We need a senate like in Canada (rant/wishful thinking)

[alonzomourning23]

I'm watching the house of commons on tv and it's much more interesting than the u.s. senate. The prime minister (head of liberal party) is sitting and debating with everyone else in parliament, though mainly layton (head of ndp) and harper (head of conservative party). They do this in the u.k. too (and many other countries), but in canada the prime minister isn't even separate from the other mp's, he's sitting side by side with them. Usually when I see other countries the prime minister is separated a bit, though I'm not sure if it's always like that. It's also interesting since people are shouting at the speakers, though it does make it hard to hear sometimes (martin was almost drowned out at a few times).

I'd just love to have bush (clinton or anyone else) forced to sit through debates in the senate as the leader of his party. Imagine presidents having to actually defend their policies and appointments regularly and under questioning from the opposition.

On a side note, a speaker just said someone "opened up a can of hockey wup ass on the liberals". I missed the first part, so I don't know who opened up said "can of wup ass" on the liberal party.

 

[Trancendental]

The president is the head of the executive branch of government. I'm pretty sure that he's not in Congress because he isn't part of the legislative branch. Even though they often collude on policies, it's setup like this for a reason.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='camoor']The president is the head of the executive branch of government. I'm pretty sure that he's not in Congress because he isn't part of the legislative branch. Even though they often collude on policies, it's setup like this for a reason.[/quote]

I know that, I said it was wishful thinking.

 

[Admiral Ackbar]

That's why the press is considered the 4th Estate.

 

[Duo_Maxwell]

So basicall you want a psuedo Monarchy like Canada has? And wouldn't the President be more likened to a Governor General?

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']So basicall you want a psuedo Monarchy like Canada has? And wouldn't the President be more likened to a Governor General?[/quote]

Um....... you sure know a lot about canada. Psuedo monarchy? The queen has no power whatsoever in canada, she's just a figurehead. The governor general is head of state, representing the queen, and just as powerless. She has no real power, the prime minister is head of government. Here's a link from the governor generals site stating exactly what she does http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/role_e.asp, even that says it's all ceremony really.

The prime minister and his party are the ones in power. It's not that hard to find canadians who don't even know who the governor general is. She is less important than the queen of england is to the u.k.

 

[Duo_Maxwell]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']So basicall you want a psuedo Monarchy like Canada has? And wouldn't the President be more likened to a Governor General?[/quote]

Um....... you sure know a lot about canada. Psuedo monarchy? The queen has no power whatsoever in canada, she's just a figurehead. The governor general is head of state, representing the queen, and just as powerless. She has no real power, the prime minister is head of government. Here's a link from the governor generals site stating exactly what she does http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/role_e.asp, even that says it's all ceremony really.

The prime minister and his party are the ones in power. It's not that hard to find canadians who don't even know who the governor general is. She is less important than the queen of england is to the u.k.[/quote]

Sorry but psuedo basically means Constitutional Monarchy...Still offically a monarchy nonetheless. You wanted a parlimment no? That's part of a constitutional monarchy, and by your OP that seems like what you wanted instead of our current three barnch governemt. I don't care really and there's totally nothing wrong with that, I was merely curious.

Guess I was wrong about the governor general though, and yeah that's probably I don't spend much time following the workings Canada's governement so what can I say you learn something new everyday.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']So basicall you want a psuedo Monarchy like Canada has? And wouldn't the President be more likened to a Governor General?[/quote]

Um....... you sure know a lot about canada. Psuedo monarchy? The queen has no power whatsoever in canada, she's just a figurehead. The governor general is head of state, representing the queen, and just as powerless. She has no real power, the prime minister is head of government. Here's a link from the governor generals site stating exactly what she does http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/role_e.asp, even that says it's all ceremony really.

The prime minister and his party are the ones in power. It's not that hard to find canadians who don't even know who the governor general is. She is less important than the queen of england is to the u.k.[/quote]

Sorry but psuedo basically means Constitutional Monarchy...Still offically a monarchy nonetheless. You wanted a parlimment no? That's part of a constitutional monarchy, and by your OP that seems like what you wanted instead of our current three barnch governemt. I don't care really and there's totally nothing wrong with that, I was merely curious.

Guess I was wrong about the governor general though, and yeah that's probably I don't spend much time following the workings Canada's governement so what can I say you learn something new everyday.[/quote]

I would like a parliament in a sense. Too many parties bother me since they tend to allow extremists to gather support, as happens in much of europe. Fortunately canada seems to have avoided this, I'm not sure why though. There may be more regulations in forming parties, though I'm not sure. Basically my main concern with a parliament is the increased ability of extreme views to gain power, but if that can be controlled then I would prefer a parliament.

A constitutional monarchy doesn't concern me, as long as it has no power, which is the case here. If the monarch acted as president then I would have major problems.

Though the main thing is I just would like president to have to face direct, intense questioning of their policies, something which doesn't really happen here.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though the main thing is I just would like president to have to face direct, intense questioning of their policies, something which doesn't really happen here.[/quote]

Did you miss the Bush press conference a few days ago? Or his meeting with Fox and Martin, followed by a press conference? The president faces direct questions of his policies all the time. Bush, not being a very adept public speaker, has had less press conferences than previous presidents, but he still has them. Personally, I like our system a lot more than Canada's. A parliamentary system like Canada's encourages even more party loyalty than a system like ours, since a lost vote could bring down the government.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Though the main thing is I just would like president to have to face direct, intense questioning of their policies, something which doesn't really happen here.[/quote]

Did you miss the Bush press conference a few days ago? Or his meeting with Fox and Martin, followed by a press conference? The president faces direct questions of his policies all the time. Bush, not being a very adept public speaker, has had less press conferences than previous presidents, but he still has them. Personally, I like our system a lot more than Canada's. A parliamentary system like Canada's encourages even more party loyalty than a system like ours, since a lost vote could bring down the government.[/quote]

Maybe you should watch parliament in the u.k. or canada (I know u.k. is on american tv sometimes at night), they're not polite like in the presidential debates, and it's nothing like a press conference. You don't have reporters doing everything they can to show how the president is wrong and attacking him all out. Questioning is different that actually attacking him, I don't see many reporters attempting to shout down the president. I don't see many reporters arguing with bush, or any president, over how his policies are going to do nothing but waste of money and make (whatever problem is being discussed) worse. Though, despite what you would think, there seems to be more people who leave their political party for another in canada than in the u.s. There also tends to be more parties. Canada used to have 5 major ones, far right (Alliance), moderate right (tories), center-right/left depending on the season (liberal), far left (ndp), and a quebec independence party (bloc quibecois), though the alliance and tories merged into the conservative party. Alliance became dominate and there was a sizeable torie exodues to the liberal party. Basically, the votes may be more in line with the party, but the voters have more parties to choose from and are more likely to find one in line with their thinking.

Watching parliament is like watching the house, except it's not nearly as big. A debate in the house (or even the more polite senate) is nothing like a press conference. Bush (not due to his policies but due to his public speaking ability) would likely get eaten alive.