Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by evman150

You don't even know how our own system of electing a government works?

This is just flat out wrong.

I have a question for people in this thread:

If it were to cost nothing to taxpayers (obviously not possible, this is just a thought experiment), would you support a system of government where every important issue was put to a referendum?

I definitely wouldn't support that. The average Canadian knows nothing about important issues on which they'd be voting... imagine the intense advertising by lobby groups directly to the Canadian people, drug companies, insurance companies, etc. would be lobbying non-stop through commercials and marketing to affect our political decision-making. At least with politicians they have to bribe them... with the People they just need to have a funny ad and a good jingle to get biased legislation passed.

Though again my biggest issue would be the lack of info most people have on important issues. Take this thread for example, most participants would probably classify themselves as at least 'politically aware', whereas my opinion is 9.5/10 posters in the thread really have NOT seriously looked into these issues from an educational or non-partisan angle, and are pretty much representing 'their side' in an intensly biased manner... though they probably don't know it.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by evman150

If it were to cost nothing to taxpayers (obviously not possible, this is just a thought experiment), would you support a system of government where every important issue was put to a referendum?

I'd say no; I just don't trust the average person to do a sufficient job educating themselves, and I really don't trust the media to do an accurate job portraying the issues. I have a hard time thinking of an issue that should nationally be put to a referendum. Maybe something like senate or parliamentary reform, though neither of those would stand a chance of passing.

[Gozer]

I like the idea of empowering the voter and putting the onus on the individual to make the country a better place. Believing that I'm smart enough to contribute to this but "everyone else" is too stupid is a cop-out.

Most people would either not vote or vote for whatever party/politician they support but that's their prerogative - and frankly not much different than what we have now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Nobody (or very few people) still begrudge Harper for passing a law about regular elections and then using a loophole in that same law to call one when it suited him. Similarly, Ignatieff's unsuccessful coup is unlikely to be remembered.

Because in the big picture it means very little.

I would tend to think most Canadians are more concerned with the bigger issues. Like Health Care, Afghanistan, the Economy, etc, etc.

Why bicker about politicians playing politics?

Thats what they do in the US and look where it got them.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'd say no; I just don't trust the average person to do a sufficient job educating themselves, and I really don't trust the media to do an accurate job portraying the issues. I have a hard time thinking of an issue that should nationally be put to a referendum. Maybe something like senate or parliamentary reform, though neither of those would stand a chance of passing.

I agree, and I'd add that 90% of what the government does is really, really, really, really, boring.

The whole reason we elect other people to represent us is so that they can sit through boring policy meetings while we watch hockey and drink beer.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree, and I'd add that 90% of what the government does is really, really, really, really, boring.

The whole reason we elect other people to represent us is so that they can sit through boring policy meetings while we watch hockey and drink beer.

I think you underestimate the percentages. The only exciting event in the parliamentary day - question period - is also mostly boring if you watch it start to finish. Sure the leaders' questions and responses are pithy (and little more) but the second 2/3 of QP is a dull repetition of the same junk.

I'd like it to be even more boring in the hopes of making it more useful. Maybe organize the QP into a calendar like they do in the UK. Monday - Finance and Economic questions, Tuesday - Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Wednesday - Questions of the Prime Minister, Thursday - Justice, Infrastructure and Intergovernmental affairs or some breakdown like that.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'd say no; I just don't trust the average person to do a sufficient job educating themselves, and I really don't trust the media to do an accurate job portraying the issues. I have a hard time thinking of an issue that should nationally be put to a referendum. Maybe something like senate or parliamentary reform, though neither of those would stand a chance of passing.

Is representative democracy really any better than direct democracy in this regard? Representatives don't vote on bills as they do because they are more educated about the issues. They vote on party lines.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree, and I'd add that 90% of what the government does is really, really, really, really, boring.

The whole reason we elect other people to represent us is so that they can sit through boring policy meetings while we watch hockey and drink beer.

Scott Reid, is that you?

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Gozer

So you'd be in favour of a vote as long as some people's votes are worth more than others?

Then why vote?

I support the referendum idea in the abstract, but I would likely hate the implementation of it.

Possibly, but if "we" (the big global everyone over 18 "we") are voting on every single issue, I see absolutely no reason some crackwhore who dropped out of elementary school and has no concept of right and wrong should have the same percentage vote as say a PhD, or a business owner who actually contributes to society.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is representative democracy really any better than direct democracy in this regard? Representatives don't vote on bills as they do because they are more educated about the issues. They vote on party lines.

The party lines are determined by a collaborative and competitive process that is confirmed by the party members (and the Leader mostly) and selected by the electorate. While the individual representatives may not be educated about each issue, the collective of their party and the commons as a whole is very educated about everything that comes up for debate.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by old-fart

I see absolutely no reason some crackwhore who dropped out of elementary school and has no concept of right and wrong should have the same percentage vote as say a PhD, or a business owner who actually contributes to society.

I do.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

The party lines are determined by a collaborative and competitive process that is confirmed by the party members (and the Leader mostly) and selected by the electorate. While the individual representatives may not be educated about each issue, the collective of their party and the commons as a whole is very educated about everything that comes up for debate.

And they promptly dismiss their own conclusions regarding the interests of their constituents and vote with the party.

[Azure]

If we want to actually protect the rights of a minority there is no way a representative democracy would work.

It might be the more efficient(god I hate that word)...way of letting the people speak, but it wouldn't work out too well.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Gozer

And they promptly dismiss their own conclusions regarding the interests of their constituents and vote with the party.

As I have pointed out above, MP's aren't representatives of their constituents except in name only. They are part of a collective idea led by a single leader and that is what people vote for. Heck, if you have a riding that votes 65% left of center in a perfect split and 35% for the CPC, only the 35% will have their view reflected in their MP's voting record. It can't be any other way under our system.

If your MP is brilliant or a dolt, it doesn't matter whatsoever. They will vote the party line or be replaced by the party. If the constituents don't care for that party line they have the choice of replacing them every 5 years at most.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

If we want to actually protect the rights of a minority there is no way a representative democracy would work.

It might be the more efficient(god I hate that word)...way of letting the people speak, but it wouldn't work out too well.

I haven't seen the pig that must be flying outside my window....but I agree with Azure here!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

I haven't seen the pig that must be flying outside my window....but I agree with Azure here!

I would fight equally hard for gay rights as I would for the right to be a Scientologist.

Well, maybe not THAT equally hard, but still.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would fight equally hard for gay rights as I would for the right to be a Scientologist.

Well, maybe not THAT equally hard, but still.

One day we'll meet up and you'll realise that I don't have horns either. Who'd have thunk it?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

One day we'll meet up and you'll realise that I don't have horns either. Who'd have thunk it?

Probably.

Disagreeing is fun. Every once in a while its fun to call someone stupid too. You can try it on me too sometime.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Azure

Probably.

Disagreeing is fun. Every once in a while its fun to call someone stupid too. You can try it on me too sometime.

Azure, you're stupid.

Nope, that wasn't satisfying, or fun. I must be doing it wrong.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Azure, you're stupid.

Nope, that wasn't satisfying, or fun. I must be doing it wrong.

It has to happen in the heat of the moment in order to be genuine.