babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
My apologies - I misread your post to mean that the Peace (Treaty) of Westphalia was as superficial as Trudeau's bringing home the Constitution. I should have read more carefully.
For Canada to have a Constitution is a good thing.
Bizarrely it was a turning point in history that failed to "turn."
Normally drafting and ratifying a Constitution is a means of establishing oneself as a sovereign nation-state, where the supreme law of the land is the Constitution and the supreme lawmaker is the national government.
Abolition of the suzereignty of the British crown over and the full sovereignty and independence of Canada as a nation-state should have naturally followed.
Trudeau was a 'conservative revolutionary' who seems to have taken the easiest route to establish the legitimacy of the Constitution.
It was a case of one step forward: ratifying the supreme national law of the land, the Constitution with (for the sake of simplicity I'll call it a) "bill" of rights, and one step back: further entrenching the crown/monarch of Britain as Canada's head of state; thereby denying Canada's full sovereignty and existence as a fully independent nation-state.
Please forgive me as a foreigner (I'm American) but I just can't figure this out.
I just can't 'square the logical circle' on this one.
Was this some kind of 'Canadian coup?'
I don''t want to seem disrespectful, because I do respect your opinion about the monarchy, even though my feelings about it are quite different from yours.
But your being an American might explain some of the differences; I know there are some things about American political culture that are completely foreign from our ways of doing it and seem quite bizarre to me. Not to say there aren't Canadians who feel the same way about the monarchy as you do. I know there are plenty.
But I think the arguments you are going to make are in part shaped by where you are coming from. I can think of plenty of good reasons to not have the monarchy. THe notion that she has absolute power is not one of them because I can see that in a practical sense that is not true, and for that reason it is not an important issue for me.
Canada gained its political autonomy from Britain - primarily in the early to mid 1800s - in a way that was quite different than the U.S. The step that you are wondering about was not one which was at all necessary for Trudeau and the heads of the provinces to make. If fact, the negotiiations were enough of a game of brinkmanship as it was. I doubt the deal would have succeeded if for some reason becoming a republic was part of the bargan.
I have never made that claim - that the crown of Britain is an absolute monarchy.
In other threads I have made the argument that a "limited, (or) Constitutional monarchy" is a contradiction, an oxymoron: It is not possible for a hereditary and therefore unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic and inegalitarian institution to logically or realistically exist within a democratic society.
The claim that I am making in this thread is that for Canada to have a foreigner and a foreign institution - the monarch and crown of Britain - as its head of state means that Canada lacks full sovereignty and is not a fully independent nation-state.
There was the BNA Act (the British North America Act) of 1867.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it established Canada as a Dominion. What the actual significance of that is (to me is unclear.)
The problem with it is that it was an act that was passed by the British government for Canada. It was another one of those British laws (like the Act of Settlement) that was involuntarily inherited by Canada.
Here's the timeline I use to determine where Canada starts to gain greater (again not complete sovereignty and indepenent nation-statehood, though):
The British crown, as represented by the current serving monarch, is still the (de jure) Commander-in-Chief of Canada's armed forces.
In 1898, Britain started a colonial war against the Orange Free State and the Transvaal (the Boer War 1898 - 1902.) The Canadian government, like a loyal satrap called for Canadian volunteers to go fight in this war. Anglo Canada jubilantly responded to this call. French Canada (mostly Quebec) was vehemently opposed to this war, saw it as a means of English Canada to subsume Quebec and French Canadians within English Canada.
In WW1, when Britain went to war, Canada, the Dominions and colonies were automatically at war. As you know, sentiments concerning the war and the 1916 draft were again salient differences between English and French Canadians.
The first time when Canada (and the Dominions) had an opportunity to become fully sovereign nation-states according to an international treaty was in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster.
As I mentioned above, the Statute of Westminster, inline (it seems) with the principle of sovereignty established as far back as the Treaty of Westphalia, established the principle/precedent that Britain could nor would no longer, enact legislation and laws for the Dominions (the Irish Free State, the Union of South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and that the Dominions could amend or repeal British laws.
Right there, Canada or any of the Dominions could have become fully sovereign nation-states by repealing the Settlement Act, for example.
In WW2 Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King waited a week before declaring war and entering Canada into the war. This was a significant step toward greater sovereignty as it established the principle that although the British monarch is the de jure Commander-in-Chief of Canada's armed forces, the Prime Minister is the de facto Commander-in-Chief and Canada would no longer go to war automatically when Britain did.
History repeated itself concerning sentiment over the war and the 1943 draft between English and French Canadians.
Of the five original Dominions, look at how the Republic of Ireland (1947) and Republic of South Africa (1960) became fully sovereign nation-states.
At the time of the Constitutional debates, ratification of the Constitution required a 7 of 10 province majority. Unanimous consent was something that came later.
If the requirement to ratify the Constitution was the signature of the Prime Minister and at least 7 Premiers and the queen was simply not consulted (her royal assent was not sought) then perhaps Quebec would also have ratified the Constitution with its signature.
If at the time the process was opened up to the Canadian public through a referendum that asked:
Do you wish to abolish or retain the monarchy, YES or NO?
1. YES, the monarchy should be abolished.
2. NO, the monarchy should be retained.
My guess is there might have been enough Indigenous, Metis, French, Indo, Chinese, Asian and non-British decendant Canadians who would have voted "YES" to abolishing the monarchy and thus Canada's full sovereignty and independence as a nation-state might have been accomplished as a 'quiet' revolution.
My focus, Frmrsldr. was on your main question, which I took to be why Canada was not made a republic when the constitution was repatriated. My answer - because it was not a question which was relevant to what they were trying to do. It was a notion out of left field which would probably scuttled it completely - considering they barely got it done at all, and left one-quarter of the population - Quebec - out of the deal.
I am aware of the BNA Act - which was an act of the elected British parliament, not a unilateral royal decree - and the fact that Canada was drawn into World War One automatically - also after it was declared by the British parliament, not decided by the King. Those are two of the reasons why I did not say the job was finished by the turn of the 1900s.
But the real first step to autonomy was the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada in the 1830s and the formation of democratic and responsible government in the 1840s - against the will of the some (not all) British Governors, and the Family Compact.
And also by simply treating as irrelevalt some of the British rules which simply did not apply here (like the one making English the only official language in the House) and conducting their affairs the way they wanted - in both French and English.
In the same way, I appreciate your position, but the fact is that in practical terms the monarchy does not have all this power you claim even though on paper it seems so because of the queen's position as head of state.
It is similar to if I said your electoral college decided who was president, not the voters - if I understand your system correctly.
I did read a funny story last week at the time the Queen visited Dublin. Morrissey - the pop singer - said the queen was a fascist because she should have removed Margaret Thatcher as PM during the horrible violence and abuses that took place in Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain in the 1980s.
The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent areas or regions within the U.S. from having greater influence over others in electing the President.
Its purpose is to avoid what occurred in Canada's most recent election: Urban areas getting more seats (for the Conservatives) than rural areas, B.C. and Alberta getting more seats than Sask. and Man.
I realize that the British crown/monarch has very little power. The little power that I ascribe to it, I speak of in vague and general terms.
That is not the focus of my argument in this thread (nor has it ever been anywhere else.)
In this thread, the focus of my argument revolves around the questions:
1. What is sovereignty?
2. What is a (fully independent) nation-state?
In concrete terms, the answer may be found in posing the questions:
What would it take for Tibet to be a sovereign nation-state?
What would it take for Gaza and the West Bank (i.e., Palestine) to be a sovereign nation-state?
What would it take for Quebec to be a sovereign nation-state?
Is Kosovo a sovereign nation-state? If so or if not, why?
For me sovereignty is a government and a people/culture that have complete control of their future and destiny. No foreign government or head of state has direct legal jurisdiction to make laws or decisions or to influence or affect laws or decisions or where consultation or request or "assent" is required for some laws or decisions or is simply the head of state of another government, people, culture or nation-state.
It doesn't matter how much or how little power or how real or symbolic this power, position or title is. The mere fact of this iniquitous relationship is enough to limit and reduce the sovereignty of the subordinate country.
In the case of Canada, a foreign head of state is also Canada's head of state. For as long as this condition exists, Canada lacks full sovereignty and is not a fully independent nation-state.
Then according to you, none of the EU states are sovereign
No.
Here's why:
Global organizations like the EU or the UN or NATO are not heads of state of any one nation-state.
They are organizations of equal partners that nation-states freely decided to join and from which they can freely choose to leave. The rules, laws, etc., were mutually formulated and agreed upon by the members as equals. The fact that these rules, laws and conventions have any force is due to member states agreeing to observe and follow them.
Like any club, there can also be rogue members that if they don't like the rules at a given time, they can simply ignore them, even though they participated in drafting the rules and laws and may have signed or ratified them.
Look at the U.S.A./American Empire and how it ignores international laws when it comes to waging wars of Empire.
Although according to the Statute of Westminster and rules and conventions of the (British) Commonwealth of Nations, Canada can abolish the (British) monarchy if it so chooses, the fact that the British crown/monarchy is Canada's head of state was never a compact or agreement that Canada originally freely entered and thus was and is an iniquitous relationship between the two countries and reduces Canada's sovereignty and independence.
Hmm not exactly true. Un or NATO agreed but not the EU. the EU specifically takes away a lot of the decision making of a sovereign state tho they did willingly give that up like we willingly accepted the Queen as head of state. But many a unpopular law or rule and even border security has been dealt to member states even tho they would never do so themselves. If you looked through some history books about the period there was considerable debate about the place of the monarchy here
The EU has two necessary conditions that make it different from the cases of Canada, Palestine and Tibet:
1. Equality of the members.
2. Voluntary entering, exiting and respecting the laws and conventions of the Union by its members.
The fact that the EU is able to enforce its laws and conventions is by virtue of the fact that members on an ongoing basis have freely and voluntarily agreed to give up some of their individual liberty and sovereignty to enjoy the greater collective good(s) they deem they benefit from membership and compliance. If a nation(s) feel that compliance or membership is more harmful or more burdensome than beneficial, they can suggest changes, engage in noncompliance, threaten to or actually leave.
This makes the EU like the UN and NATO but distinguishes it from the Canada, Palestine and Tibet examples.
When was Canada given the opportunity as an equal partner to freely choose to accept the British crown/monarch as its head of state?
Never.
By the 1931 Statute of Westminster, Canada was given the liberty to amend or repeal British (involuntary inherited) laws which could lead to Canada choosing to abolish the British crown/monarchy.
This is like arresting innocent people for political crimes. Then decades later, the authority tells them that what they did is no longer a crime but instead of giving them liberty merely offer them the choice of liberty or continued incarceration. The original crime or wrong (initial unjust arrest and incarceration) was never accounted for and amended.
Some will choose liberty. Others suffering the malady of the Stockholm syndrome may choose continued incarceration. ALL deserve liberty.
In the case of Palestine, what happens when Palestinians protest state of Israel oppression?
Israel state police either assault, arrest or shoot them or state of Israel armed forces wage war against them.
What happens when Chinese authorities see Tibetan citizens as a threat? Tibetan citizens are spied upon, beaten, shot or arrested.
These cases are different from the EU in that they lack equality, consultation on a basis of equality and freedom of choice for all parties concerned.
@ Frmrsldr
Well, one could say your electoral college was designed to make sure that the people didn't make the "wrong" decision by making sure the final decision was in the hands of an elite body. That was a bit closer to the framers' original intent. And the original imbalance it was intended to correct - it was indeed an urban-rural issue, but the real problem was the great number of people who could not vote in the south because they were slaves.
And correct me if I am wrong (and I may be) but as far as I know the electors are still technically free to vote for whomever they wish. In other words, your president is not democratically elected at all.
And although the electors have traditionally gone with the will of the people, there have been cases where the president was not chosen by popular vote (George Bush, for one),
Of course we both know that practically speaking it is a fairly democratic (if archaic) system that for the most part works. and not too many people down there are breaking down the doors to change it. But technically your head of state and executive branch isn't democratically elected at all. Near as I can tell, anyway, and please correct me if I am wrong.
The parallels with our monarchy is quite siimilar, actually.
As for some of your other points. They may be important to you (and indeed they may be important to some people up here) but I'm not sure the fact we have a head of state who lives in another country is a defining point of political sovereignty. It certainly is not so just because you say it is.
Like your quaint system it may seem a bit odd, but it doesn't give a foreign government control over ours, and frankly, when I think of things in our political system I would want to change, the monarchy is pretty far down the list - below the senate, below proportional representation, and even below getting the damned cameras out of the house of commons.
No, most definitely it would not have been the framers' original intent for the electoral college to be an elitist check and balance against the people.
As I said, the original imbalance it was intended to correct was areas and regions having undue influence over others. In practice however, this has never actually happened.
The issue of slaves being disfranchized and "three-fifths of a person" has nothing to do with the electoral college. It had to do with the number of lawmakers sent to Congress prior to the Civil War. The population of the North being greater than the South, Congress and the White House wanted there to be close parity between North and South in Congress.
When one Presidential candidate wins by at least a discernable majority, the electoral college doesn't serve any purpose.
It's only when there is a razor thin close election when the electoral college serves its purpose.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know there isn't any country or society that currently practices direct democracy - like in the Ancient Greek city states where every eligible male was automatically a member of the government and had a direct voice in how they were governed. It's all indirect democracy where eligible people, if they so choose (to vote, that is) elect others to represent them. The electoral college does make things a little more indirect but it came into being as an intended fair and egalitarian means of deciding close Presidential elections. In Canada, those who vote for the "Prime Minister" is limited to those in that "MP's" riding. After an election, it's the party that forms the government that choses the Prime Minister. In a close race, the Guvnah (Genral) enters the selection process.
So yeah, you stand corrected.
That's where you're categorically wrong.
The parallels would exist only insofar if Canada were a nonmonarchial or Republican Westminster democracy like the Republics of Ireland, South Africa or the nation-state of India, for example.
The President is indirectly elected by the people to represent them, ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE and the AMERICAN NATION.
The British monarch represents its own interests and holds all the powers, priviledges, rights and entitlements by virtue of birth and transfers them onto their offspring or nearest relevant family member at death, incapacity or Parliamentary 'displeasure' (i.e., some wrongdoing was committed.) As I've said ad nauseum to some by now, the British monarchy is hereditary which means it is existentially (i.e., by virtue of what it is or by its very nature) unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic and inegalitarian. The monarch, although not a Canadian citizen, but by virtue of birth, when he or she accedes to the throne, gets some title that automatically confers suzerainty over Canada on this person.
What I have done is come up with definitions of key concepts like "sovereignty" and "independent nation-state" to show how having a foreign head of state prevents Canada from being a fully independent nation-state and from having full sovereignty.
If you wish to show the fallacy in my logical reasoning, then you will have to establish how Canada or a country can be a sovereign nation-state while at the same time having a foreign head of state.
Think Palestine (Gaza and West Bank), Tibet, Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and pre-independence Kosovo.
I'm not so sure I am corrected, as you did not address my main point.
As far as I know the electors in your college do have the freedom - technically - to vote any way they want, At least you did not indicate that I was mistaken there.
Similarly our governor general - technically - has the power to refuse the passage of legislation by witholding his or her signature.
Of course neither happens, because both your electors and our governors general almost always follow strict protocol. But the fact is, both are systems where the people technically do not have the final say even though that technicality is never exploited, and therefore it is not an issue.
So whatever your complaints about the monarchy - and again, I respect your position on that - your notion that it undermines democracy is a red herring. In practical terms, it has almost no effect on our democracy whatsoever,
I don't take your analysis of "constitutional monarchy" as a serious point, because as we have hashed out a few times before, the British parliament has been the undisputed final authority in that country for over 300 years. THey hand-picked the family which now sits on the throne. They set the rules of succession, They forbid the monarch from being a Catholic and the monarch must obey.
And you can make up whatever definitions you want for "nation state". Who we have as our head of state is completely irrelevant to our sovereignty, The only relevant point is that our government's power to conduct its affairs is not controlled by any outside government,
Now that does raise the question of some things - like the WTO, or other treaties - but the monarchy? Sorry, but there is no practical power there, and any power which used to exist was that of the British parliament.
And not to dwell on the electoral college (because I am sure you do know more about it than I do, and it's not directly relevant to my point) but the wikipedia listing on it specifically mentions the percentage of slaves in the south as one of the reasons why they used the system they did. And electoral college seats are based on the number of representatives in congress, no? so the 3/5 compromise actually was relevant.
But again, that was not my main point - just questioning your assertion that it had to do with urban-rural imbalance.
Some people fail to see what hypocrites they are: Who I am referring to are those British who wax on and on about what a democratic society they live in. Their so-called democratic society has a head of state that possesses all its powers, priviledges, rights and entitlements by virtue of heredity. Democracy is supposed to be government for, by and of the people. It is supposed to be elected, representative and egalitarian. How can it be when you have a family that has power it inherits, is superior to everyone else and only represents its own interests?
It can't.
O.K. So let's see, we have a bunch of British aristocratic twits who couldn't handle Britain being a republic. So they go slumming around looking for another monarch and made two royal losers, William and Mary who lived in an orange colored house in Holland, the king and queen of Britain.
Now why do you suppose they did that and not find a British Jane Jones or Samuel Smith, someone who was as 'common as dirt' and elect them to be king and queen and then hold successive elections of other such commoners for king and queen every 4 to 6 years?
I'll tell you why. Because from Magna Carta on, barons and Parliament, etc., didn't add, give or confer powers to the monarch. The process was a negative one. It took powers away that existed a priori, i.e., were pre-existing. That is why, when Britain was without a monarchy these clowns had to find a family that was of royalty. Because they had pre-existing, a priori, pre-ordained, god given power, rights and entitlements that gave them legitimacy to be rulers and the head of state. The powers that they lost were taken away by human law, but the powers that they still have were given by "natural" or "divine right." Don't confuse the divine right of kings (to be kings) with absolute monarchy. The only difference is the amount of power, not the pre-ordained, god given nature of those rights and powers.
Imagine what it would look like if, say, the U.S., Russia, China, India and Brazil had the head of state of a foreign country as their head of state.
Yes, the British crown is such a wonderful reminder of Canada's glorious colonial past (and sovereignty and independence as a nation-state.)
Are you an adult?
Because if you are, do you ask your parents if you can watch a PG-13 or Mature or Restricted rated movie? Do you ask your parents for keys to the car on a Friday night? Do you ask your parents if you can stay out on a Friday or Saturday night and drink with your friends?
In 1982, Canada ratified its own Constitution - usually a document of independence. Yet Trudeau had to ask mama's permission if that was alright.
No.
It is persons (delegates) at the state legislature level of government who are members of either the Republican or Democratic parties who are part of the Presidential candidates' nomination committees.
Either wikipedia is wrong
or your understanding of the article is
or perhaps a bit of both.
Again, it has to do with the election of Presidents (especially in razor close elections, where its purpose becomes most obvious.)
Not the election of lawmakers to Congress.
If it did, and the 3/5 compromize had anything to do with it, then the electoral college would have been abolished after the Civil War.
Don't get your head too wrapped around the concept of the urban-rural imbalance. I only pointed it out in the Candian context of this recent election.
In the American context I have only made a non-specific reference to possible regional or area imbalances. So don't get your head too wrapped around the possible urban-rural or North-South imbalances in the U.S. context. Another possible imbalance in the U.S. context could be between New England and the Mid-West, or between California and New York state, for example.
Anyway, I'm not too 'religious' about the electoral college.
If we keep it, I'm fine with that.
If we amend or abolish it, I'm fine with that too.
Funny... that's pretty much how I feel about the monarchy - with two important counter-points.
Having a head of state chosen by partisan election is a bad and ridiculous idea.
And trying to remove the monarchy from our political system and laws is a bit more complicated than you might appreciate. For something which has no effect whatsoever, it would be a colossal waste of time and energy.
And I am not sure what you mean about Trudeau or anyone else asking permission. In practical termts the Canadian and provincial governments don't ask the queen or the british parliament for permission to do anything - ever.
On the other hand, near as I can tell the 200-year old vestigal growth on your political system actually does mean your president isn't chosen democratically. Members of the college are free to choose whomever they want to be president. Does it matter that they have always been nice sports about it and chosen according to the results of your elections? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that a cabal of 500 people has absolute power to choose who runs your executive branch, and exercise veto power over your congress.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_hist...
And the original college was based on number of congressional seats, and therefore weighted by the 3/5 compromise so that southerners got to count the people they had enslaved without actually letting them vote.
If democracy means anything to you don't you think it is worth the effort to get rid of this antiquated, elitist, authoritarian and undemocratic system that essentially controls your government?
Not trying to yank your chain too much Frmrsldr. I do know that in practice your federal elections are more or less democratic - though there is a lot about them, including the fact that each state uses its own system, which is VERY odd and unsettling.
I am just applying the same reasoning to your political system as you are to ours to demonstrate that it is not an accurate reflection of how things really are.
I don't know why everyone's so excited about the monarchy, considering that the strings of power in this country are being pulled in corporate boardrooms in New York and Chicago.
Traîtres! Heureux mai deux quatre.
@ Ward
Yeah.... now there was a guy who wanted absolute monarchy (although he wanted it controlled by Rome).
And al-Q - Precisely.
Maybe frmsldr wants that formalized so thats why he is so fanatical about removing the monarchy, even tho hes not canadian and its really none of his concern. Why does he constantly harp on us over it like we are errant children unable to govern ourselves and the big all knowing americans must tell us how it should be?
You don't consider that in a monarchy, where the head of state regardless of whether the person is a genius, average, a moron, a simpleton or mentally handicapped because that position and its powers, rights, priviledges and entitlements, etc., is hereditary, is not a worse and even more ridiculous idea?
Spoken like a true monarchist/elitist.
What's the matter, don't you trust your fellow citizens expressing their political will by exercising their right to vote? This coming from someone who just above expressed support for Fair Voting or PR, of all people. See the contradiction in that?
Notice how, generally speaking, monarchy and authoritarian, hierarchical, inegalitarian power-based structuring of society tends to predate/preceed democracy.
One might tend to gather from this that democracy, equality and rights-based society tends to be more progressive than monarchic/authoritarian ones.
IF the British crown/monarchy "has no effect whatsoever," THEN what purpose does it serve, why keep it, why is it so difficult to get rid of?
The 1931 Statute of Westminster established the principle that Canada can amend or repeal any law (it involuntarily inherited) from Britain. Abolishing the monarchy is as simple as the federal government repealing the 1701 Settlement Act, making a Declaration of Independence or ratifying a Constitution.
IF, "in practical terms the Canadian and provincial governments don't ask the queen or the british parliament for permission to do anything - ever.", THEN why did Trudeau seek royal assent by presenting the Canadian Constitution before the queen to sign?
That statement is completely false. There is no fixed number of delegates and "super" delegates. The number is determined by the number of votes contenders get. Delegates of the electoral college do not "choose whomever they want to be President." Just like in Canada, when parties select their leader, party members vote for those who have declared they are running for the position. Delegates of the electoral college (who are Congressional lawmakers - i.e., elected officials thus, as I stated above, it is an indirect democratic process) vote for those who have declared they are in the race for nomination as party leader and Presidential candidate, and NOT whomever they want.
Your understanding of the electoral college fails because you are trying to construct it along Canadian lines.
The NUMBER of Representatives elected to the House (of Representatives) is based on (simple) "Rep. by Pop."
The NUMBER of Senators elected is based on a hybrid: The first two Senators are guaranteed - this is based on the population of the least populated state. After that, the NUMBER of Senators a state elects is based on an agreed upon number of times greater the other states have over the least populated state. I don't know what the number is - it could be 1.5x, 2x, 2.007x, whatever. So every state is guaranteed 1 Senator, plus another guaranteed Senator - another given to the least populated state and all the others because they have a higher population. After that it's "Rep. by Pop."
This is to prevent government from growing too large and to try to introduce some fairness in representation of states and regions in the Senate. It's a check and balance to the House and to the Executive.
The electoral college has NOTHING to do with the election of Congressional lawmakers.
Congressional and Presidential races are two separate and distinct entities (in direct contrast to Canada, excluding Canada's Senate which is not elected, of course.)
The electoral college had NOTHING to do with disfranchizing people and legally treating them as if they were "3/5ths of a person" based on the color of their skin. It was CONGRESS and the WHITE HOUSE, to their shame, who came up with that detestable compromize.
The reason why they did was the same reason given by Chretien for the ADSCAM Sponsorship Scandal: They wanted to prevent America from breaking up through secession and civil war - which happened in any case.
The electoral college is an 'emergency autopilot' feature where its actions only have any effect when there is a razor close Presidential election. To make a Canadian comparison, its function is like that of the Guvnah Genral when there has been a vote of no(n) confidence or when no party has won enough seats to form a majority government. Unlike the Guvnah (who is appointed by the Prime Minister), the delegates of the electoral college are lawmakers who were elected by the people.
Why do you keep harping (sorry for the pun) on about the disfranchizement and legal considering people "3/5ths of a person" based on the color of their skin? This antidemocratic, unrepresentative, inegalitarian, discriminatory and odious practice has been abolished, unlike the equally antidemocratic, unrepresentative, inegalitarian, discriminatory and odious institution of the monarchy.
I am not applying any "reasoning" (read as criticism) to your (i.e., Canadian) political system.
Given my vast ignorance of the details of your system, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to presume to criticize your system and to either explicitly or implicitly argue that the American system of government would be better for Canada. That is something Herr Harper would (and is) do(ing). In fact, I look with horror and revulsion at the way Herr Harper is corrupting your political system by making it more American.
My belief is that every country is unique and must choose its own path when it comes to its destiny and political evolution.
The only thing I am criticising is monarchy.
Monarchy is hereditary and therefore an unelected, unrepresentative, antidemocratic and inegalitarian institution.
As such, all democrats, egalitarians, libertarians, leftists and progressives, etc., should find it an odious abomination and an affront to their political values.
Just like a person, a nation needs to move out of the basement of its parent's home and start fending for itself (metaphor for "sovereignty.")
To not do so is unhealthy.
Yeah, fending for themselves the way the folks down in the great republic revere their founding fathers and the improved humans of the Soviet Union fought so vigorously to defend their motherland.
Rather than have some elected shyster as a head of state, I kinda like the idea of the big cheese being a meaningless figurehead.
The elitist position that you don't trust democracy, then?
It's best for Canada to have as head of state a foreign hereditary one?
Elitist authoritarians know better than their equals (fellow citizens)?
Whatever would we do without americans to tell us whats wrong with our country and what our opinions are (because obviously we dont know when we are elitist or monarchists) and how to fix things. Its ever so much better than working to fix their own shortcomings and leaving us to decide our own issues. Which ironically whats his point, that with a queen we cannot make our own decisions and must have america show us the way.
With quotes, show me where I said that.
You say it every time you post on the monarchy Yankee
Provide quotes.
Otherwise it's an unsubstantiated prejudiced bias.
Because it is impolite to call it what it is - ordering her to rubber-stamp it, because she dare not refuse. The last time a monarch refused royal assent was in 1708.
If you knew how our system worked you would know what that really meant. It is a very simple and basic part of our government. We pass it; they sign it. Period.
As I said, practically speaking, your argument has no foundation. It has no bearing on our democracy who we have as our head of state and it is no one else's business. What is important it that another country does not have any control over our govenrment's decision=making power. And as I and others have said, while international treaties and organizations certainly are a threat, our monarch, and even the British parliament, is not.
In short, while I respect your dislike of the monarchy (after all, there are enough Canadians who are) your argument against it makes no sense.
Your electoral college does not have such a spotless record. There is actually nothing in your constitution requiring electors to vote for the candidates they were pledged to, and there are a number of cases of electors switching. Sometimes for benign reasons, and other times betraying trust.
http://archive.fairvote.org/faithless.htm
Again, I know that practically speaking these are are not changes which have changed the course of elections, but they are still cases of the votes of many people being tossed out the window, and the decision instead being made by one person with impunity.
And even if most of them do play by the rules, the fact that they are not legally bound to do so, and we only have their word and their trust to go on is very similar to the way in which our governor general and lieutenant governors act in good faith.
Indeed, it is no different than the great power you imagine the monarch has to withhold that pen stroke, even though it has never been done in the history of our country.
You must have heard that your founding fathers were so concerned about mob rule (some people call it "democracy") that they created a system of checks and balances in the US system to ensure the ruling elite would never be in danger of losing control.
Your argument makes no rational or logical sense.
So, when it came to Trudeau ratifying the Constitution, he went cap in hand to the British monarch.
Nation-states that have sovereignty do not do this.
Such a thing is a nationally humiliating thing to do.
There is no rational reason to do this:
1. There was no legal compunction for Trudeau to seek the British crown/monarch's assent.
2. The British crown/monarch's assent was a forgone/rubber stamp conclusion, the British crown/monarch was compelled by convention to do it.
3. The 1931 Statute of Westminster offered/offers a legal, diplomatic and polite out from this kind of situation.
This legal/political act is symbolic of Canada's relationship to the British crown and Empire. It is symbolic of Canada's colonial past where Canada was (still is in this regard) a subordinate vassal of communities, cultures and peoples to the superior colonial power of the British Empire. "Know thy place servant, when you are in the presence of thy master, the British monarch!"
Canada's colonial past is a national humiliation. Why have successive Canadian governments since 1931 allowed their and all Canadian's noses to be rubbed in this humiliating past?
I don't know what the percentage of Canadians is who don't get this. But there are many Irish, Africans, Asians and peoples from the Caribbean and Pacific and Oceana countries who are or were colonies of Britain who do.
Do you not see the symbolism of this, what this represents?
WHY then was this done?
The explanation you offer/suggest is that Canada's and Britain's (Westminster Parliamentary) governments operate a good deal on (often) unwritten conventions.
This is what's called the "inertia of history."
Q: Why do you do that?
A: It's the way we've always done it.
Doing things this way poses two problems:
1. It causes a culture to become resistant to change: It becomes a readymade excuse not to change.
2. Poses the danger that this way of doing things may slide into the "Is to ought fallacy:" This is the way things are done and this is the way things morally ought to be done.
By way of analogy, let's imagine that an entire group of people are still legally disfranchized, considered "3/5ths of a person" and are legally considered "property" (slaves) based on the color of their skin:
The "Is to ought fallacy" would look like this: "These people are slaves, they're like livestock, they are personal property, why they aren't even human beings, when the U.S. census is taken, they count for only "3/5ths of a person" in the eyes of the law, so we can have parity in Congress with them Northern Yankees. Hell, they can't even vote. This is the way it is. And that's the way it (morally) ought to be. It's the way of the world, boy."
That's the way it is. That's the way of the world. That's the way it ought to be. Don't question it.
Quaint interpretation.
Wrong interpretation.
The intention of the Founders was to prevent the federal government and even branches of the government from usurping power and becoming despotic, esp. with regard to usurping the individual rights of its citizens.