Chris Samuel - Canada's Next Great Prime Minister

[act251]

Thank you very much for your speech. You did a fantastic job! Count me in for your vote. Just one question: how can we involve our young people under 18 in the democratic process. Plus, I think the voting age should be 16 years. Excellent job dude!

[captainosmoteria]

Make Proportional Representation a key part of your platform.

[Mattyew]

the music needs to go

[1210donna]

my husband is also a Chris Samuel

[kev10crossfit]

so... barrack is black..

[rams3228]

dude there is no way im voting for this guy, i mean com'on he's asain.

[Mattyew]

and canada is multicultural so what's your point?

[egyptianlily]

wooooow...That was completely lame comment, think before you comment!!!! Plus i don't see you going for this.

[club349]

lolz

[daveberta]

Hey Chris - the Democracy Party last night was great. I can't wait to see the video from it!

D

[themaskedpatriot]

yes, but how do we keep the people in touch with the government?

maskedpatriot(dot)wordpress(do­t)com

[gauntl37]

On whipped votes, the solution is eliminating structural impediments to being elected as an independent. If you can get re-elected without your party, your party can't force you to toe their line. Right now, independent candidates cannot benefit from money spent by their party under a separate spending limit. Nor do they have any access to public funding on a per-vote-received basis. So we let them spend less, and we give them less to spend.

[Fidget11]

great video, loved the ideas of democratic reform and grass roots democracy. what is needed is effective representation where members are free to reflect their constituents views. BRAVO.

[46lahenry]

I think Chris' idea of grassroots leadership would go a long way to helping Canadians feel less passive in relationship to their government. I do think that global social and environmental concerns are inextricable from our way forward as a country; citizens need to become both educated and empowered to move things forward at both a national and a global level.

[amccready2]

Chris Samuel would win this contest even if all the other contestants were past and current world leaders from around the globe. He could out-compute a computer, out improvise Wayne Bradey, and I heard he beat Chuck Norris in a debate. The topics were roundhouse kicks and beard grooming.

But seriously, the guy is awesome. Chris, you got my vote.

[HillaryVipond]

I don´t have any objection to what you say. Obviously better representation is better if you believe in democracy. But your priorities are misplaced. We are on the brink of ecological collapse. Any leadership which does not acknowledge this and attempt to come up with solutions to a problem of injustice which is international in scope is useless. Millions upon millions of Canadians, of people, will die in a future which is far too near for comfort.

[CaptSamRead]

Great Video. Excellent points raised and issues addressed. You've got my vote.

[korymath]

Chris Samuel - Canada's Next Great Prime Minister

No longer just a dream!

When I first met you I acutally thought you were the Prime Minister...

You taught me all the prime numbers...

Mr. Chris,

you are amazing.

ko

[duruffio]

Prime factors/Prime numbers/Prime Minister

It was all meant to be.

[ZAmzallag]

Finally, it seems like what you are proposing would only make the house even more paralyzed with needless debate - and for what? So canadians can think they have better representation when in fact they do not. And Canada moves slower as a result.

[duruffio]

Actually, I think partisan debate in the House is a waste of time! Why even bother listening to the debate when someone else is going to tell you how to vote?

The true purpose of a deliberative assembly is to make sure all points of view are heard before reaching a considered conclusion. Debates are supposed to be persuasive!

And I would submit that moving slowly in the right direction is infinitely superior to moving quickly in the wrong direction.

[ZAmzallag]

!!! "Why even bother listening to the debate when someone else is going to tell you how to vote?" and "The true purpose of a deliberative assembly is to make sure all points of view are heard before reaching a considered conclusion."

You answered your question...

[duruffio]

Did I? I'm contending:

1) MPs don't bother listening very closely to the debate in the House, because someone else is ultimately telling them how to vote.

2) This is undesirable, because individual MPs should be able to be persuaded by compelling arguments.

[ZAmzallag]

1) Who says MPs don't bother listening? Are you saying their job consists of not doing their job? (fine... that was childish.. but really, how do you know?)

2) Who says they are not persuaded by compelling arguments? How many MPs crossed the floor in the last year alone?

[duruffio]

I doubt that MPs were motivated by parliamentary debate to cross the floor -- a cynic could argue it had more to do with political opportunity.

Since you brought it up, "crossing the floor" is a great example of why our country needs democratic reform. How can MPs of Party A, who have campaigned on the expressed platform of opposing Party B, turn around and cross the floor within a week of the election, leaving their outraged constituents with no recourse? That is unjustifiable.

[ZAmzallag]

Hi Chris, all nice in theory. We all want better representation... but it seems that what you<re suggesting might only add debate in the house when that's the contrary of what we need in the 21st century; we need action. The US has a phenomenal system - you vote, you get behind the leader, and it's an unstopable train for 4 years. Good or bad, they get the job done. Our governments mps bicker and then go back to an election 6 months later.

[duruffio]

"Good or bad, they get the job done" is completely antithetical to the principles of democracy. Why should a citizenry ever be content with a unrepresentative poor job? I reject the notion that citizens should simply "get behind the leader" in the four years between elections.

We can, and should, demand both efficiency and proper representation out of our government.

[ZAmzallag]

We already have efficiency and proper representation in our government! The only way to to get what you term "persuasive debate" is through party lines... not the good faith of MPs! Moreover, who cares for a "content citizenry" if a country is a pushover. Fine, the US have made many mistakes - but they are *debatably* one of the most successful democracies (and countries!!) in the world. And our best friend. Let's not forget what we're striving for here: 1st & foremost economic health & growth.

[duruffio]

I think we've reached the fundamental core of our disagreement. I don't believe a government should be pursuing 'economic health & growth' at the expense of all other considerations, democratic ones included.

And the success of the US is *certainly* debatable, especially in view of their current economic downturn.

[ZAmzallag]

Ah but I didn't say economic health and growth should be at the expense of ANYTHING else : )

That's my point; with economic health comes freedom and peace of mind to tackle other small issues... like party solidarity. If you put the government's focus on sometheing this trivial, then where will you find ressources for the big, important things?

[duruffio]

Our channels and processes or representation are most definitely non-trivial! It is fundamental to the operation of our country - you can't simply dismiss it as a lesser issue.

You mentioned that "we already have efficiency and proper representation in our government" - I would submit that is the minority view among Canadians.

Also, I don't think improving the economy and reforming our democracy are mutually exclusive; I think a government has ample capacity to pursue both simultaneously.

[MorelT]

Parties have certain overarching goals for the country. Eliminating them and having independent MPs would not be in the best interest our our nation. There would be too many conflicting perspectives. This type of democratic system would also lead to corruption. How would you go about accomplishing this reform? To be democratic you would have to hope to win a referrendum on the issue, which i believe many canadians would not vote in favor of.

[duruffio]

RE: Parties

I am not proposing eliminating the party system altogether in Canadian politics, but I *am* suggesting that it play less of a dominant role in dictating how MPs vote. I am not afraid of "conflicting views" - it is EXACTLY the job of Parliament to hear all those views.

RE: Corruption

Currently, MPs are essentially accountable to their parties, through processes are often opaque. If we increase transparency and accountability to the constituents, corruption is stymied.

[ahcoldpizza]

I have to disagree, MoreIT.

Currently, if a party has a majority, the PM can do whatever they wants, & Bill or motion in question will go though because of the party whip.

Motions for reviews into what the current PM is doing will almost certainly not pass. I think the current system is more susceptible to corruption then the system Chris proposes. You only have to look at the headlines on any given day to see that (Shawinigan, Mulroney's Airbus, Paul Martin's steamships.)

[highway39]

I think Canadians want to have "meaningful participation" for once...

[JamUnion]

Hey Samuel! I was thinking of submitting an application for this on the EXACT same platform you've talked about in yours. I'm behind you all the way, and I've got some ideas for you if you'd like, we can go for coffee and I'lls hare them with you.

- jordan schroder

(on facebook)

[duruffio]

Hi Jordan,

The deadline is extended until November 18th! That is plenty of time to make a submission - the more people talking about democratic reform, the better!

Thanks for the support!

PS. It might be tough to go for coffee - I'm going to school in Fredericton NB nowadays.

[JamUnion]

Oooh... you don't say?

Maybe I will enter the competition. I think I'll stick to my plan B idea about 'Peak Oil'. I still support you and your platform though brother!

Let's meet half-way in thunderbay!

:P

[marshimallow]

Furthermore, don't you think that loosened recall thresholds will again negatively impact the efficiency of our government?

Again I want to say I agree with you in principle, but in practice, would the high cost of these proposals outweigh the tangible benefits of increased democracy in our government?

[duruffio]

So long as the thresholds necessary to trigger recall are not absurdly low, I don't actually believe recalls would be detrimental to the functioning of government. So long as representatives were conducting themselves in good faith, I imagine it would be difficult for dissenters to gather the necessary opposition. The trick is to find the appropriate balance between a threshold that is too high, and one that is too low. It will take work and time to find this balance.

[marshimallow]

hey best of luck for the contest, you have my 5 star vote as well as a favorite on youtube :)

The changes you propose are good ideas for increasing the degree of democracy, but what do you say to the charge that it would do so at the sake of efficiency?

I totally agree with what you are proposing in theory, but in practice, party whipped votes are a necessary evil to keep our government from screeching to a halt when it comes to legislation.

[duruffio]

I don't believe that non-whipped votes will result in a decrease of efficiency; actually, I believe the opposite - partisan rhetoric and posturing hampers the legislative process by wasting time and effort that could be put into collaboration and negotiation.

I would also submit that an unrepresentative, expedient debate is FAR worse than a representative, protracted one.

Thanks for the comment!

[SpenserSedgwick]

Nice!!

[Knave1988]

and todays lesson. how to say nothing in five minutes.

[Tyking7]

Needed another 10 seconds to achieve that, actually.

[duruffio]

Tyler:

I think smarmy comments like this one weaken your overall credibility - my advice is to stick to engaging in substantive debate.

[Tyking7]

I was actually being smarmy about the person's lame comment and its inaccurate time, not agreeing with it.

I think the majority of your 4 minutes 50 seconds was substantive, as much as I may disagree with it.

[duruffio]

Given the amount of debate happening on the video, I find it difficult to believe that I managed to said nothing. Sorry, but that line of attack just won't work - maybe try engaging in constructive debate?

[arrow1016]

Good luck Chris! You've got my vote- even if I do feel under educated just listening to your video.

[duruffio]

Thanks!

[Shooting star passing over my head]

*The More You Know!*

[Catchy jingle]

[lizaroO0]

P.S Chris, I miss you at Rapid Fire. It's just not the same.

[addictedtoemail]

Go Chris Go!

[duruffio]

Thanks for the support!

[rosborough]

Hahah you're pathetic.

[duruffio]

Hi Anthony,

Wow! Thanks for raising the level of democratic discourse in this country. It's insightful comments like yours that make me glad I entered this contest. Your analysis is great - I'd be really scared to go up against you in the televised debate!

Best of luck in the rest of the contest!

Friendly thoughts,

--Chris

[lizaroO0]

Great job, Chris. You're more articulate and have better ideas than many politicians in high places. If Canadians voted for these people, they'd vote for you!

[duruffio]

Thanks for the kind words! Be careful or my ego will start to swell.

[ahcoldpizza]

Cheesecakeman states that "Decisions already affect people, yet many people are content with letting others decide for them by not voting or not commenting? "

I don't think this is the case. People aren't content, they just don't see the point anymore. Typical participation in the democratic process currently yields few tangible results.

Chris' proposed changes would increase the results, -that is to say increase the reward for participation,- and so, logically, participation would go up.

[duruffio]

Thanks for the support, coldpizza!

Essentially, you've captured the spirit of my submission - representatives listening more results in constituents talking more.

When's your video going to be online ;)

[ahcoldpizza]

If the population actually saw that their comments and their participation has effect (which they REALLY don't see now), then this would change.

If Chris' proposed changes happened, people WOULD vote, they WOULD participate, they WOULD speak out. Why? Because they would see that these things actually HAD an effect.

Voter turnout would go up, apathy would go down, etc.

[estoid]

I'm all about new, inventive ways to use the Internet. Organizing a massive print ballot vote could easily be a thing of the past.

Good work Chris, not only do you have good ideas, but you play a mean game of Tetris.

[duruffio]

Thanks! For the record, I play a *FEARSOME* game of Tetris. If only that was how this thing was decided...

[EtownSunny]

The last time I saw a candidate with a substantial background in the medical, educational, engineering, (etc.) profession...the candidate had enormous support and was very in touch with his citenzry.

I think we're quite far away from having that occur regularly, though, which is unfortunate to say the least.

Best of luck with the competition!

[EtownSunny]

Personally, I feel that this being 'out of touch' with the citizenry is much more related to the career/life experience of the MPs we're electing; we're, most often, electing career politicians and it's because they're really the only ones interested in the job.

[duruffio]

Excellent point.

A benefit to promoting public participation from a broader citizen base is that, in turn, you're likely to draw representatives from a wider range of backgrounds.

Perhaps this will help bring us closer to creating the ideal MP/citizen relationship.

[EtownSunny]

Great job, Mr. Samuel. Good points overall, and, hopefully, you have an extensive list of ideas for 'smaller initiatives/education[al] [programs]'...

[EtownSunny]

You know my stance on the entire democracy issue as it stands- the non-involvement/apathetic voting population issues are, just as you said, due to the fact that most Canadians are not (or feel that they're not?) being heard.

[thecheesecakeman]

How would you respond to knowing that the voter turnout for elections is relatively low for a country that is as "democratic" as ours? How would your democratic reforms encourage more participation in government and encourage people to become more political when it comes to decisions that will affect them? Decisions already affect people, yet many people are content with letting others decide for them by not voting or not commenting? How would you address this "non participating population"?

[ahcoldpizza]

I dont speak for Chris but I think the answer to this is fairly obvious.

I think most of the "non-participating population" don't participate because they don't see the point. Whether or not they participate right now the outcome is the same. The citizens aren't being listened to right now, so why would they waste their time and energy yelling into deaf ears?

[ahcoldpizza]

In response to the cheesecakeman: I dont speak for Chris but I think the answer to this is fairly obvious.

I think most of the "non-participating population" don't participate because they don't see the point. Whether or not they participate right now the outcome is the same. The citizens aren't being listened to right now, so why would they waste their time and energy yelling into deaf ears?

[duruffio]

Hi thecheesecakeman,

I see that you've found my comments in my video response. Nevertheless, thanks for contributing your questions. If you feel that you'd like further expansion on any point, just let me know.

[Belldave74]

As well.....

Chris I like your ideas on parlimentary process although I would like to hear your opinion on senate reforms. The current gov't is trying to make changes what would you like to see to our upper chamber?

[duruffio]

Another very good question, Belldave. In brief:

1) I believe that a Senate should exist (I oppose its abolition)

2) I support term limits (the proposed 8 years seems reasonable)

3) I don't think unelected-Senators should be allowed to hold ministerial portfolios (see: Michael Fortier)

4) It's fairly obvious that the country has no appetite to reopen the Constitution at this point. Consequently, further substantive changes (ie. 3E-Senate) would have to wait.

[Belldave74]

Hi Chris, I agree with the populist idealism you voice in your video and appreciate it. Although it is quite apparent in politics or in the business world for that matter,the people that oppose the point of view are the people that speak loudest and most often. Therefore when you are listening to your constituants how are you ensured that you are "polling"(for a lack of a better term)your whole constituancy?

[duruffio]

Hi Belldave,

Thanks for the great question.

Nothing can guarantee the full participation of a constituency. Politicians can only do the following:

1) Encourage people to participate

2) Make participating as easy as possible

3) Engage in a constructive dialogue

A representative must then be able to interpret that discussion. This is where a strong link between the constituency and representative is required!

[ahcoldpizza]

Hey Chris, saying this brought an idea to my mind.

In some countries, it is actually a crime not to vote. I believe the punishment is a fine or a few days in jail.

What do you think of using this practice to raise voter turnout rates?

[duruffio]

Hi everyone - since this 500 character limit is mighty restrictive, I'm going to be posting a video response shortly. Thanks for commenting!

[lfooty1]

Id love to hear your reponse to these ideas, also you can watch my video entry and feel free to 'constructively criticize' my ideas as well. :)

Cheers,

Leeanne

[lfooty1]

I worry that as much as the party whip is often a negative thing, it does ensure that governments dont loose confidence in the house too frequently. I worry that without any party whip, just this would happen, and the DIRECT OPPOSITE of what you want to happen would- as with elections happening to frequently I worry voters will loose interest and vote LESS than they do now.

[lfooty1]

Also, you discuss the elimination of the "party whip" within the house but you never address HOW you would go about eliminating it. As well, I think the elimination of the party whip would have some great benefits, but I would have liked to see you address the ramifications of this.. (I mean party whip does exist for a reason)..

[lfooty1]

Chris, I absolutely agree with your assertion that democratic reform in Canada would be a good thing. You discuss that more involvement by Canadian voters would ensure that representatives decisions more often reflect those of Canadians. While I agree with this, you dont actually address WHY Canadians have so little involvement in the first place! I would have liked to see you discuss HOW you intend to Canadian voters more involved- do you intend to change to say first-past-the post system?

[Knave1988]

democracy IS the representation of a governed people. there doesn't need to be haggling with the people if they are correctly represented.

[slippyhippy]

uh... whoops. i guess that posted the first time, haha.

[slippyhippy]

"Make standing committees are representative of the interests of all Canadians."

Somewhat vague and open to interpretation. How or what do you plan on doing here?

[slippyhippy]

"Making standing committees representative of the interests of all Canadians"

Somewhat vague and open to interpretation. How or what do you plan on doing here?

[duruffio]

Hi slippyhippy,

I have responded to your question via Video Response. Thanks for commenting!

[teddybearwithahug]

In your video you made it sound like the voting population is stupid. That they would agree on anything as long as they were able to say there piece. I don't know about you, but some governments have gotten in to trouble with that way of thinking. and people have always rays a concern with issues. That's why you see protesters. and mps do support there ridings on ever issue

[duruffio]

Hello teddybear,

I have responded to your question via Video Response. Thanks for commenting!

[PhendranaDrifts]

I agree with many of your ideas Chris, but my only concern is that improving the system in the way that you are suggesting will often serve to make decisions shortsighted. Who will have the guts to stand up for what is right rather than what is popular in such a system? The system should and almost certainly would punish such an individual or group of individuals in power.

[duruffio]

Thanks for the comment.

Any structural modifications to the democratic system has to be coupled with an effort to increase the quality of national debate. If an educated citizenry can make good use of an accessible public discourse, then awareness of issues (and the short *and* long-term consequences of implementing decisions) will result in "what is popular" and "what is right" describing the same thing.

[Tyking7]

Oh my gosh... 'requires MPs to think critically'? That doesn't mean anything!

It doesn't create political pressure either - the Reform party tried that and it didn't work.

A publicly-financed electoral system? How do you decide who gets money? And if it's by popular vote as it is now, it puts small and new parties at a huge disadvantage.

[duruffio]

1.) "Requires MPs to develop policy stances, compatible with the interests of their constituents, and independent of party influence." - Better?

2.) The Reform party enjoyed its success because it was considered a populist party.

3.) The "Clean Elections" system being used in some States seems promising. Essentially, a flat-rate per candidate.

[Tyking7]

2) That's not a counter-argument. They tried being the sole undisciplined party, it didn't work, and they switched back to a whipped party.

3) A flat rate? So the crazy independent who proposes we merge with Australia gets as much advertising as the major parties?

[duruffio]

2) And I think they made a mistake. In any event, parliamentary reforms without accompanying electoral reforms are likely to be ineffective. The Reform was never in a position to implement those electoral reforms.

3) So long as they meet the substantive support thresholds, why not? "Crazy ideas" are subjective. If candidates can gather enough ground-level support, then why shouldn't they have as much funding as the major parties?

[DarnelHarris]

Good ideas Chris. However, I only seem to see ideas, with no details behind them, on how you would accomplish these things.

[duruffio]

Five minutes isn't a lot of time, unfortunately, but I suppose a time-limit was a necessary inconvenience.

My aim was to present my ideas clearly and accessibly. I think public buy-in on the policy objectives is a prerequisite for discussion on policy implementation.

That being said, if you'd like expansion on any particular part of the video, let me know, and I'll flesh out the details for you.

[daveberta]

Go Chris! :-)

[azcal]

Chris, you will always be the Grand Master of Funk in my eyes.....

[Tyking7]

Standing committees are already reflective of the overall composition of parliament. Furthermore, how can you eliminate whipped votes for parties other than your own? Ask nicely?

[duruffio]

Thanks for the comments, and the question.

RE: Standing committees - Every standing committee (with the exception, I believe, of the Public Accounts Committee) is chaired by a member of the governing party. That's supposed to be reflective of Parliament?

[Tyking7]

The composition of every committee is reflective of the House - the government doesn't have a majority on committees.

[Tyking7]

And actually on chairs - the chairman of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee is a Liberal (Tom Wappel).

[duruffio]

It's actually 4 chairs out of 26 (Standing Committee on Public Accounts; the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics; the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women). Note that those committees take their chairs from the Official Opposition - no other party is eligible. That means 22 out of 26 are taken from the governing party - but clearly, now we are getting off-topic.

[duruffio]

Yes, I am aware of that - but there's a distinction between equitable party representation and representation for the interests of Canadians. I'm interested in making sure the latter is represented.

Standing committees are supposed to function as highly visible conduits to bridge the gap between the House and the citizenry. Currently, I don't think they are filling that role. I would encourage Standing Committees to perform more outreach/education functions.

[DarnelHarris]

Again, there's that question of how...? Encouragement gets little done generally.

[duruffio]

I'm looking to create a paradigm shift in the way Canadians think about democracy. This requires education and outreach. Obviously, it's not a one-person job. It will require collaboration from all orders of Government. There is no single route to achieve this - it is will result from the cumulation of a number of smaller initiatives.

Incidentally, this is why I'm interested in the show - it is one of the few ways to raise public awareness on issues in a non-partisan way.

[duruffio]

RE: Whipped votes - I suppose this is where you're expecting me to put a plug in for your submission, so I will oblige. We seem to be trying to achieve similar ends. However, I think you're missing a critical part of the equation; specifically, cultivating a political climate where voters *expect* that their representative will put their interests ahead of the party's.

Good luck in the contest.

[Tyking7]

Actually, I wasn't - I was asking you how you were going to eliminate whipped votes. You haven't answered that, or how you'll 'cultivate' this political climate - politicians won't do what you're talking about if they're going to be ejected from caucus because of it.

[duruffio]

There is no instant fix. You can start within your own party. This does two things:

1) Requires MPs to think critically on issues as they arise, and

2) Creates political pressure on other parties to follow suit

Also:

-Place more of an emphasis on individual platform development.

-Change electoral financing laws

-Eventually, we would adopt a publicly-financed electoral system.

-Make amendments to the Standing Orders, reducing the power of parties

-Encourage cross-party dialogue and collaboration

[radicalbusiness]

VOTE THIS MAN IN IMMEDIATELY.

[antifapride]

You got my vote. ;)