14 October 2008
21 Sep
I am writing this to explain how in the NDP, Jack Layton has limited control over who the candidates are.Â
Unless one has studied political science, one may be unaware of the differences in the structure of our political parties. In the Canadian political system, there are two types: Cadre and Mass.Â
In the former, “cadre” the power begins at the top – any leader of a cadre party, or, the group that governs that particular party, has the right to decide in any riding, who the candidate will be. Hence you will have the effect of “parachuted candidates”, sometimes getting the nomination to run during an election over a party member who is popular among the constituents of that riding. The Conservatives and the Liberals are both “cadre parties”.
In “mass” parties, it is the opposite: power begins at the bottom, at the grassroots level. The party members in each riding have an open, democratic vote as to who the candidate will be and there cannot be ‘parachuted candidates’, against the wishes of the party members.  The NDP and the Green Party are ‘massed-based’ parties. Potential election candidates can be screened before a vote at the constituency level, but if the candidate wins a vote by their riding association, they become the candidate and that is that…
The NDP have lost a few candidates in this campaign, because this is the way candidates are chosen. It is a shame that some candidates who decide to run, in ridings where they are respected, knowing that if they manage to make it to the campaign, their personal views on such things as marijuana laws could set off a crisis within the party they are running for because of their personal views. But I personnally applaud those who run, even if they are eventually forced to resign because the media finds some issues “scandalous” and unworthy of an audience.  I believe it is the right of citizens to run in an election to educate the public and reform things that may be needing reform.
But in a democracy, there should be an open forum and the will of the electorate to decide who to vote for, and for what reasons, should be left up to those in the riding level, especially in a mass party.

Conservative Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
Bloc Québécois
Green Party
Christian Heritage
Progressive Canadian
Marijuana Party
Marxist-Leninist Party
Canadian Action Party
Communist Party
Libertarian Party
First Peoples Party
Western Block Party
Animal Alliance Party
neorhino.ca
8 Responses for "Cadre Parties vs. Mass Parties: Do voters know the difference?"
The Elections Act REQUIRES the leader of each party to authorize the candidate in each EDA (Electoral District Association AKA riding). In fact, Jack Layton has complete control over all nominations if he chooses to exercise it.
Bill,
Perhaps this is the case with Elections Canada. But maybe you missed the point. The NDP can do a certain amount of screening of their candidates. But if the grass roots membership chooses that candidate, the screening is a bit limited. But the NDP have had a grass roots aproach since the party started. Media scrutiny and now with the internet as a mass medium also, might just force mass parties to change their screening processes.
But if you ask me if this is good for democracy, I say “No”. Afterall, who does not have some skeleton in their closet? I do not think that one’s past should weigh in so heavily in current political campaigns. Times change and so do people.
Let me get this straight, you are saying that it is bad for possible MP’s to be chosen by the people of the given riding, and they should be chosen by a small political elite?
Not at all. I think it is very sad that the Liberals and Conversatives can, (and often do), override the wishes of the ciitizens of a riding.
In the past, before candidates had to endure so much of the media digging into their personal lives and past experiences, mass parties were more easily able to choose a candidate and not have them discredited halfway through an election campaign. This is what is bad for democracy….
It’ss a fairly moot point, since attention is really only given to the leaders and a small number of “star candidates”
I disagree. The top story on CBC.ca right now has the following headline: “Embarrassing revelations hit Tory, NDP candidates” . The article is about the digging for dirt that is being done these days as part of many campaigns and the blogging phenomena. Both these candidates were relative unknowns, not star candidates.
I suppose the distinction is of some technical interest. Little more really. The more interesting part to me is this quote.
“It is a shame that some candidates who decide to run, in ridings where they are respected, knowing that if they manage to make it to the campaign, their personal views on such things as marijuana laws could set off a crisis within the party they are running for because of their personal views.”
Just a question, but does this generous view of yours extend to candidates for the Conservative Party whose personal views include belief in capital punishment and abortion, restricting immigration, and opposition to same sex marriages?
Yeah. That’s what I thought.
The Exectutive of the Conservative Party has the power to approve or disallow the candidacy of all of their potential candidates.
Whether or not, I, as a voter, agree or disagree with the personal views of any candidates should be left up for me to decide “as a voter” when I vote.
Leave a reply below or start a thread in the discussion forums
Note: Sometimes people try to portray more support for their candidate or their perspective in the comments section by posing as different people. If you attempt to do this, we will delete all of your comments.Update: despite the above warning, people are attempting to use multiple aliases, so we are now moderating all comments to check against possible abuses. We apologize for this inconvenience, however we will work to get comments posted as soon as possible.