Idea: Annual No-Confidence Vote In Canada

The problem with that is if only 60 percent of people vote in this confidence vote and 41% of those people vote to boot the government out, that wouldn't necessarily represent 41% of the entire population. It would only represent 41% of the 60% people who voted.

Plus, how would this thing actually work? Would people get to vote on-line or would we physically have to go somewhere. Elections Canada is very nervous about on-line voting, it is unlikely that won't happen for some time. As for physically moving ourselves to the curling club to vote every year...most people find it a hassle to vote every 4 years, let alone every year. Good luck with turnout on that one.

Nice idea, but I would be concerned about the cost of such a move.

It certainly would keep the current government under the intense scrutiny of the public, but then I have very little confidence regarding the public in general.

Not all are aware of the issues, not all are worried about the issues, and not all vote anything except the party line.

If a person says "I have always voted for (my party) and I always will", then I don't trust that person to make a realistic evaluation of the current issues.

Sorry.



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

No, the 40% would be based on the entire population of Canada. If you didn't place your confidence vote, it would count as a vote of confidence.

That is, if you are happy with the current government, do nothing. If you aren't, it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to go place your non-confidence vote.

Currently, it is exceedingly difficult to give the boot to any government in Canada, once they are elected. This would be automatic, and high profile, so the average citizen couldn't miss it.

Yes, cost could be an issue, especially if this was taken for each level of government: federal, provincial, and municipal. I can't imagine it would cost more than the gun registry, and it makes the government more accountable.

How much do the current elections cost (not the campaign, but the voting, counting, and infrastructure)?

Not quite. That not how representative democracy works. Not voting counts as an abstained vote. MPs who don't vote in the House of Commons are not automatically relegated to the 'yea' side. To do so for your proposal would be a perversion of democracy. You can't assume what one thinks. It's either an expressed yes or no. Not an assumed yes, express yes and express no.

Wouldn't it be better if each elected official was bound to represent their constituents first and then the party line second, that way if the people are unhappy that MP would have to say so in the House, that would force a non-confidence vote in the House. The way it is now the people can be very upset and yet the MP says too bad, I have to follow party line. That is not right.

Of course this would force the MP's to actually communicate with the people. I really take offence when an MP tells you that your opinion is Wrong,and their opinion is Right. That isn't how it is suppose to work. They aren't there to represent themselves, it is their constituents they represent.

When I wrote my MP and said we should not support the war in Iraq, he told me I was wrong and that we definitely should be in there. So who is paying for that desire? Is not the government a reflection of the people?

The party line should not come before the people paying the wages...

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Probably the biggest problem I can see with this is that it would probably require a vote every year. Seldom is 60% of the population content with the current government, especially when the government is a minority government. You would get a "We didn't get as much power as we liked last election, so we're going to try again... No confidence it is!" mentality.

Just a thought, correct me if I'm wrong.

---
--Ændrew Rininsland

Are you suggesting that the politicians would deliberately mess up so they could try for the election again? The politicians would not be the ones voting, it would be the citizens, voting no-confidence if they thought the currently elected politicians were doing a bad job.

If an election was called due to a no-confidence vote, it would be harder to get a majority in the immediately-called election.

In a general election, I would agree with you, but this is a vote of no confidence. The only fair way is to count the no-confidence votes in relation to the entire population, or you run into the 60% total voters problem mentioned earlier.

The weight of representative democracy would be supported by the original general election. If you don't vote in the no-confidence election, your general election vote still stands. And if the 40%-of-population level is not reached in the no-confidence vote, the results of that election still stand.

I don't see the democratic issue here.

Upon further reflection, I see the issue here. For example, supporters of the Liberals could all vote no-confidence the year after the election, and then still vote Liberal in the hopes of better results.

Yes, that could be a problem, and I'm not sure voter apathy is enough to cure it.

In an ideal world, that could be possible but it would mean political parties would be irrelevent. With a nation the size of Canada, a strong central government has been key to maintaining a resemblance of national unity (contrary to the reasoning of libertarian-types) and this usually translates to well-defined party lines. If the MPs become liberated from voting with their party's policy (much as harper has been advocating for more free-votes) it could be impossible to directly blame the party leader for any screw-ups (and how do you think these neocon candidates will vote in the end?).

Anyways, when voting in an election, it is the PARTY for whom a vote is cast, not the person... and if the person can't agree with party-policy then maybe said person is in the wrong party.

-Canuck

Ok... lets run with this for a second and see where we can end up...

so we get XYZ political party in..

they do a good job but they're screwing with the northern territories... but helping out the lower provinces with the cash that they're stealing from the territories...

who's going to complain?? they can all complain but i guarantee that they won't get what they want... cause they don't come close to 40% of the population

or say that cities get massive money tossed at them ... and rural people get nothing or worse get money taken from them...

once again.. city people out number rural people.

by city i mean population of 100k or more...

so this non confidence based on total numbers leaves people unable to protect themselves...

but then government at this point in time leaves us all wanting more...

abolish government and reinstitute our first government where members were not paid to do their jobs.. they all felt it was their duty and they only got some remuneration for excess cost.

i could go into that deeper.. but this isn't the time nor place for it.


Jason in Nova Scotia

I think there needs to be a "no-confidence" option on the general election balot.
This is a vote that counts "as a person" and if the no-confidence gets enough
votes then ALL parties must rework their platforms and get new people to vote
for at their expence.