2008 Presidential Candidates

[AndyC]

A third party would need more than a couple issues to drive it. That type of party wouldn't know what to do with the Presidency even if they obtained it.

That actually happened in the 1990 Ontario provincial election. The New Democratic Party (our third major party) typically gets a small share of seats, and generally represents the left in our federal and provincial governments. They're a long-established party, but they have a lot in common with the fringe parties, in that they seldom win enough to have any real influence. Usually, the most they've been able to do is hold the balance of power by either supporting somebody else's minority government or forming a coalition with the runner-up.

I should explain for the benefit of Americans. We in Canada, as in other Commonwealth countries, use a parliamentary system. We don't elect our leader independently of our representatives. We basically have parliament at the federal level and legislatures in each province that all work more or less the same. Each riding (electoral district) elects a member. Parliament has a seat for each riding. The party winning the most seats forms the government, with their leader becoming prime minister (or premier in a provincial election). The heads of the various ministries are then appointed from the elected members of the winning party. The party in second place becomes the official opposition, and appoints a "critic" for each of those ministries.

However, when a party fails to secure a majority of seats, and simply has more than anyone else, other things can happen. In order to pass legislation, the party in power needs the support of one or more of the other parties. That's when a little party like the NDP can hold the balance of power, as they've done a number of times. Minority governments are fairly cautious, because they are vulnerable to no-confidence votes. Basically, if certain important pieces of legislation, such as a budget, fail to pass, a new election is called. That happened to our federal government a couple of years ago. Federally, there is actually a fourth party with considerable influence, the Bloc Quebecois, who do extremely well in Quebec, but don't run candidates anywhere else. But that's really beside the point.

A party failing to secure a solid majority might also never get the chance to form a government if two or more of the other parties agree to form a coalition to secure a majority. They basically combine their seats and form a government. The NDP has also done this. I remember them joining with the Liberals in the late 80s to take the Ontario government from the Conservatives.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the Ontario NDP, most idealistic of parties, chock full of academics and perhaps a little short of business people, went into the 1990 with the usual aim of getting the message out and winning as many seats as possible. Their best outcome would be a minority government that they could influence. However, voters were p**sed off with the current Liberal government, and they were still p**sed off with the previous Conservative government. So, a lot of voters said "To hell with it, I'm voting NDP."

I don't know if all of those voters actually wanted to try the NDP, or if maybe some of them thought of it as a protest vote with the chances rather slim that the New Democrats would actually win. They did, with a solid majority. Nobody was more surprised than the NDP themselves, who never expected that they'd actually have to form a government, and might not necessarily have had the best-equipped people in the legislature for the job.

Five years later, with everything in a mess, the voters booted the NDP out in favour of an ultra-conservative Conservative government that took things in the opposite direction entirely.

The NDP does get elected in other provinces, but that was the only time the Ontario NDP got the chance. They've never won federally, and I doubt they ever will. Most people consider their strength to be pestering the governing party, not actually governing.

[Scott]

Parliament has a seat for each riding. The party winning the most seats forms the government, with their leader becoming prime minister (or premier in a provincial election). The heads of the various ministries are then appointed from the elected members of the winning party.

This is interesting. You would think that this is the way it should be. I mean if your going to have the leadership of a nation you should have the rest of the supporting spots to achieve your goals. Having your party in and then you put the parties chosen leader in after the election.

What do you think CheezeFlixz and IndianaSmith? Is parliamentary government better?

This could happen in Parlimentary rule also, but sometimes I wonder if the Democrats and Republicans are just toying with us. With them actually being on the same side. I mean, with the parties completely shifting over the years. It seems they must be taking turns being "good guy" and "bad guy" when really both are inpart in cahoots to a degree to perhaps offset or comply with some international policy. Their constituents never figuring out what is actually going on. With no real changes happening. When a new party gets into office they just blame the other party, the press promotes it, and the world believes it. When in reality they are both really going in the same direction. Dangling minor issues before us as if they are major issues. A grand game for the rich elite. Strickly for entertainment? Or something else? Are the elections choreographed to suit corperate needs? Do we as people need to know? Is it better if done subversively by the rich elite or do you prefer it all be done overtly by the people? Is the direction of a nation better done behind closed doors? Is Democracy just another way to manipulate people? To pacify people into making them feel free? Can we ever really know what is happening?

[CheezeFlixz]

What do you think CheezeFlixz and IndianaSmith? Is parliamentary government better?

Short answer ... no.

Disclaimer I'm not expert on Parliamentary Government so what I state is not all inclusive, as some parliaments do not subscribe to all these designs.

So why not, because the controlling party of parliament elects the prime minister and that means that if the Democrats were a parliamentary party they'd elect the prime minister (President) which means someone like Hillary, Nancy Palosi, Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy would be in charge of the nation ... and that scares the crap out of me. And should you too. You place to much power in the executive branch and have no true separation of power. No checks and balances.

The public needs to elect the leader of the nation, not the "parliament".

There is also no independent body to oppose and veto legislation and you'd have government run crazy in this power hungry society. The democratic party would have this a socialist country in nothing flat. Astronomical taxes and widespread entitlements in a wealth redistribution society, undermining true capitalism and self reliance of success or failure.

Parliamentary Governments will work in some country as many countries have adopted it in either a single or dual party system, I just personally don't think it would work in the US.

I could be wrong it's been known to happen.

the press promotes it, and the world believes it

Primary reason you do your own research, never expect to get the truth from the news. In today's world the most press has an agenda and they are going to slant in favor of their political position. Objective reporting went the way of the Dodo bird.

Strickly for entertainment? Or something else? Are the elections choreographed to suit corperate needs? Do we as people need to know? Is it better if done subversively by the rich elite or do you prefer it all be done overtly by the people? Is the direction of a nation better done behind closed doors? Is Democracy just another way to manipulate people? To pacify people into making them feel free? Can we ever really know what is happening?

These questions are why so many have apathy and these question are EXACTLY why they shouldn't. Hold you elected officials accountable, ask them question let them know you are watching and if they fail you at every turn then be passionate about getting them out of office at the next election.

They work for you, you don't work for them. Take your government back.

[Scott]

Wow, another solid stance by CheezeFlixz. 

Especially the last comment.

[RCMerchant]

The Press in this country is a joke. They go for ratings...= entertainment...not important news ..= dull and boring to the MTV, You Tube generation.

[CheezeFlixz]

The Press in this country is a joke. They go for ratings...= entertainment...not important news ..= dull and boring to the MTV, You Tube generation.

A lot of truth to that RC the folks today have painfully short attention spans and can't focus for more than about 3 minutes tops. We live in a world of sound bites and talking points with no real substance. It's your job to gather you information from all the sources you can find and DO NOT rely on the politicians to do the right thing. When you get that information you pass it on you tell others and hopefully one or two of them will tell others and so on, and if enough people tell enough people that tell enough people the clowns in Washington listen much to their chagrin at times.
The thing is people don't want to get involved unless they can connect the dot to how it will effect their life and it all will effect their life in some way, if not directly, indirectly, but unless people see that, they don't care.
Often it's just to much work for them to do, it's easier to set back and let someone else do it and then roll the dice that it's the right thing.   
 

[AndyC]

Just to clarify, the winning party in a parliamentary system chooses their leader in advance of an election. The position of party leader is never vacant, or at least never vacant for long. If a party needs to choose a new leader, and an election is expected (terms aren't necessarily fixed, but I won't go into that) they aim to have their new leader well established before an election. The only time a party would choose the prime minister between elections is if the current PM were to give up the party leadership (or die, but that's never happened). Party leaders usually only resign right after elections if they lose, or in the case of a PM, close to the end of a term. The new PM is expected to call an election as soon as possible to secure a clear mandate from the public. Since PMs tend to resign after they've, shall we say, overstayed their welcome, the new guy isn't usually in for long.

The party leader is an important part of the campaign, since we have to look not just at the party platform and our local candidate, but also the person who would be prime minister if that party won.

That is where I think the system has problems. Most people vote as though they were simply voting for prime minister. They look at the party and the leader and decide if that's the government they want. The local candidate, unless he's a cabinet minister or likely to become one, isn't really important to most voters. I suspect this is partly due to Canadian voters seeing so much of the American system, with a leader who is elected directly.

Personally, I vote for the person I think would make the best representative, but that part of it usually gets lost in a campaign that's all about parties and leaders. This is where I think there might be something valuable in the American practice of electing your local representatives separately from your leader.

[Scott]

AndyC, I picked up THE TIPPING POINT at Borders. It's like a busines marketing book which is right up my alley of reading subjects. Thanks.

They didn't have THE EUROPEAN DREAM by Rifkin. I'll order.

There were many books on Jefferson and Hamilton, so I'll have to investigate a little further.