Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[a_majoor]

The ancient Greeks were no dummies, and certainly understood human nature as well as, if not better than, we do today. The classical polis drew its legislature from randomly selected citizens, similarly juries and even an executive body known as the Boule, which set the agenda for the ekklesia. In order to prevent the growth of a ruling class, the ekklesia and juries were redrawn on an annual basis, and in Athens at least, anyone who served on the Boule was disbarred from ever serving on that body again.

Despite all these precautions, the system was prone to manipulation by demagogues within the assembly and juries, and externally in the cities which elected a sort of permanent staff for continuity (the strategoi) these men could use their own powers of persuasion or other inducements to maintain their hold on office for many years.

The modern incarnation of this idea (of which I am a proponent) is to have term limits for elected officials. The idea of someone having a career in politics should be denormalized, serving in public office should be considered a privilege or a short shift in your career progression. For people who truly wish to serve the public or the State, there are plenty of other options out there. This also ensures new people and fresh ideas circulate through the body politic, which is itself a good thing.

 

[RangerRay]

Speaking as someone who has grown up and continued to live in "rural" areas*, I fully support the idea that representation should be rep by pop.

But, to counter act this new power to urban areas, there should be a true "Triple E" senate.  This, in theory, should act as a check on urban dwellers to prevent them from forcing urban solutions on rural areas for urban problems.

I do realise this is in my fantasy land, where the required numbers of legislators across the country would see past their self interests and agree to radically change the Constitution.  ;D

*What constitutes a "rural" area as opposed to an "urban" area anyways?  A town of 10,000?  50,000?  100,000?  1,000,000?

 

[Reccesoldier]

To tell the truth I'm not nearly as concerned about the how and who of the HoC I'd be way, way more happy if we had hard, fast and enforceable limits on the ability of government to legislate outside of certain functions such as the rule of law, national security and policing.

Eliminate the bastards abilities to screw with our daily lives and their machinations will become less invasive, less persuasive and therefore the positions themselves will become less enticing to the elite.

Why become an MP if you are limited to the mundane when continuing in your career as a businessman/lawyer will garner you more money more power and more fame?

It's not the electoral system thats broken its the socialist/statist/collectivist creep that has ruined the democratic ideal.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an entirely muddle-headed editorial:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080522.wesenate22/BNStory/specialComment/home

The back door is the wrong way

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

May 22, 2008 at 6:26 AM EDT

Stephen Harper is no fan of our unelected Senate. He dislikes it so much, in fact, that he seizes upon any opportunity to take a swipe at it -- most memorably in an appearance before the Parliament of Australia, where he announced that "Canadians suffer from 'Senate envy.'" But he knows he cannot formally restructure the Red Chamber without a round of constitutional wrangling for which the country has little appetite. So Mr. Harper is going a different route, trying to press the provinces into holding their own Senate elections by leaving their seats vacant until they do so.

This backdoor approach to reform has its pitfalls, threatening to create a far more powerful Senate without any real national debate on what that would entail. But there are signs this week that the strategy is working. Saskatchewan announced on Tuesday that it will join Alberta in holding Senate elections, Manitoba is launching province wide consultations on how such votes would be held, and several other provinces appear open to the idea.

Even so, Mr. Harper can continue this battle of attrition only so long. Already, 14 of the Senate's 105 seats are empty. By the end of 2009, that number could more than double. Quite apart from the inability of the shrinking Senate to perform its basic functions, the house of Parliament designed to curb regional disparities is instead creating them.

British Columbia is getting an especially raw deal. It should have six senators, the same as Alberta. Instead, it has only three, only half its neighbour's representation, and the same number of senators as tiny Prince Edward Island (which has a vacancy, too).

In the long run, Canada's two biggest provinces - which happen to be the two least likely to hold Senate elections - would suffer most. Ontario is projected to have five vacancies by the end of 2009; Quebec, seven. If most other provinces eventually choose to go Mr. Harper's preferred route, more than 60 per cent of Canada's population could find itself muted in the Red Chamber.

Senate appointments are a Crown prerogative, and the Prime Minister can take advice on those appointments from whomever he wishes. Mr. Harper would clearly prefer to take advice from voters. But barring constitutional changes, advice is all it is. And where that form of advice is unavailable, the Prime Minister should not simply refuse to appoint senators, leaving some provinces less represented than is constitutionally mandated.

As one of his first acts in office, Mr. Harper appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate in order to bring stronger Quebec representation to his cabinet. If that was cause enough to pause from his war against unelected senators, so too is the need to avoid making the Senate even more dysfunctional than he claims it already is.

The Good Grey Globe admits that Prime Minister Harper: “cannot formally restructure the Red Chamber without a round of constitutional wrangling for which the country has little appetite.” But: It, cowardly and intellectually dishonestly, refuses to say that an elected Senate is a good thing. Instead it argues that the PM must perpetuate the current unelected legislature – a situation that is a constant blight on Canada’s claim to be a modern, liberal democracy.

The experience of the United States is illustrative of the Harper approach. The US fought the issue of senate elections for about 50 years. Finally, in 1907, Oregon resorted to direct, democratic elections. Within only six years (1913) the US Constitution was amended (17th Amendment) to require an elected senate. I suspect the process will be similar here and I think Ontario and Québec will come on board quickly, albeit gracelessly.

The issue of an equal senate is more difficult and a constitutional amendment is required.

I believe that an equal senate could have 100 seats (vice the current 105): six from each of the provinces* and one from each territory (63) elected during provincial/territorial general elections for a term ending with the next provincial/territorial general election and 37 “federal” senators – elected on a proportional representation basis, during federal general elections, for a term ending with the next federal general election. This would allow the parties to lard their senatorial candidate lists with Québec, Ontario BC and Alberta people. But: I fear that is unlikely and that the best we might be able to accomplish is a system in which we have 149 senators:

24 each from BC (up from 6), AB (up from 6), ON (no change) and QC (no change) = 96;
10 each from SK(up from 6), MB (up from 6),  NB (no change) and NS (no change) = 40;
6 from NF (no change) = 6;
4 from PEI (no change) = 4; and
1 from each territory (no change) = 3.

---------------------

* Which, unless other sections were amended would that PEI would need to have six MPs, further exacerbating the equally anti-democratic problem with our parliament: unbalanced representation

 

[a_majoor]

But why would we need so many senators? The United States has only 2 per State. If we want to avoid deadlocks we could say 3 per Province, or 5 if PEI won't give up their 4 senators, but certainly no more than that.

If nothing else, a leaner, meaner senate with only 33 senators (or 65 at 5 per province/territory) would have manpower issues which would limit the amount of issues that could be given "sober second thought". This in turn should have the effect of throttling the HoC into passing far less legislation per session, since legislation would have to pass through a very narrow senate "gate".

Admittedly, the Congress and Administration of the United States has evolved all sorts of evasive manouevres to pass big blocks of legislation without "sober second thought" and there is no reason to suppose that we would not evolve analogues to "earmarks" and other trickery, but then again, it was always up to "we, the people" to monitor the performance of our elected representatives and hold them to account. Freedom is a self help project!

 

[Edward Campbell]

But why would we need so many senators?

Because, I suspect, neither Ontario nor Québec would be willing to have the same number of seats as SK, MB, NB, NS, NF or, heaven forbid, PEI. In fact, I'm guessing that they think a 6:1 ratio against PEI is about right; it's hard to blame them.

I doubt BC will settle for less than ON or QC and I doubt AB will settle for less than BC.

Thus we end up with four big, 24 seat provinces, four medium, 10 seat, provinces, and five small, 1-6 seat provinces.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thucydides,

I think I would go one step further and blend the Senate with the Privy Council.  The Privy Council, as I understand it is a group of unelected advisors to the Crown (Government), usually ex-politicians, but not always.

I think a large confabulation of individuals with diverse backgrounds as a chamber of sober second thought is a great idea.  However only elected members can vote.  The rest of them get to sit in comfy chairs with bottles of scotch and pontificate.

 

[McG]

The rest of them get to sit in comfy chairs with bottles of scotch and pontificate.

Sign me up for "the rest"!

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll see you there.....

 

[Reccesoldier]

The thing that struck me about the article was the fabrication that a voluntarily elected Senate would be more powerful. But in the same breath the article goes on to say that constitutional talks would have to take place in order to make any real changes to the Senate.

WTF over. 

Is there some sort of magic in a simple vote that, presto-chango makes the work done by elected members more important, more noteworthy or more powerful than the exact same work done by unelected former government cronies?

I see baffling with BS is alive and well in the MSM.

 

[Neill McKay]

I think I would go one step further and blend the Senate with the Privy Council.  The Privy Council, as I understand it is a group of unelected advisors to the Crown (Government), usually ex-politicians, but not always.

The Privy Council includes all members of the Cabinet, all living former Prime Ministers, and several others.  For most purposes the Privy Council and the Cabinet are about the same thing.  When you head the term Governor-in-Council, the Privy Council is what's being referred to.  In practice, Governor-in-Council actions are taken by the Cabinet.

Cabinet meets regularly but I don't think the rest of the Privy Council meets very often, if at all.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Privy Council, per se, is larger that noted by Neill McKay. Here is the current list, from the PCO.

Former MND Paul Hellyer appears, at a quick glance, to be the dean (senior member) having been appointed in 1957 - when he was appointed Associate Minister of National Defence by Prime Minister St. Laurent. He only barely beats out HRH Prince Philip who was appointed about six months after Hellyer. The Hon. John Abbott appears to be the junior member, having been appointed last fall.

I think the correct appellation for the cabnet is "The Committee of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."

 

[Neill McKay]

Glancing through the list, it might be that all living former cabinet ministers are included, as opposed to only the former Prime Ministers.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page25.asp

And here is the list of the Privy Council in the Mother of Parliaments and its introductory notes.  Even as advisors they have clout.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Glancing through the list, it might be that all living former cabinet ministers are included, as opposed to only the former Prime Ministers.

Yes, plus all living Governors General and Supreme Court Chief Justices, all living provincial premiers and speakers of the HoC and Senate and selected other "distinguished Canadians", which, I guess, explains Prince Philip. Basically, if you are a "Right Honorable" or an "Honourable" you are, ipso facto, a Privy Councillor, too.

 

[Infanteer]

The first and most obvious objection is: We don’t need more politicians!

There is a simple work around for that, one which could be managed by parliamentary convention rather than Constitutional change: two classes of Mps with two workloads. All MPs would be elected as part time members – likely to serve in Ottawa for about 10 working days (two one week session) in each of three parliamentary seasons (mostly to vote on bills). All MPs would have an appropriate, but generous, part time salary of, say, $1,500.00/’working’ day ($45,000/year) plus, say, $500.00/day ($15,000/year) for hotels, meals and incidentals in Ottawa (less for local members) and appropriate (business class) travel allowances for three or four round trips/year. Some members would earn as much as $75,000/year – a few (from Ottawa) would get just $50,000. The members themselves, in caucus, would elect about 25% of their membership to be permanent MPs – these 225 or so members (far fewer than the 308 we have today) would be required to spend more than 150 days/year in Ottawa and would serve on committees, debate in the HoC, etc. They would get salaries at least as generous as we see today.

The alternative is to continue with a retarded democracy – one which, intentionally, Constitutionally, enshrines inequality as a fundamental value. If we are going to discriminate on the basis of provinciality why not on the basis of education, or land ownership or gender? Why not, indeed, on the basis of race or creed?

Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but all this talk on the other thread about the GG made me go back and read it.

I thought this was a pretty interesting idea.  Treating most MP's for what they are, general chorus that should be called upon once in a while and keeping the more prominent ones in town to do the actual job of legislating.

-BUMP- I guess.

 

[a_majoor]

Rather than clutter up the place with more politicians (even if you only think of them as a Greek Chorus), the real solution is to cut through the clutter, tightly define and enforce the roles of each level of government and let most decisions fall at the lowest possible level.

Face it, most Canadians need and use the services of municipal governments more than anyone else, but since Parliament (under the Martin government) began spreading bucket loads of cash for municipal projects, we now have bizarre situations like London Ontario having the worst roads in Ontario, claiming "lack of funds" while receiving 120% more than the average amount of Federal and Provincial grants than 30 similar Canadian cities! Since the City government can pass the buck, city taxpayers get the shaft while council gats to avoid responsibility.

Lots of little governments with limited powers and responsibilities rather than a monolithic Leviathan is the solution.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Rather than clutter up the place with more politicians (even if you only think of them as a Greek Chorus), the real solution is to cut through the clutter, tightly define and enforce the roles of each level of government and let most decisions fall at the lowest possible level.

Face it, most Canadians need and use the services of municipal governments more than anyone else, but since Parliament (under the Martin government) began spreading bucket loads of cash for municipal projects, we now have bizarre situations like London Ontario having the worst roads in Ontario, claiming "lack of funds" while receiving 120% more than the average amount of Federal and Provincial grants than 30 similar Canadian cities! Since the City government can pass the buck, city taxpayers get the shaft while council gats to avoid responsibility.

Lots of little governments with limited powers and responsibilities rather than a monolithic Leviathan is the solution.

I would agree with you if we were starting from scratch, with a clean slate, so to speak. But I doubt that a full blown Constitutional Congress – one where everything, including the very nature of the state (unitary or federal) and its boundaries (BC, Alberta, Québec and Newfoundland in or out?) – is due any time soon.

Unfortunately we are stuck, for now and the foreseeable future, with a very first draft level of a British federal constitution. (The 2nd draft was Australia’s, which had the advantage of nearly a half century and the 3rd draft was found in Germany’s and India’s which had another, nearly as long, maturation period.)

Our Constitution, as I said, enshrines inequality as a fundamental Canadian value. We have an immature, even retarded democracy, stuck, firmly, in the middle of the 19th century while we try to grapple with the 21st.

We can make some fixes to the HoC and the Senate without getting into the complexities (impossibilities) of the 1982 amending formula.

I have come to believe that our very conservative constitution, with its totally unacceptable emphasis on collective, group rights and its reliance upon ‘oversight’ of the ‘Commons’ (the chamber of the individuals) by a ‘Senate’ representing the ‘establishment,’ is part of the problem: one of the (many) reasons we are such a ‘conservative’ – nearly socialistic and, therefore, anti-democratic – society.

Eventually, before we ossify, we will need to rip the 1982 mishmash apart and begin anew. Until that happy day the national government could, easily, introduce Canadians to elements of a modern, liberal democracy.

 

[a_majoor]

Although the context is discussing the inclusion of the Green Party leader in a national Leaders debate, the blogger makes the most compelling argument that I have seen against PR and similar ideas:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/271994.php

Blair Wilson, the Green Party, and Elizabeth May lusting for a TV spot

History has been made today.  The Green Party has an MP in Canada's parliament.

Well, technically, the Green Party has an MP who is ready to sit in parliament, though it is unlikely parliament will sit before an election is called.

Indeed, after all is said and done, the Green Party might come out of all this never have had a sitting MP.

And certainly not an elected MP.

That might not matter much to some people, but I think these are more than just subtle distinctions.

The Green Party has an MP in parliament!

    Green Party leader Elizabeth May is welcoming MP Blair Wilson to the Green Party as the first Green Member of Parliament in Canada.

    Mr. Wilson, MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, will serve in the Green Party Shadow Cabinet.

Relax, the Green Party has not garnered enough votes to win a riding.  But Blair Wilson, the Liberal MP tossed out of the party for not having disclosed his numerous legal problems, has switched to the Green Party.

Does that earn Elizabeth May a spot in the leader's debate?

It seems like the only specific reason Blair Wilson can name for sitting as a Green Party MP (if parliament sits again before an election is called) is so that he can affect the leader's debate in an upcoming election.  Indeed, he obliquely suggests it is an act of mischief aimed at the Liberal Party:

    Mr. Wilson has served as an Independent MP since autumn of 2007.

    “Not only do I embrace the policies of my new party, I will feel that all my past difficulties are justified if, by my actions, I can make a real difference by ensuring Elizabeth May is included in the leaders’ debates,” said Mr. Wilson. “There is a democracy deficit in Canadian politics and this is one step in restoring effective democracy in Canada.

Elizabeth May also seems to value Blair Wilson mostly as a ticket to a TV appearance:

    “Today we make history,” said Ms. May. “I am grateful for Mr. Wilson’s principled belief that the Green Party deserves a voice in Parliament and for his firm commitment to democracy. With a Green MP sitting in the House of Commons, it will now be impossible to exclude the Green Party from the televised leaders’ debates in the next election.

As impossibilities go, the only one I see is the impossible task, so far, of electing a Green Party member of parliament.

Should that matter?  I think so, and I've always maintained that our first-past-the-post system is a great filter for eliminating noise in our political process.

Here is what I wrote about mixed member proportional representation:

    I don't look at a body like a legislature as the political expression of the collective will of the people. I leave that to philosophers and other chronically unemployed types.

    I work for a living. I get things done. And for that I need power. Power drives a system. But it has to be clean power. Filtered power.

    I look at everything as systems, with inputs, outputs, feedback loops, memory, and a source of power. It's an engineering thing, but it works for me.

    So what does this have to do with legislatures and voting schemes? A legislature is a system which outputs governance for a society. A machine for making laws. That machine needs power, and in a democracy, that power is derived from the popular will of the people.

  The challenge, though, is to provide clean filtered power. Imagine a lamp (a machine for making light) being powered by a power source in which the voltage varies randomly and the current switches direction with wild abandon. The light would be bright, dim, off, flickering, steady -- all over the place and utterly useless.

    If we tried to work a legislature off of the popular will as measured moment by moment, it would be the same thing.

    So we apply filters (just as power supplies are filtered in any electrical circuit).

The filters include elections every four years (in the normal course of events), representative democracy, riding-based elections, and so on.

A party has to prove itself able to get a sizeable fraction of the voters in a riding, made up of a mix of urban and rural voters, men and women, families and single people, rich and poor, religious and atheist, and so on and so forth, to vote for the candidate.  If the candidate succeeds at that better than the candidates of the other parties, that party is rewarded with an MP in parliament.

And how does this concern the Green Party?

    The Green Party has never won a seat. Well, many of their policies are already reflected in the policies of other parties. Other Green policies can't find enough traction with voters. They simply can't earn enough votes as a standalone party to win a seat. That puts the onus on them to construct policies that are more appealing to a broad cross-section of voters you would find in any given riding.

Will the Green Party succeed at that?  Quite possibly.  I'd guess in another couple of elections, but that will have a lot to do with what happens to the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, and the Liberal Party in the next few years.  Those parties are natural reservoirs of potential Green Party voters, and if any of those parties break down or even dissolve, the Green Party could benefit in subsequent elections.

And of course, the evolution of Green Party policies will play a big role in attracting enough voters in a riding to win a seat.

Electing an MP is tough.  Only four parties can manage it today, and one of them focuses all its efforts exclusively in one province.

The Green Party is not one these parties.  That an MP who was elected in a riding running on an entirely different platform is now deciding to call himself a Green Party MP doesn't mean that Elizabeth May gets to present a Green Party platform at a leader's debate, a debate about platforms.

The leader's debate will be rendered useless if there is too much noise.  So far, the Green Party has not proven that its contribution to Canadian political debate amounts to much more than just noise.  Snatching a disgraced MP on the eve of an election does not change that.

When the Green Party platform succeeds at winning over a riding, then we'll talk.  Until that happens, I have to say that Elizabeth May has failed to prove, in the only way that matters, that her party's platform deserves to be presented and debated at the leader's debate.

Technicalities:  When does an MP actually get recognized as being a member of a particular party?  Is there a formal process, perhaps involving the Clerk of the House of Commons, so that the MP is noted as being a member of this party or that, assigned an appropriate seat, and so on?  Clearly Blair Wilson will not have party status -- whatever party affiliation he claims to have, the Green Party will not be a formal party in the House of Commons, with a research budget, seats on committees, and an allotment of time during Question Period.  Functionally, Blair Wilson is still an independent.  If an election is called before parliament sits again, can Blair Wilson even be correctly referred to as a sitting Green Party MP?  Can the Green Party say that it has ever had an MP in parliament, elected or otherwise?  I haven't found any reference to how all this works, but I think it's an interesting set of questions.

Precedents: From Daimnation:

    I see Janke's point, and I'm not anxious to give the Green Party even more exposure. That said, in 1993 Preston Manning was included in the debates despite there being only one Reform Party MP (albeit an elected one) and Lucien Bouchard was allowed to participate even though the Bloc caucus was made up almost entirely of floor-crossers.

Albeit an elected Reform Party member?  Well, that's the point, isn't it.  Deb Grey ran in fourth place in the 1988 election in riding of Beaver River as the candidate for the Reform Party.  Preston Manning was not in the debate.  Then in 1989, Deb Grey won the by-election in that riding (the winner, Progressive Conservative John Dahmer having died before he could be sworn in).  In the next general election in 1993, Preston Manning was invited to participate, since clearly the Reform Party platform resonated at the federal level and could win over a plurality of voters in a riding.

The same applied for Lucien Bouchard.  The Bloc Quebecois was made up almost entirely of floor crossers -- except for Gilles Duceppe, who won the by-election in Laurier-Sainte-Marie in 1990.  Having proven, in principle, that the Bloc Quebecois platform was one that could win an electoral fight, Lucien Bouchard was invited to participate in the 1993 leader's debate.

Elizabeth May and her Green Party haven't managed that feat yet. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

This John Ibbitson column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is important:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080909.wcoibbi10/BNStory/specialComment/home

America is simply too democratic for Canadian tastes

JOHN IBBITSON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
September 10, 2008 at 12:47 AM EDT

By coincidence, both Canada and the United States are in general elections. The events of the past year have shown why the American system is better.

Many Canadians consider U.S. elections perverse. They find the primary system of electing party nominees confusing and unbalanced, and suspect money and insider influence are the determinants of success. These assumptions are false. Canada, not the United States, chooses its leaders from a small, secretive elite.

During the primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire serve as vetting committees, assessing the qualities of the candidates and reporting those findings to the rest of the population. In every city, town and village across the two states, candidates arrive at the community centre or school auditorium, make their pitch, and take questions until everyone has received an answer.

Slick marketing, well-financed ad campaigns and influence within the party and congressional leadership can't protect candidates from the scrutiny of voters in these bear pits. This is why the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are so important.

Once the remaining primaries get under way, the entire electorate can participate in choosing the party leaders. In many states, voters registered with one party can vote in the other's primary if they wish.

Barack Obama was able to exploit a groundswell of popular support to best Hillary Clinton, despite her headlock on the party and congressional leadership. John McCain rescued a foundering campaign by retreating to New Hampshire, without money or a national campaign organization, and rebuilding from there.

So, in this election, both candidates were, at one time or another, underdogs. That's not unusual. So were Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 only because of his insurgency campaign against Gerald Ford in 1976.

None of these candidates would have had much chance of leading a Canadian political party, where a handful of loyalists and leaders exercise a strict gatekeeper function.

In Canada, a political aspirant will typically curry favour with a local riding association and get elected, then seek to broaden his base of support.

Those who aspire to lead the party must appeal both to its leadership, or at least one faction of it, and to its card-carrying membership. Less than 2 per cent of Canadians belong to a party, so even the Liberals and Conservatives choose their leaders from a pool of voters representing less than 1 per cent of the population.

No one can win an election in either country without money, whether publicly or privately provided. But those who have tried to buy a presidential nomination by self-financing their campaigns have thrown worse money after bad. Just ask Mitt Romney and Steve Forbes.

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, developed the most impressive fundraising system in campaign history, by combining traditional big-dollar donations with a broader-based Internet campaign that has generated a base of more than two million donors.

In sum, the American system makes it possible for outsiders, underdogs and mavericks to sometimes capture a party's nomination by igniting grassroots wildfires of voter and donor support that overwhelm the initial preferences of the party's leadership. Canadian aspirants must confine their pitch to the backroom boys and a tiny band of party members. So which is more democratic?

Of course, there are lots of things wrong with America's electoral rules. To name just two: Politicians, not neutral arbiters, establish congressional district boundaries, which often leads to gerrymandering. The elections in many House districts are, quite frankly, rigged. One reason the Senate is more powerful than the House is that senators are considered more credibly elected, since they have to appeal to all the voters of their state.

And because the states oversee elections, including federal ones, Americans are subjected to a plethora of voting methods that can lead to confusion and abuse.

America is a rowdy, messy mass of contradictions, and its elections are no different. But it's an open society, where anyone can be president.

Anyone can be prime minister, too. All you need is the support of the party bosses and the grassroots of a very small pasture. America, one suspects, is too democratic for Canadian tastes - or at least for the tastes of its ruling political, intellectual and cultural elites.

That's another reason why American elections are so much more fun.

Ibbitson is pointing at the FACT that Canada is a very immature democracy – to the degree that it is at democracy at all.

Is it really fair for Canada to claim membership in the ’club’ of democratic nations when one of the two houses of our national parliament is appointed from the ranks of party hacks, flacks and political bagmen and the other enshrines inequality based on Constitutional principle? No! It is shameful!, a disgrace but, evidently, quite acceptable to most Canadians.

There is a huge democratic deficit in Canada – and political parties are well served by that deficit and they are able to sustain it because most Canadians are intellectually unfit to vote.