Federal Election Polls

[eyeball]

It is a system that has guaranteed peaceful transitions of government for three centuries.

Technically, it is only a system in which peaceful transitions have occurred, so far. I don't see any guarantees written in stone, just our good fortune, so far.

I wonder sometimes wonder if it's turned brittle with age and would break fairly easily. It doesn't seem to keep up with technology very well and what's with all the decades of political party machinations resulting in today's Star Chamber-like PMO and bobble-headed Parliament? What I'd like to know is why the GG or the Queen hasn't stepped in and cracked down on these deviations from three centuries of tradition. Is She waiting for her subjects to petition Her to do so or does she support these changes?

Edited September 12, 2015 by eyeball

[ReeferMadness]

And how would that change with any other system?

If the system were simpler and intuitive, more people would understand it. And if the rules were clearly laid out and written down, we'd be less likely to have the type of constitutional crisis we had in 2008. You know, the one where the ruling political party deliberately lied to the people and gained political advantage from doing it.

Honestly, it's hard to avoid seeing the problems. You seem to have your head stuck in the sand deep enough to manage though.

[ToadBrother]

Technically, it is only a system in which peaceful transitions have occurred, so far. I don't see any guarantees written in stone, just our good fortune, so far.

I wonder sometimes wonder if it's turned brittle with age and would break fairly easily. It doesn't seem to keep up with technology very well and what's with all the decades of political party machinations resulting in today's Star Chamber-like PMO and bobble-headed Parliament? What I'd like to know is why the GG or the Queen hasn't stepped in and cracked down on these deviations from three centuries of tradition. Is She waiting for her subjects to petition Her to do so or does she support these changes?

I see no signs of brittleness. The Constitution requires elections after no more than five years, there are enumerated powers divided between the Provinces and the Federal government, as well as the various prerogatives, reserve powers and conventions.

And the Queen and Governor General act, save only in the most dire of circumstances, on the advice of the Government. They enjoy the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. They are not dictators or absolute monarchs who can wantonly intervene. That is the nature of responsible government.

If we want better government, it is our duty as voters and citizens to make it happen, not somehow imagine that the Queen or her Vice-regal representative are going to intervene. We pick the Parliament, the power is in our hands.

[ReeferMadness]

Technically, it is only a system in which peaceful transitions have occurred, so far. I don't see any guarantees written in stone, just our good fortune, so far.

I wonder sometimes wonder if it's turned brittle with age and would break fairly easily. It doesn't seem to keep up with technology very well and what's with all the decades of political party machinations resulting in today's Star Chamber-like PMO and bobble-headed Parliament? What I'd like to know is why the GG or the Queen hasn't stepped in and cracked down on these deviations from three centuries of tradition. Is She waiting for her subjects to petition Her to do so or does she support these changes?

I think the answer is simple. The main interest of the Queen and the Royal Family is sustaining the monarchy. If the Queen actually takes action, then the people on the wrong side of that action will start to howl about how she is meddling in the internal affairs of a country. And people who don't care for the monarchy will use that to suggest the institution is archaic and has outlived its usefulness (as it is and has).

So, the Queen will sit back and allow people to assume and argue she is a force for stability.

[Evening Star]

Hahahaha

Is that really a serious question??? How much of what you learned in Grade 10 do you remember? I was a good student and I remember practically nothing. I know what I know because of what I read.

I remember many things but I definitely remember the most fundamental concepts, such as the one we are talking about. I'm not even sure that the Parliamentary system is more complex than the American system.

Edit: I tend to agree with ToadBrother. I'd like to see stats that show that most Canadians would consider a coalition illegitimate, unlawful, or unconstitutional. The Liberal-NDP Accord in Ontario in the 80s was certainly not a failure, politically.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Evening Star

[Smallc]

If the system were simpler and intuitive, more people would understand it.

How would you propose we make it more intuitive? I can't think of any systems that are.

And if the rules were clearly laid out and written down, we'd be less likely to have the type of constitutional crisis we had in 2008.

Considering we've almost never had that type of crisis (which was purely parliamentary, and not constitutional) it seems that your point is empty.

You know, the one where the ruling political party deliberately lied to the people and gained political advantage from doing it.

There's really no evidence that Harper's (wrong) interpretation of the parliamentary system was the reason things went the way that they did. Also, I fail to see how this could be overcome, and virtually every parliament the world over works the same way.

Honestly, it's hard to avoid seeing the problems. You seem to have your head stuck in the sand deep enough to manage though.

Honestly, it's hard to see your point given how much I know about our system.

[ToadBrother]

If the system were simpler and intuitive, more people would understand it. And if the rules were clearly laid out and written down, we'd be less likely to have the type of constitutional crisis we had in 2008. You know, the one where the ruling political party deliberately lied to the people and gained political advantage from doing it.

Honestly, it's hard to avoid seeing the problems. You seem to have your head stuck in the sand deep enough to manage though.

And what, pray tell, is complicated about the system? We elect the Parliament, the Parliament picks the government, a very simple formula where there is a majority, a few possibilities if it is a hung parliament, but all routes still requiring that a post-election government prove itself by successfully surviving the vote on the Speech from the Throne.

[Smallc]

I think the answer is simple. The main interest of the Queen and the Royal Family is sustaining the monarchy.

And yet the Queen has let many of her countries go over her reign, without any type of a fight. As the monarchy always says, how we choose to govern ourselves is our choice to make.

If the Queen actually takes action, then the people on the wrong side of that action will start to howl about how she is meddling in the internal affairs of a country.

The Queen is bound by constitutional convention to not take action on her own. Only in the midst of a constitutional crisis would she ever defy the will of her elected government or make a decision in the absence of a government.

And people who don't care for the monarchy will use that to suggest the institution is archaic and has outlived its usefulness (as it is and has).

So then we change to the system used by most of Europe now - they went from Constitutional Monarchy (us) to a Parliamentary Republic (Germany). The differences are so trivial as to be not worth the effort of conversion.

So, the Queen will sit back and allow people to assume and argue she is a force for stability.

It's the Queens position. She is to allow her government to govern.

[ToadBrother]

I think the answer is simple. The main interest of the Queen and the Royal Family is sustaining the monarchy. If the Queen actually takes action, then the people on the wrong side of that action will start to howl about how she is meddling in the internal affairs of a country. And people who don't care for the monarchy will use that to suggest the institution is archaic and has outlived its usefulness (as it is and has).

So, the Queen will sit back and allow people to assume and argue she is a force for stability.

It's almost as if you have absolutely no knowledge of our history. The Sovereign ceased to be absolute in fact when Parliament defeated Charles I's forces and lopped off his head. When James II tried to impose the Stuart notion of absolutism after the Restoration, he was chased out of Britain, and Parliament offered the throne to James II's sister Mary and her husband William of Orange, in return for William and Mary agreeing to grant royal assent to the Bill of Rights, 1689. Or, if you like, the shorter version is Parliament won the Civil War, forced the Monarchy to recognize Parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy, and the Sovereign from that moment forward became a constitutional monarch, and Parliament became supreme.

[ReeferMadness]

Technically, it is only a system in which peaceful transitions have occurred, so far. I don't see any guarantees written in stone, just our good fortune, so far.

This is absolutely true and bears repeating. As more and more of the political power has been sucked into the PMO, it's only good fortune and the integrity of some outstanding individuals (like Kevin Page and Beverly McLaughlin) that prevent it from degenerating. A good system should protect us from bad people. In our case, we seem to have a bad system that works only due to the integrity of outstanding individuals.

[ToadBrother]

This is absolutely true and bears repeating. As more and more of the political power has been sucked into the PMO, it's only good fortune and the integrity of some outstanding individuals (like Kevin Page and Beverly McLaughlin) that prevent it from degenerating. A good system should protect us from bad people. In our case, we seem to have a bad system that works only due to the integrity of outstanding individuals.

The use of the phrase "bad people" seems wildly hyperbolic. I don't particularly like the Tories under Harper, and have no intention of voting for them this year. But the mere fact that I have that choice suggests all your fear mongering is little more than just your fevered imagination. Even Harper's must vaunted control freak nature has been proven to be largely a fiction; the emails published during Wright's testimony revealed that the Tory caucus isn't just a bunch of mindless sheep, but men and women quite capable of venting their fury at the PM. Harper isn't Darth Sidious, and it's becoming clear that he isn't even much of a Machiavelli. Yes, his management style is bad, but even he hasn't marched the troops into Parliament or arrested Supreme Court justices. He's whined a bit about rulings he didn't like, but even he knows he is no position to do anything else but try to appoint a friendlier court (something that has been confounding US Presidents for over two centuries).

The world isn't ending. There will be no apocalypse if the Tories get re-elected. In fact, I'd say that the next Harper term, should it happen, may be a very unpleasant experience for the PM. He's lost quite a few senior ministers, and his backbenches will be populated by quite a few newbies, some of which are likely to be far less deferential in the post-Duffy age than they were before.

[ReeferMadness]

And what, pray tell, is complicated about the system? We elect the Parliament, the Parliament picks the government, a very simple formula where there is a majority, a few possibilities if it is a hung parliament, but all routes still requiring that a post-election government prove itself by successfully surviving the vote on the Speech from the Throne.

And yet, we can have a federal leaders debate where the PM misrepresents the rules and the other leaders don't contradict him.

“Let me just be very clear about our position. Of course, parties will work together from time to time,” Stephen Harper said. “But our position is very clear: the party that wins the most seats forms the government. That’s how our democracy is supposed to work.”

There were three other leaders of federal political parties on stage at that moment, but not one of them moved to correct him or quibble about constitutional parameters and the nature of government formation in a parliamentary system.

So, when our PM can go on national TV and misrepresent out system to the entire country and nobody corrects him, I guess that just more proof that our system is abso-bloody-lutely perfect!!!

[ToadBrother]

And yet, we can have a federal leaders debate where the PM misrepresents the rules and the other leaders don't contradict him.

So, when our PM can go on national TV and misrepresent out system to the entire country and nobody corrects him, I guess that just more proof that our system is abso-bloody-lutely perfect!!!

For ---- sakes, several commentators have complained it. The National Post has published no less than four articles in the last few days about it, two of them written by Andrew Coyne.

Maybe the problem here is that you're so busy listening to Stephen Harper's utterances, you're not actually paying attention to anyone else's.

And as to the national leaders debates, who cares? They're not some official function that is constitutionally mandated, and frankly I doubt they ever sway many votes.

Edited September 12, 2015 by ToadBrother

[ReeferMadness]

And yet the Queen has let many of her countries go over her reign, without any type of a fight. As the monarchy always says, how we choose to govern ourselves is our choice to make.

The Queen "lets go" of "her countries" for the same reason that Harper has refused to let his degenerates introduce a law banning abortion - she knows it will go badly for her. She has a sweet gig - wealth and celebrity status and she knows if she ever tries to exercise her power, she will lose it.

So, let's agree that the monarchy is a pointless anachronism that's worth nothing because it will always choose the least controversial course of action.

The Queen is bound by constitutional convention to not take action on her own. Only in the midst of a constitutional crisis would she ever defy the will of her elected government or make a decision in the absence of a government.

If I hear "bound by convention" one more time, I'm going to gag. Every time an election produces a close result, a gaggle of constitutional experts gather around and offer differing opinions about what should happen. Why? Well, that's because we don't have rules, we have "precedents" and "conventions".

So then we change to the system used by most of Europe now - they went from Constitutional Monarchy (us) to a Parliamentary Republic (Germany). The differences are so trivial as to be not worth the effort of conversion.

So you keep saying; but you offer curiously little actual evidence. Or are you going to regale us about all those books you read?

It's the Queens position. She is to allow her government to govern.

Exactly. Which leaves her as a pointless figurehead.

[ReeferMadness]

For ---- sakes, several commentators have complained it.

Oooh, I see. It's OK that our Prime Minister misrepresents our system of governance.

You think that the views of the Prime Minister, who exercises power that a president could only dream of, aren't important because.... the media is there to hold him accountable? The same media that he holds in such contempt he barely acknowledges them? Is that what you're telling me?

[ReeferMadness]

The use of the phrase "bad people" seems wildly hyperbolic. I don't particularly like the Tories under Harper, and have no intention of voting for them this year.

Harper is an awful leader - in so many ways. But there are much worse people than Harper out there. The point is that our system lacks sufficient checks and balances to prevent them from exercising almost unchecked power. Harper may not be a dictator; but he has implemented changes in law and convention that would make it much easier for a dictator to take power.

And the Queen isn't going to stop them.

[eyeball]

Or, if you like, the shorter version is Parliament won the Civil War, forced the Monarchy to recognize Parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy, and the Sovereign from that moment forward became a constitutional monarch, and Parliament became supreme.

So how are we supposed to get the PMO to to recognize our supremacy, join a political party and spend the rest of your life tilting at a reinforced steel windmill with blades as sharp as a razor. Good luck with that.

[Smallc]

The Queen "lets go" of "her countries" for the same reason that Harper has refused to let his degenerates introduce a law banning abortion - she knows it will go badly for her.

That's a lot of assuming on your part. You keep asking me for evidence - where's yours?

She has a sweet gig - wealth and celebrity status and she knows if she ever tries to exercise her power, she will lose it.

She also has a lifetime of knowledge on our system of government and constitutional convention.

So, let's agree that the monarchy is a pointless anachronism that's worth nothing because it will always choose the least controversial course of action.

And yet it works - I wouldn't be defending it if it didn't.

If I hear "bound by convention" one more time, I'm going to gag.

You're going to hear it a lot, since it's reality. The idea of our system is parliamentary supremacy. The less you have written down, the better. We have too much written in stone now. It's why we can't change the Senate.

Every time an election produces a close result, a gaggle of constitutional experts gather around and offer differing opinions about what should happen. Why? Well, that's because we don't have rules, we have "precedents" and "conventions".

It works the same as our system of common law. Previous decisions guide future ones. It's worked well for 300 years. The GG, himself an expert in this case, would consult with other constitutional experts to determine the choice that doesn't offend historical decisions.

So you keep saying; but you offer curiously little actual evidence. Or are you going to regale us about all those books you read?

I've already told you

Both share -

ceremonial head of state

parliamentary system of government

head of government and cabinet responsible to parliamentary system of government

executive decisions made on the advice of cabinet

Exactly. Which leaves her as a pointless figurehead.

Just like the German President.

[Smallc]

Oooh, I see. It's OK that our Prime Minister misrepresents our system of governance.

He's a politician trying to hold on to power. He's not all that uncommon and certainly not unique to Canada.

[Smallc]

Harper is an awful leader - in so many ways. But there are much worse people than Harper out there. The point is that our system lacks sufficient checks and balances to prevent them from exercising almost unchecked power. Harper may not be a dictator; but he has implemented changes in law and convention that would make it much easier for a dictator to take power.

You know who would stop him? Parliament. That's their job. Do you think the backbench is going to sit by and watch Canada become a dictatorship? One vote is all it would take to stop it.

[drummindiver]

Oooh, I see. It's OK that our Prime Minister misrepresents our system of governance.

You think that the views of the Prime Minister, who exercises power that a president could only dream of, aren't important because.... the media is there to hold him accountable? The same media that he holds in such contempt he barely acknowledges them? Is that what you're telling me?

There is so much crazy in your past batch of posts one doesn't even know where to begin.

[BC_chick]

There is so much crazy in your past batch of posts one doesn't even know where to begin.

Debating isn't your biggest strength, is it?

[ReeferMadness]

She also has a lifetime of knowledge on our system of government and constitutional convention.

How would you know? Every time our PM lies to us about how our system works, she doesn't bother to correct him. Maybe the queen should be replaced by a panel of university professors. At least they have the guts to speak up.

And yet it works - I wouldn't be defending it if it didn't.

Define "works". toadbrothers standard of excellent governance is when a leader steps down without actually being shot first. Is that your bar as well?

You're going to hear it a lot, since it's reality. The idea of our system is parliamentary supremacy. The less you have written down, the better. We have too much written in stone now. It's why we can't change the Senate.

Why write anything down? Whatever Harper says goes.

We can't change the senate because the country is divided. And part of the reason the country is divided is that we have a voting system that rewards leaders who use wedge issues to divide people.

And I am so thankful that we have a Charter of Rights that has prevented and reversed some truly regressive legislation. You should be too.

It works the same as our system of common law. Previous decisions guide future ones. It's worked well for 300 years. The GG, himself an expert in this case, would consult with other constitutional experts to determine the choice that doesn't offend historical decisions.

You keep saying it works well. When the PM lies to the country about how the system works and apparently this is no cause for scandal or alarm, is that your definition of working well? The Queen and GG are figureheads who can't exercise any real power without undermining their own positions. Is that another way it works well? The PM appoints everyone (including the GG who later decides the outcome of elections), controls all the legislation and dictates to the senate. Is that working well too?

I've already told you

Both share -

ceremonial head of state

parliamentary system of government

head of government and cabinet responsible to parliamentary system of government

executive decisions made on the advice of cabinet

Just like the German President.

I pointed out to you a number of important differences on another thread. You just ignored them and told me you read a bunch of books. This is not evidence.

[Smallc]

I really can't help you with this level of ignorance. You need to understand the system before you can criticize it properly.

[Smallc]

How would you know? Every time our PM lies to us about how our system works, she doesn't bother to correct him. Maybe the queen should be replaced by a panel of university professors. At least they have the guts to speak up.

She doesn't have to correct him nor should she. She's above politics. A million other people can and do correct him.

Define "works". toadbrothers standard of excellent governance is when a leader steps down without actually being shot first. Is that your bar as well?

Peaceful elections, stability, peaceful transfer of power, and competent management .

Why write anything down? Whatever Harper says goes.

. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This isn't how convention works. Convention is established through decisions over time, just like common law.

We can't change the senate because the country is divided. And part of the reason the country is divided is that we have a voting system that rewards leaders who use wedge issues to divide people.

We can't change the Senate because of our Constution has overly onerous requirements.

And I am so thankful that we have a Charter of Rights that has prevented and reversed some truly regressive legislation. You should be too.

The Charter is fine and is only a small part of the Constituion. That's not the problem I'm talking about,

You keep saying it works well. When the PM lies to the country about how the system works and apparently this is no cause for scandal or alarm, is that your definition of working well?

I don't think there are rules against lying. As has been pointed out to you over and over again, many people have challenged Harper's incorrect information.

The Queen and GG are figureheads who can't exercise any real power without undermining their own positions.

Yet in a crisis that is exactly their function, just as is the function of the President of Israel.

PM appoints everyone (including the GG who later decides the outcome of elections), controls all the legislation and dictates to the senate. Is that working well too?

I see evidence of Harper successfully dictating very little. The Senate doesn't listen to him, the court doesn't listen to him, the PBO doesn't listen to him...its almost as if people have free will.

pointed out to you a number of important differences on another thread. You just ignored them and told me you read a bunch of books. This is not evidence.

You did no such thing, Edited September 13, 2015 by Smallc