Direct Democracy at the federal level

I agree Marcarc, we do have the infrastructure in place to put direct democracy into action. We need to spread the idea so it will take root and grow. To paraphrase Susan, we need a major leaflet campaign!

Yes it can work.Leaflets are a good idea. What do the people and viewers of Vive think of t-shirts,ribbons?Too far fetched? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/question.gif' alt='Question'>

Don't think that DD has reached the point where it can be encapsulated on T-shirts, buttons, etc... It has barely reached mainstream media yet. There is no recognized spokesperson for DD in Canada; Patrick Boyer is known in only small circles. DD needs to be more realistic IMHO in order to be successful. I strongly believe in DD but I think it wil have to come from the backdoor and not even knowing that that democratic reforms such as citizen initiatives, plebiscites and recalls are in fact DD practices. It would be good if citizens could drive "DD" at the riding level by pushing their MP to realize that they should consult a whole lot more with their constituents and request them to use Internet new media methods such as blogs, polls, forums, etc...

I quite agree with the above, that's why I've stated that it 'has to' start at the municipal level. I had debated but don't think I would run federally even though a few people have said I should. The main point of a DD campaign is (I think) just what I said above,which is educating people on exactly what government is, and ISN"T. I don't really expect that it will jump up and suddenly seize people, however we did see how fast an unknown in Quebec came out of the blue-at least until people found out what his policies were. It will definitely be a grassroots thing, it took me five years of living here in Waterloo to find all the 'active' groups who would participate. I fully expect the 'vast middle class' will be wary of it, either until they see it in action, or until their lives are screwed over so royally that they will HAVE to get involved. I really wish I lived somewhere else besides a suburb in Waterloo, but you work with what you got!

I agree with all of the above. Marcarc's comments were quite well taken. I'll just mention the following. Every aspect of government administration today is governed by legislation. That's just the way the system is set up. So, for example, one of the bills under consideration is switching the legislative authority in certain matters from the Minister of Fisheries to the Minister of Transport. So, the legislation governing the activities must be amended to change the legislative authority for the matters in question from the M of F to the M of T. This is for all intents and purposes an administrative change that could be handled differently in a DD system and would not necessarily require a decision from citizens. In a DD system the citizen is required to, for example, choose between decision 'A' and decision 'B'. Citizens require information to enable their being able to make an informed decision however, after the decision is made it is up to the public service to implement it and make it work. The citizen does not need to determine all the details required to make it work or approve each and every one of these. Depending on the national/provincial administrative structure utilized in the DD system, the number of decisions citizens are called upon to make could be far fewer than those required of our representatives in the current system. Another point is that in the current system, if, for example, the Liberal government introduced legislation today that would result in Canada becoming a paradise for all its citizens, then lost government, the legislation would most likely disappear into the void never to be heard of again. In a DD system, this will not be the case. I agree with both Milton and Spud that we should be finding means to get DD, or at least the thought of DD, percolating around in the public conscious. We need to find a creative way to do this. If we can at least get people curious about DD and what it can offer, it would be a start. The importance of word of mouth can not be underestimated. If we can start getting the DD notion 'out there' and it results in DD beginning to enter the common political lexicon and popping up here and there in casual conversation, we'll gain. I understand the point gaulois is making re: publicizing DD however, believe that starting a modest campaign re: DD would serve to support the goals mentioned later in his post. I'll have more to say on this later. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

Let's not underestimate the resistance that lawyers would represent on these. And guess how these laywers are appointed in these positions. There is a fascinating story in Le Devoir this morning from Normand Lester (the Black Book guy that remembers things): <a href="http://www.ledevoir.com/2005/04/21/79861.html">Il faut aussi une enquête publique sur les magouilles référendaires</a>

I'm not entirely sure what you mean in this regard.

Marcarc, you have said “I truly support DD simply because it is the only thing left that I've seen have any potential.” Well Mararc , and other DD proponents, I have found a time to read a little (and I stress little) about the Swiss model of Direct Democracy as contained in your link to the article by Gregory Fossedal. As I have said before I am not sure that it is a PRACTICAL solution for Canada, certainly it is not a change that will come about in Federal or even Provincial politics for many years. From what I can see it evolved in Switzerland over more than 100 years, having its roots in small village “councils” in the 1800s. This is not to say that aspects of this system could not be gradually introduced within our parliamentary system as Mr Fossedal says:- “Of course, it may be very possible to combine direct democracy with the institution of a strong foreign policy president or Congress. But limiting the people's sovereignty to certain areas will create certain new problems in and of itself…………………. but the party system here has deep roots and serves important functions. Those of us who think there should be an expansion of direct democracy cannot ignore this consideration in advocating reforms.” One of the greater problems I have with this is getting the individual suffent UNBIASED, FACTUAL information to make an informed decition, and individuals taking the time to do so. Again a quote from Mr Fossendal:- "The problem with socialism," as I believe George Bernard Shaw complained, "is that it takes up too many evenings." This is one problem with direct democracy and its concomitant, citizen's government. Truly, it takes up a lot of evenings. I do not say this lightly, or as a subtle means of praising direct democracy. This level of citizenship is a burden on time and on the mind. It is becoming still more difficult to manage in an age when the pressures on women, men, and families seem to be high and rising.” “It is worth noting that Swiss direct democracy, while it still includes popular assembly in some cantons and many cantons, seems to have transcended these flaws in a number of ways, as has purely representative democracy in many other countries. The most important, of course, is the press, which offers a stream of extensive, diverse, instantaneous, and ongoing information to voters.” Can we really expect Canadians to seek a diverse source of opinions and facts from a variety of media before making a decision, and will they be provided with and take the time to assimilate all the information necessary. That is not to say that all our current “representatives” do so now. Even at a local level it is next to impossible to keep up with issues unless one attends EVERY council meeting, only a small portion being otherwise disseminated. Modern technology may improve this but it is no yet available to everyone nor are current agendas posted by most municipalities. On a national level it is like comparing apples and oranges “Switzerland has only 7.5 million people, and yes it has more mountains than some countries, and yes it is only about half the size of Maine.(41,000 sq Km) ” and “The cantonal parliaments, and even the federal parliament, are populated mainly by people who keep their regular job.” With our population of around 30,000,000 and aprox 10,000,000 sq Km, many large cities divided by vast areas of less populated rural and / or remote areas it is an entirely different scenario. There is a big difference between a highly paid, full time politician and the sort of representation most of us enjoy at the local level and is apparently more in line with the Swiss model. Being of a rater practical outlook as dictated by both my rural upbringing and years in the Mechanical / Electrical repair business I have a limited tolerance for “theoretical” discussions. This is not to say that I do not recognize their place and importance in developing new ideas but rather that I tend to jump to the questions of “How will this work” , What are the specific problems” , “What are the changes that can be made to make it actually wok as desired”. So in conclusion I must ask how precisely do you expect this to work in Federal or Provincial government? Do you see a place for a compromise system with more of a occasional referendum type feel to it? Is it practical to expect parliamentarians to vote for a change in the system that may substantially alter the way they go about our business? How can we ensure that we receive sufficient unbiased facts to form opinions ( that’s a current issue also) and not B.S and “spin”? What kind of system must be in place to collect votes that does not cost an arm and a leg each time it is used? In short its all well and good in theory but I cannot see any way of implementing it in the foreseeable future (nor would I want a similar system) except for a compromise involving more citizen input into our current parliamentary system. which I hope would involve more “accountability”.

DD is the only way to go.It will not be perfect as nothinbg is.BUT,it will help to eliminate a lot of problems in this country.It will give power to the people,which is where it belongs. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/twisted.gif' alt='Twisted Evil'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/evil.gif' alt='Evil'>

Good post, well thought out, and it makes me think, rather than just 'react', which I like. I also do not like theoretical hypotheticals, so the quick and easy answer is to simply look where it is in practise. The argument about geography and population density is a bit of a red herring, since we've already agreed that it is quite easily accomplished in a rural setting. People simply meet and vote. So the question is how does it work federally and provincially. This is a huge question, and quite honestly it won't be resolved until we actually see it happening. The swiss system did 'evolve', however, its birth was quite familial after a 'civil war' which cost very few lives. All politics changes, and the real political question is not 'how would we function such a society', but how do we get our society closer to that hypothetical. I know it is a cliche but it literally is 'the journey' that is the point. Even Switzerland is not valhalla, there are many books written that state that Swiss society is one where corporate rule has been entrenched as national identity, however, many referenda would dispute that. In the states, they were much like us and had a 'represented' senate. Then, many states began doing what Alberta did and 'elected' senators. Here in Canada you couldn't get that to wash though. My theory is that Quebec and Ontario are well represented in the senate and in parliament and aren't interested in 'rocking the boat', while 'have not' provinces are essentially kept in line by the knowledge that their tenuous existence depends on Ottawa's goodwill. As I said elsewhere, New Brunswick was very close to bankruptcy this year, if not that then certainly having to gut every last vestige of social spending. Yet the US has a much looser form of federalism, where the states have few 'equalization programs' so its harder to threaten or bribe them. (this of course is just my opinion). The long and short of it is the people FORCED the government to adopt their senators by intense political pressure. Now, in Canada we also have a population that widely supports an elected senate, in fact has since 1923, but we see what kind of success that has. The federal government could quite easily have an elected senate, in fact I think Mulroney put one in from Alberta so the precedence is already there. I'm interested in Switzerland as an example, that's all. I'm not interested in theoritical discussions about why it can or can't work-that's why I'm running as a candidate. People either WANT democracy or they don't. Canada is a pretty sweet place, not only do we have a high standard of living, but we have so little political power that essentially we can 'blame the government' for everything that goes wrong. Will people want to change that? As far the press, well, that isn't even a real issue anymore, the percentage of canadians who get their information from mainstream news has been dropping like a rock. The Daily Show and 22 Minutes shows that if you can make it entertaining then more people will get informed through satire than journalism. This is why I'm working on flash sites, since it may very well be the next generation that takes hold of this. The older the people are, the more indoctrinated in the system they are, and the more they fear change as the cliche goes. What I'm studyng right now is the use of referenda at canadian universities, which is increasing at an alarming rate. When I was at school there was never any such thing available. Again, they are often on limited issues, and universities are far from the political hotbeds they used to be, except maybe in Quebec. Just as an aside, one of the tenets of DD is making more decisions locally-and I can think of no better system to set up to get Quebecers to reject separatism, than to have a federal system where decisions are even more localized than provincially. The real question is one of shared wealth. How do you ensure rural people have access to the wealth that land accrues, just as urbanites have access to the wealth that industrialization accrues. This is something our federal, and increasingly our provincial governments have failed to do, but the people might be better at it. As far as the media and the 'bias' arguments go, again, let's skip the hypothetical because this is exactly the situation we see now. We see it in every province with referenda, and every province that avoids it, even when required by law to do so. I know that sounds more like a rant, because I know you won't be convinced by arguments til you see it. To assuage your fears, we know how politics works, we've never had an NDP government, but we got socialized medicare. When an idea gets big enough, the ruling party adopts it. I actually don't expect most to be assuaged, when I run all I need is a small fraction who are disgusted enough with politics and want to give it a try.

[QUOTE by Marcarc] In the states, they were much like us and had a ‘represented’ senate. Then, many states began doing what Alberta did and ‘elected’ senators.[/QUOTE] Each state’s legislature chose their Senators (per the Constitution) until 1913, when the 17th Amendment made the Senators elected. (That same year, the 16th Amendment made a federal income tax constitutional, which did much to erode state sovereignty — see below.) [QUOTE by Marcarc] Yet the US has a much looser form of federalism, where the states have few ‘equalization programs’ so it’s harder to threaten or bribe them. (this of course is just my opinion).[/QUOTE] Before 1913, that was certainly the case. Now, unfortunately, it’s quite easy to bribe the states (or threaten to withhold said bribes) — keep the speed limit at 65 MPH or less, or lose interstate highway maintenance dollars! Meet certain testing minima on standardized federal tests for pupils (“No Child Left Behind”), or lose federal education dollars! It is common for Congress to pass legislation to require states to meet some standard, the law mandating some percentage of the program to be paid by the federal government; and in a subsequent federal budget, leaving funding entirely to the states by not budgeting for the program despite the mandate of the law. The ability of our federal government to tax individuals directly makes that state bribery process possible. Instead of each state’s citizenry determining what is best for themselves (and determining how best to pay for their own programs), the federal government can distribute money to the states according to its own interest.

Exactly my point on two levels, first, I don't by any means recommend the US as an example to follow, yet many things, like the increased use of democracy particularly since 1982 and in the early part of the last century provide good examples of 'people pushing democracy'. Federalism as a 'top down' structure, to me, is simply another form of empire building. People have less power at lower levels, and the top level quickly becomes, as Plato pointed out thousands of years ago, an oligarchy. It need not be that way, however, I see no other way for power to be taken from those who wield it to our detriment.

There are a significant number of people who are not involved in the "party system" in any way shape or form. There are a large number of people who vote for specific parties who don't like or want the party system either. The corporations are the organizations who benefit from the brand of socialism that we have in this country. Any remnant of socialism that benefits the rank and file is attacked by the corporate predators as wasteful and non productive. Thus we have toll roads and bridges and taxes on everything, even taxes on taxes. But the corporations are not subject to the same laws as we are. All changes in the system will require trial and error modes of thought. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes as long as they are not made on purpose(ie Chernobyl springs to mind) and as long as you can learn from them.

Over the past few months, I've been engaged in several DD conversations on different web forums. The same questions and concerns re: DD arose time and again. The questions were in most cases quite legitimate and, given that DD was a new concept to many, understandable concerns. However, I eventually started turning things around. Rather than focussing solely on questions and concerns about DD, I thought it would be interesting to some of the expressed concerns in terms of the current system. The conversation usually dried up at that point, largely because many of the staunchest defenders of the current system seem to have no practical experience of the workings of that system. Taking the same tack here: [QUOTE]As I have said before I am not sure that it is a PRACTICAL solution for Canada[/QUOTE] Well then, what is practical? Is it practical to continue with a system that has never represented the interests of most Canadians and has increasingly acted against those interests throughout the past thirty years? Is it practical to keep hoping some leader or party will magically appear to save our nation or to believe that putting pressure on representatives, as many have done for many years, will eventually result in productive change? Is it practical to attempt to apply bandaid patches, such as PR, to fix something that was inherently broke to begin with? To my mind, none of the above are practical. Of course, that's just my opinion. And we need to remember that in terms of practicality, most ideas, such as flight, probes to Mars, heart transplants, etc., are impractical until someone makes them practical. DD is no different in this regard. DD will be practical when we make it practical. Every issue mentioned in Rural's post can be a addressed by a suitable solution. As to what these solutions could be, the <a href="http://directdemocracycanada.ca">Direct Democracy Canada</a> site was set up with the hope that people would start discussing both the hypothetical and the actual nuts and bolts required to make a 'made in Canada' DD system work. To date, we've been unable to achieve this goal however, I remain hopeful for the future. In terms of how these solutions could be implemented, I believe that it is in fact impractical to believe any current party will forward DD any longer than it takes to actually gain a few seats, so at some point a DD focussed party will need to be built to do so, dissolving itself after the job is done. I think people need to understand that once citizens are given the power to effect change in their society, a DD society (and economy, legal system, etc.) may end up being substantially different to what we have today. What kind of society would most Canadians create if they were given the power to do so? Would it be similar to today's, where 'no one has time or energy' to contribute much towards their democracy, due to a constant fight for economic survival, and where many can't even meet basic food, shelter, etc. needs and are often left in poverty to fend for themselves in old age or when unfortunate twists of circumstance or fate occur? Is our current society really what most Canadians want? This is an interesting, if lengthy document. <a href="http://ni4d.us/library.htm">Direct Democracy and Civic Maturation</a>

Are there other countries with a political system sumilar to ours (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, Ireland) that have done greater progress on DD? Somehow I think that Canada has these problems that do not make DD an obvious solution. Perhaps it is fair to state that the Swiss model does not apply much here. I will however note that their country operates in more than one language although the mindset is european.