we recruit other like-minded individuals and then advocate for our cause to the point that one of us is chosen to run for political office, WE HAVE A POLITICAL PARTY. How can you hope to stop this? Why would you?

The problem was never with political parties, but political parties' names on the ballot.

The dilemma for us at UBC came down to equality in regards to freedom of Speech. For parties inherantly gave an advantage in forms of spending and marketing ability, in such a way that the whole easily outnumbered the sum of its parts.

Lets say you are an independent candidate running for MP. You can only spend 30,000 dollars or so on your campaign. Your opponent who is running for a political party with its name on the ballot has a theoretical spending limit of 18 million dollars. Add to this media coverage for the parties as well as having a party leader in a national debate, which would be worth millions more in exposure on its own. As an independent or even a smaller party who did not choose to run a national slate, you are off the bat limited in that you have less freedom of speech that those by which a party name occurred. You have spending limits while your opponents have purely superficial ones. This creates a systematic disadvantage, and should theoretically be the principles of equal opportunity that our society holds so well.

Does not joining a political party give you any less validity for representing constituents? What if your views diverge from the mainstream, should you not have equal opportunity to express them?

I suggest open-minded readers follow Dolphin's suggestion and check out Jeffrey Satinover's Web site to decide for themselves: Hate-filled? Or wack job? As for the Bible-code cracking thing, I'm kinda suspicious about the first five letters in the family name. Typo? Or something more sinister?

Re: Jeffrey Satinover

With Dr. Laura Schlessinger endorsing his book I don't see how anyone can go wrong!

It's even being embraced by scientists like Stanton Jones, Ph.D., Chairman of the Department of Psychology and Provost, Wheaton College and Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D..

Both of those scientists accreditations are impeccable since Stanton's Wheaton College is a private interdenominational christian college established in Wheaton Illinois in 1860. Oh wait. That kind of makes it look like Stanton's not really a scientist but a theologist. Joe's accreditation must be better since he's the "President" of the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. Talk about preaching to the choir with that "scientific endorsement".

I suggest people who are genuinely open minded on this issue read Satinover's Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth for an interesting account of how homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973.

I suggest people who are genuinely intelligent and who have at least an ounce of intellectual integrity check out these web sites:

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/TVC_APA.html

http://jgford.homestead.com/

http://www.truluck.com/html/sexual_orientation_and_the__ex.html

The "politics of truth" from the likes of a quack who makes a living perpetuating the ex-gay fraud to brainwashed religionists? Hah!

2006 2 6
Dear Dan Grice,

"Non-partisan" elections are a pseudo-improvement

"Non-partisan" elections are widely acknowledged among political scientists to favour the candidates from richer parties (the parties they would be in if they had to reveal their true colours). That's why many town councils look so much like their chambers of commerce.
I demand to know a candidate's party, if any, to aid my evaluation of them. Like term limits, "non-partisan" elections are a pseudo-improvement on which many "reformers" waste their efforts.
You claim a party candidate has more money spent on their campaign. But the party's money, in ideal theory, would be the same per candidate if it's divided by the number of ridings in which it is being spent.
For more, the following is from my 2004 submission to the CAER (# 1390):

Part 4.1.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH "NON-PARTISAN" ELECTIONS.

The only way to elect considerably more "independent" candidates is to ban nominating groups from being stated on the ballot. That's because people usually prefer party candidates, even in an otherwise fair election. . . .
So our goal should not be to force independents "down the throats" of the voters, but to give those candidates an equal, fair chance. . . .
Looking at pseudo-democratic elections (virtually all of North America), some observers think the problem is the existence of political parties. . . .

RIGHT TO UNITE

Some parties will cheat or rig elections or use unfair or disgusting tactics. Some will be internally undemocratic. Some will be dictatorial, even criminal. The problem, however, is not that people choose to work together in a groups, but that the system allows or even encourages those negative practises.
However, as importantly, to inhibit political parties is a violation of the principle of freedom of association. To try to keep the public from learning a candidate's political affiliation is a violation of the principles of freedom of communication and of having an informed electorate.

WHO CAN TELL WHAT A "NON-PARTISAN" CANDIDATE STANDS FOR?

Most troubling, where so-called non-partisan elections are held, the public is generally even more in the dark about where the candidates stand. . . .
Some naively believe that . . . an independent candidate . . . will surely serve in their position without bias or a political "slant" and without the influence of "politics", parties, interest groups, bribes, etc.
. . . "non-partisan" candidates . . . all tend to sound about the same, even more so than in a partisan election. . . . Their "agendas" are even more hidden.
. . . Attractive pictures of the candidate with their family is often what passes for campaigning. . . .

ADVANTAGE TO THE RICHER CANDIDATES (AGAIN!)

Thus the financially better-off candidates have even more advantage than they do in partisan elections. . . .

END THE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO PARTIES INSTEAD OF ELIMINATING THEM

For instance, if there is also a ranked ballot . . ., independent candidates won't have to fight the perception that it's hopeless to vote for them because they're not backed by a party or perceived to be one of the most popular candidates. . . .
But the same interests which dominate in a partisan system also dominate in a "non-partisan" system, they simply do so more covertly. So the only way to cure that is reforms such as pro-rep. . . .

Korky Day,

By the way, to get the $1.75 per vote, you need to poll over 2% nationally. That's about 250,000, give or take.

Good point. The free money comes by polling 2 per cent nationally, or 5 per cent in the ridings which the party contests.

Here's Elections Canada: "Starting in 2004, for the first time all qualifying registered political parties began receiving quarterly allowances from public funds. To be eligible, a party must have received at least 2% of the valid votes cast in the general election preceding the quarter, or at least 5% of the valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the party endorsed a candidate. The allowance amounts to $1.75 per vote annually, and is adjusted for inflation."

I think the None-of-the-Above Party could comfortably take 1,000 votes in plenty of constituencies.

Looks like I already got myself a raise.

The "None of the Above Party" has a potential winner in the Saanich-Gulf Islands. His name is always last in the phone book. EVERYBODY is above him. His attitude and life philosophy lends itself to the concept of a "None of the Above Party". The name? Zybergold.

Cheers!

You only get the $1.75 per vote if you cross the threshold of 2% of votes cast.