Roman History - ancient history


Finder
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

I would agree that some sort of "recall" system, in terms of the Canadian system of governance, would be unprecedented and could seize the House of Commons with by-elections.

However, I would assert that there should be some mechanism by which a Government of Canada could have "censure" invoked over it (perhaps by a more accountable Senate), something similar to a vote of non-confidence, but done from the other Chamber.

Our FPTP system is not set up for recall elections. as few MP's get over 50% of the vote, most of the people who an MP represents does not support his views, so how could a recall work in the first place? Plus those who even do get around 50%, it is normal for a MP to lose some support while in office and he will easyly go under 50% sooner or later.

I would not support recall in FPTP or MMP electoral system. The only time I would consider a re-call is if we had an elected head of government directly voted in by the people with a run off elections. Plus I think the threshold for recall would have to be pretty high.
 
jimmoyer
#32
Plus I think the threshold for recall would have to be pretty high.
---------------------------Finder----------------------

Absolutely !

Recall is for people who only eat microwaved food.
 
the caracal kid
#33
agreed, jim

recall is very disruptive to the business of the state and as such must have a high requirement to initiate, and a very high support from the electorate to carry.

The concern in canada is that given a majority government, the people really vote one day and enjoy living in a dictatorship for up to 5 years. There is a need for accountability, but it must not allow for knee-jerk reactions to small issues.
 
jimmoyer
#34
Why not introduce term limits ?
 
iamcanadian
#35
People against majority government are against the people's interests. There cannot be any accountability if there is not one with a majority that can be held accountable for what government does.

All our blaming of one party when all of the parties share blame is silly.

Not one thing that any minority government ever did can be blamed on the one power with the tittle, because the other parties where always in a position to join together and be the majority vote.

Canadian politics is a sham.
 
Finder
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Why not introduce term limits ?

Because that would be too republican...

I wish we had the same system as the Americans. Well the system of checks and balances. See Term Limits, even recall, are workable with your system. Term limits have never been in the Westminster system and was not the thought behind the westminster system..

Really when you look at it the Republican system comes directly from the humanist-liberal frame of mind between the 14th-19th centries to emulate the classical Roman republic and in a larger scale to base society and government on the more seculer temporal classics then celestrial governance of Pope or prince.

I wish we could just remove this relic and go with a system which makes sence.
 
FiveParadox
#37
While our system is certainly flawed, I would contend that there are some major benefits to the Westminster system. I wouldn't say that having a Parliament "sucks," lol.

For example, the concept of "supply," and the concept of defeating a Government over issues of confidence. These are extremely important in my evaluation of a system of governance (personally speaking); I support, more or less, the principles of responsible government (not to say that other systems aren't responsible it's a textbook definition).
 
iamcanadian
#38
Democratic Renewal Secretariat:

Ontario's "Westminster" style democracy was imported from Britain over 130 years ago when Ontario was a very different place. The population was far less diverse and voting rights were restricted to a select few.

Since then, Ontario has developed into a diverse province in which all citizens get to have their say. Yet in the last election, only about half of all Ontarians voted. Many have lost faith in a system that, for too long, has been cynically manipulated to promote the interests of the government in power.

It's time to restore people's faith, bring our 19th century democratic traditions into the 21st century and bring citizens -- especially young people -- back to the centre of politics. The new secretariat is a first of its kind in Ontario. It will ensure meaningful reform by consulting with the people of Ontario, engaging youth and working to improve voter turnout.

http://www.democraticrenewal.gov.on.ca

Unfortunately this ministry appears to only play lip service to their stated mandate.
 
Finder
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by iamcanadian

Democratic Renewal Secretariat:

Ontario's "Westminster" style democracy was imported from Britain over 130 years ago when Ontario was a very different place. The population was far less diverse and voting rights were restricted to a select few.

Since then, Ontario has developed into a diverse province in which all citizens get to have their say. Yet in the last election, only about half of all Ontarians voted. Many have lost faith in a system that, for too long, has been cynically manipulated to promote the interests of the government in power.

It's time to restore people's faith, bring our 19th century democratic traditions into the 21st century and bring citizens -- especially young people -- back to the centre of politics. The new secretariat is a first of its kind in Ontario. It will ensure meaningful reform by consulting with the people of Ontario, engaging youth and working to improve voter turnout.

http://www.democraticrenewal.gov.on.ca

didn't we already agree that both the federal and provincial camp on this have been dragging there feet.

Anyhow even if we do change to PR, MMP or even STV, you can keep the basics of the westminster form of government. New Zealand uses MMP and is considered to be Westminster...

Personally I could care less what you call it. I just want a system with a mix of PR and FPTP, a inclusive system which represents everyone, but also represents ridings.

How much do you want to beat that we don't have a new system come the next provincial election? lol


hmmmmmm this bugs me that this has become a political discussion and not a historic one.
 
Finder
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

While our system is certainly flawed, I would contend that there are some major benefits to the Westminster system. I wouldn't say that having a Parliament "sucks," lol.

For example, the concept of "supply," and the concept of defeating a Government over issues of confidence. These are extremely important in my evaluation of a system of governance (personally speaking); I support, more or less, the principles of responsible government (not to say that other systems aren't responsible it's a textbook definition).


Sorry missed your post..

In our system we rarely have minority governments and they rarely get defeated on these motions.

Paradox you will see the failure in our system when the CPC get's a magority. If they do not govern like Liberals you will also see how they've become our dictators. You won't be able to do anything as they remove our puplic health care system, the gays rights , and devalue our educational systems. You will stand there and wonder what you can do. Hope that there bill won't pass but... hey they have a magority they have 4 years to do all the damage they want, no checks, no balances.. As they appoint Conservative senators (thats if they forget that they support senate reform) and they appoint a nice conservative GG, you will see Canada totally transform. On the one hope you have for the government to defeated lies only with a minority government which really is rare, all your rights can be drained away.

Now I'm pretty sure the Conservative government will governor very liberally consider most of Canada has Liberal or social democratic values. But they don't have to. Once harper is PM with a magority he is King of Canada... Paradox, the system you believe in so much will make a King out of the person you dislike, who will attack your values and there is NOTHING you can do about it. I hope Harper actually governers like an ULTRA concervative. maybe then people like you will actually take note of hour bad our system can be once they lose there rights. *shrugs*

Again I doubt Harper will governor that badly and I think he might still get a minority.
 
FiveParadox
#41
Mr. Harper commented today, on CPAC, that he would not be able to govern quite as he would like, because the Senate of Canada would be controlled by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Liberal Senators). He also said that the Supreme Court would pose an obstacle, which makes me wonder what he's planning on doing for four years, lol.
 
Hank C
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Mr. Harper commented today, on CPAC, that he would not be able to govern quite as he would like, because the Senate of Canada would be controlled by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Liberal Senators). He also said that the Supreme Court would pose an obstacle, which makes me wonder what he's planning on doing for four years, lol.

This is exactaly why we need to have an elected senate!!
 
FiveParadox
#43
I would disagree; this is exactly the kind of situation that our "Father of Confederation" were taking into consideration when they formulated the Senate (I am in favour of very moderate reform, as Finder knows, but would like to see the premise of our Senate remain the same).

The "memory" of the Senate is an extremely important feature of our system of governance; no matter what the whim of the people may be, during moments of rash judgement, the Senate remains a slowly evolving body, which must developing over time on the basis of long-term political opinion.
 
Colpy
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Why not introduce term limits ?

I dislike the idea of term limits.

If FDR had paid attention to what was then simply a tradition of a two term limit, he would have been out of office in January, 1941.

Need I say more?
 
Finder
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Why not introduce term limits ?

I dislike the idea of term limits.

If FDR had paid attention to what was then simply a tradition of a two term limit, he would have been out of office in January, 1941.

Need I say more?

I disagree. I think two term limits is fundimentally a republican value. It comes from the old "dictators" od the Roman republic and that of the consulship. Both were offices of high power, but both had term limits. The Dictoator often had a term of 6 months to about a year to which the "dictator" traditionally gave up the power at the end of the conflic even if his term had not finished. That of the Consulship was of one term, to which he could have a second only after he had left the posistion for a term. Where the republic started to have multiple terms were with the Tribunes of the Plebs.

Anyhow back onto the point this was done to dissuade tyrants and kings (as dictatorships were often short and only for crisis). American principals of government would therefor bring the same Farmer to ruler back to farmer aspect to dissuade possible tyrants. I totally support a two term limit.

Another reason they did this in rome was to pass around the privileges and commitments of puplic office. we see in Canada, and the USA that professional politicians have a hold on government. I'd love to see term limits on everything thus we could have more people drawn to puplic life. Less of these lifers spending 20-30 or more years as a politicians. They are so far removed from the common person.

I think both Canada and the USA should go back to our republican values in government and see the reason why we don't trust the "politicians"... which is mainly they are professional politicians and not the people.

Perhaps I'm being too much of a republican ideolog, but this type of thinking can work in a "Westminster" republican government, or the American Republican government.

Anyhow I'll stand by my orginal "grit" like statment that the founding fathers of the USA where a very enlightend bunch and really made a good piece of work in the American government. I think the only other republican government I can think of which could have done better if not for the Jakobins was the French Constiutional monarchy just after the revolutionary war. Had the King as head of state but with very limited stalling powers, with most of the powers in the hands of the Assembly, much like the Westminster module. But the king had the power to delay legislation for 4 years which lead to time to debate and for moods to change and fanatics to turn into moderates. *shrugs* Two of the best systems if you ask me.
 
iamcanadian
#46
All these expressions of faith in the integrity of our existing system is making me nauseous. What has to happen before Canadians see the kind of mess we are in, reach third world status?

We have been slipping for 20 years, while the whole world races past us. We had it too good once. The fact that we still have it better than many does not mean we are not falling.
 
Finder
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by iamcanadian

All these expressions of faith in the integrity of our existing system is making me nauseous. What has to happen before Canadians see the kind of mess we are in, reach third world status?

We have been slipping for 20 years, while the whole world races past us. We had it too good once. The fact that we still have it better than many does not mean we are not falling.

"iamcanadian" how did we ever have it so good? Is it possible you are looking at our history threw rose coloured classes? I think we've had a lot of progress in the last 200 years, and I think we are better off then we were even 10 years ago.
 
FiveParadox
#48
Granted, the system of governance in Canada is far from perfect; but with all due respect to the both of you, Finder and iamcanadian , Canada is not going to collapse as you seem to imply if the system is not completely overhauled. Yes, the system is flawed; each system is, in some way or another -- but the immediate fate of Canada does not rest on the doing-away with our Westminster Parliament.
 
Finder
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Granted, the system of governance in Canada is far from perfect; but with all due respect to the both of you, Finder and iamcanadian , Canada is not going to collapse as you seem to imply if the system is not completely overhauled. Yes, the system is flawed; each system is, in some way or another -- but the immediate fate of Canada does not rest on the doing-away with our Westminster Parliament.

I doubt Canada will collasp. But the fact is our system of government won't stop a tyranical ruler. It also shuts out minorities. Lots of dictatorship ships of the magority in the form of democracy have lasted hundreds of years very well and I'm sure Canada will too. But as a Republican Social Democrat, I have to respect the right of the minority to be enfranchised in our system. I may not always agree with all minority groups point of view but I believe they have a right to be enfranchised in our system. Now you may not care that a portion of society has no or little representation, but by disenfrancising them is usually more dangourse then francisation of these cause as history has proven to us time and again..

Paradox, I sometimes give you worse cause, or not so good scenio's to demostraight the inequilities of our system and what can happen. Now with Harper I do not think he will turn out to be a facsist, but if he does you could lose everything you care about because of our system.

As I said in my other comments, I doubt this will happen, and I think Canada is working ok with our broken system because of the people who have been incharge have been mostly enlightened people who have not overly abused the system. That doesn't mean we can always trust in this.

In less then a week we have a possibility of being ruled by a minority, with a magority in government, who does not repect the minority, nor respects other minorities rights nor the magority of Canadians rights. Why will they be able to do this, because of our system. I'm not saying it's the end of Canada, but I'm just saying we can improve our system so we can prevent a few things.

1. absolute rule by the magority
2. Minority rule by magority government
3. disenfrachisment of minority groups.

I think those three things are immportant in Canada and in a democracy... They might be republican values but they are also values we have as well in our beliefs.

I see you are very pasionate about your beliefs as I am, and you will only learn once you have been disenfranchised by the system

(sh*t gotta jet)
 
iamcanadian
#50
Canada is ruled by a MINORITY of the population.

The so called minorities are in sum total the vast majority and the Minority of the people that rule us make every effort to keep Canada fragmented into divided minorities that have not power or say.
 
Finder
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by iamcanadian

Canada is ruled by a MINORITY of the population.

The so called minorities are in sum total the vast majority and the Minority of the people that rule us make every effort to keep Canada fragmented into divided minorities that have not power or say.

True the magority of Canada is made up of Minority groups, politically and ethnically now. This is why we have to have a system of government based on enfranchment of all groups and not winner take all.

Man we are way off topic here.
 
iamcanadian
#52
Maybe we passed each other over these thoughts without hitting.

The same people that have been rulling Canada for the last 100 years are rulling Canada today. This is the MINORITY I am referring to as the rulling minority.

The rest of the minority groups that came after them which are by the far the greater majority are kept out of the rulling class by being pigionholed into fragmented minority groups and a whole which they play with like foxes in the hen house.

The whole system works to maintain this.
 
Finder
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by iamcanadian

Maybe we passed each other over these thoughts without hitting.

The same people that have been rulling Canada for the last 100 years are rulling Canada today. This is the MINORITY I am referring to as the rulling minority.

The rest of the minority groups that came after them which are by the far the greater majority are kept out of the rulling class by being pigionholed into fragmented minority groups and a whole which they play with like foxes in the hen house.

The whole system works to maintain this.


hmmm no I think even though we almost hit on the same points, you tend to put on that tin foil hat I often talk about when you go into your conspiracy theories. Though I think you are going over board you are right that we are governed by professional politicians instead of average citizens. I do wish we could change that. But I think that is a voting problem which has become apart of our culture here and the only way for that to change is threw education.
 
jimmoyer
#54
dislike the idea of term limits.

If FDR had paid attention to what was then simply a tradition of a two term limit, he would have been out of office in January, 1941.

Need I say more?
-------------------------------Colpy----------------

Well, I'll nibble away at your presumption because
by the end of FDR's 3rd term we had the disaster
of his private meetings with Uncle Joe Stalin,
ignoring the worries of Winston Churchill, BEFORE
culminating in the disastrous YALTA Conference
that set the stage for the IRON CURTAIN.

In the midst of a world war, a previous President
would no doubt assist a most willing succeeding
President because nothing unifies like an external
threat.
 
Finder
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

dislike the idea of term limits.

If FDR had paid attention to what was then simply a tradition of a two term limit, he would have been out of office in January, 1941.

Need I say more?
-------------------------------Colpy----------------

Well, I'll nibble away at your presumption because
by the end of FDR's 3rd term we had the disaster
of his private meetings with Uncle Joe Stalin,
ignoring the worries of Winston Churchill, BEFORE
culminating in the disastrous YALTA Conference
that set the stage for the IRON CURTAIN.

In the midst of a world war, a previous President
would no doubt assist a most willing succeeding
President because nothing unifies like an external
threat.


So your against term limits?
 
jimmoyer
#56
I'm for term limits.
 
Finder
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

I'm for term limits.

Ok good...

One good thing about american republican's is they are at least republican's.
 
FiveParadox
#58
Term limits would not work in Canada; how could we possibly incorporate them into Canada?

The Liberals are elected to the House with a majority of seats; oh, but they've been in twice, already. Guess we have to give it to the Tories. Hm, defeated on the Speech from the Throne; what do you know?
 
I think not
#59
It can't work in Canada, you would have to toss your system out the window.
 
jimmoyer
#60
I am beginning to understand that the republic form
of government does have more of a problem with
incumbents not losing and that parliamentary systems
have less of a problem with that.

The very nature of an election in a parliamentary
system often assumes the party in power is in
trouble and so it will most likely lose seats.

In the republic form of government, elections
are not dependent on the lack of popularity.