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.
Canadians really don't understand the political system, it turns out
December 14, 2008 - 10:50pm
A new survey for the Dominion Institute taken in the aftermath of this month's political crisis suggests a woeful ignorance when it comes to our system of government.
For example, results of the Ipsos Reid survey show 75 per cent of Canadians asked believe the prime minister, or the Governor General, is head of state. Bzzzz — wrong
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081214.wdohcanada1214/BNStory/politics/home
So it seems that what a lot of us supposed in the discussion about the coalition is true - Canadians don't generally well understand how they're governed and so perhaps have some false expectations.
I'm not sure that being able to correctly label our sysem of governance "constitutional monarchy" indicates much understanding of it, just as knowing that World War I ended in 1918 doesn't mean you know much about World War I. The Dominion Institute is a cranky organization that wants our schools to return to rote learning of dates and "important people".
The only question asked which is mildly revealing is that most Canadians assume they're voting directly for Prime Minister. Then again, in most meaningful ways, they are doing exactly that. Canadians clearly understand that they don't vote directly for the PM (otherwise they'd be paralyzed with confusion when they went into the voting booth and didn't see Harper's name on the ballot) but they obviously interpreted the question to mean that they vote for the party whose Leader they like when they cast their ballot.
So, is this accidental?
How has this come to be?
Spot on criticism of the Dominion Institute. For a survey about a system of government based on "convention" and "precedent" -- their questions are suprisingly literalist. (But I suppose that goes with the "important dates" slant).
In fact, the unwritten convention is that we are voting directly for the PM when we vote for a local candidate. The understanding is that the party of the person you vote for will allow its leader to command the government (if they form it). Like you say, Canadians implicitly get this.
And except for the concept of the crown in law, and the relationship of the crown to the First Nations, Canada is pretty much a republic now. Except for the monarchists, who are another group of cranks.
The CEO of the Dominion Institute, Rudyard Griffiths, also uses his position to advocate for two tier medicare, imperalist wars, and even the elimination of the public subsidy for political parties (this was before the current crisis). The Institute even had some kind things to say about Conrad Black during his trial.
I treat everything they do with scepticism.
Voters can use any logic they want when they make their selection. But the fact remains that the vote they cast goes to their candidate and not to the leader of the party.
It's no wonder so many Canadians were up in arms about the coalition. It was the PM himself throwing confustion about Canada's own parliamentary system. This should be self-evident that Harper should not be the leader of any party if he can't represent the Canadian political system properly.
Here's another right-wing connection.
Marc Chalifoux, president of the Dominion Institute and quoted in the article, appears to have been a spokesman for the Ignatieff campaign during the 2006 leadership race.
He's mention on this Liberal blog:
And mentioned in this old press release (on the carbon tax):
It wouldn't surprise me if it was the same guy.
Blah, blah, blah.
It matters little who made up the survey. The fact is they are right. It has been abundantly clear during this bickerfest that most Canadians know exactly zilch about our government system and how it works. It has even been evident on babble that people who think they are very smart don't get it either.
That Harper deliberately played on peoples ignorance and worse impulses is the clearest indication he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
No. But not being able to correctly label our system of government a "constitutional monarchy" is absolute and unassailable proof of having NO understanding of it.
I know people here like to think that Canadians didn't warm to the idea of the Coalition because they're ignorant but that snobbish attitude is part of the reason why the coalition's been a resounding flop.
While Coalition advocates argued Parliamentary procedure, Harper focussed on the fact that Dion would be Prime Minister and the Bloc would have an unspecified veto - and that scared people.
It's technically true that the House of Commons has every right to choose any one they like as their Prime Minister. However a majority of Canadians feel - quite fairly - that this is not what they voted for. People who voted NDP thought they were voting for Jack as Prime Minister (he wasn't running to be Minister of Industry in a Dion Cabinet). People who voted Liberal were told explicitly there would be no coalition with the NDP. No one campaigned on forming a government with the Bloc.
Moreover, as many Parliamentary scholars have noted, the Queen chooses her Prime Minister immediately after the election of members to the House. If there's any doubt about that person's ability to form a government with confidence of the House it's tested in the Throne Speech. This happened after last months election and Harper's Throne Speech passed a confidence vote. So it's not a given that the Queen, through the Governor General, would hand power to the Coalition. The current Prime Minister, who had the House's confidence, would advise against it and that advice carries some weight under Parliamentary tradition.
So, with all this being so, when Harper says the Coalition has no mandate to govern people feel this is accurate - and whining that the traditions of Parliamentary democracy dictate differently doesn't endear you to ordinary Canadians.
I voted NDP and I voted knowing that Jack would not be pm. Just so you know. I am sure very few ndp people expected jack to be pm. So horsepoop on that part of your idea. Canadians if they get a coalition have sfa choice in the matter. You think canadians are happy with Harper?
Most of us abhorr him even the opinion writers in the conservative newspapers.
Canadians voted individually, collectively they voted for a left of center coalition. Whether they realized it or not beforehand is not important. It is out of their hands now so all these polls are just attempts to hijack the discussions that are taking place. The polls are an antidemocratic factor.
There is incredible pressure to misrepresent polls and to release the 1 out of 20 that is inaccurate just to repay the piper payer and get their business again.
A few points:
- I'm baffled that people could be nominal supporters of the New DEMOCRATIC Party and have such utter disdain for where people are actually at. The fact that the Coalition is being roundly rejected should, at least, cause us to pause. Instead, like some cartoon villain, coalition-boosters sneer that Canadian opinion isn't important. "We've got their votes! It's none of their business what we do with them! Ha ha ha!"
- A lot of New Democrat voters, particularly in Western Canada, loathe the Liberals as much or more than the Tories. Layton's pretending they don't exist and he's losing support.
- Are you seriously claiming that all of these pollsters are part of some vast conspiracy to misrepresent public opinion? If so, can we trust the corporate newspapers and corporate media that have reported these events as they unfolded? Can you trust the computer screen you're reading this on? Or was it too bought from a CORPORATION?
A few points back.
- First, I'm not a "nominal" supporter of the New Democratic Party, thanks.
- Second, public opinion on a matter should give us pause - as should the fact that much of that public opinion has been based on lies, ethnic-baiting and demagoguery by a Prime Minister who knowingly and delibeately has misrepresented the facts of our parliamentary system.
- Third, there are any number of entirely coherent reasons why some people - perhaps even some progressives - might oppose this coalition. The bullshit about it being undemocratic is simply not one of those valid reasons, and those who argue it merely prove their own ignorance - or their own dishonesty.
- Fourth, as one of those New Democrats who despises the Liberals as much or more than the Conservatives, I don't believe your bullshit that Jack Layton is ignoring me.
- The pollsters, overall, present a reasonably accurate view of public opinion. Polls conducted soon after Pierre Trudeau declared martial law in 1970 similarly showed that his fascist tactics were popular. Your point?
Malcolm, how you, and other dyed-in-the-wool partisans feel doesn't concern me much. I am, however, concerned by the fact that public-opinion pollsters have the NDP losing as much as a third of their popular support over the last couple weeks. I suppose you could argue that this is only because English Canadians are racist francophobes but I think it's a little too pat (not to mention that it conveniently ignores the fact that ALL the federalist parties attack the "separatists" when it suits them).
So (1) I don't doubt that you're a card-carrying New Democrat (2) I think attacking Harper for being a racist who doesn't respect Parliamentary traditions is not too accurate and, more importantly, not going to get the NDP far (3) A majority of Canadians do not believe the Liberals have a mandate to govern in coalition with the Bloc and that is a problem (4) Regardless of how you feel, many NDP voters disagree with you including, notably, the Leader of the BCNDP and the Leader of the Manitoba NDP who are scrambling to distance themselves from the proposal (5) There's a difference between losing support on a principle and losing support because your naked desire for Cabinet seats is rendering you unelectable. If you can point me to a single thing the Coalition will do that Harper's not currently scrambling to do please point it out. My enthusiasm for this thing waned inexorably the second I saw the anemic "accord"
Please first of all its not Harper that put the separatist words in Canadians mouths it was the Bloc as that is what they represent to most Canadians someone who does not wish to belong. And as much as I think its grand they are now into Unity it sure would have been wonderful if they were out here in western Canada making us aware of their intentions of being one with Canada. Is that what they are saying now? Because in all honesty here in Western Canada its the first I have heard of it and when you are a party running for Federal office it would have been grand if they would have let us in on it. And the NDP I'm really disappointed in as Layton had some right on ideas for Canadians and what they needed. I don't believe bailing out the auto industry without ridding itself of the unions is one of Layton's better ideas. As unions got to go and employees may have to decide how important that union is to them as very real possibility companies go under as American thinks twice about bailout and unions unnecessary baggage taking them down.
Mybabble, just to answer a couple of your questions:
1. The Bloc favours independence of Québec. That means having a country separate from you. Let the rest of the good people in your part of "Western Canada" know, please, because I know how confusing politics can get.
2. I'm told some cotton planters in the U.S. once commissioned a study saying that if the slaves were freed, the cotton industry would no longer be globally competitive.
As a worker, I'd rather have unions and no auto industry, rather than an auto industry with no unions. I understand you consider unions as "unnecessary baggage". I never did like to travel light, however.
Thanks for your concern about Canada and the economy. Wish everyone Happy Holidays out there for me! And remember 1919!
"I know people here like to think that Canadians didn't warm to the idea of the Coalition because they're ignorant but that snobbish attitude is part of the reason why the coalition's been a resounding flop."
There is nothing snobbish about pointing out that people know diddly squat about our governance system. Hell I am a best ambivalent about a coalition (although I am convincable probably) and I can still see that Harper's entire line of attack was based on lies and misrepresentation.
Some issues I am glad you and others were not advising us on (in no particular order)
1. the end of slavery
2. women getting the vote
3. universal health care
4. old age pensions
5. our own Canadian flag
6. criminal justice reform
7. gay and lesbian rights
8. the end to capital punishment
9. pay equity
10. right to organize a union (another topic with a high degree of misunderstanding)
and so on.
I think equating Cabinet Seats for the NDP with women's suffrage and the end of slavery is wrong, in a lot of ways.
Again, if someone can point to something in the "Accord" that Harper's not already doing or going to do I'll whine less. I just don't see any grand issues at stake. In fact, as far as the Accord goes, I don't see anything in there at all.
Yes that was what I was doing. It couldn't have possibly had anything to do with the stupidity of living or dying by snap polls to determine action. Where is that roll eyes emoticon when I need it.
Elmer J.Thiessen, writing an op-ed this morning for the Waterloo Region Record, calls Harper "unethical", hypocritical and "immoral" (Thiessen is a "semi-retired philosopher, theologian, writer and lecturer.")
"We desperately need a principled government that supports an ethical form of capitalism."
And the electorate?
"What we are equally desperately in need of is a voting citizenry that has an open and critical mind, and a working conscience."
off topic- but how does one semi-retire from being a philosopher?
This is not really a suprise when you consider the number of people who thought that the coalition was a done deal and that the three opposition parties only had to show that they could govern to have the GG take them up on the offer.
Many Canadians just do not know what the GG does, and how the system really works.
It has been fun listening to my friends and co-workers try to convince each other on what should, could will happen
Presumably any rational person would like a disagreement to end in one of two ways: either they convince the other person to switch sides, or they see some evidence that changes their own mind. The first one requires that you understand why the other side has a different opinion. And if one of the main reasons is that they are uninformed about the topic about which you disagree, then that is entirely relevant. I mean, you can call that attitude snobbish if you want, but I really don't see how we're ever going to get anywhere unless we start with the assumption that we can actually have a rational discussion with a reasonable standard of evidence. If people are basing their opinions on information that is demonstrably wrong, especially when it appears to be the result of a PR effort, we should be pointing that out. If people are going to be deliberately irrational then there's not much point in responding at all.
A cap-and-trade system with a hard cap based on absolute targets with a baseline year of 1990. There is approximately zero chance that Harper will ever agree to this, unless he's essentially forced to by the Obama administration. And even then I suspect he'll find some way to fudge it.
Also, and I'm getting pretty tired of pointing this out, Harper still has not backed down on the issue of pay equity for women and I consider that to be a pretty huge deal.