Or rather, representative democracy. A republic, in which those in authority are elected by and exercise power on behalf of the people.
But what are the people? Certainly in Canada and the U.S., "the people" (eligible voters) was a tiny fraction of the population not long ago. And still is far from all the people.
In the U.S., there are three branches of government, one of which is divided into two chambers. Only the House of Representatives and the Senate are remotely democratically chosen. The President is elected by the states, not by the people, and the Supreme Court is selected by the President, with a limited veto by the Senate, which effectively means the majority party in the Senate.
As I understand it, in Canada only the House of Commons is democratically elected. The Senate is effectively chosen by the PM with input from the HoC (especially the party or parties in government), the executive is chosen by the House of Commons, and the judiciary is chosen by the government and effectively rubber-stamped by the GG. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.)
So. . . two questions arise about "democracy."
1. Whom should be included and whom excluded from the electorate?
2. What effect should an individual's vote have on the composition of the government (I mean "government" in the sense of those who make, enforce, and interpret laws, not the committee appointed to run Canada).
I suppose the purest form of "democracy" would be a unicameral legislature chosen from legislative districts (ridings) of precisely the same population, with no limits on any citizen voting (or possibly even any person voting). If one has a separate executive, like the U.S., that would be by direct, popular, national election. But that has never been the case, isn't now, and we have commenters on this board who want to skew it even further, constructing or adjusting systems so that people in low-population-density areas would have more representation per capita.
So, I'm interested in thoughts on the two questions above.
I don't suppose it would do me any good to ask the usual suspects to limit themselves to actual thought, and not howl bumper-sticker slogans demanding minor readjustments to the current, unequal system designed to make it either more or differently unequal.
But what are the people? Certainly in Canada and the U.S., "the people" (eligible voters) was a tiny fraction of the population not long ago. And still is far from all the people.
In the U.S., there are three branches of government, one of which is divided into two chambers. Only the House of Representatives and the Senate are remotely democratically chosen. The President is elected by the states, not by the people, and the Supreme Court is selected by the President, with a limited veto by the Senate, which effectively means the majority party in the Senate.
As I understand it, in Canada only the House of Commons is democratically elected. The Senate is effectively chosen by the PM with input from the HoC (especially the party or parties in government), the executive is chosen by the House of Commons, and the judiciary is chosen by the government and effectively rubber-stamped by the GG. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.)
So. . . two questions arise about "democracy."
1. Whom should be included and whom excluded from the electorate?
2. What effect should an individual's vote have on the composition of the government (I mean "government" in the sense of those who make, enforce, and interpret laws, not the committee appointed to run Canada).
I suppose the purest form of "democracy" would be a unicameral legislature chosen from legislative districts (ridings) of precisely the same population, with no limits on any citizen voting (or possibly even any person voting). If one has a separate executive, like the U.S., that would be by direct, popular, national election. But that has never been the case, isn't now, and we have commenters on this board who want to skew it even further, constructing or adjusting systems so that people in low-population-density areas would have more representation per capita.
So, I'm interested in thoughts on the two questions above.
I don't suppose it would do me any good to ask the usual suspects to limit themselves to actual thought, and not howl bumper-sticker slogans demanding minor readjustments to the current, unequal system designed to make it either more or differently unequal.
