Elected Senate Reform?

[FiveParadox]

Well, before we discuss further reform, I'd like to point out that I think that any system of election would be far more effective were citizens of Canada more willing to discuss their concerns with their Members of Parliament. Even if their Member is not of their party of preference, he or she is still obligated to listen to their concerns, and their issues.

Canadians, as a whole, must be educated in the way that our system of Government works. Many are unaware of the activities of the Red Chamber (for that matter, many are unaware of the activities in the Commons as well). Many are unaware that our Head of State is the Governor General, and still more are unaware that our Government's executive power has, by tradition, continued to be vested in the Queen.

 

[Finder]

Well, before we discuss further reform, I'd like to point out that I think that any system of election would be far more effective were citizens of Canada more willing to discuss their concerns with their Members of Parliament. Even if their Member is not of their party of preference, he or she is still obligated to listen to their concerns, and their issues.

Canadians, as a whole, must be educated in the way that our system of Government works. Many are unaware of the activities of the Red Chamber (for that matter, many are unaware of the activities in the Commons as well). Many are unaware that our Head of State is the Governor General, and still more are unaware that our Government's executive power has, by tradition, continued to be vested in the Queen.

My representive for instance (Ken Dryden) ignored my wife's email and my letter. I feel that he doesn't represent my issues or concerns and is just a back bencher for the liberals. If he had even answered my letter which was a simple question on if he would vote for or against electoral reform, I would have voted for him this election on that alone.

So how does this help most citizens of Canada? Dryden represents the liberal voters in my riding, even them barely by being a back benchers.

You are totally dismissing in your arguments half a million green voters who don't have representation.

You also forget in a multi party decemocracy there are MP's who only get in with 30-49% of the vote. These are people who don't even represent the magority of the voters in there riding. I simply ask you again does this system sound fair to the voters who are completely ignored not to mention the millions nonimized by FPTP.

I at least on the other side regonize the need for FPTP to be in the system but also see that voters are frustriated and are cyncal about voting thinking there vote doesn't count..... and they are right sometimes, it doesn't count. Wouldn't it be better even if 1/3, 1/4 or even 1/5 of the seats were PR just to include as many people as possible. I don't even think this should be up to a referendum, this is not an issue the dictatorship of the magority but the inclusion of all Citizens in politics and the nation.

Don't get me wrong with my undieing support for electoral reform and the weakening of the FPTP system in the federal level. I totally see why having an MP in a region is important and I do not think we should get ride of that. Only to have even a small portion of MP's elected by PR would make me happy and I think a good amount of voters, and citizens more incline to voting or at least not to use the excuse that there vote won't count.

Personally I'm sick of my vote not counting since I moved from the Beaches Toronto. I always think to myself on election day "why bother Craig, your canadate won't win and your vote won't count. Go home and watch the game" unfortunitly a lot of ppl actually do just that!

 

[FiveParadox]

With this next post, I endeavour to further consolidate my proposals so far; as readers of this forum may now about be at this point, my proposals for reform avoid, wherever possible, any amending of the constitutional framework of Canada, rather amending the conventions and traditions by which the Government is run.

Introduction

The Constitution Act, 1867, as anyone who has read the Act would know, makes several references to the Queen, and her executive power. It is important that Canadians not construe the Constitution as vesting this power directly in the Queen; while she would, technically speaking, have the authority to act on behalf of Canada against the will of the Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet, this has never been done.

Reforming the Senate of Canada

The only provision of the Constitution Act, 1867 that pertains directly to the actual act of appointing a Senator is Section 24, which reads:

(24) The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen's Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.

While the Act does set certain requirements for the appointment of a Senator, the Act in no way implies that it should be the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint Senators; this is entirely out of tradition and convention, the likes of which are, in modern terms, outdated and obsolete.

Without actually amending this Section (which would be opening a "can of worms"), citizens of Canada could push for Members of Parliament to pass a motion in the House of Commons, calling on the Prime Minister and his or her Government of the day, to establish a new precedent and convention by which Senators would be appointed (obviously, this convention could not be made "binding," but the Canadian system of governance by convention leads me to believe that once established, the Government would avoid deviation from the policy):

A Member of Parliament would move —
that, in the opinion of this House, the convention by which Senators are appointed no longer acts in the best interest of Canadians, and that the current practice impedes the effectiveness of the Senate; and that this House do call upon the Governor General to no longer accept the advice of the Prime Minister in appointing a Senator, unless Her Excellency receives the same such advice from the Lieutenant Governor of the concerned Province; and that this House do authorize the Governor General to act in exigent circumstances to resolve a dispute between the Lieutenant Governor and the Prime Minister.

If such a motion were passed, then any Senate appointment would be required to be attemped by the method that I proposed earlier and, if the seat in the Senate were to remain vacant for an unacceptably long period of time, then the Governor General will be authorized, at his or her discretion, to enforce a reasonable compromise between the concerned Legislature and the Prime Minister. This would not require any amendment of the Constitution.

Reforming the House of Commons of Canada

Now, reforming the Lower Chamber would be considerably more difficult. To that end, Constitutional change would be unavoidable. I have no doubt that we will see reform in the Senate long before we see reform in the lesser of the two Houses.

Firstly, if suggestions of a "mixed" system are entertained — that is, a combination of the current first-past-the-post system and a party list system, then Section 41 of the Constitution will need to be amended or repealed outright; the Provinces will no longer have a set number of Members in the House of Commons, since listed Members could come from any Province at the beckon of the party.

(41) The House of Commons shall, subject to the Provisions of this Act, consist of two hundred and ninety-five members of whom ninety-nine shall be elected for Ontario, seventy-five for Quebec, eleven for Nova Scotia, ten for New Brunswick, fourteen for Manitoba, thirty-two for British Columbia, four for Prince Edward Island, twenty-six for Alberta, fourteen for Saskatchewan, seven for Newfoundland, one for the Yukon Territory and two for the Northwest Territories.

Please Note The numbers in this Section are not constant; they are adjusted, from time to time, subject to the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

As you can see, Section 37 would no longer be correct, and would have to be amended; and furthermore, if a Member is "appointed" to the House of Commons through a party list, then would that Member be deemed to "represent" any specific electoral district or Province? If not, then Section 51A could pose a problem.

(51A) Notwithstanding anything in this Act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.

So, if we reduce the number of seats given to a Province by default through the first-past-the-post sytem, and no Members appointed to the Commons through the party list represent that Province, then would some listed Members need to be removed from the Commons and replaced with Members from the Province in question in order to abide by our constitutional framework? Actually, looking at it now, Section 51.2 would pose similar questions.

Reform of the Commons is a "sticky" issue. If the House of Commons were to be reformed to better "represent" the people, then constituencies would still be required to exist; but then, where do we find a place for listed members? Would they be "shoed into" an empty existing constituency? Or would we broaden the constituencies, and give several electoral districts more than one Member? Or, stranger yet, would listed Members not be responsible to any particular district?

This poses another problem; who are listed Members accountable to? Members who are elected by the first-past-the-post system must worry about their performance and representation of their constituents in the House of Commons; listed Members would have little such pressure. Listed Members would never vote against party lines, because they would be guaranteed to be out of a job. However, they would not hesitate to vote against the will of a majority of Canadians to that end.

On the other hand, "FPTP" members would be more likely to vote with the majority of Canadians than would listed members, since they would be accountable to the electorate, and would need to seek re-election in their own right. This raises another interesting question; could a Member be both listed, and run in a riding? If a Member loses in their riding, might they still be appointed to the House of Commons by a party list? This could be an interesting practice in terms of keeping key Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, in the Commons, even if otherwise defeated.

A total proportional representation system would be disastrous. People would no longer have on particular Member to go to, and Members wishing to be elected would only have to vote with a majority of Canadians, completely ignoring the other forty-nine percent. I fear that such a House could become dysfunctional.

Then again, we are quickly learning that a pure first-past-the-post regional representation system has several glitches and dysfunctions of its own. The advantages are clear, however; Members are accountable to a specific group of people, and citizens have one specific Member whom they can address with their issues and concerns.

The only realistic idea of reform in the Commons that I could support would be maintaining a majority of the members under a first-past-the-post system, and appointing a minimal amount of members, no more than perhaps eighty or ninety, as being appointed through a party list. I would propose that Members not be allowed to run in an electoral district, and be present on a party list at the same time. I would also propose that any Member appointed to the House of Commons through such a party list be, by convention, not eligible to hold a portfolio as a Minister of the Crown.

Even such a moderate, possibly less-than-moderate, proposal however, would require extensive changes. Firstly, the Canada Elections Act would need to be overhauled. The Constitution Act, 1867 would need to be amended. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act would also need to be amended. These are only key pieces of legislation; several more minor legislative measures would also need to be enacted, amended, or repealed.

This could be quite difficult to implement, and would likely be quite controversial in the House of Commons. It could take several sessions, or possibly several Parliaments, to complete the work that would be required to make the kinds of even moderate changes that Canadians as a whole would ask for.

Legitimacy of Members of the House of Commons

There is no doubt that Members elected through the FPTP system are entirely legitimate, and have every right to represent their constituents. However, what place would list-appointed Members have within that same House? Canadians might be outraged if an appointed Member were to hold the balance of power on a controversial or critical piece of legislation. If appointed Members were deemed responsible for the defeat of a Government, the legitimacy of the non-confidence motion could also be thrown into question. Appointed Members would lack accountability.

Really, if we begin allowing Members to be appointed from a list, likely by the more prominent Members of the party, or by the Prime Minister or Party Leader him or herself, then wouldn't list-appointed Members be no more mandated and legitimate than our current Senators?

My two cents. Actually, looking at the scrollbar here, looks more like one hundred eighty dollars ... and two cents.

Note Edited to revise content and to correct multiple typos.

 

[Finder]

I understand your concerns. But PR, STV and Mixed are just as legitment, if not more so then FPTP. Most Democracies around the world are either PR or Mixed and the people have just as much or more confidence in that the government represents the people.

Now being FPTP is a tradition of Canada, I don't see our system changing to PR as it would just be too different and something Canadians are not accustomed to. But Canadians were not accustomed to a puplic heath care system when it was moved by parliment with the presure of the NDP on the Liberals to push threw. But Puplic health care has become a Canadian value and in a sence a tradition of sorts. Thus a new mixed system of FPTP and PR would also become a tradition.

Now on the concern of most people who support FPTP, having a mixed system would not take away the FPTP MP's nor would most people who support the Mixed system wish to make the PR messure of electing MP's over that of FPTP.

Indeed the question of legitimacy would come into play with those who only see MP's elected by FPTP as the legitimate members of parliment who represent those ridings. In the event that a party with no FPTP MP's were to find themselves in the balance of power with there PR MP's there legitimacy is in the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians wished to be represented by these MP's but because of the FPTP system were not able to elect them in ridings for many different reasons. The fact that these MP's represent hundreds of thousands of voters, perhaps even millions of voters give them the mandate by the people to act on the wishes of those people.

Keep in mind each party who has won a seat with FPTP would also have "PR" Seats as well. The PR seats would also of course be attached to the provinces.

Now when you look at the world and the different electoral systems in play. Our system currently, one of the few remaining nations with a pure FPTP system is very conservative. I believe any reform on the federal level would be conservative as well and even if 100 seats were to be PR it would be considered a conservative mixed system of government with heavy reliance on FPTP.

Also even if the constitution was to change over the election of MP's just as the numbers were changed so will the format of the electoral system. I doubt all four parties would be talking about this if it wasn't something we could remedy with ease. As long as the provinces get there representation (as they should), it shouldn't be a proble.

Paradox, our views are pretty close to each others but slightly different on the make-up. I still hope one day when the government will most likely ask the people to vote on Mixed Rep you will find it in yourself to see that the millions of Canadians who are not represented in government and the millions more who have given up on the system, may find at least some representation better then none and may be drawn closer to particabating in the system rather then ignoring it. I think FPTP supporters should support Mixed for the simple reason that it may bring people back to politics.

I know the "Winner take all" or "The democratic dictatorship of the magority" is unfortunitly about of our north american-english culture, but I think when our nation can't chose any party and none of them have the magority, and there's more then two parties. Perhaps it's time to listen to everyone (with in reason).

Now I've gotta print out the whole paper you wrote, re-read the con and then make a better statement (while at the same time ignore my job at work. mwahahahah)

 

[FiveParadox]

Well, the minority situations that we can end up with now, even though they are likely to become dysfunctional, do actually get quite a lot done. For example, in the Thirty-eighth Parliament we saw same-sex marriage become legal; that's a milestone piece of legislation (whether or not you are in favour of, or opposed to, the purpose). We saw an eighth consecutive surplus budget enacted. We saw some of the most dramatic political plays in the history of the nation — the Hon. Belinda Stronach crossing the floor, for example, to become the Minister of Human Resources and Democratic Renewal. We saw surplus dollars returned to Canadians through social programs, thanks not to the Government — but to the NDP opposition. This is proof that minority Governments under our current system can, given the chance and a spirit of co-operation in the Commons, reflect views other than those of just the governing party.

Not to mention that tied budget vote — I was watching the vote en direct on CPAC; one of the most exciting television moments of the year, for me. Okay, so I have no life. Seeing the Hon. Peter Milliken deliver a casting vote, for the first time in Parliamentary history on a budget, was extraordinary.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

Well, the minority situations that we can end up with now, even though they are likely to become dysfunctional, do actually get quite a lot done. For example, in the Thirty-eighth Parliament we saw same-sex marriage become legal; that's a milestone piece of legislation (whether or not you are in favour of, or opposed to, the purpose). We saw an eighth consecutive surplus budget enacted. We saw some of the most dramatic political plays in the history of the nation — the Hon. Belinda Stronach crossing the floor, for example, to become the Minister of Human Resources and Democratic Renewal. We saw surplus dollars returned to Canadians through social programs, thanks not to the Government — but to the NDP opposition. This is proof that minority Governments under our current system can, given the chance and a spirit of co-operation in the Commons, reflect views other than those of just the governing party.

Not to mention that tied budget vote — I was watching the vote en direct on CPAC; one of the most exciting television moments of the year, for me. Okay, so I have no life. Seeing the Hon. Peter Milliken deliver a casting vote, for the first time in Parliamentary history on a budget, was extraordinary.

Never said the Government can't get things done. Hell in Dictatorships governments get things done. The Duma and the Supream soviet did a lot of things while the Soviet union was in full working order under the dictations of the pilot buro.

Just because it does "good" things doesn't mean it's right.

Belinda crossing the floor in my opinion was a bad thing. She was elected in her riding to represent the conservatives voters who backed her. If she had a problem with the Conservative party she should have gone indpendant, or asked her riding what they thought or waited till the next election to run as a Liberal. She acted just like a soviet careerist, crossed the floor without asking anybody but a small group of people what they think. Was extremely under handed. Were the reasons for her crossing, good? YES damn right they were. But it's how she did it. I really hope she doesn't get re-elected!

Everything else you mention are good things too. I never said that our government didn't do good things. I'm just saying it would be better to get the peoples opinion on government then go purely FPTP. Think about it. The magority of Canadians have not supported the Canadian government for 13 years now. the liberals have been pulling under 47% for a long time now as well. I just think Parliment should reflect the people a little more. But if you think a minority of 35% should rule over the magority I don't know what you future view of Canada is. (The Great Soviet Republic of Canada)

Oh plus what burns me, are these governments elected with 35-45% who govern with a magority of seats and act as if they have the support of the magority of Canadians/Onatrians and so on when they don't. it burns me so badly. I think we saw how angry a people can get during the days of action in Ontario with MR Harris.

 

[FiveParadox]

Well, one must remember the premise on which our system is founded. One Member per District, that Member being elected through a plurality. If the Member for a District is Conservative, then perhaps not a majority of citizens in that riding voted Conservative, but more did than for any other party, and therefore, by all means, a Conservative Member would represent more voices than would any of the other candidates.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

Well, one must remember the premise on which our system is founded. One Member per District, that Member being elected through a plurality. If the Member for a District is Conservative, then perhaps not a majority of citizens in that riding voted Conservative, but more did than for any other party, and therefore, by all means, a Conservative Member would represent more voices than would any of the other candidates.

Which is extremely undemocratic, and out dated. It would be fine if when this system was made there were no political parties, or two parties. But as we can see we are governed by parties which get 35-45% of the vote but get magority of the seats. Don't tell me you are completely blind to this and everything else I've mentioned.

Yes FPTP is good. Yes even if we had pure PR there would still be MP's to bitch to. They just don't disappear. Plus what most electoral reformists want is a mixed system or STV (which I don't like) in which you'd still have ridings. Plus all the Mixed systems I've seen proposed for Canada have been heavy on the FPTP, and have had PR MP's attached to ridings or local area's. If switching to A mixed system or even PR were to produce a GOVERNMENT which the people have populerly elected I see no problem with it.

The con's for FPTP for the LOWER HOUSE is just so absurd I'm surprised so many people still vote. I think we will dip under 50% soon because people will just be that cyncical of politics because they know there vote will never count.

Look I am very passionate about this because I am a voter who is pissed off at the system and I want my f*cking vote to count, or why should I vote! Hell It's more of a protest these days not to vote at all. So supporting FPTP is fine but at least seeing how adding PR to the mix will bring more ppl in and even though it is still unfair that parties who don't win seats by FPTP will still be under represented in our system at least they will have a voice!!!! thats the most immportant thing. I could care less about a politician who I never voted for and doesn't care in what I believe and will never do anything for me. I'd rather have that one or two Green MP's by PR to talk to and voice my concerns if I was a Green voter or any other party under represented. Do you understand that this is an inclusion and a str of democracy and not a weakening of it. Just because ridings might grow or just because some may have an extra PR MP is not that big of a problem. The end result is the government will represent what the people have voted for and not false magorities and arrogant governments who depends on people to vote for them because they have no other recourse!


Edit:
PS: Vote and support for MIXED (FPTP/PR) electoral reform!

 

[FiveParadox]

Mixed system would be good for Canada

Okay.

Firstly, I am most certainly not blind to the inherent problems with our First-Past-the-Post system; notwithstanding those problems, I am an open supporter (obviously) of "FPTP," as anyone reading this thread so far should well be aware.

However, I do recognize the need for reform in our democracy, and that Proportional Representation does represent a viable opportunity to "resolve," albeit not completely, the "democratic deficit" in Ottawa.

I would fully support a House of Commons where a majority of the seats remain elected through the standard First-Past-the-Post system, and where a minority of seats (perhaps somewhere in the area of one hundred, as I believe you proposed earlier, Finder) were to be elected (or "appointed") on the basis of Proportional Representation.

But again, I have some serious qualms regarding the actual workings of a Proportional Representation seat. Who decides who shall be appointed as a Member of Parliament for a position position allocated to a party through Proportional Representation? Would Canadians really be okay knowing that their riding had one representatives, whereas a riding only kilometres to the East had two representatives in the Commons? Would that be fair? Would Members appointed to PR positions have all of the same rights and responsibilities as Members of Parliament elected?

This debate may be becoming a bit too heated, eh? Might be time for us to sit back for a bit with some hot chocolate and cool down. Or maybe a chocolate bar. Really, anything with chocolate will do. I love the stuff. <3

Note Edited to correct content-changing typos.

 

[Finder]

I'm going to be doing some research into how other Governments use FPTP/PR in there system to allocate those seats.

Anyhow yes your right, I am getting a little heated in this debate, I apologize for that.

 

[jimmoyer]

Has anyone thought of the idea that YOUR VOTE
still counts even if your candidate loses ?

Isn't that why we run a race?

If we don't come in first, do we say our effort
to run in that race is all for nothing ?

And maybe the idea of letting the winner
run things allows them to finally test the efficacy
of their ideas?

And maybe in that failure or success we all move
to the next stop in the process of our understanding ?

Perhaps proportional representation is
the complete antithesis of the questions above ?

Perhaps proportional representation dilutes everything
to a dissatisfied bickering, a watered down solution
disgusting everyone.

Maybe proportional representation sucks a big one
as it makes politicians more beholding to a narrow group,
more narrow, provincial in their outlook.

Maybe nothing big or worthwhile gets done with
proportional committees bickering.

Perhaps a winner take all system and the first to get
over the finish line gives a chance for a pure idea
to get enacted, good or bad, allowing us to finally find
out for sure if the idea will work or not ?

Perhaps we really do have to stumble
in order to learn, and perhaps if the loser sees
the other side really succeed beyond their original
doubts this is also an education ?


Maybe our votes count even if our candidate loses.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

Has anyone thought of the idea that YOUR VOTE
still counts even if your candidate loses ?

Isn't that why we run a race?

If we don't come in first, do we say our effort
to run in that race is all for nothing ?

And maybe the idea of letting the winner
run things allows them to finally test the efficacy
of their ideas?

And maybe in that failure or success we all move
to the next stop in the process of our understanding ?

Perhaps proportional representation is
the complete antithesis of the questions above ?

Perhaps proportional representation dilutes everything
to a dissatisfied bickering, a watered down solution
disgusting everyone.

Maybe proportional representation sucks a big one
as it makes politicians more beholding to a narrow group,
more narrow, provincial in their outlook.

Maybe nothing big or worthwhile gets done with
proportional committees bickering.

Perhaps a winner take all system and the first to get
over the finish line gives a chance for a pure idea
to get enacted, good or bad, allowing us to finally find
out for sure if the idea will work or not ?

Perhaps we really do have to stumble
in order to learn, and perhaps if the loser sees
the other side really succeed beyond their original
doubts this is also an education ?


Maybe our votes count even if our candidate loses.

Our government is made of of the following.
308 Members of Parliment
105 Senators
1 PM
1 Governor General
1 Speaker of the House
and the Supreme Court which rules on the laws to the constituion.

What do I do. I elect one MP.
Many bad things can happen depending on the riding I live in.

1. I know I am in the minority and the canidate who will win has over 50% of the vote in my riding plus the other parties split up the remander. Why go out in the cold to vote?

2. It's a three way race every party has about 30% one party gets 31% that guy from another party get's in with a minority of the ppl in the riding supporting him. The magority of the riding don't even like him. If there was a recall clause he' be recalled no proble. But nobody still represents my interests. I feel left out of the syste. Why vote next time when some guy with a minority of the vote acts as if he has a magority when he gets to parliment and ignores me.

So yeah I'm going to vote this election. My vote won't count for shit. Populer vote doesn't matter in Canada and until there's reform to FPTP to make it a little more fair FPTP/RP (mixed) or whatever I'll still say my vote and my time was wasted and I have no representation. Plus my MP, Ken Dryden, doesn't care about none Liberals.

*shrugs*

Edit:
To finish my point. Canada has a lot of governmnet. But the people are so far removed from making government why should we care? I care enough to vote and support two parties which want electoral reform. The NDP and the Conservatives. Because out of that large government there's only one person in all of Canada who doesn't elect just one MP and thats the PM.

 

[the caracal kid]

we should shut the system down by starting a "rescind your vote" movement.

force change by standing up against the status quo.

(patiently awaits the attacks for daring to challenge the system)

 

[FiveParadox]

Finder, just to be clear, the Speaker of the House of Commons is one of those three hundred eight Members of Parliament, just as the Speaker of the Senate is selected from among the one hundred five Senators. They are not "additional," so to speak. You might've meant that, I just thought I'd point it out for others.

Secondly, just for future reference, it's "majority," not "magority." =p

And now I shall move on to topic business.

I came up with an idea just now, in relation to the conduct of Members representing their ridings with a minority; it's just an idea, and a loosely formed one at that, but hey, just thought I'd toss it out. Tear it apart, if you wish, lol.

Perhaps Members of Parliament, particularly those representing a riding with a minority of the vote, could be "removed" from the House of Commons if they conduct themselves in a way that would be contrary to the views of an overwhelming majority of their constituents?

For example: The Hon. Peter Bob Baxter, the Member of Parliament for Newton—North Delta, of the Über-Conservative Fascist Bunnies Party of Canada, is elected by a First-Past-the-Post fluke. Now, in the House of Commons, he moves "that this House do now set up explosives near the Chair, and that those explosives do now detonate."

Now, if a petition of 3 000 signatures or more is submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer on behalf of that riding, then a referendum could be held in that riding, where the Member of Parliament for that riding would be compelled to resign if a two-thirds majority called for such a resignation.

A resignation would be required within thirty days, and then the Prime Minister would, by convention, be required to recommend a by-election in that riding in no more than thirty days following the seat's vacancy. The campaign period would be for no more than two weeks.

Heh, just an idea. I might have had a little bit too much fun with the example, though.

Edit Corrected typos, added the word "Bunnies."

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

we should shut the system down by starting a "rescind your vote" movement.

force change by standing up against the status quo.

(patiently awaits the attacks for daring to challenge the system)

Well if you look at it thats what over 40% of the nation is already doing man. They really should just inact a change on the request of a citzens assembly. I'd guess that a Citizens assembly would inform the government to have it switched to a hybrid of FPTP and PR called Mixed. Heavy on the FPTP. But at least the minority would still have a voice, even be a small one.

I'm sick of our system of exclusion.

I'm sick of our system of waste. A senate with no manadate. Un elected, and just there to waste our money. I'm sick of a GG who does the same. Give these people a manadate, perhaps give us a vote, and get these people working for us!

The Liberals Party is killing our system with careerism, coruption and indifference and arrogance. They rule as if they have always had a magority of support in Canada but have not carried a magority in the pop vote since I was born!!!

 

[the caracal kid]

so far attempts at recall have failed miserably.

 

[Finder]

you can't recall in our system. FPTP if it were only two strong parties you might be able to but when you have three or sometimes four or more and you often get a MP with a minority of the vote, you will always have the magority of voters in that area who don't think he should be mp. One of many reasons our system just doesn't work because it's outdated.

 

[the caracal kid]

i was speaking of attempts provincially (where the electoral system pretty much mimics the federal system).

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

i was speaking of attempts provincially (where the electoral system pretty much mimics the federal system).

Well then you'd get the same result, no?


The one person I think who should have have been forced into a recall would be Belinda. No matter how much I agree on her princibles of leaving, she disrespected the people who gave her, her mandate by not asking them first.

 

[the caracal kid]

there were recall attempts under the recall law in BC, but they failed. I never looked deeply into the issue (the recall attempts were not in my riding). As i recall, the recall attempts failed due to not enough signatures on the petitions which the organizers claimed was because the law required too many signatures in a short time frame to stand a decent chance of success. (if true, we must remember it is politicians that created the law, so they are not going to make it too easy for the electorate now, are they?)