Thank you both for Sept 10/12 :
How history would be different if Canada used the U.S. electoral system
My attention was drawn to the off-handed "what if" posed within Mr Grenier's introduction to his meticulous application-to-Canada of the All-or-none Electoral College system chosen by the framers of the Second USA Constitution to determine their system's Chief Executive (NB originally, the second-place finisher became the Vice President)
What if we DID elect our Chief Executive?
The first thing to consider is that the Prime Minister is NOT the Chief Executive, this position, in the power-sharing hierarchy of the BNA/Constitution 1867, is held by the Governor General.
The Prime Minister is, by Westminster tradition/convention, the person chosen by the Governor General to attempted to form a Cabinet/Government based on the GG's judgment of "who best" commands the Confidence of the Lower House of Assembly, the aptly-named House of Common(er)s
If we held an election (say, every-other General Election, for a Single term starting 365 days after the return of the Writs) to decide who should be the "recommendation to the Monarch" we would accomplish several objectives:
1) re-establish the
Part III Executive Power "check" on the
Part IV Legislative Power;
2) make the Prime Minister's Job much easier (S/he could look after the day-to-day stuff (and of course, staying-elected) knowing the perpetual and institutional well-being of the Citizenry was protected by a BNA-entrenched superior order of governance;
3) perhaps, in this more-relaxed PM-era, the MP's could be re-emancipated from their Party-Disciple straight-jackets and the Commons could be restored as an 'honourable Assembly' of 308 of constituency-representatives debating the (conscience-tempered) views of all Canadians;
4) restore the purpose of the
s.54 Throne Speech and re-validate the use of the GG's ss.55-57(
Fed-Prov.90) powers of Reservation, Disallowance and Withholding of Royal Assent;
In short, re-establish the BNA/Constitution "As-written " - because if we do not restore the de facto to its de jure state.... what rules ARE we following? Who is in a position to change these "unwritten" rules and who is in a position to stop any proposed change?
Would you play a "bloodsport" where the Home Team is permitted to change the rules in the middle of the game?
You may not have considered the possibility before and need to do some research before accepting whether there actually IS a problem, whether it NEEDS solving and therefore whether this solution is worth considering.
Two assertions: "right-under-our-nose is one of the hardest place to examine" and "there is no shame in turning back when you discover you are on the wrong path -rce 2006"
rce
I'll send you the attachments by email
Two Attachments
Order in Council PC 1940-1121
One Page 1688-present Evolution of our "Similar in Principle" Constitution
Backgrounder
No comments:
Post a Comment