Vadum: Poor people voting? That's Un-American!

[cestlefun17]

There ARE term limits. And you still have the same old stale voices. Thank you, flawless system. We've had the same thing for decades here too until the last three or four elections.

There are no term limits for Congress. Many states (including mine) also do not have term limits for the state legislature.

The matter of the Governor-General's approval for dissolving Parliament is almost always just a formality, and the exceptional circumstances have only been invoked once or twice since Confederation. And you can take your American system of separation of powers, but your ignorance showing.

I will admit to being ignorant as to the intricacies of Canadian government. Wikipedia (which I know is not always reliable, so please correct me if I'm wrong) says the Governor-General can dissolve the House of Commons (but not the Senate) at any time. Typically the Prime Minister makes that decision, and the GG rubber-stamps it (like pretty much everything else), but it seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the GG can dissolve the House of Commons pretty much whenever s/he wants. (To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not at all a fan of the Canadian system of government, for many reasons other than the multiple parties.)

You have a strange idea of flawless, but then again, you have many strange ideas.

Flawless in the mathematical sense, not in the sense of any subjective opinion. Again, see May's Theorem.

The Governor General is not an all-powerful god. If he or she were to dick around, a new GG would be appointed. Yes, the Queen's authority is still recognized in Canada, technically allowing her to dick around in certain ways, but in practice, she's not going to risk pissing off the Commonwealth and the world just for shits and giggles, and there are limits to what she can and can't do.

You have to trust that she's not insane and doesn't want to piss off the Commonwealth. It'll probably never happen, but if it is possible for it to happen, then you must be prepared that it will happen.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

And then the Commonwealth ceases to recognize her authority. We live in the modern world, not 1600. Also, if a Monarch is nuts, they can be forced to step aside while someone acts as their proxy.

Honestly, I think that the monarchy is outdated and useless, but it's not like Canada's government is sitting atop a house of cards. The queen has zero impact on my day-to-day life.

[cestlefun17]

Honestly, I think that the monarchy is outdated and useless, but it's not like Canada's government is sitting atop a house of cards.

I realize that Canada is a very stable country. It is just not at all a preferable system to me. I find the idea of a monarchy to be repugnant, and not only that, but your monarch doesn't even live in your country! She appoints someone to do her dirty work for her. And Canadians have virtually no civil liberties as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be suspended at any time thanks to its "Notwithstanding Clause."

So perhaps it is a good thing that you have a multi-party system in your country. Because you put too much trust that your government will do the right thing, you need to make sure you have more options (although again, thanks to vote splitting, it still doesn't prevent a party that received a MINORITY of votes from winning the election!) It also helps that Canadians, unlike Americans, are not absolutely nuts (relatively speaking).

[scotsgit]

Sept 3, 2011 8:33:32 GMT -5 the sandman said:

The comments section of that article is astonishing.

:...ibelieve that the vote should be limited to people that own property or a business."

The answer to that is simple: If you want that, then you also have to have a system of recruitment whereby only those who own properties can join the armed forces. Put that forward and watch them recoil in horror.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

And Canadians have virtually no civil liberties as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be suspended at any time thanks to its "Notwithstanding Clause."

What? The Notwithstanding Clause only applies to certain scenarios. For instance, Ralph Klein was unsuccessful in invoking it because the issue of gay marriage doesn't fall under provincial jurisdiction. The same roadblock has applied to most attempts at utilizing it, and there is a limit to how long legislation enacted upon it carries legal weight.

In any case, we have the power to vote in and out provincial governments, so the Premier is still accountable to the people.

[cestlefun17]

What? The Notwithstanding Clause only applies to certain scenarios. For instance, Ralph Klein was unsuccessful in invoking it because the issue of gay marriage is a federal one, not provincial.

Could the federal government invoke it to ban gay marriage?

[Rime]

Sept 3, 2011 9:32:01 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

There ARE term limits. And you still have the same old stale voices. Thank you, flawless system. We've had the same thing for decades here too until the last three or four elections.

There are no term limits for Congress. Many states (including mine) also do not have term limits for the state legislature.

Umm, that's your state legislature, not your federal government. But I understand that the individual states are allowed to throw around all sorts of caveats because the "federal government should stay the hell out of state affairs."

Sept 3, 2011 9:32:01 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I will admit to being ignorant as to the intricacies of Canadian government. Wikipedia (which I know is not always reliable, so please correct me if I'm wrong) says the Governor-General can dissolve the House of Commons (but not the Senate) at any time. Typically the Prime Minister makes that decision, and the GG rubber-stamps it (like pretty much everything else), but it seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the GG can dissolve the House of Commons pretty much whenever s/he wants. (To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not at all a fan of the Canadian system of government, for many reasons other than the multiple parties.)

You may want to read my post again. I did mention that the Governor-General has done that in the past. On the other hand, it has happened only once or twice since Confederation. Since we aren't ranked below Somalia for government stability, nor has there been a "Great Canadian Revolt," one may want to assume that it worked out okay. Furthermore, elections are expensive and tiring events and our political parties are aware that calling a frivolous election (or overturning the House of Commons) can easily earn themselves a term or two of being an unpopular box to check. It can also earn a GG who does the same quite a bit of ire that they will be remembered for. At the very least, heaps of derision and an immediate dismissal.

[cestlefun17]

Umm, that's your state legislature, not your federal government. But I understand that the individual states are allowed to throw around all sorts of caveats because the "federal government should stay the hell out of state affairs."

Again, there are absolutely NO term limits for Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot legislate term limits for their own representatives in Congress (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779). States may impose term limits on their state legislatures but many do not.

On the other hand, it has happened only once or twice since Confederation.

If you grant the government a certain power, you must expect that they could invoke it. Basically you have to trust that the people who run your government are not nuts. Granted, this is much easier in Canada because Canadians are generally not nutty.

[the sandman]

Sept 3, 2011 9:01:05 GMT -5 ragabash said:

The most assinine idea in that article and the comments is that somehow the poor don't have a state in the economy. I'd like to say that's a mind-boggling level of stupidity, but sadly I've encountered too many conservatives and libertarians.

It's a common theme among many conservatives that the poor are not contributors to the economy, but rather parasites leeching off of it. It comes from Randian Objectivism, which after all of the speeches, hyperbole, and PR spin essentially boils down to "Screw You, Buddy, I've Got Mine."

It's not in any way accurate, since the poor pay taxes to the government like everyone else, (Hell, when you factor in sales taxes, they pay a much higher percentage of their income than the wealthy) but the Randian conservatives don't give a shit about reality, they only thing they see value in is net worth. If you have money, you have value and therefore have a right to the franchise, if you don't, you have no worth and should therefore be barred from participation in government or really anything else.

I am always surprised by the awesomely naive thought behind this attitude. They apparently believe that the only measure of the worth of a human being is their bank balance. How they manage to justify that with their supposed "Christian faith" bewilders me, since I'm fairly certain Jesus would vomit in horror at the very idea.

[Amaranth]

Sept 3, 2011 8:54:33 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I think the appropriate remedy for this is to institute term limits. Again, the majority-rules system is the only system that is flawless, which to me makes it the most desirable.

Of course, even in states where term limits are available, you still get the same old people. That doesn't seem like a solution. Also, the Presidency is a pretty poor example of this.

The "flawless" system you advocate has most led to the complaint you have of a lack of an opposition party that one can really respect. Hell, we don't even have a liberal party in this country, but it's flawless? No.

Right now, a lot of voters really don't have a viable choice. That's a pretty big flaw.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Sept 3, 2011 9:54:29 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Could the federal government invoke it to ban gay marriage?

Bleh, it's been a while since I studied this stuff in school, but...

It can be invoked to pass laws which violate certain portions of the Charter (can't remember the specifics off-hand, so I'm not sure if it could be used to ban gay marriage), but most importantly, it can't be used to prevent people from voting (including laws which would ban freedom of movement, etc.), and is only applicable for a limited period of time. The populace has the ability to vote out a Parliament which acts irresponsibly. The primary purpose is, as I recall, to keep the judicial branch in check* & allow for certain measures to be taken under extraordinary circumstances.

Truth be told, I'm not a huge fan of the Notwithstanding Clause (at least in its present form**), but we do have rights, liberties and the power to strike back if the government steps out of line. I don't feel all that threatened by it.

By the way, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on these points (aside from the bit about two-party systems). I just want to make it clear that we're not quite as susceptible to government oppression as it might appear. Canada tends to be less legalistic than the US, and the cultural view of government differs a bit, so I can see why Americans might get a tad freaked out by our "ways". Thing is, there are a number of intricacies at play which aren't easy to spot when you're on the outside looking in. Do some things need to change? Absolutely. Are we in any realistic danger of having our rights stripped from us? No.

* For instance, if a judge rules that child porn is free expression.

** I'm fine with the overall idea of using it to challenge certain judicial rulings, but there are numerous elements which need to be altered.

[Yla]

Sept 3, 2011 8:23:56 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

The only mathematically perfect voting system is a majority-rules system between two candidates (May's Theorem).

Mathematics don't always translate well to reality.

[cestlefun17]

Of course, even in states where term limits are available, you still get the same old people. That doesn't seem like a solution. Also, the Presidency is a pretty poor example of this.

How so? With term limits, there is eventual turn-around in the government's membership. As opposed to, for example, the Senate where some Senators have been serving for decades. Why is the Presidency a poor example of this?

Perhaps by "same old people" you mean "same old ideas"? This to me, is a positive thing, as I think that any change in society should be deliberated carefully. It is unlikely that a fringe third party will gain any significant level of power. Rather, the purpose of third parties is to influence the ideology of the two main parties. New and more radical ideas are distilled through them and shape the American political conscience in a more controlled manner.

The "flawless" system you advocate has most led to the complaint you have of a lack of an opposition party that one can really respect. Hell, we don't even have a liberal party in this country, but it's flawless? No.

Again, flawless in the mathematical sense. The lack of a respectable opposition party is the result of the people who support the opposition party, and the people the opposition party must cater to.

Right now, a lot of voters really don't have a viable choice. That's a pretty big flaw.

There is unfortunately no other voting system that is mathematically sound. All other voting systems have flaws of their own, but in this instance we're talking mathematical flaws, flaws that can be manipulated to create completely nonsensical results.

It can be invoked to pass laws which violate certain portions of the Charter (can't remember the specifics off-hand, so I'm not sure if it could be used to ban gay marriage), but most importantly, it can't be used to prevent people from voting (including laws which would ban freedom of movement, etc.), and is only applicable for a limited period of time. The populace has the ability to vote out a Parliament which acts irresponsibly. The primary purpose is, as I recall, to keep the judicial branch in check* & allow for certain measures to be taken under extraordinary circumstances.

It was my understanding that Parliament could invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to impair fundamental civil rights and the equality right, but not certain limited rights like mobility and elections. Any law invoking the clause must be renewed every five years, thus giving the people the opportunity to vote in another Parliament who could vote down the law. But if the people of Canada were like Texas, and just didn't care for gay people, then they could continue voting in politicians who would renew notwithstanding laws against gay people (for example).

The cultural view of government differs greatly between the two countries and I understand that. You are very fortunate to live in a much more tolerant and intelligent country. If the United States had a Notwithstanding Clause to its Constitution, politicians would use it to run roughshod over minority rights, and such politicians would probably continue to be supported.

But back to the main issue: how do you reconcile the fact that a majority of people DO NOT want the Conservative Party to be the governing party, but yet the Conservative Party IS the governing party? I realize that the House of Commons is not elected on a national basis but in ridings: was the Conservative Party elected by a majority vote in a majority of ridings?

[Thejebusfire]

:...ibelieve that the vote should be limited to people that own property or a business."

My grandfather has twenty acres of land and he's still poor. Explain that.

"Why are 18 year olds allowed to vote?"

If they're old enough to fight and die in the army, then they're old enough to vote for who sends them there.

"We should not only purge welfare slackers and other un-Americans from the voter rolls -- including anyone who is unemployed and therefore not a producer, but voting should be proportional depending on net worth or taxes paid. "

I can tell this person has never had a hard time in his life. Your probably someone from a wealthy family whose parents bought your way into college and then handed you a job afterwords. Just because you're on welfare does NOT mean your a slacker. I bet people on welfare probably harder than you do. Also, have you been watching the news? Unemployment is pretty damn high.

[Yla]

Sept 3, 2011 11:08:31 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Perhaps by "same old people" you mean "same old ideas"? This to me, is a positive thing, as I think that any change in society should be deliberated carefully. It is unlikely that a fringe third party will gain any significant level of power. Rather, the purpose of third parties is to influence the ideology of the two main parties. New and more radical ideas are distilled through them and shape the American political conscience in a more controlled manner.

Wishful thinking.

Again, flawless in the mathematical sense. The lack of a respectable opposition party is the result of the people who support the opposition party, and the people the opposition party must cater to.

Again, fuck mathematics. Political systems have to prove themselves in reality, and if a system fares well in theory but fails due to practical concerns and people not behaving like perfect game theory automata, it fails

There is unfortunately no other voting system that is mathematically sound. All other voting systems have flaws of their own, but in this instance we're talking mathematical flaws, flaws that can be manipulated to create completely nonsensical results.

Negative vote weights are an almost regular occurence in the Bundestag elections.