Step to Senate Reform

[rbacon]

Canadians alk about Freedom and Liberty, Lefty on Mapleleaf talks about grammar....Yah Pathetic eh!

[geoffrey]

Canadians alk about Freedom and Liberty, Lefty on Mapleleaf talks about grammar....Yah Pathetic eh!

Your grammar is terrible, it's hard to read your posts. The use of paragraphs and sentences would go a long long way to improving your message.

[mikedavid00]

Why would any adult Canadian man or woman reject this modest proposal for a small step towards righting the democratic wrongs in this country....Be they ever so small.....Canada is an International Embarassment....

I agree. We have a completely insider, corrupt, dictator style of gov't.

It's time to get rid of the parlimentary system.

[jdobbin]

Canadians alk about Freedom and Liberty, Lefty on Mapleleaf talks about grammar....Yah Pathetic eh!

Righty can't make a point.

[Saturn]

Why would any adult Canadian man or woman reject this modest proposal for a small step towards righting the democratic wrongs in this country

Because it isn't "modest" - it is a joke and avoids real reform. We don't need another pathetic piece of tape to hold this thing together. Because the political system in this country needs serious reform, not some fake measures that amount to nothing (yet cost big money).

[scribblet]

Hardly a joke, but then, you wouldn't like anything he did anyway. It is a step in the right direction, one can hardly expect a minority gov't to completely reform the system; particularly when the opposition would reject anything put forward no matter how modest - or how good it would be for the country. Baby steps first, you walk before you run.

[jdobbin]

Hardly a joke, but then, you wouldn't like anything he did anyway. It is a step in the right direction, one can hardly expect a minority gov't to completely reform the system; particularly when the opposition would reject anything put forward no matter how modest - or how good it would be for the country. Baby steps first, you walk before you run.

When it comes to Senate reform, the step to ensure that it isn't overturned by a prime minister later on is to enshrine it in the Constitution. Bypassing it doesn't solve the problem. It is probably one of many reasons why Quebec and other provinces reject it.

[geoffrey]

Hardly a joke, but then, you wouldn't like anything he did anyway. It is a step in the right direction, one can hardly expect a minority gov't to completely reform the system; particularly when the opposition would reject anything put forward no matter how modest - or how good it would be for the country. Baby steps first, you walk before you run.

When it comes to Senate reform, the step to ensure that it isn't overturned by a prime minister later on is to enshrine it in the Constitution. Bypassing it doesn't solve the problem. It is probably one of many reasons why Quebec and other provinces reject it.

And it would destroy alot of Premier power.

[Jean_Poutine]

Abolishing the Senate is a bad idea. There are people in the Senate that have no political experience, but have more experience in other areas than politicians. For example, Romeo Dallaire is a Liberal Senator that doesn't have experience as a politician, but when it comes to subjects like human rights, what he has to say would dwarf that of career politicians. Ask yourself why someone would want to get rid of that and only have the voices of politicians. To have someone like Dallaire there is money well spent IMO.

I'd like to see Lewis MacKenzie in the Senate as a Conservative Senator. He has a great deal of experience that would be valuable. He knows a lot about the kind of conflicts that we're likely to face and the challenges with regards to multilateralism. This would be especially handy to have when rebuilding the military.

[jdobbin]

And it would destroy alot of Premier power.

Possibly. But they already have power on this. It is quite possible that elections can be challenged by premiers in the Supreme Court as feds don't have Constitutional authority to act unilaterally in this area.

[g_bambino]

I agree. We have a completely insider, corrupt, dictator style of gov't.

It's time to get rid of the parlimentary system.

That's odd, it's the most popular form of government around the world.

[MightyAC]

Hardly a joke, but then, you wouldn't like anything he did anyway. It is a step in the right direction, one can hardly expect a minority gov't to completely reform the system; particularly when the opposition would reject anything put forward no matter how modest - or how good it would be for the country. Baby steps first, you walk before you run.

I also think the senate window dressing move is a joke. If Harper wanted to do things right he should create a citizens assembly to tackle both electoral and senate reform. Their recomendations would then be put to a referendum.

[mikedavid00]

I agree. We have a completely insider, corrupt, dictator style of gov't.

It's time to get rid of the parlimentary system.

That's odd, it's the most popular form of government around the world.

I'm not concerned with Libia and Iraq's system.

I would like to move to a US based system that promotes democrocy and governs for hte poeple.

The Parlimentary system is ok, but it's too easy to take advantage of. It takes a group of people in the house that govern for the good of the country. We do not have this right now and over the years certain poeples have found out how to exploit this system for self gain to govern to their own agenda and not the people.

[bk59]

I would like to move to a US based system that promotes democrocy and governs for hte poeple.

The Parlimentary system is ok, but it's too easy to take advantage of. It takes a group of people in the house that govern for the good of the country. We do not have this right now and over the years certain poeples have found out how to exploit this system for self gain to govern to their own agenda and not the people.

Too easy to take advantage of? Hardly. Our system isn't perfect, but no system is. At least our system allows for multiple parties, not just two. Our PM has to actually answer questions and face debate in the House. The bottom line is that no matter what system you use some people will find a way to exploit it for self gain and to pursue their own agenda.

The US system is not perfect. It too has people who exploit the system for self gain and who pursue their own agenda. Politicians there are almost constantly running for election and tacking on amendments to bills that have no purpose other than to pander for votes. The mechanism for electing a President ensures that the person with a plurality of votes does not necessarily win the election. To me that doesn't seem particularly democratic. Our first-past-the-post system may not be perfect, but at least the person with the most votes wins.

My point isn't to bash the US. Nor is it to ignore the problems that Canada has. My point is simply this: our system does work, so why turn to a radical solution and try to wipe the slate clean? You don't use a nuke to get rid of a fly.

Harper's proposed legislation is an idea worth debating and considering. But his method leaves a lot to be desired. This is not real change. It is the appearance of change. If he really wanted to reform the Senate then he should have kicked off what some here are calling a citizen's assembly, or some other type of body, that would have gone to the electorate and asked them what they wanted the Senate to look like. Then with those results amend the Constitution to create that Senate. Just don't try a half-a$$ed maneouvre to get around the Constitution.

[g_bambino]

I agree. We have a completely insider, corrupt, dictator style of gov't.

It's time to get rid of the parlimentary system.

That's odd, it's the most popular form of government around the world.

I'm not concerned with Libia and Iraq's system.

I would like to move to a US based system that promotes democrocy and governs for hte poeple.

The Parlimentary system is ok, but it's too easy to take advantage of. It takes a group of people in the house that govern for the good of the country. We do not have this right now and over the years certain poeples have found out how to exploit this system for self gain to govern to their own agenda and not the people.

I didn't say anything about Libya or Iraq. I said that the parliamentary system is the most popular form of government around the world. I'd imagine because, though certainly not perfect, it's been proven to be the most stable; Fred Riggs has claimed that the presidential system has fallen into authoritarianism in every country where it has been used.

[MightyAC]

The US system is not perfect. It too has people who exploit the system for self gain and who pursue their own agenda. Politicians there are almost constantly running for election and tacking on amendments to bills that have no purpose other than to pander for votes. The mechanism for electing a President ensures that the person with a plurality of votes does not necessarily win the election. To me that doesn't seem particularly democratic. Our first-past-the-post system may not be perfect, but at least the person with the most votes wins.

That's not necessarily true. Since our winner take all style system simply adds up the number of ridings won it is quite possible that a party could form the government without receiving the most votes. In 1993 the Bloc finished 4th in popular vote yet formed the official opposition. The PCs finished 3rd place with over 2 million votes and only won 2 seats...

Every system has it's pros and cons but ours is deeply flawed. Moving to the American system isn't the answer as they use a winner take all system as well. The answer is PR. The question is which form of PR best suits Canada. In my opinion Mixed Member Proportional is the best fit. It balances regional representation with a proportional house of commons.

[madmax]

I agree. We have a completely insider, corrupt, dictator style of gov't.

It's time to get rid of the parlimentary system.

That's odd, it's the most popular form of government around the world.

I'm not concerned with Libia and Iraq's system.

????

I would like to move to a US based system that promotes democrocy and governs for hte poeple.

?????

The Parlimentary system is ok, but it's too easy to take advantage of. It takes a group of people in the house that govern for the good of the country. We do not have this right now and over the years certain poeples have found out how to exploit this system for self gain to govern to their own agenda and not the people.

Hmm, I think you are mistaking the intent of the US system vs how it actually works in practice.

It is very well exploited by lobby groups.

You overrate the US system.

Looks good on paper not in practice.

Even with the Republicans holding the House and the Senate and the Presidency, with all the chicken nodding going on, this years past house was viewed as the house that didn't do anything.

[mikedavid00]

I agree. We have a completely insider, corrupt, dictator style of gov't.

It's time to get rid of the parlimentary system.

That's odd, it's the most popular form of government around the world.

And so is soccer.

They both suck.

Parliment is good for Iraq, Iran, India, and other third world corrupt democrocies.

But it's not good for Canada.

This is democrocy

But it's probably something you know nothing about.

[mikedavid00]

Our system isn't perfect, but no system is.

True.

At least our system allows for multiple parties, not just two.

That's a bad thing. But it would take too long to explain why.

Our PM has to actually answer questions and face debate in the House.

Nothing gets done in the house. Everyone knows this. Stuff in the UK DOES get done if you've ever seen the UK parliment. There is a common respect for each others ideas and MP's seem to govern for the people. It's much more functional.

The bottom line is that no matter what system you use some people will find a way to exploit it for self gain and to pursue their own agenda.

True, but there is nothing more pure than having the public decide on laws and tax increases.

See this. (noooo! it's the PUBLIC deciding wether we should have our taxes raised and not elites! noooo i'm melting!!!)

The US system is not perfect. It too has people who exploit the system for self gain and who pursue their own agenda.

It doesn't matter who is behind the agenda, the PEOPLE vote. And they usually see through the agenda if you look at the results. Don't under estimate your fellow citizen.

Californians voted AGAINST taxes being rased on tabacco in order to give it to healthcare.

But yeah, all the voters are dumb idiots who don't know that big hospital corperations are behind this.

Politicians there are almost constantly running for election and tacking on amendments to bills that have no purpose other than to pander for votes.

That is completely false.

Politicians here are playing petty politics and constantly running in elections so they can get seats and disrupt our political system which is NOT in the best interest of Canada.

The mechanism for electing a President ensures that the person with a plurality of votes does not necessarily win the election. To me that doesn't seem particularly democratic.

It's this very thing that is ruining our country. See my signature.

Our first-past-the-post system may not be perfect, but at least the person with the most votes wins.

So all the big cities with immigrants who do not consider themselves Canadian determine which federal party gets into power while the farmers and fishers and lumber people of our coutnry are not represented.

This is becoming the death of our democracy.

Political election should not be based of religion and immigration for relatives outside Canada.

My point is simply this: our system does work,

I agree. But it will not work under the makeup of our country. Our system would work in 1965 or if we were a united country, but it does not work when our country has been split up into regional minorities. See my sig.

so why turn to a radical solution and try to wipe the slate clean? You don't use a nuke to get rid of a fly.

We have a non functioning demococy becuase it has been split up into a regional special interest.

In the UK it works because the UK is 'British'. It does NOT work here becuase Canada is 'immigrants, french, west, east, islamic etc.

The parlimentary system is perfect to base a city council off, it is not adequate for the nation of a whole country.

Harper's proposed legislation is an idea worth debating and considering.

I disagree. It's an idea worth voting on for the people to decide. Harper has so no right determining our democrocy in any way.

See thisif you don't believe me.

Then admit that you have been brainwashed over the years.

[bk59]

That's not necessarily true. Since our winner take all style system simply adds up the number of ridings won it is quite possible that a party could form the government without receiving the most votes. In 1993 the Bloc finished 4th in popular vote yet formed the official opposition. The PCs finished 3rd place with over 2 million votes and only won 2 seats...

Every system has it's pros and cons but ours is deeply flawed. Moving to the American system isn't the answer as they use a winner take all system as well. The answer is PR. The question is which form of PR best suits Canada. In my opinion Mixed Member Proportional is the best fit. It balances regional representation with a proportional house of commons.

Yes, that's true. I was talking about the fact that in our system every individual elected has a plurality in their riding. But you are totally right that under certain circumstances the popular vote will not match up with the party "rankings" in the House.

I don't think that describing our political system as "deeply flawed" is accurate. Our system has flaws, but they are not fatal. We have it pretty good here in Canada. If our system was deeply flawed I would expect our standard of living to be much worse.

MMP is definitely an interesting alternative to our current system. Continuous voter education under a MMP system would be required though.

[Canadian Blue]

I disagree. It's an idea worth voting on for the people to decide. Harper has so no right determining our democrocy in any way.

See thisif you don't believe me.

Then admit that you have been brainwashed over the years.

Wasn't a former federal leader who proposed allowing people to vote on issues called an extremist because of that position. Who was it again?

[bk59]

At least our system allows for multiple parties, not just two.

That's a bad thing. But it would take too long to explain why.

Please feel free to explain. Because democracy should be about real choice, not just A or B. People don't fit into cookie cutter molds. Limiting a voter's choices seems to go against everything you are saying here.

Nothing gets done in the house. Everyone knows this. Stuff in the UK DOES get done if you've ever seen the UK parliment. There is a common respect for each others ideas and MP's seem to govern for the people. It's much more functional.

So now your argument is not that the parliamentary system is horrible, it's that somehow Canada is unable to use it properly?

True, but there is nothing more pure than having the public decide on laws and tax increases.

If the public could decide all laws then we wouldn't need a government. But they can't, because it's too inefficient. Moreover, you can mock and hyperbolize about elites all you want, but sometimes I'd rather have people educated in a certain field making decisions rather then leaving it up to the people at MacDonald's. Is that elitist? Maybe. (Probably... ) But when you have a medical problem do you go to a doctor or start getting opinions from everyone off the street? I believe that everyone should have a say. But sometimes, for the good of the country, you have to do things that go against popular opinion.

Politicians there are almost constantly running for election and tacking on amendments to bills that have no purpose other than to pander for votes.

That is completely false.

Politicians here are playing petty politics and constantly running in elections so they can get seats and disrupt our political system which is NOT in the best interest of Canada.

Completely false? Right... After all, no one in the US government would add pet projects to legislation so that they could get re-elected...

How dare our politicians run in elections and try to win seats! Was that a serious statement? I mean, that's their job... to run and get elected. How exactly are they trying to "disrupt our political system"?

So all the big cities with immigrants who do not consider themselves Canadian determine which federal party gets into power while the farmers and fishers and lumber people of our coutnry are not represented.

This is becoming the death of our democracy.

I find the hypocrisy here interesting. You say that the voice of the people should be heard, but I guess that doesn't include anyone in an urban area. And certainly not anyone who came to Canada and worked to get their citizenship here.

so why turn to a radical solution and try to wipe the slate clean? You don't use a nuke to get rid of a fly.

We have a non functioning demococy becuase it has been split up into a regional special interest.

How is our democracy no longer functioning? Again, it has its flaws, but it seems to be operating sufficiently.

Harper's proposed legislation is an idea worth debating and considering.

I disagree. It's an idea worth voting on for the people to decide. Harper has so no right determining our democrocy in any way.

See thisif you don't believe me.

Then admit that you have been brainwashed over the years.

Right, let's just vote on it. No need to debate it or consider it. Why discuss alternatives when we can just spend millions of dollars to print up ballots and run a referendum where no one has really thought through the proposed changes? I think Harper could have gone about this in a better way, which includes getting feedback from the people, but that is where the debating comes in. You don't just vote on something like this without really thinking it through.

As for my brainwashing... thank you for showing me that video. After all, that man went to play with his kids and his dog therefore he must be right. Give me a break. That type of political advertising disgusts me. It's pandering at its worst. He never really said anything at all about the issue other than "say no". You are advocating for special interest groups to lobby for and against every idea out there. The truly ironic part is that the video you linked to talks about how he doesn't like special interest groups while the entire ad was paid for by... wait for it... special interest groups. Out of curiousity, how have I been brainwashed?

Finally, you mention your signature a few times in your post. Your signature is a quote of another poster on here. A poster who has consistently shown a complete lack of understanding of how our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms operate and how they originated. Perhaps not the best reference when trying to convince others how to go about reforming our system of government.

[mikedavid00]

I disagree. It's an idea worth voting on for the people to decide. Harper has so no right determining our democrocy in any way.

See thisif you don't believe me.

Then admit that you have been brainwashed over the years.

Wasn't a former federal leader who proposed allowing people to vote on issues called an extremist because of that position. Who was it again?

I don't know who your talking about but I feel it has to do with Quebec seperation.

The thing is, who called him an extrememest? The answer, who cares. Because the majority to vote trumps what one person or a media ogranization things.

Any big business can a campaign to sway either voter to a yes or no side, but if you look at California, the largest campaigns don't sway voters.

In California, there is ALWAYS a new idea to tax the people more in order to spend on yadda yadda. This is a monthly occurnace here in Canada. However, over there, they VOTE on this. And I can tell you that ANYTIME there is ANY idea to tax or spend more, it gets voted DOWN by the people.

[mikedavid00]

At least our system allows for multiple parties, not just two.

That's a bad thing. But it would take too long to explain why.

Please feel free to explain. Because democracy should be about real choice, not just A or B. People don't fit into cookie cutter molds. Limiting a voter's choices seems to go against everything you are saying here.

So now your argument is not that the parliamentary system is horrible, it's that somehow Canada is unable to use it properly?

You have to have the pride and respect of the people formost in order for the parliamentary to function. Right now, it's not functioning. You cannot base a strong gov't off a minorty. Politicians being allowed to call elections whenever they want is only there to take advantage of their own office and not represent the will of the people.

The almost ensures to keep 1 party in power. The American presidency is the best of course seing as there is an 8 year term limit which limits corruption.

If the public could decide all laws then we wouldn't need a government.

I think govern should govern. We decide the laws. We should vote on them yearly. Manditory voting. It's the only way for us to govern ourselves. I don't need Daddy above dictating to me how my takes should be spent or signing me up for Kyoto so billions of my tax dollars can get sent out fo the country for international credits. We need private groups to explain this things to us, not politicians who profess to the CBC what they should re-spin.

Why are you so afriad to decide for yourself? Why do you underestimate your fellow citizen to make wise descisions? The whole US does it, "but they are all idiots and we know what we're doing."

sometimes I'd rather have people educated in a certain field making decisions rather then leaving it up to the people at MacDonald's. Is that elitist? Maybe. (Probably... )

Well there you go. So you really aren't a Libearl that believes in equality after all. My old co-worker said that the more Libearl you were, the more of a complete hypocrit you were. That's what Liberals are.

But when you have a medical problem do you go to a doctor or start getting opinions from everyone off the street?

Are you suggesting that these people in Parliment make wise descisions for the poeple? Lol. We have 300,000 people entering our country lving in piverty for the sake of a Liberal political vote and Canadians dying on healthcare waiting lists.

I believe that everyone should have a say. But sometimes, for the good of the country, you have to do things that go against popular opinion.

I disagree. The Income trusts is within the role of the gov't to govern. That's why it's not held to a vote. They can govern and write laws up all they want, but they will NOT decide for what is good the peoplep. The people shall do that.

Completely false? Right... After all, no one in the US government would add pet projects to legislation so that they could get re-elected...

That is normal fucntion of any gov't. I WISH we even had CLOSE to that kind of knowledge of gov't projects.

How dare our politicians run in elections and try to win seats! Was that a serious statement? I mean, that's their job... to run and get elected. How exactly are they trying to "disrupt our political system"?

WRONG. THEIR JOB IS NOT TO GET ELECTED, IT'S TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE TO OUR BEST INTEREST. YOU'VE BEEN BRAINWASHED FOR TOO LONG.

I'm not mad at you because you only know what you've seen growing up and watching the CHC, I'm mad at our politicians for not representing us and govering to their own agenda. I hope something changes one day.

Now I have to run out and do some groceries right now... yeah I love doing grcoeries.. I hear every language but English being spoken in the background. All the ethnic costumes while I 'tsk'd and stared at because I'm multi cultural.

Oh well, every weekend I go through this.

[bk59]

Without touching on your arguments for a moment, it would be really helpful if you could check your post so that everything you write doesn't end up in a quote. It's much easier to identify your writing when not hidden within a previous quote.

I think govern should govern. We decide the laws. We should vote on them yearly. Manditory voting. It's the only way for us to govern ourselves. I don't need Daddy above dictating to me how my takes should be spent or signing me up for Kyoto so billions of my tax dollars can get sent out fo the country for international credits. We need private groups to explain this things to us, not politicians who profess to the CBC what they should re-spin.

Mandatory voting not only goes against an individual's general right to choose whether to vote or not, but also is blind to the fact that sometimes people will choose to not vote on something because they don't know enough about it. You don't want uninformed people being forced to make random choices. That is no way to run a country. Personally, I think everyone should get informed and vote. But if you choose not to inform yourself then a forced vote is more damaging than helpful.

We need private groups to explain things to us? Really? I have a very low opinion of that mentality. First, anyone can do their own research and look into matters. Second, private groups have even less incentive to be fair and objective about an issue than government employees do. At least the government is supposed to be objective. (Even if they do fail at objectivity sometimes.) But private groups have no such moral responsibility. Just look at those videos you love to link to to see how private groups love to spin things. Private groups, government employees, politicians and individuals ALL have the responsibility to explain their viewpoints and make their own decisions. To say that politicians shouldn't espouse certain views while private groups should is short-sighted and hypocritical.

I disagree. The Income trusts is within the role of the gov't to govern. That's why it's not held to a vote. They can govern and write laws up all they want, but they will NOT decide for what is good the peoplep. The people shall do that.

You are all over the place here. You say that government should only govern. Yet you never define what you mean by governing. In some places (especially when talking about Californians voting down taxes) you seem to be saying that any new taxes should be voted on by the people. And then you go and defend the income trust decision as something that shouldn't be voted on. The income trust decision is a new tax. You are contradicting yourself.

You also say above that government should not dictate how taxes are spent. How exactly can a government govern without spending money? This theory of yours does not seem particularly well thought out.

That is normal fucntion of any gov't. I WISH we even had CLOSE to that kind of knowledge of gov't projects.

I say that in the US federal politicians pass legislation with no other purpose than to get re-elected. You say that is false. I show you a list of projects that are precisely that. And then you say that is the normal function of government. This directly contradicts what you say below about how politicians should not just be trying to get re-elected.

How dare our politicians run in elections and try to win seats! Was that a serious statement? I mean, that's their job... to run and get elected. How exactly are they trying to "disrupt our political system"?

WRONG. THEIR JOB IS NOT TO GET ELECTED, IT'S TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE TO OUR BEST INTEREST. YOU'VE BEEN BRAINWASHED FOR TOO LONG.

Once again a claim of brainwashing. Of course their job is to represent the people. But to do that they need to get elected. Hence, getting elected is part of their job. But you've missed the point and chosen not to answer the real question in that part of my post. Here was your original claim:

Politicians here are playing petty politics and constantly running in elections so they can get seats and disrupt our political system which is NOT in the best interest of Canada.

My point was 1) you have to get elected otherwise you're not a politician (and therefore cannot represent anyone), 2) to question how they are disrupting our political system. Let's ignore the question of whether or not you have to be elected in order to represent the people. Let's go straight to the second part. Please show how our politicians are trying to disrupt our political system.

I'm not mad at you because you only know what you've seen growing up and watching the CHC, I'm mad at our politicians for not representing us and govering to their own agenda. I hope something changes one day.

Two things. First, lay off the random font changing. Second, lay off the character attacks. Disagreeing with you does not mean that I'm brainwashed or that I don't know what I'm talking about. If anything these things only indicate that you cannot support your arguments in any other way (e.g. with facts or logic).