The Reform Act 2013 -- MP Michael Chong

[Mighty AC]

A coup? The coup would require the support of the majority of the caucus. I really like the idea that it would prevent the PMO from interfering with the ability of a riding association to choose a candidate.

[eyeball]

I get that centralization of power is bad, I've never disputed that, I just think the general public needs to be brought into the process more often than once every 4 or 5 years.

Let Parliament trigger a review of the PM's tenure when needs be but then hand it over to ordinary Canadians picked at random to avoid the partisan biases that are built into our democracy.

Maybe this proposal of Chong's doesn't go backwards far enough in time and we should go back to the time before political partisanship started us down the road we're on.

[Wilber]

I totaly agree with this. A Canadian PM has far too much power over the people's elected representatives. If a government can't convnce its own caucus, it should be rethinking its policy, not beating its own members with a stick.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Wilber

[g_bambino]

Aren't these ideas more of internal party policies, rather than government policies?

They're about party policies negatively affecting the functioning of governance.

Now, if the goal is to make MPs more independent and to give them some meaningful power... I think the very first thing that should be looked at is the idea of "whipped" votes. Party members should in all cases be free to vote according to their own principles / the will of their constituents, rather than being told how to vote by their party leaders.

That's what the bill would achieve. There's no other way to lessen a party leader's control of his caucus.

[g_bambino]

Dumb Idea. This could be used for coups...

Do you know what a coup is?

[g_bambino]

Let Parliament trigger a review of the PM's tenure when needs be but then hand it over to ordinary Canadians picked at random to avoid the partisan biases that are built into our democracy.

What? What's "ordinary"? A group of ordinary Canadians to do what? In what way don't "ordinary" Canadians have partisan biases?

[eyeball]

To do what it is that MPs are expected to do under this new proposa.l You think the random nature of selecting a citizen's assembly will result in an assembly stacked with voters all biased the same way? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

[TimG]

I think the very first thing that should be looked at is the idea of "whipped" votes.

Whipped votes are useful because they reduce the effect that lobbyists can have on individual MPs (a big problem in the US). A system that gives MPs negotiating power with the PM would allow negotiation before whipped votes without making individual MP votes available for sale to the highest bidder. Edited December 4, 2013 by TimG

[g_bambino]

To do what it is that MPs are expected to do under this new proposa.l You think the random nature of selecting a citizen's assembly will result in an assembly stacked with voters all biased the same way?

So, a bunch of people accountable to no one. And yes, random selections, by their very nature, can easily result in a group stacked in one way or another.

[ed.: sp.]

Edited December 4, 2013 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

No a bunch of Canadian voters beholden to nobody.

Easily stacked , how exactly?

[g_bambino]

No...

If no, then who are they accountable to?

Easily stacked , how exactly?

I said could easily result in a stacked group. There's no control with random selection; you've no idea what you'll get. In other words, you've zero guarantee the group will be politically balanced; in fact, the odds are stacked against that result.

[Bonam]

I said could easily result in a stacked group. There's no control with random selection; you've no idea what you'll get. In other words, you've zero guarantee the group will be politically balanced; in fact, the odds are stacked against that result.

Depends on the size of the group. If the sample is truly random and is of a decent size, chances are the result will be fairly close to representative.

[eyeball]

Exactly, and they'd be accountable to the process which would be accountable to us.

[g_bambino]

Depends on the size of the group. If the sample is truly random and is of a decent size, chances are the result will be fairly close to representative.

I'm not sure about that, but, regardless, it was political balance eyeball is expecting, not represetation.

[Bonam]

I'm not sure about that, but, regardless, it was political balance eyeball is expecting, not represetation.

What's there not to be sure about? It's simple statistics.

[g_bambino]

[T]hey'd be accountable to the process which would be accountable to us.

Can you explan that more? How does an intangible concept hold anything accountable?

[eyeball]

I thought balance was the goal.

[g_bambino]

What's there not to be sure about?

How representative a group drawn randomly from a larger group will be representative of the larger group. But, the whole matter is irrelevant in this conversation.

[eyeball]

Can you explan that more? How does an intangible concept hold anything accountable?

By its stated principles. What I'd it about the nature of a citizen's assembly that you don't get? Or are you just determined to always limit the power that is available to the governed?

[eyeball]

...

Edited December 4, 2013 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Double post.

Edited December 4, 2013 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

By its stated principles.

It's intangible and non-sentient. How, then, does it hold a group of randomly selected people accountable? Can you explain your proposal any further than just the most superficial aspects?

[ed.: rev.]

Edited December 4, 2013 by g_bambino

[jacee]

The public won't pay attention to it after it passes the house. It'll disappear from the media and be dragged out in the Senate until the election is called. Then it will silently without anybody noticing be wiped out of existence.

Considering the current Senate brouhaha caused by the PMO illegally interfering in Senate business and undermining the independence of the Senate, I'm not so sure that the Senate will do Harper's bidding on this.

For that reason, and because of the lousy credibility of the PMO right now and the dissent among Tory MP's, Senators and Party members, it's a good time to take a shot at stripping some of the unwarranted and anti-democratic power of the PMO.

[g_bambino]

Considering the current Senate brouhaha caused by the PMO illegally interfering in Senate business and undermining the independence of the Senate, I'm not so sure that the Senate will do Harper's bidding on this.

If a prorogation or dissolution of parliament is called before the bill passes the Senate, the bill will die regardless of what the majority of the Senate thinks of it.

[eyeball]

Not if you can't grasp the purpose of a citizen's assembly.