How can we fix parliament?

[Urbanomicon]

For starters I would abolish the senate. It currently serves no purpose other than to delay bills and spend tax payers money on the senators' salaries.

We are no longer tied to Britain; the queen has no power in Canada (or in Britain for that matter I believe). Why are we paying to continue to use a relic from our past?

----

I think the First Past the Post versus the Proportional Representation issue needs to be revisited.

----

I personally would also like to see the Bloc dissolved since I do not believe a party with ambitions to divide the country should be allowed in parliament. The Bloc also serves to make it exceptionally difficult for a party to get a majority government.

[KevinL]

I think the senate could stick around, but only in a form that provides some value to the process. For example, if first-past-the-post remains in the commons, the senate could become a purely proportionally-elected forum; each party would provide a list of their choices for senator before the election, and these would be put in according to the vote (which would be purely by party). That's just a quick construct off the top of my head, mind you; I'm sure there's a more thought-out solution waiting to be proposed.

[IEFBR14]

For starters I would abolish the senate. It currently serves no purpose other than to delay bills and spend tax payers money on the senators' salaries.

The Senate, when it works, serves a very useful purpose as the chamber of sober, second thought in reviewing and tweaking legislation. If it's not working then let's fix it.

We are no longer tied to Britain; the queen has no power in Canada (or in Britain for that matter I believe). Why are we paying to continue to use a relic from our past?

The role of GG is also a relic yet the position serves an important function, not only ceremonially, but also in resolving Parliamentary impasses such as Harper encountered in 2008 and which we may again encounter after this election. IMO the cost of the office is small price to pay for the benefits it provides.

I think the First Past the Post versus the Proportional Representation issue needs to be revisited.

Absolutely! However as long as the Conservatives and Liberals stand to lose big from such reforms I'm not very optimistic that we'll see much happen any time soon. Maybe we need a real constitutional crisis brought on by a bunch of smaller parties that can't agree with either of the two biggies before those two parties come around. Otherwise they have everything to lose and nothing to gain from PR.

I personally would also like to see the Bloc dissolved since I do not believe a party with ambitions to divide the country should be allowed in parliament. The Bloc also serves to make it exceptionally difficult for a party to get a majority government.

The Bloc is as legitimate as any other party. All of their members were elected "fair and square." You have no right to see them dissolved so long as they abide by our constitution and our legal system.

Put it another way. Suppose the original Reform Party hadn't merged with the PCs and instead remained as a western party that became increasingly alienated from eastern Canada. Suppose that rather than try to achieve a cross-country base they decided to focus on western issues and began to discuss the possibility of separating from Canada. Such a scenario was hardly out of the question before the merger. Would you then want to see them dissolved too? By whose authority?

[ViewFromThe42]

I believe that Senate term limits makes sense. To me, Senate should be treated differently. I would prefer to see it as a conscience of government in a sense. A certain number of seats would roll over each year and/or election. While I would not allow for Senate to completely overrule the House, as they have of late, I believe that it could serve a good role. If Harper suddenly was to gain a majority, I would envision this Senate as a way for the minority parliaments and liberal governments of the past to be able to question the government's decisions, hold them to account, and to prevent sudden swift changes that go completely against the fabric of our history.

I would also support some form of proportional representation, as the level of support for a party like the Bloc compared to any other party is vastly overrepresented in the House.

[Urbanomicon]

The Bloc is as legitimate as any other party. All of their members were elected "fair and square." You have no right to see them dissolved so long as they abide by our constitution and our legal system.

Put it another way. Suppose the original Reform Party hadn't merged with the PCs and instead remained as a western party that became increasingly alienated from eastern Canada. Suppose that rather than try to achieve a cross-country base they decided to focus on western issues and began to discuss the possibility of separating from Canada. Such a scenario was hardly out of the question before the merger. Would you then want to see them dissolved too? By whose authority?

I realize that it is perfectly legal, I just don't agree with it. It's just my opinion, but I think a federal political party should have to equally (or as equally as possible) represent the entire nation, not just advocate for a specific region or geographical area.

To take this idea to an extreme, imagine each province/territory had it's own "Bloc" that only represented its interests, and that each of these parties won approximately half of the seats in their home province/territory. Parliament would be a complete mess since any funding going to a specific geographic region or government would likely be voted down by all of the other provinces' and territories' "Bloc" parties. Or what if each major city had its own federal party that only represented its own interests?

I know these are extreme examples, but I think the idea of non-national regional advocacy federal parties breaks the system.

[Urbanomicon]

I believe that Senate term limits makes sense. To me, Senate should be treated differently. I would prefer to see it as a conscience of government in a sense. A certain number of seats would roll over each year and/or election. While I would not allow for Senate to completely overrule the House, as they have of late, I believe that it could serve a good role. If Harper suddenly was to gain a majority, I would envision this Senate as a way for the minority parliaments and liberal governments of the past to be able to question the government's decisions, hold them to account, and to prevent sudden swift changes that go completely against the fabric of our history.

I would also support some form of proportional representation, as the level of support for a party like the Bloc compared to any other party is vastly overrepresented in the House.

What about a non-partisan senate?

[IEFBR14]

I think a federal political party should have to equally (or as equally as possible) represent the entire nation, not just advocate for a specific region or geographical area.

From 1987 to 1993 the Reform party had no seats east of Manitoba. They won one seat by a whopping margin of about 100 votes in Ontario. Then in 1997 when they became the official opposition they went back to no seats east of Manitoba. What would you have done back them—dissolved them on the grounds that they were a regional party that served only western interests?

I know these are extreme examples, but I think the idea of non-national regional advocacy federal parties breaks the system.

They are and they can. But again who gets to decide how "extreme" things have to get before someone (who?) decides to start dissolving parties or taking other drastic actions?

If we were to go down the path of regionalization I'd like to think that the various groups would have enough common interest to continue to make federal government viable. Even today with the Bloc, while they put Quebec's interests first, they still manage to find common ground with TROC on many issues. They don't always get what they want and sometimes what they do get is a watered down version of what they originally wanted.

ISTM that if we became so balkanized as to have separate parties for each province/region, let alone for each city, then it would be time to break up the country as happened in the former Yugoslavia. Hopefully that never happens in Canada. However I fail to see how we could prevent it by forced dissolution of the various regional factions.

[KevinL]

One place where regionalism has completely strangled the legislature is Belgium. Flanders, the northern, Dutch-speaking half, and Wallonia, the southern, French-speaking half, each have their own groups of regional parties, many of whom refuse to cooperate across regional lines. Since the last election, no party has been able to form a government, for 289 days now...

Hopefully it would never come to this in Canada, but there's a case where is has, in a modern democratic society.

[IEFBR14]

Fine, but what do you propose to do about it. Do you propose to dissolve the two regional parties? If so, who makes that decision considering that their parliament seems deadlocked? And even if you do, what replaces those parties?

[KevinL]

Fine, but what do you propose to do about it. Do you propose to dissolve the two regional parties? If so, who makes that decision considering that their parliament seems deadlocked? And even if you do, what replaces those parties?

Precisely - I don't have those answers, and for nearly 10 months now, neither have the Belgians. I brought it up as a worst-case scenario, in a way.

And, NB, there's more than two regional parties. Almost all their parties - 12 in total have representation - are angled toward one region or the other. Only the Brussels capital area seems to live in a bilingual, bicultural balance.

[dunkalunk]

As the system is now, people are forced to find a compromise between a party and a candidate in the same vote. Many feel that they have no local representation because the person they elected is not accountable to them, but the party first. Given the chance I would propose fixing this in one of two ways:

1) The Simplest (Minimal Change)
-Abolish the senate,
-Institute a mixed-member proportional voting system for the House of Commons
-Remove Queen as head of state, have elections for our own Head of State

2) My Ideal (Semi-Presidential System)

House of Commons (Idealogical Interests)
Similar structure to what exists now, but with members who are elected proportionally through either a pure proportional system or some level of mixed member proportional. The MP's major duty is to their party, but they may choose to advocate for local interests as well. Any party needs to reach the 2% threshold to get seats in the house.

Confidence votes would still exist, but a government who has lost confidence would be arbitrated by the Senate and Executive branches on the next course of action (election, new coalition, ect.)

Senate (Local Interests)
Keep the senate but have separate elections for senators. Senators would be non-partisan. They would be elected either by a First-Past-The-Post, ranking, or instant runoff ballot.

Each province would have a number of senators representative of their population with at least one per territory and province. Senators would run in ridings where the entire province is the riding, but larger provinces may choose to divide their provinces into smaller regions (for example, Ontario GTA, Ontario Southwest, ect.). There would then be multiple winners per riding. There would be a slight increase to the number of senators so that each was responsible for ~250 000-300 000 people.

Most of the time, senators could telecommute from their home riding and would only be called to Ottawa for big votes such as debating the Budget, Wars, Elections, ect. and for quarterly updates. Senators would represent local interests and would be directly accountable to their electors.

Executive Branch (Symbolic/International Interests)
Implement a President and executive branch with cabinet once we ditch the monarchy when Elizabeth II dies. The Prime Minister would still be the head of Government, but the President would be the head of state, and would be Canada's face to the world. The President could be affiliated with a party but it would not be necessary for election. Ideally, the President would deal with foreign policy, while the prime minister would deal with domestic policy.

Presidents would appoint cabinet members with the approval of both the house of commons and senate to ensure accountability and fairness. The President of Canada would function similarly to the President of France. They would be elected directly either by FPTP or Instant Runoff.

In order for legislation to pass, it needs to be approved by at least 2 of the 3 branches of government. Two branches would also decide whether or not to hold an election for the third as a safeguard for corruption, but elections will be standardized for the most part to every 4-5 years.

[DHLawrence]

The role of GG is also a relic yet the position serves an important function, not only ceremonially, but also in resolving Parliamentary impasses such as Harper encountered in 2008 and which we may again encounter after this election. IMO the cost of the office is small price to pay for the benefits it provides.

And it costs far less than a presidency ever would.

I would like to see an elected Senate with reduced terms, 5 years at the most to correspond with the 5-year terms of the GG. At the Commons level, I would like fixed terms so that we don't go to the polls every time the government or opposition want each other eliminated.

Another important solution would be to adjust the boundaries of the various constituencies in Canada. The majority of the population is urban but rural seats get far more weight. As more people move into urban areas, greater representation will be far more necessary than it already is now.

[IEFBR14]

people are forced to find a compromise between a party and a candidate in the same vote. Many feel that they have no local representation because the person they elected is not accountable to them, but the party first... 1) The Simplest (Minimal Change)

How does 1) accomplish this? Are you suggesting that we abolish political parties?

[IEFBR14]

And it costs far less than a presidency ever would.

That's what I was alluding to. IIRC the GG costs each Canadian about $1/year. By contrast Obama's inauguration alone cost far more.

Another important solution would be to adjust the boundaries of the various constituencies in Canada. The majority of the population is urban but rural seats get far more weight. As more people move into urban areas, greater representation will be far more necessary than it already is now.

While I agree, there are two major problems with that. As I mentioned above, PEI is constitutionally guaranteed a minimum of 4 seats even thought its population is similar to a single riding in an urban area like K-W or K-Center. Other provinces have similar guarantees. (IIRC QC is guaranteed at least 20% or 25% of Senate seats. How likely are they going to be to reform/abolish it?)

The other challenge is that rural people tend to participate in elections at a higher rate than urban people. They also tend to vote for conservative parties. So politicians, especially Conservative ones, are loathe to do anything that might offend their loyal base.

Additionally I suspect that many if not most people who don't vote are apathetic about politics and their role in it. Paradoxically they're the ones who have most to gain from the sorts of reforms we're discussing here. How do we go about convincing them that they need to become more active in politics in order to bring about the sorts of changes that would encourage them to be less apathetic?

[DHLawrence]

With smaller but more numerous ridings in urban areas, it is possible that Canadian MPs will be able to do what their British cousins do and visit everyone in their riding door-to-door. Even the Prime Minister of the UK is expected to do that during an election campaign.

[dunkalunk]

How does 1) accomplish this? Are you suggesting that we abolish political parties?

Political parties would still exist. On a mixed member proportional ballot, the voter would get two votes; one for the party which will go towards the makeup of the house of commons and another for the candidate who will be elected from their riding. This then allows people to spread their support between parties by voting for candidate A and Party C to block out candidate B, instead of having to compromise their values by voting for their second choice with one vote.

[dunkalunk]

So, I've been mulling over my original position on parliamentary and electoral reform and have come up with a new alternative:

House of Commons Electoral Reform: Instant Runoff Voting (AKA Alternative Vote)
The same number of electoral districts would exist as in the current FPTP, but instead, MPs would be elected by a ballot where voters would order their choice of candidate by preference. In each round, the candidate earning having the least number of votes is eliminated until one candidate reaches a 50% majority.

Here is that system explained in an ad for the Alternative Vote Referendum (called that in the UK).
http://youtu.be/Jm5IBhrq_PU

This type of voting would ensure that elected MPs would more accurately reflect their constituents while maintaining the same level of local representation that exists now. Note that this type of voting is not proportional, however, it is much easier to understand by the layperson. Proportionality is addressed in the next section.

Senate Reform: Proportionally Appointed Based on Popular Vote
Based on the first choice in the election results, the caucus of each party represented in parliament or reaching a certain vote threshold would be responsible for appointing a new senate halfway into their government. The number of senators that each party gets to appoint is divided up proportionately by province. Senators would be appointed to represent a special interest, minority group, or their expertise in a certain field that isn't reflected in a party's makeup in the house of commons. Having the senate proportionately reflect the popular vote would lend legitimacy to the senate as an institution, and would also prevent any false majority from passing contentious legislation. A senate that is up for re-appointment every 4 or 5 years would also be more accountable to those who appointed them. Senators would not have any term limits, but would essentially be up for review after every election.

As far as I am aware, no other 2 house system like this exists currently, and I'd like to be pointed to other examples.

[Waterlooer]

I think there shouldn't be an age restriction as to when you are aloud to vote. I am 16 and love politics, but can't stand not being able to vote yet! I understand most kids might just vote for random people who they don't care about, so if that might be the case, the government could set up a test that people under the age can take if they wish, and if they pass it, they are aloud to vote.

[KLM]

I think there shouldn't be an age restriction as to when you are aloud to vote. I am 16 and love politics, but can't stand not being able to vote yet! I understand most kids might just vote for random people who they don't care about, so if that might be the case, the government could set up a test that people under the age can take if they wish, and if they pass it, they are aloud to vote.

Why such a hurry? You will be definitely able to vote on next election. Being 16 and much interested in politics , I dont know maybe too early? Just my opinion.

I would bring law that everybody over 18 must vote, just like in Israel.But kinda see here hard to police it.

As usual party in power simply wont fix parliament ,why would they? Just bring more laws to keep themselves in power.