JamesHackerMP

lol, wow.

Then, what's Quebec's role in this? If you can meet the requirements to amend the constitution, how can one province (Quebec) affect it so much?

I still can't believe you have to go four years without an election. We've clipped the wings of presidents by putting in a new Congress that can do a 180 (if the party majority changes) because we have a new Congress (or re elect the old ones) every two years. Though I think Australia has a happy medium between the two: they have a three-year parliament. How many times has the GG ever refused to allow an early election?

So when the feds propose (who proposes the amendment in canada) an amendment, does it have to be ratified by all 10 provinces? The 1982 Canada Act: was that the "repatriation" of Canada? What happened with that? Did the original constitution act (1867) describe an amending process?

Yeah you'd have to amend the constitution wouldn't you? Sorry I hadn't thought of that. And I hope I didn't come off as another Yank telling the world what to do; that wasn't my intent. Meech? What's that about?

I have a question about the way parliamentary democracy works there. If you end up the largest party, even if it's a plurality but not majority (the most seats, but still <50% of them), isn't it typical for you (the leader of said party) to end up the PM? Or can a bunch of little parties gang up and form a bloc that excludes the largest party from government as long as the proposed bloc of smaller parties command >50% of the seats? And who does the actual appointment of the new PM? Who has to certify officially that said coalition is valid? The king of sweden? (Like with the GG of Canada) Also, how do they vote in Sweden? I wouldn't think it is first past the post, is it?

I think Canada is probably one of our best--if not the best--friend we have. Canada is in Afghanistan with the NATO forces, they're a member of NATO and they do good deeds for America. They stand by us. There's some cultural differences and some banter---FRIENDLY banter I mean--between Canadians and Americans, none of it hostile, all of it in good fun. I'd say we (the US) make fun of them more than they make fun of us. (E.g., the song "Blame Canada" in the South Park movie.) After all, you wouldn't want to destroy Canada, would you? Hell No. I wouldn't either. I look forward to visiting one day and meeting Canadians in real life. Terminate this thread before you embarrass the rest of us, please!

How can the law setting a fixed date for an election be primarily symbolic? Do you mean because parliament can simply ignore it? or they have to pass another law overturning it....then call the election?

Here's a better idea: abrogate the Canadian monarchy. The Aussies want to do it, and for similar reasons (those involving the appointment of the GG).

Christ, it sounds like you guys treat your vets worse than we do. At least our people say thank you and there's some protections for vets, even if the VA hospitals treat them like merde. (in the US that is)

You missed the Kellog-Briand Pact. Didn't Canada sign that one? (or maybe that was before Canada had an independent foreign policy) Because Canada has gone to war before. (N.B.: the Kellog-Briand pact essentially outlawed war). P.S., the OP said something about the monarch signing the order. I didn't think she really did anything with Canada. And if she did it would be interpreted as the UK interfering with Canadian affairs, in which case the Canadians would likely abrogate the monarchy, as the Aussies tried to.

Wait, I don't understand your question. You're asking about financial markets? Or the differences between Toronto, Detroit and Chicago? I'm clearly missing something here. I've never read The Great Gatsby but I've seen the episode of Family Guy where they parodied it. I know the book had something to do with the Depression and rich people who drink a lot.

Yeah they don't hate us, dude. Jeeze. No, it'll be "salami tactics" (slice by slice). They'll start by buying up prime U.S. real estate, e.g., Rockefeller Center.

Poor Kavanaugh. My heart literally bleeds for him. (I think whether anyone believes an accuser during a Supreme Court nomination hearing depends not on morality or truth but whether one is from the same party as the Senate majority or not. Admit it.) But, TO GET BACK ON TOPIC: In a sense, Altai is right that Democracy is a flawed form of government. Now, I cannot agree with her absolutist stance against it, and I like living in one rather than a country like her's but there are a few problems with democracy. Just off the top of my head: 1. tyranny of the majority. Democracy works by imposing the will of the 50%+1 on the 50%-1. What's good for the majority is not necessarily good for everyone. Also, this does not always guarantee freedom necessarily (hence the word "tyranny"). Why would democracies need to have a bill of rights if freedom was always automatically ensured by elections? 2. information deficit. People don't always know what's good for them. Not only that they don't always have the requisite information they need to make informed choices. Some of this information can't be shared with the public. Also, people don't have the expertise usually to make these informed decisions. 3. voters not careful. "Joe six-pack" can vote emotionally, rather than rationally, if he/she wants to. Voters are easily swayed by emotional, "feel good" issues, rather than ones which are rational. Politicians in democracies are very adept at using the passions and prejudices of voters to ensure their political survival. 4. political survival. Democracy doesn't eliminate the need of the elected leaders to survive in office. Here, there is little difference between a dictatorship and a democracy, except that the former has different means at his/her disposal than the latter in ensuring that political survival. However--following the same rubric--lack of democracy has even more question marks against humankind, thusly: 1. tyranny period. Instead of the tyranny of the majority it's a tyranny of one, or a small caste of people. 2. information deficit. This problem is "solved" by making decisions in the dark, which will be even less wise than those made by errant voters. 3. dictators not careful. (see point 2) More likely, they'll make decisions based in the self-interest one of person (him/herself) and the small caste of people around him/her. 4. political survival. Still there, but worse. This time, you can ensure your survival by even more nefarious means, such as rigged elections and coups d'etat. There are other hallmarks of a solid dictatorship, like disappearing in the middle of the night, and never being heard from again. Limited personal freedoms, corruption, and so on. I'm sorry Altai, but your arguments against democracy are weak. And you cannot run a government by computer, it just doesn't work. Governments have to be run by human beings. If you think AI should make such decisions, I recommend the movie 2001: a Space Odyssey.

Agree with that. It comes from people reading things literally.

The idea of a Christian-only or Muslim-only community is ridiculous. It's as good as bringing back separate but equal.

The pope can say such things, as he lives behind a wall with some of the best security in the world. But in this case he's probably right.

OK, so that requires, what, a simple majority? (>50%)

In the U.S., on the other hand, our courts have delivered civil rights victories to people who wouldn't have had a prayer if we had anything like "legislative supremacy" in this country. Thank God we don't have a notwithstanding clause. I've come to believe that the belief many in Canada and western Europe have that the parliamentary form of government is "superior", is pure B.S. National pride channeled in the wrong direction.

I don't know about powerful families being able to buy their way out. Do you know that for a fact? Or are you assuming? There was a lottery system, yes.

First of all, you've picked a bad example in calling Trudeau a "Franz Joseph". Kaiser Franz-Joseph I was a reactionary emperor, not the kind of guy who talks of multiculturalism. I'm willing to bet, however, that you mean Franz FERDINAND, the crown prince and Archduke of Bosnia-Herzegovina. If so, you're doubly wrong. F.F. was also reactionary. He spoke of promoting the rights and privileges of the other ethnic minorities of the realm, yes. However, it was a bloody ruse. What he resented was the Hungarians having an equal say in the empire. He couldn't stand Hungarians having an equal say with ethnic Germans. So by promoting--or pretending to promote--the other non-German minorities, he was screwing the Hungarians over. He even came up with a map to show how the Austro-Hungarian Empire could become the United States of Greater Austria. Basically it took control of the empire away from the Hungarians, to the benefit of ethnic Germans. Restore the "old order" prior to the Ausgleich. Maybe in that respect, he is like Justin Trudeau (i.e., a good showman).

Even without a no-confidence motion? or the loss by the government of an important vote? Someone from the UK I was chatting with chastised us silly, backward Americans for not having a "mature" government wherein the head of state and head of government were separated. I'm beginning to realize that there is no such thing when it comes to democratic governments. But that's probably a debate for another thread.

Doesn't surprise me. People have this romantic view that a democracy (representative system with universal suffrage, etc.) is supposed to be the pure will of the people, and that special interests aren't supposed to control the votes in a democracy. Reality is much different. Even democracies have a "democratic elite", people with more power than their fellow voters. It's not too dissimilar from a corporate shareholders' meeting, wherein every mom and pop shareholder has the right to vote his or her proxy, but the people with the real power are executives of the mutual fund companies or board members (i.e., the people who own a crap-ton of shares). Anyone who holds the idea that if a country doesn't reflect the pure will of the constituents then it's not a real democracy is living in fantasy-land. Democracy is an incredibly flawed form of government. (yeah, yeah I know someone will now say "except for all the others".) Switzerland is a little different, and a much smaller country. However--though this may seem unrelated--this is a country which didn't let women vote in its federal (and most local) elections, until 1973. But anyway, I didn't mean to get off topic. We were talking about the Canadian government calling an election. Can the government actually pick the date of an election before the four year deadline is up?

I know I'm not Canadian, but in my own country at least I have never been in favor of federal level referenda, if that's what you mean. The peoples' votes in a referendum are far too easily "managed" or swayed by political interests and insiders. Politicians in other countries (like France under de Gaulle) like to refer laws to referedum that they know will pass the way they want it to before the voting starts. In a representative democracy, national referenda are often smoke-and-mirrors. Just ask the good people of California. Canada isn't as populous as the US but I'll go out on a limb and guess it has a federal structure for good reason. (And California has roughly the same population as Canada, over 30 million). Canada doesn't have the problem with special interests in politics that the US has, but referenda in a large population opens the door for them to manage the result.

the U.S. has the same issue, if you drop a baby on U.S. soil it's American. It's written into the 14th Amendment, even though the purpose of writing it into the 14th Amendment had more to do with people whose ancestry was African, rather than illegal immigration. There's a lot of discussion about this currently.