What does a representative democracy mean to you?

[CitizenX]

Hello I’m new here so be gentle please...lol.

What does a representative democracy mean to you?

When your community elects A Member of Parliament to represent them, are you/they voting for someone (a person) that will act the interest and wishes of you and your community? Or are you simply voting for a party that represents your values?

The reason I ask is the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want. What this means is that if a party has an official position on a given issue, its MPs are expected to vote that way if the issue comes up for a vote in the legislature, even if majority opinion in an MP’s constituency differs This means that in some instances, one’s MP will vote in a way that might run counter to prevailing opinion in his or her constituency.

What this means to me is when you vote you are not voting for an individual but in fact voting for or against a party. How is a Member of Parliament a representative? How is this a representative democracy? If you are in reality voting for a Party, and in fact really for a party leader (because he controls the party), what kind of democracy is this?

[Wild Bill]

Canada has always had a flawed system. The only party ever to be serious about representing the constituency's views to Ottawa instead of Ottawa's views back to the constituency was the Reform Party. As soon as it merged back with the PC party the new party brass couldn't bury the idea fast or deep enough!

Edited August 2, 2011 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Queenmandy85]

Canada is not a representative democracy. Our system is based on the British model. Each Member of Parliment works on behalf of all Canadians and is responsible to vote according to their conscience. An MP is free to vote however their conscience dictates, however in real politics, if you vote against your Party, you may be made to pay a political price; if you vote against your constituants wishes, you will pay a political price.

[eyeball]

Canada has always had a flawed system. The only party ever to be serious about representing the constituency's views to Ottawa instead of Ottawa's views back to the constituency was the Reform Party. As soon as it merged back with the PC party the new party brass couldn't bury the idea fast or deep enough!

And yet, just look at the influence the Reformers wield. There's little doubt the Reform half of the CPC, at best 20% of Canadian voters, are the moral force behind it's crime agenda, especially crackin' down and gettin' tough on pot. Meanwhile the supposedly ethical half of the party, the other 20% it took to give the Cons 100% of the State's power, the half that swears up and down it can't stand the idea of the State jumping up and down on their fellow Canadian's backs the way the moral half of their party intends to do, is apparently completely powerless to do anything about stopping them.

What does a representative democracy mean to me?

Bugger-all. Our democracy blows, that's all there is to it.

Edited August 2, 2011 by eyeball

[CitizenX]

Canada has always had a flawed system. The only party ever to be serious about representing the constituency's views to Ottawa instead of Ottawa's views back to the constituency was the Reform Party. As soon as it merged back with the PC party the new party brass couldn't bury the idea fast or deep enough!

I would say that the PC Party is really the Reform Party in PC clothes.

[Shwa]

I would say that the PC Party is really the Reform Party in PC clothes.

There is no "PC Party." As bill said, the PC's merged with the Reform to create the Conservative Party of Canada, or CPC...

[Wild Bill]

And yet, just look at the influence the Reformers wield. There's little doubt the Reform half of the CPC, at best 20% of Canadian voters, are the moral force behind it's crime agenda, especially crackin' down and gettin' tough on pot. Meanwhile the supposedly ethical half of the party, the other 20% it took to give the Cons 100% of the State's power, the half that swears up and down it can't stand the idea of the State jumping up and down on their fellow Canadian's backs the way the moral half of their party intends to do, is apparently completely powerless to do anything about stopping them.

What does a representative democracy mean to me?

Bugger-all. Our democracy blows, that's all there is to it.

I totally disagree with you! Since I was right in there at the time, I believe I had a more objective view. I really think you have some cartoonish caricature of Reformers being Bible-thumping straight-laced crackers. You don't seem to realize that Reformers were Canadians, not Bible Belt Americans.

In all the years I participated in the Reform movement I never once met ONE evangelical Christian! In all the workshops and sessions to hammer out Party policy I never heard diddleysquat about any stand on marijuana. In fact, a couple of us went outside for a "toot" upon occasion!

We DID focus a lot on the "system" being soft on criminal sentencing but we were always talking about REAL criminals! Those were the days of Karla Homolka deals, remember! It wasn't just the Reformers who had that idea.

You keep expressing this view of Reformers but for the life of me I can't figure out where the hell you got it, except possibly by pulling it out of your butt!

The "social conservative" stuff was always a very small part of Reform and the leadership worked very hard to keep it suppressed. They knew that if it ever got any power it would sink the party's popularity. When Stockwell Day "snuck" into leadership and suddenly revealed himself as an evangelical he nearly destroyed the party, exactly as the majority of us always knew. Manning and Harper had both warned the party repeatedly that Canadians did NOT like to mix politics and religion! That was precisely what Day did, and we lost several years of momentum. Just ask Deborah Grey and Chuck Strahl. When Deborah Grey and others bailed out on Stockwell that was like an H-bomb within the party! She and the others had FAR more prominence in the party than Day ever did!

If anything, I suspect that the social conservatives within the CPC are old PCs! The PCs always had to keep a lid on such people as well. Now, with the PCs apparently ruling the party these social conservatives have the power and opportunity they always wanted.

Eyeball, did you ever read ANY Reform brochure or pamphlet? If you can find a list of Reform party principles, with all the planks about "ground up" policy development, representing the people to the Party rather than the Party to the people and all the other populist stuff I defy you to find examples of ANY of it being practiced in the present CPC!

Reformers running the CPC indeed! Nice unsubstantiated opinion! It would be a hoot indeed to hear you actually try to PROVE it!

Edited August 2, 2011 by Wild Bill

[eyeball]

Eyeball, did you ever read ANY Reform brochure or pamphlet?

Who said anything about the Reform Party?

I read my MP James Lunney's pamphlet. It said addicts have no rights and during an all candidates meeting he told us that one way or another the CPC was determined to rid our community of all the meth-labs and grow-ops etc etc.

I'm pretty sure I also saw a blurb recently about him attending the opening of a new winery.

If anything, I suspect that the social conservatives within the CPC are old PCs! The PCs always had to keep a lid on such people as well. Now, with the PCs apparently ruling the party these social conservatives have the power and opportunity they always wanted.

I don't care who the fuck it is Bill, in the meantime why shouldn't we expect moderates like you to show some balls and tell these assholes to STFU and get a clue?

[eyeball]

In all the years I participated in the Reform movement I never once met ONE evangelical Christian! In all the workshops and sessions to hammer out Party policy I never heard diddleysquat about any stand on marijuana. In fact, a couple of us went outside for a "toot" upon occasion!

Oh yeah, right-wingers can be as morally loosey goosey as any liberal.

I helped a friend with his Dad's run for the Conservatives in Toronto years and years ago when I was about 14. They gave us beer after hours, one even hit on me.

[William Ashley]

What does a representative democracy mean to you? ...

I don't see myself as strongly attached to any commons. Throughout my childhood until about 12 my family moved every year or two. Middle school then highschool 2 years each. Then I attended a few other schools with work mixed in inbetween. I spent a long time in Kitchener Waterloo, still only spend between 4-8 months a year there give or take. My home is actually in Northern Ontario where I have spent the spring/summer term for the past three years. I was in no way involved in Governmental Elections at a Federal, Provincial or Municipal level until 2006, when I opted to volunteer during the 2006 election as EC support staff. In 2008 I looked into running as an independent; however, couldn't find an elections Canada qualified auditor willing to audit my no donations no expenses campaign for the elections Canada Audit Subsidy of $250, disqualifying me from being eligible to run in the election. In the recent election I considered voting but would never vote for an American citizen, or a party with their leader who is an American citizen, in a Canadian election. Unfortunately the other Candidate was conservative, and there is no way I could ever vote for someone with Stephen Harper as their party's leader, or after the 150+ Billion dollars of embezzlement by the conservatives and a handful of things I don't support in their party policy. Overall I wasn't very kool with any of the platforms as a whole. The plans don't seem to be leading Canada to a place or as a place I support. Major policy issues such as civil rights, the war, human rights, foreign policy, justice policy, economic policy, environmental policy don't sit right with me. As such I have yet to vote. Since I'm more or less an independent under the auspice of my own party policy and beleifs, I havn't been convinced to support any party or candidate as of yet.

I would only vote for someone I support the position and values of. In KW for instance the MP there for the riding I was in, completely ingored some major issues including a tip off by myself of issues with NSLSC, that may have been related to the Chinese hacking issue before it broke, he seemed to just say, it that the NSLSC wasn't something that was a personal concern for him, and if I wanted him to pursue it futher I'd have to sign documents allowing him to act on my behalf and meet with him in person, etc.. meanwhile the website for the NSLSC was compramised and my own issue with government was stonewalled, as I'm accustomed to. The prior MP actually was more responsive in dealing with questions, and directed them appropriately. Some MP's also have done that well even as conservatives; some MP's and MPP's do respond directly with their position, and I respect them for that, but the problem is few do become involved in conscerns of constituents. Also the aide wall is a massive problem. I'm really very ideal based, not community based. I'm not focused on my own needs as much as I am issue that are systematic, where legislation can handle. It is the systematic issues that matter in terms of MP's and MPP's for each area of legilsation and function effecting them. For instance the inability to contact the NSLSC by phone, was a procedural issue due to the legislation forming the NSLSC being unsafe and weak. in terms of function. Many other legal issues would go to the police, Justice of the peace or courts, as such when considering for an MP I consider their actual responsibilities. The MP's arn't suppose to be executive but they are suppose to represent individuals dealings with government in Ottawa, specifically in addressing legislative challenges, in my opinion that impede or disadvantage, or disenfranchise individuals in terms of their dealings with government.

I don't see it as "what the constituency thinks" it is what the individual requests, should be fullfilled by the MP since they are there to represent constituents (Citizens), individual constituents, not the majority. If it comes down to a vote, they are suppose to weigh the vote based on the best outcome for the crown, and the crown is suppose to have all their subjects in their interest.

It is a constitutional monarchy not a representative democracy. The words can be shaped to make the two terms say that because someone is suppose to assume the position, they really arn't representative. Canada is an oligarchy not a democracy. Democracy is where the people have the vote, not the priveleged.

None the less things are as they are, you can be nonsequitur, or self represenative, but it may not get you far in a very harsh world filled with selfish, desperate, manipulative and depraved minions.

I think for me, I am left disenfranchised left to represent my own view, and live my life based on the situation befor me.

The only way we really have a representaive democracy is if you keep talking to that stone wall, and if it matters enough, it will come crashing down. Jericho is an old city, the walls wern't built over night, but they were brought down in less than a day.

Edited August 4, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

It is a constitutional monarchy not a representative democracy. Democracy is where the people have the vote, not the priveleged.

As far as I know, the Queen doesn't vote. Regardless, by your definition, no country on earth is a democracy.

[William Ashley]

As far as I know, the Queen doesn't vote. Regardless, by your definition, no country on earth is a democracy.

The Queen has a veto vote. It has historically rarely been used, often bringing about war. I suggest you learn how law is "legaly" made in the country?

The Governor in council is suppose to discuss with the executive council things, as such veto ought only be needed for private member bills or bills arising from the opposition, since governmental bills should be known before. She is only suppose to act on advice or consent of Privy Council, except in cases of reserve, or issues relating to the royal prerogative. Most issues relating to Canada have been passed over for the Governor General to exercise as per letters patent.

Do you have a point with your second statement?

It is recognized g_bambino that the execise of royal power fell from the public eye, or even use over the period of the first two world wars. In part perhaps due to the death of their most loyal subjects who were first to volunteer and die on the front lines.

Only the Parliamentary Act of 1911 limits the Crown's power in Canada as far as I'm aware. In Britain a second act was introduced in 1949 but due to it does not extend to Canada..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949

Parliament Act 1911

1911 CHAPTER 13 1 and 2 Geo 5

An Act to make provision with respect to the powers of the House of Lords in relation to those of the House of Commons, and to limit the duration of Parliament.

[18th August 1911]

Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament:

And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation:

And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords:

1 Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bills.E+W+S+N.I.

(1)If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.

(2)A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, [F1the National Loans Fund] or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions “taxation,” “public money,” and “loan” respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.

(3)There shall be endorsed on every Money Bill when it is sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to His Majesty for assent the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by him that it is a Money Bill. Before giving his certificate the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, two members to be appointed from the Chairmen’s Panel at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection.

Restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills.E+W+S+N.I.

(1)If any Public Bill (other than a Money Bill or a Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years) is passed by the House of Commons [F1in two successive sessions] (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection [F1for the second time] by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill: Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless [F1one year has elapsed] between the date of the second reading in the first of those sessions of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons [F1in the second of these sessions.]

(2)When a Bill is presented to His Majesty for assent in pursuance of the provisions of this section, there shall be endorsed on the Bill the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons signed by him that the provisions of this section have been duly complied with.

(3)A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses.

(4)A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent any amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding session, and any amendments which are certified by the Speaker to have been made by the House of Lords [F1in the second session] and agreed to by the House of Commons shall be inserted in the Bill as presented for Royal Assent in pursuance of this section:

Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House [F1in the second session,] suggest any further amendments without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and, if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords.

3 Certificate of Speaker.E+W+S+N.I.

Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law.

4 Enacting words.E+W+S+N.I.

(1)In every Bill presented to His Majesty under the preceding provisions of this Act, the words of enactment shall be as follows, that is to say:—

“Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of [F1the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949] and by authority of the same, as follows.”

(2)Any alteration of a Bill necessary to give effect to this section shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Bill.

5 Provisional Order Bills excluded.E+W+S+N.I.

In this Act the expression “Public Bill” does not include any Bill for confirming a Provisional Order.

6 Saving for existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.E+W+S+N.I.

Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.

7 Duration of Parliament.E+W+S+N.I.

Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the M1Septennial Act 1715.

8 Short title.E+W+S+N.I.

This Act may be cited as the Parliament Act 1911.

Edited August 4, 2011 by William Ashley

[Wild Bill]

Who said anything about the Reform Party?

I read my MP James Lunney's pamphlet. It said addicts have no rights and during an all candidates meeting he told us that one way or another the CPC was determined to rid our community of all the meth-labs and grow-ops etc etc.

I'm pretty sure I also saw a blurb recently about him attending the opening of a new winery.

I don't care who the fuck it is Bill, in the meantime why shouldn't we expect moderates like you to show some balls and tell these assholes to STFU and get a clue?

Man, have you got me wrong! First off, YOU mentioned the Reform Party! YOU stated that they have all the influence in the present CPC and thus were behind this "crack-down"! I merely responded to your premise, as in the light of my personal experience I thought you were full of crap!

Meanwhile, who's disagreeing with you about how the present CPC has included some goofiness in their "war on crime"? Certainly not me, who has pointed this out a number of times in previous posts. I have stated that I believe they are wasting resources aiming at cheap and easy targets like marijuana, perhaps looking for freebie photo ops while murderers and pedophiles roam the streets with impunity. The CPC reminds me of the old cartoon character "Fearless Fosdick", who would kill a dozen innocent bystanders but always got his man!

Lastly, why the f**k is it MY job?? I'm NOT a conservative! I deliberately let my membership lapse years ago, when I saw that Reform was dead within the new Party! For the billionth time, I'm more of a Classic Liberal. I vote CPC only because to me the alternatives are all MUCH worse! Even then, I've been tempted not to bother voting at all.

I'M supposed to "show some balls"? Why don't YOU show some balls! Make your party popular enough with the mainsteam to change things! If you can't change your party then start a new one! Your ass is as stuck to your chair as mine and besides, you're probably a lot younger!

You could offer to pay my membership in the CPC and I would refuse to take it! I'd rather join an ABBA fan club! I can't think of a stronger way to insult me than to suggest I'm a member of the present CPC.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Wild Bill

[g_bambino]

The queen has a veto vote.

Veto is a power, not an act, like voting. The Queen is not part of an electorate. Ergo, she does not vote.

Do you have a point with your second statement?

You don't know the definition of democracy.

[William Ashley]

Veto is a power, not an act, like voting. The Queen is not part of an electorate. Ergo, she does not vote.

They don't call it a veto vote because its not a vote.

You don't know the definition of democracy.

Speaking with you is like spreading a forest fire.

Edited August 4, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

They don't call it a veto vote because its not a vote.

There's no such thing as a veto vote. People (presidents, monarchs) or bodies (UN Security Council) have the power of veto.

Besides, the Queen has no explicit veto power. She may only deny Royal Assent to a bill or refuse the advice of her ministers.

Speaking with you is like spreading a forest fire.

So, I'm right; you don't know the definition of democracy.

[link]

Edited August 4, 2011 by g_bambino

[August1991]

What does a representative democracy mean to you?

I have given some thought to this.

I don't know about "representative democracy" but I have an idea about "democracy".

To me democracy means that we have a peaceful way to "throw the buggers out". That is, democracy is simply a State where governments change without violence, without death. Many States around the world are not democratic. In these cases, the only way to change the government is through violence, or death. (Death? Think ultimately of any monarchy. George III became king when his father George II died.)

In a democratic State, the government (or the people who exercice power) are chosen randomly through a weird lottery. And the key point of democracy is that losers of this lottery voluntarily accept to hand over power peacefully to the winners.

Symbolically, State power is a crown or a ring. In a democracy, this ring/crown is passed from one person to another without violence, without death - even if the two people may bitterly oppose one another.

For example, when George W. Bush gave the White House to Barack Obama, he showed the world that America is a true democracy - as it has been for centuries, since John Adams stood beside Thomas Jefferson for his inauguration.

How many societies or countries around the world can claim such civility or democracy for such a time? How do other places transfer State power? Even we Canadians cannot claim such a history of democracy.

Edited August 4, 2011 by August1991

[g_bambino]

Many States around the world are not democratic. In these cases, the only way to change the government is through violence, or death. (Death? Think ultimately of any monarchy. George III became king when his father George II died.)

A cute attempt at denigrating monarchy: first presume all death is violent and then that all monarchies leave succession purely to death. Thanks to all those monarchs of ours over the past eight generations or so who passed peacefully and to James II and Edward VIII for showing that succession is still ultimately subject to the law, as passed by that arena of democracy: parliament.

For example, when George W. Bush gave the White House to Barack Obama, he showed the world that America is a true democracy - as it has been for centuries, since John Adams stood beside Thomas Jefferson for his inauguration. How many societies or countries around the world can claim such civility or democracy for such a time?

Canada, a constitutional monarchy, for one. August, you always go on about what a civilized country Canada is. And yet, somehow we manage to be such even though our kings aren't elected and unaccountable to parliament, as US presidents are and as you seem to indicate is necessary for a civilized society. How do you reconcile that contradiction?

[CitizenX]

This has gotten off topic

I guess my the main point of my question is in a representative democracy do you think

• The representatives form an independent ruling body charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives nor necessarily always according to their wishes.
  
• Representatives are elected to represent the wishes of their constituency
  

I think the gun registry issue is a good example to use for discussion purposes. If you live in a community who’s wishes are get rid of the gun registry, but your representative votes with his/her party and for keeping it, is this your idea of a representative democracy? Yes you can vote him out next election but the damage is already done.

The Liberals and Conservatives were both guilty of whipping the vote, the NDP were the only ones that allowed a free vote.

Edited August 4, 2011 by CitizenX

[August1991]

This has gotten off topic

No, it has gotten off topic at all.

At issue is the question: if a government doesn't do what "people" want, what happens next? In simple terms, if Obama doesn't deliver the goods, someone else will be in the White House in 2013.

Meanwhile, the wives of King Saud of Jordan and President Mubarak of Libya, in power since Eisenhower was elected, need only fear their husband's death, a popular revolt or a palace coup.

CitizenX, you may think that I am setting the bar low but simply having a civilized way to "throw the buggers out" is already a tremendous improvement.

A cute attempt at denigrating monarchy: first presume all death is violent and then that all monarchies leave succession purely to death. Thanks to all those monarchs of ours over the past eight generations or so who passed peacefully and to James II and Edward VIII for showing that succession is still ultimately subject to the law, as passed by that arena of democracy: parliament.

As a fan boy of the British monarchy, surely you refer to Charles II and not James II. But Charles II came to power after the violent death of Cromwell. James II came to power after the peaceful death of his brother.

----

IMV, the measure of democracy is whether an individual will pass State power to someone he virulently opposes without violence or death. At first glance, the US is a remarkable State because it has achieved democracy for several centuries now. On second glance, Americans have simply achieved the obvious. America is not exceptional. The rest of the world is simply backward.

Edited August 4, 2011 by August1991

[William Ashley]

There's no such thing as a veto vote. People (presidents, monarchs) or bodies (UN Security Council) have the power of veto.

OK I say the exercise of a veto on legislation is a vote. For instance some "bodies" have multiple members. Where a decision to veto something will be put to a vote. I consider any body, even a singular one to be exercising a vote when deciding to use a veto or not, especially in a legislative role.

Besides, the Queen has no explicit veto power. She may only deny Royal Assent to a bill or refuse the advice of her ministers.

I would disagree. I think you tend to like to put down anything related with the monarchy being real or able to exercise power, and that is all this discussion boils down to.

So, I'm right; you don't know the definition of democracy.

[link]

You can think that, unfortunately we could turn to any given dictionary, or webpage for one of the many thousands of definitions. It is a system where individuals that are party to a body can exercise an equal vote on issues. For instance a true democracy is one where all citizens may vote on an issue. It is closest to the plebecite or referendum being used in western societies. I would definately point out that people should not turn to parliament to provide democracy. They exercise democratic mindfulness when calling a referendum or in actuality only a plebecite is democratic, and plebecites have never been held in Canada, ever.

Referendums are not fully democratic since they are non binding at law, only references to weigh in making a final decision.

BTW I am wrong there has been a plebicite in Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_conscription_plebiscite,_1942

I should note though.. this plebecite doesn't seem to effect the law, but was more of a referendum.. or protective mechanism... it isn't really a plebecite... since it doesn't create legislation directly. It did give grounds for conscription law being introduced or used though.

Online sources don't do well in differentiating

REFERENDUMS (referals)

and

PLEBECITES (more so mandatory citations from the people as to create law)

Edited August 4, 2011 by William Ashley

[PIK]

If a PM tried to become PM for life , can the queen not step in, to stop it?

[g_bambino]

As a fan boy of the British monarchy, surely you refer to Charles II and not James II. But Charles II came to power after the violent death of Cromwell. James II came to power after the peaceful death of his brother.

No, I mean James II, who was deposed by parliament and replaced on the throne by William and Mary as joint monarchs. You know, that rather significant moment known as the Glorious Revolution?

I tend to think it's good for people to know their country's history, without need to erase or edit it to suit personal agendas. I do forget, though, that you always come at these things from a warped Québécois nationalist point of view.

Where's the answer to my question?

[August1991]

If a PM tried to become PM for life , can the queen not step in, to stop it?

Turn your question around: Who could stop a monarch from appointing a PM for life? Edited August 4, 2011 by August1991

[g_bambino]

If a PM tried to become PM for life , can the queen not step in, to stop it?

Ultimately, yes.

Actually, I made an assumption there.

In reality, there's nothing illegal about someone trying to be prime minister for life; if they can get themselves repeatedly elected to the House of Commons and command the confidence of that body for that long, then they may do it. If, though, someone wanted to become prime minister for life by, say, ignoring the results of elections or tyring to pass a law abolishing elections, then, yes, the Queen, ultimately, has the power to stop such actions.

Of course, no system is entirely invincible.

Edited August 4, 2011 by g_bambino