End monarchy to build a better canada !

[Guest eureka]

How would association with one party or another be determined? Would someone who had been seduced by Ralph Klein's money talk in youth but had later seen the light be barred from running for the office? If it is an elected position, would it be democratic to make rules that bar anyone from running? Who enforces the rules and, as Hugo would say in impeccable Latin, who watches the watcher? Would we then need American style confirmatio hearings before an election so that it could be discovered whether a candidate had any un-Canadian political affiliations at some time in his life?

Would it be at all possible to keep political sympathies out of any elected office? Every party would put its weight behind its preferred candidate and heavily so if the office were to be given a more powerful role.

Elections are political acts in themselves. Every office that is elected at any level must carry political baggage.

Rotating GGs would also and inevitably be political. They would carry the seamp of a particular region at a particular time. Imagine a GG elected from Quebec at this time. If s/he were to reflect the region only, s/he would have to be a separatist by inclination. Regional politics would play a significant role in the candidature.

[kimmy]

"One man one vote" has never been a part of Canadian democracy.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in Ontario, Alberta, or BC has approximately 0.86 votes.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or the Maritimes has aproximately 1.4 votes.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in PEI or the northern territories has about 3 votes.

-k

[canadian_conservative]

["One man one vote" has never been a part of Canadian democracy.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in Ontario, Alberta, or BC has approximately 0.86 votes.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or the Maritimes has aproximately 1.4 votes.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in PEI or the northern territories has about 3 votes.

Relivence to this forum? How does that make any sense? It probably does to some people not alot i might add but I just don't get it.

[Yaro]

The entire problem with this country is people in different regions do not like the idea of one person one vote. They want their 'region' to have electoral clout that exceeds their population. An electoral college system allows for better regional representation.

I agree, but that is anti democratic. I believe that the provinces should have more power, they should have power over most issues that aren't of national importance or about insuring that the basic rights guaranteed in the constitution aren't abridged.

States should have full control over medical care, education, laws not contradictory to the constitution, Tariffs, etc...

Some of those issues would probably be best handled by some sort of national agreement between states but shouldn't be strictly federal issues.

Sooner or later people are going to have to understand that in a democracy the MAJORITY rules, whether that majority lives in Alberta or Ontario.

And BTW I live in Vancouver.

Could you clarify your suggestion about the lists?

I think the notion of local representation on federal issues is a bad one, it conflicts with the local representation from provincial governments. In some countries what happens is that parties have a list of what order politicians will be elected in. After the popular totals are added up it is divided by the number of representatives that will be elected and then the lists are consulted as to which parties have enough votes for how many candidates.

There is also a mixed system that would be best for provincial politics, it maintains the local representation while providing an adjustment for the popular vote. This system is also sometimes called a partial list.

For example, if there was a vote in a province and you had 31 seats apportioned to party A, 22 to party B, and 13 to party C you would add up all the votes that counted towards those candidates as a portion of the popular vote. Once you had that representation counted you would look at all the remainder votes, then you would consult lists for those remaining votes.

Essentially you would wind up with a number of officials that represent local constituents and a number that wouldn't. This also allows for particularly good candidates to be assured a seat if they lose out to another particularly good candidate simply because there in the same riding.

"One man one vote" has never been a part of Canadian democracy.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in Ontario, Alberta, or BC has approximately 0.86 votes.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or the Maritimes has aproximately 1.4 votes.

If a Quebec man has one vote, then a man in PEI or the northern territories has about 3 votes.

-k

I know it hasn't bee, it’s just the way that I think it should be.

[August1991]

Relivence to this forum? How does that make any sense? It probably does to some people not alot i might add but I just don't get it.

The earlier a province joined Confederation or the fewer immigrants attracted to the province, the weightier a resident's vote. Or something like that.

For those that think about this question in a strictly North American way, the US has 50 states as opposed to our 10 provinces. IOW, the Triple-E senate, aside from being impossible in the current Canadian political context, is also a dumb idea.

----

As to this thread's topic, the British monarchy is a terrible symbol about how to succeed in life (choose the right family). (Curious about this issue? Just bored? Check this thread out)

Having spent the past few weeks in various parts of Canada's eastern provinces, I can understand (sort of) that individuals living in northern North America might want common symbols to signal their residency to foreigners. The British monarchy no longer does that, if it ever did. Based on recent experience, it appears that the Liberal Party of Canada has ordained that State television female journalists from so-called "visible minorities" represent such a symbol.

I'd like to see the end of the monarchy in Canada if only because it might stop the Liberal Party choosing symbols for us. (Wasp, Frog, Wasp, Frog....)

[Argus]

As to this thread's topic, the British monarchy is a terrible symbol about how to succeed in life (choose the right family).

Well, I think it's relatively benign compared to most of the other symbols of how to succeed in life: the rapcious greed and cold-bloodedness of success in business, the sly, greasy corruption or morals involved in the success in politics, the pointless publication demand, backstabbing and jealousy of success in academia, or of course, success in acting or singing or modelling, based on how pretty you are, or in sports based on how much drugs you consume.

Having spent the past few weeks in various parts of Canada's eastern provinces, I can understand (sort of) that individuals living in northern North America might want common symbols to signal their residency to foreigners.  The British monarchy no longer does that, if it ever did.

Okay, how's about we start a new kingdom. Who should be our first king? Someone involved in hockey, surely. Gretzky? Don Cherry? I think Don Cherry would make a helluva king! Think of the fun he'd be! Think of those pasty faced, double-talking diplomats who'd have to deal with King Cherry!

I'd like to see the end of the monarchy in Canada if only because it might stop the Liberal Party choosing symbols for us. (Wasp, Frog, Wasp, Frog....)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about the end of the Liberal Party instead?

[Mad_Michael]

Given that republican goverments have a really bad track record in turning tyrannical, and the British constitutional monarchy has a remarkable record in creating democracy, I really have to wonder at the agenda of those who favour removal of our perfectly functional constitutional monarchy.

One need not hardly mention the fact that to be rid of the monarchy in Canada requires an ammendment to the Constitution - and to open that can of worms right now with Alberta and Quebec would be madness and possibly destroy the country (as appears to be the goal of many).

[g_bambino]

Given that republican goverments have a really bad track record in turning tyrannical, and the British constitutional monarchy has a remarkable record in creating democracy, I really have to wonder at the agenda of those who favour removal of our perfectly functional constitutional monarchy.

One need not hardly mention the fact that to be rid of the monarchy in Canada requires an ammendment to the Constitution - and to open that can of worms right now with Alberta and Quebec would be madness and possibly destroy the country (as appears to be the goal of many).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely. It's no surprise that many of the most stable and oldest democracies are constitutional monarchies, including Canada (1867), Australia (1901) and the UK (1600s??); three of the 16 countries which currently share the Crown. It was the UK that originally devised the system, and it worked so successfully that, upon forming, most republics attempted to emulate it, only replacing the monarch with a president. But this anomaly on the Westminster system has been a major factor in the poor track record of most republics. Presidents are political by their very nature, and having a politicized head of state can lead to many, many problems.

If there are Quebecois who see the monarchy as a symbol of colonialism then they are still living 200 years in the past, completely ignoring the constitutional reforms that have taken place since then. Though, I suspect this is willful ignorance as it really works well for their 'poor victim' act. Rather, the Crown has been a good foundation for not only Canada's government, but Quebec's as well; the Crown in Right of Quebec providing the province with a stable sovereign government. Being apolitical, the Queen even allows people to dissent against her, and oppose federalism, without backlash or even comment. Would a federally elected president do the same? How would the now elected Quebec governor play into affairs?

No, not only would the act of changing Canada from a monarchical system to a republican one be utterly divisive, but none of those divisive issues which already exist would be solved, and in fact more would be created by a politicized president. Remaining as a kingdom is what is best for Canada.