Pepper Spray IS a vegetable!

[De-Legro]

I trust that most politicians in Canada probably think they are doing the greater good. And that the vast majority of political candidates are convinced of it.

However, in systems like the states where there is no electoral spending cap, then my trust in said politicians lowers quite considerably. It can easily become more important to satisfy the people funding your campaign than the people you are supposed to work for. After all, even if you screw them over, you can still get them to vote for you with good ads. Or at least not make them vote for the other.

I also don't buy your notion that all solutions must be publicly loathed by all parties in order to only be reached by hidden compromise. Fixing a few root problems by causing a wide array of other ones could have been better delt by simply being gutsy and doing the right thing to begin with. Many governments get themselves elected by promising measures that are generally considered unpopular, after all. Nor do I, from the little I know, consider that "compromise" to be a good deal: even many of US' richest were saying: "tax us more!", and there's none of that. It's trading one half of the solution for the other half, doesn't bring anyone anywhere.

As for bankruptcy being bad... As any economic event, nothing bad for everyone. At least, in their head. There are plenty of people around that believe that the government is evil incarnate, and while they may not wish it to completely fail, the temptation to push it to the edge in order to force it to cut it's spending could be of interest. The rich would then benefit from the lowered taxation, as they can pay for all the public services they lost anyways.

Furthermore, whenever I watch videos of parliament, what I see is nothing like what you describe, or how De-Legro seems to describe. Because unlike in the states where the ruling party doesn't have a majority in both chambers, in Canada the tories have a majority in both the lower and upper chambre, and in Québec the liberals have a majority in the lower chamber (got rid of the useless upper chambre). Both parties have a majority that allows them to do whatever the hell they want, be damned the public opinion and the opposition's stances.

Yet, we see the exact same kind of partisanry in there than we hear about in the states, where they lack any power whatsoever to influence government policy. They bicker, they oppose just to oppose, they accuse the government of doing things they do or did themselves, and basically just try to make it sound as if they have the perfect solutions and that the government is bringing ruin to everyone (though it's true).

Just as the republicans are doing. Except that since they have the power to actually block the project, then it's all really a cunning plan of compromise by well-intended do-gooders who want to save people from their misguided selves? I have a hard time believing that.

Yup happens when our Governments have majorities as well. The policy of negativity and opposition can work even when there is very little you can actually do. Just need to make sure that you are SEEN to oppose everything. Of course in this case you have to be cleverer and actually pick policies that have a good chance of flopping, or be very good at spin. You don't want to get caught rubbishing a policy that turns out to be a huge success. You can see that here now, for example even though the opposition is against the new taxes we are going to levy on the mining industry, they are promising to keep the income tax cuts that are to be funded from the mining taxes. Where they propose to get the money to keep them once they repel the mining tax they won't say. The have also promised to keep the increase in our  Superannuation Scheme, even though ideologically they are against all forms of compulsory savings, because who is honestly going to take away an increase to everyone's retirement savings?

[fodder]

does it matter how many parties there are? by nature and definition, a party can be subdivided into smaller groupings.

even chairman mao thinks having cliques and groupings within a party is perfectly natural and conversely it's extraordinarily strange if there isn't.

the difference is obviously by having smaller parties, they mix and match their partners more fluidly.

then again, having smaller parties doesn't make politicians more accountable, because at the end of the day, a coalition's compromise policies basically isn't voted in by anyone.

thus you can think of big parties as coalitions that people vote upon and then buggers off to do something different...  as opposed to coalitions formed after people have voted and then do something different..

[De-Legro]

does it matter how many parties there are? by nature and definition, a party can be subdivided into smaller groupings.

even chairman mao thinks having cliques and groupings within a party is perfectly natural and conversely it's extraordinarily strange if there isn't.

the difference is obviously by having smaller parties, they mix and match their partners more fluidly.

then again, having smaller parties doesn't make politicians more accountable, because at the end of the day, a coalition's compromise policies basically isn't voted in by anyone.

thus you can think of big parties as coalitions that people vote upon and then buggers off to do something different...  as opposed to coalitions formed after people have voted and then do something different..

Not sure how it works for you, but in theory we don't vote in a party or wide ranging policies. I vote for a representative to stand in parliament for me based on the beliefs and policies of that individual. In practice the two party system in Australia has seen voting be less about individual representative and all about which party you wish to see in power. I doubt most people could even name their federal representative, or actually know which party holds their seat. In the last ten years we even introduced the concept of "policy mandate" A combination of Opposition spin and willing media created this idea that a government can not introduce major policies that were not brought to the people during the election campaign. It obviously completely ignores that government must react to changing situations and new information, but it is a powerful tool when you want to whinge and complain.

[Sacha]

Many parties isn't always an improvement. Belgium, 529 days, 11 hours and 9 minutes without a government!

[fodder]

you personally might... but in parliamentary democracies, regardless of party size, most electorate will vote for party. that they vote for a particular candidate is mostly incidental.. the weighty bit is that the candidate belongs to a party. obviously the candidate follows the party line (on most issues).

independent candidates do get elected, but it's rare. similarly, a candidate might flip party and still get elected, but usually that's because the candidate is following the wind of fortune, so to speak. there are obviously candidates who gets voted in because of who they are. but they are becoming a bit of a rare breed quite simply because candidates are not what they used to be.

[De-Legro]

you personally might... but in parliamentary democracies, regardless of party size, most electorate will vote for party. that they vote for a particular candidate is mostly incidental.. the weighty bit is that the candidate belongs to a party. obviously the candidate follows the party line (on most issues).

independent candidates do get elected, but it's rare. similarly, a candidate might flip party and still get elected, but usually that's because the candidate is following the wind of fortune, so to speak. there are obviously candidates who gets voted in because of who they are. but they are becoming a bit of a rare breed quite simply because candidates are not what they used to be.

The minority government in Australia hinges on the support of 3 independent candidates, traditionally there will be several independents in our governments as well as members of the smaller parties, for instance the Green Party holds the balance of power in the upper house, by siding with either of the major parties they can determine if legislation is ultimately passed. The upper house has always had more successful independent and minor party candidates, but there is a trend forming that is seeing more win seats in the lower house as well, as people get tired of their electorate being ignore by larger parties, and tired of seeing their "representatives" vote against the interest of their electorate because of party politics.

 But yes that is the problem I see with the voting system. It was devised before parties became such monolithic groups, what I am in theory supposed to base my vote upon has nothing to do with the practise.

[fodder]

3 indy out of how many though?

what you are describing is not all that different from the hardcore eurosceptics under major's government.. when a government does not have a big majority, it's always hostage to the elements within the party/coalition that get themselves organised.

when you have a big majority, the opposition can do nothing... they have to oppose or they'll be irrelevant
yet when you have a small majority/hung parliament or even minority... the nutters come out to play - tail starts wagging the dog. they could be small / fringe parties or they could be fringe groupings of big parties.

[Vellos]

Just as the republicans are doing. Except that since they have the power to actually block the project, then it's all really a cunning plan of compromise by well-intended do-gooders who want to save people from their misguided selves? I have a hard time believing that.

It's not a secret or cunning compromise. Yes, it's sub-optimal.

Has nobody here ever looked at a prisoner's dilemma? My argument runs that, because neither side has a credible commitment mechanism from the other that they will "collude" in electoral mutually assured destruction, the only way for altruistic representatives to accomplish any goal is mutual harassment, brinksmanship, and apocalyptic measures. Even if a committee works out an agreement, there are enough radicals in both parties (especially in the Republicans; but if Occupy politicizes in any organized fashion, I expect the Democrats to do a similar thing in/after 2012) in the US to torpedo it. And if just a few representatives refuse to compromise, it creates a major political hazard for ALL representatives.

In sum, because no credible commitment mechanisms exist, mutual hostility resulting in policy-making by repeated crises is a second-best solution. Compromise is best for the nation, but if any politically meaningful element in either party refuses to compromise, it destroys the entire agenda, and, in the next election destroys the compromisers, creating a MORE radical group.

I would argue that the pre-Tea Party Republican Party was comparatively compromise-oriented. Yes, they were belligerent on some issues, but they compromised on many issues (like the debt ceiling) that are now issues of major debate. But, in 2010, moderates and compromisers were punished in Republican (and Blue-Dog) areas. This sent a signal to representatives that compromise will create intractable radicals. So the next best solution is to appear an intractable radical, and create crises that allow for some kind of policy formation, even a sub-optimal one.

Yes, compromise is more optimal, in a world where the electorate does not respond to the decisions of representatives. But in a world where the electorate does respond, and tends to respond by demanding increasing radicalism, compromise is not a long-run optimal solution. Until meaningful credit downgrades hit and borrowing costs rise significantly. At that point, the fallout of compromise is less than the fallout of second-best or sub-optimal policy formation.

[Chenier]

Not sure how it works for you, but in theory we don't vote in a party or wide ranging policies. I vote for a representative to stand in parliament for me based on the beliefs and policies of that individual. In practice the two party system in Australia has seen voting be less about individual representative and all about which party you wish to see in power. I doubt most people could even name their federal representative, or actually know which party holds their seat. In the last ten years we even introduced the concept of "policy mandate" A combination of Opposition spin and willing media created this idea that a government can not introduce major policies that were not brought to the people during the election campaign. It obviously completely ignores that government must react to changing situations and new information, but it is a powerful tool when you want to whinge and complain.

Theoretically, yea, we vote for the man.

In reality, no, as you say people vote for the party. That's why this last election, a lot of NDP candidates who had never even been in their riding got elected. The party's program, and especially his leader, are the main vote catchers. Individual candidates will influence the polls, of course, but in most cases, they aren't all that important. It's the same in Canada as in Australia, and I bet it's the same in the rest of the Commonwealth.

does it matter how many parties there are? by nature and definition, a party can be subdivided into smaller groupings.

even chairman mao thinks having cliques and groupings within a party is perfectly natural and conversely it's extraordinarily strange if there isn't.

the difference is obviously by having smaller parties, they mix and match their partners more fluidly.

then again, having smaller parties doesn't make politicians more accountable, because at the end of the day, a coalition's compromise policies basically isn't voted in by anyone.

thus you can think of big parties as coalitions that people vote upon and then buggers off to do something different...  as opposed to coalitions formed after people have voted and then do something different..

"Party lines" are, in most cases, chains that dictate how the MPs will act. Most party leaders rule with great authority, though they usually consult their MPs first. The Parti Libéral du Québec is an extreme example, with it's flock of sheep MPs: the party is accused of great corruption, everyone's saying it's corrupt and wasting our money and resources, and it also goes making HUGE partisan spendings that leave a lot of the province pissed off, but NEVER did a liberal MP publicly stray. A few anonymously did, the useless youth wing did, but no MP on the public scene did anything.

If you have many smaller parties, then you have much more odds of coalition composition shifting during key issues, because, after all, the leader can't expel the dissident MPs, and they weren't elected under his party program.

I know in practice there has been a lot of troubles with many small parties, but despite being someone who believes we need a strong government, I'd rather a paralyzed government than one who can do whatever he wants and to hell with public opinion.

[Chenier]

It's not a secret or cunning compromise. Yes, it's sub-optimal.

Has nobody here ever looked at a prisoner's dilemma? My argument runs that, because neither side has a credible commitment mechanism from the other that they will "collude" in electoral mutually assured destruction, the only way for altruistic representatives to accomplish any goal is mutual harassment, brinksmanship, and apocalyptic measures. Even if a committee works out an agreement, there are enough radicals in both parties (especially in the Republicans; but if Occupy politicizes in any organized fashion, I expect the Democrats to do a similar thing in/after 2012) in the US to torpedo it. And if just a few representatives refuse to compromise, it creates a major political hazard for ALL representatives.

In sum, because no credible commitment mechanisms exist, mutual hostility resulting in policy-making by repeated crises is a second-best solution. Compromise is best for the nation, but if any politically meaningful element in either party refuses to compromise, it destroys the entire agenda, and, in the next election destroys the compromisers, creating a MORE radical group.

I would argue that the pre-Tea Party Republican Party was comparatively compromise-oriented. Yes, they were belligerent on some issues, but they compromised on many issues (like the debt ceiling) that are now issues of major debate. But, in 2010, moderates and compromisers were punished in Republican (and Blue-Dog) areas. This sent a signal to representatives that compromise will create intractable radicals. So the next best solution is to appear an intractable radical, and create crises that allow for some kind of policy formation, even a sub-optimal one.

Yes, compromise is more optimal, in a world where the electorate does not respond to the decisions of representatives. But in a world where the electorate does respond, and tends to respond by demanding increasing radicalism, compromise is not a long-run optimal solution. Until meaningful credit downgrades hit and borrowing costs rise significantly. At that point, the fallout of compromise is less than the fallout of second-best or sub-optimal policy formation.

You seem to suggest that man, or at least most politicians, are altruistic by nature.

I tend to view that man is taught altruism, and is rather greedy and egoistical by nature.

And in a political system ruled by money like the US's, I simply cannot buy that radicalism in the parties is an altruist stratagem. There's just too much money in play.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I know in practice there has been a lot of troubles with many small parties, but despite being someone who believes we need a strong government, I'd rather a paralyzed government than one who can do whatever he wants and to hell with public opinion.

I'd rather a government that didn't worry about public opinion, because, frankly, worrying about public opinion is what got the US government in its current predicament. The sad truth is that the majority of the public is ill-equipped at best with the knowledge of what price and consequences any particular action will have.

[Chenier]

I'd rather a government that didn't worry about public opinion, because, frankly, worrying about public opinion is what got the US government in its current predicament. The sad truth is that the majority of the public is ill-equipped at best with the knowledge of what price and consequences any particular action will have.

Yea, and not worrying about public opinion brings you to a state like Greece's, where rampant corruption breaks your economy.

I'd rather the economy stall because the governments are trying to please too many people at once, than it stalls because they are systematically trying to favor the ones with the money to keep them in power.

In Montreal, prices for public infrastructure dropped by 30% the day the government announced it'd start taking collusion more seriously. That's billions of dollars that we are spending for nothing by paying 30% more than fair market price. But of course, it took 2 years to finally declare a public commission to investigate that !@#$, because everybody knows that the PLQ, the governing party, is being financed by the construction industry.

Between a government that doesn't care about the public opinion and that screws our economy over by making favors to the construction, mining, and energy industries and a government that cares too much and that screws our economy by being too generous with education and public health, I cannot think why anyone would rather the former. Unless, of course, you are part of that privileged group.

[Gustav Kuriga]

*snorts* don't even get started with greece, neither side knows much of anything there.

[Chenier]

What we need introduced in our election laws are popular-initiative elections, so that if enough people sign a petition at the national assembly, elections will be called, saving us from another 3 years with this terrible liberal government.

[Vellos]

You seem to suggest that man, or at least most politicians, are altruistic by nature.

I tend to view that man is taught altruism, and is rather greedy and egoistical by nature.

And in a political system ruled by money like the US's, I simply cannot buy that radicalism in the parties is an altruist stratagem. There's just too much money in play.

Not by nature at all. And I use "altruistic" loosely: not directly and immediately and primarily concerned with personal material gains. I think most politicians have, whether by nature or otherwise I couldn't say, a real and pressing interest in national welfare, even aside from some degree of welfare being (hypothetically) a condition for their employment.

What we need introduced in our election laws are popular-initiative elections, so that if enough people sign a petition at the national assembly, elections will be called, saving us from another 3 years with this terrible liberal government.

That would create even more paralysis, as the instant that a government became unpopular, it could face massive consequences, thus the incentive to make any kind of bold policy maneuvers would be further removed. See California for details.

Staggered, long-term elections. 6-10 year terms, but staggered so that elections occur every year. Vastly reduces campaigning burdens, gives representatives years to formulate policy, political bases (even outside of their party), and relationships. But staggered elections mean that the electorate always has an opportunity to express their will and effect, at least marginally, the direction of national policy. The US Senate is actually a fair example of this, but habitual filibustering and coexistence with the House somewhat confounds the issue.

Such a body would constantly have a meaningful contingent actively beholden to public opinion (depending on term and staggering, between 1/10 and 1/3 of them would be campaigning or about to begin campaigning at any given time), yet every individual representative would have a term long enough to shield them from fickle public opinion, and secure enough to limit their need for special-interest support. Also, I'm generally in favor of a very large legislature, for similar reasons of limiting the influence of a few strong personalities, and for increasing the "cost" to special interests to lobby.