g_bambino

That's what the Senate is supposed to coutner.

How? What makes it worth overturning responsible government?

I can hate your idea of replacing parliament with a randomly selected group of people as the body to whom the prime minister is ultimately responsible because its inexplicable, strongly suggesting its unworkable. But, I've been giving you plenty of opportunities to help me avoid having to make that conclusion.

The purpose of a citizen's assembly is an irrelevant distraction. You said a group of randomly selected people would be accountable to "the system". Explain how.

If a prorogation or dissolution of parliament is called before the bill passes the Senate, the bill will die regardless of what the majority of the Senate thinks of it.

It's intangible and non-sentient. How, then, does it hold a group of randomly selected people accountable? Can you explain your proposal any further than just the most superficial aspects? [ed.: rev.]

How representative a group drawn randomly from a larger group will be representative of the larger group. But, the whole matter is irrelevant in this conversation.

Can you explan that more? How does an intangible concept hold anything accountable?

I'm not sure about that, but, regardless, it was political balance eyeball is expecting, not represetation.

If no, then who are they accountable to? I said could easily result in a stacked group. There's no control with random selection; you've no idea what you'll get. In other words, you've zero guarantee the group will be politically balanced; in fact, the odds are stacked against that result.

So, a bunch of people accountable to no one. And yes, random selections, by their very nature, can easily result in a group stacked in one way or another. [ed.: sp.]

Probably the same reason many Canadians of African descent identify themselves with the very US-born "black culture" there. Though, I'm at a total loss as to why they do that, as well.

Don't forget a lawsuit against city council for the result of the free and legal vote it held.

Not until there's some sign of Harper's opposition to the bill.

Uh, the House of Commons is fairly open; visitors can sit in the galleries and watch proceedings. There are even cameras nowadays bringing parliamentary debate right to your home.

What? What's "ordinary"? A group of ordinary Canadians to do what? In what way don't "ordinary" Canadians have partisan biases?

Do you know what a coup is?

They're about party policies negatively affecting the functioning of governance. That's what the bill would achieve. There's no other way to lessen a party leader's control of his caucus.

He prefaced "it is" with "I think". Good thing you're not the authority on reading comprehension. [ed.: c/e]

BTW, do we really need another thread on the same subject?

When it undoes a change that was bad, what's not to get?

Mm. That's a pretty good summation.

Do you see anywhere I proposed anything even close to education at gunpoint? Just improve the civics curriculum; one day in grade school isn't enough and you know that. I made no such assumption. You assume being stuck with a leader for a set amount of time is a fix of our democracy.

That's rather an insult to middle class Canadians. Or, you're right; they vote without reason, just emotion. Which still doesn't say much at all for Trudeau Jr. and the Liberals. Which makes one wonder: why are you preemptively celebrating their ascent to government? Well, Trudeau Jr. must have their ire warming up.

So, you mean running a campaign full of emotional rhetoric and no substance. The American political machine looks no different after 5 years with Obama. That's sad. Also sad they think they vote for the PM.