How to reform the electoral system

[snowles]

The biggest thing we need done, NOW, that can be achieved soon, is Senate Reform.

We need to be able to vote our Senators in like we do our MPs.
The parties appoint people with the same ideology as them into the Senate and another new party comes in gets bills through the house and the senate controlled by the previous party votes it down.

The average voter is already so ignorant when it comes to party politics and which candidates stand for what issues that I shudder at the thought of adding another level of government for them to think about at the polls. Last time out, more than 14,000 people voted for the Communist Party, and almost 10,000 for the Marijuana Party; Andre Arthur, a self-described loon, won his riding in Quebec by a large margin. My town votes NDP because their unions, the holders of power in the largest employers, tell them to. The rest of the riding has always voted Liberal, regardless of the candidate or the issues involved; why I don't know.

My biggest issue is that if it's this unlikely that we cannot properly and educatedly elect our riding officials, how are we going to make an informed choice on a Senator, and how would we decide how many there should be, and where they would run? How would they campaign: "if elected, I promise to pass all the bills my party sends my way!" There's a lot more to it than it seems at first; Senate reform has a lot more logistics than you're giving credit for.

Plus, I'm sure your personal poilitical bias is the basis of your Senate concern; if the Senate was lined with conservatives holding back 'radical, liberal' ideals it would be applauded as a failsafe method by certain posters. No?

There has to be some impartial system in place like the judicial branch instituted within the Senate; one that assumes non-partisan politics are not played in the legislature, and that law and rule is followed.

Or, they just have a TV show like American Idol, where they show us what bills have passed the House, and we phone, text or vote online with our approval or disapproval for its passing into law. Cheap, easy and a tax grab: what could be more Canadian? :wave:

 

[L Gilbert]

it only encourages them.


>>>Suggest a system that no-one else has, then.<<<<
line them up against a wall, starting in order of office
and shoot them....pointing out to those standing around watching that this is what's instore fore the next representatives of the people, that ****s up....
shrug...ya gotta be cruel to be kind sometimes....

That's not new. Hussein was doing that to any dissenters in his staff.
I like the idea of direct democracy that Snowles mentioned in his last paragraph. That would cut down on all the demagoguery that folks such as aPAULing Martin like to do - "Canadians want this, Canadians are like that, Canadian values are such-and-such, Canadians don't want .........". Then these pinhead pols would actually get to see what Canadians want, think, or like.
(Um, aPAULing Martin's fµ'n pondbottom scum in the same league as Lyin Brian.)

 

[westmanguy]

snowles.. your saying the majority of Canadians are stupid on the political issues.

How nice is that?

So you basically saying: "The people are not smart enough to elect their senate, so we'll do it for them."

Thats like a dictatorship... every level of gov. should be elected by the people or it is not a democracy.

 

[snowles]

snowles.. your saying the majority of Canadians are stupid on the political issues.
How nice is that?
So you basically saying: "The people are not smart enough to elect their senate, so we'll do it for them."
Thats like a dictatorship... every level of gov. should be elected by the people or it is not a democracy.

Yeah, I am saying many Canadians are "stupid" when it comes to voting, and I'm not lying - I even showed you how many people vote for some really marginalized platforms with little regard for its consequences or afterthoughts. I'm not sure of your education, but ignorance does not mean stupidity; it means sheltered. Few people attend debates between local candidates, and many remain apathetic on the issues presented. The issues are lost under piles of soundbites, campaign stops and empty rhetoric, and it creates a voter who either doesn't vote, or votes in a traditional pattern, without going through party literature or engaging in debates. Likewise, I bet you'll vote Conservative every time in your life, regardless of the issues at hand, the leader in charge, the attitudes of the people, or the quality of the candidate. How is that any different?

The Conservatives were voted in to punish the Liberals for AdScam (see slogans: voting for accountability, common-sense revolution, etc), and not because they brought anything fresh to the table or emblodened the ideals of the voters; thinking any less is foolish and blindsided. After all, more than 2/3 of people still didn't vote for them or for right-wing ideologies, even after the government was handed to the Cons on a silver platter by Martin and his dithering. Two-thirds of the people told Harper his common sense revolution made no sense at all.

And it shows: Harper had a chance to show what he meant business with Senate reform, and promptly installed his brown-nosing sidekick from Quebec into the role, without him even running for election or having any legislative experience - on that note (and in his first day on the job) he failed miserably.

You're trying to use my words to spin it for rhetorical sympathy, and it's not working. Clearly, a dictatorship would not have levels of government, so your comparison is silly and void. The current system is democratic; it's not my fault that the Conservatives were inept for 13 years and had no chance to form the government; they certainly had ample time to 'stack' the Senate under the Mulroney/Campbell era, but we never hear of it - funny. There's also still 26 Conservative senators in power, and the chance to add more, as 11 seats are vacant. As well, and I quote: "the Conservatives control government business in the Senate due to holding the most seats in the House of Commons."

Like it or not, we vote for officials who choose our Senators; it's one of their many jobs, like allocating money and passing law. We don't vote on our judges and our police chiefs and our army brass, they are installed by certain people in charge to make those decisions, yet they remain a branch of the government, and no one complains.

Are you going to bring anything worthwhile to this argument?

 

[L Gilbert]

snowles.. your saying the majority of Canadians are stupid on the political issues.

How nice is that?

So you basically saying: "The people are not smart enough to elect their senate, so we'll do it for them."

Thats like a dictatorship... every level of gov. should be elected by the people or it is not a democracy.

He didn't say stupid, he said ignorant. There's a big difference.
BTW, Canada is only democratic in a minor way, and even then for only one day in 4 or 5 years. The rest of the time it's an oligarchy and sometimes a damned corrupt one.

 

[westmanguy]

^^ I agree. We are barely democratic.

Now, the USA is VERY democratic.. you vote for your mayor, councilor, D.A., Police Chief, Govenor, State rep, Senator, Congress man, representative, President.

I mean the USA is 4x more democratic then us.

We get to vote for Mayor, Councillor, MLA, and MP.

Thats about it... and they have so much power... we need more elections and need to choose and vote in more people.

Ignorant or not, its OUR decision.

It is MY right to vote.. it doesn't matter for what reason I vote.. I get that right, and I should be able to vote in my Senators for what ever reason I want.

 

[Tonington]

Theres another way of looking at that West, more elected officials makes more beurocracy. More beurocracy makes for more red tape. More red tape can make things difficult for the average Joe/Jenny. More politicians doesn't mean more democracy, it just means that the citizens life is that much more mucked up with meddling politics.

 

[westmanguy]

In a perfect Canada I would vote for:

Mayor
Councillors
MLA
Premiere
MP
Prime Minister
Police Chief
Senators
RCMP Top guy
And lots of Prop. 82s

I don't care if my life become mucked up with meddling politics.

I want to decide more people who effect my life, instead of deciding a few people who effect my life.

 

[L Gilbert]

The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic. A democracy is based on rule by majority and a republic is based on rule by law.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=4

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/repdem.pdf

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

 

[L Gilbert]

At any rate, I am a minarchist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchist and think the vast majority of gov'ts are unnecessary and wasteful.
Classical libertarians are similar in that view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Libertarianism
Pretty much everything else infringes on the public's freedom, property, and welfare.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Which is better?

First past the post FPTP?
Proportional Rep PR?
Single Transferable Vote STV?

or is there a better system?

You've already shown you don't understand our political system here in Canada(there is no executive branch, technically the Queen is our head of state), why do you feel qualified to think it needs reform.

Considering all the abuses of power by the Republicans both in the White House and Congress I'd think the U.S. is much more in need of reform. The frist step should be the elimination of the electoral college system. Let the people decide who their leaders will be. It is a Democracy after all.

 

[atlanticaparty]

You've already shown you don't understand our political system here in Canada(there is no executive branch, technically the Queen is our head of state),

Canada has an executive branch (PMO+Cabinet+civil service). The monarchy in days past was the executive, now it has been delegated to the Queen's representatives.

In Canada it is harder to see the executive/legislative duality, it has been blurred because the executive now holds the legislative under its control so it all looks lumped together. The separate executive and legislative functions of our government go back centuries in the british system, the idea of a check on the power of the state/monarchy by a separate group goes back even before 1215. Where do you think the US got its ideas on government? They inherited it from the UK, the same place we got ours.

why do you feel qualified to think it needs reform.

Because we care and we have spent more than a little time thinking and debating about it. We would suggest that not many people think the current system is 'just fine'.

Considering all the abuses of power by the Republicans both in the White House and Congress I'd think the U.S. is much more in need of reform. The frist step should be the elimination of the electoral college system. Let the people decide who their leaders will be. It is a Democracy after all.

No arguement there. But it is also important to keep in mind that in the US the electoral system keeps two parties entrenched with a virtual monopoly on power and that money has a very corrupting influence on politics in the US. And these are two seperate issues from the executive-legislature debate.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Canada has an executive branch (PMO+Cabinet+civil service). The monarchy in days past was the executive, now it has been delegated to the Queen's representatives.

The Queen is still our head of state and her representative is the Governor General, it would require a constitutional amendment and the unanimous consent of the provincial legislatures to change that. Like I've been saying, unless someone is willing to violate the Canadian constitution this isn't going to change in the near future and it certainly isn't going to change so one party can assume complete control of Canada.

In Canada it is harder to see the executive/legislative duality, it has been blurred because the executive now holds the legislative under its control so it all looks lumped together. The separate executive and legislative functions of our government go back centuries in the british system, the idea of a check on the power of the state/monarchy by a separate group goes back even before 1215. Where do you think the US got its ideas on government? They inherited it from the UK, the same place we got ours.

It's harder to see because it only exists in the minds of a few right-wing extremists like you. One of the main reasons the Liberals were booted from office was abuses of power in the PMO. If Harper tries to impose the authority of the PMO over Parliment his fall will be swift and legal. He doesn't have the votes to take control of power. One more time because you seem to be dense and have a hard time understanding, THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN CANADA. Our head of state is the QUEEN. Just because you keep repeating your mantra it doesn't make it so. The U.S. ideas of government have many roots and the executive was created to fill the role of the monarchy. We already have that role filled by...wait for it...THE MONARCHY

Because we care and we have spent more than a little time thinking and debating about it. We would suggest that not many people think the current system is 'just fine'.

You care enough to impose a small group of elites over the people of Canada and remove from us the burden of Democracy???? WOW how thoughtful of you. I'd like to answer for the CANDADIAN people to such a generous offer if I may. **** ***...you figure out what that means with the more than little time you have to think about it.

No arguement there. But it is also important to keep in mind that in the US the electoral system keeps two parties entrenched with a virtual monopoly on power and that money has a very corrupting influence on politics in the US. And these are two seperate issues from the executive-legislature debate.

And your solution would put in your own words "a small group of elites" in power. Basically doing away with rights and freedoms that have been hard earned over generations. You offer nothing but tyranny and think like no Canadian I've ever met. I don't even think you're American now., more likely communist Eastern European or German Neo-Nazi would be my guess. Keep talking, the more you say the more you reveal.

 

[TomG]

The Cabinet, related Committees and Deputy Ministers perform the function of an executive in Parliamentary systems. Collectively these structures interpret legislation, set policies and issues orders to the bureaucracy to design operate programs that implement legislative intents. In short, they execute. It is probably a mistake to call them an executive branch since that invites a separation of powers rathen than a fusion of power that is characteristic of parliamentary systems. The monarchy is a technical issue since its role is limited to a largely symbolic roles of royal assent to legislation and the convening and dissolution of Parliament. Symbolic yes, but nobody knows what might happen if our Governor General was recalled to England for lengthy consultations. It’s an ambiguity we live with, and without a great deal of concern.

The presence of a monarchy does however prevent Canada from being classified as either a republic or a democracy. (Definitions of the two terms are similar. One is Greek and the other is Roman). In practice, democracy refers more to a philosophy and republic refers more to structures of government. A republic usually implements representative democracy. Both terms require governance based on popular consent and the supremacy of electors. However, repressive and truly horrible regimes are entirely consistent with either term, which is a reason for having explicit computational guarantees of rights. To some extent elections are the defining characteristic of republics and democracies. If elections are held, the system is democratic and republican no matter how flawed the governance might be in terms of an equalitarian social philosophy. Democracy does not guarantee nice or pleasant governments.

Not all interest in electoral reform should be classified as right-wing. Various reforms might strengthen the role of electors (that’s what we are) in comparison to the power of interest groups (that’s what pluralism is). Strengthening the elector role might be considered progressive rather than right-wing.

 

[jimmoyer]

Just remember, we citizens are not full time legislators.

We elect those to pay attention to those things we don't.

Division of Labor, this is.

Frees us up to go on to other productive matters.

We the essential ignorant are required to decide who will do these jobs we
have little knowlege about.

This is a foolish scenario, isn't it?
Ergo: Have the ignorant decide which knowlegeable people run things.

Another irony of democratic republics:
The knowlegeable are same ones who have something to gain. Those with
the least conflict of interest are often the least expert, the most ignorant ---
in otherwords the outsider.


Funny.

 

[MikeyDB]

We could start with IQ tests, TAP's, personality profiles and full disclosure of finances.

We've let the Arnold Swartzenneggers and Paul Martins away with far too much because we're too enthusiastic to get the damn election over-with and moving along than is prudent. We let thieves and liars move into the cathedrals of corruption and suck the life-energy out of our nations.

 

[atlanticaparty]

The Cabinet, related Committees and Deputy Ministers perform the function of an executive in Parliamentary systems. Collectively these structures interpret legislation, set policies and issues orders to the bureaucracy to design operate programs that implement legislative intents. In short, they execute. It is probably a mistake to call them an executive branch since that invites a separation of powers rathen than a fudion of power that is characteristic of parliamentary systems. The monarchy is a technical issue since its role is limited to a largely symbolic roles of royal assent to legislation and the convening and dissolution of Parliament. Symbolic yes, but nobody knows what might happen if our Governor General was recalled to England for lengthy consultations. It’s an ambiguity we live with, and without a great deal of concern.

True, in Canada although the executive-type functions and deliberative functions are two different activities they are fused together, confusingly it appears. The term 'executive branch' can imply independence, probably due to its association with the US, althought in this context we have been using as a label for that function of our governance system.

Not all interest in electoral reform should be classified as right-wing. Various reforms might strengthen the role of electors (that’s what we are) in comparison to the power of interest groups (that’s what pluralism is). Strengthening the elector role might be considered progressive rather than right-wing.

Yes, how opening up the political process to encourage more diverse political voices could ever be labeled as 'right-wing' is baffling. Weaking the elector, limiting electoral choice and limiting debate are the halmarks of rightist regimes.

 

[jimmoyer]

No matter what structure you devise, the same unrewarding results occur.

Therefore...
more impact can be found in flat tax laws with no loopholes. No lobbyist can get
a tax break or special consideration.

Only allow outright subdidies with the loud sun shining upon it.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

True, in Canada although the executive-type functions and deliberative functions are two different activities they are fused together, confusingly it appears. The term 'executive branch' can imply independence, probably due to its association with the US, althought in this context we have been using as a label for that function of our governance system.

The PMO is an outgrowth of Parliment and is fully answerable to it, any confusion is in your mind.

Yes, how opening up the political process to encourage more diverse political voices could ever be labeled as 'right-wing' is baffling. Weaking the elector, limiting electoral choice and limiting debate are the halmarks of rightist regimes.

Your "small group of elites" being in power sounds extremely right-wing to me. You wouldn't weaken the electorate with your proposals, you'd eliminate it.

 

[atlanticaparty]

The PMO is an outgrowth of Parliment and is fully answerable to it, any confusion is in your mind.

In theory perhaps. Being 'answerable' implies being under some authority. However in practice the PMO has authority to dictate to Parliament.

Your "small group of elites" being in power sounds extremely right-wing to me. You wouldn't weaken the electorate with your proposals, you'd eliminate it.

Nobody is proposing that. Check the thread.