Canadians Ready to Open Consitution

TimG · May 29, 2011

In the same vein of thought the government has 4-5 years to fuck the country over in irreversible ways.

Most of what governments do are that can be reversed and their legacy tends to a reminder why we don't want those guys in power ever again (e.g. the NDP in Ontario and BC). The best protection we have against that is the system forces parties to become centrist if they want government which keeps the lunatic fringe under control.

Remiel · May 29, 2011

Technically speaking, welfare states are somewhat path dependant. That is to say that it tends to be rather difficult, if not impossible, to entirely dismantle one, or even change what sort of welfare state it is. This is why Reagan and Thatcher, though we usually think of them of having been terrible (and they were), were nevertheless unable to achieve the full extent of their desired reforms.

Also, Smallc and g_bambino, I think you guys are missing the point on representation. Just because we have MPs and call them our representatives does not make them truly (as opposed to rhetorically) representative in the way that is necessary for Constitutional matters in this day and age. Especially given the fact that people apparently do not understand how our representative system actually works, and it is rather questionable who exactly MPs are representing anymore (as oft times they seem more like they are representing the government to the people, not the people to the government).

Smallc · May 29, 2011

Especially given the fact that people apparently do not understand how our representative system actually works, and it is rather questionable who exactly MPs are representing anymore (as oft times they seem more like they are representing the government to the people, not the people to the government).

In Canada, it follows, generally, that when someone votes for a particular MP, they've bought the package of whatever that MPs party is proposing. If they don't like the package, or if the package isn't follows, they have the option to throw them out next time. That is generally how our system has worked, well, forever. Direct democracy has had a very small roll, and, since Canadians think they vote too much already, I don't see them crying for the ability to have a referendum on something that will seem abstract to most of them anyway.

g_bambino · May 29, 2011

Ah the good old 'the people might choose wrong, so why let them choose' argument.

Ah, the "popular equals right" position.

g_bambino · May 29, 2011

Just because we have MPs and call them our representatives does not make them truly (as opposed to rhetorically) representative in the way that is necessary for Constitutional matters in this day and age.

There is a problem with MPs' ability to represent their constituents in parliament, yes. There are, though, solutions to that problem that I believe should be implemented, anyway, since the issue affects the way our system of governance, reliant as it is on the principle of responsible government, operates as a whole.

Especially given the fact that people apparently do not understand how our representative system actually works...

Isn't that an argument for keeping direct democracy to a minimum?

If Canadians showed a greater familiarity with their constitution, government, and how it works, I might change my mind.

Remiel · May 29, 2011

Isn't that an argument for keeping direct democracy to a minimum?

If Canadians showed a greater familiarity with their constitution, government, and how it works, I might change my mind.

There is definitely a way in which it would be an argument for not having direct democracy, but I do not think that it is an argument that carries against the democratic imperative. In theory, after all, direct democracy is basic. It precedes (or ought to precede) representative democracy in the sense that it establishes representative democracy.

I will say this though, as a matter of compromise, that if one does not trust the general electorate to make decisions about the Constitution, and if one does not trust that traditional elite decision making by federal and provincial leaders is democratically sufficient, then it seems to me that the solution may be to hold elections for a special legislative body meant to deal solely with the matters of the Constitution, and which would be dissolved once the final decision had been made.

Molly · May 29, 2011

When we need healthcare, legal advice, mechanical services, electrical or plumbing work...yada, yada, yada... we consult(almost to the point of blind obedience) a professional expert in the field.

If nothing else - representative democracy allows for meaningful consultation with folks who have more than a cursory grasp of the issues involved. We need look no further than these very pages to see how often many or even most are operating from a negligible information base, getting their tails in an unholy twist based on ignorance and/or misinformation- so yeah, sometimes the voters get it wrong. (And when they do, they pay the price.)

Not all management needs to be micro-management. I see that obsession with direct democracy as ...well.. thoughtless, and in being ill-considered, it is completely representative of the sort of decisions that government by referendum-neverendum would bring us.

I'd rather have a trusted delegate studying and deciding constitutional adjustments on my behalf than leave it in the hands of the unresearched 35 or 40% of voters who eenie-meenie an option that they haven't actually read, much less understood..

Molly · May 29, 2011

I will say this though, as a matter of compromise, that if one does not trust the general electorate to make decisions about the Constitution, and if one does not trust that traditional elite decision making by federal and provincial leaders is democratically sufficient, then it seems to me that the solution may be to hold elections for a special legislative body meant to deal solely with the matters of the Constitution, and which would be dissolved once the final decision had been made.

......does that actually solve either concern, though? It may be fashionable to address every issue by adding yet another layer, but does it ever actually accomplish anything?

My instant reaction to it is to see hyperpartisan but poorly attended extra elections, selecting a crew that don't so much have any big-picture expertise as they have a fashionable (short term and thoughtless), politically partisan axe to grind. Aka... complete waste of time and heat... actually worse than an all-out referendum.

(And... if you must have a national election for a single question, you may as well present the actual question and save the cost and complication of a body whose only function is to relay an aye or nay. What's the point of having actual people if that's the sole role?)

eyeball · May 29, 2011

I'd rather have a trusted delegate studying and deciding constitutional adjustments on my behalf than leave it in the hands of the unresearched 35 or 40% of voters who eenie-meenie an option that they haven't actually read, much less understood..

Then make voters pass an issues comprehension test before granting them the terrible, threatening and obviously deeply frightening power of a vote.

As for leaving everything that governs our lives in the hands of a trusted delegate...therein lies the heart of the reason so many people want some form of direct democracy. The means to trust, the capacity for it, is almost completely absent. It just doesn't exist for millions and millions of people - probably billions when you consider the entire planet.

Myself, I think our long-term survival as a species may hinge on total transparency and accountability. We're driving blind without it.

Edited May 29, 2011 by eyeball

Remiel · May 29, 2011

My instant reaction to it is to see hyperpartisan but poorly attended extra elections, selecting a crew that don't so much have any big-picture expertise as they have a fashionable (short term and thoughtless), politically partisan axe to grind. Aka... complete waste of time and heat... actually worse than an all-out referendum.

You are making a lot of assumptions here about the quality of MPs and the potential quality of Constitutional delegates that are unwarranted.

(And... if you must have a national election for a single question, you may as well present the actual question and save the cost and complication of a body whose only function is to relay an aye or nay. What's the point of having actual people if that's the sole role?)

Perhaps I was not clear enough, but I was thinking such a body would not just be giving a yea or nay, but would have the greater hand in formulating the proposal that would be voted on by the federal government and the provinces. That is to say, you have it somewhat backwards. After all, this group would not be meant to replace the amending formula in any way, they would be meant to formulate the amendments.

bush_cheney2004 · May 29, 2011

...Myself, I think our long-term survival as a species may hinge on total transparency and accountability. We're driving blind without it.

But that is exactly how the "species" developed and came to dominate the planet.

ConservativelyRadical · May 29, 2011

I keep hearing people talking about direct democracy being a problem because either: a ) we can't trust the majority of people in our society to do the right thing for everyone(society as a whole), or b ) because Canadians today are too lazy and politically ignorant to want a system that requires any serious effort to be made by them.

With modern technology, the correct system and some education direct democracy should never be a problem - if the majority of people make a stupid decision then you use your democratic voice to educate the majority of the people about the problem and then try to fix it.

The technology is available today to create a government network or series of networks which every person could have membership to and where anything and everything politics is discussed, government information is consolidated in an organized manner for easy education on the system, debates are held or broadcast through, polls are conducted, etc.

There would always be a requirement for some elected leaders or organizers to make things work, but that doesn't have to mean a big government with full elections and all but that doesn't have to take much effort if all it requires is logging in to a website/network once a day for 10-20 minutes and seeing what's going on, or even voting online as such(though I don't like that personally, too many security issues).

Personally I follow a philosophy I can only refer to as "Mutualism" as that is the best word for it, though it is a far cry from the common definition of that term. It is socialistic in nature to make that clear right out front, but not "liberal" by any means.

It's a state-capitalist system with a combination of direct democracy and representative democracy together to provide "checks and balances" and prevent any "gaffs" from being made, or at least fixing them before they do too much damage.

I am always being told that it is a very "radical" system/idea yet those willing to actually consider the whole packaged system before judging/dismissing it typically agree that the end result isn't much different than an ideal form of the capitalist system we have now - except the people control the corporations and government, rather than the corporations controlling the governments controlling the people.

Maybe I'll post a bit about Mutualism as a philosophy and the Mutualist Cooperative political system in the philosophy section if I have the time later, I would love to get some reactions from people actually willing to thoughtfully read and consider it as a whole package and give honest, intelligent feedback on it.

This seems to be a place of intelligence, which is rare to find in regards to Canadian (or any other) politics these days.

PS - Please be gentle, I am a complete newbie here just looking for some intelligent discussion, especially in regards to political philosophy and constitutional issues.

Myself, I think our long-term survival as a species may hinge on total transparency and accountability. We're driving blind without it.

This is spot on, but is that really achievable in any realistic sense given the state of the people and their political education today?

I think it is, but not without major changes. Unfortunately I have a feeling that as usual any reforms made will end up being very minor, we Canadians collectively tend to shy away from making big changes in any meaningful way when it matters even when we start out being really fired up about it.

We are a generally loyal people I think and as such are loyal to the existing system even if we have concerns with it, and loyalty is always most beneficial to those the masses are loyal too - the leaders, not the masses themselves who fight and die in the wars and take the brunt of domestic/economic policies, etc.

Being a loyal people may be an honorable characteristic for the average Canadian citizen, but it certainly does not typically help us any.

We are used to being honorably screwed by our politicians, why change things?

RNG · May 29, 2011

I keep hearing people talking about direct democracy being a problem because either: a ) we can't trust the majority of people in our society to do the right thing for everyone(society as a whole), or b ) because Canadians today are too lazy and politically ignorant to want a system that requires any serious effort to be made by them.

With modern technology, the correct system and some education direct democracy should never be a problem - if the majority of people make a stupid decision then you use your democratic voice to educate the majority of the people about the problem and then try to fix it.

The technology is available today to create a government network or series of networks which every person could have membership to and where anything and everything politics is discussed, government information is consolidated in an organized manner for easy education on the system, debates are held or broadcast through, polls are conducted, etc.

There would always be a requirement for some elected leaders or organizers to make things work, but that doesn't have to mean a big government with full elections and all but that doesn't have to take much effort if all it requires is logging in to a website/network once a day for 10-20 minutes and seeing what's going on, or even voting online as such(though I don't like that personally, too many security issues).

Personally I follow a philosophy I can only refer to as "Mutualism" as that is the best word for it, though it is a far cry from the common definition of that term. It is socialistic in nature to make that clear right out front, but not "liberal" by any means.

It's a state-capitalist system with a combination of direct democracy and representative democracy together to provide "checks and balances" and prevent any "gaffs" from being made, or at least fixing them before they do too much damage.

I am always being told that it is a very "radical" system/idea yet those willing to actually consider the whole packaged system before judging/dismissing it typically agree that the end result isn't much different than an ideal form of the capitalist system we have now - except the people control the corporations and government, rather than the corporations controlling the governments controlling the people.

Maybe I'll post a bit about Mutualism as a philosophy and the Mutualist Cooperative political system in the philosophy section if I have the time later, I would love to get some reactions from people actually willing to thoughtfully read and consider it as a whole package and give honest, intelligent feedback on it.

This seems to be a place of intelligence, which is rare to find in regards to Canadian (or any other) politics these days.

PS - Please be gentle, I am a complete newbie here just looking for some intelligent discussion, especially in regards to political philosophy and constitutional issues.

This is spot on, but is that really achievable in any realistic sense given the state of the people and their political education today?

I think it is, but not without major changes. Unfortunately I have a feeling that as usual any reforms made will end up being very minor, we Canadians collectively tend to shy away from making big changes in any meaningful way when it matters even when we start out being really fired up about it.

We are a generally loyal people I think and as such are loyal to the existing system even if we have concerns with it, and loyalty is always most beneficial to those the masses are loyal too - the leaders, not the masses themselves who fight and die in the wars and take the brunt of domestic/economic policies, etc.

Being a loyal people may be an honorable characteristic for the average Canadian citizen, but it certainly does not typically help us any.

We are used to being honorably screwed by our politicians, why change things?

As long as it doesn't conflict with American Idol.

Bryan · May 29, 2011

this group would not be meant to replace the amending formula in any way, they would be meant to formulate the amendments.

That's an interesting premise. People do need a clearer explanation as to what it is they are or are not agreeing to. The Charlottetown referendum was anything but clear. People voted against it for opposite reasons, each thinking it "gave too much" to the other.

ConservativelyRadical · May 29, 2011

As long as it doesn't conflict with American Idol.

Haha, yeah the distractions that pretty much our entire modern society is built on are well known to me, and they are serious obstacles to overcome.

Though not if the corporations running most of those distractions were taken over by the people and forced to stop distracting people.

But that too would be very tricky, but nothing is impossible.

Regardless, I have no delusions of any serious change occurring in the near future given the currently intellectually docile nature of the Canadian people today, not to mention most of the rest of the world.

But I enjoy the "what if" discussions and considering what could be possible if the rest of the people weren't so distracted from what is truly important.

But we do have an opportunity for change here, and to say "it's not possible, don't bother trying" is just letting "them" win. I prefer to win but if I have to lose I at least like to go down with a good fight, maybe I can only weaken "them" a little bit but then maybe someone else can come along after me and do more damage, and eventually someone else can finish the job.

Anything is possible, but not if you don't even try.

It would be a lot easier if I was female and had big tits though I must admit... or at least if I wasn't an unattractive fat-ass man that could appeal to the women, haha.

We just need some costumes and make-up and CGI to make us seem really hot and sexy and then we talk about stupid stuff on TV and get a huge cult following and then we slowly convert into intelligent conversations and trick them into smartening up without them realizing it...

Hey, crazier things have happened... on "reality T.V", and they always attract big audiences.

CPCFTW · May 29, 2011

Direct democracy would be a failure because this country would be run by 18-20 year olds tweeting one line slogans to each other to vote for the most communist party possible. The NDP party would "go viral".

"Hey old people shouldn't be poor! Poor people shouldn't be homeless!! Rich people shouldn't hog all their money!! Credit card and oil companies are making too much money!! My manager at McDonalds oppresses me! Vote NDP!!" Click click click, goodbye Canada.

Edited May 29, 2011 by CPCFTW

Sandy MacNab · May 29, 2011

Direct democracy would be a failure because this country would be run by 18-20 year olds tweeting one line slogans to each other to vote for the most communist party possible. The NDP party would "go viral".

"Hey old people shouldn't be poor! Poor people shouldn't be homeless!! Rich people shouldn't hog all their money!! Credit card and oil companies are making too much money!! My manager at McDonalds oppresses me! Vote NDP!!" Click click click, goodbye Canada.

Those with their hands out are greater in number that those able to give a hand up. The nanny state terrifies me.

TimG · May 29, 2011

I keep hearing people talking about direct democracy being a problem because either: a ) we can't trust the majority of people in our society to do the right thing for everyone(society as a whole), or b ) because Canadians today are too lazy and politically ignorant to want a system that requires any serious effort to be made by them.

California is a living example of why direct democracy has no place when it comes to running a country. The state is saddled with a labyrinth of measures that make it impossible to do anything about the deficit and spending problem. These measures exist because well funded special interests managed to convince a majority of the state's voters to support a measure without understanding the impliciations for broader budget picture.

bush_cheney2004 · May 29, 2011

California is a living example of why direct democracy has no place when it comes to running a country. The state is saddled with a labyrinth of measures that make it impossible to do anything about the deficit and spending problem.

Yes and no.....California has about half the total debt ($260 billion) compared to the entire nation of Canada with a similar population, and it can implement austerity measures far easier. Even if one offsets Canada's federal budget obligations not seen by California, governance Canada style does not assure that debts or deficits are managed any better...just differently.

ConservativelyRadical · May 29, 2011

Direct democracy would be a failure because this country would be run by 18-20 year olds tweeting one line slogans to each other to vote for the most communist party possible. The NDP party would "go viral".

"Hey old people shouldn't be poor! Poor people shouldn't be homeless!! Rich people shouldn't hog all their money!! Credit card and oil companies are making too much money!! My manager at McDonalds oppresses me! Vote NDP!!" Click click click, goodbye Canada.

That is an unfair reactionary and likely untrue statement, the large majority of "communists"/socialists I have come across personally here in Canada are over 60 years old and are mostly consumed with thinking about the good old Hippy days, the large majority of 19-20 year old's I know are running around waving their Canadian flags in ultra-nationalist furor in complete contradiction to the fact the people they support are ultimately seeking to destroy our national identity in the name of a global "universalism".

The NDP is as much a part of that as the Liberals and CPC, but at least they know they are part of it for the most part.

My own Mutualist philosophy is very much nationalistic while still being very much socialistic - there are no free rides, you work and therefore you succeed.

There are even different classes, though laws would ensure a maximum "salary gap" between the highest and lowest classes to prevent monopolization of wealth.

The end result would satisfy most "welfare state" advocates while still providing more or less the same capitalist corporatocracy we are so used too now, only with the current power-balance reversed and with it being profitable for the entire society instead of a small minority within it.

But people these days don't care to understand the systems that they don't already know and support, they just dismiss them with the common buzzwords of "communist", "fascist", etc. which gives them all the excuses they need to not take the time to intelligently review them.

TimG · May 29, 2011

California has about half the total debt ($260 billion) compared to the entire nation of Canada with a similar population, and it can implement austerity measures far easier.

The problem in California is it spends too much for the revenue it collects can cannot easily bring these things into synch because of the various special measures imposed by the "direct democracy". Whether California could cut back or tax more is irrelevant if the politicians have their hands tied by various special interests who have the money to compaign against ballot measures.

The lesson we should take from California is direct democracy does not take the money out of politics. It simply redirects the money from politicians to agencys and groups that specialize in getting special ballot measures passed.

Edited May 29, 2011 by TimG

ConservativelyRadical · May 29, 2011

California is a living example of why direct democracy has no place when it comes to running a country. The state is saddled with a labyrinth of measures that make it impossible to do anything about the deficit and spending problem. These measures exist because well funded special interests managed to convince a majority of the state's voters to support a measure without understanding the impliciations for broader budget picture.

That is not direct democracy, that is a perverted Frankenstein produced because of the conflict between the Californian people and the Federal Government that keeps making it extremely difficult to do what they actually want to do.

Using a state that is contained within a larger Federal entity that places great limitations on the actual democratic powers in use and specifically works against those democratic decisions does not serve as a good example of why a national system involving some form of direct democracy would not work.

Trying to change a single piece of a big puzzle is a difficult task, changing the big puzzle is far simpler.

More importantly, there are literally hundreds of different ways a system including direct democracy can work, using a single example of a certain type of existing system that likely would have no bearing on a direct democracy system created here according to our own needs and desires doesn't prove every system involving direct democracy is doomed to failure.

Do you think that every possible system that could exist has already been thought of and we shouldn't strive to improve or develop new systems even though the majority of people clearly aren't happy with the existing ones?

bush_cheney2004 · May 29, 2011

The problem in California is it spends too much for the revenue it collects can cannot easily bring these things into synch because of the various special measures imposed by the "direct democracy". Whether California could cut back or tax more is irrelevant if the politicians are not legally allowed to.

But this is as it should be....going all the way back to the earliest voter propositions of the 1970's - 1980's. They even brought back Jerry Brown complete with Linda Ronstadt tunes. California's economy is a top ten nation even on a bad day, so it has the capacity to manage its debts, and this is reflected in the bond markets, where it does slightly better than Michigan or Illinois.

Saipan · May 29, 2011

I'd rather have a trusted delegate studying and deciding constitutional adjustments on my behalf than leave it in the hands of the unresearched 35 or 40% of voters who eenie-meenie an option that they haven't actually read, much less understood..

Like the latest Liberal "gun control" C-68's 1,375 pages non of the MP or Senators read, never mind understood, before voting on it. Until it was much too late. It took way more than a decade of perpetul amnesty, to safe face, and eventually getting rid of the "law" altogether.

CPCFTW · May 29, 2011

Like the latest Liberal "gun control" C-68's 1,375 pages non of the MP or Senators read, never mind understood, before voting on it. Until it was much too late. It took way more than a decade of perpetul amnesty, to safe face, and eventually getting rid of the "law" altogether.

And the liberals likely won't be back in power for two decades because of that kind of complacency among elected representatives. You fuck up your mini-dictatorship, you're gone for two decades. Sounds good to me.