Canadian Election: It's On

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by 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.

Would you like me to rephrase?

"Because some people think 15% of the population is underrepresented"

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

You want to tilt it deliberately in favour of a certain region.

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.

It was always an unelected body. They signed on to it back then. They also signed the Constitution of 1982, something Quebec never got a chance to do.

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

The central government was stronger in 1867 than it is today, notwithstanding the back door methods practiced by governments the world over (and perfected by the US, btw).

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.

Yes, you are. You are creating a basis for political power which has never existed in the history of this country. Do you honestly think that Ontario or Quebec would have signed off on creating small provinces if they knew that they were to be granted such extraordinary powers in the Senate?

[KrazyHorse]

I'd like to point out that I'm in favour of the back bench taking their responsibilities seriously as well. That's why I would have considered voting for Cliff Lincoln (one of the rare dissenting Liberal backbenchers) if he'd been running again. Right now his assistant is running as his replacement. If he shows the same independence of thought, speech and action then I'll consider voting for him too, despite the bad taste voting Liberal will leave in my mouth.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm getting excited now. T-26 days.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Would you like me to rephrase?

"Because some people think 15% of the population is underrepresented"

No. I would like you to recalculate. That 15% is derived on a laughable premise. Sorry, but including the home of the movement for better representation in the camp of the status quo is a bit rediculous, no?

You want to tilt it deliberately in favour of a certain region.

No. We want it to function the way it was intended. Don't tell me the BNA was fashioned to leave the PM as an unchecked power. The GG is gone, effectively, and the Senate is silent by choice.

It was always an unelected body. They signed on to it back then. They also signed the Constitution of 1982, something Quebec never got a chance to do.

OK. There is nothing wrong with a unicameral government where there are virtually zero checks on the power of the governing party and the PM. I gotcha, however, I do not agree.

The central government was stronger in 1867 than it is today, notwithstanding the back door methods practiced by governments the world over (and perfected by the US, btw).

Bull. Power comes from the purse. The federal government had virtually no purse in 1867. It evolved more that way as time went on, but especially after the introduction of income tax.

Yes, you are. You are creating a basis for political power which has never existed in the history of this country. Do you honestly think that Ontario or Quebec would have signed off on creating small provinces if they knew that they were to be granted such extraordinary powers in the Senate?

No, I'm not. The basis for power is there. It is in our constitution. That the old ***** who retire there choose not to use the power they have, on the excuse that they are unelected is besides the point. Canada had 2 houses by design. The second one was not there for window dressing.

Ontario and Quebec did sign on with a Senate that had power, and a GG too. Then events served to bastardize the process of how we are governed, and we are left with very little check on the ruling party in the commons.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm getting excited now. T-26 days.

RAWWRRRRR!

[notyoueither]

The NDP is down 2%, btw. Told you Jack was taking the wrong tack.

[Tingkai]

I'm feeling sorry for my dad. He's die-hard Tory for as long as anyone can remember. Mulroney - great guy. Mike Harris - fantastic. Kim Campbell - never got a chance to show how great she is. blah, blah blah.

The problem is, in this election a long-time family friend is a candidate in his riding, and she's running for the NDP.

He still hasn't decided what to do.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No. I would like you to recalculate. That 15% is derived on a laughable premise. Sorry, but including the home of the movement for better representation in the camp of the status quo is a bit rediculous, no?

I think you should recalculate. It doesn't matter how many people think it's a good idea; Alberta would not receive any additional representation under the schemes proposed so far, as they have more than 1/10 of Canada's population. If you thought Alberta was underrepresented then you'd be proposing some other scheme. QED you think 15% of Canada's population is underrepresented.

No. We want it to function the way it was intended. Don't tell me the BNA was fashioned to leave the PM as an unchecked power. The GG is gone, effectively, and the Senate is silent by choice.

And that's why I've proposed an elected Senate with a power of veto. Also, the GG has never withheld royal assent since Confederation. The GG has only once made his presence felt (during the King Byng affair), and was sent a strong message from Canadians on that occaion.

OK. There is nothing wrong with a unicameral government where there are virtually zero checks on the power of the governing party and the PM. I gotcha, however, I do not agree.

Because I understand that you feel that there is I am willing to live with a powerful, elected Senate. I'm simply not willing to live with one which enshrines the granting of political power preferentially depending on where a Canadian decides to make his home.

Bull. Power comes from the purse. The federal government had virtually no purse in 1867. It evolved more that way as time went on, but especially after the introduction of income tax.

This is true for all governments at every level (local, provincial and federal). I was speaking of relative power between the provinces and the federal government.

No, I'm not. The basis for power is there. It is in our constitution. That the old ***** who retire there choose not to use the power they have, on the excuse that they are unelected is besides the point. Canada had 2 houses by design. The second one was not there for window dressing.

See above. Anyway, even if they did exercise their power they wouldn't do so except in favour of the Liberals. The design gives power to the PM to appoint Senators. It's a guarantee of a weak Senate. If such a Senate was not desired then why was it created?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The NDP is down 2%, btw. Told you Jack was taking the wrong tack.

The margin of error is greater than that, and the margin of error on the difference between two polls is even greater than that.

[KrazyHorse]

And why did all the provinces sign on to the Constitution of 1982 (except Quebec) if things were so impossible?

[cinch]

Originally posted by RedFred


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

That's exactly what I was implying.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You seem frisky tonight. I'm telling you that what you propose is simply going to throw a huge amount of political power at a small fraction of our population.

In a one province one vote system the majority of representatives would come from areas totalling something like 15% of our population. That's ridiculous.

No, it's not. At least not in the US, because we're a federal government. The States are sovereigns. Are you opposed to each member nation having one vote in the UN?

Anyway, it acts as what appears (from the viewpoint of an American) to be a much-needed check on the powers of a representative house - it doesn't help that that same body appoints your executive. Essentially all power rests in your legislature.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's taken 800 years of gradual change to get from a system where only rich men could vote and representation was thrown around haphazardly so that some boroughs had one constituent to where voting rights are guaranteed for everybody and representation is distributed (almost) equally across the entire country.

I will not be party to any proposal which takes a step backwards and attempts to rig some balance between regions by giving some Canadians a bigger political stick than others simply because they choose to live in a small province. That's it.

Come up with a system that doesn't violate this principle. That's the only thing which isn't up for negotiation.

I suppose your opposed to the idea (at least in the American Constitution) that two-thirds of each house of the legislature must approve of every amendment... I mean, this lets, say, two-fifths of the population "hold hostage" the other three-fifths!

Despite the fact that this system is the sort that currently protects gay rights from being completely destroyed, has protected freedom of expression from being violated at a whim (I notice you guys up north haven't managed that one yet), etc...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I think you should recalculate. It doesn't matter how many people think it's a good idea; Alberta would not receive any additional representation under the schemes proposed so far, as they have more than 1/10 of Canada's population. If you thought Alberta was underrepresented then you'd be proposing some other scheme. QED you think 15% of Canada's population is underrepresented.

Incorrect. Albertans are not agitating for more seats by and large. They are agitating for better checks on the power of the PM and the Commons. That is the crux of the issue. It boils down to we feel we would have a better chance of receiving better government if there were another power in the land. That is why electing the Senate is the biggest issue.

And that's why I've proposed an elected Senate with a power of veto. Also, the GG has never withheld royal assent since Confederation. The GG has only once made his presence felt (during the King Byng affair), and was sent a strong message from Canadians on that occaion.

The point about the GG is not what they did, it is the power that at one time they did have. As you note, one did get involved and although he may well have been right in fact he was banished from practice on principle. When one considers that it was under royal prodding that Confederation itself happened, the GGs certainly did have power to the people who signed onto Confederation.

I am not, btw, advocating for an elected President. I am advocating for an effective Senate. Can you argue that a powerless Senate was the intent of the founders?

Because I understand that you feel that there is I am willing to live with a powerful, elected Senate. I'm simply not willing to live with one which enshrines the granting of political power preferentially depending on where a Canadian decides to make his home.

It already is enshrined. The Senate could truely balk on a government and then we would have a merry situation.

Why have a Senate if it can be expected to be a mirror of the Commons? Why not go as some tiny countries have and simply have a single house?

As things stand, Ontario and Quebec are very near a majority in the Senate. If the people of Ontario and Quebec feel strongly enough that all of their Senators would vote the same way on an issue, where is the harm that they might need to convince 5 senators from elsewhere to go with them?

This is true for all governments at every level (local, provincial and federal). I was speaking of relative power between the provinces and the federal government.

And relatively, the feds did squat. They were seriously challenged to build a railway for the longest time.

Defence (an actual Army) transfer payments, health care, education funding... all these things and the power that came with them came later.

See above. Anyway, even if they did exercise their power they wouldn't do so except in favour of the Liberals. The design gives power to the PM to appoint Senators. It's a guarantee of a weak Senate. If such a Senate was not desired then why was it created?

Completely ineffective was not by design. I think the model was the House of Lords. Of course, it went wrong fairly quick. A powerless Senate was certainly not intended, but is what we have arrived at.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich


No, it's not. At least not in the US, because we're a federal government. The States are sovereigns. Are you opposed to each member nation having one vote in the UN?

The provinces here were never sovereign. And if you'd read further on then you would have noticed that I already pointed this out a number of times. States joined and were admitted with the understanding that they'd be granted 2 senate seats just like everybody else. That was not the case here. In the case of the US, however, the fiction of states as sovereign entities was demonstrated in 1865.

Anyway, it acts as what appears (from the viewpoint of an American) to be a much-needed check on the powers of a representative house - it doesn't help that that same body appoints your executive. Essentially all power rests in your legislature.

And how it appears to this Canadian is that the US system is needlessly complex, undemocratic in the extreme and is barely functioning due to excessive checks on a popularly elected government. It fosters, in my opinion, a virtually unopposed two-party system where nobody with a viewpoint at all distinct from the norm ever gets real representation. As well, the powers that were fully intended to be the province of the legislature (such as declarations of war) have been completely annexed by the executive in fact. Representation in both the Senate and the executive are tilted completely in favour of small, rural states as evinced by Gore's handy win of the popular vote being annulled by the electoral college system. The two party system and overdivision of powers mentioned earlier has led to rates of voter nonparticipation and apathy unrivalled in the Western world. Part of the US' massive agricultural subsidy industry can also be explained by the aforementioned rural overrepresentation.