Interesting article.

1. "When the United States devised its system, it created a chamber in the manner of a horseshoe; meaning that however much heat there is to an issue, the room is designed to accommodate debate, not barracking."

I have a hard time believing that you would truly want a system that is anything like that found in the US. The rhetoric there is unbelievable, getting anything done is impossible, and lobbyists hold more power than your average congressman. There is definitely a lot more jerrymandering and such going on in that horseshoe than in our parliament. Maybe a horseshow would be better, but you could atleast pick a better example than the US! Maybe you would have convinced me.

2. "I wager you would say that the most important right you have is to be able to vote without pressure or hindrance."

And, you would wager wrong. One the most important aspects of democracy is that those elected holding public office represent their constituents and are accountable to them. That would be very difficult if our MPs and MLAs could vote under a secret ballot. I want to know how he/she voted, don't you? If my MP votes against the wishes of his/her riding we should know. Then, we can call on him/her to explain why he/she voted that way.

3. I have heard a lot of complaining about political parties in many articles and comments. Perhaps, if political parties turn people's stomachs so much, we just ban them outright. Make them illegal. There would be no party discipline to worry about, politicians would have to look at their riding for guidance, and everyone would be an independent wildcard. A cabinent and prime minister could be elected from the general body, and life would go on.

No to secret votes for MPs!

As usual an article that provides lots of food for thought. I've always thought that one of the weaknesses of the parliamentary system was the concentrated power in the PMO with a strong majority government. Of course at present in the US with the GOP stranglehold on the executive and legislative branch and closing in on the judicial the theoretical balance of power is just that - theory.

I agree that party discipline often renders the member unable to represent his constituents. I've grown weary of government by order in council, thus have found the current minority situation in Ottawa refreshing. I don't think that secret votes for members is the answer though.

It's bad enough that we have to tolerate sleazy behavior like, for example, David Emerson and I'm sure he realizes that he will only be representing Vancouver-Kingsway for however many months this locked down, muzzled government is tolerated. Judging by the over the top statements by Colin Mayes while his boss was pledging his allegience to Gee W, it won't be easy to keep the muzzles attached for long. Once the real wing-nuts start opening their mouths, watch out.

If we don't even know how our member votes on a given issue, on what basis do we decide how to cast our ballot?

Rafe, I would still like to get your take on how Gordon Campbell's American style fixed election dates would play in a minority government situation. To me it would seem to guarantee that we be paying lots of money for MLAs to sit around for four years doing absolutely nothing, at least slightly less than what they do now.

Naw, I go for the "hang the two worst parliamentarians every year" school of thought... after you publish a list of 286 candidates...

R. Smiley

Jokes aside, how, for example, would any of these proposals make Stockwell Day or Collin Mayes, to name just two I know only too well, one of "men and women of importance and an integral part of the system"?

The guys are meatheads, and they faithfully represent their consitituents, who chose them knowing full well exactly who and what they were.

They are an integral part of the system, and in so far as they are MPs, well, you could say that they are important, but that really isn't the point. They'd vote the way they do, and shoot their mouths off the way they do, and be typical RAT nincompoops because that is the party they represent.

List them alphabetically and they'd get lost. Redesigning the chamber? Do you know how long it takes these guys to learn left from right? Secret ballot? Be careful what you wish for. Like proportional representation, there be chaos.

It is reported that upon hearing that a man had flown solo across the Atlantic, the editor of (?) the Chicago Tribune said "Let me know when a committee does it...

So, Rafe, you want the government to be able to "convince members that the policy is good for the people".

hahahahahahaha!

Since when has a government brought in policies that were "good for the people"? Good for the corporations! No problem. Good for the bureaucracy! Goes without saying! Good for their American masters! Need you ask? But for the people?

R. Smiley

Steven Harper, March 13th...
"There will be some who want to cut and run, but cutting and running is not my way and it's not the Canadian way," he said, to a round of applause.

David Emerson, January 23rd, "I would like to be Stephen Harper's worst nightmare."

When, oh when will we read something on the irony of David "Cut and Run" Emerson?

Trained seals would do the Canadian people better service than the a$$ kiSSing half wit$ paid for by Big Business.

The only laws these pimps pass are those that condone/exempt their Bad Behaviour...

These are not new proposals, to be sure.

I should like to add one that would have an equally large impact.

The party leader is not needed to sign the nomination papers of anyone. Nor the party whip, nor the party treasurer. This one act would be hard to enforce, to be sure, but would have the same effect of removing the POWER that party officials have over the Members of Parliament.

Another possibility is to change the electoral funing madness. As it is we are all, collectively, sending $2 per vote to the parties, perhaps these funds could be better directed to a 'winning candidate' REGARDLESS of Party as a way to off-set the campaign costs. Understandably those with deep pockets could still essentially 'buy' a seat with loads of good advertising etc, but with such a plum prize at the end some others may actually campaign for a seat with an independant mind?

Never mind, the fence-posts with hair are what the parties will pay for time and again anyways.

I think ripponfalls plan of "hang the two worst" has a certain appeal, but why stop at two.

I also agree with murdock regarding the nomination papers, the local constituents should have the loudest or weightiest voice in choosing their representative.

That's where the list of candidates comes in... :-)

"hang two of the worst" get a grip folks !

I defy any of you to come up with two of the worst in this gang,without an argument

would anyone argue about hedy fry?

could we start the list with the member for Vancouver Kingsway?

ripponfalls commented:

Who decides which names do or do not get on that list of candidates?

Who decides if any particular candidate gets the PC, Lib, NDP or any other 'brand name' next to their name on the ballot?

This is why the signing of nomination papers is such a huge power. Take it away and the immense sledge hammer that the Party leader, whip and or treasurer have would be split.

Were MP's to have this foot taken off thier collective throats they would find it easier to speak their mind. Leaders and others whom would dominate our elected officials would have to actually lead, or find other means of coersion.

Not enough of the voting public are willing to learn about the party candidate to bother voting along other than party lines. Though I suspect the electors of Vancouver-Kinsway are considering paying closer attention to the candidate and ignoring the (party) afiliation.

I think Alcibiades was talking about a
"hang the two worst" list.

Clearly also relies upon a better and more independent intelligence agency - I think they've been jerked around by the politicians too.
In the end, democracies who start aggressive wars won't be democracies for long - we may have gone too far already!

The fear is that giving MPs their head will just make them more available to special interests - much along the lines of the rotten boroughs in so many US districts. Just imagine who'd be stepping up to get 'their’ candidate nominated and when elected those groups would call the tune. You'd have dozens of MPs interested in nothing else but their own special interests running around making alliances with other individuals who need support for their pet projects.
I wonder if it would be any better just because the party-discipline factor was largely out of the picture. In fact, I can imagine cases where regional alliances would make it worse.

Pls ignore 1st para above - not part of this discussion, obviously - my mistake!

After I wrote the article I told Wendy that there would be lots of people who would rather have their MPs/MLAs forced to vote ae they are told rather than voting as they wished.

I've been there, folks, and I can tell you it would have been a very different and much more democratic place if we in cabinet couldn't be sure our caucus would support us.

However, there it is.

I didn't say I would prefer the American system just the way and place they debate. I have argued for a republican system but only if we were smart enough to look carefully at republican systems such as in the US and not repeat their errors. The sad truth, I suppose, is that humans will find out how to bugger up and corrupt any system they adopt

Sadly true, Rafe, but, combine personal accountability with a system that prevents special interests from getting hold of the individuals as they have traditionally gotten control of the parties without sacrificing entirely the party structure (which prevents the legislature from being just a group of 308 individuals trying to find some common ground - a la the Swiss version of direct democracy) and you might have something.

As long as special (or party) interests pay the bills though I can't see them wanting to stop calling the tune.

The least of a government's concerns are the principal concerns of the people. Or, as old logger put it to me once, "If they don't give a ****, we don't give a ****." That is the people's world of today.

I have not had a federal representive who was anything but a parasite for nearly two decades. For years nothing but the vilest sort of man have represented me.

In the present Parliament there are no great men. Not one. I suppose if the people have a principal concern it is that we are not led by great men.

I did not know there was an automatic bad word remover hooked up to the comment section. If you are wondering, my old logger friend may have added the word "fiddler's" before the ****.

for Mr. Beer N. Hockey,

All of your observations have been anticipated in the text The Soverign Individual, as this has all happened about 500 years ago as the, then senile, Catholic Church went thru its death throes.

I recommend The Soverign Individual to you and hope that you may find it an enlightening text.

We're seeing Ralph Klein come off the rails in Alberta because, although not a Tory has anything but love and loyalty for King Ralph, given a secret ballot they'll show him the guillotine. Score one for Rafe.

I live in David Emerson's riding, voted NDP, but to my friends' chagrin I did not hop on the recall bandwagon because I cling to the notion that we elect a Member of Parliament, not a member of a party. In that light, he is free to change his allegiance. We could do with some MPs capable of changing their minds. Regretably, Emerson is no such free thinker — but I don't see how we can exact a heavy penalty for MPs who cross the floor without paying the heavy penalty of a Parliament even more in the thrall of party discipline.

So Rafe, here's my small, no-cost suggestion: next election, on the ballot, eliminate any reference to party affiliation. Just list the candidates by name. Make the voters learn this basic information for themselves before they enter the polling booth. And remind those thus elected that they — and not their political brandnames — are what we voted for.

Change the building? NO a waste of money.
Shuffle the seating? OK, why not?
Secret votes? OVER MY DEAD BODY Rafe! Give your head a shake. This is the way to fascism and zero accountability. My vote represents myself and it is properly secret. The Member's vote represents the riding and must be transparent.
END THE LEGAL SUPPORT OF THE PARTY SYSTEM
This is the way to get rid of trained seals. Require all candidates to run as independents. No party name on the ballot. Parliament has to actually meet to determine a cabinet that has its confidence, just like in NWT and Nunavut. Parties are still free to exist, at their own expense, to discuss policy and advocate for policy. Scrap all the parliamentary rules that consider party affiliation.
IMPLEMENT THE SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE
However we free our parliamentarians from the lash of the whip, free them to do their job of actually thinking through discussing and deciding, we still need a mechanism to hold them acccountable to us and the only one that does that effectively is the Single Transferrable Vote where every voter's actual preferances determine the outcome. Time soon to give input to the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission.
Votes of Non-Confidence are a non-issue in a non-party system. The prime minister or any minister can be removed directly if they lose the confidence of the house without needing a new election. Members should hold their seats between fixed election dates, but the needs to be effective and useable recall procedures.

I have never figured a human being made much in the way of sense before William Godwin, a little better than two centuries ago. Fiddling few have made much sense since.

I found the reference to the book in my computer and shall see if I can find a copy. The Catholic Church is not dead, it is sleeping, like the old gag.

for Mr. Beer N. Hockey,

Ok so the 'Mother Church' the way it held the power over the western world in 1500 is dead, was dieing in 1506, and had the coffin nails put in the church door by Martin Luther.

The point is more about the general loathing that the common populace held the officers of the church, that are the nearest equivalent to our governments today.

Good luck with finding a copy of the book, it has been banned in USA and UK, to my knowledge if you try to cross the border into the USA with it they will confiscate it (I lost one copy that way).

Cheers.

murdock
Why recommend just The Sovereign Individual, why not Atlas Shrugged & The Fountainhead too.
You're as big a dreamer as Ayn Rand was.
Take a deep breath and get over yourself - you're no closer to having all the answers than any of the other poor souls dreaming of a new 'hero'or new philosophy to help them find their way in the world. Same old, same old. Luther was a big a tyrant as the Pope.

Try Amazon

It seemed there was real momentum around the "hang the two worst parliamentarians every year" idea for a bit. Could I suggest good old fashioned (i.e., Ancient Greek) Ostracism. Every voter writes the name of the person they hate the most on a piece of clay and stick it in the pot. When the bits of clay are counted and tabulated, the most hated person has to go into exile for 10 years.

The flip side was also appealing in it's simplicity: any citizen could be nominated at the time of the vote. You just wrote the name of the person whom you wanted to be in command of the fleet on another peice of clay and stuck it in another pot. If your name was the most nominated, it was "Hello, Admiral Don Cherry, you have a job to do".

That's definitely what we need, Admiral Don. I'm surprised he hasn't been appointed General of the Army given the admirable way he promotes the military every time he's on hockey night in canada. But then, with General Rick Hillier leading the cheerleading maybe Don would be more useful leading our blue water navy.
Sovereign Individuals all.

Ok, so I just dropped my ostracism clay into the wrong pot....

Hey, doesn't matter. When you're appointing individuals who aren't qualified I don't think the position they occupy matters that much...:)

I love Gen. Rick Hillier. The guy is a guy's guy. No BS here. He's a straight shooter ( I hope ) that is so refreshing compared to previous leadership. I mean I can't even tell you who he replaced, or the person before that, and the person before that , or the person before that etc.
We have leadership in this country now, and I give credit to the Liberals for appointing him.

Yep! Gotta get busy and shoot those scumbags - funny the kind of people some people look up to. If that's leadership then I'm joining Murdock's libertarian party!!

Oh, for goodness sake, Rafe. What you're saying is adopt the US Congressional system in place of the British Parliamentary system. Cripple parties, cripple government, let any yahoo who is elected have an equal voice. (One of the great advantages to our system is the yahoos are placed way on the backbench where they can do the least damage - in the US if they stick around they gain seniority and do awful damage, e.g., Joseph McCarthy, Jesse Helms, etc. & etc.)

But the proof is in the pudding. Are we more poorly governed than the Americans? Imperfect as our system is, I don't think we will gain much by adopting another which - to my mind - is a lot worse.

Neale

It doesn't have to be the British system or the US system. Surely to god we can craft a better system than those two.

Personally I can't stand the present system. Its not democracy, its am unreasonable facsimile. And obviously it goes without saying I'd say that even if the NDP formed gov't with 39% of the vote.

murdock, are you still pushing SI? C'mon guy, warm up that Chapters card and buy something else. All you libertarians are supposed to be happy campers now that Clinton is out of the White House.

You still want there to be no nation-state bigger than BC? Do you really think we're all going to make our living with a laptop and make our collective decisions in a chat room?

Judging by the way we all come to agreement on a regular basis on the Tyee forums I'd suggest ostracism is probably the only system that would work in that atmosphere. (I have your name on a clay tablet already "Sam the Eagle")

By the way, it upsets me that Alcibiades of all people is against the Athenian tradition of appointing whomever we want to lead our navy. Next thing you know he'll be against being convicted in abstentia too. Time doesn't heal all wounds I guess.

Just me, though I agree that members should be allowed to cross the floor, or quit their party and sit as an independent, Mr. Emerson's about face was particularly distasteful. The last time he's seen in public, in the riding anyway, he's promising to be Stevie's worst nightmare in opposition. His next appearance is emerging from a limo to be sworn into the cabinet of our own minor league Neo-Cons. The whole thing just smacks way too much of doing what's best for Mr. Emerson, not Vancouver-Kingsway. Of course he's been sliding back and forth between government and industry all his life, and always to his advantage financially.

The fact that the Harp seal wasn't able to elect any members in the three major cities of Canada, and the fact that almost 80% of Canadians are urban, shows me how tenuous his grip on power really is. Without help from Liberal fatigue and corruption (tho they were amateurs compared to Mulroney for corruption) he wouldn't even have the small grip he now holds. He must realize it too, which would explain the strict scripts and muzzled members.
Harper has to hope there are enough retarded Red-State types in Canada if he hopes to ever form a majority, and I for one doubt that, or maybe I'm just being optimistic.

I know it wasn't scientific in a statistical sense, but could anyone imagine someone like Tommy Douglas being chosen the Greatest American? I don't think so. Ollie North would have a better shot at something like that. In the America of today it's not considered extreme to consider FDR the communist who lost Eastern Europe, Dubya the historical whiz even said that. He apologized for FDR in Poland or one of the Baltic States. Of course the GOP are on a mission to eradicate every last trace of the New Deal, and well along on their way. Of course their insane economic policies are likely to bring about another Great Depression, this time on steroids.

Darn right Frank!
It’s just that I couldn't imagine Don Cherry with all that naval gold braid - he's already enough of a clotheshorse. I guess I’d have no problem with him as head of a Spartan navy.

Don't forget,... 'consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead.'

As for convicting someone in absentia, one doesn’t recover from that so easily.

This, http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144101012611&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907624636
totally off topic, is actually something pretty interesting.

here's one of the ads created with the tools provided by the contest:
http://www.chevyapprentice.com/view.php?country=us&uniqueid=60a3a610-1237-1029-98eb-0013724ff5a7

And here's one more:
http://www.chevyapprentice.com/view.php?country=us&uniqueid=40a895fc-10eb-1029-98eb-0013724ff5a7

"After I wrote the article I told Wendy that there would be lots of people who would rather have their MPs/MLAs forced to vote ae they are told rather than voting as they wished."

No, I think people want their MPs/MLAs to vote as they wish, but to just be accountable for how they vote. A secret ballot doesn't allow any accountability.

at first glance, a secret ballot seems a way for the mla to protect his identity from the leader, when voting against the party line means death.

what it really does is protect the mla from his constituency, by hiding his votes in favour of issues that do not favour his riding.

in contrast to open and honest govt.

since mlas are elected to represent their own areas, they are in effect the personification of the personality of their riding.

why then are so many of them cowards and yes men?

is this how their electors view themselves?

do they go along to get along even if they are on the wrong path, avoid rocking the boat even if to alert the captain to a hazard, sit on their hands when action is required?

do the residents of richmond feel like major proponents of sexual discrimination and the belittling of women?

do thy think of themselves like those who hide their eyes and cover their ears when they encounter injustice, fearful that will be enough to have injustice visit them?

maybe they should.

recognition of the problem is supposed to be the first step in solving it.

the issue is every mla is forced to vote the party line, when they are supposed to vote in the interest of their riding.

the problem is resposibility.

resposibility means there are real and negative consequenses directly against the individual, such as loss of: perks, pay, position, responsibilities, even party membership, and ultimately election.

mlas are not held responsible by those who elected them, for at least several years, and often not ever.

mlas who cross the leader often are held resposible within hours.

is it not obvious who holds the carrot and the stick? does the junkyard dog obey your commands?

i agree the leader and his henchmen have far too much power within the party.

the party doctrine changes from one drafted and sanctioned by citizens seeking to do good for all, to one drafted by those seeking to win and profit for themselves.

and they always invest the leadership with power and authority.

rafe, i agree the system has to be changed, but secret ballot is not the way to go.

i cannot think of a fast or easy fix.

but the hanging the worst idea sounds better all the time....

everyone interested in picking the two, or being on the hangman team, can send their particulars, along with one dollar, to lotto bc, who will handle the draw to determine the winners. (actually we would all be winners)

that way it would surely make a profit.

Ultimately, unless we include some mechanism for growth (as with the boundary commissions for population) and change (like a citizens assembly or regular inclusion of referenda on ballots) our system of governance is stagnated.

If we are to compare it to a living thing, that cannot grow or change, then it is dead.

Do we want to consider our governance system dead?

I think not, therefore some mechanism for change control needs to be developed and implemented.

Thanks for keeping us thinking Rafe!

murdock

Hasn`t our system of governance essentially been privatized?

ok bob the cat,

if it has been privatized who is the asset holder?

Let's see...how about looking at whoever donates money to parties or campaigns, and whoever pays lobbyists to influence the processes of governance?

Bailey says:

So individual Canadians, Unions, Businesses (both large and small) and ???

Sounds like the population of the country, but then I suppose you are trying to say that only the wealthy get the access?

This has been true of Canada since the start and before then with the Family Compact and Seinuries.

This is not a privatization, certainly only those with the private wealth to have the time to do the lobbying (or pay them) get in, but then Stronach and Emerson have been at that a long time now eh?

Murdock; Giving twenty bucks to the party will only get you on their junk mail list. Giving twenty thousand has a different effect, I think it's clear.

If the interests of large scale contributors are different from the interests of the majority of constituants, which interests win out? Who gets the consideration of the minister? The money or the people?

Another question occurs to me in relation to the Basi/Virk matter, which I think you'll agree is pertinent here.

Which ministers suddenly felt it necessary to 'spend more time with their families' just after the legislature was raided?

Judith Reid, just happened to end her power trip at this time! Seems her hubby got ...A LOT OF MONEY IN A FEDERAL (Liberal)GRANT .

I pointed this out to, the GREAT RAFE MAIR when something could have been done...BUT RAFE IS SMARTER THAN THE COMMON FOLK...AND IGNORED ALL THIS BS.

and I guess the people screwing us over...WERE SMARTER THAN THE ROYAL COWBOYYS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/us/04cnd-mass.html?hp&ex=1144209600&en=4a38e90c686fb172&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Just saw this story in the NY Times - doesn't belong here but where else can I post it?

murdock

well..maybe Corporate Business? Sure ain`t the folks in the Kingsway riding.

In the big old scheme of things it matters damn little who controls the assets of government. Even if it were a wise, benevolent "us" at the wheel, we would find a way to bugger it up quicker than you can say free vote.

If we used the Single Transferable Vote for electing MPs, the MPs would no longer feel the necesssity to bow to party discipline. The reason is that anyone who is good could run later as an independent - and win.
What we needed for the last election was a liberal party not connected with the "Liberal Party of Canada". With STV it would have been easy to form such a party and get members elected. This can hardly happen under our present system because with two liberals to choose from the vote splitting would make it likely that a candidate from another party would get elected.

bob the cat retorts:

so its the family compact again, just a new name and some different window dressing.

sounds like a good reason to look for a different solution to the governance structure problem to me.

you can sign me up

bob the cat,

I'll take your signature.

Now I shall pose a possible answer to the asset holder's identity, as I see it.

If we can imagine a Country's Government as a business (I know not an exact thing but bear with me please), with the public or citizens as the customers; then the following models come to mind:

Owner: Single Entity
With this model the objective is to extract the maximum value for the Entity with the minimum effort. So bureaucracies are small, since paying them takes away from the profits. Services are timely and usually kept to the minimum neccesary, as more would again lower the profit to the single entity. An example of this sort of system is the Sultan of Brunei.

Owner: The Public
With this model the intent is to maximize the returns to all the 'shareholders' in this example, the public at large. Again the services are timely, though since the 'returns' are given in services, they may be quite lavish or extensive. This is where the 'value' is being returned. Again service is timely as without speed of response the delivery of 'value' is not seen and would become a reason for complaint. Sadly I have no real-world example of this to point to.

Owner: The Employees
In this model the profits are maximized to ensure the maximum number of people are employed and paid to the maximum ammount. Services tend to be slow and of minimal value, as why spend too much on the customers when they are not the reason for value. This is the model of governance we have now, an ever expanding bureaucracy that we cannot stop, since they have ensured that our machinery of governance is in their sway. How hard is it to fire a government worker? How easy is it for the fired worker to demand excessive compensation? Given that the courts themselves are populated by the same workers, owners of the system all, why would they not take the side of the workers? Just look at any of the recent 'firings' and see how much severance and how lavishly they were paid in the first place.

We, the voters, do not 'own' our governance, we are the poorly served customers by the employee 'owners' of it.

Until someone goes into Ottawa with a very large broom and a stack of pink slips the $$$ bleeding out of our taxes will not stop.

It's true that our government is too much silly posturing and antagonism - a result of the wrong kind of people wanting to be there. Oh it's true that a few brave and innocent souls may start into politics with the best of intentions, but the reality is that they won't get anywhere unless they play ball with the corrupt big boys.

So, while I agree with the one poster who advocated the removal of the party identifier from the ballot, I'd go one further - remove the parties. What if, instead of giving taxpayer's money to the parties for their campaigns, we divvied it out to anyone who can successfully pass nomination - that way anyone can run for office, and not have to have any party affiliation. Once all the candidates have been elected, they can have an election of their own to choose a prime minister, who would then choose the cabinet - since there would be no parties, there would be no toeing the line.

I believe this would go a long way towards increasing cooperation amongst MP's, and making for a more productive government. Let's face it, it's pretty hard to distinguish the platforms of the three major parties now anyways - it's just that they often feel they have a duty to oppose the others on some issues, even though they may actually feel pretty similarly.