Parliamentary democracy's source code
Over on the Making Light blog, a discussion of the odd corners of Canadian Parliamentary rules has spiralled into a full-blown attempt to express Westminster-derived Parliamentary democracy in pseudo-code. Will it compile?
All this because Canada's opposition parties have gotten together to oust the ruling Tory party, in a massive, brawling political dogfight that includes everything from wiretapping to stump-speeches.
if (country() == UK )A different kind of “political science”
LDQN = HM
elseif
( member(@COMMONWEALTH_DOMINIONS,country())
and location(HM) == $HERE )
LDQN = HM
else
LDQN = GG;
the latest
latest episodes
Now here's a real reason to learn coding: so I can understand this joke! Time to hit the books! ;-)
so long as it purges the Harperworm.
A programming language is just our attempt at a language that has no ambiguities. So it's perfect for the job.
Intertia and precedent stop us actually doing it. And lack of geeky common sense, too, probably.
Anyone want to start a new country? :D
+1 shadowfirebird.
I'd just ask you to put code on
if (country() == UK ) LDQN = HM elseif (member(@COMMONWEALTH_DOMINIONS,country()) and location(HM) == $HERE) LDQN = HM else LDQN = GG;Code or no it is only majority rule coming to the fore....Harper lost his informal BQ support, so the Cons no longer have the votes to pass even a single Law.
The Coalition has no problem as to having enough votes to pass laws, but the Cons are in the way.
But not for long, I think. We are after all a democracy and most of us did not vote for the Cons.
And we Canucks hate the arrogance of power, especially where there really is no power at all...
That 'economic statement" really took the cake, and now the Cons have had the biscuit.
I have to admit a certain pleasure at hearing reports of "...ashen faced conservatives wandering the halls of parliament...".
I completely agree that Harpers arogance triggered the current situation; but don't believe for a second that these 3 stooges are going to do things for the "good" of Canada. They are out for power just as much as Harper, I'm a little frightened at the prospect of what secret goodies were offered to the Bloc to get their support; I'm more frightened by NDP in cabinet postions; and I'm confused by May's belief that she should get a senate position; tax-payers stuff is getting offered to these people with an unclear understanding of what they plan on doing with it, or what they in fact did to deserve it.
This is not a "good" thing, and will have unintended consequences for each of the Libs, NDP and Bloc; they are going to screw up, and they are going to get blamed for it, and then Conservatives will end up with a majority in the next election.
The only upside I can see is copyright reform won't get passed in the next 2 years if this goes through; however if the scenario I describe above comes to fruition - we'll get that and worse with a Con majority.
Takaun - the majority of Canadians didn't vote for Harper, but they also didn't vote for Dion, in fact the last PM to have a majority of popular vote was Mulroney in '84. Having 50% of the popular vote doesn't matter in Canada, all that matters is that your party wins the majority of seats in parliment.
swr t gd, nd ths snt ctlly mnt t b nsltng, ths pst s ffclly th mst brng pst pssbl n th nvrs. cdng jk bt cndn pltcs. wh.
@7 Redmonkey:
Takaun - the majority of Canadians didn't vote for Harper, but they also didn't vote for Dion, in fact the last PM to have a majority of popular vote was Mulroney in '84. Having 50% of the popular vote doesn't matter in Canada, all that matters is that your party wins the majority of seats in parliment.
I'm not Takaun, but the thing is, the Conservatives didn't win the majority of seats in Parliament.
And then they were asstards, and didn't form a coalition with another party to get a majority of seats, because they think we're a Republican Democracy, not a Parliamentary Democracy.
Another group of people did, who DO have a majority. Yes, of course it's to further their own interest, however, their interests were VOTED IN by more Canadians than who voted for the Cons interests.
They're part of Parliament. We put them there. This is democracy in action. Running around saying "It's not a majority" is ridiculous.
@ Redmonkey - I'll admit that I'm naively hoping that a coalition will work. While I remain cynical of the system in general, I'm hoping that the coalition will act with the interests of the country as a whole (so maybe I'm not totally cynical). I've never felt that the Conservatives made any attempt to listen to or consider dissenting opinions. The role of the opposition (in terms of the elected officials and the general population) has been ignored under the Conservatives.
What specifically is your fear of NDP members in cabinet positions? I can guess, but I'd rather not make assumptions.
@ Redmonkey - Also, to say that the coalition are out for power as much as Harper is not totally accurate, since this never would have happened if the conservatives were not acting unilaterally in a government where conciliatory action was necessary for survival.
It's in the comments on the article linked above, but it's worth noting here that the code as given is incorrect in that they get prorogation completely and utterly wrong.
Prorogation has nothing to do with dissolution, and not only can a PM prorogue and "dis-prorogue" -- whatever that means -- without forcing an election, it's an extremely common occurrence. All it does is request the end of the current parliamentary session and initiates a new one. No dissolution of parliament occurs, and subsequently no election is called. It generally happens at least once (and sometimes twice) in the lifespan of any parliament, and is under normal circumstances a completely ordinary and non-controversial event.
@ Jerril
Running around saying "It's not a majority" is ridiculous.
Agreed, that was my point.
@ Grimshaw
You assumptions are probably correct, I'm from Ontario, I remember when the NDP (who I voted for) formed the Government, and I remember the mess of broken promises and incosistent governing that followed. My view is the NDP make for interesting ideas (health care; personal tax-credits for public transportation use; limits on ATM fees), but typically lack the commitment to a particular direction to get anything accomplished, and fail terribly at prioritizing (something Mr. Dion also has trouble with); if he wasn't a Separatist, focused soley on the interests of Quebec, I'd be happier with Mr. Duceppe in charge, as he seems like a fellow that gets things done.
What I'm most curious to see is if this goes through what happens to our foreign policy? What about Afghanistan? All these parties were in favour of complete withdrawl by 2009 in the last election; will that still be the decision? (Somehow, I suspect that tune will change). What about Quebec's distinct representation at various world events; something Mr. Duceppe has always pushed for?
As for the Conservatives never listening to the opposition, that's not entirely true - tax credits for public transportation was an NDP idea adopted by the Cons; they did hand about $500 million to Quebec in surplus funding, there are more instances of cooperation, but I don't want bore. (I know, too late.)
Although, I'll agree as of late Mr. Harper has been more beligerent and less cooperative with opposition (the cutting of Federal funding for political parties was just stupid). I'm beginning to suspect he's done it all on purpose to get himself booted from power so when we end up at $14 billion in deficit spending in 2009 after 15 years of surpluses he's not blamed, although I'm sure that even though the current budget hasn't been set, he'll be blamed anyway.
Minority govs are always always in most people's interests, as compromise becomes a pre-requisite to the exercise of Power, which in turn means that people are forced to listen to other people. Which is more like democracy, less like autocracy. No unilateralism allowed in a minority situation - which the governing cons inexplicably (and unforgivably, I would say were I a con) forgot.
W., now there was a decisive go-it-aloner=decider, all right.
@ Redmonkey - Not boring at all, and your specific examples are appreciated. I'm still hoping that if this happens that it will work.
Simple fact of the matter: Were this Parliament to vote today, the House would by majority vote remove the cons from Gov.
This fact will not change over the next two months. And anything done by the cons in the interim before Parliament sat again would obviously not have the support of the majority of the MPs. How "democratic" would such measures be?
It seems the cons would rather have another election right away than to let the majority of the recently-elected members of this Parliament have their way.
And then run a media blitz as to how the Coalition has "forced" an election.
Why are the cons treating Canucks as being ignorant of how a Parliamentary democracy functions? What's with the talk radio/letters to the Editor campaign calling the Coalition "anti or un democratic"? Are they really so contemptuous of the majority's will?
...in fact the last PM to have a majority of popular vote was Mulroney in '84
And we know how well that worked out.
The business of politics is too important to be trusted to politicians, so Canadians keep voting in minority governments because that's what works out best for us.
Therefore I'm hoping that the Coalition doesn't succeed with their bloodless coup; or if they do, that the Bloc Quebecois revert to type and the Coalition becomes dysfunctional.
Either way, Harper needs to resign for blatantly putting his party's interests before those of his country.
Unusual Suspect: The coalition gov would still be a minority gov, so no worries there, mate. (Minority gov = any gov where single party does not have majority of seats)
It has been the BQ keeping the minority cons in power.
They've switched "sides".
Too bad for the cons.
Oh and do not insult us Canucks by calling this a "coup".
These events are well within the usual workings of a Parliamentary system, calling it a "coup" is both wrong and insulting to Canuckian democracy.
The use of the term betrays an ignorance of either our system or of our history, quite possibly both.
What would be a "coup" is if the cons continue as gov without a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
I'm exaggerating. You're right, a coup is necessarily unconstitutional, and that's not the case here.
You're wrong when you state "The coalition gov would still be a minority gov". A constitutionally-formed coalition government becomes, at least temporarily, a single party for the purpose of forming a government. And that DOES include the Bloc Quebecois, much as the Liberals, NDP and BC themselves deny it. Dion must prove to Mme. Jean that the Coalition will act as a single party before she will consider asking him to form the new Parliament. Thus this Coalition government would be a majority government in fact as well as in deed.
You're also wrong when you state "What would be a 'coup' is if the cons continue as gov without a majority of votes". Here you are mistakenly writing "majority" (which means having over 50 of the seats in the House of Commons) when you intend "plurality" (which means having more seats that any other one party).
And, for the record, I'm a Canadian and have voted in every federal, provincial, regional and civic election since 1975.
@ The Unusual Suspect - "Thus this Coalition government would be a majority government in fact as well as in deed."
Any chance you'll buy the argument that since the coalition is made up of parties with (somewhat)divergent platforms that they will strive to serve the interests of all the parties (and their supporters), lest the coalition break down? I don't think I buy it but it's nice to think about.
@ redmonkey
in canada, we don't vote for the pm, we vote for our local mps. these votes [and seats] do not translate into a direct expression of the popular vote for any single pm candidate.
@The Unusual Suspect:
They can deny the BQ being part of the coalition simply because it is not. In a parliamentary system, being part of a coalition government implies being part of the Ministry -- that is to say, Cabinet positions.
Since the Bloc does not receive Cabinet positions, they are not part of the potential coalition government. What they have here is an agreement or accord, similar to the 1985 Peterson-Rae Accord.
grimshaw, I'm forced to bet that the Bloc will quickly diverge from the Coalition "mainstream".
But it would be nice to see the left united for once, and Layton playing nice with Ignatief/Ray/whoever for a couple of years at least.
Really, though, my two main wishes are for no future parties to have too much power in governing Canada, and for Harper to get a public spanking.
is Harper's father, Brian Mulrooney in prison yet for taking those bribes?
No, Mulroney is still walking the streets. (Well, being chauffeured, at least.)
He claims his meeting with the known criminal in a hotel room was just a coincidence, and that he had no idea that the envelope he accepted was filled with cash.
And he'll refuse to appear again before the Ethics Committee because of his "unfair" treatment last time.
Maybe it's time Conrad Black had a roomie.
@ sum.zero
in canada, we don't vote for the pm, we vote for our local mps. these votes [and seats] do not translate into a direct expression of the popular vote for any single pm candidate.
Agreed, that why I said, "Having 50% of the popular vote doesn't matter in Canada, all that matters is that your party wins the majority of seats in parliment".
Will it compile?
More importantly, will it blend? Or I guess will they blend. Then again, we all know what the answer to that question always is.
Can someone sum up the whole affair to me in the form of a summer blockbuster movie script with characters conveniently composited (no, Firefox spellchecker, I do mean composited, not composted) (although that is always an option), the narrative timeline streamlined and simplified, and (bonus points) a romantic subplot and/or explosions?
Unusual suspect: If the coalition is a majority as you contend then it ought to be the government -what's there to debate?
Eh, on second thought, I'll go with anon #24 above - it will be a minority coalition government, dependent on the Bloc to survive confidence motions, which has the support and confidence of the majority of Members seated in the House of Commons - unlike the minority con government, which does not.
And for the con gov to remain in office without the confidence of the House of Commons would indeed be a coup, properly-so called.
perhaps it is time for Canada to splinter to its component parts: Cascadia, Oilhole,The Flats, Dullonia, Fetchezlavache Land, Fishguts and of course, The Fridge.
Ah U.S.Americans have long dreamt of splintering nous...
Ugly Canuck, so you and Anon #24 contend that because the Bloc's participation is held at arm's length, this coalition is not a coalition in the sense of the Union government during WWI, but rather a new type of coalition?
I guess I can see that. However, this would mean that the current coalition is without precedent in Canadian politics, which I believe would make it far less likely to be asked to form a government by the Governor General.
GGs typically make the safest choice. If the coalition doesn't have precedent (or a clear enough mandate), the safest choice for the GG would be to allow Harper to prorogue Parliament until January, come back with a bill of appeasement and, if that isn't accepted, call a new election.
Takuan: As long as Dullonia remains the Centre of the Universe, I'm good.
No. All prime ministers serve at the pleasure of the Crown and during the confidence of parliament. It's an AND gate.
If he doesn't have the confidence of parliament, it's the PM who goes not the parliament. Just deciding to randomly prorogue is equivalent to...well, just deciding not to have parliament for a while. It's similar to the February, 1974 elections in the UK, which left no party with a majority.
The PM, Ted Heath, didn't resign immediately, instead trying to form a coalition with the Liberals. This was legal. However, when the talks broke down, the official advice was that he couldn't prorogue or dissolve, and therefore the largest single party should be given the nod. As it was, Harold Wilson managed to govern for several months without an overall majority (but with a plurality) before dissolving and winning an election.
Harper's position is equivalent to Heath just telling the MPs to bugger off.
Anyway, I did a more formal post on the matter, and its special relevance seeing as the UK looks like it may have an inconclusive election coming up.
@ Takuan - The Flats actually sounds pretty cool. That made me laugh, hard.
As I said:
Today (Thursday, Dec. 4th) Governor General Michaelle Jean agreed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's request to prorogue (suspend) the government until January 26, 2009.