Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Happy Election Day Canada!

Recommended Posts

Question for the Canadians: Do you think your governmental system would work in the US and vice-versa? How do you think things would change? 

@admin_270 @Patine @Edouard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Question for the Canadians: Do you think your governmental system would work in the US and vice-versa? How do you think things would change? 

@admin_270 @Patine @Edouard

Do you mean the core government mechanics (a Federally-limited Westminster system, with U.S. States instead of Canadian Provinces or Australian States, even), or also including the rough political party setup, political culture, differing election and campaigning laws, and specific Canadian Parliamentary conventions and traditions, as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

Do you mean the core government mechanics (a Federally-limited Westminster system, with U.S. States instead of Canadian Provinces or Australian States, even), or also including the rough political party setup, political culture, differing election and campaigning laws, and specific Canadian Parliamentary conventions and traditions, as well?

The parliamentary/prime minister structure for elections and the system in how it governs. I know so little of Canadian politics, that I can't be more specific than that. If I know something, I'll say something. If I don't, I tend to be quiet or sparse in what I say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

Question for the Canadians: Do you think your governmental system would work in the US and vice-versa? How do you think things would change? 

@admin_270 @Patine @Edouard

The american system?

The problem would be as follows, in the american system, provinces would be gerrymandered

This could bring a lot of difficulties as in Canada constituencies are made by an independent electoral commission

And the problem is, the minorities would be punished by gerrymandering (Francos in NB and Ontario could lose seats while Anglos in Quebec could too).

To give you an example if a very sovereignist party in Quebec leaded the commission in the american way, the Western Isle of Montreal would have big patch of merge. Because the West Island is fully anglophone.

If Conservatives would lead in Ontario, a ton of Toronto seats would merge with suburbs and some countrysides or would merge to limite Liberal seats.

The great elector system would not change that much in a way, Because for example last night Scheer was almost 40 seats behind Trudeau while leading the popular vote.

The most impossible translation would be the 2 party system of US. Quebec has its own regional influence, Western Canada has its too, Western Canada has already been really mad in the 90's and elected the reform party of Preston Manning which produced Stephen Harper.

So the 3 division of Canada brings difficulties. (Western reformist Canada, Ontario and eastern provinces for Liberals excepted Quebec which has its mod).

About rights to states it would be a huge gain, the american federation is really good about states' rights and provinces of Canada would gain autonomy if it was copied and it would make sence, only Quebec nears the autonomy of the US states.

Finally about presidency separed to parliament, this could exist however the bipartism isn't ensured at all like I said, and of course it would take to abolish the monarchy. Last polls show a majority of Canadians want to get out the British monarchy so this could happen, but maybe they are still attached to the Westminster parliamentary system.

Look at the British Columbia referendum for proportionnality system ;) rejected by the electors ! Like AV in UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, vcczar said:

Do you think your governmental system would work in the US and vice-versa? How do you think things would change? 

You already have something similar with the House. Basically, Canada has a House which also elects a President, and a diminished Senate done by appointments by the President. Judiciary is another question.

So imagine a much stronger House, but that is elected once every 4 years typically (instead of every 2 years). Would it work? Sure. Would your system work here? I have no reason to think it wouldn't. Your system is more complex, designed as it is to have more checks and balances. Basically, if a party wins a majority here, they have carte blanche on much of their legislation becoming law. The major check is popular opinion, which might translate into a wipe-out at the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

You already have something similar with the House. Basically, Canada has a House which also elects a President, and a diminished Senate done by appointments by the President. Judiciary is another question.

So imagine a much stronger House, but that is elected once every 4 years typically (instead of every 2 years). Would it work? Sure. Would your system work here? I have no reason to think it wouldn't. Your system is more complex, designed as it is to have more checks and balances. Basically, if a party wins a majority here, they have carte blanche on much of their legislation becoming law. The major check is popular opinion, which might translate into a wipe-out at the next election.

I guess my next question is. Do you think Canada would be better off with more checks and balances? I'm trying to imagine the US with fewer checks and balances, and I only see nightmare situations. I'm just impressed with Canada because it seems we have more corruptions and politically misconduct than you (I'm just basing this off my own gut instincts) ; yet, we have more checks and balances. Maybe the idea of having carte blanch control and a fear of a wipe out is a better check and balance. I'd assume turnover is greater in your parliament than in our Congress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I guess my next question is. Do you think Canada would be better off with more checks and balances? I'm trying to imagine the US with fewer checks and balances, and I only see nightmare situations. I'm just impressed with Canada because it seems we have more corruptions and politically misconduct than you (I'm just basing this off my own gut instincts) ; yet, we have more checks and balances. Maybe the idea of having carte blanch control and a fear of a wipe out is a better check and balance. I'd assume turnover is greater in your parliament than in our Congress?

I don't know offhand about turnover. My guess is yes, there's more turnover. We have a more volatile situation in many ridings (= district), where any of 3 or even 4 parties could win the seat.

Don't know about corruption and political misconduct - probably not the best time to ask that, as the PM has recently been found to have committed 2 ethics violations.

The thing about having fewer checks and balances is that if one government enacts an unpopular law, the next government usually can just reverse it. In the states, it's more difficult for something to become law, and more difficult to reverse it. We've had some reform with the Senate, where ostensibly government policy has changed to make it less politicized. This would effectively add a check on the powers of the Parliament, and is probably a good thing IMO. On the other hand, I'm fine with removing the Senate completely!

My impression is that the U.S. would benefit from less gridlock. Take the USMCA, for example. The Liberals negotiated it, and then the process is Cabinet approval -> Parliamentary approval. Since the Liberals control all of these, there's really no obstacle to it becoming law as long as the Liberals are in power. This is unlike the States, where it is negotiated by the executive branch, but then has to be ratified by the legislative branch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I don't know offhand about turnover. My guess is yes, there's more turnover. We have a more volatile situation in many ridings (= district), where any of 3 or even 4 parties could win the seat.

Don't know about corruption and political misconduct - probably not the best time to ask that, as the PM has recently been found to have committed 2 ethics violations.

The thing about having fewer checks and balances is that if one government enacts an unpopular law, the next government usually can just reverse it. In the states, it's more difficult for something to become law, and more difficult to reverse it. We've had some reform with the Senate, where ostensibly government policy has changed to make it less politicized. This would effectively add a check on the powers of the Parliament, and is probably a good thing IMO. On the other hand, I'm fine with removing the Senate completely!

My impression is that the U.S. would benefit from less gridlock. Take the USMCA, for example. The Liberals negotiated it, and then the process is Cabinet approval -> Parliamentary approval. Since the Liberals control all of these, there's really no obstacle to it becoming law as long as the Liberals are in power. This is unlike the States, where it is negotiated by the executive branch, but then has to be ratified by the legislative branch.

 

I'm finding, over time, that I favor the more parliamentary approach. I think if something can easily be reversed, then I'm more okay with something easily becoming law. It it maintains popularity or proved effective, it seems like it will likely stay in place. If I could live more lives than I can live at the moment, I'd put more time in researching into Canada and other constitutional and governmental systems. I think overall, I approve of the Canadian system more than I approve of the US system, but I say this quasi-ignorantly, obviously. 

I do know a lot about UK 19th century history, including laws, prime ministers and such, but I haven't made much of an effort to see how their system works outside of the somewhat Democratically elected MPs (some less so), and an increasingly weakened House of Lords that balks any time a monarch threatens to increase their numbers with new lords of the monarch's chosen persuasion. That the cabinet seems to also be MPs, usually. The monarch is already significantly weak outside of having a sort of control--ability to threaten-- on the House of Lords. All of this is 19th century. 

Are cabinet members in Canada also MPs? 

I'd be okay with the US abolishing the Senate. It made sense as the "senior" or upper house under its original design when state legislatures selected the Senator among elder statesmen in the states. Another option is that the US Senate stays, but Senators are selected among those serving currently or formerly in the US House by the people. I'd also want to remove the power of the Speaker or Sen Maj Leader to unilaterally table or block legislation or confirmations. All things proposed for a vote should be put to a vote. Obviously, things have precedence, so maybe a brief postponement will be allowed. I'd also like to see term limits, but accorded this way: three two-year terms for US Reps, two-terms for US Senators. However, the Speaker and House Min Leader, Sen Maj L and Sen Min L are absolved from term limits, allowing exceptional "once-in-a-lifetime" talent the option of serving the country longer if they prove unusually adept at being legislators. These leaders would face votes of confidence, however, from their party to keep them honest. I think the justices should be nominated by the judicial committees, but can be vetoed by the president until an acceptable one is found. Sort of a reversal. The Chief Justice will be selected by the President among those Assoc Justices already on the court. This ensures the ChJ already has SC experience, and has been vetted. I got a bunch of other idealistic ideas that no one will ever consider. It's fun to think about. I think learning more about the Canadian system, and other systems, would give me other ideas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Are cabinet members in Canada also MPs? 

All of them, as a rule. A few Senators have been in the Cabinet, and even three PM's (two very short-lived ones in 1891 of the four very short-lived ones following John A. MacDonald's death - a situation of Conservative Party leadership instability that, among other issues, led to Liberal PM Wilfried Laurier winning the PM's office for the first time - and the third was John Turner, the Liberal PM coming by convention off of the long government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau which, while having many heights of popularity was immensely unpopular by Turner's coming to power in 1984, and he lost to Progressive Conservative leader Brian Mulroney under a huge landslide - a similar story to PC PM Kim Campbell coming off of a leadership convention after Mulroney's own retirement, in 1993 - and, both Turner and Campbell were from British Columbia, and the only PM's from that province, but I digress). Also, until Pearson came to government in 1963, the Minister of Militias, and, after WW1, the Minister of National Defense (as it was renamed), was always a serving officer of general rank, and not a partisan appointment who otherwise held an elected office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

All of them, as a rule. A few Senators have been in the Cabinet, and even three PM's (two very short-lived ones in 1891 of the four very short-lived ones following John A. MacDonald's death - a situation of Conservative Party leadership instability that, among other issues, led to Liberal PM Wilfried Laurier winning the PM's office for the first time - and the third was John Turner, the Liberal PM coming by convention off of the long government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau which, while having many heights of popularity was immensely unpopular by Turner's coming to power in 1984, and he lost to Progressive Conservative leader Brian Mulroney under a huge landslide - a similar story to PC PM Kim Campbell coming off of a leadership convention after Mulroney's own retirement, in 1993 - and, both Turner and Campbell were from British Columbia, and the only PM's from that province, but I digress). Also, until Pearson came to government in 1963, the Minister of Militias, and, after WW1, the Minister of National Defense (as it was renamed), was always a serving officer of general rank, and not a partisan appointment who otherwise held an elected office.

Very interesting. Because of separation of powers, we don’t allow this. I wonder sometimes if that was a mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Very interesting. Because of separation of powers, we don’t allow this. I wonder sometimes if that was a mistake. 

Well, in the U.S., they just become purely partisan patronage and spoils appointments, anyways. Quality and competence of the Presidentially-nominated is only a pretense in truth, and not necessarily, or even usually, a real fact of affairs. The U.S. system produces no better or less partisan Cabinet members, as a rule, than in Canada, ultimately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloc Québécois triggers recount in Hochelaga

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/201910/29/01-5247447-le-bloc-quebecois-conteste-le-resultat-dans-hochelaga.php?fbclid=IwAR0qGdzkuePtseayRulhBX8Eyb7BNGhlLsK6Z56HItSGeYGgD2lecuEgzsY

When the LPC candidate has been declared victorious, his advance was about 7%

Last counts showed that Liberal advance had passed from 7% to 0,6%.

Apparently counts of ballots on websites and on election canada would be different, that's why they trigger the recount.

No news about a potential recount in Quebec city, seat of Liberal Minister Jean Yves Duclos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloc also triggers recount in Quebec city.

It's more important for Quebec city as Jean Yves Duclos is big minister of Trudeau's government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...