Jump to content
Kayriss

Canadian Republicanism

Should Canada Seek Complete Legal Independance From Britain?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Canada Seek Complete Legal Independance From Britain?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      16
    • Don't Care
      1


Recommended Posts

It does not work though because the minority parties can try to take the majority parties hostage, and they can try to push through their agenda. Much like Jack Layton tried after the last election. Layton even asked Paul Martin for a cabinet position, which Martin refused because this is not a coalition government right now. Having proportional representation would only better suit extremem parties such as the N.D.P.

 

It means non-government parties do have a voice. Have the NDP, Conservatives, or Bloc tried to "hold the government hostage?" How? The only way this view makes any sense is if you think the government should dominate the legislature as a matter of course, which is stupid. Again, Ireland, New Zealand, Germany, and most other rarely or never see minority governments, and their governments are perfectly stable.

 

But, take a look at Germany from post World War I to 1934, nothing ever was accomplished, they had elections practically every year as the years became closer to 1934. People turned to the extremes in hopes of accomplishing anything.

 

That's true, but completely independent of proportional representation - and Germany uses the same system today.

 

This would only help the N.D.P., as everything fell apart they would be looked to, to solve the problem. The Conservatives, and the Bloc would also benefit as everything fell apart though because they are more extreme parties, but people who vote for them already, for the most part, feel they are not having a fair deal. The Conservatives also have some people vote for them because some people still think that they are the Progressive Conservatives like in the old days. The proposal of proportional representation though is not about better government, it is about trying to take more power, unfairly.

 

It's not "unfair" for the government to only be able to pass legislation that's supported by a majority of voters. It's democratic.

 

We have a system that works, and the majority can pass through which ever bills they like during their term, but if the people disagree with those bills, they will vote against them the next time anyways.

 

Sorry, I like a little more security than just being able to say yea or nay every five years.

Edited by Bizud
Link to post
Share on other sites

The government operates on opinion polls generally. People do not have short memories to the point where they forget. If something is done they disagree with enough they will remember the next election. The majority party does walk a tight rope trying to please everybody as is. But more controversial things have a chance to pass. It's already a democratic system we support because the majority still decides what happens because a majority is needed to elect any given party. Germany has a mix system now as they've changed things just enough to stop future fascist movements. The N.D.P., the Bloc, the Conservatives already have a voice. It's their job to convince us they deserve to have a majority. That's why the leader speaks out for the party. Plus there's room for debate in the house of commons, so they have a voice that way as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The government operates on opinion polls generally. People do not have short memories to the point where they forget. If something is done they disagree with enough they will remember the next election. The majority party does walk a tight rope trying to please everybody as is. But more controversial things have a chance to pass. It's already a democratic system we support because the majority still decides what happens because a majority is needed to elect any given party.

 

What are you on? First of all, even the idea that people can throw the government out if they don't do well is flawed. Without pro-rep, parties can easily form the government with less than half the votes. A majority of Canadians voted against the Liberals in the past four elections, and they won each time. Only in the most recent election was their power diminished slightly.

 

Germany has a mix system now as they've changed things just enough to stop future fascist movements.

 

The mixed-member-proportional system that Germany uses is the system I'd like to see.

 

The N.D.P., the Bloc, the Conservatives already have a voice. It's their job to convince us they deserve to have a majority. That's why the leader speaks out for the party. Plus there's room for debate in the house of commons, so they have a voice that way as well.

 

I'm familiar with the justifications, and I don't think they hold up. A majority government means that one party (and, in Canada especially, usually one man) has near absolute power for the next five years. In a minority situation, they can only pass legislation that is supported by parties elected by a majority of the population. Ergo, more democratic. Minority situations are inherently fairer and more democratic than majorities, and most countries manage just fine with them. Proportional representation systems (pure PR, MMP, STV) are much more common than single-member-plurality systems.

 

Come back when you've read, um, anything about how proportional representation works.

Edited by Bizud
Link to post
Share on other sites
The government operates on opinion polls generally. People do not have short memories to the point where they forget. If something is done they disagree with enough they will remember the next election. The majority party does walk a tight rope trying to please everybody as is. But more controversial things have a chance to pass. It's already a democratic system we support because the majority still decides what happens because a majority is needed to elect any given party.

 

What are you on? First of all, even the idea that people can throw the government out if they don't do well is flawed. Without pro-rep, parties can easily form the government with less than half the votes. A majority of Canadians voted against the Liberals in the past four elections, and they won each time. Only in the most recent election was their power diminished slightly.

 

Germany has a mix system now as they've changed things just enough to stop future fascist movements.

 

The mixed-member-proportional system that Germany uses is the system I'd like to see.

 

The N.D.P., the Bloc, the Conservatives already have a voice. It's their job to convince us they deserve to have a majority. That's why the leader speaks out for the party. Plus there's room for debate in the house of commons, so they have a voice that way as well.

 

I'm familiar with the justifications, and I don't think they hold up. A majority government means that one party (and, in Canada especially, usually one man) has near absolute power for the next five years. In a minority situation, they can only pass legislation that is supported by parties elected by a majority of the population. Ergo, more democratic. Minority situations are inherently fairer and more democratic than majorities, and most countries manage just fine with them. Proportional representation systems (pure PR, MMP, STV) are much more common than single-member-plurality systems.

 

Come back when you've read, um, anything about how proportional representation works.

Why don't we have STV? I would like to see my second choice become elected. That's not democracy actually, that's the exact opposite. Paul Martin cannot do whatever he wants, he does not have total control. His MLAs have to be satisfied with how he is running the country because they want to be re-elected. Paul Martin cannot do whatever he wants because people might not support it. Maybe everyone's forgot about Brian Mulrooney. The people did not like what he was doing so he ended up having to step down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't we have STV? I would like to see my second choice become elected. That's not democracy actually, that's the exact opposite.

 

Actually, it's infinitely more democratic to be able to say "well, given that there are multiple seats up for grabs, if my first choice candidate either already has more than enough votes or has no chance of winning, I'd like my vote to count for my second choice to help him beat out someone else who I don't like it all" than to just say "well, I'll just vote for who I want," or, more likely, "I'll vote for who's ost likely to defeat the person I hate the most." A voter's opinion is more complex than a simple one-candidate vote can take into account. Voters have preferences.

 

Paul Martin cannot do whatever he wants, he does not have total control. His MLAs have to be satisfied with how he is running the country because they want to be re-elected. Paul Martin cannot do whatever he wants because people might not support it. Maybe everyone's forgot about Brian Mulrooney. The people did not like what he was doing so he ended up having to step down.

 

Yeah, okay, if someone gets really unpopular they might have to step down. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of Canadians usually end up with a government that they don't want, and that majority governments are inherently less accountable than minorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think STV makes a tremendous ammount of sense. I'm only wary about people not knowing how to work it. What happens if someone just walks in and puts an "x" next to thier favorite candidate? Is their vote forgotten?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some jurisdictions count it as a spoiled ballot, and others count it as though they'd just marked a "1." Really, though, not knowing how to vote is inexcusable, especially since it's written on the ballot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think STV is a fantastic idea. I do agree that there seems to be more room for error, but hopefully everyone will take their time to learn the way it works and people counting the votes don't pull a Florida.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to add that while STV is proportional, and a vast improvement over SMP, I would still prefer to see a Mixed Member Proportional system for British Columbia, modeled after New Zealand's system, and for Canada at the federal level, modeled after Germany (with seats being proportional to vote both within indidvidual provinces/states and in the country as a whole). One advantage is that MMP systems are more "perfectly" proportional, as opposed to STV, which is only roughly proportional, and is less proportional if smaller multi-member districts are used (Ireland is smaller, and can use only 5-member constituencies, while British Columbia is larger and would need to use 5-7 member consituencies for urban areas like Vancouver, and 2-3 member consituencies for more rural areas like the north, and smaller cities and surrounding areas, like Kamloops).

 

MMP systems also encourage the proliferation of smaller parties even more, because parties with very diffuse, but still considerable, support can still hope to elect a few MP's. The more parties you have, the more choices you have. In New Zealand, leftist voters can vote Labour, Green, or Progressive, and not worry about splitting the left-wing vote.

Edited by Bizud
Link to post
Share on other sites

None to my knowledge. The BC Citizen's Assembly's selection of STV seems to be something of an anomaly - New Brunswick is almost certainly going with MMP, all the pressure groups really want MMP, and MMP is by far the more common choice worldwide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just thought about this the other day: When the Queen dies, are we going to have Prince (King) Charles' ugly face popping up on our money? That would be horrible. I dont want that idiot to have anything to do with us.

 

And when Charles dies, will women start licking their pennies & dimes because Price Williams' head will be on our currency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, an awful thought. Would Camilla Parker Bowles ever make it on to the money? I know it's unlikely, I only ask becasue of the recent press regarding the possibilities of her becoming queen after all. Looks like it might happen. I'd like to see Charles decide to forgo the crown and give it to his kid, maybe that would spur back some of the interest people had in the monarchy 30 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't we have STV? I would like to see my second choice become elected. That's not democracy actually, that's the exact opposite.

 

Actually, it's infinitely more democratic to be able to say "well, given that there are multiple seats up for grabs, if my first choice candidate either already has more than enough votes or has no chance of winning, I'd like my vote to count for my second choice to help him beat out someone else who I don't like it all" than to just say "well, I'll just vote for who I want," or, more likely, "I'll vote for who's ost likely to defeat the person I hate the most." A voter's opinion is more complex than a simple one-candidate vote can take into account. Voters have preferences.

 

Paul Martin cannot do whatever he wants, he does not have total control. His MLAs have to be satisfied with how he is running the country because they want to be re-elected. Paul Martin cannot do whatever he wants because people might not support it. Maybe everyone's forgot about Brian Mulrooney. The people did not like what he was doing so he ended up having to step down.

 

Yeah, okay, if someone gets really unpopular they might have to step down. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of Canadians usually end up with a government that they don't want, and that majority governments are inherently less accountable than minorities.

STV is a flawed system, far more than our system of goverence. It slows down the government which infinitely means it takes more time to pass anything. That is not acceptable, the government also has a duty to pass bills in a timely matter. Because our government takes three votes before it passes any bills, it means that overnight bills really cannot be passed what so ever either. Our system runs at the right pace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do things need to be passed faster? Isn't the point of the process to scrutinize what's trying to be put through? Over-night bills are not something to shoot for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.