Coalition Government

[Dave_ON]

That sounds extreme.

Alright, now I am getting weary of this. Again, this sounds more and more like elitism. I do understand our system. I know what a Westminster system is and how Parliament functions. Please stop insinuating that I am ignorant.

It may sound extreme but it is a fact of our system nevertheless, the people choose MP's, not parties and they certainly don't choose who forms the government. That is determined by those who make up parliament. By convention the party with the most seats forms the government, but only continues to do so at the behest of parliament. What is conventional is not always what occurs, hence Mr. Harper was able to prorogue parliament and essentially "silence" the people’s voice. If our representatives are not sitting in the house, then the government is operating without the oversight of the people (which is done through their duly elected representative.)

I believe that Parliament and Parliamentarians should respect the will of their electorates. The Coalition was not their will. Justifying any seizure or transfer of power with a systematic exploit is dangerous. The system serves us, not the other way around.

Than please explain how proroguing parliament expressed the will of the people or served them in anyway. How did preventing their representative from speaking on their behalf serve? Further how else are people, in our system as you seem to be aware, able to express their will other than through their representative? We do not vote directly on legislation, we elect Members of Parliament to do this for us.

I understand you are passionate here, but please, that is an obvious insult not only to my intelligence but also to my patriotism.

It was a bit harsh I admit but it was not an insult to your patriotism in the least. What it was is a commentary on how you are applying the American concepts of democracy to our system where they clearly do not fit. The "people" did not choose Steven Harper to be their PM. Parliament did, in fact the only people that could say they chose Mr. Harper are his constituents in his riding.

Again, please consider how odd that sounds. Government is formed in and of Parliament, it therefore has a mandate from the people. The difference in this instance is that the proposed Coalition had no mandate from the electorate.

Please explain how the conservatives were chosen to be the government by the people? On this point you clearly don't understand our system. I, and the majority of constituents in my riding, elected a Member of Parliament, Greg Pearson. Mr. Greg Pearson is a member of the LPC. He has one vote in the house which effectively represents my entire ridings vote. If he and a number of other MP's determined that the current sitting government no longer represented his constituents it is their right to choose a new government. I don't have a direct say in the matter as I have given my say over to Mr. Greg Pearson. Now what I can do is contact him and notify him of my chagrin and failing that I can choose not to re-elect him, but short of this that is the extent of my voice in a representative democracy.

You're arguing in idealistic notions, not in practical terms. It's all well and good to say parliament should serve the will of the people, but the truth is that's not really how our system of government works. We're not a direct democracy, we're a representative democracy. The we only have a voice during an election or referendum.

It was a new creature introduced by a sitting Parliament; unquestionably Parliament's composition would have been different had the electorate been aware of a Coalition possibility. Reason, reason, reason. It was the will of the opposition party leaders to form a Coalition government, not the electorate. Everyone knew this.

It was not a new creature in the least. It was still made up of all duly elected representatives and was just as legitimate as the defacto CPC government. The difference is, the CPC was made government by convention, where as the coalition would have been made government by direct mandate from parliament, and by proxy as demonstrated above, the constituents those members represent.

I wasn't arguing the system. I was arguing that the nature of the action was contrary to Canada's sense of democracy. The Prime Minister had every right to use public opinion, via the media, to bring Parliament in line. He knew Canadians did not want a Coalition government. He did not break the law by saying Parliament is doing something you, the electorate, never wanted. What was immaterial to Canadians was that the system permitted the action; what was material to them was Parliament obey their will.

I'm afraid you are arguing the system, if as many Canadians as you claim are truly unhappy with how our governmental system works; they need to elect representatives that will change our system of government to better reflect what they want. Until such time as that occurs we have no choice but to operate within the system. The constitution is the will of the people in Canada and this is where I believe you are going astray. We need to make a change to the constitution if we want our will expressed differently. I for one do not want it changed, and I would be sincerely surprised if many Canadians did.

I also find it somewhat disturbing that you think it is acceptable and expected that the PM has the right and authority to "bring parliament into line". It is the other way around, it is parliament that oversees the government and ensure that the government remains in line.

Rhetorical tripe is worthless if it doesn't carry weight with the people. It did carry weight. His argument was better than the coalition's. His argument was in line with what Canadians wanted and expected. The Coalition was not. The Coalition used the parliamentary system to broker a power grab; Harper used that same parliamentary system, combined with the media and public opinion to put a stop to the action.

Again the will of the people is contained within the constitution, and implemented by Parliament. This is all there is, anything more is rhetorical tripe regardless of popular opinion.

To conclude, simply because something is possible in our Parliamentary system does not at once make it right or acceptable. The opposition leaders should have realized they were risking the credibility of the Westminster system in the eyes of Canadians by their action. I understand they felt they had little choice; nonetheless, that is exactly how Canadians felt when they took action, like we had no choice but to accept whatever it was those three party leaders felt fit to bestow on Canada.

It is acceptable because it is constitutional; there is no higher authority in our country than that of constitution or the will of parliament. You imply a disparity between parliament and the will of the people where none exists.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Dave_ON

[ToadBrother]

...What is conventional is not always what occurs, hence Mr. Harper was able to prorogue parliament and essentially "silence" the people’s voice. If our representatives are not sitting in the house, then the government is operating without the oversight of the people (which is done through their duly elected representative.)

Within sharp limits. Orders in Council give the Government a good deal of legislative power, but my understanding is that supply bills must be passed by Parliament. That was essentially the situation Charles I was in during the Personal Rule. He couldn't raise or create new taxes and thus had to rely on the revenue already set up, along with some limited forms of direct taxation that had been afforded to him (I believe at that time some of the ports paid taxes directly to the King and he had some ability to change them), but it wasn't enough for what he wanted to do, and he was thus forced in 1640 to recall Parliament.

It is acceptable because it is constitutional; there is no higher authority in our country than that of constitution or the will of parliament. You imply a disparity between parliament and the will of the people where none exists.

I'm amazed that Timothy seems to be essentially arguing for an extra-constitutional authority, that this nebulous beast called "the people" based on the soundings made by pollsters, or, from what I can tell, the gut reaction of the government and its supporters, can supersede Parliament's powers.

If we want to debate what the constitution should permit or deny, I'm all for it, but the fact is that the constitution does not recognize the people's right to directly interfere in the actions of Parliament. He then argues that Canadians think in a North American model, but that claim is no more true for the US and Mexican presidential systems than it is for the Westminster system. It is true, to some degree, in the Swiss system, and in some American states that allow for citizens initiatives, for instance, but all in all, I cannot think of any other major democratic jurisdictions that allow a direct intrusion in the way that Timothy is asserting somehow was made in 2008 when the Coalition was declared invalid.

I was no fan of the Coalition, and I think the fact that it didn't last out two months of prorogation suggests that it was a very unstable beast. But the coalition members had every right under our system of government to topple the government through a vote of no confidence and then to go to the Governor General to make the request that they could form a government. Timothy's problem seems to be that he sees an election and the forming of a government to be the same action, but surely what just happened a few days ago in the UK demonstrates that that belief is completely false, and if there are Canadians out there that somehow think that's the way things work, then they are wrong, and if they want the selection of a government to work in that fashion, then mouthing off to pollsters isn't the solution, seeking constitutional change is.

I would, however, think altering that particular arrange would be a terrible idea. I can well imagine situations in which Parliament might feel compelled to topple a government, but present some other bloc within Parliament who can form a new government. National emergencies and the like. Simply put, the constitution functions the way it does for a reason, and it cannot be altered simply because this weeks EKOS poll declares "60% of Canadians don't like a coalition government".

Edited May 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

It is acceptable because it is constitutional; there is no higher authority in our country than that of constitution or the will of parliament. You imply a disparity between parliament and the will of the people where none exists.

You are correct - and that is why you are wrong. The Liberals and the NDP combined, did not have nearly as many seats as the Conservatives so they were not expressing the will of Paliament or that of the Canadian people - not even close. If they would have formally included the Bloc in their coalition, that would have been different - at least technically, they would have been expressing the will of Parliament. And why do you think they decided not to do that?

Edited May 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[g_bambino]

No, of course putting another checkbox in the election box, and recording and implementing that choice in practice would completely undermine, no totally explode the foundations of a "balanced" society.

Don't be so disingenuous; another checkbox on a ballot is a far cry from what you actually said, which was an expressed desire to grant people "all the freedom there is on principle... because we have right to make sovereign conscious choices without artificial restriction or limitaion [sic]." If you actually didn't mean to advocate anarchy, perhaps you should listen to what I and other people say to you about communicating via inane catch-phrases.

[sp]

Edited May 14, 2010 by g_bambino

[Dave_ON]

You are correct - and that is why you are wrong. The Liberals and the NDP combined, did not have nearly as many seats as the Conservatives so they were not expressing the will of Paliament or that of the Canadian people - not even close. If they would have formally included the Bloc in their coalition, that would have been different - at least technically, they would have been expressing the will of Parliament. And why do you think they decided not to do that?

I don't disagree in the least. The coalition was ill fated and ill conceived from the get go. What I can't abide is a complete misrepresentation of our system. Coalitions are unpredictable and unstable, certainly, unconstitutional and undemocratic, absoultely not. There are many technicalities we may or may not like in our system, nevertheless they are there for a reason, because at one time or another they were deemed as necessary.

[ToadBrother]

You are correct - and that is why you are wrong. The Liberals and the NDP combined, did not have nearly as many seats as the Conservatives so they were not expressing the will of Paliament or that of the Canadian people - not even close. If they would have formally included the Bloc in their coalition, that would have been different - at least technically, they would have been expressing the will of Parliament. And why do you think they decided not to do that?

No no no no. Why do people keep saying these things. That is nothing like how it works. For Gawd's sake man, learn something about our constitution before you mouth off.

Let me take you through the steps:

Step 1 - Parliament votes no confidence in the government. At this moment, the Prime Minister ceases to have any power to advise the Governor General. There are some caretaker functions which can still be exercised, but for all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister and Cabinet cease to wield any executive functions.

Step 2 - The leader of another party, usually the party with the next largest number of seats, goes to the GG, either as the representative of his party, or possibly of other parties, and that combination need not be a majority of seats (after all, the previous, toppled government did not represent a majority of seats), and makes himself available to form a new government.

Step 3 - At this moment we see in its full flower the vast powers afforded the Governor General, because she can now decide, based on constitutional convention, precedent and upon the realities of the current political situation, whether to ask the leader of this other group in Parliament (remember, political parties have only a nebulous existence in our constitution, what counts is a Parliamentary bloc of seats, not the political alignment of the MPs occupying those seats) or, alternatively, to call a new election. While she certainly and very likely would seek the advise of experts and the Privy Council, at the end of the day the Sovereign's Reserve Powers which she exercises are now being invoked without intervention.

Step 4 - Presuming she asks the leader of the Opposition, he becomes Prime Minister, either of another minority government, or as we saw a few days ago in Britain, as the leader of a coalition government. This is because our system does ultimately consider how many seats he directly commands, but merely that he can form a government.

Nowhere in this formulation is there any notion that a coalition government requires all opposition parties to be direct members. In fact, it would have been constitutionally permissible for Stephan Dion to make himself and the Liberals available as a government without any formalized coalition. Of course, the smaller the party's seat count in the House, the less likely they can actually make the case that they can form the government, but it has happened in the Westminster system on a few occasions that the opposition party, even though it has less seats, has been asked by the Sovereign or the vice-regal representative to form the government.

In fact, I submit to you that even without the coalition, if the Tories had fallen in 2008 to a vote of no confidence, just weeks after an election, it's almost certain that the Governor General would have asked Stephan Dion to form a government, even if he did not have any formalized arrangement with the NDP and/or Bloc, simply because it would be too onerous on the electorate to have two elections so close to each other.

You Tories really need to learn how our constitution works, because when you come up with tripe like this, it's very clear you have no real understanding of the system, it's history or the precedents.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

It was not the will of the electorate. They didn't elect an unforseen, unexpected Coalition.

Then, according to you, there never will be such a thing as a coalition government again in Canada, seeing as it's impossible to know a coalition government is feasible or needed until after the election is over.

[ToadBrother]

Then, according to you, there never will be such a thing as a coalition government again in Canada, seeing as it's impossible to know a coalition government is feasible or needed until after the election is over.

An excellent point. In Britain, neither Labour nor the Conservatives campaigned on the notion "We'll get into bed with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats!" Quite the opposite, in fact. Brown and Cameron spent much of the time, particularly in the last week or two, attacking Clegg more than they did each other, precisely because they didn't want to have to form a coalition. While it's possible, even likely, that there were emissaries from the Labour and Conservative camps knocking at the LibDem's door before election day, it certainly wasn't until the weekend that a deal was hammered out between the LibDem's and the Conservatives, with the LibDems in fact keeping their toes in Labour water by also holding meetings with Labour, so much so that Brown resigned, hoping that that would be enough to bring the LibDems over to the Labour camp.

I'd love to get Timothy's views on that election because:

1. A coalition was formed despite the fact that the two main parties were doing everything they could to discredit the LibDems and form a majority, and the LibDems seemed to have enough of a toe in the door that some even though they might have sufficient votes to march up the middle and form a minority government of their own.

2. Labour was willing to even throw it their leader, thus naming a new Prime Minister who had not in fact campaigned as such, if it meant making a coalition.

3. Electoral reform, which was pretty much rejected by the Conservatives, is now on the tables, meaning a policy that the Conservatives roundly rejected during the campaign is now likely (though it will probably be an AV system, not exactly earth-shattering).

It strikes me that by Timothy's calculation the current British government must be at least triply illegitimate.

[myata]

Don't be so disingenuous; another checkbox on a ballot is a far cry from what you actually said, which was an expressed desire to grant people "all the freedom there is on principle...

If you only gave yourself a minute to read the entire statement in the context of the thread, you would instantly realize that the statement related to "all the freedom there's..." in political choices. That is correct and I stand by it 100%, simply because there's no third way, as we have all learned growing up from babies into responsible and mature adults: you either make your choices and take responsibility for them; or they, choices are made, adjusted, massaged, and so on, etc yada for you. It's one or the other. Finding excuses and/or rationalizations does not change that fact one bit.

And so, many democracies have matured enough to give the society freedom of choice and abide by it to the best extent possible; and some still limit that choice, even to a serious extent, and even, in the more and more likely eventuality, to the extent where it'll have little meaning, if any.

[ironstone]

names damnit! We want names... just who makes up this 'mostly' leftist media... particularly those "lefty commentators" that have your eye - names damnit!

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.Toronto Star.Globe and Mail.

[bloodyminded]

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.Toronto Star.Globe and Mail.

Well, to be fair, you were only asked for names, and one might argue you've provided them here. So fair enough.

But the real question is how these are "leftist" media. Surely we're not to take it on faith.

Edited May 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[g_bambino]

If you only gave yourself a minute to read the entire statement in the context of the thread, you would instantly realize that the statement related to "all the freedom there's..." in political choices.

Ah, how typical; it wasn't your bad communication skills that caused the problem, it was my inability to comprehend your personal version of English. Right.

Well, even if it's just from politics that you want to remove the strictures, you're advocating an unworkable, chaotic system of government. Apparently you believe it exists already in some "mature democracies", but you've yet to specify what countries those are. Perchance this will end up again with you crying about how we should change our system to be more like that of counties that have, er... nearly the exact same system.

[myata]

Well, even if it's just from politics that you want to remove the strictures,

Exactly; looks like my communications are going to improve here, thanks for contribution )). More precisely, to remove those "structures" that artificially and unnecessarily limit our political choices to the extent that they are very near becoming pointless and non-existent in any meaningful sense.

you're advocating an unworkable, chaotic system of government.

Without necessarily conceding the point about "unworkable" and "chaotic" as there're any number of democracies in which some form of proportional representation have worked for decades - we all know that freedom and independence isn't all rosies. It can be messy business, it certainly means being more aware and making more choices. It really comes down to that same old realization that important decisions are made by the people, or for them, and there's not really any other, third way (to be carefree, ignorant about country's politics and still make meaningful contribution to it). What you do is what you get. Some choose freedom, whatever troubles and drawbacks it comes with; and some choose quiet, predictable and uneventful life. Can't have it both ways, as far I can see it.

Apparently you believe it exists already in some "mature democracies", but you've yet to specify what countries those are. Perchance this will end up again with you crying about how we should change our system to be more like that of counties that have, er... nearly the exact same system.

It isn't like that; not what we need to change for the sake of being like "them". But it's still possible that eventually we'll realize the same truth (as explained earlier) that would inspire us to add more meaningful choices in our system, though if need be in a different way than it's done in other countries. Till that happens I see no point in participating in that dumbed down political game, if I can't make real choice, I'm not going to pretend that I do. And the sooner we realize that eating what we're served isn't the only option in this free world and Universe, the sooner we'll have positive change here (and I seriously doubt we'll have it much sooner than that).

[g_bambino]

[T]o remove those "structures" that artificially and unnecessarily limit our political choices to the extent that they are very near becoming pointless and non-existent in any meaningful sense... [T]here're any number of democracies in which some form of proportional representation have worked for decades...

But it's still possible that eventually we'll realize the same truth (as explained earlier) that would inspire us to add more meaningful choices in our system, though if need be in a different way than it's done in other countries. Till that happens I see no point in participating in that dumbed down political game, if I can't make real choice, I'm not going to pretend that I do.

So, all this time it was about proportional representation? Proportional representation is a system; a system created by humans, and, as such, is artificial. As a system, it also has limits and relies on strictures in order to function. It's very presumptuous of you to declare it a truth that proportional representation would be better for us; there are a number of valid arguments as to why it wouldn't be better at all; just today the Toronto Star published an opinion piece stating:

What is needed in Canada is not a new electoral system certainly not proportional representation, which would produce an even more fragmented and regionalized Parliament than we now have.

You wax poetic about how your enlightened visions are for the benefit of everyone, but that's really all only just a cover for the fact that you hate it whenever what works well for everyone overall doesn't give you everything you want for yourself.

[sp]

Edited May 15, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

You wax poetic about how your enlightened visions are for the benefit of everyone, but that's really all only just a cover for the fact that you hate it whenever what works well for everyone overall doesn't give you everything you want for yourself.

No, that's a mistake you're making on assumption that there's a notion as "good for us", "Canada needs", etc. Yet there's no such thing. There's free and open choice of responsible individuals; or there's restricted and manipulated surrogate of such choice. Freedom is not there for some common good, it's a principle. The principle of nature that favours change, adaptation and independent choices as a superiour way to survival, both individual and as species.

Yes certainly PR is not a perfect system and I already explained that perfect system simply does not exist. It however is one step forward in allowing people to realize their political choices in the spectrum that represents broad selection of political ideas and directions in the society, while our still keeps us in the binary world that existed two hundred years back.

[ToadBrother]

Yes certainly PR is not a perfect system and I already explained that perfect system simply does not exist. It however is one step forward in allowing people to realize their political choices in the spectrum that represents broad selection of political ideas and directions in the society, while our still keeps us in the binary world that existed two hundred years back.

Why on Earth would you think the world was binary two hundred years ago? Two hundred years ago the Westminster political party system was in its earliest stages, and it was hardly just a two way street.

As to PR, it should only be part of a larger package of reforms. PR, to my mind, without some way of weakening political parties, is just a recipe for further entrenching them, and giving them much more power over elected members. I'm all for a certain kind of PR, providing a representative still has an attachment to a constituency, otherwise we're not liberating representatives, we're guaranteeing they become party animals. That's what has happened in Germany with its party list system.

[Topaz]

We will never know if a coalition would work, here in today's society, if we don't try it. I think the three opposition parties could do more for Canadians than what the Tories have.

[Oleg Bach]

I shake my head at the leftist media people saying how we can learn from england and europe, look at those countries and how bad they are. They can learn from us, who cares if tempers flare up and people tend to yell at each other, we have it the best and lets not forget our ancestors came here to get away from europe.

Learning from Europe is like leaning from the Nazis - where is the great out come of the EU? They are a socialist mish mash that is now turning on itself - attacking Greece because they can retire at 50 and get a thousand bucks a week to live on pension wise...they hate their own success - You can have equality under socialism but you are denied comfort and security.

[ToadBrother]

We will never know if a coalition would work, here in today's society, if we don't try it. I think the three opposition parties could do more for Canadians than what the Tories have.

I'm dubious. A coalition that would have had the internal strength to stick around long enough to do some good wouldn't have imploded less than two months into a prorogation. Let's be blunt here, a lot of Liberal MPs, maybe not a majority, but a large minority, were triply angry; first that Dion was staying on as leader after he had so clearly lost the confidence of the party, second because they were getting into bed with separatists, something foreign to most Liberals, and third, because they were getting into bed with the NDP, which was almost as abhorrent to this group as a romp in the hay with the Bloc.

Now maybe at some later date the stars may be aligned differently, but big chunks of the Liberal Party simply were not as enamoured as you are, and remain as skeptical today.

The situations are not the same as in the UK. In the UK it's two parties, so managing it is significantly easier. Part of the reason Labour's attempt to create its "rainbow" coalition was simply because there were far too many parties. It will be hard enough managing a two party coalition, beyond that would create a highly unstable government that would more than likely be unable to do anything for fear of ticking off one of its constituent parties, and with the Tories, so narrowly denied the government waiting for the first opportunity to bring the coalition down, it would have been a disaster, just like the three-way tag team coalition would have been a disaster.

I dislike Harper as much, perhaps more than most, but I think we're in a better situation right now. Harper's like a caged dog. He'll bite at the bars, but the Opposition still holds the stick. If it was necessary, they could still regroup for a coalition, but it's clear that the Tories understand as well as anyone that their own grip on power is tenuous, and they no longer possess the political capital for another prorogation, and the risks of an election are too great, so they'll behave, petulantly and grabbing at every little thing they can claim as their own, but ultimately within the confines of the will of Parliament.

[jbg]

Learning from Europe is like leaning from the Nazis - where is the great out come of the EU? They are a socialist mish mash that is now turning on itself - attacking Greece because they can retire at 50 and get a thousand bucks a week to live on pension wise...they hate their own success - You can have equality under socialism but you are denied comfort and security.

For once Oleg I agree with you.

I feel that Europe has ben squandering opportunities since the fall of the Roman Empire. They spent over 1000 years fighting rather pointless wars. The winner of those wars was "none of the above", i.e. the English-speaking "democracies" of WW II.

As for post-war socialism it's really a leftover from the days of the monarchy where people expected that the monarch, now the government, would make their choices for them. It's really more statism than socialism. Socialism has a more modern-sounding label. As for the Euro imploding, honestly is anyone surprised? It's creation was more the result of the herding instinct of politicians than any real similarity between the countries. The U.S. and Canada could have a single currency more easily than that motley crew of disparate countries, a true Tower of Babel (really babble).

Edited May 19, 2010 by jbg

[myata]

Why on Earth would you think the world was binary two hundred years ago? Two hundred years ago the Westminster political party system was in its earliest stages, and it was hardly just a two way street.

That's right. Two hundred years back you'd vote for the government, or against it. And we haven't moved much since, as a vote cast outside of the main duo is a throw away. What back then there wasn't any other choice per se, whilst now it's just that there's no other meaningful choice is of course a pure technicality.

As to PR, it should only be part of a larger package of reforms. PR, to my mind, without some way of weakening political parties, is just a recipe for further entrenching them, and giving them much more power over elected members. I'm all for a certain kind of PR, providing a representative still has an attachment to a constituency, otherwise we're not liberating representatives, we're guaranteeing they become party animals. That's what has happened in Germany with its party list system.

I agree, we don't have to copy or imitate. We have identified the problem, severe limitation of political choices, and how we deal with it is entirely up to us. I understand the feelings about local attachement, but I'm not sure how much of it, in the meaningful sense we still have even now. We can have a local MP parachuted by party exec sitting in a local office and voting party line. Or it could be somebody coming direct off the party list into the same office and same voting pattern. Would there be much difference between the two?

Not that I see no meaning in the local representation; just what it wouldn't be easy to give meaning two in a developed party system, regardless of representation system.

[ToadBrother]

That's right. Two hundred years back you'd vote for the government, or against it. And we haven't moved much since, as a vote cast outside of the main duo is a throw away. What back then there wasn't any other choice per se, whilst now it's just that there's no other meaningful choice is of course a pure technicality.

Two hundred years ago the notion of party solidarity was in its infancy. Ministries fell as often because they couldn't get like-minded MPs to back legislation as they did because opponents wouldn't back them.

I agree, we don't have to copy or imitate. We have identified the problem, severe limitation of political choices, and how we deal with it is entirely up to us. I understand the feelings about local attachement, but I'm not sure how much of it, in the meaningful sense we still have even now. We can have a local MP parachuted by party exec sitting in a local office and voting party line. Or it could be somebody coming direct off the party list into the same office and same voting pattern. Would there be much difference between the two?

Now you're talking about a wholly different problem. Do you think parachuting doesn't happen in PR systems? Again, we're back to reforms that have little to do with the nature of the ballot, and more to do with the nature of political parties entire. I frankly think electoral reform should take a second seat to ways of severely limiting parties abilities to fiddle with riding associations.

[g_bambino]

That's right. Two hundred years back you'd vote for the government, or against it.

No, you didn't.

[myata]

Now you're talking about a wholly different problem. Do you think parachuting doesn't happen in PR systems? Again, we're back to reforms that have little to do with the nature of the ballot, and more to do with the nature of political parties entire. I frankly think electoral reform should take a second seat to ways of severely limiting parties abilities to fiddle with riding associations.

No, parties came to be for a reason, the reason being superior control over party's message and efficiency in its execution. Perhaps we could attempt correcting the extremes of over control, but being a competitive process it'll be a hard proposition, giving that party with superior cohesion of message and policy would have natural advantage among voters. In Ottawa we have a city council of 10 or so, that is capable of making decisions about 50% of time (my estimate). Now imagine 300.

Multiparty parliament where no one single party can hold a majority becomes critical in keeping the governing party under check, where individual MPs no longer could. No matter how much we desire it, fully independent local MP is a thing of the past. We can look for solutions that work now, or spend our time in wailing about how great things used to be in the glorious past.