What's It Like Voting for 'The Lesser of Two Evils?'

[jBirch]

About the only difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and a Presidency is in whom the military power nominally resides. In Canada, we declare war by passing a law asking the Queen to send the troops to wherever we want. In practice, the Governor General rubber stamps whatever Parliament chooses to place in front of her and so our Const. Monarchy is a fiction. And before you leap down my throat, Civil, I agree that the Queen's role in Canada is both important and vital. I just don't think it fair to denigrate other nations for not participating in the fiction.

In the US, the President can wage war for 60 days without a bill being passed, but that's fairly impractical. Again, an act of both houses must be passed declaring war and committing military force. In this regard, what's the functional difference between a Const. Mon. and a Const. Democ.?

The establishment of the lower and upper house (the House of Commons and the Senate) is precisely so that there is a common-sense limit on what a democracy can vote for itself. Anyone that argues for an elected senate (yes, this is coming from an Albertan), misses the point of a senate completely. Unfortunately, in the US, this has been largely abandoned in the electing of Senators and Representatives, as enshrined in the Constitution. The only real check on the issue of "mob rule" is the EC and the election of the President, as Rogue pointed out. Specifically in its appointment of Electors and its support of a President. In fact, in many ways, the President is appointed by the States, and not elected by them. He is essentially crowned by the Lords of the land. Put that in your democractic pipe and smoke it. *grin*

At any rate, it has been well understood for a long, long, long time that a full democracy tends to vote benefits for the individuals at the expense of the collective. Essentially, mob rule doesn't. Without the EC (or some other appointed body) what's to stop Congress from passing a bill that makes everyone make the same amount of money? The tendency is for the populace to demand lower taxes and greater services, and will vote for those who promise it. It's why the argument about making the rich pay more taxes is persuasive. Is that a thing that should be gotten rid of?

Take it easy.

[civiltech]

Originally Posted by jBirch

About the only difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and a Presidency is in whom the military power nominally resides. In Canada, we declare war by passing a law asking the Queen to send the troops to wherever we want. In practice, the Governor General rubber stamps whatever Parliament chooses to place in front of her and so our Const. Monarchy is a fiction. And before you leap down my throat, Civil, I agree that the Queen's role in Canada is both important and vital. I just don't think it fair to denigrate other nations for not participating in the fiction.

In the US, the President can wage war for 60 days without a bill being passed, but that's fairly impractical. Again, an act of both houses must be passed declaring war and committing military force. In this regard, what's the functional difference between a Const. Mon. and a Const. Democ.?

The establishment of the lower and upper house (the House of Commons and the Senate) is precisely so that there is a common-sense limit on what a democracy can vote for itself. Anyone that argues for an elected senate (yes, this is coming from an Albertan), misses the point of a senate completely. Unfortunately, in the US, this has been largely abandoned in the electing of Senators and Representatives, as enshrined in the Constitution. The only real check on the issue of "mob rule" is the EC and the election of the President, as Rogue pointed out. Specifically in its appointment of Electors and its support of a President. In fact, in many ways, the President is appointed by the States, and not elected by them. He is essentially crowned by the Lords of the land. Put that in your democractic pipe and smoke it. *grin*
Take it easy.

I'm not disagreeing with you totally.

If you think a constitutional monarchy is a "fiction" your a little misinformed. If you think that where the power of the military rule lies is the principal difference, wrong again. It is true our head of state is commander and chief, but there are several other constitutional monarchy's in and outside of the Commonwealth where the Head of State is not the Commander and Chief. The Head of Government (our prime minister) is something different though. And because the Crown chooses not to exercise it's power just cause it doesn't challenge everything parliament does, doesn't make it obsolete...it makes it a constitional monarchy!! Rubber stamping is an unfair comment, and simply untrue. There is no reason to hold up every little thing parliament does. That isn't the role of the crown, if your obsessed with who has power...your in the wrong country.
Your own Lt. G. in Alberta refused to give Royal Assent to one of Ralph Klien's bills re: welfare a while ago. It is a rare occurence, but they are there to hold in check the powers that want total control. That which goes against the constitution. However, things like Royal prerogative (a subject I am learngin more about myself.) also alows our ministers to make tough decisions, and allows the Privy council amazing power in times of need, still with a watchful eye. Did you know Bill Graham has been using it lately? Because it doesn't get the press, doesn't mean that it isn't there!

As for beating up other countries that don't have a constitutional monarchy. I agree. That was not my intent. I"m sorry if I sounded like I was pushing it on others. It is not the only form of gov't. However, it works great for Canada, and HM other realms.

Your not for an elected Senate eh? That's interesting because I've been toying with the idea a lot. And thats coming from a staunch card carrying Progressive Conservative from Ontario! I agree, popular vote of the people is probably not the way to go. Then it is simply another popularity vote, and diminishes the instution. (That by the way is why we can never replace our Governor General with a President in a Canadian republic. It is no longer a position representing ALL Canadians, but instead representing a portion of voters.) However, there has to be a better way than the party in power simply stacking the senate with Senators who are faithful to that party in power......

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by civiltech

I'm not disagreeing with you totally.

If you think a constitutional monarchy is a "fiction" your a little misinformed. If you think that where the power of the military rule lies is the principal difference, wrong again. It is true our head of state is commander and chief, but there are several other constitutional monarchy's in and outside of the Commonwealth where the Head of State is not the Commander and Chief. The Head of Government (our prime minister) is something different though. And because the Crown chooses not to exercise it's power just cause it doesn't challenge everything parliament does, doesn't make it obsolete...it makes it a constitional monarchy!! Rubber stamping is an unfair comment, and simply untrue. There is no reason to hold up every little thing parliament does. That isn't the role of the crown, if your obsessed with who has power...your in the wrong country.
Your own Lt. G. in Alberta refused to give Royal Assent to one of Ralph Klien's bills re: welfare a while ago. It is a rare occurence, but they are there to hold in check the powers that want total control. That which goes against the constitution. However, things like Royal prerogative (a subject I am learngin more about myself.) also alows our ministers to make tough decisions, and allows the Privy council amazing power in times of need, still with a watchful eye. Did you know Bill Graham has been using it lately? Because it doesn't get the press, doesn't mean that it isn't there!

As for beating up other countries that don't have a constitutional monarchy. I agree. That was not my intent. I"m sorry if I sounded like I was pushing it on others. It is not the only form of gov't. However, it works great for Canada, and HM other realms.

Your not for an elected Senate eh? That's interesting because I've been toying with the idea a lot. And thats coming from a staunch card carrying Progressive Conservative from Ontario! I agree, popular vote of the people is probably not the way to go. Then it is simply another popularity vote, and diminishes the instution. (That by the way is why we can never replace our Governor General with a President in a Canadian republic. It is no longer a position representing ALL Canadians, but instead representing a portion of voters.) However, there has to be a better way than the party in power simply stacking the senate with Senators who are faithful to that party in power......

I was unaware that the GG or any LtG's had ever refused parliament a bill that had passed both upper and lower houses. That's the way things are supposed to work in theory, though the exercise of that power was non-existant to my knowledge. I just Googled the incident and couldn't find anything after 1937 (though that incident is remarkably similar to the one you described. Could you have conflated the two?.) Can you elaborate on the incident? Was it a bone fide witholding of consent or reserving of it?

I do wonder though at the exercise of Royal Priviledge in our nation though. There was talk about the Quebec LtG refusing Assent if the National Assembly were to seceed. Similarly, if parliament passed a bill removing the Queen as our Sovereign or removing Her Assent from Parliamentary procedure. I can't in practice see Her going against the will of the people of Canada (nominally) unless there is real division on the issue and/or she is threatened by it. And if She chooses not to twart the will of Parliament, then She has no actual power in Canada, does She? And the threat of Civil War is high in that event, and She lacks the power to enforce Her will over issues the populace deems to be theirs. To whom is the military loyal, Her or Canada? What would parliament do if She were to refuse Assent? Change the constitution? Then who would give Assent to the new constitution?

In that light, are we really so different from a Republic in a practical, not nominal, way? Are we not governed by the whims of the elected officials and not protected from those whims by law and HRM? Especially if we elect the Senate and are therby totally at the mercy of whatever fads will get one elected and happy with the people? If HRM does not exercise Her power, then She loses it.

Just food for thought.

Understand that I am deeply Canadian and Monarchist. I took two oaths to HRM and I take them seriously. I know you meant nothing by it, but your comment about me being in the wrong country was offensive. I am simply stating the way I perceive things to be in the way that our country is run. If we can not be factual and practical about our governance, how can we improve it?

Personally, I would like to see HRM exercise MORE power on a daily basis in the lives of Canada because I see Her utility to the average Canadian waning. I would like to see the GG as an effective counter-weight to the PM, not merely a rubber stamp with a pretty chain and a massive chair. I see our teetering on the edge of Republic as wrong. I see other Const. Mon. in the world doing the same and I think it's a bad thing. But how can we raise the flag and do something about the problem if we refuse to acknowledge that we even have a problem in the first place!?

Hope this helps.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by civiltech

Your not for an elected Senate eh? That's interesting because I've been toying with the idea a lot. And thats coming from a staunch card carrying Progressive Conservative from Ontario! I agree, popular vote of the people is probably not the way to go. Then it is simply another popularity vote, and diminishes the instution. (That by the way is why we can never replace our Governor General with a President in a Canadian republic. It is no longer a position representing ALL Canadians, but instead representing a portion of voters.) However, there has to be a better way than the party in power simply stacking the senate with Senators who are faithful to that party in power......

I agree. In fact, the system I think would work the best is for HRM to appoint those members for life based on the recommendations of the GG. The GG can take nominations from the populace and from parliament, but at the end of the day, it should be part of Her duty. Deeply Canadian and fully committed to the protection and improvement of the nation would be the prime criteria. A lifetime appointment (at Her pleasure or until unable to perform their duties) means that the choice needs to be weighed clearly, the appointee is free to act as they see best and they are unswayed by the whims of the Canadian people and by the PM. Essentially, they would act as a sanity check on Parliament that is kinda lacking with party discipline now, and serve to bolster the office of HRM (and the GG by proxy) with some practical power.

Just food for thought again.

[civiltech]

Tell ya what.


Start another new thread on The Role of the Monarchy in Canada and the Commonwealth, and we can elaborate on all these issues there. I assure you there are some excellent answers to your queries.....

In fact, the Monarchist League of Canada is all about that. Informing Canadians of the role of the Crown in Canada!!!! When everyone has a basic knowledge of the system, then you can make informed decisions!

Aside from that, I initiated this thread to hear from Americans about there two party system....so let's hear it!!!!!


jbirch, start the thread, and I will answer.

Best regards, to all.

[civiltech]

I understand from CTV Newsnet today that Bush is ahead in the polls over Kerry.

I would assume this bounces back and forth on a daily basis, and depending on which "poll" and which media outlet you talk too.

What about this Ralph Nader guy. Is this a Reform Party? Is it viable, or Americas 5th wheel? I'm sure there are all kinds of fringe party's and independent, but it's still a 2 party system right?

[I_luv_saber]

according to the UN

I don't hold much faith for the UN anymore...

[jBirch]

I agree. If it can't reign in the US then it's a lame duck.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Furthermore, felons can vote in several countries. They are so few so that their vote will not alter the outcome, anyway.

The point is that they have been removed from society based on their actions
IF they care they can apply for reinstatement of their civil rights. But that's usually a big if.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

The bigger problem with the electoral college is that it skews the election tactics - both major parties go for the battleground states, and important issues which are especially important for states with a predictable outcome (Utah, DofCol) get to little attention. It also lessens voter participation, since so many voters live in places where they can reasonably assume that the electoral college will go to one party, and their vote does not matter. In a popular vote system, democrats in Utah, and republicans in Mass, would matter. This would force the candidates to adress all sorts of issues, and face all sorts of voters.



Personally, I think that the best reform to the electoral college would be to abolish it altogether, and replace it with a popular vote system. Not simple plurality system, as is common in USA, rather instant runoff or Condorcet voting.

Those who are proponts of the electoral college: What pros do you think that it has, that can not be attained with a popular vote system?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

The point of the electoral college is that the STATES elect the President, not the People directly. Each individual State is a sovereign entity.

[I_luv_saber]

sovereign entity.

So.. it's sovereign... and an entity. You know sovereign, as in... a sovereign... seperate entity couldn't resist!

[C.J.]

This is really funny.

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/dsbush.html

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by noodle

harr nobody liked my simpsons reference. maybe another will help:


My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!
-Kodos

I voted for Kang