An election reform idea

Commodity Marketing

Tools

An election reform idea

Sep 15, 2019 | 15:41 1 I thought this was a pretty good idea.

Name:  Screen Shot 2019-09-15 at 4.38.41 PM.jpg
Views: 502
Size:  20.5 KB Reply With Quote

  • Sep 15, 2019 | 16:47 2 Give me a break, look at Trudeau commercials and watch him lie about what he doing. Reply With Quote
    Sep 15, 2019 | 17:09 3
    Quote Originally Posted by Radical View Post
    Give me a break, look at Trudeau commercials and watch him lie about what he doing.
    But everyone knows he is lying ....and if they don't ...they shouldn't be voting...

    But to be fair every politician is lying if they open their mouth.... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • farmaholic's Avatar Sep 15, 2019 | 17:12 4 I don't buy that proposal.....how the hell would you ever be able to hold them to account?

    I do think pointing out the other party's faults should be balanced with what you would do different or improve. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • LEP
    Sep 15, 2019 | 17:34 5 But, what would they have to talk about? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • fjlip's Avatar Sep 15, 2019 | 18:08 6
    Quote Originally Posted by grassfarmer View Post
    I thought this was a pretty good idea.

    Name:  Screen Shot 2019-09-15 at 4.38.41 PM.jpg
Views: 502
Size:  20.5 KB
    They are ALL doing the opposite, even in the first debate. And LIE like sidewalks, Singh and May.
    I think the MEDIA should NEVER let any of them NOT answer directly and precisely, their question should be asked till answered and countered with the truth when like Turdo, lies lies lies. Reply With Quote
    Sep 15, 2019 | 18:12 7 Horseshit. Dumbo could come out and say he is going to give every Canadian a million dollars cash and no one could challenge him on it. Reply With Quote
    Sep 15, 2019 | 18:38 8 Hook every one of them up to a lie detector during a debate. They lie....they get zapped. Reply With Quote

  • Sep 16, 2019 | 07:46 9 This will never work for the full time arm chair mudslingers on Agriville! If you took away their mudslinging, personal attacks and criticisms they wouldn't have anything left to say! LOL Reply With Quote
    Sep 16, 2019 | 07:49 10 I'm with Grassfarmer on this one. Elections need to be about policies, not personalities, but are the farthest thing from it now.

    I would prefer to be voting for positions on individual policies, which anonymous candidates have previously stated their position, the winner is the candidate whose positions most closely matches the voters desire on those same positions.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Sep 16, 2019 at 07:52.
    Reply With Quote
    farmaholic's Avatar Sep 16, 2019 | 07:54 11
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    I'm with Grassfarmer on this one. Elections need to be about policies, not personalities.
    But you have to hold those "personalities" accountable for their "policies"

    I think the personality begets the policy. Reply With Quote
    Sep 16, 2019 | 07:57 12 Personalities are an important part of the decision making process. I don't vote for narcissists. Reply With Quote
    Sep 16, 2019 | 08:01 13
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    But you have to hold those "personalities" accountable for their "policies"

    I think the personality begets the policy.
    There also needs to be a carrot and a stick. Much like in the real world, where compensation is commensurate with doing your assigned job. Perhaps at the next election, while voters are voting for the next round of policies, they also vote on their satisfaction with the previous candidate. Consequences range from life in prison for failure to comply, to multimillion dollar bonuses for doing what was voted for. They could remain anonymous the entire time, as long as there are very clear conflict of interest and ethics watchdogs in place, might actually attract some capable talent that way. Get rid of the entire popularity contest atmosphere, remove the salesmanship/charisma/good hair factors. Reply With Quote
    Sep 16, 2019 | 08:03 14
    Quote Originally Posted by littledoggie View Post
    Personalities are an important part of the decision making process. I don't vote for narcissists.
    Who other than a narcissist is going to want to get into politics in this day and age, under the current system? Reply With Quote
    blackpowder's Avatar Sep 16, 2019 | 08:21 15
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    This will never work for the full time arm chair mudslingers on Agriville! If you took away their mudslinging, personal attacks and criticisms they wouldn't have anything left to say! LOL
    Looking in the mirror again? Reply With Quote
    Sep 16, 2019 | 08:50 16 I think the best change that could be made would be to eliminate partisan politics. No more political parties. Every potential elected official runs on their own, in their own riding. They all go to Ottawa and pick a prime minister from among the winners. It would make it harder for lobby groups to influence the upper echelon, like the can do so easily, they would have to spread their influence out and be more visible (hopefully). And yes everyone would vote their self interest but they would have to co-operate with others to get anything for themselves. Maybe then the ideas that were best for the whole country would garner the most support. No more voting along party lines. No more party loyalty the (hold your nose and vote crap). What do you think...……. Reply With Quote

  • Sep 16, 2019 | 09:56 17
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Who other than a narcissist is going to want to get into politics in this day and age, under the current system?
    OK, so considering that all politicians are possible narcissists, I will now not vote for sociopaths. Reply With Quote
    Sep 16, 2019 | 14:44 18
    Quote Originally Posted by littledoggie View Post
    OK, so considering that all politicians are possible narcissists, I will now not vote for sociopaths.
    Even applying that stringent criteria may shrink the field of candidates as much down to very few. Reply With Quote