Canadian Democracy

I would like to prefix this with a few things:
1: My spelling and grammar are not all that good, so please comment on the content rather then the writing mistakes.
2: every time you see a # sign its just because I haven’t done the math yet or decided on the best percentage.
3: I am only allowed to post 4000 per post so it might take a post or two.
4: This is meant to open a discussion, please let me know what you like don’t like, what you think will work, what you think wont work. Also if you are interested in making it a reality you can get a hold of me at:
[email protected]

Canadian Democracy

The objective of democracy is that each and every eligible adult within the nation have an equal and fair voice in the actions, morals and standards of the nation. In Direct Democracy this is achieved by allowing each and every adult to vote on each and every issues thus letting the people express their views and values. It is obvious that in a society as complex, busy and populated as today’s modern nation this form of government is not viable. Today’s democratic nations have since turned to Representational Democracy. The idea of representational democracy is that citizens are guped, usually based on their geographic location, and then as a whole elect one of their peers to represent and to vote for them.

The Canadian Parliament is based off the British government and is made up of three branches. The first being the Sovereign, the Sovereign is a left over of Canada’s colonial past when it was still under the control of the British crown. Although in theory the Sovereign holds unprecedented power in Canadian politics any attempt by the Governor General, who represents the British Monarch in Canada, to realistically use there powers would be struck down by Canadian courts or by the rest of the Parliament. This leaves the Sovereign as a figurehead whose duties are completely ceremonial in nature.

The second branch on the Canadian Parliament is the Senate. Based on the British concept of Lords the Senate in theory is meant to perform many of the same actions as the House of Commons. Because the Senate is appointed instead of being elected it rarely if ever challenges a bill passed by the House of Commons. In fact it is with in the governments powers to bypass the Senates approval. In effect the Senate is a over paid body of government officials whose sole job is to give the thumbs up to whatever the House proposes, and if they say no? They can be ignored.

This leaves us with the last branch of Parliament, the House of Commons. The house is made up of Canadian Citizens elected in the spirit of representational democracy to represent the constituents of their riding. Members are elected using the “first past the post” system. In this system each candidate is presented to the voting public and who ever garners the most votes it elected to parliament wail all other votes are disregarded. This is important because although it is not a prerequisite of running, most candidates are members of a political party. Many times when voters are casting there ballet they are voting more for the political platform they believe in then the for a specific person to represent them. This means that when all the votes that were not cast for the winning party are discarded, the opinions and beliefs of many times more then half the riding are discarded as well. This leads to high levels of voter apathy and the common assumption that ones vote doesn’t really matter. This is not the only serious flaw in the electoral system as it stands now the second is not mentioned often although it is far more insidious and destructive to the very nature of democratic societies. As it stands now when your average person or riding elects a MP one of two things happen, one: they are a high profile MP, two: they are a low profile MP.

In the first case the MP would be given a cabinet job such as Minister of Justice, or in the case of an opposition party they would become the Justice critic. This job takes up a huge amount of time for the MP meaning they are not effectively communicating to there constituents what the government is doing and conversely what the people of there riding want of the government. In the second case the MP becomes what is called a backbench witch is a nice way of saying they are a seat filler, they do nothing but vote the way they are told by their party and are therefore not able to truly act as the voice of people they are representing. Now lets take a moment to remember the entire point of representational democracy. The people we elect to public office are supposed to be our connection to government informing us of what the government is doing and how it affects us and making sure our values and opinions are being voiced. The act of connecting and representing constituents should not be election time only activity.


A New Option:
For these reasons we have come up with a outline for a new form of government. In the new form of government that we are proposing there is no need for the Sovereign, although if it pleases the Canadian population to retain the Sovereign and its figurehead duties this can be accommodated. The senate would be abolished. This leaves the House of Commons to operate much as it already dose as the sole body of federal Canadian law making.
The House of Commons will be made up of two groups. The first, which we will call P1, will hold 49% of the voting power in the House and will be made up of a number of federal political parties. The second group, P2, will hold the reaming 51% of political sway in the House and will be made up of individual Canadian citizens elected to represent their riding.

P1:
The P1 would be made up of a cross section of different federal Canadian parties. Each parties representation within the P1 would be directly proportional to there shear of the popular vote in the last federal election. (eg. if the Liberals won 30% of the popular vote in the last election they would hold 30% control of the P1’s 49% of the House of Commons)
The party with the highest percentage of the popular vote would form the government. No post-election coalitions may be formed in the attempt to form a government. The Party that forms the government will have a leader who would become the Canadian Prime minister and a cabinet who would become the ministers of Justice, Labour ect. Each opposition party would also have a leader and a cabinet who would act as a shadow government and critic.



At the outset of an election each party would be obligated to publicly post who would be filling what positions if the party were elected to power. All choices would be binding and any changes a party would like to make to their roster post-election would be subject to open and public scrutiny and explanation.
During a vote in the House of Commons the Party leader would cast their parties percentage of the vote.

P2:
The P2 will consist of Canadian Citizens elected by their peers in ridings across the country. Members of the P2 may not belong to a political party; therefore they will not be subject to party wip and will only be accountable to the people living within the riding that elected them. There primary obligation will be to relay to their constituents what the government is doing and how it will affect them as well as to bring their constituents concerns and opinions to the attention of the House. Members of the P2 will act as the direct contact between their constituents and the government. It is the responsibility and possible a running platform of each P2 member to find an effective way of communicating with their constituents.

Elections:

Elections for the P1 and the P2 are separate, despite this it is not inappropriate for the two campaigns to overlap.

P1 Elections:
Any Canadian Citizen can put forward a party to be considered in a general election so long as they are able to produce upon registration a clear platform and a list of eligible candidates to, if elected to government act as ministers or if elected to opposition to sit as a shadow government. Only parties that have achieved more then #% of the popular vote will be allotted a position in the P1. The government formed from the P1 party that achieves the highest popular vote is depended on the Confidence of the entire House of Commons to stay in power. Meaning if the government puts forward a bill that is central to its platform (eg. Budget) and it fails then the P1 must dissolve for a federal election. After 5 consecutive years of rule with the confidence of the house the P1 must dissolve for an election.

P2 Elections:
Members of the P2 are elected to 5-year terms but a by-election can be called at any time if a petition is presented and verified that contains the signatures of #% of the ridings population. Any Canadian Citizen can run for a seat in the P2 so long as they can present a petition that can be verified that contains # signatures of people from the given riding. If the P1 dissolves due to a vote of no confidence the P2 is not obliged to dissolve as well.



Law Making:

Any member or party in the House of Commons may enter bill to be considered so long as they have the signed support of #% of the house. This means that any party already hold more then #% of the house can introduce bills at will but lesser parties or P2 members must garner the required support from other parties or P2 members. Supporting a bill to be introduced dose not bind the party or P2 member to vote for it after reading.



thats all

You have obviously put some thought onto this and for that I applaud you but I have some questions before proceeding with any pertinent comments.

For these reasons we have come up with a outline for a new form of government

Who is this we you mention when you propose this theory? Is it you and your friends or do you have some other affiliation?

Any Canadian Citizen can put forward a party to be considered in a general election so long as they are able to produce upon registration a clear platform and a list of eligible candidates to, if elected to government act as ministers or if elected to opposition to sit as a shadow government.

How is this possible? Does the party chose these people then if elected, those chosen get seats according to the percentages? What if the number of proposed minister's/critics outnumbers the possible seats for that party? Do all parties elected with lesser percentages then the winners have critics or just the second choice party?


I'll start with those and go from there. I am looking forward to your responses.

Who is this we you mention when you propose this theory? Is it you and your friends or do you have some other affiliation?t

The genesis of this was a friend of mine and I talking about how the Ontario referendum failed. How the system that was proposed there wasn’t as fully developed as it should have been. How it didn’t fix many key issues that exist in the Canadian political system.
My plan is to polish the proposal as much as possible by gathering critics from likeminded ppl. I am very mobile and I plan to after a re-write or two approach as many different political science professors as possible and present it to there classes and gather more criticism and make more twicks. After that and maybe trying to get a petition of ppl interested in changing our system present it to parliament . . . but that is a long way off.

How is this possible? Does the party chose these people then if elected, those chosen get seats according to the percentages? What if the number of proposed minister's/critics outnumbers the possible seats for that party? Do all parties elected with lesser percentages then the winners have critics or just the second choice party?

In an election the each party that wanted to run would need to produce a list of who would be filling what jobs (minister jobs and the PM) if they were elected to power. If they do get to power the choices they made before the election are binding. Every party who wants to run will need to provide a complete roster of people who will if elected take those positions, even if the party has no chance in hell of winning. As long as your party gets more then #% of the popular vote (I was thinking 3% is looking good) then they get a place in the P1.
The party who forms the government will receive enough money to pay all there ministers (I think there are 30 or so ministries). The official opposition will receive enough money to pay all there ministers to act as critic. All other parties will receive funding based on their percentage of the popular vote.

There are no “seats” in the P1, each party leader holds a percentage of the house based on what percentage of the Canadian population voted for them in the election. During a vote the leader of each party would cast the their entire percentage of the vote witch ever way the party had decided on.

Ok, keep hitting me with quesitons

Thanks for the clarifications.


Ok, so in essence, only the party leaders hold a "seat" in the parliament.

What about debate on the relevant issues? How do the members of each party discuss the proposed bills if they can't sit together in the house? Would there be some form of formal debate so that citizens could be informed?

You say that no coalitions could be formed but your model for a P2 is ideally set up for just such a thing to happen. I know you said that this coalition block is on the P1 but I think it would have to extend to P2 also, no? The idea of people joining together to get bills passed is unavoidable in a parliamentary system. Could you elaborate more on how to make the members of Parliament, whether P1 or P2, more accountable for there voting history?


Also, with removal of the Queens representative in Canada, does this also include Canada leaving the commonwealth?

double post

[edit on 15-11-2007 by GAOTU789]

As much as I hate to say it, the American style system seems to be the way to go here. While your system is kind of nice, it would be too hard to get people to change. I would like to see it a hybrid of the American system and the current system:
1. We vote for our MP just like we do now, these people represent us in the House.
2. We vote for our Prime Minister at the same time.
3. We elect our Senate.

This to me would put alot more emphasis on the individual MP, and take alot of steam out of party politics, which to me, is one of the biggest problems with our system right now. Let the Prime Minister pick his Ministers as he sees fit, the same way he does now. It does not alienate the independent runners, and makes sure that everyone countrywide is properly represented.

This way seems to add in many more checks and balances to the system, while not completely overhauling it. It would certainly eradicate us of the elected despotism we have now.