Rare win-win?

[Bonam]

And yet, Canadians vote for those party lines.

Because they have no choice?

Canadians know that they don't have to vote for the parties, but they do, time and again.

Are you suggesting they should vote for independent candidates that have little to no chance of winning?

People get their say, even if they feel they don't.

You yourself mentioned voter apathy, and our ever decreasing voter turnouts. Perhaps the reason less and less people are voting is precisely because they aren't getting their say? The way to get people to care about elections is to make sure that they are actually getting their input into our political system, as they should be. And very clearly, this is not working well in our system, or we wouldn't have an increasingly apathetic voter base.

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.

I certainly agree Canada is in a very good position, and is one of the best countries in the world to live in. Does that mean, however, that we should accept the status quo? Even if our society is already good and succesful, that does not mean we should stop striving to improve it. Why does government keep passing bills, if everything in Canada is already so great? The answer, of course, is that even though things are good, they are not perfect, and can always use change and improvement, if there are valid ideas on how to improve them.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Because they have no choice?

Are you suggesting they should vote for independent candidates that have little to no chance of winning?

They have a choice if we decide they do. It's our fault that they don't. The government is a reflection o the people, and if we don't like the government, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

You yourself mentioned voter apathy, and our ever decreasing voter turnouts. Perhaps the reason less and less people are voting is precisely because they aren't getting their say? The way to get people to care about elections is to make sure that they are actually getting their input into our political system, as they should be. And very clearly, this is not working well in our system, or we wouldn't have an increasingly apathetic voter base.

We're apathetic because we're uninformed and we have no idea how much power we have. Again, it's our own fault. We have to quit blaming the government, the system, etc.

I certainly agree Canada is in a very good position, and is one of the best countries in the world to live in. Does that mean, however, that we should accept the status quo? Even if our society is already good and succesful, that does not mean we should stop striving to improve it. Why does government keep passing bills, if everything in Canada is already so great? The answer, of course, is that even though things are good, they are not perfect, and can always use change and improvement, if there are valid ideas on how to improve them.

I agree with you....what we don't agree on (and I am for the most part on side with the majority from different polls I've seen) is what constitutes an improvement. I don't agree with your improvements, and most Canadians won't agree with a change to a more American style system either (cue BC drivel).

If we try to 'improve' a good system too much, we could end up breaking it.

[Bonam]

They have a choice if we decide they do. It's our fault that they don't. The government is a reflection o the people, and if we don't like the government, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

We're apathetic because we're uninformed and we have no idea how much power we have. Again, it's our own fault. We have to quit blaming the government, the system, etc.

Yes, it's all our fault. Absolutely. Let's just sit here blaming ourselves while voter apathy increases and our society rots.

I disagree with that approach. If the voters feel that the system is so far removed that they don't even bother to go cast a vote, it's because the system is not representing them well enough, not because the voters are stupid.

[Rovik]

That's the headline in the CP News story going out in print and radio.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...cNs9EXKPJlvJTcg

As the article points out, the NDP are left on the sidelines. Again.

Win-win??? Hardly, as it looks like once again a Liberal leader is capitulating to Harper. Only difference this time is that the MSM are supporting Iggy left, right and centre. In their eyes, he can do no wrong. If this was Dion, the MSM would be all over it, saying same old, same old. If I had to choose a winner it would be Harper.

In regards to the NDP, they can do not right because the MSM has always casted them in negative light. Hypothetically, let's say they came up with a sensible solution for one of Canada's ills, the MSM would either spin it in a negative way or convince people that the idea came from the Liberals in the first place. The ironic thing is that many of the EI reforms that Iggy now supports were originally pushed by the NDP. And in regards to Layton; well, again the media tend to give him a hard time. They exaggarate his zest for fanatism and ridicule his ideas. Yet, when he is proven right, they won't give him any credit or apologize to him. I remember many columnists making fun of Layton in re: to Afghanistan and dubbing him Taliban Jack. A couple of years later, a lot of what he suggested is actually being done, but there are no apologies from those that made fun of him (calling him Taliban Jack) or giving him credit for being right.

The media is very powerful and very pervasive and unfortunately a lot of Canadians tend to be influenced by them. A case in point is their constant referral of the bad NDP govt of Ontario in the 90s. Yet, they don't mention Devine's corrupt Conserative govt. in regards to not voting Conservative or mention the Newfoundland's Smallwood Liberal govt of the 60s that gave away the churchill to Quebec. You would think (going by one hears from the media) that the only bad provincial govt. Canada ever had was Rae's NDP. And this leads me to another thing that doesn't make sense to me. Many Liberal supporters will point to Rae's NDP govt as a reason not to vote to NDP, yet they are willing to forgive Rae completely because he is now a Liberal. Convoluted logic if you ask me.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Rovik

[jdobbin]

Win-win??? Hardly, as it looks like once again a Liberal leader is capitulating to Harper. Only difference this time is that the MSM are supporting Iggy left, right and centre. In their eyes, he can do no wrong. If this was Dion, the MSM would be all over it, saying same old, same old. If I had to choose a winner it would be Harper.

I'd say the majority of the media seem to agree with you that Harper won and Ignatieff lost.

CP framed it as win-win but that really doesn't seem the case in the short term. We'll see if the early confidence vote in the fall that Harper granted hurts the Tories.

In regards to the NDP, they can do not right because the MSM has always casted them in negative light. Hypothetically, let's say they came up with a sensible solution for one of Canada's ills, the MSM would either spin it in a negative way or convince people that the idea came from the Liberals in the first place. The ironic thing is that many of the EI reforms that Iggy now supports were originally pushed by the NDP. And in regards to Layton; well, again the media tend to give him a hard time. They exaggarate his zest for fanatism and ridicule his ideas. Yet, when he is proven right, they won't give him any credit or apologize to him. I remember many columnists making fun of Layton in re: to Afghanistan and dubbing him Taliban Jack. A couple of years later, a lot of what he suggested is actually being done, but there are no apologies from those that made fun of him (calling him Taliban Jack) or giving him credit for being right.

Layton votes no to every confidence vote. The NDP planned to blame the Liberals for an election while at the same time taking no responsibility for their own vote to bring down the government.

At some point, the uncompromising NDP are probably going to face the possibility that the election will come when they don't want it and if they stay principled, they will vote no confidence and could very well take losses.

The media is very powerful and very pervasive and unfortunately a lot of Canadians tend to be influenced by them. A case in point is their constant referral of the bad NDP govt of Ontario in the 90s. Yet, they don't mention Devine's corrupt Conserative govt. in regards to not voting Conservative or mention the Newfoundland's Smallwood Liberal govt of the 60s that gave away the churchill to Quebec. You would think (going by one hears from the media) that the only bad provincial govt. Canada ever had was Rae's NDP. And this leads me to another thing that doesn't make sense to me. Many Liberal supporters will point to Rae's NDP govt as a reason not to vote to NDP, yet they are willing to forgive Rae completely because he is now a Liberal. Convoluted logic if you ask me.

Convoluted is going back to provincial politics dating back decades. By that meaure should we not question the CCF pacifism and leader who supported eugenics?

[Smallc]

it's because the system is not representing them well enough, not because the voters are stupid.

The only problem with that theory is that all countries seem to have a great deal of apathy right now. There's no proof that it has anything to do with the system and ample proof that it is our own faults. We need to better educate ourselves instead of always trying to blame a system that we don't even understand.

[Bonam]

ample proof that it is our own faults

Ample proof? Really? What is this proof?

[Smallc]

Ample proof? Really? What is this proof?

As I said, nearly every country is having the same problem. That evidence contradicts the idea that is the fault of the system and shifts the blame to the apathy of people globally in general.

[Bonam]

Ok, let's take your premise as true (though it isn't necessarily), so say for a moment that various countries around the globe have apathetic voters. These countries all have different cultures as well as different democratic systems (presumably we are talking about democracies here). Why do you automatically assume that it is the people, of all these different cultures, that are somehow stupid and ignorant, rather than that all these systems are cumbersome and do not well represent the people? Both are quite equally possible. In fact it is probably a mix of both, to differing extents, in various locations.

Back to your premise, I would also say it is not true. For example, the 2008 US presidential election had considerably higher turnout than several prior ones, indicating a decrease in voter apathy in the US.

But I would contend that representative democracy is somewhat of a dated concept as a whole, considering the tools of communication we have now. Democracy started as direct democracy, back in Greek city states, meaning that all the eligible citizens could get together physically and something would be discussed and voted upon. As population expanded, and larger organizations than cities formed, this was no longer practical, and direct democracy was replaced with representative democracy. But direct democracy is once again practical now, via the internet, as it can connect all the citizens of a nation despite our large population and geographic separation.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Direct democracy has many failings...not the least of which is the uneducated public.

As for the US election, it had nothing to do with the system and everything to do with an issue....change. Before that election, the US has the same (or worse) results.

[Bonam]

Direct democracy has many failings...not the least of which is the uneducated public.

Are you seriously going to make the argument that the average politician is more "educated" and can make better choices than the average non-politician? I would say that very few of the best and brightest in our society go on to become politicians.

Democracy is a system of government that implies, "rule by the people", that is the very meaning of its name. If you make the assumption that people are stupid and cannot make rational choices for themselves, then democracy is not the form of government you are looking for, but rather, rule by "philosopher kings" as in the dissertation by some Greek philosopher (Plato, or maybe Aristotle, I forget).

If you assume that the people are rational, and can make reasonable decisions, then representative democracy is only a system of necessity, arising out of the logistical problems of direct representation of large populations spread across far flung regions. But that is not a problem anymore with our modern technology.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Are you seriously going to make the argument that the average politician is more "educated" and can make better choices than the average non-politician? I would say that very few of the best and brightest in our society go on to become politicians.

Democracy is a system of government that implies, "rule by the people", that is the very meaning of its name. If you make the assumption that people are stupid and cannot make rational choices for themselves, then democracy is not the form of government you are looking for, but rather, rule by "philosopher kings" as in the dissertation by some Greek philosopher (Plato, or maybe Aristotle, I forget).

If you assume that the people are rational, and can make reasonable decisions, then representative democracy is only a system of necessity, arising out of the logistical problems of direct representation of large populations spread across far flung regions. But that is not a problem anymore with our modern technology.

Bingo!

There you have it, technology removes the communication problem that has until now been the issue blamed as the reason for the representative form of democracy we have been using. Now we have the means of doing what needs to be done. Yet to do so threatens the power and authority of the people within the system. So for the sake of the three hundred plus elected genius intellectuals in government 30 million idiot citizens need to be hand held and told what is best for them.

Citizens need to be aware that those much vaunted representatives are for the most part very partisan followers who spend their time saying no to citizens and yes to hack at the top of the pile. They do that to attain power and privilege beyond that of normal citizens at public expense. They make careers out of politics and convert it from a means of public service to a means of corruption and avarice. Who can the best interest of citizens, themselves or representatives?

[Molly]

Are you seriously going to make the argument that the average politician is more "educated" and can make better choices than the average non-politician? I would say that very few of the best and brightest in our society go on to become politicians.

I'd make the case that they are FAR more educated regarding the issues and the methods with which they are dealing. No one so far as I can see is suggesting that politicians are a superior form of human, but they are specialists in 'the art of the possible', within their particular milieu.

Those who demand something closer to rule by referendum neglect the notion of compromise-- the hope/effort to cause the least harm while also benefiting the greatest number. 'Rule by direct referendum' votes are not weighted as to need/intensity... whether a vote is of critical importance, or just tic-tac-toe... they lack nuance entirely, neglect amelioration of hardship. They cannot reflect the fact that the vast majority of the folks extending those votes don't have a sniff of a clue of the implications or complications of what they are voting on.

A rep is a lot more than just a simple messenger! A negotiator is more like it, but even that falls short.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'd make the case that they are FAR more educated regarding the issues and the methods with which they are dealing. No one so far as I can see is suggesting that politicians are a superior form of human, but they are specialists in 'the art of the possible', within their particular milieu.

Those who demand something closer to rule by referendum neglect the notion of compromise-- the hope/effort to cause the least harm while also benefiting the greatest number. 'Rule by direct referendum' votes are not weighted as to need/intensity... whether a vote is of critical importance, or just tic-tac-toe... they lack nuance entirely, neglect amelioration of hardship. They cannot reflect the fact that the vast majority of the folks extending those votes don't have a sniff of a clue of the implications or complications of what they are voting on.

A rep is a lot more than just a simple messenger! A negotiator is more like it, but even that falls short.

Molly, I agree with you in principle. There is however no way within this current system of having the candidate that was elected actually represent the wishes of their constituents. They can only rarely represent themselves because they are compelled to vote in a manner consistent with the wishes of the party leader. To head off of the reservation and vote according to anything but the party has serious consequences within the party.

Take a look at the Swiss system of direct democracy and see how that works. Let me give you a little insight to their version of direct democracy, it has been around for over a hundred years. They have one of the highest standards of living in the world and their quality of life is the envy of many.

Try these links;

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/direct-democracy/cs-swiss

http://www.switzerland.com/en.cfm/home/gov...ent-200065.html

[Smallc]

If you make the assumption that people are stupid and cannot make rational choices for themselves,

Are you going to read every bill that you're voting on? Because the Senators do.

Are you going to understand every bill that you're voting on? Because most MPs do.

Are you a legal expert that is going to know whether or not the bill that is in front of you is compatible with previous law and the Constitution? Because many people in parliament are able to make that determination.

Are you going to look at the legislation and weigh it's benefits on the whole country?

Are you going to spend days to weeks to months studying it? Because they do that in parliament.

Everyone always thinks that they system is broken, but thus far they're provided no evidence of that....in fact it seems to be working exactly as it is supposed to. The only possible counter example I can cite is the secret meetings about fundraising (something I'm not happy about), but in a human system there is always going to be problems. What we have to do is find the best way to fix those problems.

[Smallc]

Take a look at the Swiss system of direct democracy and see how that works. Let me give you a little insight to their version of direct democracy, it has been around for over a hundred years. They have one of the highest standards of living in the world and their quality of life is the envy of many.

Let me tell you a secret. We have a higher standard of living, a higher quality of life, and a statistically insignificant difference in our life expectancy. They do have higher GDP per capita, but that probably has great deal to do with the business they're in.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Are you going to read every bill that you're voting on? Because the Senators do.

Are you going to understand every bill that you're voting on? Because most MPs do.

Are you a legal expert that is going to know whether or not the bill that is in front of you is compatible with previous law and the Constitution? Because many people in parliament are able to make that determination.

Are you going to look at the legislation and weigh it's benefits on the whole country?

Are you going to spend days to weeks to months studying it? Because they do that in parliament.

Everyone always thinks that they system is broken, but thus far they're provided no evidence of that....in fact it seems to be working exactly as it is supposed to. The only possible counter example I can cite is the secret meetings about fundraising (something I'm not happy about), but in a human system there is always going to be problems. What we have to do is find the best way to fix those problems.

Where do I begin?

Senators follow the instructions of their leaders, so do Members of Parliament. All legislation is already vetted by government lawyers to ensure non-conflict and compliance issues. You are delusional if you think the Bloc gives a damn about benefits for anyone outside of Quebec. I think you will discover that almost all of these representatives concern themselves with benefits to their own regions and party specifics first. They can spend years studying a subject to death without ever passing a piece of legislation about it. The government commissions reports and then doesn't even act on the advice that was given at the expense of the tax payers.

The governmental system that we have is chuck full of holes and problems.

[Smallc]

Senators follow the instructions of their leaders, so do Members of Parliament.

You don't think that there are discussions that go on between people in the making of the bill? You don't realize that there are committees that edit, change, and modify bills. They exist, and they do good work. As for Sentors, they are usually not told what to do. The budget was a special case.

All legislation is already vetted by government lawyers to ensure non-conflict and compliance issues.

Yes, and it's done from the government point of view. When Committees and the Senate go through it, they look at it, examine its impact, and change wording, phrases, and even remove or reject things as necessary. You should watch a Senate Committee sometime...they're on all of this week.

You are delusional if you think the Bloc gives a damn about benefits for anyone outside of Quebec.

They really don't have to care about anything but Quebec because that is who they are elected by, the people of Quebec. The rest of the parties on the other hand have Members or Senators from every province, and so they have to care...and they do. Good work is done in our name, whether we realize it or not.

They can spend years studying a subject to death without ever passing a piece of legislation about it. The government commissions reports and then doesn't even act on the advice that was given at the expense of the tax payers.

And that, again, is a perfect example of the system working. It's not wrong to do large studies on controversial issues. It's not wrong to get the opinion of different experts and commissions. This is the way this are supposed to work, and it's a good thing they do. Governments can't simply jump to conclusions.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Governments always jump to conclusions! The advice that governments listen to is always taken with a political poison pill. Everything is considered through that lens, and that lens alone.

I am well aware of the goings on behind closed doors within government and parliament. Are you aware of the partisan influence within those working groups and the utter waste of time and tax payers money that takes place? If you think for just one moment that Senators are not told what to do you are a fool. The government ALWAYS tells them to support their legislation, that is why every government since confederation wants to appoint partisan Senators to support their efforts in the Commons. That is grade school stuff!

I have always said that the Senate preforms a viable function, I just want them to be elected and accountable to the people. You on the other hand think that is a another of my bad ideas.

[Smallc]

I don't think that electing Senators would necessarily constitute an improvement. I also don't think it would make you in any way more happy with the government, based on your posts thus far.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't think that electing Senators would necessarily constitute an improvement. I also don't think it would make you in any way more happy with the government, based on your posts thus far.

You are wrong there! One step at a time we can begin to fix our democracy.

[myata]

Well, if it has to be our particular (i.e majoritary) version of representation, I fully understand those folks who don't even bother to vote. Always, at any time, and in every election the choice would be obvious and hugely exciting: "Harper" or "Iggy", "Iggy"/"Harper", and so on, to infinity. No matter what they do, or don't that one part would never change. I'll think maybe of striking the same route, perhaps making exception in an occasional rare case where the choice actually has a meaning.

We aren't two year olds given a fake choice as a ruse for something we cannot have/do. If I can't meaningfully vote for a party of my choice, why would/should I bother at all? First the behemoths had created a system in which only they, and they only can govern. Then they try to steer your vote their way saying that (in the system they created) any other choice would be meaningless. That's (controlled) democracy, folks. Rejoice!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, if it has to be our particular (i.e majoritary) version of representation, I fully understand those folks who don't even bother to vote. Always, at any time, and in every election the choice would be obvious and hugely exciting: "Harper" or "Iggy", "Iggy"/"Harper", and so on, to infinity. No matter what they do, or don't that one part would never change. I'll think maybe of striking the same route, perhaps making exception in an occasional rare case where the choice actually has a meaning.

We aren't two year olds given a fake choice as a ruse for something we cannot have/do. If I can't meaningfully vote for a party of my choice, why would/should I bother at all? First the behemoths had created a system in which only they, and they only can govern. Then they try to steer your vote their way saying that (in the system they created) any other choice would be meaningless. That's (controlled) democracy, folks. Rejoice!

Proportional representation is a flawed concept. Yet I do agree that the present system is FUBAR. I think you could get what you wanted by finding a independent candidate that was willing to represent the majority of constituents views. To do that a form of public consultation must be undertaken at the constituency level, but I think that this would serve your purposes well. It would never lead to a partisan government but it would provide a voice to constituents in the House of Commons. Your say in legislative efforts would be heard in a far more functional manner than it presently is.

[myata]

It's an illusion to think that some sort of community representation could fix the wrongs of the "first past" system. It's started as community representation in the first place, each riding electing a representative to the House. Then the parties have figured out that with party organization, it's much easier and efficient to appropriate bunches of representatives and obtian control of the House. Going back in time won't do anything, other that getting rid of party politics altogether.

The only options we have are 1) exactly two parties can govern; or 2) more than two parties can govern, and it should be pbvious to any anybody who isn't stuck with one of the two, which one it should be, I mean we're all grown up people why do we need our choices filtered for us that way?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's an illusion to think that some sort of community representation could fix the wrongs of the "first past" system. It's started as community representation in the first place, each riding electing a representative to the House. Then the parties have figured out that with party organization, it's much easier and efficient to appropriate bunches of representatives and obtian control of the House. Going back in time won't do anything, other that getting rid of party politics altogether.

The only options we have are 1) exactly two parties can govern; or 2) more than two parties can govern, and it should be pbvious to any anybody who isn't stuck with one of the two, which one it should be, I mean we're all grown up people why do we need our choices filtered for us that way?

Your beef is with the "partisan system", not the representational system. That is why I suggested an independent candidate in the first place. To either remodel partisan politics into a two party system or implementing a proportional representation system is a very tall order and likely not achievable under current conditions. With that in mind I suggest that you either attempt to alter the conditions or throw up your hands in disgust like so many other Canadians do. Supporting independent candidates is a viable alternative.