g_bambino Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) Canadians have directly voted for this person instead of an unelected prime minister. This direction makes sense for a truly independent and prosperous Canada. Any move towards a more democratic voice has to be embraced. An elected Governor General will not be a politician with a party-aligned mandate because he or she is directly elected by Canadians? Not only does that fail to explain how direct election comes without party politics, it isn't even more democratic; it's just more lobbying, politicking, and voting. [+] Edited December 5, 2009 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 The Governor General is no different then the President of the United States. The President of the United States does not pass laws. The president forms the administration/Cabinet and has the power to veto all acts of congress. The Govenor General has the power to veto all acts of Parliament. That is what Canadians need to put these corrupt politicians on a short leash. If Canadians directly vote for this person and the majority vote is counted (electoral college system) that person has to be supported. The President often vetoes laws; a GG almost never does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_powers How about we petition the Queen to Fire the Conservatives, the Liberals and all political parties out of existence forcing New parties to be created in their place to start Canada off on a clean slate. Face it Canada is in entrenchly corrupt country where the Conservatives or Liberals use the Government for their personal benefit. Conrad Black is in Jail in the US for thinking that way. We need the Queen's office to fire the prime Minister and refuse to sign any legislation coming from the Conservative and Liberals. We need people who will represent Canada and Canadians not prostitute Canada and Canadians out for other Countries and peoples benefit. Two blazing examples, Canada is a world leading supplier in the ingrediants required to produce beer, yet when those ingredients are put together in Canada we have a case of Budweiser being sold for $45 dollars Canadian and that same Case being sold in the US for a 11.50 US. Our dollars is almost at par. Another example is Canada produces more than it consumes but insists on selling the oil to the world at world prices. Fine, but the US is a big importer of Oil, yet at the pump their Gas is 30 to 40 percent lower what Canadians have to pay. These are only tips of the ice berq as to the corruption of the Conservatives and Liberals. Our solution is to petition the Queens office to fire the Conservative and Liberals and refuse to acknowledge their incompetent governance. there is one thing wrong with this premise. The Government of Canada is the Queen's representative. It represents the Crown not the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 there is one thing wrong with this premise. The Government of Canada is the Queen's representative. It represents the Crown not the country. Wrong, the Governor General is, and the Governor General has to ascent all legislation and acts of parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 The President often vetoes laws; a GG almost never does. Because she is rubber stamp by virtue of being appointed by the PM. A conflict of interest really. In any case just because she doesn't doesn't mean she can't. The GG can, and that's a fact. The GG is selected, appointed and signed off by the queen on the advice of the PM. It's time Canadians selects and elects the GG and the queen signs off on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 An elected Governor General will not be a politician with a party-aligned mandate because he or she is directly elected by Canadians? Not only does that fail to explain how direct election comes without party politics, it isn't even more democratic; it's just more lobbying, politicking, and voting. [+] A direct vote towards the person to be Governor General is not democratic. Ok comrad, perhaps the former soviet union and china is more you style of governance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Because she is rubber stamp by virtue of being appointed by the PM. A conflict of interest really. In any case just because she doesn't doesn't mean she can't. The GG can, and that's a fact. The GG is selected, appointed and signed off by the queen on the advice of the PM. It's time Canadians selects and elects the GG and the queen signs off on this. All U.S. Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President. Most Presidents find their choices to be anything but rubber stamps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 A direct vote towards the person to be Governor General is not democratic. That's not what I said. I said having Canadian elect the Governor General would not be more democratic. Maybe you just don't understand what democracy actually is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 All U.S. Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President. Most Presidents find their choices to be anything but rubber stamps. Yes and the choices have to also get by congress. That doesn't happen in Canada. Canada lacks the checks and balances the US has because Canada is designed to favor the politicians and what they want for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 That's not what I said. I said having Canadian elect the Governor General would not be more democratic. Maybe you just don't understand what democracy actually is. How is the PM choosing the GG democratic? If Canadians select and elect the GG its democratic. Yes, I do, it means the People have the say, that's democracy. When that doesn't happen you have communism. If you are confused, look to china for an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Yes and the choices have to also get by congress. That doesn't happen in Canada. Canada lacks the checks and balances the US has because Canada is designed to favor the politicians and what they want for themselves. It lacks the checks and balances because it is based on an 800 year old model. The US designed a constitution based on fixing the problems with the parliamentary system when they formed their own country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 It lacks the checks and balances because it is based on an 800 year old model. The US designed a constitution based on fixing the problems with the parliamentary system when they formed their own country. Canada's model is designed to be overseen by a Queen. Because the queen's a lame duck and the GG is a rubber stamp for the unelected PM, Canadians need to change and put an end to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 It lacks the checks and balances because it is based on an 800 year old model. The US designed a constitution based on fixing the problems with the parliamentary system when they formed their own country. Have they really fixed anything at all? Their system is slower and they're country is far more politically polarized. Their system also seems to allow for significantly more monetary corruption. I don't see much of anything that they've fixed. Pretty much every dispute in our country has been handled with no or minimal violence. We haven't had a civil war. We don't have a head of state that is subject to the whims of the majority. Like I said, I don't see what they've fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Wrong, the Governor General is, and the Governor General has to ascent all legislation and acts of parliament. Approves all legislation and acts of parliament for the Crown. Our elected and representative politicians are not enough to ascent all legislation and acts of parliament? I don't get it? The Crown's representative has to give ascent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Canada's model is designed to be overseen by a Queen. Because the queen's a lame duck and the GG is a rubber stamp for the unelected PM, Canadians need to change and put an end to that. As long as the the Crown exists we can't and never will. In order to accomplish what you want we must entirely divorce ourselves from the Crown and rewrite a Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 How is the PM choosing the GG democratic? If Canadians select and elect the GG its democratic. Yes, I do, it means the People have the say, that's democracy. When that doesn't happen you have communism. If you are confused, look to china for an example. Canada's model is designed to be overseen by a Queen. Because the queen's a lame duck and the GG is a rubber stamp for the unelected PM, Canadians need to change and put an end to that. In Australia, in 1975, the GG was one chosen by the Communist Labour PM, Gough Whitlam. Classically, when a money bill, or supply, is voted down in the HOC, of course, a dissolution of Parliament and an election is triggered (with some short-lived exceptions as King/Byng). In that case, the natural expiry of Parliament and an election was, by tradition, set for December 1975. The Senate, in Australia, and not the HOC refused to pass in excess of five supply bills from May through October 1975. Whitlam "advised" the GG to dissolve only the Senate (which in AU is elected, but by a different formula than the HOC). Whitlam also refused to commit to December 1975 HOC elections, thus by strikeout of the word "Communist". Instead, on November 10, 1975 the GG called Whitlam in, fired him and put the Opposition Leader in as interim PM until December 1975 elections. In that case, the GG is hardly a rubber stamp.I strongly suspect that Chretien stepped down in November 2003 in order to avoid being turfed by the GG. I think the threat of GG action is always hovering in the background and does constrain the PMO, a badly needed constraint in a majority government. Have they really fixed anything at all? Their system is slower and they're country is far more politically polarized. Their system also seems to allow for significantly more monetary corruption. I don't see much of anything that they've fixed. Pretty much every dispute in our country has been handled with no or minimal violence. We haven't had a civil war. We don't have a head of state that is subject to the whims of the majority. Like I said, I don't see what they've fixed. No question, the U.S. had a civil war. The Constitution, as originally framed, had some serious imperfections. It, like the British (unwritten) Constitution and the Canadian (patchwork and partially unwritten) Constittuion is a work in progress. All three of our countries have succeeded remarkably well despite the imperfections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Have they really fixed anything at all? Their system is slower and they're country is far more politically polarized. Their system also seems to allow for significantly more monetary corruption. I don't see much of anything that they've fixed. Pretty much every dispute in our country has been handled with no or minimal violence. We haven't had a civil war. We don't have a head of state that is subject to the whims of the majority. Like I said, I don't see what they've fixed. It is hard to see what hey have fixed because they are not so far apart from us but there are still things that make them different and opinion differs on what "fixed" means. Do you understand why there is so much opposition to government run health care in the US? Does that appear idiotic to you? Of course it does. Ours is free and no one is denied health care. If you believe that then you won't see what they have fixed. Politics in America has been moving left over the last century and is thus not too different from us. We have been influenced by them somewhat so are not like socialist Europe but we would be if there wasn't a little bit of America rubbing off on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Sorry jbg, I didn't mean to sound negative about the US Constitution or the US. The country is great, and the document is great....but they're both quite different. Both countries have generally been served well by their constitutions outside of the US civil war and possibly the Quebec referendums. We're both truly lucky. I simply don't believe that the US system is better than ours or has any fewer imperfections. Both systems have their problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Do you understand why there is so much opposition to government run health care in the US? Does that appear idiotic to you? No, it doesn't appear idiotic, but I think much of it is misguided. I don't think the US is a bad place, but as far as I'm concerned, this country is better, and I don't think I should have to apologize for thinking that. We have one of the best countries in the world (and that can be seen objectively as well) with one of the highest qualities of life. We're not the best in every category, but we do quite well overall. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else...not even a place that has supposedly 'fixed' the problems with our system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 No, it doesn't appear idiotic, but I think much of it is misguided. I don't think the US is a bad place, but as far as I'm concerned, this country is better, and I don't think I should have to apologize for thinking that. We have one of the best countries in the world.... Indeed....but other Canadians have voted with their feet. Canada is the best country in the world....for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Obviously China is the best country in the world....I mean, so many people live there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Obviously China is the best country in the world....I mean, so many people live there. ...and far fewer live in Canada...go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 And yet you seem so preoccupied with Canada....go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 And yet you seem so preoccupied with Canada....go figure. ...since Canada is so pre-occupied with the USA....go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Obviously China is the best country in the world....I mean, so many people live there. India must be too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.