http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0209/politics.html

A total of 564 candidates will be contesting the General Election – nearly a hundred more than in the last general election in 2007.

The number of those running as independents or for smaller parties is 233 – this compares to 108 in 2007.

Fianna Fáil has 75 candidates, down from a total of 106 in 2007. Fine Gael has 104 candidates, up from 91 in 2007.

The Labour Party is fielding 68 candidates, up from 50 in 2007.

The Green Party is fielding 43 candidates. Sinn Féin is running 41 candidates, the same number of candidates as 2007.

There is a very high number of other parties and independent candidates this year.

New Vision, a new political group of independents, is fielding 19 candidates.

Nominations may have closed but candidates can withdraw their names up to midday tomorrow.

The total number of people on the Electoral Register 2011/2012 is 3,161,854.

This compares to 3,066,517 on the register in 2007 – a rise of almost 100,000 (95,337) voters since the last election.

These recent figures do not include additions to the Supplementary Register.

Historic low number of FF candidates

Since its foundation in 1926, Fianna Fáil has always fielded enough candidates to give a majority in the Dáil if they were all elected.

The last time Fine Gael had more General Election candidates than Fianna Fáil was in 1969, when they had 125 compared to 122.

Before that, you have to go back to 1927 to find an election where Cumann na nGaedheal (forerunner of Fianna Fáil) had more candidates – 97 to 87 in June 1927, and 89 to 88 in September 1927.

It is also the highest recorded level of Independent and minor party candidates – the next highest was in 1992, when there were 186 recorded under ‘Other’ in the official results, made up of 103 Independents, 5 Christian Centrist, 19 Green, 41 Sinn Féin, and 18 Worker’s Party.

Focus turns to jobs

After last night’s televised debate between Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore and Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin, the parties today focused on a range of issues including tourism, jobs, and literacy.

As Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny spent the evening in Carrick-on-Shannon at what was billed as a ‘town hall meeting’, Mr Gilmore and Mr Martin were going head-to-head on TV3 in the first televised leaders’ debate of the campaign.

They disagreed on a range of issues including tax, the bank guarantee, renegotiation of the IMF/EU deal, and political reform.

Attacking the Labour Party’s plan aimed at getting the public finances back in order, Mr Martin said it represented a policy of higher taxes and increased borrowing.

In response, Mr Gilmore said Fianna Fáil’s plan for recovery would cripple the economy.

Both participants later declared themselves satisfied with their individual performances and with the one-to-one format of the programme.

Mr Martin said Mr Kenny should engage in future debates.

Mr Kenny had travelled to Carrick-on Shannon in Co Leitrim for a public meeting that was attended by around 300 people.

On his arrival, he told reporters that while he believed televised debates were important – they were not the single issue.

He said he was looking forward to participating in three televised debates during the rest of the election campaign.

by Rachel Rose Hartman

Credit the tea party, our election system or just plain ambition, but 2010 is fast becoming the year for established candidates to shun the two major political parties.

Write-in or third-party candidates look to significantly shake things up in several major statewide races Nov. 2 — and this week, yet another major candidate disclosed he may be adding his name to that list.

Republican Rep. Mike Castle said Wednesday that he “probably” would not wage a write-in candidacy for Delaware senator. But he also said he hasn’t ruled the option out; he’s pondering it, he said, “simply because it’s there, simply because I’ve had a number of people who’ve asked that I do that.” Castle, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, lost his Republican primary campaign to an insurgent tea party candidate, and is looking at a write-in effort like the one Murkowski announced last week as a way back into the 2010 political fray.

Below is a roundup of  some of the year’s most significant independent candidates — together with a look at their motivations and the odds that they’ll prevail on Election Day.

• Tim Cahill for Massachusetts governor: Cahill was serving as state treasurer last year when he announced his decision to leave the Democratic Party. The switch allowed Cahill to avoid a tough primary battle against incumbent Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. Cahill has been a prolific fundraiser and a frequent target of GOP attacks aimed at boosting the profile of Republican nominee Charlie Baker. But Cahill’s role in November may just be as a spoiler. Most recent polls indicate that Cahill trails both Patrick and Baker. Cahill appears to be siphoning votes from both parties — meaning that the party base losing the smaller portion of its supporters to Cahill probably has the best shot at the governorship.
• Lincoln Chafee for Rhode Island governor: Chafee was a member of the Republican Party when he served in the U.S. Senate, but after losing his re-election campaign in 2006, he left the party and became an independent.  So after several years working in the private sector and being officially aligned with independents, Chafee brought his new political identity back into the political arena. His record as a maverick moderate vote in the GOP Senate caucus  has helped him secure key endorsements from labor unions and other organizations that lean to the center and the left. Polls show that Chafee has a strong shot at besting Democratic challenger Frank Caprio in the open-seat race. Republican Ken Block continues to trail his two opponents.
• Charlie Crist for Florida Senate: Crist, the sitting Republican governor of Florida, was campaigning for the GOP Senate nomination at the start of this year. But Crist’s GOP primary bid soon fell afoul of a strong challenge from tea-party-endorsed candidate Marco Rubio. So in April, Crist, who had drawn criticism within the GOP for his moderate policy record and his support for  Obama on key issues such as the 2009 economic stimulus, announced in April that he would wage a “no party” bid in Florida. Initially, Crist was able to siphon support from both major parties, especially since the Democratic nominee, Kendrick Meek, has failed to gain major traction. But polls show that Rubio has built a strong lead the open-seat race.
• Lisa Murkowski for Alaska Senate: Sen. Murkowski lost her Republican primary to tea party candidate Joe Miller in a stunning upset last month. Last week, Murkowski announced her decision to wage a write-in campaign. Because of the uncertain nature of write-in campaigns, it’s unclear whether Murkowski will win the race in November, but her re-emergence has national Republicans girding for a very tough race.
• Tom Tancredo for Colorado governor: Tancredo, a former Republican congressman and 2008 presidential candidate, was so unhappy with the GOP bench in Colorado’s gubernatorial race that he issued an ultimatum to the candidates this summer: If polls showed the primary winner behind in the open-seat race, the nominee would have to drop out or face a challenge from Tancredo himself. But Tancredo didn’t wait that long. He launched a candidacy under the American Constitution Party before the primary. Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper, the mayor of Denver, leads the open-seat race in most major polls, while Tancredo continues to complicate GOP efforts by splitting the Republican vote.

Political parties

http://www.economist.com/node/17306082?story_id=17306082&CFID=157717965&CFTOKEN=30283600

Oct 21st 2010 | from PRINT EDITION

“WE WORSHIP an awesome God in the blue states,” declared Barack Obama in the speech that made him a star, “and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states.” Six years after his address to his party’s national convention in 2004, the idea of Mr Obama as a post-partisan figure, an effortless uniter of Democrats and Republicans, looks droll.

But his failure to transcend party politics does not mean it was not canny to try. In America, Europe and elsewhere, the era of tight affiliation to political parties is over. Successful politicians surmount party allegiances, rather than entrench them. In America, the “50-50” nation is more like a 30-30-30 nation; last month, a Pew survey found that “independents” at 37% outnumbered either Democrats or Republicans. Such inbetweeners tend to find partisanship on the airwaves and in Congress repellent, strengthening their convictions further.

As old allegiances fade, third parties are doing better. In Germany, a recent poll puts the Greens, formerly a fringe party, ahead of the once impregnable Social Democrats. In Britain’s 1951 general election, 97% of all voters chose Labour or the Conservatives. In last May’s election, just 65% did. Party membership is declining too—by 40% in 13 European democracies between the late 1970s and late 1990s, according to one study. In Britain the three big parties combined have under 500,000 members; in the 1950s, with a smaller population, their total was over 4m. And the members that remain are less active.

Explanations abound. In many industrial democracies, working-class voters chose left-wing parties out of self-interest. Other voters, fearing the power of organised labour, voted the other way. But when most people count themselves as middle-class, such tribal ties wane. In countries where the ideological gap between parties has narrowed, their brands may no longer be useful labels for busy or ignorant voters. Accustomed to choice as consumers, voters increasingly pick policies rather than signing up to comprehensive world views. Single-issue groups have thrived. Britain’s National Trust, a heritage organisation, raised its membership from 250,000 in 1971 to 3.7m now.

Political scientists disagree over the causes of the parties’ decline. But a more pressing question is its effects. The decline of partisanship could signal a less tribal, more educated electorate. But research on 36 countries by Professor Paul Whiteley of the University of Essex shows a strong correlation between political partisanship and good public administration. A rise of ten percentage points in partisanship goes along with an increase of one notch in the World Bank’s good-governance table (which assesses countries on a five-point index). A strong party base may help politicians to push through unpopular but necessary reforms. A weak one means that followers flee when the going gets tough.

Consumer choice may mean dodging responsibility. California’s referendums allow voters to engage with politics issue by issue. The state’s dysfunctional finances and politics are a poor advertisement for that. Less partisanship can also mean more political volatility as big old parties find it harder to win outright. The Westminster model of parliamentary democracy and majoritarian voting should produce strong single-party rule. But the most recent elections in the five main countries that use it (Australia, Britain, Canada, India and New Zealand) have produced hung parliaments. Four have coalition governments.

The parties’ efforts to reverse this have had little success. As Conservative leader a decade ago (he is now foreign secretary), William Hague proclaimed a target of a million-strong membership. It is now less than 200,000. A better solution may be to give members real power within the party. Maurice Duverger, a French academic, distinguished in 1951 between “cadre” parties, where power is held at the very top, and “mass” parties, where the grassroots decide policy and elect bigwigs. Most political parties in the West offer influence to outsiders who donate money, not to their members who donate time.

The decline of partisanship is prompting some innovations. Some Americans favour the idea of “top two” primary elections in which any registered voter can take part, and choose two candidates, regardless of party, to contest an election. The victors could be two Democrats or two Republicans. The system is already in effect in Washington state and was recently approved in California. It could help cross-party and moderate candidates. But it faces a stiff legal challenge.

Other efforts seek to turn independent politicians—often seen as cranks and amateurs—into effective candidates. In Britain, outfits such as Independent Network and the Jury Team offer training and support to independents. Brian Ahearne, director of the Independent Network, says that Britain’s most recent general election saw the biggest number of independents standing for election since 1885, when records began, and almost twice as many as stood in 2005. They received over 144,000 votes, against a mere 10,000 in 1987.

Politicians like to have it both ways. “Vote for my Daddy,” quavers Ben Lange’s toddler daughter, in a spot for his candidacy in an Iowan congressional race. Grouped with his family on a sunny mid-western hillside, Mr Lange gives a wide berth to party politics. “This isn’t about Republican/Democrat,” is his cutesy patter. But another campaign video on his website is bombastic and combative, showing grainy footage of political foes, with a sinister musical soundtrack. The old system may be broken. But it is not dead yet.

from PRINT EDITION | International

The Conservatives are ready to re-visit the issue of subsidies for political parties, a welcome assertion of the importance of individuals in the political syst

From Monday’s Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, Jun. 20, 2010 10:00PM EDT Last updated on Monday, Jun. 21, 2010 12:28PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/political-parties-need-to-raise-their-own-money/article1610999/

Canadians’ tax dollars are being used legally but quite flagrantly to finance a party that wants to break up the country

Jeffrey Simpson

From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010 5:00AM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010 1:46PM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/party-financing-yes-end-the-public-subsidy-but-raise-the-individual-limit/article1668452/

The law of unintended consequences can be seen by a quick reference to Elections Canada’s website.

There, details of party financing are revealed. The story of those details shows how the Liberals have been hurt by their own legislation, and how the Bloc Québécois has walked away the big winner from public financing of parties.

Jean Chrétien’s Liberals, in trying to “clean up” party financing, outlawed corporate and union contributions, set a limit of $5,000 for individual contributions and offered public help to each party. The Harper Conservatives, as part of their overwrought so-called Accountability Act, reduced individual contributions from $5,000 to $1,100.

“ Quietly, the big winner from this system has been the Bloc.”

The Liberals had always done well in corporate Canada, so the elimination of corporate donations hurt them badly. They also had donors lining up to give $5,000, so the elimination of that provision also hurt them. The Conservatives, like the Reformers, had a small army of modest contributors that they cultivated, and still do. The party raises a lot of money this way – much more than the Liberals – but spends a lot cultivating its base.

Quietly, the big winner from this system has been the Bloc. It doesn’t try very hard to raise money, because federal largesse to parties means the Bloc can tell its core secessionist supporters to donate instead to the Parti Québécois.

The numbers tell the story. The Bloc raised only $850,000 last year but took in $2.7-million in public money, for a ratio of one private dollar to 3.5 public dollars. The Conservatives’ ratio is 1.7 to 1, the Liberals about 1 to 1 and the NDP about 1 to 1. The national parties, therefore, are working as best as they can at fundraising, earning at least as much, if not more, from their own efforts than from public funds.

The Bloc, as you can see from the numbers, is mostly riding on taxpayers’ dollars – most of them from outside Quebec – to promote itself and, by extension, the breakup of Canada.

Here, then, is the greatest effect of the law of unintended consequences: Canadians’ tax dollars are being used legally but quite flagrantly to finance a party that wants to end the country as we have known it for 143 years. Understanding this, no one should ever question the generosity of Canadians, although that generosity can certainly be described as nuts.

The Conservatives have included in successive campaign platforms a promise to end public subsidies. It was the attempt to implement this policy that contributed to the parliamentary crisis whereby the three opposition parties got together and proposed to take over power, an attempt that fizzled.

The Conservatives have said – and there’s no reason to doubt their resolve – that they will try again if re-elected. If they really wanted to put the cat among the pigeons, and were seeking an election, they could stick the measure in the next budget, daring the opposition parties to vote against the budget.

We can be certain that, by whatever means, the Conservatives will try for this change because, at the moment, it obviously benefits them. It would hurt the Liberals somewhat but damage the Bloc even more, given that party’s dependence on the federal subsidy mostly provided by Canadians outside Quebec.

The conceptual trouble with the Conservatives’ intention is not the theory but the execution. Anyone who thinks that a contribution of $1,000 to $5,000 will turn policy toward the giver isn’t living in the real world of government, in which national parties raise millions of dollars even with the $1,000 limit. Despite all the hyperventilation in the media about money buying influence, a few thousand dollars to a party buys the giver nada.

If we want parties to be healthy, they need money to do their work. And if we don’t want public dollars to help them, then individuals should be encouraged to give what they can to fill in the public subsidy – which will mean raising the individual limit above $1,000.

That’s the fair tradeoff: End the public subsidy, all right, but raise the individual contribution limit.

March 15, 2010

Jim Coyle

“By silencing her caucus, Horwath probably did assert her leadership and avoid potential rifts. But, in the doing, she backpedalled from some of the long-standing, and laudable, traditions of her party.

And she gave the young another reason to roll their eyes at a business where fearless minds and independent voices need not apply.”

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/779829

There are at least two ways of looking at any issue. And Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath was likely getting eyed from a couple of angles for ordering her MPPs not to participate in a forum on whether the province should end public funding of Catholic schools.

On the one hand, Horwath – just a year on the job as leader – demonstrated authority, discipline and a wary eye for what’s historically been an incendiary issue.

On the other, she resembled, oh, Stephen Harper in her top-down muzzling of those elected, presumably, to speak their minds in the arena of competing ideas and not to shy from the tricky stuff.

Barry Weisleder, chair of the NDP’s socialist caucus, said Toronto MPP Michael Prue (who campaigned for the party leadership on reopening the school funding debate) had initially agreed to participate in the forum.

But even though the party’s provincial council has established a task force to examine public education funding options, Prue was ordered by the leader to bow out.

“So much for freedom of speech in the ONDP, at least on this important question,” Weisleder said.

There are at least a couple of reasons to cock an eyebrow at Horwath’s reluctance to have her caucus members participate.

One is that the NDP is legendary for its insistence on debating everything. Its conventions are usually gabfests on all issues under the sun and members are seldom happier than when protracted dispute arises over the most arcane of procedural points. Having one’s say appears to be part of a New Democrat’s DNA.

Horwath’s decision probably also plays worse with that demographic her party needs most – youth. There’s declining interest among the young in institutional politics. Their activism tends to be expressed through extra-parliamentary organizations. In considerable measure, this is because stifling, paternalistic party discipline is foreign to the ethos in which most under-30s have been raised.

The adage that children (like dutiful MPPs) are to be seen but not heard has long been rendered an anachronism.

Contemporary young have been encouraged to express themselves from the cradle. They vote people off the island, choose the latest pop-cult idol, tweet about any fleeting thought that flits across their consciousness.

They’ve been educated to assert themselves rather than unquestioningly defer. As Jean Twenge wrote in Generation Me, teenagers once admonished to “be polite” are now urged to “be yourself.”

The “question authority” mantra of the youth of the ’60s has now been around almost 50 years.

It’s worth noting that in the five by-elections in Ontario in the last year, only two of the MPPs elected were under 50 – and those by just a few years. One is almost 70.

Queen’s Park is not a counter, it would appear, where youth must be served.

As with any other cohort, the less young people see their views and values reflected in politics the less heed they give it.

By silencing her caucus, Horwath probably did assert her leadership and avoid potential rifts. But, in the doing, she backpedalled from some of the long-standing, and laudable, traditions of her party.

And she gave the young another reason to roll their eyes at a business where fearless minds and independent voices need not apply.

Jim Coyle’s provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

Michael De Adder/Artizans.com

Stephen Harper has for several years now claimed that his proposed reforms for the Canadian Senate are about bringing accountability and democracy to the much-maligned second chamber.

With his most recent prorogation of Parliament, however, it is clear that for all his rhetoric, his reforms are less about a thoughtful reinvigoration of our political institutions and more about maintaining political power.

National and international political pundits alike have called him out for proroguing Parliament this time round. Happily, many more Canadians are now debating what might be done to fix our political system. But first, I believe we need to make sure we focus on the right questions.

In my opinion, the critical question is this: Why does the prime minister have so much power?

The answer is quite simple: Because the House of Commons no longer holds the prime minister to account.

Next question: What should be done?

Answer: Insist that MPs take orders from their constituents, not their party leaders. MPs with backbone, not backbenchers, would deliver a properly functioning Commons. Of course, the likelihood of this happening is somewhat remote. So what can we do while we’re waiting?

Lots of people think we should just go ahead and elect senators to make the system work better. Indeed, a new Canadian Press poll proudly trumpeted: “A majority of Canadians would like to (see) senators elected by the voters from the province they represent.”

Well, I guess even I might have answered that way if I’d only been given the three choices offered by the pollster: (1) abolish the Senate; (2) have the prime minister appoint them; or (3) elect them myself.

Looking at each of the three choices, I’m always surprised that more people don’t want to just get rid of the Senate.

But then I’m reminded that we wouldn’t have a Canada at all if the Fathers of Confederation hadn’t agreed to an appointed upper chamber. That was the deal-maker – none of the other provinces wanted to let Ontario run away with the country, which it could have done if it abused its power of the majority.

Perhaps Canadians today intuitively recognize that the Senate provides a valuable counterweight against the abuse of power and therefore want to keep it.

But to have the prime minister appoint senators? Ah, there’s the rub.

We’re already upset that the prime minister has too much power. The thought of giving him or her any more rankles at all levels, especially so when we remember transparently political payoffs evident in various prime ministerial appointments over the past few years.

Like a mischievous genie wanting desperately to get out of a musty old bottle, the pollster only gives you one more choice: an elected Senate. Unlike a journeyman genie, however, he doesn’t give you the standard warning: “Be careful of the wish you make.”

Consider what happens now when you elect someone to go to Ottawa.

No sooner have they spent their first term in office than they’re emailing home to explain why they voted for something their constituents didn’t want.

The reason, of course, is party discipline. They’re “whipped,” i.e., told to vote with their party or else leave caucus. Most stay and do what they’re told. Without the party, it’s very difficult to get re-elected.

It would be no different for senators if they were running for election. Most would run as party candidates. What we’d end up with is nothing more than 105 more backbenchers. Right back, in fact, where we started.

So let’s start again. Let’s take the proposition that an independent, appointed Senate is, after all, Canada’s last best chance for democracy.

We’d still be left with the problem of how we appoint senators, of course. But surely we can figure out how to do that without prime ministerial intervention.

It is, when you get right down to it, a prerogative exercised by the Governor General. That she takes advice is a good thing. For years now, however, we’ve accepted that she only take advice from the prime minister. What if, instead, she convened a blue ribbon advisory panel to help choose senators?

The panel could identify outstanding Canadians with a proven record of dedication to what’s best for the country, men and women who could stand tall and say to our elected members, “Are you sure that’s what you want to do?”

As Senator John Abbott declared, speaking in 1890, that’s our job. “Let us take care,” he said, “that no temporary fit of prejudice or passion, injurious to our country or disadvantageous to our interests is allowed to force a measure through this Parliament without giving to the people a further opportunity for considering it …”

Being appointed, individual senators can stand up and do what Abbott called on us to do without worrying about whether we have a job at the end of the day. At least that gives our nation one last bulwark against overbearing executive power.

What it gives us, in short, is a constitutionally protected place where Canadians from all parts of the country and all across the political spectrum can make their voices heard.

Elaine McCoy is an independent Progressive Conservative senator from Alberta.