Electoral Reform (Senate, Commons, & Gov Gen)

[Neill McKay]

Ibbitson is pointing at the FACT that Canada is a very immature democracy – to the degree that it is at democracy at all.

I can't agree with the notion that any country that uses the Westminster parliamentary system -- which pre-dates the US system considerably -- could be called an immature democracy.

Is it really fair for Canada to claim membership in the ’club’ of democratic nations when one of the two houses of our national parliament is appointed from the ranks of party hacks, flacks and political bagmen and the other enshrines inequality based on Constitutional principle? No! It is shameful!, a disgrace but, evidently, quite acceptable to most Canadians.

Your last few words say it all.  If ever we elect a House of Commons with popular support to reform the Senate then it will happen.  We have the system we have now because it is evidently acceptable to a majority of Canadians (or because no better alternative has been presented that would itself be acceptable to a majority of Canadians).  That sounds like a democracy to me.

The next time the Senate prevents passage of a Commons bill outright then we can talk about its democratic shortcomings, but until then the elected representatives of the people generally get what they want -- to the extent that they can agree amongst themselves.  That also sounds like a democracy to me.

There is a huge democratic deficit in Canada – and political parties are well served by that deficit and they are able to sustain it because most Canadians are intellectually unfit to vote.

If most Canadians are intellectually unfit to vote then the less voting the better, eh?

Of course that's not true, though; you're indulging in drama at the expense of making a sound argument.

 

[Edward Campbell]

So, N. McKay, are you content with an appointed legislature? Do you think an appointed legislative chambre is democratic?

Are you content with an elected legislative chambre in which "equal representation" is, at best, a bad joke? Where a vote in, say, Charlotetown (27,000+ voted in 2006), is worth three or more times as much as a vote in Calgary West (92,000+ voted in 2006)  or Toronto Centre (89,000+ voted in 2006)? Do you think that is democratic?

As to democratic maturity: an appointed legislative chambre smacks of 19th century paternalism, when our 'betters' believed that the 'people' could not be trusted to manage their own affairs. It's not surprising that we have a 19th century, paternalistic Constitution - it was written back then. It is surprising that we haven't worked up the gumption to repair that glaring bit of the democratic deficit. Ditto for our own "rotten and pocket boroughs - almost all East of the Ottawa River.

I remain dismayed at the flaccid nature of the national spine.
 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

So, N. McKay, are you content with an appointed legislature? Do you think an appointed legislative chambre is democratic?

Are you content with an elected legislative chambre in which "equal representation" is, at best, a bad joke? Where a vote in, say, Charlotetown (27,000+ voted in 2006), is worth three or more times as much as a vote in Calgary West (92,000+ voted in 2006)  or Toronto Centre (89,000+ voted in 2006)? Do you think that is democratic?

As to democratic maturity: an appointed legislative chambre smacks of 19th century paternalism, when our 'betters' believed that the 'people' could not be trusted to manage their own affairs. It's not surprising that we have a 19th century, paternalistic Constitution - it was written back then. It is surprising that we haven't worked up the gumption to repair that glaring bit of the democratic deficit. Ditto for our own "rotten and pocket boroughs - almost all East of the Ottawa River.

I remain dismayed at the flaccid nature of the national spine.
 

Edward,

Calling our democracy immature does seem a little extreme or sensational to me.  Immature compared to what?  We have an appointed Senate that has no real legislative power.  Heck, we have an unelected executive branch in legal terms (but not in reality).

Canada does have some interesting issues.  We are a regional nation combined with a concentration of the population, however, in the centre.  This is going to make for some glitches.  While PEI might have more seats per person than Ontario, the fact remains that if you carry Ontario and Quebec you carry the nation.

Canada also lacks an underlying consensus (Quebec and the rest of Canada).  This affects many things and makes for glacially slow constitutional change.  That Canada has survived, however, demonstrates to me the strength of Canadian democracy.  My 1st year political science prof pointed out the underlying consensus in the US as a way of illustrating our lack of such a beast, to which I pointed out that they got there through a Civil War so we should perhaps just be thankful for our shortcomings. 

An elected Senate might help resolve some regional issues, but basing it on the Provinces could get a little silly.  Perhaps we just muddle through with our system which seems to govern a country that does very well world-wide on a number of indicies.  Our system may not always make sense at first glance, but I would hardly call it shameful or a disgrace. 

Cheers

p.s. You yourself have stated that "most Canadians are intellectually unfit to vote."  How does that point of view square with the 19th century paternalism you mention?  >

 

[Edward Campbell]

I stick by ”immature”.

We were the first country to have a written constitution for a federal state with a Westminster style parliamentary democracy. In 1867 the idea of an appointed ‘upper’ house was not unreasonable. The US Senate, for example, was appointed, by state legislatures – some had more democratic election procedures than others. Beginning in 1904 and ending in 1913 (with the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution) the American moved from an appointed to an elected Senate.

In 1901 Australia became the next major Westminster style federal state – this time with an elected Senate.

In the 1940s we saw two more constitutions for federal democracies with Westminster type governments: Germany and India – both have elected upper houses, although the Indian one is ’indirectly’ elected by the legislatures of the Indian states.

The German Constitution is the most ‘mature,’ I suggest, having benefited from the political and constitutional experience of the Australians and Canadians.

Our democracy retains its ‘youthful’ (immature) nature in both the appointment of the Senate and by its tolerance of inequality of representation. Both may have been acceptable in the middle of the 19th century; they ought not to be now.

 

[Neill McKay]

So, N. McKay, are you content with an appointed legislature? Do you think an appointed legislative chambre is democratic?

I think the government, as a whole, is democratic.  I dispute your assertion that having one part of it not elected makes the institution undemocratic.

How far would we have to go towards electing public officials to have a truly democratic government?  Should we stop at the Senate, or also elect the Governor General?  What about judges?  Deputy Ministers?  Or the entire civil service?

There is an elected body at the core of the government, and the government can do bugger all without that body's say-so and oversight.  I think we qualify as having a democratic government on that basis.

Are you content with an elected legislative chambre in which "equal representation" is, at best, a bad joke? Where a vote in, say, Charlotetown (27,000+ voted in 2006), is worth three or more times as much as a vote in Calgary West (92,000+ voted in 2006)  or Toronto Centre (89,000+ voted in 2006)? Do you think that is democratic?

It is democratic, but perhaps not perfect.  The number of people who actually voted in any given riding is immaterial, though.  What matters is the number of people living in each riding, and that should be kept equal as far as is practicable.

As to democratic maturity: an appointed legislative chambre smacks of 19th century paternalism, when our 'betters' believed that the 'people' could not be trusted to manage their own affairs. It's not surprising that we have a 19th century, paternalistic Constitution - it was written back then. It is surprising that we haven't worked up the gumption to repair that glaring bit of the democratic deficit.

It has worked reasonably well for a very long time.

My car has worked well for five years so I don't fiddle around under the hood except to add fluids.  You can bet that if it's still running after 141 years I'll be even less interested in meddling with it!  (Mind you, I obviously won't still be running by that time.)

I remain dismayed at the flaccid nature of the national spine.

I remain dismayed at people who fail to appreciate just how good we have it here, and to what degree that is a product of a stable and proven system of government.  So, lots of dismay to go around today!

 

[Edward Campbell]

...  What matters is the number of people living in each riding, and that should be kept equal as far as is practicable. ...

Here is the electoral quotient by province and here is an explanation of how it is calculated.

We really have three Canadas, don’t we? One (AB, BC and ON) is about ‘fairly represented’ by the current formula; the second (MB, NS and QC) is more than 10% but less than 33⅓% ‘above’ the ‘fair’ level – still about ‘practically’ equal, I guess; but the third Canada (NF, NS, PEI and SK) is between 40% and 300% overrepresented. Is that as equal as practicable in your mind?

 

[Edward Campbell]

...  Perhaps we just muddle through with our system which seems to govern a country that does very well world-wide on a number of indicies.
...

I’m grumpy about ‘muddling through’ because I’m trying to digest the latest productivity figures.

Canadian productivity is down, again.

US productivity is up, again. Ditto most of the rest of the world, too.

The US is our biggest competitor as well as being our biggest customer; our economies are too much alike for us to be, contentedly, less productive than them.

Part of our productivity problem is attitudinal I think. We are too “fat, dumb and happy,” there is waaaaay too much “I’m all right, Jack” in our government, corporations, banks and trade unions. And the same people who are content with a democratic deficit are equally content with an increasing productivity gap.

I think we’re bloody idle – as the sergeant major used to put it.

Ibbitson said, “America, one suspects, is too democratic for Canadian tastes - or at least for the tastes of its ruling political, intellectual and cultural elites.” Those ruling elites who care too little, in my opinion, for democracy also care too little for other important things - like productivity, and it pisses me off!

I repeat: our lagging productivity is not because we have lazy, inept, overpaid workers. It is because our corporate/banking/industrial elites are timid and lazy – and overpaid. And they are forgiven for being idle, often actually encouraged in their idleness by trade union and political ‘leaders.’

Leadership is THE issue and despite the fact that we are embarked upon a general election our would-be leaders will not discuss hard issues. The democratic deficit is, in my opinion a real issue and an important one, so is productivity, ditto our role in the world. We ought to be demanding that leaders do better: provide better democracy, encourage better productivity, be more productive in protecting and promoting our own vital interests in the world. Do you want to bet that any of them will receive much attention in the ongoing campaign?

 

[Jed]

ER Campbell, you should run for PM. You would have my vote. (One of those idle types in an over represented province. lol)

 

[RangerRay]

Here, here, Mr. Campbell.

I agree with your assertion that our democracy is immature and that our constitution is a work of 19th century paternalism.

IMHO, having a truly popular representative HoC and a Triple E Senate would go a long way to bringing our constitution into the 21st century.

Edit to add:

That may mean that PEI get only one MP, but that also means that they get the same number of senators as Ontario.  Which is fine by me.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Edward,

Do you really think that productivity is tied to our political system?  Could there be other factors at play?  While I believe that there is dynamic exchange between a society and its political system in terms of influence, at the end of the day I believe that our political system reflects our society and not the other way around. 

I am not upset about PEI voters having a greater quotient of MPs per vote because Quebec and Ontario still hold the hammer in the big picture.  Canada came together out of compromise and not absolutism.  An elected senate would have a similar (but much more out of whack) tilt unless it was just a split of the House of Commons. 

Messing with the Constitution is fraught with peril and I do not believe that the possible benefits justify the risks. 

Our productivity is lower, but how is our trade deficit?  Apples and oranges, to be sure, but we should look as widely as possible when comparing two countries and deciding if we want to radically change ours.

Cheers

T2B

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m grumpy about ‘muddling through’ because I’m trying to digest the latest productivity figures.

I think we’re bloody idle – as the sergeant major used to put it.

Edward, I take exception to this juxtaposition.

Some years back a young Prussian Infanteer kept inundating us with tales of the German High Command.  I seem to recall some comment to the effect that the Prussians considered lazy people worthy of promotion ......

Ultimately, Productivity is not a function of people working harder.  It is a function of people working less hard. 

Our problem is that our politicians have been working hard on the Canadian version of the French 35 hour work week.  They fear the unemployed and so are going out of their way to keep candle-stick makers in business when the market died out years ago.  In the environment they have created our naturally risk averse, shall we say conservative, business class have been reluctant to try out new technologies.  Unless the government pays for new ideas and experimentation Canadian Business isn't interested.

Consequently we have been trying to keep families in funds packing fish for 10 weeks a year while the Icelanders buy up and build robots to butcher, slice, dice and pack cod.  We have been running plants on 24/7 shifts while other countries have been putting in bigger motors so that they can produce more, faster with fewer people: the definition of productivity enhancement.

To go back to The RSM:   The problem is not that we are bloody idle.  The problem is that too many of us "need to grow a pair".

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Do you really think that productivity is tied to our political system?
...

No, and I said that the connection is tangential, at best. (And, by the way, Kirkhill, I also said that, “our lagging productivity is not because we have lazy, inept, overpaid workers.”)

I agree we need to look broadly at our situation, and when I do that, through the lens of my experience I see a need for some broad, ‘structural’ changes to politics and policy and ‘attitude.’

I think there are links between (in no particular order) foreign policy, tax policy, productivity, the democratic deficit (as I state it), R&D spending (by industry and governments), social programmes, trade policy and so on.

Earlier I described the ‘attitudinal’ bit as “I’m all right, Jack.” Many may have never seen that old (1959) British comedy that parodied the way in which vested (special) interests manipulate people and the ‘system’ for heir own, selfish ends. But it is how I believe we have come to accept that the ‘elites’ – the chattering classes, the unimaginative, anti-competitive, overpaid CEOs, the politicians, the labour ‘leaders’ and the busybodies – operate against the national interest.

The extent of my ‘confusion’ is perfectly illustrated by this election:

• The Liberal Party – the one which I vowed, way back in 1967, would not get my vote until Trudeau was gone and his influence erased – proposes, as its centrepiece policy, something with which I agree, philosophically, on two out of three points –

+  The Green Shaft Shift is based on a consumption tax. That’s good!

+  The ‘plan’ involves cuts to income taxes. That’s good, too, but

+  The ‘plan’ includes all manner of new (mostly social) spending. That’s bad;

• The Conservative Party – the one I support (actively) – proposes to cut a perfectly good consumption tax. That's bad.

So, on one of my and the country’s BIG issues I plan to vote against the good policy. But, of course, it is because I am looking for a larger, more coherent ‘plan’ – maybe the eternal triumph f hope over experience, again.

I think we are not Chinese. I think we need to reform our government ‘system’ before we try to shake off the shackles of socialism effects of decades of less than stellar management – the sort that gives us consistently negative trade balances with just about every country or region except the USA.  I think the ”I’m all right, Jack” attitude is more dangerous than Harper’s hidden agenda™ or Dion’s apparent ineptitude or even Elizabeth May’s mouth.

I’m being hyperbolic because I’m trying to provoke interest, even discussion.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, and I said that the connection is tangential, at best. (And, by the way, Kirkhill, I also said that, “our lagging productivity is not because we have lazy, inept, overpaid workers.”)

Seen Edward.  Comes from skimming and typing when I should have been working.

Cheers.

 

[Neill McKay]

Someone tell me how an elected Senate will make my life better, in practical terms.  Or your life, if you prefer.

 

[GAP]

Someone tell me how an elected Senate will make my life better, in practical terms.  Or your life, if you prefer.

We might actually get some of them back from their Mexican villas, and keep some of the others awake (less meds)  ;D

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

No, and I said that the connection is tangential, at best. (And, by the way, Kirkhill, I also said that, “our lagging productivity is not because we have lazy, inept, overpaid workers.”)

I think we are not Chinese. I think we need to reform our government ‘system’ before we try to shake off the shackles of socialism effects of decades of less than stellar management – the sort that gives us consistently negative trade balances with just about every country or region except the USA.  I think the ”I’m all right, Jack” attitude is more dangerous than Harper’s hidden agenda™ or Dion’s apparent ineptitude or even Elizabeth May’s mouth.

I’m being hyperbolic because I’m trying to provoke interest, even discussion.

I agree that we are not Chinese.  Reforming our system to shake off the shackles of socialism is a bit more debateable.  What if Canadians want those shackles of socialism?  Perhaps parties that have offered social programs have offered something that resonates with a fair majority of the Canadian population.  Whether you or I agree with them is important in so far as how we vote and how we engage in the process.  At the end of the day, however, I believe that Canadians will get the government they support and will get what they ask for.  Not everybody will be happy, but that is democracy.  I will mention tyranny of the majority later.

Our trade balance surplus has shrunk recently, due in part I believe to the rising dollar.  Given the proportion of our trade with the US compared to the rest of the world, however, I think that we should remain focused on that aspect.  Our balance there is still quite healthy and we still have an overall surplus.

I only come back to your productivity piece because you are calling for political reform but are seemingly focused exclusively on economics.  Politics and economics are certainly linked, but the Venn diagram of the two would still have some aspects outside each other's circle.  Reforming the constitution is a major undertaking, and in a country like Canada that lacks a real underlying consensus can lead to all sorts of problems.  Do we really want to go back to the period circa 1990 to 1995?  Germany may have a more modern constitution, but lets remember how that came about. 

Canada is a regional nation and therefore will have some funny or annoying aspects (depending on your point of view).  Given that the regions are very unequal in terms of population but still have their regional issues there will have to be some give and take at the national level.  I don't see that as undemocratic.  Tyranny of the majority is one of the those things to watch for, and if the centre rules with a velvet gloved iron fist (through democracy) than the regions may eventually decide to withdraw their consent.  Our first past the post system can also cause frustrations.  Nevertheless, we should look to the second and third order effects of any major changes made to our political system.  We have combined our de facto executive with our legislative, and only one chamber of the legislative has any real power.  I can live with the strangeness and nuances because I am proud of Canada as a whole and I worry about causing damage to the whole in order to fix a paper problem.

Our voter turnout isn't great but it compares favourably to many (somewhere in the mid 70% range), which tells me that while Canadians might not be in love with politics three quarters get out and participate.  Perhaps my muddling through life with a mid-seventies average has tainted me.

Is there really some crisis that can only be resolved by changing our constitution?  Perhaps we let sleeping dogs lie.

As an aside, an elected senate with regional representation appeals to me on some levels, but bear in mind that it would take the idea that a single voter in PEI has more influence than a single voter in Ontario to a new level.

 

[a_majoor]

I think I see where Edward is going with this (although this is my interpretation).

Canada's long term prospects are limited by an "I'm all right Jack" attitude, which is partially caused and supported by the State. In order to pay off supporters and maintain voter support, a vast array of vote buying subsidies and programs have grown across the political and economic landscape like weeds. Major offenders are EI and our healthcare system, followed by regional economic "development" programs and "social" programs which give the State essentially parental powers over individuals. We don't feel the need to be competitive or productive because we are cocooned and insulated from hard choices and consequences of our actions by the State. Most people seem to be comfortable with this, and accept the implicit bargin that we will turn over 50% of our earnings in return for the privilage of coasting.

Now overturning the existing order and unleashing the energies of Canadians will require some pretty dramatic changes. We have elites in business, politics, education and the bureaucracy who prosper from the status quo, and will defend their positions to the last taxpayer. (To use another metaphor, they are forming a perimeter around the lifeboats on the Titanic, while hoping we haven't noticed the water lapping over the deck).

Now a politician with balls of steel might try to face down the voters mobilized by the elites, but will probably not get elected. A politician in power still needs to operate with a very deft political touch in order to change the existing order without arousing the opposition of the conservative elites (conservative in the sense the champagne socialists will work to preserve the existing order for their benefit). The other scenarios are the stuff of nightmares; a massive economic dislocation or meltdown forces governments to jettison the dead weight of social programs, EI etc. in order to save the State, global war, or armed revolution to seize the powers of the State for whatever purpose the revolutionaries deem fit.

If I am reading Edward correctly, Prime Minister harper is taking option "B" (deft political manipulation) to reform the system in small steps that the conservative elites are unable to counter individually, but will collectively add up to true changes for the Dominion of Canada and its people. Watch and wonder.

 

[a_majoor]

It seems the prediction of massive economic meltdown is indeed coming true, although I don't see much actual change on the political horizon (yet). Here is a take on one reason why the status quo will be with us for a long time to come (remember, politicians will fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their advantages)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081008.COFLANAGAN08//TPStory/Comment

The fragmentation of our politics
Blame changes to party financing for splintering the vote

TOM FLANAGAN

Professor of political science at the University of Calgary and a former Conservative campaign manager

October 8, 2008

Money is the mother's milk of politics.

- Jesse Unruh, California

Assembly Speaker, 1966

An underreported story of this election campaign is the fragmentation of partisan support. In the latest polls, the combined support for the two leading parties (Conservatives plus Liberals), which was 66 per cent in the 2004 and 2006 elections, is declining toward its value in the 1993 election - 60 per cent (Liberals plus Reform). In 1993, everyone blamed the splintering of the vote on the crack-up of the Mulroney coalition, which produced a five-party system.

It is less clear why the vote should be fragmenting in this election, but changes in party finance are part of the explanation. Jean Chrétien's Bill C-24 and Stephen Harper's Accountability Act outlawed union and corporate contributions as well as large personal donations, leaving parties to survive on government subsidies and grassroots fundraising. One of several unintended consequences is to encourage the proliferation of parties.

The effect is clearest with the Greens, a party that has never elected anyone to the House of Commons and got less than 5 per cent of the vote in both 2004 and 2006. Under the old system of party finance, its supporters would have given up and it would now be a fringe party, nominating a few candidates but not having a significant impact. Yet, under the new regime, all pollsters (except Nik Nanos, who has a different way of asking the ballot question) have the Greens in double digits.

The Greens have been able to thrive because they received enough votes in 2004 and 2006 (more than 2 per cent) to qualify for an annual subsidy of about $1-million - enough to finance a professional organization and national campaign. Thus, without ever electing anyone, an advocacy group has turned itself into a viable political party, courtesy of the system of public subsidies; and even if the Greens never elect anyone, their status as a party makes their advocacy more effective.

Consider also the Bloc Québécois, a party that hardly bothers to do any fundraising on its own because its federal subsidy is almost entirely sufficient to its needs. The Bloc was founded to promote Quebec independence, a cause that is temporarily moribund. Also, its leader, Gilles Duceppe, is thought to be on the verge of retirement. Instead of promoting its separatist raison d'être, it has campaigned on the necessity of keeping the Conservatives from winning a majority. A party dependent on its grassroots supporters for its well-being could hardly contemplate such a volte-face, but the Bloc can carry on, confident of its subsidies.

The NDP's unprecedented decision to run a fully funded campaign has also been affected by the new subsidy system, which more than makes up for the contributions it used to get from organized labour. With Elections Canada rebating half the party's national campaign expense, and with its subsidy growing in line with its increasing vote totals, the NDP should be in reasonably good shape, though it will also have to ratchet its fundraising up a notch if it hopes to wage the frequent election campaigns that result from the fragmentation of federal politics.

Whereas the new system has helped the three smaller opposition parties, it has hurt the Liberals, who, despite their bigger cash requirements, have not yet learned the art of grassroots fundraising. With their much bigger war chest, the Conservatives outspent the Liberals by a huge margin in the pre-writ period and thus entered the writ-period campaign with a big advantage, although that is dissipating amid the international financial turmoil.

But if the Liberals end up badly in this election, the subsidy system will cushion their fall. No matter how poorly their own fundraising performs, they can expect an annual subsidy of $6-million to $7-million, which will discourage them from facing the need to "unite the left" through a coalition or merger with the NDP and/or Greens. Once again, the subsidy system will promote fragmentation.

My long-term prognosis: Whether the Conservatives win a minority government (a majority now seems out of the question) or the Liberals stage a comeback to win their own minority, we are in for years of fragmentation. Usually, a period of splintering would be followed by consolidation, as happened with the Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative merger, but our system of finance tends to turn advocacy groups into parties and keeps them alive even after they have outlived their usefulness.

 

[adaminc]

I am not sure what kind of voting system this would be, but I wish that I could vote for a local rep in my riding independantly of the federal party.

i.e. I could vote a Lib in as my MP, but vote for the Cons Federally, or vice versa.

Never thought it through in any detail, but there are times when I like what an MP does for the area, but I don't like what their respective political party does federally. Does this make sense?

So you vote in the person in your local riding who would then be your rep in the house of commons, and then you vote for the federal party who would become the PM and the Cabinet. I am thinking that there could be an issue of there being more reps for party A in the house, but party B winning the federal election, but I think it would be interesting to see nonetheless, even if it only lasts a short time, I dont think it would hurt to try it out, unless I am supremely wrong and this would turn Canada into a 3rd world country.

P.S. I would also like to see Michaëlle Jean pull a prank on the next Prime Minister (and film it all) by saying that she is going to pick the Cabinet this time around. I would love to see the look on the PMs face, hahaha.

 

[Edward Campbell]

That’s what they do in the USA.

There are, in pretty much all democracies, three elements of government:

• The Executive;

• The Legislature; and

• The Judiciary.

The Americans elect all or parts* of all three.

-------------------

Our tradition is different: we elect only the legislature.

Our ‘Executive’ is the Queen – advised by a committee of the Queen’s Privy Council, AKA the cabinet. We inherit the sovereign but we indirectly elect (most of) the cabinet† since, by Constitutional convention (unwritten rules with at least as much ‘weight’ as any written law, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) the cabinet is formed from members of the political party that ‘has the confidence’ of (can win votes in) the House of Commons which, also by ancient ‘convention’ is the only place where taxes can be ‘levied’ and where wars can be declared.

Our judges, like US judges, have their origins in Heny II’s ‘assize’ courts. That term (Assize Court), and ‘Court of Queen’s Bench’ survived and still survive into the 21st century.

Because judges derive their power from the sovereign (executive) and because they can literally overturn decisions of the sovereign’s legislature (remember it is “Her Majesty’s Government” and “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” – terms that indicate that the legislature, too, is subordinate to an all powerful executive) they are, of necessity an extension of the executive.

Now, our system is evolutionary. Clearly, Queen Elizabeth’s (or Governor General Michaëlle Jean’s) real, practical powers are confined to a few, largely ceremonial matters.‡ The real power – to require, for example, that you and I pay taxes and that we all drive on a certain (uniform) side of the road – rest with the elected legislatures. Those legislatures can, and sometimes do, deny “Her Majesty’s Government” its (her) wishes. In that case the government-of-the-day may lose the ‘confidence of parliament and Her Majesty (us, effectively) may have to find a new government – generally by having an election.**

Thus, we come (evolve) full circle. We, the people, are our own ‘all powerful sovereign.’ We pay a monarch, a governor general in our case, to look after some of the less important ‘head of state’ duties for us. A few hundred years ago we, our parliament, used to ‘select’ (indirectly elect) the monarch, too. That’s how William and Mary (1689) and the current House of Windsor (1714) (variously House of Hanover, House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and House of Windsor) came into ‘power’ or, properly, into our employ.

We govern ourselves through the legislature we elect and we, through the elected cabinet, appoint our own judges.

There are, especially for radical “Jacksonians,” attractions to electing pretty much everything. Our system, rooted in more than 1,000 years of British tradition, can be just as ‘democratic.’


--------------------
* Originally all US judges were appointed, like all Canadian judges today, but, circa 1850 there was something of a ‘constitutional revolt’ in the US and a corrupt judiciary was part of the problem. Electing judges, to provide ‘accountability’ to the people was seen to be the answer. Today many lower court judges (a majority, in a majority of states) are elected.
† Provided a few ‘conventions’ are observed he prije minister ma appoint a few unelected senators to the cabinet, too.
‡ But, as we will soon see, some ceremonial vestiges remain. We do not have a government until Governor General Michaëlle Jean swears it in – making it her government.
** But not always; if a government ‘falls’ (loses a vote of confidence) very son after a general election – say in the late winter of 2008/09 or early spring of 2009 – the GG may decide to ask the leader of her opposition to see if he can form a government and secure the ‘confidence’ of parliament.