[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Ours vs. Theirs (click to view)
Date: January 27, 2010
The strange, idiosyncratic differences between the American and Canadian systems of government have been on prominent display over these last few weeks, as the news cycles of both countries remain dominated by stories of political turmoil.

In Canada, Prime Minister Harper's decision to suspend parliament continues to generate opposition from the left-wing opposition parties, and liberal Canadians in general, who have staged rallies across the country in protest. Harper's Conservative Party, of course, does not even control a majority of seats in the parliament, yet due to the vast, sweeping powers the Canadian constitution affords the prime minister, the current occupant is more or less free to do whatever he wants, with or without parliamentary involvement — let alone assent.

In the USA, by contrast, President Obama is flapping around helplessly, trying vainly to push his various legislative initiatives through an increasingly hostile Congress. A Congress whose two chambers, it should be noted, the President's party has enormous majorities in, yet due to the amount of inter-party dissent allowed in the US system, coupled with the levers of parliamentary power afforded to the minority faction, his nominal "control" of the legislature doesn't add up to much in practice.

I still think Canadians are getting a worse deal from a worse system, but there are legitimate criticisms of the US system as well. Though Americans famously venerate their constitution, some more brazen critiques of it have been getting more air time as of late, such as this recent, and much talked-about piece in the Atlantic.

Both Canada and America are unique in the sense that their political institutions have remained virtually unchanged since the 18th Century. It's a product of our long period of continental peace, which has spared us the eras of wars and coups that have changed so many other constitutions around the world so many times. But at times like these, it's not hard to notice that this legacy has a dark side as well.

[martin14]

First, major things like the budget must be voted on,
so its a bit much to say our PM can do whatever he wants.
The opposition could bring down the government whenever it wants,
but they better have a good reason, or else the population will punish them.
1979, Clark budget vs. Trudeau.

Second, majorities yes, but not enough of a majority to
stifle any and all debate on an issue; and health care is a contentious enough
issue that there is debate.. The Dems screwed up their chance to get the
votes they needed, and now they have to compromise.

Third, yeah yeah just try to change the system with politics in its current
form. Good luck with that..

Living in Europe, you start to realize just how good the systems in North America
really are. The current 'dark side' is the result of the polarization
of both sides in the debate, and a complete unwillingness to work together
to get things done.. The problem is the people, not necessarily the system.

[PostFactum]

About Europe I agree, I'm trying to study it and shoul say that anglo-saxon law system is harder, especially Common law, which is not codified((

[Scape]

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip259290

I think Jon's skit nailed it very well, remember in 2005 the GOP had only 55 seats and they were threatening to ABOLISH the filibuster and the dems went along with all the proposals the GOP wanted. It's not a system issue here, it's a party issue. The dems has so many members who are loyal in name only but are sheep to the GOP and are so far on the fence as to be working for the other team. There are at least 20 dems that have nothing to do with the party policy (Blue dogs) and should either run as dependant or outright run under the GOP banner.

[JJ]

There is an argument that the US Senate itself may be fundamentally broken. In that piece I linked to, the author points out that it's entirely possible for 41 seats in the Senate to represent only 12% of the total US population, due to the increasingly massive population disparities between states.

The arbitrary way "statehood" (or provincehood) was doled out in previous centuries is one of the main reasons why I am skeptical of an "equal representation" Senate for Canada. Though I don't think you can have a federal country run solely by the whims of the most populous regions, at the same time the check on this power has to be stem from some higher principle of legitimacy than simply "well, this arbitrarily designated parcel of land gets special status because of some crooked, bribe-filled, backroom deal made by politicians more than a century ago."

[Zipperfish]

Quote:

I still think Canadians are getting a worse deal from a worse system,

I don't necessarily agree with this. I consider myself reasonably politically astute and yet I cannot, to this day, figure out the US voting system. It's bizarre.

However, at least the US elects their Senate. I can't believe we still appoint ours.

[Thanos]

It's really not a structural problem in the US senate at all. It's almost solely the political and ideological trend on the American Right that's responsible right now for paralyzing the legislature and creating a crisis of confidence. The Democrats are still under the illusion that their Republican opponents can be reached through reason and rationality. They still apparently think that they're dealing with the old centrist/moderate Repubs of the past who would reach across partisan lines to acheive whatever amended/compromised legislation was possible. The don't understand that these types of Repubs are now extinct, that the ones who co-operated with LBJ on civil rights, with Jimmy Carter on strategic weapons reduction, or with Bill Clinton on deficit reduction are all gone. What's left now in Congress is a Republican party whose only strategy, which is cynically designed with the sole purpose of isolating President Obama and rendering him irrelevant, is to say "NO!" to every new propostion or reform. The problem is only made worse by the presence of too many Democrats who are vulnerable to election losses this November and who are cravenly going along with the Republicans just to save their own jobs. Until the Democrats wake up to the nihilistic and cynical nature of their opposition, start whipping their wandering brethern back into line, and grow a big enough pair to finally start fighting them back the US government is essentially going to be seen as irrelevant and contemptably powerless. This might be the desired state of being for the tea-party fanatics but it surely has to be a nightmare for the still-sane, still-sensible, and still-responsible people in the US.

Republicans = too stupid + too crazy to govern.

Democrats = too stupid + too cowardly to govern.

[Kjorteo]

Thanos more or less summed up my main complaint. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has been merciless regarding the Democrats' lack of spine for weeks now, as well. (I can't even decide on which segment to link to as they've all been quite good, really.) For God's sake, Democrats, you never really had a supermajority if you had to count people like Joe Lieberman to pretend you did, and you still have the most decisive majority in decades. Scott Brown isn't the new President (despite the Daily Show's quite amusing bit on that) so dust off reconciliation and start passing some legislation already. Remember back when I said I was hoping Harry Reid would go away just because his potential successors to the Senate Majority Leader position would be scrappier and less conciliatory? As it stands, I kind of wish the Repubicans had actually gone through with the Nuclear Option when they had the chance.

Regarding the Constitutional setup, the House and Senate were supposed to be the answer to the question of how to balance power between the states. Letting huge and densely-populated states have all the power while the smaller ones don't really have comparable representation is unfair, but so is equalizing them to give the smaller states disproportionately more representation than their size actually deserves. Therefore, each state has population-dependent numbers of Representatives in the House and exactly two Senators. I like this idea. The only problem with it is that everyone knows that the Senate is just better than the House under our current system, due to their being less of them (that's an unavoidable part of the design) and their terms being three times as long (that really should be changed.) The two houses of Congress should be equal. They aren't. That's the problem.

[Scape]

Sad, reality. I would show ours but I know what the numbers are already.

[JJ]

Zipperfish wrote:

I consider myself reasonably politically astute and yet I cannot, to this day, figure out the US voting system. It's bizarre.

What's so bizarre? The US electoral college is basically exactly the same as the Parliament of Canada: a body of state representatives who appoint the leader in a process completely unrelated to the national popular vote total.

[martin14]

that was funny JJ.

I'm just not sure if you were trying to be serious or not.

[Quantum_Wizard]

martin14 wrote:

:lol:


that was funny JJ.

I'm just not sure if you were trying to be serious or not.

I think JJ's characterization is quite fair (I once said basically the same thing in another thread). Although in US the division of votes is more coarse grained since most states allocate their electoral votes as a block.

[Erablian]

I disagree that Canada's political institutions have remained virtually unchanged since the 18th century. Since then we have added political parties, responsible government, federalism, and a lot more. Or did you mean 19th century?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

As far as Canada goes, I have an extreme distrust of an electoral system that does NOT let me vote directly for a nation's leader. For example, let's say there's gonna be an election sometime this year and I really like Harper, but unfortunately, the Conservative MP for Oshawa is a total doorknob, I have to vote for someone I consider to be an idiot in order to give Harper a vote. Likewise, let's say I hate Harper but the Conservative MP here is a hard working, dedicated representative. In order for me to vote for the best person, I also have to cast a vote for someone I don't want to be PM.
I'm also not too thrilled that a bunch of unelected tools are allowed to vote on national policy that affects each and everyone of us.

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

As far as Canada goes, I have an extreme distrust of an electoral system that does NOT let me vote directly for a nation's leader. For example, let's say there's gonna be an election sometime this year and I really like Harper, but unfortunately, the Conservative MP for Oshawa is a total doorknob, I have to vote for someone I consider to be an idiot in order to give Harper a vote. Likewise, let's say I hate Harper but the Conservative MP here is a hard working, dedicated representative. In order for me to vote for the best person, I also have to cast a vote for someone I don't want to be PM.

That's fine in theory, but most die-in-the-wool partisans (pick your poison) could never see themselves voting for both parties.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

I'm also not too thrilled that a bunch of unelected tools are allowed to vote on national policy that affects each and everyone of us.

Well, that's apparently not going to change anytime soon, given that Harper's idea of senate reform appears to simply be appointing more of his party loyalists than the other guys did when they were in office.

Translation = same shit, different party.

People had their chance to get a 2E senate (equal and elected - a decision to be made by each province) back in the 90s, but instead most chose to give the finger to Quebec and cause the whole national unity crisis. while it wasn't perfect, it would have been a far better system than we have in place now.