What Makes the Canadian Government Democratic?
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
I want to vote directly for my leadership and directly for my government.
This is my democratic right. I don't want these decisions mediated by parties or the system.
It's not your government. It's Her Majesty's government. She chooses the prime minister, not the colonies' common riff-raff.
If you want to think of it that way, but when you're standing in the voting booth marking your X, it goes beside the name of a person.
Actually, no it's not your democratic right, the system doesn't give you that. You have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice in the constituency you live in. If you don't want your political choices mediated by the system (parties are part of the system), you don't want a system at all, you want direct democracy where all citizens discuss and vote on all issues. How do you think that'd work?
I have no democratic right to select my leadership?
What other powers should I not have?
Obviously there are some very real and very distressing issues being discussed here.
The first one I see is the comment "I am voting for a party not a person". This is just so wrong on every level of democracy. We are supposed to have representation of our local interests in parliament. Voting for a candidate that does not represent the interest of the constituency just because you want their leader as PM is not a vote of good consience but a vote that has been manipulated by the nationalization of the party system.
The second problem I can see is the actual 'party' system itself. The intent of our constitution was to have each riding elect a representitive member of their community. Under the current system our candidates are picked by the federal parties, not the community at large. It has become common practice for parties to have a candidate move into a different riding and fund them in great amounts in order to win another seat for that party, this is not a representative of that community but a hand picked rep of the party who is chosen because they will follow the party line.
The third problem is FPTP. As has been stated earlier a candidate can actually win an election with less than 30% of the popular vote. the argument was made that just because this person is not a voters first choice they may still like the candidate. I would counter this argument with if someone actually wanted this person as their representative they would vote for them. Someone elected with 30% or even 40% of the popular vote does not have a mandate from the majority of the constituents and therefore is not truly a reflection of the democratic will of the people.
I would like to see a much different electoral system be brought into place using a format similar to the US congress & president but with true ocal representation by removal of the prty system entirely. When we voted we would vote for 2 people, our local representative who would be nominated entirely from within the community, and a seperate vote for the PM. The voting for the local rep could be either proprtional representation, IRV (instant run off), or fractional split voting where you rank candidates. The voting for PM would , if there were more than 2 candidates, be an FSV with points awarded for the rankings or an IRV where the person with the lowest vote total is removed and we cast another ballot until someone has reached more than 50% of the popular vote. there may be some technical issues to work out with this sytem such as voting over 2-3 days but we could most likely resolve a lot of this with the technology of today.
Once all the voting is finished the PM would basicallay act as speaker of the house, voting on issues only in the event of a tie, and also nominate MP's for minsterial positions which would then be voted on byt the house.
My system may not be the best and the system eventually used would have to be worked out through a process of citizen's commitees but the main point is what we have today is not a true democratic representation of the will of the majority of voters and needs to be changed.
The first one I see is the comment "I am voting for a party not a person". This is just so wrong on every level of democracy. We are supposed to have representation of our local interests in parliament. Voting for a candidate that does not represent the interest of the constituency just because you want their leader as PM is not a vote of good consience but a vote that has been manipulated by the nationalization of the party system.
The second problem I can see is the actual 'party' system itself. The intent of our constitution was to have each riding elect a representitive member of their community. Under the current system our candidates are picked by the federal parties, not the community at large. It has become common practice for parties to have a candidate move into a different riding and fund them in great amounts in order to win another seat for that party, this is not a representative of that community but a hand picked rep of the party who is chosen because they will follow the party line.
The third problem is FPTP. As has been stated earlier a candidate can actually win an election with less than 30% of the popular vote. the argument was made that just because this person is not a voters first choice they may still like the candidate. I would counter this argument with if someone actually wanted this person as their representative they would vote for them. Someone elected with 30% or even 40% of the popular vote does not have a mandate from the majority of the constituents and therefore is not truly a reflection of the democratic will of the people.
I would like to see a much different electoral system be brought into place using a format similar to the US congress & president but with true ocal representation by removal of the prty system entirely. When we voted we would vote for 2 people, our local representative who would be nominated entirely from within the community, and a seperate vote for the PM. The voting for the local rep could be either proprtional representation, IRV (instant run off), or fractional split voting where you rank candidates. The voting for PM would , if there were more than 2 candidates, be an FSV with points awarded for the rankings or an IRV where the person with the lowest vote total is removed and we cast another ballot until someone has reached more than 50% of the popular vote. there may be some technical issues to work out with this sytem such as voting over 2-3 days but we could most likely resolve a lot of this with the technology of today.
Once all the voting is finished the PM would basicallay act as speaker of the house, voting on issues only in the event of a tie, and also nominate MP's for minsterial positions which would then be voted on byt the house.
My system may not be the best and the system eventually used would have to be worked out through a process of citizen's commitees but the main point is what we have today is not a true democratic representation of the will of the majority of voters and needs to be changed.
Here are your democratic rights.
Democratic Rights
Democratic rights of citizens
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.(81)
Continuation in special circumstances
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.(82)
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.(83)
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
God save the Queen!
So Canadians only have the right to vote for a rep.
You do not have the right to select your leaders, your government and your issues. So we are not very democratic. Agreed?
You do not have the right to select your leaders, your government and your issues. So we are not very democratic. Agreed?
Good points Petros- perhaps the U.S. has a better system (in some ways)
Perhaps too much attention is paid to the P.M. and not enough to the local candidates, at least many of the local candidates don't start out being corrupt, but before you vote for them you have to get it established if they are going to promote the electorate's wishes or if they are going to be another Yes man in Ottawa.
Hey...I like that. it's what we have now. A bunch of sissy boys running the show. ( I still refuse to get bi-focals)
Your political system in all of its glory. The most important issue of our time, political reform? You bet.
Ex-MPs blame parties for Hill dysfunction
Admission by parliamentarians 'shocking': report
Ex-MPs blame parties for Hill dysfunction
Ex-MPs blame parties for Hill dysfunction
Admission by parliamentarians 'shocking': report
Ex-MPs blame parties for Hill dysfunction
"The problem with Parliament is that it has ceased to be a legislative body. It provides a public forum for venting reaction or venting ideas, but doesn't have much to do with governing the country." - Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
"The Prime Minister used to be described as 'the first among equals' in the cabinet, or as 'a moon among minor stars'. This is no longer so. He (she) is now incomparably more powerful than any colleague. The Prime Minister chooses the ministers in the first place, and can also ask any of them to resign; if the minister refuses, the Prime Minister can advise the Governor General to remove that minister and the advice would invariably be followed. Cabinet decisions do not necessarily go by majority vote. A strong prime minister, having listened to everyone's opinion, may simply announce that his (her) view is the policy of the government, even if most, or all, the other ministers are opposed. Unless the dissenting ministers are prepared to resign, they must bow to the decision." - Jean Chretien, former Prime Minister
"A Canadian Prime Minister can appoint judges, ratify treaties, send Canadian men and women into war, negotiate trade agreements, make patronage appointments, set the date of elections to suit his or her political advantage, determine when Parliament will be prorogued, when it will be recalled, and appoint the most senior public servants, all without reference to the MPs Canadians have elected to represent them. This is a parliamentary dictatorship and it must be brought to an end." - Bill Blakie, MP
"Parliament is not working and has not been working for a long time" - Joe Clark, former Prime Minister
"The Prime Minister used to be described as 'the first among equals' in the cabinet, or as 'a moon among minor stars'. This is no longer so. He (she) is now incomparably more powerful than any colleague. The Prime Minister chooses the ministers in the first place, and can also ask any of them to resign; if the minister refuses, the Prime Minister can advise the Governor General to remove that minister and the advice would invariably be followed. Cabinet decisions do not necessarily go by majority vote. A strong prime minister, having listened to everyone's opinion, may simply announce that his (her) view is the policy of the government, even if most, or all, the other ministers are opposed. Unless the dissenting ministers are prepared to resign, they must bow to the decision." - Jean Chretien, former Prime Minister
"A Canadian Prime Minister can appoint judges, ratify treaties, send Canadian men and women into war, negotiate trade agreements, make patronage appointments, set the date of elections to suit his or her political advantage, determine when Parliament will be prorogued, when it will be recalled, and appoint the most senior public servants, all without reference to the MPs Canadians have elected to represent them. This is a parliamentary dictatorship and it must be brought to an end." - Bill Blakie, MP
"Parliament is not working and has not been working for a long time" - Joe Clark, former Prime Minister