Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[myata]

Oh I see it's MrIacobucci who's really supreme here. Only he can be trusted to see what our elected representatives in the presumably and ostensibly "supreme" constitutional body can never be trusted to go anywhere near to.

How hard is it to see the pattern here?

Ms Jean, an appointee of Mr. Harper's government decides when the Parliament will sit or be dismissed.

Mr Iacobucci, another appointee of (guess who) will decide which documents the Parliament should be allowed to read.

And the Parliament, what does it get to decide (about its own activities)? There lies the question.

[Alta4ever]

Oh I see it's MrIacobucci who's really supreme here. Only he can be trusted to see what our elected representatives in the presumably and ostensibly "supreme" constitutional body can never be trusted to go anywhere near to.

How hard is it to see the pattern here?

Ms Jean, an appointee of Mr. Harper's government decides when the Parliament will sit or be dismissed.

Mr Iacobucci, another appointee of (guess who) will decide which documents the Parliament should be allowed to read.

And the Parliament, what does it get to decide (about its own activities)? There lies the question.

Bet you had no complaints when it was a liberal pm doing the appointing.

BTW our current GG Ms. Jean was a Martin appointee.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Topaz]

I suppose you're referring to Amir Attaran.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html

These are quite the accusations. Mr. Attaran needs to answer a few questions. Did Attaran see all the documents unredacted? Was it simply through an access to information request? Why did he wait one year before going public with this? Did Mr. Attaran show the documents he obtained to any parliamentarians? Other questions come to mind and others will no doubt be raised in the media in the coming days.

Since Mr. Iacobucci's terms of reference are open ended, perhaps he should interview Mr. Attaran and ask him some questions.

That's why we need a committee hearings on this and everyone sworn in.

[myata]

Bet you had no complaints when it was a liberal pm doing the appointing.

My complaint is not with who does the appointing, but that unelected functioneer can trump the will of our elected representatives, whether in dismissing the Parliament, or in allowing access to information.

BTW our current GG Ms. Jean was a Martin appointee.

Correction accepted, though our current GG, having no sovereign democratic mandate, is still bound to toe the line of the current government.

[g_bambino]

Ms Jean, an appointee of Mr. Harper's government...

Well, that truly confirms your determined disregard for facts. Michaëlle Jean was appointed by the Queen on the advice of Paul Martin. Paul Martin, you boob.

Correction accepted, though our current GG, having no sovereign democratic mandate, is still bound to toe the line of the current government.

Then move to some country with a presidential system of government. Anywhere with an arrangement derived from the Westminster model will leave you disappointed.

[+]

Edited March 7, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

I guess it may have slipped out of your mind that we just completed a detailed analysis of two presumably "Westminister" parliamentary democracies where events like ours could have never happened. Each provides its own specific checks and balances against domination of any one branch of power. We have none. The government in power controls and dominates every single aspect of our political process and is only checked by theoretical possibility of an election nobody really wants.

Obviously, constitutional processes is not all there's to a democracy, but this system has very limited means to prevent concentration of power and abuse of it. Just what we see in reality and no, putting on abstract and meaningless labels like "Westminister" won't explain or justify anything.

[g_bambino]

I guess it may have slipped out of your mind that we just completed a detailed analysis of two presumably "Westminister" parliamentary democracies where events like ours could have never happened.

You can't even keep control of your own arguments. I responded to your bitching about the Governor General being bound to "toe the line of the government." In any Westminster parliamentary democracy, the head of state - whether a president, a monarch, or a viceroy - is expected to "toe the line of the government." That includes Ireland and the Netherlands. But, why bother repeating myself? Facts matter naught to you; it's much more simple to just bat them aside as "abstract and meaningless" and reiterate your undisciplined drivel all over again.

[Topaz]

I don't the the GG would be involved in this matter, from what I understand is there was a vote to ask for ALL the documents on the Afghan detainees. The Tories gave back censored reports, which said nothing. Then they asked again and if the PM refuses then he's in contempt of Parliament but another vote in the Commons is taken to see if there a majority that agrees. IF there is a agreement that the PM is in contempt then the Sargent-at -Arms, goes to the PMO and demands ALL the documents and the PM can not refuse. Canada's Parliament has NEVER had to go this far before because the PMO has always agreed to give over the papers. BUT this is Harper who always wants his way, and I'm sure he hiding the cover-up. I can see this getting really ugly and may be even causing an election all created by the Tories. When this was done before to Mulroney's government he had the IQ not to fight it but again this is Harper.

[Topaz]

Bet you had no complaints when it was a liberal pm doing the appointing.

BTW our current GG Ms. Jean was a Martin appointee.

By doing so the GG let the Tory PM shut down Parliament, so you should be grateful to Martin. He also appointed 2 women to the Senate, one of Alberta and one from Ontario, who are both Conservative Senators. Martin is/was a good caring politican, who cares about All Canadians and we wouldn't have a deficit like we have now if he were PM.

[DrGreenthumb]

By doing so the GG let the Tory PM shut down Parliament, so you should be grateful to Martin. He also appointed 2 women to the Senate, one of Alberta and one from Ontario, who are both Conservative Senators. Martin is/was a good caring politican, who cares about All Canadians and we wouldn't have a deficit like we have now if he were PM.

I agree that Paul Martin was one of the least partisan politicians we've ever had. I never voted for him. I switched to NDP after Cretien. Cretien/Martin was the best government that the country has ever had. I just don't like numbers people as leaders. Just because someone is a good finance minister doesn't mean they will be a good leader. I can't stand Sellinger either as Premier. I think Steve Ashton would have been a FAR better choice. Looking back though, I almost wish I had supported Martin as PM. I think our country would be in a lot better shape fiscally as well as socially if Martin had been Prime Minister instead of the Harper idiots. Have I ever mentioned that I really hate Harper?

[jbg]

BTW our current GG Ms. Jean was a Martin appointee.

Facts never get in his/her/its way.

[myata]

You can't even keep control of your own arguments. I responded to your bitching about the Governor General being bound to "toe the line of the government."

Sorry, it's been all for nought. Anything outside of one dimensional "Westminister" - Not paradigm is obviously outside of your "disciplined" mental reach. For those who haven't reached that blissful state just yet, I'll repeat one last time that in Ireland's constitution the President is elected by popular vote and therefore has both democratic legitimacy and explicit constitutional authority to not "toe the line" in prescribed circumstances.

While in Netherlands the Parliament operates to its own fixed schedule and it's simply impossible for the government to dismiss it, interfere with it, or compromise it. Not to mention that coalitions has been a norm of political system for near hundred years.

[Smallc]

democratic legitimacy

So is anything unelected illegitimate?

[ToadBrother]

Ms Jean, an appointee of Mr. Harper's government decides when the Parliament will sit or be dismissed.

And around the Mulberry Bush we go again. The GG decides based on the advice of government, or more to the point, does what the government asks of her, providing it does not violate the constitution. It would not matter at all who the GG was, until Parliament votes no confidence, the government is the government.

You can bitch about the system all you want, and sometimes you might be right, but what you're doing is, quite unfairly, impugning the character of the GG, for no other reason than you're coalition didn't have the brains not to brag about themselves until they were in an actual position to form a government.

[ToadBrother]

Sorry, it's been all for nought. Anything outside of one dimensional "Westminister" - Not paradigm is obviously outside of your "disciplined" mental reach. For those who haven't reached that blissful state just yet, I'll repeat one last time that in Ireland's constitution the President is elected by popular vote and therefore has both democratic legitimacy and explicit constitutional authority to not "toe the line" in prescribed circumstances.

And here again you intentionally confuse ideology with the structure of government. The President of Ireland has powers nearly identical to the Queen, and limitations also nearly identical.

While in Netherlands the Parliament operates to its own fixed schedule and it's simply impossible for the government to dismiss it, interfere with it, or compromise it.

Do you honestly believe the government in the Dutch Parliament doesn't hold wide procedural powers to interfere where needed?

Not to mention that coalitions has been a norm of political system for near hundred years.

Because of the electoral system, which is quite apart from how the government in the Netherlands is organized, which is in large part quite similar to ours.

But we've been through this. By this point I don't think you even care whether what you say makes sense or not. You're an ideologue, and one who had some bizarre emotional investment in a coalition that couldn't even survive two months until Parliament reconvened.

[Born Free]

I ever mentioned that I really hate Harper?

Not often enough as far as I'm concerned. The two things I like about Harper is his face...

[myata]

And here again you intentionally confuse ideology with the structure of government. The President of Ireland has powers nearly identical to the Queen, and limitations also nearly identical.

Well, what you fail to understand here is the basic principles of democracy. That the point is not in the nature of powers but their source. In a democracy, sovereign power can come only from the people. Therefore, no unelected official can bear independent power to interfere with the political process in the country.

BTW and one more time, we have not yet established that Ireland does indeed use the concept of prorogation so the meaning of that "nearly" remains highly subjective. Like some may think that an elephant is "nearly identical" to a pig because both have four legs and one tail.

Do you honestly believe the government in the Dutch Parliament doesn't hold wide procedural powers to interfere where needed?

However wide they could be (still needs to be investigated) they do not extend as far as dismissing the Parliament at will and for arbitrarily long, essentially suspending all Parliamentary activities including, yes, any claims to accountability and oversight.

But we've been through this. By this point I don't think you even care whether what you say makes sense or not. You're an ideologue, and one who had some bizarre emotional investment in a coalition that couldn't even survive two months until Parliament reconvened.

Yeah, right we keep hearing this over and over again, so even without slightest logical substantiation it should eventually do the trick (one'd hope).

[ToadBrother]

Well, what you fail to understand here is the basic principles of democracy. That the point is not in the nature of powers but their source. In a democracy, sovereign power can come only from the people.

I think you'd find yourself at variance to political theory. There is nothing particular incompatible between a monarchy and the notion that power stems from the people. The very origins of our Monarchy are the Germanic tribal chieftains who were often answerable to a body of elders and to the tribe in general.

Therefore, no unelected official can bear independent power to interfere with the political process in the country.

There is only one regular occasion when the Queen or the GG can interfere with the political process, and that is when the Government has fallen. Other than that the Crown, as I keep repeating endlessly, must act on the advice of government. In short, the government, which is democratically constituted and itself only serves at the pleasure of Parliament, runs the show.

It is conceivable for the Crown to act with some latitude in situations of political deadlock (ie. the Australian Constitutional Crisis) or if the Crown feels that legislation would be very harmful. So far as I know refusing assent has happened only once in the last hundred years, and that was the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta refusing some very noxious anti-press legislation that the Alberta Socred government was trying to pass to punish unfriendly newspapers. That strikes me as being an awfully good example of how our system can put a very quick stop to tyranny (rather than waiting years for government actions to wend their way through the courts for resolution).

BTW and one more time, we have not yet established that Ireland does indeed use the concept of prorogation so the meaning of that "nearly" remains highly subjective. Like some may think that an elephant is "nearly identical" to a pig because both have four legs and one tail.

Even in the UK prorogation is not used like it is here (I have long said our system is a partially malformed Westminster system). The general notion of prorogation is that a government has largely completed its legislative agenda, wants to essentially reset committees, the order paper, etc. In the UK that's what happens, a session lasts until either the government falls or it completes its agenda.

Harper essentially abused the prorogation power to save himself from losing a confidence motion. I will not deny that fact. But, despite all the Tory efforts to advertise it as a mundane circumstance, it was an extraordinary event. This latest is somewhat less extraordinary in that he did so under no threat of a loss of confidence, though it's clear that he wanted to shut down Parliament over the Afghan prisoner abuse issue and probably to stack a few more seats in the Senate.

That all being said, just because a power is abused doesn't mean that the power is somehow anti-democratic. Clearly in just about every other Westminster-style government, being able to reset the legislature (call it prorogation or whatever you like) has not lead to the kind of abuse we've seen in the last couple of years. Thus I think this impugns the government far more than it impugns the system.

However wide they could be (still needs to be investigated) they do not extend as far as dismissing the Parliament at will and for arbitrarily long, essentially suspending all Parliamentary activities including, yes, any claims to accountability and oversight.

I think what Harper did was wrong, but because our constitution requires that Parliament meet at least once a year, he could not have indefinitely put it off. You'll note that he is clearly abandoning prorogation now and attempting another tact which, as odd to you as it may sound, angers me much more than prorogation, and that is asserting that somehow the Government has some right in the interest of national security to deprive Parliament of information. Now that I do find an outrage, much more than shutting Parliament down for a couple of months to survive a confidence motion or stop the release of any more troubling documents. In fact, I assert that what Harper is doing is blatantly unconstitutional, rather than just sort of bending things. Unconstitutional acts depriving Parliament of its lawful and historic right to hold government uncountable is damned close to tyranny.

Edited March 11, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

I think you'd find yourself at variance to political theory. There is nothing particular incompatible between a monarchy and the notion that power stems from the people. The very origins of our Monarchy are the Germanic tribal chieftains who were often answerable to a body of elders and to the tribe in general.

Great, hystorical mumbo jumbo to the resque! Monarchy is democracy and democracy is monarchy.

There is only one regular occasion when the Queen or the GG can interfere with the political process, and that is when the Government has fallen. Other than that the Crown, as I keep repeating endlessly, must act on the advice of government. In short, the government, which is democratically constituted and itself only serves at the pleasure of Parliament, runs the show.

And I hear you. Therefore through these powers the government has unrestricted prerogatives to interrupt and dismiss the Parliament, call election at the time of its choosing, obstruct activities to hold it accountable, fire its quasi una "independent" watchdogs and even preclude passage of legislation it does not like.

If this look anything but complete domination of political process (e.g. "supremacy of the Parliament"), one must have very serious vision problems.

It is conceivable for the Crown to act with some latitude in situations of political deadlock (ie. the Australian Constitutional Crisis) or if the Crown feels that legislation would be very harmful. So far as I know refusing assent has happened only once in the last hundred years, and that was the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta refusing some very noxious anti-press legislation that the Alberta Socred government was trying to pass to punish unfriendly newspapers. That strikes me as being an awfully good example of how our system can put a very quick stop to tyranny (rather than waiting years for government actions to wend their way through the courts for resolution).

Which brings us back to the issue #1. Expediency and deep attachment to tradition at the expense of democratic integrity. I said earlier what I think is the root cause for that thinking. We still see ourselves as a remnant of that colony, incapable or lacking confidence in our own democratic institutions to make fully sovereign decisions. Give it another generation or two.

Even in the UK prorogation is not used like it is here (I have long said our system is a partially malformed Westminster system). The general notion of prorogation is that a government has largely completed its legislative agenda, wants to essentially reset committees, the order paper, etc. In the UK that's what happens, a session lasts until either the government falls or it completes its agenda.

So, outside of advancing government agenda, the Parliament has no further cause to exist and can be shut down?

What about accountability, oversight, checks and balances?

Those have no place in this system (other than in the name) correct?

Harper essentially abused the prorogation power to save himself from losing a confidence motion. I will not deny that fact. But, despite all the Tory efforts to advertise it as a mundane circumstance, it was an extraordinary event. This latest is somewhat less extraordinary in that he did so under no threat of a loss of confidence, though it's clear that he wanted to shut down Parliament over the Afghan prisoner abuse issue and probably to stack a few more seats in the Senate.

Not necessarily. He may have simply taken our Constitution for its face value, that spells very clearly the powers given to the government directly or by proxy of unelected viceroy. He's done nothing illegal and somebody else may do it again just as well, or it may become a standard practice in our process to avoid even that little of accountability and responsibility the Parliament can effect in our system now.

That all being said, just because a power is abused doesn't mean that the power is somehow anti-democratic. Clearly in just about every other Westminster-style government, being able to reset the legislature (call it prorogation or whatever you like) has not lead to the kind of abuse we've seen in the last couple of years. Thus I think this impugns the government far more than it impugns the system.

No it's not "undemocratic" but it does go counter to the essential principles of responsible democracy, i.e independence and checks and balances between branches of political power. And very obviously, and just as you can see with your own eyes now, the ability to perform oversight over the government and hold it accountable is compromised in this setting to an extent where one could seriously ask question whether there's anything real about it or it's only there for the democratic appearance?

In fact, I assert that what Harper is doing is blatantly unconstitutional, rather than just sort of bending things. Unconstitutional acts depriving Parliament of its lawful and historic right to hold government uncountable is damned close to tyranny.

Then we agree on the symptoms but not the diagnosis. In part I feel gratitude to our PM for bringing these issues out in the open so that they no longer could be ignored. Part of the cause may be the bent up anger accumulated over Chretien's years of complete and unqualified domination (some may have been thought of those years as tyranny in its own sense). All an all, I'll repeat one more time, our system is grossly outdated, it does not allow political diversity and choice that is common among most advanced democracies in this age. In my view it's quite near the end of the road in its present shape, and it will either reform itself by providing wider and more diverse representation of the political spectrum in the society, or fade into incapacity and irrelevance.

[ToadBrother]

So, outside of advancing government agenda, the Parliament has no further cause to exist and can be shut down?

What about accountability, oversight, checks and balances?

Those have no place in this system (other than in the name) correct?

I'm not going to go over points we long ago crossed sabers over, but I think this particular item needs some response.

After the Glorious Revolution, Parliament, to some degree, acted precisely as you seem to wish it would. The King still appointed ministers, but generally speaking Parliament functioned via consensus. While there were certainly ideological or strategic blocs in Parliament, there were no parties as such. If an MP wanted a law passed, he needed to gather as much support as possible (Congress in the US still functions to some degree like this, though extreme partisanship since the 1990s is shifting them more to the firm party system found in other democracies).

The problem with this system was that it was chaotic. Without a cohesive and coherent government within Parliament, it was often extraordinarily hard to get legislation passed. The party system, which largely evolved during the reign of George III, found a way to create some order in Parliament without resorting to the older mechanisms (ie. indefinite prorogation by Charles I or expelling members who didn't agree with you like the Roundheads did). By the 19th century, the Westminster system had evolved into a completely effective replacement to the absolutism that the Tudors and Stuarts had been so fond of.

But politics, even at the basic structural level, is all about compromise. You can have a completely free and unhindered Parliament or an orderly and effective one, but not both. That is, I suppose, why George Washington, despite his deep dislike of political parties, admitted their inevitably.

The problem in Canada, which is not really found in any of the Westminster parliaments out there, is that the PM has more and more taken on executive airs. A sort of absolutism has slipped into the PMO which even the PM of the UK doesn't have. In the UK, calling a Prime Minister "presidential" is, in fact, an insult. Here, since Trudeau's time, it seems to have been the game plan. As I keep saying, the real solution here isn't tinkering with who gets to sit in Rideau Hall, but in electing MPs who have the same sense of independence that their counterparts in the UK have. We have a few, but in general MPs, even in the Opposition parties, are expected by the party leadership to do what they're told. I mean, why do you think Ignatieff made several of his several of his MPs stay away from the Commons a few days ago for the budget vote? You see, the disease isn't just in the PMO, it's in the leadership of all of the major political parties. So it's little wonder that when one of those parties forms a government, they continue to behave that way. Altering the constitution to change who gets to be our Executive is not going to fix the problem.

Edited March 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

In Ireland's constitution the President is elected by popular vote and therefore has both democratic legitimacy and explicit constitutional authority to not "toe the line" in prescribed circumstances.

But otherwise must "toe the line" of the cabinet, which makes him or her little different to the Governor General. The Queen and her representative certainly are not elected; but, whether this denies them democratic legitimacy depends on which definition of "democracy" you choose ("modern, 21st century" doesn't qualify). They certainly have the constitutional authority to not "toe the line" in certain situations.

While in Netherlands the Parliament operates to its own fixed schedule and it's simply impossible for the government to dismiss it, interfere with it, or compromise it.

Which is irrelevant to this head of state debate. If we had a similar set up here, the PM unilaterally advising prorogation would be one of those times the Governor General could, without question, refuse his request. But we don't.

[+]

Edited March 12, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

The problem in Canada, which is not really found in any of the Westminster parliaments out there, is that the PM has more and more taken on executive airs. A sort of absolutism has slipped into the PMO which even the PM of the UK doesn't have. In the UK, calling a Prime Minister "presidential" is, in fact, an insult. Here, since Trudeau's time, it seems to have been the game plan. As I keep saying, the real solution here isn't tinkering with who gets to sit in Rideau Hall, but in electing MPs who have the same sense of independence that their counterparts in the UK have. We have a few, but in general MPs, even in the Opposition parties, are expected by the party leadership to do what they're told. I mean, why do you think Ignatieff made several of his several of his MPs stay away from the Commons a few days ago for the budget vote? You see, the disease isn't just in the PMO, it's in the leadership of all of the major political parties. So it's little wonder that when one of those parties forms a government, they continue to behave that way. Altering the constitution to change who gets to be our Executive is not going to fix the problem.

Good analysis but why such an outlandish conclusion? How would you make MPs grow a backbone? How would you roll back political times to pre partisan state of affairs? Rather than ponder this kind of fantastic projects, here's two real, practical recipes that actually belong to domain of possible and are being used in democracies everywhere:

1) Balance the powers of government and legislature, eliminate unnecessary powers and prerogatives. This would create more functional legislature, that would actually have a raison d'etre of its own, as opposed to serving the government agenda and partisan jockeying.

2) Modernise representation to reflect political makeup of society more closely. The problem with our system is really that there isn't much choice (now it looks more and more like there isn't any meaningful choice). More diverse makeup of the Parliament and acceptance of coalitions is the going forward solution to the partisan duopoly dilemma, not some kind of woodoo chanting to breath life back into that eternal duopoly that's slowly suffocating itself with its own byproducts, utter and incurable nonsense and boredom.

Edited March 12, 2010 by myata

[ToadBrother]

Good analysis but why such an outlandish conclusion? How would you make MPs grow a backbone? How would you roll back political times to pre partisan state of affairs? Rather than ponder this kind of fantastic projects, here's two real, practical recipes that actually belong to domain of possible and are being used in democracies everywhere:

I plan on voting independent myself, and barring any independent in my riding, I may just try to raise the money and run on my own ticket. If, say, even fifty ridings were to go to independents in the next election the way Parliament functions would be altered considerably, all without having had to alter one single letter or punctuation mark in the Constitution. At the end of the day, the reason our Parliament has become what it has become is because of the voters. There is absolutely nothing stopping the voters from rejecting the mainline parties, punishing incumbents who support policies of their party that the voters find wrongheaded.

No Constitution on Earth, as evidenced by falling voter turnouts in many industrialized countries, regardless of political or electoral system, can guarantee that most key ingredient, the citizen feeling the necessary obligation to be part of the process. In Australia, where they have mandatory voting, it seems that all it does is offer the incumbent a slight advantage, so that doesn't appear to be a solution.

1) Balance the powers of government and legislature,

What powers? Be specific here? Are we talking legislative powers (ie. control of the order paper), are we talking the running of the bureaucracy and departments?

eliminate unnecessary powers and prerogatives.

And which powers or prerogatives are unnecessary? Be specific. I'm not interested in T-shirt campaign slogans, but in actual data.

This would create more functional legislature, that would actually have a raison d'etre of its own, as opposed to serving the government agenda and partisan jockeying.

This claim really depends greatly on what you're stating should be changed or discarded. I have already told you that one of the reasons the party system evolved to begin with was because Parliament prior to that could be a horribly unruly and unmanageable place, where consensus was often terribly hard to find and where all manner of horse trading (even quite illicit forms like influence peddling and bribery) were common.

2) Modernise representation to reflect political makeup of society more closely. The problem with our system is really that there isn't much choice (now it looks more and more like there isn't any meaningful choice). More diverse makeup of the Parliament and acceptance of coalitions is the going forward solution to the partisan duopoly dilemma, not some kind of woodoo chanting to breath life back into that eternal duopoly that's slowly suffocating itself with its own byproducts, utter and incurable nonsense and boredom.

But this solution as much requires non-constitutional alterations, such as new political parties, as it does, say, altering the electoral system. Note that I'm not against the idea. I was a supporter of STV in my home province of BC. What I don't want anything to do with is the party list proportional representation systems like they have in Germany. But that's really another topic.

While I have little problem with proportional representation voting systems, I think there is some justification in stating that it does give undue influence to fringe parties. It's one thing to force coalitions between, say, the Liberals and the NDP (formal or otherwise), but to have, say, the Heritage Party suddenly getting a few seats and the Conservatives, let's say, aligning themselves with that band of racist nuts, would hardly be productive. Change isn't in and of itself good, it needs to be measured and rational.

Edited March 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

I plan on voting independent myself, and barring any independent in my riding, I may just try to raise the money and run on my own ticket. If, say, even fifty ridings were to go to independents in the next election the way Parliament functions would be altered considerably, all without having had to alter one single letter or punctuation mark in the Constitution. At the end of the day, the reason our Parliament has become what it has become is because of the voters. There is absolutely nothing stopping the voters from rejecting the mainline parties, punishing incumbents who support policies of their party that the voters find wrongheaded.

A noble act but barring special one time circumstances as futule as trying to turn the clock back. Against you will be not one but both behemoth parties with their functionaries, advertising, volunteers, etc and only one would have to get one vote more than you to send you back to political backwaters. With enormous luck you could make it there but it'll be just another freak occasion like any number before and will result in zero positive change as our behemotial duo will continue uncontested dominance over our political landscape.

No, this is not some evil conspiracy or unfortunate turn of events, but pure and simple logic, as 1-2-3. In the majoritary system there's only one winner and therefore only one way to vote: for or against, government or opposition, Tories or Wigs. Nobody else is admitted and no other interest can be represented. And once the duopoly system has been established, do ask yourself what choice would an MP who wouldn't toe the party line have? Correct, end his/her political career or go over to the only other party with meaningful claim to the power, and toe its party line.

This is because proportional representation is not some funny invention by people who like political experementation, but willing or not recognition of well known fact of our lives that choice comes with diversity and change but not necessarily stability. We here are so terrified of even minuscule political change that we're prepared to sacrifice all meaningful political choice for the appearance of stability and zero change. It is only appearance btw because without efficient and working way of keeping political leadership to account we'll never be able to know what is really going on. Take sponsorship scandal, take detainees and any number of other events when truth took years and decades to come out.

No Constitution on Earth, as evidenced by falling voter turnouts in many industrialized countries, regardless of political or electoral system, can guarantee that most key ingredient, the citizen feeling the necessary obligation to be part of the process. In Australia, where they have mandatory voting, it seems that all it does is offer the incumbent a slight advantage, so that doesn't appear to be a solution.

We addressed that argument at length. Rejecting change because it may not lead to perfect problem free solution is a sure way to fall back and stagnate.

What powers? Be specific here? Are we talking legislative powers (ie. control of the order paper), are we talking the running of the bureaucracy and departments?

And which powers or prerogatives are unnecessary? Be specific. I'm not interested in T-shirt campaign slogans, but in actual data.

It's not like I didn't say it already and probably a dozen times. Real independence, real accountability, real checks. I'll give it just one more generations till our federal politicians will be the only ones interested in a dream world they are living in.

This claim really depends greatly on what you're stating should be changed or discarded. I have already told you that one of the reasons the party system evolved to begin with was because Parliament prior to that could be a horribly unruly and unmanageable place, where consensus was often terribly hard to find and where all manner of horse trading (even quite illicit forms like influence peddling and bribery) were common.

An apt observation, parties have much better control over their political agenda and therefore much higher chance to see it through. As already mentioned, the problem arises than party system is combined with adversary representation mechanism that limits choice and stiffles competition ultimately to the extent that any meaningful choice may disappear entirely.

While I have little problem with proportional representation voting systems, I think there is some justification in stating that it does give undue influence to fringe parties. It's one thing to force coalitions between, say, the Liberals and the NDP (formal or otherwise), but to have, say, the Heritage Party suddenly getting a few seats and the Conservatives, let's say, aligning themselves with that band of racist nuts, would hardly be productive. Change isn't in and of itself good, it needs to be measured and rational.

Let's see: between themselves, NDP (~20%) and Greens (up to 10%) have levels of popular support approaching those of the main parties. But where is their representation? Right. That is the prime intent of this system: eliminate diversity and choice to the maximum extent possible.

Regarding the "nuts": would the fact of no representation mean that there's no popular support for these groups? Who do we have to fool (but ourselves)? Or is another sign of infantility and low confidence?

[msdogfood]

A noble act but barring special one time circumstances as futule as trying to turn the clock back. Against you will be not one but both behemoth parties with their functionaries, advertising, volunteers, etc and only one would have to get one vote more than you to send you back to political backwaters. With enormous luck you could make it there but it'll be just another freak occasion like any number before and will result in zero positive change as our behemotial duo will continue uncontested dominance over our political landscape.

No, this is not some evil conspiracy or unfortunate turn of events, but pure and simple logic, as 1-2-3. In the majoritary system there's only one winner and therefore only one way to vote: for or against, government or opposition, Tories or Wigs. Nobody else is admitted and no other interest can be represented. And once the duopoly system has been established, do ask yourself what choice would an MP who wouldn't toe the party line have? Correct, end his/her political career or go over to the only other party with meaningful claim to the power, and toe its party line.

This is because proportional representation is not some funny invention by people who like political experementation, but willing or not recognition of well known fact of our lives that choice comes with diversity and change but not necessarily stability. We here are so terrified of even minuscule political change that we're prepared to sacrifice all meaningful political choice for the appearance of stability and zero change. It is only appearance btw because without efficient and working way of keeping political leadership to account we'll never be able to know what is really going on. Take sponsorship scandal, take detainees and any number of other events when truth took years and decades to come out.

We addressed that argument at length. Rejecting change because it may not lead to perfect problem free solution is a sure way to fall back and stagnate.

It's not like I didn't say it already and probably a dozen times. Real independence, real accountability, real checks. I'll give it just one more generations till our federal politicians will be the only ones interested in a dream world they are living in.

An apt observation, parties have much better control over their political agenda and therefore much higher chance to see it through. As already mentioned, the problem arises than party system is combined with adversary representation mechanism that limits choice and stiffles competition ultimately to the extent that any meaningful choice may disappear entirely.

Let's see: between themselves, NDP (~20%) and Greens (up to 10%) have levels of popular support approaching those of the main parties. But where is their representation? Right. That is the prime intent of this system: eliminate diversity and choice to the maximum extent possible.

Regarding the "nuts": would the fact of no representation mean that there's no popular support for these groups? Who do we have to fool (but ourselves)? Or is another sign of infantility and low confidence?

so whan do you think there will be an electron next??.