This is a tangeant to the state's right thread.
I'd like to get Hatrack's opinion on something. In Canada (and the US I presume) certain issues (Mail, SSM, ect.) fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, while other issues (education, power, etc) are regulated provincially. During the Ontario provincial elections, many of the candidates presented their opinions on federal issues. Some parties openly campaigned on the issues of SSM and abortion. My question is this: If an elected official cannot directly effect change pertaining to a certain issue, is it unethical to campaign on those issues? Keep in mind that there is some power that the provincial governments, while not able to act directly upon certain issues, can also act as powerful lobbies to the federal government.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I don't think it's necessarily any more unethical for a candidate to campaign on issue X than it is for a voter to pick a candidate because they share an opinion on issue X, regardless of the candidate's ability to affect change. If anything, it tells you something more about the candidate (and the voter).
I do think it lends itself to voting for a party platform. If their strategy is to portray themselves as a "liberal" because the electorate wants a "liberal," then I suppose this strategy could be an efficient way to get the point across. However, it doesn't say anything about the candidate's willingness to work toward the benefit of the province or state, and doesn't elaborate upon his or her locally-specific ideas for doing so. The fact that they may not actually do any good for the constituency they were elected in should probably be taken into account when casting your ballot.
--j_k, who edited this post twice
[ March 13, 2007, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3616 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
The last gubanatorial election in Michigan was almost entirely about the economy. The Republican challenger said that the Democratic incumbent was a horrible steward of the economy, and that she shouldn't be able to run the state anymore. She fired back saying the Big Three tanked, which killed tons of jobs and ruined the housing market, and the Federal government is doing a piss poor job of handling our trade policy, which helps kill Michigan jobs. The crux of the debate (literally for one of the live debates) centered around how President Bush is handling foreign trade policy. It's something neither of them has any control over.
In the end the incumbent won, because the challenger really couldn't pin anything on her. But it really pissed off a lot of people here that our state has no power at all to have a say in the policies that can sink or float our state economy.
I don't think it was right for him to challenge her on an issue she had zero power over, and I think it actually pretty stupid of him, as he lost the election based on that (and many more) reasoning. If there's nothing they can do about it, the only way to bring it up is to claim that you'll have more influence over federal policy than the other guy. Good luck with that.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |