[email protected]

Should a legislature be able to stand in the way of government business?

What do you mean by "accomplishments"? Standards they have set, or crises they have survived, accomplishments as historical events, the amount of influence they had/have, basic features of their way of life, basic features of their country, economic strength, contributions to culture, science, prospects for the future ...

Partisanship is unavoidable and any reforms must keep in mind that it can not be eliminated. To the extent that partisanship degrades debate and policy solutions, then it is bad. To the extent that partisanship activates debate and supporters for a cause that is good, then partisanship is a good thing. I suppose it is like anything else, too much is bad. Right now in Canada we have extreme partisanship, too much. Through party discipline dogmatic support for a party's position has squeezed out any debate. Therefore this type of partisanship needs to be broken up but not eliminated so that debate can occur. The objection to cross-posting, in our case, only circumscribes the debate on this and other issues. Q. E. D.

Once again, citizen recall is based on the fiction that an elected representative is beholden to represent the particular bias of one's own constituents on a vote-by-vote basis. This is absurd. Representatives are elected to represent the voter for a term of office, not to be a clerk for every fickle voter. And under the present system, the House can simply pass a resolution of no confidence against the Government if it so chooses. PM MacKenzie King actually had a slim majority but lost the confidence of the House in 1925. In my humble opinion, the Westminster model is about the only political institution in Canada that actually works quite well. Indeed, we've had a couple of new parties created and entered Parliament within the last twenty years. That is a sign of the health and vitality of the system. Indeed, I would be happy to argue (if that were the topic) that it isn't so much that the Westminster model is particularly good, rather it is a matter that US Presidential model is deeply flawed. I can't imagine anyone wanting such a poor functioning system adopted here. I am not a defender nor an advocate for the US system as a whole but is does seems odd to me when people claim that the US system is deeply flawed and yet, over the long term, the US has racked up an incredible array of accomplishments versus next to none for Canada. That would seem to argue the US system is operating pretty well versus Canada.

The choice wasn't about debate...it was about loyalties. And I personally would prefer a government of action than debate. If you think that debate should take a backseat to 'action' perhaps your ultimate governance model is to be found under fascism or monarchy. Without debate how do you know the 'action' is appropriate? There is no reason you can't have adequate debate along with action, you just have to design the process correctly.

If by Westminster model you mean a Parliament controlled by the Government, yes drop it. The Westminister model no longer functions properly (if it ever did). Agreed that reforms must be comprehensive. We are not proposing an office called President. Don't confuse our proposal with the US system. They are similar in some respects different in others. Here's the main reason: The Westminster model does not allow substantive debate on public policy by the people's representatives.

Remember that the concepts of 'confidence' and 'opposition' are gone. The relationship between the government and the house will be less partisan. There is simply a leader elected directly and a number of parties in the house, a majority party perhaps, but probably not. Can the house oppose the government? Yes. So the two have to work together to get government business done. Especially far reaching issues or issues of national importance will be better served by the dialog and consensus rather than having a PMO ram stuff through, right or wrong.

Cross Post http://stated.ca/index.php?showtopic=9441&st=0 Not so. Some of the wording is different.

I don't care about any of that, your culture is your business. All I want to know is: how much more will any form of 'Atlantic Alliance' cost me as a Canadian taxpayer? If anything, very little. The idea behind Union is to help the region become self-sufficient over time so that it does not need assistance from the rest of Canada.

Does the executive hold that position by confidence of the legislature (in which case the executive is linked directly to the legislature) or by popular election (in which case the executive is entirely separate from the legislature). The choice is simple. The first is the Westminster model, the second is the Presidential model. There can and should be a mechanism for removing the PM/P either by the house or by citizen recall. Thresholds should be quite high here, it should be very rare - like a Nixon event. If the house wishes to express non confidence then simply pass a resolution of no confidence. Why pick the Westminster model which does not allow actual debate?

Interesting comments about the 'failed experiments' of the central government, what that be tied to the dysfunctional political system in the country, the system that produces these flawed policies?

A direct election of leaders using a system requiring a 50%+1 threshold has these advantages: 1. It gives a clear, decisive affirmation that so-and-so should be PM/P. 2. The PM/P are answerable to the citizenry directly and not the party elites or party members who elected them party leader (ironically party elections don’t use a FPTP approach). 3. It gives the PM/P a mandate from the whole country/province for the common good, not a partisan good for just a party. 4. It makes it easier to separate the legislature from the government. 5. It avoids the uncomfortable results under a FPTP system that leaders are not supported by the majority of the citizens.

This question is a response to those who object to Atlantic/Maritime Union on the grounds that alleged cultural differences justify keeping the provinces separate. It makes no sense to argue eg NS and NB are both 'distinct' while maintaining that Acadia is not distinct from the rest of NB. You can't have it both ways.

Agreed. The PM/Premier after winning a direct election would be invited by the GG/LGG to form a government with a cabinet. Remember the PM has much more power than a US president. The house should be independent from the PM+Cabinet (another whole discussion elsewhere) to offset the PM+Cabinet. It forces two to get along versus allowing the PM to control the house for his/her purposes.

Why not? It would be a minority government scenario where compromise and consensus would be required. No. Under a model where the PM/Premier selects the cabinet, all appointments (including cabinet) must be approved of by the house. We are also suggesting that the selectable talent pool be dramatically widened to include the public, ie cabinet members do not have to sit in the house.

IF uniting the four Atlantic Canadian provinces is a bad idea since each province is culturally distinct and should have its own government and capital THEN is it not logical to ask, should new provinces be created for culturally distinct sub-regions each with a capital and government? 1. Split Labrador from Newfoundland 2. Split French speaking Acadia from New Brunswick 3. Split Cape Breton from Nova Scotia

Should we be able to vote for our leaders? That is, should we vote directly for Prime Ministers/Premiers in a separate ballot on Election Day?

I'm not taking sides on this one, but that's not an argument. That's the same kind of anti-American demagoguery practised by the NDP and Liberals for the last few decades. Sooner or later they may realize that mocking a country that has out-successed Canada by virtually every conceivable measure is not a particularly convincing argument, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Oh, and by the way, since when is fixing election dates tantamount to "getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature"? That's an extremely flammable strawman. Get a grip. Preferring the Westminster model over the split American system is a valid principle based upon the character of electoral responsibility accorded to each system. In the Westminster model, there is formal electoral responsibility for all government functions. If you object to anything, responsibility for that policy is clear cut. In the American system where the executive is split from the legislature, there is no formal electoral responsibility for government policy. For example, if the US Federal government spends like a drunken sailor, who ought the voter hold responsible for this? The President or Congress? Both are able to deny responsibility by pointing at the other. P.S. Normally I don't bother to reply to those who make baseless accusations and insults. I'm not likely to bother replying to you in future on this basis. First, what we are proposing is not a 'presidential' system. There is no president, there is still a premier and the cabinet managing the government. It is not a republican system since the Queen is still the head of state. And it is not an 'American' system, it is the traditional English model of a separate legislature to restrain and check the monarchy. In this separation model there is clear responsibility. The government formulates policy suggestions and the house deliberates and either agrees or declines the proposal. Responsibility is clear, in cases where there is compromise and/or consensual decision making then it is possible for either side to point fingers but that's the nature of governance sometimes; a team effort, and then it is up to the voters to decide who did what. Given the media and disclosure most times the answer will be straight forward. It is only because the PM/premier is an elected dictator that makes he/she an easy target for unpopular measures. To cling to a poor governance system to facilitate facile finger pointing is irrational.

Your really struggling with your comprehension of how our system works. Confidence of the house is required for our system to have ANY reasonable democratic value. We propose dumping the whole 'confidence' idea and electing the Premier/PM directly where they serve as head of the civil service. Both the house and the PM would operate on a fixed election cycle.

No. Such 'fixed' dates are an abomination under the Westminster model of parliamentary government. Why?

Recall should not be partisan, it should be about ensuring the rep is fulfilling their role. There should be tough controls around it to make sure it is not abused for political reasons, ie lets dump the guy I don’t like but for ‘job’ reasons; mis-conduct, incompetence and not attending to citizen’s needs. A certain threshold signature campaign eg 25% (or 3,000 out of 13,000 riding size in NS) within the riding to put it to a vote A fairly high threshold for a vote 50%, 2/3s, 75% Allow a reasonable period of time (not too long) , say several months, for a debate among the riding’s citizens and responses from the rep, house, party … The group(s), individuals leading the recall should be unaffiliated, ie it can’t be sponsored and lead by a political opponent It should be high enough to allow the rep to do long range voting or temporarily unpopular measures but allow them to be punished for excessive towing of the party line.

Should we have fixed election dates provincially?

Should the electors in a representative’s riding be able to force a by-election?

Good question. One role they are expected to serve is that of a representative for (all) their constitutents with respect to the Government bureaucracy and whatnot. That is to say, they provide help/advice/assistence to constituents dealing with the Government bureaucracy. This is a 'local' function that they are well suited to perform. And as individual human beings, they have the right to stand up if the oppose the party's decision (by resigning from the party). Yes our reps do serve as a sort of ombudsman (ombudswoman?) role, which is fine. But why do we vote for and elect representatives, not just as ombudspeople (not sure if that is a word)?

In our Westminster model, yes. If a representative stands for election under that party label, they must toe the party line for that party label. To do otherwise is to commit fraud against the electorate. If any representative finds themselves unable to vote the party line, they must either resign their seat or resign from the party. I cannot imagine any valid exceptions to this rule. What is the role of the representative?