Fred-Rik

Thank you for your lengthy response. It is a mystery to me why Canada has, since the 1920s, at least three viable political parties that have had influence in its parliaments and most provincial legislatures. Westminster-type government tend to produce only two parties — and the USA is the prime example. The D’s and R’s do not want to change this system, as change means they will govern less than 50% of the time if new parties are introduced.

A ranked ballot will interfere with this dynamic (and for the better). New parties are likely to form.

As for PR, citizens in these countries still hold their political process in a fair degree of contempt. And in PR countries, politics as very competitive: still far too competitive for many citizens to consider taking an active part.

We need to get rid of all political parties if we really want the kind of governance many of us yearn for. To me, PR (and ranked ballots) may be a slightly better system than Westminster, but it still falls short of where we really need to be.

As far as the president goes, I would say that the prime minister of Canada has more constitutional (or traditional) power over his nation than the president of the USA has over his. Our last prime minister used his power a little too much and voters didn’t seem to like that in 2015.

And the “constitutional monarchy” Canada is from a legal perspective, it really hasn’t had any play since 1867. The Queen’s representative is a symbolic post, much like the presidents of some European countries.

I was in Czechoslovakia during its breakup. It was interesting to see the role of the president in the former and two subsequent countries. Not much political power in terms of new legislation, but these politicians said things that needed to be said — and the parliament often did not like it and had to somehow react. These presidents had a different kind of power.