Subject:
|
Re: An interesting North American Election (was Re: Cdn Election Day)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:39:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
438 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > Hey, how does the Candian electoral system work?
Thanks for your great comparative civics tutorial Steve. I'm actually from
Australia, and our system is fairly similar. I wasn't sure if you guys had some
form of proportional representation (PR) like NZ and Germany for example, hence
the question.
> Our primary federal government body is Parliament. Like your
> Congress, each member is elected based on votes from each citizen.
> ie. representation by population - the most populist province (Ontario)
> has about 1/3 of the population and about 1/3 of the seats. The
> Liberals won almost all of those seats, plus a bunch in Quebec and
> the Maritimes, giving them over half the seats and a majority govt.
The House of Representatives is exactly the same in Australia.
> Where our system breaks down is that while you have two (elected) senators
> from each state and a president to balance things, the number of senators
> here isn't equal for each province and they are appointed by the prime
> minister.
Our State Legislative Councils used to work like this, but they are now elected
by PR. The Federal Senate has twelve Senators from each of the six states,
elected by PR, and two Senators for each of the territories. We snaffled this
from the yanks in preference to a House of Lords.
> Our "third level" like your president is theoretically the
> Queen - represented by the Governor General, but this is just a "figure-head"
> position, with no legitimate authority, as the GG is appointed by the prime
> minister.
We thought this was true, until the Prime Minister was sacked by the GG in 1975.
The powers of the head of state and whether he/she should be elected or
appointed is the biggest hurdle to our becoming a republic. Don't get me started
on when we might possibly get a flag without the Union Jack...
> Imagine if you didn't vote on who would be president, but left it to the
> party members. Ie. Whoever had the majority in congress - that party would
> choose the president, and then he would choose everybody else, including who
> would hold what cabinet positions and who could run for election, (within
> his party) even when the election would be held. If this sounds like
> an "elected dictatorship", that's because it is, and that's what we've got.
Except that the Prime Minister has to have the confidence of the majority of
MPs, and hence (indirectly) the electorate as a whole. Wasn't Paul Martin (?the
finance minister?) threatening to bump off Chretien? Can your PM really direct
who stands for which seats? In Australia the party members/apparatchiks usually
determine this.
> That's why the Alliance policies of referendum and recall (if an elected
> member doesn't vote according to the wishes of his constituents they can
> force a by-election).
I would think this is unnecessary: if someone does the dirty on their party for
no good reason they'll usually be kicked out in the next election. It sounds
more like a way of maintaining party discipline to me...
> and a "Triple E" senate (where senators are Elected
> Equally from each province) are so important. The third E is Effective - the
> power to block bad bills and even propose legislation. Our senate has that
> power now, but seldom uses it, as it's not legitimate elected power - just
> like the GG.
I'd definitely agree with this: the Senate can provide a valuable check on the
government, and can be a place where smaller parties have a significant
influence.
Thanks again!
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
