Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Coyne v. Wells: And then they all grabbed their torches and took to the streets

by Paul Wells on Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:30am - 96 Comments

Last night, after Andrew Coyne and I finished thanking our guests for the big Maclean’s-CPAC Our Democracy Is Broken televised extravaganza, a few comment threads here on macleans.ca turned into impromptu post-mortem (post-vivem?) discussion threads for people who’d attended, or watched on TV. The last few comments to this set-up piece are a good example.

We’ll have more here later including, I hope, a link to the CPAC online archive of the whole show. I just want to say that from where I was sitting, it sounded like an excellent discussion. Take this post as an open thread if you want to add your observations, comments, criticisms or whatever else.

Tags: Andrew coyne, hey let's put on a show, The Bastilles wasn't stormed in a day

More by Paul Wells

Iccyh

Thanks very much for putting on the panel, it was a very good discussion and I personally quite enjoyed it.

I’m just disappointed that they wouldn’t let me take my torch on the subway.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

They really are sticklers about how "Ride the Rocket" is just supposed to be a metaphor. No fun.

even flow

This is really OT and nothing to do with the topic but i came across this and thought your readers would like to know. Personally, thank you for writing on this. I live in Calgary and had no idea Cantos was here until i read your article.

We have a winner : http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/King+E…

http://intensedebate.com/people/ScottFeschuk ScottFeschuk

Dear Sirs:

I followed your directions to the letter yet I awoke this morning to discover my democracy is still broken.

Can I bring it back and exchange it? I'd like to get some enlightened absolutism or designer jeans.

P.S. You should know I bought this particular democracy on sale from Britain.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Sergio Valente's Scott?

kcm

Tough! You should have read the instructions buddy. It clearly states the maker of this democracy takes no responsibility should you attempt to form any kind of coalition or in the event that you foolishly disregard this warning then attempt to prorogue said democracy. Ok it doesn't actually clearly state this, it does however clearly imply it…well it clearly should have. Anyhow, you broke it you bought it! Besides, it's well known if you buy anything on sale from Britain – be it a jag a sub or a democracy you should also buy a spare.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Ya. I bought an MG once. The batteries ( there were two ) needed batteries.

petetong83

Mr. Wells, you and Mr. Coyne were as insightful as always, but I didn't realise I had paid to listen to socialists (Saul and Broadbent) push their agenda about raising taxes and the "conspiracy to destroy public healthcare". Mr. Broadbent has turned into Canada's version of Jimmy Carter. I had a question (and follow up question) I wanted up to ask, but alas time ran out.
Does the legislature matter?
I am an Ontario civil servant and in my position I monitor house business and review items that go to Cabinet for my ministry. As far as I can tell it's decisions made by Cabinet that matter to society. They decide which bills get introduced in the House, how money is actually spent (the budget is just a blue print), etc.

Why does house business, including the conduct of MPs get more media attention and scrutiny than the performance of Cabinet?
By performance, I don't mean ministers' ability to answer questions or make public announcements. I mean their ability to manage the government to implement their agenda. I think Canadians would have an easier time voting if they could actually tell who is doing a better job running the government.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Geez – it was about different viewpoints. In fact, I thought that every MP, Cabinet Minister and the PM should have watched the panel – different viewpoints (needed for a democracy) with RESPECT. They listened to each other, didn't interrupt, didn't call each other names or heckle and didn't resort to silly one-liners.

It was well done and refreshing.

Hey, it isn't just about you – I'm sure some paid for tickets that didn't agree with Coyne, Wells, Goldberg, etc.

I went far too fast – more to come?
Ken S from Ramara

What would your metric be to measure what "doing a better job" is? Would you audit a parties platform? If we use the CPC 2008 platform, would you say Harpo is doing a better job? Doubt it, since he has implemented virtually nothing of his 08 platform.

Paul Wells

I think there was a pretty clear consensus among organizers last night that we should do this more. Venues (Toronto can’t have all the fun), topics and dates still to be determined. We’ll keep you posted.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Wayne Easter's barn ?
http://intensedebate.com/people/hellomike hellomike

I wouldn't do it right away or anything, at least not until everyone feels very (even more) comfortable in the setting and with the format, but eventually I would like to see how one of these goes in Calgary, with more conservative commentators, etc.

(But, you know, do Vancouver first, as soon as I get back, ok?)

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

You appeared at times to be frustrated when Broadbent and Saul diverted the discussion from the process to specific issues even after Coyne commented that this was about the former. Is that the case or do you just normally look like you're frustrated?

Anyway, it was a good start. I'll be isolating some short clips and posting them to YouTube later today; hopefully CPAC won't get all legal on my arse and yank them down. Let me know if there are any segments you'd like to have isolated to move this discussion along and I'll try to get them posted by the end of the day for you.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I think I just normally look frustrated. Except for the obvious gender balance problems (and that's a long story) I was really happy with the different point of view that each participant brought to the discussion. Saul, especially, I knew would talk about something different from what the rest of us were talking about, and to me that's the value of having him there. I'm always a little hyper-aware, as an occasional panel moderator, of the danger of getting to the end and one panelist fretting they didn't get enough chance to talk, so I'm always on the lookout for that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

I couldn't believe it when Broadbent asked if we wanted our taxes raised to maintain current levels of services and everyone was clapping and cheering, and I was like WTF, I paid $23 to attend a rally full of silver spoon socialists.

Something I wish had been more discussed was how to reform the system to engage citizens, given that significant reform requires a referendum, and an engaged citzenry to pass…

Mike B

I'm a self-professed silver spoon socialist, and I found that display of cheering odd as well. Sure, where the heck are you people and your support when any politician dares say they'll raise taxes? Yeah, raise OTHER people's taxes, more like it. Ed might as well have asked who was against kicking puppies.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Unfortunately, I think it was not a hypocritical reaction, but rather that last night's crowd was not representative of the public at large.

Iccyh

The point of his comment was that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Of course, given his preferences he'd say raise taxes, but you could just as easily (as Coyne said) cut spending.

I cheered, 'cause I felt the point of his comment was that we deserve honesty from our politicians regarding issues like that more than it was about tax vs. cuts etc.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Precisely, it was a question of being true to your convictions. I would have cheered and I am not a socialist.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

I'm pretty sure Mr. Broadbent asked a specific question if people were willing to pay higher taxes to maintain current levels of services and I'm pretty sure people started cheering for higher taxes. Paul and Andrew, what do you think?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

I guess you were looking for an echo chamber. Lotsa those around.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hellomike hellomike

It's Toronto, what do you expect? I think just living there made me more NDP orange. (I'm still scrubbing!) (Hohoho.)

Audiences are like that sometimes. It didn't detract from the conversation too much for me, and there is something to what Broadbent said – measure the efficacy of a democracy by the equality of its citizens. I don't think many would actually disagree with that, but the disagreements arise over the definitions of "equality" (or, sometimes, "citizens".)

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

I noted elsewhere that I thought the focus tended to wander a fair amount, but it all
was interesting despite that.

And as a personal point, Saul is always worth listening to.

jarrid

OT but newsworthy:

New Ekos poll out today has the Conservatives leading the Liberals 42% to 37% in,….(drumroll please)…. METROPOLITAN TORONTO. (MoE 6.2,but still). Who'd a thunk?
even flow

My apologize, i wasn't sure if you would get the link if i went through the letters to the editor route.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

No worries. We give broad latitude for off-topic comments on culture.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I was one of those commenters that gave my take in the previous thread. The discussion generally was insightful, though not very productive. The discussion definitely rambled. It would have been well served by taking a few minutes to outline what each panelist thought was broken about our democracy, so that they had structure enough to be on the same page at times. The moderator did a decent enough job, but along with sea_n_mountains, I think if they had an academic moderating and bringing more structure to the dialogue, it would have been far better.

Eddie Goldenberg was the highlight for me. Then Broadbent and Anderson. I missed the start, did Coyne say anything useful? The only things I heard him say were obvious platitudes with little insight. I expected way more from him.

http://twitter.com/helenspitzer @helenspitzer

Decided at the last moment to come to this, and after posting details on facebook two hours before the start time, three more friends spontaneously arrived (and many more via cpac stream). There's a real hunger to have these conversations, as you observed in the crowd last night. Love to see an entire Macleans issue devoted to possible reforms and new ideas for parliamentary process. You have our attention; time to run with it.
Mike B

It was a fascinating discussion, and I thought the balance of perspectives was quite good. I would resist any effort to make it more 'balanced' in terms of ideology. I thought all panel members put aside their ideologies very well, although for a left-of-centre voter, even I found the healthcare and child poverty tub-thumping a bit jarring at times.

My only complaint would be with the questions at the end. Seems like most of the people who got up were the perpetual grievance types dying to get in front of a microphone and rant. The panel handled this pretty well, either in asking for an actual question, or using it as a springboard for some tangential discussion.

Thanks to all the organizers and participants, and I look forward to paying to attend the next!

nice socks, Paul, btw.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

nice socks – was it a coincident that Paul and Saul had matching socks? Or is that an Ottawa intellectual/media elite thing.

Mike B

Paul's were pumpkin, Saul's were red. I take it as evidence of indivuality and personality, but if you would prefer look for liberal media collusion everywhere, I'm sure you can buy tin-foil socks for yourself.

even flow

I enjoyed the discussion last night, well except for the Igantieff digs, i found they took away from the discussion. Mr. Coyne's proclamation that Mr. Ignatieff's speeches were 'stupid' was a bit over the top and i felt took away some of credibility to the night. I think we can debate and fix the issues without resorting to partisanship.

Having said that, one thing would I like to see implemented in these discussions is a record keeping mechanism. The ability for the television crowd and those in attendance to see what points are brought up, what idea's have been discussed and what ideas the panel would like to discuss.

My reasoning for this is that i think having the points and ideas in a tangible format would allow for the discussion to proceed without getting off track. Not sure if it is practical or not but i thought it could help.

Looking forward to when/if Maclean's makes it out to Calgary.
Justin

I actually thought Paul, you did a great job summing up, and reminding us that like the guy who doesn't vote hinted at, it's not only about voting.

However I know that there tends to be a focus on process, but I thought Saul's remarks sometimes reminded everyone that it's not just about process.

In many ways I don't think the fact that there doesn't seem to be a substantive debate about policy is not ONLY or maybe even fundamentally a process issue. (Andrew Coyne would disagree as he seems to think it's mostly about process).

I just think there are bigger questions and some of the panelists brought that out. I thought Eddie Goldenberg's comments about the tax issue were really interesting.

I was just disappointed that I missed the first hour.
Ian

Someone is needed to filter the questions next time, a couple were really terrible. I never got up, but wanted to ask about electing the Senate – how did that not come up?

Also, I think someone needed to speak out in support of child poverty.

John D

You support child poverty?

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

A bit more suffering would be appropriate, perhaps? Darn kids these days are soft! With their FaceStations and their MyBooks and their teevees… get off my lawn you punks!

LHills

I was in the audience, and I agree with Paul it was a very good discussion. Many interesting ideas were brought up, however, I thought only Andrew and Paul were 100% on point. There were moments of ideology, with the speakers loosely trying to tie their comments to the larger discussion. It was out of place, and a little annoying given the limited time we had, however, it did not derail the overall trajectory of the discussion. One suggestion I would make for the next one is to have a moderator at the microphone during questions from the audience. The purpose of the exercise was for the audience to pose questions to the panelists, not provide their own commentary.
Russ

I thought Paul's comment that this is a process that will require multiple attempts until we get it right was important – afterall, it was decades after medicare was pioneered in SK before it became a national policy.

The challenge of the specific PR versions that went before the BC & ON electorate was its complexity. Reality is that alot of people simply didn't get it.

So, what if every MP can only be elected with 50% + 1 votes cast in their riding. Two benefits I of forcing run-offs when there is no majority in the first vote count: it'll mitigate the most extreme, damaging rhetorical partisanship (afterall, you're going to need some of your opponent's voters in the 2nd count if you're to win), and the resulting MP will be greatly empowered by virtue of having a real legitimate majority support in his/ her riding.

Ken S from Ramara

Australian MPs, using a Preferential ballot are elected with 50% + 1 votes cast. Tim Hudak became ON PC using the same ballot. Why don't we use this method in Canada?

Robert Viera

How can we have broken something that we've never had? A democratically-elected government is not the same thing as a democratic government. Minor reforms like proportional representation are not going to fix the problem because "representation" is the problem. It may have been necessary in 1867 to have representatives, but there is no good reason today why the people of Canada shouldn't be voting directly to decide which laws ought to pass and how their taxes should be spent.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Why was it more necessary in 1867 to have representatives than now?

Robert Viera

In 1867 we did not have the technology to make direct democracy logistically feasible enough for government to operate in a timely and efficient manner. While most other aspects of our society have been transformed by advances in technology, how we go about determining what the people's will is seems to be mired in the 19th century.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Are you suggesting we do away with MPs?

Robert Viera

Yes, though I still see a role for politicians, not as representatives of the people making decisions on their behalf, but perhaps as experts providing advice to the people.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

It is an intriguing idea, but I would like to see it tried in a simpler political environment, say a city-state like Monaco, before I could judge it's merit.
Robert Viera

If we truly believe in the idea of democracy, we need not fear putting the power to directly decide the future of the nation into the hands of it's people.
Karen

What do you say to the fact that there was less than 50 percent turnout to a plebisite vote in Nunavut to decide whether that new democracy would have equal gender representation.0 What do you say to the illegality of electronic votiog in Germany?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

And the answer to that one is, we don't truly believe in the idea of democracy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Listening to experts and then sharing that knowledge with constituents is one of the current responsibilities of an MP, although not one that they do very well.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

It would have been logistically feasible if people wanted it. It's not like legislation gets drafted in the morning and passed in the afternoon.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think our democracy is more than the moments when our representatives vote. Debates, committees, policy, drafting legislation, question period, and inquiries are arguably where much of the action is. And I'm hard pressed to think of how electronic voting from our houses could contribute to that.

Robert Viera

I disagree. Our democracy is only the moments when we vote.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

There's nothing I love more than discussions that lead to pedantic nomenclature games.

Fine, everybody should vote on everything, all the time. Now, what are we going to vote on?
Robert Viera

Do you believe that MPs in the House of Commons vote based on the wishes of their constituents? They couldn't even if they wanted to because they have no idea what the wishes of their constituents are. They don't know what their constituents want because they don't bother to ask them.

If it's OK for MPs to vote on everything as they do now, what would be wrong with having the Canadian people do the same?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I think the MPs are more in touch than you suggest. But you raise a very good point – one that Coyne is arguing too – that the role of MPs has been diminished. This has overinflated the power of party leaders, and does indeed mute the voice of the people via their elected representatives.

I don't think the answer lies in more direct, population-wide votes. Also, one of my beefs with the proportional representation schemes I've seen is that they would create MPs with no direct accountability to a district – something that could further diminish the representative role.

Any systemic change that would empower MPs further would be a step in the right direction. But a closer relationship to the people depends on the willingess of the citizens to stay informed and engaged – something I'm not fully convinced Canadians are committed to. (It's one thing to demand more participation and voice in the abstract, and quite another thing to dedicate time and effort to making it substantive).
Robert Viera

Does it matter how much MPs are in touch with their constituents if they wind up voting along party lines anyway?

If we take away the power from the politicians and give it to the people, then we don't need to worry whether the politicians are accountable.

If we want Canadians to be more engaged with their government, we need to make our government more "interactive". If we could see that our participation had a direct effect on the outcome of government decisions then we would be more motivated to participate. As it is now, politicians are free to ignore your letters, phone calls, and emails without facing any consequences until the next election. The one thing that cannot be ignored is your vote.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I keep hearing that 'if only the system were different, people would get involved'. You may be right, but I somehow think complacency and apathy are more the root of our governance problems (regardless of the particular system) than the result of them.
Robert Viera

Think back for a moment on all the issues that are important to you that have come up before government. Wouldn't you have liked to have had a say in the government's decision? Wouldn't it be better if you knew that your voice would be counted? Think of all the issues that are important to you but that have been ignored by government. Wouldn't you like to have a say in which issues the government addresses?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I do see my vote in elections as both a say in the country's direction, and a judgment of the incumbents' performance since the last election.

I'm also reasonably active in writing letters, participation in my community association and school parent council, and that sort of thing, so I don't feel like I'm invisible.

I strongly believe that any committed group of citizens can raise the profile of an issue such that it gets recognized. That said, I recognize that in a country of over 30 million people, my own issues of importance are not always going to resonate with my fellow citizens.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

I am bereft. I paid close attention for two hours …… and I missed the socks.

How gauche.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I am not so sure it is all that pedantic. Is it impossible to imagine a world where we would vote to approve the annual federal budget, changes to EI, our role in Afghanistan…? The public has a marvellous capacity to engage in public discourse, but it is currently concentrated on more trifling matters, eg. the prospects for the Leafs, American Idol contestants. I don't think such a change can happen overnight, but I do believe direct democracy can offer us far more than it is currently.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Everybody's cranky about the prospect of near-annual elections. How would adding referendums to the mix be received?

If Canadians were to begin engaging their politicians now – through letters, participation in community groups, and that sort of thing, I expect we could see greater response from our governments without resorting to frequent votes. We still need accountability in the creation of policies and ideas to vote on, after all.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

But there are cranky because they don't see any merit in the vote as it currently exits. Consider, as a first step, requiring that the annual budget be approved by referendum, with no consequences to the status of the sitting government. It would totally open up the dialogue on the budget, they would be a flood of active engagement.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

But there are cranky because they don't see any merit in the vote as it currently exits. Consider, as a first step, requiring that the annual budget be approved by referendum, with no consequences to the status of the sitting government. It would totally open up the dialogue on the budget, there would be a flood of active engagement.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

If the fall budget had been put to a referendum, do you suppose that it would have passed?

Jared Nicholson

I agree.

We could still have mps. Here's how it could work. Every vote in the house of commons, includes all the citizen's votes, managed by an online secure system. In order to keep from being swamped with emails, and rss updates about upcoming bills, you can have a default representative, an m.p. in which you will vote with by default, either the m.p. you elected or someone you've preset who you will support, (experts on individual files), That way only bills of interest will only occupy your time. Bills will still be written by m.p.s. And elections will determine who will have the authority to present bills in the house. Either elections will be set on a certain timescale, or the lowest preforming m.p.'s . M.P;s who have the least amount of people investing their default votes with them will be forced to contest for an election. For now, M.P.s can still represent geographical ridings, but i'm not sure if that will be necessary in our cosmopolitan future. The regional disparities and tyranny of the majority can be overcome by the senate NOT ELECTED!!! Because I'm not sure if this mass democracy will be prone to mania's and panics.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I agree with Lynn.

Also, I was a little disappointed that the discussion on proportional rep didn't get a bit deeper. The obvious charge that a vote for the Liberals in Alberta means nothing so why bother – while relevant, does nothing to explain how partisan-paralysis that would be guaranteed in a PR system would ever be conquered. I have been a supporter of PR votes here in BC for the past two referendums, but the voters are becoming less supportive of the initiative despite support from both of the major parties. The people who were suggesting that it just takes a strong leader to endorse the idea are definitely wrong in the BC case. Maybe, some of the problems in our democracy that people close to the situation see, within the day to day operation of government, are not real problems for people viewing the situation from a step back.

PR probably offers nothing, as far as conquering the problems caused by the highly partisan nature that encumbers a purer form of democracy. PR would only increase the problem of partisanship, perhaps even dramatically. The biggest problem is the concentration of power within the PMO, and ways of balancing out the power between the legislative and executive arms, have to be looked at more seriously.
Iccyh

Two quick comments:
1. I ended up getting seated fairly early but from what I could tell the crowd was quite young. From what I saw in the lobby about half the audience was under 30; I wasn't expecting that at all. I was quite encouraged.
2. There've been a number of comments on here taking shots at panellists for their ideological baggage, mainly Ed Broadbent. If you actually want to see reform happen, it would be far more productive to find common ground than to dwell on differences and there is a ton of common ground to be found on issues of democratic renewal. Left or right doesn't and shouldn't matter much when we're discussing how our democracy should work.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I like the spin on STF that places the also-ran-but-elected-so-who-decides choice away from the party and back to the voter, that is an excellent improvement. A possible mutation of your model would be to have a first-past-the-post member elected, and have another block of representatives selected from the remaining candidates using your method.

At the end of the day, though, I don't believe the democratic deficit caused by FPP is anything but trifling compared to the deficit caused by the concentration of power in the PMO.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Off topic indeed, but interesting stuff. I'll be writing about this later.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

It looks like it will run again on CPAC at 11:00 EDT, this morning,for those who couldn't watch it last night (like me!).
Lee Kwan Yew

It's not Canadian democracy that is broken, it is Canada that is broken. Two PC chilled white guys who work for affirmative action obsessed mau-mau'd corporations, one of whom admits he's a socialist (Coyne) and the other even more left wing, lack the necessities to contribute anything of value to the discussion.

You cannot have democracy in a multi ethnic state, everyone votes along ethnic lines, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting that.
http://www.calgarygrit.ca Calgary Grit

After watching the forum, I've come to the conclusion that there is no problem too big or too small that Ed Broadbent doesn't believe can be solved through:

a) Proportional Representation

or

b) Tax increases
Dot

So I tuned in to watch a round table discussion on the subject “Our Democracy Is Broken: How Do We Fix It?” and no round table. Not even any blue ribbons. Just loud socks.

Anyway, good interesting discussion. I think overall Macleans is doing a fine job in trying to restore some relevance to Parliament Hill with this forum, liveblogging Committees, daily reports from QP, lunches with Pollievre…good stuff!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Thanks, Sean!
Cmtejunkie

&^%$#, CPAC just cut off the town hall replay to go to a rant by Iggy….yep even our parliamentary channel is promoting the broken democracy :)
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Son of b*tch! They just cut away to Iggy in a cornfield. Apparently the forum will be shown again on Saturday morning (unless Layton decides to speak in front of compost heap, I assume).
http://CPAC.ca CPAC

Here's the link to last night's discussion on Video-on-Demand: http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&a…
John D

Who won?
John D

You have a good theory there. Awwwwwful lot o' honkys in parliament.
tobyornottoby

Overwhelm us then … where is this evidence?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

Harry Lee, is that you?

Best dam' Englishman east of the Suez.

But I digress.

Weren't the ethnic votes a Liberal stronghold, a few short years ago? Haven't the Tories been cutting deeply into that lately? Doesn't that kill your thesis?
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Generally, I thought the discussion was very good: both entertaining and informative.

But one thing that struck me was the lack of political science/public admin scholars on the panel. They bring not only obvious expertise, but also history and a somewhat more detached perspective than some of the panelists. I thought there were times where that this kind of history and in-depth knowledge was missing. For example, Rick Anderson's discussion on party discipline in response to your question was wanting relative to what those who have studied this for 30 or more years could have brought to the table (not to disparage Rick's contribution in general as he was both a genial and informative panelist).

One challenge, of course, is that you do not want too crowded a stage, and certainly none of last nights contributors lacked the bona fides to be on the panel or looked out of place in the discussion. But, as you experiment, this might be worth some consideration. Another related challenge is finding the right individual….but that can lead to fun debate in its own right.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I watched it on CPAC. Great discussion, guys! My only suggestion for next would be to have someone screen the audience questions in advance.

Kudos to Wells for his inspired closing remark. The “Democracy isn’t just three minutes in a box” line was very good.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I watched it on CPAC. Great discussion, guys! My only suggestion for next time would be to have someone screen the audience questions in advance.

Kudos to Wells for his inspired closing remark. The “Democracy isn’t just three minutes in a box” line was very good.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

I think that you can also get it on video-on-demand at the CPAC site…I had it going a few moments ago
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

thanks!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

The Canadian people, by God.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

Tax hikes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I found it interesting that eight of you sat on that panel – okay, six panelists, a pollster, and a moderator (there's a joke in there somewhere) – and not a one of you actually defined a) what you thought defined "democracy" or b) what defined a "healthy" democracy. I give some credit to Coyne who raised the idea of democracy as a process, but even that didn't come across as his full definition.

Sure, it was implied by your suggested solutions to a broken democracy. But it's hard for anyone to identify a broken democracy if we can't first define what we mean when we say "democracy" in the first place. I've been looking for a solid, reliable definition for the better part of my life and I still don't know. Really – what's the point of spouting out solutions, valid though they may be – when we haven't identified what it is about democracy that's broken in the first place? How are we ever going to stop saying "democracy's broken" when we haven't identified what we consider to be a healthy democracy?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Someone said PR! Everybody take a swig…
http://www.learnthefacts.ca Jordan Axani

Fantastic panel. Save a couple of the partisan pitches (which are natural, I suppose), it was a well rounded discussion. Coyne and Wells maintained grip with tact and whit.

I do take issue with a couple of Mr Goldenberg's comments. He was right to justify that we are lucky to have the system that we do. But I am concerned because that line of thought ("you know, things could be worse") prevents us and our government from striving to improve the system. Yes we're lucking to have consistent elections and generally responsible government. But if we do not push ourselves to change our system so that it is more effective and democratic, then we are in no position to inspire other nations.

If anyone would like to continue this conversation weekly or biweekly downtown Toronto, please get in touch.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

That's where I watched it last night ( the tv was pre-empted for Henry VIII reruns ).

The streaming is a bit wonky but it works.
http://intensedebate.com/people/IntenseAlex IntenseAlex

Some people spend an entire three minutes in there?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Babbler Babbler

Well, there was a McGill professor who was suppose to attend, but she had "personal issues". So thus our panel was scholar-less (and female-less as well). Stuff happens.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

Seriously.

Ballot, pencil, circle, X.

Not hard, people!