i think they call them French Fries again. Incidentally, does anybody know why they are called French Fries? It doesn't seem likely that the French would eat a cardboard tasting food like French Fries.
Canada more democratic than the U.S.?
- Thread starter Sublime
- Start date
i think they call them French Fries again. Incidentally, does anybody know why they are called French Fries? It doesn't seem likely that the French would eat a cardboard tasting food like French Fries.
French Fried foods, like chicken and onion rings, I believe to "French Fry" something meant to deep fry it at one point back in the 18th century (not 100% on the exact def of French frying). And "French Fried Potato" became "French Fry" and then simply "Fry".
I believe to "French Fry" something meant to deep fry it at one point back in the 18th century
You mean like 'French kiss'?
You mean like 'French kiss'?
Not necessarily. I believe in a unicameral system of government for the sake of efficiency. Yet I don't beleive in big government. I see no contradiction in either of these. Keep government efficient and able to respond quickly, but don't abuse it. To make the system slow, cumbersome and inefficient on purpose is in and of itself equal to support for bureaucracy.
You can read more about it here:
Non-partisan democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Turns out the Nunavummiut aren't the only ones smarter than us. We've got some catching up to do.
Oh wow, North West Territories is non-partisan too according to that link. Not all Canadians are so dense after all.
Here's a quote form it:
The Canadian territories of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have nonpartisan democracies. The populace votes for individuals to represent it in the territorial assembly without reference to political parties. After the election, the assembly selects one of its number to form a government and act as premier. This system is in deference to the system of consensus government that predominates among the indigenous Inuit and other peoples of northern Canada.
The municipal government of the City of Toronto, Ontario (Canada) is the fifth largest government in the country, governing a population of more than 2.7 million. It consists of a nonpartisan, directly elected council. The public may have a general idea of the candidates' political affiliations, but their parties have no official recognition or privilege in the functioning of City Council. Councilors are free to vote on each motion individually, freeing them from party discipline.
Until the mid-20th century, a Canadian politician's political affiliation was not shown on ballots at any level of government. The expectation was that citizens would vote according to the merit of the candidate, but in practice, party allegiance played an important role. Beginning in 1974, the name of the candidate's political party was shown on the ballot.
The state of Nebraska in the United States has nonpartisan elections for its legislature because candidates are neither endorsed nor supported by political parties. However, its executive branch is elected on a partisan basis. It is the only state in the United States with a nonpartisan legislature.
The Canadian territories of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have nonpartisan democracies. The populace votes for individuals to represent it in the territorial assembly without reference to political parties. After the election, the assembly selects one of its number to form a government and act as premier. This system is in deference to the system of consensus government that predominates among the indigenous Inuit and other peoples of northern Canada.
The municipal government of the City of Toronto, Ontario (Canada) is the fifth largest government in the country, governing a population of more than 2.7 million. It consists of a nonpartisan, directly elected council. The public may have a general idea of the candidates' political affiliations, but their parties have no official recognition or privilege in the functioning of City Council. Councilors are free to vote on each motion individually, freeing them from party discipline.
Until the mid-20th century, a Canadian politician's political affiliation was not shown on ballots at any level of government. The expectation was that citizens would vote according to the merit of the candidate, but in practice, party allegiance played an important role. Beginning in 1974, the name of the candidate's political party was shown on the ballot.
The state of Nebraska in the United States has nonpartisan elections for its legislature because candidates are neither endorsed nor supported by political parties. However, its executive branch is elected on a partisan basis. It is the only state in the United States with a nonpartisan legislature.
That's easier said than done.
The point of the question is whether or not you think a government that regulates quickly and easily is better than a government that regulates slower and with more difficulty. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages based on ones point of view.
From my perspective, governments that have been able to regulate on a whim have, for the most part, done just that. That is why I'm not a big fan of that model. Show me a society where quick acting government and liberty coexist.
Machjo, Nebraska may have a non partisan legislature. Hover, I have a cousin who lives in Omaha. He tells me that they are all conservative in Nebraska, they are all Republicans. In this respect, Nebraska is another Alberta.
So it really doesn’t matter if the legislature is non partisan or not. Probably the framers of Nebraska constitution didn’t think there ever will be enough Democrats in Nebraska to form a party, so they decided to keep the legislature non partisan. A non partisan legislature sounds better than a partisan one, with one party having 90% of seats (pretty much like they have in Alberta).
So it really doesn’t matter if the legislature is non partisan or not. Probably the framers of Nebraska constitution didn’t think there ever will be enough Democrats in Nebraska to form a party, so they decided to keep the legislature non partisan. A non partisan legislature sounds better than a partisan one, with one party having 90% of seats (pretty much like they have in Alberta).
I always get a kick out of people that don't live in Alberta and obviously know little about it, when they try and tell others what we are. Albertans are not particularly conservative. Both Lougheed and Klein (the two most dominant Alberta politicians in the last 50 years) would have fit in well with the Liberal party. In fact, Klein considered himself a Liberal before he entered provincial politics. Today, the Alberta Liberal Party could easily win the next provincial election if they can only find a leader that doesn't have the personality of a stick.
Even a unicameral parliamentary system still has checks and balances. We still need a majority vote to pass a law. A bicameral system just seems redundant to me.
Ignoring some generalizations on your part, I can say that even if 90% of them are conservative a no-artisan legislature still has the advantage of freeing members from partisan stricture. We don't have that when MP's in Parliament must vote along with the party all the time.
I can't think of any necessarily. I'd just hope!
But going by the same logic, then it wouldmean that if, instead of getting rid of the senate, we added a second Parliament, making it a tricameral system, that it would slow down legislation. It probably would. And a quadricameral one? What about a decacameral one? Where do we stop?
I'd be willing to take my risks with a unicameral system.
Still democratic at least, though granted it could pass laws more easily.
It could also go both ways too. JUst as it would be easier to pas new laws, it would also be easier to repeal them. So it woud be a double-eded swordn either way. With multiple layers, it's harder to pass news laws, but also hardr to repeal old ones. Really comes out to the same in the end, except that one is a little fatter than the other, Duffy-like if you know what I mean.
I don't care which system is used. The point is, the easier it is to make rules and regulations, the more rules and regulations there will be. That was the point of the question.
Which is just what we need because we don't have enough of those.
I can say that even if 90% of them are conservative a no-artisan legislature still has the advantage of freeing members from partisan stricture.
That may be true, Machjo, and I assume it may make difference on some minor points (e.g. whether tax cuts should be 20% or 25%). However, when a legislature is overwhelmingly conservative (whether Nebraska or Alberta), it really doesn’t make a difference if it is nonpartisan or not. It makes very little practical difference.
That may be true, Machjo, and I assume it may make difference on some minor points (e.g. whether tax cuts should be 20% or 25%). However, when a legislature is overwhelmingly conservative (whether Nebraska or Alberta), it really doesn’t make a difference if it is nonpartisan or not. It makes very little practical difference.
20% and 25% is still a difference. Even within the sime ideological ranks, be they right, left or centre, variations can be great. So even if they are mostly conservative, they may have a wide range of nuances of conservatism. Thus non-partisanship frees candidates to vote their conscience based on their various nuanced views.
Not everything can be so pidgin-holed.
I don' thing there is a solution. The more layers we add, the more difficult it is to pass laws, but also the more difficult it is to remove laws. So it really does come out to the same thing. With a more straightforward system, it's easier to pass laws, but also easier to remove them. Again, it all balances itself out either way.
Perhaps one solution would be more decentralization to local governments.