Could Canada be more democratic?

[Moonbox]

Yes yes yes, and the Normans conquered the English, the Romans conquered the Gauls, the Germans conquered the Romans and on and on. We can do our best to redress the wrongs done to native peoples, but they're not going to get the landmass of Canada back, and trying to assert that somehow people who have been here generations are squatters isn't a recipe for redressing old wrongs, it's just pointless sloganeering.

Wow that's an argument I've used a dozen times before here but I don't think anyone's put it as eloquently or intelligently as that. Well done Topaz.

[ninjandrew]

I certainly agree that Canada could be much more democratic. In addition to us always voting for basically the same two parties, voter turnout is abysmal, shameful even. We have so much potential as a country, but as long as people either dont vote, or simply default to voting for their same "tried-and-true" parties while waiting for everyone else to change rather than changing themselves, our government stagnates. You could compare our government and its parties to a body. If you work out one muscle (party) all the time, but never any others, it will become very strong, while the others become very weak. That right there, is something other than democracy.

[ToadBrother]

I'd just like to add that I am not an opponent of constitutional change either, though I think it has to be approached cautiously and, like it or not, piecemeal.

For instance, my view on Senate reform is not that we should shoot for a Triple-E senate of some kind. That will simply get Eastern Canada's back up, and will render the attempt invalid (much as happened to Mulroney... twice).

My idea is that we simply move the choice of Senators from the Queen-in-council of the Federal Government to the Queen-in-council of the Provincial governments. The Provinces individually can then decide for themselves how to pick senators. If a Province wants, its senators can remain effectively appointed by the Queen-in-council, or it can be devolved to a vote in the provincial legislature, or it can be put to a vote in a general election. The only Federal constitutional aspects mandated would be that the Senate retains its current numbers and powers, and all Senators have a ten year term, or eight years, or whatever the provinces and the Feds negotiate as part of the amendment to the constitution.

Is it ideal? No, it's not, because the imbalance would remain, but tinkering with that will likely guarantee defeat. So you make an incremental change, one that has at least a reasonable chance of passing. Don't try to change everything about the Senate, don't demand massive changes that are impossible to pass. Incremental, evolutionary change, that's how our system works.

[g_bambino]

It's my region's issues that need addressing, my views on the possible consequences on what might happen if they remain un-addressed are secondary.

So, you want immediate satisfaction even though it might come around to bite you in the ass in the long run. Sounds like the thinking of a drug addict.

[ToadBrother]

So, you want immediate satisfaction even though it might come around to bite you in the ass in the long run. Sounds like the thinking of a drug addict.

I love that analogy. Spot on!

[eyeball]

I agree. There are ways to do things, such as electoral reform, that don't. But the decision shouldn't just be based on "FPTP is old and creaky, so here's a nifty PR voting system!"

That's just a fact, not the reason for reform. I'd settle for total transparency in the decision making processes that left my community out on the cold regarding it's most important economic drivers but given that's also unacceptable to Canada... I'm open to just about anything

There's more than just vote counting to consider. Certain types of PR can lead to unstable systems; systems that produce small fringe parties capable of commanding enormous amounts of influence. I don't mind if we make it more likely for a few Green seats, but if it's going to create a situation where the Greens get so many seats so out of line to actual levels of support, then I'd say we've made the situation worse, not better.

That's why I more in line with preferential voting systems like AV, which do give parties like the Greens a reasonable chance at getting a few seats, but reduces greatly the likelihood of them being able to punch above their weight.

The Greens, of course, are big fans of MMR because it both exaggerates their influence in Parliament and allows them to insert political apparatchik with no real constituency and no electoral debt save to their party. I am an absolute opponent of MMR or any party list system.

Whatever...

In the meantime I just don't think you're listening or give a shit to what I've said but most importantly why.

You're saying that if you don't get your way, Confederation is at risk. That can meaningfully be said, to a certain degree, of Quebec, which does have a longstanding and reasonably well organized separatist movement. But when some trots out Western separatism, I just laugh. It's a meaningless threat, because so few Westerners are actually in agreement with it. It's a fringe view.

I'm not saying Confederation should be at risk in the face of greater democracy with a particular view to better addressing local issues, other people are. I'm simply saying so be it.

[eyeball]

So, you want immediate satisfaction even though it might come around to bite you in the ass in the long run. Sounds like the thinking of a drug addict.

No, I want my region's issues addressed through greater (far far greater) transparency and better representation. In that order preferably.

[ToadBrother]

Whatever...

In the meantime I just don't think you're listening or give a shit to what I've said but most importantly why.

I think this neatly sums you up. You actually don't care about consequences at all. You just want your way, and damn the torpedoes.

[eyeball]

I love that analogy. Spot on!

So losers in the electoral context are also like drug addicts are they?

Winning hearts and minds just isn't your forte is it?

[Wilber]

Yes you do. Whether or not you voted for your representative, they still work for you. They're still your representative no matter which party they're part of.

Back bench MP's will work for you when it comes to dealing with the bureaucracy and may voice their concerns in caucus (we have to take their word on that) but party discipline will force them to vote the party line regardless of what their constituents want.

[dre]

I think our electoral system is adequate, and Id give it about a C.

Id like to see political parties themselves marginalized somehow. Seems like we vote for people based on their character and their ideas as an individual but when they get to Ottawa they just become part of a political machine, and most times arent even allowed vote their conscience.

[eyeball]

I think this neatly sums you up. You actually don't care about consequences at all. You just want your way, and damn the torpedoes.

Right back at you man, you don't seem to give a flying hoot about anything but your precious governing system.

[g_bambino]

No, I want my region's issues addressed through greater (far far greater) transparency and better representation. In that order preferably.

Fine. But you basically admitted that you don't care at all how you achieve that goal, meaning you don't give a toss if a solution to your immediate problem brings the whole structure down for you and everyone else, which is obviously kind of self-defeating, ultimately. Hence, my drug addict analogy; crack makes you feel fantastic now, but it will kill you eventually.

[ToadBrother]

Right back at you man, you don't seem to give a flying hoot about anything but your precious governing system.

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.

[g_bambino]

Back bench MP's will work for you when it comes to dealing with the bureaucracy and may voice their concerns in caucus (we have to take their word on that) but party discipline will force them to vote the party line regardless of what their constituents want.

All likely true. But, this can be rectified by changing how parties work internally; namely, how their leaders are chosen. No constitutional or vast changes to the state structure necessary.

[Moonbox]

Sure if it increases my region's voice in it own governance - in a heartbeat.

I do if it results in my region having more say in it's own governance.

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

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

[ToadBrother]

I think our electoral system is adequate, and Id give it about a C.

Id like to see political parties themselves marginalized somehow. Seems like we vote for people based on their character and their ideas as an individual but when they get to Ottawa they just become part of a political machine, and most times arent even allowed vote their conscience.

I think we're beginning to have a consensus here among the sensible people (and I'll arrogantly throw myself into that group). The system itself can work, but the power of the political parties, in particular the aspects of the parties that are effectively outside the electoral and legislative structures, are the real problem here. Electoral reform, while perhaps justifiable, will not fix the underlying issue of the parties, and the wrong kind of electoral reform will only exacerbate the problem.

Weakening the power of the parties, by reducing the influence national parties have over riding associations (both monetarily and politically) and making the choice of party leader purely the choice of the elected caucus are two ways, I think, that we could radically alter the balance of political parties. As another poster said a few days ago, if Joe Average wants a say in the party leadership, then he can bloody well work to get his candidate chosen to be the party candidate and get that guy elected. He should have no direct say in choosing what is fundamentally, even if not formally, a special elected figure in the House of Commons. This would some of the ability for party leaders to effectively speak above their caucuses to the wider party and more balances the relationship between the party leader and the elected representatives of his caucus.

[ToadBrother]

All likely true. But, this can be rectified by changing how parties work internally; namely, how their leaders are chosen. No constitutional or vast changes to the state structure necessary.

I'm even unclear how all these vast structural changes would even accomplish it. It's not like PR systems have weakened the party system in countries that have adopted it. Constitutional problems and political problems are ultimate two separate issues.

Or as the old saying goes, you use a hammer to pound in a nail and a screwdriver to drive a screw.

[Saipan]

No, I want my region's issues addressed through greater (far far greater) transparency

So you wanted to know how much will the duck gun registration cost (at least vagualy) before it's pass by the Parliment?

Tough luck.

[GostHacked]

So you wanted to know how much will the duck gun registration cost (at least vagualy) before it's pass by the Parliment?

Tough luck.

The public demands and deserves to know. We collectively pay taxes for these programs, so we should know wtf they cost. Even when it is estimated, it always seems to be much higher.

[Saipan]

In that case it was 1,000% higher. Allan Rock knowingly lied to the Parliment [not even he could be that stupid to make such a mistake] just to quickly ram C-68 through before too many questions are asked.

[blueblood]

I think we're beginning to have a consensus here among the sensible people (and I'll arrogantly throw myself into that group). The system itself can work, but the power of the political parties, in particular the aspects of the parties that are effectively outside the electoral and legislative structures, are the real problem here. Electoral reform, while perhaps justifiable, will not fix the underlying issue of the parties, and the wrong kind of electoral reform will only exacerbate the problem.

Weakening the power of the parties, by reducing the influence national parties have over riding associations (both monetarily and politically) and making the choice of party leader purely the choice of the elected caucus are two ways, I think, that we could radically alter the balance of political parties. As another poster said a few days ago, if Joe Average wants a say in the party leadership, then he can bloody well work to get his candidate chosen to be the party candidate and get that guy elected. He should have no direct say in choosing what is fundamentally, even if not formally, a special elected figure in the House of Commons. This would some of the ability for party leaders to effectively speak above their caucuses to the wider party and more balances the relationship between the party leader and the elected representatives of his caucus.

Its not joe average picking the caucus leader, its party hacks picking the caucus leader. Essentially its party hacks who pick who the potential PM is instead of MPs like it should be. Let the hacks decide who the candidate should be for MP and let joe average vote for said candidate.

[ToadBrother]

Its not joe average picking the caucus leader, its party hacks picking the caucus leader. Essentially its party hacks who pick who the potential PM is instead of MPs like it should be. Let the hacks decide who the candidate should be for MP and let joe average vote for said candidate.

I agree that it's the party hacks, and I'm saying we can probably do something about that without having to drive ourselves into constitutional contortions.

[TimG]

I agree that it's the party hacks, and I'm saying we can probably do something about that without having to drive ourselves into constitutional contortions.

What can you do to change the fact that a leader of a party which allows disenting opinions immediately becomes unelectable because they have a 'weak leader'. The party system works the way it does because the incentives provided by the media/voters. If you want to change the system you need to change those incentives and I don't think that is going to happen.

[ToadBrother]

What can you do to change the fact that a leader of a party which allows disenting opinions immediately becomes unelectable because they have a 'weak leader'. The party system works the way it does because the incentives provided by the media/voters. If you want to change the system you need to change those incentives and I don't think that is going to happen.

You're always going to have a party leader dominating a caucus. It's pretty much been that way since the parties evolved in the British Parliament at the end of the 18th century. It still works that way in Britain, but, because caucuses have considerable more influence over the leadership there, and there is a history of caucus revolts and threat of revolts, party leaders tend to be considerably more cognizant of the fact that an alienated caucus will be the end of them. That's what wiped Thatcher out, and Brown faced a number of near revolts. In Britain the caucuses barely even disguise the fact that they're ready to bugger their leader.

Obviously, in a system of government where you confidence has to be maintained, the governing party, in particular, is going to need to keep its ducks in a row. The point is to reduce the influence of the wider party, and to reduce the capacity for a party leader to punish MPs by greatly reducing centralized influence over riding associations. An MP whose not frightened that dissent is going to mean he's going to lose out by tampering from the leader to the riding association may actually have more guts to do that.