We do not live in a democracy

We do not live in a democracy, rather we live under a benign oligarchic dictatorship, with show case elections every 3 to 5 years. In BC, we have a whole level of government (the GVRD or now Metro...) that the taxpayer or citizen has absolutely no say or rights at all!

Big business love this and handsomely pay into it because it keeps the the profits increasing for them. (Notice how big business did not want BC's auditor general to look at RAV, SkyTrain, and/or TransLink) Big business makes a fortune out of big government projects and the more expensive a project, the more money big business makes.

We get fools elected, because business gives more money for them to be elected. It is much better having a ;'fool' as a Minister of Transportation, than an intelligent person.

Municipal governments are worse, where for a few 'tax deductible' gifts to the muni, the person who donates the money, becomes defacto the mayor and council!

No wonder third world countries laugh at us, as we are no better than they.

Let us remember that it was

Let us remember that it was Harper's National Citizens Coalition under its previous head, David Somerville, who took the government to court, fighting against any restrictions on donations, and mandatory union dues, so Stevie is not going to do anything to stop them.

When we look at the list of donors to the Campbell gang, we can see where their "sell BC off" plan and campaign originates.

I often wonder how long it will take for economists and PR hacks to suggest that parliamentary seats should be up for bids, so that the "right people" get into government to make us "more competitive".

But then isn't this what the SPP is all about ?

Ed Deak.

A couple of solutions...

Want to end 'corruption'? (or at least stem the rising tide of it)

First, get back on the GOLD STANDARD, eliminate the ability to creat 'fiat' currency - which is a major reason why the banker crowd is so connected to those 'governments' that have the permission to make more money *OUT OF THIN AIR!*

Second, at least in Canada; stop putting the 'party affiliation' on the ballots! Stop allowing anyone to advertise under the party banners, because the practice is 'dumbing down' our awareness of the political processes and permitting the greater mass of voters to simply apply thier votes to the 'party' rather than learn anything about the candidate.
The process of putting that candidate's name on the ballot (a truly corrupt process from the various parties), and the need to know about each and every candidate are not served by our useless 'big media'. By returning to the candidate name only model the need to learn about each name will be 'rediscovered'; there will be no solution to the amount of advertising that sacks of $$$ can buy, the lack of a simple "party name" attached to each candidate will make that sack of $$$ less effective though.

or NOT

All that would happen is that no-one would know for sure where any candidate stands on every issue.

On the other hand if we voted only for the party, and let them decide who actually gets to sit in the chambers, we would know that every issue would at least be decided on a party basis.

If we disagree with a party policy, the solution is to become active within that party!

Yes, there would need to be more parties to reflect different thinking, and voters would have to take the time to figure which party represent their point of view.

What we have is a mess, where candidates in any party have diffferent points of view and seem to feel that their own opinion should override the philosophy of the party as such.

It's a disease

It's across the board and it's a disease - lack of accountability.

I don't doubt that, as with the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors it fetes, these politicians and those with whom they contract, may also sup together.

And some may ask, "What's that happening under the table?" Fondling? Surely not? But it's sure as hell something.

Read it and weep:

http://policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&call=1647&pa=CF69F1AA&do=Article

Shiny Metal?

This is an interesting concept, he who has the most shiny metal wins………that’ll stop corruption in politics for sure.

welcome to China, cf 1950

On the other hand if we voted only for the party, and let them decide who actually gets to sit in the chambers, we would know that every issue would at least be decided on a party basis.

writes alive.

If there were only candidate names on the ballot, instead of both name and party, then the electorate (thee and me) would need to educate ourselves about these people whom are to 'do our business' in Ottawa on behalf of 'the canada'.

As it is, I agree that the amount of education information is limited; but this is a function of a party-system - there is no need to actually get good candidates if you have a charismatic leader and 12 or so good cabinet members that can generate great sound-bites. Perform a TKO on them and take away the party banners, cut them out from that way to squirrel away the money and make each and every MP candidate what they are supposed to be = a representative of the people and not just a 'fencepost with hair'!

If the Canadian electoral system switched to a party only voting system, I would make my vote for the last time. The next day I would foment my own revolution with the intent to see that polling station demolished to the foundation.

There are millions of people in Canada, do you really think that there are only 5 or so 'schools of thought'; represented as the parties among so many?!?!?!

Better Idea.

Prohibit all corporate and union donations for election purposes. All donations must be personal and with a limit of say 200 dollars max.. Except for the representatives because now that our representatives are all making six figure salaries let them pay their own election expenses. If after four years they can't save enough (considering it is a partial tax credit) then they shouldn't be in the job.

You eliminate the "buying of politicians"

I personally feel that

I personally feel that contributions should be required to be anonymous and no longer tax deductible. I guess we'd see then just how "altruistic" big business really is.

Concurrently, I guess we'd also see just how how altruistic and devoted politicians are. I can think of a few who would probably be gone tomorrow and this province would sure as hell be the better for it.

The role of government...?

It seems that the role of government at the provincial and federal levels in Canada is really no different from that in the USA. It is about creating business opportunities for the big corporations and wealth families. We just run our political system differently than they do south of the border. The results are basically the same. Also, we don't have a politically-connected 'religious right', but some of the new 'Tories' are pretty close.

It's a sad world our children will inherit. The old saying seems appropos: Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit what the strong don't want.

So what's new, then ?

Mr Conacher holds out the hope that if we can tweak our electoral system, we will gain control over our politicians. In my view, that won’t make a shred of difference, for surprisingly few people recognise that our times are consistent with what has happened to countless societies before us, when power elites finally take over full control, openly manipulating the culture and its resources purely for their own ends.

I think that most people have come to accept the present system as the best possible, just as people of a few hundred years ago automatically accepted the Divine Right of Kings.

Which party/politician is offering real change, and how many voters would embrace such an offer anyway ?

Thus, real change will not occur until a paradigm shift in thinking happens, and I see no signs of such being in the works.

FIAT CURRENCY, a short history

from TOILET PAPER MONEY:

Rome — The Denarius

Although Rome didn’t actually have paper money, it provided one of the first examples of true debasement of a currency. The denarius, Rome’s coinage of the time, was, essentially, pure silver at the beginning of the first century A.D. By A.D. 54, Emperor Nero had entered the scene, and the denarius was approximately 94% silver. By around A.D.100, the denarius’ silver content was down to 85%.

Emperors that succeeded Nero liked the idea of devaluing their currency in order to pay the bills and increase their own wealth. By 218, the denarius was down to 43% silver, and in 244, Emperor Philip the Arab had the silver content dropped to 0.05%. Around the time of Rome’s collapse, the denarius contained only 0.02% silver and virtually nobody accepted it as a medium of exchange or a store of value.

In short, so long as we allow the currency to 'float' in value it will only do one thing -> SINK. It is with those whom control the levers of that currency that one must look to solve the devaluation, that is why the corrupt want control of the money presses...they do not want us (thee and me) to have financial control over our lives, which is what we would have if we could count on our savings being worth anything in 10 or 20 years time.

For the demons, NoLeftNutter, take a look at:
Toilet Paper Money
SIDEBAR
The Failure of Fixed Rates
Fiat Money Systems

What makes GOLD worth it?

NoLeftNutter asks:

This is a straight forward question, and one worth investigating further, as it pertains to this discussion:

Mayer Amschel Bauer, who founded the Rothschild family had said,
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws"

His son, Amschel Mayer Rothschild said,
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."

Another son, Nathan Mayer Rothschild bragged,
"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."

With a GOLD STANDARD as the money supply, no one individual or even group of focused individuals can possibly control it all.

Moreover any attempt at devaluation will result in only one thing, a run on that bank and the wiping out of the reputation and therefore the profits of that banker whom tries to devalue.

This would make the 'printing of money' worthless and therefore take away the incentives that are there in spades right now for the creation of private wealth within the controls over the 'fiat' currencies.

There has never been a successful fiat currency.

Not one.

The failure of every fiat currency in history has been due to miscreant politicians, aided and abetted by clever bankers, creating so much money and credit to finance their various agendas, including enriching themselves and their cronies, that the money in circulation eventually becomes worthless and collapses under its own weight. This idea is best summed up by the phrase "confiscation by inflation": the deft transference of naive citizens' savings to slick operators who understand how to manipulate the financial system.

The reason we have corruption is that there are BIG PROFITS to be made from controlling the printing of money! Take that away and the reason for much of the corruption goes with it!

Check out:
The Gold Treatment

Eliminate Donations

The winning of elections should not be tied to the amount of money a party can raise. This is a recipe for corruption. Winning elections should be based on which party's platform matches the views of the greatest number of voters.

So how about eliminating donations altogether?

Elections Canada could fund the election on the basis of giving each eligible party an equal opportunity to present its platform through various media.

That's very general and needs more detail, but it's a more honest basis for achieving true democracy than our current sham.