Welcome to my website!
A Proposal for Competency-Based Democracy in Canada
A Governance Framework for a Modernized Canada
By: Perry Schippers
12th December 2025
1. Executive Summary
This proposal outlines a transformation of the Canadian federal system from a Partisan Westminster Model to a Semi-Presidential Meritocracy.
The core objective is to separate the Executive Branch (Action) from the Legislative Branch (Representation), ensuring that both are directly accountable to the people, while using Fusion Voting to encourage multi-dimensional, non-partisan thinking.
2. The Legislative Branch (The House of Commons)
The goal: To elect independent-minded representatives who answer to their constituents, not a party whip.
A. Candidate Eligibility: The "Cabinet-Ready" Standard
To ensure that every elected representative is capable of serving in the highest levels of government immediately, we raise the bar for entry.
Mandatory Clearance: All candidates must successfully attain Top Secret Security Clearance (the level required for Cabinet Ministers) before their name can appear on a ballot.
The Vetting Process: This vetting is conducted by the national security apparatus (e.g., CSIS/RCMP) independent of political interference.
The Result: There are no "second-tier" MPs. Every single Member of Parliament is pre-cleared to view sensitive national intelligence and assume Cabinet responsibilities on Day 1.
B. The Fusion Ballot (Ranked Choice)
MPs are elected using a Ranked Ballot. Political parties no longer "nominate" candidates; they "certify" them. A candidate can hold endorsements ("Badges") from multiple parties simultaneously (e.g., Green + Conservative).
C. The Free Vote Mandate
No Whip: Party discipline is abolished for standard legislation.
The "Rhino" Factor: Candidates are encouraged to display a "Divergent Thinking" endorsement (The Rhinoceros Badge) to signal openness to radical innovation.
D. The "Voting Record" Dashboard (Digital Accountability)
To replace the accountability usually provided by party discipline, we implement a mandatory digital logging system.
The Mechanism: For an MP's vote on any bill to be legally counted, they must submit a "Rationale Statement" (maximum 250 words) into the official digital record.
The Public View: This data feeds a live, public-facing Dashboard. Voters can click on their MP's profile and see not just how they voted, but why.
Example Log: "I voted YES on the Infrastructure Bill because my riding needs the bridge repair (Conservative mandate), even though I disagree with the funding source (Green mandate)."
The Metric: This creates a historical dataset of an MP's critical thinking skills, allowing voters to judge them on consistency and logic rather than just party slogans.
3. The Executive Branch (The Government)
The goal: To elect a stable, unified leadership team with a national mandate.
A. Direct Election of "Leadership Tickets"
The Prime Minister is not chosen by the House. The PM and Deputy PM are elected directly by the population in a separate national vote.
The Ticket Rule: Candidates must run as a pair (PM + Deputy) to ensure executive unity and prevent rivalry.
Ranked Choice: Voters rank the tickets (1st, 2nd, 3rd).
Government Formation: The Ticket ranked #1 becomes the Government.
Opposition Formation: The Ticket ranked #2 becomes the Official Opposition.
[PROTOTYPE EXECUTIVE BALLOT]
OFFICIAL NATIONAL BALLOT / BULLETIN NATIONAL
Rank your choice for the Executive Leadership Team.
[ 1 ] THE CONSENSUS TICKET
· For PM: Sarah Tremblay (Endorsed: Green, Bloc)
· For Deputy: Mark Davis (Endorsed: Conservative - Fiscal Expert)
· Slogan: "Responsible Change"
[ 2 ] THE LIBERTY TICKET
· For PM: John Smith (Endorsed: Libertarian)
· For Deputy: Jane Doe (Endorsed: Conservative)
· Slogan: "Less Ottawa, More You"
[ 3 ] THE PROGRESS TICKET
· For PM: David Nguyen (Endorsed: NDP)
· For Deputy: Raj Patel (Endorsed: Liberal)
· Slogan: "Building Together"
B. Cabinet Selection
Because of the "Cabinet-Ready" Standard established in Section 2A, the Prime Minister has the freedom to nominate any elected MP to Cabinet immediately, without waiting for post-election security checks. This eliminates delays in forming government.
4. Stability Mechanisms (The "Checks and Balances")
A. Constructive Non-Confidence
Solving the "Chaos" Problem.
The House cannot simply "fire" the Prime Minister because they disagree with a policy. To remove a directly elected PM, the House must:
Pass a motion of non-confidence by a 2/3rds Majority.
AND simultaneously agree on a successor to serve as Interim PM.
B. The Deadlock Breaker
Solving the "Gridlock" Problem.
If the House rejects the Government’s Budget three times consecutively:
The Parliament is dissolved.
The Executive is dissolved.
A General Election is automatically triggered.
Rationale: This "Nuclear Option" forces both the PM and the MPs to compromise, as neither wants to lose their job.
Appendix: Note on Terminology
"The Meritocratic Consensus Model"
The title of this proposal is a descriptive term coined to identify this specific hybrid system. It combines two political philosophies:
Meritocracy: The belief that leadership should be selected based on individual ability, professional competence, and cognitive skill (the "how they think" factor), rather than loyalty to a party hierarchy.
Consensus Government: A reference to the existing style of government in the Canadian territories (Nunavut and NWT), where the executive branch is chosen by and accountable to the entire legislature.
RATIONALE & DEFENSE
By: Perry Schippers
Why This Model? Addressing Flaws in Existing Systems
This document analyzes the specific architectural choices of the Meritocratic Consensus Model and explains how they solve known "bugs" in the current Canadian (Westminster) and American (Republic) systems.
1. Why "Fusion Voting" & "Badges"?
The Problem: In the current system, voters are forced into "Strategic Voting." A fiscal conservative who cares about the environment often has no home—they must choose between "Economy" (Blue) or "Climate" (Green).
The Solution: Fusion Voting allows candidates to "bundle" ideologies.
Impact: It destroys the "Two-Party" polarization. It allows complex candidates (e.g., a "Green-Conservative") to rise, reflecting the actual complexity of the electorate.
2. Why "Direct Election of Tickets"?
The Problem: In the current system, the Prime Minister is just the MP for one riding (e.g., Papineau). They often prioritize their party's base over the national interest.
The Solution: A direct national vote gives the PM a mandate from all Canadians.
Why Tickets? We mandate a "PM + Deputy" ticket to solve the "Rivalry Risk." If the Runner-Up became Deputy (as in the original draft), the Deputy would constantly undermine the PM to steal their job. The Ticket system ensures the Executive team is unified (like a CEO and COO).
3. Why "Constructive Non-Confidence"?
The Problem: In minority governments (common in Canada), the government is weak. Opposition parties constantly threaten to trigger an election to gain power, causing instability and short-term thinking.
The Solution: This rule (borrowed from Germany and Spain) makes it very hard to fire the PM.
Impact: It creates Fixed-Term Stability. The Opposition cannot just "destroy" the government; they must offer a "constructive" alternative. This stops political posturing and forces MPs to govern.
4. Why the "Deadlock Breaker" (3-Budget Rule)?
The Problem: In the US System, you often see "Government Shutdowns." The President wants money, Congress says no, and the country stops functioning.
The Solution: The "Nuclear Option."
Impact: If the Budget fails 3 times, everyone gets fired (Election triggered). This uses the concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction" to force the PM and the House to sit down and write a budget they can both accept. It guarantees that a shutdown cannot last forever.
5. Why the "Runner-Up is Opposition"?
The Problem: Currently, the Opposition is just the "Biggest Loser." They often oppose everything just to make the winner look bad.
The Solution: The Runner-Up Ticket received nearly as many votes as the winner.
Impact: This transforms the Opposition from "Critics" into a "Government-in-Waiting." They have a democratic mandate to audit the government, and because they are the clear replacement, they are incentivized to appear competent rather than just disruptive.
6. Why Mandatory Security Clearance?
The Problem: In the current system, candidates are rarely vetted for national security risks until after they are appointed to Cabinet. This creates two dangers: Foreign Interference (agents can sit in the House for years) and the "Uncleared" MP (a PM appoints a Minister who fails vetting, causing scandal).
The Solution: We move the vetting process to the start of the pipeline.
Impact: This ensures the House of Commons is a "sanitized zone" free from compromised actors. It signals to voters that every name on the ballot has already passed the highest test of integrity and loyalty to Canada. It professionalizes the role of the MP from "Community Organizer" to "Statesman."
7. Why the "Voting Record" Dashboard?
The Problem: In a "Free Vote" system (where MPs can vote however they want), there is a risk of corruption or inconsistency. Without a Party Leader telling them what to do, how do we know if an MP is voting based on principle or because a lobbyist paid them?
The Solution: Mandatory Transparency. By forcing an MP to write a rationale for every single vote, we create a "Cognitive Audit Trail."
Impact: It discourages corruption because it is very hard to write a logical public defense for a corrupt vote without sounding contradictory.
Voter Empowerment: It shifts the conversation from "Did you vote for the blue team?" to "Did your explanation make sense?" It rewards the thoughtful politician over the obedient one.