If they're elected let them govern?
I'm disgusted but not surprised.
Ford's sentiment here resonates with how he treats his own office. And I'm not sure if he actually agrees with the statement or if he really just wants to legitimize his own (ab)use of the powers of his office.
Here are my problems with this way of thinking though. Most elections are won by very narrow margins, often with the "winner" not even getting half of the total votes. And they campaign on a very small set of items.
Secondly, the leaders run the show, but the leaders aren't the ones voted for in Provincial or Federal elections. They have MPs or MPPs. The Premiere or Prime Minister is simply the head of the party who has the most MPs or MPPs. I've ranted enough in the past about how broken the system is, so I won't waste much effort on that here. But in short, in the Ontario elections we vote for an MPP and NOT their leader. Doug Ford did not win in my riding (in fact, in my riding his party didn't even win).
What I will agree with is this; if your party wins, you should feel emboldened to execute upon your campaign promises and you shouldn't really need to apologize for that (unless they constitute violating Provincial or Federal laws).
If you didn't win a majority of the total votes though, you can't even pretend to have a mandate otherwise. If you have a narrow majority of the votes (say, 50-55%) I would still not claim to have a mandate, though, I would think a leader should then feel confident in following policies closely aligned with things in their platform.
If a party wins by a large margin (say 55-75%) I still wouldn't call that a mandate. Keep in mind voter turnout hover around about 50% (+/- 10%) in most developed democracies. But, I would say it is definitely shows strong support to follow some of your more ambitious plans.
If you manage to sweep the victory massively, by getting more than that... as long as you maintain some semblance of the party you campaigned as you should feel free to execute on just about anything.
Parties, even with low voter turn out almost NEVER enjoy 75%+ victories though. And, if you did so, and did so legitimately, your job is still to serve the people. If there is a huge outcry over a proposed change, it means that the people aren't with you on that topic and you shouldn't go forward with it.
In short, an election isn't the public voting for a person to exercise the fullest power of their office on any whim they desire. It is a vote to support you in the Platform you campaigned upon and nothing more. The job requires more than that. But, anything outside of the Platform should involve HONEST, OPEN consultation with EVERYONE and not just those affiliated with your own party.
And so Doug Ford's claim that "because the mayor of Hamilton was elected that he should get what he wants" is a total self serving farce. It does nothing but degrade the office he holds and shows his own ignorance, and his greed for power and control.
Ford's sentiment here resonates with how he treats his own office. And I'm not sure if he actually agrees with the statement or if he really just wants to legitimize his own (ab)use of the powers of his office.
Here are my problems with this way of thinking though. Most elections are won by very narrow margins, often with the "winner" not even getting half of the total votes. And they campaign on a very small set of items.
Secondly, the leaders run the show, but the leaders aren't the ones voted for in Provincial or Federal elections. They have MPs or MPPs. The Premiere or Prime Minister is simply the head of the party who has the most MPs or MPPs. I've ranted enough in the past about how broken the system is, so I won't waste much effort on that here. But in short, in the Ontario elections we vote for an MPP and NOT their leader. Doug Ford did not win in my riding (in fact, in my riding his party didn't even win).
What I will agree with is this; if your party wins, you should feel emboldened to execute upon your campaign promises and you shouldn't really need to apologize for that (unless they constitute violating Provincial or Federal laws).
If you didn't win a majority of the total votes though, you can't even pretend to have a mandate otherwise. If you have a narrow majority of the votes (say, 50-55%) I would still not claim to have a mandate, though, I would think a leader should then feel confident in following policies closely aligned with things in their platform.
If a party wins by a large margin (say 55-75%) I still wouldn't call that a mandate. Keep in mind voter turnout hover around about 50% (+/- 10%) in most developed democracies. But, I would say it is definitely shows strong support to follow some of your more ambitious plans.
If you manage to sweep the victory massively, by getting more than that... as long as you maintain some semblance of the party you campaigned as you should feel free to execute on just about anything.
Parties, even with low voter turn out almost NEVER enjoy 75%+ victories though. And, if you did so, and did so legitimately, your job is still to serve the people. If there is a huge outcry over a proposed change, it means that the people aren't with you on that topic and you shouldn't go forward with it.
In short, an election isn't the public voting for a person to exercise the fullest power of their office on any whim they desire. It is a vote to support you in the Platform you campaigned upon and nothing more. The job requires more than that. But, anything outside of the Platform should involve HONEST, OPEN consultation with EVERYONE and not just those affiliated with your own party.
And so Doug Ford's claim that "because the mayor of Hamilton was elected that he should get what he wants" is a total self serving farce. It does nothing but degrade the office he holds and shows his own ignorance, and his greed for power and control.
Comments
Post a Comment