Deanna NicklenParticipant28 June 2014 at 12:55Post count: 3
For funding, it should always be voluntary. There are many ways to earn money for the group… charities do this all the time. Perhaps for candidates, it should be based on their performance? If people like the work a particular candidate has done, they can tip them in some way. It’s great to reward politicians(individuals) for great work… but not like how the government currently does things. Maybe even have a page set up for them to note down everything they’ve done for people, and what they plan to. Just to keep people informed since I know stuff does go on behind the scenes. That might engage people if they like a candidate and want to get more involved with their work?
As for choosing a candidate… that should be down to a vote. And they should be held to account for everything they do, and those times they were supposed to do something but didn’t. It also never hurts having potential candidates out there, chatting to people to gain a good record for themselves. So people know of them when it comes to the voting. Although if they abuse this (Like blackmailing people to vote for them, etc.), or their position, they should be able to get kicked out by the people. That kind of thing should stay on their record.
It should be interesting to see what kinds of things people look for in a candidate/politician. Personally, I’d like to look at their record… to see what values they have, and if they stick to them. See what actions they take, and why. To get an understanding of their character and if I like them or not.
Tim JefferyParticipant29 June 2014 at 16:12Post count: 3
I agree with this. But in addition, I think that vote should be held amongst the whole electorate rather than just party members (in an ideal world). The Conservatives held an open primary for the Totnes seat in 2010 and this was really interesting as it did seem to engage the electorate and their candidate won. Having a conventional ballot would probably be impractical to organise and very expensive, but an American Presidential Primary style series of caucuses in village halls or leisure centres could work. Also holding it on social media would fit well in to the D3 idea. In terms of funding, most small parties expect candidates to find at least the deposit themselves and find everything else through fundraising. But surely we’re expecting to get deposits back anyway 😉
- This reply was modified 6 years ago by Tim Jeffery.
Thom StrettonParticipant29 June 2014 at 19:50Post count: 4
I also believe that enshrined in this party’s code should be that all candidates should live within their constituency. Bringing in a candidate from outside the area goes against the very principals of this type of government – MPs should be the voice of the area and have local knowledge.
- This reply was modified 6 years ago by Thom Stretton.
Kazek LokuciewskiParticipant8 July 2014 at 21:28Post count: 3
I think anyone joining yourvoice has come from a train of thought that politicians say one thing and do another to win. I also believe there may be many candidates who are planted to undermine the opposition.
I founded SMART-voter.org, however I take no pleasure of ownership or wish for it to be the main brand of a fairly simple concept.
I would like all candidates to sign up to a code of conduct that dishonest candidates are unable to. This would simply be to stand down for a bi-election before breaking one of the cast iron promises on the list.
The way I can see it, yourvoce candidates need only have two promises, better worded. To transparently priorities the motions that the public wish you to raise, and raise them. To vote on matters in keeping with the majority of voters.
The messy bit here is who are the voters. 400 active yourvoice form fillers will not be a random sample. It will be disproportionately bankers and out of work environmentalists.
Jody LeeParticipant11 July 2014 at 15:25Post count: 4
you will maintain the deposit if you only put forward candidates in areas you know you will get enough votes that why it is essential the website keeps a record of members (for want of a better word) postcodes. currently this doesn’t happen when pledging an interest.
the people who are put forward as candidates shouldn’t be picked on their political stance but there ability to speak publicly, (personally I would choose comedians they are the best public speakers).
candidates should be able to speak there own minds always falling back on ‘but my opinion doesn’t matter, I do what the constituance want!
- This reply was modified 6 years ago by Jody Lee.
Bill NobleParticipant11 July 2014 at 18:26Post count: 34
I think YOURvoice should be as ambitious as possible at the next election to gain as much traction as possible. Funding is of course a massive issue but the aim should be to fund as many candidates as possible. In the first instance candidates should be chosen from all of those in a given constituency who have expressed support for YOURvoice. If this is only half a dozen people then so be it. Everyone should be encouraged though to select the candidate who is most charismatic as they will be the most effective (assuming of course they subscribe to all that YOURvoice stands for).
After the next election I think YOURvoice should move towards Tim’s suggestion where all constituents, even those who don’t support YOURvoice, are able to select the candidate, as long of course as the candidate is bound by what YOURvoice stands for.
Thomas SwanParticipant15 August 2014 at 14:14Post count: 14
Well, if they’re elected to YOURvoice, they’ll be obligated to always follow what the public tells them to do. Ultimately, their personal opinion won’t matter. In reality, it’s not that simple.
We’ll need candidates who won’t alienate huge swathes of the population. I’ve seen other direct democracy parties saying things like “we need direct democracy so we can legalise weed”. Even though direct democracy can’t guarantee that any particular policy will be supported, saying things like that will alienate many people. YOURvoice candidates need to understand that partisan politics is precisely what we want to avoid. The only policy they should have is to allow the public to decide. Candidates can build on this by saying things like “I’m not interested in power. I don’t want to force my ideological and personal proclivities on the people”… which would be a popular thing to say in keeping with the YOURvoice philosophy.
As others have said, we need charismatic people too. They need to be likeable and media-savvy enough to get their voice heard by as many people as possible. I share Jody Lee’s opinion that comedians will be the best candidates for the job. People like Russell Brand, Steve Coogan, Dara O’Brien, Omid Djalili, Stephen Fry, and many others. These are intelligent, articulate people who already have huge followings, and who will demand media attention.
I’m not suggesting any old celebrity though. Celebrities risk trivializing the party and making it a joke. We need celebrities who are respected for their intelligence and eloquence, and this includes a large number of comedians.
We also need to represent the population properly with our choice of candidates. We need a 50/50 split of men and women (unfortunately there aren’t as many female comedians, but there are plenty of charismatic women in the country), and a proportional number of candidates from minority groups. It’s important that YOURvoice isn’t seen as hypocritical or unrepresentative by being overly male or white.
Bill NobleParticipant15 August 2014 at 16:00Post count: 34
To get as much traction as possible we ideally need charismatic candidates who are very good communicators. We need to be careful that the obvious benefit of having well known comedians as candidates (assuming any were available) needs to be traded off against the likely label of “A joke party fronted by jokers”. Personally I would like to see a political scientist or two to stand to give credibility but such a person may be impossible to find 🙂
Given that D3 MPs will have no influence or power it doesn’t matter if they are male or female, black or white, etc. A disabled female D3 MP will not be able to represent women or disabled people in parliament as they have no vote of their own. I think this would be an unhelpful diversion from the real issues.
Ultimately though the D3 candidate should be elected by the constituents. Anyone should be able to put their names forward, no short lists, no biasing. The only(?) requirement should be that candidates sign up to the YOURvoice party’s constitution and rules for candidates.
Thomas SwanParticipant15 August 2014 at 16:37Post count: 14
I agree that getting academics, philosophers, and scientists to serve as MPs would be ideal too. Perhaps the perfect candidate would be Brian Cox!
I know the ethnicity or gender of the candidates doesn’t matter in terms of voting, but we have to consider the image of the party. For example, if we have 90% white males, we’d be hit with comments like “they say they want to represent everyone, but look at their candidates: all white and male!”. Furthermore, it’s about attracting people to the party. The candidates need to be listened to. If we have 90% white males then we might attract a lot of white males to listen to what YOURvoice is about, but not as many from other demographics. It’s like saying “white males believe in this idea, but other people don’t” which will make women and minorities turn away.
Bill NobleParticipant15 August 2014 at 16:48Post count: 34
Ah OK I see what you are saying now. Certainly the spokespeople for YOURvoice should be as diverse as possible. Definitely.
You are right that we need to encourage diversity as much as possible. I don’t agree with quotas though, and if a constituency wanted to elect a white upper class privileged rich male as their candidate then they should be allowed to. If YOURvoice was to foist a particular candidate on a constituency then that would be against D3 principles I think 🙂
Thomas SwanParticipant15 August 2014 at 17:33Post count: 14
Good point, candidates would need to resemble their constituents but I’m not sure they need to be voted in. They’re not representing anyone.
I suppose I’m not really suggesting quotas… just an approximation of what society looks like.
The intelligence, eloquence, and media profile of the candidates should be the main concern. We’d just need to keep an eye on the diversity of the party and how much each candidate resembles their constituents.
Julian JamesKeymaster15 August 2014 at 17:55Post count: 25
Remember that the perfect D3 candidate is mute on everything barring their enthusiam for D3. During the Euro Parl campaign the 3 candidates were not allowed to have a publically stated opinion on anything. This rule (written into the constitution) was to ensure that if elected, the representative acts as nothing more than an administrative facilitator of the will of the people. I agree with Bill that the ideal approach should be that YOURvoice candidates should be chosen by the constituents to represent the constituents. I would also point out that I have avoided the idea of members entirely. In the true spirit of D3, everyone is able to have their say in how YOURvoice is structured. That ideal is still a little way off at this point though. The place for opinions (academics, philosophers, ‘politicians’, man / woman on the street) will in the YOURvoice legislative proposal discussion forums prior to the poll on the legisilative proposals passing through parliament.
Bill NobleParticipant17 August 2014 at 11:56Post count: 34
In choosing candidates we must not forget that being an MP is currently a full time job. Whoever stands must be willing to devote all of their time to the duties of an MP. Although one could argue that a YOURvoice MP need not attend debates as all they have to do is register their vote according to the decision of their constituents, it would nonetheless be best for the YOURvoice MP to have as detailed an understanding of the issues as possible should they be involved in the process of communicating the issues to constituents either verbally or by written material on the voting platform(s). It is also important to note that a considerable amount of an MP’s time is spent dealing with constituents and constituency issues.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.