Jump to content

Canada Needs Direct Election Of The Prime Minister


Exegesisme

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bush_Cheney 2004 wrote "It can't be that good...the Americans do not talk about "embracing" Canada's political system."

That is because Americans are not as good at politics as Canadians. What Japanese and Germans are to engineering, and Americans are to marketing, Canadians are to politics. We have traditionally produced the best politicians in the world.

If the Americans ever took us over, within eight years, the president would be a Canadian. (Not Cruz, however).

Edited by Queenmandy85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't be that good...the Americans do not talk about "embracing" Canada's political system.

oh my! You should have used "America's googly"! :lol: Gridlock, gridlock, whatcha gonna do....

Would The U.S. Be Better Off With A Parliament?

Does America need a prime minister?

Institutions Worthy of Our Parties: Should the U.S. Switch to a Parliamentary System?

U.S. or Parliamentary System? One Is Nearly Gridlock-Proof -- and It Ain't Ours

Time For Parliamentary Democracy in America?

would you like... more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is because Americans are not as good at politics as Canadians. What Japanese and Germans are to engineering, and Americans are to marketing, Canadians are to politics. We have traditionally produced the best politicians in the world.

Could be, but the "best politicians in the world" go largely unnoticed by same. Canada will have a federal election. Yawn.

In 2008, 15% of polled Canadians wanted to "direct elect" in the USA, giving up their Canadian vote.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2008, 15% of polled Canadians wanted to "direct elect" in the USA, giving up their Canadian vote.

yup... you continue to drop that lil' nugget, over and over again. Of course, you never provide reference/detail... specifics... even when challenged to do so. Go figure, hey! Is there a problem... is there a reason you continue to flog that... yet refuse to provide background information related to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did? When did this happen?

Some of you people seem to have remarkably short memories.

This was common practice until about 10 years ago. CPC MPs themselves have criticized the forced pre-committee meetings where PMO staffers give MPs their script and talking points for committee meetings.

These meetings used to be where the actual work was done, but Harper has turned them into something like question period. CPC MPs simply read talking points and refuse to stray from them. Doing so would mean loosing favour within the caucus and possibly even being tossed out.

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess Canadian's just don't want the US to have to go through another Bush horror show.

:lol: even if you accept that blasting "headline"... the referenced article doesn't include a single mention of it. Clearly, that's the kind of substantiation that would lend itself, to a claimed American, to continue to drop that reference... over years now... to the point he thinks it's so, so, so, significant... he even props it up in his MLW signature! Yes, that's right... an article headline that includes no reference to the headline in the article... from a supposed single online survey of ~2000 persons... done in 2008!

didja notice how he clearly read my post challenging for a cite reference... yet somehow managed to completely ignore my other post that trounced his claim that "no Americans consider changing their government system to an actual working Parliamentary model"... he's sure selective, hey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: even if you accept that blasting "headline"... the referenced article doesn't include a single mention of it. Clearly, that's the kind of substantiation that would lend itself, to a claimed American, to continue to drop that reference... over years now... to the point he thinks it's so, so, so, significant... he even props it up in his MLW signature! Yes, that's right... an article headline that includes no reference to the headline in the article... from a supposed single online survey of ~2000 persons... done in 2008!

didja notice how he clearly read my post challenging for a cite reference... yet somehow managed to completely ignore my other post that trounced his claim that "no Americans consider changing their government system to an actual working Parliamentary model"... he's sure selective, hey!

Yes even as antiquated as the article is, it really does nothing to support whatever the actual (fairly vague) claim was. Not uncommon though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

How is it over-extended? The PM wields the Royal Prerogatives and other significant executive powers.

As to a Presidential system, yes, the US has made it work, but a review of all the failed presidential republics where the President's ability to use those vast executive powers to overwhelm the legislative and judicial branches tells me it is no firm guard against abuses, and may very well make facilitating abuses easier.

I really urge anyone wanting to fully understand the advantages of the Westminster system read Bagehot's The English Constitution. The final edition was published the same year as Confederation, and so some of its observations are a century and a half out of date, but still it concisely demonsrates the superiority of a government of Parliament and directly accountable to government, and demonstrates how the American ssytem has only worked because of American's "genius for politics".

Someone has to exercise the executive powers, and I'd prefer it be someone who has to stand up in Parliament and explain himself, rather than someone hanging out in an entirely different building commanding a cabinet that, while approved by the legislative branch, owes no allegiance to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone has to exercise the executive powers, and I'd prefer it be someone who has to stand up in Parliament and explain himself, rather than someone hanging out in an entirely different building commanding a cabinet that, while approved by the legislative branch, owes no allegiance to it.

I'm not sure you've been paying attention to what's been going on in Canada. I don't see anyone standing up in our parliament to explain himself. I see someone arrogantly thumbing his nose at a powerless bunch of nobodies.

The checks and balances in any system can be subverted.

And the problem with American politics is not an elected president, it's that it's been captivated by uncontrolled influence of money. Our system is not immune to that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you've been paying attention to what's been going on in Canada. I don't see anyone standing up in our parliament to explain himself. I see someone arrogantly thumbing his nose at a powerless bunch of nobodies.

The checks and balances in any system can be subverted.

And the problem with American politics is not an elected president, it's that it's been captivated by uncontrolled influence of money. Our system is not immune to that either.

I have been paying attention. A good many of the complaints are nothing new, some are completely hyperbolic, and as we speak, the likelihood of the next PM being able to rely upon a sturdy majority is evaporating quickly.

A presidential system is not an improvement, and is largely based on how the Founding Fathers saw the British system from across the Atlantic in the late 18th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been paying attention. A good many of the complaints are nothing new, some are completely hyperbolic, and as we speak, the likelihood of the next PM being able to rely upon a sturdy majority is evaporating quickly.

I'm not sure you have. The power of the party leaders, the PM and the PMO have grown steadily over the decades. This isn't a one party issue, but Harper rode into power on the broomstick of cleaning up Ottawa. Not only has he completely and utterly failed, he's made things much worse. And the sad thing is that the undemocratic things he's done have worked for him. If he's defeated, it won't be because he's an autocrat, it will be because there is an economic downturn, his PMO mismanaged the Duffy affair to the point of buffoonery and his party (and his base) fundamentally don't give a crap about refugees. So, there will be a strong incentive for the next PM to adopt these same undemocratic tactics.

And if there is is a minority government, it's likely they will be within 5% of the vote away from majority territory under our broken voting system. So, there will be a strong incentive for the next government to game the system and look for an opportunity for an early election to get a majority.

A presidential system is not an improvement, and is largely based on how the Founding Fathers saw the British system from across the Atlantic in the late 18th century.

There are all kinds of different models. As soon as you talk about an elected head of state people just jump to the assumption that the intent is to simply take on the American system holus bolus.

The model we have is broken. Most people don't understand it and so there is very little political fallout when some leader (like Harper) plays loose and fast with the rules. Do you remember when Dion & Layton proposed a coalition government? The Conservatives were able to successfully convince Canadians this was tantamount to a coup d' etat because so many people are clueless when it comes to how parliamentary systems are supposed to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....There are all kinds of different models. As soon as you talk about an elected head of state people just jump to the assumption that the intent is to simply take on the American system holus bolus.

True....and seemingly regardless of the government topic, there is a singular and consistent obsession with the "American system holus bolus".

I blame it on watching way too much American television ! Canadians even like to watch American television programs about American government. Go figure ?

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot I disagree with in what you said, but I have to pick out this.

oooh I get all goose-bumpy when people toss out unsubstantiated random generalizations that are so easy to take down....

like this one

The model we have is the must successful the world over.

Please. Do tell me how you measure that. Let me get some popcorn first.

and this one

There's a reason that most first world countries use it, or something almost identical to it.

Soooo..... take a look at this map and explain to me how most first world countries use something that is almost identical to what we have.

Don't start yet - I have to get my popcorn!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and this one

Soooo..... take a look at this map and explain to me how most first world countries use something that is almost identical to what we have.

I'll give you a minute to understand that the red and orange are nearly identical in the way they operate. Get your popcorn first though.

There's also this:

Only nine countries in world are AAA rated by all main agencies

Australia.

Canada.

Denmark.

Germany.

Luxembourg.

Norway.

Singapore.

Sweden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oooh I get all goose-bumpy when people toss out unsubstantiated random generalizations that are so easy to take down....

As the first Commonwealth nation to adopt a bill of rights, Canada has influenced other former British colonies as they create or revise their own constitutions, the study finds. Israel, Hong Kong and Eastern European countries have also drawn from the Canadian example.

Both the Charter itself and the nation that gave birth to it serve as an example to the world.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-charter-proves-to-be-canadas-gift-to-world/article4100561/

The constitutional part of our constitutional monarchy is indeed a model for the world.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you have. The power of the party leaders, the PM and the PMO have grown steadily over the decades. This isn't a one party issue, but Harper rode into power on the broomstick of cleaning up Ottawa. Not only has he completely and utterly failed, he's made things much worse. And the sad thing is that the undemocratic things he's done have worked for him. If he's defeated, it won't be because he's an autocrat, it will be because there is an economic downturn, his PMO mismanaged the Duffy affair to the point of buffoonery and his party (and his base) fundamentally don't give a crap about refugees. So, there will be a strong incentive for the next PM to adopt these same undemocratic tactics.

And if there is is a minority government, it's likely they will be within 5% of the vote away from majority territory under our broken voting system. So, there will be a strong incentive for the next government to game the system and look for an opportunity for an early election to get a majority.

There are all kinds of different models. As soon as you talk about an elected head of state people just jump to the assumption that the intent is to simply take on the American system holus bolus.

The model we have is broken. Most people don't understand it and so there is very little political fallout when some leader (like Harper) plays loose and fast with the rules. Do you remember when Dion & Layton proposed a coalition government? The Conservatives were able to successfully convince Canadians this was tantamount to a coup d' etat because so many people are clueless when it comes to how parliamentary systems are supposed to work.

The Conservatives are about to lose power. Whatever sins they may have committed the electorate is about to make them pay for.

And what other models are there? Other than a few real oddballs like Switzerland and China, there are two other major groupings; Presidential and Semi-Presidential. In both models, the President largely uses those vast executive powers with the legislative branch not having any direct ability to hold the President to account.

Look at France. Do you think it is better or more effectively governed than Canada? Do you think Russia is better governed than Canada?

When someone ends their criticism of the Westminster system by basically attacking voters, I lose a considerable amount of respect in their argument. What I really see is angry people who can't sort out why the voters elected a majority government after the opposition parties found the Tory government in contempt. Instead of examining their own parties flaws, they do what the Tory supporters are about to do; start blaming the electorate for not being as smart as we are.

The Westminster system works fine, as well as any other system, if not better. If MPs feel all small and hard done by, then they have the power to change it, without having to change a single word in the Constitution.

Besides we now know very well that the Tory caucus has been anything but a slavish pack of yes men. Part of the reason that Wright chose to pay Duffy's expenses was because of fear that the PM would face an incredibly hostile caucus if word got out that Duffy had been helped out in any way by the party, seeing as their own pension plan had just been altered to stop former MPs from collecting to age 65. We know from numerous reports from when the story broke in 2013 that the first post-revelation caucus meeting saw the PM forced to defend himself against his own backbenchers angered about what they perceived as PMO manipulations and fat cat Senators bilking Parliamentary expense budgets while MPs are held under ever tighter ethics rules that even mean receiving presents becomes fraught with potential issues.

And let's drop all pretense here. We can't even amend the Constitution in a relatively moderate way to reform the Senate, and you think literally creating a whole new kind of governing system is even the smallest bit possible?

Whatever happens, power will almost certainly be concentrated in the hands of the executive. That is the nature of governance, in republics or monarchies, in parliamentary or presidential systems. The singular advantage of the parliamentarian system is that the executive is directly accountable to the legislative assembly, and that, even if it happens only rarely, that executive must enjoy the confidence of the legislature to continue governing. The legislature doesn't have to schedule meetings with the executive, it doesn't find itself in a separate building or an entirely different branch of government. As 2011 contempt finding demonstrated, even notions like executive privilege, which you will find in one form or another in most presidential and semi-presidential systems, has no real existence in Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you a minute to understand that the red and orange are nearly identical in the way they operate. Get your popcorn first though.

Ooooohh. Of course.

Constitutional monarchies where the head of state is a hereditary figurehead are nearly identical to parliamentary monarchies where the head of state is elected, either by parliament or directly by the people. If that's the case, I don't know why we bother with any of these silly elections since they don't seem to have any effect.

And I suppose the guy who made the map just lost his red crayon and figured orange was close enough.

There's also this:

Only nine countries in world are AAA rated by all main agencies

Australia.

Canada.

Denmark.

Germany.

Luxembourg.

Norway.

Singapore.

Sweden.

So, it seems like your theory is that this group of countries, some of which have hereditary heads of state, some of which have elected heads of state, some of which have benefited enormously from an almost unprecedented bull market in commodities, some of which have benefited from the EU; have managed their finances because...... sorry, what is your point again?

And if you're claiming that somehow, having a weak, unelected, unaccountable head of state somehow leads to financial prudence, shouldn't the UK be on top of the list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the first Commonwealth nation to adopt a bill of rights, Canada has influenced other former British colonies as they create or revise their own constitutions, the study finds. Israel, Hong Kong and Eastern European countries have also drawn from the Canadian example.

Both the Charter itself and the nation that gave birth to it serve as an example to the world.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-charter-proves-to-be-canadas-gift-to-world/article4100561/

The constitutional part of our constitutional monarchy is indeed a model for the world.

And that's the whole point. The constitution is not something we inherited from our antiquated broken model, it's something where we broke from the past and did something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooooohh. Of course.

Constitutional monarchies where the head of state is a hereditary figurehead are nearly identical to parliamentary monarchies where the head of state is elected, either by parliament or directly by the people. If that's the case, I don't know why we bother with any of these silly elections since they don't seem to have any effect.

You obviously don't understand what you're arguing. All of the countries (red and orange) use a system that has

1 ) a powerful head of state that uses his power only on the advice of their ministers

2 ) a parliament constituted from elected public representatives

3 ) a cabinet that is made up of people accountable to that parliament

4 ) a head of government that is separate from the head of state, and accountable to parliament.

The fact that some have an elected head of state acting in a ceremonial role, and some have a hereditary head of state acting in a ceremonial role is a trivial difference.

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...