If budgets were limited perhaps local candidates would have to canvass like they did in the good old days and actually engage the local electorate, rather than having the hugely expensive "national" campaigns. It is the whole party system in democracies across the globe that is wrong. I suspect that most will vote in the election without even knowing the name of the person they are voting for - "look for the party and put a cross next to it." IMVHO it is the party system that it wrong. Get rid of that and public funding would not be required for anyone. And, yes, I get the argument that local people will pay to influence local candidates, but that occurs anyway.

Imagine if one had to convince the entire house that one's policy was correct, rather than the opposition parties as you know that the whips will take care of your own.

I appreciate that the argument against the party system is that it produces "weak" government. Why the hell should my tax dollars be used to pay for advertising for any party.

I did ask for jimf's thinking rather than your s. But here goes (although the post is balanced and I don't find it partisan or not valid)...

Perhaps. But we're not talking only about public funding of election campaign but also the strongly connected prohibition of unlimited contributions by corporations, special interest groups (such the NCC), lobbyists,foriegn governments etc., some of which were the pre-Chretien norm in Canada and others of which typify campaign funding in that glistening democracy below us on the map.

An interesting pov (apart from the cynicism) but one which I can't imagine changing anywhere any time soon.

As I've said earlier, the FPTP system should be scrapped for sure.

This is the procedure in the NWT and Nunavit. The question is, is it scalable to 35 million?

I don't understand the first sentence, but what is the alternative to the second? That your spending dollars should be used by corporations in their own interests without your input? Additionally, it's voters' dollars that pay for the elections
.
I suspect you don't vote so you get off scott free.

Because otherwise corporate donors will pay and they will expect (and will get) something in return. Just look at how incredibly corrupt the US political system is to see where non-public funding takes you.

I'd prefer to see contribution limits set and contributions disclosed properly. Why should the taxpayer fund a load of attach ads?

Out of interest would it be legal for a non political party to run ads supporting or attacking a political party. eg a pro abortion organisation runing ads attacking Harper?

Not in Canada.

Harper was earlier the boss of the NCC and during that period he took a Harper vs Canada case to the Supreme Court (and lost) to try and make that sort of thing legal after the Liberals had legislated against it.

I think this is the root cause of his obsession with destroying the Liberals.

But you'd do better to ask him (if he took more than 4 questions a day).

Seems to me that Liberals and co have forced the election now rather than waiting until next year because of a perceived fear (actual, I suppose) that the economy will continue to grow and that this will eventually be a match-winner for Harper by a greater amount in 2012. Funny that he was able to disassociate himself and his party from the meltdown ("global"), much like Brown in the UK, but is now able to take credit for the recovery ("Canadian Economic Recovery Plan"). What godly powers he has as an individual and economist.

The Liberals and NDP would be wise to consult OECD data on just how robust Canada is on its economic standing, in terms debt vs GDP, unemployent per capita etc - I think ranked well down on both scores compared to all other major economies (23rd and 50th perhaps?). Then, start throwing it around a bit. Even amongst countries with a solid regulated banking system and who didn't surge their financial towers, Canada's economic position is well down.

Not sure if others read this interesting article in the G&M this week.

There are alternatives to the North American "solution". My business does not obtain taxpayer funding, why should political parties be any different?

Just because it may be difficult, doesn't mean that it is incorrect. This is linked to what I state below.

I have no real opinion on this but, thinking back to my constitutional law days and the policital scientist prof that taught the "political" element of it: His position was that "strong" government (one that could push through radical and contentious policies) could only do so because of their majority position. If one had a parliament made up of many parties, none of which was able to force its position through against the will of the others, the government would be "weak" and would only be able to operate on a consensual basis. In other words, the status quo would perpetuate.

In an ideal world, one's local MP would represent the interests of his (I will use the masculine otherwise this post will lengthen to a silly degree) constituents rather than that of his party so that every vote would be a vote for his constituents' interests on each issue. This, simply, doesn't happen. I am always amazed when leaders state that they are allowing their MPs a "free" vote on a particular issue. It should always be "free".

My position in relation to the second point is this: The objection to parties being fully responsible for their own funding appears to be that large donors will be able to exert influence. This assumes that the interests of the donors are not in line with the interests of the voters that vote for the parties the donors are supporting. The donors only have a specific number of votes. If sufficient numbers of these donors vote and return their preferred candidate because that the opposition didn't vote in sufficient numbers, isn't that democracy?

The alternative suggestion is that the voters are too stupid to realise that their interests are not being represented by those they intend to vote for but they will vote for them anyway. If this is true, do such people really have anything to complain about?

Imagine a candidate (A), rich with money received from oil and gas companies, campaigns on the basis that he will hand over all property within his jurisdiction to his donors to do with as they please. The opposition candidate (B) says the complete opposite, he will ensure that the assets of the donors will be appropriated by the State and will be used to serve the greater good of the electorate. Even if we accept that A outspends candidate B to a stupendous degree, you must accept that the electorate are deserving of losing everything if they vote for A. I appreciate that the positions are never as extreme as the above example but, if the electorate are too lazy to find out what each candidate's position is without listening to TV or other media campaigns and they vote purely on the basis of those campaigns, they deserve all they get.

I know that I haven't voted for over 2 decades, but I didn't realise that voters must pay to vote these days. I assumed the funding came from revenue obtained from general taxation. Unlike some on this board, I pay taxes therefore, one must assume, I contribute to funding for all parties.

I believe that there should be no contribution limit but that all contributions (no matter how small or large) should be disclosed. If a party then chooses to whore itself to a particular demographic it will be there for all to see. Again, I believe that it is for the voters to make informed decisions. If they then choose to vote for the "nasty party" or the "nice party" true democracy will prevail, will it not?

You provide a service directly to those people that pay you.

Political donations made by corporations are not made due to ideology or politics, only returns on investment. There certainly isn't a "nice" or "nasty" party as far as they are concerned, only a resource to be utilised.

I agree that transparency would be the ideal solution, but you rely on an unbiased press and true investigative journalism. Having seen canadian journalism I don't have much faith that somebody would check that the "home for abandoned kittens" wasn't just a front for "evil corp"

With the systems we have right now I don't think the free market works for politics - it only corrupts it. It probably could be made to work with the right checks and balances - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's more cost effective for the tax payers. I am happy to be convinced otherwise as I'm more pragmatic than dogmatic about this.

But will the Liberals or the Conservatives get me my deserved index linked rises in my UK pension when I start receiving it in Canada ?

So why should a political party, as opposed to an individual MP, be any different? Why should a party receive any funds from taxpayers?

Because a political party shouldn't be serving it's donors. The party is it's members and MP's - you cannot separate them like you wish to do so, at least the way it is now.

Edit: I'm not for state funding of political parties - I'm against political capitalism.

Who do you think pays individual MPs?

I get that, but we are talking about parties not individuals. Why should parties be funded by taxpayers?

So we are back to whether the party system is a flawed system. I believe that only the candidates should be named on the ballet paper. No reference should be made to the party. I cannot understand why parties are named. It's as if the is acknowledgment that, in reality, there is no connection between the candidate and the constituency.

I accept it wouldn't be too difficult for the voter to learn the name of the candidate, but at least it would require an element of research.

At the risk of repetition, because the alternative leads to corruption.

You of all people should recognize that the primary duty of a company / corporation is to its shareholders. Corporations contribute (if they're allowed to and sometimes if they're not) entirely because they hope they're buying preferential treatment.

This is not a democratic phenomenon.