The Politics of Canada

[Nick9099 2]

The idea here is to have a thread to discuss canadian politics in general, there's no limit to what can be discussed so long as it stays on-topic.  Here's a few ideas to start off.

--Coalition governments- last time one of these showed up, there was a huge uproar.  Are they reasonable, and if so in what situations?

--Proroguation- should the PM have the power to prorogue, and should it be an option at all?

--Foreign Policy.  There's been a lot of talk recently about Canada's foreign policy, especially with regards to Israel.  Any thoughts on that?

--And of course, there's always debating the merits of the various political parties.  Are you a Conservative, a Liberal, an NDP'er, a Green, and if so why?   

[beebs 129]

For anyone unfamiliar with Canadian politics.. this may or may not catch you up to speed.

I may have be misundestanding how parliament works, but I always thought that we vote for MP's first - not the party. How they decide to organize themselves in parliament (in their respective parties) is done "after the fact".. because of this, I don't see how a coalition government is any issue at all. And Harper's argument that Canada elected his party to govern doesn't stand up well either - more Canadians voted for the would-be coalition, than they did for the Conservatives.

The PM technically doesn't have the power to prorogue.. that resides in the GG. But yeah, I don't think that the PM/GG should be able to stop parliament on a whim. There should be some mechanism, if it's truly needed, but I can see few situations that it would really be needed for reasons besides purely political.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: beebs I may have be misundestanding how parliament works, but I always thought that we vote for MP's first - not the party. How they decide to organize themselves in parliament (in their respective parties) is done "after the fact".. because of this, I don't see how a coalition government is any issue at all. And Harper's argument that Canada elected his party to govern doesn't stand up well either - more Canadians voted for the would-be coalition, than they did for the Conservatives.quote>

Candidates declare what party they represent when they run for election. You mustn't get confused with the NDP's vaunted but rejected idea of proportional representation. Who knowns? You might get to see a PR Parliament in your life time, but I hope not in mine. Notwithstanding any criticisms, the system is not broken and we really can't afford the time and money it would take for such an amendment. First past the post is good enough for me.

[Nick9099 2]

Originally posted by: beebs

I may have be misundestanding how parliament works, but I always thought that we vote for MP's first - not the party. How they decide to organize themselves in parliament (in their respective parties) is done "after the fact".. because of this, I don't see how a coalition government is any issue at all. And Harper's argument that Canada elected his party to govern doesn't stand up well either - more Canadians voted for the would-be coalition, than they did for the Conservatives.

quote>

It should be pointed out that under our forst-past-the-post system, it doesn't really matter that the conservatives only got 30% of the vote, they got more than anybody else and so under our system, have the right to govern.  Another interesting point is would the majority of voters have voted Liberal or NDP if they had known they would form the coalition?  Nobody knows for sure, but it is an interesting arguement.  By and large, though, I agree with your point.

The other issue I have is the Conservative claims that the coalition was "an unprecedented attack upon canadian democracy", etc., etc.  It is not unprecedented, there is some precenent provincially as well as in Britain.  It is, like it or not, a part of our democratic system, not an attack upon it. 

P.S.  Great video beebs-  that is one of Rick's best, no doubt about that.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: beebs

For anyone unfamiliar with Canadian politics.. this may or may not catch you up to speed. quote>

Great video!

Not sure I'm up to speed, though. 

I'm hoping that most of the statements in there are accurate (as opposed to the obvious jokes) otherwise I'll be hopelessly confused.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Nick9099

It should be pointed out that under our forst-past-the-post system, it doesn't really matter that the conservatives only got 30% of the vote, they got more than anybody else and so under our system, have the right to govern.  quote>

In a hypothetical scenario (that would clearly never happen).. Lib., NDP and the Bloc merge to form one party, with a majority of seats. Would they then take power as the governing party? Personally, I don't see that situation wildly different from a coalition government taking power. Combined, they hold the majority of seats.

Another interesting point is would the majority of voters have voted Liberal or NDP if they had known they would form the coalition?  Nobody knows for sure, but it is an interesting arguement.  By and large, though, I agree with your point.

quote>

Well.. the NDP and the Bloc generally want nothing to do with the conservatives, and it isn't hard to argue that at least half of the Liberals wouldn't either.

Meg: To my knoweldge it's (relatively) accurate. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: beebs In a hypothetical scenario (that would clearly never happen).. Lib., NDP and the Bloc merge to form one party, with a majority of seats. Would they then take power as the governing party? Personally, I

[Zelgadis 638]

Overall, the Canadian system works decently.  There are advantages and disadvantages to the fact that the PM can be kicked out at any given moment but I do think they cancel each other out.  The stability of the American system is nice, but it's also good to be able to give an idiot the boot when he/she needs it.

The main problem I have is the first-past-the-post system.  In my opinion, it is utterly undemocratic.  Japan has a similar system and it's common there for candidates to win seats with less than 10% of the vote.  This is not democracy.  I don't think it should be legal for anyone to win any seat in any government with less than 50% of the popular vote.  America too flirts somewhat with the first-past-the-post system too, but with the lack of viable third parties, the winners usually at least come close to 50%.

Coalition governments I have no problem with.  A Lib/NDP/BQ coalition would actually represent the majority of the Canadian people, whereas the Conservatives do not.  Canada, it seems, has not dealt much with coalition governments in the past, otherwise they would realize how perfectly normal they are and all this hyperbole of "treason" would have never surfaced to begin with.

ISF

 

[Nick9099 2]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

The main problem I have is the first-past-the-post system.  In my opinion, it is utterly undemocratic.  Japan has a similar system and it's common there for candidates to win seats with less than 10% of the vote.  This is not democracy.  I don't think it should be legal for anyone to win any seat in any government with less than 50% of the popular vote.  America too flirts somewhat with the first-past-the-post system too, but with the lack of viable third parties, the winners usually at least come close to 50%.

 quote>

If we did have proportional representation, because of there then being 5 parties (the greens have about 10% of the vote), no one party would ever be able to win more than 50% anyways, except in unusual circumstances.  The Canadian system originated when there were just two parties in the house, and so the winner would have more than 50%.  It doesn't fit the 4-party system we have today.  The best solution would be to reduce the number of parties, but that will probably never happen.

Nice paragraph on coalitions, by the way, it sums this up quite well.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: Nick9099

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

The main problem I have is the first-past-the-post system.  In my opinion, it is utterly undemocratic.  Japan has a similar system and it's common there for candidates to win seats with less than 10% of the vote.  This is not democracy.  I don't think it should be legal for anyone to win any seat in any government with less than 50% of the popular vote.  America too flirts somewhat with the first-past-the-post system too, but with the lack of viable third parties, the winners usually at least come close to 50%.

 quote>

It doesn't fit the 4-party system we have today.  The best solution would be to reduce the number of parties, but that will probably never happen.quote>

I'm a big fan of run-offs.  Let the two top vote-getters slug it out after the main election.  

 

Nice paragraph on coalitions, by the way, it sums this up quite well.quote>

Thanks.  

ISF

[Chatters 0]

Australia has had a working relationship between our Liberals and Nationals (representing mostly rural issues) in the form of a coalition for some time, and our government is quite similar to Canada's. Coalitions work as long as no issues come up that divide the union - then it gets quite messy.

The Governor-General I think is a good idea, (partly because I hate the term President), mostly because it simply it the last resort to stop some clown ruining the country.

Although you guys don't have compulsory voting, which I think is the most underrated brilliant idea in democracy.

[Nick9099 2]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

Originally posted by: Nick9099

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

The main problem I have is the first-past-the-post system.  In my opinion, it is utterly undemocratic.  Japan has a similar system and it's common there for candidates to win seats with less than 10% of the vote.  This is not democracy.  I don't think it should be legal for anyone to win any seat in any government with less than 50% of the popular vote.  America too flirts somewhat with the first-past-the-post system too, but with the lack of viable third parties, the winners usually at least come close to 50%.

 quote>

It doesn't fit the 4-party system we have today.  The best solution would be to reduce the number of parties, but that will probably never happen.quote>

I'm a big fan of run-offs.  Let the two top vote-getters slug it out after the main election.  

quote>

Then what about the other two or three parties?  If in an election, the Conservatives got 25%, the Liberals 35%, NDP, BQ and Greens 10% each, then we go to a runoff between the Conservatives and the Liberals.  Let's say the Liberals win the runoff, so they form government.  In the end, the winner got only 35% of the total, pre-runoff vote.  Runoffs work fine if you're electing one peson, but I just don't think it's practical in this case.  

[Zelgadis 638]

That's not how a run-off works, actually.  The run-off is for individual candidates, not whole parties.  If the top two vote-getters in a riding are Liberal and Conservative, then those two will have the run-off.  If the top two in a riding are Conservative and NDP, then those two have a run-off.

Ridings where there is an outright winner would not have a run-off.

ISF

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Run off elections are expensive and silly when you have multiple candidates in a riding. To do it right you would have to have a round-robin, dropping the loser each time. If five people originally ran (not counting independents and splinters which also run) you could have at most three run offs. Good $$$!

On the issue of compulsory voting, I am pretty much in agreement. One of the biggest problems is the number of people who sit on their hands.

Another idea that I heard recently is a vote of "None of the Above". If "None of the Above" wins the riding, you get a new by-election with a completely new set of candidates. The defeated guys should be precluded from running for the next two elections when "None of the Above" wins.

[Zelgadis 638]

Can't put a dollar amount on democracy.  Some things are more important than money.  

An alternative is Germany's way, where instead of voting for just one person, you rank all candidates in the order you prefer them.  That way, there's only one election.  The workings of this system are a bit complicated, but from what I understand, it's reasonably fair.

So lets say there are three candidates, A, B, and C.

You vote the order you prefer them:

Your number one:  Candidate A

Two:  Candidate B

Three:  Candidate C

The commission starts by only counting the number one votes.  Nobody gets 50%.  Also, your number one choice, Candidate A, finishes dead last.  He has lost.  So, they take a look at your second choice, who is Candidate B.  Since your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice, Candidate B.  

Granted, getting people to understand this system can be a problem.  (I've worked in retail and I know just how stupid people can be.)  Once it goes on for awhile and people get used to it, I think it could be a very viable system.    The side benefit is that strategic voting is eliminated.  You vote your conscience.  There are a lot of people out there who would never vote for the Greens simply because they just  don't win.  With this system, you can still vote your conscience without having to worry about "throwing away your vote," as it is often put.  

ISF

 

[astronelson 339]

Ah, the preferential (instant runoff) voting system. We have that in Australia too, for our House of Representatives. For the senate it's much odder, but that isn't the matter here. Preferential voting is simple, once you get used to it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

If it came right down to it, I would support anything that avoided run offs.

[Nick9099 2]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

That's not how a run-off works, actually.  The run-off is for individual candidates, not whole parties.  If the top two vote-getters in a riding are Liberal and Conservative, then those two will have the run-off.  If the top two in a riding are Conservative and NDP, then those two have a run-off.

Ridings where there is an outright winner would not have a run-off.

ISF

 quote>

But you can't have ridings and propertional representation in the same system.  PR assigns seats based on the total national percentage, regardless of the distribution of that support.  Its very purpose is to avoid over-representation by regional blocs.   

Proferential voting is a good idea.  A proper campaign to educate people ought to solve the awareness problem, and if you combine that with mandatory voting, people would have little choice but to learn how the system works.  Plus it shouldn't add a lot of extra cost.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Nick9099: Ask the Nursinator (abcvs) about that. I believe the Kiwis have a mixed riding/PR system.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

New Topic:  Speech from the Throne was given today.  As usual, nothing much in it, but tomorrow is the Budget Speech.  The government could fall on this one, but not likely this time.

[Nick9099 2]

Ahh yes, the good old throne speech. What an oddity. Since there's probably not going to be anything new in the budjet, the government will just keep going. Of course, those conservatives could always shock us with something. I wouldn't put it past them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The hottest item in the thrown speech is that they are going to review the wording of O Canada.  If we ever hear of this again it will be too soon.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The hottest item in the thrown speech is that they are going to review the wording of O Canada.  If we ever hear of this again it will be too soon.

quote>

Uh... what? Why?

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

The hottest item in the thrown speech is that they are going to review the wording of O Canada.  If we ever hear of this again it will be too soon.

quote>

Uh... what? Why?

quote>

Some squeaky wheel thinks that "All our sons command" is sexist and should be more politically correct.  I think we have better things to do with our federal funds than fix something that isn't really broken.  The next thing will be the line "God keep our land".  I am so sick of spending money on all these idiocies, that I could vomit.

If we need a new national anthem for these people, let them vote with their feet.

---

---

Budget day was a bust.  Status quo ante.  But wait for the next one!  It will be a doozy of an austerity list.

[Nick9099 2]

How much could it really cost to re-word that song? I don't think it would be much, but point taken though, and I agree. I would point out though, for arguement's sake, that 'thou dost in us comand', the so-called ''politically correct'' version, is actually the original.

If we're goint to focus on gender equality, there are much better things to worry about than the wording of the national anthem.

[spa 970]

Originally posted by: Nick9099

If we're goint to focus on gender equality, there are much better things to worry about than the wording of the national anthem.quote>

Good point. Our current government likes symbols, but it's very short on action. Look at the Conservative Party, they have only 23 women in their caucus of 145 MPs. That's a pitiful 16%, and there are virtually no women in any of the senior cabinet posts... not that cabinet really matters since Harper micromanages everything from the PMO's office. The Liberals and NDP do slightly better, but with women still only making up 24% and 32% of their MPs, they aren't about to win any awards. In terms of women in politics, Canada is way down the international list. We're #50, having being narrowly edged out of 49th by Pakistan! Of course doing something about that would require actual action and committment and not just symbolic tinkering.

[Zelgadis 638]

The song will have to change eventually, as sexism becomes more and more unacceptable.  Reminds me of "My Old Kentucky Home," which had a racist reference removed.  At the time, the debate we're having here is probably the same as the one they were having back then.  Difference is now that "darkies" would be absolutely and utterly unacceptable to have in a song nowadays.  I'm glad it's an issue that's been rectified and not something that has to be a focus anymore.

ISF

 

[beebs 129]

I suppose to be fair, the original version of the song had a different line for that part.

O Canada! Our home, our native land,

True patriot love thou dost in us command.

Still not a fan. I'll keep singing it in "In all thy sons command" thanks.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Fairness aside, the original wording is archaic.  Why not chuck the English version altogether?  The original French is much better.

If we want an English song, use the version of The Maple Leaf Forever as sung in the Olympics Closing show.  The origiinal version rubs the Quebec people too much the wrong way to be usable.

---

---

Update: Friday, March 05 2010 05:24 PM Linky

[beebs 129]

That's probably the best thing Harper has done in his time as Prime Minister.