Member
Posts: 63 
April 3rd, 2007, 09:19 AM
The primary advantages are:
1. It gives a clear, decisive affirmation that so-and-so should be PM/P.
2. The PM/P are answerable to the citizenry directly and not the party elites or party members who elected them party leader (ironically party elections don’t use a FPTP approach).
3. It gives the PM/P a mandate from the whole country/province for the common good, not a partisan good for just a party.
4. It makes it easier to separate the legislature from the government.
5. It avoids the uncomfortable results under a FPTP system that leaders are not supported by the majority of the citizens.
The primary advantages are:
1. It gives a clear, decisive affirmation that so-and-so should be PM/P.
2. The PM/P are answerable to the citizenry directly and not the party elites or party members who elected them party leader (ironically party elections don’t use a FPTP approach).
3. It gives the PM/P a mandate from the whole country/province for the common good, not a partisan good for just a party.
4. It makes it easier to separate the legislature from the government.
5. It avoids the uncomfortable results under a FPTP system that leaders are not supported by the majority of the citizens.
Member
Posts: 63
April 5th, 2007, 12:00 PM
Quoting tamarin
The idea is that the concepts of 'official opposition' and 'confidence' are gone. The leaders serve until the next fixed election date and the house debates bills. And its ok if bills are defeated.
I can't see any improvement through direct election. If it happened simulataneously with a general election what's to be done if the newly elected PM's party doesn't control the House?
Member
Posts: 158
April 5th, 2007, 12:09 PM
I don't think it really matters if we are directly voting for the PM, as it won't make a lick of difference without free votes for all elected representatives. An end to the current system that promotes party loyalty before the good of the country, and limits the ability of any member to table a bill and have it taken seriously. Without serious reforms and laws to back them up, It doesn't matter who we get to vote for. Because as soon as they get there we have no more say and too often party agenda over rules everything else.
I don't think it really matters if we are directly voting for the PM, as it won't make a lick of difference without free votes for all elected representatives. An end to the current system that promotes party loyalty before the good of the country, and limits the ability of any member to table a bill and have it taken seriously. Without serious reforms and laws to back them up, It doesn't matter who we get to vote for. Because as soon as they get there we have no more say and too often party agenda over rules everything else.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,464 
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
April 5th, 2007, 12:18 PM
one major advantage to this kind of voting is that voter numbers might rise. After all, people might even have heard of the guys they're voting for.
one major advantage to this kind of voting is that voter numbers might rise. After all, people might even have heard of the guys they're voting for.
Member
Posts: 158
April 5th, 2007, 01:37 PM
I say do with out the Party system . then you would get free voting in parlement. No party backlash if you vote the otherway.
I agree,although i still think we need to legislate forced voting to be the crime that it is (Complete with jail time) How many bils have passed (Dion's forced Kyoto compliance) Where members of the liberals were told how to vote or else, it is wrong and completely against the priciples of democracy!
I say do with out the Party system . then you would get free voting in parlement. No party backlash if you vote the otherway.
I agree,although i still think we need to legislate forced voting to be the crime that it is (Complete with jail time) How many bils have passed (Dion's forced Kyoto compliance) Where members of the liberals were told how to vote or else, it is wrong and completely against the priciples of democracy!
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,683
April 5th, 2007, 01:37 PM
No country has a direct election for head of government.
The American Prime Minister ( their Speaker of the House: Currently Nancy Pelosi) is elected in the same manner as our PM.
For Direct Election (which I think has a place) a better solution would be to have one vote for both Senate and Parliment.
You vote for Parliment, but for each 1% of the vote a party gets in that election, they get one seat in the Senate.
In that case you would no longer have a party with 40% popular support having a total majority, while parties with the support of 10% of the populace would not be left out of the equation.
No country has a direct election for head of government.
The American Prime Minister ( their Speaker of the House: Currently Nancy Pelosi) is elected in the same manner as our PM.
For Direct Election (which I think has a place) a better solution would be to have one vote for both Senate and Parliment.
You vote for Parliment, but for each 1% of the vote a party gets in that election, they get one seat in the Senate.
In that case you would no longer have a party with 40% popular support having a total majority, while parties with the support of 10% of the populace would not be left out of the equation.
