Whom shuld your MP serve first?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Well, if you believe in the importance of the senate, then the MPs should serve their constituents. The senate can serve the country outside of such tyranny of the majority considerations.
Reality paints a different picture.
Reality paints a different picture.
MP's are elected to serve the electorate. At least in theory. In reality most of them just bring the party line to the constituency.
Well, if you believe in the importance of the senate, then the MPs should serve their constituents. The senate can serve the country outside of such tyranny of the majority considerations.
Reality paints a different picture.
I suppose.
Just for the record as more people vote in the pole, I voted 'mankind'.
I know you did, lol. Surely you can guess which one I voted for.
Anyhow, I thought it might be more appropriate to respond to this in here:
Firstly I'd say that when it comes to dispensing funds, it's never just at the discretion of an individual MP. So they should be in there arguing, on behalf of their constituents, for that funding to go in their riding. Whoever makes the best argument wins and in all honesty as long as they can collectively come together and give it to the an area that would be in the top five or so of 'best for the country as a whole', then I'd be fine with that. Out in the open and above board, mind you. I want to see these arguments. If we don't expect them to do their absolute best, then they'll take the easiest road available. I think most human beings are lazy that way.
As far as CIDA or any other government run organization, I'm of the mind that governments should not be running anything. Funding sure, after projects are publicly tendered.
See to me it's all about the accountability. Right now we have pathetic accountability from any level of government and that's the part that disgusts me.
In reality, the best form of government is a dictatorship with a wise and benevolent ruler. A dictatorship so there are no problems making timely decisions, benevolent so that they do what is best for all, and wise so that they know what is best. Good luck setting that up.
Democracy seems to work because a group of average people arguing about the best thing to do is much better than a corrupt/idiotic person doing whatever they like.
I think that MPs should ideally serve mankind, which is why I like Harper's senate reform (because we shouldn't need the phoney chamber where they are "removed from the political process"), but think we also need electoral reform to lessen the power of individual parties. The reform party and the CPC should never needed to merge, they had different ideas and expressed the plurality of views, but the liberals unfairly dominated them and their voices were not heard. Now the Conservatives have power and the other voices go unheard. Meanwhile, they all maneuver for petty political ideologies so that they will get re-elected and nobody considers the public good just the public want.
The actual duty of an MP is to serve the interest of the Nation first. He is to represent
a constituency but like the sheriff he is to represent the interests of the country first.
The reason is law makers are charged with defending the constitution as they in fact
make the laws. The second line of defence is the courts as they ensure the laws are
obeyed.
The secondary responsibility is the constituency. The MP for example cannot sign a promise
to any group be it trade unions, or churches to promise specific actions in exchange for that
constituencies vote. Most do no realize an MP is supposed to listen to all debate before he or
she votes on a position to be taken, Now we all know that in practicality that does not happen
but it is supposed to. In fact it became an issue in the 1997 federal campaign when members
of all parties were signing promises. IE, the Christian Coalition and several Women's rights
groups.
I actually agree with the idea the, MP does duty to the country first, Sometimes an MP has to
make a decision that is not in keeping with the constituency but doing the right thing is sometimes
the price that must be paid in a constitutional country.
The point about the Senate being scrapped I agree, the Senate originally was a sober
second thought but its become a special treatment group and a vindication by the
governing party and no longer functions the way its supposed to but that would then
require opening the constitution and no one wants to do that in this country.
a constituency but like the sheriff he is to represent the interests of the country first.
The reason is law makers are charged with defending the constitution as they in fact
make the laws. The second line of defence is the courts as they ensure the laws are
obeyed.
The secondary responsibility is the constituency. The MP for example cannot sign a promise
to any group be it trade unions, or churches to promise specific actions in exchange for that
constituencies vote. Most do no realize an MP is supposed to listen to all debate before he or
she votes on a position to be taken, Now we all know that in practicality that does not happen
but it is supposed to. In fact it became an issue in the 1997 federal campaign when members
of all parties were signing promises. IE, the Christian Coalition and several Women's rights
groups.
I actually agree with the idea the, MP does duty to the country first, Sometimes an MP has to
make a decision that is not in keeping with the constituency but doing the right thing is sometimes
the price that must be paid in a constitutional country.
The point about the Senate being scrapped I agree, the Senate originally was a sober
second thought but its become a special treatment group and a vindication by the
governing party and no longer functions the way its supposed to but that would then
require opening the constitution and no one wants to do that in this country.
Completely agree.
Again I completely agree.
I agree in large part but I still haven't seen any plausible electoral reform proposals. Most of what I have seen is echoing of the partisan whining that the losers in our process inevitably revert to, justified or not.
A final, sad and disheartening truth.
Of course nobody whines about it when the system works in their favor. I think at least getting rid of first-past-the-post or making the senate elected via proportionality would at least allow one to say the makeup of the chambers are representative (winner take all is the definition of unrepresentative). I have complained about the electoral process since before I could vote, and that has encompassed quite a few different political parties in power.
I think that the concerns voiced by the Reform party and the Progessive Conservatives was different enough to merit separate parties. It is sad that they needed to merge in order to regain power. It is sad that something like 5% of the population votes for the Green party and they only get to hold 0.3% of the seats. How is either a case of representing the views of the people? It will be sad if the NDP and the Liberal Party need to merge to regain power. Can all issues really be handled simultaneously with by a binary choice? The world is not black and white, why should the electoral process be forced to be?
Last edited:
Actually it is not the constituency that hired you, you were nominated by your party, and put
forward as a choice yes, but your first responsibility is to the nation. I ran Federally in 1997
and you learn any number of things you would not other wise know. Unless they changed the
constitution the same rules likely apply today.
What if the constituents were demanding you support something that is in conflict with the
constitution of the country. Oh, that can't happen. Well if you look at some countries around
the world that had good intentions and have gone to hell in a hand basket we see it can
happen potentially.
forward as a choice yes, but your first responsibility is to the nation. I ran Federally in 1997
and you learn any number of things you would not other wise know. Unless they changed the
constitution the same rules likely apply today.
What if the constituents were demanding you support something that is in conflict with the
constitution of the country. Oh, that can't happen. Well if you look at some countries around
the world that had good intentions and have gone to hell in a hand basket we see it can
happen potentially.
I would oppose pro rep. It merely gives parties more power, as if Parliament is not partisan aenough as is.
I'd say adopt a non-partisan system like Nunavut has: every candidate runs as an independant.
Of course, any time you make a constitutional amendment, you have gone against the constitution in a sense. I'm thinking you mean "serve the country" more than "serve the constitution" maybe?
Some do run as independants, and some even win... rarely.
I'd support an open ballot where a voter could write in the name of a local resident he'd like to vote for. Should that person win, of course they could decline, but then it would be like jury duty in that it would generally be expected you take your seat excepting a valid reason to decline.
Then we'd start getting fewer megalomaniacs in Parliament.
I'd be perfectly ok with that. I'd actually like to see a government where there are multiple elected from a given area and at any given issue, they hold the votes of a certain proportion of the electorate. People are free to change who holds their vote for any given issue.
It has a number of benefits (you might not see them all as benefits). First, the situation would be expensive to implement at first, but if it was implemented as a chip based SIN card + card reader generating a one time pass, it would be more secure than the current electoral system and we wouldn't need Muslims to unveil themselves. Future elections would be cheaper, since it is a once off cost. Elections could happen continuously because I could just log onto a webpage and change my vote. There would be a reward for staying educated about the electoral process: you could immediately change your vote to support the side of the issue you believe to be best. You wouldn't have to sacrifice issues, yes I agree with the liberals on gay marriage, the conservatives on senate reform, the Bloc Quebecois on mandatory minimums, the conservatives on the gun registry, the NDP on the digital locks wording in the recent copyright bill, so on. Voting would be extremely easy, so maybe voter turnout would be higher.
We have the technology. The days when it was unfeasible for everyone to cast their vote on every issue are gone. Why do we need representative government at all when direct democracy is so easily achievable?
instead of micro managing your mp, i think it would be better to collect approval ratings on every issue then measure his level of compliance to his constuent's wishes.
Were you replying to me? Do you see direct democracy as "micromanaging your MP" or am I just confused?
First: the Nation.
Second: His constituents.
Third: the party.....by voting with the caucus on items that were part of the election platform
Second: His constituents.
Third: the party.....by voting with the caucus on items that were part of the election platform