Over the 2008 federal campaign, I expect to give coverage to those without a voice in the mainstream media. This will sometimes include the NDP and Greens, but also the “other” parties, such as those that you may not even know exist!
Zach gets off to an excellent start. I hope the online media teaches the old school Main Stream Media a thing or two about fairness in political coverage and analysis. Those traits have been sorely lacking where it counts, such as the televised leaders debate in past campaigns.
You can find the official list of registered (and deregistered) parties here on Elections Canada’s website.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Zach Bell | 07-Sep-08 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
Thanks for the link Saskboy.
I’ve worked with a provincial political party in the past and election rules are constructed in such a manner as to make it quite difficult for smaller parties to find their voice.
Federal election rules are 10 times worse at the very least. The fact of the matter is, smaller parties not only lack financial resources to spread their messages but they also lack the equitable position they deserve to do so. Rules that govern elections are in large part constructed in such a manner as to keep smaller parties either unregistered or silent.
SUZANNE | 07-Sep-08 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
I concur. The requirement of $1000 per candidate as a deposit is patently unfair.
Saskboy | 07-Sep-08 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
For a federal campaign I don’t know if I have a problem with there being a $1000 deposit. However, the money should be returnable to a greater extent than what it is. I don’t think we want everyone who can’t even raise $1G, running and clogging the ballot, and causing more work for Elections Canada.
Zach Bell | 07-Sep-08 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
The $1,000 is fully refundable Saskboy. The only requirement is that you have your financial returns filed properly.
I don’t agree with the $1,000 at all. I see it as wholly unjustifiable. A welfare mom may have agreat platform and good ideas but how is she supposed to even become an independent candidate under such a restrictive system? Democracy is supposed to be accessible by all the serfs. A $1,000 deposit is an arbitrarily placed obstacle put in the way of the poorest Canadians.
Saskboy | 07-Sep-08 at 7:01 pm | Permalink
The financial accounting expenses are actually more burdensome I’d estimate than having to raise a refundable $1000 deposit.
I still think that if a metaphorical welfare mom had the interest in running for politics, and would have even close to enough support to make an impact at the polls felt by other parties, she’s going to be able to scrape up $1000 amongst her close supporters. Having enough TIME to actually file papers, accounting, and campaign would be the real stumbling block. The Work Less Party might have something to say on that issue I’d think.
Zach Bell | 07-Sep-08 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
Well I’m not going to disagree that rules concerning accounting and such are already more burdensome than the deposit…I happen to think those are unfair as well and should be simplified.
I think your position on the welfare mom is still very unfair for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, being able to win should not be a pre-requisite for running. If that were the case, the greens would never have made it as far as they have and heck, why would we even want elections.
As far as the welfare mom is concerned, she may gain enough support to actually win and raise funds when the national campaign is half over. Heck having enough impact to effect other candidates at the polls could be an issue that isn’t really considered until the end of the campaign.
Second, you’re saying that this person shouldn’t even have access to a platform to express their views that other people who have $1,000 do.
Democracy is an extraordinarily simple concept. Government for the people by the people. As it is now, I can write a cheque for $1,000 and be a candidate. Some one poorer than me must go through a lot more to access the ballot. It’s not inaccessible to them but doesn’t it seem unfair that a completely open system would be harder to access for some than some others?
If you don’t want wing nuts to run in elections, fine. If they become an independent candidate, you can always choose not to listen to them. There’s no good reason for the $1,000 deposit to be in place.
Saskboy | 07-Sep-08 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
Having the experience of being harassed by an independent, and probably nearly penniless politician recently, I’m perhaps overly sensitive to agreeing to having more people allowed onto the ballot.
Without having a deposit, you’ll get perhaps a hundred or more people across the country who bother Elections Canada just because they can without financial risk. The deposit at the very least should be one day’s minimum wages ~$60.
Zach Bell | 07-Sep-08 at 7:41 pm | Permalink
Ah the trials and tribulations of being a popular blogger. :)
Cheers
Saskboy | 07-Sep-08 at 7:47 pm | Permalink
Hehehe, it had more to do with one writing about a lot of different smaller parties and giving new commenters a chance. I’m only popular on the Internet ;-)
Zach Bell | 07-Sep-08 at 8:06 pm | Permalink
So you’re…popular on demand? Oh I should try harder, that one wasn’t even all that funny.
I think it would be sufficient to say in this case that we simply disagree. I don’t think there should be any arbitrary obstacle to running for office, especially a financial one.
Saskboy | 07-Sep-08 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
I’m not sure I can settle for simply agreeing to disagree. I’ve only ever agreed with people before on the Internet, and to break my streak would be unfathomable.
Zach Bell | 07-Sep-08 at 8:28 pm | Permalink
Well I’m not sure where the common ground can be found. Being a libertarian, I think government should essentially be dismantled for the most part and whatever remains should have about as much power and influence as an irritable infant.
Actually that might be too much.
Anyway, I believe that government should be 100% accessible by the population. Anyone who wants to should be able to run for office and any obstacles placed in the way serve to work against this belief.
I don’t see how that can be reconciled with the belief that some obstacles are acceptable. Mine is an extreme belief and as such, it’s fairly inflexible in comparison to your position.