g_bambino

Don't insult all kings in that manner. Even Edward VIII had the decency to abdicate when directed to do so by his governments.

What does the electoral college do? Vote. What is it called when votes are cast to elect someone? An election. Are the electors threatened or bribed to vote a certain way or are the electoral college's votes rigged? No. What's that called? Free. Thanks for admitting Canada has free elections, too. Aside from the additional incorrect asserion contained therein, the assertion is a red herring. You claimed the Canadian monarchy is British. You're wrong and I proved you to be so. [ed.: exp.]

I think he meant how do we know they were telling the truth at the time they first reported it.

First past the post is a system of election. As is the electoral college of the US. Both Canada's and the US' elections are free (not in the monetary sense, of course). So, you're calling free elections undemocratic. The reference to an American monarchy was tongue-in-cheek; the president acts in a number of ways like an 18th century king (since it was the British model at that time that the American system of governance followed). Canada's monarchy is Canadian; you might have heard of these events known as the enactment of the Statute of Westminster and the patriation of the constitution. [ed.: sp.]

It is comparable in the way I said it was: one (popularly) elected body with the power to remove another (representatively) elected body. General elections do not automatically follow a vote of non-confidence in the prime minister. Perhaps. But, I spoke about impeachment of presidents. I believe there are certain functions that only the mayor can perform; why have the position at all if that's not the case? It would be wonderful to lock this mayor away in a box and only slide papers that need his signature through a slot in the top and retreive them from a slot at the bottom. But, even then, I'm sure Ford would find some way of publicly making an ass of himself. [ed.: sp.]

Nobody could at that time be 100% certain they were telling the truth. But it was safe to be 99% certain because we assume most people who appear rational are rational and no rational person would risk their careers lying about a bombshell story like that. Additionally, it's irrational to believe three media people with two different outlets in two different countries conspired to disseminate a lie like that. [ed: c/e]

You seemed to insinuate that the fact Ford was elected gave him a special legitimacy and status. I don't see what it matters he was elected. Elected leaders are frequently brought down by other elected bodies. Though they're not directly elected, prime ministers are elected and can be voted out by the popularly elected House of Commons or legislature. US presidents elected by the Electoral College can be removed by the popularly elected Congress. So, it's hardly bizarre for the elected Toronto City Council to pass only motions asking the Mayor to resign. Frankly, I can't perceive why council shouldn't have the power to remove a mayor. [ed.: c/e]

Gun registry, anyone?

Free elections are undemocratic. Okay.... Democracy has a relatively wide defintion and is not an absolute. Hence, there is no one "real" democracy; different ways of exercising democracy still fall within the definition of the word Well, you just lost my support. I say better the Canadian monarchy than the American one. [ed.: c/e, +]

So was every person in the city council.

Yes. And I know some (many?) may scoff at this, but I think that our respective systems of government are at the heart of it; either we collectively think as we do because of our governmental structures or our governmental structures are as they are because of the way we collectively think. It seems to me the vast majority of Canadians would not tolerate the US system--which is the same through all the states, just as ours is through all the provinces)--and there's no way to merge the two.

While I understand the latter, I don't get how it relates to much of the former. All that relates directly to representing constituents is speaking and voting in parliament. An MP, aside from the party leader, whether in (shadow) cabinet or not, has to seek permission to speak and vote as told by the whip. The only way I can see to rectify that is to return to the Australian, British, and elsewhere's method of selecting party leaders, giving caucus more of a role in the process, so that the leader must bend more to his or her MPs' wishes and concerns in order to retain the position, rather than the other way around. [ed.: punct.]

The council session is a riot. The Globe has a Twitter feed. Great stuff! [ed.: c/e]

I'm glad you've come 'round on that.

You disagree because it calls on the provincial government to involve itself in the matter but the provincial government has no moral legitimacy to do so, since its supposed squandereing of "billions" is equivalent to Ford having smoked crack?

Certainly. In the context of nations that are purely cultural (i.e. Scot, First Nation, Acadian, Hebrew, Arab, or Druze), Israeli doesn't fit; it's rather like the old Sesame Street game, 'one of these things just doesn't belong here'. In terms of nations as geo-political entities, Israeli exists, as does German, Australian, French, Canadian, etc.

I chose my words carefully when I said "noone of consequence" was proposing legislation to remove Ford from office. A motion of Toronto City Council forces nobody to do anything; it would be up to an MPP to put a bill to parliament, which would then, obviously, need the support of the majority therein. Since most MPPs represent ridings in the GTA, any who supported such a bill would be risking a lot.

Mm. On second thought, perhaps Harper is a prime minister who would want to give up his role in populating the Senate...

The differences are strong enough, obviously. What is decided by a nation (either through referendum, representative parliament, or both) isn't always what's best for the nation.

What are you talking about? Nobody of any consequence is proposing a law just for Ford and legislation allowing recall votes or some other alteration to the selection and dismissal process for mayors is another matter altogether (worthy of exploring as it is). You strongly insinuated that criminal charges are the only legitimiate reason to call for a mayor's resignation or dismissal and Ford has none; ergo, everyone asking for him to step down should shut their mouths. I spelled out all--maybe many of, since I might have missed some--the issues that cumulatively render Ford unfit for the position of Mayor of Toronto; the issues that Ford supporters simply pretend aren't there. But, they are there, nonetheless. [ed.: c/e. +]

In the context of popular representation, what do you mean by "power"?

Yes.

What Bob Macadoo said plus the issue of whether or not any prime minister would want to relinquish his ability to determine who sits in the Senate.

Really? -- It's certain he has a binge drinking problem -- It's certain he is frequently inebriated in public (itself a criminal offense) -- It's certain he is frequently belligerent when inebriated in public -- It's certain he drinks during the workday -- It's near certain he drinks and drives (another criminal offense) -- It's certain he reads while driving (another criminal offense) -- It's certain he associates himself with convicted hard drug dealers and users -- It's certain he has had frequent meetings with a drug dealer in which said drug dealer has deposited packages in the Mayor's car -- It's certain he has used crack cocaine -- It's near certain he attempted to have evidence destroyed (another criminal offence) -- It's certain he lies (horribly) about being inebriated, behaving belligerently, driving drunk, and using crack cocaine -- It's certain he lies (horribly) about his achievements as mayor -- It's certain he has difficulty formulating a logical argument Any one of those things on their own might be tolerable and/or overlooked (except, maybe, the shady associations with criminals, which is his most obvious failing as a public figure). But, add them all together and you get a character who is definitely not fit to occupy such a high civic office, not simply because it makes him a poor representative of the city, but also because he obviously has no respect for the office nor can he ever appear trustworthy as a manager of the largest city in the country.

Perhaps not; but that doesn't diminish the importance to the city of the Mayor and his behaviours. You may also note that much of the international coverage focused on Ford's sophmoric lying and evasion; "you just didn't ask the right question". Seriously... Hence, criminal charges have never been much of an issue in all this (only the question of why he isn't facing criminal charges). [ed.: c/e]