What does a representative democracy mean to you?

[g_bambino]

Turn your question around: Who could stop a monarch from appointing a PM for life?

Parliament.

[g_bambino]

I would disagree.

Show me where in the constitution the Queen is given the power of veto.

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.

Then you've changed your mind: Canada is a democracy.

[Oleg Bach]

To me it means who ever gets the MOST votes represents those that sent the person to office...representative democracy is not voting someone in on their set of values and beliefs...then having that elected person cross the floor to another set of values and beliefs - that's called fraud - we except fraud in Canada...I could never understand why we are allowed to elect a liberal who suddenly turns into a conservative?

[Sandy MacNab]

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!

Amen! I was also among the Reformers where I very rarely encountered the 'odd' social conservative. Among the most virulently social conservative nest (of vipers) who supported Reform were the core owners, members and movers on Free Dominion.

[CitizenX]

To me it means who ever gets the MOST votes represents those that sent the person to office...representative democracy is not voting someone in on their set of values and beliefs...then having that elected person cross the floor to another set of values and beliefs - that's called fraud - we except fraud in Canada...I could never understand why we are allowed to elect a liberal who suddenly turns into a conservative?

Good point. Democracy is not perfect, and certainly not representative democracy. A little off topic but what are your thoughts on direct democracy?

[charter.rights]

First of all in reference, Canada is not a rue democracy. It is an oligarchy.

The US was modeled after the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois - Six Nations) Confederacy whom have held a participatory democracy fro over 1000 years. Everyone in the community - even the children - get to be heard on issues affecting the community, or the nation. Representatives are raised from the community and each Clan gets a fixed number of Royaner (Chiefs for lack of a better term) who represent first at a Clan Council, then at a Community Council, then Nation Council and finally at a Confederacy Council level. The people of the community are engaged from the bottom to the top.

The Confederacy Council is composed of 50 Royaner representing 5 formal nations (there are over 10 nations that are informally part of the Confederacy). Each Clan of each nation is represented by 3 Royaner. In Council only 1 of the 3 Royaner speak. The second one listens and in caucus discusses the question and helps find the response, to be delivered by the speaker. The 3rd Royaner is an over seer of sorts. He listens to the Council, listens to the Royaners of his Clan and makes sure that their answers to the questions represent the consensus of the Community. He holds the responsibility of reporting back to the Clan Mothers and the Community on the conduct of the first 2 Royaner.

The Clan Mother identifies certain individuals from birth who show a special concern for others and is charged with identifying a number of individuals who should be put up for the next position. Royaner are appointed by the Clan Mothers for life. However, should the Royaner not fulfill his duties, or represent the community's interests, the Clan Mother can impeach him immediately. The next candidates are put before their Clans to be raised to fill the vacant position.

The key points are that impeachment, and community involvement are elementary to the Confederacy model. The structure of the house is also key to the model, having "Older Brothers" who must always be present for any decision and who must always concur with the decision of the House, the "Younger Brothers" who must always seek consensus with the House, and the "Firekeepers" who hold veto authority over all decisions. When the Firekeepers disagree with any decision, the question is put back to the house for discussion and resolution.

Councils are not agenda based but are based on the principle that good decisions come from the people themselves. Consensus never seeks closure but seeks a true consensus where those who may not full agree with the decision are trusted not to further object in order to give time to seek if the resolution works.

Of course it would be impossible to fully explain the workings of this system in a few paragraphs. However, it is a model that has survived for over 1000 years, and is applicable today as it was over a millennium ago.

[M.Dancer]

What a load of nonsense

[eyeball]

I vote CPC

I rest my case.

[charter.rights]

What a load of nonsense

Are you that full of it already?

Edited August 5, 2011 by charter.rights

[Moonlight Graham]

Our leader-led, party-driven democracy is flawed, most people with a brain know it. Reforms to loosen party discipline are needed.

[charter.rights]

Our leader-led, party-driven democracy is flawed, most people with a brain know it. Reforms to loosen party discipline are needed.

That will simply open a bigger door to individual MP lobbying.

There is nothing we can do to the system except throw it out and try something different. Get rid of money politics and replace it with a democracy where the poor have an equal vote to the rich.

[CitizenX]

What a load of nonsense

Yaaa It's plain to see that it's a Corporatocracy.

[g_bambino]

What a load of nonsense

Did you expect anything more?

[CitizenX]

That will simply open a bigger door to individual MP lobbying.

There is nothing we can do to the system except throw it out and try something different. Get rid of money politics and replace it with a democracy where the poor have an equal vote to the rich.

Remove Corporate Personhood would be a good first step.

[charter.rights]

Remove Corporate Personhood would be a good first step.

But all that would do is to try to modify something that is inherently corrupt.

[CitizenX]

But all that would do is to try to modify something that is inherently corrupt.

Yes, but that would be a huge step. Think of what that would mean.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[charter.rights]

Yes, but that would be a huge step. Think of what that would mean.

It would just mean the same corruption in a different form.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservatives promise a reform of the senate. Instead, the reform came in the form of Harper stacking the senate to allow more of his legislation through unscathed. It doesn't reinforce democracy. It merely reinforces the same kinds of corruption of government that have existed for decades.