Well, it’s a start, but unless you met Peter Gzowski in person, it’s just not good enough.
Because without a Senate and EC, candidates would get more ‘bang for their buck’ campaigning in the most populous areas, which would pull them to the left. There would never be any need to accomodate the people in the ‘flyover states’.
Just my opinion.
But you don’t have anything like the EC in Canada, do you? And your Senate is appointed by the P.M. Is that part of the reason, do you think, that Canada’s political center-of-gravity is so far to the left of ours?
Nope. Our Senate can slow contentious bills down, but ultimately the House will get what it wants passed. The Prime Minister is responsible to the House, so as long as the people keep electing left leaning Members of Parliament to the House, we will have a left leaning government. (That’s left by American standards, not by Canadian standards. Our centre is more like your left, and our left is something you would shoot on sight.)
No, never did, and now he’s dead. But I tell ya, Samantha Bee is hot! 
Northwest passage:
With global warming, I expect that the passage will be navigable for a few months per year. There will be significant pressure put on Canada by multinational corporations and by the USA to permit the shipping of oil through the Northwest Passage as international waters rather than inland waters. In the arctic climate, it takes an extremely long time for oil to break down, so the devastating effects of any spills would last far longer than in points south.
Beaufort Sea:
There are huge natural gas and oil reserves under the Beaufort Sea. The boundary between Canada and the USA in the Beaufort Sea is in dispute. The Canadians believe a line from the last land boundary should be drawn to the North Pole. The Americans believe a line taking the same direction as the land boundary should be extended.
Canadian Arctic Sovereignty:
Canada has exerted its sovereignty in the Arctic by providing government services, mapping (previously by pre-satellite Navy airborne ice mapping of the passage by folks such as my uncle, and presently by ongoing extensive sea bed mapping of the Beaufort Sea), varied research projects (e.g. my cousin’s met station on northern Ellesmere), and a very limited military presence (giving 303s to some of the folks up there in the Ranger program and sending them out on snowmobile patrols). I am very concerned that our efforts may not be sufficient.
In 1985 the Canadian government was looking at building an ice breaker that could patrol the passage year round. This never came to be. In 1987, the Canadian government considered purchasing nuclear submarines that could patrol under the ice for extended periods. We ended up with diesel powered (and tragically candle powered) submarines that can not patrol under the ice for extended periods.
I would support an increase in Canada’s military spending if such spending was directed at protecting Canadian arctic sovereignty against the USA.
All the Canadian provinces are monarchies!
No, ut then we don’t vote for the head of state. The head of government (the Prime Minister) runs the show, and HE isn’t elected directly, either.
That’s correct. The Lieutenant Governor, who is part of the Legislature in each province and who formally appoints the Premier, dissolves the Assembly for elections, etc., is Her Majesty’s representative and does all those things in her name.
If you wanted to keep the parliamentary system, you’d need to find a different method to choose the Lieutenant Governor, which opens up all sorts of issues. Straight popular election, for example, would give the office a heap of political legitimacy that it now lacks, setting up potential fights with the Assembly. Some other indirect system would likely be needed if the goal was to preserve the Lt Gov as a ceremonial figurehead.
(I understand that it was just this type of problem that lead lots of republican Australians to vote against the proposal to eliminate the Queen from the Australian constitution - it wasn’t clear how the proposed new system for choosing the head of state would work, and if the new head of state would have significant political powers.)
But he or she is directly responsible to the directly elected Members of Parliament, and will fall if a majority of them vote against a major bill or support a non-confidence vote. In the USA, the President can not be tossed out by Congress unless there the President commits a significant crime or receives a blow job. If the majority in Congress is of the same party as the President, it leads to a President with a slim majority acting as if there is a strong mandates. If the majority in Congress is not of the same party as the President, it leads to a non-productive deadlock between the President and Congress. In Canada, the Prime Minister must either have the support of the majority of the Members of Parliament, regardless of political party, or the matter will be brought to the people in a general election. Furthermore, the main players of all parties in Canada usually participate in the House of Commons and the follwing scrums, keeping the governmenton its toes, whereas in the USA, the loser of the presidential election wanders off while the president has free reign for four years.
Or you could simply abolish the office and assign all the LG’s ceremonial duties to the provincial PM.
Brainglutton said:
That may be part of it. Another is that our Senate is rather toothless. Another is that our strict party discipline and closed style of government (more so than any other major parliamentary governments) means that the party in power rules almost by fiat if it has a majority.
The Liberal party in Canada can ignore the west’s issues with impugnity. We simply have almost no effect on federal politics, other than threatening to do things like secede or withold equalization payments.
You want to talk red state/blue state divides, consider this: In our last election, the Liberals win 135 seats, and the Conservatives 99. Now look at how those votes broke down:
In the Prairie provinces, conservatives won 46 ridings, compared to only 6 for the Liberals. Liberals only got 25% of the votes throughout all the prairies! In Alberta, 26 ridings went Conservative vs 2 for the Liberals. Liberals only got 22% of the vote.
The prairies are overwhelmingly conservative. And the opposite is true of the east. In Ontario, Liberals won 75 seats vs only 24 for the Conservatives. The Conservatives only got 31% of the vote in Ontario.
Our conservative/liberal gap is wider than the gap between Democrats and Republicans in almost all the ‘red’ states. Did any red state have a split as big as Alberta’s? And did any blue states have a Democratic/Republican split as big as Ontario’s?
Canada really is a bifurcated country. If it weren’t for the liberal population centers on the coast of BC, you could split us right down the middle at Manitoba. Unfortunately, since the bulk of our population is in the east, the policies of our government don’t reflect the vast swaths of conservatives west of Manitoba.
This happens election after election. Conservatives have been just about shut out of power for a decade, and it’s likely that we’ll stay out of power for another decade.
This is all wrong. A country is not a dream and does not need a dream. Have you ever heard anyone speak of “the French dream” or “the Japanese dream”? Yet those countries unquestionably have distinctive national cultures. Many Americans have the illusion that America is defined by republican government the way the Soviet Union was defined by Communism, but that’s a lie, an example of the completely wrongheaded notion of “American exceptionalism.” We’re a nation-state, not an idea-state. An America ruled by a monarchy or a theocracy or an ideological party would still be America, just as France has remained France through all its regime changes in the past 200+ years.
Re the above: And it would be the same with Canada if the purely political change of union with the U.S. were made. Alberta the American state would have the same culture as Alberta the Canadian province. Why would its culture change, just because it’s sending its representatives and its taxes to a different national capital? We’re not talking about something like America’s (or Canada’s) westward expansion, which involved actual settlement and the decimation of indigenous cultures.
Well, in more than a two-party system that can be misleading. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in terms of popular vote I think the combined Liberal and NDP votes totalled more than the conservatives. Which would suggest to me that even the praries are more left leaning.
I guess it would also depend on your definition of conservative. Mike Harris had two strong majorities in Ontario. It always suprised me that Reform/Alliance/Conservatives couldn’t capitalise on that more.
Then if Canada did unite with the U.S. – under the Constitution we’ve got now (I think our Senate and EC both should be abolished, but that’s another debate) – and if all ten provinces, with their current borders, became states, there would be 20 Canadian senators and all those from the western provinces would be Conservatives, who probably would caucus with the Republicans. So Canadian Conservatives should at least be pleased about that. (As for the NDP, I doubt it could elect any senators, but it might get few members into the House of Representatives.)
As for the Yukon, Northwest, and Nunavut territories, their separate populations are too low to justify statehood but they might be merged into one big state. Or merged with Alaska.
On the prairies, the combined votes of the Liberals and NDP did not equal the votes of the PCs. Conservatives got 53%, vs 41% for Liberals/NDP combined. Still a big gap.
In Alberta, the gap is huge. Liberals and NDP together got 32% of the vote, vs 62% for the PCs. You know a province is Conservative when that party gets almost twice as many votes as the other two major parties combined.
In BC, Conservatives won 22 seats, vs 13 for the liberals/NDP combined. However, the Libs/NDP won the popular vote count 55/36. The reason - because they got huge votes in the densely populated coastal cities. Just like California.
Canada is overwhelmingly conservative from the interior of BC all the way through the rural areas of Ontario. At least federally. Provincial politics are somewhat different, other than Alberta, which is still overwhelmingly conservative.
Nope. That would be very risky. As it is, the Premier will get shit-canned by the LG if a major bill fails or of a motion of non-confidence passes. If the Premier were the LG, when the PM would no longer be responsible to the legislature. Our whole system is based on the legislature calling the shots, with the LG ensuring that the Premier respects this. (Same goes for the federal level.)
Well, there you go! I did not know that.
Oh come on, the bifurcation isn’t as extreme as this, and we’ve been over this ground before. Alberta is by itself in being extremely conservative. You can’t lump SK and MB into the conservative voting pattern. Sure Sask sent a nearly solid slate of Tories to Ottawa, but let’s look at the vote, shall we? (all vote totals from the cbc link you provided)
Con 41.8%
Lib 27.1%
NDP 23.4%
So in Saskatchewan, the combined Lib/NDP vote was 50.5% to the Tories’ 41.8%. Sure that’s more conservative than Ontario or BC, but only by ~10 points. In Manitoba the numbers are 56.5% centre/left to 39.1% conservative.
The Conservatives haven’t been shut out of power because of evil leftists in big cities having an electoral advantage over rural conservatives. They’ve been shut out of power because Mulroney was a jackass. Because western (primarily Albertan) social conservatives got ticked off with eastern fiscal conservatives and split off the Reform/Alliance party, and because Quebec sovereigntists got fed up with the PCs and made their own party. The Conservative Party won’t form a government till (1) they have truly united with the old PC party, which means getting the Big Blue Machine in Ontario fully behind them, and (2) they elect members in Quebec, or make a formal alliance with the Bloc. So long as they are in whole or in part a Western populist party, they’re just not going to be the government.