What changes would you like to see in your nation's political system?

[say1988]

Well, Canada also has the trusty "not being like Americans" to help put down the republicanism problem if it ever should arise

Basically you were 50 years late to the party for your constitutional crisis (also note that in the '20s and '30s Canada was the one pushing harder away from Britain, as seen in the declarations of war in September 1939).

 

[History_Buff]

Not in Canada, but: We had a sitting government dismissed in 1975.

Before I was born; hardly modern Thanks though, good read.

Hence why the Monarchy has no "effective" power. It will not act unilaterally and I doubt it will resist the will of a sitting government. Otherwise, we will almost certanly face a constitutional crisis, which may well result in a republic. But since the Governor General's office knows this, they won't do anything stupid. This was basically established in 1925 after the King-Byng Affair.

Now, there is always a chance that the Monarchy will get stuck between a rock and a hard place, but I suspect any such issues will be decided by back-room dealings of politicians or an independent panel for the GG to simply enact.

For Australia of other realms, I can't say much, but I would guess that the 1975 Constitutional Crisis will have created the same situation in the future of Australia.

I don't see how the King-Byng affair establishes any weakness of the GG's office. Instead it had more to do with removing Dominion governments from the authority of the British Colonial Office.

Looking only at the circumstances of the first Harper prorogation, I'd say the GG has quite a bit of power when the government falters; the fact that Michaëlle Jean didn't automatically grant Harper's request shows this, and is probably the number 1 reason she is not still the GG.

 

[say1988]

I don't see how the King-Byng affair establishes any weakness of the GG's office. Instead it had more to do with removing Dominion governments from the authority of the British Colonial Office.

It did that, but I think it also made it clear that the GG couldn't go against a sitting PM into the future. And it was the last time a PM attempted to do so.

Looking only at the circumstances of the first Harper prorogation, I'd say the GG has quite a bit of power when the government falters; the fact that Michaëlle Jean didn't automatically grant Harper's request shows this, and is probably the number 1 reason she is not still the GG.

I doubt it. I would say that it was to buy time for her office to go over the viable choices and assess the political ramifications. In the end she did what she had to do, follow the will of the sitting PM.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think I would remove the minority government in Canada. If there was a minority what I would do is have another election between the ones who did not get it. Suppose Part A gets 40% of the votes, Party B gets 25%, Party C gets 35%.

60% of them dont want Party A but Party A has the most votes so they usually go in. But if they had another election between B and C,... Ugh Im mixed up now. Im not good at intellectual things

 

[innonimatu]

Lobbyism/Donations: no corporate brib^^^donations while they are in office, and no private ones above the value of the minimum wage, per contributor, per year.

Electoral system: for parliament, directly proportional, nationwide - no electoral districts (it's a small country).

Activities of politicians in the private sector: none while holding a paid offices. They'll still be bribed with cozy deals after they leave office, but it should lessen the damage.

And that's it, I think.

 

[Babbler]

I'm not sure what could be done to reduce the insane level of party discipline in the major parties in Australia, though.

It's funny, but I've heard one historian complain about the party discipline in Canada; indeed he once wrote admiringly of the Labor Party caucus that dumped Rudd.

I've vaguely remember the argument that party conventions have strengthen the leader's hand over the caucus, since they no long can oust and select the leader as they so choose. But I haven't really looked at issue in depth.

 

[say1988]

Wait, Arwon, you want to weaken parties while introducing proportional representation? Which inherently increases party strength (and required discipline).

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Most forms of proportional representation increase party strength, but not all. Reweighted Range Voting is a good PR method that weakens parties.

 

[Theige]

Plebiscites: We should hold them all over the world; asking peoples if they would like to join the United States of America.

 

[Traitorfish]

Plebiscites: We should hold them all over the world; asking peoples if they would like to join the United States of America.

And, equally, leave.

 

[Theige]

And, equally, leave.

For all their bluster, non of our backwards states would actually leave the Union.

They leech off of the federal government too much.

 

[Traitorfish]

For all their bluster, non of our backwards states would actually leave the Union.

They leech off of the federal government too much.

Ah, but they should get the opportunity to chose. If nothing else, it would take the wind out of their pseudo-secessionist sails when they failed to live up to their bluster.

 

[Arwon]

Wait, Arwon, you want to weaken parties while introducing proportional representation? Which inherently increases party strength (and required discipline).

Labor and Liberal members of parliament virtually never break ranks in parliamentary divisions. Yeah, it sucks that Labor punishes violating caucus solidarity with expulsion, but that's a feature of how it has operated for 100 years. Likewise the Liberals tend to have their own methods of punishing people who go against the party line, too.

I'm actually pretty agnostic on the level of party discipline in Australia, but it's a distinctive feature of Australian politics to be commented on as compared to, say, the US or UK.

It mainly becomes an factor on wedge issues, and it's a topical issue at the moment because both major parties are pretty hopelessly split on a number of progressive issues like gay rights, refugees and climate change (with the conservative tendency dominating in both Labor and the Coalition). I suspect this is why Camikaze mentions it.

However, to the thrust of your point, I favour Hare-Clark with Robson rotation like used in the ACT and Tasmania. Multiple ballots are printed with random candidate orders, and there's no "party" or "ticket" vote box. People therefore still must vote for individual members.

It ensures a healthy degree of turnover, removes the choice of candidate order from party machines, is a way for unpopular sitting members to be replaced, and functions as an incentive for individual members to distinguish themselves and build a personal following. It works, too. In Tasmania's most recent election, some Labor candidates were ousted by other Labor candidates among the 2 of 5 seats they won in each electorate.

Babbler: There is, supposedly, rigorous internal debate within the Labor Party caucus, but once an issue is decided and a vote taken, all MPs are bound by that policy in public statements and parliamentary votes. I think you're reading "party discipline" as describing the internal mechanisms of the parties, rather than referring to solidarity in their outward behaviour, which is how we are using the term.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Plebiscites: We should hold them all over the world; asking peoples if they would like to join the United States of America.

I would approve of this.

Ah, but they should get the opportunity to chose. If nothing else, it would take the wind out of their pseudo-secessionist sails when they failed to live up to their bluster.

Never before has a legal secession amendment sounded so awesome - it will, ironically enough, serve to discredit those advocating it!

More reason to make sure all states and polities under our control are interdependent, with the center of this web going through Washington a la the Aztec Empire. This way, only fools shall leave. Always make our side of the fence greener...

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hmm...having a demented Predsident is bad even if he does not appoint Hitler.

That can be said for any position.

As state party chief. But he's still prime minister, isn't he?

He announced his resignation for that, too.

We will definitely benefit from that. The British people won't though. It's probably the most ill advised thing conservatives in Europe have tried for decades.
It's like having a root canal when you don't need one. Just for fun.

If I had to choose I guess I would agree with that it won't work. But I rather wait what will happen.

Hey, we have found some common ground. I'm a non-smoker and yet i agree with you. Tobacco tax is completely unwarrented by the alleged cost of the effects of smoking (if anything they should give you your smokes for free) and nothing but a majority stealing from a minority under some educational pretense.
It's the best example for anyone trying to claim taxes in general are bad.

Thanks for your unselfish objectivity I wholeheartedly agree.

Well, as for the legality of sanctions: I didn't knew that and would have to read up on that first. I guess there is some point to it for MPs who are seated via party lists. It's obviously just plain wrong for those who directly won their district. But i can't imagine how a party could effectively punish them anyways.

I as far as I know there are special discipline routines. It comes down to bullying. And as a party has to approve of your political faith, you will need allies to amount to anything meaningful.