Could Canada be more democratic?

[ToadBrother]

I'm well aware of how MMP works. You still end up with elected members that don't actually represent your region. Parties can assign a member from their list, without even running an actual candidate in your riding.

Yup, party list systems are probably the least democratic of all systems. Representatives should represent someone other than the parties they're members of. I cannot figure out how people who dislike our system will jump at a system which basically creates a class of representative that is in every way a party animal.

[Harry]

Political parties have corrupted the political process. The only solution is to abolish political parties and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

[ToadBrother]

A plebicite is not the same as a referendum. But, your proposal would likely require costitutional change, since you're talking about shifting executive authority away from the Queen-in-Council to the majority of whatever number of registered voters that decide to participate in a given referendum. The idea just leads to more questions than solutions.

[c/e]

Well, I suppose you could still have the Sovereign ultimate responsible for assent. It would still act as a safety valve against the popular will, but in general, save on rare occasions, I'm against direct democracy. While the Swiss have done reasonably well with it, they still get some pretty nasty results, like the minaret vote last year, where, when you boil it all away, a majority basically voted away a right of a minority.

Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we should be looking at ways of making the politicians we have more accountable. That ultimately means reducing the influence of the political parties.

[ToadBrother]

Political parties have corrupted the political process. The only solution is to abolish political parties and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

How the hell would you even meaningfully ban political parties? Even before the rise of the "classical" British parties; the Whigs and Tories, there were factions. People naturally merge into groups, and those groups naturally choose leaders. Yes, sure, the Cavaliers weren't a party in the modern sense of structure and singular leadership, but they were a party with stated goals, a platform of sorts, and it is from these 17th century political associations that grew out of the Civil War that the modern parties in the UK, Canada and many of the other Commonwealth realms grew.

You can't ban parties. First of all, freedom of association is one of the core freedoms in the Charter of Rights, so it's a nonstarter. But even if you got past that, you would still have factions, you would still have leaders. What's more, the constitutional nature of the executive has shifted since the old pre-party days. Prior to the rise of the modern party system, ministers quite often were not members of Parliament (this is a still a constitutional option, as we see in BC we have a Premier who is not yet a member of the Legislature). If you're going to have a cabinet in Parliament, like our system has had as a largely fixed convention for a couple of centuries, then it's going to have to enjoy the confidence of Parliament, and if not divided on party lines, how do you propose to make the system work?

Heck, even in a system that would, on the face of it, be less prone to producing parties; the US system, well, guess what, we have political parties. Washington warned against political parties, but admitted they were probably inevitable, and so, I think, they are. I think a representative democracy of any kind is going to produce political parties.

[eyeball]

That is an opinion that depends on how you view the purpose of a democratic system. If one feels that the purpose of a democratic system is to provide a means to peacefully change government while providing local representation then FPTP does this very well.

Where is our ideological representation? If this isn't an important part of politics, democracy or our governance then why are we all here?

[g_bambino]

Well, I suppose you could still have the Sovereign ultimate responsible for assent. It would still act as a safety valve against the popular will, but in general, save on rare occasions, I'm against direct democracy. While the Swiss have done reasonably well with it, they still get some pretty nasty results, like the minaret vote last year, where, when you boil it all away, a majority basically voted away a right of a minority.

Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we should be looking at ways of making the politicians we have more accountable. That ultimately means reducing the influence of the political parties.

I believe the suggestion was that the results of referenda be automatically binding, dispensing with the need for Royal Assent. However, even in the scenario you propose, Royal Assent would end up being automatic in all but name; if the monarch ever alone overturned the result of a referendum, you could bet the next question put to the electorate would be on the abolition of the monarchy.

But, yes, besides the near-impossible task of amending the constitution to alter the Royal Prerogative and implement such a thing as binding referenda, I also oppose this kind of direct democracy on the grounds that it would destabilise the state, threatening minority rights (as you point to) and even affecting the balance of Confederation. I don't think people who champion these kind of ideas look beyond the noble-sounding rhetoric to the practicalities and realistic ramifications.

I still hold that, since we'll never be rid of political parties (if they're abolished, parliament will just reorder itself into different, politically like-minded groups, anyway), we should be looking at diminishing the power of party leaders, giving backbenchers more influence over who heads the parties, and thus making the prime minister more accountable to the House of Commons. It's the way it used to be here and the way it still is in the UK, and it seems to work better.

[ToadBrother]

I still hold that, since we'll never be rid of political parties (if they're abolished, parliament will just reorder itself into different, politically like-minded groups, anyway), we should be looking at diminishing the power of party leaders, giving backbenchers more influence over who heads the parties, and thus making the prime minister more accountable to the House of Commons. It's the way it used to be here and the way it still is in the UK, and it seems to work better.

My feelings as well. Canada's fundamental problem is a malfunctioning Westminster system brought on by too much centralization of power in the party leadership. No easy answers, but at least this is a problem that can be tackled without tearing the constitution to pieces and risking national unity.

[Michael Hardner]

Obviously no system beyond a Direct Democracy can entirely cure these flaws, but FPTP is pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to electoral systems.

I'm glad you included this note at the bottom.

As such, any objective to create a system of perfect democracy needs to be recognized as being entirely unrealistic.

There are characteristics of every voting system that need to be balanced: stability, regional representation, historical representation (as with Quebec) and giving a voice to minority voices.

These are things that should be addressed when considering system changes, in terms of costs and benefits. Politically, few people are willing to give up the benefits they receive from the system to allow others to receive more power.

An example would be Quebec, which would lose a significant measure of representation in favour of, say, the Greens and NDP. Does Canada feel that this is a good power shift ?

I don't.

[blueblood]

My feelings as well. Canada's fundamental problem is a malfunctioning Westminster system brought on by too much centralization of power in the party leadership. No easy answers, but at least this is a problem that can be tackled without tearing the constitution to pieces and risking national unity.

I agree. And to add it would be much cheaper as well. What would it cost to hold a leadership review/election in caucus? You'd get the best leader,anyone sitting could run and not have to worry about finances.

If party cardholders want a say in who runs, let them pick the candidate their party runs in each riding.

[ToadBrother]

I agree. And to add it would be much cheaper as well. What would it cost to hold a leadership review/election in caucus? You'd get the best leader,anyone sitting could run and not have to worry about finances.

If party cardholders want a say in who runs, let them pick the candidate their party runs in each riding.

Yup, I agree completely. Giving power back to the caucuses is a sure way to increase the responsiveness and accountability of the leaders. As it is, party leaders can speak over the heads of their MPs, effectively short-circuiting what ought to be the appropriate channels of authority.

Changing the voting system does nothing more than move the deck chairs around. Go to a party list system like MMR, and all you do is in fact strengthen the parties over the MPs. Go to a strong PR system and you end up turning things upside down so that relatively small parties punch too far above their weight, or, alternatively you do what the mainline German parties did and create semi-permanent alliances which are just simply a crude recreation of the system we already have.

I have no problem with talking about sensible changes, but the real problem here isn't that the Greens can't get anyone elected. They can't get anyone elected because they have such diffuse support. Maybe they should study how the CCF/NDP did it, because they started out as a small time largely rural party that ultimately has managed to maintain a reasonable number of seats in Ottawa, and even form governments at the Provincial levels.

But the real solutions to the democratic deficit are not in putting more parties in Ottawa, it's figuring out how to limit the capacity of parties to basically dominate individual MPs.

I'd be in line for restricting the capacity for party leadership to tamper with riding associations, and that doesn't just mean in financing terms, but also in the capacity for the party leader to parachute candidates in, to override riding association decisions and so forth. The power should flow from the constituency to the party leadership, not the other way around. Yes, it raises the likelihood of whackjob candidates like André Forbes actually getting on the ballot under the party banner, though if allow riding associations to do their jobs, I think they'd do the right thing anyways.

MPs should have the ultimate say in who their leaders are, like it was in the 19th century, and like how it still largely works in the UK, where caucus revolts, or at least the threat of them, are more common, and where leaders are much more aware of how quickly the shoe can slip on the other foot.

[Shady]

My idea to make Canada more democratic is this. Split the Liberal Party into two groups. Those who side closer to the Conservatives. And those who side closer to the NDP. Completely eliminate the Liberal Party. And have a two party system resulting in the governing party having 50+ percent of Canadian support.

[ToadBrother]

My idea to make Canada more democratic is this. Split the Liberal Party into two groups. Those who side closer to the Conservatives. And those who side closer to the NDP. Completely eliminate the Liberal Party. And have a two party system resulting in the governing party having 50+ percent of Canadian support.

I'm not clear on how forcing a two party system increases democracy.

[RNG]

I'm not clear on how forcing a two party system increases democracy.

Sure would decrease minority governments, assuming you would allow us to shoot all bloc members.

[ToadBrother]

Sure would decrease minority governments, assuming you would allow us to shoot all bloc members.

Oh, I see, this is where the thread goes from silly to moronic. My silly for not seeing this coming.

[RNG]

Oh, I see, this is where the thread goes from silly to moronic. My silly for not seeing this coming.

fMy saying we could shoot bloc members was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but really, why aren't they arrested and tried for treason?

[Smallc]

fMy saying we could shoot bloc members was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but really, why aren't they arrested and tried for treason?

What have they done that would warrant that? They have political opinions which they advance through the political system.

[g_bambino]

why aren't they arrested and tried for treason?

Because they have never tried to kill or harm the Queen, levy war against Canada, assisted an enemy at war with Canada, used force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada, or given state secrets to an enemy of Canada. Did you not read the Criminal Code?

[RNG]

Because they have never tried to kill or harm the Queen, levy war against Canada, assisted an enemy at war with Canada, used force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada, or given state secrets to an enemy of Canada. Did you not read the Criminal Code?

Take a look at the average reaction when an Albertan talks separation. Special treatment again.

[g_bambino]

Take a look at the average reaction when an Albertan talks separation. Special treatment again.

Calling an Albertan separatist treasonous is as stupid as saying the same about a Quebec separatist. The constitution allows for the lawful departure of a province from Confederation; it isn't easy, but it's possible within the law.

[Smallc]

Take a look at the average reaction when an Albertan talks separation. Special treatment again.

Because people treat Quebec separatists so well.

[ToadBrother]

Because people treat Quebec separatists so well.

No kidding. I don't recall anyone saying "Alberta separatists should be taken out and shot!"

[eyeball]

Obviously no system beyond a Direct Democracy can entirely cure these flaws, but FPTP is pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to electoral systems.

I'm glad you included this note at the bottom.

As such, any objective to create a system of perfect democracy needs to be recognized as being entirely unrealistic.

Perhaps a perfect democracy sure but would you seriously exclude any effort to rise up from the bottom of the barrel?

There are characteristics of every voting system that need to be balanced: stability, regional representation, historical representation (as with Quebec) and giving a voice to minority voices.

These are things that should be addressed when considering system changes, in terms of costs and benefits. Politically, few people are willing to give up the benefits they receive from the system to allow others to receive more power.

An example would be Quebec, which would lose a significant measure of representation in favour of, say, the Greens and NDP. Does Canada feel that this is a good power shift ?

I don't.

I certainly think seeing how we like life an inch or two off the bottom of the barrel is worth the risk.

[Michael Hardner]

I certainly think seeing how we like life an inch or two off the bottom of the barrel is worth the risk.

Your argument is that the current system is the bottom of the barrel ? Ok, mine is that it is AMAZING !

[expat voter]

The Atlantica Party endorses STV, single transferable vote, it gives PR results but every representative is directly elected. It also encourages independents and smaller parties to take part. Plus the voter choice is more interesting so it will tend to higher turnouts.

Is this the system that was selected by a citizens' assembly in BC, which failed to reach the high pass mark of 60% in a referendum?

How many candidates per electoral district? Would each electoral district have the same number of candidates? Does the Atlantica Party propose this for Canada nationally? What would the voting districts look like? Would it lead to perpetual minority governments, and if so, how would this be dealt with?

Just a few questions out of curiosity.

[expat voter]

One basic step towards Canada becoming more democratic would be that the 35% of Canadians that don't bother to vote ---- EVER--- did. They are likely the ones that turn up to pep rallies as happened at the G20.

I don't think protesters are the non-voters. The above is just a silly unfounded bias. Sounds like a die-hard Conservative voter.