I'm not sure I understand your alternative (are you raising taxes on someone or not?), but in fact, I do deny that most of those advantages truly exist.
It's entirely up to the parties how much time they spend fundraising. They don't have to spend any time raising money. They could conceivably put all their time towards it. In any case, regardless of whether or not a subsidy exists, they're still going to be spending at least some time raising money in other fashions. Possibly less, possibly the exact same amount, maybe even more because now their opponents have more money and the relative size of their war chests will have changed.
The money's not coming solely from upper bracket people, either. The first $400 you donate comes with a 75% credit, so unless you're paying practically nothing in taxes, you can donate considerably more than the average donor does for only $100. The mean donation to the Tories works out to less than $44 after the rebate. That's nothing. Your idea that the money comes only from high income brackets is completely erroneous. It may not come from the bottom 10%, but it certainly comes from all the rest. For instance, the Conservatives spent a lot of time appealing to rural folks -who tend to have relatively low incomes- in order to get cash to "help kill the long-gun registry".
Your assumption that fundraising ability is anywhere near proportional to electoral support is also false. In 2009 the Tories raised about 45% of all funds, while the Bloc raised only 2%. I'm not sure what the 2010 numbers were, but considering the massive swings in support for the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc in the last three weeks of the campaign, I'd say their ability to raise funds has very little to do with their ability to get votes.
We're still going to have to monitor election financing rules because shenanigans will still ensue. Elections Canada would only have to deal with about half the paperwork regarding donations, but they'd have to keep whatever department they use to deal with the subsidy disbursements. Overall, I think they'd save some money by keeping the subsidies, but I don't know how much.
You are, however, correct in saying that a party that appeals solely to the poor could not exist without subsidies. But, such a party does not exist now, and in order to qualify for the subsidy you need to get at least 5% of the vote in the ridings in which you run candidates, or 2% nationally, which is a pretty big hurdle to overcome when you don't have any money to begin with. That's also why you couldn't support parties merely with per-vote subsidies: Any new parties would be totally fucked over. I suppose you could hand out money based on how many members a party has, but I'm not certain how the number of registered members correlates with the number of votes a party gets, so it could be wildly skewed.
In any event, I still don't think losing the subsidies is all that big a deal. We got by without them for 135 years, and we'll get by without them again.
I'm not sure I understand your alternative (are you raising taxes on someone or not?), but in fact, I do deny that most of those advantages truly exist.
I could, or I could not. It doesn't really matter. My point is that a government tax scheme could replicate the financial burden of democratic partisan politics on the Canadian population with minimal imposition on the Canadian citizen, thus negating any affirmative reason to enact this change.
It's entirely up to the parties how much time they spend fundraising. They don't have to spend any time raising money. They could conceivably put all their time towards it. In any case, regardless of whether or not a subsidy exists, they're still going to be spending at least some time raising money in other fashions. Possibly less, possibly the exact same amount, maybe even more because now their opponents have more money and the relative size of their war chests will have changed....
Your assumption that fundraising ability is anywhere near proportional to electoral support is also false. In 2009 the Tories raised about 45% of all funds, while the Bloc raised only 2%. I'm not sure what the 2010 numbers were, but considering the massive swings in support for the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc in the last three weeks of the campaign, I'd say their ability to raise funds has very little to do with their ability to get votes.
First of all, the correlation between fundraising and electoral success is a) evident in the actions of politicians and political parties, b) well-ensconced in common sense understanding of democratic politics. If you're going to deny such a correlation, I suggest you'll have to do better than to cherry-pick a single statistic.
Second of all, the statistic you did cherry-pick supports, rather than refutes, the correlation. The Conservatives trounced the Bloc in fundraising... and then they trounced the Bloc in electoral wins and popular vote. In fact, the Tories won 39.62% of the popular vote while the Bloc won 6.04%, figures that closely correspond to the fundraising numbers you presented. (Note I did not say that the correlation was strict nor linear nor causative, though the latter is implied.)
Third of all, and I have no evidence to support this offhand, but I very much expect political fundraising to increase with this change. The political parties have electoral machines built up in certain ways with certain budgets, and given that an election is a zero-sum competitive game with incomplete information, one can only expect a build-up, not a ramp-down, for the same reason that opposing militaries also ramp up. I would be utterly and completely shocked if political fundraising numbers did not increase over the next four years, and feel free to quote this post and rub it in my face in 2015 if that does not happen.
The money's not coming solely from upper bracket people, either. The first $400 you donate comes with a 75% credit, so unless you're paying practically nothing in taxes, you can donate considerably more than the average donor does for only $100. The mean donation to the Tories works out to less than $44 after the rebate. That's nothing. Your idea that the money comes only from high income brackets is completely erroneous. It may not come from the bottom 10%, but it certainly comes from all the rest. For instance, the Conservatives spent a lot of time appealing to rural folks -who tend to have relatively low incomes- in order to get cash to "help kill the long-gun registry".
Fourth of all, I was just trying to simplify it. If you want, I can reframe the alternative as: determine the amount of money donated to political parties by each income tax bracket in Canada. Find income tax rates for each bracket such as to fix the proportions taxed from each bracket to match the proportions in political donations. Scale these tax rates so as to achieve the desired amount of money to be spent by the political parties in an election campaign. This way, the financial burden for political parties is born roughly the same as it would be without government subsidies, which removes any such incentive to enact this change.
(It is, of course, not necessarily true that this is the ideal distribution or system, but my point is such a system could exist that negates any positive effect from this change.
Also, it is easier to frame this as a new tax, so I don't have to explain where the money would come from, but it's equally viable without raising taxes though that requires a broader, more comprehensive view of the entire Canadian federal budget, which seems a bit unnecessary for this conversation.)
Fifth of all, many Canadians pay no income tax. ~7.3% of Canadians are in households with incomes <=$10000, effectively paying no federal income tax according to Stats Can, 2000. More individuals pay no income tax, though I'm unable to find an amount. The percentage is 47% for Americans. Thus a non-refundable tax credit does nothing for them.
Sixth of all, if, as you suggest, that the money donated to political parties does not come strictly from upper bracket people, that anybody and everybody can and does donate to the political parties, then this why enact this change? Will this change shift the burden of political party funding down the income scale? Surely not; it will shift it upwards to some degree. I can only assume, then, that any supporter of this change wants to redistribute the burden of political party funding, and this can only mean a desire to tie the success of political parties more closely to the whims of those with more disposable income, and who are thus more likely to donate more money to political parties.
Seventh of all, if the Canadian government refunds much of the amount donated to political parties... then what the hell does this change accomplish anyways? So now the Canadian government will only be paying $20M to the political parties? By your own arguments, if political donations represent such a small burden on individual Canadians, then it, in turn, could only represent a similarly small burden on the Canadian federal government, and a broad, general levy on all Canadians can only represent an even smaller individual burden on individual Canadians.
We're still going to have to monitor election financing rules because shenanigans will still ensue. Elections Canada would only have to deal with about half the paperwork regarding donations, but they'd have to keep whatever department they use to deal with the subsidy disbursements. Overall, I think they'd save some money by keeping the subsidies, but I don't know how much.
Eighth of all, with more donations from more people and an increased dependence on donations for electoral success, this can only increase the burden on Elections Canada. Even a conservative model would predict more occurrences of election financing malfeasance due to simply more events for such malfeasance to occur, either intentionally or accidentally. It'll also increase the burden on Revenue Canada, the tax industry, and taxpayers in general, due to a slight uptick in the amount of paperwork. Minor effects, but still.
You are, however, correct in saying that a party that appeals solely to the poor could not exist without subsidies. But, such a party does not exist now, and in order to qualify for the subsidy you need to get at least 5% of the vote in the ridings in which you run candidates, or 2% nationally, which is a pretty big hurdle to overcome when you don't have any money to begin with. That's also why you couldn't support parties merely with per-vote subsidies: Any new parties would be totally fucked over. I suppose you could hand out money based on how many members a party has, but I'm not certain how the number of registered members correlates with the number of votes a party gets, so it could be wildly skewed.
Ninth of all, I simply suggested that as an extreme example. But I will note that here, you recognize that new parties that don't receive funding would be "totally fucked over", yet above, you denied a correlation between fundraising and electoral success.
In any event, I still don't think losing the subsidies is all that big a deal. We got by without them for 135 years, and we'll get by without them again.
Tenth of all... first this is a straw man. I never suggested that it was a big deal or that the country will collapse now. I simply believe that this is a step in the incorrect direction. Second, it's also a non-sequitur: we got by without the Internet for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean we should abolish that too.
As an analogy, if you go to university, you get a loan from the government. Firstly, it'd be easier if you didn't have to do that, if the government simply subsidized you, the amount of paperwork and administrative overhead on your, the government, and the university's parts would be reduced. Secondly, imagine if you couldn't get a sufficiently large loan from a single organization, but instead had to get 10 loans from 10 different organizations. Imagine how much extra work you'd have to do, how much extra paperwork would have to be completed, how much extra overhead would exist, how many more restrictions you'd have imposed upon you, how many more disputes, errors, and miscommunication issues would arise between all the various parties, how many more court cases over these issues and others. That's basically the same direction we're pushing our political parties in; I cannot understand why anybody who's not incredibly shortsightedly selfish would think that's a good thing.
In short, money is power. By mandating that political parties get their money from individual donors, we are shifting power over political parties to individual donors, who are more likely to be affluent and furthermore will be more likely to be more affluent as time passes and new fundraising closes the financial gap left by the subsidy removal, and for what? So the government can, instead of paying $25M in subsidies, refund $20M in income taxes, while spending more money on regulatory and administrative overhead and inviting/encouraging electoral financing malfeasance?
You know people can put this shit on Facebook right? Money fucking matters. These ads were slick, professional products that were the result of focus-group research for maximum impact. Some stupid facebook pages on how an onion ring is more popular then Harper won't impact an election.
The Conservatives have the money to reach across the entire spectrum of media and saturate it with their messaging and branding. You, you can post some funny shit on Facebook that people will forget in a few minutes. Best of luck, have fun. Enjoy single-digit voting results in the next election as you behold the real power of Facebook.
The best politicians have friends who work at advertising agencies, friends who are indie directors who want a challenge, and friends who are amateur animators who fully support the cause. The exposure from the advertising itself is usually enough payment if you use little guys. This is how political campaigns were run in the 60s, almost completely pro-bono in exchange for prestige and exposure.
You don't need to spend money if you don't want to. You just need to have a proper social network and rolodex.
The Liberals are just incompetent at running a grassroots campaign, which is why the NDP split their vote.
Who needs campaign fundraising when we have Facebook? The Millennials rival the Boomers in size. The swing vote is the Gen-Xers.
Elections are still won by spending money. Obama outspent McCain. Harper outspent all other parties combined.
It's amazing flicking through riding results from elections from 2008 and seeing the difference in money-spent from year to year compared to the difference in results.
And by that I mean, seeing the blatant connection.
It works great for local campaigns, which is what candidates should be focusing on anyways.
This was another faux-pas the Liberals made. They relied solely on their national campaign, giving the Conservatives a single venue to attack. Iggy was made to be a deficit and down went all their work and focus. They were left wailing.
The Conservatives ran "micro-targeting" campaigns in every riding, tailored exactly to the riding's needs and demographics. The only thing national they did was attack Iggy. The old Tory brass was actually *complaining* about the lack of a national focus in Conservative campaign.
The best politicians have friends who work at advertising agencies, friends who are indie directors who want a challenge, and friends who are amateur animators who fully support the cause. The exposure from the advertising itself is usually enough payment if you use little guys. This is how political campaigns were run in the 60s, almost completely pro-bono in exchange for prestige and exposure.
Pssst, the parties with money can also do all of this. And then do all the things that money buys, too.
If only we had some sort of track record of money influencing politics that we could reference...
I'm a big fan of the Rovian campaign as it's cheap, organized, and effective.
"A campaign must first be centered on big ideas that reflect the candidate's philosophy and views and that are perceived by voters as important and relevant." - Karl Rove
I've already started calling my NDP competition "a patronage candidate" and "spineless on HST". And it's sticking, partly because it's 100% true.
I love the fact that the local NDP org nominated the campaign manger of the current NDP MP instead of the mayor of Marathon. Makes my life a TON easier as the campaign manager has done nothing substantial, outside of getting people elected. I can just call her a careerist backbencher and be done.
I'm a big fan of the Rovian campaign as it's cheap, organized, and effective.
"A campaign must first be centered on big ideas that reflect the candidate's philosophy and views and that are perceived by voters as important and relevant." - Karl Rove
I've already started labeling my NDP competition as "being nominated on patronage" and "spineless on HST". And it's sticking.
2004 campaign finances:
George W. Bush (R) $367,227,801 / 62,040,610 votes = $5.92 per vote
John Kerry (D) $326,236,288 / 59,028,111 votes = $5.52 per vote
DP22, there is a complete disconnect between the facts and your polemic, and you downright refuse to acknowledge reality when it conflicts with your personal beliefs. The NDP people you talked to are correct, you are a right-winger. You're the very model of a modern Conservative/Republican.
I've already started labeling my NDP competition as "being nominated on patronage" and "spineless on HST". And it's sticking.
I wonder how that'll stack up next to your competition labeling you as the guy who'd support any party if it gave him a job? Considering that statement is going to be trivially easy for anyone to find with google, your name, and a few minutes of time.
Look at the individual Congressman campaigns. Or the primaries.
National is always more expensive due to the sheer size and number of media markets you need to target. I need to target Dougall Media...
Wait, you're actually in Thunder Bay?
I will be in August. The other people can't even start campaigning until the writ is dropped. The NDP don't even have a platform yet.
I just use Facebook to get around it as it's free and doesn't need financing. I'll get the traditional media after the writ drops. I'm just trying to define my campaign right now before the others can even start.
I've already started labeling my NDP competition as "being nominated on patronage" and "spineless on HST". And it's sticking.
I wonder how that'll stack up next to your competition labeling you as the guy who'd support any party if it gave him a job? Considering that statement is going to be trivially easy for anyone to find with google, your name, and a few minutes of time.
He has no competition. I'm in Thunder Bay. DP lives in a fantasy world. He's not a blip on anyone's radar. He hasn't made a single ripple. The only place I've heard of his "campaign" is from him, here. Out of 100,000 inhabitants in our city, he ranks 100,000th in political importance and influence.
I've gotten the impression that one of the Liberals' main failings was running a grassroots campaign against the Conservatives' more coherent national effort. The grits were busy knocking on doors while the tories phoned people and made shit up about Liberal candidates.
And at the end of the day, the TV campaign- which had been on air for what, a year prior to the election?- did unknowable amounts of damage to Iggy and the Liberal campaign. Sure, connections matter a lot, but money matters more. Money is more likely to make or break a campaign.
If money didn't matter so much, why would Harper bother ending the vote subsidy?
Look at the individual Congressman campaigns. Or the primaries.
National is always more expensive due to the sheer size and number of media markets you need to target. I need to target Dougall Media...
Wait, you're actually in Thunder Bay?
I will be in August. The other people can't even start campaigning until the writ is dropped. The NDP don't even have a platform yet.
I just use Facebook to get around it as it's free and doesn't need financing. I'll get the traditional media after the writ drops. I'm just trying to define my campaign right now before the others can even start.
I think you already did.
"Disconnected from reality."
"Rovian."
"Will sell out for a job."
I've already started labeling my NDP competition as "being nominated on patronage" and "spineless on HST". And it's sticking.
I wonder how that'll stack up next to your competition labeling you as the guy who'd support any party if it gave him a job? Considering that statement is going to be trivially easy for anyone to find with google, your name, and a few minutes of time.
He has no competition. I'm in Thunder Bay. DP lives in a fantasy world. He's not a blip on anyone's radar. He hasn't made a single ripple. The only place I've heard of his "campaign" is from him, here. Out of 100,000 inhabitants in our city, he ranks 100,000th in political importance and influence.
Do you even know the NDP candidate's name? Or the PC candidate? Do you know who they are?
I do because I've asked around. I have a few important contacts in the municipal government who are a bit unhappy with the PC candidate (he's too right for many).
I haven't been locally campaigning yet as I have been focusing on getting my policies made official by the Green Party. I am also campaigning to be made the Organizing Chair of the Young Greens, so I can head their Get Out The Vote campaign.
Expect to see more when the writ actually drops. I'm still building my campaign team, but my platform has already been written.
"Disconnected from reality."
"Rovian."
"Will sell out for a job."
What is wrong with the Rovian campaign? I'm not lying about anything. It's a style of campaign where you lie out your platform from the beginning and pick out a number of ideas from it to campaign on. And it works. The Liberal/NDP idealist style doesn't as it's paper-thin.
Will I sell out for a job? I campaigned for the Liberals for free (McGregor campaign) after they offered me a job so I could stay independent. I wouldn't ever take a job that would violate my morals and obligations. I'm also STILL campaigning for the Greens.
Disconnected from reality? Have you even looked at the NDP platform. Oh wait, they don't have one.
I've already started labeling my NDP competition as "being nominated on patronage" and "spineless on HST". And it's sticking.
I wonder how that'll stack up next to your competition labeling you as the guy who'd support any party if it gave him a job? Considering that statement is going to be trivially easy for anyone to find with google, your name, and a few minutes of time.
He has no competition. I'm in Thunder Bay. DP lives in a fantasy world. He's not a blip on anyone's radar. He hasn't made a single ripple. The only place I've heard of his "campaign" is from him, here. Out of 100,000 inhabitants in our city, he ranks 100,000th in political importance and influence.
Do you even know the NDP candidate's name? Or the PC candidate? Do you know who they are?
I do because I've asked around. I have a few important contacts in the municipal government who are a bit unhappy with the PC candidate (he's too right for many).
I haven't been locally campaigning yet as I have been focusing on getting my policies made official by the Green Party. I am also campaigning to be made the Organizing Chair of the Young Greens, so I can head their Get Out The Vote campaign.
Expect to see more when the writ actually drops. I'm still building my campaign team, but my platform has already been written.
Bruce Hyer. I've met him. Nice guy.
For the Harperites, the candidate was some guy called Richard Harvey. The only reason to care for him is that he has my first name and the last name of a cool Batman villain. He barely bothered to put signs up. I think he knew he was going to lose. Which I guess makes him smarter than you.
The Con candidate for our neighbouring riding was funnier. Moe something. Her campaign HQ was an empty lot in a small mall. Now it's going to become a Bentley.
I also met the Green candidate. He was at the table next to mine at a restaurant on election night, along with all three of his supporters.
I've already started labeling my NDP competition as "being nominated on patronage" and "spineless on HST". And it's sticking.
I wonder how that'll stack up next to your competition labeling you as the guy who'd support any party if it gave him a job? Considering that statement is going to be trivially easy for anyone to find with google, your name, and a few minutes of time.
He has no competition. I'm in Thunder Bay. DP lives in a fantasy world. He's not a blip on anyone's radar. He hasn't made a single ripple. The only place I've heard of his "campaign" is from him, here. Out of 100,000 inhabitants in our city, he ranks 100,000th in political importance and influence.
Do you even know the NDP candidate's name? Or the PC candidate? Do you know who they are?
I do because I've asked around. I have a few important contacts in the municipal government who are a bit unhappy with the PC candidate (he's too right for many).
I haven't been locally campaigning yet as I have been focusing on getting my policies made official by the Green Party. I am also campaigning to be made the Organizing Chair of the Young Greens, so I can head their Get Out The Vote campaign.
Expect to see more when the writ actually drops. I'm still building my campaign team, but my platform has already been written.
Bruce Hyer. I've met him. Nice guy.
For the Harperites, the candidate was some guy called Richard Harvey. The only reason to care for him is that he has my first name and the last name of a cool Batman villain. He barely bothered to put signs up. I think he knew he was going to lose. Which I guess makes him smarter than you.
The Con candidate for our neighbouring riding was funnier. Moe something. Her campaign HQ was an empty lot in a small mall. Now it's going to become a Bentley.
I also met the Green candidate. He was at the table next to mine at a restaurant on election night, along with all three of his supporters.
Those are the MP candidates for the riding next door.
The NDP MPP candidate is Rafferty's campaign manager. The PC MPP candidiate is an old student union prez who the Tories don't really like. The Greens haven't nominated anyone yet... as they're officially waiting for me to submit my paperwork, as I have been working on other stuff.
I'm running against Mauro, not Hyer. And I like Hyer and Rafferty, as they are essentially Greens in NDP clothing.
"Disconnected from reality."
"Rovian."
"Will sell out for a job."
What is wrong with the Rovian campaign? I'm not lying about anything. It's a style of campaign where you lie out your platform from the beginning and pick out a number of ideas from it to campaign on. And it works. The Liberal/NDP idealist style doesn't as it's paper-thin.
Will I sell out for a job? I campaigned for the Liberals for free (McGregor campaign) after they offered me a job so I could stay independent. I wouldn't ever take a job that would violate my morals and obligations. I'm also STILL campaigning for the Greens.
Disconnected from reality? Have you even looked at the NDP platform. Oh wait, they don't have one.
...you don't actually know who Karl Rove was do you? Or remember anything about the 2004 campaign? And why am I even surprised by this realization?
"Disconnected from reality."
"Rovian."
"Will sell out for a job."
What is wrong with the Rovian campaign? I'm not lying about anything. It's a style of campaign where you lie out your platform from the beginning and pick out a number of ideas from it to campaign on. And it works. The Liberal/NDP idealist style doesn't as it's paper-thin.
Will I sell out for a job? I campaigned for the Liberals for free (McGregor campaign) after they offered me a job so I could stay independent. I wouldn't ever take a job that would violate my morals and obligations. I'm also STILL campaigning for the Greens.
Disconnected from reality? Have you even looked at the NDP platform. Oh wait, they don't have one.
...you don't actually know who Karl Rove was do you? Or remember anything about the 2004 campaign? And why am I even surprised by this realization?
I really don't think he does. It's like he get's all his news by reading the headlines and stopping there.
"Disconnected from reality."
"Rovian."
"Will sell out for a job."
What is wrong with the Rovian campaign? I'm not lying about anything. It's a style of campaign where you lie out your platform from the beginning and pick out a number of ideas from it to campaign on. And it works. The Liberal/NDP idealist style doesn't as it's paper-thin.
Will I sell out for a job? I campaigned for the Liberals for free (McGregor campaign) after they offered me a job so I could stay independent. I wouldn't ever take a job that would violate my morals and obligations. I'm also STILL campaigning for the Greens.
Disconnected from reality? Have you even looked at the NDP platform. Oh wait, they don't have one.
...you don't actually know who Karl Rove was do you? Or remember anything about the 2004 campaign? And why am I even surprised by this realization?
I'm pretty sure a Rovian Campaign is one where you push-poll the people of South Carolina about how the 9 year old Bangladeshi orphan your opponent adopted is actually their illegitimate half-black child.
"Disconnected from reality."
"Rovian."
"Will sell out for a job."
What is wrong with the Rovian campaign? I'm not lying about anything. It's a style of campaign where you lie out your platform from the beginning and pick out a number of ideas from it to campaign on. And it works. The Liberal/NDP idealist style doesn't as it's paper-thin.
Will I sell out for a job? I campaigned for the Liberals for free (McGregor campaign) after they offered me a job so I could stay independent. I wouldn't ever take a job that would violate my morals and obligations. I'm also STILL campaigning for the Greens.
Disconnected from reality? Have you even looked at the NDP platform. Oh wait, they don't have one.
...you don't actually know who Karl Rove was do you? Or remember anything about the 2004 campaign? And why am I even surprised by this realization?
I know who Rove was. I disagree completely with his goals, but his campaign tactics (aside from the phonecalls, which I will never do) were ace. His overall campaign strategy of:
"The first is to take your opponent's strong point and make it a negative."
and
"To take your own weakness and turn it into a plus."
were genius. If the left ever wants to get ahead, it's going to have to look at how the right is doing things and copy the legit stuff. Which is what I intend to do.
"The first is to take your opponent's strong point and make it a negative."
The NDP candidate was nominated on patronage and is spineless on HST. Completely true.
"To take your own weakness and turn it into a plus."
The fact that I am currently located in S. Ontario. I'm focusing on using social media as a result. If asked, the reason why I moved down here was to avoid the gay bigotry back home. I'm coming back to help expose it and help fix it. Completely true.
Could we just go back to the time when we ignored this joker? It was so much more productive. We could talk about things that actually had basis in fact.
Could we just go back to the time when we ignored this joker? It was so much more productive. We could talk about things that actually had basis in fact.
Well, you aren't cut out for a campaign then, because once people see who you are and what you stand for, you're going to get a lot worse than what you have received here.
I mean seriously, you want to run a f-ing Rovian campaign, but are under an absolutely false impression of what that is! You're a clown.
Well, you aren't cut out for a campaign then, because once people see who you are and what you stand for, you're going to get a lot worse than what you have received here.
I mean seriously, you want to run a f-ing Rovian campaign, but are under an absolutely false impression of what that is! You're a clown.
Now he's going to turn being a clown into a positive.
"I entertain children and get invited to birthday parties!"
This is like the fifth time you've said this and yet you keep coming back to this thread. Also your idea of attempting build your campaign almost entirely online is laughable. However I am glad that the self-reference as a politician seems to have stopped since you aren't actually running for any political party, I'm sure in a week or so we'll get a post about how that paper work 'got lost in the mail' or some other such nonsense.
I know who Rove was. I disagree completely with his goals, but his campaign tactics (aside from the phonecalls, which I will never do) were ace. His overall campaign strategy of:
"The first is to take your opponent's strong point and make it a negative."
and
"To take your own weakness and turn it into a plus."
were genius. If the left ever wants to get ahead, it's going to have to look at how the right is doing things and copy the legit stuff. Which is what I intend to do.
"The first is to take your opponent's strong point and make it a negative."
The NDP candidate was nominated on patronage and is spineless on HST. Completely true.
"To take your own weakness and turn it into a plus."
The fact that I am currently located in S. Ontario. I'm focusing on using social media as a result. If asked, the reason why I moved down here was to avoid the gay bigotry back home. I'm coming back to help expose it and help fix it. Completely true.
Wait, it just dawned on me that if you're running in the provincial election in Thunder Bay, then you're running against Mike Gravelle.
Mike "Minister of Mines, Forests and Northern Development" Gravelle
Mike "I breathe, eat and bleed the North" Gravelle
Mike "The North is my world and my life" Gravelle
And you're "spinning your weakness" as "I went to Southern Ontario to escape from you Northern homophobic hicks and now I'm back to rub it in and expose you for what you really are".
Wow, this is going to go well :^: I can hardly wait for the campaign now.
I know who Rove was. I disagree completely with his goals, but his campaign tactics (aside from the phonecalls, which I will never do) were ace. His overall campaign strategy of:
"The first is to take your opponent's strong point and make it a negative."
and
"To take your own weakness and turn it into a plus."
were genius. If the left ever wants to get ahead, it's going to have to look at how the right is doing things and copy the legit stuff. Which is what I intend to do.
"The first is to take your opponent's strong point and make it a negative."
The NDP candidate was nominated on patronage and is spineless on HST. Completely true.
"To take your own weakness and turn it into a plus."
The fact that I am currently located in S. Ontario. I'm focusing on using social media as a result. If asked, the reason why I moved down here was to avoid the gay bigotry back home. I'm coming back to help expose it and help fix it. Completely true.
Wait, it just dawned on me that if you're running in the provincial election in Thunder Bay, then you're running against Mike Gravelle.
Mike "Minister of Mines, Forests and Northern Development" Gravelle
Mike "I breathe, eat and bleed the North" Gravelle
Mike "The North is my world and my life" Gravelle
And you're "spinning your weakness" as "I went to Southern Ontario to escape from you Northern homophobic hicks and now I'm back to rub it in and expose you for what you really are".
Wow, this is going to go well :^: I can hardly wait for the campaign now.
My favourite part is all the 'master minding' that is going on in this forum. Clearly he is a political genius who will with ease out campaign people who have been at this game for a while and actually, through trial and error, have determined at least somewhat an effective strategy.
I kind of came up with a somewhat elegant solution: if a party gets a donation from person X in riding Y, then 75% of the donation from X has to be spent on efforts directly targeted at that riding. Not on nationwide ad campaigns, but only local ads on local television, radio or newspapers. If you want to buy time on a national paper or TV channel (as defined by some % of viewership living outside the riding) you must do so with federal vote subsidy money.
That way, rich people in Calgary can't fund Conservatives in Toronto. Conversely, rich Torontonians can't pay for the election campaigns of Liberal candidates in Newfoundland.
Posts
It's entirely up to the parties how much time they spend fundraising. They don't have to spend any time raising money. They could conceivably put all their time towards it. In any case, regardless of whether or not a subsidy exists, they're still going to be spending at least some time raising money in other fashions. Possibly less, possibly the exact same amount, maybe even more because now their opponents have more money and the relative size of their war chests will have changed.
The money's not coming solely from upper bracket people, either. The first $400 you donate comes with a 75% credit, so unless you're paying practically nothing in taxes, you can donate considerably more than the average donor does for only $100. The mean donation to the Tories works out to less than $44 after the rebate. That's nothing. Your idea that the money comes only from high income brackets is completely erroneous. It may not come from the bottom 10%, but it certainly comes from all the rest. For instance, the Conservatives spent a lot of time appealing to rural folks -who tend to have relatively low incomes- in order to get cash to "help kill the long-gun registry".
Your assumption that fundraising ability is anywhere near proportional to electoral support is also false. In 2009 the Tories raised about 45% of all funds, while the Bloc raised only 2%. I'm not sure what the 2010 numbers were, but considering the massive swings in support for the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc in the last three weeks of the campaign, I'd say their ability to raise funds has very little to do with their ability to get votes.
We're still going to have to monitor election financing rules because shenanigans will still ensue. Elections Canada would only have to deal with about half the paperwork regarding donations, but they'd have to keep whatever department they use to deal with the subsidy disbursements. Overall, I think they'd save some money by keeping the subsidies, but I don't know how much.
You are, however, correct in saying that a party that appeals solely to the poor could not exist without subsidies. But, such a party does not exist now, and in order to qualify for the subsidy you need to get at least 5% of the vote in the ridings in which you run candidates, or 2% nationally, which is a pretty big hurdle to overcome when you don't have any money to begin with. That's also why you couldn't support parties merely with per-vote subsidies: Any new parties would be totally fucked over. I suppose you could hand out money based on how many members a party has, but I'm not certain how the number of registered members correlates with the number of votes a party gets, so it could be wildly skewed.
In any event, I still don't think losing the subsidies is all that big a deal. We got by without them for 135 years, and we'll get by without them again.
I could, or I could not. It doesn't really matter. My point is that a government tax scheme could replicate the financial burden of democratic partisan politics on the Canadian population with minimal imposition on the Canadian citizen, thus negating any affirmative reason to enact this change.
First of all, the correlation between fundraising and electoral success is a) evident in the actions of politicians and political parties, b) well-ensconced in common sense understanding of democratic politics. If you're going to deny such a correlation, I suggest you'll have to do better than to cherry-pick a single statistic.
Second of all, the statistic you did cherry-pick supports, rather than refutes, the correlation. The Conservatives trounced the Bloc in fundraising... and then they trounced the Bloc in electoral wins and popular vote. In fact, the Tories won 39.62% of the popular vote while the Bloc won 6.04%, figures that closely correspond to the fundraising numbers you presented. (Note I did not say that the correlation was strict nor linear nor causative, though the latter is implied.)
Third of all, and I have no evidence to support this offhand, but I very much expect political fundraising to increase with this change. The political parties have electoral machines built up in certain ways with certain budgets, and given that an election is a zero-sum competitive game with incomplete information, one can only expect a build-up, not a ramp-down, for the same reason that opposing militaries also ramp up. I would be utterly and completely shocked if political fundraising numbers did not increase over the next four years, and feel free to quote this post and rub it in my face in 2015 if that does not happen.
Fourth of all, I was just trying to simplify it. If you want, I can reframe the alternative as: determine the amount of money donated to political parties by each income tax bracket in Canada. Find income tax rates for each bracket such as to fix the proportions taxed from each bracket to match the proportions in political donations. Scale these tax rates so as to achieve the desired amount of money to be spent by the political parties in an election campaign. This way, the financial burden for political parties is born roughly the same as it would be without government subsidies, which removes any such incentive to enact this change.
Also, it is easier to frame this as a new tax, so I don't have to explain where the money would come from, but it's equally viable without raising taxes though that requires a broader, more comprehensive view of the entire Canadian federal budget, which seems a bit unnecessary for this conversation.)
Fifth of all, many Canadians pay no income tax. ~7.3% of Canadians are in households with incomes <=$10000, effectively paying no federal income tax according to Stats Can, 2000. More individuals pay no income tax, though I'm unable to find an amount. The percentage is 47% for Americans. Thus a non-refundable tax credit does nothing for them.
Sixth of all, if, as you suggest, that the money donated to political parties does not come strictly from upper bracket people, that anybody and everybody can and does donate to the political parties, then this why enact this change? Will this change shift the burden of political party funding down the income scale? Surely not; it will shift it upwards to some degree. I can only assume, then, that any supporter of this change wants to redistribute the burden of political party funding, and this can only mean a desire to tie the success of political parties more closely to the whims of those with more disposable income, and who are thus more likely to donate more money to political parties.
Seventh of all, if the Canadian government refunds much of the amount donated to political parties... then what the hell does this change accomplish anyways? So now the Canadian government will only be paying $20M to the political parties? By your own arguments, if political donations represent such a small burden on individual Canadians, then it, in turn, could only represent a similarly small burden on the Canadian federal government, and a broad, general levy on all Canadians can only represent an even smaller individual burden on individual Canadians.
Eighth of all, with more donations from more people and an increased dependence on donations for electoral success, this can only increase the burden on Elections Canada. Even a conservative model would predict more occurrences of election financing malfeasance due to simply more events for such malfeasance to occur, either intentionally or accidentally. It'll also increase the burden on Revenue Canada, the tax industry, and taxpayers in general, due to a slight uptick in the amount of paperwork. Minor effects, but still.
Ninth of all, I simply suggested that as an extreme example. But I will note that here, you recognize that new parties that don't receive funding would be "totally fucked over", yet above, you denied a correlation between fundraising and electoral success.
Tenth of all... first this is a straw man. I never suggested that it was a big deal or that the country will collapse now. I simply believe that this is a step in the incorrect direction. Second, it's also a non-sequitur: we got by without the Internet for thousands of years, but that doesn't mean we should abolish that too.
As an analogy, if you go to university, you get a loan from the government. Firstly, it'd be easier if you didn't have to do that, if the government simply subsidized you, the amount of paperwork and administrative overhead on your, the government, and the university's parts would be reduced. Secondly, imagine if you couldn't get a sufficiently large loan from a single organization, but instead had to get 10 loans from 10 different organizations. Imagine how much extra work you'd have to do, how much extra paperwork would have to be completed, how much extra overhead would exist, how many more restrictions you'd have imposed upon you, how many more disputes, errors, and miscommunication issues would arise between all the various parties, how many more court cases over these issues and others. That's basically the same direction we're pushing our political parties in; I cannot understand why anybody who's not incredibly shortsightedly selfish would think that's a good thing.
In short, money is power. By mandating that political parties get their money from individual donors, we are shifting power over political parties to individual donors, who are more likely to be affluent and furthermore will be more likely to be more affluent as time passes and new fundraising closes the financial gap left by the subsidy removal, and for what? So the government can, instead of paying $25M in subsidies, refund $20M in income taxes, while spending more money on regulatory and administrative overhead and inviting/encouraging electoral financing malfeasance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x5otmNy1iE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaqNxU2Ea6w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ0fVaMMpx0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aiGNvhgv9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq1BfkEWwy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urPwfuOWRSE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL2lDgvHDqI
You know people can put this shit on Facebook right? Money fucking matters. These ads were slick, professional products that were the result of focus-group research for maximum impact. Some stupid facebook pages on how an onion ring is more popular then Harper won't impact an election.
The Conservatives have the money to reach across the entire spectrum of media and saturate it with their messaging and branding. You, you can post some funny shit on Facebook that people will forget in a few minutes. Best of luck, have fun. Enjoy single-digit voting results in the next election as you behold the real power of Facebook.
You don't need to spend money if you don't want to. You just need to have a proper social network and rolodex.
The Liberals are just incompetent at running a grassroots campaign, which is why the NDP split their vote.
It's amazing flicking through riding results from elections from 2008 and seeing the difference in money-spent from year to year compared to the difference in results.
And by that I mean, seeing the blatant connection.
This was another faux-pas the Liberals made. They relied solely on their national campaign, giving the Conservatives a single venue to attack. Iggy was made to be a deficit and down went all their work and focus. They were left wailing.
The Conservatives ran "micro-targeting" campaigns in every riding, tailored exactly to the riding's needs and demographics. The only thing national they did was attack Iggy. The old Tory brass was actually *complaining* about the lack of a national focus in Conservative campaign.
Pssst, the parties with money can also do all of this. And then do all the things that money buys, too.
If only we had some sort of track record of money influencing politics that we could reference...
"A campaign must first be centered on big ideas that reflect the candidate's philosophy and views and that are perceived by voters as important and relevant." - Karl Rove
More: http://www.flapolitics.com/diary/4611/gov-crist-and-the-rovian-campaign
Aside: The NDPers called me a right-winger for even mentioning Rove. Their loss, my gain.
I've already started calling my NDP competition "a patronage candidate" and "spineless on HST". And it's sticking, partly because it's 100% true.
I love the fact that the local NDP org nominated the campaign manger of the current NDP MP instead of the mayor of Marathon. Makes my life a TON easier as the campaign manager has done nothing substantial, outside of getting people elected. I can just call her a careerist backbencher and be done.
George W. Bush (R) $367,227,801 / 62,040,610 votes = $5.92 per vote
John Kerry (D) $326,236,288 / 59,028,111 votes = $5.52 per vote
That's all I'm going to say.
National is always more expensive due to the sheer size and number of media markets you need to target. I need to target Dougall Media...
I wonder how that'll stack up next to your competition labeling you as the guy who'd support any party if it gave him a job? Considering that statement is going to be trivially easy for anyone to find with google, your name, and a few minutes of time.
Wait, you're actually in Thunder Bay?
I will be in August. The other people can't even start campaigning until the writ is dropped. The NDP don't even have a platform yet.
I just use Facebook to get around it as it's free and doesn't need financing. I'll get the traditional media after the writ drops. I'm just trying to define my campaign right now before the others can even start.
He has no competition. I'm in Thunder Bay. DP lives in a fantasy world. He's not a blip on anyone's radar. He hasn't made a single ripple. The only place I've heard of his "campaign" is from him, here. Out of 100,000 inhabitants in our city, he ranks 100,000th in political importance and influence.
And at the end of the day, the TV campaign- which had been on air for what, a year prior to the election?- did unknowable amounts of damage to Iggy and the Liberal campaign. Sure, connections matter a lot, but money matters more. Money is more likely to make or break a campaign.
If money didn't matter so much, why would Harper bother ending the vote subsidy?
I think you already did.
"Disconnected from reality."
"Rovian."
"Will sell out for a job."
Do you even know the NDP candidate's name? Or the PC candidate? Do you know who they are?
I do because I've asked around. I have a few important contacts in the municipal government who are a bit unhappy with the PC candidate (he's too right for many).
I haven't been locally campaigning yet as I have been focusing on getting my policies made official by the Green Party. I am also campaigning to be made the Organizing Chair of the Young Greens, so I can head their Get Out The Vote campaign.
Expect to see more when the writ actually drops. I'm still building my campaign team, but my platform has already been written.
What is wrong with the Rovian campaign? I'm not lying about anything. It's a style of campaign where you lie out your platform from the beginning and pick out a number of ideas from it to campaign on. And it works. The Liberal/NDP idealist style doesn't as it's paper-thin.
Will I sell out for a job? I campaigned for the Liberals for free (McGregor campaign) after they offered me a job so I could stay independent. I wouldn't ever take a job that would violate my morals and obligations. I'm also STILL campaigning for the Greens.
Disconnected from reality? Have you even looked at the NDP platform. Oh wait, they don't have one.
For the Harperites, the candidate was some guy called Richard Harvey. The only reason to care for him is that he has my first name and the last name of a cool Batman villain. He barely bothered to put signs up. I think he knew he was going to lose. Which I guess makes him smarter than you.
The Con candidate for our neighbouring riding was funnier. Moe something. Her campaign HQ was an empty lot in a small mall. Now it's going to become a Bentley.
I also met the Green candidate. He was at the table next to mine at a restaurant on election night, along with all three of his supporters.
Those are the MP candidates for the riding next door.
The NDP MPP candidate is Rafferty's campaign manager. The PC MPP candidiate is an old student union prez who the Tories don't really like. The Greens haven't nominated anyone yet... as they're officially waiting for me to submit my paperwork, as I have been working on other stuff.
I'm running against Mauro, not Hyer. And I like Hyer and Rafferty, as they are essentially Greens in NDP clothing.
...you don't actually know who Karl Rove was do you? Or remember anything about the 2004 campaign? And why am I even surprised by this realization?
I really don't think he does. It's like he get's all his news by reading the headlines and stopping there.
I'm pretty sure a Rovian Campaign is one where you push-poll the people of South Carolina about how the 9 year old Bangladeshi orphan your opponent adopted is actually their illegitimate half-black child.
I know who Rove was. I disagree completely with his goals, but his campaign tactics (aside from the phonecalls, which I will never do) were ace. His overall campaign strategy of:
"The first is to take your opponent's strong point and make it a negative."
and
"To take your own weakness and turn it into a plus."
were genius. If the left ever wants to get ahead, it's going to have to look at how the right is doing things and copy the legit stuff. Which is what I intend to do.
"The first is to take your opponent's strong point and make it a negative."
The NDP candidate was nominated on patronage and is spineless on HST. Completely true.
"To take your own weakness and turn it into a plus."
The fact that I am currently located in S. Ontario. I'm focusing on using social media as a result. If asked, the reason why I moved down here was to avoid the gay bigotry back home. I'm coming back to help expose it and help fix it. Completely true.
So, what are your plans for the rapture today?
Well, you aren't cut out for a campaign then, because once people see who you are and what you stand for, you're going to get a lot worse than what you have received here.
I mean seriously, you want to run a f-ing Rovian campaign, but are under an absolutely false impression of what that is! You're a clown.
"I entertain children and get invited to birthday parties!"
At least he's not running for the Cons. He'd probably fucking win as one.
This is like the fifth time you've said this and yet you keep coming back to this thread. Also your idea of attempting build your campaign almost entirely online is laughable. However I am glad that the self-reference as a politician seems to have stopped since you aren't actually running for any political party, I'm sure in a week or so we'll get a post about how that paper work 'got lost in the mail' or some other such nonsense.
Mike "Minister of Mines, Forests and Northern Development" Gravelle
Mike "I breathe, eat and bleed the North" Gravelle
Mike "The North is my world and my life" Gravelle
And you're "spinning your weakness" as "I went to Southern Ontario to escape from you Northern homophobic hicks and now I'm back to rub it in and expose you for what you really are".
Wow, this is going to go well
My favourite part is all the 'master minding' that is going on in this forum. Clearly he is a political genius who will with ease out campaign people who have been at this game for a while and actually, through trial and error, have determined at least somewhat an effective strategy.
I kind of came up with a somewhat elegant solution: if a party gets a donation from person X in riding Y, then 75% of the donation from X has to be spent on efforts directly targeted at that riding. Not on nationwide ad campaigns, but only local ads on local television, radio or newspapers. If you want to buy time on a national paper or TV channel (as defined by some % of viewership living outside the riding) you must do so with federal vote subsidy money.
That way, rich people in Calgary can't fund Conservatives in Toronto. Conversely, rich Torontonians can't pay for the election campaigns of Liberal candidates in Newfoundland.
It's a pipe dream, but a nice idea.