Canada generally has at least three official political parties (more than 12 seats in the house) at any given time. Currently there are four. You need the most seats but not necessarily a majority of seats to form a government. If a party has fewer than 50%, they form what's called a minority government.
Next big piece is the motion of no confidence, which means we can have an election literally whenever if a government can't pass legislation.
So combine the chance of minority governments and more voices and platforms in government the possibility that obstruction can actually cause you to, you know, lose your job, and you get natural checks against a lot of the problems on display in American federal politics right now. If you can't pass a budget, you don't get a federal shutdown until you negotiate one, you get an election triggered immediately. I understand why no confidence would be practically impossible in America due to money and insanely long election cycles, but it really helps form coalitions and collaboration in Canadian politics.
No, that's when a political party _or_ a coalition of parties does not have the majority. Netherlands often/always has a coalition / combination of parties. They're never considered a minority government unless the combination is <50%.
So in practice, the PM of a majority gov't (i.e., has a majority of seats) gets to pass whatever they want to pass; the saving grace of this is that, without having to haggle and herd cats and trade horses, the legislation is the legislation--there's no poison pills, no payoff amendments, no loopholes to capture one person's support, and no extreme bits to trade away. It's just "this is the law we want", which I think leads to higher quality legislation over all.
The PM of a minority gov't (i.e., only has a plurality of seats) may have to secure another party's vote to pass, but that's a negotiation with a second entity, not a hundred other voting entities.
Consensus doesn't play a significant part in it, I believe. Within the bounds of the law, the PM of a majority is nearly a polite dictator.
In a parliament majority, the buck stops with the Prime Minister and win or lose his performance is on the line in the next election. There's no (effective) hand-waving about opposition or other excuses to deflect accountability. Elections are a black/white referendum of the incumbent's performance.
In the US it's a lot easier to muddy the waters and a lot harder for people to arrive at a clear conclusion and often nobody is happy.
"YES I don't like X BUT it wasn't Y's fault it was Z"
No, I'm not. The concept of a party whip literally invented where I'm from. I'm very much familiar with it.
The US system is much more adversarial. Even if a single party gets the house, senate and presidency, there isn't much stopping individual party members from voting against the party line.
It's true consensus is need with a coalition/minority government, but they don't seem to happen that often. Yes, I know there is one right now.
Proportional representation is almost a necessary condition for the parliamentary system to encourage consensus-building. More specifically, it's necessary that no party hold an absolute majority.
With first-past-the-post, you usually end up with one party having full control for one term, and no one to hold them accountable (particularly if you have the principle of parliamentary soverignity).
With some of the NI parties screwing over conservative governments its why NI doesn't have the same laws as the UK
[Aside: An interesting consequence of this is that England lacks a legal and political identity separate from the UK as the UK is an _extension_ of the Kingdom of England. Another interesting this is that even though it was part of the Kingdom of England, Wales _does_ have a legal and political identity because there are acts of parliament that _explicitly_ refer to it. The UK is a constitutionally odd country.]
It's the party discipline. In Canada political parties control the fundraising apparatus and you can't be bankrolled by a handful of wealthy donors. Barring unusual circumstance, if you want to be re-elected you are beholden to a party and thus the whips generally have a strong ability to bring votes to the table.
In the states its a lot easier for a Republican or Democrat to tell their party to go fly a kite if they don't see voting for a bill as opportune, in part because of less reliance on the party.
I actually liked the US approach when I first arrived - "how great! everyone is passionate about politics!". I find it somewhat draining now. There is almost no part of life (work, friends, random strangers) where politics doesn't come up.
I think you’re not describing real political passion or engagement, though — Americans can get quite worked up about politics but we’re not all that engaged, or passionate enough to lobby for real change. Politics serve as signs of tribal affiliation and self-identity, and sometimes as a way to bludgeon other people. In that sense talking about politics is similar to, and as pointless as, arguing about sports. We (Americans) actually don’t show much real engagement if you look at voter turnout.
My other pet theory is that Canadians get more than enough politics from Canadian coverage of US politics (it's often 30%+ of news coverage) so they feel little urge to do the same with domestic politics.
On one hand, beneficial change can be painstakingly slow. On the other, malevolent change can be stymied indefinitely
Edit: clarify my statement was in reference to the US
I used to think so, but as I read more about the founding fathers I’m beginning to think they had all the same personality conflicts we have today. Maybe there’s a case that with today’s media our current reps are more accountable to their constituents, but (superficially at least) most would interpret that as a good thing
I think it's a feature. We seem to move a lot faster and it doesn't always work, but for the most part, having MPs as the executive branch allows people at the top to legislate what they need to succeed.
When the party that made the "malevolent" change is kicked out, then whatever they did can be reverted very easily.
Contrast that with: if passing anything is hard, and a "malevolent" change does manage to be rammed through somehow (e.g., one party controls things for a two-year period), then reversing it will also be very difficult.
Somewhat humorous example: In response to the need for warm clothing in the Korean War, US lawmakers instituted an alpaca subsidy in 1952. This subsidy remained in place for over 40 years.[1]
I do think there’s evidence that your second statement is true. Bad policy takes a lot of political will to overturn.
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=fV_SuDMHpOsC&pg=PA273&lpg=...
Probably because you're only thinking about it from a US-centric POV.
As a Canadian who lives under a Westminster-style style system, there tends to be less gridlock here under majority governments.
I personally think it was deliberately put intended as a check/balance. Af the far end of spectrum, the most “efficient” form of government is a dictatorship. I’m not sure if what the US has is the correct balance, though.
My wife's Canadian and I'm American, and we've discussed this point too. My theory is that Canada's parliamentary system generally puts one party in charge of the executive and legislative, so it's easier for that party to get things done. Of course there are times when a party in the US controls both branches and we still struggle to get things done. I would assume that most larger changes happens on this scenarios though.
And of course the US seems to suffer from partisanship in general more than Canada, but I can't back that up.