this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
233 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9223 readers
1498 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think people who are unhappy with election results for other reasons sometimes make it an issue, disingenuously. But it doesn't seem to me like anyone genuinely has a problem with it. PMs have considerably less power than presidents, and how much power they have is at least partly down to how the party chooses to govern itself. A PM who's party has little power would be quite ineffectual. Maybe that isn't great, but I'm not aware of a system that isn't worse in that regard. Maybe the French system is slightly better, but their president's power still depends a lot on majority party backing, at least for domestic issues. (And that's a high-level not-super-informed opinion.)

In practice in Canada, the party leader shapes the party, and the electorate votes for the party shape they see, knowing who made it that way. In effect, we practically are voting for our PM. We're just tempering that choice against local concerns. But even then the local MP who most aligns with our values is probably going to share a party with the party leader we'd most like as PM. We're only divided against ourselves when that local MP happens to personally be a lousy politician while someone else is doing a much better job of representing their constituents.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I was familiar with, like, the nuts and bolts part. It was the emotional reaction, I guess, I was looking for. So most people just don't have a problem with it?

In the us, we used to not be able to vote for senators. We elected the house, and the house elected the senators, and that shit didn't fly. Lol. One thing about Americans, we want to have opinions on shit. Even when we shouldn't, we gotta voice ourselves. If we tried to switch to a Westminster system here, people would be up in arms about not being able to vote directly for the PM, like we were about senators. Even if it's a better system. It's not the greatest trait our country has.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I mean, I can't really speak for 41 million people, but yeah that's my perspective/anecdotal observation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

I can't really speak for 41 million people

Of course you can! Just say it louder than other people, it works for politics in the US...