Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Wilber]

It means that I don't necessarily think of city politics as more democratic than other forms of government. Nor do I think it inspires more than other forms.

I assume then that you would be fine with only being able to vote for one city councilor who then has to vote according to the instructions of another councilor elected by someone else and a mayor who was elected by folks on the other side of town.

[jdobbin]

I assume then that you would be fine with only being able to vote for one city councilor who then has to vote according to the instructions of another councilor elected by someone else and a mayor who was elected by folks on the other side of town.

That already happens here.

Case in point: Russ Wyatt was kicked off the main committee by the mayor for not voting the way he wants and for speaking out in public.

Edited September 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

That already happens here.

Case in point: Russ Wyatt was kicked off the main committee by the mayor for not voting the way he wants and for speaking out in public.

What kind of city government do you have? Whatever it is, you have my sympathy.

[Smallc]

First, lots of cities have party government. Our city has an Executive Policy Committee (Cabinet), and it's no different than any other level of government.

[jdobbin]

What kind of city government do you have? Whatever it is, you have my sympathy.

The mayor picks the cabinet. If your councillor doesn't tow the line, he gets booted.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/may...t-57997572.html

The mayor said he was under pressure from other EPC members to turf Wyatt in 2008 and again this year but said their wishes had nothing to do with his choice.

Wyatt has been replaced by Old Kildonan Coun. Mike O'Shaughnessy, who stepped down from EPC last fall due to health concerns. He will take over Wyatt's former role as secretary of strategic infrastructure renewal, which does not come with committee-chairing duties.

That was a couple of days ago.

[Wilber]

First, lots of cities have party government. Our city has an Executive Policy Committee (Cabinet), and it's no different than any other level of government.

Ours doesn't and I hope it never does. Even so, all the candidates for mayor and council appear on your ballot . Not so in our parliamentary system. There is no legal requirement for parties in a parliamentary system that I know of. If so, no one could run as and independant. It is very different.

[Smallc]

Not so in our parliamentary system.

That's right, because they're completely different systems. There's nothing wrong with either system, they're simply different.

[Wilber]

That's right, because they're completely different systems. There's nothing wrong with either system, they're simply different.

Nothing is perfect, you are just comfortable with what you have and fear any change.

[jdobbin]

Ours doesn't and I hope it never does. Even so, all the candidates for mayor and council appear on your ballot . Not so in our parliamentary system. There is no legal requirement for parties in a parliamentary system that I know of. If so, no one could run as and independant. It is very different.

Since the provinces control the type of government cities have from back to the BNA Act, they can run it out a corner office in a provincial legislature if it suits them. You have no right to go to court over it either. It is totally constitutional from the passage: "municipalities are the creatures of the provinces."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=a1ARTA0001637

Legally, the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces and are subject to a host of legislative, judicial and administrative controls.

[Smallc]

Nothing is perfect, you are just comfortable with what you have and fear any change.

I didn't say that anything was perfect. I just don't see any reason for change. You haven't convinced me of any reason for change.

[Wilber]

I didn't say that anything was perfect. I just don't see any reason for change. You haven't convinced me of any reason for change.

You said there is nothing wrong with them. I don't really expect you to change, nor do I particularly want you to agree with me. I just hope you and a few others who read this might think about our system in a more critical way, rather than just assuming there is nothing wrong with it for no other reason than we have always done it this way. Which isn't quite true anyway.

[Smallc]

I just hope you and a few others who read this might think about our system in a more critical way,

Being that I understand the system better than almost anyone on this board, I don't think I have a critical thinking problem in relation to it.

[g_bambino]

I disagree, it would encourage responsible government and discourage the irresponsibility of dissolving parliament for purely political reasons. The US system has its own issues but it is definitely more democratic and an incumbent's voting record in Congress is very much an issue at election time. All you know in Canada is that if an MP is still part of caucus they have toed the line and voted as a loyal party member. Canada's Parliament is one of the most draconian on the planet when it comes to enforcing party discipline. The parliamentary system didn't start out like this, we imposed it on ourselves. In many countries including the UK, it is not unheard of for an MP to vote against the party line and survive as a party member. It seems to me that you fear the people you elect and believe they must be put under the strict control of someone else.

Please don't over-dramatise with accusations of fear. We must merely plan for situations - which we know are possible because they've been witnessed and recorded - wherein human nature becomes the undoing of civil society. Power is a commodity that's greatly desired and fought for, and leaving it for the taking by any one individual or group will mean the end of any democracy. Hence, we distribute the power throughout various institutions, all reliant upon the other in such a way as to create the best balance we can. Each country has its own system (though the essence of ours is the one most employed around the world); we place authority in an apolitical, unelected source but only elected politicians may exercise it; we balance the political circus of the elected lower house with an appointed, less partisan upper chamber. It's not the US system, but theirs is hardly "more democratic" than Canada's; we still share the same basic rights and freedoms; we all get our vote. And, if you think democracy only resides in the ballot box, we actually get to vote for our parliament more frequently than Americans do for theirs.

I admit the bulk of our MPs act like mere automatons following the party leader; it limits the scope of debate, which I see as a greater dimming of democracy than anything else. (And I can't understand why it's a phenomenon that doesn't seem to be repeated in any other place with a system like ours, e.g. the UK or Australia.) Banning elections for four or more years won't solve that issue, though. As I said, it will merely render parliament in its entirety as useless: the government appointed will be able to do anything it pleases, governing through orders-in-council without fear of recourse from the Commons. With the legislative branch out of commission, the entire system as we know it is set asunder: responsible government is gone, the viceroy and courts are pulled into the political fray to fill the gap, voters can only sit back and watch until the next election comes some years later. No, it’s not a good idea at all.

[Wilber]

Being that I understand the system better than almost anyone on this board, I don't think I have a critical thinking problem in relation to it.

Well, we certainly disagree on that.

[Wilber]

Power is a commodity that's greatly desired and fought for, and leaving it for the taking by any one individual or group will mean the end of any democracy.

Then why do we elect 300+ MP's then give all the real power to a Prime Minister and other party leaders?

As I said, it will merely render parliament in its entirety as useless: the government appointed will be able to do anything it pleases, governing through orders-in-council without fear of recourse from the Commons.

You have it backward. A majority government can do anything it wants regardless, including the timing of the next election as long as it is within five years. Orders in Council can be overridden by an Act of Parliament. A minority couldn't make them stick without the co-operation of other parties. A minority would not be able to threaten Parliament with an election in order to get its way. Opposition parties could not threaten the government with an election to get its way. There would have to be compromise for any legislation to pass. I don't disagree that it would take more effort on our parliamentarians part but that is what we elect them for isn't it, not to plan the next election.

[g_bambino]

There would have to be compromise for any legislation to pass.

But no incentive to compromise, so no legislation passes.

[Wilber]

But no incentive to compromise, so no legislation passes.

Then why did they run for office? You don't think the collapse of a country's goverment is an incentive? My you have a low opinion of them.

[g_bambino]

Then why did they run for office? You don't think the collapse of a country's goverment is an incentive?

It's not why did they, but why would they? We're discussing your hypothetical election ban.

I stand corrected on the loss of incentive, but now notice you admit your proposal would replace the hazard of non-confidence with that of governmental collapse; the threat "if you all don't pass my legislation, the election's your fault" would become "if you all don't pass my legislation, the constitutional crisis is your fault." Er, no thanks.

_[c/e]

Edited September 11, 2009 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

It's not why did they, but why would they? We're discussing your hypothetical election ban.

I stand corrected on the loss of incentive, but now notice you admit your proposal would replace the hazard of non-confidence with that of governmental collapse; the threat "if you all don't pass my legislation, the election's your fault" would become "if you all don't pass my legislation, the constitutional crisis is your fault." Er, no thanks.

_[c/e]

You seem to think that our parliamentarians would be the last people to know the government collapsing would be a bad thing and that they would do nothing about it in spite of being the only people who could. Your opinion of them is not very high. Maybe that is because you support the irresponsibility of possible annual elections by non confidence votes or governments arbitrarily dissolving Parliament. Don't you think this also paralyzes government. If they spent the same amount of time working on the country's issues as they do trying to screw each other, there is no telling what might happen.

[Smallc]

Don't you think this also paralyzes government.

I can't speak for him, but I would say, not at all. Minorities collapse precisely because parliament is paralyzed in one way or another.

[Wilber]

I can't speak for him, but I would say, not at all. Minorities collapse precisely because parliament is paralyzed in one way or another.

One big reason to use that excuse is because someone thinks they can gain by forcing an election.

[jdobbin]

One big reason to use that excuse is because someone thinks they can gain by forcing an election.

Or calling one.

[Wilber]

Or calling one.

Jeez, all I am advocating is that our representatives show the kind of responsibility some of us expect when we elect them. Guess it would spoil the entertainment though. Sorry.

[Smallc]

Jeez, all I am advocating is that our representatives show the kind of responsibility some of us expect when we elect them.

It should be obvious by now that we don't all expect the same kind of responsibility.

[jdobbin]

Jeez, all I am advocating is that our representatives show the kind of responsibility some of us expect when we elect them. Guess it would spoil the entertainment though. Sorry.

We elect people to make decisions. Sometimes those decisions are contrary to what the public wants such as the death penalty.

In terms of an election, if Parliament is not working, an election allows for people to kick out the culprits.