Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
CONTRIBUTION · 31st October 2011
Mike Ross
Many of you may recall this warning as being preceded by the message that "Something important (usually documents) was contained inside" so treat it carefully. I have preceded it with the word Democracy.

Never before has it been so evident that our ability to exercise our Democratic rights ends with the announcment of the latest election results. We make our mark on the ballot and that's it for 3 years. If somebody does something that outrages us, we are powerless for that time and even then, our only recourse is to "vote out" the offending individual(s) in favour of new ones who may outrage us again. If , in the meantime, what has angered us happens to be the squandering of huge amounts of tax dollars, that money is gone, No amount of "revenge" voting will get it back.

There must be, at least a little, intervening accountability. When a politician says he or she "wants to listen to the people" let us ask them if they are willing to commit to that tangibly, or are they just "talking the talk".

I advocate a most participative (Direct) Democracy which will even allow voters to veto decisions on major expenditures. We may never use this option, but, like any safety net, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.(How many of us would have stopped the Co-op purchase had we the authority?)

Naturally, in the coming election, I ask that you vote for me, and I believe that I will represent you well. More importantly, though, I ask you to vote. Utilize the freedom to choose that many are not fortunate enough to have.
Majority Rule?
Comment by Mr. Peters on 1st November 2011
"Listening to the people", is a pious platitude which means nothing, everyone says it. It is like saying "good day" to some, when in fact you could care less if they had a good day or not.

If you held a Canada wide referendum on whether or not Quebec should retain its special classification within Canada, I would bet Quebec would loss. Come to think of it maybe majority rule is not so bad after all.

The only reason the HST lost is because it was introduced in the most horrible way possible, and its appoints were allowed to direct the conversation, coupled with peoples inability to think for themselves.
Such anger?
Comment by Mike Ross on 1st November 2011
This principle has been applied successfully, not as a replacement for good leadership (which must be expected of course) but only as a defence against a wrong decision according to the majority. The defeat of the HST is good example of Direct Democracy, and whether or not we approved of the HST, we must embrace the process that defeated it : the people having the final say if necessary.

It is the accountability that we hear so much about and I would question anyone's motive who opposes accountability.

Virtually every candidate has attached value to "listening to the people" which, in essence, is saying "what the hell do you think I should do?" only without the venom.
Rule by the mob
Comment by Mr. Peters on 1st November 2011
There reaches a point were you have to many cooks in the kitchen and the only thing being produced is crap. We need leadership, not someone who wants to hold hands and ask, "what the hell should I do, I have no idea of my own." Either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.