K Oud

g_bambino How to stop a dictatorship from forming? If a political leader attempts to grab for more power though legislation we have both the courts, able to strike down unjust laws, and the parliament, able to vote down unjust laws. Judges are appointed by the government with the consent of the parliament. If the judge is not trust worthy he/she will not be approved by the parliament. The parliament is accountable to the citizens who can force by-elections if their P2 members are not acting in the interest of the majority of the ridings residents. If political leader attempts to grab for more power illegally with the military, the best safe guard we have is a educated army of middle class background, who will have something to loose in event of a revolution and are therefore unlikely to forgo there pledge of service to Canada and support a coup. As you can see the strongest way to check the executive power is by having a educated population who are able to hold there government accountable. Not an old lady living in a different country. As for the Senate, please explain to me the strong and consistent role they have been playing in our democratic system. Also, P2 members would be banned form belonging or receiving funding from any political party, your right they could be nefarious in there actions but because they are being held directly accountable by there constituents if they step out of line too often and vote agenst their ridings views they will be voted out of power

He has a a lot of good ideas but his presentation feels stunted and awkward. I would definitely bring him on as a policy advisor but i wouldn't vote for him as a leader. at least not if this film is a accurate representation of him.

g_bambino Your obtuseness is somewhat frightening. I’m not sure where you learned about our political system or the worlds but its clear it was not by actually paying attention to what is and has happened. First if you aren’t going to trust Elections Canada to verify a petition then you can't trust them to verify the elections so you can't trust anyone . . . except the GG according to you, maybe we should have her count all the ballots in every election? If you cant trust your MPs (or P2) not to act covertly then you should rally for a election to vote in someone you can trust. In the current system a citizen cant do that, in “Popular Representation” (witch is what I am calling this new form of government) they can. Meaning that in the PR system our lawmakers are more accountable and thus less able to legally start a dictatorship. Politics and forms of government exist to rule over people. The type of people they rule over greatly affects how they rule, if they are able to take advantage of their people or if they are kept in check by them. Having a strong constitutional system is important as well to provide the people with the power to hold there elected representatives accountable for there actions. Our system dose not accomplish this well enough, that’s why I propose we re-vamp it to better enfranchise our population. Lets say for arguments sake though we decide to keep the Sovereign as it is along with the other reforms I have presented. Would you support it?

I agree!!! but try to tell g_bambino

Who verifies the petition? Elections Canada. Who calls the election? I don’t know do you want a town crier? Acting covertly?!?! Well that would be a hell of a conspiracy theory, just like if all the MP right now were acting covertly right now?!?! Dun dun duuuuuu No sh*t it would be acting illegally, that’s how coups and dictatorships happen . . . Illegally. Unless the party attempting to become dictators charismatically sweep the nation and convince everyone what they are doing is for there better good. In witch case the people of Canada who the government should be responsible to, will have spoken and the GG has no right step in. so how do we stop legal dictatorships? Well lets start with what kind of people get caught up in them. Usually its poor people who are being told that they are being hard done by and will get a better life if the PM becomes a Dictator. Who historically don’t get caught up into supporting dictatorships? Educated middle classes families who have a low enough quality of life that they don’t get the benefits of a dictatorship, and a high enough quality of life that they don’t want to jeopardize it by supporting anything radical. I was commenting that third world countries have far fewer graduates of higher education due to their less developed social infrastructure. I never mentioned the innate intelligence of the indigenous populations, but if you really want to get people riled up, try calling their countries “banana republics.” She is also not accountable to the Canadian people at all. For all your talk about the Queen, and by extension the GG, stopping a dictator you forget her position is the visage of a dictatorship!!! Who will the people assign to do it for them you ask? There representative, as the name suggests we vote for these people, we trust them and we hold them accountable. I would rather have people like that holding my executive at check then un-elected foreign national any day of the week. Yes, I'm preatty sure those are the rules. As for the queens special status as a none citizen of anywhere, she is still not Canadian, and is still not accountable to Canadians so she should hold no place of power within our political system

Ahh my bad, my point still stays the same. Is the Queen a Canadian citizen? no.?

As stated above “Members of the P2 are elected to 5-year terms but a by-election can be called at any time if a petition is presented and verified that contains the signatures of #% of the ridings population.” One moment you are talking about the PM becoming a dictator and then the next you say the GG would fire him and have new elections pure and "simple". I don’t know if you have ever done any reading on how dictatorships start but they don’t happen if you don’t have the undivided support of the Military. If the PM is about to become a Dictator and has the support of the military it will be anything but “simple” to fire him. And that brings me to another point, the reason Canada has not succumbed to dictatorship is not because it has a snappy electoral and parliament system. It is because our population is well educated and that we have a large and well established middle class. Before we had a middle class, before the majority of our population was highly educated the Westminster system worked well . . . but that was two hundred years ago! I am glad you agree with me that it might be time to use a little flex and “evolve” into a new system. As should be apparent I am advocating transferring more power to the people of Canada, making them the check to the executive. Since we have cleared that up, do you have any other issues? Mr. Dancer I did not say the GG was not a Canadian, i said that she represents and is sub-servent to a none-Canadian citizen, the Queen.

Sorry maybe I should expand. I have not of yet come to a consensus of to what the best totally or percentages would be the most democratic. eg. I was thinking you would need at least 3% poplar vote to get a "seat" in the P1. It is not that I haven’t done my "homework" these points are open to discussion, in fact let me know what you think they should be

ZING! The citizens do hold the power to force a by-election. That is stated in my first post. This form of government is no more susceptible to a dictatorship then the current one. I don’t know what you think the GG can do? If a PM actually went bat crazy and took over the country do you think the GG would turn into the Incredible Hulk, bust in and spank the PM? If the PM has garnered enough support to actually declare a dictatorship then the least of there worries would be the ceremonial figurehead of our colonial past. This system has everything to do with Canada’s democratic history. Our history of having a democracy at all. Our history of peacefully changing how we are governed. I don’t know why ’82 I was just shooting. 1) Again if a minority government refused to dissolve now, even after the GG insisted they do so. What is she going to do? The Incredible GG Hulk? It’s all semantics at this point. If you need someone whose official job it is then fine in this new form of government we will estate the “Official Government Dissolver” who has express powers to dissolve the government and whose authority is absolute in that regard. Is that any better?? 2) Again no need for a GG a simple vote of no confidence will collapse the government. 3) if a bill is past by our elected representatives (representing our values) that is not constitutional then maybe we should be looking at why or how our values have changed and how the constitution may be out of date at this point. Regardless there is no need for the GG the courts would strike down anything unconstitutional. If there are countless instances . . . name one? In the last 20 years? What we have now is not fully representing the wishes of the people of Canada or giving them enough access to their own government. What I am say is, lets use some of that flex to built a system that still operates but addresses those issues. You take the powers the GG holds so seriously even though they would never be used. But if you are going to take the GG’s powers at face value then the face value of the entire position is that they are representing someone who is not Canadian and who for some reason people believe should still have power over us. You cant have one and not the other.

I am starting Canadian Political Podcast and am interested in finding people to contribute. The format will be as follows. The podcast will be recorded once a week. It will run for a half hour and have up to 5 commentators communicating vie skype. The participating commentators will loosely choose subjects for each show a few days before. Digressing from the topics will be allowed so long as it still pertains to Canadian politics. Anyone can be on the show and anyone can suggest a topic. If you are interested in taking part in this e-mail me at [email protected] I look forword to some intertesting debates.

g_bambino I will start with an apology if my words were too harsh for you. If a desire to reform our political structure so that it better represents the voice and values of Canadians is the tone of a pre-teen then the level of single minded, slack jawed conformity prevalent in those over 12 is much higher then I feared. Again it seems as though you haven’t bothered to read my original post of the following response to your comments. Let me reiterate, the members of the P2s only job would be to in a non-partisan manner represent their constituents. If they fail to do so their constituents would cause a by-election and vote in a P2 member who would act more in their interest. If the PM is doing crazy things like dismissing judges P2 would put forward a vote of no confidence and vote him out of power. Another option is that if the Party to whom the power crazy PM belongs to feels he is off his rocker they could vote in a new leader (this of coarse would cause an election of the P1). As federal political parties are open to anyone any citizen could join a party and take part in a “check to the executive” from that end. To compare Canada, its democratic history and tendencies to that of Pakistan or Venezuela would be like comparing a apple to a Volkswagen “Quite contrary to my assertions” eh? I would like you to give me one example since 1982 where the GG used any of its powers without the support of the House of Commons, better yet give me one scenario where you feel it would be correct for the GG to do any of the following (witch are all with in her power) Appoint a party other then the party who won the most seats the Government. Dissolve the government without the request of the PM Veto a bill that has been passed by the House of Commons. I have a firm understanding our constitutional structure and clearly you do as well. The difference is that rather then seeing it written in unchangeable stone I look at our government and laws surrounding it as being flexible and capable of evolving along with the nation, its needs and its citizen’s values. As for being xenophobic, I am far from it. I just don’t think that any other nation has any business with anything pertaining to Canadian sovereignty. Do you honestly believe otherwise? In fact wouldnt that a complete contradiction to the very definition of sovereignty? Mr. Hardner How dose this plan to help the Canadian public understand the importance of their own governance? By making their government more accessible and more responsive to them. This ties into you 2nd comment as well. This system is different because it gives our representatives the mandate to really listen to us and respond, in effect truly represent us in the government. Its true that not every single voice in such a diverse and complex society as Canada can be heard, but through polling, town halls meetings, door to door canvassing P2 members should be able to ascertain the values of the majority of there constituents and then vote accordingly. Yes this would be a massive change, to clarify the “start” I was talking about was the “start” of a discussion on a possible evolution of Canadian Democracy. Canadian Democracy is sick, its not terminal yet, it still works and Canada is still a great place to live. But simply because we haven’t shot ourselves yet dose not mean we should keep the gun to our head.

American Woman, thank you for pointing out the set of checks and balances in the American system. They are important and would indeed work . . . if they were used. But untill your congressmen and women grow backbones it looks like if one crazy rich guy wants to run around messing up any and all the good will the world had left for the rest of America, no body is going to stop him. I think it is unhealthy because a huge percentage of your population is completely apathetic to politics (Canadians are as well, witch is also not good) and are very easily swayed by name recognition leading to the same people or grope of people to run the country decade after decade. bush_cheney2004 your right, things are also not 100% in Canada, if you took a moment to look at the Canadian board you would see a few ideas I have about making Canada better. I would like to say that I am by no means anti-American. I just think some of the political trends south of the boarder are unhealthy for America.

Mr Hardner the entire problem in today's society is that there is sooo much apathy with our very governance. Anyone who dismisses politics or our government as “not their business” has not been properly educated in how every choice the parliament makes effects your daily life. The cause of apathy, the reason they get "turned off of politics" is disenfranchisement. If you re-enfranchise your population, make there voice heard and matter it will revitalize your citizens and your democracies. As for it being a "hunch" I am not proposing this as the be all end all. This is the start and we can modify and mold this model to, if you have a comment let it be on how to make this better or how it wont work based on its structure. Ahh as for g_bambino, it is hard to take you seriously when you are so desperately wet for a system that has no more basis in modern reality then knights in shining armor do. If you seriously think that the representative of a foreign figurehead is positive check to the democratically elected officials of this nation, you are crazy. If you think for one second the Governor General would oppose the will of the elected officials of this country, you are crazy. Ok so your crazy, you think the Canadian people would stand for the GG interfering with their elected representatives doing there will, your double crazy. Its too bad you got so bunged up with your own lock-step devotion to some day dream of how this country operates and didn’t bother to read the rest of my "thesis". Who would hold the PM accountable? The people of Canada!!! And by extension the members of the P2, that’s why they hold 51%, if at any point the PM goes too far the (none party member) P2 can listen to there constituents (who are telling them the PM is going to far) and hold a vote of confidence where they can defeat the government even if they held 100% of the P1. Sir I suggest you do two things. One pay attention to how our democracy truly operates and two get your head out to the collective British ass, you might discover that Canada is a fully capable country with no need for some foreign authority. all this being said, some people are attached to the UK and to our historical ties to them. For this reason I see no reason why we cant keep the GG on with her continued ceremonial duties. and by "kingpin" do you mean keystone? or are we talking Spiderman?

First off let me apologize for my mistake with the math. Then 24 years it is, or 28 if she gets elected to a 2nd term right? So you they are 4 different people? Well that’s a relief because if this had all just been a ploy by Nixon getting a bunch of face-lifts I would have been surprised. I am aware that your presidents are not born into the job but actually elected, if it was the other way around there would be no need for speculation that "the American public seems to want to slip back towards a monarchy" it would already be one. My point is that it is that name recognition and family ties are playing a disturbing role in America's democracy, in my view a unhealthy role. Oh and if you don’t think you are" ruled" over by the executive branch how come even when the majority of your nation as well as a overwhelming number of elected officials are strongly opposed the war in Iraq and want to end it . . . NOW, you are still there? And that’s just one example.

I am Canadian so maybe I missing something, please fill free to let me know if I am. But I find it not only odd but also in fact frightening that the American public seems to want to slip back towards a monarchy. If the good lady Clinton (hail to the queen) successfully makes it to the white house and stays there for 4 years, then the freedom loving democracy touting American public will have been ruled over by either the Bush or the Clinton dynasties for the last 20 years! You got to love America, where anyone can do anything, except for run the country. Long live the queen

I would like to prefix this with a few things: 1: My spelling and grammar are not all that good, so please comment on the content rather then the writing mistakes. 2: every time you see a # sign its just because I haven’t done the math yet or decided on the best percentage. 3: This is meant to open a discussion, please let me know what you like don’t like, what you think will work, what you think wont work. Also if you are interested in making it a reality you can get a hold of me at: [email protected] Canadian Democracy The objective of democracy is that each and every eligible adult within the nation have an equal and fair voice in the actions, morals and standards of the nation. In Direct Democracy this is achieved by allowing each and every adult to vote on each and every issues thus letting the people express their views and values. It is obvious that in a society as complex, busy and populated as today’s modern nation this form of government is not viable. Today’s democratic nations have since turned to Representational Democracy. The idea of representational democracy is that citizens are guped, usually based on their geographic location, and then as a whole elect one of their peers to represent and to vote for them. The Canadian Parliament is based off the British government and is made up of three branches. The first being the Sovereign, the Sovereign is a left over of Canada’s colonial past when it was still under the control of the British crown. Although in theory the Sovereign holds unprecedented power in Canadian politics any attempt by the Governor General, who represents the British Monarch in Canada, to realistically use there powers would be struck down by Canadian courts or by the rest of the Parliament. This leaves the Sovereign as a figurehead whose duties are completely ceremonial in nature. The second branch on the Canadian Parliament is the Senate. Based on the British concept of Lords the Senate in theory is meant to perform many of the same actions as the House of Commons. Because the Senate is appointed instead of being elected it rarely if ever challenges a bill passed by the House of Commons. In fact it is with in the governments powers to bypass the Senates approval. In effect the Senate is a over paid body of government officials whose sole job is to give the thumbs up to whatever the House proposes, and if they say no? They can be ignored. This leaves us with the last branch of Parliament, the House of Commons. The house is made up of Canadian Citizens elected in the spirit of representational democracy to represent the constituents of their riding. Members are elected using the “first past the post” system. In this system each candidate is presented to the voting public and who ever garners the most votes it elected to parliament wail all other votes are disregarded. This is important because although it is not a prerequisite of running, most candidates are members of a political party. Many times when voters are casting there ballet they are voting more for the political platform they believe in then the for a specific person to represent them. This means that when all the votes that were not cast for the winning party are discarded, the opinions and beliefs of many times more then half the riding are discarded as well. This leads to high levels of voter apathy and the common assumption that ones vote doesn’t really matter. This is not the only serious flaw in the electoral system as it stands now the second is not mentioned often although it is far more insidious and destructive to the very nature of democratic societies. As it stands now when your average person or riding elects a MP one of two things happen, one: they are a high profile MP, two: they are a low profile MP. In the first case the MP would be given a cabinet job such as Minister of Justice, or in the case of an opposition party they would become the Justice critic. This job takes up a huge amount of time for the MP meaning they are not effectively communicating to there constituents what the government is doing and conversely what the people of there riding want of the government. In the second case the MP becomes what is called a backbench witch is a nice way of saying they are a seat filler, they do nothing but vote the way they are told by their party and are therefore not able to truly act as the voice of people they are representing. Now lets take a moment to remember the entire point of representational democracy. The people we elect to public office are supposed to be our connection to government informing us of what the government is doing and how it affects us and making sure our values and opinions are being voiced. The act of connecting and representing constituents should not be election time only activity. A New Option: For these reasons we have come up with a outline for a new form of government. In the new form of government that we are proposing there is no need for the Sovereign, although if it pleases the Canadian population to retain the Sovereign and its figurehead duties this can be accommodated. The senate would be abolished. This leaves the House of Commons to operate much as it already dose as the sole body of federal Canadian law making. The House of Commons will be made up of two groups. The first, which we will call P1, will hold 49% of the voting power in the House and will be made up of a number of federal political parties. The second group, P2, will hold the reaming 51% of political sway in the House and will be made up of individual Canadian citizens elected to represent their riding. P1: The P1 would be made up of a cross section of different federal Canadian parties. Each parties representation within the P1 would be directly proportional to there shear of the popular vote in the last federal election. (eg. if the Liberals won 30% of the popular vote in the last election they would hold 30% control of the P1’s 49% of the House of Commons) The party with the highest percentage of the popular vote would form the government. No post-election coalitions may be formed in the attempt to form a government. The Party that forms the government will have a leader who would become the Canadian Prime minister and a cabinet who would become the ministers of Justice, Labour ect. Each opposition party would also have a leader and a cabinet who would act as a shadow government and critic. At the outset of an election each party would be obligated to publicly post who would be filling what positions if the party were elected to power. All choices would be binding and any changes a party would like to make to their roster post-election would be subject to open and public scrutiny and explanation. During a vote in the House of Commons the Party leader would cast their parties percentage of the vote. P2: The P2 will consist of Canadian Citizens elected by their peers in ridings across the country. Members of the P2 may not belong to a political party; therefore they will not be subject to party wip and will only be accountable to the people living within the riding that elected them. There primary obligation will be to relay to their constituents what the government is doing and how it will affect them as well as to bring their constituents concerns and opinions to the attention of the House. Members of the P2 will act as the direct contact between their constituents and the government. It is the responsibility and possible a running platform of each P2 member to find an effective way of communicating with their constituents. Elections: Elections for the P1 and the P2 are separate, despite this it is not inappropriate for the two campaigns to overlap. P1 Elections: Any Canadian Citizen can put forward a party to be considered in a general election so long as they are able to produce upon registration a clear platform and a list of eligible candidates to, if elected to government act as ministers or if elected to opposition to sit as a shadow government. Only parties that have achieved more then #% of the popular vote will be allotted a position in the P1. The government formed from the P1 party that achieves the highest popular vote is depended on the Confidence of the entire House of Commons to stay in power. Meaning if the government puts forward a bill that is central to its platform (eg. Budget) and it fails then the P1 must dissolve for a federal election. After 5 consecutive years of rule with the confidence of the house the P1 must dissolve for an election. P2 Elections: Members of the P2 are elected to 5-year terms but a by-election can be called at any time if a petition is presented and verified that contains the signatures of #% of the ridings population. Any Canadian Citizen can run for a seat in the P2 so long as they can present a petition that can be verified that contains # signatures of people from the given riding. If the P1 dissolves due to a vote of no confidence the P2 is not obliged to dissolve as well. Law Making: Any member or party in the House of Commons may enter bill to be considered so long as they have the signed support of #% of the house. This means that any party already hold more then #% of the house can introduce bills at will but lesser parties or P2 members must garner the required support from other parties or P2 members. Supporting a bill to be introduced dose not bind the party or P2 member to vote for it after reading. thats all