I want to vote...

[crazymf]

In the age of computers, why does government have to make decisions by proxy when we could vote on all topics with the click of a mouse?

Gay marriage for instance, no problem, click. Majority rules, one way or the other.

I can see potential problems with minority rights perhaps. Any ideas?

[Hawk]

In the age of computers, why does government have to make decisions by proxy when we could vote on all topics with the click of a mouse?

Gay marriage for instance, no problem, click. Majority rules, one way or the other.

I can see potential problems with minority rights perhaps. Any ideas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Problem #1) The ruling government doesn't want majority rule, in case you didn't notice they have gone with the minority on every single piece of legislation they have passed in who knows how long (Gun Registry, SSM, etc)

Problem #2) Computers can be hacked, at least any side can claim it was foul play when they get defeated. Therefore it is more of a headache than it is worth, I mean just look at what happened in the USA when they tried electronic voting.

Problem #3) They can't force their MPs to vote the party line, I mean why trust the people that elected you... its not like they have any right to decide what you are doing to their country right? I hate elitists, and I despise the Canadian political system for promoting them.

So yeah, there is a couple problems with doing it that way, but otherwise a good idea

[crazymf]

Problem #3) They can't force their MPs to vote the party line, I mean why trust the people that elected you... its not like they have any right to decide what you are doing to their country right? I hate elitists, and I despise the Canadian political system for promoting them.

Sorry, I don't understand this statement. Can you expand?

[BHS]

A huge problem with the concept of policy by referendum is the fickle nature of the electorate. A sound system of government relies on consistency of approach, guided by party politics and mandated by periodic elections. Allowing the electorate to make law by the equivalent of public opinion polls would lead to chaos and endless Supreme Court challenges. Even if you disagree with the government's policy decisions (and believe me, I do) the alternative is a nation at war with itself, making laws to increase civil liberties because of thuggish cops one week, and laws to curb civil liberties to catch child abusers the next. And so on.

[Hawk]

A huge problem with the concept of policy by referendum is the fickle nature of the electorate. A sound system of government relies on consistency of approach, guided by party politics and mandated by periodic elections. Allowing the electorate to make law by the equivalent of public opinion polls would lead to chaos and endless Supreme Court challenges. Even if you disagree with the government's policy decisions (and believe me, I do) the alternative is a nation at war with itself, making laws to increase civil liberties because of thuggish cops one week, and laws to curb civil liberties to catch child abusers the next. And so on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't even imagine policy by referendum, mainly due to the problem you bring up. I more meant that I do NOT agree with forcing your MPs to vote a party line, if an MPs riding doesn't support a bill that is being passed then the MP should represent his people not his party.

[Riverwind]

I wouldn't even imagine policy by referendum, mainly due to the problem you bring up. I more meant that I do NOT agree with forcing your MPs to vote a party line, if an MPs riding doesn't support a bill that is being passed then the MP should represent his people not his party.

It is a noble sentiment but impractical in our parlimentary system where no confidence votes can force an early election. The primary reason the US system gives representatives more freedom is the fact that the president stays in power for 4 years even if his entire party votes against him.

The party system infiltrates the entire parlimentary system which means that simply eliminating non-confidence votes would not solve the problem. For example, the party brass pick which MPs go on which committees - they will only pick MPs that are willing to toe the party line.

[Hawk]

I wouldn't even imagine policy by referendum, mainly due to the problem you bring up. I more meant that I do NOT agree with forcing your MPs to vote a party line, if an MPs riding doesn't support a bill that is being passed then the MP should represent his people not his party.

It is a noble sentiment but impractical in our parlimentary system where no confidence votes can force an early election. The primary reason the US system gives representatives more freedom is the fact that the president stays in power for 4 years even if his entire party votes against him.

The party system infiltrates the entire parlimentary system which means that simply eliminating non-confidence votes would not solve the problem. For example, the party brass pick which MPs go on which committees - they will only pick MPs that are willing to toe the party line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, hence why I have stated several times we need a new system. Our system is outdated and not able to adequately serve a nation as diverse and vast as ours. If our system doesn't change soon then the breakdown of the Confederation will most certainly be a 'when' question as opposed to an 'if'.

[err]

Exactly, hence why I have stated several times we need a new system. Our system is outdated and not able to adequately serve a nation as diverse and vast as ours. If our system doesn't change soon then the breakdown of the Confederation will most certainly be a 'when' question as opposed to an 'if'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And where should we jump... from the pan to the fire ?? Until you have a better solution that what we have, you probably should not make any moves...

[August1991]

In the age of computers, why does government have to make decisions by proxy when we could vote on all topics with the click of a mouse?

Before buying a $30,000 car, I invest quite a bit of time getting information and looking at alternatives. In theory, my efforts are rewarded by a better choice of car.

I am confronted with a choice about whether to vote to spend $50 on a new submarine. Aside from the fact that $50 isn't alot of money, and I'll never use the submarine myself, my single vote will change absolutely nothing in the final result. If each Canadian reasons as I do (and they will, more or less), our society will choose to spend $1 billion in a far more cavalier fashion than we do choosing a restaurant.

Referenda are a terrible way to decide such collective issues. If a million people vote in a referendum, that doesn't mean the decision is a million times better.

[Hawk]

Exactly, hence why I have stated several times we need a new system. Our system is outdated and not able to adequately serve a nation as diverse and vast as ours. If our system doesn't change soon then the breakdown of the Confederation will most certainly be a 'when' question as opposed to an 'if'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And where should we jump... from the pan to the fire ?? Until you have a better solution that what we have, you probably should not make any moves...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I personally support the American system, I like how the Senate is elected and the MPs are all able to vote according to how their ridings (aka the people) want them to vote WITHOUT the threat of a party whip disciplining them.

Not to mention the fixed election dates, checks and guards on Presidential power, and the list goes on.

The parliamentary system can't work, it is destined to fail

[cybercoma]

Not enough people are educated on the bills that are being voted on. We barely get over 50% of the population to elect leaders, can you imagine how few will actually vote on bills?

If 15,000,000 actually voted in federal elections, I imagine maybe 10% out of those people would vote on legislation. Sure, I'm just guessing here...but can you imagine if only 1,000,000-2,000,000 people actually voted regularly? The population of Toronto, or less, would dictate the direction of this country.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Referenda are a terrible way to decide such collective issues. If a million people vote in a referendum, that doesn't mean the decision is a million times better.

I believe I have asked you this before, August, but it was some time ago...If demnocracy is such a bad way of doing things, what do you advocate as the best way? I believe, in the past, you declined 'benevolent dictator', and 'dynastic monarchy', (which would both rule by the dictum) and the other side of the coin is Hobbesian 'Anarchy', with no laws whatsoever. I just don't seem to recall what you had put forth as 'the lesser evil', as it were.

Most of the comments in this thread have been saying 'our system isn't good', but (with the exception of Hawk, who advocates, as do I but to a different degree, the US style system of passing bills to become law)

without offering a better solution, it means that perhaps what we have is about as good as possible.

[Riverwind]

I believe I have asked you this before, August, but it was some time ago...If demnocracy is such a bad way of doing things, what do you advocate as the best way? I believe, in the past, you declined 'benevolent dictator', and 'dynastic monarchy', (which would both rule by the dictum) and the other side of the coin is Hobbesian 'Anarchy', with no laws whatsoever. I just don't seem to recall what you had put forth as 'the lesser evil', as it were.

There was a time when 'representative' democracy worked on the principle that you voted for a representative who you trusted to make decisions on your behalf. The representative is expected to become completely informed on each issue and make intelligent decisions that reflected the policies and principles that he/she campaigned on. The most important point is these decisions would not necessarily be the same decisions that the majority of his/her constituants would make because constituants usually have not taken the time to learn about complex issues.

However, this model has broken down because people are no longer trust their political representatives to make the best decisions just like many people no longer trust doctors. This is a shame since it is probably the most effective way of running a democracy. I would even argue that a similar model works in the corporate world where many decisions made by CEOs are not based on their own analysis but rather the recommendations of staff members have earned their trust. The CEO always reserves the right to over rule a staff decision but most effective organizations work because decision making is delegated to the right people.

[BHS]

[There was a time when 'representative' democracy worked on the principle that you voted for a representative who you trusted to make decisions on your behalf. The representative is expected to become completely informed on each issue and make intelligent decisions that reflected the policies and principles that he/she campaigned on. The most important point is these decisions would not necessarily be the same decisions that the majority of his/her constituants would make because constituants usually have not taken the time to learn about complex issues.

However, this model has broken down because people are no longer trust their political representatives to make the best decisions just like many people no longer trust doctors. This is a shame since it is probably the most effective way of running a democracy. I would even argue that a similar model works in the corporate world where many decisions made by CEOs are not based on their own analysis but rather the recommendations of staff members have earned their trust. The CEO always reserves the right to over rule a staff decision but most effective organizations work because decision making is delegated to the right people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe representational democracy is the best form of government. I think the Americans have the right idea, electing seperate entities with individual powers that act to check and balance each others' decision making capabilities. The major flaw in the Westminster system (our system) is the reliance on personal integrity as a mitigating factor in decision making. Concentration of power in the PMO is inevitable, and the system falls apart if the political players have no sense of honour or shame, as PM Crouton illustrated during his tenure.

[Riverwind]

I believe representational democracy is the best form of government. I think the Americans have the right idea, electing seperate entities with individual powers that act to check and balance each others' decision making capabilities. The major flaw in the Westminster system (our system) is the reliance on personal integrity as a mitigating factor in decision making. Concentration of power in the PMO is inevitable, and the system falls apart if the political players have no sense of honour or shame, as PM Crouton illustrated during his tenure.

The US system is not perfect - US politicians - particularly the more powerful senators are easily influenced by lobbyists that represent very narrow interests within their constituencies but are very effective at swinging voters at election time. This often leads to situations where national policy and interest is sacrificed for these interests. For example, the softwood lumber duties hurt more Americans than are helped, however, those who are hurt do not have powerful lobbyists.

[crazymf]

But, in the age of fast communication, surely some forward thinking person will think of a way to advance the decision making process.

Of course, people resist change too.

Thanks for the replies. Gave me lots to think about.

[Hawk]

The population of Toronto, or less, would dictate the direction of this country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is that any different than it is now? =p

But I agree that the general population should not vote on everything, but I do think our political system should be more in line with the USA system (I abbreviated why in my previous post)

[Guest eureka]

You may have abbreviated it in your post, Hawk, but now I would suggest that you take a little time to think about it at length.

I don't think I have ever seen a subject that brings out such ignorance of the world and its workings as does the subject of Parliamentary democracy. How many times has this been chewed over and how many times do the ignorant respond only with "duh, America is better."

America is not better: not in any facet of its system of governance and jurisprudence. America is a failed experiment that has degenerated into an oligarchy (actually it began as one but it has gone downhill in all but the extension of rights to the people which are now half way to those of a democracy).

The Parliamentary system that we have is the most effective and responsive governmental system in the world with the exception of the British. In Britain, Parliamentarians have rather more independence than ours - but not enough to hamstring government in the American way. The committee system there also functions rather more strongly.

Unlike America, both Britain and Canada do not have Senates that operate on the "you scratch my back....." basis. They do not have judiciaries that are beholden to a political party and have little independence from political expedience.

[August1991]

Dear CrazyMotherFirster,

But, in the age of fast communication, surely some forward thinking person will think of a way to advance the decision making process.

Fast communication is really cheap information. I think this favours markets over governments and corporations. (OTOH, in the grand scheme of things, the Internet is a sophisticated telegraph, in existence since 1850, when the really big step was made to "fast" communication).

Dear TheloniousMonk,

I believe I have asked you this before, August, but it was some time ago...If demnocracy is such a bad way of doing things, what do you advocate as the best way? I believe, in the past, you declined 'benevolent dictator', and 'dynastic monarchy', (which would both rule by the dictum) and the other side of the coin is Hobbesian 'Anarchy', with no laws whatsoever. I just don't seem to recall what you had put forth as 'the lesser evil', as it were.

Good question, and I've never answered it on this forum perhaps because I don't know, and my opinions change.

I have always liked the Churchill quote about democracy being better than all the alternatives. I am a republican because I don't think a country's leader, even symbolic, should be chosen by birth - or regicide. I'm also a federalist. I guess I'm in favour of a dictator subject to extreme constraints. What constraints? First, a general, obvious, civilized way to get rid of any tyrant. Second, clear limits on what the dictator can do to any individual.

I don't know if a single written constitution is the best way to define law, or if habits and practices are better. (Le Petit Robert is the standard reference in French but English has many dictionaries.) Sometimes, common law (common usage) is more likely to solve problems than the Civil Code (Académie française, OLF). But the US Bill of Rights and US Constitution seem to work.

I also see a clear difference between the laws circumscribing the activities of a dictator and the laws we develop to ease social life. Criminal laws require an independent judiciary; grammatical laws are self-enforcing. (Does anyone deliberately make spelling mistakes?)

I like the US system because it creates an executive dictator, limited by a political body and a judicial body, and this seems to be how tradition has decided to organize best collective affairs. (Freud seems to have imagined an individual's psyche the same way. The superego is the Supreme Court, the id is the Congress and the President is the ego.)

But the US system is also a recipe for inaction (maybe a good thing). France and Russia have constitutions with explicit dictators, but a term limited in time.

I dislike the US system because it wastes so much talent. Al Gore is a nobody now and no one listens to what he thinks; in a parliamentary system, his talents would still be used.

Random thoughts, after a gin and tonic on a hot Montreal night. Government is a necessary evil and people who are willing to give up freedom to have security deserve neither. The real measure is whether government leaders change peacefully.

The new president of the Kyrgyz republic stole Yeltsin's line and said that it was the first time in the country's history that leadership had changed hands other than by death, or violence. Let's hope this becomes a cool thing to do, around the world, and then a tradition.

[BHS]

The US system is not perfect - US politicians - particularly the more powerful senators are easily influenced by lobbyists that represent very narrow interests within their constituencies but are very effective at swinging voters at election time. This often leads to situations where national policy and interest is sacrificed for these interests. For example, the softwood lumber duties hurt more Americans than are helped, however, those who are hurt do not have powerful lobbyists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, there is room in the American system for policy to be unduly influenced by NGOs and lobbyists.

However, I think that a modified version of their system would suit modern Canada more than the system we have. Do you have any suggestions about how our version of the American system might look, and how we might be able to close the gaps in policy making?

[BHS]

You may have abbreviated it in your post, Hawk, but now I would suggest that you take a little time to think about it at length.

I don't think I have ever seen a subject that brings out such ignorance of the world and its workings as does the subject of Parliamentary democracy. How many times has this been chewed over and how many times do the ignorant respond only with "duh, America is better."

America is not better: not in any facet of its system of governance and jurisprudence. America is a failed experiment that has degenerated into an oligarchy (actually it began as one but it has gone downhill in all but the extension of rights to the people which are now half way to those of a democracy).

The Parliamentary system that we have is the most effective and responsive governmental system in the world with the exception of the British. In Britain, Parliamentarians have rather more independence than ours - but not enough to hamstring government in the American way. The committee system there also functions rather more strongly.

Unlike America, both Britain and Canada do not have Senates that operate on the "you scratch my back....." basis. They do not have judiciaries that are beholden to a political party and have little independence from political expedience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leave it to a Liberal-supporting knee-jerk anti-American to go ad hominem first. "Ignorant"?? "Duh, America is better"?? Why don't you try responding to the posts?

I have a feeling you'd be singing a different tune if we'd just been throught the better part of forty years of PC rule. You'd be screeching your head off about how lousy our system was. I know your type. All smug rhetoric that you picked up reading Noam Chomsky and that you don't understand.

That being said;

I'd like to know what your criteria for success and failure are, that you can claim that America is a failed experiment. How can you seriously claim that America is anything other than the most democratic nation on Earth? Oligarchy? Are you insane?

Let's see: the American federal system has three elected bodies, all three of which are elected in different ways and approach legislation by different rules, all three of which are able to create and submit bills, and all three of which must approve of legislation. The voters have three different ways of electing their government to ensure that decisions are made with their best interests in mind. Somehow, bills make their way through this obstacle course and become law.

In Canada, we have one elected body to represent us at the federal level. The PM has the authority to appoint the Head of State and Members of the Senate, which he invariably stacks with yes men and party loyalists. The Head of State has no decision making authority whatsoever. When a party forms a majority government, the Prime Minister, if he wishes, can call every piece of legislation a Confidence motion to force his back benchers to vote with the government. All of this effectively means the PMO has absolute authority to make law.

The President of the United States is widely viewed as the most powerful man in the world, due to America's ability to project a strong military and economy into foreign affairs. But within the confines of his own federal government, he has far, far less power than any Westminster PM.

And yet you fiddle with arguments about committees. Classic.

Yes, the American Senate are a bunch of lice-eating Neaderthals, but it's still a hundred times better than a House of Lords filled with in-bred fops and wackos who got the job because they sprang from the correct loins. Some democracy.

[Riverwind]

However, I think that a modified version of their system would suit modern Canada more than the system we have. Do you have any suggestions about how our version of the American system might look, and how we might be able to close the gaps in policy making?

If you are looking some brainstorming how about this:

Make the Senate the elected based on some regional/proportional representation scheme. Give it powers equivalent to the executive branch - the cabinet and PM would some from the Senate. The commons would remain FPP and would be able to override the Senate on anything with a 65% vote. The senate could veto any bill from the commons with 50% majority.

The governing party would be determined by a joint vote of both houses. A non-confidence motions would have to be explicit. i.e. The government's budget could be voted down without triggering an election. The PM and cabinet would not have direct control over the commons so the commons should be more free to act independently.

The people in the senate would be elected in regions but would need to be part of a national party since they could not government without a majority in the commons.

Probably needs a lot of work but I think it could be the basis for a workable 'made in canada' solution.

[Guest eureka]

I think that "lice-eating Neanderthal" could be more aptly applied to you in reviewing your choice of language. Your thought processes do seem to be rather primitive. Sometimes you post quite intelligently but more often, as in this, you have a middle letter in your moniker that obscures the tenor of your posts.

If you care to read some of the threads on these issues, you will find that I have destroyed your "arguments" over and over again. Your comments do betray a profound ignorance of government systems, Constitutions, and their practical applications.

Knee jerk is your response. The ridiculous throwout term "checks and balances" always brings out the same foolish song wothout the slightest clue of what it means or how it works.

Don't like to have your arrogant sense of superiority pricked, do you? You even talk of "ad hominem" during your scurrilous non-response.

[Hawk]

I think that "lice-eating Neanderthal" could be more aptly applied to you in reviewing your choice of language. Your thought processes do seem to be rather primitive. Sometimes you post quite intelligently but more often, as in this, you have a middle letter in your moniker that obscures the tenor of your posts.

Wow, 1/4 of your post and not a word to say that adds to the conversation... yep, that is certainly a 'eureka' kind of post =)

If you care to read some of the threads on these issues, you will find that I have destroyed your "arguments" over and over again. Your comments do betray a profound ignorance of government systems, Constitutions, and their practical applications.

Oh really? That is fascinating, how about some quoting to back that up? I really don't see this 'destruction' of his arguments anywhere in this thread in fact =o

As far as I can tell he spelled out almost all the major problems with our system, and nicely pointed out how the American system is superior (again, there is obviously more but what he did point out was adequate)

Knee jerk is your response. The ridiculous throwout term "checks and balances" always brings out the same foolish song wothout the slightest clue of what it means or how it works.

Enlighten us if we are wrong, otherwise take the point loss and don't address it.

Don't like to have your arrogant sense of superiority pricked, do you? You even talk of "ad hominem" during your scurrilous non-response.

LoL wow, half your post is nothing and the other half... well, I am still trying to figure out what you were trying to prove.

[Guest eureka]

Keep on trying, Hawk. You will get there some day. Try also looking at the thread on the Senate. You will find quite a lot of what I had to say there.

If you or BHS seriously want to discuss the topic, then all well and good. But, I don't take kindly to "armchair warriors and have never given ground to bullies.