Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Would we better off without political parties?

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:22am - 51 Comments

Scott Adams wonders if the Internet could replace political parties.

I think political parties made sense in pre-Internet times. It was a good way to organize and to produce candidates who had a legitimate chance of getting elected. Now it’s easy to imagine the Internet being a better platform for electing the right people. The problem is that there’s no way to get to a different type of system from here. The major parties are too entrenched to give up power, and belonging to organizations is a fundamental freedom … If Thomas Jefferson sprung back to life today, and learned about the Internet, I wonder how he would recommend changing the Constitution of the United States. I think he would favor banning political parties.

Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Mike T.

    Well the WEstminster countries wouldn't have a prime minister, either…

    • john g

      Well we'd have one after the 308 MPs cast their votes, but you'd have no idea what Prime Minister you'd be voting for on election day.

      I would agree that parties are pretty much essential to the functioning of a Westminster Parliament.

      This idea might work a bit better in the States, where there is a separation of legislative & executive branches. I could see voting for a House representative on this basis for sure, as long as I can vote separately for the President.

      • Jenn_

        Why would having no idea what Prime Minister you'd be voting for be a bad thing? Why not elect the 308 people who make that choice, with thought and care, instead of any boob wearing the proper colours?

        • SamDavies

          It sounds good in theory. In practice though, how would it play out? Just look at the municipal elections in Toronto, where the biggest boob of them all was elected mayor. In the absence of political parties, what would take its place (with regards to how allegiances are formed)? Would 308 elected people choose the best person for the job, or would we simply experience some other form of game with limited strings?

          • Sigh

            I believe that is how its done in Nunavut.

            "Legislative Assembly of Nunavut

            The Legislative Assembly of Nunavut is a public government and operates on the consensus model. Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) belong to no political party and voting isn’t based on party politics. Nunavummiut (the people of Nunavut) elect each of their MLAs as an independent representative. The MLAs vote for and form the government from among themselves.

            Soon after each general election the MLAs elect one of their Members to be Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and another to be Premier of Nunavut. They also elect from among themselves the Members of Cabinet that form the government. The Cabinet are a minority in the Legislature, so the majority of MLAs must agree upon and approve any legislative decision."
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Nunavut

          • SamDavies

            Interesting info – thanks. I wonder how things work for them in practice?

            Also, I have to wonder if this works much more effectively because of the smaller size of Nunavut.
            I won't lie – I know next to nothing about politics in Nunavut, but I would guess that some consensus is easier to reach due to various commonalities, such as geography. In the absence of parties, would we then experience geographic allegiances on the federal level? We've already experienced how dangerous and problematic that can be on the federal level ever since the BQ was formed…

          • Sigh

            I haven't been following Nunavut politics all that closely, but I haven't yet heard stories of any major problems with the system there.

            As to why it is effective, I suspect it may have something to do with the native culture and traditions there. That doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't be applied in other circumstances, but it would be a long, slow, hard process. But it might be worth the effort.

          • Jenn_

            Well, yeah. The theory presupposes that voters actually do use thought and care (as well as come out to vote) and that the chosen candidates are honest about what they stand for and how they'd choose the leader.

            Of course it's open to all kinds of slimy stuff. But the slimy stuff hasn't disappeared because we have political parties, so I'm not sure why a new system has to be judged with a criteria we don't use in judgement now.

            But it would take a lot of effort, and a lot of goodwill from everyone, without a doubt.

        • john g

          Why would having no idea what Prime Minister you'd be voting for be a bad thing?

          Because, as so many have pointed out, the Canadian Prime Minister holds more concentration of executive & legislative power than probably any other leader in the western world. It would be a travesty of democracy to be able to wield that kind of power without having some semblance of democratic mandate from the people. Without parties, you can't get that kind of mandate in a westminster system, because no-one would have a clue who might emerge as PM from any given House. People would be voting only based on local candidates, meaning mostly local issues. That mostly works in a municipal election; not in a federal election, where by definition most of the issues are national in scope.

          • Jenn_

            Yeah, but without the political party, he wouldn't hold such a concentration of power–at least not without oversight of the other 307 MPs. I realize the whole discussion is a fantasy world, but while local issues would have some impact, I'd like to think that voters would elect 308 people of clear principles and vision.

            But yeah, you're probably right and it would be a simple popularity contest. Who can buy the most and all that.

  • Anon 001

    Ah yes, words of wisdom from Dilbert!

  • bergkamp

    "Would we better off without political parties?"

    Yes, indeed, we would be better off.

    Political parties put their interests ahead of the electorate. A good example of this is Cons and their Potash Corp decision. Clement/Harper decided that net benefit to Canada = net benefit to Con party and therefore decided to trample all over people's property rights because they decided Cons being elected next election is more important than private property.

    It's never going to happen but I would love to see political parties abolished and we have 300 MPs beholden to no one but their constituents.

    • DBM

      I 'm intrigued by your views, bergkamp, and I'm wondering if you have any related literature.

      If our views are as closely aligned as I think, maybe we could explore ways of combining our resources and working together to promote our common ideas.

      • richard

        Yes – you could start a political party together.

        • DBM

          Hey, there's a thought!

        • sourstud

          Ha!

  • MostlyCivil

    The denizens of the net would simply assign them a left/right ranking, and thus ends debate.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Thomas Jefferson sprung back to life today, and learned about the Internet, I wonder how he would recommend changing the Constitution of the United States. I think he would favor banning political parties.

    And here I thought that Jefferson was a firm believer in freedom and liberty. Apparently not.

    The Internet has yet to replace print publications, so what makes Dilbert dude think that it can replace basic political institutions?

    Can and will the Internet play an increasingly prominent role in democracy, as it has in all other aspects of life? Of course. But that's a very mild proposition compared to the idea of complete party nullification. Ain't gonna happen any time soon. I think Adams should stick to his fantasy cartoon world.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      Oh, and another thing. Ever notice how certain elements bemoan the current state of democracy precisely when the left loses elections? It was apparently OK when Obama won, and then shoved health care down America's throat. But then it wasn't OK when Americans finally had a say about it, too. Just saying.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

        The idea of electoral reform has been bouncing around for decades.

      • BCer in Mtl

        Yeah, like when Jeffrey Simpson wrote "The Friendly Dictatorship"! Clearly bemoaning a leftist loss.

    • Anon Imus

      I doubt Jefferson's 151 slaves viewed him as a champion for freedom… or maybe his belief that all black should be banished from the america's if slavery was abolished as a policy of freedom…doubtful wouldn't you say?

  • NorthernPoV

    So Dennis – you have just exposed your world view….. first a little quote from that left wing bastion Wikipedia:
    "Dilbert portrays corporate culture as a Kafkaesque world of bureaucracy for its own sake and office politics that stand in the way of productivity, where employees' skills and efforts are not rewarded, and busy work is praised. Much of the humor emerges as the audience sees the characters making obviously ridiculous decisions that are natural reactions to mismanagement."
    So you see your side as
    * management making obviously ridiculous decisions
    and you see our side as
    * the subversives who actually get work done despite the aforementioned management.

    and until now I thought Dilbert was apolitical! you are brilliant! (The wiki quote an excellent description of our Con gov't, btw.)

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      Yeah, I've got a small question to ask of you in response: What in the world are you going on about now? Wow!

      • NorthernPoV

        that's OK, Dennis – I guess that one went straight over your head – adult conversations can be hard to follow for juveniles.

        OK Folks: can someone get Dennis some play dough and make sure there are no sharp objects around to play with.

        • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

          No, seriously. You call that an adult conversation? More like complete nonsense. Honestly, I still don't know what the heck you're talking about, or how it relates to what I said. But at least you didn't resort to chucking eggs in the first place. You waited until your second post. lol

          • NorthernPoV

            OK, I always did have a soft spot for slow learners:
            The quote from Dilberts creator was explicitly non-partisan, dissing both major parties.
            How in the heck did you get from this quote to lumping him in with "certain elements" that you obviously do not approve of and are of the left wing persuasion? Hence you (as a dim witted right winger) obviously naturally align yourself with the management group in the Dilbert strip. Enjoy the company, duh.

  • gottabesaid

    Internet for politics, eh? Is this where we elect Justin Bieber as PM? He has almost 14,900,000 supporters and counting on Facebook… you can't argue with those numbers…

    More seriously, I don't think political parties are inherently bad, just completely inflexible in their current form. MPs need to be able to show a bit more independence. If party leaders have to win over the support of their MPs for this, that or the other thing, rather than simply having party leaders (and their unelected hangers on) dictating, I think political parties would become more tolerable.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      You claim that MP support for party leaders would lead to greater accountability. It could, or it might lead to another layer of corruption or power politics. Ask former Aussie PM Kevin Rudd.

      Look, both here and south of the border, and even in the UK, it's the people who are standing up to the system. Isn't that the way it should be?

    • kcm

      Agree totally. No need to reinvent the wheel – just hand some semblance of independence and dignity back to our mps. How about taking the sole right to sign someone's nomination papers out of the PM/part leaders hands? Others?

      • SamDavies

        I don't disagree. I would love to re-invent the wheel, but I realize that would be impossible to pull off realistically. At best, we need to work on some tweaks. I agree – power needs to go back to the elected MP's, and away from the unelected political machine. I think this is what surprises me about many die hard Harper supporters – how willing they are to accept the actions of machinery because they are hellbent on chasing that "Majority" carrot.

        Myself – I prefer circumstances where guys like Michael Chong can freely express their ideas.

        I was amused by this article: http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/EditorialO…

        Honestly though – is it really better for the country that the PM appoints someone he can control instead of someone who might offer much much more to the portfolio? Such is the product of the political machine…

        • sourstud

          You would think that Liberals would be furious that they had zero say over their parties leader, who was given the job by the shadowy backroom party operatives with the sole purpose of subverting the democratic process, because it would have been inconvenient.

          The fact that a guy who's never won a Liberal nomination for his riding, nor a party leadership contest is the leader of the Liberal party should be of great concern to everybody.

          • SamDavies

            I'm amused by your partisan zing, which really didn't address anything raised – you've just re-iterated a talking point. Above all, I think table flipping mentality is what makes things as bad as they are in politics.

            Unlike you, allow me to address your points. From what I recall from reading during the time, when Iggy was put in as leader of the Liberals, there were many who had no problems with this, and there were some that did. While I am not a Liberal, I didn't have much of a problem with this when it happened. The way it played out was certainly not ideal, but I do believe that the volatility and uncertainty of the time required quick action. The intent was not so much to subvert the democratic process, as it was to push someone in quickly to fill the vacuum that was left after both the Dion loss in the elections, and the failure of the coalition attempt.

            Besides – I'm pretty confident that had there been a leadership convention, it would have likely still been either Rae or Iggy. While I'm sure Rae was conflicted, instead of pressing the matter, he opted not to in the belief that this was better for the party. But most important of all, it is not like Iggy came out of nowhere. In the last leadership convention, he came in 2nd place to Dion. As such, it really is not all that hard to accept him as the next guy after Dion.

          • sourstud

            From what I recall from reading during the time, when Iggy was put in as leader of the Liberals, there were many who had no problems with this, and there were some that did.
            - By refusing to have a leadership contest, we'll never know which side of the debate had more support. I mean, Kim Jong-Il can use the same logic to declare elections unnecessary.

            I didn't have much of a problem with this when it happened.
            - Would your opinion have changed if Iggy had become coalition PM? Because 5 guys in Toronto deciding who becomes PM over drinks scares the crap outta me.

            I do believe that the volatility and uncertainty of the time required quick action. The intent was not so much to subvert the democratic process, as it was to push someone in quickly to fill the vacuum that was left after both the Dion loss in the elections, and the failure of the coalition attempt.
            - The coalition didn't die until Michael Ignatieff killed it after he'd been named leader-in-waiting. And while speed is always of the essence in politics, political convenience should never trump democracy.

            Besides – I'm pretty confident that had there been a leadership convention, it would have likely still been either Rae or Iggy.
            Ya. So shouldn't the membership of the Liberal Party be allowed to decide? Just because every poll in the country indicates that Stephen Harper will win a minority government, doesn't mean we go and cancel the election!

            it is not like Iggy came out of nowhere. In the last leadership convention, he came in 2nd place to Dion. As such, it really is not all that hard to accept him as the next guy after Dion.
            - Stephane Dion was resoundingly rejected by the Canadian public and the Liberal Party base. By you're logic, couldn't it also mean that Iggy was, at that point, the Liberal Party's second LAST choice to be leader?

            I guess my point is that voting, even if it's only symbolic, MATTERS.

          • SamDavies

            Hmmmmm…. I'm just not buying into what you are selling. Linking Iggy with Kim Jong-Il is about as useful as linking Harper with Hitler. Just so we're clear on this – I think it is a useless exaggeration. And really – "5 guys in Toronto deciding who becomes PM over drinks"? That's quite the loaded perspective on things. When I referenced the failure of the coalition, I was more referring to the GG allowing Harper to prorogue, which in effect closed the doors on Dion.

            "And while speed is always of the essence in politics, political convenience should never trump democracy"

            Really? Over dramatic hogwash. I'm curious then good sir – what is your take on the 7th Canadian Parliament, where 5 different Conservatives served as PM? My goodness – are you telling me there was no leadership convention each time a change took place? Madness! In any case – you have bizarre notions/restrictions of what constitutes leadership legitimacy…

            "Just because every poll in the country indicates that Stephen Harper will win a minority government, doesn't mean we go and cancel the election!"

            Umm? WTF? I fail to comprehend this absurd leap in logic. Your bizarre take on Iggy taking 2nd and what that means also makes little sense to me with regards to how Canadian parliament works.

            I guess my point is – trying to delegit something under bizarre false pretenses is counter-productive. The scenario really isn't all that bad, especially when compared to how things have been handled previously in our great countries history. Sorry to disrupt your fantasy narrative of the great anti-democratic demon known as Iggy….

  • SamDavies

    "My hypothesis is that confirmation bias, or cognitive dissonance, or something of that nature, influences voters to irrationally agree with the platform of their own party no matter what the facts suggest. "

    This is something that has muddled my mind for ages, and what I believe is the largest problem with political party support.
    For too many people (and my finger is pointing at many of the regulars here), support for parties is akin to the misguided loyalty that one feels for a sports franchise (Myself – I'm a troubled Leafs fan, who has a love hate/relationship with franchise. By instinct, I want to love them and I want them to succeed, but rationally, I have so many problems with how they operate).

    This kind of blind loyalty is silly, and serves as a massive stumbling block for any constructive progress. Instead of discussing and working on compromises and development of ideas, people choose these silly black/white biases, simply because they are loyal to their party. Think of how many times you've read comments here where it is so plainly obvious that the reader did not actually follow through on cited links, but throws in a negative comment simply because they assume they should not like the idea because of who said it (due to the party they are tied to). Political parties dumb down intelligent discourse…

    • kcm

      I'm not sure political parties necessarily have to dumb down intelligent discourse…i am sure over-centralization of power does.

      • SamDavies

        It's not a question of if the have to – it simply is what is happening, and how things have worked since their inception with all parties (that have been in power, more or less). The political machine is in full power, and few are brave enough (or understand the mechanics well enough) to call it for what it is because they either don't care, or much worse, they can't imagine a scenario without it.

        Looking at the Harper years, I can't help but think of several Catch-22's that are involved. We see the problems that with over-centralizing power, but what many are uncertain about it whether the benefits outweigh these problems…

    • gottabesaid

      Sorry, I stopped reading after I heard you were a Leafs fan.

      • Sigh

        I guess, unlike NorthernPoV (above), you don't have a soft spot for slow learners.

        • SamDavies

          I think I should go into more detail on my analogy, though I must point out that these reactions, whether they be serious or in jest, prove that the analogy between politics and sports is rather valid.

          Like many Canadians, I enjoy hockey. I'm born and raised in Toronto. As such, I grew up watching the Leafs as a kid during the 80's. As I've gotten older, I've become more cynical with regards to professional sports in general (ie. the greed that is involved on the business side of things). Nevertheless, the kid in me can't help but wonder at how the excitement of winning the cup would do good for the people of Toronto. Quite simply – it's nice to have that common ground that can unite people from differing backgrounds in such a fashion.

          When the Jays won their back to back World Series, I remember how awesome it was to drunkenly flood the streets of Toronto just after they won, making my way down to Yonge street with a group of friends. The energy was just fantastic – I remember thinking just how fantastic it was for total strangers to be hugging each other, giving high fives, etc. Perhaps my memory is selective, but all I can remember is good things – I don't even recall if there was any crazy vandalism and whatnot.

          Who is kidding who – Toronto has been loserville for pro sports, especially over the last few years where any post season is non-existent. But enough nostalgia.

          My point is that it isn't easy to shake off "fandom", especially when you have grown up with it. Despite my negative feelings for some aspects of the team, I doubt I will ever shake off the desire to have them win a cup. With that said, my allegiance has its limitations, (as it should in politics). Unlike other fans, I always thought Tucker was cheap, and would call him out on it. True Blue fans never cared, so long as you get the win. The question is – Am I not a real fan then?

          I believe the biggest problem with politics comes from the fandom. They are the ones who have narrowly fixated themselves on their team, and simply do not care what happens, so long as their team wins. Politics needs to be more than a game…

          • bergkamp

            I always think of voters as Leafs fans. I, too, have been Leafs fan since 1970s. Since I've been alive, Leafs have a few decent seasons every decade and fans are more than willing to pay some of the highest prices for decades of ineptitude and bad hockey.

            Leafs have no reason to improve as org if people continue to support dross.

            And same goes for political parties – people vote for same party over and over and over, parties have no reason to change or reform.

          • gottabesaid

            My comment was totally in jest… and, yes, I agree that the similarities between political partisanship and sports partisanship are eerie (hence my comment in the first place).

  • sourstud

    Banning political parties sounds great in theory, but in practice it's impossible. Seeing as a political party is nothing more than a group of like-minded individuals pooling resources and ideas to attain a common goal, I can't see how you can "ban" political parties without massively curtailing individual rights with regards to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

    One need look no further than the American Tea Party movement for a group that is legally not a political party, but is a political party in every other sense of the word.

    • SamDavies

      I'm curious – Did you actually click the link and read the full posting by Scott Adams?
      It's not so much about restricting liberty, as it is on putting limitations on the powers of political machinery, especially with regards to funding.

      "In our current system, a union can give a million dollars to the Democratic Party and it doesn't seem too wrong because the party represents about half of the voters in the country. But if political parties didn't exist, unions or corporate interests would have to donate to individuals. And a large donation to an individual campaign would either be illegal or it would look so much like a bribe that it would be counter-productive."

  • http://www.rpmservicetoronto.com Edam Trat

    I feel a lot more people will need to read this, very positive info. Thanks and share more info. :)

  • Emily

    Municipalities don't have political parties, but no one would point to them as any example of better government.

  • Geiseric

    Municipalities have a one party system. You're either in with the mayor or out in the cold. They just don't sell t-shirts.

  • Emily

    No, a mayor only has one vote…council can cut him out entirely if they like.

  • Geiseric

    Wouldn't be the first time a mayor didn't know how to throw a party.

  • hosertohoosier

    Political parties serve a few important purposes, however the most central one regards coherence. There are many things that you could get people to agree on through some sort of direct democracy mechanism (or just roving members of parliament). The problem is that many of those policies would undercut one another (look at how referenda have caused persistent budget problems in California).

    The Tory party and the Liberal party may not have the perfect platform, but at least they HAVE a platform, and have thought about how each of their policies will interact with other policies.

Previous

Next

From Macleans