Could Canada be more democratic?

[Michael Hardner]

We did? Who's this we you're talking about?

There are lots of different ways to skin this cat.

I can always start a West Coast fishing communities party.

OTOH Ottawa can start paying attention and start addressing our region's issues. Remember you're the one who said I should get voters in your region to make my region's issues your issues too. This is why, you stand to see your country break up if Ottawa keeps ignoring us.

Right - but you're not looking at PR now, you're talking generally. This topic is about PR and regions have more power with FPTP -> case in point the BQ.

[TimG]

to reduce the capacity for a party leader to punish MPs by greatly reducing centralized influence over riding associations.

Perhaps we need to have a standard set of rules governing the selection candidates (like presidential primaries). The trouble is these rules may make sense for a CPC candidate in Alberta but make no sense for the NDP or Green candidate in the same riding. Edited April 13, 2011 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps we need to have a standard set of rules governing the selection candidates (like presidential primaries). The trouble is these rules may make sense for a CPC candidate in Alberta but make no sense for the NDP or Green candidate in the same riding.

Top-down approaches are always going to be like that. But we have universal rules on donations and expense reporting. I didn't say the answer would be easy, smart reform never is. What I'm saying is that we don't need to rip into the constitution or turn the voting system on its head to create meaningful political reforms, and more to the point, even if you did those things, there seems little likelihood of it in fact limiting the power of political party structures. It's not like places like Ireland and Germany don't suffer the same problems of powerful party organizations overwhelming elected representatives, just because they use PR systems to elect them.

If the structure of political parties is the problem, then go after the structure of political parties. Don't blow the whole damned thing up and somehow expect to get a stable, useful governing system out the other end.

Edited April 13, 2011 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

Bullcrap. I care about this country, I care about stability, I care about my kids inheriting a useful, stable political system, and not the jumbled bits and pieces that uni-issue malcontents would deliver them.

I care about these things too, I worry about my kids and now my grand-kid (as of today ) growing up under a system that is unaccountable and opaque and getting worse.

The uni-issue is ACCOUNTABILITY and it's the lack thereof, across the board from sea to sea to sea. I think it's your lackadaisical complacency that's most threatening to our country's future.

[eyeball]

Your region (riding) is well represented by the person you elect.

Horsecrap.

I think what you're saying is actually that you're unhappy that people don't vote the way you do.

Try again.

[ToadBrother]

I care about these things too, I worry about my kids and now my grand-kid (as of today ) growing up under a system that is unaccountable and opaque and getting worse.

The uni-issue is ACCOUNTABILITY and it's the lack thereof, across the board from sea to sea to sea. I think it's your lackadaisical complacency that's most threatening to our country's future.

The difference is I seek achievable change, and you just shout out impossibilities and then get mad when someone points out that it is impossible.

[eyeball]

Right - but you're not looking at PR now, you're talking generally. This topic is about PR and regions have more power with FPTP -> case in point the BQ.

Actually, the topic is about making Canada more democratic, in lieu of which, is the reality of regionalism. Why is this still such a big surprise?

[eyeball]

The difference is I seek achievable change, and you just shout out impossibilities and then get mad when someone points out that it is impossible.

I'm not the one saying far better transparency or more democracy is impossible.

You're sitting on your butt hoping for some mass yearning or flashback of the heady democratic days of the 19th century.

[eyeball]

From what I can tell, you and I are in the same region, and I can assure you, your view is a fringe view. Your all bark, but you have no bite.

I don't recall ever meeting such an avid booster for the status-quo.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not the one saying far better transparency or more democracy is impossible.

You're sitting on your butt hoping for some mass yearning or flashback of the heady democratic days of the 19th century.

I've given suggestions for change that I feel are achievable, and more importantly, rational. You just skip from absurd unachievable idea to absurd unachievable idea, underscored with pointless threats of future catastrophe if they aren't implemented.

[eyeball]

I've given suggestions for change that I feel are achievable, and more importantly, rational.

Perfectly rational, if you have the lifespan of a sequoia tree maybe.

You just skip from absurd unachievable idea to absurd unachievable idea, underscored with pointless threats of future catastrophe if they aren't implemented.

Right...like Prime Ministers who tear up constitutions or whinge about the break-up of the country when it looks like they won't get their way.

In the meantime, I'm watching my grandkid's natural heritage being allocated, privatized and or otherwise mismanaged from underneath her before she's even aware of it.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, the topic is about making Canada more democratic, in lieu of which, is the reality of regionalism. Why is this still such a big surprise?

Ok, fair enough. As I have pointed out, PR waters down local support by spreading it out over the nation so it's not a good approach if you're looking to strongly represent regional parties.

[[email protected]]

Since the Canadian Constitution states that Canada is to have a government similar to that of the UK, if the UK adopts PR should Canada not be required to adopt PR. FPTP would become un-constitutional.

[ToadBrother]

Since the Canadian Constitution states that Canada is to have a government similar to that of the UK, if the UK adopts PR should Canada not be required to adopt PR. FPTP would become un-constitutional.

Uh no. I have no idea where you ever got that idea from. We've been effectively independent of the UK since the Statute of Westminster and constitutionally independent since 1982. We're a sovereign state, but even before that, the British Parliament seldom interfered in the governance of the Dominions, and a change in the voting method or the franchise in the UK certainly wouldn't have just sort of automatically transferred to Canada. For instance, women got the right to vote in Canada in 1917 but it was not fully enjoyed by women in the UK until 1928.

Edited April 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

Ok, fair enough. As I have pointed out, PR waters down local support by spreading it out over the nation so it's not a good approach if you're looking to strongly represent regional parties.

No, I've definitely moved beyond that, 1st of all, I'm looking for ways that give our region far more say in how we manage our region's natural resources - for their long-term ecological sustainability and our coastal communities economic sustainability. I still submit that far far more rigorous federal and provincial institutions of accountability will best achieve that but like the song says, the man's to big, the man's too strong, it's just that simple.

I see little reason not to support any reforms whether they be of our electoral system, constitution, or confederation. If weakening Ottawa and Canada strengthens my region and protects my communities future then so be it.

PR may also weaken national party cohesion and in turn national cohesion, I just see it as one more tool in a kit of similar measures that will hopefully result in Canada's regions and people's filling in the vacuum themselves.

Imagine that, a country of self-governing people, what a radical thought eh?

[Michael Hardner]

PR may also weaken national party cohesion and in turn national cohesion, I just see it as one more tool in a kit of similar measures that will hopefully result in Canada's regions and people's filling in the vacuum themselves.

Oddly, you're embracing change for change's sake, even though it will weaken regional voices.

The examples you gave of the fisheries in the past are to my mind, just a poor execution of an attempt to engage with the public. They did try to set up meetings, from the sounds of it, but they talked more than they listened. None of this has anything to do with an electoral system, but with the crappy way that corporations and government (especially) try to engage with the public.

[eyeball]

Oddly, you're embracing change for change's sake, even though it will weaken regional voices.

PR has raised fears that it will also weaken the parties and country. I submit some forms of PR would weaken regional voices like MMP that uses party lists and might even strengthen parties. That wouldn't be good but I submit it would only put off the inevitable as local disillusionment, disenfranchising and dispossession continued.

The examples you gave of the fisheries in the past are to my mind, just a poor execution of an attempt to engage with the public. They did try to set up meetings, from the sounds of it, but they talked more than they listened. None of this has anything to do with an electoral system, but with the crappy way that corporations and government (especially) try to engage with the public.

It's not just been a poor effort, it's been a systematic process.

It has to do with people's day to day lives Michael. It has to do with living with the instability and breakup of families and communities that dissolve into an economic diaspora. It's about fractured ecosystems ruled by distant boardrooms and institutions that are as disconnected from these ecosystems as they are from the people and communities that depend on them the most.

It's about not putting up with this fucking awful situation.

Edited April 14, 2011 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

PR has raised fears that it will also weaken the parties and country. I submit some forms of PR would weaken regional voices like MMP that uses party lists and might even strengthen parties. That wouldn't be good but I submit it would only put off the inevitable as local disillusionment, disenfranchising and dispossession continued.

So essentially - PR would be bad for regional representation, and the country is breaking up anyway so why not.

Cynical.

It's not just been a poor effort, it's been a systematic process.

I think it's a symptom of how existing systems marginalize minority voices, rather than something that's a conscious purpose of the process.

It has to do with people's day to day lives Michael. It has to do with living with the instability and breakup of families and communities that dissolve into an economic diaspora. It's about fractured ecosystems ruled by distant boardrooms and institutions that are as disconnected from these ecosystems as they are from the people and communities that depend on them the most.

Families who work off ecosystems, and families who work off manufacturing or IT are treated the same way under the system. Your perspective is more clear to you as you have lived it.

It's about not putting up with this fucking awful situation.

Your solution seems to be to break things rather than try to make it work. That's your choice. I don't think you appreciate the extent to which the existing systems work on the communications systems that are in place. Centralized marketing, polling systems, and the like were developed by advertising and communication companies to achieve results over a mass audience, and were adapted to political campaigns and even the management of government over the 20th century.

They serve the mass of people, not individuals. When movements arise that require the system to adjust, it does so slowly and reluctantly. The older, and the more inflexible the system - the more vulnerable it is to new media: witness the results in Egypt and so on. Similar revolutions will be coming here in time, though I believe they'll arrive more quietly.

[g_bambino]

Since the Canadian Constitution states that Canada is to have a government similar to that of the UK, if the UK adopts PR should Canada not be required to adopt PR. FPTP would become un-constitutional.

The Constitution Act 1867 says in the preamble (which, technically, isn't considered part of the law itself) that Canada is to have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, not that Canada should have an electoral system identical to that of the UK.

[ToadBrother]

It's not just been a poor effort, it's been a systematic process.

It has to do with people's day to day lives Michael. It has to do with living with the instability and breakup of families and communities that dissolve into an economic diaspora. It's about fractured ecosystems ruled by distant boardrooms and institutions that are as disconnected from these ecosystems as they are from the people and communities that depend on them the most.

It's about not putting up with this fucking awful situation.

The problem, as I've pointed out, is that your a single issue person. I know that the Fed's management of the West Coast fishery has been a crapped out mess, and maybe there's some argument to be made for altering the system to give local voices more say. The problem with the fishery is that there are also issues surrounding international access (mainly the US), so even if you gave more regional representation, at the end of the day the Feds would still have the final word.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem, as I've pointed out, is that your a single issue person. I know that the Fed's management of the West Coast fishery has been a crapped out mess, and maybe there's some argument to be made for altering the system to give local voices more say. The problem with the fishery is that there are also issues surrounding international access (mainly the US), so even if you gave more regional representation, at the end of the day the Feds would still have the final word.

We could compare this to how my line of work (back end IT) was shipped overseas in about 5 years without a peep from anybody. The feds didn't send a team to address us, then just signed away our careers.

I'm sure it looks to some like the government is built to undercut them, but it's not. It's a giant ship that listens to the prevailing voices. Having PR is akin to giving everyone a megaphone - the essential problem of steering is still there.

[ToadBrother]

We could compare this to how my line of work (back end IT) was shipped overseas in about 5 years without a peep from anybody. The feds didn't send a team to address us, then just signed away our careers.

I'm sure it looks to some like the government is built to undercut them, but it's not. It's a giant ship that listens to the prevailing voices. Having PR is akin to giving everyone a megaphone - the essential problem of steering is still there.

Well, first of all, life sucks sometimes. A lot of things have hit the West Coast fishery, some of the government related, some of them beyond any government's control. It's the nature of an industry based upon a huge number of factors, and in the case of salmon stocks, for instance, some of the factors we don't even know.

Second of all, the most the Feds could do is to devolve some power to the Province of British Columbia. Regional districts, municipalities, and other sub-provincial jurisdictions are purely within the confines of the Province. But because this fishery takes place in what amounts to an international waterway, and the fish certainly don't see any borders, there is a national aspect to this. In short, the United States isn't going to bargain with some regional authority over a fishery in open water, it's going to bargain with the Canadian government. So even in our presumed devolution process; whereby the Feds hand or more properly lend their control of the West Coast fishery to the Province, and then, presumably the Province hands it over to some regional body, if there comes to be another international dispute over the fishery, it's going to plop right down into the Fed's hands anyways.

Third, you're never going to get optimal results. Even if somehow you got past all the problems of "regionalizing" the fishery, you're going to now end up with likely several regional bodies representative of the stakeholders. In short you're going to end up creating a new level of government, with all the expense and competition that goes along with different jurisdictions trying to control a mobile commodity that can be basically move between over any jurisdictional boundary any damned time it pleases, and may in fact be spawning in one jurisdiction but be caught in another. You might actually find out your solution was worse than the problem you tried to solve.

Sometimes there are no easy answers, and some portion of those situations may have no answer at all. It then becomes about the bigger picture, and admitting that even though in specific circumstances the system has delivered sub-optimal results, all in all, it does the job, produces a stable and effective government; not in every instance, but in most.

Frankly, I think Canadians just are not aware of how well governed we are. We're so fixated on politics and on our own problems that we fail to see the forest for the trees.

[Michael Hardner]

Sometimes there are no easy answers, and some portion of those situations may have no answer at all. It then becomes about the bigger picture, and admitting that even though in specific circumstances the system has delivered sub-optimal results, all in all, it does the job, produces a stable and effective government; not in every instance, but in most.

Everything you wrote seems clear to me, but the unstated sub-goal of managing fisheries is actually to make people engage with their government.

In that respect, it's all about communications and community. If they had done a better job of that (the government) then eyeball's take on it could have been more like:

"There were environmental challenges, we worked with the government to try and overtake them but there was nothing to be done, so we did the best we could."

Instead, his community was left feeling alienated, ignored and not paid attention to. So the environmental results were the same but the social results were much different.

Frankly, I think Canadians just are not aware of how well governed we are. We're so fixated on politics and on our own problems that we fail to see the forest for the trees.

True enough, but this is also a hallmark of every unresponsive government - including our own.

New Media is what's helping push unresponsive governments into the junk heap. Facebook groups, web forums are about public engagement not top-down models. These are tools that will be used at some point, as old media continues to decline.

This was a good paper, I remember, about models for public engagement:

It's More Than Talk

[eyeball]

This year California is looking forward to their first commercial salmon fishery in decades and chinook returns to the US are projected to be the best in 80 years.

US fisheries are managed at the state level.

Canadian runs are still projected to be fairly dismal because we haven't put any effort into rebuilding our fisheries.

Canadian fisheries are managed at the national level.

Who can spot the difference?

[ToadBrother]

This year California is looking forward to their first commercial salmon fishery in decades and chinook returns to the US are projected to be the best in 80 years.

US fisheries are managed at the state level.

Canadian runs are still projected to be fairly dismal because we haven't put any effort into rebuilding our fisheries.

Canadian fisheries are managed at the national level.

Who can spot the difference?

The fisheries may be managed at a state level, but the US government is still ultimately responsible for negotiations with Canada.