Modernization of Canadian political system becomes a matter of urgency

[myata]

Nothing lasts forever. Proclamations and wishful thinking will not stand the grinding touch of time and the entropy. Now not only a trivial observation but a factual reality in the pocket. The time for these changes is long overdue. There's no time or space for delays and procrastination. Canadian political system has to be updated and brought to the current best standard of responsible and functional democracy of the 21st century.

1. Proportional representation

2. Full transparency and accountability of governments

3. Effectiveness and efficiency standards in the public service

4. Ending the practice, tradition and system of bureaucratic entitlements and privileges.

Without thoughtful, intelligent and resourceful ability to respond to the challenges of time, the writing is on the wall. There's nothing more to prove here: it's playing out right before our eyes.

[Queenmandy85]

On 2/3/2025 at 1:39 AM, myata said:

1. Proportional representation

We've gone over this before. You still have failed to explain how that would work in the Canadian context. How do you execute a proportional result in and election. 

A writ is dropped in your riding and lets say four people (A, B, C and D) are nominated to contest the election. When the votes are counted, the result is A 7%, B 38 %, C 22% and D 33%.You may think Ms. A would sit in the HoC for 7% of the sitting days, Mr. B for 38% of the sitting days and so on. But how do you allocate who sits when and since the number of sitting days is unknown because another election can occur at any time, if there is and early election, Mr. D may not get his allocated opportunity to take his seat.

How do you make that work?

[myata]

15 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We've gone over this before. You still have failed to explain how that would work in the Canadian context. How do you execute a proportional result in and election.

Seriously? All of the democratic world uses proportional system these days. There are exactly two exceptions (as the U.S. is moving out of the democracy range). But one is a really unique case (Great Britain/UK), thought it's feeling it too. And that leaves exactly one, single case in the entire first world, that still uses binary partisan politics in this century.

Edited February 5 by myata

[Queenmandy85]

So, how would it work in the Canadian context?

On 2/3/2025 at 1:39 AM, myata said:

2. Full transparency and accountability of governments

Also, could you eleborate where transparency and accountability is lacking and why those instances are critical?

[myata]

The first part we discussed to boring death and yes it will work in the Canadian context just like in fifty or so other national developed democracy contexts in the world.

The second we discussed also: governments cannot be ruled by groups (or gangs) that pretend to have an absolute majority and mandate while in fact they didn't earn anything like it. They will need to cooperate with other parties to govern and those parties will keep the government in check and transparent. As is the case in every single first world democracy these days, other than the two last exceptions.

[CdnFox]

Proportional models do not add transparency or accountability of government in fact they obscure it. Every province that is taken a good solid look at changing to a proportional or similar model has voted against it.

The only people that truly believe in it are losers on the fringe who feel their fringe party would have more power if we ruled the government by committee instead of majority.

First pass the post is by no means perfect but it is the best model available to us at this time by a fair amount. It's like the old saying goes, democracy is a terrible way to govern a people, it's so redeeming value being that it's better than all the other ways we've ever tried

[Michael Hardner]

On 2/3/2025 at 2:39 AM, myata said:

Nothing lasts forever. Proclamations and wishful thinking will not stand the grinding touch of time and the entropy. Now not only a trivial observation but a factual reality in the pocket. The time for these changes is long overdue. There's no time or space for delays and procrastination. Canadian political system has to be updated and brought to the current best standard of responsible and functional democracy of the 21st century.

1. Proportional representation

2. Full transparency and accountability of governments

3. Effectiveness and efficiency standards in the public service

4. Ending the practice, tradition and system of bureaucratic entitlements and privileges.

Without thoughtful, intelligent and resourceful ability to respond to the challenges of time, the writing is on the wall. There's nothing more to prove here: it's playing out right before our eyes.

Great post. 👍 

Effectiveness means agility also. 

We have a moment now, a spark of unity.  Our political elites need to wake up and realize that they need to work together for a short time to restitch our institutions together and to especially stop making them.... Yes Men to the deputy ministers. 

We can have it all.

Even the feeble pre-industrial country of Vietnam was able to stand up against the behemoth when it counted.

15 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

So, how would it work in the Canadian context?

Also, could you eleborate where transparency and accountability is lacking and why those instances are critical?

It's not just the government, it's all Canadian institutions that reflect a slow and ineffective top-down structure. 

Most of us have never known anything else.

[ExFlyer]

On 2/3/2025 at 2:39 AM, myata said:

Nothing lasts forever. Proclamations and wishful thinking will not stand the grinding touch of time and the entropy. Now not only a trivial observation but a factual reality in the pocket. The time for these changes is long overdue. There's no time or space for delays and procrastination. Canadian political system has to be updated and brought to the current best standard of responsible and functional democracy of the 21st century.

1. Proportional representation

2. Full transparency and accountability of governments

3. Effectiveness and efficiency standards in the public service

4. Ending the practice, tradition and system of bureaucratic entitlements and privileges.

Without thoughtful, intelligent and resourceful ability to respond to the challenges of time, the writing is on the wall. There's nothing more to prove here: it's playing out right before our eyes.

1. Where is it not proportionally represented??  The 2 biggest provinces already have the most representation already. What is your suggestion??

2. Where is there lack of transparency. Some things are not divulged for very legal and security reasons. I am not sure why you think you are entitled to know everything LOL

3. What is ineffective and inefficient in the public service. The public servants only do what they can within the rules and regulations and those rules and regulations are only there because you, the public , what them. No public servant makes the rules and regulations, they are imposed by your members of parliament. If there is ineffectiveness and inefficiencies, it is you that demanded it thorough your MP's.

3. Exactly who is getting bureaucratic privilege?

Making vague and unsubstantiated claims and accusations is typical of the uninformed.

So, modernize what? And how? With what?

Edited February 6 by ExFlyer

[Queenmandy85]

Would run off elections satisfy your issue. If no candidate in a particular riding receives a majority of the votes, have the two top candidates run in a second vote two weeks later. That way, the winner takes her seat with a majority of the votes. 

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not just the government, it's all Canadian institutions that reflect a slow and ineffective top-down structure. 

A top down structure is what works best. I hear criticism of elites but historically, it is elites (eminent persons of merit) who govern best. 

[ExFlyer]

4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Would run off elections satisfy your issue. If no candidate in a particular riding receives a majority of the votes, have the two top candidates run in a second vote two weeks later. That way, the winner takes her seat with a majority of the votes. 

A top down structure is what works best. I hear criticism of elites but historically, it is elites (eminent persons of merit) who govern best. 

I am not sure what "eminent persons of merit" means

We (the colloquial we) always complain of governemtn official having no merit and that we need people that have the qualifications or meet criteria or are experts in their field and yet, we elect people with no qualifications and only because they are popular. Near as I can determine, there are almost 100 "rookie" MP's in Ottawa.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

A top down structure is what works best. I hear criticism of elites but historically, it is elites (eminent persons of merit) who govern best. 

Have you ever worked in an alternative arrangement? There are lots of examples

[eyeball]

22 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you make that work?

By not even considering doing what you said.

 

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We have a moment now, a spark of unity.

We also have no shortage of wet blankets ready to smother it.

It won't last.

 

[myata]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We have a moment now, a spark of unity.  Our political elites need to wake up and realize that they need to work together for a short time to restitch our institutions together and to especially stop making them....

Exactly. It can be the make or break moment for the country. The writing is on the wall.

[myata]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A top down structure is what works best. I hear criticism of elites

The criticism expressed not only in words. One case of stagnating elites caused the most destructive war in the history. The next one can be developing before our eyes and can have dire and unpredictable consequences. Most top-down systems in the world are authoritarian, oligarchical or dictatorial. Your claim is factually false.

The renewal of the federal political system needs to begin with a move to proportional representation. There are federal states in the democratic world (Germany is one example) so regional balancing isn't a show stopper. Proportional means that a party gets the same quote of representatives as its share of the vote. If we mean what is said (free elections and fair representation) this is the only way it could work. Every vote counts.

There will be more parties. The role of the incumbents will diminish. Alliances and coalitions of smaller parties will keep governments in check. Countless administrative privileges, prorogations, prerogatives will become a thing of the past. This agenda is urgent and unavoidable if in this country we do not want to follow in the steps of our neighbor who is leaving the democracy space.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Where is there lack of transparency. 

Everywhere public officials discuss public business without the public anywhere in sight or earshot.

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Some things are not divulged for very legal and security reasons.

Good that's how it should be.

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I am not sure why you think you are entitled to know everything.

Public officials who wonder this should not be left to settle the question on their own.

Our Freedom of Information Act should require that public officials apply to have the things they don't want to divulge be made secret. As it stands now virtually everything is treated as a vital secret and it's the public needs to apply for permission to see it.

It's completely backwards. 

[suds]

1 hour ago, myata said:

There will be more parties. The role of the incumbents will diminish. Alliances and coalitions of smaller parties will keep governments in check. Countless administrative privileges, prorogations, prerogatives will become a thing of the past. This agenda is urgent and unavoidable if in this country we do not want to follow in the steps of our neighbor who is leaving the democracy space.

You will also give a voice to the fringe lunatic parties that are bound to appear. Just leave well enough alone.

Edited February 6 by suds

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Everywhere public officials discuss public business without the public anywhere in sight or earshot.

Good that's how it should be.

Public officials who wonder this should not be left to settle the question on their own.

Our Freedom of Information Act should require that public officials apply to have the things they don't want to divulge be made secret. As it stands now virtually everything is treated as a vital secret and it's the public needs to apply for permission to see it.

It's completely backwards. 

Again, I do not know why you think you have the right to know about the business. You even agree and say "Good that's how it should be."

Business is done in many ways, private or public and only the folks doing the business have the right to know what they are dealing with. If made public, it becomes non competitive and that would give you even more to whine about LOL

Nothing backwards at all, all companies keep their dealings "secret". It is the only way they can compete. They also make sure that you, the customer or client, do not divulge what they are offering or proposing...it is their edge against other bidders and companies..

 

 

[Aristides]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Proportional models do not add transparency or accountability of government in fact they obscure it. Every province that is taken a good solid look at changing to a proportional or similar model has voted against it.

The only people that truly believe in it are losers on the fringe who feel their fringe party would have more power if we ruled the government by committee instead of majority.

First pass the post is by no means perfect but it is the best model available to us at this time by a fair amount. It's like the old saying goes, democracy is a terrible way to govern a people, it's so redeeming value being that it's better than all the other ways we've ever tried

Actually the first BC referendum would have passed if the bar hadn't been set so high. A clear majority voted in favour. The second referendum was designed to fail with three options including two that had TBA components to them.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Actually the first BC referendum would have passed if the bar hadn't been set so high. A clear majority voted in favour. The second referendum was designed to fail with three options including two that had TBA components to them.

It was that so high for a reason and it failed and the second one also failed and no it was not designed to fail

And then all the other provinces that have brought referendums it has failed.

Those who support the lunacy always come up with reasons why it's failed and how it's not the fault of PR that it's failed.

PR is a horrible system. It takes an already weak system, democracy, and weakens it further. PR is Governance by committee. It prioritizes showboating and special interest groups and it fractures nations more than anything.

There needs to be a government with a clear mandate. That's when countries work best. Sure, in our current situation we frequently see minority governments but we also can give majorities to those parties we feel deserve it. The more you get into proportional representation the farther away you get from the idea of one person representing one area and being held to account. The party becomes more and more in charge and the politician becomes less and less accountable

It's just not a good system. If you want more representation by the 'non winning' parties there are much better ways to do it. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Again, I do not know why you think you have the right to know about the business.

I know you don't, that's why you shouldn't be in the business of determining what the public should be or shouldn't be made aware of. As I recall you once said you worked for the government doing just that and I got the sense you thought the public was already to intrusive.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Business is done in many ways, private or public and only the folks doing the business have the right to know what they are dealing with. If made public, it becomes non competitive and that would give you even more to whine about LOL

Nothing backwards at all, all companies keep their dealings "secret". It is the only way they can compete. They also make sure that you, the customer or client, do not divulge what they are offering or proposing...it is their edge against other bidders and companies..

It's cute how you conflate companies and governments and where secrecy becomes privacy in your excuses for maintaining the status quo and the public in the dark.

I get it, you're a believer in the way things are, have been and will likely remain. It's completely unsustainable though.

What do you think of Poilievre's call to lobbyists to go directly to the people with their case and requests? I think it's a joke myself, does it make you roll your eyes too?

 

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A top down structure is what works best. I hear criticism of elites but historically, it is elites (eminent persons of merit) who govern best. 

Right Wing Dictatorship FTW

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

I know you don't, that's why you shouldn't be in the business of determining what the public should be or shouldn't be made aware of. As I recall you once said you worked for the government doing just that and I got the sense you thought the public was already to intrusive.

It's cute how you conflate companies and governments and where secrecy becomes privacy in your excuses for maintaining the status quo and the public in the dark.

I get it, you're a believer in the way things are, have been and will likely remain. It's completely unsustainable though.

What do you think of Poilievre's call to lobbyists to go directly to the people with their case and requests? I think it's a joke myself, does it make you roll your eyes too?

 

Yes, I spent some time in the public service. I know when I was dealing with companies it was the companies that had the non disclosure clauses in their contracts and dealings. The non disclosure is to ensure and protect their competitive nature. The public service or government is legally prevented from making you aware of what you think you should know. Imagine yourself as a company bidding for a contract and having to prove you meet the requirements buy providing company sources, costs, intellectual property, production secrets etc and I, as the other competing company getting that information? How would you like that??

Conflate?? How? I say the public (or other companies) have no right to know how another company does business and their cost of doing business to win a contract.

No, I believe in change but, I also believe in privacy of information.

PP sometimes sound like Trump. He can say a lot until he gets in power and finds out exactly how things work

 

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

One good feature of PR: the national popular vote mirrors the number of seats fairly accurately. Thus regional parties like the BQ have little chance of becoming the Official Opposition which would be an embarrassment we are now less likely to face given the Trump-driven rise in Liberal fortunes. One bad feature (a corollary of the above): wins are not overwhelming. 40% of the vote means 40% of the seats. Canada would need to get over its strange phobia of coalitions to manage this situation. 

Edited February 7 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Trudeau should have immediately convened the premiers to make us less vulnerable to America when he took office. As many have commented on this forum over the years long before I realized it was a problem, we have to sort out barriers to interprovincial trade as an urgent matter. I would favour a free trade group of provinces that keep the old barriers on provinces that don’t join if that can be legally done. 

On medical portability, we should be able to manage one College licencing doctors  for the country instead of thirteen. The Brits do it with a much bigger population and four non-sovereign countries. One downside of doctors grandfathered into the new system - a mad rush by IMGs for Mississauga. And a second problem - I’d much rather somebody from the UK running the new institution than anybody from the Ontario College. That Dickensian body has zero sense of urgency. 

[myata]

On 2/6/2025 at 10:42 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

A top down structure is what works best.

John McCain's secretary gave the best answer to it: "we didn't realize that our system of checks depended so much on the character..."

They didn't, really? In two centuries, and counting years to a century after Nazi? This is the dumbest, glaring oversight one could have imagined: you design a wondersome blueprint with all kind of sophisticated mechanisms and functions. And then you say, it's functioning, the switch button depends on two hundred or so fingers. Names, in a well known list.

Now Hitler's goons a century back figured out quite easily how to make a hundred or so fingers sign and/or push whatever they needed. It's no mystery, did you know? And now the fate of democracy itself is bound to them because there's nothing else between them and the absolute power. How much more dumb, careless and irresponsible can it be?

The binary system is a danger to democracy. With time, it will run it into the ground. The only question is, how many more cycles do we have for a meaningful change.

Edited February 7 by myata