To say that our local representative does not have any say in decisions that are made is also an exaggeration. Much of the real work going into the formation of bills is done at the committee level, not right down on the House floor. It is there that our local voices can be heard.
I can’t say I agree with the level of influence that we are having at the federal level right now, but democracy rules and our MP is the one who was chosen by the people. If you want Conservative, that’s what you get.
Democracy also rules at the federal level as well: What I mean is that what may not be a positive for the community, may be beneficial to others in this country. Think of the Atlantic Accords. These are the things that keep a country as massive and diverse as ours, together and fair.
-Thanks

Here’s a quote from the book, which speaks to this topic and hails back to the topic on the necessity of political parties.

“If I were inventing democracy from scratch I would not have invented political parties. In their current form, at their worst they represent an impediment to independent thought. Mindless partisanship insists on a team mentality. My team versus your team - at all times and in all circumstances. Political parties began innocently enough, but they are hardly an integral part of the business of democracy. The party system elevates the “leader” above the collective members of Parliament. And it shifts the focus of elections from who is the best candidate in a local area to who might be thte best prime minister. In 1861 when John Stuart Mill wrote “Considerations on Representative Government”, he did not even mention their existence. Political parties are not referred to in the Canadian Consitution, and until the 1960s, ballots did not identify to which political party a candidate belonged. Canadians voted for individuals. The role of parties was initially so minor that MPs moved from allegiance to allegiance. Sir John A. Macdonald referred to MPs as “loose fish”. Like many fish these days, independent-minded MPs are an endangered species.”

You can do this for any riding…calculate how much it cost a candidate to obtain a vote. The info to do this is all on-line on the Elections Canada website.

In our riding:
Winning candidate’s costs: $70,360
Number of votes:19 960
Cost per vote: $3.52

My costs: $1214
Number of votes: 2712
Cost per vote: $0.54

Here is the website to go to if you want to see election spending details.

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/fin2/select_search_option.aspx

Where taxpayer money goes:
Let’s say there’s Sue, the candidate, and Joe, and elector who donates money to Sue’s campaign.

Joe donates $400. Under election donation laws, Joe can claim this donation on his taxes, and get 75% of it returned to him. Therefore, the candidate gets $400 to spend, Joe is out $100, and taxpayers are on the hook for $300 of that.

So now, the candidate spends that on the campaign, and at the end, files the campaign return with elections Canada, and assuming Sue obtains more than 10% of votes cast, she receives $240 back from the taxpayers (under election laws, candidate is returned 60% of spending).

Assuming the $400 is spent in a way that attracts 200 voters (average of $2.00 per vote), and Sue’s party qualifies to get the vote subsidy, assuming $1.80 per year per vote cast for Sue (very close, though each party is different, as it is pro-rated), taxpayers are on the hook for another $360 per year. If there are two years until the next election, this works out to $720.

Here’s the rub: For Joe’s $400 donation, he is on the hook for $100 of it, taxpayers are on the hook for $1260 of it. Huh. Cool math, eh? As a math teacher, I find this fascinating. We could develop a whole new math called “election math”, where the numbers don’t have to add up the way they did in school!

None of this is contingent on whether Sue wins, only that she and her party reach certain percentage benchmarks.