Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 What you're basically proposing is a semi presidential republic...but they don't vote for prime minister either. No one does, because it's terribly messy, and the one time it was tried, it failed. What you're basically proposing is a semi presidential republic...but they don't vote for prime minister either. No one does, because it's terribly messy, and the one time it was tried, it failed. What in my mind is that a USA political system in future direction, plus the Queen and a Queen-system to represent tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 What in my mind is that a USA political system in future direction, plus the Queen and a Queen-system to represent tradition. That makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) You can't have a president and a queen. What would be the point of the queen? ​ The Queen meets and consoles the people who tend to live in tradition, and makes less resistant to progress, and more stability for the whole nation. Can you imagine such a Queen in the national system of USA? Edited August 27, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 The Queen meets and consoles the people who tend to live in tradition, and make less resistant to progress, and more stability for the whole nation. Can you imagine such a Queen in the national system of USA? I think they call that the first lady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I admire your concept of "a more multi-party republic style democracy", and your first point, and we also need to make the republic style in progress. I think the functions of 2 and 3 should be put together, one person is enough, as the President of USA. Maybe the Queen and a Queen-system are needed to represent our tradition. I think that puts to much power in the hands of one individual. Having a PM focus on just domestic policy can only help the country. The less on one persons plate the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I think that puts to much power in the hands of one individual. Having a PM focus on just domestic policy can only help the country. The less on one persons plate the better. But why elect that person? Electing a president, fine, I can see that, but the PM is responsible to parliament - they are, in essence, responsible for his election. How can he be responsible to the voters directly and to parliament at the same time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) I think that puts to much power in the hands of one individual. Having a PM focus on just domestic policy can only help the country. The less on one persons plate the better. Limit the power through other ways. You know, the domestic policy and the foreign policy are so closely connected as a whole which asks for the same hands to deal with. Edited August 27, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Constitution makes them depend on their constituents more than their parties. How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I think they call that the first lady. In the case of USA, the first lady is changed each term or each two terms, she has not the accumulation to represent the tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 But why elect that person? Electing a president, fine, I can see that, but the PM is responsible to parliament - they are, in essence, responsible for his election. How can he be responsible to the voters directly and to parliament at the same time? Why should the direct elected PM be responsible to the parliament? Just by definition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why should the direct elected PM be responsible to the parliament? Which comes back to my question, why directly elect the PM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 But why elect that person? Electing a president, fine, I can see that, but the PM is responsible to parliament - they are, in essence, responsible for his election. How can he be responsible to the voters directly and to parliament at the same time? I think what ends up happening is people realize that their constituents hold no real power, because they often vote along party lines, and thus just vote for the party whose leader they want to be the PM. So we make the MP's and the PM responsible to voters and voters only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 So we make the MP's and the PM responsible to voters and voters only. You would have 3 different elected bodies, each feeling they have a mandate, each competing with each other. It would be worse gridlock than anything that the US has ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Which comes back to my question, why directly elect the PM? I mean, I can call my shirt a hat...but that doesn't make it a hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 How? Making the party more of value, less of an organization of power. Let us define a party as a group of people who share the same value, and the members are more freely to change their membership among various party. Making amendment of the Constitution to clearly protect the rights of citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I think what ends up happening is people realize that their constituents hold no real power, because they often vote along party lines, and thus just vote for the party whose leader they want to be the PM. So we make the MP's and the PM responsible to voters and voters only. Exactly. Then the issue is fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Let us define a party as a group of people who share the same value, and the members are more freely to change their membership among various party. Anyone can change their party affiliation any time they want right now. It happens all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) Anyone can change their party affiliation any time they want right now. It happens all the time. Yes, you are right, but only apparently. In the deep, especially at the level of MPs, there are many benefits controlled by the party which considerably limit their choices. Therefore, these benefits should be reorganized to get rid of the hand of a party, and put in the hand that encourages the MPs as well as the people more reasonably. Edited August 27, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 The reason the Tory MP and perhaps other MPs, don't stand up to the leader, especially in Harper's case is THEY like their job and if u go against Harper, u are out of a job. I'd change that that the leader can't do that only the constituents the MPs represents. ALL of these problems we've had in the House has come with Harper's making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 The reason the Tory MP and perhaps other MPs, don't stand up to the leader, especially in Harper's case is THEY like their job and if u go against Harper, u are out of a job. I'd change that that the leader can't do that only the constituents the MPs represents. ALL of these problems we've had in the House has come with Harper's making. The role of the PM may be unconstitutionally over-extended because the constitution makes the whole system without a clear separation between the legislative branch and the executive branch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 You would have 3 different elected bodies, each feeling they have a mandate, each competing with each other. It would be worse gridlock than anything that the US has ever seen. Not when all 3 are responsible for different tasks. We could have a majority Conservative Parliament passing bills, a Liberal PM whose job it is to run the country around the laws and an NDP GG whose job it is to handle international matters. All 3 do their jobs with and separate of each other. Get the popcorn out, it could get interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why do we need a Prime Minister? There is no constitutional requirement to have a Prime Minister. If you eliminate the position of PM, you would probably lessen the current level of partisanship and strengthen the backbones of MP's. It could be a temporary measure to shake things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 You can't have a president and a queen. What would be the point of the queen?This thread is bad. It shows such terrible ignorance about the fundamentals of our system of government that it makes me question whether or not some people should be allowed to vote at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why do we need a Prime Minister? There is no constitutional requirement to have a Prime Minister. If you eliminate the position of PM, you would probably lessen the current level of partisanship and strengthen the backbones of MP's. It could be a temporary measure to shake things up. A direct elected PM is important for the power of executive branch, but the current system makes the PM cribs the power from MPs, and decreases the representative function. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why do we need a Prime Minister? There is no constitutional requirement to have a Prime Minister. If you eliminate the position of PM, you would probably lessen the current level of partisanship and strengthen the backbones of MP's. It could be a temporary measure to shake things up. The prime minister is like the CEO of the government with cabinet ministers being VPs. Parliament are the shareholders and the Governor General is the company's founder and majority stakeholder. When you say, "why do we need a prime minister?" That's like asking why a corporation needs a CEO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.