Canadians don't understand our political System?

[Wild Bill]

No argument about any of your points. Stephane Dion is why I didn't vote for my party in the last election and why I decided after a few days that the coalition was a bad idea. I have no doubt though, that the part of the reason that the Conservatives had such huge leads in some recent polls is because people don't understand the system.

You might be right, at least with a portion of the people. Still, it seems to me that a bigger portion of the people than you might have thought DO understand our system!

They just don't LIKE it!

Even if you correct their ignorance, that doesn't mean they will instantly become supportive of the proposed coalition simply because it's perfectly legal. They will instead become even more outraged that we have a system that allows it to happen!

[Smallc]

You might be right, at least with a portion of the people. Still, it seems to me that a bigger portion of the people than you might have thought DO understand our system!

They just don't LIKE it!

Even if you correct their ignorance, that doesn't mean they will instantly become supportive of the proposed coalition simply because it's perfectly legal. They will instead become even more outraged that we have a system that allows it to happen!

Maybe, but if its presented in a world context....one that shows that many industrialized countries share the same type of system....and when they realize that they aren't voting in a Prime Minister....then maybe it would be at least something they were willing to think about rather than reject outright.

Fact is, there are very few democratic systems that would disallow coalitions. I have no sympathy for people that want to change the system because they don't like certain parts of it.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Smallc

[ToadBrother]

You might be right, at least with a portion of the people. Still, it seems to me that a bigger portion of the people than you might have thought DO understand our system!

They just don't LIKE it!

I'd say that the latest episode demonstrates, at least among most of the people I've talked, some substantial ignorance of how our political systems works.

And if none of these people like it, then perhaps they could come up with some way to make it better.

Even if you correct their ignorance, that doesn't mean they will instantly become supportive of the proposed coalition simply because it's perfectly legal. They will instead become even more outraged that we have a system that allows it to happen!

I'd love to hear what you would like to replace the system with, bearing in mind that the Parliamentary system has evolved over nearly a thousand years, and is one of the most adaptable and most frequent governing systems out there. Yes, there are oddities, but every system has them (think back to how the Electoral College lead to GWB's victory in 2000).

What precisely is the complaint, that a government can be toppled by a confidence vote? That two or more parties in a minority government situation can replace a sitting government?

This particular instance was unpopular, mainly because of the Bloc's participation, and that's fine. But let's think here. I can certainly invasion situations in which seeing a government toppled and replaced by another group of MPs in Parliament (let's remember, parties per se do not exist in the Westminster system) might actually be much more advantageous than a general election. And it's hardly unique to have negotiated coalitions, it's incredibly common in most democracies.

I can't think of an easy way of solving the problem of such coalitions. Nor do I think we need a solution. It's looking like the popular will of the people is already breaking this one apart, so it seems to me that the system has in fact worked. If the Tories had, by the general sentiment of the populace, been doing such a horrific job, then I think a coalition of parties toppling the government would be a very good thing.

But if you have some ideas, then please provide them. Rather than moaning about this particular incident (which, if you look at the history of this country and of just about every Westminster-based Parliament over the last couple of centuries, is pretty rare), what would you do to solve it?

[Bryan]

Part of the problem with confounding answers is that people are usually TOLD the wrong answers to even the technical questions. The GG is very commonly referred to as our head of state, even by what would/should be considered official sources. The media also framed the last election as Harper vs. Dion, not CPC vs. LPC. The debates, the ads, the interviews, all tell people they are voting for THAT guy, even when they are not. There's no way you can blame people who are not political junkies for not understanding the difference.

Also, you have to differentiate knowledge from opinion. Are people ignorant of the way things are written in the constitution, or do they just no longer respect or recognize the monarchy's authority? Count me in the latter group. I'm well aware that we are a Constitutional Monarchy, that the Queen is our head of state, that the GG has the power to deny a PMs request, and that we do not vote directly for the PM. I would never give the first three answers to a public opinion poll though, because I know those answers are outdated and have no real meaning anymore. It's tradition for the PM to advise the GG and the GG to rule on behalf of the Queen, but the cold reality is the PM tells the GG what's what, and she does what she's told.

[blueblood]

Maybe, but if its presented in a world context....one that shows that many industrialized countries share the same type of system....and when they realize that they aren't voting in a Prime Minister....then maybe it would be at least something they were willing to think about rather than reject outright.

Fact is, there are very few democratic systems that would disallow coalitions. I have no sympathy for people that want to change the system because they don't like certain parts of it.

And in our system, we have an option to non-confidence called an election. If a coalition thinks it can form a maj. gov't, it can take it's proposal to the people. That is one thing about non-fixed election dates is that this is an actual option. If there are elections every 5 yrs., then I have no right to complain about a coalition. But since there is an out, they can take their idea to the people and let them decide.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe, but if its presented in a world context....one that shows that many industrialized countries share the same type of system....and when they realize that they aren't voting in a Prime Minister....then maybe it would be at least something they were willing to think about rather than reject outright.

I in fact wish people would spend less time looking at party leaders and the inevitable clique of uber-candidates, and spent much more time vetting their own local candidates. Voting for a guy just because he wears the right kind of t-shirt to me is irresponsible and disrespectful. I've seen in my own area over the last twenty years two pretty questionable guys elected as MPs and one rather dodgy guy as MLA, simply because they had the right affiliation and a lot of folks will vote whatever because they've been voting whatever since their mom and dad first brought them to the polls. Sometimes they'll even say "I think the guy sucks, but what are you gonna do?"

Perhaps if candidates felt a little less safe merely because they were picked by the popular party in the riding, we might have a more responsive government. Maybe if caucuses were filled with people who felt they owed more to their constituents than to some distant party apparatchik, and who felt beholden because they were allowed to dip into the party's sign-building funds, we'd see a rather different kind of government, and all without changing a single facet of our system.

Fact is, there are very few democratic systems that would disallow coalitions. I have no sympathy for people that want to change the system because they don't like certain parts of it.

I'd have more sympathy with them if they said "I hate coalitions!" and then moved, long before one happened, to try to see them banned (however exactly you would do that). But a lot of the Conservatives on this forum seem to fall rather silent when they're reminded that Harper tried the same game (and probably is the major inspiration for what the Grits and the NDP tried to pull off). If it's bad for the goose, it's bad for the gander.

[ToadBrother]

Part of the problem with confounding answers is that people are usually TOLD the wrong answers to even the technical questions. The GG is very commonly referred to as our head of state, even by what would/should be considered official sources. The media also framed the last election as Harper vs. Dion, not CPC vs. LPC. The debates, the ads, the interviews, all tell people they are voting for THAT guy, even when they are not. There's no way you can blame people who are not political junkies for not understanding the difference.

I agree that the media is part of the problem, though calling the GG head of state is a short hand. Maybe they should start calling the GG what he or she really is; the Vice-regent

Also, you have to differentiate knowledge from opinion. Are people ignorant of the way things are written in the constitution, or do they just no longer respect or recognize the monarchy's authority? Count me in the latter group. I'm well aware that we are a Constitutional Monarchy, that the Queen is our head of state, that the GG has the power to deny a PMs request, and that we do not vote directly for the PM. I would never give the first three answers to a public opinion poll though, because I know those answers are outdated and have no real meaning anymore. It's tradition for the PM to advise the GG and the GG to rule on behalf of the Queen, but the cold reality is the PM tells the GG what's what, and she does what she's told.

That's the way our system has worked since William III and Mary got the throne by consenting to abandon any meaningful use of their Royal powers in deference to Parliament. Why people think this is a new facet of our system is beyond me, when it's how our system has effectively worked for over three hundred years. The last monarch to deny Royal Assent to a bill was Queen Anne, for god's sake. So the PM has been telling the GG (or, if you're in Britain, the Queen) what to do since Robert Walpole basically invented the job during the reign of George I.

[Bryan]

So the PM has been telling the GG (or, if you're in Britain, the Queen) what to do since Robert Walpole basically invented the job during the reign of George I.

That's pretty much it though isn't it? People who say the PM is the head of state are correct, even if the constitution says otherwise. The person who gives the orders is the real boss, regardless of their title.

[Mr.Canada]

THe GG is basically an addition to the PMO. A GG will rarely if ever not grant a sitting PM what he asks for. This is a fact.

[Smallc]

THe GG is basically an addition to the PMO. A GG will rarely if ever not grant a sitting PM what he asks for. This is a fact.

Second part is a fact. First part is not.

[ToadBrother]

That's pretty much it though isn't it? People who say the PM is the head of state are correct, even if the constitution says otherwise. The person who gives the orders is the real boss, regardless of their title.

I think this very much depends upon what you mean by "head of state". Our notion of the executive is unfortunately more informed by our neighbor to the South than by the country that spawned our political system.

Yes, the GG is effectively a *political* arm of the PM, and is not an independently political figure like the President of hte United States. Whether that is good or bad is something I'm not entirely sure of. I'm no monarchist, but sometimes I think we have the worst of two systems; an effectively unlimited amount of power vested in a rather presidential Prime Minister with little restraint (most of the time) other than a caucus which usually only begins to make noise when a party is going down the tubes. Quite frankly I'd rather have a completely a-political head of state in a monarch, or do as the US has done and use the Executive branch as a meaningful counterbalance to the Legislative branch.

I look to the UK, and there the Queen truly is above the fray. She has pretty much the same powers as the GG, but is not an appointee. One can be reasonably certain that if she were sitting in Michaelle Jean's shoes, accusations of being a Liberal patsy would have been a non-starter.

[Smallc]

People who say the PM is the head of state are correct, even if the constitution says otherwise.

No, they aren't no matter how much you want them to be. The Prime Minister is head of government. He speaks for the government of Canada. He has 2 bosses that could remove him if necessary. He may give the orders most of the time, but it doesn't mean that he's in charge. We can't just start disregarding arts of the constitution that we don't agree with.

[Huston]

A new poll by D'oh Canada claims that Canadians cannot even answer basic questions about our government.

How can we expect Canadians to make a reasonable decision when they do not even understand what they're voting for.

Click me for story.

Meh, I got them all right. I just wished they were not right.

[Bryan]

No, they aren't no matter how much you want them to be.

It's not what I want, it's the way it works. The PM goes through the motions of asking/advising the GG, but it's entirely ceremony and tradition. The reality is, the PM tells her what to do, not the other way around.

[Smallc]

It's not what I want, it's the way it works. The PM goes through the motions of asking/advising the GG, but it's entirely ceremony and tradition. The reality is, the PM tells her what to do, not the other way around.

No, the reality is, he advises her. The tradition says that she usually follows his advice. If the government were to collapse in January, she probably wouldn't follow his advice, and by tradition he would have to resign. If he didn't, she could dismiss him. She is the acting head of state. That is her title, and that's what she is. The Prime Minister is not and probably never will be (even if we get rid of the monarchy) the head of state.

The Prime Minister is a political position at the head of our government. The Queen is a non political position at the head of our country. The simple reality is that we do politics at a different level than the Americans (as does almost every other country in the world). The President of the United States is very unique in their position as head of state and government.

[Smallc]

Also, we don't know what was said in the 2 hour meeting at Rideau Hall. We don't really know who told who what. It is believed that the outcome was very much an uncertainty.

[blueblood]

No, the reality is, he advises her. The tradition says that she usually follows his advice. If the government were to collapse in January, she probably wouldn't follow his advice, and by tradition he would have to resign. If he didn't, she could dismiss him. She is the acting head of state. That is her title, and that's what she is. The Prime Minister is not and probably never will be (even if we get rid of the monarchy) the head of state.

The Prime Minister is a political position at the head of our government. The Queen is a non political position at the head of our country. The simple reality is that we do politics at a different level than the Americans (as does almost every other country in the world). The President of the United States is very unique in their position as head of state and government.

What makes you so certain she wouldn't follow his advice? For all intents and purposes the PM runs the show. Do you see the GG going to G8 meetings?

As much as you would like to see your little coalition exercise pan out because its the new hip thing, many many more Canadians don't want it to. The GG has an out, an election. And because elections don't occur every 5 yrs, and there are seperatists involved, not to mention an enraged public, the GG will grant the election option. Let the coalition take their gong show to the people and see how well it does.

[Smallc]

What makes you so certain she wouldn't follow his advice? For all intents and purposes the PM runs the show. Do you see the GG going to G8 meetings?

First, no, I don't see the Governor General going to G8 meetings. She isn't the elected representative, she is just the acting head of state and is for the most part a figure head. Doesn't change her position. Second, she is almost obligated to allow another party to govern if they have the support of the house. I didn't suport the coalition under Dion, and I hope that it isn't necessary, but if it is, then I will live with whatever results from the mechanisms within our democracy.

[blueblood]

First, no, I don't see the Governor General going to G8 meetings. She isn't the elected representative, she is just the acting head of state and is for the most part a figure head. Doesn't change her position. Second, she is almost obligated to allow another party to govern if they have the support of the house. I didn't suport the coalition under Dion, and I hope that it isn't necessary, but if it is, then I will live with whatever results from the mechanisms within our democracy.

You have seperatists in play and a country loathing the coalition to the point of public demonstrations. The GG is obligated to explore all options when the gov't loses confidence that will ensure a new gov't in the most peaceful, efficient, and fair manner. That would be an election. We do not have fixed election dates. If we did, then your coalition would be taken more seriously. A mechanism within our democracy allows the GG to choose between an election and a coalition, given the problems with the public, and seperatists involved with this coalition, simple logic says that an election will be very likely.

[Smallc]

simple logic says that an election will be very likely.

Simple logic also shows that we just went through an election. There is no telling what her decision would be if such a situation were to be presented.

[blueblood]

Simple logic also shows that we just went through an election. There is no telling what her decision would be if such a situation were to be presented.

It doesn't matter that we just went through an election, by January 4 months will have passed. In the 60's when it was the minority gong show, there were elections all the time. Seperatists and an outraged public outweigh convenience of just having an election any day of the week to a rational person. With the option of deflating a potentially disasterous scenario, the GG will more than likely grant an election. Honestly, does the GG want her name to be smeared over convenience of just having an election?

[Smallc]

It doesn't matter that we just went through an election, by January 4 months will have passed.

Its not about any of that. Its about the parliamentary system and how it is meant to work. 4 months is a very short time. A short enough time that she may grant an election...or not.

[Wild Bill]

I'd say that the latest episode demonstrates, at least among most of the people I've talked, some substantial ignorance of how our political systems works.

And if none of these people like it, then perhaps they could come up with some way to make it better.

I'd love to hear what you would like to replace the system with, bearing in mind that the Parliamentary system has evolved over nearly a thousand years, and is one of the most adaptable and most frequent governing systems out there. Yes, there are oddities, but every system has them (think back to how the Electoral College lead to GWB's victory in 2000).

What precisely is the complaint, that a government can be toppled by a confidence vote? That two or more parties in a minority government situation can replace a sitting government?

This particular instance was unpopular, mainly because of the Bloc's participation, and that's fine. But let's think here. I can certainly invasion situations in which seeing a government toppled and replaced by another group of MPs in Parliament (let's remember, parties per se do not exist in the Westminster system) might actually be much more advantageous than a general election. And it's hardly unique to have negotiated coalitions, it's incredibly common in most democracies.

I can't think of an easy way of solving the problem of such coalitions. Nor do I think we need a solution. It's looking like the popular will of the people is already breaking this one apart, so it seems to me that the system has in fact worked. If the Tories had, by the general sentiment of the populace, been doing such a horrific job, then I think a coalition of parties toppling the government would be a very good thing.

But if you have some ideas, then please provide them. Rather than moaning about this particular incident (which, if you look at the history of this country and of just about every Westminster-based Parliament over the last couple of centuries, is pretty rare), what would you do to solve it?

I find your argument curious, at best. You seem to be soft-pedaling certain aspects, presenting them as something different than what they are.

You point out that coalitions are common in other countries and perfectly legal in ours. Yet our tradition is that a coalition is an exceedingly rare thing. The last one was during WWI. I hardly think that toppling Harper is of the same national importance. Besides, most Canadians don't care about other democracies. We care about our own!

You comment that a coalition might be more advantageous than a general election. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The question is how many other Canadians share it and how that will influence any eventual vote.

You dismiss objection as 'mere moaning'. Are not Canadians entitled to have an opinion on the ethics if not the morality of the coalition attempt? If they disagree with you does that make it 'mere moaning'?

I think discussion about the legalities of a coalition are a red herring. This is not merely a minority government situation. I don't think there would have been nearly as much outrage if it were a case of the Liberals and NDP together having more seats than the Tories, which would have been much more of a usual case.

You say "I can't think of an easy way of solving the problem of such coalitions". Well, perhaps that's why we've only had one or two in our history! If you don't have one there's no problem to solve.

No, the real issues are two fold. English Canada is uncomfortable with a separatist party holding the balance of power. They also prefer an early election to being denied a choice for the sake of expediency that only favours the oppostion parties.

Arguments like yours sound to me simply partisan. You never liked Harper and are thrilled at the idea of a coalition knocking him out. You're aware from the polls that the voting public has little or no respect for the idea so you try to make out that a coalition is really an ordinary thing and no big deal, that would save us the money and aggravation of an early election and besides, all the people that voted for the opposition parties (as well as those who didn't vote at all!) would absolutely prefer a coalition to an early election because they were against Harper anyway!

Whatever, the question now seems moot. It's obvious that Iggy has no intention of toppling Harper in January. He will be able to claim positive influence on the budget and having knocked some arrogance out of Harper. Then he can turn to his own problems of money and organization within the Liberal Party.

Witness the plaintive bleating of the Bloc and the NDP. Their partner has abandoned them, without even sharing credit for the budget changes and whatnot.

Iggy seems much more practical than the original coalition gang. He seems well aware that the idea is just not popular with the majority of the Canadian public. Even if the coup succeeded there might be hell to pay at the NEXT election! Worse yet, since the Liberals would be the largest partner in the coalition they would likely receive the most of the backlash. They would have the most to lose and it's another black mark against Dion that he never seemed to have realized this.

It would not be enough to achieve a coalition with an airtight legal justification if it only meant handing Harper a majority when the people finally DID get to vote!

I think January will come and go. Give Iggy a year to knock his party's finances and riding organizations into good shape and he stands a much better chance at the polls. The Liberals will still only be an eastern party, of course, with likely only a few BC token seats. The harm they've done themselves in the West from Dion's attempted coup will take years to dissipate, a la the NEP. Still, they held power with only half of Canada for many years before and under Iggy may well do it again.

[ToadBrother]

Its not about any of that. Its about the parliamentary system and how it is meant to work. 4 months is a very short time. A short enough time that she may grant an election...or not.

I think the odds are firmly in favor of an election if the government falls at the end of January. If the government had fallen last week, then yes, there would have been a very strong constitutional argument for asking the coalition to form a government, but next month? The GG will do what is traditionally expected of her.

But I doubt the government will fall. Ignatieff may want to continue keeping the coalition cocked and aimed, but he makes little secret of his lack of enthusiasm for this coalition. He needs to spend the next year or two cleaning up the Liberals and cementing his own position. Besides, let Harper run things during the economic collapse. After a couple of years of that, Canadians may actually accept the Liberals with open arms. Much much much better to be in Opposition right now.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That little document signed by a majority of house members provides all the evidence the Governor General needs to make a decision. In fact the Governor General is obligated under our law to provide the majority an opportunity to form a government.