User talk:SimonP/Comparison of Canadian and United States governments

Written Constitution

"Canada copied some concepts from the US, such as a written constitution."

Interesting that the article refers to this apparently in reference to the period of the American Revolution, particularly since Canada's 'written constitution' was actually an act of British Parliament signed in 1862 which was only patriated in 1982.

This ought to be changed. Preferrably by someone familiar with Canadian politics.

---

I think many people will tell you that there is hardly a liberal vs. conservative dichotomy between the American parties. They're practically indistinguishable. -- Zoe

That's only because either you're completely uninformed or you're a right/left-wing extremist. There are easily seen liberal and conservative differences seen between the parties if one actually takes the time to inform themselves and LOOK (take the stances on healthcare, political economy, social welfare, gay rights, abortion rights, church & state, etc.). Conservatives and liberals share commonalities only on a very few set of issues in the US.68.164.2.32 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

this entry is FAR from brilliant prose! Somebody please finish the huge chunk of null topics or at least link them to useful entries! Please finish the eternal confusion btw Canada and the US!

---

I think the article as is makes too much of Quebec's supposed "special powers". As the article says itself some American states operate under a civil code, so that wouldn't seem to count as a "difference". AFAIK the only real "special power" Quebec has that the other province don't is that Quebec has a seperate pension plan, which seems like a pretty lame power and more beaurocratic than anything (especially now that the Quebec Liberals have sworn off political interference in the Caisse).

The far more important trend in Canada has been the Federal government's preference to surrender powers to all the province when any one or a few desire them, in order to keep the federation "symetrical". I'm not sure how this relates to the US.

Also, I'm pretty sure there are some very minor special powers we're forgetting (such as Ontario and Quebec having their own police forces, while the other provinces have the RCMP - this seems to really annoy some Westeners). -- stewacide 18:10 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Other special powers that Quebec has: Ability to raise income tax on a different basis from the other provinces; ability to select its own candidates for immigration; practical exemption from laws enforcing bilngualism. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

These are not special powers. Other provinces have the option of exercising them. Ontario and Alberta have both recently expressed interest in rainig their own income taxes. Trontonian 15:54, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the relationship between the Provincial parties and the Federal Parties, but if you count Bloc and Parti Quebecois as one party, 4 of the Parties with Federal MPs have been in power in one province or another. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Some of the provincial parties, e.g., the New Democratic Party (NDP), have provincial and federal wings, so that someone must be a member of the provincial NDP in order to be a member of the federal party. However, most provincial parties are independent of the federal parties, most notably the Liberal parties in Quebec and BC, and do not necessarily support their federal counterparts. --The Four Deuces 06:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And again. Are there really fewer checks and balences in Canada? A PM can be voted out of office if enough of his MPs disagree with him, but you are stuck with a President for 4 years no matter what. A President gets to choose whoever he wants as his staff. A PM has to choose (usually) people elected as MPs. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not entirely true - some positions on the presidents staff are his choice like chief of staff, but many require consent of the Senate like Cabinet members. Rmhermen 17:06, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

As well, through impeachment you can remove the president from office. Although, it is more difficult to remove the president from office than it is to remove the prime minister, it still can be done. 24.57.127.187 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has ever been able to remove a president from office through impeachment, this ability doesn't seem to weigh heavily in the argument. John FitzGerald 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Quebec has a veto on constitutional matters. This is definitely a special power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.9.15 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Move this page

Shouldn't this be at Canada and U.S. politics compared? The and should be added. --Jiang 21:11, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Centralization

"In Canada the "checks and balances" are very different from those in the United States. It may be argued that the Prime Minister within Canada has vastly more power than the American President does."

Does anyone have a strong objection to replacing the word 'power' in the above sentence with 'authority'? As written, the sentence has a rather high giggle-factor, and I think 'authority' is a more accurate term for what the writer intended to convey...

That is the correct use of the word power, people with a political science background won't giggle...--134.153.9.15 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I found the assertion that Canadian government is more centralized than the US's to be difficult to credit. For one thing, the "special powers" which Quebec has are not special. ANy province may exercise them. Both Alberta and Ontario have recently expressed interest in collecting their own income tax (although with the Liberals returning to power in Ontario that idea is probably a dead letter). National programs in many fields are only possible in Canada if the provinces approve. The provinces had their own medicare systems (or some did, anyway) before there was any national medicare program. Provinces retain the option of opting out of the national plan. And I think that any fedration which allows regional governments to run immigration cannot fairly be characterized as centralized. There's more in the article. Trontonian 03:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As I said when editing, a lot of this article is highly debatable, but the debatable points are well worth keeping as long as they're acknowledged as questionable -- for example, the idea that the Canadian legislative and executive branches are fused may be true in practice, but is wrong in law. And that point about Canadian pride was a cheap shot. Canadians haven't remained a separate country for 140 years because we're just like Americans. Trontonian 15:39, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As has been suggested above, I moved the page to one with a more conventional title. Trontonian

I have greatly changed the section on division of powers. To some extent I was merely adding information which had been left out, but as I have noted above i really cannot be persuaded that Canada is a centralized country. However, I hope I have not obliterated an important theme of the original passage, which is the distinction between the theoretical division of powers in each country and the actual division. Obviously Canada is more centralized than it could be. Some revision by someone who disagrees with me would probably be salutary. Trontonian

This is way off if someone wants to fix it: "By comparison, some of those who founded English Canada were United Empire Loyalists who had lived in the United States but who rejected the democratic system in existence there." NightCrawler 10:46, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good point. When I ran across this article it was full of questionable POV like that. Think I'll take a look at it. Trontonian

---

"Unilingual politicians are confined to provincial politics"

What exactly is meant by this? That all federal politicians are bilingual..? It's at the bottom of the 'Bureaucracy' section. Tremblay 05:37, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• Since Anne McLellan is now deputy PM, this is clearly wrong, so I'm changing it.

---

Wasn't it much more appropriate/correct to have it under "Canadian and US politics" instead of "...American politics"?Tremblay 02:51, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Canadian is an adjective and US an attributive; using American means the parts of speech are the same. However, having been involved in tiresome arguments elsewhere about the use of American to mean of the United States (the fact that that is what English-speakers mean by American doesn't seem to weigh heavily with a lot of people), I don't feel like getting into any more, so as far as I'm concerned, if you want to move it, you can move it. Trontonian 20:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

This could become an interesting article. I invite people who contributed to it so far to read this source if they haven't already:

• Comparing Canadian and American Federalism

It would be wrong to draw conclusions solely on this comparision. There is always a good difference between the legal state and the real state. Also, although extremely important, the federal framework is not the only determining factor of politics in both sovereignties. Numerous American states and some provinces have a history of making their own policies in spite of the dominant trend in the country. Mathieugp 01:04, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good points. And the article holds only for 1867-1896. Once the Imperial Privy Council ruled that the Canadian government could only exercise its residuary power in time of war, everything changed in Canadian politics. Trontonian 13:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in many fields which are federal responsibilities in the United States; primary and secondary education being the most prominent.

This section is not untrue, but it needs qualifying:

The US Federal government helps to fund every school in the country, but it does not control curriculum, which are left to individual districts and states to work out. The Department of Education is the smallest Cabinet Department. Only with No Child Left Behind did Federal responsibility in education really begin centralizing, and even then it's still mostly individual district's responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.102.194 (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Things to improve

It is not clear in the article if the subject matter is a comparison of Canadian and American political institutions, political traditions or origins, practices, or a comparison of the legal country (laws that have been passed). Also, to do any serious analysis of this sort, one must state the criteria from which the comparisons are to be drawn. This is not very clear right now and in fact things are going in all directions.

There are a lot of sentences contrasting or rather fighting each other. One says A, the next one says "however B" and both stay in conflict. One really should not say something and its contrary in the same paragraph. I suspect this would be because one person's point of view was being attenuated by another person, but both did not know for sure how to point out the factual error(s) in the other person's statement.

In one of the last sections of the article, there is a summary of the differences, yet almost all of what is part of this summary is not discussed in the previous paragraphs!

I suggest something like that:

Intro

• what is being compared, point of this article

Political organisation

Canada

• A diagram of the power structure would be good
• positions in the government and how these people get elected.
• institutions, their purpose, the reason they were created that way
• legislative, executive, judicial powers
• electoral system
• powers of federal government vs state/provincial governments
• others

• link to the Politics of Canada page for more details.

US

(same thing)

Origins

(theoricians, their work, their thesis)

I think so far the main idea has been to correct the many misconceptions which the article contained. The "A however B" passages were probably intended to gve the original anonymous author a chance to back up his/her more astounding claims. On the whole I don't know why there need be such an article at all. Surely a more general survey of political systems would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Trontonian

I agree that improving Politics of Canada and Politics of the United States would probably be a better idea. Should we bring this article to the Vote for Deletion zone? Mathieugp 01:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My idea was actually for a new article, but your idea sounds better. I'd support a vote for deletion, mainly because the article is a ragbag. The original organizing themes have disappeared because they weren't valid. The important information could be incorporated into the other two articles. Trontonian 02:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I restored the comparison of Canadian and American education systems. Education is a federal responsibility in the US, which is why there's a federal department of education. If the school systems were largely the creatures of the states and municipalities, as the editing note implies, one would expect much more variation from state to state in the school system. Trontonian

No one has complained...

About the use of the word "American" in this article, unlike the article for American twenty dollar bill, where there were people who complained a lot about the word "American" and thus it was moved to U.S. twenty dollar bill. 66.245.85.121 01:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That was recommended to eliminate ambiguity. It doesn't, but I don't see that ambiguity is an issue here. If Canadian politics is being compared to American politics, a reasonable person assumes it's the politics of the U. S. of A., not of an entire hemisphere.

In fact, this page was once called Canada and U. S. politics compared, which is completely lame. Canada politics? What variety of English does that phrase come from? Comparison of the political systems of Canada and the U. S. I could tolerate, though, if this article isn't going to be deleted. Trontonian 11:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Urban population

I know we're not supposed to be putting our own theories in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:No original research) but I figured I can't be the only person to have thought of this, so maybe someone can point me to where this might be discussed. In both Canada and the U.S., cities tend to lean a little more left than rural areas. A significantly higher percentage of Canadians live in large cities, relative to Americans. Generally, Canadian policies are just more urban than American. moink 21:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Draft dodgers

Can anyone cite any evidence that draft dodgers (I presume form the Vitenam War era) changed Canadian political culture? Canadian politics was already far to the left of American, and I don't know that draft dodgers took a great part in Canadian politics (and I knew a lot of them). Anyway, the assertion isn't preposterous but it is questionable, so some evidence would be helpful. TronTonian 19:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since no evidence has been provided I watered down the assertion. It also occurred to me that many of the draft dodgers I knew were pretty conservative, which isn't surprising given American political culture. John FitzGerald 22:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The impact of deserters and draft evaders on Canadian politics was unmistaken, but not direct. Many of them found refuge in Canadian universities, as students or young faculty, where they had enormous influence on the intellectual climate of the time. This extended to the political scene. HistoryBA 02:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But how was this enormous influence manifested? What specific political events were the result of this influence? For example, the big left-wing movement of the day was the Waffle – what decisive role did they play in that, or in defeating it within the NDP?

Incidentally, as someone who was in Canadian universities at the time, I think the term refuge is inappropriate. They were hired to work there or accepted as students – the universities weren't providing protection against the American government. That is, they weren't doing them any favours. John FitzGerald 12:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was using the term "refuge" from the perspective of the draft evaders ("many of them found refuge") not from the perspective of the the university. The fact is that they found a place to work and an hospitable intellectual climate in the university. For them, it was refuge. HistoryBA 23:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was writing from their perspective as well. Anyway, we can safely disagree about that. I still remain doubtful about their immediate impact on Canadian politics, but I could see some of the ones who stayed having some effect, although I'd think it would be in removing a class perspective from Canadian politics rather than in driving it left. What particular draft dodger/resister political figures did you have in mind? John FitzGerald 02:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm beginning to like the idea of the removal of the class perspective. I suspect there were a lot of expatriate American academics who strove to replace a class analysis with identity politics. I can think of some I knew. It would probably make a good dissertation topic, except you probably couldn't find anyone to supervise it. Same thing went on in the States, eh, but starting earlier. John FitzGerald

Aha! Maybe we're defining left politics differently. I forget that I'm older than most people and definitely old-fashioned. I still conceive of a left analysis as a conception of society as made up of social classes defined by their members' relationship to the means of production. These days many people have this left corporatist view of society as an assemblage of interest groups of differing power among which it is important to establish equity. As I have implied, if you're arguing that (some) draft dodgers promoted that type of leftism you may well be on to something important. John FitzGerald 19:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Taxes

and Ontario and Alberta have recently expressed interest in collecting their own taxes.

What about the Provincial Sales Tax in Ontario?

My sloppy wording – should have specified income taxes. Will fix. John FitzGerald 22:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

I wonder if the opening sentence ("This article is about ...") is necessary. After all, it only restates the article title. Thoughts? Deleting Unnecessary Words 21:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Impressions

This article reads more like an explanation of Canadian politics to someone from the US, rather than a truly neutral comparison.

zoney ♣ talk 22:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. HistoryBA 20:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The summary section in particular seems convey a slightly pro-American comparison of USA aspects versus what might be perceived to Americans as slightly bizarre Canadian aspects. A strong case for making less americentric.--JRL 07:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Without questioning the validity of your observation, which I agree with, I'll note that when I came across the article it was mainly an exercise in bashing Canadian politics from an American perspective, or rather from the perspective of a Canadian who preferred American political institutions and practices. The mass of description about Canadian politics was introduced in an attempt to reduce POV. John FitzGerald 15:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Still true?

It is one of the strongest backers of the United Nations - it's my understanding that Canada's overseas budget on UN operations fell from 91% in 1995, to a current 3%...anybody able to otherwise confirm that we remain "one of the strongest backers" ? Sherurcij 13:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You are talking about military operations. There is a heck of a lot more to the UN than its military activities. HistoryBA 00:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

True, but are there actual numbers to suggest we are otherwise among their "strongest backers", do we pay the most in actual money, provide the most doctors, scream the loudest during sessions...what exactly "strongest backers" means, is fairly ambiguous, and I'm pretty certain it could be easily confused for "most active on UN missions", which we are not. Sherurcij 09:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should we change the text to "has been one of the strongest backers of the United Nations"? HistoryBA 21:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The US is the country that created the League of Nations (though, the Senate never ratified it), and is the main country that created the UN. Shouldn't that be mentioned, lest everyone think that the US's history with the UN has been completely along the lines of the Dubya era? The US, too, has also been one of the strongest backers of the United Nations.68.164.2.32 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

I really like the idea of a summary, however every point in the posted summary was disputable. I would have generated a new summary, but I fear repeating the original mistake. If anybody with an in depth knowledge of the political system of the United States would like to work with me to create a summary of the differences and similarities, please send me a message. Also, if you would like me to explain my disputes with each point, again just send me a message. Chad 11:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

too Canadian?

The article is a little too Canadian in perspective. Basically it was written by Canadians who ask, how are we different from Americans in politics? That's OK, but it does have the negative effect of missing some of the nuances that an American would emphasize. So I will try to remedy that a bit. Rjensen 20:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a "truetory" here who is uninterested in the connections between American and Canadian politics. He needs to do some research before erasing ideas and quotes he wishes had not happened. Rjensen 03:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your project of curbing the excessively Canadian POV is a worthy one and you have included some good references. I would be careful not to overstate the American (Loyalist) influence on Canada. It is undeniably there, but is just one thread. I've revised the relevant paragraphs accordingly. As to the truetory: These guys, like the poor, are always with us. Hopefully he will be reasonable and not try to vandalize the article. Sunray 08:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

well you'll forgive a touch of Yankee style--we go in for strong statements south of the 49th.  :) Rjensen 08:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh gents, I'll be back - when I have more time. No worry about that. And I will bring my sources and editing pen with me. You are OVERSTATING the influence of republicanism in Canada with a few loose quotes. Outcome is more important than process. The fact that Canada remained a Monarchy and within the Empire-Commonwealth is more indicative than anything your are referencing. If anything, you two are engaging in wishful editing here - and not moi. Perhaps it would be better if Americans edited the American sections of the article, instead of attempting to re-write the sections on Canada, a subject that you are generally very weak and ideologically constrained about. TrulyTory 12:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

well you might start by reading Errington, the Lion The Eagle & Upper Canada. Those are not loose quotes but rather solid recent scholarship of the sort that Wiki requires. I suggest that if this article is going to be an international collaboration then it's a two-way street. And please let's discuss serious topics in a serious way. And let's skip nonsense about "Outcome is more important than process" -- that's POV and it would leave most articles with no history section whatever. It's like saying "only the final score of the game matters, so don't bore people with what happened each inning." And please don't call people "generally very weak" when they actually read the scholarly books, add them to the bibliography, and cite them. That's what serious work looks like. You're setting a standard for depth of knowledge that might be pretty steep for someone who has a high school understanding of Canadian history and perhaps less of US history. Rjensen 12:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying Errington's thesis, that the evolution of Canadian political culture was modified by both Tory and Reform impulses and forces. What I do challenge is your selective culling of that work - which is not the only interpretation of that evolution. I would also remind you that "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I'll be back. Nice shot with "high school understanding." I love to play this game, so I guess you and I will be crossing swords. En guarde ! TrulyTory 13:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

TrulyTory raises some interesting points. I agree with him that Americans often assume that "Canadians are just like us." This sometimes offends Canadian sensibilities (hence this article, I assume). The ambitious goal for the article is to highlight differences and similarities in Canadian and American politics. Not an easy task and it will take many perspectives to make it a good article. It looks like I failed to Assume good faith with TT and I will not make that mistake again.

Rather than gird for battle, I would hope that we can make this a collaboration according to Wikipedia rules of engagement for talk pages and consensus Sunray 17:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would actually say the opposite is closer to the truth. In my experience, Americans often think that Canadians are entirely different than they are - that's certainly what they told us in school here in the US. I found my way to this article because I have been reading a lot of things in the news that led me to believe that Canada is acting more "American" than America has been lately. As a consequence, I have been looking for socio-political contrasts between America and Canada. It seems to me that the citizens of both nations hold many fundamental values in common.

Really, in school a teacher told you that "Canadians are entirely different than Americans?" Just because you had a teacher who liked to engage in stereotypes don't assume that ALL Americans are taught that, for I certainly wasn't when I was in school in the US. The problems I've seen with the editing of this article--and most articles on Wikipedia--is that some people stereotype the behavior of other groups of people. Can't we try to avoid over-arching (and probably false) comments like "American often think", etc.?68.164.2.32 (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

External link

I've removed this link it is essentially a polemic about how poor Canada's government is. Written by a person who thinks Canada should join the United States. It completely ignores huge areas that contradict its thesis, and contains blatantly false claims. - SimonP 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored the link because the external site in question is in fact a serious discussion of the main points of the article. editors are not allowed to let their own POV interfere. The links of course have their POV and that is why we link to them. Rjensen 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that it is filled with errors? Look simply at the first list. The PM does not have the power to expel MPs from parliament, and also does not have the power to veto legislation. These are quite blatant and major errors. - SimonP 20:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph directly proceeding the list clearly states this powers are used through the Governor General. May be a matter of POV, but it's not factually incorrect - w00p

Yes, it makes the factually incorrect assumption that the Prime Minister has inherited all of the monarch's powers. This is not true some, such as Royal Assent, have in no way passed to the PM. - SimonP 22:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I think that's POV. I think it's generally accepted that the GG is a puppet of the Prime Minister and that the powers of the Crown are actually controlled by the Prime Minister. W00p 22:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that is quite incorrect. The British and Canadian consitutions have the important concept of reserve powers. These are powers that have not gone to the PM and are still controlled by the GG, but are unable to be used. Essentially they are powers that no longer exist. - SimonP 22:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

it does have problems--Canada is not in reality a monarchy of any kind (he was perhaps misled by Wiki's article on "Canada"). But it also has the most extended and thoughtful comparisons of any external source. If wiki excluded external sources because of errots, we would not have many left. Rjensen 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is a rule. Wikipedia:External links states that one should avoid links to sites that "contain factually inaccurate material." - SimonP 21:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when is Canada not a constitutional monarchy? J.J. 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

since it stopped being a kingdom/dominion. The old forms are never actually abolished, they just fade away. The inaccuracy of the site in question is that he assumes the country is still a constitutional monarchy and the monarch still has powers. Alas Wiki's main Canada article seems to have that same wrong information. Rjensen 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Canada is still a contitutional monarchy. The main error in that section is that the site claims that a constitutional monarchy can't also be a democracy. - SimonP 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a legitimate point. But the main question should be are we going to stop linking to anything that has any editorial slant on wikipedia? It's not as though it's stated as a fact that Canada is not a democracy. W00p 22:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The first line of the second paragraph says "Canada is not a democracy" - SimonP 22:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, I meant to write it's not as though it's a stated fact that Canada is a democracy. Certainly one can make the argument for Canada not being a democracy by some interpretations. I would agree with you if it stated that Canada has 3 members of parliament, but making a case for what democracy is or not, or how the Prime Minister exercises power is more to do with interpretations. W00p 22:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We can pick off a few other major errors then. It calls the Nickle Resolution "obscure", when it is actually a fairly major piece of legislation (that has a pretty huge Wikipedia article). The judge in that case most certainly did not rule that "the Crown's powers cannot be questioned." The article states that the Prime Minister "by default" controls the House of Commons because his party has a majority, which is wrong as it ignores the existence of minority governments. It states that there is no check against the Prime Minister comparable to impeachment, while failing to note that several PMs, including the last one, were booted out of office by a vote of parliament due to a motion of no confidence. - SimonP 22:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, hello Rjensen but it seems to me that you are the one who is misguided as to Canada's true character. Check out Monarchy in Canada for a long rambling analysis of Canada's continued constitutional ties to the British monarchy. Canada is still very much a constitutional monarchy, any Canadian political science scholar would tell you this in a heartbeat. Most of the powers of the monarch are now exercised by the Governor General, but lest you forget, the Governor General represents the monarch and exercises the powers of the crown on her behalf. J.J. 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

well if you believe that (and I don't) then that external link is reasonably correct. The way Canada works is that it lets old forms fade away. Works well (except in the case of the flag where a new design had to be adopted). USA does not allow that sort of slow, almost-invisible change. The monarch is the cheshire cat, and right now only the smile remains. :) Rjensen 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The United North America article sounds suspiciously like the source of the original version of this article. The original article also ignored the existence of minority governments, for example. The UNA article makes some good points, but it also makes several incorrect ones. The prime minister is safe from impeachment but the president not? Any president whose party controls Congress (George W. Bush, say) is absolutely safe from impeachment. Anyway, considering that only two presidents have actually been impeached, and another resigned to avoid it, impeachment scarcely seems to pose much of a threat to most presidents. The prime minister, on the other hand, can be removed from office at any time by losing a money vote or a motion of no confidence. If it's Wikipedia policy not to link to erroneous sources then the article shouldn't link to it. John FitzGerald 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed annexationist reference

I removed the mention of Annexationist movements that was right at the start of the article - the paragraph on origins of differences.

It seemed odd to start a section on the Origin of Differences between Canadian and American politics by stating that "annexationist movements" have discussed those differences. I'm sure many, many groups have discussed the differences and the reference to fringe groupings such as annexationists seemed unnecessary.

It's best to keep the reference because annexationists & opponents were important for studying similarities and differences. They were not "fringe" when it comes to the debate that this article discusses. That is, the opponents of annexation were forced to think out how the countries differed. Rjensen 15:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - this is the 2nd opening paragraph of the entire article. To reference a tiny handful of people who are about as fringe as you can get in Canadian politics makes no sense to me at all. At best annexationism might be given a footnote further down the article.

The previous wording just has a suspicious ring of annexationists using Wikipedia to lend a false credibility to their activities.

--Pondersomething 14:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiny fringe?? Today yes but not in the early 19th century when the ideas were developed. Rjensen 14:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dynasties

I propose taking out the discussion of whether or not there are political dynasties in the U. S. and Canada. I originally added this point, but obviously a case can be made that there are or have been political dynasties in Canada (the Johnsons in Quebec, for example). Anyway, I think the current discussion of dynasties distracts from the theme of the section it's in andfrom the article. John FitzGerald 14:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one's commented I'm going to remove the text about dynasties. If someone can think of a way to provide a better discussion of the issue, I won't be offended in it's re-introduced. John FitzGerald 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I very much like the dynasty section--it is an important difference that in US there is far more in the way of dynatiers these days. (In 2008 US has Clinton and Romney). Rjensen 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Romney's are a dynasty?68.164.2.32 (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The stuff I just took out said that in the U. S. there are no dynasties. The important point, I suppose, is the influence of the wealthy and of corporations which can be inferred from what's there now. But as I said, I won't mind if you can find a better way to make the point.

I also took out the bit about constituency offices. The original point was that Canadians tend to live closer to constituency offices, which was removed, apparently for the sensible reason that both countries have things like e-mail and telephones. With that point removed the paragraph didn't make sense in that section. John FitzGerald 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Parliamentary Supremacy

One of the major British and Canadian traditions is Parliamentary supremacy, where the "grand inquest" of the nation is the Parliament. This is also codified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the 5-year not-withstanding clause without which the provinces would not have accepted the Charter.

I think this should be included in the article somehow, to contrast again with the American separation-of-powers and judicial review. 99.245.173.200 17:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

Please see my comments at Talk:Politics_of_Australia_and_Canada_compared#Original_Research. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, not my topic, but I removed:

"Some Americans distrust the United Nations as a corrupt institution interested in being a global challenger to the U.S. and are unwilling to see their country's sovereignty impinged on."

Seems POV against US and it isn't sourced anyways, also, it is very ambiguous.

69.158.62.35 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you removed it. "Some non-Americans" think all American politics and attitudes towards the UN started with George W. Bush. The EU, for all ppl think is some great source of multilateralism, engaged in unilateral intervention in Yugoslavia without the approval of the UN (and would have intervened even without the help of the US). When France destroyed the entire air force of the Ivory Coast last year, they did NOT get a go ahead from the UN. Anyway, why would the US be afraid of the UN as a global challenger? They can veto any resolution passed by the UN. As for the UN being a corrupt organization, well, they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.2.32 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Throne Speech

The comparison of the State of the Union address and the Canadian Throne Speech seems to be inaccurate. I don't see how, The Canadian version presents the policy of the domanant caucus, and thus of the government, while the US counterpart leads to a dynamic more reminiscent of contract negotiations, ultimately resulting in a compromise agreement that becomes policy in this sense., is true. In what part of the State of the Union is there anything reminiscent of contract negotiations? I'll attempt to update the article with a more accurate comparison. Eccentriccx (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph (along with the photos) should probably be moved to another section, as it doesn't really make sense in the "Separation and fusion of powers" section. Eccentriccx (talk) 06:02, 11 January

2008 (UTC)

How is the State of the Union address (that legally, the President doesn't have to make--he could just send a letter) reminiscent of contract negotiations? There is no give and take or question and answer in that speech, just the President talking. The President's speech is essentially the policy of his administration, thus little different than the Canadian speech's being the policy of the dominant caucus. The paragraph should be deleted because the writer (a Canadian or Brit maybe?) clearly has never heard a State of the Union Address before.68.164.2.32 (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-American Political Culture

I don't particularly like this statement in the draft dodgers section. It is unsourced and a little harsh. In my view, Canadians tend to define themselves as "not american" but I don't think that necessarily means anti-American, we just like to assert that we're different. Also since it's inauguration day, I think things may change a lot in the near future. --134.153.9.15 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)