Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada Needs Direct Election Of The Prime Minister


Exegesisme

Recommended Posts

What you're basically proposing is a semi presidential republic...but they don't vote for prime minister either. No one does, because it's terribly messy, and the one time it was tried, it failed.

What you're basically proposing is a semi presidential republic...but they don't vote for prime minister either. No one does, because it's terribly messy, and the one time it was tried, it failed.

What in my mind is that a USA political system in future direction, plus the Queen and a Queen-system to represent tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You can't have a president and a queen. What would be the point of the queen?

The Queen meets and consoles the people who tend to live in tradition, and makes less resistant to progress, and more stability for the whole nation.

Can you imagine such a Queen in the national system of USA?

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen meets and consoles the people who tend to live in tradition, and make less resistant to progress, and more stability for the whole nation. Can you imagine such a Queen in the national system of USA?

I think they call that the first lady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admire your concept of "a more multi-party republic style democracy", and your first point, and we also need to make the republic style in progress.

I think the functions of 2 and 3 should be put together, one person is enough, as the President of USA.

Maybe the Queen and a Queen-system are needed to represent our tradition.

I think that puts to much power in the hands of one individual. Having a PM focus on just domestic policy can only help the country. The less on one persons plate the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that puts to much power in the hands of one individual. Having a PM focus on just domestic policy can only help the country. The less on one persons plate the better.

But why elect that person? Electing a president, fine, I can see that, but the PM is responsible to parliament - they are, in essence, responsible for his election. How can he be responsible to the voters directly and to parliament at the same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that puts to much power in the hands of one individual. Having a PM focus on just domestic policy can only help the country. The less on one persons plate the better.

Limit the power through other ways. You know, the domestic policy and the foreign policy are so closely connected as a whole which asks for the same hands to deal with.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why elect that person? Electing a president, fine, I can see that, but the PM is responsible to parliament - they are, in essence, responsible for his election. How can he be responsible to the voters directly and to parliament at the same time?

Why should the direct elected PM be responsible to the parliament? Just by definition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why elect that person? Electing a president, fine, I can see that, but the PM is responsible to parliament - they are, in essence, responsible for his election. How can he be responsible to the voters directly and to parliament at the same time?

I think what ends up happening is people realize that their constituents hold no real power, because they often vote along party lines, and thus just vote for the party whose leader they want to be the PM.

So we make the MP's and the PM responsible to voters and voters only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we make the MP's and the PM responsible to voters and voters only.

You would have 3 different elected bodies, each feeling they have a mandate, each competing with each other. It would be worse gridlock than anything that the US has ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How?

Making the party more of value, less of an organization of power. Let us define a party as a group of people who share the same value, and the members are more freely to change their membership among various party. Making amendment of the Constitution to clearly protect the rights of citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what ends up happening is people realize that their constituents hold no real power, because they often vote along party lines, and thus just vote for the party whose leader they want to be the PM.

So we make the MP's and the PM responsible to voters and voters only.

Exactly. Then the issue is fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can change their party affiliation any time they want right now. It happens all the time.

Yes, you are right, but only apparently. In the deep, especially at the level of MPs, there are many benefits controlled by the party which considerably limit their choices. Therefore, these benefits should be reorganized to get rid of the hand of a party, and put in the hand that encourages the MPs as well as the people more reasonably.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason the Tory MP and perhaps other MPs, don't stand up to the leader, especially in Harper's case is THEY like their job and if u go against Harper, u are out of a job. I'd change that that the leader can't do that only the constituents the MPs represents. ALL of these problems we've had in the House has come with Harper's making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason the Tory MP and perhaps other MPs, don't stand up to the leader, especially in Harper's case is THEY like their job and if u go against Harper, u are out of a job. I'd change that that the leader can't do that only the constituents the MPs represents. ALL of these problems we've had in the House has come with Harper's making.

The role of the PM may be unconstitutionally over-extended because the constitution makes the whole system without a clear separation between the legislative branch and the executive branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would have 3 different elected bodies, each feeling they have a mandate, each competing with each other. It would be worse gridlock than anything that the US has ever seen.

Not when all 3 are responsible for different tasks. We could have a majority Conservative Parliament passing bills, a Liberal PM whose job it is to run the country around the laws and an NDP GG whose job it is to handle international matters. All 3 do their jobs with and separate of each other.

Get the popcorn out, it could get interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need a Prime Minister? There is no constitutional requirement to have a Prime Minister. If you eliminate the position of PM, you would probably lessen the current level of partisanship and strengthen the backbones of MP's.

It could be a temporary measure to shake things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have a president and a queen. What would be the point of the queen?

This thread is bad. It shows such terrible ignorance about the fundamentals of our system of government that it makes me question whether or not some people should be allowed to vote at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need a Prime Minister? There is no constitutional requirement to have a Prime Minister. If you eliminate the position of PM, you would probably lessen the current level of partisanship and strengthen the backbones of MP's.

It could be a temporary measure to shake things up.

A direct elected PM is important for the power of executive branch, but the current system makes the PM cribs the power from MPs, and decreases the representative function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need a Prime Minister? There is no constitutional requirement to have a Prime Minister. If you eliminate the position of PM, you would probably lessen the current level of partisanship and strengthen the backbones of MP's.

It could be a temporary measure to shake things up.

The prime minister is like the CEO of the government with cabinet ministers being VPs. Parliament are the shareholders and the Governor General is the company's founder and majority stakeholder.

When you say, "why do we need a prime minister?" That's like asking why a corporation needs a CEO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Greg
      I'm going to be making some major changes to the forums over the next few weeks.
      The first, and likely the biggest change, is going to be in the name of the site, and the domain name you use to access the site (and consequently the discussion forums). I'm not going to release the new name yet (or the domain), you'll just have to wait and see what it is.  Not to worry, all of the old URLs will still work, everything will just be forwarding to the new domain URL scheme.
      I will also be modifying the sub-form categories somewhat, incorporating some long overdue changes.  Mostly, I'll be expanding the US Politics section, so that it has it's own section (similar to what we have for the Canadian Politics section) 
      Canadian Domestic Politics Federal Politics Provincial Politics Local Politics United States Domestic Politics Federal Politics State Politics Local Politics International Politics Canada / US Relations The Rest of The World The remainder of the forums I plan to keep the same.
      Of course I'm always open to suggestion for organization of sections, so please post below if you have any ideas.
      If you have any other good suggestions on reasonable changes we can make to the forums, please post them below. If they're good ideas, I'll do my research and see how easy it would be to incorporate into the new forums.
      Thanks!
       
       
       
    • By Hussain
      All over Ontario, people have been quarantined for weeks in order to flatten the curve and save lives, for the majority of places it has been working. Health officials are now saying that some places in Ontario have reached their peak and the daily number of cases are slowly starting to decline. However, long-term care homes are still at high risk and are being closely monitored to prevent a wide-scale outbreak.
      READ MORE AT
      https://www.youthinpolitics.net/post/leading-death-of-covid-19
    • By Hussain
      Canadians won’t be able to return to life as they knew it before the novel coronavirus pandemic until a vaccine is available, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday.
      “Normality as it was before will not come back full-on until we get a vaccine for this… That will be a very long way off,” the prime minister said during his daily news conference on Canada’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
       
       
    • By Hussain
      As Canada confronts the worsening COVID-19 outbreak, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has hinted his government might declare a federal emergency, giving his cabinet extra powers to battle the pandemic.
      “It is a major tool and I can tell you that we already have a lot of tools that allow us to do what we need to do,” said Trudeau, at his Thursday news conference outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa. “If there are other steps that need to be accomplished and can only be accomplished through invoking the Emergencies Act then we will do so.”
      Some experts have been urging the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, while others have shuddered at the idea, which would be an extraordinary step in the government’s response to the crisis.
      “We do recognize that the Emergencies Act is an extreme law with certain implications that would also require us to bring back the House of Commons to pass these measures,” said Trudeau.
       
       
    • By Hussain
      Bill Maher said it was fine to call the coronavirus the “China virus,” adding that a global pandemic was no time for political correctness.
      “‘What if people hear Chinese virus and blame China?’ The answer is we should blame China. We can’t afford the luxury anymore of non-judginess towards a country with habits that kill millions of people,” Maher thundered Friday in a monologue at the end of his HBO show “Real Time.”
       
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...