No, this is not "nice" it realpolitik.

hacker

Every time you talk about the US and Canadian political systems, all I hear is "Canada good, America bad", and you cannot say it's because I am not listening or my reading comprehension skills are failing me

Buddy, your the guy who wanted to bring a comparison with the US into this discussion.
Here .....

If you say so. It almost seems counter to everything you've told me about parliamentary government so far. (Just that exact statement above). In America, it depends on who is president, also. Some are more willing to compromise with their political

To which i responded

If you want to go beyond the duopoly to understand why compromise is easier in a parliamentary system, okay.
Because as I noted before elsewhere, in the US there are far more checks and balances and far more entry points for a group wishing to obstruct the democratic will

...

Parliamentary systems are generally much less complicated that the US system. And the more complexity you have the greater the opportunity to game the system. And the further you move from the democratic ideal.

Buddy, your the guy who wanted to bring a comparison with the US into this discussion.

Not to sound childish but you brought it up not me.

Anyway, I disagree with your most recent statement that parliamentary systems (in general) are less complicated than our system. Canada's may be. But a crap-ton of other parliamentary democracies are not. The only difference is that the executive and legislative branches are separate in the US system. Certainly a large change in the mechanics of the system, but not "more complicated" than the average parliamentary system. You are not only judging the US system through the eyes of your own country, you're judging all the other parliamentary systems through Canadian eyes as well, assuming that they're all the same. I'd be perfectly willing to defer to your views and facts about Canada, I just cannot accept your beliefs vis a vis the American system. Am I hardheaded because I have a different opinion? No, you didn't call me that. But YOU are the one saying "Canada good America bad"; I am not trying to say "US good, Canada bad." Either way is childish. All that I am trying to say is, that it is unwise to look through Canada's eyes to judge the US system, rather than take an objective look at it.

Now can we get on with the discussion? In fact, would somebody care to remind me what it was about?

It was about the Canuckian General Election which happens on Monday.

Since the thread was started, the NDP have slipped a little but for the last week have been steady at about 23-24%. The Liberals have continued to improve their ratings, overtaking the Conservatives to 35-36%, with the CPC on 30-31%

So the latest projections give the Libs a plurality of seats, but 35 away from a majority.

However, not all polls agree, and a couple are showing a narrowing. Basically we'll know by Tuesday how reliable those polls are.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada- ... -1.3273313

If I may ask a question, on what basis do Canadians choose an MP when they go to the polls? His or her own performance? or that of the party overall? (Not trying to argue with your system....just asking because I want to understand. My arguments in no way assumed you didn't know what you were talking about, at least as far as Canada.)

Danivon: Well....duh (no sarcasm intended). It's all about political survival of course.

Have fun voting today. Good luck. (I suppose).

hacker

If I may ask a question, on what basis do Canadians choose an MP when they go to the polls?

There are three identified factors.
The quality of the local candidate.
The quality of the leader of the parties.
The quality of the political parties platforms.
It varies by riding how much these factors matter. Usually incumbents can gain loyalty through constituent work that can give them an advantage with voters, even when their leader or party is underperforming. However the leadership question and the platform are usually what makes the decision.
In the last election Quebec went NDP big time and all kinds of rookie MPs got elected without even campaigning. Due to Bon Jack Layton and the fact that Quebec is the most left wing of Canada's provinces. (One young lady was on vacation in Las Vegas and had no idea that she was winning the election. Upon taking a phone call from her sister telling her she'd won, she decided right then and there to actually visit the riding and even learn her some French. True story)

danivon

Basically we'll know by Tuesday how reliable those polls are.

The last poll published had the percentage of votes pretty close.
40/30/20/6/3

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/po ... index.html

But the ability to predict seats still evades pollsters. Especially because the 6% for Bloc are all in the province of Quebec. They had a resurgence, won 10 seats and their vote peeled away from the NDP mostly. A Liberal minority was generally predicted but the result was usually about 20 more seats than predicted...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/18 ... ref=canada

rickyp

(One young lady was on vacation in Las Vegas and had no idea that she was winning the election. Upon taking a phone call from her sister telling her she'd won, she decided right then and there to actually visit the riding and even learn her some French. True story

)
This young lady, a bar tender, ran for the NDP last election. She stood for re-election this time too and won despite the move away from here party.
Turned out she worked very hard in the riding, and impressed her constituents with her grace, her dedication and her intelligence. (She was an Anglophone in a mostly Francophone riding) She was also considered a bright young star among the NDP caucus. I guess it shows that the local factor really counts.
She'll be qualified for a full pension before the next election... She changed her life just putting her name on the ballot for what she thought was a bit of a joy ride. And her constituents ended up with a quality representative for their riding.

I gotta say your new PM is hotter than the last one...

JimHackerMP wrote:I gotta say your new PM is hotter than the last one...

his wife is cute too ...

What booted out Harper, anyway? I understand his party put through a bill to increase the house of Commons by 30 seats, and that they were supposed to be seats returning conservative MPs. Canadians just sick of him I guess?

That's an interesting story. I had my name on the ballot once. Didn't work out very well. No one's going to elect a 20 year old to the Board of Ed...

hacker

What booted out Harper, anyway

He was an @#$!.
Seriously unpopular, even more than the party. Control freak. He wouldn't even let candidates talk to the media during the campaign. (Imagine a reporter calling from a local newspaper for opinions on issues from candidates and being told by the Conservative Candidate's staff that he was too busy to respond until after the election. That happened in almost every riding.)
His personal policy preference on things like foreign aid, science, and foreign policy generally ran counter to 80 years of Canadian action by governments of both major parties.. His attitudes on social policies ran counter to 70% of the populace. He would not, for instance, allow government scientists to talk to the media or publish unvetted science papers, and he cancelled the long form census against the advice and eventual howling of all social scientists and demographers in the country))
He reached a maximum of about 34 percent of the vote and counted on the Liberals and NDP splitting the opposition vote and sneaking in as a result. When the NDP vote collapsed he was doomed.

Well, I'm happy for ya. Pity we cannot get rid of our current leader (and his possible replacement) so easily. (See my points below for my views on that, however).

In the mean time though, let me ATTEMPT to explain what I've been trying to explain during our most recent misunderstanding here. Perhaps it's partly my fault for not making myself entirely clear. Look, I'm not Mark @#$! Antony, or Shakespeare. Don't expect me to be, or judge me if I fall short of the mark. No offense, but you're not Thomas Jefferson yourself. (And neither am I.)


My general points are as follows:

1. Parliamentary and presidential systems are two sides of the same coin in many respects. The object is to prevent an absolute leader from prevailing. Who cares which road one picks as long as you get to the same place in the end? Both have their inherent advantages over the other, and drawbacks compared to each other. It is ridiculous, nay silly, to insist that parliamentary or presidential is actually better than the other. Which system a country uses depends on its unique political culture.

2. You seem to think that Canada is the "typical" parliamentary structure. It isn't. Like Baskin Robbins, they're selling a crap-ton of flavors. No two parliamentary systems are alike. Some are closer to "dysfunctional" than others. And, many have completely different electoral systems: I do not doubt Canadians themselves would find it awkward voting in Japan, for example. After all, Canada, when you get right down to it, uses first past the post (single member plurality vote, whatever it is called).

3. Whether a system is dysfunctional is not automatically the product of the fact that it's a presidential or parliamentary system. There are other factors at work. There have been, and still are, dysfunctional parliamentary democracies

4. Making the United States more like Canada, as far as its structures of governance and constitution, will NOT solve our problems, nor will it make our society as utopian as Canada's.

5. The United States Constitution does not have "too many" checks & balances: that is ridiculous. The "Westminster model" is a product of the evolution of absolute monarchy into constitutional monarchy; the US presidential model is the product of the constitutional settlement of 1787-9, itself a product of the political instability in the "United" States from 1781-9. Since then it has evolved, so we cannot judge the US system as if it works precisely as intended (and in certain ways, it's good that it doesn't).

6. You are correct that the US system has many flaws; however: I disagree with your reasoning as to why. I have said MANY times before, Ricky, I do not disagree with your WHAT, simply your WHY. My fault with your arguments is basically that you look at things in two dimensions. (see points 1 through 6).


Below is NOT what I am trying to say:

1. The US system is somehow better than the Canadian system.

2. The US system isn't flawed; there is no room for improvement because it's the best possible.

3. Parliamentary democracies are inferior to presidential ones.

4. The GOP is better than the Democratic Party, or less out of touch.

5. You're an idiot and/or a jingoist (seriously.....!!!)


Hopefully, that covers the majority of our arguments, though I am not going to rifle through the last four pages of some of our sillier debate and hit you point by point. Does this make my point a little clearer? Because I think you have so far misunderstood me, entirely. So I hope this clears things up.

Hacker, most of my reasoning comes from recently reading Fukuyama's most recent book.
Here's why I think you have a problem with understanding whats going on...

Some readers will find this book disturbing, especially those Americans who feel certain that their nation is the last best hope on Earth. Fukuyama neither believes nor desires that the world should be recast in America’s image. “While the American economy remains a source of miraculous innovation, American government is hardly a source of inspiration.” Political decay, he warns, is more advanced in the United States than in other thriving democracies because the latter have demonstrated a capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. This, however, has been difficult for Americans because they regard their Constitution “as a quasi-religious document” and equate any questioning of the Founding Fathers with blasphemy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Most parliamentary systems have been willing to adapt and change the ways they do things over time. Some, like the UK, have not been constrained by a written constitution that is unbending,.
I'd encourage you to have a read of the book.
Here's one thing:

Since then it has evolved, so we cannot judge the US system as if it works precisely as intended (and in certain ways, it's good that it doesn't).

I can't understand what you mean here. Effective governance isn't judged by looking at how something was intended to work and how it works.
Its judged by how a system is able to adapt and fairly respond to the needs of the greatest portion of society.
A system that only works well for a small percentage of people is a success for that small part.
We live in middle class democratic societies. They are middle class in large part because they are democratic.
When democracy is distorted too much, and the middle class lose their ability to affect the levers of power, then a system starts to decay.
Everything that is now well known about lower middle class earnings and lower middle class and working class living standards since the early 80s are symptoms of the loss of democratic power by the middle class and working class in the US. That means, has to mean, things aren't working the way they once were.... That's representative of decay in the system as the oligarchs have
figured out how to use the innumerable levers and entry points in the system of governance to largely control the outcome in ways that benefit themselves mostly ...
Where democracy is stronger .... there is greater balance.
In another thread someone noted that the Swedish corporate tax is 20% with virtually no loopholes . In the US its 35% but through the myriad of the tax code the effective rate is in the 12 to 16% range. Politicians rail about the tax rate and simplifying the tax code but never do anything. Because the lobbyists and groups like ALEC work very hard to keep the tax code complicated and a tool for corporations to use to their benefit.
Complexity is on the side of the corporate lawyers... So government (in this case the tax code) stays complex.