• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Chris Pook said:
The Irish manage - despite the double handicap of Guiness and being Irish. >:D

article-1361254-0D5E7956000005DC-261_233x302.jpg

I'm sure the Guiness helps a great deal.  ;D
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
Chris Pook said:
Better yet - make the Senate the home of the party representation.  Leave the Commons the home of the local representative.  I don't mind ranked ballots.  I consider proportional representation to be as anti-democratic as it comes.  If we are going to accept anti-democrativ power blocks then put them into the Senate - Substitute the Lords of the Party for the Lords Temporal and the Lords of the Unions for the Lords Spiritual.
Constitutional reform, no? Non starter.

I'm really interested in this independent and non partisan Panal that will select senators. At least harper was decent enough not to stack the Senate with conservatives before he left.
 

Privateer

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Rocky Mountains said:
Ranked ballots are too complicated.  Counting ballots and trying to get them to balance is already a challenge for poll clerks who are human and a long way out of school.  Computerizing the system would mean that Chinese hackers get to determine who wins.  I think the Liberals need to study the matter and determine our present system works best.

I have a colleague from Australia, where a version of this is used.  He likes the system.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,255
Points
890
Altair said:
Constitutional reform, no? Non starter.

I'm really interested in this independent and non partisan Pana that will select senators. At lest harper was decent enough not to stack the Senate with conservatives before he left.

I believe you're trying to say "At least he didn't pull a Turner."
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
707
Points
1,060
Altair said:
Constitutional reform, no? Non starter.

I'm really interested in this independent and non partisan Panal that will select senators. At least harper was decent enough not to stack the Senate with conservatives before he left.

What makes you think the provinces won't challenge the panel selection?  Their problem is that they prefer an illegitimate Senate because then their Council of the Federation is the alternative - and that represents the Governments of the Day in the provinces.  As it stands the Federal Government can use the Senate, with its regional voice, as a big stick to beat the Provincial Governments over their collective heads and claim that the Federal policies reflect regional/provincial needs.

The way out for all parties - I believe - is for the Provincial Governments to appoint their Senators for the life of the Provincial Governments.  That way the provincial parties get to choose their Senators and after a provincial election the Senators are replaced by a new intake of sober bagmen representatives.

But that would take power away from the Premiers and put power in the hands of the Parties...... as if.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
Chris Pook said:
What makes you think the provinces won't challenge the panel selection?  Their problem is that they prefer an illegitimate Senate because then their Council of the Federation is the alternative - and that represents the Governments of the Day in the provinces.  As it stands the Federal Government can use the Senate, with its regional voice, as a big stick to beat the Provincial Governments over their collective heads and claim that the Federal policies reflect regional/provincial needs.

The way out for all parties - I believe - is for the Provincial Governments to appoint their Senators for the life of the Provincial Governments.  That way the provincial parties get to choose their Senators and after a provincial election the Senators are replaced by a new intake of sober bagmen representatives.

But that would take power away from the Premiers and put power in the hands of the Parties...... as if.
The Panal should be ok, because while they pick the candidate it's the prime minister suggesting that candidate to the GG.

Should be constitutional.
 

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Chris Pook said:
Better yet - make the Senate the home of the party representation.  Leave the Commons the home of the local representative.  I don't mind ranked ballots.  I consider proportional representation to be as anti-democratic as it comes.  If we are going to accept anti-democrativ power blocks then put them into the Senate - Substitute the Lords of the Party for the Lords Temporal and the Lords of the Unions for the Lords Spiritual.

That's what I'd do, plus I'd make the GG elected.

Move the government to the Senate as a National House.  Each party submits a list which includes what Cabinet positions would be filled.  If a party gets 40% of the vote, then they get 40% of their list.  Keep it simple, 100 Senators.

The Commons remains a Regional House, using Ranked Ballots, or possibly Single Transferable Vote.  As it a regional house some type of multi seat regions could be done to make it more proportional, but I don't know its needed, that's what the upper house is for.

By the way, the "use 50 seats to be more proportional" is called Mixed Member Proportional... Germany uses a version of it.

Last thing, so Government doesn't bog down, if a bill is rejected in the senate but then passes the HoC, then the Government should be able to pass it somehow.  The Government will always be in Minority in a proprtional house so there should be a way to move forward...
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
Baz said:
That's what I'd do, plus I'd make the GG elected.

Move the government to the Senate as a National House.  Each party submits a list which includes what Cabinet positions would be filled.  If a party gets 40% of the vote, then they get 40% of their list.  Keep it simple, 100 Senators.

The Commons remains a Regional House, using Ranked Ballots, or possibly Single Transferable Vote.  As it a regional house some type of multi seat regions could be done to make it more proportional, but I don't know its needed, that's what the upper house is for.

By the way, the "use 50 seats to be more proportional" is called Mixed Member Proportional... Germany uses a version of it.

Last thing, so Government doesn't bog down, if a bill is rejected in the senate but then passes the HoC, then the Government should be able to pass it somehow.  The Government will always be in Minority in a proprtional house so there should be a way to move forward...
Quebec doesn't want the Senate changed.

Make no mistake, while quebec  seperatists aren't making noise right now, it's largely due to the federal government denying them the oxygen they need to keep that fire lit.

You do crazy stuff like that, which even the federalist quebec liberals dislike, and suddenly that box of hell is opened again.

Let's all just try to figure this out without needed to open up the constitution again. At least not while I'm alive.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,586
Points
1,160
I'm fairly certain the days of the ROC being willing to play the "we're special, give us what we want or we'll leave" game are long past.  Canada is, more than ever, clearly a Federation of many unique and identifiably different societal elements, that on the whole, forms this wonderful country.  Is Quebec unique?  Yes.  Is, say, Newfoundland, unique?  Yes.  The "rest of the Maritimes?" Yes.  Gosh, New Brunswick is so unique that it's the only truly-bilingual province.  Ontario?  Which part? The North?  National Capital Region? Southern? Sure. Prairies (let's say, SK and MB)?  Yes.  Alberta?  Indeed. BC? Yup.  North?  Again, which one (of many)? The Yukon? Yup, and definitely different that NWT and for sure Nunavut.

So, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that even with the Liberals at the helm, "Les séparatistes" will at bet get some air on the flames of separatism, and nothing close to pure oxygen of years past.

:2c:

G2G

 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Exactly.  Franco society is distinct, without question.  Just like all the other cultural backgrounds which make up this country, like the First Nations, Italian, Ukrainian, Portuguese, Chinese, Indian and so on and so on... all distinct, every one. 
 

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I said it's what I'd, my preference say, not what's actually doable...
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
707
Points
1,060
Altair said:
The Panal should be ok, because while they pick the candidate it's the prime minister suggesting that candidate to the GG.

Should be constitutional.

Harper's version was that the provinces would elect candidates that the prime minister would recommend to the GG for appointment.

I don't see the difference beyond the method by which the list of candidates were recommended to the prime minister.

GG appoints in both cases, as is the current practice.

PM recommends in both cases, as is the current practice.

The dispute is over whether the PM recommends party hacks (standard practice since 1867), or recommends Provincially designated candidates (by direct election, by election by the provincial legislatures or by appointment by the Premiers) or by direct Federal election.

In every case the process of PM recommending and the GG appointing is undisturbed.

The Provinces challenged on the grounds that... what? .... they were given too much say in the selection process?

The issue was loss of control by Ontario, Quebec and The Maritimes - 24 Senators apiece.  Add in the fact that the Federal Government is naturally supposed to be a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Toronto-Montreal Inc and you have the makings of a power struggle.


 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
334
Points
1,010
Chris Pook said:
What makes you think the provinces won't challenge the panel selection?  Their problem is that they prefer an illegitimate Senate because then their Council of the Federation is the alternative - and that represents the Governments of the Day in the provinces.  As it stands the Federal Government can use the Senate, with its regional voice, as a big stick to beat the Provincial Governments over their collective heads and claim that the Federal policies reflect regional/provincial needs.

The way out for all parties - I believe - is for the Provincial Governments to appoint their Senators for the life of the Provincial Governments.  That way the provincial parties get to choose their Senators and after a provincial election the Senators are replaced by a new intake of sober bagmen representatives.

But that would take power away from the Premiers and put power in the hands of the Parties...... as if.

Could one possible solution be to continue to have the PM assign the Senators but have a list of nominees provided by each Provincial party?  At each Provincial election the PM then assigns Senators from those lists proportionally based on the popular vote each party receives in the election.  Each incoming Senator would have to sign his/her resignation letter upon appointment (effective the next provincial election in their province). 

It would take a while for those sitting Senators who do not do the honourable thing and resign at then next provincial election, but better than what we have now I'd think. 

Could something like this be done without a Constitutional change?
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
GR66 said:
Could one possible solution be to continue to have the PM assign the Senators but have a list of nominees provided by each Provincial party? 

What we're going to get is something like the Order of Canada nomination committee.  I don't see why there would be a problem with it, as the PM is not bound by their advice.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
707
Points
1,060
jmt18325 said:
What we're going to get is something like the Order of Canada nomination committee.  I don't see why there would be a problem with it, as the PM is not bound by their advice.

Which brings us back to square one: the PM can appoint whoever he dam well chooses.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Chris Pook said:
Which brings us back to square one: the PM can appoint whoever he dam well chooses.

It seems to work in the UK.  We don't need to open the Constitution to make this better.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
707
Points
1,060
Doesn't work in the UK either.  Blair was the last to take a crack at it by reducing the Hereditary Peers, the Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords,  introducing a higher proportion of party bagmen and putting in place some weirdness known as a Supreme Court.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. We are open on weekdays from 0930 to 1630.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/

Used to was that the final arbiters were the Law Lords but everybody had a right to appeal their judgements through Parliament to the Crown.

Tangent.  Apologies.  Aggravation.

Suffice it to say the British system ain't what it used to was and it hasn't changed for the better.

 

Privateer

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Chris Pook said:
Doesn't work in the UK either.  Blair was the last to take a crack at it by reducing the Hereditary Peers, the Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords,  introducing a higher proportion of party bagmen and putting in place some weirdness known as a Supreme Court.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/

https://www.supremecourt.uk/

Used to was that the final arbiters were the Law Lords but everybody had a right to appeal their judgements through Parliament to the Crown.

Tangent.  Apologies.  Aggravation.

Suffice it to say the British system ain't what it used to was and it hasn't changed for the better.

I do law stuff for a living, and I have to say, respectfully, that I do not understand this to be correct.  That is, where matters could be appealed to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, that was the final appellate body.  There were no further appeals.  The same for matters that were appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which was made up of Law Lords wearing a different hat, and is now made up of the Supreme Court Justices doing the same).  Are you thinking of something else?
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
I kind of like the "Council of Confederation" idea (at least in abstract) since it represents a sort of evolutionary development which will eclipse the Senate, supplementing it with a relatively equal, elected and (possibly) effective body. I'm sure the irony of that is lost on most of the political and chattering classes.

(I also like it as an Amerophile since it roughly reflects the intention of the Founders when they designed the system for populating the Senate as the body which represented the interests of the States in These United States).
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
Nothing stops each premier from maintaining a list of preferred nominees and keeping the PM advised of changes to the list.  How the names get on the list doesn't matter.  Whether the PM chooses to pick names from a list or decide nominations by other means doesn't matter.

I see the talk of party lists (for the House) is back.  Two huge and glaring iniquities: gives parties yet more advantages over independents; weakens the principle of direct representation.

Whatever else happens, we should never stray from the principle of one riding, one MP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top