|
|
|
|
If an elected Government takes an action, they do this "In the name of" or "On behalf of" the citizens (whether you vote or not) of that country.
Could this not put some responsibility for that action on our hands directly?
Curious what you guys (or gals) feel about our culpability in possible “action”?
Kevin
P.S. I ask this with an olive branch in my mouth, and my arms wide waiting for a hug.  Hint Hint
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
Certainly I think it does place a lot of responsibility on each and every person who actually voted for these leaders.
On the other hand the voters are given very little choice. The corporate giants select all our candidates for us by funding those whom they would allow to win an election. Often times the best candidates have to drop out or can't run at all because they don't get the corporate support and therefore can't fund a campaign. This means that pretty much all our choices are made for us before we even get to the polls. And if we do happen to elect someone they don't like, a smear campaign is run against them until the leader is rendered totally ineffective. So how much responsibility can we, the citizens really have?
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting point! Thanks
I agree the system is "rigged". I also think that the founding fathers wanted the people to change the system when it's not working. Easier to do back then I know.....
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
... the "Lady" that K. C. worked so hard getting elected in Michigan this past fall.
Evidently, the woman is Canadian-born, and a naturalized-American - or so I've been led to believe by any number of her staunchest critics - and therefore her motivation appears to be suspect regarding her position on mineral exploration on the Alaska tundra coincident to Canadian territorial claims in the Yukon and North-west Territories.
The simplest way to effectively alter the American electoral process would be to adopt ours, whereby anyone, regardless of their residency status may stand for, and be elected to any public office in Canada, whether at the city, provincial or federal level.
Over the years we Canadians have elected a variety of contentious representatives, whose ranks have numbered "refugee claimants" [who have continued to hold their office until they were through out by court-sanctioned order when their appeals failed, or they were finally, and successfully landed] under U. N. protection, NAZI's and assorted other flavours of sundry totalitarian thought including that most dreaded of American creature, Communists, the very quirky and often misunderstood Dukhabors, and a catalogue of many vested religious interests.
In truth our (Canadian, especially Dominion, i.e. federal) government functions at it's best when no-one party has a clear majority and minority rule becomes the order of the day. It is under these circumstances that the electorate holds it's greatest sway over the Parliamentary process, with threats to unseat them if they fail to listen to those who voted them in a very real and distinct possibility with the potential to incipient collapse inherent in minority rule.
In practice, the lest effective (in Canada, especially Dominion) is the clear majority - a situation which prevails should any one party obtain more than 70 percentile of all Parliamentary seats, it being assumed that 20% of those elected would under no circumstances ever cross the floor to side with the opposition on any given piece of legislation tabled by the Party in power.
It is under these latter circumstances, the that fundamental difference between Canadian and American government, and the legislative authority held by it's two leaders (the Prime Minister in Canada, and the President in the United States) is most evident, and one of the reasons that a Canadian Prime Minister, with an absolute majority in the lower house (the House of Commons), is considered to be the most powerful politician on the face of the earth. With a clear majority, legislatively he is limited by only two things; firstly, will he need more funding than that voted upon and approved by his predecessor in the previous session in Parliament, in other words will he need to strike a new budget to finance his programmes?; and secondly, is it his intention to declare war? Regarding the first, should he intend to operate within the guidelines of the previously established budget, and not require new levels of taxation in order to meet those needs, and should he have the clear majority, the Canadian Prime Minister has no obligation to the people to ever convene Parliament in order to govern, saving that he must call an election on the anniversary of his fifth year in power. Regarding the second, the ability to unilaterally declare war, the only absolute power granted by the people to the American President, requires that not only must all members of the lower house agree, but all members of the upper house (the Canadian Senate) must also consent. One dissenting vote from either house, will not allow Canada to ever go to war.
This is a dichotomy that reflects the truest nature of the societal and moral differences between our two countries, and one that few ever consider when comparing the two.
A little Canadian "food for thought" in these times of uncertainty in the United States (and throughout the World at large), especially if America automatically assumes that Canada will declare war just because the U. S. government has decreed that it is so.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mihangel
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
In Britain, it is rather different again. The prime minister is elected not directly by the people but by his/her parliamentary party, though it's usually obvious who he/she will be if that party gets in. We also have the legal fiction (long overdue for reform) whereby a prime minister declares war in the name of the monarch; in other words as the prime minister sees fit, not necessarily with the consent of parliament or the people. It may be politically foolish - I reckon Blair will pay a heavy price for his stance - but isn't itself unconstitutional. And currently Britain will go to war without the majority consent of the people but almost certainly (were it put to the vote) with the majority approval of parliament.
But national law is over-ridden by international law. According to most legal experts, war with Iraq without the approval of the security council would be in breach of the UN charter. Blair & Co could be charged with that. And it puts a terrible burden on the armed forces, who could be charged with war crimes. Since the Nuremberg trials, merely following orders has not been a defence. This applies to the US as well as Britain. But then the US boycotts the new international criminal court ...
Still, to blame the people who elected a party (and hence indirectly a leader) seems to me dubious. It's not always obvious what a leader's line will be - at our last election, Iraq was hardly in people's minds, or in the manifestos. The electors may prove misguided in their choice, but are hardly culpable (no, I didn't vote for Labour and Blair, but for the only party which has consistently opposed war with Iraq).
But yet, but yet. Leaders and parties CAN do the right thing without the majority approval of the people. Think of two bits of landmark legislation from our past: abolishing the death penalty, and decriminalising homosexual activity. At the time, public opinion was strongly against both. Yet parliament (and of course the then leaders) pushed both through. That they did, I for one am heartily glad. But one's verdict on political actions all depends on one's personal values. Complicated, isn't it?
Anyway, many hugs to you, Kevin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
... lotsa [smith®-style]
~cuddles~
comin' at ya, with a couple of
{{{ H U G S }}}
thrown into the mix!
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
... you have return to "us" here at A Place of Safety.
Thank you!
Your return places a smile on this otherwise dour old fogey's face.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darren
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 190
|
|
|
Wow warren, I guess I should have paid more attention in those social studies classes when I was a kid. As a Canadian, it was very insightful to read, and everthing makes total sense.
Mihangel, it is great to see you again. You have been missed very much. Somehow, I was always under the impression that our two political systems (UK and Canada) are very similar (except for the house of lords, for that we have a bunch of sleepyhead appointed senators). Warren will be able to say for sure, but I think that our Prime minister is appointed by his caucus (sp?) just like you said.
Warren, I have one possible disagreement with what you said. You mentioned that a minority government best serves the people. I agree when you have a two main parties and one or two much smaller ones; like in Germany where the Green+Red(Socialist) coalition is able to make some good compromises. However, in countries where there are numerous more equally sizes parties (like Canada now except the ruling liberals), coalitions can become quite large (e.g. Isreal), and it seams to me that the government does not last long. I don't see how this serves the people, as they loose confidence in the governments abilities. Again, I slept throught much of social studies and I went into Engineering, where we don't discuss these issues very much.
Darren
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
1) Whilst the selection of "leader" of political parties (at all levels) in Canada is by Caucus vote, traditionally at the federal (Dominion) level they usually stand for election like all Members of Parliament. There is no requirement constitutionally that they do so.
The Prime Minister of Canada is simply the leader of the Party with the largest plurality in the lower house (the House of Commons); but, in order to be heard on the floor of the either lower or upper house (the Senate) he must have either firstly, stood for and been elected as an ordinary Member, just as all others do, or secondly hold (or be appointed to) a seat in the upper house. There have been two instances in our history where our Prime Minister has been defeated at the polls during an election - one chose to be appointed to the upper house, whilst the second remained outside of Parliament chosing to government through his House Majority Leader. One other (a third) chose to go to the polls with no intention of ever standing for election, as he was then a sitting Senator, with no fiduciary requirement that he do so.
2) At the federal (Dominion) level Canada is unique amongst the nations of the World. A majority qovernment, provided they meet the criterion establish in my earlier post of firstly not reauiring addtional funding to finance their term of office and secondly there is no intent to declare war, may at their choice gern by what is known here as Order in Privy Council, with the Clerk of said Council being probably the most powerful non-elected government official anywhere. The Privy Council is comprised of all "living" Members, who regardless of their political affilation, have at one time or another ever held a position in the Cabinet of a duly constituted and elected Dominion government. Currently this numbers some 175, or so, individuals. The Clerk is empowered by the Prime Minister of the day to draft, and submit, legislation for approval by the Council, and privided that it does not include requests for money, or a declaration of war, the Council may at their wisdom approve and grant the Council Order, and through this mechanism in effect govern the people of Canada with no recourse by Parliament, or the people. Traditonally Orders in Council usuall have a time-frame attached to them, but this is not manditory. The most historically significant Order in Council ever passed occurred in 1915, and was later affirmed in 1927 by Parliament, when the universal Income Tax was first introduced as an emergency War Measure under the War Measures Act. This accounts why Canada's Income Tax Act, does not require amendment by Parliament, and to this day is not a part of the Statutes regulated by them.
3) Canada is likely the only country in the World that does not celebrate it's birth with a national holiday. In it's stead we collectively have chosen to celebrate our form of government, and until recently the holiday (held July 1st) was officially termed "Dominion Day". This had been since amended to now simply be called Canada Day, but regardless in truth still does not occasion our nation's birth. Canada, offfically became a nation in the eyes of the entire world on April 17, 1982, when in the presence of the Monarch, the revised Statutes of Westminister, 1982, respecting an amendment made to the British North America Act, forever and a day, nullifying Westministers capability to direct our affaires, was proclaimed and heard by all Members of both the upper and lower house in a rare joint-session. It was on this day that Canadians for the first time had complete control of their manifest destiny.
Canada was the World's first "Dominion", and whilst unsuccessfully adopted elswhere throughout the Empire (notably New Zealand in the early 1900's, Pakistan, India and Ceylon upon partition in 1947, and one or two others), Canada to this day remains the only surviving example of a unique representative-by-population democratically-elected government.
By it's nature "Dominion" goverment is a living breathing entity, which in Canada has witnessed sundry amemdements to our societal mores, with Westminister firstly granting in 1867 Canadains Dominion over our ability to chose those who will govern us, and through what mechanism; followed in 1878 with formation of our Supreme Court and Canadian Dominion over the Law that we abide by; in 1914, and again in 1921 Dominion over our ability to levy taxation and finance growth; in 1931 and 1933 recognition of our Dominion over our External Affaires; and suitably in 1947 Canadian Dominion to duly contitute and issue Citizenship. There have been other milestones along the way, but I have only highlighted those I consider to be most significant.
Through the natural evolution of Dominion government, it's only logical that in 1982, Canada would achive that ultimate Dominion, being our ability to irrevocably change the very statute the created it all.
3) My personal feelings on "Minority" rule stem solely from the ability of the electorate to influence their governance by those duly elected; and whilst it may often be said that such governance may be ineffective because of inability to achieve commonality of purpose amongst all Members, it may also be said that that very adversity is what has occasioned some of our greated legislative achievements.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Living in a democracy, whether we vote or not, we give implicit consent to our elected representatives that we will be governed by delegating our individual control to them.
We reaffirm (or not) our vote for our delegated government every few years, and in the meantime only have rights to seek to influence them by varying degrees of lobbying.
Because power is delegated for a finite and "fixed" period, we lose control over what hey do. Thus I am not responsible for the actions of my country's government, just for deciding to whom to fdelegate my small unit of power.
Oh. I prefer you with a rose between your teeth, not an olive branch ~giggles and hugs you~
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now I can speak to U.S. politics. I agree with e that to a certain extent each individual is somewhat responsible because of the election process, and I agree that usually by the time we get to cast our ballot the selection has been narrowed down for us.
But like Warren, a lesson must be in order. In the U.S. the people do not elect the president, he is elected by the electoral college. Each state is allotted a certain number of votes (based on population) with the college, and how those votes are cast in election is determined by each state. Some cast all their votes for the candidate that receives the most votes from the voters. Others use regions, still based on popular vote totals. And still others use very complicated formulas based on number of registered voters, party of those voters, how many actually voted, and so on. So for instance Florida (in the last election) the number of votes for each candidate was very close (almost a tie) but were the electoral votes split between the two? No, although Bush won by just a few thousand votes in Florida he was able to overcome a large deficit in electoral college votes because Florida has so many. Because of this the candidate that receives the most popular votes on election day may not become president. This has happened twice in my lifetime, once when John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon and the other our current president.
So to look at the U.S. election from that perspective, at least some of the blame for who is inaugurated as the U. S. president is removed from the general voting population. Then we have another problem with our elections. There is no penalty if you do not exercise the right to vote, and our percentages are getting worse with each election. Less than half the eligible voters in the U.S. actually voted in the last presidential ballot, so really nobody knows who got the majority of the votes.
So get out and vote, you U.S. citizens! (Being very PC since this is an international board and Canadians, Mexicans, Costa Ricans, Brazilians, Peruvians, etc. are Americans too.)
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: November 2002
Messages: 732
|
|
|
No Message Body
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
First of all a great big hug for you Kevin!
I think that the best democratic system is that of the State of Israel where, because of proportional representation, the system is rigged so that the overwhelming majority of the electorate NEVER gets the government it wanted! The system has been tried so far in 16 parliamentary elections in more than 50 years and to date has been found to work every time! (In the elections last January just a little more than 30% of the electorate voted for Arik Sharon!)
This means that everything the government does that is wrong is either somebody else's fault or nobody's fault!
How's that for a system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to all of you,
e, Warren, Mihangel, Darren, Charlie, Trevor, Timmy, and Steve.
I love your input and respect each of your views a great deal.
Much Love to all of you,
Kevin
P.S. Great info Warren, and GREAT to see you again Mihangel
"Be excellent to each other, and, party on dudes"!
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Tangential Topic. No fighting PLEASE. 
Case in point being ... 
K. C., in my rambling, I failed to add ... 
