Elected Senate Reform?

[the caracal kid]

the answer is usually no, unless they felt they were getting something else in return. the provinces tend to be rather selfish.

i used to think the idea of an equal number of senators per province made sense, but i changed my position after careful reconsideration. The provinces bicker too much between each other and i suspect that a senate made up of equal provincial representation would cause more division than union.

While there is a role for the upper house, i think that senators should be elected directly by the public and that an senatorial election would allow all voters to vote X number of senators from a list of candidates. There should be no parties in this body to counter the effects of partisanship at the parlementary level.

 

[jimmoyer]

Even if you outlawed parties, you would see parties
anyway, but just would operate under a different
name.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I think an elected Senate is a very bad idea. It would give the Senate a political legitimacy it doesn't have now, with largely incalculable consequences. I suspect at the very least it'd somehow end up in competition with the Commons and slow down the workings of government even more, especially in a case, which we all know would eventually arise, where the Commons and the Senate are dominated by different parties.

My view of Senate reform: abolish it or leave it alone, but don't under any circumstances reform it. It's not broken. What needs reforming is an electoral system in which it's at least theoretically possible in a multi-party system to win every seat in the Commons with only a third or less of the votes, and routinely get a thumping big majority with not much more than about 40% of the votes. How can we continue to tolerate governments most of us didn't vote for, and that fairly consistently, at least recently, seem to be seriously annoying to most of us? I'm tired of being governed by people I didn't vote for, and seeing the people I do vote for get left out because of the damnfool way we elect our representatives.

 

[the caracal kid]

possible, but the point would be that you would not get groups running under one banner. Lets say we had 16 seats in the senate, and 30 people running for office. My idea would be to prevent grouping so that lets say 10 of the candidates claimed to be oc X, and thus would override the idea of free, independent thinkers which is what the senate should be.

Currently, the MPs represent the PM or their party leader/party more than the people. We really need a body of directly elected people to represent the interests of CANADA and not regions, interest groups, parties, etc.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

Interesting post, Finder.

Your proposal of the provinces legislatures appointing
a Senator to Ottowa is very similar to what
United States did up until 1913.

Each state legislature appointed 2 Senators to
go to Washington DC.

Reformers under Teddy Roosevelt came in to push
for direct elections of these Senators.

True. I'm no fan of FPTP, or any kind of appointment at that. But anything is better then our current system. I think how the USA choses senators now is fine. I have no problem with the senate being chosen by the provinces or FPTP (as for the parliment I think a mixed system would be best) but at least if the provinces chose who they wanted it would be somebody other then the PM.

There's many ways to reform the Senate. Which might be the biggest problem with reforming the Senate I don't think any of the Parties Agree.

Conservatives wish to have an elected Senate. The Liberals were supposedly going to change it but never did and they seem to stand for the status qou as it benifits them. The NDP wish to abolish the Senate, which I think is stupid idea and they really should change there mind about this.

As for removing party politics... I'm not big on that because then the common person won't know where there senators stand on general issues without a lot of time devoted to studying there voting records. At least knowing a Senator is a NDPer you know she will vote for puplic health care and a conservatiove senator will vote against taxes (most of the time).

thats my $3.50

 

[no1important]

RE: Elected Senate Reform

FPTP needs to go. I prefer full proportional rep but could live with a 50-50 split FPTP and Proportional Rep.

I do not think Senate should be elected but have each province have same amount of Senators, but have them appointed by the provincial houses instead of the PM.

 

[Finder]

oh plus if there's a problem with government. having another REAL level of government with REAL power allows that part of the government to investigate the other better.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Elected Senate Reform

I don't care what they do or how they do it. But there has to be a better way to run the senate than the current senate. Our current senate is one big tax payers joke.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform

I don't care what they do or how they do it. But there has to be a better way to run the senate than the current senate. Our current senate is one big tax payers joke.

Which is a point the NDP make and I agree with the NDP on that part. But then the NDP's solution is to simply remove the Senate altogether. Which I have a problem with, it should be reformed and thus become a benifit to Canadians and not a tax drain.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't agree with just abolishing the Senate, but that's something the NDP feels goes along with PR.

PR for the Hof C is the big thing. The checks and balances are inherent in it. When combined with local representation it gives the best of both worlds.

As for the Senate...I think it does play an important role even now, not so much as a house of sober second thought, but as a group of knowledgable people from a variety of backgrounds to discuss issues and make official recommendations. That's why I would do this:

I think the most workable way to go is to slap a six year term on the position, select a couple of senators from each province every year, and slowly increase (you'll never get any province to agree to a decrease)the number of senators from each province until all are equal; let the provinces nominate 3 or more people for each senate position avaiable (if Alberta wants to hold elections, that's up to them, but I don't want to pay for it); then let Parliament have a free secret vote on which nominees should get the positions. Let the Senate amend bills before sending them back to the HofC where the amendments can be accepted or rejected, and encourage them to write bills of their own that the Hof C can either pass or not, but don't expand their powers beyond that.

That gives the provinces a say in who represents them and Ottawa a say in who they have to work with. It keeps the people in the Senate changing while preserving experience and avoiding the costs and political divisiveness of never-ending elections. It will eventually give each province an equal say in the Senate.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform

ok in a federal election the more populous provinces obviously have the advantage in choosing the leader which is fair i guess. But why not have a senate with equal representation for each province so the more populous province cannot dominate all the issues and laws.

How does this make sense??? You want to give PEI's 130,000 people as much power as Ontario's 12,000,000? Why shouldn't Senate representation should be by population as well?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Elected Senate Reform

The idea is address regional inequities, MMMikey. I agree that a Senate that represents each province equally is valuable. I don't agree that it should have equal powers to the Commons though. As you pointed out, that's inherently undemocratic. It would also cripple government.

 

[Roy]

RE: Elected Senate Reform

i have to say that a pretty much agree with blair, the lower house should have rep by population but i think the senate should have equal representation from all provinces.

does anyone know how they divide up the ridings, is it based solely on population? One thing i have always wonderend is that why does Alberta have 28 seats and Sask 14, when the population of Alberta is much more than double Sask's?

 

[Roy]

RE: Elected Senate Reform

I also favor fixed election dates, and we should also limit the PM to two terms in office. ( why do i get the feeling that if the libs win this election we will be seeing paul martin for a long..long time)

 

[jimmoyer]

I don't agree that it (the provinces each having the same number of Senators) should have equal powers to the Commons though. As you pointed out, that's inherently undemocratic. It would also cripple government.
-------------------Reverend Blair-----------------

That premise depends on which majority you
refer to.

If it means a national majority, you're right.

If it means that a majority in Alberta must bend
to the majority of Ontario, then it is less democratic
to Alberta.

In the states, the 6 year term of Senators based
on equal state representation tends
to have a more measured response to matters
than the more passionate 2 year terms of the House
which is based on population census.

In addition having one house represent the provinces
or the states allows for more diversity, a laboratory
to experiment with different ideas, rather than
have the national government impose a repressive
uniformity of one size fits all.

 

[Reverend Blair]

does anyone know how they divide up the ridings, is it based solely on population?

Theoretically. What happens in practice is that Ontario gets screwed big time, Alberta gets screwed a little, and everybody else benefits. In addition to that, when they redraw the lines for various ridings, each party (federal and provincial) tries to do it in a way that benefits them.

 

[FiveParadox]

Personally, I am opposed to Senate reform.

The Senate, as it is, is quite a valuable institution within our democracy. Contrary to popular belief, the Senate is far cheaper to run than the House of Commons, and carries out a great deal of the research and interviews for use by the House. Senators are paid thousands of dollars less per year than any Member of Parliament, and yet they delve far further into most bills than the House of Commons.

If we were to elect Senators, then I fear we could end up with a Senate that matches the House of Commons in party composition which, with a majority in the Lower Chamber, would be useless; and with a minority, a similar party make-up in the Senate could cause political deadlock in both Houses.

Now, to address some of the other reform ideas, specifically those regarding Justices of the Supreme Court, Prime Ministers and Governors General, I am also opposed to these. If we were to begin elected Justices of the Supreme Court, then the Court would become a political circus. Rulings would be based more on party lines than they would the principles of justice.

The Prime Minister, other than his several powers of appointment, has comparatively less power than his counterpart, the President of the United States. He cannot, for example, "veto" any legislation solely on his own initiative, and he is at all times accountable to the House of Commons; in the United States, once a President is in, he's in for good (barring any infractions of the law warranting impeachment).

In relation to the Governor General, I think that having an elected Head of State in this, a Parliamentary Democracy, is not a good option. Firstly, it betrays the traditions and heritage of Canada, and it would, secondly, result in having a partisan Governor General. It is important in Canada to have an impartial Governor General, mostly uninvolved in political process, unless absolutely necessary. For example, in Australia, the Governor General saw fit to dismiss a Prime Minister who had brought the House down to political deadlock; if that Governor General had been partisan, then would such a decision have been made in the best interest of the country, or in the best interest of the party?

That's what I think, anyway.

 

[the caracal kid]

hey reverend, what would be your model if you were to draft a completely new system of federal governance for canada (including the charters)?

I really think the best approach is to design an new framework that reflects the realities of canada and then compare it to what we have now. Reference models are wonderful, and we may actually come up with a real solution to the current problems. (I am not a fan of patchwork methodologies).

 

[iamcanadian]

Elections are a waste of time until we take care of the corruption problem in our public services.

Everyone elected sells themselves to the non-elected public officials. We are just being fooled into believing we elect anyone to respresent the public interest.

Canada has a fundamental lack of understanding on democracy.

 

[Reverend Blair]

hey reverend, what would be your model if you were to draft a completely new system of federal governance for canada (including the charters)?

Well, first I'd make everybody immortal, then I'd forbid them to have sex to avoid over-population. I'd tell them that I was looking out for their better interests, but really it'd just be because I think it'd be funny to watch them all pretend to be pure.

Really though? I'd have a close look at the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, and the scribblings of everybody from Karl Marx to Timothy Leary and try to come up with something that more or less worked.

That isn't the reality though. The reality is that we've got a certain set of circumstances to work with, a whack of interests so disparate that the idea of coming up with a single answer is laughable, and a set of outside influences that are at complete and total odds with each other.

I'd get rid of the idea that corporations deserve the same status as individuals and have rights. That's bullshit. Individuals have rights, corporations are an expression of those rights to make money and nothing more. The CEO deserves exactly as much political influence as the janitor who washes his floor.

I'd rewrite the Charter so that everybody had the right to enough to eat and proper medical care. I'd sign the UN charter that declares that everybody has a right to clean water.

Proportional representation would give the disparate interests a voice. Having a working Senate would keep ideas flowing. re-writing the Charter and signing the UN bill would force us not only to look after our own people and our resources, but begin to deal with the fact that we have a disproportionate amount of the planet's fresh water.