The Governor General

Yes. ummmm ok??? eh???? Oh right. Got it Agreed

Interesting.

Until my exams are complete (next week), I think that this is all I'll write for now. This is not to say that I'm not reading the responses. However, I'm certain people will understand the pressures of finals...

These are my initial thoughts. As I say, I'll respond in more detail later.

ITN, you are correct - the Gov.-Gen. has a LARGE amount of power. In fact, the QUEEN HERSELF has the power to turn Canada (and this is written into the Constitution Act 1867 and 1982) to return Canada to its original "colonial" state. The Gov.-Gen has the power to completely uproot the government.

IMO, this is a good thing - without a check like the GG, the country would end up destroying itself. I think that Clarkeson will have to make a ruling pretty quick regarding the possible Conservative-Bloc coalition gov't. The check that the GG offers is far more valuable than we as citizens give it credit for.

Besides - it would cost the taxpayers about 3.5 times as much to REMOVE the GG on an ANNUAL basis than it would be to keep the office...and keep the country from falling into a revolution (ie American Style Revolution).

Mr. Blair has the right of the situation, I think, in his last post.

I will be back and will write more on this in a little while.

Thanks for the interest folks! It's flattering and exciting!!!!

Kaiser

Can someone explain this to me? I'm not familiar as to why it would cost more to remove the GG, and on an annual basis?

You have to replace the GG with something. There's a cost to that, especially since that something is likely to be elected.

Wouldn't that something Rev more than likely be elected from members of parliament? For example many countries around the world have Prime Ministers etc.... and a head of state, like a President, that President however is usually elected for a 5 year term through parliament. Wouldn't it be the same cost comparing it to the GG?

We have one party in this country that is very much enamoured by US way of doing things, I think not. They will push very hard for somebody elected by the people.

One of the problems we face with any sort of reforms to our government and its programs is that many only look to Washington for examples. Since many of us see your system (and Britain's too) as being, along with ours, the three worst in the western/northern world, it presents us with a whole other challenge.

What exactly don't you agree with on the 3 systems?

In the case of Canada and Britain it's mostly the way the popular vote has little or no relation to the seats won by a single party. The result is the kind of non-representation we so commonly see for certain regions and points of view. It is also one of the causes of the corruption we see everytime a government is in power for any length of time. The scandal we are in the midst of right now sounds just like one of the scandals that the Mulroney government was involved back when I was a kind.

The same kind of charges show up in Britain time and again, although they at least have a tradition of resignations.

In the case of the US (and I'm a big fan of the founding fathers and their constitution) it is the way the system has become distorted over time. It has very much become a case of "whoever has the gold makes the rules" and "it ain't illegal if you don't get caught."

In all three cases the real problem is that the systems have become antiquated as technology, population, and plain old reality have changed. We (the citizens of all three countries) are pretty much showing up at the 2005 Indy 500 in a home-built roadster that still requires an on-board mechanic. Meanwhile they (the ruling elites) are like Roger Penske...they show up with more money than god and a team of experts on bending the rules.

I think all 3 have done fairly well, and lets not forget that it changes, slowly but surely, through mistakes, hardships and oppression. That is the essence of democracy isn't it? A journey?

Here's an idea , we hookup everybody with an online system and everybody gets to vote on major issues, hell why not all issues and then truly have heads of state represent the people instead of abusing powers. Somehow I don't think they will go for it, not im my liftetime anyway.

I'm not so much in favour of "direct democracy" & referendums. It is cumbersome, and can easily result in a 'tyranny of the majority'. Besides, most people do not fret over politics and issues of the day. Most people are for the most part very ignorant and apathetic about where their taxdollars go.

These folks are called sheeple they will reap what they sow.These are the people the goverment is counting on so they can enslave us all in their cash less society control grid

I think not and MMMike need to speak to Huron. He's into the DD thing. Oh, and Scott or Malcolm or whatever name he uses here.

I'm still more proponent of proportional representation than direct democracy, but those two (and some others) have done a lot to dispel several misconceptions about DD. While I haven't bought into their ideas, their ideas are worth everybody looking into.