If voter turnout is a litmus test for stability and legitimacy, I’m a little unclear as to why the U.S. Constitution is stable, since their voter turnout is dreadful, and much worse than Canada’s.
As to struggling for land, water, or power, I would suggest that ain’t coming anytime soon, at least domestically. Canada’s population grows quite slowly, about 1% a year.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the ONE thing that should be changed, without changing much of anything else, is creating an effective and elected Senate, but with inferior powers to the House of Commons.
emacknight wrote, “Another point my friend made was that our population density is low. We don’t have a strugle for land, or water, or power, the way other countries have. But its coming, are you prepared?”
What do you mean, it’s coming? Is Canada expecting a massive influx of immigrants? A baby boom? What?
By the way, I posted a thread on the GD forum: “Should the United States expand its territory?” Mainly about the possible annexation of Canada. (I argue in support of it, but with definite reservations.) I haven’t figured out how to imbed an intra-board link, but you can find the thread by a word search if you’re interested. Also, check out “Should the United States Senate be abolished?” which covers some points of relevance to this discussion – federalism vs. centralism, etc.
Yes, the government still passes laws, and everyone in the country recognizes that. The burden of proof is on you, emacknight to explain how a parallel caucus has any effect whatsoever on “legitimacy”. I though RickJay did a good job explaining what he means by legitimacy, but the article you linked to has nothing to do with the concept.
BTW, a link to an article does not replace a well-reasoned argument.