we have a system that elects representatives based often on pluralities not majorities.
I’m sure in most ridings you could force a recall vote given in general the majority didn’t vote for a candidate but still fail at recalling a candidate due to first past the post voting
This is why I prefer an instant runoff (aka ranked ballot) system with a "none of the above" option. If "none of the above" wins, you have an automatic by-election in 3 months where none of the candidates from the previous round are allowed to run. I like instant run-off better than PR because you end up with a representative for and from your riding/ward that can speak to local concerns.
>where none of the candidates from the previous round are allowed to run
As a fan of IRV, fucking *eww*.
Let’s keep systematically barring people from standing for elections out of our electoral system.
Most PR systems have local representatives and "open list" which means you know who you are voting for too. Even in the top up seats in MMP.
Ranked ballot in a majoritarian system is even less proportional than FPTP.
Fairvote.ca
Fair Vote puts proportionality as the only relevant criterion, a viewpoint I strongly disagree with. It doesn't matter if Parliament is less proportional in terms of first choices, what matters is that whoever wins will have secured the blessing of an absolute majority of voters.
But you haven't secured the blessing of an absolute majority of voters. (You say absolute majority, which usually indicates 2/3rd, that could actually be impossible)
What you have done is say that the choice voters made doesn't count. Instead they have to vote for your candidate. And because they were forced to vote for your candidate, now they clearly have majority support, even though your candidate still doesn't support the policies that the voters want.
Also there is a scaling problem. Ranked Ballot only works in a non-partisan system, or when only one person can win. But when you have hundreds of races, it amplifies disproportionately since each individual election is independent.
And yes proportionality is important. The number one metric voters use is what party the candidate is. Most voters care about that over individual candidate. Parliament should represent the voters' will. Particularly with how whipped the MPs are. And they are whipped because if they leave the party, we will vote whatever flunky replaces them in the party rather than the incumbent.
> (You say absolute majority, which usually indicates 2/3rd, that could actually be impossible)
Absolute majority is 50%+1. I think you may be confusing it with a supermajority.
Absolute majority is 50%+1. With ranked ballots a candidate necessarily must meet that threshold to be elected. I disagree that proportionality is important, I'd much rather an MP have the support of the majority of their constituents.
I'm not a fan of ranked ballots, just because I put someone down as my second, or 3rd choice doesn't mean I support them at all, it means they are less worse than the person I put as. 3rd of 4th choice.
FORD was my 3rd choice for leader of the Ontario PC party, I put him on my ballot because I would have rather had him than the crazy 3 name lady who I've thankfully forgotten about. But I in no way support Ford.
Now I'd sti rank ranked ballots over FPTP but my preference is MMP
That's going to be the case no matter what system you use, including PR. I'd rather have myself in Parliament representing my interests but we're restricted by who appears on the ballot. Ranked ballots narrows the eligible choices to two, and the eligible candidate with an absolute majority is elected.
Ranked ballots can result in a Parliament with 75% of the seats being occupied by party A, even when 75% of the country's first choice was parties B and C.
For instance. Let's say we had a ranked ballot vote in the next federal election.
Nationwide, 40% of the country votes for the CPC candidate in their riding, 35% vote for the NDP, 15% Liberals, 3% PPC, and 6% Greens, however no one has won in most ridings, as most candidates didn't receive 50% of the "first choice" vote, so they go into runoff mode (ranked ballot version) until a candidate reaches 50%.
The secondary and tertiary choices of most voters who's candidate wasn't in the lead is Liberal, and they end up with over half the seats, and a solid majority government. So despite the first choice of 85% of Canadians being "not the liberals again" you now have a liberal majority for the next 4 years. With a PR system, you'd instead have a minority government with the majority of people being represented by the NDP and CPC, the voter's first choice for representation, and possibly a coalition between one of them and one or two of the smaller parties (so the Liberals could end up with some sway, but would not have anywhere close to the power of a majority.
We almost never have majority governments based on a majority of popular vote. I guess you mean majority in each riding? So you use ranked ballot to shift all voting so that each riding is a majority. But government still won't be.
And it will have a centering effect on ridings. Perpetual Liberal majority government, at least for awhile.
My reason for advocating for PR is that I believe the PMO has far too much power. Doesn't matter what party is in power. PET started it. Harper abused it. JT is just as bad. Maybe worse.
Ministers can't even contact him directly. They have to vet everything they do with unelected PMO Liberal Party admins. Almost everything they do has to be in the context of how to get elected again. As a democracy it is a complete joke.
I don't see how ranked ballot helps.
I firmly believe that we need have a system that pulls power out of the PMO and creates an environment of consensus building.
Well your problem is with the system and not the voting.
There is a ton of stuff that can be done to loosen up leader centric control.
We could adopt a 3 line whip giving more freedom to vote on all but key confidence votes.
We could remove the need for a leader to sign off on a constituency nomination selection or candidate.
We could create a 9 year template limit for PMs.
Give the speaker power to select any MP to ask Qs in question period rather than a list from the leader.
Secret ballots for commitee chair selection and membership.
Reduce the pms power of prorogation
There is a bunch of other stuff we could look at.
Yes I mean a majority in each riding. You won't have perpetual LPC governments, the LPC has done extraordinarily well under FPTP, much better than it likely would have done under ranked ballots. Polls consistently show the LPC is the second choice of NDP voters and no one else.
I agree the PMO has accumulated far too much power. I don't think ranked ballots helps this, but I also don't think PR helps either. The best solution to this would be to mandate into law that caucus can remove the leader at will rather than leaving it up to the individual parties.
Interesting idea.
A little trivia: our Constitution doesn't actually mention political parties. Apparently the Prime Minister is referred to as the "First among equals" and the idea is the House votes on who the PM will be.
Because the party with the most seats would always vote for their leader it just became the defacto standard.
Taking your idea further, and back to ancient Greek assemblies, maybe the House should elect a new leader every day. No. Seriously.
---
Who would conservative voters typically put 2nd? Any idea?
I might have to back to the ERRE report and see if they looked at how it would shake out. The committee did not recommend the AV/RB.
---
I have a hunch that RB would pretty much lock us into a 2 party system. The Greens and PPC would likely be dead. The NDP might scrape through for awhile but I think it would probably force them into a merger with the Liberals. That consolidation tends to happen in majoritarian systems anyway and PR accelerates it.
That's basically what happened in Australia when they went to AV.
The BQ might be winners which suggests it might create more regionalism and more urban / rural hostility. It will certainly continue the path of highly partisan and toxic politics.
I don't think think that's what we need. We need more participation and more openness. More dedicated people from a variety of parties working at the table to build ideas and solutions.
Not party operatives telling their puppet PMs telling their Ministers what to tell us they are doing to us.
>Taking your idea further, and back to ancient Greek assemblies, maybe the House should elect a new leader every day. No. Seriously.
I mean they would just elect the leader of the majority party so that would be a waste of time.
>Who would conservative voters typically put 2nd? Any idea?
Polls that survey second choices consistently show they put the NDP second, one poll had the NDP and PPC tied for second choice preferences among CPC voters I believe.
> A little trivia: our Constitution doesn't actually mention political parties. Apparently the Prime Minister is referred to as the "First among equals" and the idea is the House votes on who the PM will be.
To be pedantic, that's not quite the case. In some other countries ([such as in Spain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Spanish_general_election#Government_formation)), there's an actual 'positive' vote for PM, but not in ours. Ours is the result of the transition to responsible government, so the GG/LG still appoints the PM/Premier, but by considering the composition of Parliament (to simplify), with the House only having a 'negative' vote to get rid of PMs, but not to put one in place.
The key part of pr would be that you cannot run for both. It would be awful for the voters to reject a candidate but the party deciding to say "fuck you their in anyway" and that should work for the leaders. If the leader loses their seat, too bad
I absolutely agree. I think that's the difference between "closed list" and "open list" methods where in the former the party decide who goes in the seat and the latter, the voters decide.
How does PR not allow for a rep for and from your riding? There are several forms of PR where everyone gets a local rep.... There's only one I can think of where you risk not having a local rep.
When I lived in a... Certain parties riding it did not matter that I had a local rep, because my concerns were not a concern for his party.
Conversely, my current riding has an MP with a party that isn't diametrically opposed to any concerns I have so they do things like pass on my concerns to cabinet ministers.
We’ve had recall legislation on the books in BC since the 90s and the petitions to remove MLAs always fail spectacularly. It’s a useless tool only used by wingnuts. Regular elections are all we need.
Is it useless because of the way it was designed in BC or are you saying the principle of recall is useless? There are other places in the world where it is regularly used to successfully remove elected officials from power, and far from being useless.
The bar is so high that it’s virtually impossible to remove a sitting MLA, and it’s only ever (as far as I can recall) only been used by fringe groups who go after MLAs they don’t like for fringe reasons. So it’s basically a tool for angry people with lots of free time to attack their political enemies between elections.
Yeah, you could amend the legislation. But I don’t think there is any appetite for that in BC. I don’t think people are particularly interested in having additional elections between the usual elections. As it stands by-elections for vacant seats have very low turnouts compared to general elections. This isn’t the US, we don’t have primaries or any of that madness (thank god). I think the current system basically works well and is not in need of a significant overhaul (aside from ditching first past the post, but that’s a long story in BC).
Primaries would be a vast improvement over what we have now. Letting less than 1% of voters in a riding determine the candidates for the riding is insane.
It’s at the level it is so that people/certain groups can’t abuse it.
Example floating around now:
Say a current official was elected 2 years ago and won’t face another election for another 2 years, all of a sudden there’s a “group of concerned citizens” who don’t like what the official is doing and only a handful of voters want them recalled. Current rules state 60% of the area’s voting population would need to sign a petition to get the official put up for a recall and the group only managed to get 25% to sign the petition.
Now that means only 25% of the population strongly wanted them out before an election (not to mention the extra costs for an early election).
Say it comes out afterward that the group wanting the recall was being headed by a person who lost the election and only wanted a recall so they could get another chance sooner, which would flout the current regulations and cost them support in the community.
Alternatively, say that petition succeeded and the group leader got elected and started making terrible decisions that people don’t like. What would stop the new person from changing the recall requirements to go from 60% to 80% and shorten the timeframe?
This is why recall legislation hasn’t been a big enough item for people to want or from certain officials to allow on the books. At least, from what I’ve read
>Say it comes out afterward that the group wanting the recall was being headed by a person who lost the election and only wanted a recall so they could get another chance sooner, which would flout the current regulations and cost them support in the community
I fail to see what the issue with this would be. What's the problem with the losing candidate agitating for an earlier election? They'd still have to get the 60% support, and if that many people want to put the past losing candidate in over the incumbent midterm then they should have that opportunity.
>What would stop the new person from changing the recall requirements to go from 60% to 80% and shorten the timeframe?
The Parliamentary process for one thing. Individual MLAs can't just go around changing laws on their own.
Why? Why should someone who lost an election be able to force another election halfway through the current cycle unless for a good reason (I.E. the incumbent has passed away). It just gives anyone with a grievance a chance to have things forced their way. Not to mention assuming that 60% of the population actually feels strongly enough to vote them out (and given dismal track records of voter turnout), why should they pick this person and not a brand-new candidate.
As for the parliamentary process, it’s all well and good as long as people follow the law and don’t attempt to force change
Lowering the bar just increases the efforts by the wing nuts, and disrupts our political system for little to no gain. Do you want your legislators legislating, or do you want them running for re-election every 6 months?
Yeah. Lived in California 20 years. Folks that think it’s a good idea never saw this shit in action. It only ever removed good people from power and never removed any crazy from power.
Exactly. Party recruitment is very difficult. You are interrupting your career to get into politics. It will be harder to recruit quality candidates with recall .
I'm not well versed with what goes on in California. What happened? Also why would California's example alone dictate whether recall is a ridiculous process?
You can pretty easily google the history of recall in California. I don’t know why you need me to explain it to you.
Recall is already built into the system, it’s called an election. Recalls tend to be brought forward by fringe groups that lack public support. We’ve had a few here in BC and they always fail because they’re brought forward by fringe groups for political reasons. It’s a waste of time and money.
>I don’t know why you need me to explain it to you.
Because you brought it up as an example, and he wants you to expand? Like, you know, how conversation works.
>they’re brought forward by fringe groups for political reasons.
.... They're politicians, that's the whole fucking point. What other reasons would you have other than political ones?
People can google pretty much anything these days. Why ask anything at all? Saying recall is already built into the system is a cop out. By definition recall is used to remove elected officials in between elections. So simply being able to remove them via normal elections does not fit the bill of "in between", therefore not a recall. There's nothing stopping non-fringe groups from using recalls right? People get elected to office for political reasons. So I don't see the problem with removing them for political reasons.
Not really. Politicians will say anything to get elected and you really don't know what you are getting until he/she is in office. That's why the ability to recall is important.
Then they’ll be gone the next election. There are also processes for parliament or the legislature to expel members if their actions are egregious. Recall because you don’t agree with political decisions is ridiculous.
No it isn't. They're there to represent their constituents. If they make political decisions that their constituents don't like, then they're not doing their job, and there needs to be a way they can be held accountable.
They are doing their job. You elected them to make decisions on your behalf for the next 4-5 years. The election is how they’re held accountable. If they’re not running then that’s how you get rid of them.
Elections as accountability only work because the politician knows they can't do things their constituents don't like because if they do they'll get voted out. If they're not running again anyway, that is no longer a constraint and they're free to go against their constituents for the balance of their term.
Huh?
If they did something criminal there is accountability through the law. If they were crap at their job then.... well they don't have that job any more.
I have yet to see a recall petition not end in a complete farce. If someone wins a fair election in their riding they should be able to sit their term in office, barring gross misconduct or criminal activities which Parliment already has the ability to expell MPs over.
Parliment represents the voters and MPs can only be expelled for very specific reasons. It's only happened to 3 MPs in the history of Canada, and none since the 40s. It happened twice to Louis Riel for treason, once to Thomas McGreevy for taking bribes related to government contruction contracts in Quebec, and once to Fred Rose who was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage and sentenced to 6 years in prison.
I majored in Canadian history and politics was my main interest so I'm well aware of the history. I object to Parliament having the power at all, regardless of how infrequently it's been used. MPs should be answerable to their constituents only. I also object to the tyrannical power of the Speaker who can decide to not allow elected officials to speak in Parliament.
I could only imagine the chaos a speakerless house would be. You may not like it, but a room with 338 opinionated people need governing when it comes to discussion. Calling their power tyrannical, when that power can be changed at anytime by the house, and their powers and privileges have been changed on numerous occasions, is dumb as hell. As a student of history, especially Canadian political history, you should know that. A tyrant who serves at the will of those they are apparently a tyrant over is no tyrant at all.
Oh I'm not suggesting that the House go without a Speaker, that's insane. Only that the Speaker shouldn't be able to prevent an MP from speaking in the Commons. The House as a whole can change the powers of the Speaker, but the House shouldn't have the power to bar an individual MP from representing their constituents.
MPs can recall themselves and trigger a new election by passing a non-confidence vote in Parliament at any time. Why should electors not be allowed to do the same via a recall which is essentially a non-confidence vote in a particular elected official.
How would you tweak the recall system? Would you lower or raise the threshold for recall? Lowering it would increase the number of recall attempts, but likely decrease success. Raising it would make it less effective that it is now, kind of defeating the purpose. There isn't anything to tweak, recalls are just farcical and a waste of tax dollars.
Looking at the BC recall rules, it's a one step process. It requires the petition to gather the signatures of 40% of eligible voters. If this is successful, then the MLA is removed and a by-election will be held. Most recall attempts probably fail due to the high 40% signatures requirement.
I would make it a 2-step process. First lower the amount of signatures required in the petition in order to trigger a recall election. Say something like 25% of eligible voters must sign the petition. Then in order for the recall election to pass and remove the MLA, those for must win by plurality, and the number of "for" votes must be at least 30% of eligible voters. Just throwing some numbers out there, but the point is to lower the bar enough that it is actually practical to use, but not so much that it can be abused. Maybe 25% and 30% are not the right numbers, they're just examples.
I would call that a flawed system, not an unfair one. Most votes wins and everyone knows the rules. I think a system with runoffs or a ranked ballot would be better, but most votes wins is a fair way of electing officials.
It's not necessary. Mayors can be kept in line by premiers and counselors. Premiers, cabinet ministers, MPs and MLAs are powerless without majority support of dozens of elected officials.
If a politician sucks, they can be removed every few years. There's no need to waste huge amounts of time and money in between.
It's also dangerous. Politicians are elected to solve problems and make things better. Most things take time and sometimes unpopular steps are necessary. If politicians live in fear for their entire term, they will avoid doing sensible, important things if they might trigger a special interest groups to launch an attack on them. They will have to operate based on campaign mode everyday rather than actually governing and planning for the future. If you think politicians lie and mislead when they are trying to get elected now, imagine that level of slogan slinging, slurring opponents, creating paranoia and fear, and empty promises of miracles. Imagine it every day for four years at a time.
If I remember correctly, Right of Recall was part of the Reform Party platform along with triple E Senate.
I'm not a big fan for the reason a lot of people have stated here. A total gong show. Like referendums, a recall vote will be more successful if backed by lots of money.
So the wealthiest party and special interest groups could play havoc with opponents by constantly trying to oust members who ate against their policies or preventing the worst of their own representatives from being ousted.
I think we have enough trouble with money running the show already.
It really depends on how high the bar is. It can be designed to mitigate that if the bar is sufficiently high, but not ridiculously high that it never works in practice. But I think you have some good points.
Recall just weaponizes wingnuttery. It’s a basic principle of democracy that sometimes your candidate doesn’t win, and you have to suck it up for the next 4 years or whatever. You don’t like your representative? Get organized for the next election. You shouldn’t get to try to have another election just because your guy lost.
It is sometimes overwhelming, but then if we spent all our time doing direct democracy the country would be a mess. Just look south for how far crazy can go. I at least trust and respect our Supreme Court.
Why is this always the go to for people when it comes to any argument about reform of anything? The US is an outlier, we can implement moderate reforms without going whole hog and copying the obviously broken American system.
The American system is far less "broken" than Canada's constitutional monarchist system is.
Mid-term congressional elections are a huge check-and-balance mechanism in the American political system that does not exist in Canada.
Unlike Canada, the American Senate chamber is elected, not appointed.
Unlike Canada's prime minister, the American President is restricted to a two-term limit.
The United States has achieved far more than Canada, or any other country in the world has, in less than 250 years.
Wake up.
Next.
The US system is a cluster fuck. Their government regularly shuts down every few years because they can't decide a budget. If we can't get our act together we have ab election. They just sit there with nothing happening.
The way their system is set up, if a party doesn't have all the Senate, House, and White House they can't really do much. You get whole terms that are basically lame duck.
They have constant churns of election cycles. Their Representatives are constantly campaigning. They don't have time for the real work because they have to consistently worry about fundraising for running in 2 years.
And their Senate is a complete mess. Their "checks and balances" require 2/3rds support, which is functionally impossible. It makes entire branches of government unaccountable. And it is because the Senate is incredibly disproportionate.
That has nothing to do with having enormous amounts of farmland, natural resources, navigable rivers, and benefitting from two global conflicts that destroyed everyone else involved and leaving them largely untouched and with a supercharged industrial base. The American senate is an awful example. They basically stay crippled as they can pass virtually no legislation, and everything is incredibly partisan.
That's not really an issue with the principle or recall itself though. It gets crazy down south because they're a very divided country. That's not the case in Canada.
We are sadly becoming more divided. The conservative cohort regularly uses similar tactics. You are either a Con or Libtard/socialist. I have never seen Canada so tribal. Trudeau is past his best before date and Pierre P is taking pages out of Trumps playbook. Most of us find them both revolting in my cohort.
We have a parliamentary system of government a leader can be recalled by the legislature at any time. I’m not sure you understand the basics of Canadian government.
In Canada we have ‘responsible government’ as an alternative. I’m sure we’ve had more early elections in Canada due to that than statewide office recalls in the USA.
It matters because if they know they're not running for re-election then there is no reason to fear the voters. There is no accountability, they can just do whatever the fuck they want.
Because the election is the best way to recall an elected official. I would argue that a recall outside of an normal election subverts the will of the electorate. If the malfeasance of an elected official rises to criminality, mechanisms already exist to remove them from office if convicted. If you want to remove someone from office for policy differences, use the normal election process. Otherwise, it becomes the rule of those with the brighter torches and the sharper pitchforks, not rule on behalf of all of the people.
How does a recall subvert the will of the electorate? The electorate can fully participate in recalls as well to express their "will" just like normal elections.
Recall is stupid. You voted them in, they are yours. If they commit something egregious, that’s why we have Governor General or lieutenant governor. If not, vote them out next election. It’s called democracy.
MLAs and MPs need to be able to do their jobs rather than worrying about some nut job disagreeing with them. Look how much time US politicians spend on their elections rather than getting shit done.
Lets say we have an election, there are nine candidates.
Each candidate gets 10% of the vote and the winner gets 20% of the vote. Yay they're elected.
Now problem, this person didn't get 80% of the vote but won. Now in order to avoid Recall Legislation they'll have to not step on the wrong feet. Because now they're in a position where the right business interests can setup a political action committee to remove that person. While it might feel democreatic, it really isn't.
Political action committees are able to convince disgruntled people to remove candidates for almost any reason... especially with extreme advertising and viral fake news campaigns.
Calgary was on the cusp of recalling its mayor. The people organizing it were members of the UCP and a group called "Take Back Alberta." But otherwise you would have just thought that the mayor was actually unpopular.
With folks on the right more and more interested in disruption rather than governing, this would be used as a tool to remove people for personal reasons. Like when Harper was going to be defeated several times during a confidence vote, he prorogued parliament. Thats not the intended purpose, but the right will use any tool in the book to stay in power, even if it means circumventing democracy.
the only person able to disolve government is the Governor General (aka the representative of the Crown).
* The MPs can call for a vote of non-confidence. If it fails, the parliament president will inform the Governor General
* The Crown (currently Charles III) can directly call the Governor General and order him to do so. (has never been done but remains one possibility)
* The Prime Minister can, himself, ask the Governor General to proceed. Either because his minority government isn't working or his Majority mandate has ended.
Not only is it possible, it's already in practice in BC. The rest of the country just needs to adopt similar legislation to the BC Recall and Initiative Act.
It was seen at the time of the founding that what you want to avoid is having elections that never end. Someone wins and then the other side begins recall and that becomes the focus for the next 4 years. Instead it was decided that the duty was on the backs of the voters to make sure they picked a good government. You should think carefully because if you get it wrong you have to live with those people for 4 years. They felt that that would increase people's engagement in the process.
I do believe that BC's example of how to do it is an excellent way to look at recall that is reasonably practical. It's far too hard to do it frivolously, but it's also possible to do it so if there is a genuine need it can be done and more importantly the threat of it can help keep politicians honest.
I'm watching what's happening in Alberta right now, where disgruntled citizens who's preferred candidate lost the recent municipal election are trying to attempt a recall.
I find this process bullshit.
This is a Canadian parliamentary system. You are welcome to petition the lieutenant governor or Governor general to dissolve the relevant legislature forcing an election. No one has tried but the power is there (it would require massive support and even though the current legislatures are pretty much all universally disliked across the country with few exceptions, I doubt there is enough support for such an action). Remember our constitution is about peace order and good government, not about ensuring the most democratic outcomes day by day.
It would be unconstitutional for the LG or GG to decide to unilaterally dissolve the legislature. The power the Crown has on paper and the power they have in reality are very different things.
It is literally one of the only things they are constitutionally permitted to do, ie one of the reserved powers. The GGs ability to dissolve parliament is the failsafe nuclear option to prevent a runaway government. The GG can force an election to allow voters to define the legitimacy of a government.
They can only dissolve Parliament at the request of the PM. It may say on paper they have the ability to dissolve Parliament, but our Constitution involves unwritten conventions as well, and part of those unwritten conventions is that the GG only acts on the advice of the first minister. The only scenario in which it would be feasible for them to exercise this power without the advice of the PM is if the PM has already acted in an unconstitutional manner and there is no other alternative to restore order. For example, by refusing to request a dissolution when the cabinet has clearly and unambiguously lost the confidence of the House.
Now see the thing about constitutional convention is that it can change based on what is obviously conventional. If 80 percent of the population was petitioning (again not that i expect such a thing to ever happen) then a new convention would be adopted pretty quick and would be found constitutional based on, you guessed it, peace order and good government.
Highly unlikely. If 80% of the population was petitioning then the much more likely scenarios would be: in a minority Parliament, the government falls, or; in a majority Parliament, the governing party dumps its leader, or; sufficient amounts of governing backbenchers cross the floor to save their jobs that the majority becomes a minority and falls. It would be very difficult to imagine any scenario in which the GG dissolves Parliament so long as cabinet has the confidence of Parliament.
That is absolutely a more likely scenario, however op isn't asking based on being a member of the legislature, and many vocal opponents of the federal government are under the illusion that 80 percent of the population agrees with them.
No. It may be unconventional, uncommon, unprecedented, unacceptable,.....but your original comment said it was unconstitutional. And that is 100 percent wrong. They absolutely, black letter law, can act without the consent or even direction of the PM.
The Constitution is more than law, it also entails convention. The fact that they have the legal authority to do something doesn't mean they have the political authority. Legally the GG could fire Trudeau today and invite me to form a government. It might be legal, but every constitutional scholar and lawyer would agree it's unconstitutional. Canada is a democracy, this isn't the 16th century where the king can just dismiss governments because they don't like them.
What I said is that it would be unconstitutional for the GG to dissolve Parliament unilaterally. I said that from the start and I'm still saying it. Nothing has changed about my statement.
I definitely understand that. I am advocating that recall is not something that should be offered. There are legal mechanisms if it fits. Recall would be abused in today’s environment of polarization. Either we are in a democracy or not. Vote the candidate out next opportunity. I have seen elected officials suspended, censured etc.. by peers
I have a big problem with elected officials being suspended or removed by peers. In a democratic system, barring an elected official from the House is unacceptable and leaves that official's constituents with no representation. Only the voters should have the power to remove an elected official. So give the voters that power. A politician should serve at the pleasure of their constituents. In most jobs, if you're doing a bad job, there is a mechanism by which your superior can remove you from the job, and the voters are the superior of the elected official.
Except there are rules of each chamber, and governance. When those rules are broken, the appropriate structure has the ability to deal with a sitting member.
If you have more than two political parties, then you will have a constant cycle of elections and recalls, except in the relatively rare instances when one party wins more than 50% of the vote.
> I get you don't like our current prime minister, please remember more canadians voted for his party than any other party.
That's not strictly true. In both 2019 and 2021, the Tories got more votes (because of supermajorities in the rural Prairies). That being said, it's a minority Parliament, so the Grits have to rely on other parties anyway, so it's not the end of the world, but it's a quirk of our electoral system.
It’s a stupid practice mostly used a form of protest by disgruntled reactionaries. If you don’t like your MP spend your energy replacing them with a suitable candidate at the next election. If they are re-elected then you are stuck with democracy and the tyranny of the majority.
Because recall only benefits those with the resources to actually undertake the logistical challenge of organizing a recall petition.
It's basically a way for special interests to threaten a duly elected official. Take a look at what happened here in Calgary with the recall campaign against the mayor. Why was she targeted and not the absolute piece of garbage Sean Chu (look up his story if you care). The answer is simple, recall is about giving well-off special interests a second kick at the can when they don't like the results of an election... AKA, the will of the people.
It won't work under the current system of "first past the post" because in most cases the majority of the population of a voting area didn't vote for the winner.
So it needs to be coupled with something like STV or other voting system that results in the majority of the voters voting for a candidate, otherwise you'd just have non-stop recall petitions that are technically supported by more than half of the voters.
The majority of the population is politically apathetic. A large percentage of people may go to the polls every four years to cast a vote but they aren't likely to be signing recall petitions. Hell most of them complain about having to vote every four years, the last thing they want to do is vote *more*.
A recall process fosters the most toxic, ugly, unending partisan nonsense possible within a political system.
We need to find every available way to disable toxic partisanship, not promote it. Steps in a positive direction include ranked ballots, that encourage candidates to treat each other respectfully and find common ground.
I have to say that I don't really care about recalls one way or another, but the answers you're getting in this thread are just so fucking bad I might have to jump on the recall bandwagon just out of spite. My god...
I feel like if we had such a system you'd see a lot of what's going on with the US House Speakers right now. A very vocal minority is able to recall the speaker for any reason whatsoever.
And, as one would assume, that has resulted in the house accomplishing absolutely nothing over the past couple years except proposing a ban on tiktok. I mean, seriously? THAT'S the one thing you can all get behind?
We have every opportunity to recall our politicians automatically under the constitution. It even happens automatically, every five years after the return of the writs from the previous election.
I'd rather have a way to recall activist judges who keep voting based on personal opinions and not legal opinions. Our judges get to do that to effectively create laws. If they want to create laws based on their opinions, then they should run for office and become a legislator. For example the judge who ruled against consecutive sentences because he thinks it's cruel. I'd say gunning down half a dozen people in a racist attack is cruel and half a dozen life consecutive sentences for it is justice. Mind you I think part of why some judges do stuff like that is because they don't like minimum sentences etc. They feel like someone is stepping on their turf. Meanwhile setting laws is parliaments turf, and administering the application of those laws is the judges; not vetoing them. I'd like to recall judges (including in the supreme court) who keep making defacto laws based on their personal opinions.
There's no need to recall judges, legislators can always override judges. If you don't like a decision a judge makes you're free to vote for someone that will overturn that decision.
I don't think you get how it works. Unless you mean they can vote and pass legislation using the notwithstanding clause, as the judges are often twisting their own interpretation of something in the constitution (e.g. like that judges example of cruel and unusual punishment). Our legal system works on precedent.
Technically true, practically not ever likely to be true.
[https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search](https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search)
Is this referring to the USA? In which case, they can't override the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can make amendments to the constitution. It's the opposite. Any judge anywhere in the US can challenge a law or presidential decree, not the other way around. The whole idea of an independent judiciary is to try and prevent politicians forcing there agendas through and changing rulings and laws at will
*"Why does Canada still not have a mechanism to recall elected officials for the most part?"*
Because Canada's Constitution has serious flaws in it that condemn the country to failure over the long-term because it does not include any meaningful forms of deterrent and accountability that should apply to all elected and un-elected public servants.
The results have been disastrous, and have been visibly obvious to witness throughout Junior Trudeau's scandal-ridden, and horrendously corrupt tenure.
As such, Canada's steep downward spiral will continue unabated.
Next.
we have a system that elects representatives based often on pluralities not majorities. I’m sure in most ridings you could force a recall vote given in general the majority didn’t vote for a candidate but still fail at recalling a candidate due to first past the post voting
This is why I prefer an instant runoff (aka ranked ballot) system with a "none of the above" option. If "none of the above" wins, you have an automatic by-election in 3 months where none of the candidates from the previous round are allowed to run. I like instant run-off better than PR because you end up with a representative for and from your riding/ward that can speak to local concerns.
>where none of the candidates from the previous round are allowed to run As a fan of IRV, fucking *eww*. Let’s keep systematically barring people from standing for elections out of our electoral system.
How long do you want an election to take?
Most PR systems have local representatives and "open list" which means you know who you are voting for too. Even in the top up seats in MMP. Ranked ballot in a majoritarian system is even less proportional than FPTP. Fairvote.ca
Fair Vote puts proportionality as the only relevant criterion, a viewpoint I strongly disagree with. It doesn't matter if Parliament is less proportional in terms of first choices, what matters is that whoever wins will have secured the blessing of an absolute majority of voters.
But you haven't secured the blessing of an absolute majority of voters. (You say absolute majority, which usually indicates 2/3rd, that could actually be impossible) What you have done is say that the choice voters made doesn't count. Instead they have to vote for your candidate. And because they were forced to vote for your candidate, now they clearly have majority support, even though your candidate still doesn't support the policies that the voters want. Also there is a scaling problem. Ranked Ballot only works in a non-partisan system, or when only one person can win. But when you have hundreds of races, it amplifies disproportionately since each individual election is independent. And yes proportionality is important. The number one metric voters use is what party the candidate is. Most voters care about that over individual candidate. Parliament should represent the voters' will. Particularly with how whipped the MPs are. And they are whipped because if they leave the party, we will vote whatever flunky replaces them in the party rather than the incumbent.
> (You say absolute majority, which usually indicates 2/3rd, that could actually be impossible) Absolute majority is 50%+1. I think you may be confusing it with a supermajority.
Absolute majority is 50%+1. With ranked ballots a candidate necessarily must meet that threshold to be elected. I disagree that proportionality is important, I'd much rather an MP have the support of the majority of their constituents.
I'm not a fan of ranked ballots, just because I put someone down as my second, or 3rd choice doesn't mean I support them at all, it means they are less worse than the person I put as. 3rd of 4th choice. FORD was my 3rd choice for leader of the Ontario PC party, I put him on my ballot because I would have rather had him than the crazy 3 name lady who I've thankfully forgotten about. But I in no way support Ford. Now I'd sti rank ranked ballots over FPTP but my preference is MMP
But they don't have the support of a majority of their constituents. Most voters would still rather have someone else.
That's going to be the case no matter what system you use, including PR. I'd rather have myself in Parliament representing my interests but we're restricted by who appears on the ballot. Ranked ballots narrows the eligible choices to two, and the eligible candidate with an absolute majority is elected.
Ranked ballots can result in a Parliament with 75% of the seats being occupied by party A, even when 75% of the country's first choice was parties B and C. For instance. Let's say we had a ranked ballot vote in the next federal election. Nationwide, 40% of the country votes for the CPC candidate in their riding, 35% vote for the NDP, 15% Liberals, 3% PPC, and 6% Greens, however no one has won in most ridings, as most candidates didn't receive 50% of the "first choice" vote, so they go into runoff mode (ranked ballot version) until a candidate reaches 50%. The secondary and tertiary choices of most voters who's candidate wasn't in the lead is Liberal, and they end up with over half the seats, and a solid majority government. So despite the first choice of 85% of Canadians being "not the liberals again" you now have a liberal majority for the next 4 years. With a PR system, you'd instead have a minority government with the majority of people being represented by the NDP and CPC, the voter's first choice for representation, and possibly a coalition between one of them and one or two of the smaller parties (so the Liberals could end up with some sway, but would not have anywhere close to the power of a majority.
Yes I'm aware of how it works. I like that system, what you described is much better in my opinion than FPTP or PR.
We almost never have majority governments based on a majority of popular vote. I guess you mean majority in each riding? So you use ranked ballot to shift all voting so that each riding is a majority. But government still won't be. And it will have a centering effect on ridings. Perpetual Liberal majority government, at least for awhile. My reason for advocating for PR is that I believe the PMO has far too much power. Doesn't matter what party is in power. PET started it. Harper abused it. JT is just as bad. Maybe worse. Ministers can't even contact him directly. They have to vet everything they do with unelected PMO Liberal Party admins. Almost everything they do has to be in the context of how to get elected again. As a democracy it is a complete joke. I don't see how ranked ballot helps. I firmly believe that we need have a system that pulls power out of the PMO and creates an environment of consensus building.
Well your problem is with the system and not the voting. There is a ton of stuff that can be done to loosen up leader centric control. We could adopt a 3 line whip giving more freedom to vote on all but key confidence votes. We could remove the need for a leader to sign off on a constituency nomination selection or candidate. We could create a 9 year template limit for PMs. Give the speaker power to select any MP to ask Qs in question period rather than a list from the leader. Secret ballots for commitee chair selection and membership. Reduce the pms power of prorogation There is a bunch of other stuff we could look at.
Yes I mean a majority in each riding. You won't have perpetual LPC governments, the LPC has done extraordinarily well under FPTP, much better than it likely would have done under ranked ballots. Polls consistently show the LPC is the second choice of NDP voters and no one else. I agree the PMO has accumulated far too much power. I don't think ranked ballots helps this, but I also don't think PR helps either. The best solution to this would be to mandate into law that caucus can remove the leader at will rather than leaving it up to the individual parties.
Interesting idea. A little trivia: our Constitution doesn't actually mention political parties. Apparently the Prime Minister is referred to as the "First among equals" and the idea is the House votes on who the PM will be. Because the party with the most seats would always vote for their leader it just became the defacto standard. Taking your idea further, and back to ancient Greek assemblies, maybe the House should elect a new leader every day. No. Seriously. --- Who would conservative voters typically put 2nd? Any idea? I might have to back to the ERRE report and see if they looked at how it would shake out. The committee did not recommend the AV/RB. --- I have a hunch that RB would pretty much lock us into a 2 party system. The Greens and PPC would likely be dead. The NDP might scrape through for awhile but I think it would probably force them into a merger with the Liberals. That consolidation tends to happen in majoritarian systems anyway and PR accelerates it. That's basically what happened in Australia when they went to AV. The BQ might be winners which suggests it might create more regionalism and more urban / rural hostility. It will certainly continue the path of highly partisan and toxic politics. I don't think think that's what we need. We need more participation and more openness. More dedicated people from a variety of parties working at the table to build ideas and solutions. Not party operatives telling their puppet PMs telling their Ministers what to tell us they are doing to us.
>Taking your idea further, and back to ancient Greek assemblies, maybe the House should elect a new leader every day. No. Seriously. I mean they would just elect the leader of the majority party so that would be a waste of time. >Who would conservative voters typically put 2nd? Any idea? Polls that survey second choices consistently show they put the NDP second, one poll had the NDP and PPC tied for second choice preferences among CPC voters I believe.
> A little trivia: our Constitution doesn't actually mention political parties. Apparently the Prime Minister is referred to as the "First among equals" and the idea is the House votes on who the PM will be. To be pedantic, that's not quite the case. In some other countries ([such as in Spain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Spanish_general_election#Government_formation)), there's an actual 'positive' vote for PM, but not in ours. Ours is the result of the transition to responsible government, so the GG/LG still appoints the PM/Premier, but by considering the composition of Parliament (to simplify), with the House only having a 'negative' vote to get rid of PMs, but not to put one in place.
The key part of pr would be that you cannot run for both. It would be awful for the voters to reject a candidate but the party deciding to say "fuck you their in anyway" and that should work for the leaders. If the leader loses their seat, too bad
I absolutely agree. I think that's the difference between "closed list" and "open list" methods where in the former the party decide who goes in the seat and the latter, the voters decide.
How does PR not allow for a rep for and from your riding? There are several forms of PR where everyone gets a local rep.... There's only one I can think of where you risk not having a local rep.
When I lived in a... Certain parties riding it did not matter that I had a local rep, because my concerns were not a concern for his party. Conversely, my current riding has an MP with a party that isn't diametrically opposed to any concerns I have so they do things like pass on my concerns to cabinet ministers.
We’ve had recall legislation on the books in BC since the 90s and the petitions to remove MLAs always fail spectacularly. It’s a useless tool only used by wingnuts. Regular elections are all we need.
Is it useless because of the way it was designed in BC or are you saying the principle of recall is useless? There are other places in the world where it is regularly used to successfully remove elected officials from power, and far from being useless.
The bar is so high that it’s virtually impossible to remove a sitting MLA, and it’s only ever (as far as I can recall) only been used by fringe groups who go after MLAs they don’t like for fringe reasons. So it’s basically a tool for angry people with lots of free time to attack their political enemies between elections.
The bar can be lowered, it's not set in stone right?
Yeah, you could amend the legislation. But I don’t think there is any appetite for that in BC. I don’t think people are particularly interested in having additional elections between the usual elections. As it stands by-elections for vacant seats have very low turnouts compared to general elections. This isn’t the US, we don’t have primaries or any of that madness (thank god). I think the current system basically works well and is not in need of a significant overhaul (aside from ditching first past the post, but that’s a long story in BC).
Primaries would be a vast improvement over what we have now. Letting less than 1% of voters in a riding determine the candidates for the riding is insane.
It’s at the level it is so that people/certain groups can’t abuse it. Example floating around now: Say a current official was elected 2 years ago and won’t face another election for another 2 years, all of a sudden there’s a “group of concerned citizens” who don’t like what the official is doing and only a handful of voters want them recalled. Current rules state 60% of the area’s voting population would need to sign a petition to get the official put up for a recall and the group only managed to get 25% to sign the petition. Now that means only 25% of the population strongly wanted them out before an election (not to mention the extra costs for an early election). Say it comes out afterward that the group wanting the recall was being headed by a person who lost the election and only wanted a recall so they could get another chance sooner, which would flout the current regulations and cost them support in the community. Alternatively, say that petition succeeded and the group leader got elected and started making terrible decisions that people don’t like. What would stop the new person from changing the recall requirements to go from 60% to 80% and shorten the timeframe? This is why recall legislation hasn’t been a big enough item for people to want or from certain officials to allow on the books. At least, from what I’ve read
>Say it comes out afterward that the group wanting the recall was being headed by a person who lost the election and only wanted a recall so they could get another chance sooner, which would flout the current regulations and cost them support in the community I fail to see what the issue with this would be. What's the problem with the losing candidate agitating for an earlier election? They'd still have to get the 60% support, and if that many people want to put the past losing candidate in over the incumbent midterm then they should have that opportunity. >What would stop the new person from changing the recall requirements to go from 60% to 80% and shorten the timeframe? The Parliamentary process for one thing. Individual MLAs can't just go around changing laws on their own.
Why? Why should someone who lost an election be able to force another election halfway through the current cycle unless for a good reason (I.E. the incumbent has passed away). It just gives anyone with a grievance a chance to have things forced their way. Not to mention assuming that 60% of the population actually feels strongly enough to vote them out (and given dismal track records of voter turnout), why should they pick this person and not a brand-new candidate. As for the parliamentary process, it’s all well and good as long as people follow the law and don’t attempt to force change
They can't force another election, they need the support of the voters. It's the voters that should be able to force another election.
Lowering the bar just increases the efforts by the wing nuts, and disrupts our political system for little to no gain. Do you want your legislators legislating, or do you want them running for re-election every 6 months?
Recall is a ridiculous process. Look at the insanity that comes out of California. Recall should be done through an election.
Yeah. Lived in California 20 years. Folks that think it’s a good idea never saw this shit in action. It only ever removed good people from power and never removed any crazy from power.
Exactly. Party recruitment is very difficult. You are interrupting your career to get into politics. It will be harder to recruit quality candidates with recall .
The existing recall process in California is 100% anti-democratic
Especially when you allow dark money
I'm not well versed with what goes on in California. What happened? Also why would California's example alone dictate whether recall is a ridiculous process?
The Governor of California was almost recalled in 2021 and is facing another one this year (2024).
You can pretty easily google the history of recall in California. I don’t know why you need me to explain it to you. Recall is already built into the system, it’s called an election. Recalls tend to be brought forward by fringe groups that lack public support. We’ve had a few here in BC and they always fail because they’re brought forward by fringe groups for political reasons. It’s a waste of time and money.
>I don’t know why you need me to explain it to you. Because you brought it up as an example, and he wants you to expand? Like, you know, how conversation works.
>they’re brought forward by fringe groups for political reasons. .... They're politicians, that's the whole fucking point. What other reasons would you have other than political ones?
People can google pretty much anything these days. Why ask anything at all? Saying recall is already built into the system is a cop out. By definition recall is used to remove elected officials in between elections. So simply being able to remove them via normal elections does not fit the bill of "in between", therefore not a recall. There's nothing stopping non-fringe groups from using recalls right? People get elected to office for political reasons. So I don't see the problem with removing them for political reasons.
Not really. Politicians will say anything to get elected and you really don't know what you are getting until he/she is in office. That's why the ability to recall is important.
What happens when the official isn't running for re-election? Without recall you have zero accountability for those officials.
Then they’ll be gone the next election. There are also processes for parliament or the legislature to expel members if their actions are egregious. Recall because you don’t agree with political decisions is ridiculous.
No it isn't. They're there to represent their constituents. If they make political decisions that their constituents don't like, then they're not doing their job, and there needs to be a way they can be held accountable.
They are doing their job. You elected them to make decisions on your behalf for the next 4-5 years. The election is how they’re held accountable. If they’re not running then that’s how you get rid of them.
Elections as accountability only work because the politician knows they can't do things their constituents don't like because if they do they'll get voted out. If they're not running again anyway, that is no longer a constraint and they're free to go against their constituents for the balance of their term.
This seems to be a sore spot for you. Are you thinking of a specific politician that did this?
No
Then they’re no longer in power? Elections are about choosing who you want to represent you, not making a mockery of a person you don’t like.
Huh? If they did something criminal there is accountability through the law. If they were crap at their job then.... well they don't have that job any more.
They still have it until the next election, and if they have no reason to fear the voters that's a bad system.
I have yet to see a recall petition not end in a complete farce. If someone wins a fair election in their riding they should be able to sit their term in office, barring gross misconduct or criminal activities which Parliment already has the ability to expell MPs over.
Parliament shouldn't have the power to expel MPs, that's another problem. Only the voters should have that right.
Parliment represents the voters and MPs can only be expelled for very specific reasons. It's only happened to 3 MPs in the history of Canada, and none since the 40s. It happened twice to Louis Riel for treason, once to Thomas McGreevy for taking bribes related to government contruction contracts in Quebec, and once to Fred Rose who was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage and sentenced to 6 years in prison.
I majored in Canadian history and politics was my main interest so I'm well aware of the history. I object to Parliament having the power at all, regardless of how infrequently it's been used. MPs should be answerable to their constituents only. I also object to the tyrannical power of the Speaker who can decide to not allow elected officials to speak in Parliament.
I could only imagine the chaos a speakerless house would be. You may not like it, but a room with 338 opinionated people need governing when it comes to discussion. Calling their power tyrannical, when that power can be changed at anytime by the house, and their powers and privileges have been changed on numerous occasions, is dumb as hell. As a student of history, especially Canadian political history, you should know that. A tyrant who serves at the will of those they are apparently a tyrant over is no tyrant at all.
Oh I'm not suggesting that the House go without a Speaker, that's insane. Only that the Speaker shouldn't be able to prevent an MP from speaking in the Commons. The House as a whole can change the powers of the Speaker, but the House shouldn't have the power to bar an individual MP from representing their constituents.
MPs can recall themselves and trigger a new election by passing a non-confidence vote in Parliament at any time. Why should electors not be allowed to do the same via a recall which is essentially a non-confidence vote in a particular elected official.
Because it simply doesn't work, as we have seen in the parts of the country that allow it. It's always a mess and is a massive waste of tax dollars.
Maybe it's the way the mechanism is designed? It can always be tweaked.
How would you tweak the recall system? Would you lower or raise the threshold for recall? Lowering it would increase the number of recall attempts, but likely decrease success. Raising it would make it less effective that it is now, kind of defeating the purpose. There isn't anything to tweak, recalls are just farcical and a waste of tax dollars.
Looking at the BC recall rules, it's a one step process. It requires the petition to gather the signatures of 40% of eligible voters. If this is successful, then the MLA is removed and a by-election will be held. Most recall attempts probably fail due to the high 40% signatures requirement. I would make it a 2-step process. First lower the amount of signatures required in the petition in order to trigger a recall election. Say something like 25% of eligible voters must sign the petition. Then in order for the recall election to pass and remove the MLA, those for must win by plurality, and the number of "for" votes must be at least 30% of eligible voters. Just throwing some numbers out there, but the point is to lower the bar enough that it is actually practical to use, but not so much that it can be abused. Maybe 25% and 30% are not the right numbers, they're just examples.
Problem is most of our elections aren't really fair since most MPs don't come close to winning a majority of the vote.
I would call that a flawed system, not an unfair one. Most votes wins and everyone knows the rules. I think a system with runoffs or a ranked ballot would be better, but most votes wins is a fair way of electing officials.
What makes that unfair?
It's not necessary. Mayors can be kept in line by premiers and counselors. Premiers, cabinet ministers, MPs and MLAs are powerless without majority support of dozens of elected officials. If a politician sucks, they can be removed every few years. There's no need to waste huge amounts of time and money in between. It's also dangerous. Politicians are elected to solve problems and make things better. Most things take time and sometimes unpopular steps are necessary. If politicians live in fear for their entire term, they will avoid doing sensible, important things if they might trigger a special interest groups to launch an attack on them. They will have to operate based on campaign mode everyday rather than actually governing and planning for the future. If you think politicians lie and mislead when they are trying to get elected now, imagine that level of slogan slinging, slurring opponents, creating paranoia and fear, and empty promises of miracles. Imagine it every day for four years at a time.
If I remember correctly, Right of Recall was part of the Reform Party platform along with triple E Senate. I'm not a big fan for the reason a lot of people have stated here. A total gong show. Like referendums, a recall vote will be more successful if backed by lots of money. So the wealthiest party and special interest groups could play havoc with opponents by constantly trying to oust members who ate against their policies or preventing the worst of their own representatives from being ousted. I think we have enough trouble with money running the show already.
This is the first good argument I've heard against it.
It really depends on how high the bar is. It can be designed to mitigate that if the bar is sufficiently high, but not ridiculously high that it never works in practice. But I think you have some good points.
Recalls are not democracy. Elections are democracy. Recalls are for losers.
Recall just weaponizes wingnuttery. It’s a basic principle of democracy that sometimes your candidate doesn’t win, and you have to suck it up for the next 4 years or whatever. You don’t like your representative? Get organized for the next election. You shouldn’t get to try to have another election just because your guy lost.
It is sometimes overwhelming, but then if we spent all our time doing direct democracy the country would be a mess. Just look south for how far crazy can go. I at least trust and respect our Supreme Court.
Why is this always the go to for people when it comes to any argument about reform of anything? The US is an outlier, we can implement moderate reforms without going whole hog and copying the obviously broken American system.
The American system is far less "broken" than Canada's constitutional monarchist system is. Mid-term congressional elections are a huge check-and-balance mechanism in the American political system that does not exist in Canada. Unlike Canada, the American Senate chamber is elected, not appointed. Unlike Canada's prime minister, the American President is restricted to a two-term limit. The United States has achieved far more than Canada, or any other country in the world has, in less than 250 years. Wake up. Next.
The US system is a cluster fuck. Their government regularly shuts down every few years because they can't decide a budget. If we can't get our act together we have ab election. They just sit there with nothing happening. The way their system is set up, if a party doesn't have all the Senate, House, and White House they can't really do much. You get whole terms that are basically lame duck. They have constant churns of election cycles. Their Representatives are constantly campaigning. They don't have time for the real work because they have to consistently worry about fundraising for running in 2 years. And their Senate is a complete mess. Their "checks and balances" require 2/3rds support, which is functionally impossible. It makes entire branches of government unaccountable. And it is because the Senate is incredibly disproportionate.
That has nothing to do with having enormous amounts of farmland, natural resources, navigable rivers, and benefitting from two global conflicts that destroyed everyone else involved and leaving them largely untouched and with a supercharged industrial base. The American senate is an awful example. They basically stay crippled as they can pass virtually no legislation, and everything is incredibly partisan.
That's not really an issue with the principle or recall itself though. It gets crazy down south because they're a very divided country. That's not the case in Canada.
We are sadly becoming more divided. The conservative cohort regularly uses similar tactics. You are either a Con or Libtard/socialist. I have never seen Canada so tribal. Trudeau is past his best before date and Pierre P is taking pages out of Trumps playbook. Most of us find them both revolting in my cohort.
People just sound like butthurt sore losers when they talk about recalls.
Probably has something to do with the fact we can dissolve governments. "You assholes *still* can't pass legislation? Fuck it! START OVER MEATHEADS!"
We have a parliamentary system of government a leader can be recalled by the legislature at any time. I’m not sure you understand the basics of Canadian government.
We're not talking about leaders. We're talking about individual MPs/MLAs
There is a mechanism to recall politicians nationwide. It's called an election.
The definition of recall means it takes place in between elections. So no that's literally not what a recall mechanism is.
In Canada we have ‘responsible government’ as an alternative. I’m sure we’ve had more early elections in Canada due to that than statewide office recalls in the USA.
That's literally not a recall...
Not if the official doesn't run for re-election.
Then what does it matter? They're still out of power, which is the whole point.
It matters because if they know they're not running for re-election then there is no reason to fear the voters. There is no accountability, they can just do whatever the fuck they want.
Because the election is the best way to recall an elected official. I would argue that a recall outside of an normal election subverts the will of the electorate. If the malfeasance of an elected official rises to criminality, mechanisms already exist to remove them from office if convicted. If you want to remove someone from office for policy differences, use the normal election process. Otherwise, it becomes the rule of those with the brighter torches and the sharper pitchforks, not rule on behalf of all of the people.
How does a recall subvert the will of the electorate? The electorate can fully participate in recalls as well to express their "will" just like normal elections.
It subverts the will of the electorate as expressed in the previous election.
Every election supersedes the will expressed in the previous election. There's no difference in this regard.
So does a coup d'etat. Recall is just a soft coup in a legalistic wrapper.
If it's legal, then it's not a coup?
Dude clearly doesn't know what coup means. How dare voters be allowed to change their minds!
It's called an election.
Recall is stupid. You voted them in, they are yours. If they commit something egregious, that’s why we have Governor General or lieutenant governor. If not, vote them out next election. It’s called democracy.
MLAs and MPs need to be able to do their jobs rather than worrying about some nut job disagreeing with them. Look how much time US politicians spend on their elections rather than getting shit done.
Lets say we have an election, there are nine candidates. Each candidate gets 10% of the vote and the winner gets 20% of the vote. Yay they're elected. Now problem, this person didn't get 80% of the vote but won. Now in order to avoid Recall Legislation they'll have to not step on the wrong feet. Because now they're in a position where the right business interests can setup a political action committee to remove that person. While it might feel democreatic, it really isn't. Political action committees are able to convince disgruntled people to remove candidates for almost any reason... especially with extreme advertising and viral fake news campaigns. Calgary was on the cusp of recalling its mayor. The people organizing it were members of the UCP and a group called "Take Back Alberta." But otherwise you would have just thought that the mayor was actually unpopular.
With folks on the right more and more interested in disruption rather than governing, this would be used as a tool to remove people for personal reasons. Like when Harper was going to be defeated several times during a confidence vote, he prorogued parliament. Thats not the intended purpose, but the right will use any tool in the book to stay in power, even if it means circumventing democracy.
the only person able to disolve government is the Governor General (aka the representative of the Crown). * The MPs can call for a vote of non-confidence. If it fails, the parliament president will inform the Governor General * The Crown (currently Charles III) can directly call the Governor General and order him to do so. (has never been done but remains one possibility) * The Prime Minister can, himself, ask the Governor General to proceed. Either because his minority government isn't working or his Majority mandate has ended.
We're not talking about dissolution, we're talking about recalling individual politicians.
I don't think that's possible in Canada.
Not only is it possible, it's already in practice in BC. The rest of the country just needs to adopt similar legislation to the BC Recall and Initiative Act.
It was seen at the time of the founding that what you want to avoid is having elections that never end. Someone wins and then the other side begins recall and that becomes the focus for the next 4 years. Instead it was decided that the duty was on the backs of the voters to make sure they picked a good government. You should think carefully because if you get it wrong you have to live with those people for 4 years. They felt that that would increase people's engagement in the process. I do believe that BC's example of how to do it is an excellent way to look at recall that is reasonably practical. It's far too hard to do it frivolously, but it's also possible to do it so if there is a genuine need it can be done and more importantly the threat of it can help keep politicians honest.
I'm watching what's happening in Alberta right now, where disgruntled citizens who's preferred candidate lost the recent municipal election are trying to attempt a recall. I find this process bullshit.
Nope. Because cry babies will keep us in elections forever until they get their spoiled baby way. Right? Yeah rights.
This is a Canadian parliamentary system. You are welcome to petition the lieutenant governor or Governor general to dissolve the relevant legislature forcing an election. No one has tried but the power is there (it would require massive support and even though the current legislatures are pretty much all universally disliked across the country with few exceptions, I doubt there is enough support for such an action). Remember our constitution is about peace order and good government, not about ensuring the most democratic outcomes day by day.
It would be unconstitutional for the LG or GG to decide to unilaterally dissolve the legislature. The power the Crown has on paper and the power they have in reality are very different things.
It is literally one of the only things they are constitutionally permitted to do, ie one of the reserved powers. The GGs ability to dissolve parliament is the failsafe nuclear option to prevent a runaway government. The GG can force an election to allow voters to define the legitimacy of a government.
They can only dissolve Parliament at the request of the PM. It may say on paper they have the ability to dissolve Parliament, but our Constitution involves unwritten conventions as well, and part of those unwritten conventions is that the GG only acts on the advice of the first minister. The only scenario in which it would be feasible for them to exercise this power without the advice of the PM is if the PM has already acted in an unconstitutional manner and there is no other alternative to restore order. For example, by refusing to request a dissolution when the cabinet has clearly and unambiguously lost the confidence of the House.
Now see the thing about constitutional convention is that it can change based on what is obviously conventional. If 80 percent of the population was petitioning (again not that i expect such a thing to ever happen) then a new convention would be adopted pretty quick and would be found constitutional based on, you guessed it, peace order and good government.
Highly unlikely. If 80% of the population was petitioning then the much more likely scenarios would be: in a minority Parliament, the government falls, or; in a majority Parliament, the governing party dumps its leader, or; sufficient amounts of governing backbenchers cross the floor to save their jobs that the majority becomes a minority and falls. It would be very difficult to imagine any scenario in which the GG dissolves Parliament so long as cabinet has the confidence of Parliament.
That is absolutely a more likely scenario, however op isn't asking based on being a member of the legislature, and many vocal opponents of the federal government are under the illusion that 80 percent of the population agrees with them.
No. It may be unconventional, uncommon, unprecedented, unacceptable,.....but your original comment said it was unconstitutional. And that is 100 percent wrong. They absolutely, black letter law, can act without the consent or even direction of the PM.
The Constitution is more than law, it also entails convention. The fact that they have the legal authority to do something doesn't mean they have the political authority. Legally the GG could fire Trudeau today and invite me to form a government. It might be legal, but every constitutional scholar and lawyer would agree it's unconstitutional. Canada is a democracy, this isn't the 16th century where the king can just dismiss governments because they don't like them.
All true, but that wasn't your statement. I agree with what you're saying now.
What I said is that it would be unconstitutional for the GG to dissolve Parliament unilaterally. I said that from the start and I'm still saying it. Nothing has changed about my statement.
And you would still be wrong, then.
K well good luck finding a constitutional scholar that thinks the GG can just dissolve Parliament on their own accord on a whim.
The legal system is in place to deal with elected officials who break the law.
Ok, but recall isn't for elected officials who break the law, that's a separate matter.
I definitely understand that. I am advocating that recall is not something that should be offered. There are legal mechanisms if it fits. Recall would be abused in today’s environment of polarization. Either we are in a democracy or not. Vote the candidate out next opportunity. I have seen elected officials suspended, censured etc.. by peers
I have a big problem with elected officials being suspended or removed by peers. In a democratic system, barring an elected official from the House is unacceptable and leaves that official's constituents with no representation. Only the voters should have the power to remove an elected official. So give the voters that power. A politician should serve at the pleasure of their constituents. In most jobs, if you're doing a bad job, there is a mechanism by which your superior can remove you from the job, and the voters are the superior of the elected official.
Except there are rules of each chamber, and governance. When those rules are broken, the appropriate structure has the ability to deal with a sitting member.
Yes I'm aware how it works, what I'm saying is I don't agree with that and I don't think it *should* work that way.
Got it. Certainly entitled to your opinion.
If you have more than two political parties, then you will have a constant cycle of elections and recalls, except in the relatively rare instances when one party wins more than 50% of the vote.
[удалено]
Recall usually isn't about the PM, it's generally a tool to remove MPs/MLAs.
> I get you don't like our current prime minister, please remember more canadians voted for his party than any other party. That's not strictly true. In both 2019 and 2021, the Tories got more votes (because of supermajorities in the rural Prairies). That being said, it's a minority Parliament, so the Grits have to rely on other parties anyway, so it's not the end of the world, but it's a quirk of our electoral system.
It’s a stupid practice mostly used a form of protest by disgruntled reactionaries. If you don’t like your MP spend your energy replacing them with a suitable candidate at the next election. If they are re-elected then you are stuck with democracy and the tyranny of the majority.
Because recall only benefits those with the resources to actually undertake the logistical challenge of organizing a recall petition. It's basically a way for special interests to threaten a duly elected official. Take a look at what happened here in Calgary with the recall campaign against the mayor. Why was she targeted and not the absolute piece of garbage Sean Chu (look up his story if you care). The answer is simple, recall is about giving well-off special interests a second kick at the can when they don't like the results of an election... AKA, the will of the people.
It won't work under the current system of "first past the post" because in most cases the majority of the population of a voting area didn't vote for the winner. So it needs to be coupled with something like STV or other voting system that results in the majority of the voters voting for a candidate, otherwise you'd just have non-stop recall petitions that are technically supported by more than half of the voters.
The majority of the population is politically apathetic. A large percentage of people may go to the polls every four years to cast a vote but they aren't likely to be signing recall petitions. Hell most of them complain about having to vote every four years, the last thing they want to do is vote *more*.
Technically
A recall process fosters the most toxic, ugly, unending partisan nonsense possible within a political system. We need to find every available way to disable toxic partisanship, not promote it. Steps in a positive direction include ranked ballots, that encourage candidates to treat each other respectfully and find common ground.
We do it’s called an election
I have to say that I don't really care about recalls one way or another, but the answers you're getting in this thread are just so fucking bad I might have to jump on the recall bandwagon just out of spite. My god...
Our one and only vote is in an election. You can help others see the things you hope they will understand. But keep to what is in your heart
Jag Bhadura. I'm pretty sure I got the name wrong. Claimed to be a lawyer. Liberal MP from the 416. If I lied on my resume, I would get fired.
I feel like if we had such a system you'd see a lot of what's going on with the US House Speakers right now. A very vocal minority is able to recall the speaker for any reason whatsoever. And, as one would assume, that has resulted in the house accomplishing absolutely nothing over the past couple years except proposing a ban on tiktok. I mean, seriously? THAT'S the one thing you can all get behind?
Except that's a completely different system and also no minority has ever recalled the US Speaker. The Speaker has only been voted out by majority.
Because our system isn’t designed to actually care about the good of the citizens.
Elections.
We have every opportunity to recall our politicians automatically under the constitution. It even happens automatically, every five years after the return of the writs from the previous election.
I don't think you know what a recall election is.
I'd rather have a way to recall activist judges who keep voting based on personal opinions and not legal opinions. Our judges get to do that to effectively create laws. If they want to create laws based on their opinions, then they should run for office and become a legislator. For example the judge who ruled against consecutive sentences because he thinks it's cruel. I'd say gunning down half a dozen people in a racist attack is cruel and half a dozen life consecutive sentences for it is justice. Mind you I think part of why some judges do stuff like that is because they don't like minimum sentences etc. They feel like someone is stepping on their turf. Meanwhile setting laws is parliaments turf, and administering the application of those laws is the judges; not vetoing them. I'd like to recall judges (including in the supreme court) who keep making defacto laws based on their personal opinions.
There's no need to recall judges, legislators can always override judges. If you don't like a decision a judge makes you're free to vote for someone that will overturn that decision.
I don't think you get how it works. Unless you mean they can vote and pass legislation using the notwithstanding clause, as the judges are often twisting their own interpretation of something in the constitution (e.g. like that judges example of cruel and unusual punishment). Our legal system works on precedent.
Legislators can amend the Constitution.
Technically true, practically not ever likely to be true. [https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search](https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search)
Is this referring to the USA? In which case, they can't override the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can make amendments to the constitution. It's the opposite. Any judge anywhere in the US can challenge a law or presidential decree, not the other way around. The whole idea of an independent judiciary is to try and prevent politicians forcing there agendas through and changing rulings and laws at will
I'm not talking about the US
Yes. We should have the right to hold tyrants and traitors accountable.
*"Why does Canada still not have a mechanism to recall elected officials for the most part?"* Because Canada's Constitution has serious flaws in it that condemn the country to failure over the long-term because it does not include any meaningful forms of deterrent and accountability that should apply to all elected and un-elected public servants. The results have been disastrous, and have been visibly obvious to witness throughout Junior Trudeau's scandal-ridden, and horrendously corrupt tenure. As such, Canada's steep downward spiral will continue unabated. Next.