So what is your ideal, (or failing that, good enough for now) form of government?

I - not surprisingly, I guess, considering this is a thread I'm starting in 'Ideas' - have a few of my own. Now, before I outline these ideas, let me first say I know that a simple change in form of government will not be a cure-all for the ails of our society, let alone the world at large. That must come from a deeper social change; not just in structures and institutions, but in attitudes and actions of us all. As the Dilbertian Wallyism holds, 'what better reason is there to hold power than to abuse it?' Anyway, I'm getting off track. So here is my idea of a different, and hopefully, better government: (I deal here federally only, provincially/territorially, I assume would resemble this setup, though not necessarily.)

Head of State: Governor General, elected federally, FPTP, largely ceremonial. Main powers to include calling and dissolving parliament and cabinet, signing bills into law. GG may not refuse assent to a bill, but may delay assent by forwarding bills for constitutional challenge to judiciary (a timely resolution of this situation would be mandated).
Term of office: Fixed at 5 years, no term limits as post is largely ceremonial.

Executive: Cabinet, composed of 26* ministries, each ministry is to have two members, elected federally, FTPTP (First Two Past The Post - each voter would choose one candidate for each cabinet position). Department committees (to deal with creation of specific legislation) nominated from parliament by cabinet ministers, approved by majority vote in parliament. No single head of government, i.e no Prime Minister - all cabinet ministers are considered first ministers. Main duties of the cabinet are to set and lead government policy.
Term of office: variable, but no longer than 5 years. Term limits: Maximum 3 terms in any one ministry, no more than 5 terms total in Cabinet.

Legislative: Parliament, A 'German style' PR, with 401^ seats, excluding cabinet; 201^ seats allocated on single member constituencies (on a plurality basis), 200^ seats to be allocated according to separate vote cast by voters based on party preference, using party candiate lists so that a party's total seats reflect actual percentage of votes cast. Legislative branch is to be elected separately, i.e. a year or two apart, from executive; though exec. & legs. sit as one parliamentry body for legislative sessions.
Powers include holding confidence over itself, cabinet - as a whole, as well as individual ministries. No confidence in cabinet or a specific ministry(ies) requires 2/3 majority; No confidence in parliament requires 60% majority. Parliament would also have the power to create and/or merge/dissolve cabinet ministries, based on 2/3 majority.
Term of office: variable but no more than 5 years, no term limits.

Senate: no such a thing in this vision.

Judiciary: Federal and Supreme Court Justices to be nominated by a simple majority of cabinet, approved by 2/3 majority of parliament. Sworn to uphold the constitution - revised from its current form, of course. SCJ's would also be subject to recall by 2/3 majority of parliament.
Terms limited, but I haven't figured out term length yet - 8 or ten years maybe, but no multiple term Supreme Court justices.

*current numbers, subject to change.
^projected numbers, subject to tinkering

This kind of change would of course require a new constitution, and there are many ideas floating in my head as to what I would include in that new constitution, most coming a lot closer to the UDHR (including social, cultural, economic, human and other rights) than we have now in our Charter. That however, is the subject for another thread, methinks.

There are, I'm sure, crucial details that I have missed here, but I think this model of government has some advantages over our current model including:

- fragmented hierarchy / no head of government, therefore government not intrinsically ideologically skewed - prevailing ideology based on popular support of individual ministries / policies, as opposed to just the party w/ plurality.
- proportional representation, just plain better, IMHO
- no monarchy / elected head of state, just plain better, IMHO
- no senate, a waste IMHO.

Some of the drawbacks are:

- apathetic electorate will be as much a hinderance to real democracy in this system as any other.
- more complicated / confusing electoral process, may lead to continued/increased voter apathy.

Thanks for this post, a very interesting read. I like the mix of first-past-the-post and proportional representation, but there's too much proportional rep here, I think.

The mix based on current polls might be something like this:

Riding based:
120 Libs, 40 CA, 20 BQ, 10 PC, 10 NDP

Proportional:
100 Libs, 20 CA, 20 BQ, 30 PC, 30 NDP

Total:
220 Libs, 60 CA, 40 BQ, 40 PC, 40 NDP

I agree most of all with the drawbacks. Especially:

- more complicated / confusing electoral process, may lead to continued/increased voter apathy.

I think that government needs to be drastically simplified wherever possible as a first step to helping people understand it. The machinery of government has become so complicated so as to be out of the mental grasp of the average person.

This is more a matter of policy than government infrastructure.

Governor-General: to be rotated among traditonal (not elected) chiefs of the Iroqois and other first nations confederacies. (Model here is the rotating monarchy in Malaysia.)

Cabinet & legislature: i'll go along with your ideas FBI. Add a gender-parity requirement for party lists.

Senate: one-third of seats elected from Quebec, one-third from first nations, one-third from the rest of Canada. And Alberta can go boil its head. (Model here is the new upper house in Papua.)

quote:

---

Demand the impossible!

---

I'd like to democratize our society by doing away with elections.

Assuming a reasonably educated population, I see nothing wrong with selecting representatives by lot. Statisticians could tell us the proper numbers we'd need to get a reflection of society as a whole.

Statistically, we'd get a legislative body that would reflect the economic, gender, "racial" and any other segment you'd care to identify.

I think such a legislative body could choose a chairperson or steering committee that would identify legislative intitiatives.

Persons or organizations wishing input on the legislation could address the legislative body, something like a coroner's inquest gets input or hears testimony.

Of course, there's a ton of details that would have to be looked at, and hitches ironed out.

A legislative assembly, therefore, would be roughly half women and half men. If the proportion of the aboriginal population was, say 5% nation wide, then we'd expect 5% of the population of the assembly to be 5% aboriginal.

quote:

---

I think your breakdown, MH is a little off. The libs would perhaps have an advantage in the FPTP segment, but with +/- 40% of the popular vote, they would not have 220 seats total- more like 160. (ie 40% of 401)

---

As for the House of Commons, a mixed-member proportionality system analogous to the German setup would, IMHO, work well.

quote:

---

FBI: For the calculation above, I was using Tommy's suggestion of 50% FPTP and 50% proportional.

---

Huh? You're missing something. Read a little closer. My suggestion was the 50% FPTP is to allow single member constituencies, i.e. a local MP; the 50% PR is to round out the house so the total number of MPs for a given party is proportional to the popular vote.

Anyway Tommy, Doc, I hadn't though of choosing by lot. That would be a good way to choose the senate now that I do. Of course, what to you do about those who want nothing to do with being chosen? Would service be mandatory? Or would you allow someone to say "I don't feel comfortable running the country. Pick someone else."

Hehe, the senate referred to as 'sober'! Ha! What does that say about parliament?!

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Flowers By Irene ]

So the breakdown would look like this: 10 from each province, three from each territory. Boom.

And before all you people out there get on your high horses about the alleged inequities of equal representation from each province, I note that if you really stop to think about it, an "average person" from British Columbia, while being conscious of being from B.C., isn't likely to try and hold up passage of a piece of legislation just because he thinks it'll somehow hurt BC. This isn't the bloody United States with its pork-barreling regional politics.

Clarke's main reason for choosing leaders by random lot was; any person who showed a desire to "lead" was pathologically unfit to do so. (insert a million examples from human history here).

quote:

---

any person who showed a desire to "lead" was pathologically unfit to do so. (insert a million examples from human history here).

---

quote:

---

We seem to have a long way to go before the average citizen is able to assume a decision making role in government. Currently we are a long way from having the average citizen make an informed decision in the voting booth.

---

Yeah, well, we are also a long way from having the average elected official make competent decisions in parliament.

quote:

---

Plato, I believe, once said the unwilling made the best leaders.

---

quote:

---

A lot system presuposes a sufficiently educated pool of citizens from which to chose. We seem to have a long way to go before the average citizen is able to assume a decision making role in government. Currently we are a long way from having the average citizen make an informed decision in the voting booth.

---

I pretty much agree with that. Although, I would add that the whole point of elections is to cloud the average citizen's ability to make informed decisions in the voting booth. Do away with elections, and maybe the thinking would be much clearer?

And, you know me. My Utopia does presupose a sufficiently educated populace. However, I think we may be closer to having this than many may believe.

My legislative assembly from lot would opperate much like a coroner's jury. So, of course understanding the use of the tools of skepticism is a must. And, I think we need a deeper understanding of Canadian history, and current world affairs too.

As far as minority rights, I think a constitution and bill of rights would offer protection from the "tyranny of the majority."

Do we allow people to exclude themselves from service? Unless there is compelling medical reasons, I would say not. But on the other hand, I don't think service should present any material penalty either. People would have to be compensated accordingly.

quote:

---

You have to define a very limited combination of segments to come up with a practical number of people, or you'll end up having to include the whole population.

---

We think of legislative bodies as meeting in wood panelled rooms behind hand carved desks. This is rather 19th century, and reflects the technology as it existed in that day.

That's why we choose people, supposedly, to do this for us.

Put the rule of the people in balance with a skilled and effective civil service, whose chief officers would be themselves educated and aware enough to preside over the spirit of the job not just its bureaucratic requirements. The vox populi would establish a direction to go, and the civil service would draft up the plan needed to achieve it for approval of the population.

Of course, some head of state would still be required for social requirements of maintaining national identity and identification. Either of the options presented for selecting a Governor-General in this thread would be agreeable to me.

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Mr. Ben ]

I like the choose-by-lot. Way more democratic than suffrage.

Must have many safeguards against manipulation: "Gee, thats the 45th skull-and-bones in a row. Huh, go figure."

Makes for some interesting changes to the power structures. Just think; that guy who works for you, whom you treat like shit, is suddenly a Senator.
Heh heh....

Just thinking about all those people who eagerly join the political party youth groups in University, and run for council, and join their party riding associations ....pathologically unfit indeed.

While it is true that many (most?) people can be..er...un-informed, I believe that given the chance, and sufficient information, anyone can rise to it. Remember, before our wonderful modern mass-communication, people would listen to hours of political speeches, be active in their local politics to an extent that today is unfathomable, and actually care about what was happening outside their living rooms.

Not too comfortable with any Head-of-State. Too much chance of personality cults or bully-pupit power grabbing (Hi George). After all, the POTUS was supposed to be largely ceremonial, and look what happened there.

One cannot rely on "lot" to come up with a group of people who know what they want to do with respect to Kyoto and Iraq and Free Trade and Marijuana and every other issue.

quote:

---

Well then I guess we shouldn't have juries then!

---

Juries are not chosen by lot!!!

Although the INITIAL jury POOL is chosen among those on the voters list, more or less by lot, the Criminal Code grants the contending sides various kinds of challenges. If one side is not content with a juror, they say so, and the juror does not sit.

Depending on the case, there can be as many as 12 challenges for every defendant. Those do not have to be justified in any way. Then, there are challenges for cause, where the party not content may have to demonstrate bias, or whatever disenabling factor alleged. There is no limit to these.

This is the reason why I advocate choosing the Senate by lot, not the Commons.

In theory, the Senate has powers equal to that of the Commons, but in practice the Commons has become the premier body and the Senate plays a secondary role.

It is thus not unreasonable to suppose that since the Commons sets the agenda, the Senate (chosen by lot) can take its time evaluating the task before it.

The single biggest thing missing from lawmaking, jeff, is the common people.

How rarefied do you think the Commons and Senate actually are? While not at the scale of the American Congress (where the majority of candidates live, eat and breathe an atmosphere of wealth and luxury), the Senate as it is currently constituted is far removed from the concerns and pressures that common people face.

The Commons is somewhat better, but you get people like Paul Martin who have the effrontery to run a steamship company which registers its ships outside of Canada for the purpose of avoiding taxes and then becoming finance minister.

I'm assuming that in any progressive system, recall legislation would be fundamental. If we are unsatisfied with the performance, the representative is "fired" and we don't have to wait for an election. If people were pressed into service randomly, it would be all to easy for interested parties to smear them and get them axed. A well-known figure who has built up trust amongst the people would not be so vulnerable.

In my Canada, every riding would have a citizen's forum or assembly. Over months and years, the people of the riding would create a consensus of policy, weighing options and making compromises. Each riding would have their own policy documents (which would be constantly updated) which would outline the directions they want their representative to lobby for in parliment. This sounds like a lot of work, but with good process I don't think it would take up as much time as say, babbling here .

The riding would have their policies, but would just need someone to implement them and lobby for them. The assembly would have people apply for the job, just like any position. No fees or parties (although there would no doubt be some campaigning). They would ask them questions and scrutinise their prior work as managers and civil servants. Then the riding would vote for it's representative with the clear understanding with whoever won that they would be expected to uphold the policy documents as they were and as they might be. If a representative found him/herself in moral conflict, they would immediately resign. Also, if nobody was ever upset with the performance of their representative, then they might never call an election again (or at least, until the person died).

The point is that the representative would be just a job, while the riding assembly would be the policy engine and the democratic force.

But still, I guess it comes down to how much you think of your fellow citizen.

I think my fellow citizens are capable, or could be capable of recognizing the real problems facing the nation and would react with an agenda.

And if not, surely it can be no worse than the rather crooked and skewed agendas we are currently saddled with.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]