The Coming Elections And The Future Of American Global Power

The comments here about Kerry being the same as Bush, reminds me of Canadian politics, is there really a difference between the Liberals, Pc's/Alliance, not from where I sit! So many times the candidates change parties over the years, it's hard to tell what they are...I do wish we could vote for the person and not the party. Get rid of the parties and make each elected official accountable for their own contributions.

YES, yes, yes, yes, yes.

<p><i>I do wish we could vote for the person and not the party. Get rid of the parties and make each elected official accountable for their own contributions.</i></p> <p>The problem with getting rid of parties is that they contribute to streamlined government in Canada. Sure, there's a concentration of power in the PM, but at least government can pass bills quickly. In the US, where party discipline doesn't exist, a Senator or House Rep. has to round together a majority of the Legislature every time he or she wants to pass a bill.</p> <p>Also, if parties were abolished, what would happen to the confidence convention? And would an MP be a delegate (representing the interests of the constituents) or a trustee (Edmund Burke's expectation)? Who becomes the PM; do we elect him/her, or do the MPs select him or her from among the House members? Who gets to head each of the ministries?</p> <p>Canada started without political parties, but our political system led to their natural formation.</p>

I'm not sure about the logistics, but I do think that elected officials could elect the PM and that way you would have the best person for the job, also just because a bill passes quickly doesn't mean it is a good bill. If a bill required people to be accountable for their vote, we might have people voting for what is right, not necessarily what is popular or the party line. They might get the information before they voted, they might read material instead of just signing on to trade agreements etc without knowing the entire ramifications. I think there are too many lobby groups, consulting groups and basically third party people getting rich because the people elected don't do their homework, don't think for themselves. They trust the party to do the work and then blame someone else when the bill is flawed, or the trade deal fails. We need some accountability, we need to be able to tell our representative what we want and they need to be able to show us what they are doing and why.

I agree with you on a few of the points you made (accountability, for one, is paramount), but don't forget: by the time you add up committee meetings, House sittings, caucus meetings, and especially casework, MPs don't really have time to do a lot of research.

geoffb,

My idea of a government made up of independents would require all bills and policy making to be done by referendum. That way the constituents are involved in their government. We have the voice we should have. The way it is now we don't even know what the heck is coming up or being changed or voted on. Our media is useless for the most part.

This is very similar to Switzerland's or Nunavut's governments. Whelan mentioned that is cost one of the people running for MP status (is that right Whelan?) $50.00. The amount of money people need just to participate as a public servant is outrageous. Every citizen should have the right to run for government. As it stands that is impossible and the people who can afford to are in a very small percentage of the population.

<p><i>My idea of a government made up of independents would require all bills and policy making to be done by referendum.</i></p> <p>Citizens don't have time to contemplate every bill, doing research and finding out what would be best for the nation. That's why we elect MPs in the first place.</p> <p><i>The way it is now we don't even know what the heck is coming up or being changed or voted on.</i></p> <p>Everything is viewable in full on CPAC, or you can even go and sit in on Parliament.</p> <p><i>This is very similar to Switzerland's or Nunavut's governments.</i></p> <p>Nunavut, with a population of ~22,000, is governable through referendum. Switzerland is more, about 7.3 million, but nowhere near the 30 million-plus in Canada. Our country is too large to govern by referendum.</p> <p><i>Every citizen should have the right to run for government.</i></p> <p>That right is provided to you in section 3 of the CCRF.</p>

If I remember correctly, referendums cost about $100 million dollars. That's the price tag for one of Mulroney's bright ideas, whether it was Meech Lake or whatever.


I was watching Reg Alcock on CPAC the other day, and his comment was the government sends items outside the government for scrutiny, when he thinks (as do I) that there are some talented people in government that could do the same job. Why pay consultants when you can do the job yourself ?

That's what they are elected to do, make the right decisions.

That's why I like the idea of a person running for a certain position based on their talents and experience.

Military experience for Defence; no bankers for finance, they should be economists; and so on.




---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

<p><i>That's what are elected to do, make the right decisions. <br> <br> That's why I like the idea of a person running for a certain position based on their talents and experience.</i></p> <p>I agree, Jim. The delegate model is severely flawed.</p> <ol> <li>Citizens are too busy. <li>Citizens are too self-interested to compromise. (In a land of 30 million, you'd have 500,000 different opinions on how to improve each bill.) <li>It's bad enough to have 5 parties fighting with each other, even worse to have 301 MPs fighting with each other, and worse still to have 100,000 constituents fighting to have their own opinion represented by the MP. </ol> <p>There is no way grassroots democracy at the governing level can work (it's bad enough at the party level).

First I didn't say how much it cost to run, but it is quite obvious that the average citizen could not run, you need backers, you need money to advertize unless you can get a party to sign your nomination papers. If you don't agree with the party line, how would that work?

I don't think that MP's have the time to do all the research but they have aides, if those people were hired by experience and proper references instead of favours, we might have a chance. I don't think referendum is good because of the expense and because I agree we vote for the person to represent us, and I really don't think we should have to remind them, that they represent Canada, that they must put the interest of the country before their own, that really should be an unspoken rule! What I don't like about party's is there are too many people, too many consultants to the party, backroom people pulling the strings, perhaps if they cleaned up the entire system I wouldn't feel that way.

I think each member of parliament should have a list of people that work for them, with their credentials listed, so that we know who is on the payroll and why; not just because they paid x dollars to the party or are a friend of a friend. We need to get rid of the systems that support patronage in all it's forms, you bid on a contract based on the criteria, the criteria is true, the bidding is fair and the best Canadian company gets the job.

The heads of corporations don't do all the research into every move they make, but they hire people they trust to provide hard facts, then they make decisions. We just need less meetings, less P.R. B.S. and more truth, accountability and really people that work for a sovereign Canada. I don't think the average person should be expected to run the day to day of government, we all have our jobs, the elected officials are paid to do theirs, so we have a right to expect the job to be done, honestly.

I still think that history has shown that getting into politics means getting rich, not because of the salary but because of the perks, the kick-backs, the connections and after government influence. This is an area that requires major changes, in my opinion.

geoffb,

You may be stuck in a box here. Open the lid a crack. By your estimation everyone is too busy to run the country. MPs can't read everything, citzens are too busy. This happens to be part of the problem. Maybe if we did things by referendum we'd at least have 500,000 of those 30 million paying attention.

"Citizens are too self-interested to compromise". I agree many people are self-interested but they need to be shown that self-interest must include paying attention to their future and what their government is up to. I don't understand the compromise part. Compromise their time?

You have everyone fighting in my case scenario and I don't understand that point at all. How is that different than what's going on now? Besides I don't agree. With no party politics I believe 95% of the fighting would end. Question period may be bearable or not even necessary.

Why does referendum have to cost so much? You can have 5 questions at once. I don't have all the details of how to make this work but I know it could and I know it could be better than what we have now. I'm aiming for democracy here.

What's your best case scenario? If you can't deal with 5 parties then are you of the same mind as Bush that it's easier to just have a dictatorship?

4Canada, nice wrap up...I also like to have a say...but still not sure about the referendum bit, the cost is only part of it; but if the elected knew that their jobs were on the line and that they would be held accountable perhaps then we would see true representation.

1. Referendums would be horrible. As much as complete democracy sounds nice, it would just cause more regional conflicts, as the bigger population in ONtario and Quebec would make the bulk of the decisions, as happens now. MOst fools can't nake all the leaders, and you'd trust them, when thye don't evne vote now? Ha!

2. DIctatorship may not be preferrable in the traditional sense of the word, but if complete democracy means continentalists republicans in Alberat and Quebect separatists have equal say, I'm not interested at this point. Maybe if the country were more united, but not now.....were at the point where our biggest population/industrial centre (Ontario) may have to rely on an unreliably-run (Private) set of nuclear reactors, because the F***ing provinces won't share power, and the feds won't cough up 1+ billion for 25 years to make it happen. Screw you Manley!!!

Perturbed,

Can you please redo this last post. You always have good things to say and usually I can figure out what you're talking about, but this one? Maybe it's me, it is 2am!