Canada Needs Direct Election Of The Prime Minister

[Exegesisme]

I agree.

In the last election, I really liked the Conservative guy in my riding but I could not stomach a vote for Harper.

If I could have voted for the guy in my riding and someone else as PM, that would be good.

Your situation was very awkward. I hope our Canadian political system provides more choices for us.

[cannuck]

I don't think I am wandering off topic, but I do believe the problem is quite real, but the solutions proposed thus far miss the mark.

I also believe there is a much broader problem with almost ALL governments - rule-by-special-interest - that is facilitated by partisanship. My very carefully considered solution is to eliminate political parties from government in any form. That way, the only way you get to elect your representative would be based on what they claim and are known to believe in at the constituency level. The PM and cabinet would be elected by and from Parliament at large, and subject to recall by that same body under well defined guidelines and rules. That would bring the back benchers very much into play on a daily basis - mostly through effective committee work, but always with the Sword of Damacles power over executive. Also, EVERY vote would become a free vote - and the sanctity of that would be heavily protected.

Anyone who thinks the back benches have ANY real power in Provincial or Federal politics has never been very close to government and cabinet.

Anyone who thinks any one party has all of the answers is even more naive.

Anyone who thinks political parties are not for sale cheap is an idiot.

Edited December 26, 2015 by cannuck

[Exegesisme]

Your solution is backward, and weakens the strength of political leadership.

My main concern is on leadership, which should be well balaced between accountability and strength. My solution would increase both the accountability and the strength, and rise the balance of them to a higher level.

[cannuck]

Your solution is backward, and weakens the strength of political leadership.

My main concern is on leadership, which should be well balanced between accountability and strength. My solution would increase both the accountability and the strength, and rise the balance of them to a higher level.

The only need one would have for political leadership is to forward some partisan idea of policy. This, IMHO, should strictly be the job of parliament in response to its electorate - i.e. sending the member to represent what he campaigned to do when elected. Given a partisan site for lobbyists to focus is exactly why we have rule-by-special interest. THAT is "political leadership" at its best.

[Exegesisme]

forward some partisan idea of policy

the job of parliament in response to its electorate

Both are needed but not enough. The direct election of PM itself is thought as a process to form new common sense of Canada, and no other political process can replace.

special interest​

All special interests are important for each of them represents a part of Canada, no matter how small, they should have their platform for their proper sounds, which is my idea of republic.

​

Edited December 27, 2015 by Exegesisme

[PIK]

. ''Well balance between accountability and strength''. Really? That is something JT would say. Nice words, but means nothing.In 4 yrs people will be so sick and tired of his speaking abilities.

[Exegesisme]

If you are a conservative, I hope you make a contribution to the reformation of Canadian senate for improving the representation of provinces and territories in federal politics.

[WestCanMan]

Voting directly for the pm in our system

1) won't work because he has to have the support of the majority party and obviously the pc's wouldn't be working with Trudeau nor the libs with Harper

2) isn't such a big deal, just look at all the wonderful choices that the Americans have in front of them.

[Exegesisme]

1 by compromise to get support.

2 working with reformation of voting system in parliament, which a mp should vote on her or his conscience.

3 US is not perfect but great, which means they still play leadership globally in almost all aspects, and our Canada is really living in their leadership.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Exegesisme

[cannuck]

Both are needed but not enough. The direct election of PM itself is thought as a process to form new common sense of Canada, and no other political process can replace.

All special interests are important for each of them represents a part of Canada, no matter how small, they should have their platform for their proper sounds, which is my idea of republic.

​

Common sense? from a POLITICAL PARTY or its leaders? Sorry, but you are living in la-la land. I somehow doubt you have ever sat in at a cabinet level meeting or with party executive. Common sense has nothing do to with it. Rewarding your supporters and advancing you party's particular brand of anything-but-common-sense pipedreams is 100% of the process.

Special interests that are there simply to screw over the taxpayer (the ones with the $$$$$ to lobby hard) are the problem. Lesser special interests can have a better platform if they are not competing with the influence of the big bux - all of which is defeated by the elimination of parties.

[Exegesisme]

Do you see the US GOP compaign? Is it a process to form commonsense?

All sorts of special interests are always there, they are the taxpayers themselves. If you do not give them legal way to express, they may express illegally.

[Rue]

Canada Needs Direct Election Of The Prime Minister​

By Exegesisme

For this reason, we need to amend the Constitution.

For this reason you need to go study how the election processes work in Italy and Israel.

Oh go do that and get back to me.

[Exegesisme]

Learning from and improving on the examples of US and our own history, maybe also others but at much lower levels or as lessons.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Exegesisme]

A Presidential Prime Minister: Japan’s Direct Election Debate

Joel Rheuben ∗ ∗∗ ∗

I. Introduction

II. Constitutional Issues Associated with Direct Election

III. The Background of the Direct Election Debate

IV. Direct Election in Context 1. Direct Election as a Measure for Reform 2. The “Presidentialisation” of the Prime Minister

V. Direct Election and Prime Ministerial Power

VI. Direct Election and Popular Political Participation

VII. Risks of Direct Election

VIII. Conclusion

https://sydney.edu.au/law/anjel/documents/ZJapanR/ZJapanR24/ZJapanR24_10_Rheuben.pdf

[Exegesisme]

Time to elect the Prime Minister?

Graham Allen 1 July 2014

A new parliamentary report proposes the direct election of the Prime Minister and a clarification of his or her powers in statute. The Chair of the Committee that produced the report explains why.

About the author

Graham Allen is the Labour MP for Nottingham North. His ambition is to turn the UK into a democracy. He has written “Reinventing Democracy” and “The last Prime Minister; being honest about the UK Presidency”, and in 2010 was elected by Parliamentary colleagues as the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/graham-allen/time-to-elect-prime-minister

[Exegesisme]

During the thirteenth Knesset (1992–1996) it was decided to hold a separate ballot for prime minister modeled after American presidential elections. This system was instituted in part because the Israeli electoral system makes it all but impossible for one party to win a majority. While only two parties—Mapai/Labour and Likud—had ever led governments, the large number of parties or factions in a typical Knesset usually prevents one party from winning the 61 seats needed for a majority.

In 1996, when the first such election took place, the outcome was a surprise win for Benjamin Netanyahu after election polls predicted that Peres was the winner.^[2] However, in the Knesset election held at the same time, Labour won more votes than any other party (27%). Thus Netanyahu, despite his theoretical position of power, needed the support of the religious parties to form a viable government.

Ultimately Netanyahu failed to hold the government together, and early elections for both Prime Minister and the Knesset were called in 1999. Although five candidates announced their intention to run, the three representing minor parties (Benny Begin of Herut – The National Movement, Azmi Bishara of Balad and Yitzhak Mordechai of the Centre Party) dropped out before election day, and Ehud Barak beat Netanyahu in the election. However, the new system again appeared to have failed, as although Barak's One Israel party (an alliance of Labour, Gesher and Meimad) won more votes than any other party in the Knesset election, they garnered only 26 seats, the lowest ever by a winning party, meaning that a coalition with six smaller parties was once again necessary.

In early 2001, Barak resigned following the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada. However, the government was not brought down, and only elections for prime minister were necessary. In the election itself, Ariel Sharon comfortably beat Barak, taking 62.4% of the vote. However, because Likud only had 21 seats in the Knesset, Sharon had to form a national unity government. Following Sharon's victory, it was decided to do away with separate elections for prime minister and return to the previous system.

​

The reason of unsuccessful try of Israel for direct election of PM, is the weakness of the legal position of the general election.

[Smallc]

The reason of unsuccessful try of Israel for direct election of PM, is the weakness of the legal position of the general election.

No, the reason that it didn't succeed is that it runs 100% counter to their (and our) system of government.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Smallc

[Exegesisme]

Your reason is in my reason. If the legal position of the general election is strong enough, it can run over the system of government, and the government should be reorganized by the result of the general election.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Exegesisme

[Smallc]

Your reason is in my reason. If the legal position of the general election is strong enough, it can run over the system of government.

Why would we want it to do that?

[Exegesisme]

For strengthening the leadership of our Canada both inner and out.

[Exegesisme]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_2013

Very special elective system of Italy, absolutely unfair in eye of Canadian:

% Seats

Democratic Party

25.42 292

The People of Freedom

21.56 97

Five Star Movement

25.55 108

​

​

Edited December 30, 2015 by Exegesisme