Comments on: All MMP Candidates To Be Nominated Democratically

By: Wilf Day

Wilf Day — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:05:30 +0000

rintrah suggests “They could have a mostly democratic list and then shuffle the order somewhat.” Since the ranked order cannot be changed after it is filed (well before the nomination deadline and the election itself), I will assume this question means “Could parties hold regional nominations in nine or whatever regions, and then shuffle the order somewhat” when folding the lists into one. Yes, if necessary they could, and likely should. They might want to ensure one or two francophones in high list positions, or one aboriginal, or whoever. I can’t see anyone having a problem with that.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 22:13:02 +0000

To thos folks who actually believe that the current parties WILL democratically elect MMP list candidates one has to ask where have you been living? The current parties cannot, or will not, actually commit to doing that right now. So why would they behave any different with MMP? The simple answer is: They will not. The whole thing is WRONG! No person should sit in the house ANYWHERE unless they are elected by people free to choose and NEVER by political party appointment. Aside from that, Anyone who votes for MMP is actually voting for a greatly increased cost of government. It is much too bloated now to be efficient. There is little that can be said to be right about this whole deal: VOTE NO!

By: macadavy

macadavy — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:27:42 +0000

“So let’s cut the crap about appointed candidates, party hacks, etc”
For that we have our federal Senate, n’est pas?

By: Devin

Devin — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:21:57 +0000

In response to rintrah,

As a member of a political party, I can tell you that there is a very strong commitment among the grassroots members of parties to having candidates selected democratically. In rare circumstances, parties will interfere with local selection and when this happens, there is usually considerable pushback from the party membership. I would imagine that if a provincial party in Ontario committed to selecting list candidates democratically and then reversed their position, there would be complete insurrection within the party. Denying party members the ability to select their candidates on a province-wide basis (even just the list candidates) would likely be the end of that party as people would rescind memberships en masse.

By: Erol Hosdil

Erol Hosdil — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:14:11 +0000

No there is no law that says parties have to elected candidates democratically. Perhaps that is why so many federal candidates were elected undemocratically back in the 1990s.

By: democraticspace

democraticspace — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:40:49 +0000

rintrah — what is holding the parties now? there is no “binding law” that says parties have to democratically nominate local candidates, is there?

By: rintrah

rintrah — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:21:44 +0000

Just because I am curious, what is holding the parties to their promises? They could have a mostly democratic list and then shuffle the order somewhat. Until it is a binding law I have my doubts about politicians and their promises.

By: Greg (not of democraticspace)

Greg (not of democraticspace) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:16:18 +0000

Gee Nick, if the no side didn’t base its entire campaign on scaring the voters to death with doomsday scenarios, maybe reform wouldn’t be in doubt.

By: Scott Tribe

Scott Tribe — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:11:33 +0000

Gee Nick.. that means in Ontario a grand total of 11 members would be elected that way.

I wouldn’t vote for it as an electoral reform supporter because of it being nothing more then a token response.

By: Scott Tribe

Scott Tribe — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:08:33 +0000

Josh: A link to the Liberal Party of Ontario announcement Your link to the other parties committing the same thing.