Gender equality and democracy

Paul Dewar wants to restore the per vote subsidy, but link it to gender equality.

Under Dewar’s plan only parties running a slate of at least 50% women candidates would be eligible for the full $2 per vote financing. Parties running 40-49.9% women candidates will receive $1.75/vote and parties running 30-39.9% would receive only $1.50/vote. Parties that are unable to run at least 30% women candidates on their slate would not qualify for public financing.

By Alice Funke’s numbers, the NDP led all parties with 40.3% of nominees being women in the last election. Under Mr. Dewar’s system, they would’ve been the only party to qualify for the $1.75 rebate. The Greens, at 32.8%, would’ve qualified for the $1.50 rebate. The Liberals (29.2%) and Conservatives (22.1%) would’ve failed to qualify for anything.




Browse

Gender equality and democracy

  1. Good Lord. What planet does this guy live on? Venus I guess…

  2. I might suggest a better plan where the amount of money a party gets is inversely proportional to the amount of Paul Dewars they have running in it.

  3. This comment was deleted.

    • Or I could not vote for either of these two.

  4. If Dewar wants to go there, he should walk the talk and book himself for gender reassignment surgery as soon as possible. Even better, we can add to the number of women AND transgendered politicians all at the same time.

  5. Ahh, the blatant misogyny on display here

    And then you wonder why there aren’t more women in politics.

    • I don’t think it’s misogyny to be of the opinion that riding committees should not have to choose their candidate according to the gender of the candidates chosen by other ridings. Or that it’s misogyny to suggest a party not be punished if they don’t do so.

      Remember, a party is not a company with a single HR arm for all its candidates.

      • I didn’t say it was.

        I was reacting to the misogyny of the other posters.

        • Misogyny is defined as the hatred or dislike of women.

          So far, john g, Thwim, and Neil have posted; you’re free to tell me otherwise, but none of their comments so far have come across as hateful towards anybody (… except, perhaps stretching it, Paul Dewar).

          Who is being misogynistic here?

          • ‘Hos before bros’?

            Get a sex change?

            52% of the population isn’t important enough to be civil to?

          • I have enough respect for women to know that only the most perpetually and professionally offended among them would sincerely object to that hip, mainstream phrase.

          • @twitter-219007676:disqus You’re an ass.

            I have enough respect for people to know that only the most perpetually and professionally offended among them would sincerely object to that hip, mainstream, truthful phrase.

          • @twitter-219007676:disqus 

            Well since you’re another cranky ol’ white guy, you wouldn’t know ‘hip, mainstream’ if it bit you.

            Much less how women feel about it.

    • Your having previously identified yourself as a failed female candidate and having read your posts, I don’t wonder at all.

      • No sweetums, I was elected to public office both times I ran.

        Cranky ol’ white guys have memory problems.

        • Faulty as my memory might be, I prefer that to whatever afflicts you.

          • We are all well aware you prefer hokum to brains.

  6. Since the Conservatives and Liberals get sponsorship from big business, the NDP get it from Unions, and the Greens only get it from personal contributions of regular everyday citizens that can’t afford much, it seems to me the per vote subsidy will never return.  By ending it, Big Business has again put the boot pressed onto the neck of the common sense regular folk, and they won’t be stepping off.  We should have ended corporate sponsorship, not the per vote subsidy which was reflective of our citizens values.  This country is in trouble.

    • “Since the Conservatives and Liberals get sponsorship from big business”

      The very first act Stephen Harper tabled, bill C 2, banned corporate donations to federal parties and candidates.  

      Getting back to the Samara report on Canadians and ignorance, if the media could possibly be arsed to report accurately things like The Accountability Act and ceased and desisted with the non-factual narrative weaving, people like our friend David here might base their views on the odd true fact for a change.  

      How in the hell is it possible for Canadians to believe the guy who, after 140 years of corporations buying off federal governments, banned corporate donations is a corporate stooge?  Canadians learn from their media, and they are learning a pack of lies – that partially explains the ignorance.

      David, I’m assigning you the text of Bill C2 as homework this evening:  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-5.5/index.html

      • LMAO!!!  

        The Conservatives are even making sure no lobbyist attend their Christmas party.

        Geez, not even two months since awarding the ship building contracts – how soon they foreget!!!

  7. Of course, a lot of those female candidates don’t win; maybe we can find a way to punish ridings that vote the wrong way. 

    • Exactly.  Female MPs will get 5 votes per bill or motion in the House of Commons, Male MPs only get 1 vote.

      • Maybe we can raise the tax rates on errant voters?

        • Ahhh the victims….oh the humanity!

  8. Well, it would obviously be a disaster if Mr. Dewar were trolling for votes among
    Macleans commenters. He’s not.

  9.  You knew it was coming.
     
    Everyone in Canada knew that it was just a matter of time before the NDP ‘leadership’ race (using the term loosely) was eventually going to expose the merry band of flea-brain idiots that Jack has left behind.
     
    And people still wonder how Bob Rae, the NDP Premier at the time, nearly destroyed Ontario by imposing government-wide programs like his hated affirmative action discrimination initiative?

Sign in to comment.