It's a matter of political philosophy and historical context. Back then, before we had TV, the internet or even the radio, communities were more tightly knit and your world was your community. You elected your MP to represent you and didn't care how they did it.

Nowadays, people's horizons have expanded and their community is the world, so people don't vote for their MP, but for the party and/or prime minister. Therefore, our Westminster system is no longer aligned with its original goal of representing its constituents above all else.

[–] CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've been around a long time, and I have never witnessed an election where people didn't vote for the party. It's been this way for a very long time.

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

It did happen in Sask, at least for a while. Ralph Goodale was the last Liberal party holdout for years and years. Got voted out eventually of course, but held on much longer than most on reputation.

[–] nosuchanon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It’s just human nature to vote for the strong man / party.

[–] TheHonourablePierrePoilievre@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

No it isn't.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It doesn't seem like it's about strength, necessarily. Ordinary voters just can't keep track of more than a few factions. (And forget keeping track of the individual issues).

Where things manage to be non-partisan, it's because there's a strong and extensive network of local power brokers that people will listen to, like pastors or elders. Failing that, parties emerge over and over again to present a brand, and actual issue-by-issue decisions happen inside.