Canadians

[Makida]

QUOTE (FreeBeer @ May 4 2011, 04:14 PM) There's nothing stopping the other parties from raising money as effectively as the Conservatives have. If their message is worthy of support, people will support them. Plain and simple. It's very much like a vote - except you can withdraw that vote at any time should they no longer be representative of your interests, or you can vote more frequently (by increasing that donation) when they're doing something you really support.

Also, it's like a vote except that the richer you are, the more of this kind of vote you have. Seriously, I don't understand your logic at all. So you're saying that if you have two theoretical parties, they work equally hard fund-raising, one has policies benefiting rich people, the other has policies benefiting poor people, you sincerely don't think the former would have an advantage over the latter, if this was the only source of funds they could have? And you honestly think it's democratic to allow how much money you have to dictate how much support you can offer the party of your choice?

[djrbk]

QUOTE (girlyboy @ May 4 2011, 04:22 PM) And you honestly think it's democratic to allow how much money you have to dictate how much support you can offer the party of your choice?

There are other ways that you can help a party that are much more beneficial than money.

ie. joining door to door campaigns, mailing letters, setting up their banners and signs, etc. etc.

[BillyBishop]

djr that's not going to the point at all. In anycase the same things apply, the richer you are the more free time you generally have to spend volunteering, or more likely pay someone to volunteer for you.

[djrbk]

Actually I'm willing to contest that. I've a hunch that most people who do volunteer service are in lower income brackets, and that almost no one pays people to volunteer for them (which by the very definition of volunteer service - this would not be due to them receiving money for it)

[Makida]

It is true that there are other ways to contribute, but they are not all equivalent to each other. No amount of volunteering will pay for TV ads, presumably.

I don't have any numbers for who does volunteer and who doesn't (of course you haven't shown any yet either ), by income bracket. But certainly money must make a difference. I suppose one could argue richer people don't necessarily have more free time, depending on profession, of course, but I'd imagine they are likely to have more flexible schedules to at least some degree. A poor student working while studying full-time won't have as much time to volunteer for their party of choice as a student from a well-off family who doesn't need to work, or at least can work shorter hours, for example. A person wealthy enough to retire at an early age may choose to spend time volunteering afterwards; a poorer person without that option won't have as much time, etc.

Again, it just doesn't change the basic fact that making parties depend on private donations for their funds means giving an advantage to those parties whose supporters, on average, are better-off, and thus can either donate a greater amount, or will have an easier time, and fewer second thoughts, donating the same amount.

Whether it's the Conservatives or the Liberals or what have you that are most benefited by private donations is secondary (though I certainly doubt Harper would bring this change about without considering the benefit to himself and his party). It's a matter of principle.

[MrChaos]

How many girly's does it take to change a government?

None they just sit it out and bitch about the rich people


I am MrChaos and Hope That Made Girly LOL

[Makida]

Up against the wall with you when the revolution comes.

I probably am bitching too much. I keep getting sucked into these forum debates, long after I've tried giving them up, post my wall-of-text-ing period... Often I wonder if maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about. But then people start saying things like "well, the average donation is under $100 anyway, so surely this doesn't benefit rich people at all!" and I start to think that even I probably have something to contribute.

P.S. I don't have a problem with the rest of Canada financing the Bloc, as it were, through these subsidies, even though I'm obviously not a separatist... I certainly don't think it's "crazy." I think that's a good (as in effective) Conservative talking point, but kind of misses the actual important part of the matter. The rest of Canada isn't funding separatism, it's funding a fair election with a level playing field. The Bloc is a Canadian political party, and regardless of what they stand for, by virtue of the fact that this is a democracy, they and their supporters deserve to have their voices heard. The subsidy is a way to make sure every party has a fair chance at this. Funding separatism, bad. Funding a fair democratic election, though? Sounds fine to me.

[BillyBishop]

QUOTE (djrbk @ May 4 2011, 11:09 PM) Actually I'm willing to contest that. I've a hunch that most people who do volunteer service are in lower income brackets, and that almost no one pays people to volunteer for them (which by the very definition of volunteer service - this would not be due to them receiving money for it)

Well you missed the sarcasm, sorry about that.

Money is used to higher skilled workers.

[BillyBishop]

QUOTE (girlyboy @ May 5 2011, 12:03 AM) Up against the wall with you when the revolution comes.

I don't have a problem with the rest of Canada financing the Bloc, as it were,

Ah well, I need a bigger stick.


Let me clearly spell this out for everyone on all sides.


1) It's called per-vote subsidy.

2) No one else other than the person voting is "paying" for the subsidy.

3) Taking girlyboy's quote; No one in the rest of Canada is subsidizing the Bloc with the per-vote subsidy, since they can't vote Bloc.

Clear?

[Makida]

Well I'd assumed the people what were complaining about it meant that the subsidy is taken from federal taxpayer dollars.