Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[KrazyHorse]

With the way Alberta's growing you (collectively) will have more power soon. That's okay with me.

You won't get some stupid artificial leg up, though. That's unfair and contrary to the democratic way.

[KrazyHorse]

Grrrrrrrrr.
Just you wait a few decades, then you'll be wishing you guys didn't keep alienating the West because most of the population lives in the center. Mark my words...

By the way, you're beginning to sound like a Quebecer...

Replace "the West" with "Quebec" and "lives in the center" with "is English".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Every province getting an equal say is a tyranny of the minority because the provinces don't have equal populations.

I'm not understanding you here. How would an effective Senate be tyranny of the minority given the fact that representation in the House of Commons would still be based on population? As far as I can tell, the only thing that it would accomplish would be to actually give Alberta, British Columbia, and other small provinces a say in government.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Grrrrrrrrr.
Just you wait a few decades, then you'll be wishing you guys didn't keep alienating the West because most of the population lives in the center. Mark my words...

By the way, you're beginning to sound like a Quebecer...

Replace "the West" with "Quebec" and "lives in the center" with "is English".

What have I been telling you this whole time?

If Chretien keeps this up, and his successors, he'll have Quebec and the West pestering him about separation. It's only a matter of time...

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Re: Asher

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why should rural areas be overrepresented? You're choosing an arbitrary system of representation. I vote NDP, so I don't have a voice in government. DOes this mean I should get more representation, being an oppressed minority?

KH. I believe that you just want to continue this debate on forever, and forever, and forever. Honestly, you seem too intelligent to never be able to agree with anything the other guys say. You've got Asher on a leash. I think I will decline to be walked. I agree with many things you have said. I've told you what I think. Do with it what you will.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Asher

Originally posted by notyoueither
KH. I believe that you just want to continue this debate on forever, and forever, and forever. Honestly, you seem too intelligent to never be able to agree with anything the other guys say. You've got Asher on a leash. I think I will decline to be walked. I agree with many things you have said. I've told you what I think. Do with it what you will.

The problem is I don't think KH appreciates just how diverse political opinion can be nationwide.

He also admits to being very socialist, so he prefers centralized government. Obviously, he'd be against giving more power to provinces like a reformed senate would give.

It's a shame he's so misguided.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not understanding you here. How would an effective Senate be tyranny of the minority given the fact that representation in the House of Commons would still be based on population? As far as I can tell, the only thing that it would accomplish would be to actually give Alberta, British Columbia, and other small provinces a say in government.

It isn't DD. But for the sake of arguement, some people will keep the debate going in circles as long as they can.

As in the United States, Canada's Senate cannot initiate a money bill. The real power, the power of the purse would remain with the rep by pop Commons.

[notyoueither]

It's ironic. The better read leftists that I know favour dropping the first past the pole electoral system. They favour more inclusive political systems where even the smaller blocks of votes count because of the necessity of coalition governments. Kind of like Israel.

Someone who seems to be an ardent supporter of the left should appreciate that political representation in Canada is far from perfect. I would expect that they would advocate change, not the status quo.

[Edit] I can feel the burn coming. Right this minute. [/Edit]

[KrazyHorse]

The fact is, neither you nor anybody else has shown me any reasons that political power should be preferrentially distributed along provincial lines and not, say, along occupational, linguistic, political affiliation or ethnic lines. All arguments advanced concerning exploitation apply equally well to any of these. If any of you want to discuss the more palatable forms of reformation of the electoral system (proportional representation, etc.) then I'd be more than willing to. Simply crying that you're being oppressed because you don't have veto power in what the government does won't cut it. None of you have yet explained why a voter in Calgary should have more say in what the federal government does than a voter in Toronto does. As it stands right now, the system is transparent, equitable and not based on the special interests of smaller provinces.

[DinoDoc]

BTW: While we are reforming the Candian Senate, what do you people think of removing the PM's power to appoint its members and either having them popularly elected by thier respective provinces or being appointed by provincial governments? We would of course get rid of the Senate's rediculous member for life terms with something signifigantly shorter. I'll let you figure out the magic number for that one.

KH: I realize that being a communist means that you are inherently opposed to the idea of a decentralized government but it would be nice if you actually gave a reason why you were opposed to the measure othern than meanigless phrases like "Tyranny of the minority."

[SnowFire]

A really old post straight from the beginning of the thread, to return to the topic:

somebody: To put it another way ... why not?

Quite frankly I fail to see the advantage in changing a system that seems to work fine the way it is.

Asher: $$$$$$$$$

There's a far more important reason to get rid of the monarchy- one that would apply even if it COST money to get rid of it, instead of saved it. It's just a bad, even possibly immoral idea. It certainly isn't "right." Why should somebody be priveleged, by the government, above others simply because of their birth? This goes far beyond money. This is about theory of government. Monarchies are one of the stupidest, most unjust ideas the world has come up with, and even powerless ones should be tossed aside.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
As it stands right now, the system is transparent, equitable and not based on the special interests of smaller provinces.

No. It's based on the special interests of Toronto and Montreal. The rest of the country be d*mned.

D*mn. Can't get away.

[KrazyHorse]

notyou, you edited on me.

I would not be opposed to discussion regarding change along the lines of what we've seen recently in Europe, but a barefaced attempt to increase the political power voters in small provinces wield at the expense of their neighbours who happen to be grouped in larger clumps is distasteful and smacks of elitism.

[KrazyHorse]

Dinodoc, your current Senatorial system is a relic from the days when states signed on as quasi-independent nations. Individual voters in the small states exercise more power than individual voters in large states. Why?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Individual voters in the small states exercise more power than individual voters in large states. Why?

Why should 10-15 States be able to, reasonablly, get away with ignoring the interests of the other States? That was what caused the Virginia Plan to fail.