Canadian Election: It's On

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And why did all the provinces sign on to the Constitution of 1982 (except Quebec) if things were so impossible?

Not impossible, just far from optimal. Hell, even an elected Senate would not be 'optimal'. It would simply give us a better chance at good government.

Lougheed signed for a simliar reason. To get what he could while not being shut out.

It was not a Constitutional convention, Krazy. The result would have been far different if it had been, I am farily sure.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The provinces here were never sovereign. And if you'd read further on then you would have noticed that I already pointed this out a number of times. States joined and were admitted with the understanding that they'd be granted 2 senate seats just like everybody else. That was not the case here. In the case of the US, however, the fiction of states as sovereign entities was demonstrated in 1865.

And they did not have an elected Senate to begin with, either.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Ah yes, the elitist response. We can't allow the people to rule because they are a mob.



The fact is the past 200-odd years have shown the people are quite capable of ruling themselves effectively. The majority rules is the best system. It's far better than letting the minority decides what's best for us.

Hmmm... is this the Tingkaiverse? Last time I checked, the past 200-odd years showed us that a strictly limited democracy with strong checks and balances was barely adequate, but better than anything else that had been tried...

You're government scares me. All power seems to rest in one branch of government...

[notyoueither]

btw, anyone else think the Greens should be in the debates?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I can't believe how many people spout this anti-democracy crap.

You're sounding more and more like Bush all the time... anyone who disagrees with me must be anti-democracy.

Name one case of tyranny of the majority and I can name hundreds of worse tyranny of the minority.

Explain how this allows "tyranny of the minority" any more than a requirement for two-thirds approval...

And tyranny of the majority has often been the worst kind, at least right after tyranny of a lone dictator. Look what Athens' wonderful democracy did to Socrates. Tyranny of the majority, under the guise of "democracy", finds itself justified in any crime.

Democracy does not mean "majority rule", it means "rule of the people". All the people. Not just the majority of the people. The collective will of the people.

Is pure democracy perfect, no. But like Churchill said it's better than the alternatives.

Where was Churchill referring to pure democracy?

The solution is not to rig the system in favour of the minority. The solution is a charter of rights that protects everyone.

It's not rigged in favor of a minority. The minority can't pass anything without majority approval, and vice-versa. It forces an idea to be acceptable to at least some people on both sides - which means the idea is much more likely to actually be a good idea.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Hmmm... is this the Tingkaiverse? Last time I checked, the past 200-odd years showed us that a strictly limited democracy with strong checks and balances was barely adequate, but better than anything else that had been tried...

You're government scares me. All power seems to rest in one branch of government...

Check your history.

The concept of checks and balances is a distinctly American viewpoint, and in the early years of the US, it was much debated. It still is. There is an excellent article in February or April issue of Harper's that explains the flaws.

Also, in British Commonwealth countries, the power of the upper house has been steadily reduced because it was recognised as being undemocratic.

In Canada, all of the provinces have eliminated upper houses to no ill-effect.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Check your history.

The concept of checks and balances is a distinctly American viewpoint, and in the early years of the US, it was much debated. It still is. There is an excellent article in February or April issue of Harper's that explains the flaws.

I guess that's why the French do it. Such Yankee lap dogs they are.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The provinces here were never sovereign.

Then how the hell do you have a "federal" government?

In the case of the US, however, the fiction of states as sovereign entities was demonstrated in 1865.

Not at all. The Southern states exceded their sovereignty.

And how it appears to this Canadian is that the US system is needlessly complex

Maybe to a two-year-old...

undemocratic in the extreme

and is barely functioning

We like it that way. It's a common observation down here that everything generally gets better when the government does less.

due to excessive checks on a popularly elected government

Excessive? They were designed to be that way.

It fosters, in my opinion, a virtually unopposed two-party system

OK, I really missed the connection there. Moreover, our large parties are really coalitions under the guise of a single party - just like everywhere.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The provinces here were never sovereign.

Then how the hell do you have a "federal" government.

Actually, Skywalker, there is technically one sovereign, the Crown. That same entity is sovereign over each and every province and territory and over Canada as a whole.

Now, in practice and in law we are governed by consent of the people. The sovereign pushed the colonial governments of the first provinces to all sign on to Confederation for reasons of their (or her) own (but which did have a lot to do with the US as well). Still, it took a bit for some of them to mull it over before the stragglers signed on.

The key difference is that none of the provinces has ever been indepedant. As such, we are not a federation of sovereign states, but a federation of the Crown colonies of British North America.

The word you are looking for is republican. We are not republican as we have never overthrown the established order to make our own new one. We are still a federation of mostly likeminded jurisdictions.

Anyways, this in an election thread, not a CanConstitutional one.

Can we get back to the event at hand?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I guess that's why the French do it. Such Yankee lap dogs they are.

The belief that democracy requires checks and balances was developed in the United States, and yes, has been used by other countries, but not all democratic countries believe that it is a fundamental requirement of democracy to the extent of the American system.

In other words, checks and balances are at the core of American-style systems. [edit] but not to the same degree as in other democratic systems

The British system is based on parlimentary supremacy. The judiciary tend to act as a reviewer of laws (i.e., is an Act lawful). In the US, the courts tend to act as intrepeters of laws (i.e., this is what the constitution mean).

[notyoueither]

Right. What do you think of the Greens?

6% and climbing.

[Kuciwalker]

What the heck is the difference? An Act being "Lawful" means it "conforms to the higher Law" i.e. the Constitution - which requires interpreting the Constitution.

Both judiciaries have the power of judicial review.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich


I suppose your opposed to the idea (at least in the American Constitution) that two-thirds of each house of the legislature must approve of every amendment... I mean, this lets, say, two-fifths of the population "hold hostage" the other three-fifths!

Despite the fact that this system is the sort that currently protects gay rights from being completely destroyed, has protected freedom of expression from being violated at a whim (I notice you guys up north haven't managed that one yet), etc...

You really should read the thread before you comment. I already voiced my support for a Constitution that's difficult to change.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And they did not have an elected Senate to begin with, either.

The Senate was elected by the state legislatures, another example of how power there has shifted from the states to the federal government.

[notyoueither]

Other intersting bits from the latest poll.

Ontario
Liberal 36%
Conservative 36%


In Quebec the Bloc is slipping a bit, down to 44%, but still way ahead of the Liberals at 29%.

The NDP are collapsing in BC, down to 14%. Gooo Greens!

Oh, overall?

Liberal 34% (-1)
Conservative 30% (+4)
NDP 16% (-2)
Green 6% (+1)

Projected seats have the Tories (hmmm) ~20 seats away from a minority.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini/CTVNews/1086033576450_81442776?s_name=election2004&no_ads=