Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
BTW: While we are reforming the Candian Senate, what do you people think of removing the PM's power to appoint its members and either having them popularly elected by thier respective provinces or being appointed by provincial governments? We would of course get rid of the Senate's rediculous member for life terms with something signifigantly shorter. I'll let you figure out the magic number for that one.

Been der, done dat.

Alberta holds elections for it's Senate nominees. All PMs have resisted this movement, even those whose power bases were somewhat in Alberta. That guy did knuckle under and appoint Canada's first, and only, elected Senator.

The PM who followed him has paid us no heed. Almost as if he and his party live in dread of the Senate receiving the mystical seal of a popular mandate. That would be the first step in being effective. It would break forever the strangle hold on parliament that the Liberals hold.

They hold office the majority of time. They appoint the majority of senators. So long as they keep their guys in there, anybody else who gains power will face real opposition in the Senate, while they face none. Don't you like it? Kinda like a Banana Republic isn't it?

I do believe that the Senate of the United States started on its way towards electoral mandates by individual initiatives in various states, did it not?

[notyoueither]

KH. Sorry for adding a comment. I didn't materially change anything I said did I? I hope not. That would be bad.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
None of you have yet explained why a voter in Calgary should have more say in what the federal government does than a voter in Toronto does. As it stands right now, the system is transparent, equitable and not based on the special interests of smaller provinces.

None of you have yet to explain why the voters in Quebec and Ontario should always have more say in what the federal government does with Alberta's resources (to use an example) than a voter in Alberta does. As it stands right now, the system is unacceptable, certainly not equitable, and based on the special interests of the two major provinces.

[notyoueither]

KH. The whole point is that political power in this country needs to be redistributed. We are not being well served as a nation by the dominance of Ontario and Quebec.

Yes. Proportional representation would be better. The Tories would hold 20% of the seats instead of 5% (I'm guessing). The NDP would benefit from time to time too. The Liberals would never stand for it though.

Just as they will never stand for refrom of the Senate.

Would a proportional Commons and a regionally balanced Senate be a bad thing?

[KrazyHorse]

Why should 10-15 States be able to, reasonablly, get away with ignoring the interests of the other States? That was what caused the Virginia Plan to fail

Why should 51% of the people be able to get away with ignoring the interests of the other people?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Why should 10-15 States be able to, reasonablly, get away with ignoring the interests of the other States? That was what caused the Virginia Plan to fail

Why should 51% of the people be able to get away with ignoring the interests of the other people?

They shouldn't, which is why we must reform the senate or add another mechanism to protect the rights of the other people.

What do you suggest? It's NOT fine how it is...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why should 51% of the people be able to get away with ignoring the interests of the other people?

That's exactly the question KH.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
KH. The whole point is that political power in this country needs to be redistributed. We are not being well served as a nation by the dominance of Ontario and Quebec.

Yes. Proportional representation would be better. The Tories would hold 20% of the seats instead of 5% (I'm guessing). The NDP would benefit from time to time too. The Liberals would never stand for it though.

Just as they will never stand for refrom of the Senate.

Would a proportional Commons and a regionally balanced Senate be a bad thing?

Why should the Senate be "balanced" regionally? Nobody's explained why voters in one region should have more of a say in this Senate than voters in another region. If you want to group the "West" into one giant chunk (pop. 9 million) and go by proportional rep. to get, say, 30% of Senate seats, then give 35% to Ontario, 25% to Quebec and 10% to the east coast, then we can discuss the merits of it. Until you stop insisting on a system that makes your vote count for more than mine I'm going to oppose you completely.

[notyoueither]

Not going to edit. Learn to love my typos.

The 51% arguement applies equally to proportional representation and the Senate. Different ways to skin the cat.

As it is we have about 45% of voters, being only 60% of electors, dominating the interests of the entire nation. That's democracy?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why should 51% of the people be able to get away with ignoring the interests of the other people?

That question is already on the table from several people. You seem to have ignored it before now.

[notyoueither]

I've mentioned regions repeatedly.

25/25/25/25, West, Ontario, Quebec, Maritimes would suit me fine (for a time). What about when Quebec's pop no longer justified it. It doesn't now. What about when BC and Alberta are 40% of the countries pop?

The other key is mandate. The Commons should never more be able to shout down the Senate based on a mandate of 30% of the electors. That's rediculous.

[DinoDoc]

deleted

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's exactly the question KH.

Ah, but that's the system both we and the US have right now. Just because you can't find that 51% by picking up individual states and clumping them together doesn't mean that the will of 51% of the pop still can't opress everybody else.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ah, but that's the system both we and the US have right now. Just because you can't find that 51% by picking up individual states and clumping them together doesn't mean that the will of 51% of the pop still can't opress everybody else.

Just how well, exactly, do you know how the US government works?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I've mentioned regions repeatedly.

25/25/25/25, West, Ontario, Quebec, Maritimes would suit me fine (for a time). What about when Quebec's pop no longer justified it. It doesn't now. What about when BC and Alberta are 40% of the countries pop?

The Maritimes are still insanely overrepresented (this will get even worse; Nfld has lost 7% of its pop. in the last 5 years) and the West and Ontario are slightly underrepresented (which will also get worse). What's the problem with tying Senate seats to population?

And if we're going to do that, then I want the grandfathering rules on seats in Commons lifted too. PEI should have 1 (maybe 2) seat(s), not 4.

Electoral systems require flexibility, not to have political powers tied to a demographic that no longer exists by the dead hand of old agreements.