That appears to be the argument put forth by pollster Nik Nanos, who raised fears of a two-party state in Canada just as it is in the United States.
The current $2-per-vote subsidy is given to qualifying federal parties who win at least two per cent of the national vote. Currently all parties but the Conservatives are heavily dependent on this form of democratic welfare, with the former raising $4 million more than all other political parties combined last year.
Nanos said the smaller parties would have too much difficulty raising financial support without the $2 per vote, which would eliminate $5 million from the revenue stream of the NDP.
“If we took the proposal to its logical conclusion, this would probably lead to a two-party state, that would be the logical long-term conclusion,” he told The Hill Times. “The current regime, whether you love it or hate it, sustains minority views with funding. The green party is probably a good example.”
I suppose you could use the same argument to subsidize newspapers, television stations and magazines. Since people are too cheap to spend a couple of bucks on their favourite source of news and information, perhaps the government should subsidize that involuntary participation?
It seems to me that if 2.5 million people in Canada can bother to get out and vote for the NDP, then they can bother to scrape a toonie from the bottom of their Bolivian fair trade coffee fund and ante up for democracy. Otherwise, quite honestly, I couldn’t care less if the NDP went the way of the flying donkey.
And let’s face facts. Although the Conservatives have an incredible fundraising team that goes to the well to squeeze every last drop it can get, at least the party is hustling and rustling up enough money to sustain itself. The other parties, in particular the Bloc Quebecois, are coasting through the effort, proving that age-old axiom that welfare only creates complacency.
Former Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan suggested Canada allow political contributions on their tax forms as in the United States. This might work, I suppose, in a kind of passive participatory way. It’s sort of like a democratic afterthought.
Truthfully, at $27 million annually, politically subsidies are but a pebble in the pothole of the federal deficit. But I don’t see the point in financially rewarding either party or people for partaking in what is supposed to be voluntary democracy. Incentivizing voting with bribery is hardly an inspiring message for our anemic politics. Remove the political welfare and let’s see whether Canadians can put up or shut up.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paige T. MacPherson, dej rabel and dej rabel, Adrian MacNair. Adrian MacNair said: Vote subsidy necessary because Canadians lazy, stupid http://bit.ly/gAkuSy [...]
Completely new Parties are disadvantaged since the subsidies are linked to how many vote a Party has received in the previous election, although I think there is a threshold under which a Party not getting a certain minimum of votes doesn’t get this funding.
But the subsidy does help the established Parties keep out new players with an unearned advantage since the new Parties have to be totally dependent on voluntary contributions.
[...] Adam Pash wrote an interesting post today Here’s a quick excerpt Vote Subsidy Necessary Because Canadians Lazy, Stupid. February 8, 2011 — Adrian MacNair. That appears to be the argument put forth by pollster Nik Nanos, who raised fears of a two-party state in Canada just as it is in the United … [...]
I don’t buy what I don’t want nor donate to groups/causes I don’t support – willingly anyway. I strongly object to this subsidy and the too many other government subsidies that fund groups whose work I disagree with and others totally outside core governmental responsibilities I do agree with.
If enough people agree with these parties/groups/causes they should have no problem supporting themselves without these handouts.
Frank Graves was the pollster that recommended the “culture war”, on the CBC not Nik Nanos.
I don’t accept the premise a political party can’t raise or match the Conservatives. I believe the media is making excuses for the failure of the political parties to find and equal amount of small donors willing to fund them.
The CPC enjoy the most donors prior to the unilateral changes, the loss of big union and corporate donors has not been addressed by the parties that were the main beneficiaries.
If Canadians decide additional parties are not necessary who are we too demand we keep afloat fringe elements in our democracy?
What two main parties? Will the Bloc supplant the Liberals, NDP and Green as the second party?
The loss of the political subsidy may expedite the merger in the left, a win win for Canada.
“Nanos said the smaller parties would have too much difficulty raising financial support”
My question would be, why should it be easy, or why should it not be difficult?
This is just one in a myriad of subsidies this government needs to get rid of. If the CPC think we shouldn’t be forced to subsidize political parties, then why do they think we should be forced to subsidize anything?
Nick Nanos has it backwards.. It is the tax subsidies that make us lazier. Like others her I do not think any political party should get a free ride on the tax payer, if they have a message thats worth something , people will contribute, work and vote for them. If they don’t, then they deserve to fade away.
If every party is getting unearned tax money to survive, what incentive is there for me to participate. Whether I work hard to join a campaign team or not, that party will still exist. Consequently, I, and many Canadians, don’t care and do not participate.
Canada is a land of subsidies for organizations whose support is marginal at best. Take,(please) CBC,subsidized to the tune of about a billion bucks a year,yet capturing a small minority of the viewing audience at any time.
Then there’s all that “Canadian content” required by government mandate on cable TV, junk channels that would never stand on their own two feet,but are “bundled” with channels we DO want.
Then we have political Parties,in a class by themselves, sucking at the public tit twice,once if they elect members,and once again if they don’t, via the ridiculous subsidy.
It’s pathetic that people will talk about not wanting “the American system” of only two Parties,yet most of these types philosophically embrace a political system that usually only has ONE Party.
End the political Party subsidy. If a Party can’t work hard enough to garner the financial support of a sufficient number of voters to run an election campaign,maybe it’s because they have nothing to sell.
Enough with the hogs at the trough!
All of the Government Class bloodsuckers need a political and economic system that can be summed up as “Government, by the Government, for the Government”.
Of course a system such as this isn’t based on merit and hard work. It’s based on ideology and connections, otherwise known as the Lazy Deadbeats path to power.
I’ll stick with “Government by the people, for the people”
so instead of four parties being the same we could have two. wow. i am underwhelmed. why not have ten or more. jeez. stop giving tax dollars to political parties. only a commie would have thought that was a good idea.
Smaller political parties cannot survive without publicly funded subsidies???? Since when?
Is Nik Nanos really arguing that were it not for Jean Chretien capping individual and corporate political donations and instituting the policy of taxpayer political subsidies that the NDP and Greens were facing eventual bankruptcy and dissolution?
Really?
Jean Chretien single-handedly saved the Opposition parties?
Wow. I never thought him that magnanimous.
I’ve never understood why it is apparently “right” to have public funding of the Bloc or the Green Party because otherwise they wouldn’t exist, but charities are left to scramble on their own for whatever peanuts they can manage to find.
One plus that non-one seems to mention is that if the parties got less funding from the public purse, they might be a little less inclined to try to force elections all the time. One of the main reasons we have had elections in 2004, 2006, 2008 and possibly 2011 is that the parties can afford it – thanks to the taxpayer.
When Harper was a candidate for the Reform Party (i.e. before the big double-cross)the new party and individual Reform candidates raised ALL of their funds through individual donations and by passing Kentucky Fried Chicken buckets at public meetings. No taxpayer shakedown and no corporate largesse, but the party came out of nowhere to increase its representation from one seat to 52. Now, THAT’S how it should be done.
The Bloc and the Green Party are wimpy whiners that can’t sell their policies in the open market of ideas.
If we are to have a 2 party system in Canada we will need a right of centre party to come forward. At present we have the Libs, NDP, Bloc and the cino Conservatives on the left of centre. A budding national party with a real conservative platform is the CHP but I do not think they are ready yet to run candidates all across Canada although I wish they were. I would like to know who the second party is that he refers to.
I agree that parties should not be funded out of tax revenue. Unfortunately, while the per vote subsidy is one such subsidy, (and it should be stopped), it is not the only one.
The system of tax credits means that if I donate to a party for every $1 that I end up out of pocket, $2 ends up in party coffers. The other dollar comes from tax revenue.
The tax credit system should be ended right along with the per vote subsidy. If someone wants to donate to a political party that’s great. Let them donate THEIR OWN MONEY!