Hacker News Reader

Comment by stilley2 | Hacker News Reader

> This is a key difference between US policy & Canadian policy that I have informally noticed while growing up on the border (with family ties on both sides).

My wife's Canadian and I'm American, and we've discussed this point too. My theory is that Canada's parliamentary system generally puts one party in charge of the executive and legislative, so it's easier for that party to get things done. Of course there are times when a party in the US controls both branches and we still struggle to get things done. I would assume that most larger changes happens on this scenarios though.

And of course the US seems to suffer from partisanship in general more than Canada, but I can't back that up.

View on HN

I've always thought of two factors in Canadian federal politics that make a huge difference operationally: Many political parties (diversity of platforms/views), and the vote of no confidence.

Canada generally has at least three official political parties (more than 12 seats in the house) at any given time. Currently there are four. You need the most seats but not necessarily a majority of seats to form a government. If a party has fewer than 50%, they form what's called a minority government.

Next big piece is the motion of no confidence, which means we can have an election literally whenever if a government can't pass legislation.

So combine the chance of minority governments and more voices and platforms in government the possibility that obstruction can actually cause you to, you know, lose your job, and you get natural checks against a lot of the problems on display in American federal politics right now. If you can't pass a budget, you don't get a federal shutdown until you negotiate one, you get an election triggered immediately. I understand why no confidence would be practically impossible in America due to money and insanely long election cycles, but it really helps form coalitions and collaboration in Canadian politics.

> If a party has fewer than 50%, they form what's called a minority government.

No, that's when a political party _or_ a coalition of parties does not have the majority. Netherlands often/always has a coalition / combination of parties. They're never considered a minority government unless the combination is <50%.

I don't think that's the case myself. While I do think that the parliamentary system is better than the congressional system, I think it's more that the parliamentary system emphasises consensus-building and executive accountability more. This is especially apparent in countries where a form of proportional representation is used for elections.

> This is especially apparent in countries where a form of proportional representation is used for elections.

Proportional representation is almost a necessary condition for the parliamentary system to encourage consensus-building. More specifically, it's necessary that no party hold an absolute majority.

With first-past-the-post, you usually end up with one party having full control for one term, and no one to hold them accountable (particularly if you have the principle of parliamentary soverignity).

That assumes members of the legislature always vote with their own party, which they don't. Plus, there are usually two houses and the upper house can scrutinize and hold to account the lower house. In the UK it's an appointed (and partially hereditary) upper house, so there's less party discipline (although not none).

Except when you get fringe parties holding the balance of power.

With some of the NI parties screwing over conservative governments its why NI doesn't have the same laws as the UK

Well, that's _part_ of why, but the fundamental reason is that NI is the rump of the Kingdom of Ireland within the UK, which, like Scotland, preserved a separate legal system even after political union with the UK brought about through the 1800 Act of Union.

[Aside: An interesting consequence of this is that England lacks a legal and political identity separate from the UK as the UK is an _extension_ of the Kingdom of England. Another interesting this is that even though it was part of the Kingdom of England, Wales _does_ have a legal and political identity because there are acts of parliament that _explicitly_ refer to it. The UK is a constitutionally odd country.]

What you're leaving out, in Canada's case, is that the norm is a strict party-line vote. In rare cases, the PM will allow a "conscience vote", where individuals vote as they will; in every other case, you vote as your party directs or you're kicked out of the party. As party-line voting is the norm, sitting as an independent is basically worthless in terms of accomplishing anything--no access to party resources or assignments.

So in practice, the PM of a majority gov't (i.e., has a majority of seats) gets to pass whatever they want to pass; the saving grace of this is that, without having to haggle and herd cats and trade horses, the legislation is the legislation--there's no poison pills, no payoff amendments, no loopholes to capture one person's support, and no extreme bits to trade away. It's just "this is the law we want", which I think leads to higher quality legislation over all.

The PM of a minority gov't (i.e., only has a plurality of seats) may have to secure another party's vote to pass, but that's a negotiation with a second entity, not a hundred other voting entities.

Consensus doesn't play a significant part in it, I believe. Within the bounds of the law, the PM of a majority is nearly a polite dictator.

This all very true but I just wanted to add one more thing I think is a strength of parliaments.

In a parliament majority, the buck stops with the Prime Minister and win or lose his performance is on the line in the next election. There's no (effective) hand-waving about opposition or other excuses to deflect accountability. Elections are a black/white referendum of the incumbent's performance.

In the US it's a lot easier to muddy the waters and a lot harder for people to arrive at a clear conclusion and often nobody is happy.

"YES I don't like X BUT it wasn't Y's fault it was Z"

I agree with this, and I would further add that "confidence votes", where if the vote fails, the gov't falls, are another valuable safety hatch. Budgetary votes are always confidence votes, but anyone can move for a vote of no-confidence if they have the votes. With a majority gov't, this is hard to do unless the majority is slim and a couple people are sick (or "cross the aisle", switching parties), but with minority gov'ts it's a significant risk--the PM can't afford to alienate a large enough number of MPs to falll to a confidence vote, which is literally a ten-minute affair if it occurs. US politics has nothing of this effectiveness.

> What you're leaving out, in Canada's case, is that the norm is a strict party-line vote.

No, I'm not. The concept of a party whip literally invented where I'm from. I'm very much familiar with it.

Consensus building? If a party in Canada gets a majority in Parliament, they can pass whatever bills they want (the senate rarely intervenes unless it's really controversial). And individual MPs have much less leeway to stray from the party line.

The US system is much more adversarial. Even if a single party gets the house, senate and presidency, there isn't much stopping individual party members from voting against the party line.

It's true consensus is need with a coalition/minority government, but they don't seem to happen that often. Yes, I know there is one right now.

Well, that's what you get with FPTP, with both the US and Canada use.

We seriously have to take a look at how parliamentary systems work. I remember our political science teacher told us that the only country where the presidential system actually works is the US. That was 20 years ago. I think that is no longer true.

> Of course there are times when a party in the US controls both branches and we still struggle to get things done.

It's the party discipline. In Canada political parties control the fundraising apparatus and you can't be bankrolled by a handful of wealthy donors. Barring unusual circumstance, if you want to be re-elected you are beholden to a party and thus the whips generally have a strong ability to bring votes to the table.

In the states its a lot easier for a Republican or Democrat to tell their party to go fly a kite if they don't see voting for a bill as opportune, in part because of less reliance on the party.

As someone who has lived on both sides of the border, my theory is that Canadians are just less politically active. I can remember major bills coming for vote and sure, you'd see a few news articles, but rarely did it become entrenched in daily discussion.

I actually liked the US approach when I first arrived - "how great! everyone is passionate about politics!". I find it somewhat draining now. There is almost no part of life (work, friends, random strangers) where politics doesn't come up.

I wonder why my immigrant friends get so passionate about American politics. I find it mostly boring.

I think you’re not describing real political passion or engagement, though — Americans can get quite worked up about politics but we’re not all that engaged, or passionate enough to lobby for real change. Politics serve as signs of tribal affiliation and self-identity, and sometimes as a way to bludgeon other people. In that sense talking about politics is similar to, and as pointless as, arguing about sports. We (Americans) actually don’t show much real engagement if you look at voter turnout.

I found it interested because so little of it happened in Canada. But yes, I mistook it for real political involvement, but you're right, it's mostly banter. That said, I would say more Americans are at least aware of the political issue of the day, where in Canada many people just didn't care.

My other pet theory is that Canadians get more than enough politics from Canadian coverage of US politics (it's often 30%+ of news coverage) so they feel little urge to do the same with domestic politics.

So is that a bug or a feature of the US system?

On one hand, beneficial change can be painstakingly slow. On the other, malevolent change can be stymied indefinitely

Edit: clarify my statement was in reference to the US

> On the other, malevolent change can be stymied indefinitely

When the party that made the "malevolent" change is kicked out, then whatever they did can be reverted very easily.

Contrast that with: if passing anything is hard, and a "malevolent" change does manage to be rammed through somehow (e.g., one party controls things for a two-year period), then reversing it will also be very difficult.

I'm not wholly convinced the first statement is the case. It's probably true for some types of changes like Executive Orders than can be easily repealed. Others, like laws and judge selections, take much longer to revert. I wonder if this is due to the lobbying culture in combination to competing interests.

Somewhat humorous example: In response to the need for warm clothing in the Korean War, US lawmakers instituted an alpaca subsidy in 1952. This subsidy remained in place for over 40 years.[1]

I do think there’s evidence that your second statement is true. Bad policy takes a lot of political will to overturn.

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=fV_SuDMHpOsC&pg=PA273&lpg=...

> I'm not wholly convinced the first statement is the case.

Probably because you're only thinking about it from a US-centric POV.

As a Canadian who lives under a Westminster-style style system, there tends to be less gridlock here under majority governments.

Correct, but as stated in the parent I was asking specifically about the characteristics of the US system.

I personally think it was deliberately put intended as a check/balance. Af the far end of spectrum, the most “efficient” form of government is a dictatorship. I’m not sure if what the US has is the correct balance, though.

Disclaimer: this is just my view as a Canadian, not sure if studies back this up.

I think it's a feature. We seem to move a lot faster and it doesn't always work, but for the most part, having MPs as the executive branch allows people at the top to legislate what they need to succeed.

The problem with checks and balances is that partisanship is paralyzing. If each side deems their causes good and the opponent evil that must be stopped, nothing happens. Some mechanism is required to build cooperation. Patriotism used to serve that role in the US but it’s not functioning since it too is becoming political.

> Patriotism used to serve that role in the US

I used to think so, but as I read more about the founding fathers I’m beginning to think they had all the same personality conflicts we have today. Maybe there’s a case that with today’s media our current reps are more accountable to their constituents, but (superficially at least) most would interpret that as a good thing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com