Meet your Independent Candidates Town Hall Penticton

[A Concerned Citizen]

That would seem like a bit of a stretch for several reasons …. Chief among those is that the independents could go with or against any party or any other MLA …

Yes, an independent could go with or against whatever they want. We already know this is the truth.

There are plenty of problems with party systems - we're not blind to this. And as your own link showed us, the alternative has its problems, too.

It is up to each of us not to fall for anyone's "twisted messaging" - just as it is up to each of us to decide what our priority is in the upcoming election.

For many of us, our most pressing priority is to ensure the BC NDP doesn't get another majority. Period. And for those of us who see that as our most pressing priority, these attempts to convince us to vote independent are coming across as "in service to" the people running as independents - not us.

I'll not be voting against my own best interests to serve an independent candidate or the ideals their supporters are attempting to prioritize over what's most important at this time. To do so would be to serve foolish idealism, knowing full well the consequences. We get enough of that from the BC NDP.

If someone wants to keep doing what they’ve always done and get what they’ve always gotten that’s their choice … if you think getting someone out of office and think that letting someone else select the person that’s going to lead you, again that’s your choice … if that’s someone’s idea of the ideal candidate they will only get the government they deserve and trying to convince someone that it’s the only way to go is no less idealistic … to me, the ndp (and all parties for that matter) should be wiped out of existence as they are anything but democratic and only bring communist policies to bear …

If someone prefers political parties that use money to influence elections and government decisions, leading to corruption and unfair advantages, that’s their choice too …. If they prefer political parties that make promises during elections that they cannot keep, leading to disappointment and mistrust among the population, that’s also their choice … trying to convince someone that political parties is the only choice is like asking them, as you say, to vote against their own best interests …

Vote any way you want but trying to convince others that the parties are the only hope is as myopic as thinking political parties accurately represent the views and interests of the population and the only choice for representation and representation of diverse views … for me I’m going to reserve judgement on my final vote until I actually vote … to the best of my knowledge none of the current candidates in the parties even have their standing nomination completed with Elections B.C. … Roger Harrington’s standing nomination is up and that says he’s got his act together ….

[rustled]

Yes, an independent could go with or against whatever they want. We already know this is the truth.

There are plenty of problems with party systems - we're not blind to this. And as your own link showed us, the alternative has its problems, too.

It is up to each of us not to fall for anyone's "twisted messaging" - just as it is up to each of us to decide what our priority is in the upcoming election.

For many of us, our most pressing priority is to ensure the BC NDP doesn't get another majority. Period. And for those of us who see that as our most pressing priority, these attempts to convince us to vote independent are coming across as "in service to" the people running as independents - not us.

I'll not be voting against my own best interests to serve an independent candidate or the ideals their supporters are attempting to prioritize over what's most important at this time. To do so would be to serve foolish idealism, knowing full well the consequences. We get enough of that from the BC NDP.

If someone wants to keep doing what they’ve always done and get what they’ve always gotten that’s their choice …
SNIP
Roger Harrington’s standing nomination is up and that says he’s got his act together ….

We have many choices, none of which will actually result in us getting what we've gotten - since no government has ever been an exact replica of any before it. The similarly misleading framing of our choices to suggest only voting independent can or will result in a better outcome isn't sensible - nor will this framing convince those whose priority is to oust the NDP that a vote for Roger Harrington will produce that outcome. Nomination isn't actually proof of having one's act together in any meaningful way.

[A Concerned Citizen]

If someone wants to keep doing what they’ve always done and get what they’ve always gotten that’s their choice …
SNIP
Roger Harrington’s standing nomination is up and that says he’s got his act together ….

We have many choices, none of which will actually result in us getting what we've gotten - since no government has ever been an exact replica of any before it. The similarly misleading framing of our choices to suggest only voting independent can or will result in a better outcome isn't sensible - nor will this framing convince those whose priority is to oust the NDP that a vote for Roger Harrington will produce that outcome. Nomination isn't actually proof of having one's act together in any meaningful way.

It’s just as easy to posit that deliberately framing a choice that a party candidate is the only solution and then denigrating any other choice is odd at best … getting the bad actors out is a failed party marketing gimmick and instead focussing on getting good people in (regardless of party or no party affiliation) is far more pragmatic … WRT parties has anyone even challenged the new found CON if she’ll resign her seat from council? … it’s time to understand individual motives far more than party motives … why would you say getting approved by EBC isn’t among the measures needed? Seems more like petty nitpicking than solid logic … we need people that have the drive to get things done and meeting election rules head on, as Harrington has done, is a good test of mettle …

[rustled]

We have many choices, none of which will actually result in us getting what we've gotten - since no government has ever been an exact replica of any before it. The similarly misleading framing of our choices to suggest only voting independent can or will result in a better outcome isn't sensible - nor will this framing convince those whose priority is to oust the NDP that a vote for Roger Harrington will produce that outcome. Nomination isn't actually proof of having one's act together in any meaningful way.

It’s just as easy to posit that deliberately framing a choice that a party candidate is the only solution and then denigrating any other choice is odd at best …

No one has posited that a party candidate is "the only solution", though - and recognizing the significant drawbacks of voting for an independent is not "denigrating", merely recognizing reality. There's really nothing "odd" about pragmatism or realism, despite what today's progressives and idealists would have us believe!

So far, for any voter whose priority is to remove the BC NDP from office, no logical reason to vote for an independent in the upcoming election has been presented. And no, getting approved as a candidate is NOT a logical reason to vote for Roger Harrington. It's hardly "nit-picking" to point out every candidate we will be able to vote for will have done enough paperwork to have their name on the ballot.

[A Concerned Citizen]

For the record … there are many reasons why an open discussion of free thinking, independent individuals is critical to chart the future of the province …. WHY? ….. every last party still defends or deflects from every single bad convid policy they pushed. Let’s start with all of them that pushed for ….

• Business closures
• Church closures
• School closures
• Stay-at-home orders
• Mask mandates for adults
• Mask mandates for children
• Mask mandates for children under five in the face of no scientific evidence for doing so
• Injection mandates for employees, students, and military, despite failure to stop transmission

Add to that public debt has skyrocketed… and more …. We need more independent, unbiased and objective thinking people making good public policy choices …

[A Concerned Citizen]

It’s just as easy to posit that deliberately framing a choice that a party candidate is the only solution and then denigrating any other choice is odd at best …

No one has posited that a party candidate is "the only solution", though - and recognizing the significant drawbacks of voting for an independent is not "denigrating", merely recognizing reality. There's really nothing "odd" about pragmatism or realism, despite what today's progressives and idealists would have us believe!

So far, for any voter whose priority is to remove the BC NDP from office, no logical reason to vote for an independent in the upcoming election has been presented. And no, getting approved as a candidate is NOT a logical reason to vote for Roger Harrington. It's hardly "nit-picking" to point out every candidate we will be able to vote for will have done enough paperwork to have their name on the ballot.

Removing a party is the same old cliche of we have to get them out … or get rid of them … not making sense … sounds more circular than logical in terms of reasoning … we would all be far better off looking at the track records of candidates and what they bring to the table than focussing on party versus independents…

Eg
CONS a have a con in place with hidden and not fully disclosed motives and poor track record on council falsely claiming to be more ‘effective’ …
Libs now pretend to be something other than Libs using new branding … candidate is in hiding …
Greens useless as always …
Independent guy has been around it seems handing stuff out …

An election shouldn’t be a beauty pageant with people that’ve gotten their lips enlarged with Botox injections and a nice hairdo …

[rustled]

No one has posited that a party candidate is "the only solution", though - and recognizing the significant drawbacks of voting for an independent is not "denigrating", merely recognizing reality. There's really nothing "odd" about pragmatism or realism, despite what today's progressives and idealists would have us believe!

So far, for any voter whose priority is to remove the BC NDP from office, no logical reason to vote for an independent in the upcoming election has been presented. And no, getting approved as a candidate is NOT a logical reason to vote for Roger Harrington. It's hardly "nit-picking" to point out every candidate we will be able to vote for will have done enough paperwork to have their name on the ballot.

Removing a party is the same old cliche of we have to get them out …

It's the objective and the priority for many voters, and pretending it's only "cliché" is rather pointless.

Independent guy has been around it seems handing stuff out …

That's not a good reason to vote for "independent guy". There's not a lot of critical thought here - mostly "party bad, independent good". Unfortunately for Roger Harrington, the arguments from his supporters have been superficial and unconvincing.

[A Concerned Citizen]

Removing a party is the same old cliche of we have to get them out …

It's the objective and the priority for many voters, and pretending it's only "cliché" is rather pointless.

Independent guy has been around it seems handing stuff out …

That's not a good reason to vote for "independent guy". There's not a lot of critical thought here - mostly "party bad, independent good". Unfortunately for Roger Harrington, the arguments from his supporters have been superficial and unconvincing.

Beg to differ with you … so far those opposing independent candidates hold the shallow position that vote splitting and getting the bad actors out can only occur by getting the lesser of two evils to replace them … they fail to realize the marketing gimmicks being thrown at them …

The term fracturing or splitting the vote is similar to a psychological operation created to keep voters locked into a system of voting based solely on “voting the current party out of power” in exchange for another party that is just as or even more corrupt. This way of voting is not based on the merits of the MLA’s (or MP’s) or the party leader but solely on getting enough votes for an opposing party in order to vote out the current Government. This never ending irrational way of voting needs to stop if we truly want change for the better for We The People.

Instead people should be voting their conscience and voting for their local Candidate whose principles and values best aligns with the voters. This is the best way to get a local elected Representative that is for his/her constituents and whose principles and values align best with the majority in the riding.

Only by changing the way we vote, will we actually get the change we need in our Governments.

Those that don’t vote should seriously get out and vote instead of leaving the results to only half or less of the voting age public.

One can also argue that it is the non voters who are the ones actually spitting the votes as much as those that take the position that there’s only one way to get rid of bad actors … so far not one political party has put forward a candidate that has integrity … and as far as parties go they’re all giving away our province to the Indian bands that represent a tiny fraction of the population, have no realistic plans to bring down spending, etc etc etc ….

[rustled]

It's the objective and the priority for many voters, and pretending it's only "cliché" is rather pointless.

That's not a good reason to vote for "independent guy". There's not a lot of critical thought here - mostly "party bad, independent good". Unfortunately for Roger Harrington, the arguments from his supporters have been superficial and unconvincing.

Beg to differ with you … so far those opposing independent candidates hold the shallow position that vote splitting and getting the bad actors out can only occur by getting the lesser of two evils to replace them … they fail to realize the marketing gimmicks being thrown at them …

It's shallow to suggest those are the only positions held by those not interested in voting for independent candidates. And it's a bit hubristic to keep trying to drum up support for independents by suggesting those who prioritize differently "fail to realize the marketing gimmicks being thrown at them". It's quite obvious the effort here to convince folk to vote for Roger Harrington revolves around telling us what's wrong with the party system and expecting us to gamble on taking a different risk while assuring us it's a lesser risk because "party bad".

Changing "the system" is an idealistic goal. Ousting the BC NDP is a pragmatic goal - one we know a vote for Roger Harrington won't help us achieve.

[fluffy]

The term fracturing or splitting the vote...

When cutting and pasting from another source it is usually considered good form to name that source, lest one be accused of plagiarism.

[A Concerned Citizen]

Beg to differ with you … so far those opposing independent candidates hold the shallow position that vote splitting and getting the bad actors out can only occur by getting the lesser of two evils to replace them … they fail to realize the marketing gimmicks being thrown at them …

It's shallow to suggest those are the only positions held by those not interested in voting for independent candidates. And it's a bit hubristic to keep trying to drum up support for independents by suggesting those who prioritize differently "fail to realize the marketing gimmicks being thrown at them". It's quite obvious the effort here to convince folk to vote for Roger Harrington revolves around telling us what's wrong with the party system and expecting us to gamble on taking a different risk while assuring us it's a lesser risk because "party bad".

Changing "the system" is an idealistic goal. Ousting the BC NDP is a pragmatic goal - one we know a vote for Roger Harrington won't help us achieve.

It’s clear that many people are wedded to the party system and think it’s a great relationship to be in … but as the saying goes breaking up is hard to do and it’s usually harder on the children … staying with a flawed system that can’t be fixed from within gives people a couple of choices … they either quit fighting and struggle on or they pursue going it alone … as in independent … overbearing pride and presumptive behaviour can include suggesting that only a party system is the only solution … one of the advantages of parties is that they provide a means of organizing but there are many ways to organize and there are many disadvantages to the party system …. Just because there might seem to be little enthusiasm for a new idea doesn’t mean that the new idea is unworkable as people often need time to think about it …

[rustled]

It's shallow to suggest those are the only positions held by those not interested in voting for independent candidates. And it's a bit hubristic to keep trying to drum up support for independents by suggesting those who prioritize differently "fail to realize the marketing gimmicks being thrown at them". It's quite obvious the effort here to convince folk to vote for Roger Harrington revolves around telling us what's wrong with the party system and expecting us to gamble on taking a different risk while assuring us it's a lesser risk because "party bad".

Changing "the system" is an idealistic goal. Ousting the BC NDP is a pragmatic goal - one we know a vote for Roger Harrington won't help us achieve.

It’s clear that many people are wedded to the party system and think it’s a great relationship to be in …

That's a rather subjective assumption. I doubt anyone actually thinks "it's a great relationship to be in".

It's practical to weigh out the pros and cons of the party system vs other systems.

The link you provided previously does a good job of showing why voting independent isn't a particularly good solution with which to address the flaws in the party system.

[A Concerned Citizen]

It’s clear that many people are wedded to the party system and think it’s a great relationship to be in …

That's a rather subjective assumption. I doubt anyone actually thinks "it's a great relationship to be in".

It's practical to weigh out the pros and cons of the party system vs other systems.

The link you provided previously does a good job of showing why voting independent isn't a particularly good solution with which to address the flaws in the party system.

Weighing party systems is one among many considerations … many feel it’s far more important to weigh the different people that’re going to represent you in a legislature … a good example of that is a current politician that simply wants to climb a ladder because they say they can be more ‘effective’ when in fact they haven’t accomplished anything in their current role, or, someone that won’t resign from a current position even if elected to a higher office, or, someone that doesn’t have the integrity to serve out the terms they asked for to begin with … parties are simply a means of organizing and it is the person that gets voted (or not) that is in the running … votes are not and never have been for parties and nor should they ever be …. Unless of course you want to have a country like China and the CCP …

Even on Section 7 of the candidate nomination form it is the person completing that form that has the ability to decide how they want to be affiliated, or not, with any particular party …

We would all be far better off understanding how the person will behave once elected rather than buying into slick marketing gimmicks and tactics …

[BC Landlord]

It’s clear that many people are wedded to the party system and think it’s a great relationship to be in … but as the saying goes breaking up is hard to do and it’s usually harder on the children … staying with a flawed system that can’t be fixed from within gives people a couple of choices … they either quit fighting and struggle on or they pursue going it alone … as in independent … overbearing pride and presumptive behaviour can include suggesting that only a party system is the only solution … one of the advantages of parties is that they provide a means of organizing but there are many ways to organize and there are many disadvantages to the party system …. Just because there might seem to be little enthusiasm for a new idea doesn’t mean that the new idea is unworkable as people often need time to think about it …

Building up narratives (i.e. independents are the solution) upon false premises (i.e. party system is irreparably broken) is a typical logical fallacy. Let me explain it to you , ... You have declared option "A" as bad, and then you are promoting option "B" as good, to show how option "A" is bad. This is called circular argument. A no-go in any serious debate.

In this case, ... Nowhere here have you ever explained in practical terms, why party system is "irreparably broken", nor have you explained what independent MLAs could accomplish in the legislature to fix it. Perhaps, you should start with answering this, instead of getting emotional and using children and other allegories.

[A Concerned Citizen]

It’s clear that many people are wedded to the party system and think it’s a great relationship to be in … but as the saying goes breaking up is hard to do and it’s usually harder on the children … staying with a flawed system that can’t be fixed from within gives people a couple of choices … they either quit fighting and struggle on or they pursue going it alone … as in independent … overbearing pride and presumptive behaviour can include suggesting that only a party system is the only solution … one of the advantages of parties is that they provide a means of organizing but there are many ways to organize and there are many disadvantages to the party system …. Just because there might seem to be little enthusiasm for a new idea doesn’t mean that the new idea is unworkable as people often need time to think about it …

Building up narratives (i.e. independents are the solution) upon false premises (i.e. party system is irreparably broken) is a typical logical fallacy. Let me explain it to you , ... You have declared option "A" as bad, and then you are promoting option "B" as good, to show how option "A" is bad. This is called circular argument. A no-go in any serious debate.

In this case, ... Nowhere here have you ever explained in practical terms, why party system is "irreparably broken", nor have you explained what independent MLAs could accomplish in the legislature to fix it. Perhaps, you should start with answering this, instead of getting emotional and using children and other allegories.

Actually it’s the boneheads that blindly accept the party as the only solution … dumb is as dumb does … that should get rid of the circularity that you’ve got a problem with ..