Should Parliament elect a Cabinet?

[g_bambino]

I want to elect the government and cabinet. That is what I do now because I only theoretically vote for my individual MP. In fact, I vote for theperson in my riding who represents the party i believe has the best platform so,in effect, I vote for a government and cabinet. I don't need any proxy (MP) to do that for me.

It's people like you that make me question the wisdom of having age be the only restriction on the ability to vote.

You don't - in fact, you can't vote for a cabinet, "in effect" or otherwise; to do so would require an ability to foretell the future, given that one won't know who's even available to be picked as a minister of the Crown until after the election. Further, Cabinet's make-up can change without an election; it can even, without going to the polls, be completely repopulated with individuals from another party, should parliament put its confidence behind that party's leader, as almost happened in 2008.

You vote - quite in reality, not theoretically - for your Member of Parliament. Period.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

It's people like you that make me question the wisdom of having age be the only restriction on the ability to vote.

You don't - in fact, you can't vote for a cabinet, "in effect" or otherwise; to do so would require an ability to foretell the future, given that one won't know who's even available to be picked as a minister of the Crown until after the election. Further, Cabinet's make-up can change without an election; it can even, without going to the polls, be completely repopulated with individuals from another party, should parliament put its confidence behind that party's leader, as almost happened in 2008.

You vote - quite in reality, not theoretically - for your Member of Parliament. Period.

I would have hoped for some rational argument rather than a juvenile insult, but I guess that's too much to expect, from you, at least

[Machjo]

NO! I want to elect the government and cabinet. That is what I do now because I only theoretically vote for my individual MP. In fact, I vote for theperson in my riding who represents the party i believe has the best platform so,in effect, I vote for a government and cabinet. I don't need any proxy (MP) to do that for me.

Parties are necessary for this system to work. Without parties we don't know what we are voting for because no individual MP can deliver on any broad range of policies.

You do realize don't you that an MP can resign from his party at any time of his choosing, and that that freedom is guaranteed by law as part of his freedom of association?

So effectively, if you think you are voting for a party, and your MP leaves the party he was a member of during the election, then you've just flushed your vote down the gutter.

In my case, I vote for the best candidate, and so that way should he leave his party for any reason, my vote is still not wasted because the candidate I voted for is still my representative.

[Machjo]

It's people like you that make me question the wisdom of having age be the only restriction on the ability to vote.

You don't - in fact, you can't vote for a cabinet, "in effect" or otherwise; to do so would require an ability to foretell the future, given that one won't know who's even available to be picked as a minister of the Crown until after the election. Further, Cabinet's make-up can change without an election; it can even, without going to the polls, be completely repopulated with individuals from another party, should parliament put its confidence behind that party's leader, as almost happened in 2008.

You vote - quite in reality, not theoretically - for your Member of Parliament. Period.

Bingo.

[Machjo]

Remember the party-hacks thread? Now we know why we have so many bobbing heads among the backbenchers. We get the government we deserve.

[Machjo]

Another thing I like about the suggestion in the OP is that by having Cabinet elected by Parliament once a year and having a Caucus of the House replace Party caucuses, it reduces the chances of drastic changes in Parliament as had almost occurred last year. Most likely we'd just have ended up with a Cabinet comprising a better representation of Parliament, thus making it more representative of democracy.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's come up with a derisive name for suggestions that propose tinkering with our systems of democracy that are either so trivial that they are humourous or such an overhaul that undertaking them would be foolhardy ?

Democratic Deform ?

Democrashy ?

[eyeball]

What do we call the hidebound Neanderthals who insist we avoid changing anything at any cost?

[Michael Hardner]

What do we call the hidebound Neanderthals who insist we avoid changing anything at any cost?

Static Quos... Boat Unrockers... Unchangelings...

[Yesterday]

A little adjustment, definitely a giggle....Demockrashy

[M.Dancer]

Not only do I not think cabinet need be elected by parliament, I don't believe cabinet members should need be MPs..

[Michael Hardner]

Not only do I not think cabinet need be elected by parliament, I don't believe cabinet members should need be MPs..

I believe Cabinet members can be from the Senate.

[M.Dancer]

I believe Cabinet members can be from the Senate.

There is no legal requirement to be either elected or a senator...I believe Churchill's war time cabinet had a number of unelected members...

[Michael Hardner]

Come to think of it, didn't Harper keep one of Martin's ministers on because it made sense ? I'm fuzzy on that but I thought he stayed on to finish business even after leaving the HofC...

[Smallc]

There is no legal requirement to be either elected or a senator...I believe Churchill's war time cabinet had a number of unelected members...

That does make it more difficult for the ministry to be accountable to Parliament though. I think that 413 (soon to be more) people is enough of a pool.

[ToadBrother]

There is no legal requirement to be either elected or a senator...I believe Churchill's war time cabinet had a number of unelected members...

Quite right. Here in BC, Glen Clark's NDP government appointed someone to cabinet who was not a member of the legislature. It's a little complicated, but basically how it worked was that the Minister would work through proxies during debates. It's pretty rare nowadays. I can't recall who Churchill might have had, normally when a Prime Minister in Britain wants to have an unelected individual in Cabinet, they get him a Peerage so he can sit in the House of Lords.