QUOTE (JohnS @ Dec 2 2008, 02:51 AM)
OK, so I've got a philosophical-type question here that I've been pondering for a bit....
I understand, and agree to a certain extent, with everyone here about the need for political parties to do their own fundraising. People have brought up a lot of good points about the benefits of it, and I don't have a problem with those benefits. However, there's one thing that I think people haven't adequately addressed, and that is the question about why is it bad for the state to also support political parties.
Someone, I believe it was Stephen (but I'm not sure, as I was kind of debating with a handful of people at the same time) brought up the possibility of funding a terrorist party. I think I addressed that pretty well, and Garth also brought up the idea of a wing of Hamas or....someone else getting political funding here. His argument, if I remember correctly, was that if we wouldn't want to fund that even a little bit, then we shouldn't fund anyone.
However, nobody touched on the idea that I had brought up....the whole idea of "I might not agree with your idea, but I will defend to the death your right to express it." So, I was wondering what people thought of that aspect. There are lots of ideas out there that I don't agree with, and that I actually abhor, but I don't want those thoughts banned. Rather, I would rather get them out in the open so that I can better attack and defeat them. In Canada, we've done that fairly well over the last century, and I'd like to think that we're still able to defeat ideas through discussion, and not have to resort to banning them. It wasn't that long ago that women were considered inferior to men, and people believed that it was the white man's duty to civilize other cultures. These ideas are mostly non-existent now, thanks to people addressing them and disproving them.
Secondly, in an ideal democracy, each individual would take the time to get informed about each candidate before casting their vote. Now, we're not an ideal democracy, but I don't think that means that we shouldn't strive towards getting closer to one. And if we want to have an educated, informed population before elections, to my mind that means that it's at least partially the government's responsibility to ensure that the information is readily accessible to each voter. The easiest way for the government to fulfill that responsibility would be to financially support each party's efforts in getting out their message.
And lastly, as mentioned in some other post, a threshold of 5% (I believe) of the popular vote was set that is needed for different parties to access that funding. Now, I don't know the actual numbers, but let's say that half the population is of the age to vote, which means there are 16 000 000 eligible voters in Canada. Five percent of that is 800 000. If 800 000 Canadians think that the policies and ideas of a party are worthwhile, doesn't it behoove me, as part of my civic duty, to at least see what they have to offer? And if it is my civic duty to do so, and if it's the government's responsibility to ensure that I can get informed fairly easily (as access to education is considered a right), then shouldn't political parties be at least partially subsidized?
As I said before, I'm not looking for answers talking about the benefits of individuals supporting the party of their choice - I agree that that's a good thing. But what I'm trying to figure out, so I can come to an informed opinion, is what are the reasons, philosophically speaking, why having the government involved in educating its population is a bad thing before an election./>
So, any takers? Garth, you started to address it before - any more insights for me?
JohnS
Money can indeed help to get information out. And that is for educators and doctors and the like to do. It is only purely information if it comes from one without an axe to grind, ie something to gain or win.
Do you really believe the political parties would use your money to disseminate pure information? Of course not, they're people too. They use it to fund the operations of their party machines, and included in that is their putting out to the public their message, complete with their spin. And they should have every right to put out their message, but I as a taxpayer should not be forced to pay for any of those marketing and advertising costs if I do not support that party's ideals and ambitions and agendas. All the parties should have to pay the costs of their operations.
Let's for once be just a little bit bold. Let's try something simple and balanced in this country lead by people of indecision in the guise of openess and comprimise.
Let's have taxpayers fund only the election campaign advertising costs of all the parties, on a pro-rata basis adjusted to the number of candidates they run, and limited by a factor that recognizes a 'value' for each of the Provinces they run candidates in (maybe based on population).
The Bloc would get only an amount relative to the cost of running their campaign advertising in Quebec. As things are now they are paid as if they had the expenses in all of Canada, so the money they receive has 3 or 4 times the value/impact as that of any of the other parties. DOesn't that leave you feeling a little like 'hey, that's not fair to the rest of Canadians'.
This would leave all the parties to raise their own money from their own supporters for all their other costs. But it would make for a level playing field for all parties at election time.
