And who are you to decide what is worthy and what isn’t of requiring a super majority? And who are the politicians to decide that?
It won’t happen anyway as that would need to be enshrined in the Constitution and the reason why we don’t open it is that it would start a shitshow AND it requires a super majority to make any changes to it.
The limits are decided as the society and its government are formed and as they develop. Just as you note, look at the process for amending the constitution or the fact that you can’t vote in unconstitutional laws.
It just a basic fact about well functioning democratic systems that you have limits to majoritarian rule.
There is a lot more to democracy than winners taking all in bare majority votes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring super majorities for some process, or requiring consensus in some cases, in having some things decided by experts instead of by vote, or by using deliberation with no voting in some cases.
The important part of democratic governance is that we work together to develop and maintain well reasoned and functional systems that are stable and responsible to our changing needs, based on engagement and deliberation of the citizenry. Winner take all bare majoritarian voting is the least of it, honestly.
I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer), but my understanding (and what I meant to say) was that unconstitutional laws are subject to legal correction, so sure , we may vote in whatever we want, but that doesn’t meant the law will stand or take effect.
The reason we in Canada nowadays use the term referendum to mean mainly the non-binding type is because at the beginning of the century the western provinces experimented with the binding referendum. But it was abandoned because the Manitoba law on the subject was declared unconstitutional in 1919, mainly on the ground that it usurped the power of the lieutenant-governor, as a representative of the crown, to veto legislation. It also interfered with the powers of the federal government, which appoints the lieutenant-governors and has the power to instruct them
Of course I am aware of the “notwithstanding clause”, but this is not relevant for the strict majoritarian view you were espousing, is it? Moreover, “it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter” and the parts of the Charter subject to override are limited: “rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inviolable”.
To my mind, this is clearly all further evidence of the fact that our government is organized via an intricate (and ever-evolving) system with various overrides and corrective measures and balanced powers, and that it is in no way simply reducible to strict, %50+, majoritarian rule.
And who are you to decide what is worthy and what isn’t of requiring a super majority? And who are the politicians to decide that?
It won’t happen anyway as that would need to be enshrined in the Constitution and the reason why we don’t open it is that it would start a shitshow AND it requires a super majority to make any changes to it.
The limits are decided as the society and its government are formed and as they develop. Just as you note, look at the process for amending the constitution or the fact that you can’t vote in unconstitutional laws.
It just a basic fact about well functioning democratic systems that you have limits to majoritarian rule.
There is a lot more to democracy than winners taking all in bare majority votes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring super majorities for some process, or requiring consensus in some cases, in having some things decided by experts instead of by vote, or by using deliberation with no voting in some cases.
The important part of democratic governance is that we work together to develop and maintain well reasoned and functional systems that are stable and responsible to our changing needs, based on engagement and deliberation of the citizenry. Winner take all bare majoritarian voting is the least of it, honestly.
Edit: it’s helpful imo to skim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy to get a sense of how varied and expansive democratic governance is.
But as I pointed out, the super majority required to amend the Constitution means that it will never change.
I’m now wondering if you are Canadian because yes we actually can.
I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer), but my understanding (and what I meant to say) was that unconstitutional laws are subject to legal correction, so sure , we may vote in whatever we want, but that doesn’t meant the law will stand or take effect.
See e.g., http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp
Section 33
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
Of course I am aware of the “notwithstanding clause”, but this is not relevant for the strict majoritarian view you were espousing, is it? Moreover, “it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter” and the parts of the Charter subject to override are limited: “rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inviolable”.
To my mind, this is clearly all further evidence of the fact that our government is organized via an intricate (and ever-evolving) system with various overrides and corrective measures and balanced powers, and that it is in no way simply reducible to strict, %50+, majoritarian rule.