Announcement

**Tingkai** · June 1, 2004, 01:49

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
3) The Senate will be less powerful than in the US. Instead of having the ability to propose bills, write in amendments etc. they have a simple power of veto. They must vote on all bills passed to them by the Commons within 4(?) weeks. Commons may pass a bill over a Senate veto with a 2/3 supermajority.

The senate would still be too powerful.

Imagine a Commons with the Conservatives in a majority of less than two-thirds and a Liberal-controlled Senate. The Liberals would be in control because the Conservatives could never get 2/3 majority support in the Commons. We would end up a a Conservative government in name, but a Liberal government in reality.

**KrazyHorse** · June 1, 2004, 01:50

No, we'd end up with a Conservative government under a Liberal veto.

**notyoueither** · June 1, 2004, 01:50

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Does anybody else find the US legislative process as Byzantine as I do?

Why? They have several readings of any bill through both houses, just as we do.

The difference is that there the upper house may actually get uppity and act as a check, further to the check of the executive which must sign the damned thing. Which check we do not have because the bloody executive sponsored the bill in the first place.

In the place of the British Lords, we have a band of trained seals that get stuffed on occassion to assure the PM's will. They sometimes decide to delay a bill until after Parliament is disolved for an election. That is the limit of their normal uppitiness. We should have demanded they be elected to begin with. :grrr:

We live with a constitutional dictatorship. We simply change the dictator every 4 years if we are wise. Sometimes we are not wise and one of them gets a good 11 or 12 years in. Then we end up with $1 billion dollar software projects.

**notyoueither** · June 1, 2004, 01:51

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, we'd end up with a Conservative government under a Liberal veto.

Or a Liberal government with no veto at all.

**notyoueither** · June 1, 2004, 01:52

Originally posted by Tingkai

The senate would still be too powerful.

Imagine a Commons with the Conservatives in a majority of less than two-thirds and a Liberal-controlled Senate. The Liberals would be in control because the Conservatives could never get 2/3 majority support in the Commons. We would end up a a Conservative government in name, but a Liberal government in reality.

Remember, we stuff it when it gets uppity.

Bang your kazoos all you want, it is irelevant until elected.

**KrazyHorse** · June 1, 2004, 01:52

Why do you claim that in such a system the Senate would be more powerful than the Commons? It would be the other way as far as I can see. Commons still holds a monopoly on drafting new legislation. They get first crack at everything. The Senate only gets to say "yes" or "no"

**KrazyHorse** · June 1, 2004, 01:53

Originally posted by notyoueither

Or a Liberal government with no veto at all.

I don't get it. Tingkai's claim is that the Conservatives (in this hypothetical) would hold Commons. Any legislation that they can't live with they simply do not have to pass in the first place.

**cinch** · June 1, 2004, 01:54

I'm not totally decided on the Senate issue, but I'm leaning towards supporting a veto-only Senate that has equal representation for all regions.

Is this 'undemocratic'? No, I don't think so. 'One person, one vote' should not be able to override minority rights, I feel. The American Senate protects (or attempts to protect) small states from being totally massacred by the superstates... Canada needs to attempt a similar body.

Of course, this may just be my stereotypical Albertanness taking over.

**KrazyHorse** · June 1, 2004, 01:54

Originally posted by notyoueither

Remember, we stuff it when it gets uppity.

Bang your kazoos all you want, it is irelevant until elected.

That's why I simply want to do away with it. It's always been irrelevant (at best).

**KrazyHorse** · June 1, 2004, 01:58

Originally posted by cinch
I'm not totally decided on the Senate issue, but I'm leaning towards supporting a veto-only Senate that has equal representation for all regions.

Is this 'undemocratic'? No, I don't think so. 'One person, one vote' should not be able to override minority rights, I feel. The American Senate protects (or attempts to protect) small states from being totally massacred by the superstates... Canada needs to attempt a similar body.

Of course, this may just be my stereotypical Albertanness taking over.

What about minorities that don't have a province of their own? Anglos in Quebec. Francos in Alberta. Chinese in BC. Farmers in Ontario. Why is it that PEI (as a minority) deserves so much more representation than any of these other minorities?

At least the US has a historical justification for their blatantly undemocratic Senate.

**notyoueither** · June 1, 2004, 01:58

Originally posted by Tingkai

Joe Clark

A PM cannot do whatever he/she feels like doing. The PM must maintain the support of the party.

Look at Thatcher. She lost support within her party and was kicked out of power.

Diefenbaker had the same thing happen to him, IIRC.

It takes a certain kind of genius to apply minority government dynamics in an era which has seen majorities for the last 5 elections.

Speaking of Thatcher is meaningless. We have totally ****ed up the basic premise of British Parliamentary democracy. That being the supremecy of Parliament and the MPs, not the PMO and the power of the signing of the nomination papers.

**notyoueither** · June 1, 2004, 01:59

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

That's why I simply want to do away with it. It's always been irrelevant (at best).

It should be more. It NEEDs to be more.

**notyoueither** · June 1, 2004, 02:02

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I don't get it. Tingkai's claim is that the Conservatives (in this hypothetical) would hold Commons. Any legislation that they can't live with they simply do not have to pass in the first place.

And I am pointing out what happens when one party governs for 4/5s of the time.

You get a government with no check in the senate because they are all good 'ol boys.

**KrazyHorse** · June 1, 2004, 02:04

I don't get the connection of that with what I was saying.

I was responding to claims that my system would give the Senate much more power than the Commons, something I deny.

You responded with a truth about the current situation.

**KrazyHorse** · June 1, 2004, 02:05

Maybe the Liberals rule 80% of the time because they're the choice of most Canadians 80% of the time?

Announcement

Canadian Election: It's On

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment