Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada Needs Direct Election Of The Prime Minister


Exegesisme

Recommended Posts

I agree.

In the last election, I really liked the Conservative guy in my riding but I could not stomach a vote for Harper.

If I could have voted for the guy in my riding and someone else as PM, that would be good.

Your situation was very awkward. I hope our Canadian political system provides more choices for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think I am wandering off topic, but I do believe the problem is quite real, but the solutions proposed thus far miss the mark.

I also believe there is a much broader problem with almost ALL governments - rule-by-special-interest - that is facilitated by partisanship. My very carefully considered solution is to eliminate political parties from government in any form. That way, the only way you get to elect your representative would be based on what they claim and are known to believe in at the constituency level. The PM and cabinet would be elected by and from Parliament at large, and subject to recall by that same body under well defined guidelines and rules. That would bring the back benchers very much into play on a daily basis - mostly through effective committee work, but always with the Sword of Damacles power over executive. Also, EVERY vote would become a free vote - and the sanctity of that would be heavily protected.

Anyone who thinks the back benches have ANY real power in Provincial or Federal politics has never been very close to government and cabinet.

Anyone who thinks any one party has all of the answers is even more naive.

Anyone who thinks political parties are not for sale cheap is an idiot.

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your solution is backward, and weakens the strength of political leadership.

My main concern is on leadership, which should be well balaced between accountability and strength. My solution would increase both the accountability and the strength, and rise the balance of them to a higher level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your solution is backward, and weakens the strength of political leadership.

My main concern is on leadership, which should be well balanced between accountability and strength. My solution would increase both the accountability and the strength, and rise the balance of them to a higher level.

The only need one would have for political leadership is to forward some partisan idea of policy. This, IMHO, should strictly be the job of parliament in response to its electorate - i.e. sending the member to represent what he campaigned to do when elected. Given a partisan site for lobbyists to focus is exactly why we have rule-by-special interest. THAT is "political leadership" at its best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

forward some partisan idea of policy

the job of parliament in response to its electorate

Both are needed but not enough. The direct election of PM itself is thought as a process to form new common sense of Canada, and no other political process can replace.

special interest​

All special interests are important for each of them represents a part of Canada, no matter how small, they should have their platform for their proper sounds, which is my idea of republic.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. ''Well balance between accountability and strength''. Really? That is something JT would say. Nice words, but means nothing.In 4 yrs people will be so sick and tired of his speaking abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting directly for the pm in our system

1) won't work because he has to have the support of the majority party and obviously the pc's wouldn't be working with Trudeau nor the libs with Harper

2) isn't such a big deal, just look at all the wonderful choices that the Americans have in front of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 by compromise to get support.

2 working with reformation of voting system in parliament, which a mp should vote on her or his conscience.

3 US is not perfect but great, which means they still play leadership globally in almost all aspects, and our Canada is really living in their leadership.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are needed but not enough. The direct election of PM itself is thought as a process to form new common sense of Canada, and no other political process can replace.

All special interests are important for each of them represents a part of Canada, no matter how small, they should have their platform for their proper sounds, which is my idea of republic.

Common sense? from a POLITICAL PARTY or its leaders? Sorry, but you are living in la-la land. I somehow doubt you have ever sat in at a cabinet level meeting or with party executive. Common sense has nothing do to with it. Rewarding your supporters and advancing you party's particular brand of anything-but-common-sense pipedreams is 100% of the process.

Special interests that are there simply to screw over the taxpayer (the ones with the $$$$$ to lobby hard) are the problem. Lesser special interests can have a better platform if they are not competing with the influence of the big bux - all of which is defeated by the elimination of parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Presidential Prime Minister: Japan’s Direct Election Debate

Joel Rheuben ∗ ∗∗ ∗

I. Introduction

II. Constitutional Issues Associated with Direct Election

III. The Background of the Direct Election Debate

IV. Direct Election in Context 1. Direct Election as a Measure for Reform 2. The “Presidentialisation” of the Prime Minister

V. Direct Election and Prime Ministerial Power

VI. Direct Election and Popular Political Participation

VII. Risks of Direct Election

VIII. Conclusion

https://sydney.edu.au/law/anjel/documents/ZJapanR/ZJapanR24/ZJapanR24_10_Rheuben.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to elect the Prime Minister?

Graham Allen 1 July 2014

A new parliamentary report proposes the direct election of the Prime Minister and a clarification of his or her powers in statute. The Chair of the Committee that produced the report explains why.

About the author

Graham Allen is the Labour MP for Nottingham North. His ambition is to turn the UK into a democracy. He has written “Reinventing Democracy” and “The last Prime Minister; being honest about the UK Presidency”, and in 2010 was elected by Parliamentary colleagues as the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/graham-allen/time-to-elect-prime-minister

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the thirteenth Knesset (1992–1996) it was decided to hold a separate ballot for prime minister modeled after American presidential elections. This system was instituted in part because the Israeli electoral system makes it all but impossible for one party to win a majority. While only two parties—Mapai/Labour and Likud—had ever led governments, the large number of parties or factions in a typical Knesset usually prevents one party from winning the 61 seats needed for a majority.

In 1996, when the first such election took place, the outcome was a surprise win for Benjamin Netanyahu after election polls predicted that Peres was the winner.[2] However, in the Knesset election held at the same time, Labour won more votes than any other party (27%). Thus Netanyahu, despite his theoretical position of power, needed the support of the religious parties to form a viable government.

Ultimately Netanyahu failed to hold the government together, and early elections for both Prime Minister and the Knesset were called in 1999. Although five candidates announced their intention to run, the three representing minor parties (Benny Begin of Herut – The National Movement, Azmi Bishara of Balad and Yitzhak Mordechai of the Centre Party) dropped out before election day, and Ehud Barak beat Netanyahu in the election. However, the new system again appeared to have failed, as although Barak's One Israel party (an alliance of Labour, Gesher and Meimad) won more votes than any other party in the Knesset election, they garnered only 26 seats, the lowest ever by a winning party, meaning that a coalition with six smaller parties was once again necessary.

In early 2001, Barak resigned following the outbreak of the al-Aqsa Intifada. However, the government was not brought down, and only elections for prime minister were necessary. In the election itself, Ariel Sharon comfortably beat Barak, taking 62.4% of the vote. However, because Likud only had 21 seats in the Knesset, Sharon had to form a national unity government. Following Sharon's victory, it was decided to do away with separate elections for prime minister and return to the previous system.

The reason of unsuccessful try of Israel for direct election of PM, is the weakness of the legal position of the general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason of unsuccessful try of Israel for direct election of PM, is the weakness of the legal position of the general election.

No, the reason that it didn't succeed is that it runs 100% counter to their (and our) system of government.

Edited by Smallc
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!
  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...