Democracy at work in Canada

[notyoueither]

Only to a raving left wing loon.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Sprayber
The VP is elected right along with the President and must have exactly the same qualifications.

Everyone who actually thought that Paul Martin would not end up as Chretien's successor during the last federal elections, please lift your hands.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Only to a raving left wing loon.

Only a Tory could say that.

Everyone who actually thought that Paul Martin would not end up as Chretien's successor during the last federal elections, please lift your hands.

What about Sheila?

[cinch]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Everyone who actually thought that Paul Martin would not end up as Chretien's successor during the last federal elections, please lift your hands.

What about Sheila?

Good one!

[KrazyHorse]

I know.

[East Street Trader]

Elections involve a temperary suspension to some of the processes of government. Too frequent elections - which occur in some countries - create problems. And if you had your wish and could directly elect each PM there might have to be more frequent elections. Because as soon as the elected PM lost his or her ability to command a majority in parliament he would necessarily have to resign and that would trigger the need for an election. No doubt Paiktis can tell us if I am wrong but I rather think Greece went through a period of repeated change of government and numerous electionms not too long ago.

As matters stand no new election is required in Canada unless there is no party which can command (whether by sheer numbers or by wheeling and dealing) a working majority.

I rather share your disenchantment. But on a more fundamental level. I have lost my faith that my vote allows me to control the politicians which that vote puts into power.

And looking at the various alternative models for democratic systems I do not see a system which seems to carry that ability with it.

I am not altogether sure exactly what has eroded my faith. The party system is certainly one major element. And the curious symbiosis between governments and the media is another - although I could not say precisely why or how.

A fundamental change taking place to the way law works also plays its part - along with pretty well total disenchantment with the legislative process (which I see close up in my daily work).

Anyway the upshot is that I have started to think that democracy has shot its bolt. If we hope to control those in power we need something different.

What that different thing is to be I don't know. But it must be something, I rather think, which requires individual citizens to be much more involved than just to fill in a ballot paper or punch out a chad once every four or five years.

With the availability of modern communications - the net in particular - it may be that some arrangement involving frequent referenda could evolve.

The total failure of the democratic processes to limit the ability of Bush and Blair to indulge themselves over Iraq, however, makes me a bit gloomy as to whether enough time is left in which the evolution necessary could hope to take place.

I hope I am wrong in that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by East Street Trader

Anyway the upshot is that I have started to think that democracy has shot its bolt. If we hope to control those in power we need something different.

We have it, it's called "hanging".

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Only a Tory could say that.

Red Tory to you, bub. Of course, the further from the forest you get, the fewer trees can be discerned. Hence, raving leftie loons might be forgiven for not spotting them.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by East Street Trader

As matters stand no new election is required in Canada unless there is no party which can command (whether by sheer numbers or by wheeling and dealing) a working majority.

I hope I am wrong in that.

Says who?

[KrazyHorse]

That's true, with one exception: there must be a dissolution of Parliament at least once every five years...

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


AFAIK even the PM is not required to be an MP.

Correct.

When a PM resigns (or dies in office) and the person who is elected to lead the majority party is not a sitting MP, he or she is still PM. The last time this happened was with Brian Mulroney. He was elected PC party leader on June 11, 1983; after a by-election in Central Nova (a safe PC seat), Mulroney entered the Canadian House of Commons in Ottawa on August 28, 1983.

Mulroney went on to cozy up to Reagan and currently lives in the USA, sitting on the Boards of several multinationals that exploit Canada through trade laws passed under his regime. He should have his citizenship revoked.

[optimus2861]

^ But Mulroney wasn't PM at the time; the PCs didn't come to power until 1984.

[TheStinger]

Re: Re: Democracy at work in Canada

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You're a dumbass.

The Prime Minister is simply the head of the majority party in the House of Commons. All of his power derives directly from the support of his caucus (the composition of which is directly determined by us in 301 ridings across the country at least once every 5 years).

If you want undemocratic then you should talk to Britain where:

a) The same thing can happen
and
b) The monarch has intervened in selecting the formation of minority governments in living memory

a is true

b is complete bollocks

[KrazyHorse]

As I recall there's been a case in the last fifty years where the sovereign asked the second largest party to form a minority government first (before giving the largest party the opportunity to do so).

Maybe it was a bit longer than that, though (70 years). Not sure right now.

[*End Is Forever*]

It's not true to say that the monarch has "intervened" but in 1974 it was certainly true that the Queen was placed in a slightly awkward position.

Ted Heath's Conservatives had a slightly higher share of the vote than Labour under Wilson, but due to the vagaries of FPTP had emerged with a handful of seats less; however, neither party possessed an overall majority. As I understand it, the Queen did invite Heath to form a new administration on the condition that he secured support from the Liberals (which would have given him the required majority). He was unable to do so, and Wilson formed a minority administration. He then went to the polls again later in the year and secured a wafter-thin majority.

However, knowing your political background KH I assume you're trying to infer that the monarch would actively interfere; I can assure you that is utter nonsense.