Canada's political system vs. US political system

[Bonam]

You're proposing anarchy.

Actually that's called direct democracy, where every citizen has a direct vote on any given proposal. From my point of view, the main reason our democracies are representative rather than direct was at the time of their formation, direct democracy was technically impossible. Today, with the advent of the internet, direct democracy would be easy to implement.

I think it might actually result in better governance, because the population as a whole is much less polarized and partisan than elected members of the political parties.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Bonam

[TimG]

I think it might actually result in better governance, because the population as a whole is much less polarized and partisan than elected members of the political parties.

Only in your dream. You only need to look to the california recall initiatives where billions are spent trying to sway the public one way or another. Can you seriously argue that approach is 'non-partisan'?

[Bonam]

Only in your dream. You only need to look to the california recall initiatives where billions are spent trying to sway the public one way or another. Can you seriously argue that approach is 'non-partisan'?

People can spend whatever money they like trying to sway the public. But the average member of the public has no media appearance to keep up, no donors to satisfy, no entrenched party base to appease. They can vote for what they think is best, not what they think will get them re-elected.

It's not that I'm saying that the public is very intelligent, or would always make the right choice, or anything like that. But the extent to which partisanship has taken over the political discourse is extreme. Politicians make decisions based on what is good for them and what is good for their party, rarely or never on what is good for the country. Less power in the hands of these two extremes that are trying to battle it out and more in the hands of every single citizen seems like a fundamentally good idea to me.

[g_bambino]

Actually that's called direct democracy, where every citizen has a direct vote on any given proposal.

It's called unworkable. No paliament, ergo no goverment, ergo no law enforcement. It would be utter chaos.

[Bonam]

No paliament, ergo no goverment, ergo no law enforcement.

None of these follow from the other, nor does more direct democracy imply that there would not be a parliament. While everyone could vote on proposals, someone still has to do the proposing. That's where the representatives come in.

[g_bambino]

None of these follow from the other, nor does more direct democracy imply that there would not be a parliament.

Please see bjre's post that I was responding to: "we need not senates, nor MPs." That would be no parliament; unless, of course, he means to have the last part of parliament - the Queen - remain alone and pass laws approved by every voter in Canada (which is still a preposterous idea).

[+]

Edited August 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[Moonbox]

Because this forum eats, breathes, and shyts all things American...that's why. I could drop dead right now and America would still dominate the forum landscape.

Well one things for certain, the clown show that is US politics has far more things to talk about than the Canadian political bore-fest, especially in the summer!

[William Ashley]

If we had an elected senate, would we have the same impasses that we see in the U.S. political system?

Good article at yahoo.com about this:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/u-debt-ceiling-impasse-exposes-benefits-canada-parliamentary-152937537.html

Somehow the senate has managed to have a relative balance between Liberals and Coservatives for the last x number of years, although it can swing over the line now and then, as it is now to allow a majority.

The senate does more things than just vote, and they arn't beyond delaying or sending proposed laws back to the commons. It is a misnomer to think that the senate "does nothing" that is all hype to push for an abolishment, or to reinforce the stereotype of a powerless upper house. All it takes is one rigged election and suddenly the rigged parties have both houses, yet with a non elected senate it is much harder for an immediate takeover by corrupt electoral practice.

Many people who will not "run" for office, are very valuable to the government, and an elected senate might dilute the values of people in the senate, turning back to the waste of pork barrel politiking meaning more spending and less value. Also it would mean even more party support. People have to start worrying more about whipping, so they loose their relative independence in sitting which is unfortunate because independence is a good virtue, whipping tends to serve partisan interests, and often partisan interests really arn't good since they represent a minority view of at most 20% or so of the population. When people make dicisions based upon their backgrounds alone, it puts more weight on who you ask to make the decisions and less on corrupt practice and toeing the "party" line. Whether it is good or not. The conservatives tend to have a real issue with making bad decisions that serve a minority of Canadians, and no one else matters. It is rejigging the system to suit their intersts rather than maintaining and improoving intersts. So if an elected senate were run at the same time as regular elections it would be a very bad thing. However if it were to run between elections or 6 months after elections a second house would be more beneficial because it might allow the runner ups to get seats they didn't get in the commons election.

But overall it is a disgusting concept to remove the senate and make a second commons. I do support creating a third lower house though. I think all this reformation of the senate is a big mistake, we need new organs but we don't need to amputate old ones. Its worked for 125+ years why change it now? Even if they've been making bad laws like a drunk ruining themselves, they havn't exactly cut their hand off. Hands are useful.

Having a third arm or a tail can be an advantage.

If people elect corrupt officials to nominate corrupt senators who toe the line that is what you get. The parties decide the votes even before hand and people are whipped. It has nothing to do with being elected, people don't even get to decide their candidates anymore in some conservative ridings. Meanwhile the parties make the system so average people are redtapped and cashstrapped from running for office. It is just a corrupt system, and elected senate NOT ONLY requires a constitutional amendment, but will do very little for a public that doesn't even vote as to provide enhanced "democracy", especially if it runs at the same time as a general election.

But the thing is.. it will cost more money to run miltiple elections.. an election costs $250 million two more election is an extra 500 million tax payer dollars just to elect people in two senate votes. Plus they will likely slush funds back to the parties or need to hit people up for more tax deductable donations which usually lower rich peoples taxes, while increasing overall tax costs.

We need a third house, we need a system that lowers the cost of elections, we need to cut off tax dollars from the political process completely.

But what the conservatives want is just a scam on the tax payer for partisan interests. A wolf in sheepsskin.

After all the whining over the last 5 years from Harper et al, over WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ELECTION, they want to run 2 more elections at default every 3 years .. and this with potentials for commons elections every year or two.. how. It is utterly hypocritical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Edited August 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[GostHacked]

It's called unworkable. No paliament, ergo no goverment, ergo no law enforcement. It would be utter chaos.

You are putting to much faith in government to do their job fairly and effectively. By needing government TO govern, you are saying the average person can't be trusted to make the right choice, in some cases you are right. But, governments are made of some of these people and make bad decisions for us all the time. We need to take the control back ourselves and live the way we want to live, not the way the government tells us. Eventually when we have the government governing almost every aspect of our lives, we get into a nanny state which leads to some form of tyranny. Not the way I want to live.

The reason for the chaos is because governments have been taking us down this long road to debt/slavery. People are not wanting to take it anymore. And this is happening in dictatorial countries AND 'democracies' alike. People have had enough of the crap from our collective governments. They want the control back, they want to live their lives the way they see fit.

Austerity will eventually reach our shores here in Canada, the same as it has in some Eurozone countries, and parts of Africa and the Middle East. The governments are not doing the job in the best interest of the people anymore.

[g_bambino]

You are putting to much faith in government to do their job fairly and effectively.

Not at all. I'm saying that a civilised, stable society requires a government to make and enforce the laws by which the majority agree to live. It seems you missed the fact that bjre was advocating no parliament, which certainly turns lawmaking into unworkable chaos, not to mention putting into question how we'd even have a workable government and how laws (if there were any) would be enforced.

[M.Dancer]

Austerity will eventually reach our shores here in Canada,

Austerity reached our shores about 2 Prime Ministers ago...which is one reason why we are seeing the debt crisis here.

[bjre]

Actually that's called direct democracy, where every citizen has a direct vote on any given proposal. From my point of view, the main reason our democracies are representative rather than direct was at the time of their formation, direct democracy was technically impossible. Today, with the advent of the internet, direct democracy would be easy to implement.

I think it might actually result in better governance, because the population as a whole is much less polarized and partisan than elected members of the political parties.

"Direct democracy", that is a good idea. Why I believe the representatives can not represent us, you can find the answer here:

2011-20: Decade of U.S. economic hell

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/2011-2020-ten-years-of-us-economic-hell-2011-08-08?pagenumber=2

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

Now, billions pass through lobbyists to politicians with one goal: a promise that every politician vote in line with their ideology. Wealth rules. America is no longer a democracy, not even a plutocracy. Today our middle class is in a rapid trickle down into Third World status, while the rich get richer and the “gap” between the super-rich and the rest steadily widens. It is now irrelevant who wins the 2012 race, because money corrupts and Obama is already a puppet of this system favoring lobbyists and wealthy donors.

None of these follow from the other, nor does more direct democracy imply that there would not be a parliament. While everyone could vote on proposals, someone still has to do the proposing. That's where the representatives come in.

The representatives take away the right of giving out proposals from most people.

Anyone should have that right to place proposal himself/herself, when a proposal has draw enough attention, it should trig a voting, in such a way, only some web managers are needed, they are not the representatives.

[g_bambino]

"Direct democracy", that is a good idea.

Not in and of itself. You have to be more specific about the idea before it can be deemed good, or not.

[Socialist in Oil Country]

Here's an idea

Get rid of the Senate

[g_bambino]

Here's an idea

Get rid of the Senate

Not much of an idea.

[Socialist in Oil Country]

Not much of an idea.

The Senate is the biggest load of crap in our political system

They are not accountable to anybody, it's basically a job for life (age 75 or whatever), and they sometimes strike down legislation passed by the Commons (you know, the guys we elect to govern)

The Senate is a joke and it would be a step in the right direction to toss the upper chamber

[g_bambino]

The Senate is the biggest load of crap in our political system

That's unproductive bitching.

They are not accountable to anybody, it's basically a job for life (age 75 or whatever), and they sometimes strike down legislation passed by the Commons (you know, the guys we elect to govern)

The way senators are selected and/or how long they serve can be altered. The Senate does not "strike down legislation"; it can amend bills and send them back to the House of Commons. It's not a bad thing to have bills reviewed by people who don't have reelection foremost in their minds, and it's essentially a requirement in a federated country, where lesser populated regions need some protection against the whims of the popular majority.

[segnosaur]

Actually that's called direct democracy, where every citizen has a direct vote on any given proposal. From my point of view, the main reason our democracies are representative rather than direct was at the time of their formation, direct democracy was technically impossible. Today, with the advent of the internet, direct democracy would be easy to implement.

I think it might actually result in better governance, because the population as a whole is much less polarized and partisan than elected members of the political parties.

You're of course assuming that people will always vote rationally, taking all factors into consideration.

I suspect what would happen is gridlock, as the government regularly votes down any possible tax increases, yet votes for popular spending increases, then wonders why their debt is going up. People want to have their cake and eat it too.

Mmmmmm..... cake.

Not only that, many bills passed by the government are extremely complex, even the regular day-to-day ones. Do we really expect everyone to be willing/able to educate themselves on each and every proposed bill?

Then there's the little issue of human rights.... there's no guarantee that the population will consider things like free speech when there is any sort of mass panic.

[guyser]

The Senate is the biggest load of crap in our political system

You said you are 16 correct? no problem

Here is a hint, listen to gbambino and heed his knowledge. No one , absolutely no one here, knows more about Constitutional matters, the monarchy and how Parliament works than he does. (you ARE a guy right bambino?)

Being 3 times your age and rather brilliant myself ,<cough cough> , I am astounded how much more I learn about Parliament and our Monarchy , all courtesy of bambino.

[g_bambino]

...[L]isten to gbambino and heed his knowledge. No one , absolutely no one here, knows more about Constitutional matters, the monarchy and how Parliament works than he does.

Oh, jeez! No pressure, right!?

But, I take the compliment; thank you.

I'd say, though, that ToadBrother sometimes has me beat on the constituional knowledge front. Haven't seen much of him for a while.

(you ARE a guy right bambino?)

Yes. It is, after all, "bambino", and not "bambina".

[+]

Edited August 24, 2011 by g_bambino

[segnosaur]

The way senators are selected and/or how long they serve can be altered. The Senate does not "strike down legislation"; it can amend bills and send them back to the House of Commons. It's not a bad thing to have bills reviewed by people who don't have reelection foremost in their minds...

True. The issue though is that if senators are appointed, then whatever 'review' that is done in the Senate should be done in a non-partisan way. Since this doesn't always appear to happen, the senate gets a bad reputation.

...and it's essentially a requirement in a federated country, where lesser populated regions need some protection against the whims of the popular majority.

Its certainly an issue in the U.S. (where the house of representatives and presidency are tied much more strongly to popular vote.) Its not quite as significant in Canada, since our rural regions already seem to have greater representation than urban regions (due to riding distribution).

Not that I'm totally disagreeing with you... simply calling the senate 'crap' is unproductive, and in certain circumstances it can be beneficial.

[Socialist in Oil Country]

You said you are 16 correct? no problem

Here is a hint, listen to gbambino and heed his knowledge. No one , absolutely no one here, knows more about Constitutional matters, the monarchy and how Parliament works than he does. (you ARE a guy right bambino?)

Being 3 times your age and rather brilliant myself ,<cough cough> , I am astounded how much more I learn about Parliament and our Monarchy , all courtesy of bambino.

I'm aware that the constitution guarantees the Senate their jobs

Doesn't make it any less wrong

The Senate can take a hike

[g_bambino]

Its not quite as significant in Canada, since our rural regions already seem to have greater representation than urban regions (due to riding distribution).

It's my feeling that the Senate could do with some work regarding representation. Rather than the regional divisions it has now, an equal number of senators for each province seems better. Having senators appointed by the lieutenant governor of the relevant province in council might also be a better idea than the present method of populating the upper house. I'm not entirely sure, though.

[g_bambino]

The Senate can take a hike

Is that really the best you can do?

The provinces will never agree to it. Only NDP premiers and the premiers of the most populous provinces have ventured to say the Senate can go; of course, the former are blindly adhering to the party's class warfare dogma, while the latter have almost nothing to loose, given the way the Commons is set up based on representation by population. Any non-NDP government in Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba simply won't go for all-out abolition since not only would it mean those provinces, with their smaller populations, would be subject to federal legislation passed by a single house that represents more Ontario and Quebec than any other provinces in Confederation, it would give the prime minister even more power over legislation than he has now.

The Senate needs work, no doubt. But getting rid of it altogether is a grossly irresponsible idea. There's a reason no federated country in the world has a unicameral parliament.

[sp]

Edited August 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[Socialist in Oil Country]

Is that really the best you can do?

The provinces will never agree to it. Only NDP premiers and the premiers of the most populous provinces have ventured to say the Senate can go; of course, the former are blindly adhering to the party's class warfare dogma, while the latter have almost nothing to loose, given the way the Commons is set up based on representation by population. Any non-NDP government in Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba simply won't go for all-out abolition since not only would it mean those provinces, with their smaller populations, would be subject to federal legislation passed by a single house that represents more Ontario and Quebec than any other provinces in Confederation, it would give the prime minister even more power over legislation than he has now.

The Senate needs work, no doubt. But getting rid of it altogether is a grossly irresponsible idea. There's a reason no federated country in the world has a unicameral parliament.

[sp]

Obviously it probably won't ever happen, I am aware of the methods that would have to be pursued to abolish it.

It doesn't change the fact that the Senate is a waste of tax dollars and space.

You wisely said federated country when stating there are no unicameral parliaments, but you choose to neglect the fact that some of the best functioning democracies in the world are unicameral. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland, South Korea to name a few

Again, the Senate can take a hike