kEiThZ
Superstar
Left leaning parties have been getting walloped the world over because voters think they care more about virtue signalling than actually delivering on policy. Parties imposing candidates would make that worse.
|
|
|
PM Mark Carney's Canada
- Thread starter Richard White
- Start date
Left leaning parties have been getting walloped the world over because voters think they care more about virtue signalling than actually delivering on policy. Parties imposing candidates would make that worse.
Richard White
Senior Member
Which is what the NDP does.
I have seen party brass veto a candidate because they did not meet requirements.
Northern Light
Superstar
A review of the literature suggests that in most developed world nations conscious bias, one way or the other is limited.
To the extent unconscious bias is a factor, it tends to favour men, for first time candidates (as opposed to incumbents)
So there is no little to no evidence that selecting for a female candidate outside of a normal electoral process would improve electoral outcomes.
I broadly agree with this; though all parties have imposed 'star candidates' for decades. Those are usually only a handful of ridings.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm not sure it makes it worse; though the bias I discussed above suggests it may; but more critically, there's no evidence for a positive impact.
I agree that policy is a greater key; though lets also add, most people aren't policy wonks and most media outlets don't get into the weeds on policy and those that do tend to get small audiences for that type of content.
A likable candidate (irrespective of their various demographic characteristics), a message that resonates, supported by solid policy (and once in office, solid outcomes) is a far more important said of drivers.
****
For all of that, tackling statistically significant under representation of sizable demographics within society ought not to be considered a bad thing; though I think the ways to address it involve attracting/recruiting a diversity of high quality candidates and giving them a fair push (financial resources, campaign team professionals), then let the chips fall where they may.
picard102
Senior Member
So based on nothing. You're the one who said it, it's on you to prove, not me.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Meh. I don't care. I stand by it. Enjoy.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I think the rigidness of our political parties is bad enough in Canada. It's that much worse when candidates are parachuted in. Regardless of the reason. The process of campaigning for a nomination produces candidates with a strong local network. You parachute in candidates and you risk alienating the local community. If they have a favoured person, they should let them run in the riding like everybody else.
zang
Senior Member
Why is the assumption that meeting those requirements means unqualified candidates?
Richard White
Senior Member
Alot of times, parties will throw in a random person to fill an empty riding. They want a name on the ballot without concern for who it is or if they are qualified. The thinking is that the party name will win the seat, not the candidate and you can only win an election via picking up enough seats.
I know from experienced that the NDP in particular has to get their candidates vetted and approved by the party before their nomination is confirmed. If they don't meet requirements set forth by the party they won't be approved.
That said, the NDP in particular has gender parity and miniority representation requirements for their ridings. They would prefer a minority or a woman over someone else if at all possible.
picard102
Senior Member
Bingo.
zang
Senior Member
You made that claim, back it up.
If a party is running a new candidate in a riding, odds are the party name is what will get them votes, period. Especially against an incumbent.
I really don't understand your position on all of this beyond your oft-mentioned resentment towards the party.
Most parties do that. Those that don't are stupid and open themselves up to a world of scandals.
Is that a problem? What exactly is wrong with gender parity or giving minorities representation? It's not like white straight men are somehow excluded from the party (see the current contenders in the federal leadership race).
The NDP isn't just picking random people.
Aside from all that, it may come as a shock to know that none of parties select candidates entirely on merit alone. There's a reason we have Doug Ford in office, a former PM named Justin Trudeau, and why Mike Harris Jr. was suddenly a candidate in Kitchener-Conostoga when (unrelated) Michael Harris was kicked out of the caucus. All three got where they were because of their names.
Again, if you make the claim, back that claim up.
I'm a party member myself, and don't much appreciate the claims.
afransen
Senior Member
Cabinet formation is Canada is already very constrained. You need representations from all the regions. You need representation for women. You need representation for important ethnic groups. It makes for a lot of compromise for picking the best people for the job because of representational requirements.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Do you really though? Would anyone actually care that much (other than Quebec) perhaps? Most people can't even tell who the ministers are, much less where they hail from. And representation is meaningless if it went to some low-profile portfolio anyways.
I doubt anyone is going to say - the PM didn't have anyone from my jurisdiction/ethnicity/sex in his cabinet - I am not going to vote for his party as a result. What will lose votes is when someone chosen under performs and/or get into the spotlight for their transgressions.
AoD
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
People don't care until the media makes a big to-do about this region being left out in the cold, or it being a 'boys club', etc. And ministers from certain ethnic groups are important to outreach in those communities. Of course, it is more important that people are beyond a certain bar of competence. But that doesn't mean people who are more qualified don't get passed over because there are too many ministers from the GTA, etc.
Full Metal Junkie
Active Member
Here is a decent summary/discussion on this topic from Harvard.
In general, opponents of quotas argue that at best the forced quotas will lead to a similarly qualified candidate being selected. However, forced quotas will inevitably result in some cases where the candidate selected on a quota basis is not as qualified as the best applicant. Therefore, on the whole, quotas will hurt meritocracy to some extent.
Personally, I wonder how much qualification one requires to be a party rank-and-file member whose only job description is to toe the party line? Will getting rid of gender/minority quotas really result in better qualified rubber-stampers?
However, when it comes to Ministerial positions that actually require proper technical background, education, knowledge, and experience, I wholeheartedly agree that merit should always come before identity politics.