Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Osweld
Could someone tell me why some people here think that it's so important that each province gets an equal say in the federal goverment? shouldn't it be each person?

It's amazing how foreign this concept is to everyone in the east.

Of course, every person should matter. The House, which has the power of the purse, is still much more powerful.

The idea of a balanced senate would be a measure to help protect against the abuse of 51% of the people into exploiting the 49% of the population who didn't have a majority.

Despite how the current system works, I don't think that the 51% of the people (conveniently located in two provinces which keep electing this federal government) should always have total and complete control over the 49% in the other side. They have rights too.

There needs to be some sort of system where you can still have majority rule by population with the House/electing the Prime Minister and that sort of thing, while having 1/3 of the divisions be done in a manner that allows for the minority provinces to simply stop from being trampled on.

Despite how you guys are constantly trying (so very hard, I might add) to twist it into this horrible attempt for Alberta to take over the world, it's simply a way for Alberta to try to protect itself against the abuses Ontario and Quebec historically have thrown our way.

If you see it as anything else, maybe you should stop watching the CBC.

Sure, each province has it's own specific needs - but isn't that what the provincial goverment is supposed to look after?

Ideally, yes.
But incase you haven't noticed, Chretien has spent a lot of time and money lately meddling with Alberta's provincial politics.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd be fine with Chretien ignoring Alberta's voice as long as he stayed the hell out of our provincial politics as well. Right now he's ignoring what we say while at the same time heckling us about stuff like Bill 11 (which apparently Chretien still doesn't understand).

So you're basically asking that we change the system so that a minority of people get a different (better) treatment because they don't like the way things are done by the majority of people ?

Now where did i ever hear something like that ?

I was waiting for a Frenchman to come and twist it all to hell.
I'm for having 1 of the 3 centers of power be done on a basis of equality per region.

Quebec, despite what they want to believe, is about the same politically as Ontario. At least, that's how they vote federally. Those two provinces are the ones that essentially control the federal government due to their huge populations.

Quebec's slightly different because it's always up in arms about how it's a different culture. I don't understand why having a different culture has to mean a different government, considering their political views are about the same, except for the BQ who want to seperate and throw even more money at Quebec.

Alberta is a different beast from Quebec. Politically, Alberta is radically different from the rest of Canada. Politically, Quebec is not that different from the rest of Canada. Politically, Quebec should not get "more" rights than the other provinces. Neither is Alberta.

In my system, Alberta would get the same number of votes as BC, who has the same number of votes as Ontario, who has the same number of votes as Quebec, who has the same number of votes as the Marintimes, etc. But only in one of the three divisions of power, and this is the one that can't draft any laws either.

Again, unlike Quebec, Alberta doesn't seek "better" treatment than the rest. Alberta is seeking "equal" treatment, something we haven't gotten in a while.

Let's overly simplify this and make an extreme example for the slow: Let's say we have Province A with 51 MPs, and Province B with 50 MPs. Province A always votes liberal, Province B always votes conservative, 100% of the time. In Canada's current system, Province A would always form a majority government, and could always pass bills at the expense of Province B. There is absolutely nothing to prevent that. Now, it's not that close yet, but it's getting there fast.

David James: Ah, so it's true. There are some rational people in Ontario.

Tingkai: I don't know what you're trying to pull here. I'm trying to figure out if you're being serious when you suggest Alberta vote liberal in order to get our conservative voices heard and dealt with, or if you're making a joke. It seems like a joke to me, either way.

And if you need to vote always for majority government, why don't we just have a 1-party system of communism?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Asher

It's amazing how foreign this concept is to everyone in the east.

Of course, every person should matter. The House, which has the power of the purse, is still much more powerful.

The idea of a balanced senate would be a measure to help protect against the abuse of 51% of the people into exploiting the 49% of the population who didn't have a majority.

Despite how the current system works, I don't think that the 51% of the people (conveniently located in two provinces which keep electing this federal government) should always have total and complete control over the 49% in the other side. They have rights too.

There needs to be some sort of system where you can still have majority rule by population with the House/electing the Prime Minister and that sort of thing, while having 1/3 of the divisions be done in a manner that allows for the minority provinces to simply stop from being trampled on.

Despite how you guys are constantly trying (so very hard, I might add) to twist it into this horrible attempt for Alberta to take over the world, it's simply a way for Alberta to try to protect itself against the abuses Ontario and Quebec historically have thrown our way.

If you see it as anything else, maybe you should stop watching the CBC.

What?

I asked why you think that every citizen shouldn't get one vote.

I could care less about your adress, it doesn't matter where you live - everyone should have the same amount of power in chosing the federal goverment, and I want to know why you think that people living in ontario and quebec should have less then others.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Osweld
What?

I asked why you think that every citizen shouldn't get one vote.

Every citizen WOULD get one vote. That part's not changing.

Right now NO citizen gets ANY votes for the Senate.

I could care less about your adress, it doesn't matter where you live - everyone should have the same amount of power in chosing the federal goverment, and I want to know why you think that people living in ontario and quebec should have less then others.

Why is this concept so hard to understand?

Right now 51% of the population could rape and pillage the lands of 49% of the population, because Canada currently only works on the process of RULE OF THE MAJORITY, there is absolutely no check and balance to ensure the RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY.

Again, this would only be in the SENATE, which would only have the power to knock down bills.

So, they can't make bills. They can only knock down bills. And the only way as I see it that they'd knock down bills is if it's not in their region's interests: ie something like the NEP.

Don't you get it?

[Sprayber]

Excuse me for butting in.

But what is wrong with having one house determined by population and one house with equal respresentation?

And while I'm asking, what's wrong with having an independent branch responsible for executive duties?

[notyoueither]

51 pecent. I think not.

Much is being made of the concept of majority rules by some of the esteemed posters in this thread. Good. I agree, to a point. I also think there is room for checks against the tyranny of the majority. I feel that any body politic which is to prove enduring will have some checks on the mobs. I am not going to site historical examples of catastrophes derived from the actions of tyrannical majorities. I will if asked I suppose. What I do think would be more interesting for our debate is to examine the state of our House of Commons and see just how applicable the concept of 50% plus 1 is to Canadian democracy.

So it's off I went to here to see just how things shook down in the last general election in 2000.

-- Basic Information
Total Seats: 301
Majority: 151

No of Electors: 21,243,473
No of Ballots Cast: 12,997,185
% of Electoral Participation: 61.182

Looks good. While 61% is nothing to write home about, the US would die for it.

-- Liberal Majority
Total Seats: 172
No of Votes: 5,252,031

% of seats won: 57.1429
% of Votes: 40.409
% of Electors: 24.723

What's this? The government of Canada is formed by the party with 40% of the vote representing only 25% of the adult citizens of the nation? I don't want to make too much about that 25% statistic. Those who did not vote should be flogged of course. I just thought it was an interesting number.

These are the guys who are in a position to run the country with out regard for the interests of all regions. 51%. Pfff. It doesn't exist in Canadian Parliamentary politics. Just how far can we go down this road of the fallacy of majority rules?

-- Over the Top
Seats needed for a majority: 151

Province   NumVotes  LiberalSeats
Nfld.....   103,103    5
PEI......    35,021    4
NS.......   158,870    4
NB.......   159,803    6
Que...... 1,529,642   36
Ont...... 2,292,075  100

Total     4,278,514  155
% Ballots   32.9188
% Electors  20.1404

Thus we see that by the time the polls closed in Sandy Lake, Canada had a majority government for its House of Commons with just 33% of the ballots cast. So much for the 51% theory. It is a nice idea though. Just isn't applicable to Canada.

Senate reform? I'd say we need some kind of reform.

Refoooooooorm

[Asher]

These election results are interesting, and a sure sign that the current First Past the Post system is pretty screwed up to begin with.

In Ontario in 2000:
1 051 209 people voted for the Canadian Alliance. 2 Canadian Alliance seats were obtained.
2 292 075 people voted for the Liberals. 100 Liberal seats were obtained.

How is that fair?

[David James]

Now we're moving on to criticizing first-past-the-post. Just great. We're doing well here guys.

I certainly understand the concerns with it but I'm not entirely favourable to doing away with it just yet either. The reason? With first past the post, the electors are at least voting for someone, an individual. With PR, they're not; they're voting for a slate or a party list. Hell, you might as well just shut down the Commons and run Parliament in a small conference room somewhere where the party leaders come to the table with proxies representing their share of the vote and let them sort it out amongst themselves.

A good plan, in my view, is to incorporate some form of PR into reforming the Senate... the Senate is appointed anyway, so we might as well make the appointment process a little more democratic. The advantage of this plan is that by making the Senate the house of the parties and giving it some real power and legitimacy it might just encourage electors to vote more for the candidate than the party when electing MPs. In deference to the role of the Senate as a house to represent provincial interests the PR could be done by province rather than the country as a whole, though this would require something on the order of a minimum of 8 Senators per province to be effective and ensure that small parties could actually win something. We would, of course, vote for the Senate and the Commons seperately.

The point I've really been trying to make all along is that even small changes in the election and composition of the Senate could go a long way to cleaning up the mess that it is in and potentially having the effect of improving the Commons at the same time.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I'm still waiting for you to explain how that would work.

I refuse to believe my explanations so far are insufficient for a reasonably intelligent person (which you usually appear to be). I also refuse to waste any more of my life typing out a detailed explanation. Suffice it to say that if a majority of the pop supports party "A" and that this support is not based too much in the large states then it becomes quite possible.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
These election results are interesting, and a sure sign that the current First Past the Post system is pretty screwed up to begin with.

In Ontario in 2000:
1 051 209 people voted for the Canadian Alliance. 2 Canadian Alliance seats were obtained.
2 292 075 people voted for the Liberals. 100 Liberal seats were obtained.

How is that fair?

Same question in Alberta.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Same question in Alberta.

Yes, that's right, but it's still nowhere near the extent of that.

Alberta is still a democracy like the rest of Canada, contrary to what they tell you in Quebec.

And I also believe House seats need to be reformed. 4 seats for 100,000 people in PEI, while Alberta averages 1 seat per 115,000 people and Quebec averages 1 per 75,000(?) people?

No wonder the system's unbalanced.

To put forth the same question that KH has put to me over and over: Why do votes in Quebec count more than in Alberta in a system where it's elected entirely by population count?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
These election results are interesting, and a sure sign that the current First Past the Post system is pretty screwed up to begin with.

In Ontario in 2000:
1 051 209 people voted for the Canadian Alliance. 2 Canadian Alliance seats were obtained.
2 292 075 people voted for the Liberals. 100 Liberal seats were obtained.

How is that fair?

It is a reflection of the first past the post system AND the incompetent right-wing politicians. The existence of the CA and PC parties split the right-wing vote.

In the 2000 election, in Ontario
642 438 voted PC.

If the right wing vote was combined for one party, the results would be different.

A random sampling of the Ontario votes shows a combined PC/CA vote defeats the Liberals in
Niagara Falls, Northumberland, Oakville, Oshawa, Ottawa West–Nepean, Oxford, Perth–Middlesex, Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke

But not in
Nickel Belt, Nipissing, Oak Ridges, Ottawa-Centre, Ottawa–Orléans, Ottawa South, Ottawa–Vanier, Parkdale–High Park, Parry Sound–Muskoka, Peterborough, Pickering–Ajax–Uxbridge, Prince Edward–Hastings, Sarnia–Lambton, Sault Ste. Marie, Scarborough–Agincourt, Scarborough Centre, Scarborough East, Scarborough–Rouge River

So a combined vote adds 7 seats to the right-wing (one of the above was won by CA.

There is often a balancing out effect. In Quebec, the Liberals got 1 529 642 while the BQ got 1 377 727. The Liberals took 36 seats and the BQ took 38.

In Saskatchewan, the CA took 10 seats with about 200,000 votes while the NDP only got 2 seats with aobut 110,000 votes.

If you're arguing for proportional representation then, yes, I would agree.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai: I don't know what you're trying to pull here. I'm trying to figure out if you're being serious when you suggest Alberta vote liberal in order to get our conservative voices heard and dealt with, or if you're making a joke. It seems like a joke to me, either way.

On many issues, there is not much difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I think Alta would be better off trying to influence Liberal policies from within the party.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If you're arguing for proportional representation then, yes, I would agree.

Certainly not, at least not for the house.