I've been watching Canadian politics from afar and (Quebec-aside), really like their 3-party system.
You have:
1. Conservatives: to the left of Republicans. Moderates. Right now hold 96 seats in parliament.
2. Liberals: the middle party in Canada, but to the left of Dems. Hold 182 seats in parliament.
3. New Democratic Party: basically Bernie on roids. Hold 44 seats in parliament.
Canadians - feel free to correct my rudimentary assessment...
Maybe having a third (e.g. Libertarian Party)
honest question: what is it about Quebec that you felt the need to exclude it? Is it just the Parti Québéçois, or something more?
The big difference I think you might be glossing over is that here in Canada we have a Parliamentary system of government. There is literally no executive branch there is in the US. The prime minister (currently Justin Trudeau) is a member of Parliament, and while he has head-of-state duties his job is more analogous to Paul Ryan's. The PM will always be from the party with the largest representation. Government is often done by coalition, though the current Liberal party needs no such alliances and can basically push through whatever it wants.
There are advantages and disadvantes to both systems. Given their political histories, I doubt either populace would support being governed under the other country's system if somehow they could be magically switched.
Oh, and there's more than 3 parties in Canada, though their power and seats in parliament wax and wane. At the federal level you left you the Green Party and Bloc Québéçois.
honest question: what is it about Quebec that you felt the need to exclude it? Is it just the Parti Québéçois, or something more?
1. Gary Johnson
2. Donald Trump
Clinton 40%
Trump 35%
Johnson 25%
all fair enough points and corrections. I did think about referencing the crown as the executive branch, but their modern powers are so paltry - my sentence was supposed to read "....literally no executive branch *power like* there is in the US [where it has powers equivalent to or exceeding the other branches]. My bad... I dropped words while typing too fast. Then again even many Canadians fail to realize or aknowledge that Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada.honest question: what is it about Quebec that you felt the need to exclude it? Is it just the Parti Québéçois, or something more?
The big difference I think you might be glossing over is that here in Canada we have a Parliamentary system of government. There is literally no executive branch there is in the US. The prime minister (currently Justin Trudeau) is a member of Parliament, and while he has head-of-state duties his job is more analogous to Paul Ryan's. The PM will always be from the party with the largest representation. Government is often done by coalition, though the current Liberal party needs no such alliances and can basically push through whatever it wants.
There are advantages and disadvantes to both systems. Given their political histories, I doubt either populace would support being governed under the other country's system if somehow they could be magically switched.
Oh, and there's more than 3 parties in Canada, though their power and seats in parliament wax and wane. At the federal level you left you the Green Party and Bloc Québéçois.
Some corrections:
The PM is not the head of State and actually has no head of State duties or powers.
There is technically an executive branch of government - the Privy Council, and for all practical purposes, the sub-group of the Privy Council that is the Ministers of the Crown (the Cabinet) is what wields the executive power.
The PM is not always from the party with the largest representation. (see the King-Byng affair - where King retained being the PM even without the most seats, in fact, he lost his own seat!). Rather, the Government is formed by the party that controls the confidence of Parliament, and that party usually chooses the PM.
In Canada there has never been a government by coalition, and in Britain there has only been one that I recall (so Government is not often done by coalition - though it is the case in Israel, another parliamentary country, it is often a coalition government).
Note that the Westminster style parliamentary system is the very definition of tyranny according to James Madison. That is, the power of the legislative and executive branches are both vested in the same people (the governing party), and in this style of government, the Parliament is supreme and can override all judicial decisions.
Our two party system dies the minute we go to a STV voting system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
The basic jist is you rank candidates and if your first choice is eliminated, your second choice becomes "real."
Imagine we have Mr. Republican, who would prefer the Libertarian candidate but still wants an R over a D, at all costs. With the current system, a vote for L hurts that end goal, particularly if Mr. Republican lives in a swing state. Because if (and when, almost assuredly) the L loses, his vote is "lost." With STV, it means that he could vote:Quote1. Gary Johnson
2. Donald Trump
Pretend that the election results are:QuoteClinton 40%
Trump 35%
Johnson 25%
If a candidate doesn't have enough votes to win the majority, as is the case, the lowest candidates gets eliminated. Those (1) votes become whatever their second votes are, so Mr. Republican's first choice of Johnson converts to his (2) choice of Trump. It effectively means you can vote for your primary and secondary choice on a ballot without feeling like you are "throwing your vote away."
But alas. Current politicians would lose their seats in droves were something like this added.
The big difference I think you might be glossing over is that here in Canada we have a Parliamentary system of government. ...
... There is technically an executive branch of government - the Privy Council, and for all practical purposes, the sub-group of the Privy Council that is the Ministers of the Crown (the Cabinet) is what wields the executive power ...
The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. |
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. |
... the Government is formed by the party that controls the confidence of Parliament, and that party usually chooses the PM ...
Abolish any the-winner-takes-it-all voting system.
Rant aside. Could we get there? And what would it take to get there?
Note that the Westminster style parliamentary system is the very definition of tyranny according to James Madison. That is, the power of the legislative and executive branches are both vested in the same people (the governing party), and in this style of government, the Parliament is supreme and can override all judicial decisions.And given one recent incumbent with his secret private office funding MPs, rolling all government bills into one no-discussion-permitted annual budget announcement and his closing parliament early to avoid questions - you can see the American's point.
... in this style of government, the Parliament is supreme and can override all judicial decisions.
Libertarianism is extreme conservatism, at its best. No thanks. This country's politics are too far to the right as it is. Having Republicans as the middle would be an unmitigated disaster.
Yeah, but the Parliament can override pretty much all of the rulings people consider important. The charter of rights and freedoms says right in it that the parliament can void all judicial decisions in [various areas] ...
So... basically if a wacko government gets in, they can pass laws that take away pretty much all freedoms and legal protections over the objection of the courts. The only catch is they have to re-up the law every 5 years and they have to admit they are violating that right. ...
Under the British system, which is ours, no political party can erect a prohibitory barrier to prevent the electors from getting information concerning the policy of the government. Freedom of discussion is essential to enlighten public opinion in a democratic State; it cannot be curtailed without affecting the right of the people to be informed through sources independent of the government concerning matters of public interest. There must be an untrammelled publication of the news and political opinions of the political parties contending for ascendancy. As stated in the preamble of The [Constitution Act, 1867], our constitution is and will remain, unless radically changed, "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." At the time of Confederation, the United Kingdom was a democracy. Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the State within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law. |
As a progressive, I'm afraid in the U.S., 3 parties wouldn't quite evolve that way, considering that half the country would like to go back to the cotton pickin' days. But it would be great to see a more legitimate progressive wing (Sanders, Warren, etc.), and a more responsive version of the current democratic party, as well as a diminished Republican - who are already extremist enough as it is.
Squote author=a plan comes together link=topic=62177.msg1248410#msg1248410 date=1475266793]You would end up with parties that reflect the desires of their times, just as you do now. You would just have more choices. Canada has had all sorts of parties over the last 149 years. Some parties started as federal parties. Some started as provincial parties that expanded their bases. One started as an offshoot of a Provincial party that will never expand its base.
So you don't really want three parties, you just want two different ones than what we have now? Instead of D and R you'd want socialist Dems and some borderline commies. Eh, sure. With populists on both sides in the current election, as well as in europe, already pushing for fewer liberties and less open societies that's not what I'd prefer, but whatever floats your boat.. Society does best with legitimate opposition on both sides, which sadly we don't have now. And at least your suggestion here would not help that either. All leftist "who can grow the state most" rule never worked out great.
You would end up with parties that reflect the desires of their times, just as you do now. You would just have more choices. Canada has had all sorts of parties over the last 149 years. Some parties started as federal parties. Some started as provincial parties that expanded their bases. One started as an offshoot of a Provincial party that will never expand its base.
Side comment - from up here all your parties look right wing. Our middle of the road parties (which tend to do well in elections, not too left or right) are more left than your Democrats. So how you define left/right depends a lot on where you are standing.
Interesting - we all have our own blinders on. I know the platforms of the parties here do not necessarily match the platforms of parties elsewhere, we just see the American ones the most so they are easiest to use for comparison.
You would end up with parties that reflect the desires of their times, just as you do now. You would just have more choices. Canada has had all sorts of parties over the last 149 years. Some parties started as federal parties. Some started as provincial parties that expanded their bases. One started as an offshoot of a Provincial party that will never expand its base.
Side comment - from up here all your parties look right wing. Our middle of the road parties (which tend to do well in elections, not too left or right) are more left than your Democrats. So how you define left/right depends a lot on where you are standing.
To add - so does what's considered left/right and conservative/liberal. Some things one country thinks of as a 'liberal' idea are seen as conservative elsewhere. This can be because they have even more 'liberal' proposals OR it can be because their history provides a different context.
As a whole (and as a US citizen living in Canada) I agree that Canada's political parties overall are more liberal than those in the US, but there are some issues that seem liberal here that we'd call conservative (or even reactionary) in the US.
All leftist "who can grow the state most" rule never worked out great.Hm.. considering e.g. Norway, which is far left from US POV, I think that worked out quite well. The people work far less then the US (or Germany), have higher standards of health, schooling and other social things, far less spread between poor and rich, a good economy etc.
Norway, which is far left from US POV, I think that worked out quite well. The people work far less then the US (or Germany), have higher standards of health, schooling and other social things, far less spread between poor and rich, a good economy etc.
Not bad for a "communist" country with crushing taxes.
Interesting - we all have our own blinders on. I know the platforms of the parties here do not necessarily match the platforms of parties elsewhere, we just see the American ones the most so they are easiest to use for comparison.
To add - so does what's considered left/right and conservative/liberal. Some things one country thinks of as a 'liberal' idea are seen as conservative elsewhere. This can be because they have even more 'liberal' proposals OR it can be because their history provides a different context.
As a whole (and as a US citizen living in Canada) I agree that Canada's political parties overall are more liberal than those in the US, but there are some issues that seem liberal here that we'd call conservative (or even reactionary) in the US.
Curious about what some of those liberal/not really liberal issues are?
Norway, which is far left from US POV, I think that worked out quite well. The people work far less then the US (or Germany), have higher standards of health, schooling and other social things, far less spread between poor and rich, a good economy etc.
Not bad for a "communist" country with crushing taxes.
Bet it's a lot harder to reach financial independence if the State is confiscating a majority of your income
On average it takes longer (but if you take Scandiums number, which I consider very high, just 10 years(-) longer), since this system means EVERYONE is (in a way) financially (semi)independend. Nobody has to go around begging. I bet there are cities in the US with more homeless people then whole Northern Europe.Norway, which is far left from US POV, I think that worked out quite well. The people work far less then the US (or Germany), have higher standards of health, schooling and other social things, far less spread between poor and rich, a good economy etc.
Not bad for a "communist" country with crushing taxes.
Bet it's a lot harder to reach financial independence if the State is confiscating a majority of your income
I'd have to disagree about being "unable" to become FI in the US if you have a chronic medical condition.On average it takes longer (but if you take Scandiums number, which I consider very high, just 10 years(-) longer), since this system means EVERYONE is (in a way) financially (semi)independend. Nobody has to go around begging. I bet there are cities in the US with more homeless people then whole Northern Europe.Norway, which is far left from US POV, I think that worked out quite well. The people work far less then the US (or Germany), have higher standards of health, schooling and other social things, far less spread between poor and rich, a good economy etc.
Not bad for a "communist" country with crushing taxes.
Bet it's a lot harder to reach financial independence if the State is confiscating a majority of your income
On the other hand, especially if you have e.g. medical problems, then it would be impossible in the US to be FI because of the bills but not that much harder in North Europe.
On average it takes longer (but if you take Scandiums number, which I consider very high, just 10 years(-) longer), since this system means EVERYONE is (in a way) financially (semi)independend. Nobody has to go around begging. I bet there are cities in the US with more homeless people then whole Northern Europe.
Regarding Canada (with Quebec being my 'blinders') - there's a few issues here that either don't fit neatly into the US view of "liberal/conservative" or seem at odds.