CAMP

This article for the most part is bang on. However what leader in his/her right mind is going to relent and reform? Certainly not Harper, I doubt Ignatieff, never Jack Put bylaws in place that protect the party from being hijacked like the reform party was as is stated in the article. Protect MP's from the party leader by installing a bylaw stating that all MP's would be responsible to their riding and not the party leader. This is the way Canada was before parties existed and it was much better. Set automatic criteria to hold a referendum or poll vote in between elections to persuade MP's (who would be responsible to their riding) as to how they would enter the House of Commons and vote. Make the polls/votes public information as well as how the MP voted in the house, creating accountability. These simple changes would still allow the Constitutional Monarchy to continue operating.

Canada has been seen doing so by the UN. Canada did stand for something a while ago. (Peacekeepers) Now I'm not so sure anymore. Why did the terrorists choose to pick on the US. Perhaps because of how they have treated various countries previously. The US would go a long way in learning how to nurture these countries instead of being a bully. I guess the big question would be .. how did this whole thing start? When the towers fell, or look further back. You will never eradicate terrorism. I wish it could be but reality says otherwise. You can cripple it from reaching your borders at a high cost by waging war in their back yard. (This is where we are now) But you will always be hated even more for that generations later, and by people of other countries sympathetic to a terrorists cause. Unfortunately the Taliban is a religion and a culture over there. I don't agree with it but it has existed for many years along with many other religious spins of the same nature. The US has had a very sorted past in the history of Afghanistan. They could have chose the diplomatic path with Afghans many years ago but didn't. Obviously terrorists are able to hide and continue their exploit's in other countries. Does the UN need to invade all these other countries? When will it stop?

Government is in place as it is and is required. I'm simply stating that we as Canadians need to reign in our elected representatives and especially party elite at the top who make these very large decisions that will effect Canadians for many years both fiscally as well as how we are perceived in the world. I still maintain there could be a criteria set up that automatically decides if a referendum needs to be held or a polling situation to persuade our elected representative for our riding. Make the MP responsible to the riding and not the party boss. This creates MP accountability to his constituents through out a mandate, instead of only at election time. This improves our democracy by allowing Canadians to have a voice for at least the large issues. Smaller issues could be dealt with as they are now.

There will always be some people in a population that don't like Canada. But for the most part I believe you are right. We have left the realm of peacekeepers and entered the realm of aggression. We as a country have made a grave mistake and will feel the repercussions of it for many years to come. We have lost the respect we use to have as peacekeepers in many countries now. When it's all boiled down we were spun the concept that the women and girls over there were being oppressed, so in comes Canada to save them, because we are so noble. The truth is this is a war to control a large percentage of oil, that would otherwise fall into some other controlling interest than the UN countries. I'm worried we are there for a very long time, and casualties will increase much higher than now, and even what we are being told presently by the news media. The following point can only be considered hear say but I personally believe the relevance of it. This information was given to me by a veteran from the inside. Quote: There are well over double the amount of casualties than the media can state because the DND won't release the number of the other casualties of this war. Soldiers who come home and suffer from PTS (Post Traumatic Syndrome) who commit suicide. Our government tries to shove this information under the carpet.

On Election day nothing changes. Seats would be won or lost based on the results of the first past the post system. The Constitutional Monarchy still exists. MP's however would primarily be responsible to their constituents, by setting the method in place to poll or vote referendum on large issues such as company bail outs, UN participation missions etc. or hold referendums. This way the people don't lose control in between mandates on these large issues. Criteria could be set in place to automatically require a referendum or poll for various issues. For smaller issues the government would run as it always has.

That's not what I said. What I expressed is that Canada has become a more aggressive nation because we have moved past peacekeeping into the realm of aggression. The concept of the UN is a good thing. Is the UN being controlled by an aggressive nation or nations? Perhaps a subject for another thread. Other countries don't seem to want to be involved in Afghanistan why is that? They are members of the UN. Are we the UN doormats? We need to get Canada back to where we were, and that is known as peacekeepers. Our country must smarten up when it comes to why we choose to enter a UN mission. Ask the questions that need to be asked and sort out the truths and propaganda about the situation.

We keep getting sucked in by the UN period! And need to change this scenerio somehow.

If a country was to wage war on another such as the US did with IRAQ can we really rely on secretive information and trust that our politicians are doing the right thing? The reason given by Bush was weapons of mass destruction. Thankfully Canada up to now has been a non aggressive nation. IMHO we have been drawn into a conflict we should have not been, or at the very least have had a referendum for the majority to decide, rather than a few individuals at the top of a party who have a minority position to govern. It is not necessary to divulge the top secretive information for a country to decide to enter a war. For a country to enter a war with out the desire of the people to fight is foolish and dangerous for our future respect as a nation of peace. There must be a noble cause to fight a war. IMHO we have been duped by our politicians using our media to create a noble cause of women being oppressed by Taliban men. We entered this war mainly for that reason. We as Canadians made a mistake because this is their culture and religion. I don't agree with it, but we will never change a situation of this nature with out a very long term occupation and education and loss of life. To have any measure of real success this country would need to be occupied for most likely 2 to 3 generations. It will remain to be seen how long the UN will carry on this occupation or have the will to do it. I am worried the mission for Canada will be increased even further than our present date. Aggressive nations use propaganda to create a war, not secretive information. Peaceful nations get sucked in by aggressive nations.

Posting an opinion on the internet is an act of expression, that may pursuade an official vote if taken to heart by others who read it. Voting is taking an official stand to be used with others to actually decide how to solve the issue by relying on the law of 50% +1 or the majority rule.

the more percentage of the total number of people involved in a decision the closer to a democracy you have become. The less people you have making a decision the closer to a dictatorship you become.

You are correct about classified information about the logistics of war, but not the decision to wage war or not. That is the decision I speak of.

It might be easier but I'm suggesting to add to the constitutional monarch system and keep the traditional methods in place along with new technologies such as forums online. I simply say if we have an issue to solve why not have input from all sources rather than only elected officials with a majority party prevailing ideology . A good idea that solves a problem can originate from just about any person, party, or group. I don't want to limit us to having one party running the show for a 4 year mandate when a majority government exists and shelve the other ideologies. I prefer to have input from all and have a referendum or poll to push the government in the desired direction of the majority. This is true democracy. Sometimes an issue may require a Liberal point of view that solves it best while other times a conservative point of view. Let all Parle as the system suggests and have the process solved in a true democratic process.

The people are you and me and everyone else who would choose not to proxy their vote to an MP. At least when you have a large mass of people there are way more eyes keeping track of the purse and be able to say NO when the majority don't want to spend on something, or embroil us in some sort of activity IE war. When there are only a few people with total control is when things can go off the rails.

Simple fact of the matter would suggest that in a true democracy the decisions should be made via the majority. Here is the Webster dictionary definition of democracy... I would say # 1 would fit with me the best and the system I propose would fall directly into the #1 definition. De`moc´ra`cy Pronunciation: dė`mǒk´rå`sŷ n. 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people. 2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delagated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic. 3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. 4. The principles and policy of the Democratic party, so called. Obviously you prefer #2 and that is your perogative. However I will point out that popular representation is the key word. Also that a first past the post system does not supply you with that definition of popular representation which is really also the popular vote. Presently our governments are being put together with less than the popular vote and we could face a majority government with only 30% of the popular vote. Further to this I can't really believe anyone can truly say that in the present system we have that #3 is true anymore with what's been going on with GM bail outs and Afghanistan etc. Don't get me wrong Canada is one of the best countries in the world. But sadly we are slipping, and fast now. I truly believe we have a system of government that always was prone to abuse if politicians so chose to exercise a less than scrupulous attitude. I would say from approx the early sixties our politicians were more or less upstanding or not as morally prone to abusing it. Since then it's been a downhill slide gradually as we lose our democractic rights and freedoms. And I won't pick on any one party or belief because the two main parties are both very guilty of it. The system we have needs to be changed for improvement to plug up the holes and get back to the people in control directly now because we can't trust a representative government anymore. Proof is in the pudding. What will the Canadian people have to bail out next and have no say on. That scares the hell out of me a lot more than keeping our present system. Mybe we'll be waging war on some other crisis strewn country? Maybe our country will go into debt so far we get cut off from the world bank like New Zealand did? May be our government will sell off our rights to the largest fresh water great lakes so they can bail themselves out. All hypothetical but very real possibilities now that I've seen the GM bail out. At least with a minority government for the moment I feel a little safer but not much. After all we did bail out GM in a minortiy situation. Plainly and simply put our politicians can no longer be trusted to use the system we have with out abusing the temptations that exist.

I didn't say anyone wasn't involved. What I am saying is you aren't involved at a level that can actually be more meaningful. I said it before and I'll say it again. If the Canadian public were allowed to be involved I doubt we would have bailed out GM, and who knows about Afghanistan. Presently our government does what it wants even with a minority it seems, and against the majority in the GM case. As far as internet security if it's so unsafe why are we able to process our income tax returns online? Your entitled to your opinion so carry on. I guess perhaps you didn't like the fact I shoveled comments back about people being lazy. After all I was told by you or another like you that online voting well that's just for lazy people. Touche' Lazy people are those who don't want to be bothered with their country and would rather pass it off to their MP 100% . Now don't assume I am saying this about you. I was responding to another person who said that, just look at the previous posts.

So all of these people who win an election are so knowledgeable. The fellow who had my area sewn up for a number of years I knew personally and he had a basic education and was involved with child social services looking after and counseling youth, not much more than college in that field... Andrew Telegdi, and most others are like that or lazy lawyers who want the easy ride. And you know where lawyers put their hands... in your pocket. You sell yourself short if you think our politician are some kind of geniuses doing things way above our level of thinking. Most are in it for the money and the pension. They know a cash cow when they see one. Besides the system I propose if you are so inclined to not want to be involved then you can proxy your vote to your MP if you want. Some people say we shouldn't have online voting because it's just for lazy people who won't go to their polling station. I say those who don't want to be involved through out a mandate are lazy people!

Well let's just think about my system proposed a little further. First if MP's were responsible to their riding instead of a party boss (who have been known to be less than honest), wouldn't it logically follow that there would be a higher measure of accountability. Also the first accountability would be that we wouldn't be bailing out companies and going off to peace keeping (basically war missions) with out our consent, or god knows what else we'll get stuck doing in this new day and age. Who would have thought that we were bailing out GM at the begining of Harpers minortiy mandate? To me it sure seems our governments are getting out of hand in spending our money when what I would consider the most fiscally tight government has been on a spending spree! We as Canadians need to come up with some way of holding our thumbs on our government as they pass through their mandate, and not just give them a blank cheque to write their economic desires away with our money.

August, first I am not restricting voting to just the internet. I propose to add it as another method than the other main method of the walk in polling booth. (Usually a church basement) Here's an interesting thought... if the big finger in the ink approach was used. What's to stop anyone from buying some ink without voting and doing the dip, just to pass it off as an I voted look at me? Seems like a flaw in the system. There's no honor among thieves is there?

Well first off dipping one's finger in ink is pretty low tech but works in a 3rd world country. Maybe hand out a Canada flag that could be displayed or bumper stickers at the polling stations or you get one in the mail after you've voted online. Besides Ink is probably toxic and with minority governments we only have 10 fingers... lol. And yes I've been to Africa and other places installing solar systems in 3rd world countries. I've been around. You can high tech it all you want, the main reason I want online voting is to usher in the possibility of using it in between mandates to pursued our government via polls to tell our MP's our desires in a majority fashion. And I want referendums on the big ticket items like bailing out GM or Afghanistan war. etc.

Really so your obviously quite happy with prime ministers hidding paper bags of money, many of them having off shore bank accounts. Friends and relatives picking up cream jobs while the regular joe works his @ss off for a lifetime and is lucky if they can retire. Yes our politicians are so up and up.

I fail to see why you'd find a truer democracy frightening.

Exactly we both have the same rights... which is half democratic at best. Once every 4 years or so other than these minority governments. Which at least I'm glad they are happening and I hope will continue until reform of the system takes place. I would much rather be able to persuade my MP to vote as the majority desires than have him vote the way a few top level party officials see fit. You missed the point of what I was saying obviously by stating that you did not elect me. I'm simply saying that the majority would decide what transpires not me. In fact there may be times I would not have what ever decision go my way. At least I would be able to say it was a fully democratic decision. You can't say that the way the system is now, it's only half a democratic decision. The very fact that there has been so much corruption in the past number of decades is proof there is little accountability

What is your reasons for not having them elected as a separate entity? At least if they have a term of election then they would be obligated to show up. A life time appointment is a license to abuse the system and create non accountability. I believe they should be elected from regional boundaries so we have a good cross section of the country represented. Also have various professional designations represented to give intelligent discerning.

We... really (you should only speak for yourself) And that's fine if that is your choice. The system I'd like to see would give that choice. You could proxy your vote to your riding MP if you so choose through out a mandate or pick the issues you have interest in. I personally wouldn't proxy my opportunity, but that's me, and I'm sure there would be many others who would like the ability to push their government in between mandates and put some accountability in the system.

All that needs to be done is make sure everyone knows where the bill originated.