Canadian Democracy

[K Oud]

Who verifies this petition and who calls the election? How do the citizens know these P2s are acting covertly before it’s too late?

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

Similarly, the military owes its allegiance to the Queen, not the PM. Thus, military members who supported anyone - whether sitting PM, ex-PM, or candlestick maker - who was attempting to take absolute power away from the sovereign would also be acting illegally.

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.

you insult the intelligence of the people of those countries have succumbed to dictatorship

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.”

The people can't do it collectively, that's why they assign someone to do it for them: the Queen. She's impartial, she works for free, was trained from birth to do her job, will never retire, and she listens to the people of Canada.

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.

And just because she isn't a citizen she's foreign?

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

[Smallc]

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

She doesn't hold a place of power, she is a figurehead. She doesn't need to be a citizen because she is the Sovereign. She is supposed to be above that.

[K Oud]

She doesn't hold a place of power, she is a figurehead.

I agree!!!

but try to tell g_bambino

[Smallc]

I agree!!!

but try to tell g_bambino

Well, she does have Constitutional power, but I don't think she could ever really exercise it. Actually, come to think of it, it reminds me of When the Rt. Hon. Ed Schreyer would not dissolve the Gov't. He made the PM wait. I guess they do hold some power.

[no queenslave]

Well, she does have Constitutional power, but I don't think she could ever really exercise it. Actually, come to think of it, it reminds me of When the Rt. Hon. Ed Schreyer would not dissolve the Gov't. He made the PM wait. I guess they do hold some power.

Do you understand how bills passed in parliament become law; who has to sign them?

[Smallc]

Do you understand how bills passed in parliament become law; who has to sign them?

The GG or Queen. Have they ever said no?

[no queenslave]

The system of adding more members to the house of commons is an example of how outdated the constitution is. How many more members would be added with a doubling of population?

When will a new building be required to house all the dummies?

[Smallc]

The system of adding more members to the house of commons is an example of how outdated the constitution is. How many more members would be added with a doubling of population?

When will a new building be required to house all the dummies?

The building is undergoing a 5 year updating from 2012 to 2017. It will be closed and the house of commons and the senate will be put in the courtyards of the east and west block after they are enclosed. As for the dummies, I only see one right now. The more representation, the more accountable the politicians are to the people.

[g_bambino]

Who verifies the petition? Elections Canada. Who calls the election? I don’t know do you want a town crier?

No, I want a chief executive who's beyond the control of the government. Your petition is useless unless there's an authority to verify it. Elections Canada? Who sets their mandate? In your world: the president. If the president has convinced a majority of the P2s to support him, why would he want to see a citizen petition to remove his supporters? Do you get where I'm going here?

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

Yes, acting covertly. Conspiracies take place all the time; that's called politics. You say these P2s won't belong to any political party, but I'm telling you that if, for whatever reason, a group of them comes to work together to achieve a common goal, they'll have formed a party, however small, which goes against your rules. That was the whole reason why I asked you earlier how such a thing would be prevented from happening.

No sh*t it would be acting illegally, that’s how coups and dictatorships happen . . . Illegally.

That's right, but in your system it would be vastly easier for a president to change the system legally. There could come to be such a situation where nobody is in any position to hold him in check and any legislation he wished could be passed.

so how do we stop legal dictatorships?

You stop a legal dictatorship by building a strong constitutional system. Not fairytale ones where suburban people can hold a tyrant in check by driving a caravan of SUVs to Parliament Hill.

if you really want to get people riled up, try calling their countries “banana republics.”

I'm not sure too many Venezuelans or Pakistanis would disagree with such a critique of their countries given the present situations.

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!!!

Quite incorrect; the system is balanced in that the Queen must predominantly act on her ministers' advice, so as to maintain a stable and democratic government. If she does not do this, outside of a crisis situation, then she causes the upset in the equilibrium, which undermines the whole structure; even so much as showing any bias towards a political party could cause serious issues. In the worst case scenario, the monarch can be removed from the throne; regard King Edward VIII.

In 350 years no monarch of our lineage has abused their power.

As for the queens special status as a none citizen of anywhere, she is still not Canadian.

That's merely your opinion, not a fact.

[g_bambino]

Well, she does have Constitutional power, but I don't think she could ever really exercise it.

If it's there, she could exercise it. It isn't there for show.

[Smallc]

If it's there, she could exercise it. It isn't there for show.

I think that it could be overturned if needed. It's not a danger.

[M.Dancer]

Exactly.

Otherwise at the start of the football match she would have to sing God Save Myself.....

[mikedavid00]

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

There's a major problem though:

Why should someone who does not pay taxes have a say in how the money is spent?

For instance, why should a government union who is funded by myself as a tax payer be able to determine how much they are paid when I am sponsoring each and every paycheck the recieve? I own them as a tax payer.

Here's an example.

The CBC is not a private company. It is owned by taxpayers like myself.

A gov't worker in Canada (up to 30% of the workforce) also believes that they fund the CBC.

They do not. Becuase it is ALSO myself who funds their paychecks which makes them no different than the CBC.

A gov't union voting on the outcome of another gov't union is a conflict of interest. It should not be allowed.

[g_bambino]

I think that it could be overturned if needed. It's not a danger.

Overtuned by whom? Who's above the Queen?

The only way I could see the Queen's actions being overturned is if all 10 provinces and the feds unanimously agreed to oust her from the throne. But, yes, because of just that it is not a danger; she could only do such a thing in an absolute emergency.

Edited November 15, 2007 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

Overtuned by whom? Who's above the Queen?

The only way I could see the Queen's actions being overturned is if all 10 provinces and the feds unanimously agreed to oust her from the throne.

Which is pretty much how it hould be. It would take an extraordinary act for the G-G to use the royal veto.....maybe an act by the goverment so heineous and unconstitutional that the clamour for a veto would be overwhelming.

On the otherhand, the use of the perogative with out just reason is so against tradition and precedence in modern times that it would create a constitutional crisis.

In one way, the G-G is a fire alarm. Misuse is punishable, but we sleep sounder knowing it is there.

[K Oud]

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?

Edited November 15, 2007 by K Oud

[g_bambino]

g_bambino

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

Perhaps you think I'm being obtuse because you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. What I was talking about was authority. Elections Canada is not a body granted existence and overseen by almighty god in heaven. It has to derive its power from somewhere, and someone has to be above it. In the present situation, the Queen is that penultimate someone. In your system it would be that unchecked president. I wouldn't trust an Elections Canada that could be so easily affected by someone who had nothing in place to stop him taking absolute control; elections are rigged all over the world to keep dictators in power.

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.

But, that P2 was elected by his constituents because they felt they could trust him. Here's a tip, though: politicians can lie. And they do. And they gang up together and do things in Ottawa behind other people's backs. And we, the electorate, never really know about it. Thus, I can't fathom how, in your world, Canadians would have any more ability to know the every action of their MP than they do now; at least, not before it's too late.

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.

There's nothing wrong with proposing changes; it just seems illogical to propose a change for the worse. Of course the people matter, but, as I said in my last response to you, they cannot collectively take the full responsibility of governance on their backs; to do so would be chaos. People thus need a leader - a central figure, or figures - who conducts the business of governing for them.

We have that now. Our constitution puts authority in a non-partisan monarch (and that impartiality is a hugely important component). That monarch, being responsible for and accountable to us, thereby appoints, from a group of people we've elected, a body of advisors to direct her on how to govern best. That monarch, however, is not a complete slave to her ministers, and can, for the benefit of the people who've made her their governor, thwart an over-ambitious minister from attempting to take absolute control. That need not change for the sake of making our elected officials more accountable; we can bring about change without hollowing out our constitutional structure.

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 don't support the abolition of the Senate; there isn't a federated state that I know of that doesn't have an upper house of some sort at the federal level.

I also doubt the P2s would ever remain independent actors; they'd eventually congeal into a group of commonly minded people which is just, well, a political party.

[M.Dancer]

I don't support the abolition of the Senate; there isn't a federated state that I know of that doesn't have an upper house of some sort at the federal level.

Venuezuela....Micronesia..UAE...Ans St kitts

[g_bambino]

Venuezuela....Micronesia..UAE...Ans St kitts

Venezuela doesn't appear to be a federation.

UAE doesn't seem to have a parliament at all.

Micronesia doesn't appear to be a state.

St. Kitts and Nevis is indeed a federation with a unicarmal parliament. Only two internal states and a population of 42,000 though.

Perhaps I should change what I said, then: I can't think of a large federated nation without an upper house of some kind.

[M.Dancer]

Venezuela doesn't appear to be a federation.

UAE doesn't seem to have a parliament at all.

Micronesia doesn't appear to be a state.

St. Kitts and Nevis is indeed a federation with a unicarmal parliament. Only two internal states and a population of 42,000 though.

Perhaps I should change what I said, then: I can't think of a large federated nation without an upper house of some kind.

No..no need. Your point was valid....it isn't common. There hasn't been a province with a bicameral house in decades.....the UKs bicameral house of a bleeding anachrobism

[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