The Federal Republic of Canada

[myata]

I voted for the change and I'll also support a reform of representation system so that it can actually reflect the current picture of voter support, not its 150 year old image.

[CAMP]

There is a ton of accountability in the system, and you simply refuse to recognize it. Also, I didn't elect you to make decisions for me. You didn't win any confidence to give you a direct voice on these matters.You have the same democratic rights as I do right now in this system, and that's the way it should stay.

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

[Smallc]

I'm simply saying that the majority would decide what transpires not me.

And how far would we let that go. I find the idea utterly frightening.

[Smallc]

The very fact that there has been so much corruption in the past number of decades is proof there is little accountability

So much? When you consider the size of our government and the amount of money involved, there's been very little. Human nature dictates that some will always exist, and no system will fix human nature.

[CAMP]

And how far would we let that go. I find the idea utterly frightening.

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

[CAMP]

So much? When you consider the size of our government and the amount of money involved, there's been very little. Human nature dictates that some will always exist, and no system will fix human nature.

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.

[Smallc]

Our politicians are people either elected or appointed to positions of power. Like all people, there are honest and dishonest ones. The trick is catching the dishonest ones and holding them accountable. Sometimes we are able to do that, and sometimes we aren't. Anyway, I haven't seen anything in your ideas that would help to hold them accountable.

[Smallc]

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

What could we vote on? What couldn't we vote on? Mob rule frightens me.

[madmax]

Some would argue that Canada is a corporation, and not yet a country.

III. EXECUTIVE POWER

Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen

9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

[Smallc]

Some would argue that the moon is made of cheese too, but I'd ignore that argument as well.

[jbg]

I can't believe you are blaming the Californian system for its fiscal problems. You don't think the elected representatives have had anything at all to do with their problems? You suggest that the people are at fault, okay, now how do you back that up???

Just information from my sister-in-law who lives there. I am not in California, but the 1978 ballot proposition capping property taxes is famous. It is very easy to cut taxes and raise expenditures through initiative and referendum. Hard to do the opposite.

I'm not so much against the concept as against having two sets of hands on the steering wheel. Either the voters have to run things directly or their elected representatives have to. Both can't do it effectively.

[Remiel]

What you call your head of state is meaningless as long as it is the people that decide which is to govern the state. In other words, the Queen is as much a subject of the people of Canada as the people of Canada are subject to the Queen. Without our consent, her job as Queen of Canada does not exist.

[madmax]

Some would argue that the moon is made of cheese too, but I'd ignore that argument as well.

Too many words.. lol

Edited July 7, 2009 by madmax

[Smallc]

[ToadBrother]

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.

Are you fundamentally aware how unworkable this system would be. Maybe it would function in a micro-nation, but now you're not even talking about pure direct democracy, but about a mob approach to even deciding issues. I'm not even sure why you even bother wanting to keep MPs, they're practically superfluous.

I imagine when you and your fellow "party" members hang out at the local Tim Hortons, this all makes so much sense, but it's incredibly impractical that it staggers the imagination that even caffeine junkies could actually buy it. And no, attaching "we'll use the Internet" does not solve the fundamental problem with direct democracy. Our current system lacks many experts, such as scientists, economists, philosophers, scholars and engineers, the kind of people who I wish would run for office. What you're talking about is marginalizing them even further by insisting that the mob, in and of itself, is capable of managing a political and governmental apparatus.

Edited July 7, 2009 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

I voted yes.

I'm surprised that so many people are in favour of the monarchy.

It's not so much being in favor of the Monarchy as not seeing, under our current system, how an elected executive would be any better. In fact, I think under a Westminster-style system, an elected president is much much worse than a hereditary monarch. If you want a republic, then I think we need to deeply reform the institutions; we would need more checks and balances, because otherwise, all you've done is politicized an office which, in fact, contains rather vast powers.

[g_bambino]

How badly did I do there?

100% correct. (And no points deducted for your damning classifications of Michaelle Jean!)

I've actually run into schoolteachers from Peterborough, ON to whom I had to explain who Montcalm and Wolfe were.

No surprise there; not that teachers from Peterborough in particular wouldn't know such a thing, but rather that Canadian teachers in general wouldn't.

[gc1765]

It's not so much being in favor of the Monarchy as not seeing, under our current system, how an elected executive would be any better. In fact, I think under a Westminster-style system, an elected president is much much worse than a hereditary monarch. If you want a republic, then I think we need to deeply reform the institutions; we would need more checks and balances, because otherwise, all you've done is politicized an office which, in fact, contains rather vast powers.

The queen is just a figurehead anyways, so why would it be a problem to get rid of her?

[Sir Bandelot]

I vote "No" to a republic.

The Monarch is a single individual who has the highest level of respect and authority. Their role is to defend the person against being steamrollered by the state. They are the protectors of human rights and justice for the people, not just creating a bunch of laws, about how corporations can get rich making more money. Whereas a government can be influenced by industry lobbyists, the Monarch is untouchable. They cannot be bribed because they already have anything they want.

That is the true role that they must have, in theory. Not necessarily in reality... But without this role and the conscientious application of the idea that the rights of persons are the most important, we are at the mercy of the elected officials and their benefactors.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[g_bambino]

I can sympathize to the extent that republican movements in the former British Empire have often been about a sense of independent national identity, about breaking even the nebulous ties with Great Britain. But, to my mind... [t]he problems I have with governance right now would be the same regardless of whether the occupant of Rideau Hall was a regal, vice-regal or elected figure. Unless we're talking about a major overhaul of the institutions, most republicans I've ever talked to seem to be more interested in an elected head of state who would be about as nominal as the current Governor General... I would be rather afraid in our current system that an elected president would be informed more by his or her party affiliations and loyalties than by the fundamental role as the keeper of our democracy. Since the GG is above the fray, she's in the best position to govern its outcome.

I've come to the conclusion that Canadian republicans are fighting ghosts of their own imagination; the independence - both legal and national - that they seek has already been found. Most, from my experience, are either plainly iconoclastic, anti-British, pro-American, occasionally Irish-nationalist, or some combination of the above. They have to thus invent vehicles on which to carry forth their biases: colonialism, subjugation, xenophobia, tribalism, & etc. I've even heard a republic justified because the Queen doesn't speak "Canadian enough"! But, really, when the truth of the matter is considered - that our monarchy is there by choice, not force; that our monarchy is not a conduit into Canada for foreign influence; that our monarchy is no longer a foreign institution, despite the monarch being essentially non-resident; that we have a constitutional monarchy (a crowned republic) and not an absolute one - the republican arguments mostly fall apart and the debate is reduced to one centring on political theory.

There's always much Bolshevik revolutionary talk about monarchy being elitist and counter to the Canadian "values" of freedom and equality. Yet, absolute equality and full freedom does not exist in republics either, and so the removal of a benign aristocracy will merely open up the door for a motivated political one to take its place. The king becomes a president, and no matter how nominal, a presidential office is something powerful to aspire to, and is thus open to those who desire to have power, who will manipulate, cajole, lie, and buy their way into getting it. Grafting such an element onto a Westminster parliamentary system in place of a constitutional crown is, to me, an inferior hybrid that doesn't check well enough the excesses of democracy that the founding fathers of both the US and Canada feared. It destabilizes the original balance, equilibrated over centuries, between democratically elected and constitutionally selected individuals, and thus actually undermines the freedoms and rights we have now. So, it seems that any discussion about a Canadian republic will inevitably have to veer into how changes will affect other institutions: the executive, parliament, the courts; how those altered institutions will affect the provinces (with the big stickler of Quebec!); and so on.

Given all of the above and more, I think that on some level, whether they understand the mechanics or not, most people sense that it would take a Herculean amount of effort to “fix” what just ain't broke, and so the republicans’ demonstrations end up being nothing more than

.

_[copyedited]

Edited July 7, 2009 by g_bambino

[August1991]

It's not so much being in favor of the Monarchy as not seeing, under our current system, how an elected executive would be any better. In fact, I think under a Westminster-style system, an elected president is much much worse than a hereditary monarch. If you want a republic, then I think we need to deeply reform the institutions; we would need more checks and balances, because otherwise, all you've done is politicized an office which, in fact, contains rather vast powers.

We are very close to a republic now. It would require little in terms of established practice to have a federal republic.

Both Germany and India are good examples of federal republics where power lies symbolically with a non-hereditary head of state whereas the head of government exercises power.

Germany, for example, chooses its president through a special body composed of both federal and provincial (lander) MPs. In Canada, our head of state could for example be proposed by the federal parliament subject to approval of provincial parliaments, with the Quebec National Assembly having veto power.

All of this happens now informally. When selecting a new GG, the federal PM devises a short list and then typically consults with other politicians and certain provincial premiers to see what they think.

The Monarch is a single individual who has the highest level of respect and authority. Their role is to defend the person against being steamrollered by the state. They are the protectors of human rights and justice for the people, not just creating a bunch of laws, about how corporations can get rich making more money.

And I find it sad to the point of being pathetic that you believe Canadians must rely on a woman abroad, who got her job solely by birth, to defend better our individual rights against the State than we could do ourselves in Canada.

If Canada is to be a civilized country in the full meaning of the term, then it must become a Federal Republic.

----

It is curious that some English Canadians in favour of the monarchy resemble in many ways some French Canadians in favour of Quebec independence. The political opinion is impervious to change and I wonder sometimes whether it is genetic.

[g_bambino]

We are very close to a republic now. It would require little in terms of established practice to have a federal republic.

Riiight... Because 9 of the 10 provinces would really accept this:

[A] head of state... subject to approval of provincial parliaments, with the Quebec National Assembly having veto power [emphasis mine].

And I find it sad to the point of being pathetic that you believe Canadians must rely on a woman abroad, who got her job solely by birth, to defend better our individual rights against the State than we could do ourselves in Canada. If Canada is to be a civilized country in the full meaning of the term, then it must become a Federal Republic.

What might be a tad pathetic here is the absolute arrogance of such totally vapid and ignorant statements. Facts (the monarch isn't chosen solely by birth; majority rule is not a synonym for democracy) be damned, republicans have anointed themselves as the civilized individuals amongst us knuckle-dragging mouth breathers, there to show us the path to salvation from the problems.... er, well, the problems they invented. Please, August, save us your patronizing.

_[copyedited]

Edited July 7, 2009 by g_bambino

[Sir Bandelot]

I find it sad to the point of being pathetic that you believe Canadians must rely on a woman abroad, who got her job solely by birth, to defend better our individual rights against the State than we could do ourselves in Canada.

Because you don't understand the importance of the idea I have presented. It doesn't even matter who the Monarch is, they are only a symbol and what matters most is the idea behind this symbol- that human beings must hold the highest position of rights and empowerment. Not the institutions, which have no real life but continue forever, but the individual, the very mortal being must be represented at the highest level. The role of monarch is to be the absolute protector of these rights, against those who would seek to join together to manipulate the powers of state, to change laws and give themselves legal advantage.

Give us a new king- of Canada

[CAMP]

Our politicians are people either elected or appointed to positions of power. Like all people, there are honest and dishonest ones. The trick is catching the dishonest ones and holding them accountable. Sometimes we are able to do that, and sometimes we aren't. Anyway, I haven't seen anything in your ideas that would help to hold them accountable.

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.

[Smallc]

We don't have the knowledge to make all of these decisions. I want professionals to make the important decisions for this country, not people who don't know the issues and who are only thinking of themselves.