- Proposal text
- Whereas greens recognize that the link between an individual's political influence and
- financial status must be diminished for the good of the democratic process; and
- Whereas many citizens do not have any disposable income to influence politics with a
- donation, and whereas the Green party of Canada believes each citizen should have equal
- financial influence over the Canadian political system; and whereas offering voters the option
- to seperate their vote from their donations is fairer than the per vote funding model, by not
- forcing strategic voters to fund a party they feel forced to vote for; and whereas the privacy of a
- citizen's funding identity is available using zero knowledge proofs and other methods;
-Be it resolved that the Green party of Canada favours a political donation system that-allows each citizen exclusively an annual fixed government funded donation to their party or-electoral district association of choice.--And be it further resulved that an additional donation to an electoral candidate of choice-will be an option for each citizen and the assignment of funds must be secure and transparent,-while respecting the privacy of the funding citizen.- Type of Proposal
- Public policy that the party would represent
- Objective / Benefit
- * Create a fairer political system
- * Implement a funding system that is demonstrably better than the per vote funding model.
- If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
- This Policy would Replace G14-P03 Public Financing of Political Parties
- List any supporting evidence for your proposal
- How this proposed funding model is better that the per vote subsidy:
- Strategic voting is a reality in Canada under FPTP. Example: wherever voters would prefer to vote
- green but greens are running at 2 or 3 percent and the liberals and conservatives are tied, voters
- vote red in order to defeat the conservative in the riding. But under the current policy of the per
- vote subsidy, that voter would *also* be forced to subsidize the liberal party. With this policy
- proposal in place the will of the voter is better expressed. Voter funding privacy is assured by
- zero knowledge proofs, see: https://hackernoon.com/zero-knowledge-proofs-in-blockchain-voting
- Equality and Inclusivity: The current political donation system primarily benefits individuals or
- groups with disposable income, creating an unequal playing field. By providing an equal
- government-funded donation to every citizen, regardless of their financial status, the proposed
- system promotes equality and inclusivity in the political process.
- Amplifying Diverse Voices: Financial constraints often prevent marginalized groups and individuals
- with lower incomes from participating see attached
- Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the
- group or groups?
- Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
- Yes
- Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
- English
- Proposal text
- Whereas greens recognize that the link between an individual's political influence and
- financial status must be diminished for the good of the democratic process; and
- Whereas many citizens do not have any disposable income to influence politics with a
- donation, and whereas the Green party of Canada believes each citizen should have equal
- financial influence over the Canadian political system; and whereas offering voters the option
- to seperate their vote from their donations is fairer than the per vote funding model, by not
- forcing strategic voters to fund a party they feel forced to vote for; and whereas the privacy of a
- citizen's funding identity is available using zero knowledge proofs and other methods;
- +Be it resolved that the Green Party of Canada favours a political donation system whereby
- +each citizen is allotted a fixed government funded donation that they could designate to a political
- +party or Electoral District Association or candidate of their choice. The assignment of
- +funds process must be secure and transparent. Additional individual citizen donations would
- +still be allowable as per Canada Revenue Agency caps.
- Type of Proposal
- Public policy that the party would represent
- Objective / Benefit
- * Create a fairer political system
- * Implement a funding system that is demonstrably better than the per vote funding model.
- If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
- This Policy would Replace G14-P03 Public Financing of Political Parties
- List any supporting evidence for your proposal
- How this proposed funding model is better that the per vote subsidy:
- Strategic voting is a reality in Canada under FPTP. Example: wherever voters would prefer to vote
- green but greens are running at 2 or 3 percent and the liberals and conservatives are tied, voters
- vote red in order to defeat the conservative in the riding. But under the current policy of the per
- vote subsidy, that voter would *also* be forced to subsidize the liberal party. With this policy
- proposal in place the will of the voter is better expressed. Voter funding privacy is assured by
- zero knowledge proofs, see: https://hackernoon.com/zero-knowledge-proofs-in-blockchain-voting
- Equality and Inclusivity: The current political donation system primarily benefits individuals or
- groups with disposable income, creating an unequal playing field. By providing an equal
- government-funded donation to every citizen, regardless of their financial status, the proposed
- system promotes equality and inclusivity in the political process.
- Amplifying Diverse Voices: Financial constraints often prevent marginalized groups and individuals
- with lower incomes from participating see attached
- Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the
- group or groups?
- Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
- Yes
- Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
- English
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
No concrete reason has been offered reason for the proposed ammendment to remove public funding for an electoral candidate. No concrete reason has been offered for allowing the status quo with respect to funding individual candidates, which fvours the wealthy. The proposed ammendment would leave people with disposable monies to be able to get their monetary edge in politics. That is an advantage over citizens with no disposable money. That is contrary to the intent of the motion that wants to level the playing filed for political donations, where rich and poor have an equal impact on political funding, in keeping with the principle of social justice. The logistics and privacy reasoning that apply to _party funding_ with the original proposal are apparently OK with all pundits and commitees. That is approved reasoning for party funding equaly by each individual , is the same good reasoning for donations to individual candidates. Upon implementation, If the candidates funding mechanism was not secure and private in the eyes of greens and our MP's then the automatic defaut is the current status quo. So there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by adopting the policy with the inclusion of individual candidate funding. Note, as it stands now, as to the best of my recollection, the names of donors to parties and the amounts donated are avaialable from Elections Canada. The privacy mandated in the policy would be an improvement in the states quo. Tech such as zero knowledge proofs are being used now to protect identity from transactions and could at the option of green MP's be promoted for implementing donor privacy. Implementing this policy makes rich and poor alike equal in funding politics. Implimenting this policy mitigates the effects of lobby groups aggregating thier member donations to buy political influence.
Loading comments ...