In the next election lets vote directly for the PM
It is not clear who should lead this country, the Conservatives or an
opposition coalition. During this debate you hear the claim that
Canadians decided their government during the last election, isn’t that
what elections are for?
But whom did Canadians choose to govern?
Harper says himself but his opponents say only one in four Canadians
voted for him yet a Liberal+NDP combination does not have the support
of one in two voters.
When Canadians vote are they voting only
for their representative? Are they picking a Prime Minister? Or are
they indicating a preference for a party? Or perhaps it is a mix of the
three. We just don’t know and so the result is open to political
manipulation over the heads of citizens. Will our leader be Harper,
Dion, perhaps Layton or as yet some unspecified future Liberal Leader?
And of course while all of this is going on government is paralyzed.
We at the Atlantica Party say citizens directly elect their Prime Minister/Premier.
atlantic great idea. Is this a change in our consitution or a simple legislative change?
It would be a change in the constitution. Oh, and in our entire parliamentary system - i.e. it would no longer BE a parliamentary system.
But hey, that's okay. Let's yankee-fy Canada completely. Better yet, why not just become a US colony?
Down here in Atlantica, i'd just as soon give that idea a soak in the harbour.
Actually its a dumb idea. The US system is in total political gridlock 90% of the time because of the fixed election dates (more people are campaigning more of the time -- the president is a "lame duck" for two years out of every four) or because the executive is hamstrung by a legislature which opposes it.
If you wanted to do something you could get rid of the GG, and just have the parliment vote directly for the cabinet. You could get rid of confidence motions, and just allow the opposition to vote down the government, then the election of a new government would be automatic. If it is impossible to form a government, then an election would be called.
That is a basic outline. There would be details.
Michelle, technically a parliamentary system can allow for the direct election of PMs. Israel is a good example. That being said, a direct election of the PM presupposes coalition governments...
The scary part of that idea is that S. Harper was way ahead in the polls on the leadership question before the last election.
Michelle suggests that a directly elected Prime Minister would be a bad thing. The suggested reason: it would make our system more similar to the US system: "But hey, that's okay. Let's yankee-fy Canada completely. Better yet, why not just become a US colony?"
I agree with the conclusion: I'm inclined against directly elected PMs. But I strongly disagree with the form of argument: "Proposal X would make Canada more similar to the US. Therefore we should not implement Proposal X." If a serious proposal is up for debate (e.g., an elected Prime Minister, abolition of the Senate, a directly elected Senate, proportional representation in the house, replacing the Queen as head of state by a directly elected president, bicameral systems in the provinces, etc.), then the proposal should be debated on its own merits, regardless of whether or not it would make our system more (or less) similar to the US system. The mere fact that X would make our system more (or less) similar in some respects to the US system is an argument neither for nor against X.
For example, I would favour replacing the Queen as the head of state by an elected, mostly ceremonial, president. The president could act as our head of state, and assume the duties of the monarch (duties usually performed by the GG). Many countries have such presidents: India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Iceland (and that's just the I countries). Granted, having an elected president (even a primarily ceremonial president) would make us a little bit more similar to the US than we are now. But this is not an argument against the proposal. There are, of couse, arguments against instituting such a proposal: the main argument, I think, is that opening up constitutional debates tends to have bad and unpredictable effects on Canada. This would also be one argument against trying to institute a directly elected PM.
Back to the thread subject: non sequitur claims that, "a direct election of the PM presupposes coalition governments..." This is, more or less, right. You could have a directly elected PM without a coalition government, of course, since the directly elected PM might be from a party that also has a majority in the house. But separating the election of the PM from the election of the local candidate will increase the frequency with which the PM is from a party that has less than the majority of the seats in the house (even if some other party does have that majority). A scenario with Jack Layton as directly elected PM in a majority Conservative house is not entirely impossible. In such cases, we would have interesting (if not unstable) coalition governments.
Ahead in the polls, but still under 40%. In most presidential systems, a candidate requires 50% + 1 vote to be elected president.
I see nothing to be gained by such a change. Neither, it seems, does theatlanticaparty, as he certainly didn't explain any advantage to it.
Interesting proposal. But what if we elected a majority of NDP MPs and elected Stephen Harper as PM?
Although I think it's a bad idea, it would not require an amendment to the Constitution. The PM is not mentioned in the Constitution, and s/he has no particular rights or duties (or even existence) that couldn't be altered by statute.
Unionist, I think maybe this would be a change in the constitution, even though, as you say, "The PM is not mentioned in the Constitution."
At the outset, I grant both my ignorance and my dubious use of Wikipedia as a source. But here goes.
Apparently, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged the existence of an unwritten constitution as well as a written constitution: "The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."
Among these unwritten sources of constitutional law, the Wikipedia article on the Canadian Constitution cites Constitutional Conventions: "Constitutional conventions form part of the Constitution, but they are not legally enforceable. They include the existence of the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Cabinet, the fact that the Governor General is required to give assent to Bills, and the requirement that the Prime Minister call an election upon losing a vote of non-confidence." According to the Wikipedia article on Constitutional Conventions, "Constitutional conventions are not obligatory, but are in effect procedural agreements to which all sides adhere. ... Whatever enforceability they have comes from history, tradition, symbolism and their cross-party support."
It's pretty weird. As noted, it is merely a convention that the Governor General will grant royal assent to any bill passed by parliament. Nothing in the written constitution requires the GG to do so, and presumably she could, in accord with the written constitution and against no laws, refuse to grant royal assent to a bill passed by parliament. Would it require a constitutional amendment to require the GG to grant royal assent to all bills passed by parliament? Or would mere statute suffice? I'm not sure.
Altering the office of the PM in the proposed way might not require an amendment, but certainly would be a change in the unwritten part of our constitution. Probably not something you want done by mere statute.
My only small point was that there is no law stopping Parliament from calling an election for PM, or even (this might actually make sense) picking one themselves.
In most presidential systems, a candidate requires 50% + 1 vote to be elected president.
Are those US-type situations with two parties or are there countries with several candidates where one is able to get over 50%? I think with 5 candidates (counting Duceppe and May) if would be very rare for one to get over 50 %.
Also, in this hypothetical vote directly for our PM scenario, would people outside Quebec be able to vote for Duceppe? He always does a good job at the debates and a lot of people remark they would vote for the Bloc if they could!
The Atlantic Party is moving to the next Prime Ministers riding
It would be a change in the constitution. Oh, and in our entire parliamentary system - i.e. it would no longer BE a parliamentary system.
But hey, that's okay. Let's yankee-fy Canada completely. Better yet, why not just become a US colony?
I'm down with that. They already own most of our resources and are dictating national energy policy to Canadians as it is now. I wanted to flush my vote down the drain for either the socialist party or Ralph Nader anyway while really, REALLY big money oligarchs tap all two presidential candidates well before voters even have a peekaboo. Might as well just ship all 19 to 21 year-olds off to the latest quagmire now for Crazy George and company's sake.
In most presidential systems, a candidate requires 50% + 1 vote to be elected president.
Are those US-type situations with two parties or are there countries with several candidates where one is able to get over 50%? I think with 5 candidates (counting Duceppe and May) if would be very rare for one to get over 50 %.
Also, in this hypothetical vote directly for our PM scenario, would people outside Quebec be able to vote for Duceppe? He always does a good job at the debates and a lot of people remark they would vote for the Bloc if they could!
Americans don't vote directly for their President either. They have this funny thing called the electoral college. Often the winner gets less than 50 % of the popular vote and on occasion the loser wins the popular vote. It's only in majoritarian systems (run-off vote or preferential ballot) that the winner gets over 50.
We are proposing
a set of reforms at least at the provincial level (but they also apply
federally) to change 'how things work' with direct election of the
Premier/PM as one of those reforms. What we are proposing is not a
presidential system, the Queen is the head of State, the LGG/GG retains
all the usual powers etc etc
In brief
1. Separation of the
government from the legislature, that means getting rid of the
confidence style of government that has held NS and Canada back.
2. Direct election of the leader for a fixed term.
3. Selection of a cabinet (with the house approval) from outside the house.
Our antiquated Westminster system no longer works effectively especially once there are more than two parties.
It
is hard to imagine anyone defending 'how we do things' here with whole
legislative operation of the country in paralysis since before the last
election clean through to next year!!
You have yet to explain how your proposal is a remedy for the issues you claim are symptomatic of Parliamentary democracy.
OTOH, we have real-world examples of how easily these problems can be eliminated by proportional representation.
Who is we? I didn't know there are Two People in the Atlantic Party.
Do you run candidates? I see Animal Alliance Party, but no Atlantic Party.
Presidents are not needed in a strong party system like the one that exists in Canada. The problem of weak party discipline in congress means that individual congressmen suck up to narrow special interests far more than in our system. Harper isn't a nice guy, but imagine if each MP were elected largely on a personal vote - you could have Rob Anders as a critical swing voter on bills. Party leaders have a strong incentive to win over marginal districts, driving them to the centre, individual members have a strong incentive to win their district. In a congress-type system, you need a president who has incentives to serve the national interest because he/she is elected by everybody (of course not all states matter equally). That is probably the strongest argument for a president (in fact the president exists for that reason - to address the problems with the articles of confederation that preceded the constitution), and it doesn't apply in Canada.
Canada's institutional problem is this: multiparty westminster systems don't work (let me say that I don't consider Canada a multiparty system until 1993, and India doesn't really count because it still has two strongly dominant parties). They don't work because minority governments require compromise, but FPTP encourages adversarial politics. Why? Because small changes in voter preference yield large shifts in the number of seats. So lets say Party A and Party B form a coalition when A is at 25% and B is at 25% of the seats (lets say they each have 25 seats) and votes in parliament. A shift occurs where A moves up to 30% support and B to 20% support. In a PR system, this could be handled - a 5 point swing might mean a few more cabinet seats for A but the coalition would generally remain stable. In FPTP a 5 point swing could produce seat outcomes like A: 40 B: 10. A would be likely to back out of the coalition and go to an election.
We have two choices - rollback of the multiparty nature of Canada. We can do that with election finance reform, which I believe to be Harper's main aim. No subsidy would decimate the Bloc and stunt the Greens. Raising the spending cap from 20 million would have a large impact too. However, once any of those parties die, you actually probably get a more galvanized left. So you can solve that by uniting the left as well, though I think this is tricky.
The second choice is electoral reform. PR could fix it, but so could STV, which I think is probably a more likely sell. Look at the reaction Canadians had to the notion of "government formed in backrooms". We have been inculcated in the logic of a majoritarian party system.
The only problem with Canada's Parliamentary system is that it was intended to prevent the kind of democracy that most Canadians envision, or have deluded themselves into thinking exists.
It's a mechanism for ensuring that the Family Compact, or, if you like, our Kleptocracy, is never significantly challenged.
As long as we are just supposin', why not just suppose doing away with elections altogether, and select representatives by lot?
This week further enforces my belief that Canada is a great country in spite of it's leadership, certainly not because of it.
Think how good things could be if ordinary people actually ran the joint.
If there's one good thing about our obsolete electoral system, it's that we're not voting like Americans do for all of two presidential candidates funded by billionaire interests.
Herr Steveler said: "The Canadian government has always been chosen by the people." That's Harper lying to Canadians again. He's counting on Canadians who've learned their electoral politics from watching U.S. television. The Harpers are far more worried about losing their jobs than they are of tens of thousands of Canadians who'ev already lost their's. Harper should be given the heave-ho. He's not a leader. He's a shameless toady to the vicious empire.