Canadian Election: It's On

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Bull****. Until you can explain why the 140 000 people of PEI deserve Senate representation equal to that of Alberta or Quebec, yet the 140 000 people living along Ontario's western border don't, your scheme is unfair and deliberately stilted to favour a certain minority at the expense of other minorities.

Either way it's ****ed -- the problem is that there are at least three very different political regions in Canada, but with the current setup, only one of them will have any say in the way things go.

Personally, I don't think there is a right way to go about it anymore. They're all lame, and I honestly don't see why Canada is still a country with such differing viewpoints and complacent citizens making the "majority" government (which was elected by 35% of the population).

Something is ****ed, clearly.

Solution: Don't vote! It doesn't matter anyway!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by cinch
Wow.

The blind support of Tyrrany of the Majority espoused by some in this thread is nigh-on sickening.

I can't believe how many people spout this anti-democracy crap.

Name one case of tyranny of the majority and I can name hundreds of worse tyranny of the minority.

Is pure democracy perfect, no. But like Churchill said it's better than the alternatives.

Originally posted by cinch
An elected, veto-only, regionally-divided Senate would simply AUGMENT the Rep by Pop system. It would act as a check on Parliamentary bills, to ensure that no region, no matter how small, would be damaged due to the will of a more populous area.

The flaw in your logic is how do you ensure that the regions with small populations do not screw regions with the majority of the people?

Originally posted by cinch
The pro-Senate people are not saying we should do away with Rep by Pop altogether... The HoC will remain the more powerful house, in that it contains the executive and can draw up laws of its own. We simply ask that we tweak the current system by giving it some more regional perspective.

Ya right, meaning the Senate could veto (read neutralise) the power of the HoC. So then who has the real power? The Senate.

Originally posted by cinch
It has nothing to do with "hating democracy", and everything to do with wishing to uphold the tenets of a true commonwealth: representation for all, INCLUDING the less populated regions.

The solution is not to rig the system in favour of the minority. The solution is a charter of rights that protects everyone.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
Either way it's ****ed -- the problem is that there are at least three very different political regions in Canada, but with the current setup, only one of them will have any say in the way things go.

We are also carrying the rest of the country on our back.

Solution: Don't vote! It doesn't matter anyway!

Aside: In this election, your vote buys parties. Whichever one you vote for will get $1.75 for their next campaign.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Bull****. Until you can explain why the 140 000 people of PEI deserve Senate representation equal to that of Alberta or Quebec, yet the 140 000 people living along Ontario's western border don't, your scheme is unfair and deliberately stilted to favour a certain minority at the expense of other minorities.

Exactly. That's the major flaw in the "equal" senate theory. Where do you draw the line.

Do you do it by province? Do the three northern provinces/territories individually get the same senate seats as British Columbia? What happens if Northern Ontario decides to become a separate province? How can you justify denying them senate seats?

If you do it by region, how do you define a region. What does Alberta have in common with Manitoba?

How do you do it so that it is not artificially rigged in favour of certain areas.

The one person, one vote system is a largely naturally defined system. If there are X number of people in an area then they get a place in the house of commons.

Of course, the Canadian system is already rigged in favour of the less populated regions. Based on population, Ontario should have more seats and other smaller provinces should actually have fewer seats.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Tingkai



Do you do it by province? Do the three northern provinces/territories individually get the same senate seats as British Columbia? What happens if Northern Ontario decides to become a separate province? How can you justify denying them senate seats?

If you do it by region, how do you define a region. What does Alberta have in common with Manitoba?

1. What?
2. What?
3. What?
4. What?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Kontiki
1. What?
2. What?
3. What?
4. What?

I'll translate:

1. Do Nunavut, Yukon, and NT get as many senators as Alberta, Ontario, and BC?

2. If a province splits into two, does it in effect double its senator count?

3. If not, why are you an *******?

4. If Albert, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba only get one senator to share, isn't it stupid?

[RedFred]

Originally posted by cinch
The HoC is, basically, pure Rep by Pop (yeah, yeah, PEI, get over it).

Nope. PEI gets 2 or 3 times the seats in the Commons than is justified by rep by pop.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


I can't believe how many people spout this anti-democracy crap.

Name one case of tyranny of the majority and I can name hundreds of worse tyranny of the minority.

Is pure democracy perfect, no. But like Churchill said it's better than the alternatives.

What is this nonsense about anything other than straight rep by pop being anti-democratic.

If regional weighting of representatives in one house of a bicameral system were so undemocratic, then why did the French opt to maintain such a structure the last time they remade their Constitution which was not yet 50 years ago? Is France anti-democratic?

When you site Churchill, perhaps you could keep in mind the sort of democracy he was referring to. His was a democracy with rep by pop in a lower house where power was concentrated. It also had an upper house where rep by pop was certainly not the order of the day.

Oh, and if you wish to begin the battle of the citations, feel free, but please try to keep them on topic and valid. In other words, laying segregation in the Southern States on the door step of the US Senate would be invalid.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Bull****. Until you can explain why the 140 000 people of PEI deserve Senate representation equal to that of Alberta or Quebec, yet the 140 000 people living along Ontario's western border don't, your scheme is unfair and deliberately stilted to favour a certain minority at the expense of other minorities.

Rouge herring. No one here is advocating PEI get as many senators as Alberta or Quebec.

Re PEI and not NW Ontario, PEI is a province. They chose to join Confederation. All provinces deserve some measure of effective representation. Strict rep by pop does not give all provinces effective representation. In fact, it results in two over-bearing provinces and eight who can **** off if they don't like it.

If the people of NW Ontario wish to break off from Ontario and become a province, the rest of Canada would certainly be involved in those discussions. The final decision would of course be made with a very strong basis in regional agreement, or it would not be able to happen.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Exactly. That's the major flaw in the "equal" senate theory. Where do you draw the line.

Well short of the interesting points you are placing before us.

Do you do it by province?

Of course. The provinces are the building blocks of Confederation. They are, in fact, already represented in the senate on a regional scheme.

Electing them would be nice, but don't pretend as if your opponents in this discussion are making things up out of the blue.

Do the three northern provinces/territories individually get the same senate seats as British Columbia?

Which northern PROVINCES were those? Do try to keep them straight. There are 10 of them.

What happens if Northern Ontario decides to become a separate province?

The Constitution would have to be amended. That would require the legislatures of at least 7 provinces agreeing to it. Damn, that regional influence is already afoot!

How can you justify denying them senate seats?

If we collectively decided to do this, why would they not get seats in the Senate?

If you do it by region, how do you define a region. What does Alberta have in common with Manitoba?

A province is a region in so far as the Constituion of Canada is concerned. I **** you not, go look it up.

Alberta and Manitoba are both... turnips? No, no... British royalty? No, no... Provinces! Yes, that's it, they are both provinces.

How do you do it so that it is not artificially rigged in favour of certain areas.

That's the whole point. The upper house is rigged to give more effective representation to people who inhabit smaller regions. Do try to keep up, b'y.

The one person, one vote system is a largely naturally defined system. If there are X number of people in an area then they get a place in the house of commons.

Of course, the Canadian system is already rigged in favour of the less populated regions. Based on population, Ontario should have more seats and other smaller provinces should actually have fewer seats.

Rep by pop is fine, and it is recognised the way we are constituted. However, we also have a recognition for regions build in. Perhaps electing them to begin with would be a good step. Maybe then they would decide to exercise the power they already have.

[KrazyHorse]

a) Yes, someone here was. Either cinch or kontiki

b) Despite your constant harping on the "big 2 versus the little 8", the percentage difference in pop. between Ontario and Quebec is just about the same as between Quebec and BC, and the difference between BC and Alta is even smaller. The difference between Alta. and the next largest is almost a factor of 3 however. For all intents and purposes it's the big 4 versus the little 6. There's absolutely no reason I can see to create a political system that would drastically benefit this minority (consisting of 15% of Canada's population) at the expense of 60% of Canada's population simply because of lines drawn 135 years ago, which brings me to my 3rd point

c) The provinces were created long before any thought was given to such a scheme. Firstly, all provinces in this country agreed to join based on equal representation by population. Now they're trying to regain the political power they have lost (in the case of the Maritimes) or to gain political power they have never had (in the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan). Secondly, you're asking provinces that joined with an understanding of what the rules were to give up political power simply because 15% of the country feels underrepresented? (Ironically, the same 15% that is already overrepresented). Like I said, at least the US system has a historical justification. States joined the Union on the understanding that they were almost sovereign nations simply agreeing to a set of conditions that were for the benefit of all. You're simply proposing to create additional powers for jurisdictions that have no historical claim to it. Canada as a system started with a stronger central government than our neighbours to the South did and has devolved significant powers onto the provinces. There's no reason I can see to begin treating provinces as sovereign entities when they never were. If you want to vote yourselves out of Confederation, that's one thing. Good luck to you on that. I certainly doubt Albertans would do so in furtherance of a system which would actually decrease their political power.

[KrazyHorse]

It's also funny that the 6 provinces who would benefit from such a system are also by far the largest per capita recipients of transfer payments. Oppressed minority my ass.

[notyoueither]

Wow, those are intersting numbers. 15% feel underrepresented? Could you back up a moment and plunk Alberta and BC into that camp? No matter how you try to stack the numbers, no way, no how is the average Albertan going to park himself in the camp that Ontario and Quebec inhabit on this topic.

Secondly, we don't want to create a system of reginal representation. One already exists. We want it to be effective.

Furthermore, PEI, NS, and Newbrunswick did not sign on to strict rep by pop. They signed on with a Senate as part of the picture (as an aside, they also signed on when the GG was a real power). What has happened since they signed on is that the GG has been completely neutered, the Senate has been effectively emasculated by virtue of it being an unelected body, and the power of the PM has reached a point unprecedented in democratic nations.

Devolved more powers recently you say? That's very interesting, given the hostory of federal programs and taxation.

Finally, I am not proposing any new powers for any jurisdictions. I am suggesting this country would be better governed if the existing jurisdictions used the powers they already have.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's also funny that the 6 provinces who would benefit from such a system are also by far the largest per capita recipients of transfer payments. Oppressed minority my ass.

Hey. Hi there. Yoohoo. Over HERE!

Why is it that this topic is all the rage in one of the 4? One of the 2 when it comes to kicking in on transfers?

Wow. It just struck me how twisted this all is. You appear to be seriously linking that vacuum of transfers known as Quebec with the benefits that Alberta gains from being 'populous'

ROFMLMAO

[notyoueither]

'benefits' should have been in ~quotes~ too.