I sincerely believe that a country’s leader should always be elected and not appointed, regardless of the outcome of an election. The LPC isn’t ‘we the people’. 🤷♂️
You are aware that the Prime Minister is not elected in Canada right?
I mean, they typically run and win their seat as an MP but, even if they lose their seat, the leader of the winning party becomes the PM. If they want to sit in parliament, they can run a by-election and win their seat after the fact.
We do not have an election for Prime Minister directly. We elect MPs, the majority forms a government, the government appoints a Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister selects a cabinet.
“The People” chose their MPs which decides the government and then the government chooses a Prime Minister. That is how it works.
If you do not like how the Prime Minister is chosen, you are really going to hate the Senate.
Since you mention “we the people” you may be a fan of the US system. So I will point out that the US president is not truly elected either despite the “Presidential Election”. The will of “the people” goes into selecting the Electoral College which then chooses a President. In my view, the Electoral College is an even less direct reflection of the will of “the people” than the Canadian Parliament. That is why you have had so many US Presidents that won less than half of the popular vote. That is why the votes in some states matter more than the votes in others. Many of “the people” have little voice in selecting the President.
Also, the Electoral College has no function after choosing the President. He gets four years no matter how unpopular. The Prime Minister of Canada has to continue to receive majority support from the MPs in the House of Commons. If the HoC loses confidence, an election can be triggered (potentially unseating the PM).
In my view, the Canadian Prime Minister reflects the will of “the people” much more directly than POTUS does. So please do not rush to adopt US political ideas.
Our prime minister is technically never elected by the general population, the PM requires confidence of the house, there’s no requirement for them to even be an MP, which has happened in the past.
Parliament also is not “we the people”. And yet, it is Parliament that elects the Prime Minister. The they are under no obligation to elect someone who is a sitting MP. They never have been.
If you want to keep saying “we the people”, please study how the US President is chosen. It is much less “we the people” than you think based on your apparent desire for elected representation.
The Canadian Prime Minister requires much more direct support from voting Canadians than the POTUS does from the US population.
The American Declaration of Independence uses some very quotable language, I understand. Please remember that it is not a legal document. It does not describe how that country works in reality.
I think your opinion is heavily influenced by American politics and doesn’t align with how parliamentary democracies work.
If Parliament is “we the people” and they vote to make decisions on every aspect of governance as your representative, how come them electing the Prime Minister is so offensive to you?
You shouldn’t even really be voting purely along party lines, you elect your local representative and they represent you. You should evaluate them on their own merits. They often vote along party lines, but even if “your party” wins your local election or even the most seats that doesn’t mean they get to form government without the support of a majority of Parliament. It’s always been this way, at no point do you ever make a direct decision on who leads.
Geesus stop attacking people because you don’t agree with them. And yes, I’m Canadian and have actually spilt my blood in defence of our “Democracy”. What have you done? And our wonderful country that sent us off to fight is hardly taking care of its wounded soldiers. We give billions to countries like Ukraine, while yours truly who was wounded gets little support from fellow Canadians or the Liberal government.
How can you in the same post rail against our treatment of the Canadian forces, and then complain about sending aid to a country that is putting its ass on the line to stop WW3?
If there is a breakdown of the rules based order, and sovereignty of nations you don’t think Trump would be emboldened to fucking with Canada? Or are you just one of those people who is OK with that?
If Parliament is “we the people” and they vote to make decisions on every aspect of governance as your representative, how come them electing the Prime Minister is so offensive to you?
You’re not paying attention. Where did I say that parliament electing the PM is offensive to me? What I am saying that the PM being appointed by non-elected members of the LPC is offensive to me. It’s not parliament doing it, but the Liberal Party of Canada members voting for their next leader of the party, which is then automatically the PM. Helluva difference.
How could Trudeau have handled his resignation in a way that would have been acceptable to you? The party leader serves an important function for the election process, and people would rightfully complain if he ran in the election with the intent to step down.
He could have privately held successor conversations behind closed doors and announced that someone else would take over for him during the election, but that wouldn’t be inclusive of the opinions of Liberal voters and people would complain.
He could have immediately stepped down and called an election and the Liberals could have run without a leader. That would be unacceptable to all Liberal voters and many others and would be a stupid move.
When you have a system where the party or coalition with the most seats in Parliament elects the Prime Minister, I don’t see what options you have that would satisfy bad faith arguments like yours.
I didn’t vote for PP to be the leader of the conservative party, does that mean that if he is the new pm that he is also unelected?
Party members vote for the party leader. If that party is leading the govt then they are the leader of the country. It is how parliamentary systems work.
I mostly agree, though Canadas system is based on electing a local representative that forms the government, so that’s not actually how our democracy works. But either way that will happen with no complaints from me once the Liberals have elected their leader and PP forces an election.
I sincerely believe that a country’s leader should always be elected and not appointed, regardless of the outcome of an election. The LPC isn’t ‘we the people’. 🤷♂️
You are aware that the Prime Minister is not elected in Canada right?
I mean, they typically run and win their seat as an MP but, even if they lose their seat, the leader of the winning party becomes the PM. If they want to sit in parliament, they can run a by-election and win their seat after the fact.
We do not have an election for Prime Minister directly. We elect MPs, the majority forms a government, the government appoints a Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister selects a cabinet.
“The People” chose their MPs which decides the government and then the government chooses a Prime Minister. That is how it works.
If you do not like how the Prime Minister is chosen, you are really going to hate the Senate.
Since you mention “we the people” you may be a fan of the US system. So I will point out that the US president is not truly elected either despite the “Presidential Election”. The will of “the people” goes into selecting the Electoral College which then chooses a President. In my view, the Electoral College is an even less direct reflection of the will of “the people” than the Canadian Parliament. That is why you have had so many US Presidents that won less than half of the popular vote. That is why the votes in some states matter more than the votes in others. Many of “the people” have little voice in selecting the President.
Also, the Electoral College has no function after choosing the President. He gets four years no matter how unpopular. The Prime Minister of Canada has to continue to receive majority support from the MPs in the House of Commons. If the HoC loses confidence, an election can be triggered (potentially unseating the PM).
In my view, the Canadian Prime Minister reflects the will of “the people” much more directly than POTUS does. So please do not rush to adopt US political ideas.
Our prime minister is technically never elected by the general population, the PM requires confidence of the house, there’s no requirement for them to even be an MP, which has happened in the past.
Wait, why are you quoting the preamble to the U.S. Constitution?
Parliament also is not “we the people”. And yet, it is Parliament that elects the Prime Minister. The they are under no obligation to elect someone who is a sitting MP. They never have been.
Parliament is elected, so of course they represent ‘we the people’.
If you want to keep saying “we the people”, please study how the US President is chosen. It is much less “we the people” than you think based on your apparent desire for elected representation.
The Canadian Prime Minister requires much more direct support from voting Canadians than the POTUS does from the US population.
The American Declaration of Independence uses some very quotable language, I understand. Please remember that it is not a legal document. It does not describe how that country works in reality.
I think your opinion is heavily influenced by American politics and doesn’t align with how parliamentary democracies work.
If Parliament is “we the people” and they vote to make decisions on every aspect of governance as your representative, how come them electing the Prime Minister is so offensive to you?
You shouldn’t even really be voting purely along party lines, you elect your local representative and they represent you. You should evaluate them on their own merits. They often vote along party lines, but even if “your party” wins your local election or even the most seats that doesn’t mean they get to form government without the support of a majority of Parliament. It’s always been this way, at no point do you ever make a direct decision on who leads.
1 day old account, look at the post history. I doubt that person is even Canadian.
Geesus stop attacking people because you don’t agree with them. And yes, I’m Canadian and have actually spilt my blood in defence of our “Democracy”. What have you done? And our wonderful country that sent us off to fight is hardly taking care of its wounded soldiers. We give billions to countries like Ukraine, while yours truly who was wounded gets little support from fellow Canadians or the Liberal government.
How can you in the same post rail against our treatment of the Canadian forces, and then complain about sending aid to a country that is putting its ass on the line to stop WW3?
If there is a breakdown of the rules based order, and sovereignty of nations you don’t think Trump would be emboldened to fucking with Canada? Or are you just one of those people who is OK with that?
Open a book eh?
You’re not paying attention. Where did I say that parliament electing the PM is offensive to me? What I am saying that the PM being appointed by non-elected members of the LPC is offensive to me. It’s not parliament doing it, but the Liberal Party of Canada members voting for their next leader of the party, which is then automatically the PM. Helluva difference.
How could Trudeau have handled his resignation in a way that would have been acceptable to you? The party leader serves an important function for the election process, and people would rightfully complain if he ran in the election with the intent to step down.
He could have privately held successor conversations behind closed doors and announced that someone else would take over for him during the election, but that wouldn’t be inclusive of the opinions of Liberal voters and people would complain.
He could have immediately stepped down and called an election and the Liberals could have run without a leader. That would be unacceptable to all Liberal voters and many others and would be a stupid move.
When you have a system where the party or coalition with the most seats in Parliament elects the Prime Minister, I don’t see what options you have that would satisfy bad faith arguments like yours.
I didn’t vote for PP to be the leader of the conservative party, does that mean that if he is the new pm that he is also unelected?
Party members vote for the party leader. If that party is leading the govt then they are the leader of the country. It is how parliamentary systems work.
deleted by creator
I mostly agree, though Canadas system is based on electing a local representative that forms the government, so that’s not actually how our democracy works. But either way that will happen with no complaints from me once the Liberals have elected their leader and PP forces an election.