Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

The None of the Above Party currently has candidates for 40% of Ontario's ridings and will likely have even more as the Ontario election approaches.

 

Here is their website:

https://nota.ca/

 

The party's main goal is to improve democracy.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Personally, I think this party is wonderful and unless there is a better small party in my riding, I will vote for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The party's main goal is to improve democracy.

From their website...

Quote

...if just two percent of people in the 2018 election voted for NOTA Party candidates, we would qualify for some basic subsidies that would allow us to grow...

I get the motivation but lets be honest, their main goal is more power and once they get it their urge for more will grow too.

What we really need to govern ourselves with are politicians who commit to wiring themselves to the internet during their term in office.  I say we pay them lots for their loss of privacy - their loss of secrecy  (like cancer to democracy) will be well worth it.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sheesh... that wiring themselves to the internet idea again :(

Let me know when you come up an idea that will actually do the trick.

You've never actually had to submit to real government surveillance before have you?

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eyeball said:

What we really need to govern ourselves with are politicians who commit to wiring themselves to the internet during their term in office.  I say we pay them lots for their loss of privacy - their loss of secrecy  (like cancer to democracy) will be well worth it.

First, it can be hacked.

Second, the idea that you can function without secrecy is naive. That would entail breeching the privacy of constituents. Secrecy is not a cancer, it is the WD40 that smooths the function of government.

Third, most MP's endure a major financial hit when in office. When you go out and apply for a job, do you have to spend $40,000 of your own money just to get on the short list of applicants? When you are invited to the party's student wing for drinks, who do you think buys the first round? Of course, they have a 50-50 raffle going on and you are obligated to kick in $100 bucks, but if you win, are you going to keep the winning for yourself? Where are you going to live in Ottawa, or Toronto? Are you going to take your kids out of school to move with you, giving up your family home in Ducktooth, Ontario, your base in the riding? Is your spouse going to give up her/his job to move with you, especially since you had to give up your $750,000 law practice a year before the election in order to seek the nomination? Keep in mind, after you leave office in ten years, you will be too old to get hired back into your old job and instead of a pension, you are $50,000 in debt.

So, how much do you think you are going to pay for an MP(P) to have them give up their privacy and the ability to do their job, just to satisfy your voyeurism?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, how much do you think you are going to pay for an MP(P) to have them give up their privacy and the ability to do their job, just to satisfy your voyeurism?

Whatever it takes to upset your sycophancy, which won't take very much at all apparently.

And please note I said secrecy not privacy. Huge difference.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention, for all that, your bosses (the voters) call you a liar and a thief, until their tax refund goes missing. Then they are happy when you fix it, but they still call you a liar and a thief. Most politicians take this on out of a sense of serving their country. It sure isn't for the money or the thanks they get. They are a lot like our military in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And please note I said secrecy not privacy. Huge difference.

Noted. Just out of curiosity, you seem to have concerns over secrecy in government. Could you elaborate as to what concerns you? If you were an MP, would you be okay with that? This is not a criticism, merely seeking clarification. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people suggest that the turnout of election should also determine how many seats in parliament are filled. For example, as we in Finland have a parliament of 200 members then if turnout is 60% only 120 seats would be filled.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-03-31 at 9:48 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Noted. Just out of curiosity, you seem to have concerns over secrecy in government. Could you elaborate as to what concerns you? If you were an MP, would you be okay with that? This is not a criticism, merely seeking clarification. 

I'm concerned about the avoidance of transparency.   

 

On 2018-03-31 at 8:22 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

First, it can be hacked.

Then use human observers. 

Quote

Second, the idea that you can function without secrecy is naive. That would entail breeching the privacy of constituents. Secrecy is not a cancer, it is the WD40 that smooths the function of government.

Conflating official secrecy with constituent privacy is disingenuous at best - equating lobbyists with constituents is only a little more blatant.   The government is preoccupied with appearing smooth and functional and you're pumping the wardrobe of a stark naked king.   

Quote

 

Third, most MP's endure a major financial hit when in office. When you go out and apply for a job, do you have to spend $40,000 of your own money just to get on the short list of applicants? When you are invited to the party's student wing for drinks, who do you think buys the first round? Of course, they have a 50-50 raffle going on and you are obligated to kick in $100 bucks, but if you win, are you going to keep the winning for yourself? Where are you going to live in Ottawa, or Toronto? Are you going to take your kids out of school to move with you, giving up your family home in Ducktooth, Ontario, your base in the riding? Is your spouse going to give up her/his job to move with you, especially since you had to give up your $750,000 law practice a year before the election in order to seek the nomination? Keep in mind, after you leave office in ten years, you will be too old to get hired back into your old job and instead of a pension, you are $50,000 in debt.

So, how much do you think you are going to pay for an MP(P) to have them give up their privacy and the ability to do their job, just to satisfy your voyeurism?

 

More than a CEO makes....you know the drill...to attract talent.

Of course we could also forgo electing political parties and select representatives the way we select jurists.  Let the parties battle it out all they want in the streets for people's hearts and minds but just don't give them any power.  Of course I realize the establishment won't make it happen which is why we'll require a party that designs itself for total public awareness and switching to a new form of representation.  What we have now is completely unsustainable and in a world of dwindling resources will soon resemble the politics of a cage full of stressed out rats.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

My riding will be a contest between Libs and the NDP. We have a NOTA candidate, however, and as a protest vote I'm thinking of giving him my support. In particular, I like the party's appeal to direct democracy. I can't see the difference between the Libs and NDP except that the Libs have been in power too long and made too many mistakes while ignoring the plight of consumers. But an NDP government would probably usher in more giveaways the province simply can't afford. And Ford? Well, I think he's just too big a risk. Most I talk to suspect that if elected he'll ditch the folksy appeal and plunk his support behind developers, landlords and the broader rentier class. His secretive campaign isn't doing him much good. He needs to go on the record about serious issues that significantly impact Ontarians other than hydro prices, like outrageous housing costs and poor health care. I would rather the PCs have chosen Elliot or Mulroney, either of whom might have been more forthright and appealing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2018 at 12:12 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

A cheaper idea is to get out and campaign for someone you trust and is competent. If you don't campaign, don't complain.

Ben there done that. Everyone I've known who's run for office and won was different after they were indoctrinated at whatever retreat it is where municipal/provincial/federal bureaucrats and other civil servants kind of explain and walk them thru the legalities of being in power and how much they actually can't do. They all seem to just come back and tell us the same thing. Somewhere along that route the elected must have Goa'ulds inserted and they're never the same again.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...