(02-12-2017, 03:40 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I would argue that all proposed legislative acts so far would be clear violations of the right to assemble and the freedom of speech in our Charter. I just don't see how it doesn't violate those if you're telling parties they aren't allowed to endorse or enter into electoral alliances. It's also something that these proposals aren't concerned with non-party groups of friends coordinating their votes.
I think the obvious reaction to these kinds of laws would be that parties simply stop making this stuff public. Not that anybody would actually stop strategizing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let's remember — one half of this endorsement swap wasn't going to make it public, already.
And, again, freedom or speech, or freedom to assembly is not — nor should it — be a right to stack elections.
Edit: The alternative might be for the government to get involved in the intricacies of party management to make sure parties aren't *requiring* voters to vote inline with the endorsement.
I'm honestly not sure what you suggest here short of outright anti-democratic laws. Preventing voters for voting for their chosen candidate? Contesting election results because of who voted for them? Monitoring legislator's private communications based on affiliations? I'm not trying to be overdramatic here, but I'm not sure what you suggest that doesn't blatantly discriminate against certain voter groups.
As well, parties already can't force anyone to vote for somebody. The only consequences for it are the social ones outlined by the party.
