5 ms·

Here in Canada we have 100,000 constituents per mp, and things are not better. Their political footprint is so small that their party affiliation is all that m

by Pxtl 10y ago

Here in Canada we have 100,000 constituents per mp, and things are not better. Their political footprint is so small that their party affiliation is all that matters. This means they all do exactly what their party says for fear of losing that party affiliation and becoming unelectable. Compare vs the blue dog Democrats that held up healthcare reform. That kind of party infighting is unheard-of in Canada.

bitwize 10y ago
It's pretty much the same in most parliamentary systems. You're basically voting for a party, not a representative. American political parties are much more like broad coalitions than their Commonwealth counterparts. If a candidate is vaguely left-ish, supports high taxes, extensive government services, and/or is sympathetic to minorities and foreigners, they will likely run as a Democrat, whereas the small government and/or traditional values and/or America fuck yeah! candidates are more likely to run as Republicans.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  How many Democrats or Republicans would win election as independents? I doubt many would. While party discipline is looser in the US Congress, party affiliation is still very important.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I think the point is that the US system encourages players to form a "coalition" before going to the polls, rather than afterward.
pc86 10y ago
Not familiar with Canadian elections, do you vote for a party or an individual?
- Pxtl 10y ago
  Individual, but with zero media coverage of these local individual seats, theyre basically just placeholders for their party platform. The media only covers the party's leaders. I mean, Toronto has dozens of elections for mp seats, which should the Star cover?
- plasticxme 10y ago
  As a whole, we vote for a party. The person on the ballet is that of your riding. They are a Member of Parliament (MP) for your area, and they are affiliated with one of the many parties. The party the receives the most elected MP's across Canada wins, and their leader becomes the Prime Minister. The party votes for their leader, so Canadiens have little say there. Sadly, most people vote based on who they want as prime minister, and they put little thought who is running their riding.
  - caf 10y ago
    Sadly, most people vote based on who they want as prime minister, and they put little thought who is running their riding. This is entirely rational, though. The local MP has two primary functions - one is to vote on legislation, and the other is to support a particular set of MPs to form the executive government (personified by the Prime Minister, because the PM usually gets most of the say in who makes up the remainder of the executive). Both of these are important, but the choice of executive normally has far more effect on the day-to-day running of the country (and the executive mostly gets to set the legislative agenda anyway), so it's no mystery why people tend to focus on the choice of executive when deciding which local MP to vote for.
fcsuper 10y ago
In the US. the President is voted upon separately, and often is the opposite of the party that runs the House of Reps. Party footprint in the House has little baring which party in the White House.
- Pxtl 10y ago
  Yes, but my point is that in the USA you see reps acting against the stated plans of their party - as I mentioned before: when the blue dog democrats opposed their de-facto leader Obama on national healthcare? That does not happen here in Canada. The party whip rules with an iron fist - votes where it is safe for party members to vote their conscience or directly constituents are the exception, not the rule. And my opinion is that a big reason for this is that individual representatives are basically anonymous here in Canada. They're too small to get any media coverage. The only time an MP or MP candidate makes the news is if they have a Cabinet position or if they make an apocalyptic gaffe. Debates, policy, etc. are ignored below the leadership.
  - fcsuper 10y ago
    Ah, due to the two party system that has a stranglehold on the US system and the nature of our primary system, there are A LOT of unaffiliated independent voters. There would likely be a lot of unaffiliated candidates if the number in the House was drastically and suddenly increased. There would be no party whips to whip. There might not even be enough representatives of the major parties to even form a collation, at least in the start.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > There would likely be a lot of unaffiliated candidates if the number in the House was drastically and suddenly increased. No, there wouldn't. The electoral forces that drive duopoly operate the same almost independently of district size, changing the number of single-member House districts with first-past-the-post elections won't reduce duopoly. Changing the electoral method might (and doesn't require changing the number of districts.)

by Pxtl 10y ago

bitwize 10y ago

It's pretty much the same in most parliamentary systems. You're basically voting for a party, not a representative. American political parties are much more like broad coalitions than their Commonwealth counterparts. If a candidate is vaguely left-ish, supports high taxes, extensive government services, and/or is sympathetic to minorities and foreigners, they will likely run as a Democrat, whereas the small government and/or traditional values and/or America fuck yeah! candidates are more likely to run as Republicans.

thomasfoster96 10y ago
How many Democrats or Republicans would win election as independents? I doubt many would. While party discipline is looser in the US Congress, party affiliation is still very important.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I think the point is that the US system encourages players to form a "coalition" before going to the polls, rather than afterward.

pc86 10y ago

Not familiar with Canadian elections, do you vote for a party or an individual?

Pxtl 10y ago
Individual, but with zero media coverage of these local individual seats, theyre basically just placeholders for their party platform. The media only covers the party's leaders. I mean, Toronto has dozens of elections for mp seats, which should the Star cover?
plasticxme 10y ago
As a whole, we vote for a party. The person on the ballet is that of your riding. They are a Member of Parliament (MP) for your area, and they are affiliated with one of the many parties. The party the receives the most elected MP's across Canada wins, and their leader becomes the Prime Minister. The party votes for their leader, so Canadiens have little say there. Sadly, most people vote based on who they want as prime minister, and they put little thought who is running their riding.
- caf 10y ago
  Sadly, most people vote based on who they want as prime minister, and they put little thought who is running their riding. This is entirely rational, though. The local MP has two primary functions - one is to vote on legislation, and the other is to support a particular set of MPs to form the executive government (personified by the Prime Minister, because the PM usually gets most of the say in who makes up the remainder of the executive). Both of these are important, but the choice of executive normally has far more effect on the day-to-day running of the country (and the executive mostly gets to set the legislative agenda anyway), so it's no mystery why people tend to focus on the choice of executive when deciding which local MP to vote for.

fcsuper 10y ago

In the US. the President is voted upon separately, and often is the opposite of the party that runs the House of Reps. Party footprint in the House has little baring which party in the White House.

Pxtl 10y ago
Yes, but my point is that in the USA you see reps acting against the stated plans of their party - as I mentioned before: when the blue dog democrats opposed their de-facto leader Obama on national healthcare? That does not happen here in Canada. The party whip rules with an iron fist - votes where it is safe for party members to vote their conscience or directly constituents are the exception, not the rule. And my opinion is that a big reason for this is that individual representatives are basically anonymous here in Canada. They're too small to get any media coverage. The only time an MP or MP candidate makes the news is if they have a Cabinet position or if they make an apocalyptic gaffe. Debates, policy, etc. are ignored below the leadership.
- fcsuper 10y ago
  Ah, due to the two party system that has a stranglehold on the US system and the nature of our primary system, there are A LOT of unaffiliated independent voters. There would likely be a lot of unaffiliated candidates if the number in the House was drastically and suddenly increased. There would be no party whips to whip. There might not even be enough representatives of the major parties to even form a collation, at least in the start.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > There would likely be a lot of unaffiliated candidates if the number in the House was drastically and suddenly increased. No, there wouldn't. The electoral forces that drive duopoly operate the same almost independently of district size, changing the number of single-member House districts with first-past-the-post elections won't reduce duopoly. Changing the electoral method might (and doesn't require changing the number of districts.)