Another Rant on Politicians & Parties: Split from Address by the Prime Minister

[Infanteer]

I take from the first part that you're in favour of serious senate reform. As I said before, I can understand the points, I'm just not sure it's really necessary. The "elites" problem you're describing is an effect of political parties themselves, not so much a lack of popular consultation, imo.

My second point was addressed towards "elites" and the lameness of politics when it is relegated to Party bi-lines (which you addressed quite nicely in your jab at partisanship and Fox News).  My first point (which includes serious Senate reform) is directed at "checks and balances" for that very purpose of balance.

Why the balance?

Going back to a statement by Brad Sallows on another thread:

There will always be manipulative and deceitful and greedy people.  They will tend to seek out power structures which facilitate their goals.  For those reasons I prefer to minimize government power as a precaution against the inevitable.  The system of government we establish to safeguard our rights, can in turn abuse those rights if not controlled.

As well, Andrew Coyne remarked in an editorial that:

You can slap on all the controls and accountability mechanisms you want, that is, but so long as ministers have the means, motive and opportunity to interfere, interfere they will.

I guess it all falls back to that Lord Acton quote on power - regardless of who is in power, the safeguards must be in place to protect the citizenry against the manipulative, the deceitful, and the plain old incompetent.  I am enough of a realist to know that these types of people exist and will make it into power.  The system must be structured so as to allow for this and to contain it.  In my opinion, the de facto unicameral house and centralized power structure does not do so.

From what I've heard, a Single Transferable Vote system may actually reduce this, to some small degree, by increasing the likelihood of small parties/independent members gaining seats.

I can't understand the system and how my vote is going to be utilized (manipulated) by it to ensure "fairness".  There is something to be said for the KISS principle in democratic politics - go down, vote for your choice, live with your representative.  We are not going to close the democratic deficit at all by bringing in a ballot system that requires one to have a PhD in Governance to figure it out.

I thought THIS quote pertained to your second paragraph quite well:

"The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Yes, very much so.  Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorites (and Kissinger's too  ).

 

[Glorified Ape]

My second point was addressed towards "elites" and the lameness of politics when it is relegated to Party bi-lines (which you addressed quite nicely in your jab at partisanship and Fox News).   My first point (which includes serious Senate reform) is directed at "checks and balances" for that very purpose of balance.

Why the balance?

Going back to a statement by Brad Sallows on another thread:

As well, Andrew Coyne remarked in an editorial that:

I guess it all falls back to that Lord Acton quote on power - regardless of who is in power, the safeguards must be in place to protect the citizenry against the manipulative, the deceitful, and the plain old incompetent.   I am enough of a realist to know that these types of people exist and will make it into power.   The system must be structured so as to allow for this and to contain it.   In my opinion, the de facto unicameral house and centralized power structure does not do so.

I'd argue those checks already exist. You get too many checks and you end up with a series of impotent governments who need 5 terms to bring about any real change. I'm all for democracy (most of the time) but it needs to be balanced with the necessity for decisive action once the government's been chosen. That's why I like the parliamentary system - with a majority government you have few constraints to action besides the Charter/courts/public opinion.

I don't opt for the minimalist approach to government involvement since inequities and abuses inevitably evolve where no authority is present and they have to be corrected. That's not to say that totalitarianism breeds the ultimate in equality or decency of treatment, but I think there's a happy balance between the two. Too little government and you have pockets of anarchy, too much and you have gross micromanagement and inefficiency. It seems the debate centers around how much is enough. I'm not so arrogant as to argue I know the answer, though.

I can't understand the system and how my vote is going to be utilized (manipulated) by it to ensure "fairness".   There is something to be said for the KISS principle in democratic politics - go down, vote for your choice, live with your representative.   We are not going to close the democratic deficit at all by bringing in a ballot system that requires one to have a PhD in Governance to figure it out.

With an STV system, if your primary choice didn't win, your secondary choice could. Take someone torn between voting for the NDP or Liberals, for example: They'd like to vote NDP but they doubt the vote will have any real effect and since there's only one kick at the can, they "strategically" vote for the Liberals as a compromise. With the STV, you could vote NDP and, if you were right and your guy doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice - the Liberals. In essence, the way I see it is that it overcomes the major obstacle for independent's and small parties by allowing the voter to vote for their prime choice and not just their lesser-of-two-evils choice (the other evil being the party they wouldn't vote for in any case). As such, even if it was your second or third choice that got in, you'd still have some sense of involvement in the decision to seat that person.

Yes, very much so.   Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorites (and Kissinger's too   ).

You've now ruined Teddy Roosevelt for me.... forever. 

 

[Infanteer]

I'd argue those checks already exist. You get too many checks and you end up with a series of impotent governments who need 5 terms to bring about any real change. I'm all for democracy (most of the time) but it needs to be balanced with the necessity for decisive action once the government's been chosen. That's why I like the parliamentary system - with a majority government you have few constraints to action besides the Charter/courts/public opinion.

Not according the Jeffrey Simpson, who's book The Benevolent Dictatorship points to the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada has the most authority and power of any liberal democratic democracies.   I am inclined to agree with this.

I don't opt for the minimalist approach to government involvement since inequities and abuses inevitably evolve where no authority is present and they have to be corrected. That's not to say that totalitarianism breeds the ultimate in equality or decency of treatment, but I think there's a happy balance between the two. Too little government and you have pockets of anarchy, too much and you have gross micromanagement and inefficiency. It seems the debate centers around how much is enough. I'm not so arrogant as to argue I know the answer, though.

Agree - I think we are moving away from one end of the scale that is represented by a Keynesian "fingers in the pie" mentality.

With an STV system, if your primary choice didn't win, your secondary choice could. Take someone torn between voting for the NDP or Liberals, for example: They'd like to vote NDP but they doubt the vote will have any real effect and since there's only one kick at the can, they "strategically" vote for the Liberals as a compromise. With the STV, you could vote NDP and, if you were right and your guy doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice - the Liberals. In essence, the way I see it is that it overcomes the major obstacle for independent's and small parties by allowing the voter to vote for their prime choice and not just their lesser-of-two-evils choice (the other evil being the party they wouldn't vote for in any case). As such, even if it was your second or third choice that got in, you'd still have some sense of involvement in the decision to seat that person.

Not necessarily.   Imagine if I have a candidate I want to vote for.   The other alternative is a bunch of single platform parties I don't particularly care for or the opposition party that was utterly destroyed in the last election for outright incompetence and corruption.

So I only put a "1" down for my choice on the STV ballot and submit that.   Now say 10,000 votes are needed for a seat in a multi-member riding and my guy gets 10,001 (of which one is mine).   Since I only put "1" down (for lack of interest in any other choices) my vote will stay with him while another is taken off to one of the candidates I am not particularly interested in.   By voting, I am supporting a party I don't want to see in governance.   By staying home and not voting, I am making sure X keeps his vote and the other guy doesn't get the secondary vote.   How is this supposed to encourage democracy?

Confusing?   You bet - but the complex engineering and electoral gerrymandering is there.   Look at the trouble that complex ballot procedures (let alone voting procedures) have caused in US elections.   You don't see these problems in Canada where a simple check in the box and a plurality establishes a winner.

First-past-the-post, Plurality voting or whatever you want to call it has been working fairly well for hundreds of years - why mess with it?

You've now ruined Teddy Roosevelt for me.... forever.  

Theodore Rex never struck me as a politician you would like....

 

[Glorified Ape]

Not according the Jeffrey Simpson, who's book The Benevolent Dictatorship points to the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada has the most authority and power of any liberal democratic democracies.   I am inclined to agree with this.

That may very well be true - but I don't see it as a bad thing. The checks, both formal and informal, necessary to keep him from turning despotic or seriously screwing up the charter are there. I don't subscribe to the belief that someone has to be second-guessing and vetting every decision the government makes, to the point where the executive can't take a leak without someone following them into the bathroom.

Agree - I think we are moving away from one end of the scale that is represented by a Keynesian "fingers in the pie" mentality.

But then you have the debate around which parts of the pie the fingers should be in! My main concern is equity - not of result but opportunity. I don't think the government should dictate what toilet paper you use, but I think it's necessary that the government provide all the necessary external preconditions for success - IE quality elementary education, accessible post-secondary education, free (and decent) healthcare, daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends), and where necessary, welfare - not for the parents necessarily but so the kids aren't trying to do homework when their last meal was 12 hours ago.

Not necessarily.   Imagine if I have a candidate I want to vote for.   The other alternative is a bunch of single platform parties I don't particularly care for or the opposition party that was utterly destroyed in the last election for outright incompetence and corruption.

So I only put a "1" down for my choice on the STV ballot and submit that.   Now say 10,000 votes are needed for a seat in a multi-member riding and my guy gets 10,001 (of which one is mine).   Since I only put "1" down (for lack of interest in any other choices) my vote will stay with him while another is taken off to one of the candidates I am not particularly interested in.   By voting, I am supporting a party I don't want to see in governance.   By staying home and not voting, I am making sure X keeps his vote and the other guy doesn't get the secondary vote.   How is this supposed to encourage democracy?

Confusing?   You bet - but the complex engineering and electoral gerrymandering is there.   Look at the trouble that complex ballot procedures (let alone voting procedures) have caused in US elections.   You don't see these problems in Canada where a simple check in the box and a plurality establishes a winner.

First-past-the-post, Plurality voting or whatever you want to call it has been working fairly well for hundreds of years - why mess with it?

Well, for me, because often times the government can't be said to represent a majority by any stretch of the imagination. That's inherent to some degree in a multi-party system, but I think you can enhance perceptions of legitimacy by having a greater perception of responsibility in the public for their government, even if it was their second choice.

I'm a little unclear as to your example - you said 10 000 seats were required to be elected, and your vote was 10 001 - how does that send the other votes down the line to the next guy? I'll admit off the bat that I'm not the most familiar with STV - electoral politics/domestic politics really isn't my thing.

Theodore Rex never stuck me as a politician you would like....

Yeah, there are a great many politicians I don't like but many I respect enough to at least appreciate their quotes. Kissinger definitely isn't one of them and now neither is TR - guilt by association, even if he was dead before the association.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Sorry to butt-in, but:

That may very well be true - but I don't see it as a bad thing. The checks, both formal and informal, necessary to keep him from turning despotic or seriously screwing up the charter are there. I don't subscribe to the belief that someone has to be second-guessing and vetting every decision the government makes, to the point where the executive can't take a leak without someone following them into the bathroom.

And yet the United States manages to function ... the checks that do exist are hardly sufficient to stop a true despot: we have a single person that almost complete control over the executive and legislative branches and appoints all of the judiciary!  If that weren't bad enough, he has the constitutional right (via the legislature) to override the charter of rights!

I think it's necessary that the government provide all the necessary external preconditions for success - IE quality elementary education, accessible post-secondary education, free (and decent) healthcare, daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends), and where necessary, welfare - not for the parents necessarily but so the kids aren't trying to do homework when their last meal was 12 hours ago.

How is ANY of this a necessary precondition for success?  At best they are an aid to it: at worst a hinderance!

 

[Brad Sallows]

>with a majority government you have few constraints to action besides the Charter/courts/public opinion

Try to imagine Canada under 4 or 5 straight versions of the Bush administration.  Do you think you might reconsider your opinion of the few constraints on the Prime Minister's office?

On BC STV:

Note that under BC's proposed STV your successive choices won't necessarily kick in immediately if your higher-ranked choices don't make quorum.   What happens is the next choices on each ballot of candidates who made quorum in a particular round are counted to determine what share of each is transferred to other candidates in the next round.  It is only when no candidate makes quorum in a transfer round that the lowest-polling candidate is dropped and the ballots instead directed to successive choices.

(If I misunderstand the system, I expect anyone who knows differently to correct me.  This is an important issue.)

Here is a simple example which I have constructed to show why NOT "everyone's vote will count" equally.  Imagine a 2-member riding in which 30,000 votes are cast.  The quorum is Q=V/(R+1)+1, where:

V = number of votes
R = number of representatives assigned to riding

So Q=10,001.  Any candidate receiving Q or more votes as a first choice is deemed elected; votes in excess of Q are divided among remaining candidates according to the proportionate share of all second choices.

Suppose there are three candidates: A, B, and C.  A and B run for the Dog Party, and C runs for the Cat Party.

Suppose A receives 15,000 first-choice votes while B and C each receive 7,500.  A is automatically elected, and 4,999 votes remain to be divided between B and C according to the share of A's votes each received as a second choice.  Suppose B was marked #2 by 10,000 of A's voters, and C was marked #2 by 5,000 of A's voters.  Then B receives (10,000/15,000)*4,999=3,333 votes, and A receives (5,000/15,000)*4,999=1,666 votes.  Now B has 10,833 votes and A has 9,166 votes.  B has surpassed quorum and is elected; the set number of representatives (2) for the riding has been elected so no further transfer rounds occur.

The thing to note is this: each person who voted for B and C was counted once, but each person who voted for A was counted twice.

The other thing to note is this may be a real problem with the multi-member ridings.  My example is artificial and exaggerated, but I can well imagine two ridings side-by-side in which currently one of the two major parties dominates and the other is often split.  Supposing the ridings are merged; we effectively grant the overall dominant party an advantage of slate-voting: party choices of the "assured" riding now slop over into the "contested" riding.  Where the other party's candidate formerly had a roughly even chance of winning, the dominant party's candidate is more assured of victory.  The representation of people who would choose a Cat Party candidate is diluted and weakened.

I am by no means assured that this will occur frequently, but it strikes me as an abusive potential.

 

[Infanteer]

Try to imagine Canada under 4 or 5 straight versions of the Bush administration.  Do you think you might reconsider your opinion of the few constraints on the Prime Minister's office?

Priceless....

On BC STV:

See!!!   Doesn't the complexity of trying to understand that scare anyone away from this?

As was said before, Academic Frankenstein.

 

[larry Strong]

UnfortuanatlyI have to head out the door this morning for work so I can't formulate a response, but I will be back in 2 weeks
to Ape , I do appologise for miss-reading parts of your post. Older eyes I guess ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

If Canada had 4-5 Bush type PM's the CF wouldnt have the problems it has today. For better or worse conservatives seem to have a sense for maintaining a strong national defense.

 

[a_majoor]

As I mentioned in another post, the SVTC will encourage parties to run multiple candidates in ridings to "capture" all the votes and ensure a member of the party is elected.

I wasn't sure what the remark about President Bush was supposed to mean. He is advancing an ambitious agenda through congress and around the world ("Ownership society" and GWOT), which requires a lot of finess since the American Constitution sharply limits the power of any single branch of govenrment.

In the Canadian context, it is potentially far easier for an ambitious and determined PM to do so (see Brian Mulrouney) since there are far fewer checks and balances to his power. Mr Cretien and Mr Dithers provide powerful negative examples of what concentration of power can do; Canada has been adrift since 1993 since there is no leadership at the top, and no mechanisms (like an independent Congress) to move things along. When the Clinton Administration began to go into free fall, Congress took control of the agenda and began to impliment the "Contract with America" program.

Today we see another example of negative consequences, the Liberals are allowing the NDP to hijack the government to stay at the trough for a few more months. I wonder if there are any principled Liberal MPs who will vote for the no confidence motion rather than support an NDP budget? (I also have a very nice bridge in the San Fransisco area for sale....)

 

[Andyboy]

"But then you have the debate around which parts of the pie the fingers should be in! My main concern is equity - not of result but opportunity. I don't think the government should dictate what toilet paper you use, but I think it's necessary that the government provide all the necessary external preconditions for success - IE quality elementary education, accessible post-secondary education, free (and decent) healthcare, daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends), and where necessary, welfare - not for the parents necessarily but so the kids aren't trying to do homework when their last meal was 12 hours ago."

Absolutely astounding. Yeah I mean at least you don't think the Gov't should dictate what kind of toilet paper "we" use. Gee, thanks. Thanks too for letting me know that I don't really have much of a chance at succeeding. I only ever had the free healthcare growing up you see. I guess I'm doomed, no point in trying really. Oh well, there's always welfare. I sure wish someone would have done a better job of ensuring I had all of those other things when I was a child.

Absolute bollacks.

(edited to say welfare, not healthcare)

 

[Brad Sallows]

>daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends),

Kids shouldn't get their primary socialization from their friends?  Yikes.  Do you think some adult talking down to a preschooler from a shopping list of points taught in some sort of Child Education/Development Program is the solution?

 

[2 Cdo]

Andyboy, sorry to correct you but, why do Canadians have this fallacy about free health care? Does my paying over $12,000/year in income taxes PLUS another $700-900/year in Ontario health care premiums sound free?

I would gladly trade in my FREE health care (with appropriate deductions to my tax rate which I believe is somewhere around 30-40%) and Ontario Health Care TAX and invest it in a private system that didn't put me on a waiting list for the most basic of services.

Sorry about the rant but our Health Care system is HORRIBLY broken and needs to be fixed, unfortunately our present government feels that tossing more money at it is the answer!

By the way for anyone who doesn't know, in Ontario Dalton McGuinty claimed that he opened 3 new MRI clinics, and all the sheep cheered. What he didn't tell people was the clinics were private clinics that were starting to make a dent in the backlog of people awaiting MRI's. Now that they are government run, with fully unionized government workers let's see how well they do with further reducing the backlog!

As far as government run daycare, the cost of setting it up and paying the staff will end up costing all of us more in taxes.

 

[Zipper]

Healthcare is not free. You pay taxes to make it availible to everyone.

Healthcare in the States is still under backlogs. Especially for those who do not have the money to go to elite private care. Ie. You pay more money, the less time you wait.

So don't get the idea that backlogs are just a Canadian thing. Its everywhere in every system.

Yes it is not running to well and is broken in many ways. It needs fixing. More money will not do it all, nor will dismantling it in favour of private health care. Maybe running a combination in some way may serve? Two tiered. Will it work? Well we seem to be going there regardless, so lets wait and see.

Daycare. If set up properly it will work great. Is it for everyone? No. It works great for those households where both parents are working, which is rapidly becoming the majority. Is it as good as one parent staying home to raise the child? In most cases no. But it is there to help out all those parents who do not make enough regardless of two incomes to have properly trained daycare centers help take care of their kids.

 

[Guardian]

>daycare (so kids don't get their primary socialization from TV/friends),

Kids shouldn't get their primary socialization from their friends?   Yikes.   Do you think some adult talking down to a preschooler from a shopping list of points taught in some sort of Child Education/Development Program is the solution?

Brad's got a really good point here.

What bothers me about the way Glorified Ape originally phrased the question was its unspoken assumption - that THE alternative to kids being raised by their friends is by the government.  This also appears to be the assumption behind the much-ballyhooed daycare program.

Whatever happened to kids being raised by their PARENTS???

Yes, sadly in our society both parents must work in both cases to support kids. Instead of perpetuating this problem by raising that family's tax burden to pay for this incoming boondoggle, why not give these families the financial means (and therefore the option to) raise the children THEMSELVES? Give a sizable tax credit for each child born in the house. It'll also represent an incentive to raise our declining birthrate - and it will build families, the basic building block of society, instead of yet another government organization. Raise the tax incentives for charitable giving, and you'll go a long way towards helping those in need, too - Canadians are generous AS INDIVIDUALS. Contrast the Canadian people's reaction to the tsunami with that of the government - or with our measly foreign aid budget...

Why waste billions (you ALL know it will be that high) on yet another government bureaucracy?  Many of us WORK for one, and we all know how efficient it is - and ours is an organization low on the public priority list, long used to scrimping and making do with budget scraps. What serious incentive will there be to keep a high-profile, "nation-defining" daycare system efficient? Look how the government's screwed up health care. This is another gun registry waiting to happen.

Daycare is in demand - and the private sector has been covering this for years now. When will the left-leaning types finally realize big-government means bad business? I give you PetroCan, Air Canada, the aforementioned health-care system....

Government shouldn't be involved in "equitizing" opportunities - we make our own opportunities. The government can only ensure equity of opportunity the same way a lawnmower ensures equity of height - by cutting everyone down to size.

 

[Andyboy]

Andyboy, sorry to correct you but, why do Canadians have this fallacy about free health care? Does my paying over $12,000/year in income taxes PLUS another $700-900/year in Ontario health care premiums sound free?

I guess that's my fault for not using quotes and smilies to announce my sarcasm to the world. This is where I wold insert a eye roll if it wasn't so gay.


Government funded daycare is possibly the worst idea ever. Our society will benefit from parents taking more responsability for their children, not less.

 

[Zipper]

Sheesh.

If parents were able to stay home, there is a good chance they would. Although their are a lot of BAD parents out there as well who use TV and video games to keep the "brats" busy while they watch there posion.

In some ways I agree with you Guardian. There will be alot of waste. However we have to have some kind of controls (laws) on private daycares because of the abuses and lack of standards that many daycares operate under (not to mention profit taking). There is a lot of abuse of credetials, as well as of safe enviroments for the kids that goes on. But parents are either ignorant of these things, or so desparate to get their kids looked after in some way while they work that they let it slide.

So what is the answer?

Oh, and about health care. It did not just start in the 80's. It started many years before. It was just entrenched then.

 

[TCBF]

"not to mention profit taking"

And this is evil, Comrade? 

 

[Guardian]

Sheesh.

If parents were able to stay home, there is a good chance they would.

That's why I said given them them means. If parents received somthing like a $3000-$5000 tax credit for every child under the age of 13, then chances are a lot of them would. Regardless, a national daycare system will do nothing whatsoever to give parents this option - in fact, with tax rates rising to cover the cost of the boondoggle, chances are it'll get harder.

Although their are a lot of BAD parents out there as well who use TV and video games to keep the "brats" busy while they watch there posion.

Again, giving parents little choice but to send their kids off to be raised by some government commisar won't address this problem either. If anything it'll aggravate this trend; as parents are forced to spend less time with their children, and as the government takes over more and more of that responsibility, parents will eventually look at kids as being society's responsibility rather than their own. Less personal responsibility for kids = less personal interest in kids. All at taxpayer's expense, of course.

In some ways I agree with you Guardian. There will be alot of waste. However...

There's no "however" where it comes to waste. We elect these guys to manage our money, not waste it. It doesn't matter what it's wasted on; the definition of waste is "throwing something away with no benefit gained for it." Given the choice between doing nothing and waste, the only logical option is to do nothing.

However we have to have some kind of controls (laws) on private daycares because of the abuses and lack of standards that many daycares operate under (not to mention profit taking). There is a lot of abuse of credetials, as well as of safe enviroments for the kids that goes on.

I am in no way against government standards for daycares. It is in society's interest to ensure that these places have a standard to be held to. This can be accomplished through education, legislation and inspection. What I am opposed to is a government-run and funded public daycare system, as it will duplicate a product already provided by the private sector and at far greater cost, while increasing government interference in the way families raise their children. Furthermore, this system will wind up pushing most smaller daycares out of business; the only ones that will survive will be either those that can beat subsidized government rates by cutting corners and hiding the results from the inspectors, or high-heeled "spare nothing" daycares that appeal to the rich by offering a premium, expensive product that the average Canadian can't access. In short, two-tier daycare!!

And what's wrong with profit-taking? Profit is a reward for performance and maximizing profit is an incentive to efficiency.

But parents are either ignorant of these things, or so desparate to get their kids looked after in some way while they work that they let it slide.

So what is the answer?

NOT a government-run child registry, as I've said. Give parents incentives and the means to do the job themselves. This may be a shock to the left, but most parents can, actually, raise children competently without government help. It's worked throughout human history, after all.

 

[Andyboy]

If parents were able to stay home, there is a good chance they would. Although their are a lot of BAD parents out there as well who use TV and video games to keep the "brats" busy while they watch there posion.

Um what? What exactly do you base this nugget of  opinion on or os this just another "feeling" you have?

Sheesh indeed.