Jump to content

Canada Needs Direct Election Of The Prime Minister


Exegesisme

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Do you see the fundamental faults of the system? Do you have ever, if not never, think to improve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you see the fundamental faults of the system? Do you have ever, if not never, think to improve?

Explain to me the fundamental flaws because right now I see the fundamental flaw of your suggestion; namely, it creates gridlock between the executive and legislative branches of governments and may actually be worse than the gridlock we see in the US. You want an elected Prime Minister who would then appoint cabinet ministers...all unelected. So now you have an individual with absolute power in the executive with an unelected executive and it has absolutely no accountability to the democratically elected representatives of the people. It utterly destroys all accountability from the executive, save for 4 days every 16 years. It's a terrible suggestion and is completely at odds with the functioning of our government and current institutions. It's entirely unworkable. As Smallc suggested, you could have an elected president replace the governor general. However, even that would have to be re-worked because it would be incredibly dangerous to give the reserve powers to a partisan office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should a CEO be responsible to their shareholders?

The original shareholder is the people. And the MPs are directors the people chose them by votes for legislative function, and the PM is the CEO the people chose her or him for executive function. The people want the two functions be well separated for the most benefits of the people as original shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain to me the fundamental flaws because right now I see the fundamental flaw of your suggestion; namely, it creates gridlock between the executive and legislative branches of governments and may actually be worse than the gridlock we see in the US. You want an elected Prime Minister who would then appoint cabinet ministers...all unelected. So now you have an individual with absolute power in the executive with an unelected executive and it has absolutely no accountability to the democratically elected representatives of the people. It utterly destroys all accountability from the executive, save for 4 days every 16 years. It's a terrible suggestion and is completely at odds with the functioning of our government and current institutions. It's entirely unworkable. As Smallc suggested, you could have an elected president replace the governor general. However, even that would have to be re-worked because it would be incredibly dangerous to give the reserve powers to a partisan office.

Please read my topic carefully and my references, and then you know why I make this suggestion, and I expect to discuss with you after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your patience. This is a thinking about how to deal with the issues of our Canadian political system altogether. I hope you take part in the thinking.

I thought about it but it seems clear enough to me that Smallc and cybercoma have already identified the problems with your suggestion. There are problems with our system but I think your suggestions would make them worse, not better. What you are describing is a President, not a Prime Minister. This works, insofar as it works, in the US because they have an entirely different system of government with checks and balances built into it that are not present in a Parliamentary system. Without those, the system would be a disaster. And, even then, there are real problems with gridlock in the US system.

Also, this is the definition of republic in my dictionary, which would exclude Canada:

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You want them well separated, not the people, and you haven't made a case as to why they should be in our current system. What you're proposing involves a mass overhaul of our entire legislative process.

Yes, I as one of the people want them well separated. We are in the information era, we can see what the consequences of the current system might be in the future. We should try to avoid those consequences, that is why "a mass overhaul of our entire legislative process" is needed.

I will create a new topic, there I will explain everything on a higher level than here, and welcome you to discuss there once I will have created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about it but it seems clear enough to me that Smallc and cybercoma have already identified the problems with your suggestion. There are problems with our system but I think your suggestions would make them worse, not better. What you are describing is a President, not a Prime Minister. This works, insofar as it works, in the US because they have an entirely different system of government with checks and balances built into it that are not present in a Parliamentary system. Without those, the system would be a disaster. And, even then, there are real problems with gridlock in the US system.

Also, this is the definition of republic in my dictionary, which would exclude Canada:

Ok. Let us away from the big issues, which I will create a new topic, and now let us discuss the definition of republic.

My reference: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Here the definition of a republic: ​A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority.

According to this definition, Canada is a republic, but is very weak.

The reason: unwritten constitutional conventions give "the predominant role and influence played by the Prime Minister of Canada"​, but "the Charter only states these rights and freedoms in very general terms" , and "their precise meaning is interpreted and clarified by the Canadian judiciary (and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada)."

My reference: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-constitution-introduction-canada-s-constitutional-framework

And, "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."​ My reference http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body

So, you see, I consider the whole issues very seriously. I hope you too, for all about our future.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Let us away from the big issues, which I will create a new topic, and now let us discuss the definition of republic.

My reference: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Here the definition of a republic: ​A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority.

What is this source? It does not seem authoritative at all. I was quoting from Oxford.

Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government(You could include Canada in their first broad definition, only insofar as every representative democracy could be included. This part seems common to me: " The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.")

International Encyclopedia of Political Science:

In the substantive sense, "republic" refers to a government in which the supreme power resides not in a monarch or king but in a body of citizens entitled to vote... In addition, the term has referred, in recent times, to a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch but, as a general rule, a president.

The point you quote below, on the other hand, is a real problem imo:

And, "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."​ My reference http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this source? It does not seem authoritative at all. I was quoting from Oxford.

Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government(You could include Canada in their first broad definition, only insofar as every representative democracy could be included. This part seems common to me: " The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.")

International Encyclopedia of Political Science:

The point you quote below, on the other hand, is a real problem imo:

And, "In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."​ My reference http://mapleleafweb.com/features/house-commons-introduction-canadas-premier-legislative-body

Now I am in an effort to try to get all these issues fixed. The real problem in you eyes, I see as unconstitutional. Can we fix it through the Supreme Court of Canada? Now I am creating the new topic I promised just now, and we will discuss all issue there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read my topic carefully and my references, and then you know why I make this suggestion, and I expect to discuss with you after that.

No. I've read your suggestions and I'm telling you that a massive overturning of our entire political structure needs a compelling reason. You need to demonstrate a problem that is at least as big as this solution and you haven't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I as one of the people want them well separated. We are in the information era, we can see what the consequences of the current system might be in the future. We should try to avoid those consequences, that is why "a mass overhaul of our entire legislative process" is needed.

I will create a new topic, there I will explain everything on a higher level than here, and welcome you to discuss there once I will have created.

Might, maybe, possibly is not a valid reason for a massive overhaul of our entire legislative process. Try again with concrete examples of problems that would be corrected by becoming a republic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper is only able to control the CPC caucus because the members let him. They have been held captive by their belief that he will get them re-elected. If you really want to reform Parliament, get out and get MP's elected who are not so venal and chicken. The Queen may appoint the Prime Minister but the PM serves at the pleasure of the Members of Parliament as well as the Crown.

That's a lovely sentiment. How do you suggest we find these MP's that are not so venal and chicken? The parties have captured the system and the leaders have captured the parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I've read your suggestions and I'm telling you that a massive overturning of our entire political structure needs a compelling reason. You need to demonstrate a problem that is at least as big as this solution and you haven't.

You did not get that deep, and I will take them to the surface on the next topic.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not out of a job. A PM can't force a byelection in a riding and they can't fire an MP.

Stop and think then how many of the Tory MPs have left between elections and my own Tory MP said he doesn't want to start trouble because as a back bencher, he didn't want to lose his job. Can the leader do it?? The fear is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Prior to Stephen Harper's rule, parties actually worked together in committee to improve legislation. MPs were free to voice their thoughts, concerns and ideas within their committee.

They did? When did this happen?

Some of you people seem to have remarkably short memories.

Edited by Civis Romanus sum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper is only able to control the CPC caucus because the members let him.

True. And Mulcair is only able to control the NDP caucus because the members let him. And Trudeau is only able to control the Liberal caucus because the members let him. Whipping caucus is not something which began with Harper. You might consider the origin of the title 'party whip' as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Greg
      I'm going to be making some major changes to the forums over the next few weeks.
      The first, and likely the biggest change, is going to be in the name of the site, and the domain name you use to access the site (and consequently the discussion forums). I'm not going to release the new name yet (or the domain), you'll just have to wait and see what it is.  Not to worry, all of the old URLs will still work, everything will just be forwarding to the new domain URL scheme.
      I will also be modifying the sub-form categories somewhat, incorporating some long overdue changes.  Mostly, I'll be expanding the US Politics section, so that it has it's own section (similar to what we have for the Canadian Politics section) 
      Canadian Domestic Politics Federal Politics Provincial Politics Local Politics United States Domestic Politics Federal Politics State Politics Local Politics International Politics Canada / US Relations The Rest of The World The remainder of the forums I plan to keep the same.
      Of course I'm always open to suggestion for organization of sections, so please post below if you have any ideas.
      If you have any other good suggestions on reasonable changes we can make to the forums, please post them below. If they're good ideas, I'll do my research and see how easy it would be to incorporate into the new forums.
      Thanks!
       
       
       
    • By Hussain
      All over Ontario, people have been quarantined for weeks in order to flatten the curve and save lives, for the majority of places it has been working. Health officials are now saying that some places in Ontario have reached their peak and the daily number of cases are slowly starting to decline. However, long-term care homes are still at high risk and are being closely monitored to prevent a wide-scale outbreak.
      READ MORE AT
      https://www.youthinpolitics.net/post/leading-death-of-covid-19
    • By Hussain
      Canadians won’t be able to return to life as they knew it before the novel coronavirus pandemic until a vaccine is available, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday.
      “Normality as it was before will not come back full-on until we get a vaccine for this… That will be a very long way off,” the prime minister said during his daily news conference on Canada’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
       
       
    • By Hussain
      As Canada confronts the worsening COVID-19 outbreak, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has hinted his government might declare a federal emergency, giving his cabinet extra powers to battle the pandemic.
      “It is a major tool and I can tell you that we already have a lot of tools that allow us to do what we need to do,” said Trudeau, at his Thursday news conference outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa. “If there are other steps that need to be accomplished and can only be accomplished through invoking the Emergencies Act then we will do so.”
      Some experts have been urging the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, while others have shuddered at the idea, which would be an extraordinary step in the government’s response to the crisis.
      “We do recognize that the Emergencies Act is an extreme law with certain implications that would also require us to bring back the House of Commons to pass these measures,” said Trudeau.
       
       
    • By Hussain
      Bill Maher said it was fine to call the coronavirus the “China virus,” adding that a global pandemic was no time for political correctness.
      “‘What if people hear Chinese virus and blame China?’ The answer is we should blame China. We can’t afford the luxury anymore of non-judginess towards a country with habits that kill millions of people,” Maher thundered Friday in a monologue at the end of his HBO show “Real Time.”
       
  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...