Why so many MPs based on our population?

[exPS]

Googling numbers and they may be off by a percent or two. And we are looking at three land masses that are close in size.

Canada: 338 MPs, 105 Senators, 40M people to fund 443 government officials and their offices.

Australia: 151 MPs, 76 Senators, 27M people to fund 227 government officials and their offices.

USA: 100 Senators, 435 House of Representatives, 335M people to fund 535 government officials and their offices.

Yeah Canada is grossly over-staffed on your tax dollar.

Compared to Australia, we should be at 299 government officials. The other 144 should be fired.

Compared to the USA, we should be at 64 government officials. The other 379 should be fired.

 

[CdnFox]

You've made no case as to why this is bad.  Frankly - looking at politics in the us and Austrailia i would not look at either of them as examples of how to do things right.  All you've shown is that there's a difference, not which is better. 

Further you didn't address the geography issue AT ALL other than to mention it exist to start with.  Canada is REALLY big. Its bigger than the US by a fair bit. And all those regions and people's have different issues and different needs and deserve to be represented. 

Further you've included our senate which is unelected and does not represent a direct tie to any group of people the way they do in the states - so they should be out of your calculations. 

Right now we have roughly 1 mp per 100,000 people. Considering we use the Westminster system - that seems like about right. I don't know that you want it to be any more than that - right now MP's offices do a lot with people in the communities and can listen to them and help with things, i actually get calls from time to time from mp's offices as they're looking to help a constituent who maybe doesn't speak english as well etc.  I can actually meet with my mp when he's around - would that be possible if it were 1 to 200,000?  or 300? or 500?  

explain to me why representing 100 people is too few and they should be spread over a larger population base if you're going to make that case. 

 

[myata]

To create an illusion of representation that is factually non existent because the employee-representatives"" are only figureheads run by hand from the Central Commitee office.

[exPS]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You've made no case as to why this is bad. 

Easy...cost to the tax payer. I thought that would be obvious.

As for geographical areas and population...well we have already discussed the population and Canada sucks with respect to the number of Federal politicians.

Canada: 9.985 million km^2, and the majority do not live in it.
USA: 9.833 million km^2, and all of it is populated.
Australia: 7.688 million km^2, an most of it is populated.

Now if the latter two can run the country quite well (and I have been to both), Canada is run inefficiently.

Governments from the Federal level right down to the City level love to build empires. The bigger the empire, the more important they feel and the more money they can demand. Funny thing is, did they ask the tax payer what their annual raise should be? I can't seem to remember them asking.

And if they were in private business, they would be bankrupt in 24 hours. You cannot afford to build empires that do not produce.

As a friend of mine put it, government politicians and the Public Servants are on a Pic-Nik 24/365, but they constantly whine about something.

Edited May 10 by exPS
spelling

[exPS]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I can actually meet with my mp when he's around - would that be possible if it were 1 to 200,000?  or 300? or 500?

And on an annual basis, how often have you met with your MP and what did you discuss? And if he is too far away as for those living in the boonies, they can email their MP.

In well over 30 years, I emailed my MP maybe 3 or 4 times and it is always answered by his office staff, so I really do not know if the answer were his thoughts.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, exPS said:

Easy...cost to the tax payer. I thought that would be obvious.

It absolutely is not.  IF cost to the taxpayer is your biggest concern, why have democracy at all? Think of all the money we could save if we just appointed someone as ruler for life and didn't bother with ANY mps.  No elections, no mp's salaries etc - the savings would be into the BILLIONS!!!!!

The purpose of democracy is not to save money.  The purpose of democracy is to serve the people.  Turns out freedom really isn't free. 

 

Quote

As for geographical areas and population...well we have already discussed the population and Canada sucks with respect to the number of Federal politicians.

Canada: 9.985 million km^2, and the majority do not live in it.
USA: 9.833 million km^2, and all of it is populated.
Australia: 7.688 million km^2, an most of it is populated.

The size of the population is irrelevant. There are more people living in southern BC than northern BC, but that doesn't mean that the people in northern BC don't deserve to be represented. And it doesn't mean that they don't have issues and concerns that are completely unique from southern BC.

And again you have not made your case. You simply stated some wikipedia facts about land mass size. You haven't explained why those people in diverse locations don't deserve representation

Quote

Now if the latter two can run the country quite well (and I have been to both), Canada is run inefficiently.

I don't think you understand how logic works. The first half of your statement does not support your second half in the slightest. 

And worse   your "proof" that the other countries are better is that at some point in the past you stood on them for a time. How on earth does having been to a country somehow give you detailed knowledge of the effectiveness, history and flaws of its entire political system? Austrailia has NOT done well politically for some time and the us is a complete and utter disaster politically  right now. So apparently simply visiting a country isn't sufficient to impart an in depth understanding of it. 

 

Quote

Governments from the Federal level right down to the City level love to build empires. The bigger the empire, the more important they feel and the more money they can demand. Funny thing is, did they ask the tax payer what their annual raise should be? I can't seem to remember them asking.

So....  your argument seems to be based now on some generalization that, while true, could comfortably apply to all THREE gov'ts mentioned and in fact every gov't ever in all of history. 

So how does that mean our gov'ts are too big?

Quote

And if they were in private business, they would be bankrupt in 24 hours. You cannot afford to build empires that do not produce.

Really. 

So are you trying to claim at this point that America has produced nothing? Or that nothing has ever been produced in Canada? Or Australia? Because all of those have that type of government. But the benefit of governance and sovereignty is it creates the fertile ground where businesses thrive and produce. That is how governments produce, they create the fabric and framework.

And until recently ours was very effective at that. We were one of the leading countries in the entire world until 9 years ago. 

Government is not business. It is not meant to be business, nor is it meant to be run like a business. And trying to compare our government to business is like comparing an aircraft to a car and being angry at the car's lack of rate of climb.

 

Quote

As a friend of mine put it, government politicians and the Public Servants are on a Pic-Nik 24/365, but they constantly whine about something.

Your friend is a bit of a banal !diot.

Governments are by their nature wasteful. This is true. They are also necessary. And while we love to pretend that no government worker anywhere ever does any work, the fact is that is not true.

 

But back to your original point, you have still not made the case that we have too many MPS. Or even come close. Why don't you start by telling us how many MPS per person we should have and why that number is better than what we have today? Because if you can't answer that then your whole point is utterly meaningless.

Edited May 10 by CdnFox

[myata]

The chief idea above: all is great as it is; only need to swap the face plate and all will change on the spot. Miraculously.

It will, right? Just believe.

[Aristides]

On 5/10/2024 at 9:01 AM, CdnFox said:

 

 

The size of the population is irrelevant. There are more people living in southern BC than northern BC, but that doesn't mean that the people in northern BC don't deserve to be represented. And it doesn't mean that they don't have issues and concerns that are completely unique from southern BC.

And again you have not made your case. You simply stated some wikipedia facts about land mass size. You haven't explained why those people in diverse locations don't deserve representation

This argument applies just as much to Australia, most of the country is sparsely populated with the bulk of the population in the south eastern part of the country. 

I don't think there is any doubt we are top heavy when it comes to government. We have more senators than the US with over eight times our population.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

This argument applies just as much to Australia, most of the country is sparsely populated with the bulk of the population in the south eastern part of the country. 

 

Sure but as i noted above you'd have to make an argument that they were some how doing better than us or that we would do as well with less for that to work as an argument alone. 

Quote

I don't think there is any doubt we are top heavy when it comes to government. We have more senators than the US with over eight times our population.

 You can't compare an unelected senate to an elected senate. The purpose of our senate is very different even tho it's similar.  An american can name who "their" senator is - but we can't.  The senate serves a different function here (tho i think the idea of elected is actually better. 

 

And same question to you - we have about 1 mp to represent every 100,000 people.  Explain to me why that's too much representation and what the actual number should be  and why? If its "obvious" then it should be very easy to answer that 

Edited May 11 by CdnFox

[myata]

There's no reason other than the show must go on. The number of useless, powerless employee-"representatives" figureheads only in the pretty beaver tale coloring book has no effect on the quality of the decision that deteriorates in real time. Obviously.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, myata said:

There's no reason other than the show must go on. The number of useless, powerless employee-"representatives" figureheads only in the pretty beaver tale coloring book has no effect on the quality of the decision that deteriorates in real time. Obviously.

So you don't have an argument as to what the correct number is either i see  

Sigh.  Your answers are at their peak intelligence when you say nothing. 

[myata]

The sum of any number of zeros is a zero. A senior KG student knows as much.

Edited May 13 by myata

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

The sum of any number of zeros is a zero. 

I can only presume then that you are the sum of any number of zeros. 

[herbie]

On 5/10/2024 at 7:41 AM, exPS said:

In well over 30 years, I emailed my MP maybe 3 or 4 times and it is always answered by his office staff, so I really do not know if the answer were his thoughts.

You emailed every 8 years or so... well thank you for your great effort at understanding participation in active democracy. Maybe future economically responsible MPs will use AI bots to reply. Possibly let you vote online from Mom's basement at 3AM so you don't even need to get off your arse.

"Too many" MPs is the lamest gripe so far.

[myata]

Yeah, why shouldn't we double the number? And raise the benefits at the same time? That would surely make the government of public matters (look around, carefully), right? No, seriously why couldn't we? What's there to stop us?

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, myata said:

Yeah, why shouldn't we double the number? And raise the benefits at the same time? That would surely make the government of public matters (look around, carefully), right? No, seriously why couldn't we? What's there to stop us?

Good question.  why shouldn't we. 

You don't know do you.  You can't think of why - you just "Mad at gov't" so  "gov't bad!!". You haven't given an ounce of thought to what they do, how many people they should serve or what is or isn't appropriate.  You just blurt crap out from ignorance.

Fact is it did used to be higher. About 1 in 72 k.  Over the years they've let is slip because communication tech has advanced and for other reasons.

You sure don't mind being  vocal about stuff you have no knowledge of. 

[myata]

The only cause for a public government to exist is the services it provides to the citizens. The standard and level of services is before our eyes and no bullsh*t chatting can change that: nope. Just change the faceplate (to ours) and it all will run like a charm? No real representation, no working checks controls and accountability, justice going on various trips but why? It'll just work somehow, just so.

The dumbest fairy tale ever. Wow.

Edited May 14 by myata

[ExFlyer]

The Constitution determines numbers of MP's

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red/form&document=index&lang=e

[exPS]

Reading some of the responses, it looks like we have a few bleeding hearts (so typically Canadian 🙄) and people that look for value in how our taxes are spent. I wonder how many on this forum worked for the government be it Federal down to the City level, because they all seem to feel "entitled" to a higher salary with benefits that your average working person aka "tax payer" does not get. Plus they do not have to produce anything.

But lets not stop there. Lets look at a few of the countless and useless departments we have, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commsission, the CRTC, CBC and the list goes on. I am starting to think why we have so many government offices...to make out unemployment rate loook low.

What about the CBC? No viewership and yet they get $1.4 Billion a year and then they get another $40 million to give themselves a nice raise and bonuses. In the real world they should be self sufficient like any other media outlet.

Want to start on the other two offices. Trust me, it would get funnier than going to Yuk Yuks.

Edited May 14 by exPS
Typo

[exPS]

1 hour ago, myata said:

The only cause for a public government to exist is the services it provides to the citizens. The standard and level of services is before our eyes and no bullsh*t chatting can change that: nope. Just change the faceplate (to ours) and it all will run like a charm? No real representation, no working checks controls and accountability, justice going on various trips but why? It'll just work somehow, just so.

The dumbest fairy tale ever. Wow.

Exactly, we vote for our MP and therefore PM based on "promises" and worse yet, they break them and then run the country not in a way we would like them to. Let me vote on everything via the internet.

That is called a dictatorship!

Accountability? You must be joking.

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You sure don't mind being vocal about stuff you have no knowledge of. 

As if you do. Have you ever worked for the government?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, myata said:

The only cause for a public government to exist is the services it provides to the citizens. The standard and level of services is before our eyes and no bullsh*t chatting can change that: nope. Just change the faceplate (to ours) and it all will run like a charm? No real representation, no working checks controls and accountability, justice going on various trips but why? It'll just work somehow, just so.

The dumbest fairy tale ever. Wow.

The less correct you are, the less coherent you are. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, exPS said:

Reading some of the responses, it looks like we have a few bleeding hearts (so typically Canadian 🙄) and people that look for value in how our taxes are spent.

So you still can't actually answer the simple question "how many should we have and why". 

Kid - i'm pretty hard conservative.  But as a true conservative i believe in thinking rather than just regurgitating talking points.

if you're going to argue that the number of mp's is too high you'll have to explain what the correct number is and why - not just "we shud lower cause austrailia."  If you can't do that then  you're just talking out of your ass, in which case it sounds like it's YOU who's qualified to work for the gov't  

Now - do you have an answer or are you just a bag of wind?

 

[myata]

2 hours ago, exPS said:

Want to start on the other two offices. Trust me, it would get funnier than going to Yuk Yuks.

It has to be this way. Yes, they know. You can trust them. You have to.

[CrazyCanuck89]

How will you get into see your MP, if you have 200,000 others in your riding?

[CdnFox]

On 5/20/2024 at 7:12 AM, CrazyCanuck89 said:

How will you get into see your MP, if you have 200,000 others in your riding?

This is half of what that number was predicated on. It has to be set at a level where it is at least reasonable that you can visit your MP when he's in town and have a conversation with him about issues that matter to you. Or at least approach him as a group of concerned citizens. Right now I can do that. Double or triple the population he represents and that gets a lot harder.

But the second issue is still geography. If you look at the size of some of our writings already they span massive physical areas. Part of the challenge of democracy is not just that people have different ideas but that people living in different areas may have different needs and concerns that affect them differently than someone else in a different area.

Going from 100 to 200,000 people might not make a massive difference in downtown Vancouver. But for some of the northern writings for example it would increase the size of the writing to be as large or larger than some European countries.

To be fair it's a number that someone pulled out of their butt ages ago but still if you are going to argue that it should change you have to make an argument as to why a different number would be more correct.