What American's Ought to Know About Canada, But Don't

[Jon Miller]

I guess it comes down to what are your political parties?

Are the freely associating groups of individuals?

Or are they stronger?

In the US, we have traditionally had weaker (at least on the national level).

While I think she should be able to put liberal down by her name (since being a member of the party, at least down here in the US, is up to you, you can't be kicked out (or assuredly Zell Miller would have been)) she shouldn't get any support.

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The MP's don't get to run under the party banner if the leader does not sign their nomination papers.

And so, we are right back at the basis of the problem.

Your move.

I don't understand your insistence that it is a right of a Canadian to not only run for office but to run for office under the label of the political party of their choice. I can't be a freemason unless I obey the rules of freemasonry. If I don't like those rules I can make my own club.

[Jon Miller]

or for example

Che can join the republican party

and larouche is a member of the democratic party (I am sure they dont' want him)

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I guess it comes down to what are your political parties?

Are the freely associating groups of individuals?

Or are they stronger?

In the US, we have traditionally had weaker (at least on the national level).

While I think she should be able to put liberal down by her name (since being a member of the party, at least down here in the US, is up to you, you can't be kicked out (or assuredly Zell Miller would have been)) she shouldn't get any support.

Jon Miller

Zell could have been kicked out. He can't put Democrat down next to his name unless the party (through whatever means it governs these issues by) chose him as their candidate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
or for example

Che can join the republican party

and larouche is a member of the democratic party (I am sure they dont' want him)

Jon Miller

I'm not sure what the rules are for basic membership in the US. But just because you join a political party doesn't mean you can run under their banner.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words Lyndon can't run as a democrat unless the democratic party tells him he can.

[KrazyHorse]

Otherwise there would be 6 democrats on every ballot...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I don't understand your insistence that it is a right of a Canadian to not only run for office but to run for office under the label of the political party of their choice. I can't be a freemason unless I obey the rules of freemasonry. If I don't like those rules I can make my own club.

I don't understand your insistence it is the right of a leader of a Canadian politcal party to prevent someone from running for office under the banner of the people in their party who chose that person to run in a riding for them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
In other words Lyndon can't run as a democrat unless the democratic party tells him he can.

And exactly which single individual would there be to tell LBJ he could not run as a Democrat after he won their nomination? Hmmmm?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I don't understand your insistence it is the right of a leader of a Canadian politcal party to prevent someone from running for office under the banner of the people in their party who chose that person to run in a riding for them.

I challenge you to find where I said that we should legislate such a right. If I was making a political party I would spread out the decision making power. I don't think that we should force others to.

Everybody gets to make the rules in their own club.

[Jon Miller]

My understanding is this. There can be a difference between what party you are a member of and what party (if any) supports you (the rules on this might differ per state).

For example, in LA I beleive there were 2 republicans and 3 democrats on the ballot. Most likely the republican and democrat national parties spoke up in favor of single candidates, but multiple ones can come from the same party.

Jon Miller
(Also generally you need a certain number of signatures or something to be on the ballot, I am sure that only one candidate per party had the help of the party to do so)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And exactly which single individual would there be to tell LBJ he could not run as a Democrat after he won their nomination? Hmmmm?

I suggest you look into Teddy and the Bull Moose party to understand why political parties are run the way they are in the US.

The means for reform was not legislative.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I challenge you to find where I said that we should legislate such a right. If I was making a political party I would spread out the decision making power. I don't think that we should force others to.

Everybody gets to make the rules in their own club.

That's horse ****.

The political process of any party that may ever form a government is something that all of us are concerned with.

[Jon Miller]

to get on the presidential ballot requirse a lot of work

generally you need a lot of people on the ground, which most candidates don't have (unless they get the support of a party)

JOn Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
My understanding is this. There can be a difference between what party you are a member of and what party (if any) supports you (the rules on this might differ per state).

For example, in LA I beleive there were 2 republicans and 3 democrats on the ballot. Most likely the republican and democrat national parties spoke up in favor of single candidates, but multiple ones can come from the same party.

That's because of LA's fudged up voting system. Hell, if a party wants to put more than one candidate on a ballot then it should be free to. But it's the party that grants the use of its name. Just like I can't present my movie as a Disney cartoon without permission.