Rare win-win?

[Moonbox]

Proportional representation would be good for nothing but alienating the rest of the country even further from Toronto and Montreal.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Opening up the constitution would be a real challenge for a government. Please keep in mind that it doesn't have to be as scary as some would have many believe. What is required is a real political will to deal with a specific problem. Once that is achieved then the process of amendments can be defined. Agreement would have to be reached to deal with specific concerns, and that would likely involve bringing other areas to the table as an act of negotiation. That would be fine as long as the core concepts of desired reforms were retained.

There would be great opportunity in this effort, a chance to modernize a constitution should not be passed up and everyone knows this it is just that they (the politicians) are afraid of public consequence. This proves one thing if nothing else and that is these folks are insecure and paranoid. The idea is not to destroy but to create and the means to accomplish this can be found in constitutional renewal.

[jdobbin]

Opening up the constitution would be a real challenge for a government. Please keep in mind that it doesn't have to be as scary as some would have many believe. What is required is a real political will to deal with a specific problem. Once that is achieved then the process of amendments can be defined. Agreement would have to be reached to deal with specific concerns, and that would likely involve bringing other areas to the table as an act of negotiation. That would be fine as long as the core concepts of desired reforms were retained.

I know that there would be an attempt to keep the focus narrow but the process spins out of control very easily. I can well imagine one province or group of people saying no to an amendment unless their issue was part of the process.

Edited June 19, 2009 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I know that there would be an attempt to keep the focus narrow but the process spins out of control very easily. I can well imagine one province or group of people saying no an amendment unless their issue was part of the process.

That is to be expected. Each province will want a little piece of the action, and that is a good thing. Let each province bring to the table what they view to be something that needs to be fixed. Or not if that is what pleases them.

My point is this; opening the Constitution for amendments is in fact a big thing and it will require a very good reason for doing so. It is a great place to go in terms of a comprehensive policy proposal for a partisan faction if the document precludes the achievement of stated policy goals. It is a way of identifying policy under the banner of multi-partisan effort, or if you prefer, in the best interest of citizens.

Right now with the specter of nothing but minority governments for the foreseeable future, fixed election dates make a great deal of sense. Right now, with the constant limelight of scandals looming over so many talking heads in government, from all sides of the House, recall legislation makes a lot of sense. Right now, with the current fiscal issues the government has the provinces would do well to start doing more for themselves than they currently can and that would make a lot of sense.

[jdobbin]

That is to be expected. Each province will want a little piece of the action, and that is a good thing. Let each province bring to the table what they view to be something that needs to be fixed. Or not if that is what pleases them.

I was thinking of groups like First Nations putting a blocker on things unless they were at the top of the priority list.

I believe everything including the kitchen sink would be thrown in. Our economy would suffer and we'd pay a premium with higher interest rates and a credit warning on investment in the country.

At its worst, we could spark confrontations that go beyond talking.

My point is this; opening the Constitution for amendments is in fact a big thing and it will require a very good reason for doing so. It is a great place to go in terms of a comprehensive policy proposal for a partisan faction if the document precludes the achievement of stated policy goals. It is a way of identifying policy under the banner of multi-partisan effort, or if you prefer, in the best interest of citizens.

I know how it should work and hope for that but my expectation based on what I saw during the Mulroney years is not a positive one.

Right now with the specter of nothing but minority governments for the foreseeable future, fixed election dates make a great deal of sense. Right now, with the constant limelight of scandals looming over so many talking heads in government, from all sides of the House, recall legislation makes a lot of sense. Right now, with the current fiscal issues the government has the provinces would do well to start doing more for themselves than they currently can and that would make a lot of sense.

There is no such thing as as fixed elections. I think we were given evidence of that in the last election.

Provinces are doing more for themselves but they are not raising armies, negotiating foreign treaties or printing their own currency and setting their own banking laws. Until that happens, they are still provinces.

[Smallc]

A fixed election law never makes sense in our system...and is somewhat undesirable.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A fixed election law never makes sense in our system...and is somewhat undesirable.

I have said the system is flawed. It needs to be changed, non-confidence votes just don't cut the mustard. Fixed election dates provides for stability of the system itself. While we are at it, the PMO should be an elected office.

[madmax]

Let's look closer at this great "win-win": first, Iggy goes somewhere and threatens an election. Then he goes somewhere else, and signs a pointless paper to avoid the election. Wow! What a terribly smart move (no, not for the country itself, it's gotten nothing, nada, no election that it didn't want anyways, and yet another "commission to study" that'd hopefully chip us for less than a milllion $$ - at least I'm hopeful) but to keep Iggy in the view, while him not doing anything for it.

Many people are viewing this as you do. I think the media has given to much credit to a "win win" situation.

[myata]

Open the Constitution and it will tear the country up again. No one will want to focus on just a few areas. It will be the entire Constitution opened up. And before you think it is a good idea, consider the competing visions out there. If you think a minority government is dysfunctional, consider the dysfunction of trying to get an amendment through Canada.

Do we really have to change Constitution for that? We know that riding boundaries can be changed without such terrible cost? In any case, I'm no expert, if it is so, then maybe it still have to be done! How long can we be stuck in the 18th centutry?! Are we still political infants here (unlike most of the developed world) who need their vote to be interpreted, so when I e.g. vote for NDP (not that I ever did) I actually mean to say "I don't care to vote for either of the two behemoths, so I chose to spoil my vote in that way"?? We're a democracy, right? So, the choice we make must be the choice we make, and not its weird reinterpretation (20% of popular vote = less than 10% of the House, 45% = 80%, etc) via antiquated representation system.

Finally; both behemoths have learned the act of claiming anything of actual real change value impossible, impractical, prohibitive, risky, and such and so and yada all too well. It only suits them, because any step of actual real change value inherently carries risk, and in this duopoly, risk almost by definition means giving advanage to the opponent. Maybe it's the general societal trend of aging society, those first signs of approaching old age marasmus when every minor step calls for near infinite consideration and in the end never gets made? If so, we're all doomed anyways, but the point is, we could at least try!

[jdobbin]

Do we really have to change Constitution for that? We know that riding boundaries can be changed without such terrible cost? In any case, I'm no expert, if it is so, then maybe it still have to be done! How long can we be stuck in the 18th centutry?! Are we still political infants here (unlike most of the developed world) who need their vote to be interpreted, so when I e.g. vote for NDP (not that I ever did) I actually mean to say "I don't care to vote for either of the two behemoths, so I chose to spoil my vote in that way"?? We're a democracy, right? So, the choice we make must be the choice we make, and not its weird reinterpretation (20% of popular vote = less than 10% of the House, 45% = 80%, etc) via antiquated representation system.

It does require change in the Constitution to do what you want. It is built in the present Constitution the changes we can make in ridings. It has to follow a certain formula but it is built into the system. It is not presently in our Constitution to change the system to some form of proportional vote.

Finally; both behemoths have learned the act of claiming anything of actual real change value impossible, impractical, prohibitive, risky, and such and so and yada all too well. It only suits them, because any step of actual real change value inherently carries risk, and in this duopoly, risk almost by definition means giving advanage to the opponent. Maybe it's the general societal trend of aging society, those first signs of approaching old age marasmus when every minor step calls for near infinite consideration and in the end never gets made? If so, we're all doomed anyways, but the point is, we could at least try!

Then you want to change the Constitution. This is the only way to challenge the system that favours two parties. I suggest you start off small and look to change the vote in Manitoba and challenge the two behemoths there.

[Smallc]

I have said the system is flawed. It needs to be changed, non-confidence votes just don't cut the mustard. Fixed election dates provides for stability of the system itself. While we are at it, the PMO should be an elected office.

That is not the way our system was set up. You're advocating for a Congressional system...and there's no reason to make the change except for your feelings.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That is not the way our system was set up. You're advocating for a Congressional system...and there's no reason to make the change except for your feelings.

The reason to make the change is not my feelings, the reason to make the change is to make the damned system work in a more efficient and accountable manner. Separating the PMO from the Commons and from the Senate would mean that all parties would be required to work together in order to legislate. It would mean that the efforts would serve to bring Canadians together instead of forcing them apart. It would mean that partisan politics would be relegated to campaigning prior to an election instead of in a process of governing. It would mean that all Canadians would have an equal voice in their representatives.

Our system was setup to reflect the spirit of the commonwealth without the authority or equality to make it a reality. After nearly a century and a half we as a people still haven't seen the light of the errors of our own ways. A flawed spirit, not reality is what we have.

[Smallc]

I don't think nearly so many people as you think find error with the system. It work. It simply does, and it's easy to see that it works.

[Bonam]

2+2=5. It's true. It simply is, and it's easy to see that it is.

Got any better arguments?

Edited June 19, 2009 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Nobody has presented real arguments that show why the system isn't working. Canada is obviously working. I know people on the right hate the way it's working, but it is. Perhaps we shouldn't be fixing what isn't broken.

[Smallc]

Not to mention that our system simply isn't compatible with many of the ideas. He doesn't like the system, I get it....but that's really too bad, because it's a good system and it works, and the shape that Canada is in proves that it is a good system.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The system is junk! It is antiquated and inflexible. The system just created a corporate welfare account called "the New GM", they didn't see the flaw in the privately held Chrysler bailout so they made the same mistake scant weeks later.

Criminals are let out of jail to re-offend, entire generations live and die on welfare, governments are caught redhanded at corrupt acts and we can do nothing about it. The country is held to ransom by successive ineffective minority governments and the people drift in a political ideological wasteland of visionless and self absorbed leaders, and you dare to say the system works?

[Smallc]

All those things happen in every system.....many of them happen far more frequently in other systems. In our system, our representatives and our government leaders hold eachother to account. Our elected representatives are kept honest by people with less partisanship or none and those people are in turn kept honest by the elected representatives. You think it's not working....but it is....and the fact that we find out when things are done wrong, the fact that we can throw governments out, the fact that we are free to disagree with our government and question it, proves that.

You are looking at the system....at this country...through a very negative lens, and it's something that I most certainly can't understand, because it isn't the Canada that I see when I look around. It isn't the government that I study daily. It works.....and our federation proves it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So you suggest that since we are free to speak against the government and that since we hear about what goes wrong then everything is alright?

[Smallc]

No. I'm open to change....but I doubt that the radical change you propose would be productive in any way and I don't think it would be an improvement. Overall I find (from years of watching government) that ours is responsible and productive. Problems exist, and we should work to fix those, but overall we shouldn't fix what isn't broken.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No. I'm open to change....but I doubt that the radical change you propose would be productive in any way and I don't think it would be an improvement. Overall I find (from years of watching government) that ours is responsible and productive. Problems exist, and we should work to fix those, but overall we shouldn't fix what isn't broken.

According to you there is nothing broken, everything is working fine! What you are really advocating is for government and society to do nothing because there is nothing to do.

The Canadian government is far from responsible, ask Harper about Lisa Raitt. It just wasn't her fault now was it? The Canadian government is productive? In a minority Parliamentary system nothing could be further form the truth because to act is to be opposed with a larger and more disagreeable number of elected members than your own partisan faction. In short nothing gets done without a majority.

Please tell me through those rose coloured glasses of yours what you perceive to be the problems that government should be trying to fix.

[Smallc]

What needs to be fixed? The apathy of the voting population. Until that happens, I don't want to see any other change, because change based on the opinions of the uncaring and uninformed are less than useful.

[Bonam]

What needs to be fixed? The apathy of the voting population. Until that happens, I don't want to see any other change, because change based on the opinions of the uncaring and uninformed are less than useful.

You know, I think my number one issue with our parliamentary system is actually something that hasn't been brought up in this thread so far at all. That is the idea of party discipline, where members are pretty much "required" to vote along the party line. It means that although we have ridings and local elections, they are pretty much meaningless, as our elected representative will not get to vote according to their own ideas and principles, but must vote according to the directions of the leadership of the party to which they belong. I much prefer the American congressional system, where representatives are able to vote either which way, with or against their party. Not only does it allow them to more clearly represent the ridings in which they were elected by making their own decisions, but it also establishes a clear track record of what any individual congressman stands for, to help voters determine who to vote for in the next election.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Bonam

[Smallc]

The Canadian government is far from responsible, ask Harper about Lisa Raitt.

So, that's one Minister. Most Ministers do a good job, so we don't hear about them. They are humans though, and they'll make mistakes...and sometimes we have to allow humanity.

The Canadian government is productive? In a minority Parliamentary system nothing could be further form the truth because to act is to be opposed with a larger and more disagreeable number of elected members than your own partisan faction. In short nothing gets done without a majority.

That is simply untrue. 26 bills were passed in 6 months. We put through packages to rescue our economy and we came to an agreement to prevent an election. All in all, parliament did a good job for the country.

[Smallc]

You know, I think my number one issue with our parliamentary system is actually something that hasn't been brought up in this thread so far at all. That is the idea of party discipline, where members are pretty much "required" to vote along the party line. It means that although we have ridings and local elections, they are pretty much meaningless, as our elected representative will not get to vote according to their own ideas and principles, but must vote according to the directions of the leadership of the party to which they belong.

And yet, Canadians vote for those party lines. Canadians know that they don't have to vote for the parties, but they do, time and again. They look at the platform that they like, and they elect the representative whose party best represents their views. People get their say, even if they feel they don't.

I much prefer the American congressional system, where representatives are able to vote either which way, with or against their party. Not only does it allow them to more clearly represent the ridings in which they elected by making their own decisions, but it also establishes a clear track record of what any individual congressman stands for, to help voters determine who to vote for in the next election.

Party systems get things done. Our system is based on the idea that the majority of parliamentarians rule, and if they're all voting on their own, then it's harder to get things done. Our parliamentarians have done well for us overall. We don't always agree with what we get, but really, I don't see how we can look at things here and say that they are terrible.

This has very little to do with rose coloured glasses and more to do with comparing Canada to every other country in the world....and we look to be in a pretty good position. I don't want to go messing with a good thing, and according to the way we vote, most Canadians feel the same.....thank goodness.