Democracy at work in Canada - Page 2

St Leo · December 14, 2003, 04:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Great. Our dollar will someday be worth more than 32 cents US again - and we can quit making priority of pleasing Chretien's friends and marrying two men

Zylka, have you been hiding under a rock this year? Our dollar has skyrocketed back up to 75 cents USD and beyond.

notyoueither · December 14, 2003, 04:21

Quote:

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
True... but people still voted for the man rather than the party. You can't think if Joe Clark had run for Liberal PM in 2000 he would have got the same turnout.....

Actually, it is exactly that sort of thinking that has democracy in Canada in such a sad state. Here's the short course...

We elect MPs. Those MPs decide amongst themselves who is going to be the PM. The PM then appoints a cabinet from amongst other MPs. If the PM and cabinet step out of line, the MPs behind them should have the power to smack them down, possibly by replacing them. Such power in the hands of MPs is necessary to stop the possible abuses of our system where the PM is the head of the executive, and is the leader in Parliament.

However, because so many Canadians don't have a freakin clue how it is supposed to work, the guy who gets to be PM has close to dictatorial power. MPs sit meekly on the back benches awaiting the kibble from the table of the 'one they elected'.

Finally, here's a big clue. Chretein was on the ballot in exactly one riding during the last election. None of us elected him except for the 40 some percent who voted for him in Hicksville, Quebec. We elect our MPs, not our PM or cabinet.

Fve Crathva · December 14, 2003, 04:27

Quote:

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
You people are still missing the point. Paul Martin is the PM of this country, and he was never elected. Not to mention he has the right to appoint an entirely new cabinet, which is in no way in the hands of the Canadian public.

Technically, nobody votes for the position of Prime Minister. The parties vote for their party leader, and the Canadian eligible voters vote for their riding's Member of Parliament. Whoever is leading the party with the most MPs in parliament becomes the Prime Minister.

Chretien, too, had the right to appoint an entirely new cabinet with no input from the rest of the country--aside from the fact that nearly all the members of the cabinet were elected by the rest of the country.

SP

Fve Crathva · December 14, 2003, 04:27

And NYE is an asshat.

SP

cinch · December 14, 2003, 05:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Why don't you move then? Why stay in a country that is hell bent on depriving you of your civil rights?

Eh, I wouldn't play the "civil rights" card so heavily at the moment... Have you SEEN the Canadian Anti-Terorism bill? Yipes!

Not to mention the fact that our constitution has multiple provisions for suspensions of our basics rights and freedoms...

Of course, the gubmint never uses said powers, but you never know when one of these PMs is just gonna snap... WATCH OUT!

(What's the name of the fellow in favour of ID Cards? Coderre, was it? Yeah, he's a dangerous one.)

notyoueither · December 14, 2003, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Fve Crathva
And NYE is an asshat.

SP

Face it, you're just too slow if you can't beat an old coot to the reply button.

KrazyHorse · December 14, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
His electoral college?

I was under the impression that he was American with an odd fetish for the Maple Leaf.

KrazyHorse · December 14, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
You people are still missing the point. Paul Martin is the PM of this country, and he was never elected. Not to mention he has the right to appoint an entirely new cabinet, which is in no way in the hands of the Canadian public.

Canada has an ENTIRELY NEW GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS IN NO WAY ELECTED BY CANADA.

Exactly what any fag from outside of his right frame of mind would support.

Think about it. Paul Martin is your head of state (essentially) and you NEVER ELECTED HIM!!!

DO YOU NOT GET THIS!?!?!?!?!?!?!

a) We never elect our head of state because that's a hereditary position

b) We never directly elect the head of government. Wait a second; neither does the US, the UK, Australia,...

KrazyHorse · December 14, 2003, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Actually, it is exactly that sort of thinking that has democracy in Canada in such a sad state. Here's the short course...

We elect MPs. Those MPs decide amongst themselves who is going to be the PM.

Quote:

The PM then appoints a cabinet from amongst other MPs.

Not necessarily MPs. AFAIK he can name anybody to his cabinet whether they have a seat or not.

Quote:

If the PM and cabinet step out of line, the MPs behind them should have the power to smack them down, possibly by replacing them. Such power in the hands of MPs is necessary to stop the possible abuses of our system where the PM is the head of the executive, and is the leader in Parliament.

However, because so many Canadians don't have a freakin clue how it is supposed to work, the guy who gets to be PM has close to dictatorial power. MPs sit meekly on the back benches awaiting the kibble from the table of the 'one they elected'.

Finally, here's a big clue. Chretein was on the ballot in exactly one riding during the last election. None of us elected him except for the 40 some percent who voted for him in Hicksville, Quebec. We elect our MPs, not our PM or cabinet.

My MP was one of four Liberals who sided with the NDP on their Iraq resolution.

cinch · December 14, 2003, 16:54

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Quote:

The PM then appoints a cabinet from amongst other MPs.

Not necessarily MPs. AFAIK he can name anybody to his cabinet whether they have a seat or not.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I was pretty certain that cabinet ministers had to be appointed from either the House of Commons or the Senate. No non-legislatives allowed.

Seeker · December 14, 2003, 17:31

the future of Canadian politics:

We are reduced to voting for a right wing or left wing candidate of the Liberal party, or 'wasting' our votes.

Demolition Man paraphrase: "In the future, all parties are the Liberal party"

Zylka · December 14, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Great. Our dollar will someday be worth more than 32 cents US again - and we can quit making priority of pleasing Chretien's friends and marrying two men

Zylka, have you been hiding under a rock this year? Our dollar has skyrocketed back up to 75 cents USD and beyond.

"Skyrocketed" back up to 75 cents. We'll see how long this last. Otherwise, there was a time where the CDN dollar had a "1" in front of those decimals. The united right are the ones bring that back.

Zylka · December 14, 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Seeker
the future of Canadian politics:

We are reduced to voting for a right wing or left wing candidate of the Liberal party, or 'wasting' our votes.

Demolition Man paraphrase: "In the future, all parties are the Liberal party"

Nah. There's a huge growth of the pissed off successful ready and willing for the right. Hell, my whole family in Ontario voted alliance last time

Boris Godunov · December 14, 2003, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Exactly what any fag from outside of his right frame of mind would support.

And what do fags in their right frame of mind support?

Sava · December 14, 2003, 17:40

damn right wing canadians ***** and moan more than lefty Americans

St Leo · December 14, 2003, 18:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka

"Skyrocketed" back up to 75 cents. We'll see how long this last. Otherwise, there was a time where the CDN dollar had a "1" in front of those decimals. The united right are the ones bring that back.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure the right-wingers want to actually lower the dollar back down because that will allegedly help exports.

KrazyHorse · December 14, 2003, 18:52

Why do people want a high dollar? Some sort of **** competition?

Zylka · December 14, 2003, 19:01

No and Yes

notyoueither · December 15, 2003, 03:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And what do fags in their right frame of mind support?

Pistachio ice cream and the Toronto Maple Leafs?

KrazyHorse · December 15, 2003, 03:48

Mmmm...pistachio.

Sprayber · December 15, 2003, 04:58

Is someone missing from this discussion on Candian politics. It just seems like something is missing.

Anyway, first JimmyCracksCorn is called a dumbass and then mistaken for an American. Just brutal..

KrazyHorse · December 15, 2003, 05:05

I could swear he used to fly the stars and stripes.

Uncle Sparky · December 15, 2003, 06:34

Quote:

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
You people are still missing the point. Paul Martin is the PM of this country, and he was never elected. Not to mention he has the right to appoint an entirely new cabinet, which is in no way in the hands of the Canadian public.

Canada has an ENTIRELY NEW GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS IN NO WAY ELECTED BY CANADA.

Exactly what any fag from outside of his right frame of mind would support.

Think about it. Paul Martin is your head of state (essentially) and you NEVER ELECTED HIM!!!

DO YOU NOT GET THIS!?!?!?!?!?!?!

(taking over KrazyHorse's CanPol 101)

Paul Martin was elected. He has sat for about 15 years as a Liberal MP from a Montreal riding. In Canada we do not, and never have elected the Prime Minister. The PM is the leader of the party with the most elected (there's that word again) members in the House of Commons. Parties can change there leader's according to their own constitutions. Most parties, including the Liberals, can pass non confidence motions against their leaders at their annual conventions. Therefore it is theoretically possible for the PM to change annually at the whim of the voting (oh, another word, similar to "elected") members of his/her party.

The PM always appoints his or her own cabinet. They sometimes change the composition of their cabinet several times during their term. This is their right. While the PM is under no obligation to appoint any elected (that word again) members of the Commons to the cabinet, all PMs to date, including Mr. Martin generally appoint the bulk of their cabinet from elected (that word again) MPs. I believe the only unelected member of the current cabinet is the Leader of the Senate (senators are not currently elected.)

Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's head of state - she was not elected and I will agree that she should probably not be our Head of State. Paul Martin is Canada's head of government. He was elected at the riding level as an MP (just like Jean, Mackay, Copps, Harper. et el) and elected as leader of the Liberal Party, just like Jean was befor him.

DO YOU NOT GET THIS!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And what do fags in their right frame of mind support?

The NDP. Not the new Conservative Party, that's for sure ! (Gee, suddenly I miss Asher

)

Agathon · December 15, 2003, 06:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Fve Crathva
And NYE is an asshat.

SP

Such eloquence....

Agathon · December 15, 2003, 06:42

Actually I take that back. You are an asshat NYE.

I just read what you said about the Maple Leafs. You bastard! Well suck it up baby, points in 12 straight games and heading to the top of the Eastern Conference.

It's gonna be this year...

KrazyHorse · December 15, 2003, 07:14

Quote:

Originally posted by cinch

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I was pretty certain that cabinet ministers had to be appointed from either the House of Commons or the Senate. No non-legislatives allowed.

AFAIK even the PM is not required to be an MP.

Tingkai · December 15, 2003, 14:17

Whenever an American president bites the bullet, the unelected vice-president takes over.

Non-MPs have been cabinet ministers. I think the last one was dion, appointed Minister of Intergovernmental affairs.

Krazyhorse is correct that an non-MP could become Pm in theory. If a party won a majority, but the leader lost in his/her riding, the leader could become PM in theory, but at the same time, the GG could refuse to appoint him/her as PM and instead call another election.

RedFred · December 15, 2003, 14:44

I think we have a mathematical type of problem. The only type of PM that seems successful in central Canada is a bilingual white male from Quebec. Since Pearson no one else has been elected to lead a majority gov't.

Say that there is 8 million Quebecers. Say 4 million males. Say 2 million pro federalist males. Say 1.5 million white pro-federalist Quebec males. The talent pool is just too small.

We need to think outside of the box and actually get more leaders from the other 30 million or so Canadians.

And more pistachio ice cream. We need that too.

Richelieu · December 15, 2003, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

AFAIK even the PM is not required to be an MP.

There's a precedent in provincial politics. Robert Bourassa was defeated in his own riding of Berthier in the dec. 2, 1985 elections. He still became Premier.
He was then elected in a by-election in the St-Laurent riding in january 1986.

RedFred · December 15, 2003, 14:56

...I forgot about the bilingual part. So that shrinks the talent pool to say, 750,000.