Direct Elections

[[email protected]]

Should we be able to vote for our leaders?

That is, should we vote directly for Prime Ministers/Premiers in a separate ballot on Election Day?

[jdobbin]

Should we be able to vote for our leaders?

That is, should we vote directly for Prime Ministers/Premiers in a separate ballot on Election Day?

No.

[M.Dancer]

Should we be able to vote for our leaders?

That is, should we vote directly for Prime Ministers/Premiers in a separate ballot on Election Day?

So you would be okay if the charismatic and popular leader of the opposition got elected as Prime Minister but his party came in second?

And since the charismatic aznd popular leader selects his cabinet, he would most likely select it from his own party......

.....so in effect you are asking that a system be set where a government could be formed from the losing side.

[M.Dancer]

Should we be able to vote for our leaders?

That is, should we vote directly for Prime Ministers/Premiers in a separate ballot on Election Day?

I would like to remind you that cross posting is frowned upon.

[Topaz]

After the appearances of Harper and the Alliance party and seeing them hiding under the Conservatives name.... I'm ready to do away with the Fed. gov't!!! Harper was a loser under the Alliance name , so now he's a Conservative with the 3 losers from Ontario, to make up a dangerous government for Canada! It has been and will always be about HARPER!!

[ScottSA]

After the appearances of Harper and the Alliance party and seeing them hiding under the Conservatives name.... I'm ready to do away with the Fed. gov't!!! Harper was a loser under the Alliance name , so now he's a Conservative with the 3 losers from Ontario, to make up a dangerous government for Canada! It has been and will always be about HARPER!!

The only problem with the "loser" thesis is that Harper is...well...Prime Minister. He can't be that big of a loser...

[g_bambino]

Should we be able to vote for our leaders?

That is, should we vote directly for Prime Ministers/Premiers in a separate ballot on Election Day?

No. The prime minister is appointed by the Governor General and can only be removed by the Governor General, and is accountable to the sitting members of the House of Commons - that's one of the cardinal foundations of responsible government. We don't need to experiment with some half-American hybrid system; we need to curtail the PM's presidential metamorphosis, not enhance it.

[[email protected]]

So you would be okay if the charismatic and popular leader of the opposition got elected as Prime Minister but his party came in second?

Why not? It would be a minority government scenario where compromise and consensus would be required.

And since the charismatic aznd popular leader selects his cabinet, he would most likely select it from his own party......

.....so in effect you are asking that a system be set where a government could be formed from the losing side.

No. Under a model where the PM/Premier selects the cabinet, all appointments (including cabinet) must be approved of by the house. We are also suggesting that the selectable talent pool be dramatically widened to include the public, ie cabinet members do not have to sit in the house.

[[email protected]]

No. The prime minister is appointed by the Governor General and can only be removed by the Governor General, and is accountable to the sitting members of the House of Commons - that's one of the cardinal foundations of responsible government. We don't need to experiment with some half-American hybrid system; we need to curtail the PM's presidential metamorphosis, not enhance it.

Agreed. The PM/Premier after winning a direct election would be invited by the GG/LGG to form a government with a cabinet. Remember the PM has much more power than a US president. The house should be independent from the PM+Cabinet (another whole discussion elsewhere) to offset the PM+Cabinet. It forces two to get along versus allowing the PM to control the house for his/her purposes.

[[email protected]]

A direct election of leaders using a system requiring a 50%+1 threshold has these advantages:

1. It gives a clear, decisive affirmation that so-and-so should be PM/P.

2. The PM/P are answerable to the citizenry directly and not the party elites or party members who elected them party leader (ironically party elections don’t use a FPTP approach).

3. It gives the PM/P a mandate from the whole country/province for the common good, not a partisan good for just a party.

4. It makes it easier to separate the legislature from the government.

5. It avoids the uncomfortable results under a FPTP system that leaders are not supported by the majority of the citizens.

[ScottSA]

The problem...well, one of the problems...is that under the current parliamentary system the logistics are unwarkable. It would simply allow one more layer of confusion.

You say the PM has greater power under the Canadian system, and that's true. But it's only true in the case of a majority government. During the Chretien majority years, all effective power resided in the PMO. During a minority government however, that power is effectively softened by the need to compromise with the opposition parties. There's a good side to this, in that compromise can be a good thing, but there's a bad side as well, in that nothing very far reaching can ever be achieved. In the case of issues of national importance, it's even possible to become either deadlocked or, ironically, more radical (depending on which opposition group has to be parlayed with to pass whatever the bill is).

What you want to do is take this situation and create the possibility for mix and match...an minority party with an opposition PM, a majority government run by a minority PM (almost certainly a recipe for disaster), or any other permutation...none of which is in any way to the good of the country. It's easy to say that the PM is then directly accoiuntable to he citizenry, but the practical effect is that said accountable PM may be completely hamstrung. Then we'd have to get into the question of what functional legal weight should be attached to the directly sanctioned PM as opposed to a party led PM, and then we'd have to revisit the constitution, and we all know where that goes...

[M.Dancer]

I would add that one of the most succseful parliaments was Churchill's during the War when his cabinet was made up of the most qualified administrators and legislators of the day...and they came from both parties.

[M.Dancer]

A direct election of leaders using a system requiring a 50%+1 threshold has these advantages:

1. It gives a clear, decisive affirmation that so-and-so should be PM/P.

2. The PM/P are answerable to the citizenry directly and not the party elites or party members who elected them party leader (ironically party elections don’t use a FPTP approach).

3. It gives the PM/P a mandate from the whole country/province for the common good, not a partisan good for just a party.

4. It makes it easier to separate the legislature from the government.

5. It avoids the uncomfortable results under a FPTP system that leaders are not supported by the majority of the citizens.

Cross Post

http://stated.ca/index.php?showtopic=9441&st=0

[Mad_Michael]

Should we be able to vote for our leaders?

That is, should we vote directly for Prime Ministers/Premiers in a separate ballot on Election Day?

Once again, you propose eliminating the Westminster model. You cannot pick and choose the elements of an electoral system - they are connected.

If you vote for a President (as a stand-alone executive) you have to change the nature of Parliament and turn it into a Congress-like body (independent of the executive). Indeed, you'd have to re-write the Canadian constitution from top to bottom here.

Ergo, you are essentially proposing that we drop the Westminster model and replace it with a USA style Presidential system.

Why? Can you give one rational or substantive reason that would suggest such a policy would be an improvement?

[[email protected]]

A direct election of leaders using a system requiring a 50%+1 threshold has these advantages:

1. It gives a clear, decisive affirmation that so-and-so should be PM/P.

2. The PM/P are answerable to the citizenry directly and not the party elites or party members who elected them party leader (ironically party elections don’t use a FPTP approach).

3. It gives the PM/P a mandate from the whole country/province for the common good, not a partisan good for just a party.

4. It makes it easier to separate the legislature from the government.

5. It avoids the uncomfortable results under a FPTP system that leaders are not supported by the majority of the citizens.

Cross Post

http://stated.ca/index.php?showtopic=9441&st=0

Not so. Some of the wording is different.

[[email protected]]

You say the PM has greater power under the Canadian system, and that's true. But it's only true in the case of a majority government. During the Chretien majority years, all effective power resided in the PMO. During a minority government however, that power is effectively softened by the need to compromise with the opposition parties. There's a good side to this, in that compromise can be a good thing, but there's a bad side as well, in that nothing very far reaching can ever be achieved. In the case of issues of national importance, it's even possible to become either deadlocked or, ironically, more radical (depending on which opposition group has to be parlayed with to pass whatever the bill is).

What you want to do is take this situation and create the possibility for mix and match...an minority party with an opposition PM, a majority government run by a minority PM (almost certainly a recipe for disaster), or any other permutation...none of which is in any way to the good of the country. It's easy to say that the PM is then directly accoiuntable to he citizenry, but the practical effect is that said accountable PM may be completely hamstrung. Then we'd have to get into the question of what functional legal weight should be attached to the directly sanctioned PM as opposed to a party led PM, and then we'd have to revisit the constitution, and we all know where that goes...

Remember that the concepts of 'confidence' and 'opposition' are gone. The relationship between the government and the house will be less partisan. There is simply a leader elected directly and a number of parties in the house, a majority party perhaps, but probably not. Can the house oppose the government? Yes. So the two have to work together to get government business done. Especially far reaching issues or issues of national importance will be better served by the dialog and consensus rather than having a PMO ram stuff through, right or wrong.

[[email protected]]

Once again, you propose eliminating the Westminster model. You cannot pick and choose the elements of an electoral system - they are connected.

If you vote for a President (as a stand-alone executive) you have to change the nature of Parliament and turn it into a Congress-like body (independent of the executive). Indeed, you'd have to re-write the Canadian constitution from top to bottom here.

Ergo, you are essentially proposing that we drop the Westminster model and replace it with a USA style Presidential system.

If by Westminster model you mean a Parliament controlled by the Government, yes drop it. The Westminister model no longer functions properly (if it ever did).

Agreed that reforms must be comprehensive.

We are not proposing an office called President. Don't confuse our proposal with the US system. They are similar in some respects different in others.

Why? Can you give one rational or substantive reason that would suggest such a policy would be an improvement?

Here's the main reason:

The Westminster model does not allow substantive debate on public policy by the people's representatives.

[August1991]

Mad-Michael makes the basic point about this proposal:

If you vote for a President (as a stand-alone executive) you have to change the nature of Parliament and turn it into a Congress-like body (independent of the executive). Indeed, you'd have to re-write the Canadian constitution from top to bottom here.

Ergo, you are essentially proposing that we drop the Westminster model and replace it with a USA style Presidential system.

BTW, I don't see what is wrong with partisanship and it is inevitable anyway. You seem to dislike partisanship. Why?

The relationship between the government and the house will be less partisan. There is simply a leader elected directly and a number of parties in the house, a majority party perhaps, but probably not. Can the house oppose the government? Yes. So the two have to work together to get government business done. Especially far reaching issues or issues of national importance will be better served by the dialog and consensus rather than having a PMO ram stuff through, right or wrong.

Look at this forum. There are constant debates and disagreements.

In general, I think that you have absolutely no idea about how modern government arrives at collective decisions and how it executes those decisions.

You seem to think everyone can be reasonable and sit down and act like mature adults and agree.

Forget restructuring government. Think of how you could improve the way a disputed will is resolved. You'll quickly realize that avoiding partisanship and factions is impossible.

Moreover, these questions were hotly debated in the 18th century. The solutions are pretty good and in a haphazard way, you are referring to them here.

Not so. Some of the wording is different.

As to cross-posting, if this is your attitude to debate in general, your attempts to reform Canada will go absolutely nowhere.

QED.

Or as George W. Bush once said, "dictatorship is great as long as I get to be dictator". IOW, info@atlantic, you believe it is possible to have a government where everyone will agree with you.

[[email protected]]

Mad-Michael makes the basic point about this proposal: If you vote for a President (as a stand-alone executive) you have to change the nature of Parliament and turn it into a Congress-like body (independent of the executive). Indeed, you'd have to re-write the Canadian constitution from top to bottom here.

Ergo, you are essentially proposing that we drop the Westminster model and replace it with a USA style Presidential system.

BTW, I don't see what is wrong with partisanship and it is inevitable anyway. You seem to dislike partisanship. Why?

Look at this forum. There are constant debates and disagreements.

In general, I think that you have absolutely no idea about how modern government arrives at collective decisions and how it executes those decisions.

You seem to think everyone can be reasonable and sit down and act like mature adults and agree.

Forget restructuring government. Think of how you could improve the way a disputed will is resolved. You'll quickly realize that avoiding partisanship and factions is impossible.

Moreover, these questions were hotly debated in the 18th century. The solutions are pretty good and in a haphazard way, you are referring to them here.

Partisanship is unavoidable and any reforms must keep in mind that it can not be eliminated. To the extent that partisanship degrades debate and policy solutions, then it is bad. To the extent that partisanship activates debate and supporters for a cause that is good, then partisanship is a good thing. I suppose it is like anything else, too much is bad. Right now in Canada we have extreme partisanship, too much. Through party discipline dogmatic support for a party's position has squeezed out any debate. Therefore this type of partisanship needs to be broken up but not eliminated so that debate can occur.

As to cross-posting, if this is your attitude to debate in general, your attempts to reform Canada will go absolutely nowhere.

QED.

The objection to cross-posting, in our case, only circumscribes the debate on this and other issues.

Q. E. D.

[Topaz]

When we vote for the person in our area, are we voting for him to represent us or are we voting for that person to do and say what the leader of that party says??? IF its to the leader of the party and not to represent the voters, then we should think 3x before voting!

[ScottSA]

Remember that the concepts of 'confidence' and 'opposition' are gone. The relationship between the government and the house will be less partisan. There is simply a leader elected directly and a number of parties in the house, a majority party perhaps, but probably not. Can the house oppose the government? Yes. So the two have to work together to get government business done. Especially far reaching issues or issues of national importance will be better served by the dialog and consensus rather than having a PMO ram stuff through, right or wrong.

Pardon me for pointing it out, but the devil is in the details, and you're just ignoring the details. Your answer to the prospect of an opposition PM and a majority party is "probably won't happen"? That's not good enough when we're talking about scrapping an entire system of democracy and installing another. The idea that consensus works better than oppositional politics may play well in feminist healing circles, but it hasn't proven to be a thrillingly workable solution in governments like the Weimar republic or the EU.

[[email protected]]

Pardon me for pointing it out, but the devil is in the details, and you're just ignoring the details. Your answer to the prospect of an opposition PM and a majority party is "probably won't happen"? That's not good enough when we're talking about scrapping an entire system of democracy and installing another. The idea that consensus works better than oppositional politics may play well in feminist healing circles, but it hasn't proven to be a thrillingly workable solution in governments like the Weimar republic or the EU.

'scrapping and entire system of democracy' is not accurate here. An oppositional politics will always exist. An opposition PM versus a majority party will force the two players to hammer out a series of consensus positions on a number of issues in order to transact business.