OBJECTIVE THOUGHT here just a minor slip up!!!!

I know we have discussed this before but while I was sweating in the hot sun today a thought ran through my mind that I must share!

I always held the belief that it is better to vote for a party and not any particular person unless that person is running as an independent.I have also expressed my views on the leaders of any party having "TOTAL CONTROL" over the other members of his party....well it goes a little like this:

The political parties have certain views on most issues but when we go into that booth on election day what exactly are we voting for???

1) Do we vote for a person(candidate) to follow the party line??

2) Or do we vote for a person (candidate to represent our (constituients)views in parliament??

Well I know that I vote for a person to represent my views in parliament and most of us should do the same. After all the MPs are our servants. They should come to us to get our views on issues then take them to parliament!!

Most of you here say that you vote for the person and not the party but yet you say the leader of the party of which the person is a part should have control over them which means the leader should tell them what to do and they must do it!!!

Well how could a person represent you but they take their orders from someone else who has no relation to you????

All this shows me is that Bahamians vote for parties not persons if they want the leader to control their MP!!!

The only thing that the leader should make sure of is that his MPs stay within the bounds of the LAW and if they step out of that then he has the responsibility to deal with them..

So I find nothing wrong with MPs from the governing party challenging or disagreeing with their leader or party on issues especially if their constituients tells them to do so!!!

The MPs obligation should be to their constituients first then their party!!!

Therein being the difference between HI's leadership and PC's leadership...
One allows his MPs to speak freely and the other does not!!!!

Someone asked me about Leslie Miller and Keod being able to speak their mind all the time freely even disagreeing with their party's position at times in the former govt, well I like that especially when it's the constituients views being expressed!!!

Don't get me wrong there are times when the MP has to side according to the party line but he better serves the public when he speaks for those whom he represents which is the reason most of them get voted out for, not taking their constituients views to parliament, Check the record!!!!!!!

The only thing, when it comes to leadership that I respect HI for more than PC for, is when it comes to the ability to discipline persons when they step totally out of line!!!!! PC is very weak in that area!!!

This is OBJECTIVE THOUGHT using my wife's name again!!!!!

First of all, if a candidate wanted to be able to freely express their own points of views, THEY WOULD NEVER GET TO BE CANIDATES IN THE BEGINNING!! To get nominated, they first have to be LOYAL to the party.

Anybody can present the views of their constituents. What happens after that is a different story. Most times NOTHING!! If all you want is for someone to put your views forward........you can do that better than anyone else can.

If ever there is a MP who puts the needs of his/her constituents BEFORE their party..........next election they will be called independents.

As for me and my house, up to now we have voted PARTY. However if I lived in some other area, I'm not so sure if my choice would've been so easy.

By the way, it was quite easy to figure out which one of you wrote this thread. lol. But you are still a proudplp right? Or are you running as fast as you can from them? Just a joke, no need to blow a fuse.:hammer:

The Westminster System is horribly flawed -- yet to paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is one of the better ones out there.

In the Westminster system, a great deal of power resides with the leader. A vote for the party is a vote for the leader. Hence the leader must have strong vision and an excellent work ethic.

Hence independents cannot do as much as a member of the ruling party.

The Westminster system demands a strong leader -- a benevolent dictator if you will, to seize the reins and govern. In this system, it is always the best to vote for the winning side. Sad but true.

First of all, if a candidate wanted to be able to freely express their own points of views, THEY WOULD NEVER GET TO BE CANIDATES IN THE BEGINNING!! To get nominated, they first have to be LOYAL to the party.
Anybody can present the views of their constituents. What happens after that is a different story. Most times NOTHING!! If all you want is for someone to put your views forward........you can do that better than anyone else can.
If ever there is a MP who puts the needs of his/her constituents BEFORE their party..........next election they will be called independents.
As for me and my house, up to now we have voted PARTY. However if I lived in some other area, I'm not so sure if my choice would've been so easy.
By the way, it was quite easy to figure out which one of you wrote this thread. lol. But you are still a proudplp right? Or are you running as fast as you can from them? Just a joke, no need to blow a fuse.:hammer:
The whole point of me posting this thread was to say to those persons who say that they vote for the person and not the party that it just does not make any sense to me!!

I like you vote for the person who I think will be the best leader and that's how the party in turn gets my vote....

But I want my representative to impart my views in parliament!! Members of parliament can state their views also but 90% of the time they should be stating their constituients views....In fact that is how they get into parliament in the first place by telling us that they want to represent us!!!

The Westminster System is horribly flawed -- yet to paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is one of the better ones out there.

In the Westminster system, a great deal of power resides with the leader. A vote for the party is a vote for the leader. Hence the leader must have strong vision and an excellent work ethic.

Hence independents cannot do as much as a member of the ruling party.

The Westminster system demands a strong leader -- a benevolent dictator if you will, to seize the reins and govern. In this system, it is always the best to vote for the winning side. Sad but true.

The leader follows his party line but I don't like the idea of my MP not being able to express my views in parliament without being punished by his party... party!!

Loyalty should be to their constituients first and foremost then to the party!!

I agree that the leader must have vision but a dictator, I am not sure about that!!

The whole point of me posting this thread was to say to those persons who say that they vote for the person and not the party that it just does not make any sense to me!!
I like you vote for the person who I think will be the best leader and that's how the party in turn gets my vote....
But I want my representative to impart my views in parliament!! Members of parliament can state their views also but 90% of the time they should be stating their constituients views....In fact that is how they get into parliament in the first place by telling us that they want to represent us!!!

I was really tryin 2 stay away from these convo's cuz they never really remain sensible but you said something that to me is contradictory but thoughtful at the same time. I proclaim to vote person cuz I done voted back and forth several times. But I say this.... even in voting for the person you "must" consider the competency of that parties leadership at the same time. An individual vote for a representative to me means voting for one who has ideas for an area that can be done separate and apart from full government involvement. When I say that I mean, constituency receive minimal funding in budgetary allocations but I respect an MP that develops constituency excitement to a point that encourages his local entities to become a sort of local constituency government or board. Most MP's only use that position to get a big Government portfolio anyway. And really a vote for an MP of a loosing party is only about 10percent better than useless if that person really never had honest intentions in the area.

I wouldn't even talk about the effectiveness and competency of that MP to sponsor proactive legislation or be constructive in the house. This is particularly evident in the position our country is in right now. The PLP is, again my opinion, operating out of nothing but spite in being as nonconstructive in criticism and progressive in national separation and the process of legislation as I have ever seen. I couldn't believe that these were the people that sold me on that dream they propagated in 2002. And I thought back to when I took consideration for my constituency candidates..... St. Anne's (which for the life of me I couldn't understand these new boundary configurations cuz Yamacraw constituency office right across the corner from me). My vote was lost just based on who would possibly remain as leader of the Bahamas. I couldn't support A Christie led government for 5 more years. In fact I am deathly afraid of Christie's managerial incompetency, Mitchell's seemingly racist and elitist attitudes.... I could go on and on. Lesser of two evils was chosen.... well maybe... but the mandate given by my vote is with less patience and a extremely higher expectation for HI to be a strong leader void of spineless inactivity and untrue projections and pronouncements.

I say your position is somewhat contradictory bcuz I remember your household proclaiming to never being able to support any other party than the one for which you developed your avatar and signatures around. So that is why I questioned the motive behind your choice of "Objective Thought" as a screen name.........

Now you know as individuals go, I can't vote for a total arse regardless. My voting does not include just one aspect no matter how I can look at it.

Truly if an MP has been benificial to my constituency, I can vote for him/her.
Even so, if the government's performance is crapy, insane, and embarassing....like say.... the former, then I tell you for the good of my conscience and principles I have to vote for the next candidate, provided he/she is not a total arse. In Lucaya Grant/MacDonald was a somewhat hard choice. I know of her work in the justice system and community and she could make a good rep. I felt Grant,compared to alot of existing reps has a good record as Lucaya MP and deserved to stay. Moreover, I though she was wasting her time in a constituency like Lucaya, where very little people need help, since her campaing was basically about providing help and simply being a voice as a rep, which is the basic job of an MP anyways. My desicion was further compounded by the PLP's record with Freeport vs. the FNM's, and the character of most of the cabinet and ultimately Christie himself.

I was really tryin 2 stay away from these convo's cuz they never really remain sensible but you said something that to me is contradictory but thoughtful at the same time. I proclaim to vote person cuz I done voted back and forth several times. But I say this.... even in voting for the person you "must" consider the competency of that parties leadership at the same time. An individual vote for a representative to me means voting for one who has ideas for an area that can be done separate and apart from full government involvement. When I say that I mean, constituency receive minimal funding in budgetary allocations but I respect an MP that develops constituency excitement to a point that encourages his local entities to become a sort of local constituency government or board. Most MP's only use that position to get a big Government portfolio anyway. And really a vote for an MP of a loosing party is only about 10percent better than useless if that person really never had honest intentions in the area.

I wouldn't even talk about the effectiveness and competency of that MP to sponsor proactive legislation or be constructive in the house. This is particularly evident in the position our country is in right now. The PLP is, again my opinion, operating out of nothing but spite in being as nonconstructive in criticism and progressive in national separation and the process of legislation as I have ever seen. I couldn't believe that these were the people that sold me on that dream they propagated in 2002. And I thought back to when I took consideration for my constituency candidates..... St. Anne's (which for the life of me I couldn't understand these new boundary configurations cuz Yamacraw constituency office right across the corner from me). My vote was lost just based on who would possibly remain as leader of the Bahamas. I couldn't support A Christie led government for 5 more years. In fact I am deathly afraid of Christie's managerial incompetency, Mitchell's seemingly racist and elitist attitudes.... I could go on and on. Lesser of two evils was chosen.... well maybe... but the mandate given by my vote is with less patience and a extremely higher expectation for HI to be a strong leader void of spineless inactivity and untrue projections and pronouncements.

I say your position is somewhat contradictory bcuz I remember your household proclaiming to never being able to support any other party than the one for which you developed your avatar and signatures around. So that is why I questioned the motive behind your choice of "Objective Thought" as a screen name.........

Ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you that I call it as I see it.. I don't cover for lazy persons....

I was upset with a lot of things that went on in the PLP but I still gave them my support because like you I based my vote on the leaders and as you all know I don't trust HI!!!!

My wife has her views and I have mine...Some people prefer not to complain if their party is doing something wrong but I choose to complain!!

So in that sense I am objective in my thoughts!!!

Now you know as individuals go, I can't vote for a total arse regardless. My voting does not include just one aspect no matter how I can look at it.

Truly if an MP has been benificial to my constituency, I can vote for him/her.
Even so, if the government's performance is crapy, insane, and embarassing....like say.... the former, then I tell you for the good of my conscience and principles I have to vote for the next candidate, provided he/she is not a total arse. In Lucaya Grant/MacDonald was a somewhat hard choice. I know of her work in the justice system and community and she could make a good rep. I felt Grant,compared to alot of existing reps has a good record as Lucaya MP and deserved to stay. Moreover, I though she was wasting her time in a constituency like Lucaya, where very little people need help, since her campaing was basically about providing help and simply being a voice as a rep, which is the basic job of an MP anyways. My desicion was further compounded by the PLP's record with Freeport vs. the FNM's, and the character of most of the cabinet and ultimately Christie himself.

So you understand what I am saying!!!

Your vote basically came down to the parties with much focus on the leaders!!!

That is exactly what makes sense!!!

But to say that you don't vote for the party but the person is crazy!!

You must consider the leader and the party first of all!!

You can actually vote for a lazy person and if the party that they represent is a good one he can be forced to step up his game and become a good representative....

Ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you that I call it as I see it.. I don't cover for lazy persons....
I was upset with a lot of things that went on in the PLP but I still gave them my support because like you I based my vote on the leaders and as you all know I don't trust HI!!!!
My wife has her views and I have mine...Some people prefer not to complain if their party is doing something wrong but I choose to complain!!
So in that sense I am objective in my thoughts!!!

Ok, understood.........I got your "angle" now then.

lets put it this way, if Fred Mitchel was one of the candidates in my area, i'd vote for the other person, unless they were worse than him, then well .. Id have to pick the lesser of 2 evils (not saying he is evil, just making a point, I dont agree with many of his views is all).
Now a swing on that, if it was between the old PLP and any other party, ofcourse in that case it would have been a no brainer; would have voted party in that case.Why Rory???

The old PLP loved white people!!!

I really wanted Mitchell to be gone but that political animal still scrapped a victory...Muddder sick!!!

So you understand what I am saying!!!
Your vote basically came down to the parties with much focus on the leaders!!!
That is exactly what makes sense!!!
But to say that you don't vote for the party but the person is crazy!!
You must consider the leader and the party first of all!!
You can actually vote for a lazy person and if the party that they represent is a good one he can be forced to step up his game and become a good representative....


This is what people do. Which is why we have some of the characters that we have. You still have to give some kind of thought on the person you vote for, because in my view, you never know who may end up in highly important cabinet positions.

This is what people do. Which is why we have some of the characters that we have. You still have to give some kind of thought on the person you vote for, because in my view, you never know who may end up in highly important cabinet positions.

I agree that the system is messde up!!

But no one is going to change it any time soon so we better get used to it!!

We will continue to get strange characters in the HOA.

Vote party or nothing!!

People actually say that they would vote for a dog if their party sends one to run in their area. They could do that because they vote along party lines.....

They simply just want their party to win.

So you understand what I am saying!!!
Your vote basically came down to the parties with much focus on the leaders!!!
That is exactly what makes sense!!!
But to say that you don't vote for the party but the person is crazy!!
You must consider the leader and the party first of all!!
You can actually vote for a lazy person and if the party that they represent is a good one he can be forced to step up his game and become a good representative....
Tell me if one voted in that fashion does that make that person an authomatic diehard for that party or did they just use sound judgement for what they believe is a better way for the country and his family and if you some how understand what am asking then no one should be no diehard nothing, just a party supporter for that term.
Because if a very creditable person emerge and isn't PLP or FNM but has the leadership ability and support and backing then what are you going to do,still be proud this or that.:dgi:

IMO there was no choice but to vote for party. From my point of view the main thing i was being asked for this election just past was "what style of LEADERSHIP did i want for the Bahamas?". Thus the only choice i had was to vote party.