I can't imagine why Trump would not be charged at least with attempt to interfere in a state vote count. If our Prime Minister did anything close to this, there would be immediate political and legal consequences. In Canada, no one has immunity from being charged criminally. And political consequences can be very swift. This conduct would almost certainly result in the PM's immediate resignation or the immediate defeat of the government, or both.
Federal elections in Canada are run by an independent agency, Elections Canada. The agency's operations are overseen by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (CEOC) who is appointed by Parliament. The provinces have no role to play in federal elections. The Commissioner of Canada Elections is an official appointed by the CEOC to actually administer the elections according to the Canada Elections Act. Neither Parliament nor the government has any say in approving the election results or in deciding who won. That is all done by officials carrying out the Canada Elections Act and subject to judicial recounts. Judicial review is available to ensure that officials act according to law, but election related legal actions are extremely rare.
In Canada's parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not elected directly. The leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons becomes the PM and forms a government. That government will fall if the House of Commons passes a motion of non-confidence in the government. The closest Canadian equivalent to Trump calling the Georgia Secretary of State and asking him to find another 11,780 votes would be the PM of Canada calling up the CEOC and asking him to find more votes for particular candidates.
The current governing Liberal party does not have a majority of seats (we have 3 major national parties and a regional party based in Quebec) so it would not likely survive a non-confidence vote if the PM did something like Trump's phone call.
Constitutional differences between US and Canada
Under Canada's written constitution, every citizen has the right to vote in provincial and federal elections. The US constitution does not provide an equivalent right. The U.S. constitution provides that state legislatures, not citizens, choose electors to the Electoral College. So denial of citizens the right to vote (e.g. because they are convicted felons, or because they have to wait 12 hours in a lineup to vote, or because someone decided that they no longer deserve to be on the voters list) is not a denial of a constitutional right in the U.S., it seems.
The existing constitutional framework in the U.S. does not work unless Congress is committed to upholding it. The checks and balances that were touted when Nixon was forced to resigned only work if you have a congress and an electorate that is willing to hold the President accountable. That was the case in 1974. Sadly, it is no longer.
It seems to me that some constitutional amendments in the U.S. would be in order. While you are at it, you might want to do something with the second amendment to make it clear that it does not give citizens the right to own bazookas and tanks or invade legislature buildings and attack their governments. I have never been able to understand why anyone in a democracy thinks they need a clause in the constitution that allows them to overthrow an elected government by force.
Nothing here I disagree with.
It looks to me that Canada is very similar to Great Britain. The Prime Minister is not directly elected but is determined by the party, or coalition of parties, who have over 50%. This seems like a good system.
I like the British and Canadian system a lot because you can form a small party and have a chance of being part of the main government. In America, you have to be either in the Democratic or the Republican party. It sort of works, because parties do change over time, but the British system sounds more natural.
Question:
In Canada, what happens if no party by itself has 50%, and the parties refuse to make an agreement with the others to form a coalition? I get the impression that in Great Britain, the Queen would put moral pressure on them to come to an agreement. What would happen in Canada? The United States was the earliest true democracy, though it took a while for voting rights to be pretty universal, at least for white males. But even that took a while. But we formed a rigid Constitution, to insure basic rights. It may be that the British and Canadian system to trust the parliament, allowing more liberal policies to more easily come into place, may be the superior system. America was tardy in giving blacks the vote, giving woman the votes, etc.
The Second Amendment. The Constriction could not be clearer. The government shall not interfere with the right of a
well regulated militia to bear arms. Not the right of an isolated individual. Not the right on an isolated individual and his buddy, or a hundred buddies, who declare themselves to be a well-regulated militia. To me, this means a militia under the control of the Governor, hopefully with a few days a year of getting together and training and making it clear the chain of command, which leads to the governor. A well-regulated militia, not a mob that runs off and does whatever it wants to do with guns, regardless of what the majority wants.
So, what the hell happened here. Well, as I understand it, up until the 1950’s, the Second Amendment was not used to protect the right of private individuals to fire arms. Then, some activist judge decided that is the way it should be interpreted. And other judges went along. And now, somehow, this has been established by precedence. In my mind 70 years of precedence should not overrule the original framer’s intent, particularly when the original framers got it right on this issue, as they didn’t always get right on others.
