1  2  Next

The Restructuring our Federal Government.

The purpose of this discussion is to review our federal governments of the past to determine if a change is required in our present form or style Government.

The history of federal political power shifts.

I will start with a simple listing of the political leaders and their parties from 1968 to today.

I shall break down the changes over the coarse of the last 37 years approximatly or 432 months of federal governments.

Liberal government. The liberals held power under Trudeau for 133 months
Pierre Trudeau the fifteenth Prime minister of Canada from April 20th 1968 to june 3rd 1979
Robert Lorne Stanfield Leader of the Progressive Conservitive Party from 1967-1976

Conservitive Government. The Conservitives held office under Clark for 9 months
Joe Clark the sixteenth Prime minister of Canada from June 4th 1979 to March 2nd 1980
Joe Clark as Leader of the Progressive Conservitive Party from 1976-1983 and 1998-2003

Liberal Government. The liberals held power under Trudeau for 40 months
Pierre Trudeau the fifteenth Prime minister of Canada from March 3rd 1980 to June 30 1984

Conservitive Government. The Conservitives took power under several leaders for 113 months
John Turner seventeenth Prime minister of Canada from June 30, 1984 to September 17, 1984.
Brian Mulroney eighteenth Prime minister of Canada from September 17, 1984, to June 25, 1993.
Brian Mulroney as leader of the Progressive conservitive party from 1983-1993
Kim Campbell nineteenth Prime minister of Canada from June 25 to November 4, 1993.
Kim Campbell as leader of the Progressive conservitive party in 1993

Liberal Government. The Liberals have been in office now for 137 months
Jean Chrétien was the twentieth Prime Minister of Canada, serving from November 4, 1993, to December 12, 2003.
Paul Martin is the twenty first Prime Minister of Canada from December 12, 2003 to this date april 29th , 2005.


If we use Trudeau's starting date we can break down the length of times the two major political parties held office.
april 20th 1968 to 1969 is 9 months rounded out, plus the years between 1970 and 1978 to the end of may 1979 to round out is 5 months.
The liberals held power under Trudeau for 110 months.
The Conservitives took office under Joe Clark in june 4th 1979.
June 4th to 1980 is 7 months plus to march 2nd of 1980 is 3 months.
The Conservitives held office under Clark for 10 months
Trudeau and the Liberals took power again from from March 3rd 1980 to June 30 1984
the 10 months of 1980 through to 1983 plus the 6 months of 1984 is 52 months
The Conservitives took power under several leaders between the dates of June 30, 1984 to November 4, 1993
Rounded out from july 1984 is 6 months through the years to 1992 is 84 months plus to october of 1993 rounded out is 10 months making a total of 100 months.
The Liberals took power under Jean Chrétien in November 4, 1993 and under Paul Martin to the date of this writing which is april 29th 2005.
Rounded out there is the 1 month of 1993 through to 2004 is 133 months plus the 4 months of 2005 is 137 months.

This adds up to a total of 432 months.

310 months under the Liberal's

122 months under the Conservitive's.

This is a simple breakdown of how the flow of the ruling political parties has gone so far and presented here as a referance......

   

The Roll Of the Office of Prime Minister.

The first point I want to make is that the Prime Mininster in our current system DOES NOT represent Canada.

The office represents the head of a political party which won an election but that does not represent all canadians and is usually filled with someone usually from eastern Canada which does not represent all of the countries population.

The roll of the federal government should be to look after "Federal" concerns and have little to do with the internal operation of the provinces. This was basically the way it functioned before Trudeau's time. The defination of what are federal concerns is open to debate however foriegn affairs and immigration would be two items.

The position of Prime Minister should be a filled as non-partisan for his job is to be the leader of Canada not just some parts of political factions of Canada and in the roll of leader of the federal government concerned with only the big picture, the roll should represent the entire of Canada in an unbiased nature therefor I believe that the House of Commons should be a non-partisan body of elected individuals selected by the people of Canada for their expertise and qualities.

   

The House of Commons.

(snip)
The House of Commons is the major law-making body. In each of the country's 301 constituencies, or ridings, the candidate who gets the largest number of votes is elected to the House of Commons, even if his or her vote is less than half the total. The number of constituencies may be changed after every general census, pursuant to the constitution and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that allot parliamentary seats roughly on the basis of population. Every province must have at least as many Members in the Commons as it had in the Senate before 1982. The constituencies vary somewhat in size, within prescribed limits.

Following the 2001 census, the number of seats for three jurisdictions was increased. The boundaries of the constituencies in these jurisdictions will be determined by June 2003. This redistribution will come into force no earlier than June 29, 2004.

Area Seats
2003 Redistribution
(no earlier than June 29, 2004)

Ontario 106
Quebec 75
British Columbia 36
Alberta 28
Manitoba 14
Saskatchewan 14
Nova Scotia 11
New Brunswick 10
Newfoundland and Labrador 7
Prince Edward Island 4
Northwest Territories 1
Nunavut 1
Yukon territory 1

Total 308
(snip)

source:
http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/dy...utions_01-e.asp

This referance indicates the current state of Canada's main federal governing body, The House of Commons.

Let us take a look at the House of Commons. If we were to leave the structure as it is now it we would have a governing body based on the representation by population system. Under our new order we are discussing here the House of Commons would still be an elected body of represenentives with a partisan bent giving us a Prime Minister that is still simply a leader of a political party and probably from easten Canada as history has shown us.

The House of commons in our new structure is supposed to be responsible for national interests and affairs only and all foreign affairs, in that light the body should be non partisan in my view as should the roll of Prime Minister to properly represent all of Canada. I do not feel it is nessessary to change the constituencies or ridings or the number of seats available as a representation by population system for this purpose changes little. It is the fact that the representatives are partisan that is the issue, and the fact that the House of Commons is currently expected to be responsible for both the internal and external affairs of the country, that is the problem this entire discussion is attempting to address.

If we look at what is currently happening with our federal government we have a minority situation and the struggle for power has basically shut down the legislative process as the Conservitives and their allies attempt to bring about a vote of nonconfidance and the Liberals and their allies attempt to hang on to power. I feel this type of activity makes a mockery of our parlimentary system and also renders our country without an effective government and for what reason, Partisan Politics.

Our Current federal government structure does not have in place any real system to accomodate the division between provincial and federal power at the federal level (in Ottawa). We have the House of Commons which is charged with the operation of the entire counrty both internally and externally and the second house the Senate which is not an elected body but an appointed group of people at the whim of the Prime Minister of the day for the purpose of forming committees, study groups and conducting research into the legislation being delbt with by the House of Commons. The Senate has very rarely refused to pass legislation put before it.

   

The Senate.
The Senate (French: Sénat) is a component of the Parliament of Canada, which also includes the Sovereign (represented by the Governor General) and the House of Commons. The Senate is an unelected body, consisting of 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Senate seats are divided among the provinces, so that Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces are equally represented. Senators serve until they reach the age of seventy-five.


The Senate was established in 1867, when the British North America Act 1867 created the Dominion of Canada. Known as the "Upper House", the Senate is far less powerful than the House of Commons (the "Lower House"). Although the approval of both Houses is necessary for legislation, the Senate very rarely rejects bills passed by the democratically elected Commons. Moreover, the Government of Canada is responsible solely to the House of Commons; the Prime Minister stays in office only as long as he or she retains the support of the Lower House. The Senate, however, does not exercise any such power.The Senate meets at Parliament Hill, in Ottawa, Ontario.

Many jurisdictions, such as Denmark, Sweden, Venezuela, New Zealand, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and New Brunswick, once possessed upper houses but abolished them, to adopt unicameral systems. Newfoundland had a Legislative Council prior to joining Canada, as did Ontario when it was Upper Canada. The Australian state of Queensland also once had a legislative council before abolishing it, but all other Australian states continue to have bicameral systems. Nebraska is the only state in the United States to have a unicameral legislature.

Currently the senate is divided as per political association as follows:
Liberals 64 seats
Consertive party 23 seats
Progressive Consertive party 5 seats
New Democratic party 1 seat
independent 5 seats
Vacant 7 seats
------------------------------------------------------------
Total 105 seats

Canadian Senate. From Wikipedia,. The Senate was established in 1867, when the British North America Act 1867 created the Dominion of Canada. ... of 2005, is $119,100; members may receive additional salaries in right of other offices they hold.

If we do some simple math say multiply 105 times $119,100 we get $12,505,500.00 to pay our senators.

source of information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate

This is the state of the senate at the current time.

   

Restructuring the Senate.

The reconstruction process.

The Premiers senate would be to replace the current senate with an elected or appointed body of individuals from each province. under the guidance and direction of the premiers and or their governments. This legislative body would have an equal number of representives from each province. There are 105 seats to be filled. If we simply divide 105 by the 13 provinces and territories we get 8 members per province that procedure fills 104 seats leaving one seat vacant.

This legislative body would be responsible for all governance activities concerning the internal operation of the country and woud also be responsible for deciding on what departments are to be handled at the federal level. These being issues and responsibilities concerning all of Canada as a whole such as foreign policy, immigration, military, national police force, national research, foreign negotations only to name a few. The point being that the Premiers Senate would be the main legislative body for the counrty, not as we have now where the House of Commons is the main legislative body. The House of Commons roll would be changed dramatically.

This new Senate would be or should be a mix or political factions but the possibility of a single party having power due to the election or appointment process in each province could and may occur however I do not believe this can be viewed as a good or a bad thing as these people would still be representing their provinces regardless of political attachment.
The members of the ( Primiers Senate) as we are calling it for these discussions could be elected by a province wide vote as in representing eight various regions of a province that is one way. They could be elected by the members of the government of the province that is another way however the election process does not guarantee having the best people for the job to represent a province in the Primiers Senate. They could also be appointed by the provincial governments to make use of the people with the best qualifications in various areas of expertese. However it is decided, placing people to sit in the national senate should be up to the various provinces to decide on their own just as the various provinces has decided on the style of government they want.
The new senate positions would NOT be an appointment for life but would be a cyclic position with a finite term, again as decided by the various provinces.

   

Power to the Provinces.

Some may argue that my suggestions here would not give a fair and equal government at the federal level as my proposal will not give canadians a representation by population system.

My view is the various provincial governments are the true representation by population system. Our thirteen provinces and territories already have an electorial system in place that was decided upon by their various populations to be fair and do represent the areas of the country properly. Be it, Ontario with it's twelve million, Quebec with it's seven million or Nunavut with its thirty two thousand population.

Source:
http://etourist.ca/flags/

The creation of what I am calling the premiers senate (I am sure there is a better term) would simply be an extension of the thirteen provincial governments representing their respective populations.

The reason I would like to see this shift in power is because of the apparent inability of our current federal government system to address the needs and desires of the provinces and their people. If we look at the events that have occured over the last thirtyseven years we are dicussing here, the current federal system has caused more division and more hatred between the provinces than it has ever won.

What we have now is the provinces are required to ask the federal government for financial assistance, argue for equalization payments, request for disaster aid. The list goes on. The tax dollars come from the people of the provinces in the first place the bulk of that tax money should stay in the provinces or be distributed as required by themselves not handed over to a federal body to be yet again given out only at the wishes of the federal government which seems to have caused more animosity.

Let us look at Quebec's case. They have argued for seperation even before Trudeau's time. The federal governments through all this time have given Quebec large sums of taxation dollars and political concessions and they still feel the need to seperate. All the efforts to apease the people of Quebec have done nothing and possibly made the situation worse. The truth of the matter is Quebec is not going anywhere even if they did seperate the land stays where it is now and the people of the province stay on it. The province is still in the realm of Canada regardless of what they do and will have to interact almost as much as they do now with the rest of the country. The point here being that under what I am proposing Quebec or westen canada or whichever area would have not feel it nessessary to seperate as they would be in control of thier own affairs not under the control of a federal body.

Instead of the provinces fighting the federal government and causing these splits throughout the counrty let us take away the main source of the problem which is our current federal government system, give the power to the provinces to run their own affairs and set up a federal governing body to allow for interaction between the provinces for the purpose of internal affairs.

The current federal government would at this point be under the control of the new premiers senate. The provinces would be holding the purse strings and giving the federal government (House of Commons) only those funds required to operate its areas of responsbility.

What I am purposing here is a clear division of power between the two governing bodies and a clear vision of their respective responsibilities and a mechanism for maintaining that division of function and responsibility.

   

The Next Steps

If we really feel there is need for change and the restructuring plan I have layed out here has validity then the next step is to formulate a document, a bill written in plain, clear text that can be refered to in discussions with others.

After that document is complete and verified by people that are well versed in such matters then the process of edcuation can begin as we would now have a point of reference.

At that point it comes down to, I tell a friend, you tell a friend, they tell their friends and so on.

We have the internet, the gem of the information age at our disposal. A web site could be set up to support what could become a cross Canada movement to spread the information.

This movement can not become or in any way be thought of as yet another political party, that HAS to be avoided. It is simply an organization for the purpose of public edcuation with a single focus and will disolve when the job is done.
(After one heck of a good party and proper hangover development program that is implemented to a high degree.)

We would need to contact the various provincial governments and their premiers to feel out their support for the changes as well because obviously it is their support and solid understanding of the concept that is required. When the provinces have their elections called it would be a good thought to approch each and every candidate with the idea and get their opinion and seek their support.

When the time comes that the actual vote is done province by province as a referendum (thankyou Quebec). It was pointed out to me that the acceptance of the "Bill" does not have to take place all at one time but rather it only needs to be adopted by each province in the coarse of their various normal election process to avoid extra voting procedure costs. Once every province and territory has voted on the referendum the outcome determines if it is nationaly a "Yes" and becomes law or a "No" which means there is more work to be done.

The act of each and every province and its population accepting the "Bill" makes it the law of the land and the restructuring can begin.

One of the main reasons I chose to implement the changes to government as to reflect and address some of the true problems our country faces in this manner and this form is to make the change over as non intrusive as possible in terms of our elective process, government infrastructure, and physical set up. The election process for the House of Commons actually does not change at all. The only thing that really changes is the roll of the House of Commons and its focus, but in terms of the way the population of the country elects the representatives to that house does not change, other than those representitives would be non-partisan and we focus on thier abilities and expertise not their political affiliation.

The way we decide on the eight representitives per province to sit in the (Premiers Senate), as I have mentioned earlier should be up to the various provinces to decide they may be publicly elected , they may not, it matters little really other than we want the best people to represent our provinces in the (Premiers Senate) so long as they are people able to work as a team to support the provinces they are from and with an eye out for what is best for the country as a whole.

This is the way I see the idea progressing.

Any comments or further ideas are more than welcome and I look forward to further discussion.................

   

Thoughts on The office of the Prime Minister of Canada.

Let us look at the position our Prime minister and the responsiblities that come with that position under our current political structure.

The Prime Minister is responsible for the leadership of a national political party.
The Prime Minister is responsible for the leadership of an entire nation through the use of the ruling party of the time.
The Prime Minister is expected to be present at global affairs as the representative of Canada in a ceremonial roll the Governer General does some of this as well.
The Prime Minister and the ruling party are expected to deal with all internal affairs for the nation and that entire set of issues.
The Prime Minister and the ruling party are expected to deal with all external affairs for the nation including negotiations with other nations.
The Pime Minister has at his/her disposal a large number of supposedly qualified people to which he may assign various issues to be studied and or delbt with and usually uses them for most pre-negotiations both internal and external.

This simple blanket overview gives an example of the vast scope of responsibilities that the position demands and one wonders how we can possibly expect for one person to succeed at all those rolls and do them effectively.

The answer is they can not. History again has shown us that just the sheer mass of problems that may arise at any time is more than one person can deal with and it is unreasonable to expect them to be able to field all problems concerning both internal affairs, external issues and truly national questions.

What I have proposed as the reorganization of our federal government system would aid in tailoring the issues and responsibilities the positon of the Prime Minister to make that position much more effective and give him or her much more credibility on a global level.

How can we expect our Prime Minister, the supposed leader of our country to muster the respect that position should hold when they are at the simultaneously attempting to deal with the big picture of Canada's roll on the world stage and at the same time deluged by pety internal political upheaval, scandle's, and general political bickering that seems to come out of our current political system. We can not. It simply causes an embarrassment for our nation. a belittling of the position and discredits and diminishes his or her effectiveness.

The changes I have purposed would allow the Prime Minister to narrow his or her focus.

The Prime Minister would not be concerned with the operation of a political party as the entire House of Commons would at that point be non-partisan.
The Prime Minister would no longer be greatly concerned with the day to day operation of the internal affairs of the country as that would be the work of the provinces and the (Premiers Senate).
The office of the Prime Minister would at that point be the focal point for input and output concerning the long term planning that should be done to move this nation forward.

The consitiution states that no government shall sit for more than five years without an election being called. That becomes much less of an issue in terms of the House of Commons and the Prime Ministers office when they are not towing party lines and creating or manipulating legislation to simply gain votes. They can focus much more on what is good for Canada and much less on self serving interests..................

   

You forgot The Honorable Jean Charest as leader of the Progressive conservative party from 1993 to 1998.

   

I believe that ensuring everyone votes i.e. compulsory voting as a due process and duty for being in a free democratic country, and a directly voted senate like your premier's senate, would solve at least 70% of the political problems.

Australia works very well with its bicameral Government systems - because we directly elect the Senate. Every state and territory does so minus Queensland - they don't have one. If we didn't directly elect our Senate, as was originally the case when Australia was set up, there was no way we could function the way we do now.

For true review and transparency, you need a Lower House (House of Commons or in Australia: House of Representatives) and an Upper House (Senate). The Upper House must be directly elected or appointed by the federation partners for it to be a) effective, b) accountable and c) the real voice of reason and question. Alot of real right-wing legislation has until now not gotten through because of the effectiveness of the Senate. In Australia though, individual parlimentarians, political parties, the lower AND the upper houses can all table bills. The only restriction is that the senate cannot table legislation to do with finances, economy or the budget. Individual parlimentarians need party permission if they are a party member to table invidiual bills before parliament.

The way Australians see it - our Federal government cannot be accountable in any way, shape or form without the precious directly-elected Senate. To us, the Senate represents the final and true point of review, when the full effects of proposed laws to become Acts of Parliament are starting to be felt. When one political party controls both the Senate and the House of Reps (which is currently the case here) we cry and duck for cover because we know what will happen ... imminent politcal disaster. In Australian politics, controlling the senate is nearly always a double-edged sword. Often, Senate MPs are dissident politcal party members, and therefore can use its power to bargain with the incumbent PM to get what they want. It's already starting to happen here. The way our Senate is run and the way it governs promotes dissenting and dissaproving voices to be heard. That's exactly what it was meant to be - a place where grievances and second reviews are to be heard and to be retabled to the lower house if need be.

(There are laws on how many times a bill can rotate between lower and upper houses, but that's too tiring to type and I need to sleep!)

Goodnight!

   

Thankyou for the insight and comparision rgmontal. I do not think any system can be perfect and we would be fools to believe that it can, but what Canada has at this point is not working well. Knowing how other countries are dealing with their governance is a good thing..........

   

You had me going there for a while, and you raise some interesting points, but I have to disagree with a few things...
Senate restructuring:
- I agree that senators should be chosen by the provinces / elected, and that the senate should have term limits (with the possibility of being re-elected).
- I'm a little concerned with your weighting of the senate seats, including equal representation of the Territories (8 per Prov. & Terr.). I think 9 per Province and 5 per Territory would be a better balance, but I really don't enough about the current weighting system to give a truly informed opinion.
- All federal governance powers decided by the Senate? NO!!! "Deciding on what departments are to be handled at the federal level" are matters determined by the Constitution, in negotiation with the Provinces, not fluid issues to be decided upon by ongoing politically motivated public officials. The current problem is that the federal government is not respecting the constitution, constantly stepping into matters of provincial jurisdiction (Health Care, municipal funding...).

Power to the provinces:

Yes, but some things are in Federal jurisdiction, and the population must have properly balanced representation for these issues as well... not to mention that the biggest responsibility of the Federal Government is to handle some pretty big $'s. Taxpayers should have a proportional voice when it comes to how tax money is spent. Giving such extremely unproportional fiscal powers to poorer regions could quickly damage the nation's economy.

Your system would not change this.

Are you against equalization payments? This statement would imply such sentiment... and I disagree. ...Although I agree that the Federal government does need to address the fiscal imbalance (Federal spending beyond constitutional responsibilities, while provinces battle deficits).

Prime Minister:
I agree that the PM's role needs to be a bit more focused, but don't see how your ideas would do anything beneficial. Expecting the House of Commons to become "non-partisan" is, quite frankly, unrealistic. It will never happen. That is the nature of humanity and politics.

My ideas:
I don't want to be critical and seem like I'm speaking from the cheap seats, so here are some ideas of my own (off the top of my head).
Senate restructuring:
- Chosen by provinces / elected... seat weighting as determined by current system, or through constitutional negotiations with the provinces (main focus being regional representation, independent of population density).
- Term limits, somewhere between 5-10 years. Nothing longer being allowed without being re-confirmed / re-elected by the appropriate province.
- Senators from each region sit on each of the major parliamentary committees. Senators (and therefore regional interests) would then be present to have an impact on creating legislation, instead of usually being a rubber stamp.
- A new channel for presenting new legislation is opened... the Senate can send new bill proposals to the House of Commons, for debate.
Power to the provinces:
- Increased representation through more regional Senate participation in federal policy making.
- Implement a jurisdictional review system, whereby provinces can challenge government actions, Federal policy and legislation for being unconstitutional. And I mean a more accountable / effective / faster one than the Supreme Court... perhaps another job for the restructured Senate.
- Since the Senate would be filled according to provincial rules, then various forms of proportional representation could be used on a province-by-province basis, while electing each group of senators.
Prime Minister / House of Commons:
The biggest problems I have with the PMO are that it has too much governmental power, is lead almost exclusively by political / partisan motivations, the PM is only elected by his/her riding, not all Canadians, and the leading party can unilaterally change our PM without a Federal election. The House of Commons is more concerned with image than it is with serving the needs of Canadians.
- Separate out the new PM job from regular parliament, so the PM does not have a riding to represent, but is voted on by a separate nation wide ballot.
- Strip the Governor General of everything but diplomatic type powers, and give all other responsibilities to the PM. The PM opens and ends sessions of Parliament, dissolves Parliament for an election, is Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces...
- The PM would be responsible for forming Cabinet, with mandatory use of members of the top two parties within the House. Certain roles would be fixed, like Deputy PM would be the Leader of the PM's affiliated party (or at the discretion of the PM, if no official affiliation exists), and the Minister of Finance would have to come from the biggest party, but otherwise the PM would be free to choose the best people from the top two parties to form Cabinet (where the real government power is). While difficult to do, the PM's legislative power will come from maintaining an adequate balance and effectiveness of Cabinet (using Cabinet shuffles when necessary to maintain order). This would encourage compromise between the two most popular parties, and help curtail some of the incessant partisanship we see in Question Period (instead of the constant bickering our current system encourages).
- The PM would be responsible for forming the Parliamentary committees, including representatives of all parties and a regionally balanced selection of senators.
- The job of PM would have fixed election dates (4 year term, no limits on # of re-elections), independent of House of Commons elections (which may be more frequent, if minority governments cannot learn to compromise).
- The PM could be impeached by a large majority vote within the House of Commons (say 60-67%...?). An impeached PM would not be eligible for the ensuing PM election, but could run in a subsequent vote or for any other public office.
- The PM would not have a direct vote within either the House of Commons, or the Senate.
- The PM would have the power to sign bills into law, but a vote of a certain percentage within the House of Commons (60-67%...?) would allow the bill to become law without PM approval.

Yes, there are some complications presented with a few of these ideas, but I think they succeed in a couple areas where your ideas seem lacking... Of course, these are just dreams, and I have absolutely no illusions that they will ever be taken seriously on a large scale.

   

In Australia, we are all obligated to vote. Those who do not vote get faced with whopping fines - they can be enforced even from overseas. Australia's immigration authorities will track you down if you don't vote within a week or two of elections taking place. All Australians that go O/S have to take into account when elections are on so that they can be near an Embassy or Consulate to vote. For us anyway, it's just a fact of life. Another complication on the high road of international travel.

Just to let you know, I know Canada uses first-past-the-post.

To give you a bigger snapshot of what happens here politically, when we go to the polls, Australia has massive (they're like the size of tablecloths sometimes) ballot papers. We use a system of voting called preferential voting. We don't use ticks and crosses in Australia on our ballot papers. We number whole political parties or individual politicians based upon what rank we want to put the politician in. Not to blow our trumpet, but even France has started using it for local government elections because they know it works - and it is probably one of the fairest but most complex voting systems.

The ballot papers are drawn into two halves: above the line, or voting for whole political parties, or below the line, where you can vote individual MPs into their seats based upon rank.

The principle for above the line and below the line voting is the same: the MPs are assigned their seats in parliament depending upon the preferences given to him/her, i.e. what rank he/she is given by the voters overall.

E.g. If there are five candidates for the Electorate of Cook (my Federal "riding" to use a Canadian English word) listed like this:

[ ] Baird, Bruce MP (Liberal)
[ ] Pearson, Mark (Labor)
[ ] Pilbersek, Tanya (Ind)
[ ] Hart, Philip John (One Nation Party)
[ ] Blow, Joe (Green)

And I numbered the boxes like this:

[4] Baird, Bruce MP (Liberal)
[1] Pearson, Mark (Labor)
[2] Pilbersek, Tanya (Ind)
[5] Hart, Philip John (One Nation Party)
[3] Blow, Joe (Green)

Then the process to calculate (it isn't just counting in Australia, you have to actually calculate) who gets to represent the Electorate of Cook goes something like this:

1. '1' preference is put for Labor SET 10 votes
2. '2' preference for the independant SET 5 votes
3. '3' preference for the Greens SET 7 votes
4. '4' preference for the Liberals SET 15 votes
5. '5' preference for One Nation SET 2 votes

Now, Philip Hart doesn't get the 5% or so set Federal benchmark needed for his votes to be counted. So his PREFERENCES or votes that were accumulated under his name get added to the Liberals' votes. So now, we get the Liberals getting 17 votes total for Cook. Why? We consider One Nation votes because Philip Hart didn't make the benchmark for his votes to be counted; and THEN we add them to the votes already assigned to the Liberals (i.e. One Nation's votes (2) + Liberal votes (15) = 17 votes). This represents one preference pass.

Now, the Green's candidate is the next one who doesn't make the benchmark. Note that every time a preference "pass" the benchmark increases. So if it is 5% for example, it'll go up to 7%. We do the same thing again: Greens votes (7) + Labor's votes (10) = 17 votes total. That's the second preference pass done.

One thing I should add: each person who wants to be elected to Parliament has to nominate who their preferences go to should they not make the cut.

This keeps happening until we get a clear winner who is a) above the benchmark in proportion of votes and b) a clear majority after preferences are calculated and added to the vote. As such, voters cannot be influenced in full part by external factors because they get to pick and choose who they want in straight away, who they despise, and who they're so-so about. There's no need to vote predatorily, i.e. vote for another person just so that the non-preferred candidate doesn't get in. The preferences look after the predatory nature of politics.

Now, in Australia's politics, only the people in the Electorate of Kiribili actually get to put John Howard into office. This situation is identical to Canada. You can either vote for a whole political party i.e. use above the line voting, or vote on individuals vying for the chance to represent your own electorate. It is customary law that Australian political parties always publicise and nominate who they want to lead them (i.e. who our next PM will be) after the next Federal election. When you vote for a party, you are voting for its PM and you know who the PM is. It is a political party decision, and I don't think given the constraints of the Westminster system that anything would change much. I do like your idea of directly electing the PM, though. It's a very good idea and I'll be sure to sell it to the voters here down under!

   

The reasoning behind the even number of representitives from the provinces and territories is to insure that no province has veto capability. The decisions made by the (Premiers Senate) is to be a cooperative one and as many have pointed out probably will be a very well discussed decisions. Many suspect that there would be much "bickering". That does seem to be the Canadian way of political negotiations but that is a good thing when it is towards a positive goal.



In the concept here the basic premise is to shift the financial responsibility totaly to the provinces and take away all fiscal responsibility for handling taxation dollars from the House of Commons. All taxes are collected and maintained within each province there would be no federal income tax. The (Premiers Senate) is there to allot taxation dollars for equalization payments, programs and to make funds available to the House of Commons to fulfill their realm of responsibility as per a submitted budget to the Primiers senate. In that way the provinces maintain total control of their own finances independently.

The Split between national concerns and provincial concerns has been left out of these discussions simply because it may cloud the basic concepts we are attempting to put forth however there is a tentive list that is again ongoing and I can present is here but please, it is in no way set to stone and if we went at it program by program the length of it may be more than these posts can handle. So briefly from another thread on this board.

Income tax-Totaly Provincial
Sales tax-Totaly provincial
Corporate tax-Totaly Provincial

Health care-National standards, Provincially operated
Education-National standards, Provincially operated
Road Care-Provincial
Enviornment-National standards, Federal
Immigration-Federal
Military_Federal
Legal system-Federal
Social services-National standards-Provincially operated
Trade pacts.-Federal
National Mint-Federal
Border control- Federal
National Police force-Federal
Airport security-National Standards and in my opinion under the R.C.M.P or the military not the contracted security companies.
Coast Guard-Federal

Once these items and others are decided upon then that is the new splt of responsibilites period, many of which do not change a thing in terms of what the House of Commons do now The House of Commons would be required to ask the Senate in the form of an annual budget for the funds to finance the programs.



An equalization formula would still be in place into which the provinces would be required to contribute so yes, as it is now the richer provinces would be required to support the poorer provinces that would not change. However the funds come from the provinces directly not as it is now with the federal government (House of Commons) handing out our tax dollars however they see fit.

Since the provinces would be in total control of their own income and not having to dish out funds to yet another political body and with no federal income tax but having all the income sources going to the provinces they are earned in then being issued as needed to operate the country the proportional system holds in terms of taxation.



I see with this statement that the information did not bring the point out that there was to be a major shift in the taxation system and it is the fault of the presentation not to to have been more concise, I thankyou for noting that omission and I shall attempt to correct that.



An equalization payment formula has to be in place and functioning, we are doing that now and that can not change. The formula can may change over time as economics vary but the basic idea if equalization payments has to be in place.



The entire idea behind this restructuring concept is to eliminate having a political structure at the provincial level and then again having a seperate and sometimes conflictual political structure at the federal level. We rail against perceived favoritism, deals, possible under-dealings, corruption and so on. To reduce the possibility of those types of problems having only one political structure, the provinces" to deal with would be preferable.

For instance if the people here in Saskatchewan feel that the N.D.P. are doing great for us then that is fine, same as the Conservitives in Alberta or the political party in any province or the council style governments that are used in the territories or out on the east coast , its all good, and as the winds of political change flow through from province to province so be it. it does not affect any other province directly as does our current federal government so eliminating the politics at the federal level eliminates one of our stumbling blocks and creates a better focus.

Another thought on this is the politicial parties would now be free to fight their battles at the provincial level, province by province and could focus on that . They can still of coarse be national political parties but the battle would now be in the provinces not on a national ticket.

If someone wishes to run for a seat in the House of Commons even in the next election coming up , they could simply run as an independant it begins to accomplish the same thing.



Yes, there are some complications presented with a few of these ideas, but I think they succeed in a couple areas where your ideas seem lacking... Of course, these are just dreams, and I have absolutely no illusions that they will ever be taken seriously on a large scale.[/quote]

I very much appreciate that you stepped up to the plate on this one and hit some of these ideas, it is the only way we will get this hammered out. I trust I was able to clarify some of the points and I will add to the text to give better explanations.

I may be a dream , but how upset to we have to get before we all want to do somthing.

I do look forward to further discussions..................

   

So, let me get this straight. You have all taxes being collected by the provinces, with a restructured senate sitting in the middle between the provincial governments and the House of Commons (who control any money the restructured senate "gives" the federal government, in order to provide federal services). This new senate is balanced with equal power between the provinces... so the people in the most populus provinces have no real voice as to how much money is given to the federal government, or on what that money is to be spent. The smaller and poorer "have not" provinces can get together to raise transfer payments, and increase federal funding for services without anything stopping them. Alberta and Ontario (the "have" provinces) paying all the bills, without any control over how their money is spent, or any way to stop the bleeding.

This is supposed to be an improvement over the current system? I'm sorry, but this is just a terrible idea. Taking governmental power away from population centres is a fast way to ruin an economy.


But your system doesn't have one political structure, it still has two. The only change is where the fiscal power lies within the federal system, and you've removed it from the people, and given it to arbitrary historical divisions of land (the provinces and territories...). Under your system, a single voter in the Yukon or Nunavut would have 400 times more proportional control over an Ontario tax dollar than an Ontario voter, or 100 times more proportional control over an Alberta tax dollar than an Alberta voter. I'm sorry again, but this is just a really bad idea.

You want to get rid of "favoritism, deals, possible under-dealings, corruption" within the federal system? Great! So do I. Getting rid of fiscal democracy in Ottawa is not the answer. Conflict in politics can actually be a good thing you know... sometimes it promotes real dialog and compromise, instead of a bunch of people agreeing to jump off a cliff.

I stand by my ideas as being much more reasonable and practical... repeating that this is all just a dream that will never happen.

   

1  2  Next